The Kingdoms of Men and

The Kingdom of God

A Study of Daniel 7:1-14

by ARNOLD B. RHODES

INTRODUCTION

To appreciate this famous passage, it is helpful to set it in its historical,

canonical, literary, and theological contexts. According to one point of
view, Daniel wrote the book which bears his name in the sixth century
B.C., Chapters 1-6 being regarded as literal history and Chapters 7-12 as
predictive vision. However, present-day scholarship, for the most part,
regards the book as a pseudonym, compiled and written to encourage the
People of God under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes in the
second century B.C. Though the stories (Chaps. 1-6) were probably
circulated in pre-Epiphanian form, the book as a book is addressed to the
Epiphanian situation.
In I Maccabees 1:10 Antiochus is called "a sinful root.55 His perse-
cution of the Jews was related to problems within his own kingdom,
threats from neighboring kingdoms, and conflicts among the Jews them-
selves. Upon the murder of Seleucus IV, Antiochus usurped the throne,
and conflict continued within the royal house. The people of the Seleucid
Empire were a mixed group with little to hold them together. Therefore,
Antiochus was bent on unifying his rule. But the threats from without
were as dangerous as the problems from within. Rome was becoming
increasingly dominant in the affairs of the Near East and could dictate
to other powers. Recently Egypt had lost Palestine and Phoenicia to the
Seleucids, but Rome was friendly to the Ptolemies of Egypt. The eastern
part of Antiochus5 empire was threatened by the Parthians. To meet
military expenses Antiochus robbed temples within the sphere of his rule,
including the Temple in Jerusalem. Furthermore, in order to achieve
unity within his empire, he promoted Hellenistic culture and religion,
including the worship of Greek deities and even the worship of himself.
Some Jews supported the attempt at Hellenization; while others opposed
it vigorously. In addition, many struggles centered around the office of
the high priest in Jerusalem. These weaknesses within the Jewish com-

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015

412 Interpretation

munity encouraged Antiochus in his interference in Jewish affairs.

Humiliated by Rome in a campaign against Egypt in 168 B.C. and
frustrated by mounting Jewish opposition to his program of Hellenization,
Antiochus sent Apollonius to ravage Jerusalem. This Apollonius did
with a vengeance. Afterwards a Seleucid stronghold called "the Acra55
was established in Jerusalem, composed of a Seleucid garrison, other
non-Jews, and Jews who had been Hellenized. Finally, in response to
Jewish resistance to his purpose of syncretism, Antiochus proscribed the
practices of the Jewish religion (for example, circumcision, sacrifices, and
Sabbath observance), set up pagan shrines throughout Palestine, and
required Jews to eat swine's flesh. To disobey was to incur the death
penalty. But he brought his persecutions to their climax in December
167 B.C. by erecting an altar and image to Olympian Zeus in the Temple.
This construction is "the abomination that makes desolate55 (Dan. 9:27;
i i : 3 i ; i 2 : n ; i Mace. 1:54). I* w a s m this context that the Maccabean
rebellion took place and the Book of Daniel was written.1
The book belongs to the third division of the Hebrew Bible known as
"the Writings.55 Its position in the English Bible was determined by its
position in the Septuagint and the Vulgate. It is the only major apoca-
lypse in the Protestant canon of the Old Testament. Chapters 1-6 are
composed of a series of stories concerning Daniel and his friends, and
Chapters 7-12 are a series of visions of history and destiny. The stories
recall God5s faithfulness to his people in times of testing and call his
people to renewed commitment within the covenant relation. Through
apocalyptic symbolism the visions remind God5s suffering people that he
is the sovereign Lord of all history and all kingdoms, and that he will
establish his own Kingdom in the earth. The Book of Daniel "is more
eschatological in its view of the judgment and the coming kingdom than
the earlier prophets, but the shift has not yet been made from the expec-
tation of an earthly kingdom to that of a purely spiritual kingdom.552
Chapters 2 and 7 are especially closely related, since each of them
deals with the same four kingdoms of men and the same Kingdom of God.
In Chapter 2 the four world kingdoms are symbolized by four metals :
gold, silver, bronze, and iron. In Chapter 7 they are symbolized by four
beasts : a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a nameless monster. In Chapter 2
1. For the historical details of this period see I and II Maccabees ; John Bright, A History of
Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959), pp. 401-412; and Martin Noth, The History of
Israel (2d English ed.; New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, i 9 6 0 ) , pp. 359-382.
2. Arthur Jeffery, " T h e Book of Daniel," The Interpreter's Bible, ed. George Buttrick (New
York and Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1956), V I , 351.

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015

 The Kingdoms of Men and the Kingdom of God 413

the Kingdom of God is represented by a stone cut from a mountain with-

out human hands, which is to destroy the kingdoms of men and is itself
to become a mountain filling the whole earth. In Chapter 7 the Kingdom
of God is received by "one like a son of man." Obviously Chapter 7 is
an enlargement of the theme already found in Chapter 2. In Chapter 7
there is an antagonism toward the last world kingdom not expressed in
Chapter 2. Furthermore, the date, "a time and times and half a time"
(7:25) is not found in Chapter 2. H. Louis Ginsberg places Chapter 2
in the third century B.C. and Chapter 7 in the second.3
Linguistically Chapter 7 is more closely related to the first half of the
book (Chaps. 1-6), since Chapters 2:4^7:28 are written in Aramaic
and Chapters 1:1-2:4a and Chapters 8-12 in Hebrew.4 However, in
literary form and content it is more closely related to Chapters 8-12, if
Chapter 2 is omitted from the comparison.
Although the symbolism varies in each of the book's divisions which
follow Chapter 7 (Chaps. 8, 9, and 10-12), in each case the author pin-
points Antiochus Epiphanes and God's judgment upon him.
Various theories are held concerning the composition of Chapter 7.
Building upon the works of Sellin and Hölscher, Aage Bentzen has con-
cluded that verses 8, 11 a, 20-22, and 24-25 are not original.5 Ginsberg
maintains of these verses that the words "and about the ten horns on its
head" (vs. 20) and "and the ten horns (signify that) from that kingdom
there shall arise ten kings" (vs. 24) belong to the primary stratum and
that they are Epiphanian.6 The bulk of the materials considered sec-
ondary by Bentzen and others Ginsberg dates at a later time during the
same general period of Antiochus Epiphanes. Recently Julian Morgen-
stern has proposed that verses 13-14 are an interpolation, maintaining
that the figure of the "son of man" is left unmentioned in that section of
the chapter (vss. 15-28) which constitutes the interpretation of the vision
recorded in the first section.7 It may be said in reply, however, that
verses 13-14 are integral to the structure of the vision, for the figure of
the "one like a son of man" from heaven is the perfect antithesis of the
3. Studies in Daniel ("Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America";
New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1948), pp. 5-23.
4. The Qumran fragments of the Book of Daniel throw no light on the problem of the two
languages; see Millar Burrows, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Viking Press,
1958), P· J 73·
^.Daniel ("Handbuch zum Alten Testament"; Tübingen: Verlag von J. G. B. Mohr (Paul
Siebeck), 1937), PP. 30-31·
6. Op. cit., pp. 11-23.
7. " T h e 'Son of Man 5 of Daniel 7:13 f.: A New Interpretation," Journal of Biblical Literature,
L X X X (March 1961), 65-66.

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015

4 i4 Interpretation

beasts from the sea,8 Regardless of how Chapter 7 may have been com-
posed, as a part of the Book of Daniel it must be seen against the back-
ground of the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes. It is a
powerful and dramatic presentation of the triumphant Kingdom of God
versus the proud kingdoms of men. The heart of the chapter is Daniel's
vision and its interpretation (vss. 2-27), which is enclosed within a brief
introduction (vs. 1) and a brief conclusion (vs. 28). We shall give
detailed attention only to verses 1-14, but these verses will be treated in
the light of the remainder of the chapter. This first half of the chapter is
composed of a statement of the setting of the vision (vs. 1 ) and the vision
itself in four scenes: the four beasts (vss. 2-8), the convening of the
heavenly court (vss. 9-10), the execution of the sentence (vss. 11-12),
and the one like a son of man (vss. 13-14).

T H E SETTING OF THE VISION (7:1)

In thefirstyear of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel saw a dream and visions
of his head upon his bed. Then he wrote the dream; a summary of matters he
told (7:i). 9
This verse and verse 28 constitute the literary frame in which the meat
of the chapter is set. Verse 1 connects the vision with the stories which
precede. In addition to this reference Belshazzar is mentioned throughout
Chapter 5 and once in Chapter 8 (vs. 1 ), but nowhere else in the Bible.
It may seem strange to some to find a statement of his death in 5:30 and
then find him still alive in 7:1 and 8:1, but it should be remembered that
the author was not arranging his material in a strictly chronological
pattern, Belshazzar is called "king of Babylon" in the passage under
consideration, referred to repeatedly as "king" in Chapter 5, and spoken
of as "Belshazzar the king" in 8:1. Furthermore, he is considered the son
of Nebuchadnezzar in 5:2, 11, 13, and 18. According to Babylonian
records he was the oldest son of Nabonidus, the last king of the Neo-
Babylonian Empire. In Babylonian documents dates were not reckoned
according to the years of Belshazzar. Nevertheless, he served as co-regent
with Nabonidus from 554 to 539 B.C., because the latter was usually
pursuing archaeological and military interests away from home. Some
think the word "father" used of Nebuchadnezzar in Chapter 5 has the
general meaning of "ancestor" and that Belshazzar was a biological
8. Cf. Bentzen, op. cit., pp. 29-30. Here Bentzen uses this argument from Junker against
Noth, who considers only verses 2-7, 1 i b as the original vision.
9. T h e textual problems found in the latter part of this verse are not treated here for lack
of space.

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015

 The Kingdoms of Men and the Kingdom of God 415

descendant of Nebuchadnezzar. But, in the light of the publication of

fragments of the "Prayer of Nabonidus" from Qumran Cave IV, 10 David
Noel Freedman supports the thesis that the original references in Daniel
4 and 5 were to Nabonidus, not to Nebuchadnezzar. 11 This means that
the change of the name was made either in the oral or in the written
tradition, probably before the author of our Book of Daniel made use of
the Daniel stories found in Chapters 1-6.
Here (7:1) and in 10:1 Daniel is introduced in the third person but
speaks throughout the visions in the first person, whereas in the stories
he is referred to in the third person. But who is Daniel? Is he to be
regarded primarily as an exemplary Jew of the Babylonian Captivity, or
as a legendary sage, who plays the role of the representative Jew? 12 This
question cannot be answered with absolute certainty. It is possible,
however, that the figure of Daniel comes from a variety of sources.13
Some of the details of the stories leave the impression that there was a
historical Daniel of the Babylonian Exile who became the symbol of a
devout Judaism. Furthermore, as a dreamer and an interpreter of dreams
Daniel recalls the life of the patriarch Joseph. In addition, the Dan 5 el
of Ezekiel 14:14, 20 and 28:3 seems to be a legendary hero of great
antiquity, who was characterized by righteousness and wisdom. He is
probably to be identified with the Dan'el of the Ras Shamra text now
known as "The Tale of Aqhat." 14 Here Dan'el is characterized as "up-
right," and as one who judges the cause of the widow and the fatherless.
It is certainly possible that this hero was one of the sources for depicting
the model Israelite.

SCENE O N E — T H E FOUR BEASTS (7:2-8)

15
Daniel answered and said, "I was watching in my vision by night, and behold,
the four winds of the heavens were stirring up the great sea. And four great beasts
were coming up from the sea, differing one from another. The first was like a lion
and had wings of an eagle. I was watching while its wings were plucked off, and
10. J. T. Milik, " Trière de Nabonide' et autres écrits d' un cycle de Daniel," Revue Biblique,
L X I I I (July 1956), 407-415·
11. "The Prayer of Nabonidus," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No.
145 (February 1957), 31-32.
12. See E. W. Heaton, The Book of Daniel ("Torch Bible Commentaries"; London: SCM
Press, I95 6 )> PP· 24-28.
13. See Carl G. Howie, The Book of Ezekiel, The Book of Daniel ("The Layman's Bible Com-
mentary"; Richmond: John Knox Press, 1961), pp. 91-92.
14. Translated by H. L. Ginsberg in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ed. James B. Pritchard
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), pp. 149-155.
15. The Septuagint and Vulgate do not have "Daniel answered and said"; Theodotion does
not have "answered and said." T h e expression adds nothing essential to the thought.

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015

4i6 Interpretation

it was lifted up from the earth and caused to stand upon two feet like a man; and
a man's heart was given to it. And behold, another beast, a second one, resembling
a bear; and it was raised up on one side, and three ribs were in its mouth between
its teeth ; and so it was told, 'Arise, devour much flesh.' After this I was watching,
and behold, another like a leopard, and it had four wings of a bird on its back;
and the beast had four heads; and dominion was given to it. After this I was
watching in visions of the night, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible
and exceedingly strong; and it had great iron teeth; it was devouring and crushing,
and was treading down the residue with its feet; and it was behaving differently
from all the beasts that preceded it; and it had ten horns. I was considering the
horns, and behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of
the former horns were uprooted before it, and behold eyes like the eyes of a man
were in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things (7:2-8).

Daniel begins his narration with a formula, " I was watching" (häzeh
a
h wêth), which is used repeatedly to call attention to the various scenes
of the vision, but is used only once in the interpretation of the vision (vs.
21). T h e participle is used with a finite verb to form a periphrastic
construction.
Much of the symbolism of Daniel's vision is rooted in the mythology
of the ancient Near East. This means that the author made use of thought
forms current in his total heritage and adapted them in such a way as to
make them instruments of his message. Years ago Hermann Gunkel asso-
ciated "the four winds of the heavens, 5 ' "the great sea," and the "four
great beasts" with elements in the Babylonian Tiamat myth, 16 and most
scholars have followed his lead. The four winds are the south, north, east,
and west, all mentioned in the Babylonian Enuma elish, Tablet IV, line
43. The phrase "the four winds" occurs in the Enuma elish, Tablet IV,
line 42; Daniel 8 : 8 ; 11:4; Zechariah 2 : 6 ; 6 : 5 ; and I I Esdras 13:5.
T h e winds and agitated water in the passage under consideration are
associated with the Chaos motif. "The great sea" usually designates the
Mediterranean (for example, Josh. 1:4), but here it is primarily the
mysterious mythological Sea used as the symbol of evil forces. According
to the Canaanite story of Baal, the sea-dragon Yam ("Sea") is also called
Tannin, Lotan (Leviathan), "the winding serpent" (cf. Isa. 2 7 : 1 ) ,
and "Shalyat of the seven heads." T h e ancient story of the dragon is
alluded to in many places in the Old Testament (for example, Gen. 1:2;
Isa. 27:1 ; 5 1 : 1 0 ; Ps. 74:13-17). When the seer in Revelation 21:1 says
"and the sea was no more," he is speaking of the end of evil. Chaotic

16. Schöpfung und Chaos (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1895), pp. 323-335·

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015

 The Kingdoms of Men and the Kingdom of God 417

waters are sometimes symbolic of turbulent nations (Isa. 17:12-13;

Jer. 6:23; 46:7-8). When the biblical writers use expressions which had
their origin in ancient mythology, those expressions have been run
through the "chemistry" of Israel's faith and have thereby become
suitable vehicles for communicating the distinctive, biblical revelation.
The four beasts symbolize four world kingdoms. The use of animals to
represent nations is not confined to the Book of Daniel [cf. Ezek. 29:3;
Ps. 68:30; Rev. 13:1-18). "The four great beasts" as presented in Daniel
7 seem to be an adaptation of a four-empire theory already widely held
before the time of the author of Daniel.17 When the author says the beasts
"were coming up from the sea," he gives their theological location; when
he later says they "shall arise from the earth" (vs. 17), he gives their
geographical and political location. The fact that this geographical and
political location has not been spelled out with absolute clarity has given
rise to many theories concerning the identifications of the four world
kingdoms symbolized by the four beasts. It is impossible to debate the
issue here. The present writer accepts the following identifications : the
lion with Neo-Babylonia, the bear with Media, the leopard with Persia,
and the nameless monster with Greece (Alexander and his successors) ,18
The first beast, a winged lion, appropriately symbolizes the Neo-
Babylonian Empire; the winged lions of ancient Mesopotamian gateways,
temples, and palaces are now common knowledge (cf. Ezek. 1 ). Just as
the Neo-Babylonian Empire (embodied in the person of Nebuchad-
nezzar) is represented in 2:38 as "the head of gold," the most precious
of metals, so here the same empire is represented by a "creation" which
combines the kingliest of animals and the most lordly of birds. Nebuchad-
nezzar is compared to a lion in Jeremiah 50:17 ( cf. 4:7 ; 49:19 ), and his
horsemen are compared to an eagle on account of their swiftness in
Habakkuk i:$(cf. Jer. 49:22; Ezek. 17:3). In fact, verse 4b is inter-
preted by some to refer to Nebuchadnezzar's illness and recovery as
reported in Chapter 4. It is interpreted by others to refer to Babylon's
loss of power when it fell. This would mean the substitution of a timid
human heart for the courageous heart of the beast. In the Bible as a
whole Babylon is ordinarily a literal city, but occasionally it is a symbol
of human pride and power (for example, Gen. 11 ; Rev. 18).
17. Ginsberg, op. cit., pp. 56.
18. For the most thorough treatment of this problem, see H. H. Rowley, Darius the Mede and
the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel (Reprint; Cardiff: University of Wales Press
Board, 1959).

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015

4i8 Interpretation

The bear symbolizes the Median Empire. However, there are prob-
lems connected with this identification. In 5130-31 we read, "That very
night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. And Darius the Mede 19
received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old." At face value
this seems to imply that a Median kingdom followed the Babylonian; yet
as a known fact of history Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon in 539
B.C. In other words, strictly speaking, there is no chronological place
for a Median kingdom after the Neo-Babylonian. This problem is to be
understood in light of the four-empire theory mentioned earlier. In an
early form of this theory the first empire was the Assyrian, the second the
Median, and the third the Persian. A fourth was added to the three-
empire theory to make it a four-empire theory upon the occasion of the
conquests of Alexander the Great. Discontented groups within the em-
pire of Alexander and his successors longed for a fifth empire that would
"overthrow the Greeks and stem the tide of Hellenization." The author
of Daniel substituted the Neo-Babylonian Empire for the Assyrian and
the Kingdom of God for the fifth empire. 20 Of course he was more
interested in the empire which had swallowed up the Jewish people than
in the more ancient Assyrian Empire. But his substitution at this point
presents us with the historical problem, for the Median Kingdom as such
largely paralleled the Neo-Babylonian. Cyrus united Media and Persia
in 549 B. C. But our author was more interested in theology than in
chronology. He may well have known more of the facts of history than
he enumerates, but history was for him more than strict chronology. It
was the outworking of the purpose of God. In other words, God permits
the kingdoms from the "Sea" to have their day, but they will be destroyed
and he will establish his own Kingdom forever.
T h e bear does not appear frequently in the symbolic art of the ancient
Near East. In the Old Testament it is sometimes mentioned in the same
context with the lion (I Sam. 17:34-37; Amos 5:19; Hos. 13:8; Isa.
11:7; Lam. 3:10; Prov. 28:15) and occasionally apart from the lion
( I I Sam. 17:8; I I Kings 2:24; Isa. 5 9 : 1 1 ; Prov. 17:12). It is possible
that the writer means to say by the use of the bear that the Median
Empire was inferior in strength to the Neo-Babylonian (cf. 2:32, 3 9 ) .
Various meanings have been suggested for the words "it was raised on
19. For contrasting views concerning the identification of Darius the Mede, see H. H. Rowley,
op. cit., pp. 9-60, and John C. Whitcomb, Jr., Darius the Mede (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerd-
mans, 1959). Rowley holds that Darius is "a conflation of confused traditions," while Whitcomb
maintains that he is Gubaru, governor of Babylon under Cyrus, and not Ugbaru, the governor
of Gutium and conqueror of Babylon, and that he was given the honorific title "Darius."
20. Jeffery, op. cit., pp. 373-375·

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015

 The Kingdoms of Men and the Kingdom of God 419

one side." Perhaps they indicate that the bear was lying in a position
ready to strike; or that the bear (Median Kingdom) was only "half
there," so to speak.
It has been suggested that "fangs" be read instead of "ribs" in the
statement, "and three ribs were in its mouth between its teeth."21 When
the translation "ribs" has been accepted, it has been variously understood
of particular areas. Regardless of details, the writer is saying that the
bear is rapacious. The command " 'Arise, devour much flesh5 " seems
to reflect the prophecy that God would stir up the Medes against Babylon
(Isa. 13:17-18; Jer. 51:11,28).
The third beast, a leopard, symbolizes the Persian Empire. In addition
to this occurrence in Daniel, the leopard is referred to in six passages of
the Old Testament (Hos. 13:7; Isa. 11:6; Jer. 5:6; 13:23; Hab. 1:8;
Song of Sol. 4 : 8 ; cf. Rev. 13:2). This animal also is depicted in ancient
Near Eastern art. In the context of Daniel 7, it seems to suggest the
rapidity of the conquests of Cyrus; its "four wings" the swift extension
of the Persian dominion to the four quarters of the earth; and its "four
heads" four Persian kings (cf. 11:2). The Cyrus Cylinder indicates that
Cyrus claimed to be the ruler of the four quarters of the earth. The first
four major kings of the Persian Empire were Cyrus the Great (549-530),
Darius I (522-486), Xerxes I or Ahasuerus (486-465), and Artaxerxes I
(465-424), but this listing is not necessarily identical with the one in
the mind of our author.22 In fact, it is possible that he was not thinking
of four kings at all but was using the expression "four heads" to em-
phasize further the universal spread of this empire. Of the four empires
mentioned in Daniel 7, only the first (Neo-Babylonian) and the fourth
(Greek) oppressed the Jews. The Persians were benevolent overlords.
The great prophet of the exile had told his people that Yahweh stirred up
Cyrus and gave him nations (Isa. 41:2-4), called him his shepherd as the
fulfiller of his purpose for Israel (Isa. 44:28), and addressed him as his
"messiah," even though Cyrus did not know him (Isa. 45:1-4). Cyrus
was a generous ruler over the conquered peoples within his realm as
demonstrated in a variety of ways. By his decree the Jews were permitted
to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple (II Chron. 36:20-23;
Ezra 1:1-11). Darius continued the benevolent policy inaugurated by
Cyrus, and the Temple in Jerusalem was completed during his reign
21. Howie, op. cit., p. 119; cf. Ginsberg, op. cit., p. 15.
22. For a thorough review of this problem, see Rowley, op. cit., pp. 138-160.

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015

420 Interpretation

(Ezra 6:1-22). Furthermore, it was during the reign of Artaxerxes that

Nehemiah rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem.
The nameless monster symbolizes the Greek Empire of Alexander the
Great and his successors. He is so horrible that he cannot be described in
terms of animals and combinations of animals, but corresponds to the
kingdom represented by iron in Chapter 2. The figure of the beast, how-
ever, may be related to Babylonian and Canaanite dragonic conceptions.
The Greek Empire is thought of as being so powerful and destructive
that it even treads down the residue with its feet. Though each of the four
empires is obviously different in certain respects from the others, it was
really Alexander and his successors who deliberately supplanted estab-
lished customs with the forms of Hellenistic culture. Of course the
writer of Daniel was most conscious of the kind, and method, of Helleni-
zation adopted by the Seleucids. The "ten horns" of the monster probably
represent ten Seleucid kings, though the horn is sometimes a figure for
strength (for example, Deut. 3 3 : 1 7 ; I Kings 2 2 : 1 1 ; Ps. 75:4-5, 10).
Nevertheless, a king is usually thought of as one who exercises strength.
T h e little horn is undoubtedly Antiochus Epiphanes, who usurped the
throne by uprooting three other claimants. Antiochus is also referred to
in 8:9-14, 24-25; and 11:31-33 and is again called "a little horn" in
8:9. His "eyes" call attention to his shrewdness and pride (cf. 8:23 ), his
"mouth" to his arrogant and blasphemous boasting (11:36; I Mace.
1:24; cf- R e v · I 3 : 5 " 6 ) · At the end of verse 8 the Septuagint has the
clause, "and he was waging war with the saints" (cf. vs. 21 ; Rev. 1 1 : 7 ) .

SCENE T W O — T H E CONVENING OF T H E HEAVENLY COURT (7:9-10)

I was watching:
As thrones were placed
And an Ancient of Days took his seat;
His raiment was like white snow,
And the hair of his head like pure wool;
His throne was flames of fire,
Its wheels blazing fire.
A stream of fire was flowing
And coming forth from his presence ;
A thousand thousands were serving him,
And many myriads were standing before him;
The court took its seat,
And the books were opened (7:9-10).

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015

 The Kingdoms of Men and the Kingdom of God 421

By way of contrast the scene now shifts from the beasts of the Abyss to
the convening of the court in heaven. It is introduced by the formula, " I
was watching," and is written in poetry. This and the following scenes
of the judgment and the "one like a son of man" were of far greater
importance to the seer than the scene of the four beasts. It appears that
various aspects of the poet's symbolism go back ultimately to ancient
Near Eastern mythological motifs, especially the annual enthronement
of the deity at the New Year festival. This does not mean that the author
of Daniel believed in the pagan theology associated with this festival or
that Yahweh was necessarily re-enthroned each year in a comparable
manner in Israel. It means that the author used thought forms associated
with the idea of an annually repeated judgment at the turn of the year to
depict eschatological judgment in a symbolic way, just as we use the
thought forms of our time as a means of communicating the gospel. Yet,
while the ultimate background of aspects of this theophany may be
Babylonian, Canaanite, and Iranian, its immediate background is the
Old Testament itself.
A king pronounces judgment from his throne. In thinking of Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel the psalmist says :
There thrones for judgment were set,
The thrones of the house of David (Ps. 122:5).

Presumably the thrones in Daniel's vision are arranged for use by the
Ancient of Days and his assessors. It is also possible that the one like a
son of man is to have a throne. That God, in the manner of a human
king, has a heavenly council associated with him is a frequently recurring
idea in the Old Testament (for example, I Kings 22:19-23 ; Jer. 23:18,
22; Gen. 1:26; Job 1:1-2:10; 15:8; Pss. 29:1; 82; cf. Matt. 19:28;
I Cor. 6:2; Rev. 4:4; 20:4).
Some have found a connection between the title "an Ancient of Days"
and "father of years," one of the titles given to El in the Ras Shamra
texts. Charles maintains that the title in Aramaic was originally "one like
23
an ancient of days." In any case, the term is not used to imply that there
was a time when God was not; rather is it an anthropomorphic way (cf.
Isa. 6 : ι ; Ezek. 1:26) of saying that God is to be revered as the Judge of
all generations of men (cf. Pss. 90; 102). "White snow" and "pure wool"
symbolize the Judge's spotless purity and unimpeachable integrity (cf.
23. R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1929), pp. 181-182.

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015

422 Interpretation

Isa. ι : i 8 ; Ps. 51:7, 97:1-5; Rev. 1:14). Much of the Old Testament
furnishes a background for associating the appearance of the divine
Judge with fire (for example, Gen. 15:17; Exod. 3 : 2 ; Num. 16:35;
Deut. 4 : 2 4 ; Isa. 6:1-8; cf. Heb. 12:29), and the wheels of blazing fire
may well have their background in the wheels of Ezekiel's visions (Chaps.
1, 10; cf. I I Kings 2:10-12). T h e "stream of fire" coming forth from the
divine presence signifies " t h e irrestibility of the divine energy." 2 4 T h e
"thousands" are attendants, members of the heavenly hosts (see Deut.
33:2 ; I Kings 2 2 : 1 9 ; Rev. 5 : 1 1 ) . T h e "myriads" may refer to the same
group, though it may designate those who are about to be judged. T h e
court is convened and the books recording h u m a n deeds are opened to
reveal the evidence on the basis of which judgment is to be made (cf.
Ps. 5 6 : 8 ; Mai. 3:16; Rev. 2 0 : 1 2 ) , an idea not confined to Israel. I n
this context it is primarily the deeds of the four beasts that are to be
investigated.

S C E N E T H R E E — T H E EXECUTION OF T H E S E N T E N C E (7:11-12)
I was watching then on account of the sound of the great words which the horn
was speaking. I was watching when the beast was slain and its body was destroyed
and it was given over to burning by fire. As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion
was taken away, but a prolongation in life was granted them for a season and
a time (7:11-12).
T h e death sentence is to be executed on the fourth beast (the Greek
Empire) on account of the blasphemous arrogance of the little horn
(Antiochus Epiphanes), in whom its transgressions have reached their
full measure ( 8 : 2 3 ) . " I * w a s given over to burning by fire" means that
the empire is devoted to complete destruction (cf. Isa. 64:11 ), not that
all of its citizens are consigned to the torments of "hell." " T h e rest of the
beasts" are the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the Median Empire, and the
Persian Empire, whose relations to the People of God have been more
pleasant. Although they have lost their status as empires, their existence
as self-conscious peoples will continue so long as God decrees.

S C E N E F O U R — T H E O N E L I K E A S O N OF M A N (7:13-14)
I was watching in visions of the night,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a son of man was coming,
And unto the Ancient of Days he came
24. James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel
("International Critical Commentary"; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1927), p. 298.

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015

 The Kingdoms of Men and the Kingdom of God 423

And before him he was presented.

And to him was given dominion
And glory and kingdom,
That all peoples, nations, and tongues
Should serve him;
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
That shall not pass away,
And his kingdom one
That shall not be destroyed (7:13-14).

In contrast to the figures like the beasts from the Sea of Chaos, who
have been judged and sentenced, is the "one like a son of man, 55 who
comes "with the clouds of heaven,55 is presented before the Ancient of
Days in a manner appropriate to the Royal Court, and is given the in-
destructible Kingdom of God. T h e "clouds55 seem to indicate that he is a
heavenly being and uses celestial transportation (cf. Exod. 13:21-22;
I Kings 8:10-11 ; Isa. 19:1 ; Jer. 4 : 1 3 ; Ezek. 10:4; Pss. 18:9-12; 97:2-4;
104:3; but see I Enoch 1 4 : 8 ) . The Aramaic expression kevar ienash
means in effect "one like a man,55 that is, one who has the appearance
of an individual human being. The identification of this manlike Figure in
this particular passage is one of the most debated issues in the whole of
biblical interpretation. 25 There are four principal classifications under
which the various theories of identification may be grouped: the
Messianic, the collective, the combined, and the mythological.
The Messianic understanding of the Son of M a n is found in some late
Jewish documents and in the New Testament. In the Similitudes of
Enoch (I Enoch 46:1-4; 4 8 : 2 ; 62:9, 14; 6 3 : 1 1 ; 69:26-27; 7 0 : 1 ) , he
seems to be a transcendental individual, but he is not there identified with
the Davidic Messiah. T o insist that because Jesus applied the title to him-
self (for example, in Matt. 2 5 : 3 1 ; Mark 10:45) the author of Daniel
necessarily intended it of the Messiah is logically to undercut the very
uniqueness of the biblical faith as historical revelation. Earlier commen-
tators, for the most part, subscribed to the Messianic interpretation of
Daniel 7:13, and this view continues to have many advocates at the
present time. Very conservative scholars tend to take this position with-
out exception. For example, this is the position held by Edward J.
Young. 26 Young feels that the Messianic interpretation has found support
25. For bibliographical reviews of viewpoints see Rowley, op. cit., pp. 62n-64n; Montgomery,
op. cit., pp. 317-324·
26. The "Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1949); cf. H. C. Leupold,
Exposition of Daniel (Columbus, Ohio: Wartburg Press, 1949).

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015

424 Interpretation

recently from the mythological view in its stress upon the personal nature
of the heavenly Figure.27 While this is true in a sense, it should also be
remembered that some of those who find the origin of the Figure in
mythology reject the Messianic interpretation of Daniel 7:13 in favor of
the collective.
The collective interpretation has been held by a large number of
scholars for many years. The word "collective" means that these men
consider the "one like a son of man" a symbolic representation of "the
saints of the Most High." The chief argument is that in the vision itself
the "one like a son of man" is given the eternal Kingdom (vss. 13-14)
and in the interpretation of the vision (vss. 15-27) by the celestial at-
tendant (vs. 16) "the saints of the Most High" (that is, the true People
of God) receive the Kingdom (vss. 18, 22, 27). This corresponds to the
fact that each of the four beasts represents a kingdom of men. It is
interesting to note that in Psalm 80:13 the wild boar (a beast) represents
Israel's unclean enemies and in verse 17 of the same Psalm the "son of
man" (Hebrew, ben 'ädhäm) represents Israel. T. W. Manson insists
that the personage of Daniel 7:13 is not a heavenly figure but an earthly
one, a symbol of Israel or the Remnant, and that "the clouds" are a
2δ
means of transportation from earth to heaven (see I Enoch 14:8) .
The combined view regards the Figure of verse 13 as including both
collective and individual meanings. Adam C. Welch presents his version
29
of this hypothesis in his Visions of the End. While he accepts the sym­
bolic value of the manlike one, he is unwilling to settle for a symbolic
meaning only. He finds the thought of the writer consistent with the
thought of the Old Testament about the Messiah and feels it is unnatural
to think of the saints as coming in the clouds, standing before God, or
receiving the authority of the Kingdom. He suggests the possibility of an
angelic figure, who represents the saints. Welch's work was first pub­
lished in 1922.
30
A more recent exponent of the combined view is Arthur Jeffery.
Jeffery maintains that the author of Daniel is less interested in the
Figure of verse 13 than in his accomplishments. The Figure represents
both the Kingdom of the saints and the Messianic King who inaugurates
the Kingdom. The four beasts represent not peoples but kingdoms, and
27. Op. cit., p. 155.
28. "The Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch and the Gospels," Reprint from Bulletin of the John
Rylands Library, XXXII (March 1950), PP· 173-175-
29. Reprint; London: James Clarke Co., 1958, pp. 128-134.
30. Op. cit., pp. 460-462.

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015

 The Kingdoms of Men and the Kingdom of God 425

in the Book of Daniel king and kingdom interchange (7:17; 2:36-45;

8:21 ), for the king stands for his kingdom. "The figure here is parallel
to the stone in 2:34, which is an individual stone when it smashes the
image but later becomes the mountain which is the kingdom. Here as
an individual he receives the kingdom which in vs. 27 becomes the
kingdom of the saints."31 If Jeffery's interpretation is correct, verse 14
is to be associated with the conversion of the Gentiles in the last days.
The mythological approach to this subject does not necessarily pre-
clude any one of the theories already reviewed, because it has to do
fundamentally with the origin of the Son of Man concept. The forms
which this approach takes sometimes differ widely from one another.
Only a few illustrations of these forms can be given here. In 1900
Nathaniel Schmidt proposed that Michael, the guardian angel of Israel,
was the correct identification of the Figure in Daniel 7:13 largely on the
basis of the kinds of descriptions given of angels in the Book of Daniel
(see 3:25; 8:15; 9:21; 10:5, 16, 18; 12:6-7; cf. Rev. 14:14). "In the
Apocalypse of John," he says, "it is the dragon that Michael fights; in
Assumptio Mosis it is Satan. Originally it was Tiamät, and Michael's
prototype is Marduk."32
Carl H. Kraeling sees the origin of the title of Daniel 7:13 in the
blending of Marduk and the Iranian Gayomart.33 Emil G. H. Kraeling
finds the prototype of the Son of Man in the Marduk of a period later
than the Chaldean and identifies the "one like a son of man" as "the
king who is to be the ruler of the future Hebrew commonwealth." How-
ever, he admits that the concept may be Jewish in origin. In this case,
the idea of translation (cf. Moses and Elijah) would be involved, and
the king would be a David redivivus.34
Aage Bentzen35 accepts Sigmund Mowinckel's thesis that at the New
Year Festival in pre-exilic Israel Yahweh's victory over the beast of
Chaos was celebrated and Yahweh was re-enthroned as King. But Israel's
disappointments caused her to look beyond New Year's to the eschaton,
31. Ibid., p. 461.
32. "The 'Son of Man' in the Book of Daniel," Journal of Biblical Literature, X I X (1900),
22-28.
33. Anthropos and Son of Man ("Columbia University Oriental Series"; New York: Columbia
University Press, 1927), pp. 128-188.
34. "Some Babylonian and Iranian Mythology in the Seventh Chapter of Daniel," Oriental
Studies in Honour of Cursetji Erachji Pavry, ed. Jal Dastur Cursetji Pavry (London: Oxford
University Press, I933)> PP· 228-231.
35. This summary is based on Bentzen's King and Messiah (London: Lutterworth Press, 1955),
passim; and J. A. Emerton, " T h e Origin of the Son of Man Imagery," Journal of Theological
Studies, New Series, I X (October 1958), 230-231.

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015

426 Interpretation

the day of salvation. Daniel 7 is an eschatologizing of the enthronement

ceremony, especially as that ceremony is suggested by Psalm 2. The four
beasts of Daniel 7 correspond to the conspiring nations of the Psalm.
The Son of Man in Daniel corresponds to the Anointed One in the
Psalm. With this thesis is associated the idea that the Davidic king is
Primeval Man. Out of the myth of this Man has come the kingship
ideology of the Near East. Adam is enthroned as king according to
Genesis 1, and "the son of man" is so enthroned according to Psalm 8.
Thus, while identifying the Son of Man as king in the tradition behind
Daniel 7, Bentzen accepts the Figure of verse 13 as a symbol for the
Jewish people.
Still another version of the mythological approach is that of Sigmund
Mowinckel.36 Mowinckel defends the thesis that the "one like a man55 in
Daniel is a symbol for the People of God and is not in that context to be
identified with a personal Messiah of any kind. The seer borrowed the
Figure from tradition. Over against Bentzen he says: "The Messiah and
the Son of Man have no common origin, not even in the royal ideology
of the ancient east."37 Futhermore, he maintains that the conception of
the Primordial Man has an origin different from that of the first created
man (Adam), though the two conceptions are likely to have influenced
each other. Although the concept of the Son of Man originated in myths
about the Primordial Man, the Jews of the late period made no identi-
fication of the one with the other. On the other hand, they did come to
identify the Son of Man with the Messiah. By making this identification,
they "made him the representative of the living, personal God, who
created the world and who reveals Himself and is at work in the actual
course of history."38
J. A. Emerton39 has built his thesis in part upon the work of Bentzen,
but has moved on beyond Bentzen. He wisely recognizes that there may
be aspects of truth in various theories. He feels that the mythological
elements of Daniel 7 were mediated to Israel through Canaan (for
example, Baal's victory over Yam and El's identification as "father of
years"). Emerton accepts Mowinckel's theory of an Israelite enthrone-
ment festival and Bentzen's theory of the relation of the imagery of that
festival to Daniel 7. However, he maintains that the evidence is in-
36. As found in He That Cometh, trans. G. W. Anderson (New York and Nashville: Abingdon
Press, n. d . ) , pp. 346-450.
37. Ibid., p. 4 2 1 .
38. Ibid., p. 436.
39. Op. cit., pp. 225-242.

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015

 The Kingdoms of Men and the Kingdom of God 427

sufficient to support Bentzen's theory that the Primal Man is the basis of
the royal ideology, or that the Son of Man is to be identified with the
Davidic king. The language used of the Son of Man, he argues, suggests
Yahweh. The Son of Man coming with the clouds is associated with Baal
as rider on the clouds. In the Old Testament apart from Daniel 7, it is
Yahweh himself who is associated with the clouds. "The Son of Man in
Dan. vii seems . . . to play the part of Yahweh in the enthronement
festival."40 This chapter may be interpreted in terms of the enthrone-
ment festival, but the Son of Man coming with the clouds corresponds
to Yahweh rather than to the Davidic king. The assault on Zion by the
forces of the oppressor reflects the battle with the forces of Chaos. It is
probable that El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, installed Baal as
king. "The Israelite enthronement festival was probably an adaptation
of a pre-Davidic Jebusite rite,"41 which involved El Elyon corresponding
to El, and another deity corresponding to Baal. In certain Israelite circles
Yahweh was considered subordinate to El Elyon (cf. Deut. 32:8-9).
After the capture of Jerusalem by David, Yahweh was increasingly
identified with Elyon. As the old myth was reinterpreted in relation to
the supremacy of Yahweh (already identified as Elyon and Baal), the
Son of Man was given the status of an angel. Thus the hypothesis of
Emerton may be summarized.
Recently Julian Morgenstern42 has proposed the view that the "son of
man" of Daniel 7:13-14 has its origin in an Epiphanian reconditioning
of the ancient Tyrian new year festival, when the old god Ba'al Shamem
(to whom the Ancient of Days corresponds) is about to depart to the
realm of the dead for the winter months, and the young resurrected god
Melcarth (to whom the Son of Man corresponds) ascends his throne,
passes judgment, and determines the destinies for the year ahead. But
these are really not two deities, but one, in two reciprocal stages of being.
To some extent Solomon was influenced by this religion and in turn
influenced the religion of Israel. As the Tyrian king enacted the role of
the god at the new year festival, so did the kings of Judah enact the role
of Yahweh at the Israelite New Year Festival. Verses 13-14 of Daniel 7
are a part of a longer fragment once integral to the book, but these two
verses as they now stand are accidental interpolations. Morgenstern
repudiates the identification of the Son of Man with the Jewish people
40. Ibid., p. 232.
41. Ibid., p. 240.
42. Op. cit., pp. 65-77.

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015

428 Interpretation

and seeks to trace the influence of Daniel 7:13-14 on later Judaism and
Christianity.
Up to this point in the treatment of the problem of identifying the
"one like a son of man," the present writer has summarized the positions
held by others. He now seeks to make a constructive statement of his
own concerning the matter. Each position has competent advocates, and
it ill behooves any one to dogmatize about a problem where the evidence
is so inconclusive. In fact, there may be elements of truth in each posi-
tion. Though the strict Messianic interpretation seems improbable, it is
recognized as a possibility. At least its supporters keep us reminded of
the relation of the Figure in Daniel 7:13 to the total message of salvation
in the Bible. There is strong evidence in the text of Daniel itself to com-
mend the collective view. It also keeps us reminded that the "one like a
son of man" was and is essentially a message of assurance for the People
of God. The combined theory seems to come closest to doing justice to
all the evidence, especially that in the Book of Daniel itself. Each beast
represents a kingdom, and each kingdom is embodied in its king. Yet, it
is not clear that "Messiah" is exactly the right word to describe the
manlike one. The combination is that of a Leader and the Kingdom of
God which he represents. Undoubtedly the author of Daniel has made
great use of many elements in Near Eastern mythological traditions, but
he has handled them in such a distinctive way that thus far at least his
creative synthesis has made absolute certainty in analysis impossible. The
theory of an annual enthronement festival in Israel, which is the pre-
supposition of some of the mythological interpretations, is based primarily
on analogy to other Near Eastern religions rather than on the biblical
data themselves. Nevertheless, it is admitted that the symbolism associ-
ated with an enthronement ceremony does play a part in the communica-
tion of Old Testament faith. Bentzen tends to strain the evidence to
relate the Son of Man to the Davidic king by means of the enthronement
festival. Strange as it may seem, Mowinckel's enthronement hypothesis
has been used by others as a basis for identifying the Son of Man, but
Mowinckel insists that the king ideology has been wrongly applied in
this case. Emerton's thesis is brilliant but of necessity based largely on
analogy and conjecture. He and Bentzen are probably right in looking
chiefly to the Ugaritic materials for help. Such works as those by
Schmidt and the two Kraelings, all of whom saw some connection
between Marduk and the Son of Man, seem to have paved the way for
the use of these Ugaritic materials in attempting to identify the Figure

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015

 The Kingdoms of Men and the Kingdom of God 429

of Daniel 7:13, since in them Baal plays the counterpart to the Baby-
lonian Marduk. Morgenstern's hypothesis has its distinctive features but
is also rooted in a new year festival and enthronement ceremony. What
Jew either in the time of Antiochus or shortly thereafter would adopt sym-
bolism associated in a special way with that king for the purpose of
edifying his people?
Some of the unresolved issues within the mythological "school" may
be stated in the form of questions. Is the Son of Man concept to be
accounted for primarily in relation to the Primordial Man or in relation
to the kingship ideology? If in relation to the kingship ideology, is this
to be understood in relation to the Davidic king? Or is the Son of Man
concept derived from the myth of a celestial being? Is it possible that the
author of Daniel was not thinking of any kind of divine being at all?
Fortunately the minister does not have to wait until all such issues are
settled to receive and proclaim the heart of the seer's message.

CONCLUSION

The seer of Daniel was a member of the Covenant community and

wrote his book for his people as they stood in a particular historical crisis.
Through the centuries God has chosen to use this book and especially the
passage which we have been considering to assure his people in the hour
of peril. The historical problems are no barrier to its use; they remind us
that the Bible is a divine-human endeavor and that God used and still
uses real human beings as his servants.
The four beasts suggest to us who live in the modern world of the
twentieth century A.D. that just as there are subconscious depths of evil
in the human heart, so there are mysterious erraticisms in the cosmos and
the sinister demons of confusion in political structures. No human gov-
ernment, even the best (cf. Persia above), can rightly identify itself as
the Kingdom of God. In a sense all man-made structures come from the
Sea and stand under the judgment of the Ancient of Days, for he is Lord
not only of men but of all peoples, nations, and tongues. He has a pur-
pose, therefore, for each nation and for the whole historical process. His
present-day seers must make known what he has revealed to them con-
cerning the nation, the nations, the church, the Son of Man, and human
destiny. The seer of Daniel was dealing with political, social, economic,
and military issues as religious issues. As the beasts of Chaos rise from
the Sea today, the man of God is charged with the responsibility of
recognizing them and enabling his people to face them victoriously. For

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015

430 Interpretation

on the first day and the second day the powers of evil seem to hold sway,
but on the third day they are broken on the fact of God.43
Whatever the seer intended by "one like a son of man," he used the
Figure to inspire his people and give them hope. In the stories of Chap-
ters 1-6 he uses Daniel as the faithful Israelite to encourage the Covenant
community to faithfulness and to a responsible ministry even in adversity;
in Chapter 7 he presents the one like a man to strengthen the faith of his
suffering people in the sure triumph of the reign of God. In other words,
in every age God's people need a faith that both works at the job
responsibly and trusts God even when the cause seems to be lost.
Antiochus may well have been one of the sources from which the
figure of the Antichrist was later developed. Certainly, in God's provi-
dence, Jesus Christ is the One in whom the Figure of the Son of Man has
found its fulfillment and will find its consummation. "Son of Man,"
"Messiah," and "Servant of the Lord," all converge upon him. He has
broken the molds in which these concepts were fashioned and has given
them a distinctive integration. The fact that the ancient seer borrowed
from the "libraries" of surrounding cultures reminds us that the Gentiles
made at least some contributions to the telling of the story of salvation, as
these contributions were reconditioned by the faith of Israel. After all,
the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost among all peoples,
nations, and tongues.

43. Cf. E. Stanley Jones, Is the Kingdom of God Realism? (New York and Nashville: Abing-
don-Cokesbury Press, 1940), pp. 44-52.

Downloaded from int.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 15, 2015