WHO ARE “THE SONS OF GOD”?

In both the Old Testament and the New Testament we find references to “the sons of God”. To whom do these statements refer? Do all the references refer to the same individuals? Or is this expression applied to different individuals in different contexts? If that is the case, then why is this expression applied to different individuals? How can completely different groups of individuals all be identified as “sons of God”?

To be clear: in this article we are not concerned with the singular expression “Son of God”, referring to only one individual. Whenever this singular expression “Son of God” is used (one time in the Old Testament, and over 20 times in the New Testament) it is always a reference to Jesus Christ. That should be easy to understand.

Rather, here we are concerned with identifying references to any individuals, other than to Jesus Christ, who are referred to as “sons of God”.

IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

The expression “sons of God” is used five times in the Old Testament, two times in Genesis chapter 6, and three times in the Book of Job. In all five places the Hebrew word translated “sons” is the word “ben”. And in all five places it is the expression “sons of Elohim” and never “sons of YHVH”.

Whereas the name YHVH refers to one individual at a time (i.e. almost always to Jesus Christ, and only rarely to God the Father), the name Elohim refers to God the Father and to Jesus Christ collectively, somewhat like the Family name for God. So “sons of Elohim” refers to a joint venture in which both God the Father and Jesus Christ have a part.

THE MEANING OF “BEN”

The Hebrew noun “ben” has been derived from the Hebrew verb “banah”, which means “to build”. Now “to build” something is somewhat like creating something. And so to more clearly understand the distinctions between creating, doing and making in the Hebrew text, it is helpful to briefly examine four different Hebrew verbs that deal with the actions of creating, making, building and forming something. That will illustrate the meaning of “banah” more fully. All four of these Hebrew verbs are used for God in the first two chapters of Genesis.

The reason I want to look at all four of these verbs is because the verb “banah” is in Genesis 2:22 mistranslated by one of the other three verbs. The mistranslation itself may seem slight, but it hides the correct meaning of “banah” to some degree.

Let’s consider these four Hebrew verbs in the sequence in which they first appear in Genesis chapters 1-2.

TO CREATE

In a beginning God created (Hebrew “bara”) the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

The Hebrew verb “bara” refers to creating something without using any physical matter. Hebrew scholars refer to this as “creating something from nothing”. But that is not correct, and scholars don’t understand how God creates.

God never creates anything from nothing. Everything that is created is, and has to be, created from something, even if that something is invisible to human eyes. And the building block of all of God’s creation is the holy spirit. All physical matter was created by God from spirit. Genesis 1:1 refers to God creating the original universe from spirit essence.

The Apostle Paul explained creation as follows:

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen (i.e. physical matter) were not made of things which do appear. (Hebrews 11:3)

Matter was created from something! That invisible “something” is the holy spirit, which is elsewhere in analogy compared to water. The holy spirit is the building block of all physical matter.

The Hebrew verb “bara” refers to creating something from spirit essence. And that action is something that only God can do. We human beings are not able to use God’s spirit to bring anything new into existence. So the Hebrew verb “bara” with the qal stem is never used for anything done by human beings. With this qal stem (used for direct actions) this verb is only used for what God does.

[Comment: Some technical information. While a verb “bara” (but used with the piel or hiphil stem) is used for human beings in five verses, those verses have nothing at all in common with creating anything. Here are these five references. In Joshua 17:15,18 the verb “bara” is translated as “cut down”. In 1 Samuel 2:29 the verb “bara” is used for Eli’s evil sons, and it is translated as “to make yourself fat”. In Ezekiel 21:19 the verb “bara” is twice translated as “to choose” a place or location. And in Ezekiel 23:47 “bara” is translated as “to dispatch” some people with swords. None of these uses of “bara” for human beings have anything at all to do with creating anything. Scholars recognize these vastly different meanings, and that is why The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament states for these specific uses of “bara”: “it is possible that the Piel form may represent an entirely different root”. They mean that these uses of “bara” are not related to the verb “bara” that means “to create”. When “bara” means “to create”, then scholars agree that it is only used for God.]

TO MAKE or DO

And God made (Hebrew “asah”) the firmament (i.e. the sky), and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. (Genesis 1:7)

The Hebrew verb “asah” is the common verb for doing and making something, by employing things that already exist, by using things that have already been created by God. Specifically, “asah” does not refer to “creating” something. This verb “asah” also describes activities that we human beings can perform. It describes all the things we human beings produce. It also describes the things God does, when God uses something that already exists to produce something new.

Using this verb “asah” in Genesis 1:7 tells us that in this verse God was not creating anything new. Rather God was working with the physical matter (including air) to make the sky, by dividing the water in gaseous form (clouds, vapors, etc.) from the water in liquid form, so that the two locations for water from then on were: 1) water on the earth and 2) clouds in the sky.

“Asah” always involves things that are already in existence to make something new.

TO FORM

And the LORD God formed (Hebrew “yatsar”) man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7)

The Hebrew verb “yatsar” means “to form” or “to fashion” something. It implies craftsmanship and designing something. It is used for the potter, who fashions the clay into specific shapes and designs. It is a more specialized verb than “asah”. And in addition to God, the verb “yatsar” also applies to things we human beings form and fashion.

Genesis 2:7 tells us that God used common soil to form Adam’s body into an intentional design, i.e. to look like God.

TO BUILD

And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made (Hebrew “banah”) He a woman, and brought her unto the man. (Genesis 2:22)

This is the mistranslation, albeit a small one. Looking at our English text, one could assume that the Hebrew verb used in this verse is “asah”, the verb used in Genesis 1:7, the common verb that means “to make”. But that would not be correct.

The verb “banah” used here means “to build”. Yes, “making” can also include “building” something. But “to build” is a specialized form of “making”. It implies putting parts together. This verb “banah” refers to building cities and temples, etc. “Banah” is something we human beings can also do, and it does not refer to creating something out of spirit essence.

Now with God these four activities (to create, to make, to form, to build) commonly overlap. Thus when God “creates” something new, then that commonly also involves God making, forming or building something new.

We see this overlap in God’s activities in the summary statement at the end of the recreation week, in Genesis chapter 2.

And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created (“bara”) and made (“asah”). (Genesis 2:3)

So here God uses the verbs for “creating” and “making” in a complementary way. Between them the four verbs we have looked at cover everything God did during the recreation week.

Let’s go back to the verb “banah”.

Genesis 2:22 really says that God “built” a woman from Adam’s rib. And the word “ben” (a son) is formed from this verb “banah”. So in Hebrew “a son” is someone who was “built” by the father. The expression “sons of God” refers to individuals who have been “built” by God, i.e. individuals who were created or built by God. So “sons of God” can refer to any group of individuals who have been “built” by God.

Specifically, the meaning of “ben” (i.e. “son”) is not restricted to any specific method by which that “son”came into existence. The meaning of “son” in Hebrew does not require a specific “birth process”. How an individual was “built” by God is immaterial for eligibility for the designation “son”. If an individual was indeed “built” by God, then that individual qualifies for being “a son” of God.

Now for us human beings, on the other hand, this overlap between “creating” and “making, forming, building” does not exist. We can build and make and form something, but we cannot really create something.

When we in common speech say that someone “created” something new, then we don’t mean making something new by using nothing except holy spirit, which is the intended meaning of the Hebrew verb “bara”. Rather, we really mean that someone “made” something new by utilizing some physical material that is already in existence.

Our casual use of the verb “create” really refers to activities covered by the Hebrew verb “asah”. That is, we used physical materials and electricity and perhaps heat and specific equipment for making whatever it is that we “created”. We use paint to “create” a work of art, etc. But that process is not really “creating” anything. And strictly speaking we are misusing the verb “to create” when we apply it to any human achievements.

Now before creating this universe, God had already created and “built” all the angels. The angels are beings who have been “built by God”. And therefore in one particular sense the angels are “the sons” (Hebrew “ben”) of God. Angels are spirit beings, and so God “built” the angels from spirit essence.

We human beings are physical beings, and so God “built” us (i.e. Adam and Eve) from physical matter, from the dust of the ground (see Genesis 2:7). And so in this sense all human beings are also “the sons” of God, because God “built” us. We are all “the products” that God has built, though we would not commonly refer to ourselves in such terms.

Now here is how we commonly view the word “sons”.

We today spontaneously think of a birth process when we think of the word “sons”. To us “a son” is someone who has come into existence through a birth process, which process followed a begettal. And with this picture in our minds neither the angels nor any human beings would qualify for the expression “sons of God”, simply because neither creation involved a birthing process in which God was involved. But that is just how we, in contrast to God, view the word “sons”.

There are in fact two distinct ways in which the expression “sons of God” is applied by God in the Bible.

1) Category #1: A reference to individuals who were “built” by “the Builder” without having undergone any begettal or period of gestation. Importantly, this group has not “inherited” any specific attributes from the “Builder”. And neither does this group require a period of growth before full maturity is attained. Rather, upon coming into existence (i.e. upon having been “built”) these individuals are automatically identified as mature (or fully developed) “sons of God”.

2) Category #2: A reference to individuals who will come into existence through a specific birth process, which birth process is preceded by a begettal and a period of gestation. All those people who have God’s spirit are engaged in this specific process towards eventually being born as “sons of God”.

Now we are familiar with the physical process of human babies being born. Babies experience a literal physical birth and they are the literal offspring of their parents. When they are born, babies have inherited certain attributes from their parents. And then their birth is followed by a period of growth before full maturity (i.e. adulthood) is achieved.

This is the process we think of when we hear the word “sons”. While this is a physical process on the human level, becoming born “sons of God” involves a similar process, but on the spirit level. On the spirit level there is “a begettal” (i.e. when we first receive God’s holy spirit), followed by a period of development (i.e. the rest of our mortal lives), followed by a birth into God’s Family (i.e. at the first resurrection).

More on this later when we examine the New Testament.

Now whereas the Hebrew text only has this one word “ben” for “sons”, the New Testament Greek text in fact has two distinct Greek words, which both refer to “sons”. We will examine those two Greek words later, and we’ll see how these two Greek words in fact identify a major distinction between how the term “sons of God” in the New Testament is to be understood.

Here is the point:

In the Old Testament none of the five occurrences of the expression “sons of God” refer to “Category #2". None of those references involve individuals who went through a birthing process. All five occurrences refer to “Category #1", to individuals who were “built” by God, and who did not “inherit” any attributes from their “Builder”, neither did they require a period of growth after having been built, before they were fully developed.

In the New Testament, on the other hand, all of the occurrences of the expression “sons of God” refer to “Category #2", to individuals who will go through a very specific birthing process, starting with a begettal and followed by a period of growth, before being fully developed sons of God; and who will “inherit” specific attributes from their Father. None of the references to “sons of God” in the New Testament refer to “Category #1", to individuals who were “built” by “the Builder” without involving some kind of birthing process.

So the expression “sons of God” in the Old Testament and the expression “sons of God” in the New Testament refer to different groups of individuals. In the Old Testament the expression “sons of God” refers only to “Category #1" individuals. And in the New Testament “sons of God” refers only to “Category #2" individuals.

God’s first method of creating “sons of God” was “Category #1". That involved first “building” the angels and then “building” Adam and Eve, and through them humanity. In the New Testament the only method of creating “sons of God” is “Category #2". By the time of the New Testament God had phased out the Category #1 process.

Now let’s examine the actual uses of “sons of God” in the Old Testament.

“SONS OF GOD” IN GENESIS 6

And it came to pass, when men (Hebrew “Adam”) began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men (Hebrew “Adam”) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. (Genesis 6:1-2)

In both places where our text reads “men” the Hebrew text actually reads “Adam”. I have included that information in the above quotation.

What we have in verse 1 is a description of something that happened with the very first generation of Adam’s sons and daughters. The daughters that were born are in verse 2 identified as Adam’s own daughters.

These two verses should read:

“... when Adam began to multiply ... and daughters were born unto them (i.e. to Adam and Eve), that the sons of God saw the daughters of Adam that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose.” (Genesis 6:1-2)

The next verse reads:

And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always judge man (Hebrew once again “Adam”), for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. (Genesis 6:3)

The Hebrew text should correctly be translated as “... shall not always judge man”, as I have indicated above. Our common rendering of “shall not always strive with man” is a mistranslation, which hides that all people before the flood were being judged by God for the opportunity to be in God’s Kingdom.

This means that nobody from before the flood will be in the 2nd resurrection. Abel, Enoch and Noah, who lived before the flood, will be in the 1st resurrection. But nobody from before the flood will be in the 2nd resurrection. The option of the 2nd resurrection simply didn’t exist before the flood. So the people before the flood were judged by God, according to God’s original plan, and then they were destroyed in the flood.

Yes, the Hebrew word “Adam” can at times also be translated as “men”. But using the word “Adam” in this passage is meant to tell us that this is speaking about something that applied to the very first generation of Adam’s own daughters. Translating the word “Adam” as “men” in this passage also hides the fact that Adam and Eve really had a very large number of children over a period of perhaps 800 years or more (Adam lived for 930 years).

Further, God’s statement that He “would not always judge man” reveals that after the flood God was not going to continue judging all men. This statement signaled a change in God’s way of dealing with human beings after the flood.

After the flood God would not judge all men. Instead, God would delay judging all men, by giving most human beings after the flood the opportunity to live again in the 2nd resurrection period, to then be judged. The only ones God would still judge after the flood would be those people who would be given the opportunity to be in the first resurrection. The Apostle Peter referred to this restricted judging as “judgment must begin at the house of God” (see 1 Peter 4:17), i.e. it must begin with the people in God’s Church. For all other people judgment will come later.

Now looking at Genesis 6:3 should tell us that God was angry with humanity. But the only thing we have been told about human conduct thus far is that “they (Adam’s sons) took them wives (i.e. sisters) of all which they chose”. In other words, the very first generation of Adam’s sons did not marry the sisters that God intended those sons to marry. Their choices for wives were contrary to instructions that God must have given to them at that time. This statement in verse 2 is intended to express God’s disapproval with how Adam’s own sons chose their wives.

Verse 4 is the other reference to “sons of God” in this chapter.

There were fallen ones (Hebrew “nephilim”) in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men (Hebrew “Adam”), and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men (Hebrew “gibborim”) which were of old, men (Hebrew “enosh”) of renown. (Genesis 6:4)

“Giants” is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word “nephilim”, which mistranslation can be traced back to the Latin Vulgate translation. This Hebrew word really refers to “those who have fallen”, or “fallen away” from God’s instructions. In other words, those sons of Adam who married the wrong sisters had become “nephilim”, fallen ones, and their children in turn fell away from God to an even greater degree. In the above verse I have corrected the mistranslation of “nephilim”.

In addition to the mistranslation of “nephilim”, in this verse three different Hebrew words are all translated as “men” or as “mighty men”. First it is the Hebrew word “Adam”, then it is the word “gibborim”, and lastly it is the word “enosh”.

So both references to “sons of God” in these two verses refer to “sons of God” marrying daughters of Adam, and then having children. In verse 4 the translators correctly provided the word “children”, which is not in the Hebrew text, but they provided it based on the verb “yalad” in verse 4, which verb refers to the childbearing process.

The picture is one of “those who were built by God” (i.e. sons of God) marrying “those who were built by Adam” (i.e. daughters). It is another way of saying that “Adam’s sons married Adam’s daughters”. As far as daughters being “built” by Adam, keep in mind that the original woman (Eve) was “built” from one of Adam’s ribs. It was Adam’s genetic material that God used to create women.

Question:

So why did God refer to the male descendants of Adam as “sons of God”, when all of them were later destroyed in the flood? Apart from Abel, Enoch and Noah (and perhaps, though unlikely, a small handful of others?) all of the people who lived before the flood will never be in God’s Kingdom. So why refer to that first generation of Adam’s sons as “sons of God”?

Adam was God’s “son” because Adam had been “built” by God from the dust of the ground. God then created Eve with Adam’s DNA, since God “built” Eve from Adam’s rib. But God had also created both of them with the genetic potential to have very many children, including children who would be racially different from Adam and Eve themselves.

God intended to use Adam and Eve to produce all of the different races amongst humanity. God wanted to establish a racially diverse humanity. But the potential, to have children who would be racially different from their own parents, diminished with each successive generation.

Now in order to develop a racially diverse humanity, God saw to it that for each son that Adam and Eve had, a racially compatible sister was born. And God intended for all of Adam’s sons to each marry a racially compatible sister. In that way different races amongst human beings would have been established fairly quickly.

So God intended Adam’s own sons to become the progenitors for all of the races amongst human beings. Sons of Adam marrying sisters, who had the same racial features as they themselves, would very quickly establish distinct racial groupings.

This intention on God’s part was hijacked when Adam’s sons married sisters “of all whom they themselves chose”, in opposition to the sisters God intended them to marry.

That first generation of Adam’s sons was specifically “built by God” for the express purpose of establishing different races. Their physical features and characteristics were not “time and chance”. And likewise, God exercised control over the racial features Adam’s daughters would have.

That first generation of Adam’s sons and daughters was intended to be the most important generation in all of human history. It was the one that would establish all the racial groups that God intended to establish for human beings. So those sons of Adam were also “sons of God” because God had specifically “built” them to have very specific racial traits, to further God’s intentions for mankind.

But that process was hijacked!

And that rebellion on the part of Adam’s sons made God angry.

In this regard we might also consider Adam’s son Seth, who was born when Adam and Eve were 130 years old. Notice what Eve said when Seth was born.

And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, has appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. (Genesis 4:25)

Note the expression “God has appointed”. This indicates God’s involvement in the physical makeup of the children that were born to Adam and Eve.

By the way, Seth most assuredly was not Adam’s “third son”, a stupid statement you can find in many commentaries. Adam and Eve were both 130 years old when Seth was born.

And a year or two earlier Cain had been afraid that other men would kill him for having killed Abel (Genesis 4:14). There were thousands of people by the time that Cain killed Abel. And Seth was more likely to be Adam’s 23rd son, rather than his 3rd son. Don’t forget about the very first recorded instruction that God gave Adam and Eve. When God instructed them to “be fruitful and multiply”, God was saying: I want you two to have lots of children!

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth. (Genesis 1:28)

In this instruction “replenish” means “to fill the earth with human beings”. The three verbs “to be fruitful”, “to multiply” and “to fill the earth”, coupled with a specific blessing from God, make clear that God was going to “bless” Adam and Eve with very, very many children. God wanted humanity initially to multiply very rapidly.

But none of those other sons of Adam are identified, because they don’t feature in the story. But they in turn also all had children, and by the time when Cain killed Abel humanity had already multiplied greatly.

The point is this:

Eve was having children all the time. So why did Eve at age 130 years say that God had appointed a replacement for Abel? And how did Eve know that Seth was the replacement? And why was a replacement even needed or wanted?

Seth had the same racial features that Abel had possessed. That is what made Seth “the replacement” for Abel. And Eve knew that specific daughters “were appointed” to be the wives for specific sons. And so Eve knew that the racial line God had started through Abel needed to be continued. Abel had been one of the few men who had apparently not yet married a sister, perhaps because Abel was different? “Walking with God” certainly made Abel different from all his siblings. They all universally rejected walking with God.

So back to the expression “sons of God”. What does that expression tell us? How can we define it?

The expression “sons of God” throughout the Bible refers to those who have been “built” by God. And one attribute shared by all those “built” by God is that all of them have access to God!

Anyone who has access to God is a son (or daughter) of God. And anyone who does not have access to God is not a son of God. It is impossible to be a son of God without having access to God.

In plain language: With the expression “sons of God” one focus is on access to God, independent of how those individuals were “built” by God. The premise is that a son has access to his father. And that access identifies a specific relationship with the father, i.e. the father-son relationship.

In the human sphere, the son is assumed to be a natural born son, but he could also be an adopted son. But being a son gives him access to his father. An adopted son has not gone through the birth process with his adoptive father, but he has been given the privilege to have the same access to the father that a natural born son has. So an adopted son has the same access, but not necessarily the same inheritance, as the natural born son.

Applied to specific human beings, the expression “sons of God” indicates that they all have the opportunity to have access to God. For the (human) sons of God in Category #1 that access was to Jesus Christ. And for the sons of God in Category #2 that access is to God the Father, as a result of Christ’s ministry. One of the things Jesus Christ did during His ministry was to make available access to God the Father for all those who would repent. So Christ taught us to pray to God the Father. And when we pray we are making use of that access to God the Father.

Giving repentant human beings that opportunity of access to the Father is sufficient for them to qualify for being identified as “sons of God”. That’s God calling those things which are not yet as though they were, i.e. God anticipating the best outcome. That’s the principle of Romans 4:17.