Daniel 7:13–14 speaks of “one like a son of man” receiving eternal dominion—why is there no consensus on his identity if this event was truly foretold?

I. Text and Context

Daniel 7:13–14 reads:

“In my vision in the night I continued to watch, and I saw One like a Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence. And He was given dominion, glory, and kingship, that the people of every nation and language should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and His kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

These verses appear within Daniel’s account of various prophetic visions concerning the rise and fall of kingdoms. In Daniel 7, the prophet describes four beasts (representing earthly kingdoms) and then a heavenly scene. The “Ancient of Days,” identified as the eternal God, confers upon “One like a Son of Man” the authority to rule forever. This dominion surpasses any temporal reign and signals an everlasting kingdom.

II. The Varied Interpretations

Despite the clarity of the passage that a figure with divine authority receives eternal dominion, interpreters have held numerous positions on the specific identity of the “Son of Man.”

1. Literal or Symbolic Representation of Israel

Some hold that “One like a Son of Man” simply personifies the faithful community of Israel. In this view, the redeemed nation, after suffering under oppressive regimes (the beasts), is vindicated. Proponents cite Daniel 7:27, which pronounces that “the kingdom and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under all of heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Most High.” The argument is that the same dominion is transferred to the people, making the “Son of Man” a symbol for collective Israel rather than an individual.

2. An Angelic or Heavenly Being (e.g., Michael)

Another perspective sees the “Son of Man” as an archangel (often Michael) who stands in the presence of God and represents God’s people. In Jewish tradition, angels can appear in human form (cf. Genesis 18:2). Those who take this position argue that Daniel uses visionary, apocalyptic language that parallels angelic appearances elsewhere.

3. Messianic Figure

A strong thread within Jewish and Christian thought holds that this passage is messianic. Ancient Jewish writings (such as certain Dead Sea Scroll fragments and texts like 1 Enoch 46–48) depict a heavenly Messiah figure with an everlasting rule. In this view, the “Son of Man” is a foretold savior-king who appears at the end of the age to establish God’s eternal kingdom. Christianity identifies this individual as Jesus.

These multiple perspectives reflect differing theological frameworks. Even within religious traditions, there can be secondary nuances that lead to a lack of consensus. Yet many find the central thrust—an everlasting kingdom under a divine-human figure—to be compelling evidence of foreknowledge and a messianic promise.

III. The Messianic Interpretation and Its Basis

1. Jesus’s Own Use of “Son of Man”

In the Gospels, Jesus refers to Himself repeatedly as the “Son of Man.” Notably, in Mark 14:62, Jesus says, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” This is widely viewed as a direct reference to Daniel 7:13–14. Such an explicit connection, recorded in multiple Gospel accounts, provides a compelling link between Daniel’s prophecy and the identity of Jesus.

2. Eternal Dominion and New Testament Fulfillment

The New Testament frequently proclaims that Jesus has been given “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). This statement mirrors Daniel’s prophecy of an everlasting dominion. Christian authors interpret the resurrection and ascension of Christ as the definitive moment in which this authority is conferred upon the Messiah, culminating historically when Christ physically rose from the dead and ascended into heaven (Acts 1:9).

3. Patristic and Historical Christian Witness

The early church fathers, including Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, cited Daniel 7 as a direct reference to Jesus Christ. They argued that such a description—an eternal, unshakable kingdom—could only apply to a divine Messiah. This interpretation remained dominant throughout historic Christian doctrine.

IV. Why the Lack of Universal Consensus?

1. Divergent Worldviews

Readers approach Daniel 7 with varied philosophical presuppositions. Those who reject predictive prophecy or the possibility of divine revelation often date the Book of Daniel much later (2nd century BC) and view it as symbolic rather than predictive. This perspective, influenced by purely naturalistic assumptions, diminishes confidence in the text’s supernatural claims.

2. Competing Theological Agendas

Jewish, Christian, and secular scholars may all read Daniel with distinct aims. Some Jewish commentators avoid a direct Christological reference to maintain exclusively Jewish expectations of the Messiah. Secular interpreters often question the overall premise of a divine Messiah. Christian interpreters, by contrast, see in Daniel a marvelous prediction of Christ’s eternal reign. These divergent aims invariably give rise to different conclusions.

3. Complexity of Apocalyptic Literature

Apocalyptic texts typically employ symbolism and visionary language that can be interpreted in multiple ways. The Book of Daniel (along with Revelation) contains imagery that demands careful correlation with broader canonical teaching. The clash of interpretive methods (literal, figurative, historical-grammatical, or purely symbolic) makes it common for readers to reach different results.

V. Manuscript Evidence and Archaeological Corroboration

1. Ancient Manuscripts of Daniel

Fragments of Daniel found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (notably 4QDana–d) provide strong evidence for the text’s antiquity. These scrolls, dating to at least the 2nd century BC, confirm that Daniel’s prophecies were in circulation well before Jesus’s earthly ministry. Such evidence underscores the plausibility that this vision was known centuries prior to Christ.

2. Historical Recognition of Daniel as Scripture

Jewish tradition, as seen in references by the historian Josephus, placed Daniel among the sacred writings long before the New Testament period. Early Christian historians similarly recognized Daniel as genuinely prophetic. While not universally accepted by critical scholars, the weight of manuscript evidence, combined with consistent references in early Jewish and Christian sources, offers a compelling case for the book’s authenticity.

3. Archaeological Insights

Archaeological findings (e.g., Babylonian inscriptions and records) align with the historical milieu described in the Book of Daniel, reinforcing the credibility of the text’s setting and cultural context. Although these do not “prove” the identity of the “Son of Man,” they do help validate that Daniel’s composition reflects an accurate knowledge of Babylonian and Persian administration.

VI. Philosophical and Theological Considerations

Many questions about Daniel 7 ultimately hinge on deeper beliefs regarding divine intervention, prophecy, and the nature of revelation. If one accepts the possibility of a supernatural God who creates, reveals, and redeems, then Daniel’s vision of a supreme, everlasting ruler is both coherent and compelling. Under that framework, the promise of a resurrected Messiah fulfilling Daniel’s prophecy becomes powerfully consistent.

However, if one rejects the premise of supernatural events or the authority of Scripture, the passage’s plain meaning is often explained away as symbolic language devised to encourage Jews during a crisis. Conflicting worldviews lie at the root of the lack of overall agreement.

VII. Conclusion

Daniel 7:13–14 presents one of the most sweeping and majestic pictures of a figure receiving everlasting dominion and glory. While disagreements abound, much of the debate stems from larger questions of worldview, the possibility of predictive prophecy, and the acceptance or rejection of a divine Messiah.

Within a broader theological understanding, the “Son of Man” in Daniel 7 resonates powerfully with the New Testament portrayal of Jesus Christ—One who claims the very authority foretold in Daniel. Textual evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the consistent witness of early Jewish and Christian writings, and the cohesive message of Scripture all converge on the interpretation that the “Son of Man” is indeed a singular messianic figure. For those who accept the legitimacy of prophecy and revelation, Daniel’s vision stands as a resounding testimony to an eternal kingdom, established by the One who transcends history and wields an everlasting dominion that “will not pass away.”