Notes
1. Note, however, that Moses 4:1–2 depicts Lucifer as being the first to present himself. How to reconcile this with Abraham 3:27, if at all possible, remains elusive. For a general perspective, see Andrew C. Skinner, “The Premortal Godhood of Christ: A Restoration Perspective,” in Jesus Christ: Son of God, Savior, ed. Paul H. Peterson, Gary L. Hatch, and Laura D. Card (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2002), 50–78.
2. For a discussion from a Latter-day Saint perspective, see S. Kent Brown, “Man and Son of Man: Issues of Theology and Christology,” in The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations from God, ed. H. Donl Peterson and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1989), 57–72.
3. Donald Senior, “Son of Man,” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), 1242.
4. Trevan G. Hatch, “Messianism and Jewish Messiahs in the New Testament Period,” in New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament, ed. Lincoln Blumell (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2019), 75.
5. Hatch, “Messianism and Jewish Messiahs,” 76.
6. See, generally, Larry W. Hurtado and Paul L. Owen, eds., “Who Is This Son of Man?” The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus (London: T&T Clark, 2011); and Benjamin E. Reynolds, ed., The Son of Man Problem: Critical Readings (London: T&T Clark, 2018).
7. James E. Talmage, “The Son of Man,” in The Essential James E. Talmage, ed. James P. Harris, Classics in Mormon Thought 5 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 135–41; Eighty-fifth Annual Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (April 1915): 120–24; and Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 742–43.
8. Talmage, “Son of Man,” 139.
9. An intriguing alternative possibility is that the Book of Abraham’s language in this verse (“one answered like unto the Son of Man”) reflects an underlying Egyptianism—what is called by grammarians the “m of predication.” In the Egyptian language of Abraham’s day, the preposition m (“in, inside,” “by means of, with,” “being, namely,” “of, with,” and so forth) could be used in an adverbial comment to indicate that someone or something serves in a certain capacity. This common usage of the adverbial predicate in Middle Egyptian acts to distinguish people and things by their function rather than by their intrinsic essence or nature. The simple examples used by grammarians are sentences like *iw=k m sA=i (“you are [like or as] a son to me”) and iw=k m sS (“you are [acting as] a scribe”). See James E. Hoch, Middle Egyptian Grammar (Mississauga, Can.: Benben Publications, 1997), §24; compare James P. Allen, Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), §10.6; and Alan Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd rev. ed. (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1957), §38. If we pursue this line of thinking, then the Book of Abraham’s statement that “the first” was “like unto the Son of Man” would indicate that the premortal Jesus was answering the call to act or serve in the capacity of the “Son of Man” (that is, the redemptive eschatological figure prepared in the premortal council to effect the Father’s plan).
10. David Rolph Seely and Jo Ann H. Seely, “Jesus the Messiah: Prophet, Priest and King,” in Peterson, Hatch, and Card, Jesus Christ: Son of God, Savior, 248–69.