The son of man in the Parables of Enoch is not divine
He is rather a human being specially empowered and authorized by God.
My thesis is that the “son of man” figure in the Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71) is not divine.
When I say that he’s not divine, I mean that he’s not naturally exactly the same sort of thing as God.
What is he, then? He is human. When I say that he’s human, I mean that he’s naturally exactly the same sort of thing as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the rest of us.
Nevertheless, the son of man is special among human beings. In the Parables of Enoch, he is specially authorized and empowered by God to be the judge of the world at the resurrection.
I am going to present three arguments for this conclusion.
(1) The phrase “son of man” means “human being.”
This argument is simple. The name of the “son of man” is a Semitic way of referring to a human being. Human beings are not naturally exactly the same sort of thing as God. Thus, the son of man is not divine.
God is said not to be a man or a “son of man” at Num. 23:19.
The human being is called the “son of man” at Ps. 8:4.
The prophet Ezekiel is called “son of man” some ninety-something times.
The figure “like a son of man” at Dan. 7:13–14 is interpreted to refer to the people of God, i.e. Israel, at vv. 18, 21–22, 27.
Here is therefore one obvious reason why the son of man is a human being: that’s what his “title” means.
For what it’s worth, though I’ve not read the book, Richard Bauckham apparently comes to this conclusion in the first volume of his “Son of Man”, according to this review.
(2) The son of man does not preexist his human life except as a part of God’s providential plan.
This is what would be true of any normal human being: his life begins when he is conceived or at least born. But if the son of man were naturally exactly the same sort of thing as God, then he would always have existed.
I’ve addressed this point at length in a recent post on this blog. I’ll simply summarize my points here.
When the son of man is said to have been “named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits” and “chosen and hidden in [God’s] presence” before the creation of the material world (1 Enoch 48:3, 6–7), this can be taken as referring to the announcement or conception of God’s plan to bring the son of man into being as the judge of the world. He is named before he really exists in the way that an author might name the hero of his story before he begins writing, or prospective parents may agree on the name of their child before he is conceived or born.
The son of man is said to “arise” on the day of judgment after the general resurrection (1 Enoch 51: 1, 5a, 2–3). This strongly implies that he is either born for the first time then, at the end of the world, or else himself is resurrected from the dead with everyone else. If he were divine, then his proper abode would be in heaven alongside God. He would not “arise” from there but rather “descend” to judge the kings of the earth.
It’s said that the kings and rulers of the earth won’t be able to withstand the son of man when he “appears before the Lord of Spirits” (1 Enoch 52:9). If the son of man were divine, he would always have existed and thus would always have been alongside the Lord of Spirits. He cannot “appear before the Lord” if he’s always around him.
When it’s said that the son of man was “hidden from the beginning,” “preserved” in the presence of the Most High, and “revealed” to the chosen (1 Enoch 62:7–8), this is also a reference to him as a part of God’s providential plan. If the son of man were divine, he would not need to be preserved since he would have life of himself. God doesn’t need to be preserved from anything. If the son of man is revealed to the chosen, it is obviously only as a figure that will appear in the future, since that’s what’s happening in the narrative of the Parables. And he is “hidden” only in the sense that the kings and rulers of the earth don’t know that he’s going to judge them (62:3–6).
Enoch is presented as being taken up to the Lord of Spirits and to the Son of Man (1 Enoch 70:1). But then he is told that he is himself the son of man (71:13–14). If Enoch were divine, he would already know this about himself. He would not have been able to forget it, since he would be naturally exactly the same sort of thing as God and thus wouldn’t be forget. Yet this revelation of his own identity comes at a surprise to him and is totally unexpected. This shows that the son of man Enoch’s destiny, the role he is predestined to play, though he is only finding out about it now, at the end of the Parables.
For all these reasons, I think it is at least arguable if not more probable that the son of man does not literally preexist his own human life. He is rather predestined to come into existence as a part of God’s plan. But if he were divine, he would literally preexist his human life. Thus, he isn’t divine.
(3) The lofty qualities of the son of man are given to him by God.
Here’s a general rule. One can’t be made what one already is, nor can one be given what one already has. At best, one can be made further what one already is, or in a different way than before. A fat man can’t be made fat, but he can be made fatter. A father of one can’t be made a father, but he can be made the father of a different child.
The Parables of Enoch make very clear that everything high and lofty about the son of man is given to him by God as a gift, whether it is his wisdom or even his right to sit on God’s throne. Yet these statements are never qualified, as though he were being given something he already possessed. They consequently imply that the son of man is being given qualities and powers that he doesn’t already have, qualities and powers which he would have already possessed if he were divine. Therefore, he’s not divine.
And the Chosen One, in those days, will sit upon my throne, and all the secrets of wisdom will go forth from the counsel of his mouth, for the Lord of Spirits has given (them) to him and glorified him. (1 Enoch 51:3)
And the Lord of Spirits seated the Chosen One upon the throne of glory; and he will judge all the works of the holy ones in the heights of heaven, and in the balance he will weigh their deeds. And when he will lift up his face to judge their secret ways according to the word of the name of the Lord of Spirits, and their paths according to the way of the righteous judgment of the Lord of Spirits, they will all speak with one voice, and bless and glorify and exalt and sanctify the name of the Lord of Spirits. (1 Enoch 61:8–9)
And the Lord of Spirits <seated him> upon the throne of his glory, and the spirit of righteousness was poured upon him. And the word of his mouth will slay all the sinners, and all the unrighteous will perish from his presence. (1 Enoch 62:2)
And he sat on the throne of his glory, and the whole judgment was given to the Son of Man, and he will make sinners vanish and perish from the face of the earth. (1 Enoch 69:27)
Never once in all of the Parables is it said that the son of man is given any of these things in a qualified way. For example, the text never once says that the son of man has two natures and that this exaltation, empowerment, authorization, etc. applies only to his human nature. It only ever says in an unqualified way that the son of man is exalted, empowered, authorized, etc. by the Lord of Spirits to be the judge of the kings and rulers. Therefore, he must not have already had these qualities. But if the son of man were divine, i.e. if he were naturally exactly the same sort of thing as God, then he would already have these qualities. Therefore, the son of man is not divine.
It’s true that the son of man receives the worship and honor of God’s people (1 Enoch 48:5). That is because God has made him to be their savior. Even as they worship the son of man, the people are said to “glorify and bless and sing hymns to the name of the Lord of Spirits” (48:5). The Parables of Enoch are envisioning a situation in which God appoints a human being to be worshiped by those whom he has saved. This is not said to be idolatry, but simply a part of God’s plan from ancient times.
Someone might complain that I’ve made my argument too easy, and that the idea of “divinity” in the Second Temple period was more fluid than my own gerrymandered definition allows for. But I think this objection is exactly backwards. The Parables of Enoch never say that the son of man is “divine.” They do not call him “God” or “a god” or anything of the sort. It’s the person who insists that the son of man in 1 Enoch is “divine in some sense” that must justify his own assertion. That’s why I’ve opted for a very specific definition of “divinity”—so as to distinguish my own concepts from those of the text and to allow the contrast between them to be seen clearly.
Someone else might complain that the Parables of Enoch are not concerned with ontology, but only with the son of man’s role in judging the world. But this seems to me untenable, since the son of man’s name in the work is literally “human being.” If the intention wasn’t to assert that he is a human being, i.e. to make a statement of ontological import, then there needs to be an explanation of why that name is used.
For all these reasons, I think it’s very clear that the son of man in the Parables of Enoch is not divine, i.e. he is not naturally exactly the same sort of thing as God. He’s rather simply a human being who happens to be highly exalted and providentially unique as a matter of God’s plan.
This is also the perspective I presented in the sixth chapter of my book Trinity and Incarnation: A Post-Catholic Theology. I don’t discuss the Parables of Enoch there, but my findings here cohere nicely.
If Jesus was influenced by the Parables in calling himself the “son of man,” then his meaning is exactly what I said in my book and what I’ve said here. Jesus is not a “Godman” but rather God’s man, the human being whom God has specially empowered and authorized to be the judge and savior of the world.
There are some people who wish to find precedents for catholic ideas about Jesus as incarnate divinity in the literature of Second Tempe Judaism. Whatever one might say about other texts, the Parables of Enoch provides no support to such ideas. If anything, a careful reading of the Parables shows that there is actually quite significant precedent for my own point of view: Jesus/the son of man as a highly exalted human being.