Covenant,
Not Just Fulfillment
Daniel 7:13–14 gives one of the most exalted visions in the Hebrew Scriptures:
“I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”
This text stands at the crossroads of Jewish apocalyptic imagination and Christian confession. It is not simply a messianic prediction to be “fulfilled” at one point in history; it is a covenantal declaration of who rules, how God gives dominion, and how humanity is meant to stand before Him.
⸻
Why Son of Man Is the Exact Deity Statement of Jesus
In the Gospels, Jesus consistently calls himself “the Son of Man.” He never once calls himself “Son of David” on his own lips, and rarely allows others’ titles to define him. This is no accident. The title anchors his identity in Daniel’s vision, where:
In the Gospels, Jesus consistently calls himself “the Son of Man.” He never once calls himself “Son of David” on his own lips, and rarely allows others’ titles to define him. This is no accident. The title anchors his identity in Daniel’s vision, where:
The Son of Man is worshiped. Dominion, glory, and service (pelach in Aramaic) are given to him—terms otherwise reserved for deity.
The Son of Man receives eternal authority. Unlike the beasts, his kingdom is not subject to rise and fall. His reign is divine in scope and permanence.
The Son of Man approaches the Ancient of Days. This is not the picture of a created being awaiting vindication but of a figure who shares in God’s own rule.
By claiming this title, Jesus places himself at the covenantal center of divine sovereignty. Unlike later Christological debates that hinged on Greek categories—nature, substance, essence—Daniel’s Son of Man text expresses deity in covenantal terms: dominion, authority, worship, and eternal kingdom. In the Jewish mind, this carried far more weight than “Son of God,” which could still be understood in human or royal terms. Son of Man pointed to the throne itself.
⸻
⸻
Covenant Use, Not “Complete Fulfillment”
The mistake of many modern interpreters—whether dispensational type futurists or triumphalist Christians—is to treat Daniel 7 as a prophecy awaiting a full end-time fulfillment. But Daniel’s vision is not primarily a timeline; it is a covenant statement:
The mistake of many modern interpreters—whether dispensational type futurists or triumphalist Christians—is to treat Daniel 7 as a prophecy awaiting a full end-time fulfillment. But Daniel’s vision is not primarily a timeline; it is a covenant statement:
Covenantal Contrast: The beasts represent empires that break covenant, devouring and dehumanizing. The Son of Man represents restored covenant humanity, faithful and entrusted with dominion.
Present Application: Jesus’ resurrection and ascension are not just “signs” pointing to some later event but the decisive covenant moment in which he receives authority and enters God’s presence.
Future Horizon: That covenant authority will culminate in the renewal of all things, but it is already operative in the obedience of faith, the mission of the nations, and the worship of the ekklesia.
Thus, the text functions less like a countdown clock and more like a covenant charter. Jesus embodies the human vocation Israel was called to—royal, priestly, faithful—and by his ascension he secures that destiny for all who share in his covenant.
⸻
⸻
Jewish and Christian Convergence
This perspective allows us to hold together Jewish and Christian readings without erasure:
This perspective allows us to hold together Jewish and Christian readings without erasure:
In Jewish interpretation, the Son of Man symbolizes Israel’s vindication after beastly oppression.
In Christian confession, Jesus embodies this vindication in his own person.
Rather than flatten one into the other, the covenantal reading shows how both are true: Jesus is not an alternative to Israel but the covenantal heir who carries Israel’s kingship into eternity.
⸻
Rather than flatten one into the other, the covenantal reading shows how both are true: Jesus is not an alternative to Israel but the covenantal heir who carries Israel’s kingship into eternity.
⸻
Why This Matters Today
Understanding Daniel’s Son of Man as a covenantal deity-statement reshapes Christian theology:
Understanding Daniel’s Son of Man as a covenantal deity-statement reshapes Christian theology:
It grounds Christ’s divinity not in abstract philosophy but in biblical covenantal categories.
It avoids reducing prophecy to predictive “fulfillment charts.”
It honors Jewish interpretive traditions that see Israel itself in the Son of Man, while showing how Jesus intensifies rather than erases that vocation.
Ultimately, Daniel’s vision tells us that history does not belong to the beasts. Dominion belongs to the human one—covenantal humanity—embodied and exalted in Jesus, the Son of Man.
⸻
⸻
The Sanhedrin and the Memory of Acher
The Sanhedrin of the Second Temple period lived in the shadow of precisely the Acher (the other one) danger: anything that smacked of “two powers in heaven” or covenantal rupture was viewed as heresy, even blasphemy.
The Sanhedrin of the Second Temple period lived in the shadow of precisely the Acher (the other one) danger: anything that smacked of “two powers in heaven” or covenantal rupture was viewed as heresy, even blasphemy.
1. The Memory of Acher
By the late Second Temple era, the wounds of apostasy were fresh: Elisha ben Abuyah’s sin (“cutting the shoots”) was not far removed in memory. To see a figure exalted too high, or to claim divine prerogatives, triggered immediate suspicion of dualism. The leaders’ reflex was simple: better to guard heaven’s unity than risk splitting it.
By the late Second Temple era, the wounds of apostasy were fresh: Elisha ben Abuyah’s sin (“cutting the shoots”) was not far removed in memory. To see a figure exalted too high, or to claim divine prerogatives, triggered immediate suspicion of dualism. The leaders’ reflex was simple: better to guard heaven’s unity than risk splitting it.
2. Jesus and the Son of Man Claim
When Jesus used Daniel 7 language about himself, he stepped directly into this danger zone: He didn’t just claim Messiahship (political kingship). He identified himself as the Son of Man enthroned beside the Ancient of Days. This was not vague mysticism—it was covenantal exaltation: authority, dominion, worship. To the Sanhedrin, this was indistinguishable from Acher’s “two powers.” Thus in Mark 14:62, when Jesus says, “You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven,” the high priest tears his robes and cries blasphemy.
When Jesus used Daniel 7 language about himself, he stepped directly into this danger zone: He didn’t just claim Messiahship (political kingship). He identified himself as the Son of Man enthroned beside the Ancient of Days. This was not vague mysticism—it was covenantal exaltation: authority, dominion, worship. To the Sanhedrin, this was indistinguishable from Acher’s “two powers.” Thus in Mark 14:62, when Jesus says, “You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven,” the high priest tears his robes and cries blasphemy.
3. Theological Stakes for the Sanhedrin
Guarding the Oneness of God: Israel had suffered exile because of idolatry. Any whiff of a rival to YHWH was intolerable. Guarding Covenant Authority: To exalt a Galilean teacher to “clouds of heaven” status threatened to strip dominion from the Sanhedrin’s stewardship. Guarding Torah Identity: If Jesus embodied the sar ha-panim, the Angel of the Presence, then Torah itself was being reconfigured around him—a seismic threat to rabbinic halakhic order.
Guarding the Oneness of God: Israel had suffered exile because of idolatry. Any whiff of a rival to YHWH was intolerable. Guarding Covenant Authority: To exalt a Galilean teacher to “clouds of heaven” status threatened to strip dominion from the Sanhedrin’s stewardship. Guarding Torah Identity: If Jesus embodied the sar ha-panim, the Angel of the Presence, then Torah itself was being reconfigured around him—a seismic threat to rabbinic halakhic order.
4. Why Jesus Was Different from Acher
Acher misread a heavenly figure as a second god and cut off the shoots. Jesus claimed the Son of Man identity as the faithful shoot, the covenantal heir very God in essense, the same as the Father. He did not split heaven; he carried Israel’s kingship into God’s throne room. But the Sanhedrin could not see the distinction—they collapsed Jesus into the category of heretic.
Acher misread a heavenly figure as a second god and cut off the shoots. Jesus claimed the Son of Man identity as the faithful shoot, the covenantal heir very God in essense, the same as the Father. He did not split heaven; he carried Israel’s kingship into God’s throne room. But the Sanhedrin could not see the distinction—they collapsed Jesus into the category of heretic.
5. The “Offense” of the Son of Man
This explains why the Sanhedrin could tolerate various messianic hopes (Zealots, Essenes, apocalyptic seers) but not Jesus’ claim: Messiah was dangerous but political, yet it was fullfilled as foretold. Son of Man enthroned at the right hand of God was theological dynamite. For the authorities, this wasn’t just Davidic fervor; it was a direct challenge to God’s unity and to their own authority as covenant keepers.
This explains why the Sanhedrin could tolerate various messianic hopes (Zealots, Essenes, apocalyptic seers) but not Jesus’ claim: Messiah was dangerous but political, yet it was fullfilled as foretold. Son of Man enthroned at the right hand of God was theological dynamite. For the authorities, this wasn’t just Davidic fervor; it was a direct challenge to God’s unity and to their own authority as covenant keepers.
In the Jewish mind, Son of God could still mean king, judge, or Israel as a whole, a Messiah. But Son of Man in Daniel’s terms meant enthronement as supreme, dominion over the nations, and worship reserved for YHWH alone. That is why Jesus’ claim was explosive—and why it remains the most exact statement of his deity. And that is why Messiah/Christ in English needs a deeper reflection for proper connection:
Mashiach (מָשִׁיחַ) – Hebrew for “Anointed One,” referring to the rightful king from the line of David, chosen by God to rule in justice and peace.
Moshiach (מוֹשִׁיעַ) – Hebrew for “Savior” or “Deliverer,” emphasizing the one who brings redemption, restores truth, and leads people back to God.
Both titles obscure the deeper truth upheld within Judaism itself and mentioned in their prayer books: Jesus of Nazareth is Yeshua Sar HaPanim—the Prince of the Presence—not merely a heavenly mediator, but the very radiance of the divine, the manifest Panim El Elyon, the Face of the Most High. In Jewish tradition, the Sar HaPanim dwells in the inner sanctum, bearing the ineffable Name and executing divine judgment.
Jesus of Nazareth does not merely carry this authority—he is this Presence. He does not point to God from a distance; he is God drawing near. He identifies himself to the Samaritan woman as Moshiach, as they had no Davidic expectations. Thus he fulfills both Samaritan and deeper Jewish hope foretold—not in deferral, but in revelation. His kingship is not a future claim but a present unveiling of the Divine enthroned among us. The Sar HaPanim is not a function; it is divinity. And Jesus, in revealing himself, reveals God.
