Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In Norman Russell’s The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, he says concerning Daniel 7:13:

"The 'one like a son of man' is an angel, probably Michael, entrusted with the protection of the people of Israel. Only later, in Christian tradition and in the Book of Parables (I Enoch 37-71) does he become a Messianic figure, the Elect of God" (p. 67).

Early Jews (including the New Testament authors and early Church Fathers) were familiar with the books of Enoch (they are even quoted by Judah, whose name is translated 'Jude' in English). Ignoring disputes about the original language of the Enoch texts, I am not familiar enough with literature from second-temple Judaism to know if angels are referred to as "sons of men" elsewhere in this time period. Are they?

share|improve this question

It's actually the opposite. Angels might be referred to as "sons of God" (see Job) but never as "a son of man." It should also be noted that his wording is awkward. 1 Enoch is a pre-Christian work, as you note in your question. To refer to an angel as a "son of man" goes against everything in Jewish thinking. They simply aren't.

edit: Russell also seems to be giving Daniel an early date as opposed to dating it to the Hasmonean period as some do. I agree with Russell on that point.

share|improve this answer
Very interesting. So a word search of texts turned up nothing at all from this period? Not even to support your case? – user1985 Jan 2 '14 at 0:15
Maybe this will add to your perspective, "“God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" (Numbers 23:19 NKJV). I suggest learning what the real meaning to the phrase "Son of Man" means. – Decrypted Oct 12 '14 at 12:41
@Onlyheisgood. "son of man" is a term commonly used in the 2nd Temple Period Judiasm to refer to the Messiah. As seen from the uses, the Son of Man is more than a human being. He is divine. The term "son of man" in Num 23 is from Early Hebraic thinking (not 2nd Temple Judiasm). As used then (Early Hebraic), it was a poetic/literary way of saying "human being." David uses it the same way. However, the term shifted in time to refer specifically to first a certain prophet who spoke of the end of days (Ezekiel) and then the Messiah in the Intertestamental Period. – Frank Luke Oct 12 '14 at 23:45
Yes, and here is the difference. The Hebrew word for "Man" is "Adam". Therefore from the term "Son of Man", can mean "Son of Adam". Now this usage of the term "Son" is used as a "Inheritance to Feature" similarly found in 3-D Modelling. Where the Child Node connects to a Parent Node. With the understanding of how the Jews viewed the word Spirit as a "Wind" or "Breath", and this term is not as confined as a concept as western perspective, but uses an eastern perspective as the fullness of character, thought, and breath. The Breath Node is the parent to the Speaking Node. – Decrypted Oct 13 '14 at 2:05
So the "Son of Man" in concept means the "Speaking of a Man born of Adam". For Example: "Son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the pattern." (Eze 43:10 NKJV) It is a direct communication to the "Spoken Words by Man". If you understanding this I suggest "Ezekiel 3". Blessings – Decrypted Oct 13 '14 at 2:26

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.