Who is the Son of Man in 1 Enoch 71:14?

In recent years, the Book of Enoch (also known as 1 Enoch) has become increasingly popular among some Christians, with many arguing that it should be regarded as inspired Scripture. While there are several reasons to reject that conclusion (as I outline in my book Pseudo-Scripture), one of the most significant is that the book contradicts Scripture regarding the identity of the Messiah. Indeed, the Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71), particularly 1 Enoch 71:14, identifies Enoch himself as the exalted Son of Man. This article presents the evidence for this reading of the text and addresses the objections commonly raised against it.

Introduction

The fundamental claim of the New Testament is that Yeshua (Jesus) is the promised Messiah. He is the fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures—the one through whom God accomplishes salvation and who has been appointed to rule, judge, and receive worship. Moreover, the New Testament repeatedly warns about false messiahs and commands believers not to be deceived by them (e.g., Matt. 24:3–5, 23). As we will see below, the Book of Parables presents Enoch himself as the Messiah rather than Yeshua. If that is indeed what the text teaches, then it makes a claim that followers of Yeshua cannot accept.

Let us begin by examining how the Book of Parables portrays the Messiah. In 1 Enoch 37–71, the author describes a series of visions in which Enoch is shown the coming final judgment. At the center of these visions is a Messianic figure identified by several titles, including the “Son of Man,” “Chosen One,” “Righteous One,” and “Anointed One.”[1] According to the text, this figure will be a light to the nations, and in his name the righteous will receive salvation. He is also depicted as sitting on a throne of glory, judging the deeds of mankind, and receiving worship from all who dwell on the earth (1 Enoch 45:3–6; 48:3–7; 51:1–3). These are all roles that the Hebrew Scriptures attribute to the promised Messiah and that the New Testament applies to Yeshua.[2]

The fact that the Book of Parables presents such a Messianic figure is widely acknowledged, even by those who argue that the Book of Enoch is inspired. For instance, Timothy Alberino states that 1 Enoch “employs the term ‘Son of Man’ as a formal title ascribed exclusively to the Promised Messiah.” He interprets these passages as referring to Yeshua and argues that the Book of Enoch contains genuine prophecies that are validated by the New Testament: “This is in the Book of Enoch written before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth…So clearly the Messianic content in the Book of Enoch, in my mind, validat[es] its authenticity.”[3] Adam Fink similarly states, “1st Enoch has some of the most vivid prophecies regarding Messiah.” After quoting 1 Enoch 48:6, which Fink believes depicts the Son of Man figure as existing “before the world was created,”[4] he declares, “Truly, Messiah Yahusha has been with the Father since the beginning, and Enoch solidifies this fact.”[5] Several others who regard the Book of Enoch as inspired likewise interpret these passages in the Book of Parables as prophecies about Yeshua.[6]

Thus, there is broad agreement that the Book of Parables does indeed describe a Messianic figure who fulfills prophecies found in the Hebrew Scriptures, such as serving as a light to the nations, bringing salvation, ruling the world from God’s throne, judging humanity, receiving universal worship, and so forth. Those who view the Book of Enoch as inspired simply interpret these passages as referring to Yeshua. However, there is a significant problem with that interpretation: the Book of Parables explicitly tells us who this figure is, and it is not Yeshua. From the perspective of the author, this figure is Enoch himself.

The Book of Enoch Depicts Enoch as the Messiah

The identity of the exalted Son of Man from the visions is revealed in chapter 71 of the Book of Parables. There, Enoch is taken to the “heaven of heavens” to the very palace of God. He is greeted by God, four archangels, and innumerable other angels. Then, in verse 14, the book makes a remarkable claim: Enoch is identified as the very Son of Man who appeared earlier in the visions:

And the Head of Days came with Michael and Raphael and Gabriel and Phanuel, and thousands and tens of thousands of angels without number. And he came to me and greeted me with his voice and said to me, “You (are) that Son of Man who was born for righteousness, and righteousness dwells on you, and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not forsake you. (1 Enoch 71:13–14, emphasis added)[7]

Here, we see that the author explicitly identifies Enoch as this Messianic figure. That means the passages describing the Son of Man, the Chosen One, the Righteous One, and the Anointed One are not presented as prophecies about Yeshua. According to the Book of Parables, they are about Enoch. This fact presents a serious problem for any follower of Yeshua who wants to uphold the Book of Enoch as inspired Scripture. The Book of Enoch directly conflicts with the New Testament’s teaching regarding the identity of the Messiah.

Faced with this difficulty, those who argue that the Book of Enoch is inspired have offered two primary responses to this passage. One argument is that Enoch is being identified as a “son of man,” but not the Son of Man described earlier in the visions. Another argument is that this passage has been mistranslated. According to this view, the passage is not identifying Enoch as the Son of Man at all. Instead, it is describing Enoch being introduced to the Son of Man. Let us consider each of these objections in turn.

Objection #1: Enoch is a son of man, but not the Son of Man

Some people claim that 1 Enoch 71:14 is not identifying Enoch as the Son of Man described earlier in the visions but rather as a different son of man. According to this view, the phrase “son of man” in this passage simply means “human being,” much like it does when God repeatedly addresses Ezekiel as “son of man” in the Hebrew Scriptures. On this interpretation, the passage is simply emphasizing Enoch’s humanity rather than identifying him with the exalted Son of Man figure.

The problem with that interpretation, however, is that chapter 71 describes Enoch using the very same language that earlier chapters use for the exalted Son of Man. For example, in chapter 46, the Son of Man is described as the one on whom righteousness dwells. Then, in chapter 71, Enoch is described in those very same terms:

This is the Son of Man who has righteousness, and righteousness dwells with him. (1 Enoch 46:3)

You are that Son of Man who was born for righteousness, and righteousness dwells on you. (1 Enoch 71:14)

This parallel suggests that the author intends the reader to identify Enoch with the exalted Son of Man introduced earlier in the book.

Additionally, nothing in the text suggests that the phrase “Son of Man” suddenly changes meaning in chapter 71 to simply mean “human being.” Throughout the Book of Parables, that exact expression consistently refers to the same exalted Messianic figure. There is no contextual reason to understand it differently in 1 Enoch 71:14. Rather, the context strongly indicates that the phrase should be understood in the same sense. As George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam write, “in the present context, the juxtaposition of ‘Head of Days’ and ‘Son of Man’ and other allusions to its original Danielic context all but require us to read the expression as the technical term that occurs fifteen times in the Parables.”[8] Leslie W. Walck similarly writes, “The whole flow of the narrative points to Enoch’s dramatic identification as the Son of Man. The attributes with which he is spoken of here cohere extremely well with the Son of Man.”[9] Walck further argues that the “identification of Enoch and the Son of Man is dramatic, but it has been prepared for.”[10] By contrast, the idea that Enoch is merely being identified as some separate righteous human “is anticlimactic and has not been prepared for by the author.”[11]

In short, the evidence favors the conclusion that the author intends Enoch to be identified with the exalted Son of Man introduced earlier in the Book of Parables. The claim that 1 Enoch 71:14 suddenly uses the phrase in a completely different sense does not fit the context.

Objection #2: Modern Translations of 1 Enoch 71:14 Are Wrong

Another response commonly offered by those who argue that the Book of Enoch should be regarded as Scripture is that 1 Enoch 71:14 was mistranslated. They appeal to a 1912 English translation of the Book of Enoch by R. H. Charles, which renders the verse differently. Instead of translating the statement in the second person—“You are that Son of Man”—Charles translated it in the third person: “This is the Son of Man.”[12] If Charles’s translation is correct, then the passage does not identify Enoch as the Son of Man. Instead, Enoch is being introduced to the Son of Man.

However, the problem with this argument is that Charles’s translation does not reflect what the Ethiopic text says. The Geʽez reads አንተ ውእቱ ወልደ ብእሲ, which has the second-person pronoun አንተ (“you”).[13] The natural rendering is therefore, “You are that Son of Man.” If the text intended to say, “This is the Son of Man,” we would expect a construction using ዝንቱ or its shorter form ዝ (“this”). We see this, for example, in 1 Enoch 106:16, which says, “This is the son” (ዝ ውእቱ ወልድ).[14] Grammatically, then, the Ethiopic text identifies Enoch himself as the Son of Man, not someone standing beside the Son of Man.

Significantly, R. H. Charles himself acknowledged that his translation of this verse does not reflect what the text says. In the footnotes to his 1912 translation, Charles admitted that “This is” was an emendation and that the Ethiopic text actually reads, “Thou art.”[15] In other words, Charles did not claim that the original text says, “This is the Son of Man.” He recognized that the Ethiopic identifies Enoch as the Son of Man, even though he chose to translate the verse differently.

Why did Charles translate the verse differently from what the Ethiopic text actually says? Simply put, he was skeptical that Enoch could fail to recognize himself as the figure seen in the earlier visions and then need to be informed of his identity.[16] Because of that, Charles chose to “emend the text of 1 Enoch 71:14 to the third person instead of the second person” and to make “the necessary changes in the rest of the text to bring it into harmony with the 3rd person rendering.”[17] Additionally, Charles proposed that there was a now-lost passage of the book that identified the Son of Man as someone other than Enoch.[18] In other words, Charles’s translation was not based on what the Ethiopic manuscripts say, but rather was based on his own conjecture about what he believed the text should have said.[19]

The biggest problem with Charles’s treatment of this passage is that there is not a single shred of textual evidence supporting it. As Leslie W. Walck observes, Charles’s “extensive emendation has no surviving textual basis in any of the manuscripts, and for this reason is to be rejected.”[20] John J. Collins also criticizes Charles’s approach, stating that his “procedure has no basis in the text and is clearly unacceptable.”[21] Similarly, Nickelsburg and VanderKam write that “Charles’s tour de force…has no foundation in the MSS. and has been universally rejected by scholars.”[22] And once again, Charles himself acknowledged that the text does not support his translation, which is why he felt the need to emend it to say something different. Instead of basing our conclusions about the identity of the Son of Man in 1 Enoch 71:14 on a conjectural reconstruction with no manuscript support, it is better to form our interpretations based on what the text actually says.

So how might we resolve the apparent problem that Enoch—the narrator who receives these visions of the Son of Man—is ultimately identified as that very figure? One possible solution is suggested by James C. VanderKam. He argues that throughout these visions, Enoch is actually seeing who he himself will become in the future:

[N]o passage requires that one think of a separate being called the son of man existing in heaven while Enoch lives elsewhere. Enoch sees the son of man in visions of the future, not disclosures of the present. He is seeing only what he will become.[23]

Regarding Enoch’s failure to recognize himself in the earlier visions, since the Son of Man is portrayed as an exalted and divine figure, it is not difficult to imagine that Enoch, in his present earthly state, would not immediately recognize who he would one day become. Whether or not that is the correct explanation, one advantage of VanderKam’s interpretation is that it accepts the text as it stands. It does not require changing the text or inventing hypothetical lost passages.

Did the Original Book of Parables Say Something Different?

Before we conclude, there is one more objection that needs to be addressed. Some people argue that the Ethiopic text of 1 Enoch 71:14 is simply wrong and that the original version of the passage did not identify Enoch as the Son of Man. For instance, Timothy Alberino admits that “the Ethiopic translation renders the passage that way,” but argues that “it is an error, which R. H. Charles recognized and corrected.” He further writes, “The Geʽez translation is not perfect. The identity of the Son of Man in 1 Enoch is undisputably [sic] not Enoch.”[24]

The problem with this objection is that we do not possess any Aramaic or Greek manuscripts of the Book of Parables. As Vladimir Olivero writes, “the Book of Parables (1 En. 37–71) remains to this day unattested in Aramaic and Greek, and we can access it only in its Ethiopic translation.”[25] And as we saw above, the Ethiopic text clearly identifies Enoch as the Son of Man.

That leaves proponents of the Book of Enoch in a difficult position. Appealing to a hypothetical "original" text that differs from every surviving manuscript is effectively an admission that the Book of Parables, as we have it today, presents Enoch as the Messiah. They are therefore faced with two options. If the text we actually have is inspired, then it teaches that Enoch is the Messiah, which is a claim that contradicts the New Testament. But if the inspired version is some lost, hypothetical original that no longer exists, then one is arguing for the inspiration of a text that nobody actually has. So which version of 1 Enoch should we consider to be Scripture—the one that teaches a false Messiah, or a hypothetical version that nobody even knows ever existed? Neither option seems reasonable.

Conclusion

The Book of Parables identifies Enoch as the exalted Son of Man described throughout the visions, and the common attempts to avoid this conclusion fail. The claim that Enoch is merely being identified as a different “son of man” does not fit the context, which consistently uses “Son of Man” for the same exalted figure throughout the book. Likewise, the claim that 1 Enoch 71:14 has been mistranslated is unsupported by the surviving Ethiopic text and instead depends on a conjectural emendation with no manuscript evidence. The most natural reading of the text is therefore that Enoch himself is identified as the exalted Son of Man. If that is what the Book of Enoch teaches, then it contradicts the New Testament’s teaching regarding the identity of the Messiah and therefore cannot be regarded as inspired Scripture.

---

[1] For a detailed examination of these four messianic designations, see James C. VanderKam, “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 169–91.

[2] Light to the nations (Isa. 42:6; 49:6; cf. Luke 2:32); salvation (Isa. 51:5; cf. Acts 4:12); enthronement and dominion (Psa. 110:1; Dan. 7:13–14; cf. Matt. 26:64; Heb. 1:3); judgment of humanity (Psa. 9:8; cf. John 5:22; Acts 17:31); universal worship (Dan. 7:14; Psa. 72:11; 97:7 cf. Phil. 2:10–11; Rev. 5:12–13; Heb. 1:6).

[3] Timothy Alberino, quoted in David Wilber, “Timothy Alberino is Wrong about the Son of Man in the Book of Enoch,” video, October 22, 2025.

[4] Scholars dispute the idea that this and other passages in the Book of Parables (cf. 1 Enoch 48:3; 62:7) teach the preexistence of the Son of Man. VanderKam offers a compelling case that the author did not intend to present the Son of Man as preexistent. See VanderKam, “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man,” 179–182.

[5] Adam Fink, “Is the Book of Enoch Scripture?,” Parable of the Vineyard, April 12, 2024. The name “Yahusha,” as used by Fink, is a mistransliteration of Yeshua commonly heard among teachers in the Sacred Name Movement. The Eth Cepher similarly adopts this rendering. To learn why the Messiah’s name is not Yahusha, see this video.

[6] See, e.g., Sean Griffin, Zach Bauer, and Ken Heidebrecht, “The Mighty Face The Elect One – w/Zachary Bauer – Honor of Kings – S2 E6,” YouTube, Jun 15, 2019.

[7] Geroge W.E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 95.

[8] George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37–82 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 328.

[9] Leslie W. Walck, The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and in Matthew (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 7.

[10] Walck, Son of Man, 7.

[11] Walck, Son of Man, 7.

[12] R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), 145.

[13] Vladimir Olivero, 1 Enoch: An Ethiopic Reader’s Edition (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2025), 234, 342.

[14] Olivero, 1 Enoch, 215, 347, 349.

[15] Charles, Book of Enoch, 145. Click here for a screenshot of his footnotes.

[16] Charles’s skepticism may not be entirely unreasonable since, as Walck observes, the Book of Parables “is the only instance of apocalyptic auto-vision that survives, in which the seer does not recognize himself ” (Son of Man, 5).

[17] Walck, Son of Man, 5.

[18] In Charles’ translation, between verses 13 and 14 of chapter 14, he inserts the following comment: “[Lost passage wherein the Son of Man was described as accompanying the Head of Days, and Enoch asked one of the angels (as in 46:3) concerning the Son of Man as to who he was.]” (Book of Enoch, 144–145).

[19] See T. W. Manson: “Here we abandon Charles, who has rewritten the rest of the passage in accordance with his view of what Enoch ought to have said” (“The Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch and the Gospels,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 32, no. 1 [1949], 187n1).

[20] Walck, Son of Man, 5.

[21] John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 188.

[22] Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 328.

[23] VanderKam, “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man,” 184.

[24] Alberino, quoted in Wilber, “Timothy Alberino is Wrong."

[25] Olivero, 1 Enoch, 4.

Share This Article!

---

About David Wilber

David Wilber is an author, Bible teacher, and CEO of Pronomian Publishing LLC. He has written several books and numerous theological articles, with his work appearing in outlets such as the Christian Post and the Journal of Biblical Theology. David has spoken at churches and conferences across the nation and has served as a researcher and Bible teacher for a number of Messianic and Christian ministries…