 | This article includes a list ofgeneral references, butit lacks sufficient correspondinginline citations. Please help toimprove this article byintroducing more precise citations.(July 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 | This article'slead sectionmay be too short to adequatelysummarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead toprovide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article.(October 2021) |
| Part ofa series on the |
| Bible |
|---|
 |
Outline of Bible-related topics Bible portal |
Sons of God (Biblical Hebrew:בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים,romanized: Bənē hāʾĔlōhīm,[1] literally: "the sons ofElohim"[2]) is a phrase used in theTanakh or Old Testament and inChristian Apocrypha. The phrase is also used inKabbalah wherebene elohim are part of differentJewish angelic hierarchies.
The root for this phrase may have originally referred to a group of supernatural beings ("sons of the gods"), and lesser divinities inCanaanite religions.[3] They would be interpreted asangels orwatchers in the later periods ofSecond Temple Judaism,[4] or instead as the righteous offspring ofSeth by others starting from the 2nd-4th Century CE.
In the early writings of the Hebrew Bible, bothbene elohim (Hebrew:בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים,romanized: Bənē hāʾĔlōhīm,lit. 'the Sons of Gods') as well as themalak (Hebrew:מַלְאָךְ,romanized: mal’āḵ,lit. 'messenger') are aspects of God.[5] In the earliest records, theBənē hāʾĔlōhīm are in heaven. They are depicted as the heavenly court or the pantheon of religious belief-system of their time.
The phrase is a possible survival of HebrewPolytheism, in which theElohists refer to the Divine in a plural (ʾĔlōhīm).[6] In the Pentateuch, theBənē hāʾĔlōhīm form the Divine council, comparable to the "sons of God" inCanaanite religion.[7] In the latter, the "sons" are gods or manifestations of the Divine.[8]
As such, theBənē hāʾĔlōhīm reflected the transcendent aspect of the Divine, but became progressively differentiated from the good aspect of God when the Hebrew religion shifted towards monotheism. In contrast to themal’āḵ, theBənē hāʾĔlōhīm do not express a mediator between God and humanity.[9] The fusion of theBənē hāʾĔlōhīm with themal’āḵ is evident in the Book of Job. Here, Satan is both one of theBənē hāʾĔlōhīm in the heavenly court, as well as amal’āḵ expressing God's interaction with humanity.[10]
The "Sons of God" are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible at Genesis 6:1–4.
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
— Genesis 6:1–4, KJV
The Book of Genesis tells that the "Sons of God" lusted after the daughters of men and begot a race of giants (Nephilim). These offspring were identified with "the heroes of old, men of renown." Then, God sentthe deluge to purge the earth of these giants.[11]
TheBook of Psalms refers to God delivering judgement among the gods and causes them to fall for their sins, as God declares that "Gods you may be, sons you all of the Most High, yet you shall die as men die; princes fall, every one of them, and so shall you.". However, there is no indication what the sin was and the Psalms are at least five hundred years after the Genesis was composed, thus written in a different intellectual context. Yet, both refer to the existence of a pantheon and that some of its members sinned. During the Apocalyptic period, these ideas were developed further.[12]
Claus Westermann claims that the text of Genesis 6 is based on anUgariticurtext.[13] In Ugaritic, a cognate phrase isbn 'il.[14] This may occur in the UgariticBaal Cycle.[15]
The phrasebn ilm ("sons of the gods") is also attested in Ugaritic texts,[17][18][19][20][21] as is the phrasephr bn ilm ("assembly of the sons of the gods").[22]
Elsewhere in the Ugarit corpus it is suggested that thebn ilm were the 70 sons ofAsherah andEl, who were the titulary deities of the people of the known world, and their "hieros gamos" marriage with the daughters of men gave rise to their rulers.[23] There is evidence in 2 Samuel 7 that this may have been the case also in Israel.[24]
J. Scharbert associates Genesis 6:1–4 with thePriestly source and the finalredaction of thePentateuch.[25] On this basis, he assigns the text to later editorial activity.[26]Rüdiger Bartelmus sees only Genesis 6:3 as a late insertion.[25]
Józef Milik andMatthew Black advanced the view of a late text addition to a text dependent on post-exilic, non-canonical tradition, such as the legend of theWatchers from thepseudepigraphic version of the Book of Enoch.[25]
Different source versions of Genesis 6:1–4 vary in their use of "sons of God". Some manuscripts of theSeptuagint have emendations to read "sons of God" as "angels".[citation needed]Codex Vaticanus contains "angels" originally.[citation needed] InCodex Alexandrinus "sons of God" has been omitted and replaced by "angels".[27] This reading of Angels is further confirmed byAugustine in his workCity of God where he speaks of both variants in book 15 chapter 23.[28] ThePeshitta reads "sons of God".[29] Furthermore the Vulgate goes for the literalfilii Dei meaning Sons of God.[30] Most modern translations of Christian bibles retain this whereas Jewish ones tend to deviate to such asSons of Rulers which may in part be due toShimon bar Yochai who cursed anyone who translated this as "Sons of God" (Genesis Rabbah 26:7).[31]
Beyond this in both the CodicesJob 1:6 andDeuteronomy 32:8 when the phrase "angels of God" is used in place of where the Hebrew says "sons of God".[32] For the verse in Deuteronomy the Masoretic Text does not say "sons of God" but "sons of Israel" however in 4Q37 the term "sons of God" is used.[33] This is probably the root reading for the reading we see in the Septuagint.[34] Chrissy M. Hansen argues that the lost Septuagint's original transmission was likely "sons of God", which was also the version used by several medieval theologians in Latin (filiorum dei).[35]
The phrase "sons of theElohim" also occurs in:
Closely related phrases include:
TheBook of Enoch, the EnochicBook of Giants, and theBook of Jubilees refer to the Watchers who are paralleled to the "sons of God" in Genesis 6.[44] TheEpistle of Barnabas is considered by some to acknowledge the Enochian version.[45]
That the "sons of God" were separate enough from the "daughters of men" that they warranted such a distinction, has spawned millennia's worth of debate regarding the meaning of the term. Historically, in Jewish thought, this passage has had many interpretations. Here are three:
Christian writers such asJustin Martyr,Eusebius,Clement of Alexandria,Origen, andCommodianus believed that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1–4 werefallen angels who engaged in unnatural union with human women, resulting in the begetting of theNephilim.[1] Some scholars viewJesus' comment inMatthew 22:30 thatangels in heaven do not marry, as a refutation to this view.[1]
Other early Christians believed that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1–4 were the descendants ofSeth.[1]Augustine of Hippo subscribed to this view, based on theChronographiai ofJulius Africanus in his bookCity of God, which refer to the "sons of God" as being descendants of Seth (or Sethites), the pure line ofAdam. The "daughters of men" are viewed as the descendants ofCain (orCainites). Variations of this view were also received by Jewish philosophers.[46]
Traditionalists and philosophers ofJudaism[47] in theMiddle Ages[48] typically practicedrational theology. They rejected any belief in rebel or fallen angels sinceevil was considered abstract. Rabbinic sources, most notably theTargum, state that the "sons of God" who married the daughters of men were merely human beings of exalted social station.[49] They have also been considered as pagan royalty[1] or members of nobility[50] who, out of lust, married women from the general population. Other variations of this interpretation define these "sons of God" as tyrannicalAncient Near Eastern kings who were honored as divine rulers, engaging in polygamous behavior.[1] No matter the variation in views, the primary concept by Jewish rationalists is that the "sons of God" were of human origin.[49]
Most notable Jewish writers in support for the view of human "sons of God" wereSaadia,Rashi,Lekah Tob,Midrash Aggada,Joseph Bekor Shor,Abraham ibn Ezra,Maimonides,David Kimhi,Nachmanides,Hizkuni, Bahya Ashur,Gersonides,[51]Shimeon ben Yochai, andHillel ben Samuel.[52]
Ibn Ezra reasoned that the "sons of God" were men who possessed divine power, by means ofastrological knowledge, able to beget children of unusual size and strength.[50]
Jewish commentatorIsaac Abrabanel considered theaggadot on Genesis 6 to have referred to some secret doctrine and was not to be taken literally. Abrabanel later joinedNahmanides andLevi ben Gerson in promoting the concept that the "sons of God" were the older generations who were closer to physical perfection, asAdam and Eve were perfect. Though there are variations of this view, the primary idea was that Adam and Eve's perfect attributes were passed down from generation to generation. However, as each generation passed, their perfect physical attributes diminished. Thus, the early generations were mightier than the succeeding ones. The physical decline of the younger generations continued until theFlood, to the point that their days were numbered as stated in Genesis 6:3. It was immoral for the older generations to consort with the younger generations, whereby puny women begot unusually large children.Nephilim was even considered a stature.[46]
Jacob Anatoli andIsaac Arama viewed the groups and events in Genesis 6:1–4 as anallegory, primarily for thesin oflust that debased man's higher nature.[53]