' I saw in the night visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man. and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given to him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom,
660
SON OF MAN
SON OF MAN
that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him : his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.'
It will be noted that in this more accurate render- ing (that of the RV) the phrase which is of most moment in the subject now under discussion is quite indehnite : 'one like unto a son of man,' — i.e. one with human attributes in contrast to the ferocity of 'the beasts.' The question at once arises, Whom are we to understand by the ' one like unto a son of man ' ? The answer most com- monly given has been — the Messiah ; and there is much to be said for that answer yet, in spite of the dissent of a large number of more recent exegetes. They point to the fact that when Daniel receives the interpretation of his vision (7"'^'), not a word is said about the ' one like unto a son of man,' but with threefold iteration (w.^^-^'^- 2") it is asserted that after judgment upon the beasts, dominion will be given to 'the saints of the Most High.' Hence it is said that on the testimony of the text of Daniel itself, the ' one like unto a son of man ' does not denote a person, but ' the glorified and ideal people of Israel' (see, e.g., Driver, Com. un Daniel, p. 102 ; Drummond, Jeivish Messiah, p. 229). So strongly indeed has this view impressed itself upon the minds of some, that they apply tiie impersonal interpretation of the phrase in Dn 1^'^ as a test to the passages in which our Lord is represented bv the Evangelists as using the words 'the Son of ]\lan.' Thus J. Estlin Carpenter (The Synoptic Gospels, pp. 372, 388), regarding the phrase in Daniel as ' emblematic and collective,' and main- taining that Jesus used it in its original meaning, arrives at the conclusion that ' wherever . . . the term is individualized and used Messianically, we have evidence of the later influence of the Church. Jesus never used it to designate Himself.' It is obvious that the application of such a canon would have far-reaching results. But is the interpreta- tion upon which it is based quite sure ? The writer of Daniel does not regard ' the saints of the Most High ' as coming down from heaven. They are already upon the earth, suffering the oppression of the tyrant symbolized by the 'little horn,' and awaiting deliverance and reversal of condition, which come when the Most High sits for judgment. It ^^'ould surely be somewhat incongruous to symbolize the saints passing from the depths of misery to exaltation by one who descends from heaven to earth. On the other hand, it accords entirely with the conception which dominates Dn 7 of a complete change of conditions, if by ' one like a son of man ' we understand a Divinely empowered Ruler sent from on high to reign where the ' four kings,' the ' great beasts,' whose origin had been of the earth (v."), had borne sway.
If it be urged that had the writer of Dn 7 intended the Messiah in V.13, he could not have omitted mention of Him when he goes on to interpret the vision, and could not have spoken so unre- servedly of the bestowal of 'kingdom and dominion' upon the saints of the Most High, it may be replied that it is quite in har- mony with what may be discerned in other prophetic writings, if the thought of the author of Daniel is found to dwell more on the glories of the Kingdom of the latter days and the felicity of those who have part in it, than upon the Messianic King. Large sections of prophecy, so far as they seek to portray the better future, omit all direct reference to the Messiah. There is no warrant, therefore, as Driver (who, however, holds that 'the title . . . does not in Daniel directly denote the Messiah,' op. cit. p. 104) points out, for sajing that ' the Kingdom is not to be thought of without its King.' And there is also no sufficient warrant to assume that if in the recital of a \ision there is men- tion of the Messianic King, He, rather than His subjects, must have mention when the vision is interpreted. It is through failure to make allowance for this that N. Schmidt (EBi iv. 4710) complains that the Messianic interpretation of Dn 713 ' fails to explain how the Messiah, once introduced, can have dropped so completely out of the author's thought, not only in the ex- planation of the vision, where He is unceremoniously ignored, but also in the future deliverance, with which Michael has much to do but the Messiah nothing.' Hence Schmidt suggests that the ' one like unto a son of man ' is no other than Michael him-
self, the guardian angel of Israel (' Michael your prince,' Dn lO^i) — a belated expedient, affording no real assistance. The absence of any mention of the guardian angel in the interpretation of the vision is not more eas.y of explanation than the absence therefrom of the mention of the Messiah. Indeed, of the two conceptions, that of the gift of everlasting dominion over all peoples to the guardian angel Michael, being the more un- familiar, would urgentlj' demand some explicit word of ex- planation.