Sons of God
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are several theories concerning the identity of the sons of God (b'nei elohim, בני האלהים, or Angel of the Lord contrasted with "daughters of men") identified in the Book of Genesis.
- When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (Genesis 6:1-6:2)
Contents |
[edit] Theories
[edit] Lines of Seth View
One theory is that the sons of God are the descendants of Seth, the pure line of Adam. The daughters of men are then seen as the descendants of Cain. This is the view put forth by the pseudepigraphical work: Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan.
[edit] Angel View
A second theory is that the sons of God are angels who came to earth and had children with the daughters of men
[edit] Etymology-based
A third theory revolves around the fact that "elohim" literally means "powers"[citation needed] and is, at times, used in the Bible to refer to powerful human rulers.[citation needed] In the Hebrew "Elohim" is God's name but it is a plural word. (The -im suffix denotes plural, though apologists such as Chuck Missler[1] would regard this as an allusion to the Trinity.)
[edit] Gods and Cities
A fourth theory relates the "sons of God" to the 70 sons of El and Athirat in the Canaanite tradition of Ugarit, from whose marriage with a race of titanesses (the daughters of man), the 70 nations of the earth were born. Each city or people thus had its own divinity, with whom they had a special covenant (i.e. Ba'al Be'rith = Lord of the Covenant). This marriage of the divinity with the city would seem to have Biblical parallels too with the stories of the link between Melkart and Tyre; Yahweh and Jerusalem; Chemosh and Moab; Tanit and Baal Hammon with Carthage, and may have been celebrated annually after the new year with a hieros gamos or sacred marriage, in which a Qadeshtu (Holy One) took the role of the God's consort, representing the city[2][3][4].
[edit] Neither Angelic, Nor Human View
A fifth theory proposes that the "sons of God" were neither angelic, nor human, but an all-together separate kind of being, yet a created type. This view, put forth by David Sielaff of Associates for Scriptural Knowledge, Michael S. Heiser, PhD, and others, maintains that Biblical references to the sons of God indicate unique characteristics that neither angels nor humans currently have entirely. 1
Among his observations, as recorded in the February 2007 Newsletter titled "Idolatry and the Sons of God", David Sielaff lists six characteristics:
1. Sons of God (Elohim) have access to the LORD's (YHWH’s) throne in heaven. 1
"Now it fell upon a day, that the Sons of Elohim came to present themselves before the LORD [YHWH], and Satan came also among them." 2
2. Sons of God (Elohim) were present at creation. 1
"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Declare, if you have understanding.
Who has laid the measures thereof, if you know?
Or who has stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?
Or who laid the corner stone thereof,
When the morning stars sang together,
And all the Sons of Elohim shouted for joy?" 3
3. Sons of God (Elohim) are not human. 1
David Sielaff says:
"Read again Genesis 6:1–4. The offspring of the Sons of God and daughters of men were "giants" (nephilim in Hebrew, gigantes in the Greek Old Testament). Ordinary men mating with daughters of men do not produce "giants." The entire point and sense of Genesis 6:4 is to show the total contrast between the Sons of God and the Daughters of Men, that they were radically different from each other yet they could interbreed. Furthermore, humans do not have access to heaven and the throne of God (unlike Sons of Elohim, Job 1:6 and 2:1)." 1
4. Sons of God (Elohim) married daughters of men before — and after — the flood. 1
"... and all the people that we saw in it
are men of great stature.
And there we saw the giants [Hebrew, the nephilim],
the sons of Anak, which come from the giants [the nephilim]:
and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers
and so we were in their sight."' 4
5. Sons of God (Elohim) are not angels. 1
"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, 'You are my son, this day have I begotten you’? And again, 'I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son'?" 5
The fact that the author of Hebrews asks retorical questions to which the answers are "none" indicate that the sons of God could not be angels because God has never called any angel "son".
6. Sons of God (Elohim) are the gods of the nations. 1
"When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the sons of Adam,
he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
For the LORD’s [YHWH’s] portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance." 6
David Sielaff presents textual evidence that translation of the phrase "according to the number of the children of Israel" is a mistranslation. 1 It should read "according to the children of Elohim", as he notes:
...there is a problem with the Massoretic Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 32:8 as reflected in the King James Version. This is well known to all Old Testament textual scholars. 8 The phrase "sons of Israel" in the KJV should be "sons of Elohim." Once this is understood and the change is made, then the passage literally explodes out with meaning:
"When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the sons of Adam,
He set the bounds [borders] of the people [peoples, plural],
according to the number of the sons of Elohim
For the Lord’s [YHWH’s] portion is his people, Jacob is the lot of his inheritance." (words in brackets added)1
He indicates the importance of the accuracy of the translation of these two verses in this way:
"These two verses give an important historical perspective. There were two classes of inheritance, (1) that of the nations and (2) that of Israel, YHWH’s portion, "His people." The inheritance of the nations began at the time of Babel during the life of Peleg. The inheritance of Israel began with Jacob (verse 9) much later. Each inheritance had two parties that were involved: (a) the subjects of the inheritance and (b) the administrator of the inheritance. For the peoples or nations, the sons of Adam were the subjects, each according to their borders. One Son of Elohim originally administered one people or nation. The nation and people of Israel were subject to YHWH and were His inheritance.
The Hebrew Masoretic text of verse 8 has "Sons of Israel" in the KJV, whereas it should be "Sons of Elohim" as indicated above. The Septuagint and Symmachus’ Greek translations have "angels of God" in verse 8 instead of "children of Israel," while the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls has “Sons of Elohim," a more meaningful rendering. In the notes for Deuteronomy 32:8 the authoritative Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia indicates that the most likely correct rendering is either "Sons of Elim" or "Sons of Elohim." 1
The existence of alternative Hebrew renderings of these short verses has not gone unnoticed by some Bible translations and translators. The Concordant Literal Version of Deuteronomy 32: 8 and 9 is rendered according to the Dead Sea Scrolls as:
"When the Supreme gave the nations allotments,
When He parted the sons of Adam,
He stationed the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of El." 9
Even the Good News Bible presents an even more explicit translation of Deuteronomy 32:8 ~ 9 as:
"The Most High assigned nations their lands;
he determined where peoples should live.
He assigned to each nation a heavenly being,
but Jacob's descendants he chose for himself. " 7
Additionally, Michael S. Heiser, PhD evidences this theory in his 2008 lecture, "Genesis 6 Hybridization: Sons of God, Daughters of Men, & the Nephilim". He notes:
"Identification of the "sons of God" is controversial - but not among Hebrew and Semitics scholars.
That the sons of God are divine beings (lesser gods) and NOT angels or humans is seen through
(1) several lines of evidence and
(2) the absurdity of the alternatives." (emphasis and parenthetical words in original slide) (23:32:00)
Furthermore, he states:
"Yes, I am distinguishing the sons of God as a different class of heavenly being as opposed to angels." (24:08:00)
To give an historical precedence to the view that the "sons of God" are neither angelic, nor human, Michael Heiser points to ancient texts. He notes:
"Other than the Hebrew usage, the main resons scholars of ancient Semitic texts know the sons of God can only be divine beings is because the biblical terms for the sons of God and the divine council occur in the Canaanite texts - in many cases word for word - when those texts describe their gods and their pantheon. This is the case most abundantly in the Ugaritic and Phoenician, but also in Akkadian." (29:12:00)
He continues by pointing out that all external and internal evidence relative to the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) indicates clearly that the term "sons of God" is used to indicate a class of divine beings, neither angelic, nor human. As he says:
"To argue that the sons of God in the Hebrew Bible (and specifically Genesis 6) are not divine beings, means you must:
- Ignore the use of the phrase elsewhere in the Bible.
- Argue that the sons of the Most High in Psalm 82 are humans (hard to do since vv. 6 ~ 7 call them elohim and sentence them to death "like men").
- Ignore all the comparative Semitic data on the subject ever discovered."
(emphases in original slide) (29:35:00)
And:
"Ignore this data, basically because the idea of divine - human intercourse and hybrid offspring seems too strange. Yet this is precisely how ALL Jewish and Christian scholars took the story until the late 2nd ~ 3rd centuries AD." (emphases in original slide) (30:21:00)
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ [One God or Three? http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/42/]
- ^ Song of Solomon Study Bible Forum studybibleforum
- ^ Moscati, Sabatino (2000), "The Phoenicians" (Rizzoli International)
- ^ Delcor, Matthias (1976), "Religion D'Israël Et Proche Orient Ancien: Des Phéniciens Aux Esséniens" (Brill International Publications)
1) http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d070201.htm
2) Job 1:6 (Jewish Publication Society Version, 1917)
3) Job 38:4–7 (Jewish Publication Society Version, 1917)
4) Numbers 13:32–33 (King James Version)
5) Hebrews 1:5 (King James Version)
6) Deuteronomy 32:8–9 (King James Version)
7) http://www.biblija.net/biblija.cgi?m=Deut+32&id25=1&pos=0&set=20&l=en2
8) From reference 29 on the February 2007 Newsletter, "For an updated analysis of the textual issues of this passage and its implication, see the works of Dr. Michael S. Heiser regarding the Divine Council of YHWH at http://www.thedivinecouncil.com. See particularly the explanation in his article “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God” at http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf."
9) Deuteronomy 32:8–9 (The Concordant Literal Version of Deuteronomy)
