glory
The term "glory" in Hebrew is "kabod," which denotes weightiness, honor, and splendor. This glory is not merely human recognition but divine majesty. In the biblical context, glory is often associated with God's presence and holiness. The glory given to the Messiah signifies His divine nature and the honor bestowed upon Him by God the Father. It is a glory that surpasses all earthly accolades and is eternal in its essence.

and kingship
"Kingship" refers to the authority and right to rule. The Hebrew word "malku" is used here, emphasizing a legitimate and divinely sanctioned reign. This kingship is not limited by geography or time, unlike earthly kingdoms. It points to the Messianic rule of Christ, who is the King of kings. His kingship is characterized by justice, righteousness, and peace, fulfilling the prophecies of a coming ruler who would establish God's kingdom on earth.

that the people of every nation and language should serve Him
This phrase highlights the universal scope of the Messiah's reign. "People of every nation and language" underscores the inclusivity of God's kingdom, breaking down ethnic and linguistic barriers. The Hebrew word for "serve" is "pelach," which implies worship and allegiance. This service is not coerced but is a willing submission to the rightful King. It reflects the Great Commission, where the gospel is to be preached to all nations, inviting all to partake in the kingdom of God.

His dominion is an everlasting dominion
The repetition of "dominion" with the qualifier "everlasting" emphasizes the eternal nature of Christ's rule. The Hebrew word "olam" is used for "everlasting," indicating perpetuity and unending duration. Unlike earthly empires that rise and fall, the Messiah's dominion is eternal, reflecting God's unchanging nature and His eternal plan for humanity.

that will not pass away
This phrase assures the permanence and stability of Christ's dominion. The Hebrew word "abar" means to pass or cross over, often used to describe the transient nature of human endeavors. In contrast, the Messiah's dominion is unshakeable and enduring, providing hope and assurance to believers that God's kingdom will prevail against all opposition.

and His kingdom is one that will never be destroyed
The final phrase underscores the invincibility of the Messiah's kingdom. The Hebrew word "chabal" means to destroy or ruin. This kingdom, however, is indestructible, signifying divine protection and ultimate victory over evil. It is a kingdom established by God, sustained by His power, and destined to culminate in the new heaven and new earth, where righteousness dwells. This promise inspires believers to live with confidence and anticipation of the fulfillment of God's redemptive plan.

(1) And there I saw one who had a head of days, and his head was white like wool, and with him was another being, whose countenance had the appearance of a man, and his face was full of graciousness like one of the holy angels.

(2) And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things concerning that Son of man, who he was, and why he went with the Head of days.

(3) And he answered and said unto me, This is the Son of man, who hath righteousness, with whom dwelleth righteousness, and who reveals all the treasures of that which is hidden, because the Lord of spirits hath chosen him, and his lot before the Lord of spirits hath surpassed everything in uprightness for ever. This is clearly borrowed from the chapter before us. Elsewhere we have endeavoured to fix the date of this part of the Book of Enoch, as B.C. 210. Of course, in this view the Maccabean origin of Daniel is definitely set aside. If, however, we take the date assigned to this part by Mr. Charles, then we have a choice between approximately B.C. 90 and B.C. 70. Even then the date seems too near the critical date of Daniel to explain the rapid development the idea has undergone. In Daniel the person "like a son of man" may be a personification of Israel, though not naturally so; here in Enoch we have to do with a super-angelic being. As to the question of the reference of the title, it has been doubted whether it is to be held as applying to the Messiah, the Messianic kingdom, or to the people of Israel. The last view is that of Hitzig and many other critics of his school. It practically involves a denial of the truth of the idea that the Jews ever had Messianic hopes. In the present case there is nothing to indicate any reference to Israel personified. While there might be some plausibility in arguing from each of the four beasts representing empires that this "Son of man" should represent an empire also; it must be observed that in all the other cases there is a peculiarity which marks off the animal as merely a symbol: the lion has wings; the bear has three ribs in its teeth; the leopard has four heads and four wings; and the last, unnamed, beast has ten heads and iron teeth. Further, this "Son of man" is brought to the Ancient of days, and does not merely appear as do the "beasts." He has thus many of the characteristics of a person. The other view, that the "Son of man" indicates the Messianic kingdom, thus comes into line with the view of Hitzig. The view that it is the Messiah who is meant by the "Son of man" was held practically by all interpreters, Jewish and Christian, until the middle of last century. If we look at the phenomenon of prophetism, we shall find ourselves open to another view of the matter. From 1 Peter 1:10 we see that prophets did not necessarily know the meaning of their own prophecies. It might well be, then, that to Daniel the distinction between the Messianic King and the Messianic kingdom was not one clearly apprehended. We see in the prophecies of the second Isaiah that the "servant of the Lord" is first the holy people, then the prophetic order, and latterly a person. There probably was a similar uncertainty here. If we grant this indeffiniteness, the next question that rises is - What is the special aspect of the Messianic kingdom that is intended to be portrayed when this title is given to its King? If we are guided by what is incomparably the oldest interpretation, that of the second Book of Enoch, this title implies an incalculable dignity. When we come to our Lord's use of it in the Gospels, there is nothing to oppose this. Thus John 5:22, "And hath committed all judgment unto him, because he is the Son of man;" so Matthew 9:6, "The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." This is not contradicted by Matthew 8:20, "The foxes have holes,... but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." The emphasis of the statement lies in the contrast between the inexpressible dignity of the Person and the poverty of his earthly circumstances. It is because the ideas of superhuman dignity had been associated with the title that our Lord had, in foretelling his approaching crucifixion,. to bring the two facts into close connection, "The Son of man must be lifted up." So after Peter's confession, "The Son of man must suffer many things." We see that the multitude of the Jews understood the title to have this lofty meaning, for they demand (John 12:34), "How sayest thou, The Sen of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?" The attempts to make it imply something humiliating by dwelling on the fact that not adam or ish is the word for "man," but 'enosh, are beside the question, for these deductions apply to the Hebrew words, not to the Aramaic. And in Aramaic neither ish nor adam is in common use as equivalent for "man." It is as much beside the point as if one, knowing the difference between man and mann in German, should lay stress on the fact that in this phrase in English "man" has only one n. The connection of this surpassing dignity with humanity has probably deep roots in human nature. The late Professor Fuller saw reference here to the function occupied by Silik-mooloo-Khi as mediator between Hea and mankind, and to the further development of this in the Zoroastrian doctrine of a sosiosh, or redeemer. The fall investigation of this is beside our present purpose.

Parallel Commentaries ...