This paper reexamines a widely accepted assumption in New Testament scholarship—that the Synoptic Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus as eschatological judge parallels the figure of the Son of Man in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 En. 37–71). Scholars such as Daniel A. Kirk (A Man Attested by God) and Bart D. Ehrman (How Jesus Became God) have appealed to this Enochic background to contextualize Jesus’ judging role within the category of exalted but non-divine intermediary figures. This study challenges that framework.
The paper identifies three key functions of κρίνω: (1) ruling or governing, (2) executing divine vengeance, and (3) determining individuals’ eternal fate. While the first two functions are occasionally shared with humans or angels, the third—assigning eternal destiny—is portrayed in Second Temple Judaism as God’s exclusive prerogative.
Close readings of Matt 7:21–23, 16:27, and 25:31–46 demonstrate that Jesus is depicted in the Synoptic tradition as exercising this divine function. He pronounces final verdicts, receives petitions from the judged, and makes himself the criterion for salvation or condemnation. These features do not align with known intermediary figures but instead suggest that Jesus is assuming the unique role of God as eschatological judge.
The paper then assesses the Son of Man in the Similitudes of Enoch, where this figure is described in exalted terms and is associated with judgment in texts such as 1 En. 45:3, 49:4, 51:2, 55:4, and 61:8–10. However, in each instance, the Son of Man operates dependently—his authority is derived from the “Lord of the Spirits.” He acts “in the name” of God and is never clearly presented as the ultimate arbiter of eternal destiny. Unlike Jesus in the Synoptic texts, he does not issue imperatives such as “Come” or “Depart from me,” nor does he claim independent authority over life and judgment.
The use of the Similitudes as a background for the Synoptic tradition also raises critical methodological concerns. This portion of 1 Enoch is not attested at Qumran, and it survives only in much later Ethiopic manuscripts. There are no extant Greek or Semitic versions, and the earliest manuscript evidence dates from the fifteenth century. Although some scholars argue for a pre-Christian origin based on internal references to social and political oppression—possibly pointing to Roman or Herodian contexts—these arguments remain circumstantial. The absence of direct historical references and early manuscript support renders the dating and influence of the Similitudes highly uncertain.
In conclusion, the comparison between Jesus and Enoch’s Son of Man fails on theological, textual, and historical grounds. The Synoptic Gospels present Jesus not as a delegated judge but as the divine judge, executing God’s unique role in determining eternal destiny. As such, the depiction of Jesus in these texts should be understood as a claim to divine identity rather than a reflection of intermediary traditions in early Judaism