Irenaeus Believed in the Eternal Pre-Existence of the Son

Many Muslim apologists often have argued that the idea of Jesus eternally existing as God's Son is something which "came later" at the Council of Nicea. They insist that none of the fathers of the Church before Nicea (or "Constantine") believed that Jesus had existed as God for all of eternity. This was the main point of Mohammed Hijab in his 2018 "debate" with David Wood. He made the rather baffling statement that "none" of the church fathers were Trinitarians in the modern sense. Adnan Rashid also said this in one of his debates with Dr. James White.

Lately, I have been reading Irenaeus' work Against Heresies, in which he is refuting the heretical views of the Gnostic groups and heretics such as Valentinus, Saturninus, Basilides, and others. Here is a quote from Book 2 which shows that he certainly believed in the doctrine of the Trinity as we Christians believe it today, thus showing that the arguments of people like Mohammed Hijab are false:

"But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues, and all to whom He wills that God should be revealed." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.30.9)

In commenting on Irenaeus' theology of the Trinity (as well as his christology), patristic scholar Johannes Quasten says the following:

"Although Irenaeus does not discuss the relationships of the three Divine Persons within God he is convinced that the existence of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is clearly proved in the history of mankind. They existed before the creation of man, because the words, 'Let us make man after our image and likeness' are addressed by the Father to the Son and the Holy Spirit, whom St. Irenaeus allegorically calls the 'hands of God' (Adv. Haer. 5.1.3; 5.5.1; 5.28.1). Thus the whole economy of salvation in the Old Testament is an excellent instruction regarding the three Person in the one God....Therefore Christ is identical with the Son of God, with the Logos, with the God-man Jesus, with our Savior and our Lord." (Johannes Quasten, Patrology, Vol 1: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature, pgs. 294-95)

Romans 6:9 Disproves the Deity of Christ?

 

Romans 6 in p46 (c. 3rd century)

Some Islamic apologists (such as Ijaz Ahmad, in particular) insist that the following verse from the Bible disproves the deity of Christ: 

"We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. " (Romans 6:9 ESV) 

Muslims insist that nothing can have "dominion"/"rule over" God, and thus Jesus could not have been God. In this article, we will examine this claim and show how it not only does not refute the deity of Christ, but actually proves it instead. 

For starters, it is quite strange and startling that Islamic apologists would go to this verse in the first place. There are a few reasons for this:

- The verse affirms that Jesus died ("death no longer has dominion"), something which Islam generally denies. (There is some debate as to whether Surah 4:157 denies only the crucifixion of Jesus or if it rules out Him dying in any way altogether). 

- The verse affirms that Jesus was raised from the dead ("being raised from the dead").

Of course, many Muslims might reply back that they do not consider the New Testament to be reliable at all, and thus what this verse says does not matter. This very argument can be turned against them: why would they cite this verse in the first place if it "unreliable" in order to disprove the deity of Christ?

It must be recognized that Jesus willingly submitted to death in order that He might save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21; cf. Luke 1:31). This is recognized by some commentators on this verse in Romans:

"Christ no longer dies because the dominion (κυριεύει) that death exercised over him has been broken. Christ willingly submitted himself to death and its rule, so that he might free those who were under its authority." (Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI 1998], pg. 320)

"9.Death no more rules over him, etc. He seems to imply that death once ruled over Christ; and indeed when he gave himself up to death for us, he in a manner surrendered and subjected himself to its power; it was however in such a way that it was impossible that he should be kept bound by its pangs, so as to succumb to or to be swallowed up by them. He, therefore, by submitting to its dominion, as it were, for a moment, destroyed it for ever. Yet, to speak more simply, the dominion of death is to be referred to the state of death voluntarily undergone, which the resurrection terminated. The meaning is, that Christ, who now vivifies the faithful by his Spirit, or breathes his own life into them by his secret power from heaven, was freed from the dominion of death when he arose, that by virtue of the same dominion he might render free all his people." (Calvin's Commentary on the Bible, source) 

"Verse 9. - Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. When it is implied here that death had once dominion over him, it is not, of course, meant that he was in his own Divide nature subject to death, or that . 'it was possible that he should be holden of it." All that is implied is that he had made himself subject to it by taking on him our nature, and voluntarily submitted to it, once for all, as representing us (cf. John 10:17; Acts 2:24). " (The Pulpit Commentary, source, a commentary which Ijaz himself has cited on his website before) 

(I am somewhat unsure if there was some sort of typo in the Pulpit Commentary cited above, i.e. whether it should have said "divine nature" rather than "divide nature". I am going with the former reading since the latter does not really make any sense)

This somewhat leads to the issue of where Jesus might have been in between His death and resurrection. It must be firmly recognized that Jesus did not cease to exist as God between His death and resurrection. We know this from what Jesus says in the Gospel of John:

"Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' " (John 2:19)

If the Lord Jesus did not exist between His death and resurrection, then why did He say "I will raise it up"? This issue has been noted in commentators on John. Here is one example from the Protestant Reformer John Calvin:

"I will raise it up again. Here Christ claims for himself the glory of his resurrection, though, in many passages of Scripture, it is declared to be the work of God the Father. But these two statements perfectly agree with each other; for, in order to give us exalted conceptions of the power of God, Scripture expressly ascribes to the Father that he raised up his Son from the dead; but here, Christ in a special manner asserts his own Divinity." (Calvin's Commentary on the Bible, source) 

To wrap things up, we should note here what is said in the book of Hebrews:

"Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death." (Hebrews 2:14-15)

As Christians, we accept fully every single one of the passages in the Bible where it speaks of Jesus' death, since as the above verse said, He has victory over death through death. 

Documentation for Pope Gelasius' Denial of Transubstantiation

(I would like to acknowledge that Evangelical Answers has provided much of this material)

Here is an interesting quote from Pope Gelasius concerning the nature of the elements of the bread and wine in the Eucharist:

"The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries." (De duabus naturis in Christo Adv. Eutychen et Nestorium, this quote from Gelasius is attested in a few different sources: [1] [2] [3] [4])

Latin Text: Quod mysterium a beatae conceptionis exordio sic coepisse sacra scriptura testatur dicendo: Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum, septiformis Spiritus soliditate subnixam, quae incarnationis Christi, per quam efcimur divinae consortes naturae, ministraret alimoniam. Certe sacramenta, quae sumimus, corporis et sanguinis ti divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; et tamen non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini.  Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum [Schwartz: mystical] celebrantur. Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum, quod in ejus imagine profitemur, celebramus et sumimus: =ut sicut in hanc, scilicet in divinam, transeant sancto Spiritu perficiente substantiam permanentes tamen in suae proprietate naturae; [Schwartz: ut sicut haec licet in diuinam transeant sancto spiritu perficiente substantiam, permanent tamen in suae proprietate naturae] sic illud ipsum mysterium principale, cujus nobis efficientiam virtutemque veraciter repraesentant, ex quibus constat proprie permanentibus, unum Christum, quia integrum verumque, permanere demonstrant. 

This contradicts the definition of transubstantiation given by Rome:

"But in the Eucharist-a supernatural transformation-substantial change occurs without accidental alteration. Thus, the properties of bread and wine continue after consecration, but their essence and substance cease to exist, replaced by the substance of the true and actual Body and Blood of Christ." (Dave Armstrong, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism [Sophia Institute Press; Manchester, NH, 2003], pg. 81)

"If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session 13, Canon 2)."

Some Roman Catholic apologists have responded to this clear qutoe from Pope Gelasius by insisting that he is speaking only of the accidents, or outward appearance of the bread and wine. Yet the clear reading of Gelasius is his plain assertion that the substance does not change, which is explicitly contradictory to what the Roman Catholic church teaches today concerning the doctrine of transubstantiation. I yet again commend Evangelical Answers for his extensive research on this issue. He says the following:

"Gelasius is combatting the Monophysite heresy, which asserts that the incarnate Christ has only one nature (divine), not two (one divine and one human). See, for example, the title given to this treatise: De duabus naturis in Christo adversus Eutychem et Nestorium, note that the word nature is a reference to Christ's internal essence or being not His external appearance. Gelasius' refutation of Monophysitism is predicated on the comparison of the bread and wine of the Lord's supper to the incarnate Christ. According to Gelasius, just as the consecrated bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ while still remaining bread and wine (two natures, one divine one earthly), so also the incarnate Christ possesses two natures one divine and one human. If Gelasius is intending the terms "substantia" and "natura" to refer to external appearance rather than internal essence or being then his entire argument is meaningless (the Monophysites did not deny that Christ appeared outwardly as a man)." (https://evangelicalanswers.blogspot.com/2020/12/gelasius-and-transubstantiation.html)

Here are some quotes from patristic scholars, church historians, etc. regarding this quote from Pope Gelasius:

(I give credit once again to Evangelical Answers for pointing out the following quotations)

"Pope St. Gelasius, who, in his treatise De duabus naturis in Christo adversus Eutychen et Nestorium, attempts to prove against the Monophysites that Christ’s human and divine natures preserve their proper essence in the hypostatic union, and in proof of his assertion appeals to the Eucharist. He argues as follows: The sacraments of Christ’s body and blood, which we receive, are certainly a divine thing (divina res est); et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. The Eucharist is an image of the Incarnation; now, in the sacred mysteries the eucharistic elements in hanc, scilicet in divinam transeunt, sancto Spiritu perficiente, substantiam, permanentes tamen in suae proprietate naturae; hence, in that chief mystery, of which the Eucharist is the image, and “of which it truly represents to us the efficacy and virtue,” both the human and divine natures preserve their own proper being in the one Christ. In order that this argument may be conclusive, it evidently does not suffice that the minor affirms that the accidents, species and appearances, are preserved in the Eucharist — for the Monophysites did not deny that Jesus Christ appeared externally as a man — it must also be affirmed that the eucharistic elements, once they have been consecrated, even when “they pass into a divine substance,” preserve their proper nature of bread and wine, and that is apparently what Gelasius says: “esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini . . . permanentes tamen in suae proprietate naturae.”" (Joseph Tixeront, History of Dogmas, Volume 3, pgs. 365-66, source) 

"…his identification of the two sacraments, i.e. of the body and of the blood, as one symbolical reality, indicates how far Gelasius’s thought is from what became traditional Western scholastic theology. …Not surprisingly, it has significant points of contact with Augustine’s theology of eucharistic consecration, for, in important matters, Gelasius tends to borrow from the doctrinal expositions of the bishop of Hippo. But in the matter of the sacraments of the body and blood, his teaching is more closely related to that of the Antiochene branch of Eastern eucharistic theology as it had evolved in the context of the fifth century Christological controversies’. It is remarkably similar to that of the orthodox partner in the dialogue of Theodoret’s Eranistes; although there are enough differences to exclude arguing decisively for or against a direct borrowing. (Edward J. Kilmartin, “The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I,” Studia Patristica, Vol. XXIX, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone, pp. 283-284. Here)

"In his treatise On the Two Natures in Christ a comparison is made between the Incarnation and the Eucharist. Pope Gelasius is there defending against the Eutychians the doctrine of the abiding reality of the human nature of Christ affirmed by the Council of Chalcedon; and he introduces an argument from the Eucharist in much the same way as the Catholic theologian in the Dialogue of Theodoret and the writer of the letter ascribed to St. Chrysostom. The one Person of Christ, he maintains, is abidingly in the two unimpaired natures of manhood and Godhead. In like manner there are in the Eucharist both the body and blood of Christ and the substance and nature of bread and wine." (Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist [London: Longman’s, Green, 1909], pgs. 101-102, source)

The Son of Man in Dan. 7, Judaism, and the Gospels [Part 3]

 

The "son of Man" sayings of Jesus are generally placed into the following 3 categories:

- The earthly sayings (Matthew 8:20; 11:19; 13:37; Luke 19:10)

- The sayings which speak of His suffering (Matthew 12:40; 17:12; 20:28; 26:24; Mark 9:12-13; 10:45; 14:21)

- the sayings which speak of the Son of Man in the future [the "future sayings"] (Matthew 10:23; 13:41-43; 16:27)

There is a lot of scholarly debate as to whether or not the Son of Man sayings are authentic. Rudolf Bultmann, for example, views the eschatological [future] sayings as being authentic, but, as far as I know, dismisses the rest as inauthentic. Many who hold this view may argue that the Son of Man sayings were invented by the early church in some way. However, there are some problems with this idea:

"The idea that this expression was solely the product of the early church faces two significant questions that bring a post-Easter church view into doubt. (1) Why was this title so massively retrojected, seemingly being placed on Jesus’ lips in an exclusive way unlike any other major title, such as ‘Lord’, ‘Son of God’ and ‘Messiah’? (2) If this title was fashioned by the early church and was created as the self-designation of Jesus, why has it left almost no trace in non-Gospel NT literature, unlike the other titles?" (Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Vol 1, pg. 507)

"I am simply unable to believe that the so-called earliest Palestinian community (that is, in reality, his closest disciples) made him the resurrected Son of Man after the appearances, and then quickly suppressed the cipher because it was unsuitable for mission proclamation, while at the same time being extremely careful to insure that in the gospels tradition only Jesus speaks of the Son of Man, never his disciples, just as the Messiah title was strictly held at a distance from him in the production of the dominical sayings. Radical critical exegetes seem to me to be too trusting here. In a similar context, A. Schlatter speaks of the ‘conjecture that creates “history”’." (Martin Hengel, Studies in Early Christology, pgs. 59-60)

"It is curious that many scholars doubt the authenticity of “Son of Man” when it clearly matches the criterion of dissimilarity. The phrase is scarcely used outside the Gospels, and so we do not have an example of a term that was a favorite in the writings of the early church. If the church placed the title on the lips of the historical Jesus, we have difficulty understanding why it is lacking elsewhere in the NT.....If one accepts the standard solution to the Synoptic problem, then the term also fits the criterion of multiple attestation. It occurs in Mark fourteen times, in the Q material eleven times, in the special M material six times, in the special L material seven times, and in the Gospel of John thirteen times. The remarkable variety of contexts in which the term occurs constitutes significant evidence supporting authenticity," (Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology, pg. 223)

For more information on the criteria of authenticity, see this article. 

Some think that the Son of Man and Jesus are two different figures, generally appealing to Luke 12:8 to find support for such a view. However, commentators have seen the clear flaw in this argument:

"Some argue that the Son of Man and Jesus are distinct figures in this passage. but such usage would make this an exception to Jesus' pattern of using the term in reference to himself." (Darrell L. Bock, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 2 vols, source)

"For the attempt to distinguish Jesus and the Son of Man in this verse, see comments on 9:26." (Robert H. Stein,  New American Bible Commentary: Luke, pg. 348)

Obviously, we need to see what Stein says on Lk. 9:26:

"Attempts have been made to distinguish between Jesus and the Son of Man in this verse because the Son of referred to in the third person (cf. also Luke 12:8; 22:69; Matt. 19:28), but no Evangelist interpreted these sayings in this way. It is better to interpret the Son of Man sayings in the third person as referring not to two different persons but rather to two different states: Jesus' present lowly condition and his future glory and exaltation." (Robert H. Stein, New American Bible Commentary: Luke, pg. 280)

Hopefully, this article provided you with a brief overview and some of the evidence in favor of the authenticity of the Son of man sayings of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

The Son of Man in Dan. 7, Judaism, and the Synoptic Gospels [Part 2]

 

1 Enoch 37-71 (also known as the "Similtudes") is key in this issue of understanding the meaning of the "Son of Man" in Second Temple Judaism. The thing is is that it does not show up in the Qumran documents, and thus there is scholarly debate over whether it is pre-Christian or post-Christian, or whether it was written before or after A.D. 70. 

"There is a growing consensus among those who work most closely with 1 Enoch that the Similitudes are fully Jewish and were probably written before 100 or quite possibly before 70 C.E. But even if this material was composed after the Gospel traditions had been shaped, it is probably evidence for non-Christian reflection on the figure from Dan 7:13-14 that goes back to the time of Jesus." (F.H. Borsch, "Further Reflections on 'The Son of Man': The Origins and Development of the Title", in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth, pg. 141)

"Hence, scholars debate whether the chapters are pre- or post-Christian. We cannot delve into that discussion here, though it seems to me that those who argue for a date before AD 70 are persuasive. Even if the chapters are post-Christian, they almost certainly represent independent tradition—perhaps in this instance a response to Christian tradition, for the Son of Man is not Jesus of Nazareth but may even be Enoch himself." (Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ, pgs. 216-217)

"Therefore we must conclude that while the date of the Similitudes is later than the rest of Enoch, it is a Jewish writing that reflects how certain Jewish circles interpreted the Danielic son of man in New Testament times. " (George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, pg. 147)

1 Enoch speaks of the "son of Man" has being preexistent in some sense:

"And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits, And his name before the Head of Days. Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits....And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him, Before the creation of the world and for evermore." (1 Enoch 48:2-3, 6; source)

It also teaches that the Son of Man will be worshipped:

"And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule the earth shall fall down before him on their faces, and worship, and set their hope upon that Son of Man, and petition him and supplicate for mercy at his hands." (1 Enoch 62:9)

1 Enoch portrays the Son of Man as one who executes judgment in some sense: 

"And after that their faces shall be filled with darkness and shame before that Son of Man, and they shall be driven from his presence, and the sword shall abide before his face in their midst." (1 Enoch 63:11)

Some have (such as Thomas Schreiner in New Testament Theology on pg. 217), claimed that the following passage refers to the Son of Man as being the Messiah: 

"And he said unto me: 'All these things which thou hast seen shall serve the dominion of His Anointed that he may be potent and mighty on the earth.' " (1 Enoch 52:4, some translations use the word "Messiah".)

The Son of Man in Dan. 7, Judaism, and the Synoptic Gospels [Part 1]

In the Gospel of Mark at Jesus' trial before the Jewish leaders, we read the following:

"But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?' And Jesus said, 'I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.' (Mark 14:61-62 ESV, cf. Matt. 26:64)

Jesus here refers to Himself as being the "Son of Man". This title of Jesus has been a big subject of debate among scholarship and in discussing the deity of Christ. In particular, Daniel 7 is a key text since it is regarded as a direct allusion by Jesus:

"I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." (Daniel 7:13-14)

I think there are good arguments to think that the "son of man" referred to here is a divine figure, none other than the Messiah Himself (Jesus). 

In verse 14, it teaches that the entire world will serve the "son of man". The specific Hebrew verb that is used here is the word פְלַח. In the book of Daniel, this verb is used to denote service to God or worship in some sense (it is also used for the service of false gods):

"....These men, O king, pay no attention to you; they do not serve (פָלְחִ֔ין) your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up." (Daniel 3:12)

"Nebuchadnezzar answered and said to them, “Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you do not serve (פָּֽלְחִ֔ין) my gods or worship the golden image that I have set up?" (Daniel 3:14)

"If this be so, our God whom we serve (פָֽלְחִ֔ין) is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. " (Daniel 3:17)

"But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve (פָֽלְחִ֔ין) your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up. " (Daniel 3:18)

".....and yielded up their bodies rather than serve (יִפְלְח֤וּן) and worship any god except their own God. " (Daniel 3:28)

" Then the king commanded, and Daniel was brought and cast into the den of lions. The king declared to Daniel, “May your God, whom you serve (פָּֽלַֽח) continually, deliver you!" (Daniel 6:16)

"The king declared to Daniel, 'O Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve  (פָּֽלַֽח)  continually, been able to deliver you from the lions?' " (Daniel 6:20)

"And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve  (יִפְלְח֑וּן) him" (Daniel 7:14)

Here is the Brown Driver Briggs entry for this verb:

Notice it cites Daniel 7:14 as an instance where the meaning "to serve God" is located. 

Here are some commentaries on the verse:

John Calvin: "As it were the Son of man appeared in the clouds. Without doubt this is to be understood of Christ, and the Jews, perverse as they are, are ashamed to deny it, although they differ afterwards about Christ. But the object of the vision was to enable the faithful certainly to expect the promised Redeemer in his own time. He had been endued with heavenly power, and was seated at his Father’s right hand." (https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/daniel-7.html)

John Gill: "and, behold one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven; not Judas Maccabaeus, as Porphyry; nor the Roman people, as Grotius; nor the people of Israel, as Aben Ezra; nor the people of the saints of the most High, as Cocceius; but the Messiah, as most Christian interpreters, and even the Jews themselves, both ancient and modern, allow.(https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/geb/daniel-7.html)

In fact, Rashi (a Jewish commentator) says the following: 

"one like a man was coming That is the King Messiah." (source)

Notice also that Daniel 7:13 speaks of the "son of man" as being one who comes with the clouds of heaven. Such language is used of Yahweh elsewhere in the Bible:

"An oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt; and the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them." (Isaiah 19:1)

"Sing to God, sing praises to his name; lift up a song to him who rides through the deserts; his name is the LORD; exult before him! " (Psalm 68:4)

"The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, and the LORD will by no means clear the guilty. His way is in whirlwind and storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. " (Nahum 1:3)

" He lays the beams of his chambers on the waters; he makes the clouds his chariot; he rides on the wings of the wind; " (Psalm 104:3)

This theophany is also used in the Qur'an to describe Allah:

"Will they wait until Allah comes to them in canopies of clouds, with angels (in His train) and the question is thus settled? But to Allah do all questions go back (for decision)" (Surah 2:210, Yusuf Ali Translation)

New Testament scholars have recognized the importance of this issue in regards to Jesus' use of the term "Son of Man":

"it can hardly be doubted that Dan. 7 was the source upon which Jesus based his own understanding and to which he pointed in his use of the term ["son of Man"]. (Richard Longnecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, pg. 90)

"The mention of clouds with the Son of man's coming in Mk. 13:26 and 14:62 deliberately recalls Dan 7:13." (Craig Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, pg. 202, source)

In the next article we will deal with what the Jewish writing 1 Enoch says about this issue, and also briefly touch on key aspects of the scholarly debate over 1 Enoch.