Or 'a Son of man.' See Dan. 7.13, also without the article. It is not likeness to a person John knew, but to the character known by this title in scripture. To have seen angels in heaven would have been no wonder, but to see one as 'Son of man' was. This chapter corresponds to Dan. 7: only now he was seen on earth. It was the title the Lord habitually took. This made it personal; but in Daniel, though surely the same person, it was characteristic. Here, too, it is characteristic. Still the person designated is now known, and it is difficult to say 'a Son of man,' because of excluding this. 'Son-of-man-like' is feeble, it might only mean a manner: see ch. 14.14.