Many scholars deny the existence of the Trinity in the Old Testament, since they contend that it strikes at the heart of monotheism. Yet how could the Old Testament not speak of one of the most important doctrines of the Christian faith? Admittedly, the doctrine of the Trinity remains undeveloped in the Old Testament, but several passages are intentionally enigmatic and await a final, trinitarian interpretation that is in keeping with the original intention of the Old Testament author.1 John 12:41 expresses one of the most tantalizing statements in this regard: ‘Isaiah said this because he [Isaiah] saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.’ This statement, occurring in the midst of Jesus’ interaction with an unbelieving crowd, claims that the prophet Isaiah somehow perceived the person of Christ in his heavenly vision in Isaiah 6. According to John’s Gospel the prophet Isaiah had some inkling of Christ’s pre-existence or ‘glory’.2
The book of Revelation contains one of the most elaborate pictures of the Trinity in the New Testament. What is hinted at in other portions of the New Testament becomes explicit in John’s Apocalypse. The Trinity in Revelation is so complex and developed that writing on the subject can easily become unwieldy. Due to the constraints of this chapter I will explore one aspect of the triune God in Revelation. I will argue that the book of Daniel provides a rough blueprint or model for John’s conception of the Trinity.
In seed form Daniel sketches how the persons of the triune God relate to one another, particularly how God reveals mysteries, provides illumination to end-time revelations by the Spirit and executes them through the Son of Man. Some portions of Daniel are notoriously complex, even cryptic, but all the necessary ingredients remain for a robust understanding of the Trinity. The apostle John is indebted to Daniel’s conception of God and further develops how the triune God communicates within the Godhead and how the triune God communicates to the church.
Though it is tempting to skim past Revelation 1:1 and pursue the more dramatic portions of the book, we must not succumb to this temptation. The first verse of Revelation divulges with subtlety how God discloses the revelation to Christ. John opens his book with a ‘chain’ of revelation: ‘The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him [hēn edōken autō ho theos] to show his servants what must soon take place [ha dei genesthai en tachei]. He made it known [esēmanen] by sending his angel to his servant John’ (1:1).3 Though John does not explain in detail how God4 reveals the content of the vision to Christ, he hints at what the content of the vision will entail. As a few commentators have argued, the expression ‘what must soon take place’ (ha dei genesthai en tachei) and the key verb ‘made it known’ or, better, ‘signified’ (esēmanen) probably recall the book of Daniel, particularly chapter 2.5 But commentators have yet to capitalize on the phrase ‘God gave him’ (edōken autō ho theos) and apply it thoroughly to the book’s prologue.6 What is the significance of God’s ‘giving’ the visions to Christ, especially in the light of the surrounding allusions to the book of Daniel? For us to comprehend this often overlooked clause, we will heed John’s clues and consult the book of Daniel to determine the significance of God’s ‘giving’ the revelation to Christ.
Much of the book of Daniel portrays God as the unrivalled source of wisdom. Each chapter relentlessly drives home this point, culminating in the symbolic portrayal of God as the ‘Ancient of Days’ with ‘white’ hair, probably a reference to his unsurpassed wisdom in 7:9 (cf. Lev. 19:32; Prov. 16:31; 20:29). Central to the book of Daniel is God’s ability to disclose his ‘wisdom’ or ‘mysteries’ to select individuals (Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel). At its most basic level the term ‘mystery’ (mystērion) concerns God’s revealing his wisdom.7 This accounts for the high appropriation of revealing or disclosing vocabulary throughout the book of Daniel.8
In Daniel 2 God ‘reveals’ a ‘mystery’ to Daniel that concerns the destruction of hostile, pagan nations and the establishment of God’s end-time kingdom (2:28, 44–45). Although revelatory language is lacking in chapter 4, it is still valid to call Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in this chapter a revelation (cf. 4:9). The same characterization can be applied to Daniel’s visions in chapters 7–12. Furthermore, in 7:1 Daniel saw a ‘dream, and visions’ that are probably analogous to Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams in chapters 2 and 4. Just as God delivers his wisdom to Daniel to know and interpret the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar in chapters 2–4, God directly discloses his wisdom to Daniel in chapters 7–12 and furnishes Daniel with wisdom to understand them.
God initially reveals wisdom, and also discloses the interpretative portion of the revelation. In chapter 2 Nebuchadnezzar dreams and desires to know the interpretation (2:1–13). God reveals both the dream and the interpretation – the mystery – to Daniel in a ‘night’ ‘vision’ (2:19), outlined in 2:31–45. This disclosure of God’s wisdom is marked by the term ‘interpretation’ (pešer), a term used thirty-four times in Daniel. In Daniel 2 and 4 Nebuchadnezzar receives the mystery and Daniel interprets the visions, whereas in Daniel 7 – 12 the prophet Daniel receives the initial dream report and the angel interprets the visions. A distinctive, apocalyptic mark of Daniel is the nature of twofold revelation in contrast to other places in the Old Testament where the prophets directly receive God’s revelation.
The upshot of this brief survey is that God, according to the book of Daniel, is the source of divine and hidden wisdom and chooses to disclose this wisdom to certain individuals. God also delivers the interpretative portion of the visions to other recipients.
The model outlined above fits remarkably well here in Revelation 1:1, where God ‘gave’ the vision to Christ concerning ‘what must soon take place’. Though the word ‘mystery’ is not found in the prologue (cf. 1:20; 10:7; 17:5, 7), it is probably implied, since the book fits within the genre of ‘apocalypses’. Within apocalyptic literature the word ‘mystery’ (a previously hidden revelation that is subsequently revealed) is the means by which God discloses his message. God, according to Revelation 1:1, unveils his end-time mysteries to Christ, who then communicates them to the angel.
At the end of the Apocalypse, in the epilogue (22:6–21), God is once again described in an identical manner. The beginning of the epilogue reinforces and refines the themes introduced in 1:1. Here in the epilogue God is characterized as the ultimate source of revelation, a characterization that describes his interaction with other prophets. Moreover, John tightens this connection by alluding once more to Daniel 2:28, 45.9
| Daniel 2:28, 45 (LXX [Theo])10 | Revelation 22:6 |
| ‘he has made known to King Nabouchodonosor what must happen at the end of days [ha dei genesthai ep’ eschatōn tōn hēmerōn]’ (2:28). ‘The great God has made known to the king what must happen after this [ha dei genesthai meta tauta], and the dream is true [alēthinon], and its interpretation trustworthy [pistē]’ (2:45). |
‘The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true [pistoi kai alēthinoi]. The Lord, the God who inspires the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place [ha dei genesthai en tachei].”’ |
Why does John weave these allusions to Daniel into the epilogue? Not only do they signal the initial fulfilment of the arrival of the eternal kingdom, as described in Daniel 2, but they also affirm God’s character as the sole source of unveiled mysteries. In contrast to the ‘beasts’ in Revelation, who attempt to imitate God’s truth through deception and ‘blasphemies’ (e.g. 13:5–18), God’s revelation is without corruption and genuinely true. By framing the Apocalypse with God’s ability to reveal mysteries in the prologue and epilogue John reinforces the authenticity of the revelation, so that the churches will be encouraged to persevere in the midst of deception.
Not only is God presented as the source of revelation in 1:1, but Christ too occupies a distinct yet crucial role. John opens the book with a somewhat ambiguous phrase Apokalypsis Iēsou Christou (1:1a). Commentators differ as to what type of genitive construction this. On the one hand, we could render this as ‘a revelation about Jesus Christ’ (objective genitive). On the other, it could be ‘a revelation from Christ’ (subjective genitive). For a number of reasons, the latter is probably most likely.11 If the visions contained in John’s Apocalypse are indeed ‘from Christ’, it forces the reader to pause and contemplate how the second member of the Trinity plays a unique role in disclosing revelation.
Revelation 1:1 states, ‘He made it known [esēmanen] by sending his angel to his servant John.’ The subject of the verb sēmainō (to make known) is not obvious and could be either God or Christ, but many commentators argue that Christ is indeed the subject.12 Perhaps not coincidentally, according to the Old Greek translation of Daniel (with the exception of 2:15) God is the only one who ‘signifies’ or ‘symbolizes’ the visions ( 2:23, 30, 45 og).13 But here in Revelation 1:1 Christ communicates the symbolic visions to the angel(s).
One of the most riveting descriptions in the prologue occurs in 1:14, where John describes the Son of Man as embodying elements of the Ancient of Days, as found in Daniel 7:9: ‘The hair on his [the Son of Man’s] head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire.’ By graphically describing the Son of Man as possessing ‘white hair’ John underscores Christ’s inimitable wisdom, the same wisdom that God alone possesses.
A key distinctive of apocalyptic literature is mediation of revelation by angels. Typically, God issues a revelation, and a prominent angel communicates that revelation to an individual.14 In Revelation 1:1 the ‘chain’ of communication is both traditional and unique. Not surprisingly, God is the ultimate source of the revelation, but Christ occupies a unique role in the sequence: ‘God gave him [Christ] to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.’ The sequence of the chain is as follows:
God → Christ → angel → John → seven churches
In the following verse we read, ‘[John] who testifies to everything he saw – that is, the word of God [ton logon tou theou] and the testimony of Jesus Christ [tēn martyrian Iēsou Christou]’ (1:2). Christ plays a unique role in the communication of the visions (a ‘revelation from Christ’, 1:1a). Christ is also the ultimate ‘witness’ of God’s revelation in that he faithfully communicates it to the angels and ensures its truthfulness. The epilogue also touches on Christ’s role as the supreme witness to God’s revelation: ‘He who testifies [ho martyrōn] to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon”’ (22:20).
These observations suggest that the book of Daniel presents God as all wise and the supreme revealer of mysteries. By alluding to key portions of the book of Daniel in the prologue and epilogue John portrays the first member of the Trinity as functioning in an identical fashion: the great and sovereign Lord has revealed his wisdom once more to a select individual. But John also develops Daniel’s configuration of the process of revelation by claiming that the revelation is ‘from Christ’ and giving Christ a prominent position in his chain of communication. Christ does more than simply mediate the revelation; he is the supreme ‘witness’ and plays some role in the source of God’s revelation (1:2).15
The Spirit, the third member of the Trinity, is also introduced in the prologue and plays a remarkable role in the book of Revelation. John first mentions the Spirit in the trinitarian formula of 1:4–5: ‘Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits [tōn hepta pneumatōn]16 before his throne, and from Jesus Christ’ (cf. 3:1; 4:5; 5:6). The title ‘the seven spirits’ is unique, and commentators have good reason to ascribe Zechariah 4 as the background to this title (‘seven lamps’, 4:2; ‘Spirit’, 4:6; ‘seven eyes of the Lord that range throughout the earth’, 4:10; see Rev. 5:6).
The connection to Zechariah 4 in Revelation 1:4–5 is strong and is probably the dominant Old Testament passage; however, the book of Daniel could be considered as a secondary background to this unusual description in Revelation. The number ‘seven’ carries symbolic overtones within Daniel, particularly as it relates to a complete period of time. For example, ‘seven times’ will ‘pass’ until Nebuchadnezzar is restored (4:16, 23, 25, 32). Perhaps the most noteworthy occurrence of ‘seven’ is found in Daniel 9, where ‘seventy “sevens” [šābu‘îm šib‘îm] are decreed’ (9:24). The remainder of the vision makes heavy use of this symbolic number: ‘seven “sevens”, and sixty-two “sevens”’ (9:25), ‘sixty-two “sevens”’ (9:26) and ‘one “seven” . . . “seven”’ (9:27). Conceptually, the Spirit’s role in Revelation resonates within the book of Daniel, particularly the way in which the Spirit illuminates the meaning of God’s end-time revelation.
Not only does the number ‘seven’ take on apocalyptic overtones in Daniel, but the Spirit also plays a key role in the book of Daniel, particularly as the one who illuminates God’s end-time revelation. What makes Daniel unique in contrast to other prophetic literature (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.) is the relationship between the presence of God’s Spirit and the illumination of ‘mysteries’ or God’s hidden wisdom. The book of Daniel coins the term ‘mystery’ and relentlessly insists that only the Spirit can impart understanding of the term. A careful reading of Daniel’s narrative sheds light on the Spirit’s work in furnishing understanding to the recipient of apocalyptic revelation.
A few commentators have recognized the significance of wisdom disputations or ‘court narratives’ in the book of Daniel. These court narratives in the book of Daniel, like Joseph and Esther, tell the story of a wise courtier whose wisdom far exceeds all others. This success story stands in direct opposition to the wisdom of their opponents.
Within these court narratives the person of Daniel, who possesses the Spirit, stands in contrast to the foolish Babylonians. In chapter 1 ‘wisdom’ is used to characterize the young men exiled from Jerusalem, ‘youths . . . showing intelligence in every branch of wisdom, endowed with understanding and discerning knowledge, and who had ability for serving in the king’s court’ (Dan. 1:4 nasb). It also appears once again in 1:17, describing Daniel and company, but here God is the source of such wisdom: ‘God gave them knowledge and intelligence in every branch of literature and wisdom’ (nasb). This verse is paradigmatic for the book of Daniel and prepares the reader for Daniel’s role in chapter 2.17 Daniel is much wiser than the Babylonians: ‘he [Nebuchadnezzar] found them [Daniel and friends] ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom’ (1:20).
In Daniel 2, verses 2–13 constitute the longest discourse on the futility of Babylonian wisdom. It is no coincidence that Daniel and his friends have received surpassing ‘knowledge’ and ‘wisdom’ in 1:17–20, a passage that immediately precedes the embarrassing situation of the so-called Babylonian wise men (Dan. 4:6; 5:8). Nebuchadnezzar, using his entire arsenal, beckons all of his wise men in 2:2: ‘the king summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and astrologers to tell him what he had dreamed’. The range of wise men is extensive: magicians,18 enchanters, sorcerers and astrologers, certainly representing the epitome of Babylonian wisdom.
The Babylonian wise men are left helpless. Unless they have dream data they will not be able to issue an interpretation (they plead twice for the king to relate the dream [2:4, 7]). A somewhat paradigmatic passage is 2:2–11, when the diviners cry out, ‘the king summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and astrologers to tell him what he had dreamed . . . No one can reveal it to the king except the gods, and they do not live among humans.’ The wise Babylonians declare that they are not privy to direct revelation. They are incapable and ill equipped to relate and explain the dream.
Babylonian deities simply do not divulge such information to the wise men. But Daniel’s God is not like the gods; he is characterized by revealing. In direct contrast to 2:10–11 Daniel states:
As for the mystery about which the king has inquired, neither wise men, conjurers, magicians, nor diviners are able to declare it to the king. However, there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will take place in the latter days. (2:27–28 nasb; see v. 47)
Therefore these two passages (2:10–11, 27–28) are significant for one’s overall interpretation of the book, for they establish the polemic between Daniel and Babylon’s wise men. The nature of the polemic between these two parties is not primarily about Daniel’s method over against Babylonian divination, but Daniel’s divinely revealed wisdom juxtaposed with the idolatrous wisdom of the Babylonians. At this juncture, when Daniel clashes with the Babylonians, the Spirit emerges as a key person in Daniel’s narrative.
It is impossible for diviners to receive direct revelation to this extent, for omens interpret what is already revealed. But Daniel’s God does produce direct revelation: ‘there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries’ (2:28). Therefore Daniel is truly wise because his wisdom comes directly from the true God. It can thus be stated that Daniel is not wise on his own accord but because of his God and the Spirit’s work.
Nebuchadnezzar once more summons his wise men in chapter 4 to interpret the dream (4:6–7). But this passage differs from chapter 2 in that Nebuchadnezzar does explicitly relate his dream. Now the Babylonians have their chance – the dream books are open and the interpreters are ready. But, to the king’s great displeasure, the wise men have failed again, even after he gave them his dream. At this point the narrative points out the utter weakness of the Babylonian diviners. Finally, Nebuchadnezzar calls on Daniel in 4:8 [4:5 mt]: ‘Finally, Daniel came into my presence and I told him the dream. (He is called Belteshazzar, after the name of my god, and the spirit of the holy gods [rûaḥ-’ĕlāhîn qaddîšîn] is in him.).’ The lxx (Theo) translation tweaks this phrase a bit, by using the adjective ‘holy’ to modify ‘spirit’: ‘who has a holy, divine spirit in himself’ (hos pneuma theou hagion en heautō echei). The result is a clear reference to the person of the Spirit, and his role in Daniel’s grasp of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.
Daniel and the diviners will collide once again in chapter 5, but this time under Belshazzar. The king celebrates a ‘great feast’ with sacred vessels, but ‘Suddenly the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall’ (5:5). Belshazzar beckons the ‘enchanters, astrologers and diviners’ (5:7), but this enigmatic writing proves too much for them: ‘Then all the king’s wise men came in, but they could not read the writing or tell the king what it meant’ (5:8). Their wisdom fails once more, but Daniel again succeeds where the Babylonians faltered (5:25–28). Daniel can decipher the enigmatic writing because he has the ‘spirit of the holy gods’ (5:11). The Aramaic reads ‘spirit of the holy gods’ (rûaḥ-’ĕlāhîn qaddîšîn), and the lxx (Theo) renders this phrase as the ‘spirit of God’ (pneuma theou).
In the following verse the queen reminds Belshazzar why his father promoted Daniel: ‘He [Nebuchadnezzar] did this because Daniel, whom the king called Belteshazzar, was found to have a keen mind [rûaḥ yattîrāh]’ (5:12). Once again one version of the lxx removes the ambiguity here (the word rûaḥ here probably refers to Daniel’s person or mind [cf. niv, esv, njps]). The og translation reads ‘holy spirit’ (pneuma hagion).19
In the final vision of the book of Daniel this theme of understanding ‘mysteries’ continues, but is applied to many within Israel. Daniel 11:33 is the most explicit: ‘Those who are wise [maśkîlê ‘ām] will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered’ (cf. 11:34–35; 12:3, 10). Though enigmatic on several levels, we can at least discern that a few within Israel, the ‘wise’, will inform the remnant within Israel (i.e. the ‘many’). As some have recognized, the figure Daniel ought to be considered as one of the ‘wise’.20 The significance of this connection is that the righteous Israelites will all, in some way, be ‘little Daniels’ and understand God’s wisdom concerning the events of the ‘latter days’.
By unpacking in some detail the broader narrative of Daniel we have learned three items: (1) Daniel’s God-given ability to understand ‘mysteries’ stands in contrast to the ‘wise’ Babylonians. He succeeds where they fail. (2) The Aramaic and Greek editions of Daniel explicitly attribute Daniel’s acumen to understand wisdom to the third person of the Trinity. (3) In the latter days righteous Israelites will, like Daniel, understand God’s apocalyptic wisdom, presumably through the Spirit’s enablement.
As stated above, the introductory portion prologue of Revelation (1:1–4) is peculiar on a few fronts. Recall that only God and Christ are mentioned: ‘The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him’ (1:1a). The Spirit is not mentioned until 1:4, within the salutation portion of the letter to the seven churches: ‘To the seven churches in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, and from Jesus Christ’ (1:4–5a). The Spirit is found here in conjunction with God and Christ, a pattern found in introductory portions elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g. 1 Peter 1:1–2).
Remarkably, the Spirit plays a prominent role in Revelation 2 – 3 in a series of formulaic expressions: ‘Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches’ (2:7a; see 2:17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). These references to the Spirit’s role in the process of revelation are most peculiar in the light of the chain of communication in 1:1. Why does John omit the Spirit in the chain of communication in 1:1, yet prominently include him here in Revelation 2 – 3? Is not the Spirit a cardinal agent of revelation?21 A bird’s eye view of the Spirit in the book of Revelation causes us to pause once more. Explicit references to the Spirit tend to be clustered in Revelation. The term ‘Spirit’ (pneuma) is found a total of twenty times in Revelation, eight of which occur in chapters 2–3.
Determining the significance of these observations is not readily apparent. A clue is found, however, at the beginning and end of each letter to the churches. Each letter begins and ends in nearly identical fashion. For example, in the letter to the church in Ephesus the letter begins with ‘To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These are the words of him [Christ]’ (2:1a) and ends with ‘Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches’ (2:7a).22 The remaining six letters follow suit (2:8, 11–12, 17–18, 29; 3:1, 6). Each letter is prefaced with an introductory message from the Son of Man and culminates with the Spirit’s role in the proclamation of the letter. The Spirit enables the reception of the Son of Man’s prophetic message and aids in applying its truths to the congregations of the seven churches. We could thus synthesize this configuration with the chain of communication in 1:1: the revelation originates from God, is mediated and borne witness to by Christ to an angel, then to John, and to the seven churches, which are dependent upon the Spirit’s work to understand and apply the visions. Without the Spirit’s help the visions would fall upon deaf ears. ‘The Spirit brings to the churches the powerful word of Christ, rebuking, encouraging, promising and threatening, touching and drawing the hearts, minds and consciences of its hearers.’23
One of the central themes in the book of Revelation is the admonition for the churches to understand the visions and its symbols. Revelation 1:3 programmatically reads, ‘Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.’ The words to ‘hear’ (hoi akouontes) and ‘take to heart’ (tērountes) refer to spiritual insight and thoughtful application of the book’s truths. Moreover, Revelation generally divides humanity into two people groups: those who follow the lamb and those who follow the beast. Individuals who worship the lamb understand the truth about God and his plan for the cosmos, whereas those who worship the beast are beguiled and believe his lies. A dividing factor between these two groups is the Spirit’s work in the lives of the believers.24 Without the aid of the Spirit, believers are unable to perceive Revelation’s mysteries.25
The effect of these observations from Revelation is clear enough: the Spirit functions in the same capacity in Revelation as he does in the book of Daniel. In both instances the Spirit gives individuals the ability to comprehend apocalyptic ‘mysteries’. Much like the exchange between Daniel and the Babylonian ‘wise’ men, Spirit-filled believers in Revelation stand in stark contrast to those unable to perceive the truth. As mentioned above, Daniel 11 envisions the ‘wise ones’ as instructing the ‘many’ (i.e. the righteous Israelites). Revelation picks up on this pattern by considering John to be a ‘wise’ one and instructing the ‘many’ (i.e. the seven churches). All believers now possess the Spirit-enabled capacity to grasp the divine mysteries of Revelation (cf. 1 Cor. 2:6–16).
Now that we have discussed the first and third persons of the Trinity, we will turn to the person of Christ and how he fits into Daniel’s framework. We need not look very far. In the inaugural vision of Revelation Christ is explicitly identified as the ‘Son of Man’:
I turned round to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash round his chest. The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. (1:12–15)
The combination of the title Son of Man and his ‘white hair’ clearly recalls Daniel 7. Without getting into the knotty details of Revelation 1:12–15, we need only to focus on a few particulars. First, the Son of Man is explicitly identified with the ‘Ancient of Days’, indicating that Christ is undeniably divine. Second, Christ is the executor of Daniel’s end-time prophecy that God will one day establish his eternal kingdom. Verse 18 expresses the result of the Son of Man’s death and resurrection: ‘I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.’ Christ’s death and resurrection enable the triune God to defeat death and usher in the new creation – a central theme in John’s Apocalypse. Without the Son of Man’s death and resurrection, the triune God would not be in a position to judge evil decisively and establish the new heavens and earth in their fullness.
That much seems clear enough, but what must be kept in mind is that, according to Revelation, Christ executes his role in fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy of the Son of Man. Much of Christ’s work in Revelation, particularly chapters 1, and 4–5, is largely viewed through the lens of Daniel 7.26 The Son of Man figure looms large throughout all of John’s visions, either explicitly or implicitly (cf. Rev. 1:7, 13; 11:15; 14:14–16). Before I unpack one particular role of the Son of Man in the Apocalypse, I will first turn to Daniel 7 and briefly sketch its immediate and broad contexts.
Daniel 7, with all of its complexity, is generally straightforward: the Ancient of Days (7:9) judges the earthly pagan kingdoms and establishes his eternal kingdom through the ‘son of man’ (7:13). Daniel 2 outlines four kingdoms (probably Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome) that will consecutively emerge, but the fourth and final kingdom will give way to God’s eternal kingdom. This same end-time blueprint continues into chapters 7–12. The central difference between chapter 2 and chapters 7–12 lies in the finer details of how the four kingdoms interact with one another and how, through the ‘son of man’, God’s kingdom will vanquish the previous pagan kingdom. These four beasts in Daniel 7 should probably be identified with the four parts of the statue in chapter 2. They are here seen as devouring one another and ‘winds of heaven churning up the great sea’ (7:2). The sea is the embodiment of evil and rebellion. These kingdoms are symbolically grotesque, representing their arrogance and destructive nature.
The vision then reverts to the heavenly throne, where an enigmatic figure, ‘one like a son of man’, travelled on clouds up to the Ancient of Days (7:13). The son of man then receives an inheritance: ‘He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed’ (7:14).
The second half of chapter 7 is devoted to the interpretation of the vision (7:15–27). The four beasts symbolize ‘four kings’ or kingdoms (v. 17). The final kingdom is discussed in some detail, particularly the ‘little horn’ (v. 8). The ten ‘horns’ refer to ten ‘kings’ (v. 24). This final ‘horn’ or king antagonizes other kings, persecutes and deceives the Israelites, and speaks against God (vv. 20–21, 24–25).
Identifying the ‘son of man’ figure with precision is notoriously difficult. The language is enigmatic, and 7:13–14 does not easily yield itself to interpreters. In the book of Daniel the phrase ‘son of man’ or ‘sons of men’ is a general reference to humanity (2:38; 5:21). The Greek translations of Daniel (Theo and og) use the phrase as a reference to humanity (2:38), priests (3:84), the figure of Daniel (8:17) and angels (10:16). The phrase thus falls into two general categories: human and angelic.
Giving us deeper insight into the character is the way in which the ‘son of man’ approaches the Ancient of Days. The son of man rides on the clouds: ‘I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven’ (7:13). In the Old Testament, riding on the clouds is reserved for God alone (Exod. 19:9; Ezek. 1:4; Pss 18:11; 97:2; 104:3). Even angels are not privileged to do so. The book of Daniel symbolically casts the son of man as an enigmatic, divine figure.27 How this figure relates to the Ancient of Days is unclear in the immediate context. The only hint we have is found in 7:13b, ‘He [the son of man] approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.’ At the very least, the son of man enjoys a unique relationship to the Ancient of Days.28
Perhaps the reason why the heavenly figure is described as a ‘son of man’ stems from the close identification with true Israel. For example, the son of man receives ‘authority, glory and sovereign power’, ‘an everlasting dominion’ and a ‘kingdom’ (7:14). According to the ‘interpretation’ of the initial vision, the figure of the son of man is replaced by the remnant of Israel in 7:18, 22 and 27. The righteous remnant of Israel will ‘receive the kingdom and will possess it for ever’ (7:18; see 7:22, 27). The son of man and the remnant of Israel are to be identified with one another. The interpretative portion of the vision identifies the son of man as the ‘holy people’ of Israel. In the Bible, kings or prominent figures often represent the nation or a large group (Josh. 7:1–5; 1 Chr. 21:1–17; 2 Sam. 21:1). Here the son of man represents the righteous Israelites (hence the phrase ‘son of man’). When he conquers the fourth and final beast, his actions are thus transferred to the group. The remnant is in a position to receive the kingdom, since the son of man, their representative, has vanquished their enemy. Conversely, what is true of the righteous Israelites is also true of the son of man. For example, Daniel 7:21 says, ‘As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them.’ Here the remnant is coming under severe persecution, suggesting that the son of man, too, will suffer intensely.
To summarize, the general thrust of Daniel 7 is the Ancient of Days’ end-time judgment upon the pagan kingdoms and the establishment of his eternal kingdom. Although these rebellious kingdoms persecute God’s people, even the son of man, God will deliver them and install his kingdom. The son of man’s relationship to the Ancient of Days is unresolved, and it is not clear how the son of man will conquer the four kingdoms (through suffering?). But the son of man will emerge victorious and the saints will inherit the kingdom.
Now that we have briefly surveyed Daniel 7, we can appreciate John’s description of the Son of Man in Revelation 1:12–14: ‘I saw . . . someone like a son of man . . . The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow.’ What was expressed enigmatically in Daniel 7 becomes explicit here in Revelation 1. In Daniel 7 it is difficult to determine the precise relationship between the Ancient of Days and the son of man, whereas in Revelation 1 this relationship is more clearly understood. The Son of Man in Revelation 1:12–16 is intimately identified with the Ancient of Days, particularly his unsurpassed wisdom and discernment (‘white’ ‘hair’ [cf. Prov. 16:31]). The Son of Man’s identification with God is reinforced in 1:17b: ‘Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last”’ (see 22:13). The title ‘First and the Last’ recalls God’s self-description in 1:8a (‘I am the Alpha and the Omega’), recalling several salient texts from Isaiah (41:4; 44:6; 48:12). The Son of Man is indeed divine and enjoys an exalted status with the transcendent God, yet the Son of Man is distinct and found ‘walking’ among the lampstands (2:1).
Daniel 7 also plays a formative role in Revelation 4 – 5. G. K. Beale argues that the vision of Revelation 4 – 5 is literarily dependent upon two Old Testament texts: Ezekiel 1 – 2 and Daniel 7.29 The latter text, however, dominates the backdrop of Revelation 4 – 5 more so than the former. By modelling the vision of Revelation 4 – 5 after Daniel 7, John demonstrates that the prophecy of Daniel 7 has indeed commenced with Christ’s death and resurrection.30 Through Christ’s death and resurrection God has begun to install his end-time kingdom and rule over the nations.
The book of Daniel not only forges John’s understanding of the Trinity; it also contains the blueprint for his conception of the satanic trinity in Revelation 13. The three devilish figures in Revelation 13 (the dragon, the beast from the sea and the beast from the earth) are modelled after the Trinity.31 Remarkably, John once again alludes to the book of Daniel to describe Satan’s alliance with the two grotesque beasts.
The description of the first beast from the sea in Revelation 13:1–2 resembles the attributes from each of the four beasts in Daniel 7 (ten horns [13:1/7:24]; leopard [13:2/7:6]; etc.). The general sequence of events in Revelation 13 also recalls the events mentioned in Daniel 7 (see the table below):32
| Daniel 7 | Revelation 13 |
| Four ‘beasts’ emerge from the ‘sea’ (7:3) | ‘Beast’ emerges from the ‘sea’ (13:1) |
| The Son of Man receives ‘authority’ (7:14) | ‘Beast’ receives ‘authority’ from the dragon (13:2) |
| The Son of Man is worshipped by the nations (7:14) | The dragon is ‘worshipped’ by the unbelievers (13:3–4)33 |
| ‘Another king’ will ‘speak against’ God (7:24–25) | The beast utters ‘proud words’ and ‘blasphemies’ (13:5–6) |
The significance of John’s framing the satanic trinity in the light of Daniel 7 is twofold: (1) Looking to the book of Daniel for a rough blueprint of how the triune God functions, albeit in seed form, remains valid. If Daniel is the basis for John’s understanding of the satanic trinity, how much more does Daniel shape John’s conception of the triune God? (2) The satanic trinity is bent on imitating the triune God. Where God reveals end-time truth to God’s people, Satan divulges lies and deception. Whereas God and the Son of Man possess ‘authority’ to conquer evil, the beast from the sea enjoys ‘authority’ to wage war against the church. Eventually, the devilish trinity will collapse within itself (17:5–18) and be unable to sustain its imitation.
The book of Revelation’s presentation of the Trinity is not a recent development in early Christianity but ultimately finds its roots in the Old Testament, albeit in an undeveloped form. John presents God as the ultimate source of revealed mysteries, in keeping with Daniel’s portrayal of God. But the book of Revelation uniquely includes Christ as the source of wisdom and revelation in a number of prominent passages, suggesting that the second person of the Trinity plays a key role in the formulation of divine revelation. The Spirit effects the revelation in the lives of the saints, enabling its reception and the ability to perform its requirements. The Spirit’s role, within the book of Revelation, closely resembles the Spirit in Daniel, who enables the figure Daniel to understand the divine wisdom. Lastly, the person of Christ not only functions as a source of apocalyptic revelation, but is also the executor of it. Christ, as the Son of Man from Daniel 7, actualizes the content of revelation. The one who aids the Father in formulating the visions performs them. Though the satanic trinity attempt to mirror the triune God in their behaviour, such actions will eventually lead to their demise.
© Benjamin L. Gladd, 2016