Combined Allusions to Dan 7 and Ps 110 in the NT

(avg. read time: 10–20 mins.)

To reappropriate a metaphor I have used before, the NT rests on the OT as on a mountain range, with some peaks being more prominent than others. Two of those more prominent peaks are Dan 7 (especially vv. 13–14) and Ps 110 (especially v. 1). Of course, where the metaphor breaks down in usefulness is in the cases where allusions to these texts appear together. These instances are one story presented in all three Synoptic Gospels, one story from Acts, and one text from Paul. Each of them show, though in different ways, how and why these texts were read together for the presentation of Christology.

To understand why these texts would be read together, we must briefly consider another “son of man” text that is also combined multiple times with Ps 110: Ps 8. These texts are linked—in 1 Cor 15:25–27; Eph 1:20–23; Heb 1:3, 13; 2:6–9; and 1 Pet 3:21b–22—through the common theme of the subject’s rule, which is illustrated through the common imagery of the ruled being under the subject’s feet. Likewise, Ps 8 presents an implicit eschatology through an idealized picture of human function in creation that one can hope becomes actualized again. The figure in Ps 110 is an ideal priestly ruler taking the place of the ideal human in Ps 8, except that the former context indicates clear hostility that is absent from the latter text. This connection receives further support from the explanation of the “image” concept in Ps 8 in terms of rule, as in Gen 1:26–30 (a text with which it has many other links), meaning that the ideal ruler is also the ideal image-bearer. These collocated texts thus became useful for describing the current role and rule of Christ as one who fulfills the position of Adam (indeed, the essential human position) as the image-bearer of God, being the priestly king who rules over creation in the midst of continuing hostility.

Daniel 7 further reinforces this picture in the presence of one “like a son of man.” On the one hand, this figure represents the ideal image-bearer in how he represents the saints of the Most High, in how he receives a kingdom that is superior to the previous kingdoms presented as “beasts” that are inherently lower than a “son of man,” and in how his dominion is everlasting in participation of God’s own everlasting dominion. On the other hand, his likeness to God is presented even more profoundly in his coming with the clouds, in the kind of dominion the Ancient of Days gives him (cf. Dan 2:44, 47; 4:3, 34), and in his resemblance with “the angel of the Lord” who often acts in God’s name, as Phillip Munoa observes, “The core characteristics of the ‘one like a human being’ in Dan. 7.13-14 are those of the angel of the Lord. The figure in Dan. 7.13-14 is nameless, human in appearance, solitary, heavenly in association, possesses divinely bestowed authority, and its climactic appearance in Daniel’s vision may imply that it is God’s agent of judgment and deliverance.”¹ The Son of Man, as the ideal representative of the saints, is thus also the ideal representative of God, the ideal image- and likeness-bearer who fulfills God’s will like no other. And for this reason, he receives and implements God’s kingdom.

These texts fit with a divine Christology (given the Son of Man’s resemblance to God and the fact that the one who sits at the right hand of the Lord is also called “Lord”), with an emphasis on how the eschatological Adam fulfills God’s will for humanity in a way that Adam himself did not, and with the eschatological picture of the kingdom as inaugurated in conflict. The eschatological event of Jesus’s resurrection has already happened, but the final subjugation of death through the general resurrection and thus the full realization of what it means for Jesus to be at God’s right hand have yet to come. Psalm 8 had illustrated the divine purpose for humans to rule according to the will of God, even if there is the inevitable recognition that this is not the current state of affairs because of the forces of sin and death, which creates an implicit eschatological expectation that God will restore humans to their proper function. Jesus accomplishes this restoration through his faithful life unto death, his resurrection, and the salvific union through which he becomes the new progenitor of image-bearers. Psalm 110 most directly refers to ruling even while enemies undergo subjection. It is thus an ideal text for describing what Jesus is doing now, ruling and subjecting until the subjugation is complete in his total communication of resurrection life in the general resurrection, in the process fulfilling God’s creative will set forth in Ps 8. Daniel 7 focuses on the completion of this subjection rather than any process of it, as one representing God’s ideal ruler and image-bearer receives God’s kingdom. In all cases, what draws these texts together is the common end of the affirmation, vindication, and victory of God’s will through the exaltation of the subject.

The christological and eschatological themes and their contributions to the common ends of the texts come together in our first use in Jesus’s trial narrative. After all, Jesus had indicated that it was God’s will for him to be crucified and thus be resurrected (Matt 16:21 // Mark 8:31 // Luke 9:22; Matt 17:9 // Mark 9:9–10; Matt 17:22–23 // Mark 9:31; Matt 20:18–19 // Mark 10:33–34 // Luke 18:31–33; Matt 27:63–64). By implication, after this resurrection will come his exaltation to act as Judge and King as the chief executor of God’s will, as he refers at multiple points to his coming in glory and his role in the final judgment for vindication and condemnation (Matt 16:27 // Mark 8:38 // Luke 9:26; Matt 19:28; 24:30 // Mark 13:26 // Luke 21:27; Matt 25:31; Luke 22:28–30). Such exaltation may also be implied in Jesus’s declaration to Jerusalem that the city will not see him again until they should say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” (Matt 23:39 // Luke 13:35).

All of this sets the stage for Jesus’s last statement of his expected exaltation before his crucifixion in Matt 26:64 // Mark 14:62 // Luke 22:69. Here, Jesus describes himself/the Son of Man as sitting at the right hand of God, and, in Matthew and Mark, coming on the clouds of heaven. In the use of the Son of Man language—as well as the clouds imagery in Matthew and Mark—and in the reference to him sitting at God’s right hand, Jesus is making a combined allusion to Ps 110 (specifically, v. 1) and Dan 7 (specifically, vv. 13–14). Both texts describe God’s favor on the subject, and both appear in contexts of judgment being dispensed against the subject’s enemies. This connection is made all the more poignant by the context of Jesus’s trial, wherein his allusion to these texts—identifying himself as the subject in both cases—anticipates his vindication from the outcome of this trial, thereby vindicating his role as the chief executor of God’s will and the true representative/image-bearer of God. Furthermore, the subjugation in both texts show how the enemies of the subject will be judged, though the judgment imagery is more pronounced in Daniel.

Both texts fit Jesus’s high Christology as one who is called “Lord” alongside the Lord (Matt 7:21–23; 12:8 // Mark 2:28 // Luke 6:5; Matt 22:41–45 // Mark 12:35–37 // Luke 20:41–44; Matt 25:31–46; Luke 6:46). Daniel 7 had been formative for his self-conception as the Son of Man (Matt 8:20 // Luke 9:58; Matt 9:6 // Mark 2:10 // Luke 5:24; Matt 10:23; 11:19 // Luke 7:34; Matt 12:8 // Mark 2:28 // Luke 6:5; Matt 12:32 // Luke 12:10; Matt 12:40; 13:37; 16:13; Matt 16:28; Matt 17:9 // Mark 9:9–10; Matt 17:12, 22 // Mark 9:31 // Luke 9:44; Matt 20:18–19 // Mark 10:33–34 // Luke 18:31–33; Matt 20:28 // Mark 10:45; Matt 24:27–31 // Mark 13:24–27 // Luke 21:25–28; Matt 24:39 // Luke 17:26; Matt 24:44 // Luke 12:40; Matt 26:2, 24 // Mark 14:21 // Luke 22:22; Matt 26:45 // Mark 14:41; Mark 8:31; 9:12; Luke 6:22; 11:30; 19:10; 22:48; John 3:13–14; 6:53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34; 13:31) and for his eschatological teaching in which he regularly referenced what the Son of Man would do (Matt 13:41; 16:27 // Mark 8:38 // Luke 9:26; Matt 19:28; 25:31–46; Luke 12:8; 17:22, 24, 30; 18:8; 21:36; John 1:51; 5:27; 6:27). And as I have said previously:

As indicated through Matt 6:10, Jesus’s goal—as one who shares God’s goal/will—is for the kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven. Indeed, Jesus’s whole proclamation—as well as that of John before him and the disciples after him—is about the kingdom of heaven drawing near those who are on earth (3:2; 4:17; 10:7). Those who are poor in spirit and persecuted for the sake of righteousness will inherit the kingdom of heaven, and Jesus presents these expectations in parallel with the meek who will inherit the earth (5:3, 5, 10). The deeds done in the present time on earth indicate who will enter the kingdom of Jesus’s Father (5:19–20; 7:21; 18:3–4, 23–35; 19:23). There is continuity between what is bound and loosed on earth and what is bound and loosed in heaven (16:19; 18:18). Matthew’s climactic declaration of this eschatologically purposed heaven-and-earth linkage is in this climax of his Gospel, wherein Jesus declares that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him (28:18). Matthew further underlines the kingdom significance of this statement through the verbal links between it and the reception of the kingdom of God by the one like a son of man in Dan 7:13–14 (as Jesus’s preferred form of self-reference throughout the Gospels is as the Son of Man). As such, his resurrection foreshadows the cosmic union of heaven and earth by its union under the authority of Jesus, whose purpose is to implement the will and kingdom of God, for which reason he was resurrected and exalted after his death to the right hand of God.

We see now in the trial how the text has also formed his expectation of vindication and victory over his accusers, which in turn attracts the allusion to Ps 110. He had not publicly shown how this text was crucial to his self-conception until the controversy with the Jewish leaders began rising to a crescendo (Matt 22:43–45 // Mark 12:35–37 // Luke 20:41–44). And now in this text it shows that he expects to be exalted to God’s right hand, to take his place as Lord alongside the Lord. With that comes the expectation of his enemies being made his footstool. As such, in this context, the allusions also supply a subtle dig at his condemners, implicitly warning them of what they can expect if they remain recalcitrant in being his enemies. Even beyond these points, there may be a hint of the eschatological picture being formed here. He will receive exaltation like the Son of Man and like the Lord in Ps 110:1, but that in itself will not be the ultimate conclusion of the grand narrative. There is still an intervening time of “until,” a time of waiting until the consummation of victory inaugurated but yet fully implemented. Although Jesus himself does not say so here, Paul will further clarify what one can gather from this declaration being made in the context of a story in which he has declared his expectation of being raised from the dead prior to his exaltation: just as his resurrection makes possible the fulfillment of his exaltation in vindication, so too will the general resurrection make possible the final judgment and consummation of the kingdom over which he is King.

The next case in which we encounter the combined allusion to these texts is Stephen’s speech in his public trial in Acts 7. The combined allusion once again appears in a trial setting, which Luke narrates in such a way as to draw many connections with Jesus, his trial, and his death. Luke’s trial narrative does not mention the false witnesses or the claim that Jesus would destroy the temple, but this was clearly a known feature of Jesus’s trial among the witnesses he consulted (including Mark, and possibly Matthew, depending on the precise relationship between the Synoptics), and these things are featured in Stephen’s trial (Acts 6:11–14). The high priest is present for both trials and questions both (7:1; though he is part of a crowd in Luke 22:66–67, 70). Jesus speaks of how he will be seen sitting at the right hand of God (Luke 22:69) and Stephen sees Jesus standing at the right hand of God (7:55–56). After this, both are put to death for blasphemy, though Stephen receives the traditional punishment of stoning from the mob while Jesus was put to death in a more official manner by crucifixion going through the Roman powers. Both Jesus and Stephen ask for God to forgive their persecutors (7:60; Luke 23:34 [though there are text-critical issues here that are beyond my scope to address]). And both of them verbally commend their spirits to God (7:59; Luke 23:46). As the first member of the Church to be killed for his faith, it is fitting that Stephen should emulate Jesus in his perseverance and trust in the promises of vindication, and that his story should be told in a fashion so reminiscent of Jesus.

But what is of most interest here is the function of the combined allusion to Dan 7 and Ps 110. This is one of the rare occasions in which anyone refers to Jesus as the Son of Man outside of the Gospels (Acts 7:56). The only other occasions are in heavenly visions in Rev 1:13 and 14:14 (though this latter one is unclear as to whether it refers to Jesus or to one who is like him). While the texts from Revelation thus accentuate the connections with Dan 7, this story in Acts uses this combined allusion to provide another connection between Jesus’s and Stephen’s trials. This vision of Stephen’s serves as confirmation that Jesus’s promised vindication in his exaltation has indeed come true. But unlike Jesus’s reference, where Jesus describes himself as seated at the right hand of God, Jesus is here seen standing at God’s right hand. On the one hand, this makes sense for the legal setting, as witnesses and judges could stand for a verdict, and so the sense here is one of the Son of Man and God the Father vindicating Stephen over and against the verdict of the human court, again in imitation of how God had already vindicated Jesus.

On the other hand, this standing could refer to his heavenly priestly ministry. One must remember that God’s throne is biblically linked with God’s sanctuary, both in the heavenly reality and the earthly counterpart (particularly in the ark of the covenant and its mercy seat; cf. Pss 11:4; 96; Isa 6:1; 66:1–2; Jer 3:16–17; Ezek 10; 37:24–28; 43:1–12; Zech 14:9, 16–21; Rev 7:15). As noted already, Ps 110 further upholds the imagery of the priestly king, as the Lord who sits at the right hand of the Lord is also said to be a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek (the priestly king). The Israelite king could also function in a priestly capacity, as seen in 2 Sam 6:14, 17–18; 8:18; 1 Kgs 8:14, 55, 62–64. This image could also reflect either Zech 6:13 or the basic idea conveyed in it of the priest standing beside the throne in harmony with the king, albeit now in the heavenly court.

The fact that this allusion occurs when it does underscores two points that this allusion extends from the earlier one in Jesus’s trial. First, Jesus has already been exalted over his enemies and thus vindicated; the subjugation process has already begun. Second, the subjugation process has only begun, as Jesus has been vindicated, but the final vindication of his saints awaits the still future judgment. Their present time is more akin to other parts of Dan 7 (particularly vv. 21–22, 25), but final victory is assured because of the vindicating victory already won by Jesus, the one who represents his saints. Yet again, we see how these texts worked together to provide a sense of inaugurated eschatology that was crucial for the NT.

Our last text to examine comes from Paul, who was present for Stephen’s execution and thus heard the words he spoke in his final moments (Acts 7:58; 8:1). Whatever impact these words alluding to Dan 7 and Ps 110 had on Saul in the short term is unclear, but they did have an impact on him after the risen Jesus appeared to him. He would also be familiar with how Stephen’s story resonated with the story of Jesus, as Paul not only knew the center of the gospel story (e.g., 1 Cor 15:3–8), but also the larger story that led into it, as we can see from his recollection of the institution narrative for the Eucharist in 1 Cor 11:23–26. He may have even heard of it when he was a zealous persecutor of the Christians and was connected with the high priest (Acts 9:1–2).

Such connections illuminate why Paul alludes to Dan 7 and Ps 110 (as well as Ps 8) in 1 Cor 15:25–28, and it is especially poignant that these are texts that provide a narrative framework for his argument about the link between Jesus’s resurrection and our own resurrection. In line with his reference to the story of Adam in 15:21–22, Paul’s use of Dan 7:14 and 27 (and, by further indirect implication, 2:44) connects resurrection with the reign of God and God’s ideal image-bearer (or, in Dan 7, the one like a Son of Man). This connection is not as frequently noted in contemporary scholarship as the noted psalms, but it was noticed among patristic interpreters. [Side-note: Here, I must correct something from my dissertation, as I had misread my notes when I composed the original list of references attached to this point on p. 189. I had thought when I said a certain reference was similar to others, that meant they also referenced Dan 7 like the text I noted. But as it turns out, of the ones I listed, only John Chrysostom, Hom. 1 Cor. 39.6; Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lect. 15.29, 31–33 {since the whole lecture is headed by reference to Dan 7}; Ambrosiaster, Comm. 1 Cor. 15:24–27a; Theodoret, Comm. 1 Cor. 15:25 connected Daniel and 1 Cor 15. For the others, their similarity was in how they stressed that the Son’s reign/kingdom did not end with him handing the kingdom to the Father.] Of course, this is not to say that scholars never note this connection, but it is less prominent in discussions, since it is less direct than the psalms.²

The first connection between Dan 7 and Paul’s text is the eschatological concern of the kingdom, which Paul refers to here in a form uniquely—for him—unadorned with any modifiers (τὴν βασιλείαν; v. 24), as is consistent with the unadorned reference in Dan 7:14. Both texts—in addition to Dan 2:44—likewise present a theme of subjugation of enemy powers to God’s ideal ruler (which Dan 7 highlights with the contrast of the representative figure as one “like a son of man” with the abominable beasts that represent the non-divine kingdoms), although in this context it is the role of the Son that Paul emphasizes. The description of death as the last enemy may also owe some of its framework to the description of the fourth beast as the climactic enemy of God and the nature of the kingdom God gives to the saints.³ The conclusion of this segment in v. 28, and the kingdom significance of the same, may also resonate with Dan 7:27 with its statement of the everlasting kingdom.⁴ Both texts (in Dan 7, particularly in the highlighted vv. 14 and 27) also present a picture of the representative of God’s people receiving the kingdom as necessary to the saints as a whole receiving the kingdom. However, again, it is noteworthy that the process is more complex in Paul’s text as Christ must first implement God’s victory and then hand the kingdom over to the Father.

Similarly, Ps 110 (and the collocated Ps 8) relates to Jesus’s resurrection and the link with our own resurrection in a few ways. First, as implied by the typical gospel proclamation throughout the NT, including here in 1 Cor 15:20–28, the current state in which Ps 110 (and Ps 8) is being fulfilled is one that is the direct result of the resurrection, since resurrection leads to exaltation. Indeed, the logical flow of this text follows the gospel progression, in which Jesus’s resurrection defeats death and precedes exaltation (Matt 28:16–18; Acts 1:3–11; 2:31–36; 5:28–32; 7:55–56; 13:30–39; 17:31–32; Rom 1:1–4; 8:34; Eph 1:17–23; Phil 3:18–21; Col 1:18–20; 2:11–15; Heb 2:5–12; 7:23–27; 12:2; 1 Pet 1:18–21; 3:18–22; Rev 1:5; 3:21; 5:5–12; 17:14; cf. Rev 20:4–6; 22:3–5), though now it is also the general resurrection that precedes the consummate kingdom.⁵ Second, the cosmic rule implied by Ps 110 and solidified by Ps 8 serve to establish the necessity of resurrection for the fulfillment of expectations concerning the kingdom of God and new creation. Only in this cosmic context does resurrection make the sense that it does and only by means of resurrection can Paul imagine people participating in this hoped-for reality. The resurrection of Jesus will be writ large on a cosmic scale in the form of new creation. If believers participate in this gospel story and they believe that the goal of it is the kingdom of God and new creation, they must also believe that their resurrection is necessary to God’s larger cosmic project and to their inheritance of it. Third, the subjection of enemies in Paul’s argument ultimately happens by resurrection, since the last enemy to be subjected—namely, through being destroyed by the divestment of its power—is death.⁶ Only when all enemies are thus subjected will the Scriptures be consummately fulfilled, meaning that not only is Jesus’s resurrection necessary for their fulfillment, but the believers’ resurrection is also necessary.

The texts are once again useful for presenting the picture of inaugurated eschatology, in which the eschatological event of Jesus’s resurrection has already happened, but the final subjugation of death through the general resurrection is yet to come. Psalm 110 most directly refers to ruling even while enemies undergo subjection. It is thus an ideal text for describing what Jesus is doing now, ruling and subjecting until the subjugation is complete in his total communication of resurrection life in the general resurrection.⁷ Daniel focuses on the completion of this subjection rather than any process of it, as one representing God’s ideal ruler and image-bearer (hence his description as being “like a son of man”) receives God’s kingdom. In Paul’s text, the connections to Daniel also primarily concern the goal of Christ’s rule and communication of his resurrection life, which is that God may be all in all. Through these texts, Paul signifies that the resurrection of Jesus and of believers draws together the beginning (particularly through reference to Genesis and Ps 8, though we have not explored those here), middle (i.e., both the central axis and present setting of the story), and end of the grand narrative of Scripture that they serve effectively to summarize and interweave.

1. Phillip Munoa, “The Son of Man and the Angel of the Lord: Daniel 7.13-14 and Israel’s Angel Traditions,” JSP 28 (2018): 143–67, here 151.

2. Anthony J. Chvala-Smith, “The Boundaries of Christology: 1 Corinthians 15:20–28 and Its Exegetical Substructure” (PhD diss., Marquette University, 1993), 132–74; Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Cambridge: Apollos, 2010), 768–69; R. B. Jamieson, “1 Corinthians 15.28 and the Grammar of Paul’s Christology,” NTS 66 (2020): 203–4; Nicholas A. Meyer, Adam’s Dust and Adam’s Glory in the Hodayot and the Letters of Paul: Rethinking Anthropogony and Theology, NovTSup 168 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 170–71; Jeffrey Earl Peterson, “The Image of the Man from Heaven: Christological Exegesis in 1 Corinthians 15:45–49” (PhD diss., Yale University, 1997), 62–63; Eckhard J. Schnabel, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, Historisch Theologische Auslegung (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 2006), 922, 940; Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Kor. 15,1-16,24), EKKNT 7/4 (Düsseldorf: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001), 156–57; N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 28.

3. Chvala-Smith, “Boundaries,” 149–55. It is an interesting coincidence, if nothing else, that death is the fourth entity Paul lists after the plural figures of principalities, powers, and authorities.

4. I explore this point in my dissertation. See K. R. Harriman, ‘Why Should God Raise the Dead? Worldview Foundations and Functions of Resurrection Belief in Dan 12, 1 Cor 15, and Q Al-Qiyamah 75’ (PhD diss., Asbury Theological Seminary, 2022), 199–200.

5. On how this text fits within a larger tradition thoroughly shaped by this gospel narrative and its progression, see Roger Paul Lucas, “The Time of the Reign of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 in Light of Early Christian Session Theology” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 1997), 197–244.

6. On the description of what happens to death in this text, see Harriman, “Why Should God,” 186–87, 197–98.

7. On who is doing what in this text, as there is much debate over who the subject is at given points in the text, see Harriman, “Why Should God,” 193–96.