7:13 Daniel again saw something happening in heaven. One like a son of man was brought before the Ancient of Days. The angelic attendants in heaven's court probably ushered Him forward. This description glorifies the Ancient of Days who then proceeded to give this Person authority to rule on earth (cf. Ps. 2:6; 110:1-2). The one like the son of man has similarities with human beings, as the title "son of man"implies. However, he comes with clouds of heaven, which elsewhere in Scripture describes how God has come to earth (cf. Exod. 13:21-22; 19:9, 16; 1 Kings 8:10-11; Ps. 18:10; Isa. 19:1; Jer. 4:13; Ezek. 10:4; et al.). Thus this one like a son of man appears to be a God-man (cf. Phil. 2:6-7).272The fact that this refers to the Son of God, Jesus Christ, becomes clear later in the Gospels where Jesus used the title "Son of Man"more frequently of himself than any other (cf. Mark 8:31; John 1:51; et al.). Other passages also describe Jesus Christ as coming in the clouds (cf. Matt. 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; Acts. 1:9; 1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 1:7).
Because Jesus commonly used the title "Son of Man"to describe Himself, this is the most frequently quoted verse from Daniel in the New Testament. It is very significant that Jesus used this title above all others when describing Himself, some 31 times in Matthew alone.
"Although Messiah had already been named as God's Son' in previous prophetic utterances (cf. [2 Sam. 7:14; ] Ps. 2:7, 10; Prov. 30:4), He is now given a name that emphasizes His true and total identification with mankind."273
Jesus' contemporaries used the title "Messiah"to describe a merely human leader who they believed would provide military liberation from their Roman oppressors. This limited understanding of Messiah's role made that title undesirable from Jesus' viewpoint. The title "Son of Man"should have taken Jesus' hearers back to Daniel 7:13 where clearly a God-man is in view. Many of Jesus' contemporaries were willing to trust Him as their Messiah, but few were willing to acknowledge Him as the divine Son of Man. Jesus wanted them to believe that He was God as well as man and so preferred the title "Son of Man."274
"It is no exaggeration to say that no other concept in the Old Testament, not even the Servant of the Lord, has elicited a more prolific literature. Of all the figures used in the Old Testament to designate the coming deliverer; king, priest, branch, servant, seed--none is more profound than Son of man'. Here there is a vision of man as he was intended to be, perfectly embodying all his potential in obedience to his Creator."275
7:14 Now this Son of Man became the prominent person in the vision. He received dominion and glory and a kingdom, clearly from the Ancient of Days.
"This refers, not to his inherent sovereignty over the universe as God the Son (as consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit), but to his appointment as absolute Lord and Judge by virtue of his atoning ministry as God incarnate--the one who achieved a sinless life (Isa 53:9), paid the price for man's redemption (Isa 53:5-6), and was vindicated by his bodily resurrection as Judge of the entire human race (Acts 17:31; Rom 2:16)."276
God's intention in giving Him this authority (cf. Matt. 28:18) was that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. He was to have global rule over everyone. Furthermore His kingdom would last forever in contrast to the preceding four kingdoms. Succeeding kingdoms destroyed preceding kingdoms, but no kingdom will ever destroy His kingdom (cf. Ps. 26-9; 72:11; Isa. 11; Rev. 19:15-16; 20:1-6). This is a fifth kingdom corresponding to the stone cut out without hands in chapter 2 that destroys the fourth kingdom and all preceding kingdoms.
Did Jesus' coming to the earth in the first century destroy the Roman Empire? We could only say yes if we interpreted the destruction of the fourth kingdom in a non-literal way. I choose not to do this because the destruction of the previous kingdoms was literal. It seems that we should also expect that the destruction of the fourth kingdom by the fifth kingdom will be literal. Therefore the second coming of Christ must be the initiation of the fifth kingdom and the final destruction of the fourth kingdom. If this is so, then the prophetic picture that Daniel saw did not include the present age in which we live (cf. Isa. 61:1-2; Luke 4:18-19). This conclusion has seemed reasonable to some amillenarians as well as to premillenarians.277
