Given the lack of consensus and the controversy surrounding the identity of the “Sons of God”, an analysis contrasting “son of man” and “Sons of God” will be undertaken in the hope of providing greater clarity. This is a contrast not typically seen in the analysis of either term but may shed light upon the understanding of the term “sons of God” from Genesis 6.
Challenges in Determining the Meaning of the Son of Man
Before providing the contrasts however, it is necessary to examine the meaning of the troublesome term “son of man”. It is one of the most enigmatic and controversial terms in Scripture, first appearing as a prelude to Balaam’s second oracle on Israel in Numbers 23:29. In that passage, Balaam uses the Hebrew בן אדם ben ‘adam in a chiasmus comparing “man” to “son of man”. This same comparative format is seen in Job 25:6; 35:8; Psalms 8:4; 80:17; 144:3; 146:3; Isaiah 51:12; 56:2; Jeremiah 49:18; 49:33; 50:40; 51:43.
Its frequent occurrence following this chiastic structure suggests the comparison is significant. All verses use the term ben ‘adam except Psalm 144:3 which uses בן אנוש ben ‘enowsh. [1] “Son of man” is also used in Daniel 7:13 and 8:17. Daniel 8:17 uses the familiar ben ‘adam. Daniel 7:13 is more controversial, using the Aramaic term בר אנש bar ‘enash and is generally seen as an apocalyptic reference. [2] Interpretation of Daniel 7:13 is complicated by reference to “one like a son of man” rather than the “son of man” prevalent in the other passages. Separately, the term “son of man” is used extensively in the book of Ezekiel where the Hebrew expression ben ‘adam is consistently used.
Jesus appropriated the term “son of man” in the Synoptic Gospels and the book of John but oddly the term does not re-appear in the Epistles, only in Acts 7:56, Hebrews 2:6 (quoting Psalms) and Revelation 1:13; 14:14. The Greek expression ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (ho huios tou anthrōpou) is consistently used throughout the New Testament.
The flames of controversy are fanned by the uncertainty of the original Aramaic used by Jesus, leaving our New Testament only with the Greek expression “Son of man.” It forces comparisons between the New Testament uses of “son of man” and Old Testament passages from the LXX.
These comparisons become more difficult when one adds the Enochian references to “son of man” contained within the Parables of Enoch, a section of the book not found in Qumran and thus thought by some to be a possible a post-Christian work, calling into question if there was a pre-Christian Jewish conception of the “son of man”. Recent study of the Parables of Enoch has led to a reconsideration of the meaning of the term “son of man” – that reconsideration trending toward a heavenly, pre-existent understanding of the term.
Among scholars there seem to be two perceptions of “the son of man”: the earthly and the heavenly, with no shortage of difficulties associated with bridging the two conceptions and tying them to Jesus. What results is a division of sayings, substantial speculation on which sayings are authentic sayings of Jesus and elaborate argumentation on the understanding and interpretation of words and phrases.
The great diversity of opinion makes it challenging as one quickly finds himself washed over in an abyss of endless analysis. [3] In truth, the problem is not an easy one. Scholars struggle with whether the expression is a title, or if the expression has a specific meaning. If it is a title or has a special meaning, its purpose is not immediately apparent. Hare notes:
No disciple confesses faith in Jesus as the Son of man, either before or after the resurrection. Indeed, the phrase is never used in the New Testament in a statement confessing faith in Jesus. The missionary speeches of Acts do not employ it, and it is totally absent from the epistles. Even the Revelation of John, so thoroughly imbued as it is with the expectation of the imminent coming of Jesus as heavenly lord, does not use the phrase. [4]
That the expression does not seem tied to the salvific work of Christ adds to its mystery. The expression has puzzled scholars whose positions are diverse. [5] But a new focus is emerging regarding the meaning of “son of man” in part based upon its use in the Parables of Enoch as it is likely this term was known to Jesus and understood by his followers. [6] Charlesworth has even suggested that the Book of the Parables was written in Galilee. [7]
If one accepts Charlesworth’s claim, it lends credence to why the Gospels provide no definition of the term “son of man” and why the term seemed to be understood and unquestioned by his followers. It brings the Parables of Enoch to center stage in the study of the term “son of man”, and with it an emphasis toward the pre-existent heavenly understanding of “son of man”. [8]
Unfortunately, with that come all the challenges of the Book of the Parables. If, however, the words of Jesus in Scripture are examined, a striking admission is made toward the end of His ministry that may provide the best clue to understanding the term “son of man.” It is found in Mark 14:
21 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him.
Jesus’ words require that any understanding of the term “son of man” be drawn from Old Testament Scripture – using both the passages emphasizing his transcendence and his earthly humility. Given that, it’s striking that some show little emphasis upon the occurrences of the expression in Ezekiel and in the Old Testament generally.
Turning first to the Old Testament, Chialà traces the meaning of the term “son of man” from its most ancient occurrences through its New Testament usage, arguing the term was re-interpreted throughout the development of Scripture. He notes the chiastic occurrences of “son of man” (bar adam) against “man” in Psalms, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Job, claiming that man and “son of man” in these verses are synonymous with the expression “son of man” embellishing and accentuating “man.” It seems clear that the authors intended the chiasmus to compare and contrast the two expressions (though it is not clear that the authors intended the two expressions to be viewed purely as synonyms). [9]
Chialà also argues that the plural “sons of men” has an equivalent meaning with the most primitive occurrences of the term “son of man” though he fails to note that with the exception of Ecclesiastes 9:12, the occurrences of “sons of men” are not used in chiastic manner as are the primitive occurrences of “son of man” and whether this difference is significant. Through the process of re-interpretation, Chialà claims “son of man” became synonymous with man in a number of languages:
. . . in several languages “son of man” gradually came to replace the noun “man” altogether and take on its meaning. In Syriac, for instance, bar nasha became the common way of saying “man,” and the simple noun nasha was almost totally abandoned. Examples of this early use of the expression “son of man” can also be found in the Book of the Watchers, the Book of Dream Visions, the Epistle of Enoch, the book of Jubilees, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Parables of Enoch, the Psalms of Solomon, the Testament of Abraham, the Testament of Solomon, Pseudo-Philo, and the Gospels (Mark 3:28). [10]
Koch points out the difficulties of the various forms in Hebrew and Aramaic:
There remain, nevertheless, some severe problems regarding a short-circuited equation of the Hebrew and the Aramaic nouns and constructions in question. The Hebrew language presents two expressions, ‘adam and the more poetical ‘enôsh. Both may be used in a generic or a collective sense, meaning “human beings(s), humankind”; but the former also provides the proper name of the Urmensch, and the latter has the connotation of a weak and mortal being. The Aramaic language knows only the noun ‘enash, which sounds much more neutral. [11]
Koch points out that the compound bar-‘ enash appears only once in Daniel against twenty-three occurrences of simplex ‘e/anash(a) and argues against interchangeability of the simplex and compound forms of ‘e/anash(a). A further complexity is noted from the references in the Aramaic version of Ezekiel:
As Chialà rightly remarks, Ezekiel is to be set apart regarding this notion in Hebrew, because this prophet is addressed by his God as ben ‘adam around eighty times (cf. Daniel 8:17). The Aramaic version is somewhat unusual, addressing him as bar ‘adam. Since ‘adam is unknown as a generic noun in Aramaic, the construction must mean “Son of the (primeval) Adam.” Thus, the prophet is understood as an outstanding Adamite, perhaps as the representative of a new divine start with humankind. [12]
Son of Man as God’s Heavenly Archetype
If Koch is right, proper understanding of Jesus’ use of “the son of man” is likely based in Ezekiel. [13] The term “son of man” in Ezekiel is used exclusively by God in addressing Ezekiel. The term is not used by anyone else nor is anyone else addressed as “son of man.” It is God’s unique way of speaking to, and more importantly through Ezekiel to His people.
Ezekiel in this sense seems to be God’s unique representative, carrying God’s message to His people in exile, paralleling its use by Jesus in the New Testament. Jesus appears to be the only one to use the term “son of man” in the New Testament and then only in addressing himself. It is as if Jesus’ use of the term is suggestive that God, who spoke earlier to His people through Ezekiel, now speaks to His people through Jesus during their exile from paradise.
Further, the term is nowhere defined or described; it seems to be a term well understood in Ezekiel’s day. Likewise, Jesus’ use of the term seems well understood by His audience and similarly no explanation is needed or provided. Similarities are seen in their missions; both Ezekiel and Jesus were sent to God’s people, the Israelites:
3 He said: “Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites,” Ezekiel 2
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” Matthew 15
Concerning the mission of the “son of man,” note the comparison between the words of Jesus and that of Ezekiel (upon which the words of Jesus may be based):
10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.” Luke 19
16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. Ezekiel 34
Jesus, as sower of the good seed in Matthew 13, also parallels Ezekiel’s mission described in Ezekiel 3:
16 At the end of seven days the word of the Lord came to me: 17 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. 18 When I say to a wicked man, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. 19 But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself. 20 “Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. 21 But if you do warn the righteous man not to sin and he does not sin, he will surely live because he took warning, and you will have saved yourself.”
Ezekiel’s mission is preceded by an encounter with the throne of God. The heavens were opened, and Ezekiel found himself having “visions of God” – of God’s chariot-throne dispatched to the earth. One wonders if the “heavenly” encounter that preceded Ezekiel’s mission (and from which Ezekiel received the appellative “son of man”) was intended to foreshadow Jesus’ pre-existence in heaven with God the Father.
Ezekiel’s heavenly pre-experience “in vision” parallels Christ’s heavenly pre-existence “in reality.” Ezekiel’s priestly occupation also parallels Jesus’ role as our High Priest. Both were sent to the Israelites, and both were God’s representative to the Israelites, yet the epithet “son of man” suggests that the priestly function was not limited to the Israelites but extended to all sons of Adam.
In his role as prophet, Ezekiel’s message was poorly received by a people not ready to accept repentance, again paralleling Jesus’ prophetic message on earth. Israel is referred to as rebellious, obstinate and stubborn. Ezekiel 33:31 illustrates the impact of Ezekiel’s message on the people:
31 My people come to you, as they usually do, and sit before you to listen to your words, but they do not put them into practice. With their mouths they express devotion, but their hearts are greedy for unjust gain.
Jesus’ words anticipate this rejection and offer a blessing on those whose message is rejected because of the “son of man:”
22 Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Luke 6:22
This rejection is foreshadowed in Ezekiel 2 at the outset of his ministry. Ezekiel 12:1-2 seem to be the source of Jesus” expression “he that has ears to hear, let him hear” (Matthew 11:15; Mark 4:9; Luke 8:8; 14:35), used when Jesus spoke in parables. Ezekiel’s ministry was likewise steeped in parables, both spoken and acted out. [14] Jesus’ parabolic method of teaching may have been modeled after Ezekiel:
49 Then I said, “Ah, Sovereign Lord! They are saying of me, ‘Isn’t he just telling parables?’” Ezekiel 20
Ellison notes a movement afoot during the first century A.D. to eliminate Ezekiel from public reading in part due to its raw language and the controversial nature of its material. Many drew mystical allusions to the Merkabah. Most significant were apparent contradictions to the Law of Moses found in chapters 40-48 where the appointed rituals and sacrifices differed from the Mosaic tradition. [15]
While these concerns were later allayed, there may be a parallel between the teachings of Ezekiel and the teachings of Christ, often viewed as opposing the Law and traditions of the Pharisees. It would be natural to assume that Jesus was aware of the concerns with Ezekiel’s teachings and seems possible He would structure His teachings to reinforce such a “son of man” parallel.
Jesus’ application of “son of man” also appropriated from Daniel the idea of a heavenly pre-existent man who was the perfect man from which Adam, the first man, was modeled. Adam sinned however, and in so doing, failed to model the pre-existent One, the image of God. In appropriating “son of man”, Jesus was pointing to Himself as the son of adam and as such the “son of man”, but also as the new Adam, the restoration of the perfect man who was to be the perfect image of God:
The doctrines of Christ as the Last Adam, and the image of God and God’s son and Messiah are to be understood as references to Christ re-establishing a new creation as God’s new, reigning vicegerent, since the first creation was commenced with a human also called Adam, who was in the image of God and called God’s son. As such, Christ is the Son of Adam, or “the Son of Man”, who has begun to do what the first Adam should have done and to inherit what the first Adam should have, including the glory reflected in God’s image. And, of course, Daniel 7, where “Son of Man” is prominent, makes allusions both to Genesis 1-2 and to Psalm 8. Paul can say that Christ’s followers also reflect the renewed divine image and glory, as well as possessing sonship, because Christ has regained these things Himself (Romans 8:18-23, 29-30; Ephesians 4:25; Colossians 3:10) [16]
Jesus would not just restore man to the image of God. As “son of man”, he would execute the divine purpose of man lost in Adam’s sin to go into all the earth, extending the Edenic garden, restoring the fallen creation and bringing man and the nations to repentance. That purpose would be accomplished in Christ as the “son of man” through the church, the new corporate Adam that Israel-by-physical-circumcision foreshadowed:
Recall the commission of Adam, Noah and Israel. They were all to obey God and go to the ends of the earth and subdue it. Of course, after Adam’s “fall”, Israel’s commission to subdue the earth includes shining their light in the world’s spiritual darkness and judging nations who refuse to accept their light. Adam, Noah and Israel all failed to subdue, but Christ, the Last Adam and true Israel perfectly obeys, dies, rises, not only as new Israel . . . but also as a new creation, and the church, as His risen body, carries on the commission of the true Adam and Israel to subdue the earth for God as His vicegerent. Consequently, “mission” or going to the ends of the earth is to be an intrinsic mark of the true church. This is why the church receives the “Great Commission” in Matthew 28:19-20 from Christ, who bases it on His own authority given to Him as Son of Man (i.e., “Adam”) by God (so Matthew 28:18 in allusion to Daniel 7:14). [17]
But the path to restoration of our fallen world would be accomplished through suffering and death. Jesus thus fused the notions of the transcendent “son of man” with those of the rejected prophet Ezekiel and lowly servant of Isaiah. Daniel 7:13 was viewed by first century Jews as Messianic, yet Jesus’ use of the “son of man” shows the transcendent triumphant “son of man” of Daniel, the lowly, humble, rejected prophet of Ezekiel and the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, evident in Luke 17:
24 For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. 25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.
What emerges from a study of Old Testament uses of “son of man” is a broader understanding of the expression “son of man” used by Christ. Christ’s use seems unique, based upon its Old Testament usage yet adapted for His specific mission. Christ’s use of “son of man” seems strongly influenced by the book of Ezekiel, yet fused with concepts based in Daniel and Isaiah and adapted specifically for His mission:
It is probable that scholars have been led astray by insisting on one basic origin for all the sayings and not taking the ambiguity of the term sufficiently seriously. Clearly it could be used as a self-designation, even although the precise circumstances in which this was felt to be proper remain uncertain. At the same time, it cannot be denied that the term could have a titular force. C.F.D. Moule rightly observes that the use of the article in the phrase may give the force of “the human figure” . . . The most probable approach, therefore, is still that which takes Daniel 7:13f. as its starting-point and sees there a figure, perhaps the leader and representative of Israel, with whom Jesus identifies himself. This figure is one possessing authority and destined to rule the world, but the way to that rule is by humility, suffering and rejection. . . It was probably a deliberate means of concealing his own claims to some extent so as not to lead to false expectations. It laid claim to authority but an authority which was largely rejected by men. Thus by his use of this phrase Jesus laid claim to being the final representative of God to men, destined to rule but rejected by Israel, condemned to suffer but vindicated by God. [18] (Emphasis mine)
The inclusion of “son of man” parallels from Ezekiel with the transcendent Danielian and Isaianic suffering servant leads to a fuller understanding of the term “Son of man” used by Jesus. Jesus is not just another “son of man” after the traditions of Ezekiel or Daniel, but He is the Son of Man, the final representative between God and man. He is the only Son of Adam who in life fulfills God’s calling for mankind. Jesus may be viewed as the Man [19], the new man and second Adam, the heavenly man, the son of man.
Insights from “Son of God” & “Sons of God”
It was as son of man that Jesus seemed most comfortable describing His earthly mission. He was reluctant to use the term Messiah though accepting when others used the term. “Son of God” was similarly a term Jesus used with care. Concerning “Son of God” Marshall states:
The evidence shows that Jesus himself was extremely reticent to express his sense of unique personal relationship to God; nevertheless it is clear that the Jewish authorities suspected that he was making claims of this kind (Mark 14:61; Luke 22:70), claims which were perhaps made more openly on occasion than the Synoptic Gospels suggest (in John Jesus’ self-revelation is more public, but this may be due to the way in which John has deliberately brought out more clearly the full implications of Jesus’ teaching for his readers). [20]
Even more telling is Jesus’ reluctance to use the expression “sons of God.” He does not associate the term collectively of Himself and His followers. His use of “Son of God” marks out a unique relationship between He and God the Father. When referring to angelic beings, Jesus uses “angels of God” ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ angelos theos (cf. Matthew 22:20; Luke 12:8, 9; Luke 15:10; John 1:51) rather than “sons of God” (cf. LXX of Genesis 6:2, 4 which uses υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ for בן אלהים bene ‘elohiym). [21]
There seems to be careful selection of “son of man” over the less used “Son of God”, and “angels of God” over “sons of God”, suggesting an awareness by Jesus that His earthly mission was as humble servant over transcendent heavenly being while also distancing Himself (and distancing God’s heavenly angelic host) from the fallen “sons of God.” Given that Jesus also referred to Himself on occasion as the “Son of God,” it would seem natural He would avoid the expression “sons of God” to preclude possible miss-association with the disobedient angels of Genesis 6.
Concluding Reflections
Having argued that Jesus’ use of the expression “son of man” likely represents a fusion of Isaianic, Danielic and Ezekielan concepts, a contrast between the expressions “son of man” and “sons of God” will now be performed in the hope of providing additional support for our proposed exegesis that the “sons of God” were in fact fallen angels.
The contrast is based on the premise that Jesus’ use of the expression “son of man” was intended to evoke the notion that Jesus was the final representative of mankind before God, emphasizing His humanity and human weakness, yet acknowledging His pre-existence with God the Father as the perfect and pre-existent man.
In contrasting “the son of man” with the “sons of God,” the superiority of the mission of the “son of man” becomes clear and the abject failure of the sinful “sons of God” is brought into sharp focus, illustrated in Table 1:
Table 1: Son of Man Contrasted with Sons of God
| Son of Man | Sons of God |
| Term emphasizing humanity, humility, earthly status and relationship | Term emphasizing heavenly origin, heavenly power, status and relationship |
| Pre-existent & head of the angelic host (Daniel 7:13; John 3:13) | Pre-existent yet part of the angelic host (Job 38:7) |
| Left heaven fulfilling God’s purpose, robed in humanity (John 1:14; 3:13) | Left heaven opposing God’s purpose, abandoning proper “habitation” (Jude 1:6) |
| Represents man before God | Represents/promotes self interest |
| Christ’s activities show His authority given by the Father (John 5:27; 8:28) | Angels’ activities show their authority usurped from the Father (Genesis 6:3) |
| Unmarried | Intermarried with mankind, took wives, lusted, violating God’s creative order “each according to its kind” (Genesis 6:2) |
| Rejected of men (Mark 8:31) | Accepted of men (Genesis 6:2-4) |
| Taught men God’s word/righteous requirements (Matthew 13:37) | Taught men sinful rebellious secrets (1 Enoch 7:1; 8:1-2) |
| Came to seek and to save the lost. Ransom for many (Matthew 18:11; 20:28) | Came and brought sin, violence and death (Genesis 6:11) |
| Came to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6) | Came & brought/caused many sins (2 Peter 2:4) |
| Earth not his “habitation” (Matthew 8:20) | Earth became their “habitation” (Jude 1:6) |
| Sought personal suffering and death (Matthew 12:40) | Sought to avoid death, bring to man eternal life/extend life? (1 Enoch 10:10) |
| The ideal man fulfilling God’s requirements, purpose to cleanse mankind and bring new creation | The “non-ideal” angels, failing God’s requirements, purpose to corrupt mankind and bring destruction of creation |
| Sent Holy Spirit from Heaven as comforter (John 14:26; 20:22) | Their judgment brought evil spirits of earthly giants that afflict, attack mankind (1 Enoch 15:11) |
| Surrendered His position of authority in heaven and afterward given dominion, power, Kingship (Daniel 7:13; Luke 21:27) | Abandoned their heavenly position of authority to usurp earthly dominion, power, Kingship (1 Enoch 46:4) |
| With His Father in heaven, to return with His angels and bring judgment (Matthew 16:27) | Imprisoned with other disobedient angels with chains in the abyss until the judgment (Jude 1:6) |
| Ushers in righteousness, punishes evil (Matthew 13:41-43) | Ushered in evil, punished for wickedness (1 Enoch 10:4-6; 10:11-13; Jude 1:6) |
| Coming shall be “as in the days of Noah” (Matthew 24:37) | End times marked by resurgence of sinful angelic-human interactions 1 Enoch 1:1-2 |
The events of Jesus’ mission by contrast, show His complete triumph over the forces of evil and the fulfillment of the mission given Him by God the Father. The intended mission of the “sons of God” and their intended relationship with the “Son of Man” is alluded to in John 1:
51 He then added, “I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”
The allusion is to Jacob’s dream in Genesis 28. As Jacob left Palestine and traveled to Haran, God assured him He would protect Jacob on his travels, bless the nations through him and fulfill the promises made to his father Isaac and grandfather Abraham. Most important, Jacob is assured that he will return safely to the land he is now leaving, the land promised to His father.
God would protect him and be with him regardless of what transpired in the future. Similarly, Jesus is assuring his followers that He will protect them, He will be with them and despite what unexpected twists and turns may come, He is the guarantor of the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. There may also be a foreshadowing of Christ’s coming departure from them and the land, including hints about a further departure and scattering of the Jews to come. As Palestine typified Eden, Jesus’ words anticipate man’s ultimate return to paradise –guaranteed and realized only in the “son of man.”
As Jesus called Himself God’s temple, the angels are pictured in service there. Their intended and proper ministry is cooperative with Christ as intercessors and overseers, ministrants between God’s heavenly throne and earthly temple. The presence of the angels of God is expected given their positions normally around the throne as watchers, messengers and guardians of God’s Holy-Place.
An important observation is the relationship between God’s angels and the “Son of man.” The angels are not only present around God’s throne room but their intended responsibilities and duties as overseers to Israel and the nations cannot be accomplished apart from the “Son of man.” The angels are the executors of the will of God accomplished in Jesus Christ. They are the messengers and dispatchers between heaven and earth and thus serve as benefactors for mankind. Genesis 6 shows the failure and depravity of the watchers.
[1] In these contrasts of “man” with “son of man”, there are also differing Hebrew words used for “man” though it is unclear if this is significant.
[2] There is significant diversity of opinion concerning this figure “one like a son of man.” Koch notes that the compound bar ‘enash occurs only in Daniel 7:13 where the simplex occurs some twenty-three times elsewhere in Daniel. He argues that bar ‘enash is not a collective body (i.e., Israel) but is the leader of qaddishê ‘elyonîn, a rendering Koch calls problematic but suggests the plural elyonîn likely means the holies among the highest class of angels. From this Koch proposes that this figure is an angel, likely Michael as God’s earthly delegate. J.J. Collins agrees this is an angel, likely Michael. Koch, Klaus, Questions regarding the So-Called Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanvig, Enoch and the Son of Man: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanvig, Collins, John J., both published in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, Grand Rapids MI, William B Eerdsman, 2007, p. 229-230, p. 217 That “one like a son of man” is an angel is a common belief among scholars and further emphasizes the challenges facing this subject. Even if this “one like a son of man” is an angelic authority, his authority may be delegated by God or the “son of man” (Christ), to be a more humanlike ruler than the beasts, where this angel may represent the “son of man” in type.
[3] The difficulties can be seen in a survey of authors on the subject. Of the sources surveyed, Gaston claims the meaning of the expression “son of man” to be the corporate body of believers allied with Christ. Gaston, Lloyd, No Stone on Another, Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels, Leiden UK, E. J. Brill, 1970. Hare concludes that Jesus’ use of the expression is merely a humble self-reference, commonly understood by the church fathers to be a description of Christ’s humanity. Hare, Douglas R. A., The Son of Man Tradition, Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1990. [3] Tödt sees an immediate connection between “one like the son of man” and Jesus’ use of the term “son of man”, arguing that Jesus’ use of the term is apocalyptic. He also sees a connection with uses in 1 Enoch and 4 Esdras. Tödt, H. E., The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition, Chatham, W. & J. MacKay & Co Ltd, 1965. Borsch begins historical analysis of the pagan use of the terms “the Man” and “son of man”, seeing a relation between Scripture’s use of the expression and pagan usage. Borsch, Frederick Houk, The Son of Man in Myth and History, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1967. The starting points for the analysis of each of these authors differs radically and thus not surprisingly their conclusions. Gaston rejects the premise that there was a pre-christian Jewish apocalyptic tradition of “the Man” or “the son of man” (opposing Tödt). Gaston’s starting point is the temple as the place of sanctification of “the many” leading him to a corporate understanding of Israel as “the son of man”. Hare likewise rejects a pre-christian Jewish conception of “the son of man”. His starting point is the New Testament usage of the Greek ho huios tou anthrōpou and its application by Christ to Himself. Hare’s analysis is strongly based in the exact Greek expression used by Christ (separating it from its use in Revelation and the LXX, arguing Christ’s use of the expression with its two articles makes it unique and different), leading to differing conclusions on the variant expressions. Borsch sees similarities between the diversity of middle eastern pagan myths regarding the Man (ό άνθρωπος), Protoanthropos, Archanthropos, Pre-existent Man, the Great Man, the Perfect Man, the Upper Man, the Inner Man, the Son of Man, the great and beautiful Man, Adam, Anush, Adamas, Adakas, the Heavenly Man, the True Man, the Man according to the Image, etc, and his death, apparent resurrection and salvation as a prototype and basis of Scripture’s use of the term “son of man”, including kingship rites in ancient Israel. Their conclusions seem dependent upon their starting assumptions, pre-conceptions and their methodology. While there are merits found in each of their arguments, their analysis is not without problems or limitations. Gaston has difficulties explaining why the Epistles are largely silent regarding such an important concept as the sanctifying power of the corporate body of Christ as “son of man”. Hare’s grammatical analysis downplays similar expressions that don’t fit his thesis as well as exceptions to the patterns he attempts to identify. Tödt presumes a relation with Old Testament and pseudepigraphal uses of the expression “son of man” but his focus is literary, leaving grammatical analysis largely unaddressed. Though Borsch sees many similarities with ancient pagan myths, his arguments are heavily based in Gnostic writings of the second century C.E. as much of the extant texts post-date the synoptic gospels. The disparate differences between pagan myths make determination of which myths influenced the Judaic “son of man” concept uncertain (e.g. pagan ritual often centered upon the king or priest-king. The most common Judaic occurrences are in Ezekiel who never served as king). Against these disparate positions, a more comprehensive solution must be sought.
[4] Hare, Douglas R. A., The Son of Man Tradition, Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1990, p. 2 Hare places emphasis on the gospels use of the exact expression ho huios tou anthrōpou, arguing Christ’s use of the expression with its two articles makes it unique and different from the “son of man” expressions found in Revelation and the LXX.
[5] Hare represents one end of the spectrum, focused upon the exact Greek expression used of Jesus in the New Testament. Borsch represents another end of the spectrum, one that sees faint similarities with pagan Near Eastern myth and ritual. He sees a kingly function of an ideal heavenly man yet is forced to admit that the designation “son of man” does not appear as a kingly title in Jerusalem history. If so, it would seem that Christ’s use of the designation would make clear His immediate claim to the throne of Israel, placing Him in direct conflict with Rome. It is possible it is a title with a heavenly connotation but even then, given the widespread pagan notions of the kingship of the “son of man” throughout the Near East, it’s surprising that neither Roman or Jewish leadership betrays an awareness of its implications as Jesus’ self-reference.
[6] The Enochic use of “son of man” has brought a renewed emphasis on the pre-existent qualities of the “son of man”. Kvanvig argues “The term bar ‘adam means ‘son of Adam,’ and Ezekiel is accordingly made the son of the primeval man. In a similar way walda běsi could go back to the Aramaic bar ‘adam, referring to Adam as the primeval man. This would imply an eschatological interpretation of the first man – he reappears at the end of time. This notion is not new in Enochic Judaism. The Animal Apocalypse ends by describing how humanity is transformed into the image of a white bull (1 Enoch 90:37-38). The white bull is clearly Adam redivivus. History reaches its goal by turning back to its initial state where Adam comes forth from the earth as a white bull.” Kvanvig, Helge S., The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch, from Boccaccini, Gabriele, Editor, Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, Revisiting the Book of Parables, Grand Rapids MI, William B. Eerdsmans Publishing Company, 2007, p. 193-194
[7] Charlesworth, James H., Can We Discern the Composition Date of the Parables of Enoch?, published in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, Grand Rapids MI, William B Eerdsman, 2007, pgs. 452, 457, 465
[8] An example is seen in the work of Kvanvig, noting that the “son of man” was understood as an eschatological figure of the image of God, yet also to be the image of man at the end of history. “Only once before did the Enochians advance the idea that a distinct individual figure would be crucial in the end-time. This was at the end of the Animal Apocalypse, where a white bull appears as an eschatological counterpart to Adam, the first white bull, and all humanity is transformed into his image (1 Enoch 90:37-38; 85:3). This eschatological white bull can hardly be considered a messianic figure in the traditional way, because he appears after the eschatological turn (crisis, judgment, and new creation) where the Messiah traditionally had a crucial role, and there is no link to David described earlier in the Apocalypse. There is a closer analogy to the Son of Man in Daniel 7, who also appears after the great judgment. The description of the bull is quite colorless, and the emphasis of this final section of the Apocalypse is not on this figure in itself, but on its symbolic value as the goal of history, namely, the transformation of humanity into the image of man as originally created by God.” Kvanvig, Helge S., The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch, from Boccaccini, Gabriele, Editor, Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, Revisiting the Book of Parables, Grand Rapids MI, William B. Eerdsmans Publishing Company, 2007, p. 210
[9] Two of the references in Job (likely among the most ancient) seem to point toward one who can serve as mediator or representative. Job 16:19-21 points strongly to an advocate in heaven to plead Job’s case. Likewise, Job 25:6 is followed by a lengthy retort by Job that begins with Job 26:2 – “How you have helped the powerless! How you have saved the arm that is feeble!” and concludes with Job 31:35 – “Oh that I had someone to hear me!” Job seems to sarcastically chide his friends for failing as friends to advocate his case (i.e. act as a son of man).
[10] Chialà, Sabino, The Son of Man: The Evolution of an Expression, published in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, Grand Rapids MI, William B Eerdsman, 2007, p. 155 Even here however, Chialà’s example from Mark 3:28 claims an equivalence between “sons of men” and “man” or “men,” not an equivalence of “son of man” with “man” which would make a stronger argument, particularly for the Gospels where “son of man” takes on a more specific meaning than “man.” Likewise, the use of “sons of men” here in Mark in no way demonstrates that “man” became obsolete in Greek or Aramaic.
[11] Koch, Klaus, Questions regarding the So-Called Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanvig, published in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, Grand Rapids MI, William B Eerdsman, 2007, p. 229
[12] Koch, Klaus, Questions regarding the So-Called Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanvig, published in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, Grand Rapids MI, William B Eerdsman, 2007, p. 231
[13] It is surprising that a number of scholars have not followed this analytical path. Tödt barely makes reference to Ezekiel at all – a single reference tying Revelation 19:11 to Ezekiel 1:1. Hare mentions only the conjecture that Jesus may have used the Aramaic “Ben ha-Adam,” “Bar ha-Adam” or “Ben Adam” which Ezekiel is called in the Targum. He quickly dismisses that possibility however, arguing that that the Greek would never have used anthropos but would have transliterated “Adam” had Jesus intended a reference to the son of Adam (Cf. Luke 3:38, Romans 5:14 and Jude 11). Further, he notes that Adam typology referenced by Paul shows no relation to the “son of man” yet acknowledges the use of “Ben Adam” or its equivalent would be done only if an Adam typology had been intended by Christ. It does not follow however that Ezekiel becomes irrelevant, only that Christ’s use of the term may not have had a primary purpose to promote Adam typology. Borsch sees the numerous references to “son of man” from Ezekiel as potentially significant but quickly passes over them, preferring to argue their dependence upon the pagan Man myth. Gaston, while referencing Ezekiel in his discussions concerning the temple makes no reference to Ezekiel when speaking of the “son of man.” Yet the dependence of the Book of the Parables (and more broadly the dependence of the “son of man”) on Ezekiel is recognized by Knibb, Wright, Orlov, Sabino, Kvanvig, Collins, Koch, Gieschen, Henze and Piovanelli. Knibb, Michael A., The Structure and Composition of the Parables of Enoch, published in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, Grand Rapids MI, William B Eerdsman, 2007, p. 51, also from the same source: Wright, Benjamin G., The Structure of the Parables of Enoch: A Response to George Nickelsburg and Michael Knibb, p. 76, Orlov, Andrei A., Roles and Titles of the Seventh Antediluvian Hero in the Parables of Enoch: A Departure from the Traditional Pattern?, p. 121, Chialà, Sabino, The Son of Man: The Evolution of an Expression,p. 155, Kvanvig, Helge S., The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch, p. 193, Collins, John, J., Enoch and the Son of Man: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanvig, p. 223, Koch, Klaus, Questions regarding the So-Called Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanvig,p. 231, Gieschen, Charles A., The Name of the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch, p. 241, Henze, Matthias, The Parables of Enoch in Second Temple Literature,A Response to Gabriele Boccaccini, p. 293, Piovanelli, Pierluigi, “A Testimony for the Kings and the Mighty Who Possess the Earth: The Thirst for Justice and Peace in the Parables of Enoch, p. 365
[14] It is possible that the briers and thorns used to describe Israel in Ezekiel 2 were the basis of Jesus’ parable of the sower in Matthew 13.
[15] Ellison, H. L., The Illustrated Bible Dictionary Part 1, Ezekiel, Wheaton, IL, Inter-Varsity Press, Tyndale House Publishers, 1980, p. 492
[16] Beale, Greg K., The Eschatological Conception of New Testament Theology, presented in Brower, Kent E. & Elliott, Mark W., Eschatology in the Bible & Theology, Downers Grove, Il, Intervarsity Press, 1997, p. 25
[17] Beale, Greg K., The Eschatolocgical Conception of New Testament Theology, Presented in Brower, Kent E., & Elliott, Mark W., Eschatology in the Bible & Theology, Downers Grove, IL, Intervarsity Press, 1997, P. 28-29
[18] Marshall, I. H., The Illustrated Bible Dictionary Part 2, Jesus Christ, Titles of, Wheaton, IL, Inter-Varsity Press, Tyndale House Publishers, 1980, p. 774
[19] A possible tie between “son of man” and “the Man” is recognized by Marshall who speaking of the virtual disappearance of the term after the Gospels states, “On the one hand, it is possible that we have a translation of ‘Son of man’ into more intelligible Greek as ‘the Man’ in one or two passages where Jesus is placed over against Adam, the first man (Romans 5:15; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 47; cf. 1 Timothy 2:5). On the other hand, the Gospels have preserved the use of the term on the lips of Jesus.” Marshall, I. H., The Illustrated Bible Dictionary Part 2, Jesus Christ, Titles of, Wheaton, IL, Inter-Varsity Press, Tyndale House Publishers, 1980, p. 775.
[20] Marshall, I. H., The Illustrated Bible Dictionary Part 2, Jesus Christ, Titles of, Wheaton, IL, Inter-Varsity Press, Tyndale House Publishers, 1980,p. 774-775
[21] Job 1:6 and 2:1 in the LXX uses “angels of God” (ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ) as does Jesus. Job 38:7 uses “my angels” for “sons of God.” We would suggest that the LXX translators chose ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ “angels of God” in Job to differentiate the host of obedient angels present around the throne in Job from the disobedient “sons of God,” the sinful angels of Genesis 6. If one accepts this premise, it follows why Jesus would use the expression “angels of God” rather than “sons of God.” Interestingly, John uses the term “sons of God” in John 1:12 but uses τέκνα θεοῦ, avoiding ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ, an apparent reference to the disobedient angels of Genesis 6.