Interpreting Daniel 7: Controversial Theories Linking Constantine and Muhammad to Biblical Prophecy

Certain individuals posit that Daniel 7, verse 25, can be interpreted as an allusion to Constantine the Great, the prominent figurehead of the Council of Nicaea, while they also propose that Daniel 7, verse 13, may be a reference to Muhammad's celebrated Night Journey. How is this argument articulated?

This argument is highly controversial and not accepted by Christians. According to mainstream interpretation, Daniel 7, verse 25, refers to the Antichrist, while Daniel 7, verse 13, refers to the Messiah. However, some proponents of this argument offer the following explanation:

They argue that Constantine the Great, the Roman emperor who converted to Christianity and convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, is seen as the little horn mentioned in Daniel 7, verse 25. They claim that Constantine, through his actions, spoke against the Most High and attempted to change religious practices, such as introducing the doctrine of the Trinity, celebrating Easter instead of Passover, and observing Sunday rather than Saturday as the Sabbath. They also accuse Constantine of persecuting those who did not conform to his version of Christianity, particularly the Arians who denied the divinity of Jesus.

Regarding Muhammad, the founder of Islam, they argue that his Night Journey from Mecca to Jerusalem and subsequent ascension to heaven aligns with the Son of Man mentioned in Daniel 7, verse 13. They believe this refers to Muhammad being granted dominion, glory, and an everlasting kingdom by God. They assert that Muhammad restored monotheism and argue that his kingdom will never be destroyed, with all nations and peoples serving him or submitting to his law.

Allah says in the Quran, Surah 2 verse 89:

And when there came to them (Jews) a Book from Allah, confirming that which is with them—and earlier they would pray for victory over the pagans (through the medium of His messenger)—so when there came to them what they recognized (that is, Muhammad), they denied it. So may the curse of Allah be on the faithless!

Some believe this verse indirectly points to Muhammad as a promised Messiah. How is this interpretation explained?

This verse refers to the Jews who were awaiting the coming of their Messiah, as they had read about him in the scripture. They used to invoke Allah for his arrival, hoping that he would help them defeat their enemies. However, when Allah sent Muhammad to the Arabs, and he brought the Quran that confirmed the previous scriptures, the Jews rejected him and denied his prophethood. They did this out of envy and pride, because they wanted the Prophet to be from among them. Therefore, Allah cursed them for their disbelief and ingratitude.

The verse implies that the Jews had some knowledge of the characteristics and attributes of the Prophet Muhammad, and they recognized him when he came. This is also supported by other verses in the Quran, such as Surah 2, verse 146, which says:

Those to whom We gave the Scripture know him as they know their own sons. But indeed, a party of them conceal the truth while they know [it].

Therefore, some Muslims believe that this verse indirectly points to Muhammad as a promised Messiah, who was foretold by the previous prophets and scriptures.

What is Bart Ehrman's perspective on the term "son of man" as utilized by Jesus in the gospel?

Bart Ehrman's perspective on the term "Son of Man" as utilized by Jesus in the gospels is nuanced and distinct from the traditional Christian interpretation. Ehrman argues that when Jesus referred to the "Son of Man," he was not referring to himself but to a separate, cosmic figure who would come as a divine judge at the end of history.

Ehrman's Interpretation

Cosmic Judge

Ehrman posits that Jesus used the term "Son of Man" to refer to a cosmic judge who would come from heaven to bring about a cataclysmic end to the current world order and establish the Kingdom of God. This figure is seen as a divine being rather than a normal human being. Ehrman believes that Jesus anticipated this figure's arrival imminently, and this expectation was a central part of his apocalyptic message.

Not Self-Referential

Contrary to the view held by many scholars and traditional Christian teachings, Ehrman argues that Jesus did not identify himself as the "Son of Man." Instead, Jesus saw himself as a precursor or herald to this divine figure. This interpretation is based on the analysis of various gospel passages where Jesus speaks about the "Son of Man" in the third person, suggesting a distinction between himself and this figure.

Scholarly Context

Ehrman's view is not universally accepted but is considered a mainstream scholarly perspective. While some scholars agree with Ehrman, others maintain that Jesus did refer to himself as the "Son of Man," interpreting the term as a self-designation that aligns with his messianic role.

Linguistic and Cultural Considerations

Ehrman also engages with the linguistic and cultural context of the term. In ancient Semitic languages, "Son of Man" could simply mean "a human being" or be used as a poetic expression for humanity. However, in the context of Jesus' teachings, Ehrman argues that the term took on a specific eschatological meaning, influenced by Jewish apocalyptic literature like the Book of Daniel, where the "Son of Man" is depicted as a heavenly figure endowed with divine authority.

Conclusion

In summary, Bart Ehrman views the "Son of Man" as a future, divine judge distinct from Jesus himself. This interpretation challenges traditional Christian views and highlights the complexity of Jesus' apocalyptic teachings within their historical and cultural context.