A question about the Book of Enoch, regarding the title "Son of Man"

[johnboy3434]

Salutations, brothers and sisters. I have a question concerning the position of the Orthodox Churches on a particular passage from the Ethiopic book of 1 Enoch. In 1 Enoch 71:14, Enoch is unambiguously declared by the angels to be the Son of Man, a figure who throughout the work had been presented in a way consistent with much of our beliefs about Jesus. As if I need to say it, the concept of Enoch being the Son of Man is extremely problematic, with the implication being either that there is more than one person with such a title (something never once suggested in other books), or the heretical and near-blasphemous suggestion that Jesus is a reincarnation of Enoch. The fact that 1 Enoch is directly quoted by Saint Jude makes this all the more puzzling for me, as surely the early Christians would have taken issue with such a passage, wouldn't they?

From what I understand, this isn't a problem for most Orthodox Churches simply because 1 Enoch is not considered Holy Scripture by them. However, the Ethiopian/Eritrean Orthodox Church considers 1 Enoch to be divinely inspired, and it is included in its Old Testament. I don't know anyone affiliated with that church, so I thought I might come here to seek answers. If you are a member of the Tewahedo churches, or are knowledgeable enough about the church's teachings that you feel confident in speaking for it, then could you clarify how this passage is dealt with from a doctrinal standpoint? How is this divine ascension of Enoch reconciled with the wholly unique nature of Jesus Christ?

Thanks in advance for any answers.

 

[dzheremi]

I'm sorry, friend, but I don't quite understand your question. Can you explain in some other words why this is a problem for you?

The phrase "Son of Man" long predates both the incarnation of our Lord and the writing of Enoch (c. 3rd century BC). Most of the ancient languages of the Near East usually had some kind of metaphor that used those parts in compounds or phrases that translate into English as "son of man". Czech linguist Vaclav Blazek points out the following in his work "Egyptian rmt 'Man': An Attempt at an Afroasiatic Etymology" (in Takacs Semito-Hamitic Festschrift for A.B. Dolgopolsky and H. Jungraithmayr; Berlin 2008) --

"This idea [of Egyptian rm-t as a compound meaning "son of man"] is based on the assumed semantic analogy with the metaphor "man/human being" = "son of mankind", wide-spread in the ancient languages of the Near East: Sumerian DUMU.NAM.LU.ULU, Akkadian mar awiluti and mar nisi "man" in the sense of "human being", lit. "son of mankind", Ugaritic bn nsm "men" lit. "sons of mankind", and the compound bns "man, an individual, someone, person, people, ..." [...] Ugaritic bn adm "man" corresponds with Hebrew ben-?adam" (Blazek 57-58, and following)

It seems then that this was not necessarily understood as a title in the ancient world, much less one exclusive to our Lord Jesus Christ. Rather (and this is a point I have seen made in literature produced by our church, such as Daniel Fanous' 2010 book Taught By God: Making Sense of the Difficult Sayings of Jesus, which I recommend for further study of this at a basic level), it is probably better to say that Jesus' being the Son of Man, like His being the Son of God, meant something altogether unique and different than what either of those things had meant when applied to others before Him. At any rate, as you have gleaned yourself by noting St. Jude's quoting of the book and the Ethiopian Orthodox canonical use of the book, this was clearly not a stumbling block for the early church. We in the Coptic Orthodox Church, which is the mother church of the Orthodox Tewahedo despite not having this book in our canon, would not be in union with the Ethiopians and Eritreans if by their inclusion of the book they meant that Jesus was a "reincarnation" of Enoch! Heaven forbid! But we know they don't, and we know that our faith is the same Orthodox faith of the apostles and the apostolic church itself, so it is really not a problem.

Remember that our Lord Jesus Christ asked His apostles "Who do you say that I am?" after asking who men say that He is (Mark 8). Men said that Jesus was Elijah, Son the Baptist, or one of the prophets. As usual, there is talk and conspiracy on all sides (today as in those days), and everyone thinks they have found some new "truth" about our Lord. But what is important is not to find that over here was another "son of man" or "son of God" or "messiah" (well, of course, all of these things are important for the Church in a typological perspective; particularly for the Coptic and Tewahedo churches that carry on the Alexandrian hermeneutic tradition...but I digress...), as there have been many both before Jesus Christ and after Him (as the scriptures warned us so of the coming of false prophets and false messiahs). What is important is just that: "Who do you say that I am?"

 

[johnboy3434]

I'm sorry, friend, but I don't quite understand your question. Can you explain in some other words why this is a problem for you?

Thank you so much for your detailed reply. I don't know if it changes your answer, but I'll rephrase my question.

Throughout Chapters 37-71 of Enoch, reference is made to a "Son of Man" who will rule, cleanse the world of the wicked, usher in a heavenly kingdom, etc. From a Christian viewpoint, this can be no one other than Jesus. Yet, in chapter 71, Enoch himself is declared to be the Son of Man in question, despite no previous identification of the two throughout the work. It's an odd, "out of nowhere" development that doesn't make much sense from either a theological or plain logical point of view. As such, it caused me some concern when I read it.

You are correct, of course, that "Son of Man" need not be a title when used of anyone but Jesus, but the fact that the term had been consistently used of a certain eschatological figure throughout the book, the sudden use of it to describe Enoch seemed to carry the mark of a direct identification.

So, I was inquiring as to the Tewahedo Church's exegesis concerning that chapter.

 

[AlephBet]

I'm sorry, friend, but I don't quite understand your question. Can you explain in some other words why this is a problem for you?

What is important is just that: "Who do you say that I am?"

Is it safe to answer, "cosmos / me / you / us?"

Colossians 1

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

[dzheremi]

Is it safe to answer, "cosmos / me / you / us?"

Colossians 1

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Within the Orthodox Christian tradition, no. Christ is not the cosmos, nor is He me or us (He has blessed our nature in Himself, certainly, but it is too much to therefore make such a statement as "Christ is me", if I mean by that to make an individual identification of myself with Christ, or vice-versa). But I see by the OP's reply that I misunderstood the nature of their question. I thought they meant that the problem was that Enoch was called "son of man", as though this usurps a title unique to Christ. That's why I posted as I did, about the fact that "son of man" is really just an English translation of a very common phrase found in many ancient languages, from a time long before our Lord Jesus Christ's incarnation. Now I see that it is apparently more a question of the content of the Book of Enoch, and since I don't know that book (it is unique to the Ethiopian canon), I'm afraid I cannot help the OP (sorry, OP).

 

[Lukaris]

There is another section in the Book of Enoch in which the Son of Man is mentioned alongside the Ancient of Days in agreement with the vision of Daniel 7.



The Book of Enoch ~ Chapter 46 {Top}

46:1 46:1There I beheld the Ancient of days, whose head was like white wool, and with him another, whose countenance resembled that of man. His countenance was full of grace, like that of one of the holy angels. GHS RHC
46:2 Then I inquired of one of the angels, who went with me, and who showed me every secret thing, concerning this GHS RHC
46:3 Son of Man; who he was; whence he was and why he accompanied the Ancient of days. 46:2He answered and said to me, This is the Son of Man, to whom righteousness belongs; with whom righteousness has dwelt; and who will reveal all the treasures of that which is concealed: for the Lord of spirits has chosen him; and his portion has surpassed all before the Lord of spirits in everlasting uprightness.



The Book of Enoch, Richard Lawrence version, with versification according to RH Charles




As far as the term: "son of man" note that God called the prophet Ezekiel by this name dozens of times. see:


https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NKJV&quicksearch=son+of+man+&begin=33&end=33

 

[SummaScriptura]

Thank you so much for your detailed reply. I don't know if it changes your answer, but I'll rephrase my question.

Throughout Chapters 37-71 of Enoch, reference is made to a "Son of Man" who will rule, cleanse the world of the wicked, usher in a heavenly kingdom, etc. From a Christian viewpoint, this can be no one other than Jesus. Yet, in chapter 71, Enoch himself is declared to be the Son of Man in question, despite no previous identification of the two throughout the work. It's an odd, "out of nowhere" development that doesn't make much sense from either a theological or plain logical point of view. As such, it caused me some concern when I read it.

You are correct, of course, that "Son of Man" need not be a title when used of anyone but Jesus, but the fact that the term had been consistently used of a certain eschatological figure throughout the book, the sudden use of it to describe Enoch seemed to carry the mark of a direct identification.

So, I was inquiring as to the Tewahedo Church's exegesis concerning that chapter.

 

[SummaScriptura]

There is a textual problem with chapter 71. A few verses before the one you cite have been dropped from the text per R.H. Charles. However, in chapter 46, there is a parallel passage where it says, "I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that Son of Man, who he was". Enoch is then give the same answer as you are seeing in chapter 71. It is a simple answer to a question as to who is the Son of Man?

Interesting side note: chapters 60-71, are said to be written by Noah. In them Noah has a heavenly journey which mirrors an earlier one taken by Enoch. So the two ocassions in which this question is being answered are two different persons on two different ocassions.