I beheld therefore in the vision of the night, and lo, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and he came even to the Ancient of days: and they presented him before him.

“For when Daniel speaks of 'one like unto the Son of man' who received the everlasting kingdom, does he not hint at this very thing? For he declares that, in saying 'like unto the Son of man,' He appeared, and was man, but not of human seed. And the same thing he proclaimed in mystery when he speaks of this stone which was cut out without hands. For the expression 'it was cut out without hands' signified that it is not a work of man, but [a work] of the will of the Father and God of all things, who brought Him forth.”

“He revealed to Daniel himself expressly as "the Son of man, coming in the clouds of heaven" as a judge, as also the Scripture shows. What I have advanced might have been sufficient concerning the designation in the prophecy of the Son of man. But the Scripture offers me further information, even in the interpretation of the Lord himself. The Jews, who looked at him as merely man, were not yet sure that he was God also, as being likewise the Son of God. They rightly enough said that a man could not forgive sins, but God alone. Why did he not, following up their point, answer them, that he had power to remit sins, inasmuch as, when he mentioned the Son of man, he also named a human being? Because he wanted, by help of the very designation Son of man from the book of Daniel, so to induce them to reflect as to show them that he who remitted sins was God and man—that only the Son of man, indeed, in the prophecy of Daniel, who had obtained the power of judging, and thereby, of course, of forgiving sins likewise (for he who judges also absolves); so that, when once that objection of theirs was shattered to pieces by their recollection of Scripture, they might the more easily acknowledge him to be the Son of man himself by his actual forgiveness of sins.”

“For instance, Daniel the prophet, under the influence of the divine Spirit, seeing his kingdom at the end of time, was inspired thus to describe the divine vision in language fitted to human comprehension.… It is clear that these words can refer to no one else than to our Savior, the Word who was in the beginning with God, and who was called the Son of man because of his final appearance in the flesh.”

“Glance over the whole course of time, and realize in what guise he appeared to Joshua the son of Nun, a prophet bearing his name, or to Isaiah, who relates that he saw him, as the gospel also bears witness, or to Ezekiel, who was admitted even to knowledge of the resurrection, or to Daniel, who confesses the Son of man in the eternal kingdom of the ages, or to all the rest to whom he presented himself in the form of various created beings, for the ways of God and for the works of God, that is to say, to teach us to know God and to profit our eternal state. Why does this method, expressly designed for human salvation, bring about at the present time such an impious attack on his eternal birth? The creation, of which you speak, dates from the commencement of the ages; but his birth is without end and before the ages. Maintain this by all means: we are doing violence to words, if a prophet, or the Lord, or an apostle or any oracle whatever has described by the name of creation the birth of his eternal divinity. In all these manifestations God, who is a consuming fire, is present, as created, in such a manner that he could lay aside the created form by the same power by which he assumed it, being able to destroy again that which had come into existence merely that it might be looked on.”

“He is called Christ, not for any unction from human hands but from the Father's, as having been anointed for eternal high priesthood on behalf of humanity. He is called the dead, not as having gone to "join the majority," like all souls in Hades, but as the one "free among the dead." He is called Son of man, not as it is said of each one of us that we sprang from earth, but in the context of his "coming in the clouds of heaven" to judge both the living and the dead. He is called Lord, not in the catachrestic sense in which the title is given to people, but as possessing lordship by right of nature and forever. He is called Jesus because the name fits him, and he has that appellation in view of the saving medicine he brings. He is called Son, not meaning that God promoted him to that dignity but that he was naturally begotten as Son.”

“I do not know in what manner these people understand that the Ancient of Days appeared to Daniel, from whom the Son of man, which he deigned to be for our sakes, is understood to have received the kingdom; namely, from him who says to him in the Psalms, "You are my son; this day have I begotten you; ask of me, and I shall give you the nations for your inheritance" and who has "put all things under his feet." If, however, both the Father giving the kingdom and the Son receiving it appeared to Daniel in bodily form, how can those people say that the Father never appeared to the prophets, and, therefore, that he only ought to be understood to be invisible whom no one has seen or can see? For Daniel has told us thus.… Behold the Father giving and the Son receiving an eternal kingdom; and both are in the sight of him who prophesies, in a visible form.”

“And he came even to the Ancient of days and they brought him near before him—and there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all people, nations and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed (Dan. vii, 13, 14). This is one instance more of his saying the same thing both in the image and the vision, namely, that at the coming of the Lord Christ those kingdoms shall pass away and be destroyed, but his kingdom shall be indissoluble and eternal”

“I saw in the night visions,.... Very probably the same night in which he had the dream and vision of the four beasts; but this that follows, being a new object presented, is introduced and prefaced after this manner; as well as, being something wonderful and worthy of attention, has a "behold" prefixed to it: and, behold one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven; not Judas Maccabaeus, as Porphyry; nor the Roman people, as Grotius; nor the people of Israel, as Aben Ezra; nor the people of the saints of the most High, as Cocceius; but the Messiah, as most Christian interpreters, and even the Jews themselves, both ancient and modern, allow. In the ancient book of Zohar (u) it is said, "in the times of the Messiah, Israel shall be one people, to the Lord, and he shall make them one nation in the earth, and they shall rule above and below; as it is written, "behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven"; this is the King Messiah of whom it is written, "and in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven, set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed", &c. Dan 2:44'' So in the Talmud (w) this prophecy is thus reconciled with another, concerning the Messiah, in Zac 9:9, to what R. Alexander said, R. Joshua ben Levi objects what is written, and, behold, one like to the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven; and it is written, "poor, and riding upon an ass": which is thus adjusted, "if they (the Israelites) are worthy, he (the Messiah) comes with the clouds of heaven; but if they are not worthy, he comes poor, and riding on an ass;'' and so it is interpreted in their ancient Midrashes (x), or expositions, as well us in more modern ones: Jarchi on the text says, "he is the Messiah;'' and so R. Saadiah Gaon and Jacchiades, this is Messiah our righteousness; and Aben Ezra observes, that this is the sense R. Jeshua gives, "that one like to the Son of man" is the Messiah; and he adds, it is right, only along with him must be joined the holy people, who are the Israelites: and, with the Jews, Anani, which signifies "clouds", is the name of the Messiah, founded upon this text, in the Targum of Ch1 3:24, where mention is made of the name of a person, Anani, it is added, "who is the Messiah that is to be revealed;'' so in an ancient book called Tanchuma (y), speaking of Zerubbabel, it is asked, from whence did he spring? it is answered from David, as it is said, Ch1 3:10 "and Solomon's son was Rehoboam", &c.; and so all in the line are mentioned unto Anani, Dan 7:24 and then it is asked, who is this Anani? this is the Messiah, as it is said, Dan 7:13, and I saw in the visions of the night, and, behold, one like to the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven. He is said to be "as", or "like the Son of man", in agreement with the style of these visions, Dan 7:4, or because as yet he was not really incarnate, only appeared in a human form; or this as is not a note of similitude, but of truth and reality, as in Joh 1:14 or because he was more than a man: and his coming with the clouds of heaven denotes the majesty, visibility, and swiftness, with which he came to take open possession of his kingdom and glory. Saadiah interprets them of the angels of heaven, with which he will be attended: and came to the Ancient of days; his divine Father, from whom, as man and Mediator, he receives his mediatorial kingdom, is invested with it, and insisted it, to it; see Rev 5:7 this is not to be understood of his first coming in the flesh, which was from his Father, and not to him; nor of his ascension to heaven, exaltation and session at the right hand of God, when he indeed received the kingdom from the Father, and was made and declared Lord and Christ; but this seems to respect what shall be upon the destruction of the fourth beast, when Christ shall receive and take to himself his great power, and reign, and more visibly appear by his Father's designation and appointment, and his open glory, to be King and Lord over all: and they brought him near before him; not Elijah the prophet, as Jacchindes; rather the angels, as others; or the saints by their prayers, who hasten to, and hasten thereby, the coming and kingdom of Christ in a more spiritual and glorious manner; or it may be rendered impersonally, "he was brought near before him,'' as by the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic versions. (u) In Gen. fol. 85. 4. Ed. Sultzbac. (w) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 98. 1. (x) Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 13. fol. 209. 4. Midrash Tillium apud Galatin. de Arcan. Cathol. ver. l. 10. c. 1. (y) Apud Yalkut Simeoni, par. 2. fol. 85. 2.”

“One like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven - This most certainly points out the Lord Jesus, בר אנש bar enosh, the Son of miserable man; who took our nature upon him that he might redeem us unto himself. To prove himself to be the Messiah he applies, before the high priests, these words of the Prophet Daniel to himself Mat 24:30. Near before him - The Ancient of days.”

“The giving of the kingdom to the Son of Man. - The judgment does not come to an end with the destruction of the world-power in its various embodiments. That is only its first act, which is immediately followed by the second, the erection of the kingdom of God by the Son of man. This act is introduced by the repetition of the formula, I saw in the night-visions (Dan 7:7 and Dan 7:2). (One) like a son of man came in the clouds of heaven. ענני עם, with the clouds, i.e., in connection with them, in or on them as the case may be, surrounded by clouds; cf. Rev 1:7, Mar 13:26, Mat 24:30; Mat 26:64. He who comes is not named, but is only described according to his appearance like a son of man, i.e., resembling a man (אנשׁ בּר as אדם בן = אנושׁ or אדם). That this was a man is not implied in these words, but only that he was like a man, and not like a beast or some other creature. Now, as the beasts signify not beasts but kingdoms, so that which appeared in the form of a man may signify something else than a human individuum. Following the example of Aben Ezra, Paulus, and Wegscheider, Hofmann (Schriftbew. ii. 1. 80, and 2, p. 582f.), Hitzig, Weisse, Volkmar, Fries (Jahrbb.f. D. Theol. iv. p. 261), Baxmann, and Herzfeld (Gesch. des V. Isr. ii. p. 381) interpret this appearance in the form of a man not of the Messiah, as the Jewish and Christian interpreters in general do, but of the people of Israel, and adduce in support of this view the fact that, in the explanation of the vision, Dan 7:27, cf. Dan 7:24, the kingdom, the dominion, and the power, which according to Dan 7:14 the son of man received, was given to the people of the saints of the Most High. But Dan 7:27 affords no valid support to this supposition, for the angel there gives forth his declaration regarding the everlasting kingdom of God, not in the form of an interpretation of Daniel's vision, as in the case of the four beasts in Dan 7:17 and Dan 7:23, but he only says that, after the destruction of the horn and its dominion, the kingdom and the power will be given to the people of the saints, because he had before (Dan 7:26, cf. 22) spoken of the blasphemies of the horn against God, and of its war against the saints of the Most High. But the delivering of the kingdom to the people of God does not, according to the prophetic mode of contemplation, exclude the Messiah as its king, but much rather includes Him, inasmuch as Daniel, like the other prophets, knows nothing of a kingdom without a head, a Messianic kingdom without the King Messiah. But when Hofmann further remarks, that "somewhere it must be seen that by that appearance in the form of a man is meant not the holy congregation of Israel, but an individual, a fifth king, the Messiah," Auberlen and Kranichfeld have, with reference to this, shown that, according to Dan 7:21, the saints appear in their multiplicity engaged in war when the person who comes in the clouds becomes visible, and thus that the difference between the saints and that person is distinctly manifest. Hence it appears that the "coming with the clouds of heaven" can only be applied to the congregation of Israel, if we agree with Hofmann in the opinion that he who appeared was not carried by the clouds of heaven down to the earth, but from the earth up to heaven, in order that he might there receive the kingdom and the dominion. But this opinion is contradicted by all that the Scriptures teach regarding this matter. In this very chapter before us there is no expression or any intimation whatever that the judgment is held in heaven. No place is named. It is only said that judgment was held over the power of the fourth beast, which came to a head in the horn speaking blasphemies, and that the beast was slain and his body burned. If he who appears as a son of man with the clouds of heaven comes before the Ancient of days executing the judgment on the earth, it is manifest that he could only come from heaven to earth. If the reverse is to be understood, then it ought to have been so expressed, since the coming with the clouds of heaven in opposition to the rising up of the beasts out of the sea very distinctly indicates a coming down from heaven. The clouds are the veil or the "chariot" on which God comes from heaven to execute judgment against His enemies; cf. Psa 18:10., Psa 97:2-4; Psa 104:3, Isa 19:1; Nah 1:3. This passage forms the foundation for the declaration of Christ regarding His future coming, which is described after Dan 7:13 as a coming of the Son of man with, in, on the clouds of heaven; Mat 24:30; Mat 26:64; Mark 18:26; Rev 1:7; Rev 14:14. Against this, Hofmann, in behalf of his explanation, can only adduce Th1 4:17, in total disregard of the preceding context, Dan 7:16. (Note: The force of these considerations is also recognised by Hitzig. Since the people of the saints cannot come from heaven, he resorts to the expedient that the Son of man is a "figure for the concrete whole, the kingdom, the saints - this kingdom comes down from heaven." The difficulties of such an idea are very obvious. Fries appears to be of opinion, with Hofmann, that there is an ascension to heaven of the people of the saints; for to him "clear evidence" that the "Son of man" is the people of Israel lies especially in the words, "and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before Him," which necessitates the adoption of the opposite terminus a quo from Mat 24:30; Mar 14:62; Rev 1:7; and hence makes the direct parallelism of Dan 7:13 with the passages named impossible (?).) 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 current representations, as the God of Israel coming on the clouds, while yet he who appears takes the outward from of a man." The comparison (כ, as a man) proves accordingly much more, that this heavenly or divine being was in human form. This "Son of man" came near to the Ancient of days, as God appears in the vision of the judgment, Dan 7:9, and was placed before Him. The subject to הקרבוּהי is undefined; Kran. thinks that it is the clouds just mentioned, others think it is the ministering angels. Analogous passages may be adduced in support of both views: for the first, the νεφέλη ὑπέλαβεν αὐτόν in Act 1:9; but the parallel passages with intransitive verbs speak more in favour of the impersonal translation, "they brought him" = he was brought. The words, "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom were given to him," remind us of the expression used of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan 2:37., but they are elevated by the description following to the conception of the everlasting dominion of God. God gave to Nebuchadnezzar, the founder and first bearer of the world-power, a kingdom, and might, and majesty, and dominion over all the inhabitants of the earth, men, and beasts, and birds, that he might govern all nations, and tribes, and tongues (Dan 5:18-19), but not indeed in such a manner as that all nations and tribes should render him religious homage, nor was his dominion one of everlasting duration. These two things belong only to the kingdom of God. פּלח is used in biblical Chaldee only of the service and homage due to God; cf. Dan 7:27; Dan 3:12-13, Dan 3:17., Ezr 7:19, Ezr 7:24. Thus it indicates here also the religious service, the reverence which belong to God, though in the Targg. it corresponds with the Heb. עבד in all its meanings, colere Deum, terram, laborare. Regarding the expression "nations, tribes, and tongues," see under Dan 7:3, Dan 7:4. The eternity of the duration of the dominion is in this book the constant predicate of the kingdom of God and His Anointed, the Messiah; cf. Daniel 3:33; Dan 4:31; Dan 2:44. For further remarks regarding the Son of man, see at the close of this chapter.”