Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

This selection is from Vol 2 of my new commentary on Genesis, “Birth and Rebirth through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation (Vol 2. Genesis 4-11), which hopefully (!) will be released sometime in 2012.

=============

6:2 וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים – the sons of God saw—The expression בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים (běnê hā’ělōhîm), the “sons of God” (more precisely, “sons of the gods”), does not refer to the actual progeny of God, but reflects the common Semitic use of “son,” בֵּן (bēn), to signify members of the divine household (i.e., a collectivity of gods) or God’s ministers, more particularly to the lowest orders among them (Cassuto).[1] “Sons of the gods,” then, designates beings belonging to the heavenly or divine sphere. A.B. Davidson defines the difference as follows:

The angels are not called “sons of God” as if they actually derived their nature from Him as a child from its father; nor in a less exact way, because though created they have received a nature similar to God’s being, being spirits; nor yet as if on account of their steadfast holiness they had been adopted into the family of God. These ideas are not found here. The name Elohim is a name given directly to angels in contrast with men…the name is given to God and angels in common; He is Elohim pre-eminently, they are Elohim in an inferior sense.^[2]

Following this ancient tradition, the njps translates this expression as “divine beings” who left their spiritual position in the heavenly realm and assumed mortal form in the days leading to the Flood; hence they became known as “fallen angels.”^[3] It was the union between the good and evil forces that angered God enough to want to destroy the world.^[4] Hertz, in his commentary, criticized those scholars who attributed more of a mythological dimension to this story. He argued that such a view must be regarded as the product of the Hellenistic Jewish imagination, but Hertz’s assessment seems overly apologetic and inaccurate. Aside from the ancient Hellenistic Jewish sources, there are numerous Midrashic accounts,^[5] led even by Rashi himself, who maintained that the בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים (běnê hā’ělōhîm) were indeed angels who cohabited with mortal women. Interestingly enough, the njps follows the same ancient Jewish tradition which translated this verse to mean “the divine beings saw how beautiful the daughters of men were and took wives from among those that pleased them.”

Demythologizing the Text

Exegetes who generally opt to demythologize the biblical text interpret the fall of the Nephilim in much more terrestrial terms. These scholars reject the “fallen angels” rendering for the following reasons:

• If the angels were the guilty parties, why should God punish humankind? Surely the angels should bear the onus of the blame, and not nascent humanity.^[6]

• The Torah is clear that what led to the disaster of the Flood was the senseless violence perpetrated by men (cf. vv. 3, 5–7), and not angels.

• If they were indeed angels, why didn’t the Torah refer to them as מַלְאֲכֵי אֱלֹהִים (mal’ăkê ’ělōhîm = “angels of God”)?

• The Torah has, on other occasions, systematically opposed mythology; therefore, how could it use a narrative that is associated with a mythological legend?

For these reasons, most traditional rabbinic exegetes suggest that the בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים. (běnê hā’ělōhîm) were the sons of princes and judges, powerful men who wielded authority over the masses. Instead of defending the weak and oppressed, these men were responsible for committing acts of violence against the innocent. Early interpretive traditions reflecting this non-mythic view of the peshat can be found in Targum Onkelos, who renders the text as בְנֵי רַברְבַיָא (běnê rabrebaya = “sons of lords”) and גִבְּרַיָא (gibbārayā’) signifying either “giants” or “mighty ones.” Targum Neofiti renders the verse as: “these are the warriors that were there from the beginning of the world, warriors of wondrous renown.” (For a further discussion, see Excursus 22 at the end of chapter 7).

Despite the difference between the mythic and the demythologized interpretations, both explanations may be more closely related than one might realize. In the ancient Near East, powerful rulers frequently claimed that they were the offspring of divine beings. In ancient Sumerian, Ugaritic and Egyptian literature, the kings were believed to be the reincarnation of divine beings, as is attested by many of the ancient mythological traditions.^[7] According to Benno Jacob, nowhere in the entire Tanakh are angels ever described as “sexual beings” nor are angelic beings ever depicted as having “rebelled” against God. “The ‘divine ones’ were like God [only] in their eyes, and yet of a very earthly humanity . . . The ‘divine ones’ may even be meant ironically as in [Psalm] 82:6.”[8] [9] As with many myths, there is usually a historical basis that gave rise to the myths of these mythical beings.

Notes:

[1] Genesis Vol. I, 293.

^[2] Commentary on Job, (New York: Williams and Norgate,1862), 6.

^[3] Cf. Job 1:6 and Ps. 29:1, 89:7.

^[4] W. F. Albright writes: “YHWH was believed to have created astral as well as terrestrial beings and the former were popularly called ‘the host of heaven’ or ‘the sons of God.’ In Genesis 6:1 ff., for example,… the [astral] gods had intercourse with mortal women who gave birth to heroes (literally, meteors, nephilim), an idea that may often be illustrated from Babylonian and Greek mythology. But the Israelite who had this section recited, unquestionably thought of intercourse between angels and women (like later Jews and Christians).” From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1940), 226.

^[5] Cf. Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan paraphrased text of the verse. Likewise, the Zohar (1:58a) also identifies the Nephilim with the fallen angels (cf. Yalkut 44; Pirkei d’ Rabbi Eliezer 22). Nephilim are also referred to as “giants” in the Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha, usually with reference to their pride and wickedness, and to God’s judgment upon them (e.g., Bar. 3:26–28; 56). For other ancient Jewish sources see Jubilees 5:1, The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (Reuben 5:5–6 and Naphtali 3:3–5), 2 Enoch 18). the Septuagint, Philo, On the Giants 2:358; and Josephus’ Antiquities 1:31. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is the Qumran belief that God created two adverse spirits from the beginning, and which are called the spirits of light and darkness or the spirits of truth and lie (IQS 3:17–26).

^[6] Victor Hamilton counters this view by pointing out that the punishment is not directly aimed at the criminal element, for the animals and birds perished in the Flood even though the sin belonged to humankind (Gen. 6:5–7). See, Handbook on the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1982), 64.

^[7] A third line of support for the dynastic ruler theory comes from the Sumerian king list, which tells us that before the Flood, kingship was lowered from heaven and eight monarchs enjoyed very long reigns. Cf. H. W. F. Saggs, The Greatness that Was Babylon (New York: Hawthorn, 1962), 35.

[8] Genesis, 45.

[9] For a NT parallel that supports Jacobs exposition, see Matt. 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”