Page 202 - Daniel
P. 202

purging judgment and come under His dominion are saints, it would be
               a  confusion  to  make  the  Son  of  Man  the  personification  of  the  saints.
               Keil states on this point,


                  With all other interpreters, we must accordingly firmly maintain that
                  he who appears with the clouds of heaven comes from heaven to earth
                  and is a personal existence, and is brought before God, who judges the

                  world, that he may receive dominion, majesty, and a kingdom. But in
                  the words “as a man” it is not meant that he was only a man. He that
                  comes with the clouds of heaven may, as Kranichfeld rightly observes,
                  “be regarded, according to the current representations, as the God of
                  Israel  coming  on  the  clouds,  while  yet  he  who  appears  takes  the
                  outward form of a man.”         57


                  Young  observes  that  some  expositors  regard  the  Son  of  Man  as

               representing  the  people  of  Israel.  But  as  he  points  out,  the  earliest
               interpretation regarded this as messianic and referring to the Christ, and
               this interpretation is confirmed by the fact that Jesus Christ took the title
               Himself in the New Testament.           58

                  From  verse  14  it  is  apparent  that  Daniel  was  given  revelation  in
               addition to what he saw in the vision. While the vision could portray the
               Son of Man receiving authority, the purpose of this act would have to be
               revealed  to  Daniel.  At  every  point  the  kingdom  from  heaven  is
               contrasted with the preceding kingdoms of the four great world empires

               and shown to be superior.
                  If Daniel’s prophecy beginning with the phrase “it had ten horns” in
               verse 7 and continuing through verse 14 is yet to be fulfilled, a question
               naturally  arises:  Why  did  Daniel  not  include  the  events  of  the  age

               between the first and second advents of Christ?
                  In the main, commentators have offered three options. First, like the

               liberal scholars, they could deny literal fulfillment and even claim that
               Daniel  was  in  error.  Second,  they  could  find  these  prophecies  were
               symbolically fulfilled in church history. This has been the viewpoint in
               part of postmillennialism and amillennialism. Or third, they could find
               these prophecies to be distinctly future and not at all fulfilled by the first
               coming of Christ, the decline of the Roman Empire, or anything else in
   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207