The “Old Greek” of Daniel 7:13

[claninja]

There are 3 ancient versions of Daniel - the Masoretic Text (MT), the theodotion Greek (TH), and the Old Greek (OG).

it’s interesting to note that In Daniel 7:13, in the Old Greek, it’s rendered differently that the masoretic text and theodotion text. Instead of saying “with the clouds of heaven came one like a son of man TO the ancient of days”, the OG renders it “on the clouds of heaven, one like a son of man came AS the ancient of days”.

Source: Old Greek Daniel 7:13–14 and Matthew’s Son of Man

Many interpretations of Daniel 7:13, based on the MT and TH, argue that it is about Christ going to heaven upon the ascension due to the language of “he approached” or “came to” the ancient of days. But I always struggled with this because Matthew, Mark, and Luke, associate Daniel 7:13 with the Olivet discourse. However, the OG simply states the son of man came on the clouds as the ancient of days, which fits better with the understanding of the Olivet discourse.

Any thoughts?

 

[grafted branch]

There are 3 ancient versions of Daniel - the Masoretic Text (MT), the theodotion Greek (TH), and the Old Greek (OG).

it’s interesting to note that In Daniel 7:13, in the Old Greek, it’s rendered differently that the masoretic text and theodotion text. Instead of saying “with the clouds of heaven came one like a son of man TO the ancient of days”, the OG renders it “on the clouds of heaven, one like a son of man came AS the ancient of days”.

Source: Old Greek Daniel 7:13–14 and Matthew’s Son of Man

Many interpretations of Daniel 7:13, based on the MT and TH, argue that it is about Christ going to heaven upon the ascension due to the language of “he approached” or “came to” the ancient of days. But I always struggled with this because Matthew, Mark, and Luke, associate Daniel 7:13 with the Olivet discourse. However, the OG simply states the son of man came on the clouds as the ancient of days, which fits better with the understanding of the Olivet discourse.

Any thoughts?

This thought comes to my mind, in Revelation 6:16 it is the wrath of the Lamb that they are asking to be hid from. I’ve seen where people argue that the wrath of the Lamb is not the wrath of God, they different events. However if the Son of man comes as the Ancient of days, meaning pertaining to wrath then this helps clarify that they aren’t different events.

It wasn’t that long ago when there was a discussion about the parable of the wicked tenants in Matthew 21. An argument was made that the lord of the vineyard was God and he was the one that destroyed the tenants, not the Son. Looking at that argument again, in light of OG Daniel 7:13, I can see this version confirms that it would be Jesus coming as the Ancient of days (vineyard owner), also seen in vs 44 which says it’s the stone that grinds them to powder.

Here’s Daniel 7:13 in OG.
I beheld in a vision of the night, and, behold, he came on the clouds of heaven as the Son of man, and he was present as the Ancient of days, and they that stood by were present for him.

The other interesting thing to me is the phrase “and they that stood by were present for him”.

KJV and they brought him near before him.
ESV and was presented before him.
NIV and was led into his presence.

The OG version could perhaps line up with Revelation 19:14 where the armies of heaven followed him. While the other versions in no way give me that impression.

Thanks for pointing this version out, I wasn’t aware there even was an OG version until you posted this.

 

[claninja]

This thought comes to my mind, in Revelation 6:16 it is the wrath of the Lamb that they are asking to be hid from. I’ve seen where people argue that the wrath of the Lamb is not the wrath of God, they different events. However if the Son of man comes as the Ancient of days, meaning pertaining to wrath then this helps clarify that they aren’t different events.

It wasn’t that long ago when there was a discussion about the parable of the wicked tenants in Matthew 21. An argument was made that the lord of the vineyard was God and he was the one that destroyed the tenants, not the Son. Looking at that argument again, in light of OG Daniel 7:13, I can see this version confirms that it would be Jesus coming as the Ancient of days (vineyard owner), also seen in vs 44 which says it’s the stone that grinds them to powder.

Here’s Daniel 7:13 in OG.
I beheld in a vision of the night, and, behold, he came on the clouds of heaven as the Son of man, and he was present as the Ancient of days, and they that stood by were present for him.

The other interesting thing to me is the phrase “and they that stood by were present for him”.

KJV and they brought him near before him.
ESV and was presented before him.
NIV and was led into his presence.

The OG version could perhaps line up with Revelation 19:14 where the armies of heaven followed him. While the other versions in no way give me that impression.

Thanks for pointing this version out, I wasn’t aware there even was an OG version until you posted this.

I listen to a podcast every week called “data over dogma”. There was a brief mention of this on the latest episode by biblical scholar Dan Mclellan. I thought it was so interesting, so I had to do a little digging, as I also haven’t heard of it before.


While there are several different views and theories on this difference, From the source I provided in the OP, I think this makes the most sense, especially the equating of the son of man with God:

“The earliest witnesses to Old Greek Dan 7 equate the Son of Man with God and represent a perspective of Dan 7 that likely existed in the first century a.d. This throne vision coheres with the Son of Man sayings in Matthew and indicates that the evangelist was familiar with a similar textual tradition. The evangelist has the Son of Man coming on (not with) the clouds, puts the angels in his charge, and places him on the glorious throne where he judges the nations. All of this coheres with Dan 7 as represented by the Old Greek.” (Old Greek Daniel 7:13–14 and Matthew’s Son of Man)

Additionally, Look at Matthew 26:64-66. Doesn’t it make way more sense that the religious authorities charge Jesus with blasphemy and death in light of the OG daniel 7:13 rendering as compared to the MT or TH? I think so.

“You have said it yourself,” Jesus answered. “But I say to all of you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Powerj and coming on the clouds of heaven.”k

65At this, the high priest tore his clothes and declared, “He has blasphemed! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.66What do you think?”

“He deserves to die,” they answered.”

Edit: checked the Dead Sea scrolls. Unfortunately, Daniel 7:13 is missing from them.

 

[grafted branch]

Additionally, Look at Matthew 26:64-66. Doesn’t it make way more sense that the religious authorities charge Jesus with blasphemy and death in light of the OG daniel 7:13 rendering as compared to the MT or TH? I think so.

I absolutely agree, it seems Jesus is referring to the OG version in vs 64 and based on their statement they are aware of the OG version and are using it as authoritative.





One other thing that caught my eye in the OG was in Daniel 7:11.

OG Daniel 7:11 I beheld then the voice of the great words which the horn spoke. And the wild beast was crucified on a plank, and his body perished and was given unto the burning of fire.

The phrase “crucified on a plank” is interesting, the obvious similarity is Jesus being crucified on the cross, but His body didn’t see corruption (<1312> or destruction). I heard someone, many years ago, put forth the idea that there is symmetry between Jesus and Satan throughout the Bible. Maybe this would fit with that narrative? I’m not sure.

Ok, you’ve given me a lot to think about, I’m going to listen to that pod cast also, I like the title, data over dogma.

 

[grafted branch]

One more thing about OG is that it is somewhat different on the controversial Daniel 9:26-27. I’ll have to take a closer look at this.



OG Daniel 9:26-27 And after seven and seventy and sixty-two, the anointing shall be removed, and shall not be; and a kingdom of nations shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the Christ: and his end shall come with wrath, and he shall be warred upon with war until the time of the end. 27 And the covenant shall rule in many; and he shall return again, and it shall be rebuilt in breadth and length, and at the end of times, and after seven and seventy times and sixty-two years until the time of the end of war; and the desolation shall be taken away in the covenant’s prevailing for many weeks. And at the end of the week the sacrifice and the drink offering shall be taken away, and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations until the end, and the end shall be given unto the desolation.

 

[DavidPT]

There are 3 ancient versions of Daniel - the Masoretic Text (MT), the theodotion Greek (TH), and the Old Greek (OG).

it’s interesting to note that In Daniel 7:13, in the Old Greek, it’s rendered differently that the masoretic text and theodotion text. Instead of saying “with the clouds of heaven came one like a son of man TO the ancient of days”, the OG renders it “on the clouds of heaven, one like a son of man came AS the ancient of days”.

Source: Old Greek Daniel 7:13–14 and Matthew’s Son of Man

Many interpretations of Daniel 7:13, based on the MT and TH, argue that it is about Christ going to heaven upon the ascension due to the language of “he approached” or “came to” the ancient of days. But I always struggled with this because Matthew, Mark, and Luke, associate Daniel 7:13 with the Olivet discourse. However, the OG simply states the son of man came on the clouds as the ancient of days, which fits better with the understanding of the Olivet discourse.

Any thoughts?

As I have pointed out in the past regarding this subject, it is clear from the texts involved that the coming in Daniel 7:13-14 is not the same coming in the OD. Notice the vast differences here.

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 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, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

When this is in progress----one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven---the following is not true yet---And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him. IOW, He was not yet in possession of those things until after He has arrived. He certainly isn't coming/arriving, already with dominion, glory, and a kingdom.

If we compare to Luke 19, it seems pretty clear to me that Daniel 7:13 and what I just submitted via verse 14, this is meaning during what I have underlined below.

Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

What I don't have underlined in this verse, and to return, this hasn't been fulfilled yet. The following per the OD is when this is fulfilled.

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.


Unlike in Daniel 7:13-14, take note what He is already in possession of when He is coming---power and great glory. Where does Daniel 7:13 indicate that He is coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory? I don't see it in the text anywhere, even if we factor in the OG rendering. Verse 14--- And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him---still means He is given these things after He comes with the clouds of heaven, not before He comes with the clouds of heaven, regardless how the OG renders verse 13.

one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven---then this---And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him

Compared with.

and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory

No way can these be involving the same coming. It's impossible that they are. That is crystal clear.

Unless you flat out deny some of the following, which I don't think you do since you are not a full Preterist---Christ initially leaves heaven, thus is born on earth, lives on the earth for awhile, dies on the earth, then rises from the dead, then bodily ascends back into heaven, and will bodily return in the future. It then is perfectly reasonable based on all of that, the fact all of that obviously involves 2 bodily comings to the earth, that the coming on the clouds per Daniel 7:13 is not the same coming on the clouds per the OD.

IMO, the coming with the clouds of heaven per Daniel 7:13 and Matthew 24:30, each of these comings should be interpreted as a literal bodily return to somewhere. The former, a bodily return to heaven. The latter, a bodily return to the earth. That aligns perfectly with reality and good common sense, since you can't return to somewhere unless you were previously there to begin with. Obviously, Christ was previously in heaven before He was born on the earth. Obviously, Christ was previously on the earth before He ascended back into heaven.

 

[DavidPT]

One more thing about OG is that it is somewhat different on the controversial Daniel 9:26-27. I’ll have to take a closer look at this.



OG Daniel 9:26-27 And after seven and seventy and sixty-two, the anointing shall be removed, and shall not be; and a kingdom of nations shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the Christ: and his end shall come with wrath, and he shall be warred upon with war until the time of the end. 27 And the covenant shall rule in many; and he shall return again, and it shall be rebuilt in breadth and length, and at the end of times, and after seven and seventy times and sixty-two years until the time of the end of war; and the desolation shall be taken away in the covenant’s prevailing for many weeks. And at the end of the week the sacrifice and the drink offering shall be taken away, and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations until the end, and the end shall be given unto the desolation.

I like this rendering since it is making it even clearer to me that some of this is obviously involving spiritual warfare and continues until the end of time, the 2nd coming in this case. Nothing per this rendering even remotely gives the impression any of it might be involving 70 AD.

 

[grafted branch]

I like this rendering since it is making it even clearer to me that some of this is obviously involving spiritual warfare and continues until the end of time, the 2nd coming in this case. Nothing per this rendering even remotely gives the impression any of it might be involving 70 AD.

I think this rendering probably causes issues for those who think the covenant is a document that gets signed because of the phrase “the covenant shall rule in many”.

If you don’t see anything pertaining to 70AD then what city do you think this is referring to? “and a kingdom of nations shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the Christ”

 

[DavidPT]

I think this rendering probably causes issues for those who think the covenant is a document that gets signed because of the phrase “the covenant shall rule in many”.

If you don’t see anything pertaining to 70AD then what city do you think this is referring to? “and a kingdom of nations shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the Christ”

I tend to take it to mean the same city and sanctuary that Revelation 11:1-2 is involving, for one. I do not take that city and sanctury in the literal sense. Obviously, Revelation 11:2 is involving Revelation 13 and the 42 month reign of the beast. Nothing pertaining to Revelation 13 is involving a literal city and a literal sanctuary in the middle east, such as the literal city of Jerusalem.

Revelation 11:1-2 is not meaning Jerusalem and the 2nd temple before it was destroyed. Nor is it meaning a rebuilt one in the future. Those verses have to be interpreted spiritually not literally instead. IMO anyway.

 

[grafted branch]

I tend to take it to mean the same city and sanctuary that Revelation 11:1-2 is involving, for one. I do not take that city and sanctury in the literal sense. Obviously, Revelation 11:2 is involving Revelation 13 and the 42 month reign of the beast. Nothing pertaining to Revelation 13 is involving a literal city and a literal sanctuary in the middle east, such as the literal city of Jerusalem.

Revelation 11:1-2 is not meaning Jerusalem and the 2nd temple before it was destroyed. Nor is it meaning a rebuilt one in the future. Those verses have to be interpreted spiritually not literally instead. IMO anyway.

Most people associate the city being trodden under foot by Gentiles in Revelation 11:2 with Luke 21:24 where Jerusalem is trodden down of the Gentiles. Do you think Jerusalem in Luke 21:24 should be interpreted as spiritual Jerusalem?

 

[DavidPT]

Most people associate the city being trodden under foot by Gentiles in Revelation 11:2 with Luke 21:24 where Jerusalem is trodden down of the Gentiles. Do you think Jerusalem in Luke 21:24 should be interpreted as spiritual Jerusalem?

Actually I do since that is the manner which I tend to interpret that. The way I tend to reason Luke 21, for example, up until verse 20 everything is pretty much involving the literal and should be interpreted in that manner. But once the city and temple are destroyed, some things are no longer meaning in a literal sense. Everything pertaining to verse 24 appears to parallel the times of the Gentiles as far as I can tell, and that we are still in the times of the Gentiles as we speak. IOW, when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD that was apparently during the times of the Gentiles, yet the times of the Gentiles did not end at that time since we are still in those times. It simply switches gears and is involving spiritual warfare instead, meaning pertaining to the city and sanctuary.

 

[grafted branch]

Actually I do since that is the manner which I tend to interpret that. The way I tend to reason Luke 21, for example, up until verse 20 everything is pretty much involving the literal and should be interpreted in that manner. But once the city and temple are destroyed, some things are no longer meaning in a literal sense. Everything pertaining to verse 24 appears to parallel the times of the Gentiles as far as I can tell, and that we are still in the times of the Gentiles as we speak. IOW, when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD that was apparently during the times of the Gentiles, yet the times of the Gentiles did not end at that time since we are still in those times. It simply switches gears and is involving spiritual warfare instead, meaning pertaining to the city and sanctuary.

I’ve asked this question before to others who think we are still in the times of the Gentiles, and I can’t get a straight answer from them. Maybe you do have a good answer, the question is this; once the times of the Gentiles ends, what would be the next time period? The times of the Jews again or something else?

 

[claninja]

As I have pointed out in the past regarding this subject, it is clear from the texts involved that the coming in Daniel 7:13-14 is not the same coming in the OD. Notice the vast differences here.

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 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, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

When this is in progress----one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven---the following is not true yet---And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him. IOW, He was not yet in possession of those things until after He has arrived. He certainly isn't coming/arriving, already with dominion, glory, and a kingdom.

If we compare to Luke 19, it seems pretty clear to me that Daniel 7:13 and what I just submitted via verse 14, this is meaning during what I have underlined below.

Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

What I don't have underlined in this verse, and to return, this hasn't been fulfilled yet. The following per the OD is when this is fulfilled.

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.


Unlike in Daniel 7:13-14, take note what He is already in possession of when He is coming---power and great glory. Where does Daniel 7:13 indicate that He is coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory? I don't see it in the text anywhere, even if we factor in the OG rendering. Verse 14--- And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him---still means He is given these things after He comes with the clouds of heaven, not before He comes with the clouds of heaven, regardless how the OG renders verse 13.

one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven---then this---And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him

Compared with.

and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory

No way can these be involving the same coming. It's impossible that they are. That is crystal clear.

Unless you flat out deny some of the following, which I don't think you do since you are not a full Preterist---Christ initially leaves heaven, thus is born on earth, lives on the earth for awhile, dies on the earth, then rises from the dead, then bodily ascends back into heaven, and will bodily return in the future. It then is perfectly reasonable based on all of that, the fact all of that obviously involves 2 bodily comings to the earth, that the coming on the clouds per Daniel 7:13 is not the same coming on the clouds per the OD.

IMO, the coming with the clouds of heaven per Daniel 7:13 and Matthew 24:30, each of these comings should be interpreted as a literal bodily return to somewhere. The former, a bodily return to heaven. The latter, a bodily return to the earth. That aligns perfectly with reality and good common sense, since you can't return to somewhere unless you were previously there to begin with. Obviously, Christ was previously in heaven before He was born on the earth. Obviously, Christ was previously on the earth before He ascended back into heaven.

The main point is that the OG of Daniel 7:13 theologically demonstrates similarities between the son of man figure and the ancient of days, possibly even equating them, while at the same time, removing the clarity in direction of movement of the son of man. The direction then becomes irrelevant to the passage.

OG Daniel 7:13-14
“I was looking in a dream of the night and behold, upon on the clouds of heaven came one like a son of man, like an ancient of days and the bystanders were present with him. And authority was given to him, and all the nations of the earth by kind and all glory serving him: and his authority is an authority of eternity, which cannot be removed, and his kingdom is the sort that cannot perish.“

 

[claninja]

One more thing about OG is that it is somewhat different on the controversial Daniel 9:26-27. I’ll have to take a closer look at this.



OG Daniel 9:26-27 And after seven and seventy and sixty-two, the anointing shall be removed, and shall not be; and a kingdom of nations shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the Christ: and his end shall come with wrath, and he shall be warred upon with war until the time of the end. 27 And the covenant shall rule in many; and he shall return again, and it shall be rebuilt in breadth and length, and at the end of times, and after seven and seventy times and sixty-two years until the time of the end of war; and the desolation shall be taken away in the covenant’s prevailing for many weeks. And at the end of the week the sacrifice and the drink offering shall be taken away, and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations until the end, and the end shall be given unto the desolation.

I’m going to look into this. That’s super interesting!

 

[grafted branch]

I’m going to look into this. That’s super interesting!

I thought so too, the website I got that from was greekbibleversion.com. They only have the book of Daniel translated into English. Maybe some other websites have the rest translated.

 

[DavidPT]

the question is this; once the times of the Gentiles ends, what would be the next time period? The times of the Jews again

Apparently, Pretrib Dispensationalists likely think that's what it means. Except I'm not one of them. So, I don't share their take on that since I see the time of the AOD(Matthew 24:15) involving the church not unbelieving Jews in the future nor unbelieving Jews in the first century involving 70 AD.

There is not a gap of thousands of years following the fulfillment of Matthew 24:15-21 to that of verse 29 followed by the coming recorded in verse 30. Clearly, the coming involving verse 30 occurs during the same time period involving verses 15-21, not thousands of years later instead. Therefore, in my case, it makes zero sense for me to apply Matthew 24:29-31 to the end of this age in the future then apply Matthew 24:15-21 to 2000 years ago. I do not do that nor do Preterists even do that, meaning inserting this 2000 year gap here.

Verse 29 makes it undeniably clear that that verse is meaning immediately adter what verses 15-21 have been involving. And at this point, meaning as of verse 29, no coming of Christ in any sense has occurred yet. No secret Pretrib rapture coming nor a coming in judgment during when verses 15-21 are meaning. The following clearly proves it.

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Verse 27 is the only manner in which Christ comes and that that is meaning verse 30, obviously. And that verse 30 is meaning after verses 15-21 and meaning after verse 29, chronologically speaking.

 

[DavidPT]

The main point is that the OG of Daniel 7:13 theologically demonstrates similarities between the son of man figure and the ancient of days, possibly even equating them, while at the same time, removing the clarity in direction of movement of the son of man. The direction then becomes irrelevant to the passage.

OG Daniel 7:13-14
“I was looking in a dream of the night and behold, upon on the clouds of heaven came one like a son of man, like an ancient of days and the bystanders were present with him. And authority was given to him, and all the nations of the earth by kind and all glory serving him: and his authority is an authority of eternity, which cannot be removed, and his kingdom is the sort that cannot perish.“

Let's look at both verse 13 and 14

13 I beheld in a vision of
the night, and, behold, he came on the clouds of
heaven as the Son of man, and he was present as the
Ancient of days, and they that stood by were present
for him. 14 And power was given to him, and all the
nations of the earth according to their races, and all
the glory serving him. And his power is a power
everlasting, which shall never be taken away, and his
kingdom, which shall never be corrupted.

We have to be able to make sense of verse 13 in light of verse 14. Obviously, pertaining to the Father, no one would be giving power to Him since that makes zero sense. Why then does the text say, apparantly in regards to the Son of man, "and he was present as the Ancient of days"? What does that mean, keeping in mind verse 14?

 

[claninja]

Let's look at both verse 13 and 14

13 I beheld in a vision of
the night, and, behold, he came on the clouds of
heaven as the Son of man, and he was present as the
Ancient of days, and they that stood by were present
for him. 14 And power was given to him, and all the
nations of the earth according to their races, and all
the glory serving him. And his power is a power
everlasting, which shall never be taken away, and his
kingdom, which shall never be corrupted.

We have to be able to make sense of verse 13 in light of verse 14. Obviously, pertaining to the Father, no one would be giving power to Him since that makes zero sense. Why then does the text say, apparantly in regards to the Son of man, "and he was present as the Ancient of days"? What does that mean, keeping in mind verse 14?

this is where OT knowledge of God’s characteristics is important - Only God is the one who rides the clouds, and this is often used in terms of judgment. Only God is the one with divine beings at his disposal. Only God is the one with all power. The everlasting kingdom is the kingdom OF GOD in Daniel 2.

But now, in Daniel 7, you have this son of man coming on the clouds, with divine beings at his disposal, and he is given all power, and has a never ending kingdom (which in Daniel 2 is called the kingdom OF GOD). Thus, the OG Daniel basically says this son of man is like the ancient of days because, imho, he is sharing these very same characteristics that only God possesses. He has the Father’s Glory.

So I think when taking vs 13 in light of 14 via the Old Greek, and son of man being likened to the ancient of days, it’s basically saying the son of man comes in his fathers glory. Christ comes as the ancient of days, on the clouds, to execute judgment.

Matthew 16:27
27For the Son of Man will come in His Father’s glory with His angels, and then He will repay each one according to what he has done.

Matthew 25:31-32
31When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, He will sit on His glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate the people one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

 

[claninja]

IMO, the coming with the clouds of heaven per Daniel 7:13 and Matthew 24:30, each of these comings should be interpreted as a literal bodily return to somewhere.

in the OT, God descended from heaven and rode on the clouds in a “visible manner” during times of judgment (2 Samuel 22, Isaiah 19, etc….).

So If the Olivet discourse in Matthew is alluding to the OG Daniel 7:13, where the son of man comes on the clouds “as” the ancient of days, why should it be understood differently than when God rode clouds in the OT, especially considering the OD states “this generation shall not pass away until all these things take place”?

 

[DavidPT]

So I think when taking vs 13 in light of 14 via the Old Greek, and son of man being likened to the ancient of days, it’s basically saying the son of man comes in his fathers glory. Christ comes as the ancient of days, on the clouds, to execute judgment.

I tend to agree to a degree. I think you are correct for the most part, yet I still tend to reason some of that a bit differently.

Daniel 7:9 beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.
12 As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 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, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

I tend to think verse 13 and 14 explain how Christ initially acquired His role as judge in the future, verses 9-12 in this case. Verse 13 and 14 pertain to His ascension 2000 years ago following His death and resurrection at the time. Verses 9-12 are meaning when He bodily returns in the end of this age, yet is not meaning Revelation 20:11-15 like some tend to take it to be involving.

Verse 12, for one, proves that, since that verse makes zero sense if verses 9-11 are involving Revelation 20:11-15. Nowhere in verses 9-11 does it ever indicate humans are also being given to the burning flame at the time. IOW, IMO, verses 9-12 are involving the same era of time Revelation 19:20-21 through Revelation 20:1-6 are involving. Nothing pertaining to Daniel 7 is involving 70 AD.