August 10, 2021

Did Jesus Claim to Be God?

In 2014 Christian apologetics was unknown within the association of Churches to which this writer belongs. It was, therefore, quite eye-opening to read Nabeel Qureshi’s autobiography Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus.[1] Here, for the first time (for this writer), arguments for and against Christianity were being presented; a case was being made. One argument that made a big impact on Qureshi was Jesus’ statement to the Sanhedrin, as recorded in Mark 14:62, and its relation to Daniel 7:13. Regarding the New Testament (NT) use of this Old Testament (OT) passage Qureshi said, “What did Jesus mean by this? Whatever he meant, one thing was clear. The priests of the Sanhedrin thought he made a statement about his identity that they considered blasphemous, warranting execution. There was only one identity claim that deserved such a harsh penalty: claiming to be God.”[2] Qureshi’s prior presupposition would not allow him to interpret the “Son of Man” identification in Mark 14:62 as anything other than Jesus’ denial of deity. However, once he placed it in the context of the OT passage, Qureshi had to consider the possibility that Jesus did claim to be God. This work will seek to determine how Jesus understood Dan. 7:13 and if He meant to claim deity for himself, as Qureshi came to believe.

In order to address this question, one must have a system by which to analyze the data. This work will use Dr. G. K. Beale’s “ninefold approach” that he presents in his Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. This method

consists of the following: (1) identify the OT reference; (2) analyze the broad NT context where the OT reference occurs; (3) analyze the OT context; (4) survey the use of the OT reference in Judaism; (5) compare the OT text form (MT, LXX, DSS, targum, and early Jewish citations) with the text of the NT reference; (6) analyze the NT’s textual use of the OT (which text the author depends on and why, or, if making his own rendering, why); (7) analyze the interpretative (hermeneutical) use of the OT; (8) analyze the theological use of the OT; (9) analyze the rhetorical use of the OT.[3]

These nine topics for consideration will be categorized into three sections and addressed in turn. The first section will identify and analyze the pertinent Scriptures (points 1-3). Next the pre-Christian context as well as other textual consideration will be reviewed (points 4-6). Finally, this work will address the hermeneutical, theological, and rhetorical uses of the OT passage (points 7-9). From the outset, Beale’s warning must be echoed. He concedes that “there is no airtight method that can be followed in interpreting the Bible that will guarantee a true or exhaustive meaning.”[4]

This paper is not to be an exhaustive treatment of these passages of Scripture, but one detailed enough to make a case for the direct messianic prophecy from Daniel and the understood application by Jesus. Jesus, as recorded in the Gospel of Mark, should be understood to interpret Daniel’s prophecy as something that would be directly fulfilled and that fulfillment by none other than himself.

What Was Said and In What Context

            The reason this particular claim is important to Qureshi is because he, as “most modern scholars,” [5] believes that Mark is the earliest of the four Gospels. Therefore, the argument that a “high Christology” developed as a Jesus myth grew is drastically undermined. So, what does Mark record? In chapter 14 of Mark’s Gospel, Jesus, responding to the high priest’s question asking “are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,”[6] says “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’” (Mark 14:61b-62). Dr. R. T. France, a NT scholar and a member of the NIV translating committee, comments that this “pronouncement is made up almost entirely of words from two OT passages, Ps. 110:1 and Dn. 7:13.”[7] He elaborates further, explaining that “the two texts are woven together in that the Daniel introduction about ‘seeing the Son of Man’ precedes the imagery from Ps. 110, which is then filled out with the substance of the Daniel vision.”[8] In combining these two passages, Jesus makes a powerful self-declaration, and the implications were not missed by those who heard his words. Admittedly, one cannot study this passage without taking into consideration Psalm 110, but the focus of this work is on Mark’s use of Daniel’s prophecy. The verse under review reads, “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him” (Dan. 7:13). However, before looking any closer at the OT passage, the NT context should be reviewed and kept in mind as one progresses into the details of the OT analysis.

Dr. Rikk Watts, the Dean of Theology at Alphacrucis College in Australia, identifies the setting in Mark 14:62 as “what is probably a preliminary hearing to finalize charges against him [Jesus].”[9] It is here that “Jesus’ confrontation with official Israel comes to a head”[10] and here that Jesus “for the first time publicly declares his messianic Son of Man status.”[11] Dr. Warren Wiersbe’s contribution to this context reminds his readers that “throughout this time of false accusation, our Lord said nothing (Isa. 53:7; 1 Peter 2:23). But when the high priest put Him under oath . . . He testified clearly that he was indeed the Son of God.”[12] With this testimony, “the high priest tore his garments and said, what further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision? And they all condemned him as deserving death” (Mark 14:63-64). Explaining what took place here, France says,

according to mishnaic rules, when blasphemy has been proven using euphemisms in open court, the chief witness is asked to repeat the offending words verbatim in a closed session so that the people as a whole do not hear them, and then ‘the judges stand up on their feet and rend their garments, and they may not mend them again’ (m. Sanh. 7:5; for tearing clothes as an expression of grief see Gn. 37:34; Jos. 7:6; 2 Sa. 1:11 and in response to blasphemy 2 Ki. 18:37; 19:1). In this case no witnesses are needed, as the judges themselves have heard the offending words, and the dramatic gesture by the High Priest (who was already standing, v. 60) speaks for them all.”[13]

It would be a mistake to think that the only provocation of the high priest and the rest of the Sanhedrin was in Jesus’ claim to be deity. Watts points out an often-missed implication of Jesus’ use of Daniel. He says,

Mark’s Jesus not only claims the highest possible status for himself but also casts his opponents both as Yahweh’s enemies and, more particularly, as Dan. 7’s defiling and murderous fourth beast, with the further implication that the high priest is the blasphemous little horn who wages vicious war against the saints. The affront would hardly be lessened if, as in widespread later tradition, the fourth beast was already identified with Edom/Rome.[14]

Mark reveals the reaction of those at this trial. He says that at that time “some began to spit on him and to cover his face and to strike him, saying to him, ‘Prophesy!’ And the guards received him with blows” (Mark 14:65). The account of the events then changes over to a focus on Peter and then proceeds to the next morning when Jesus would be handed over to Pilate. With this NT context in mind, one can now consider the context of the OT quotation.

            In the opening lines of the seventh chapter, Daniel gives his reader the place and time in which the following passage was experienced. He writes that he had a dream and saw these visions “in the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon” (Dan. 7:1a). The location, therefore, is Babylon, the timeframe was around the mid-sixth century BC, and the setting is that of Jewish captivity. Chris White, a popular author and lecturer on eschatology, explains that “Daniel 7 is considered by some to be the most important chapter in the Book of Daniel.”[15] Dr. Tom Howe, professor of Bible and biblical languages at Southern Evangelical Seminary, echos White by quoting both W. S. Towner and Dr. John Walvoord on the significance of this chapter.[16] Howe then lays out the structural significance by explaining that this “is the last chapter to be written in Aramaic, but it is also the beginning of the visions of Daniel. Consequently, it forms a hinge between the first and second major parts of the book.”[17]

Narrowing the focus to this “hinge” chapter, Howe breaks it down into four parts: Introduction, Giving of the Vision, Interpretation of the Vision, and Conclusion.[18] Within the second part, Giving of the Vision, he further breaks down the chiastic structure of verses 2-14 (See Appendix Figure 1).[19] The verse under consideration, quoted above, appears at the end of this chiastic structure, and along with verse 14 it concludes this vision. Based on this structuring, the “one like a son of man” is the antithesis of the four beasts. This can be seen in two ways. The first is that “these four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth” (Dan.7:17) but the “one like a son of man . . . came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him” (Dan. 7:13b). So, the beasts are earthly, whereas the “son of man” is heavenly. The second is that the beasts’ dominion was taken away” (Dan. 7:12b) but to the “son of man” “was given dominion and glory and a kingdom . . . which shall not pass away, and . . . shall not be destroyed” (Dan. 7:14). Although this “son of man” figure is the antithesis of all four beasts, he is directly connected to the fourth, specifically the “little horn.” Later in the chapter, Daniel is receiving an explanation of this vision and is told, “As I looked, this horn made war with the saints and prevailed over them, until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints possessed the kingdom” (Dan. 7:21-22). Watts also links Daniel 7:13 with verses 21-22 explaining that “‘one like a human being’ (Aram. bar ʾĕnāš) is vindicated over against the beastlike kings/kingdoms, especially the terrifying fourth beast with its arrogant little horn who uniquely makes war on the ‘holy ones ‘of’ the Most High’ (7:21–22), and is given, along with the ‘holy ones,’ an everlasting kingdom (7:14, 18).”[20] This understanding ties the “Son of Man” figure to the eschatological “little horn” and the end of the age. One might argue that this messianic/eschatological view is being read back into Daniel due to Jesus’ use of it, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. It is therefore needful to see how this Scripture was understood prior to Jesus and what textual tradition may have been used.

Non-Christian and Textual Considerations

Dr. Norman Perrin, NT scholar and past president of both the Chicago Society of Biblical Research and the Society of Biblical Literature, devoted a chapter in his work on Christology to the question of the “Son of Man” in the context of ancient Judaism. In his research, he reviewed multiple works which he explained “naturally represent a variety of differing viewpoints, yet they all agree on one point: there existed in ancient Judaism a defined concept of the apocalyptic Son of Man, the concept of a heavenly redeemer figure whose coming to earth as judge would be a feature of the drama of the End time.”[21] Like any good theologian, he then went on to explain how all of those authors were wrong, and “that there is no ‘Son of Man concept’ but rather a variety of uses of Son of Man imagery.”[22] Addressing Perrin’s claims, as well as others, Dr. John Collins, the Holmes professor of Old Testament criticism and interpretation at Yale Divinity School, defends the “Son of Man” concept and claims that it is evident in first century Judaism. He concludes that “anyone in the late first century who spoke of one in human form riding on the clouds, or appearing with an Ancient of Days, or in any terms reminiscent of Daniel 7, would evoke a figure with distinct traits which go beyond what was explicit in the text of Daniel’s vision.”[23] His conclusion is based on similarities between Daniel and two other first to second century (or earlier) Jewish writings. He explains that “in the Jewish context, the Son of Man figure was constructed by combining features from Daniel, 4 Ezra and the Similitudes,”[24] and that these “common features . . . are significant for the understanding of Daniel 7 in the first century.”[25] The common features are demonstrated as follows:

First, both assume that the ‘one like a son of man’ in Daniel refers to an individual, and is not a collective symbol. . . .

            Second, this figure is identified in both works as the messiah, and the understanding of ‘messiah’ is thereby qualified. . . .

            Third, he is pre-existent: ‘the one whom the Most High has kept for many ages’, and therefore a transcendent figure of heavenly origin. . . .

            Fourth, this figure takes a more active role in the destruction of the wicked than was explicit in Daniel.[26]

Based on these similarities of non-Christian sources, one can understand that the eschatological hermeneutic of Daniel 7 preexisted Jesus and His claim recorded in Mark 14. If one needs a more explicit statement of how Jewish scholars interpret Daniel 7:13, the footnote to this verse in the Tanach: The Stone Edition reads “This is the King Messiah (Rashi).”[27]

            Regarding the pre-Christian context of Daniel 7, although some disagreements continue on how one might define the “Son of Man” concept, there seems to be a consensus among OT readers as to a divine nature of this figure. The same, however, cannot be said regarding the textual history of this book. Father Alexander Di Lella, an OT scholar with an expertise on Daniel, points out that “the textual history of these Greek forms [of the Book of Daniel] remains complex. Problems abound, with little consensus among scholars.”[28] He explains, “first of all, there are two distinct textual traditions: LXX or Old Greek Daniel (=OG-Dan) and so-called Theodotion Daniel (=Th-Dan). What exact relationship there may be between OG-Dan and Th-Dan continues to be debated by scholars.”[29] Di Lella points out there are even disagreements in translation when using the same source. He describes how Dr. F.F. Bruce and Dr. Sharon Pace Jeansonne come to differing understanding of Daniel 7:13 while both citing OG-Dan.[30] With this much debate, one may ask, is it possible to have an accurate understanding when one is unsure what the author wrote? Di Lella reminds his readers that “OG-Dan and Th-Dan—insofar as every translation is an interpretation—help us understand how the book, including the Additions, was interpreted in antiquity by both Jews and Christians, and accordingly these Greek versions have great historical and cultural importance.”[31] He concludes by impressing upon his reader to “take into account all the witnesses available. . . .”[32]

            The student who is new to textual criticism may ask why one should take into account all of the different witnesses, or even ask why the Greek text of Daniel should be considered at all when all modern English Bibles use the Masoretic Text (MT)? Di Lella shows why. He lists seven passages where “the Book of Revelation corresponds with OG-Dan”[33] but then says that Mark 14:62 quotes “from Th-Dan 7:13: coming ‘with’ (μετά, a better translation of the Aramaic עם) the clouds of heaven.”[34] The textual variant in OG-Dan is that ἐπὶ (on, or upon) is used rather than μετὰ (with). This is how Di Lella can claim the writer of Mark 14:62 used Th-Dan rather than OG-Dan. It is well known that the NT writers often quoted from the LXX, but as one can see, that was not always the case. Does this fact make the NT any less authoritative or inerrant? No, as Dr. Roger Nicole teaches, “the frequent use of the Septuagint . . . did not impose upon the New Testament authors the obligation to quote always in accordance with this version. Whenever they wanted to emphasize an idea which was insufficiently or inadequately rendered in the Septuagint, they may have retranslated in whole or in part the passage in question.”[35] This is because

when the New Testament authors appealed to Scripture as the Word of God, it is not claimed that they viewed anything but the original communication as vested in full with divine inerrancy. Yet their willingness to make use of the Septuagint, in spite of its occasional defects, teaches the important lesson that the basic message which God purposed to deliver can be conveyed even through a translation, and that appeal can be made to a version insofar as it agrees with the original.[36]

This understanding is important for students today who rely on an English translation of the Scriptures. One can trust in a translation insofar as it communicates that which was communicated by the autograph.

            To this point, only the OT text has been reviewed. Before undertaking a study of the theological implications, this work must consider any NT variants. According to the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 28 (NA28) Mark 14:62 has only two variants. The first is the addition of συ ειπας οτι (you said) prior to Jesus’ “I am” statement.[37] The second is the omission of καὶ ἐρχόμενον (and coming) describing what Jesus will be doing “with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62b).[38] Neither of these variants hinders the reader from understanding the passage that Jesus is quoting, nor do they affect the message that Jesus is communicating. One might argue that the second variant may impact one’s understanding. Even so, this variant is found in only one Greek manuscript, according to NA28.[39] From this brief review of the NT texts, the OT texts, and the pre-Christian understanding, one can begin to understand why the high priest and the rest of the Sanhedrin reacted as they did when Jesus likened Himself to this figure from Daniel 7:13-14.

Jesus’ Claim and the Theological Implications

            This final section will turn from the details regarding the Scriptures under review to a consideration of how Jesus understood the OT passage that He quoted, the theological implications of this understanding, and how He used this quotation in order to communicate His message to the world. Dr. Michael Rydelnik, a professor of Jewish Studies at the Moody Bible Institute, documents “four ways the New Testament uses the Old,”[40] establishing four types of prophetic fulfillment. These types are “direct fulfillment,”[41] “typical fulfillment,”[42] “applicational fulfillment,”[43] and “summary fulfillment.”[44] In order to determine the category of Jesus’ use of Daniel, one must return to Jesus’ words.

            The high priest had just asked “‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ And Jesus said, ‘I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’” (Mark 14:61b-62). The context of this dialog is that Jesus is on trial. The high priest pointedly asks, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed” (Mark 14:61b)? France addresses this unusual pairing of titles saying,

It has sometimes been suggested that no Jewish High Priest in the early first century would have thought of coupling the two titles ὁ Χριστός and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (εὐλογητοῦ). . . . In any case, what brings the two titles together in Mark’s narrative context is not any preexisting connection between them but the fact that Jesus is understood to have been presenting himself in both these capacities, not necessarily together, but as two aspects of his alleged claims to a special authority. In bringing the two ideas together in a single loaded question the High Priest is neatly summarizing what Jesus is understood to have been implying about himself.[45]

If the high priest is asking Jesus to address what others have understood about His claims to deity, then Jesus’ response will either confirm or deny these allegations. In this case, is He claiming to be the Messiah and the Son of God? Jesus answers “I am.” As those familiar with Jewish history will know, that statement alone would have been enough for charges of blasphemy. But Jesus continues by claiming both the “Son of Man” title from Daniel and the “Lord” title and position at the “right hand” of the LORD from Psalm 110:1. The question concerning Jesus’ hermeneutic is did He intend to affirm the charge of claiming to be deity, or did He intend to deny it? Dr. Abner Chou adds additional context to the “Son of Man” discussion and Jesus’ use of it showing the connection with the first man Adam and Jesus’ role as the “second Adam.” He says “in light of the background of creation, the phrase ‘one like a son of man’ in Daniel 7:9-13 probably alludes to Adam. The Old Testament anticipates a son of man who is the new Adam. Thus, when Jesus uses ‘Son of Man,’ this is not merely a title of humanity and humility. It also is one of great power for it speaks of his final eschatological conquest and victory.”[46] To Jesus and any other first century Jewish believer, the victorious second Adam must be just as literal as the first Adam, without whom humanity would not exist. When one takes into consideration Jesus’ confession “I am,” His identification with the figure in Daniel, and Chou’s application to the second Adam, this points to the conclusion that Jesus believed Daniel’s “Son of Man” prophecy should be understood literally and with a direct fulfillment.  This is because the “Son of Man” is presented by Jesus as a real figure (“I am”) who would physically (“you will see”) come (“coming”) into this world (“with the clouds of heaven”). Dr. Joshua Leim, who specializes in theological interpretation (the NT use of the OT) and hermeneutics, states that “it is clear that for Mark, Daniel’s Son of Man is a singular figure, and that figure is Jesus.”[47]

            As Qureshi was quoted earlier, Jesus’ answer was understood by the Sanhedrin to be “blasphemous, warranting execution.”[48] He rightly determined that they understood Jesus to be “claiming to be God. Claiming to be the Messiah was not enough.”[49] By evidence of the reaction of the high priest, tearing his garments, and their condemnation of Jesus to death, one can be assured that these men felt they had heard blasphemy. What had they heard? A man, whom they could see and touch, claimed equality with God. To a first century Jewish priest, a claim to be Messiah would not be considered blasphemy as there are many messianic figures in the OT including Cyrus, a Gentile (Isa. 45:1). However, the claim to be Daniel’s “Son of Man” and the one “seated at the right hand of Power” (Mark 14:62) went beyond the claim to be a messiah (an anointed one), and those who heard His words understood exactly what was being claimed. Drs. Josh and Sean McDowell, in their seminal work Evidence That Demands a Verdict, expand upon the “Trilemma” argument that was popularized by C. S. Lewis. It has been shown that Jesus did claim to be God, He was understood by His hearers to be claiming to be God, and He used OT prophecy to reinforce this claim. The McDowells lay out two options, either His claim was true or His claim was false. If false, then He either “KNEW his claims were FALSE” making him a liar or “He did NOT KNOW His claims were FALSE” making Him a lunatic.[50] If, however, His claims are true, then “HE is the LORD.”[51] The OT continuously points to a coming savior, a prophesied Messiah.[52] The theological implications of Jesus’ claim are that if His claim is true, then He is the Messiah, the Savior, and God Incarnate. The whole of the NT defends and clarifies the fact that Jesus is the Christ and the only one by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12b).

            But were they wrong? At this point, how could one think that Jesus was misunderstood? Dr. Helge Kvanvig, professor in the OT at the University of Oslo, gives some insight on how one might come to an alternate understanding. Concerning what he calls ‘apocalypses,’ of which he says Daniel 7 “is one of the most influential and impressive apocalypses inside the canon,”[53] Kvanvig does not attach a literal fulfillment to any one specific place in history. Explaining this, he says, “the apocalypses were written down in concrete historical situations. They alluded to and reflected these situations. But they were not locked up in these historical connections. They could be transferred to new situations and used to interpret these as well.”[54] The question that then must be answered is what type of speech was Jesus using? Jesus often used metaphors, allegory, parables, but He also spoke authoritatively. What was He using at this time? France says it well when he exclaims, “the time for concealment is over, and the truth must be declared firmly and openly to those who presume to set themselves as judges over him.”[55] Jesus’ statement of His identity in Mark 14:62, although quoting apocalyptic prophecy, was purely declarative.

Jesus Did Claim to Be God!

            This work, using Beale’s ninefold methodology, has reviewed the claim of Jesus recorded in Mark 14:62, identified the quoted passaged of Daniel 7:13, and reviewed the context of each passage. Next, the pre-Christian and Jewish understanding of the OT passage was evaluated, and both OT and NT textual variants were considered to determine what the best reading of the text should be based on all available resources. Only then did the focus turn to an evaluation of the text in order to understand the hermeneutical, theological and rhetorical use of this OT passage by Jesus in Mark’s Gospel. Josh and Sean McDowell state that “it is undeniable that Jesus himself, and the New Testament writers, considered the writings of the Old Testament as both inspired by God and authoritative for their respective communities.”[56] In this work, it has been shown that, at least for this passage in Daniel, Jesus understood this OT prophecy as a literal event that would take place as it is recorded, and that this “Son of Man” is and will be directly fulfilled in Himself.

Appendix

Chart from Dr. Tom Howe’s Daniel: In the Preterists’ Den.[57]

This Greek text is quoted from Septuaginta: A Reader’s Edition, Vol. 2[58]

---

[1] Nabeel Qureshi, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016)

[2] Ibid., 182.

[3] G. K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 133.

[4] Ibid., 41.

[5] Norman L. Geisler, A Popular Survey of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007), 60.

[6] All Bible references are taken from the ESV (2016) unless otherwise noted.

[7] R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2002), 611.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Rikk E. Watts, “Mark,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, eds. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 233.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Watts, 233.

[12] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: The Complete New Testament in One Volume, 2nd ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2007), 131.

[13] France, 614.

[14] Watts, 234.

[15] Chris White, Daniel (CWM Publishing, 2013), 109.

[16] Thomas A. Howe, Daniel: In the Preterists’ Den (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008), 192.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Howe, 197. This was moved for the sake of space. Dr. Howe’s footnote for this figure in his work states. “This structural arrangement is adapted from the one developed by Lucas, Daniel, 164.”

[20] Watts, 134.

[21] Norman Perrin, A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1974), 24.

[22] Ibid., 26.

[23] John J. Collins, “The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism,” New Testament Studies 38, no. 3 (July 1992): 466.

[24] Ibid., 449. By Similitudes Dr. Collins is referencing The Similitudes of Enoch, specifically 1 Enoch.

[25] Collins, 464.

[26] Ibid., 464-465.

[27] Nosson Scherman, ed., Tanach: The Stone Edition, 2nd ed. (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 2010), 1796. 

[28] Alexander A. Di Lella, “The Textual History of Septuagint-Daniel and Theodotion-Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel, vol. 2, Composition and Reception, edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint (Leiden: BRILL, 2001), 586, ProQuest Ebook Central. Accessed August 7, 2021.

[29] Di Lella, 586. See Figure 2 in the Appendix to see the difference between OG-Dan. 7:13 and Th-Dan. 7:13 from Septuaginta: A Reader’s Edidtion, Vol. 2.

[30] Ibid., 591.

[31] Ibid., 605

[32] Ibid. Emphasis in original. 

[33] Ibid., 592.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Roger Nicole, “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” in The right doctrine from the wrong texts?: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994), 20.

[36] Ibid., 19.

[37] Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), 167.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Aland, 167.

[40] Michael Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2010), 97.

[41] Ibid., 97-99.

[42] Ibid., 99-104.

[43] Ibid., 104-108.

[44] Ibid., 108-111.

[45] France, 609-610.

[46] Abner Chou, The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers: Learning to Interpret Scripture From the Prophets and Apostles (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2018), 162.

[47] Joshua E. Leim, “In the Glory of His Father: Intertextuality and the Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of Mark,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 7, no. 2 (Fall 2013): 217.

[48] Qureshi, 182.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth For a Skeptical World, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2017), 197. See the chart at the bottom of the page. Words in all capital letters are in the original.  

[51] Ibid. See the chart at the bottom of the page. Words in all capital letters are in the original.   

[52] For a review on this subject that is outside the scope of this work see Chapter 5 “Christ in Old Testament Prophecy” in John Walvoord’s Jesus Christ Our Lord. 

[53] Helge S. Kvanvig, “The Relevance of the Biblical Visions of the End Time: Hermeneutical Guidelines to the Apocalyptical Literature,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 11, no. 1 (June 1989): 44.

[54] Kvanvig, 46.

[55] France, 610-611.

[56] McDowell, 121.

[57] Howe, 197.

[58] Gregory R. Lanier and William A. Ross, eds., Septuaginta: A Reader’s Edition, Vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2018. 1502-1504. Greek text: Septuaginta, edited by Alfred Rahlfs in 1935. Revised edition, edited by Robert Hanhart in 2006. Published by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, Germany.