The Use of Parallelisms and Figures in Psalm 35

I. The uses and purposes of parallelisms in Psalm 35

A. Parallelism defined

Parallelism in Hebrew poetry “is that phenomenon whereby two or more successive poetic lines dynamically strengthen, reinforce, and develop each other’s thought.  As a kind of emphatic additional thought, the follow-up lines further define, specify, expand, intensify, or contrast the first.”[1]  Berlin adds this insightful expansion.

Parallelism focuses the message on itself but its vision is binocular.  Like human vision it superimposes two slightly different views of the same object and from their convergence it produces a sense of depth.[2]

1. Parallelism of intensification

                        a                                             b

α.         Contend, O LORD,                with those who contend with me;

a                                              b          

β.         fight [O LORD]                      against those who fight against me!” (v 1)[3]

a. Intensification defined

A parallelism of intensification…occurs when the second stich of a couplet restates the first in a more pointed, extreme, or forceful way…we might way the second develops the first by saying, ‘Not only that but more so.’”[4]  It is one of four variations of the (α < β) distich pattern.

b. Author’s use of intensification in 35:1

In the first stich (α) the David uses the term “contend,” first as a verb (rı̂yb) with reference to Yahweh’s advocacy and second (β) as a noun (yârı̂yb), speaking of the “contender” who is striving against the psalmist.  This term carries connotations of a legal setting, which is alluded to again in v 11 (cf. Ps 43:1).  With this, David is seeking Yahweh’s advocacy; or, in NT terms, David is seeking Yahweh as his paraklētos (used of Jesus’ heavenly session ministry in 1 Jn 2:1, and the Holy Spirit in Jn 14:16; 15:26, and 16:7; cf. Is 49:25).  Thus, the α stich is a judicial petition, asking Yahweh to step into the situation David is facing and vindicate him.  “Vindicate me, O LORD, my God” (v 24a).  David is seeking Yahweh’s judgment in the sense of judicial acquittal before God’s bar of righteousness, and that against the wicked, who are seeking David doom.

The couplet is intensified by the verb “fight” (lâcham) in the second stich, which parallels “contend” in the first.  By invoking Yahweh to “fight,” David has escalated the petition from a legal plea to one of warfare.  The term “fight” means to do battle, make war, etc.  Here, then, David’s anxiety is expressed by the rapid shift of the petition, from a court-like setting to one of the battlefield, where Yahweh will utterly destroy David’s enemies. 

I believe the historical background for this psalm is 1 Sam 24, the climax of Saul’s rabid hunt after David’s life.  Specifically, 1 Sam 24:15 has David finishing his speech to Saul with these words, “May the LORD therefore be judge and give sentence between me and you, and see to it and plead (rı̂yb) my cause and deliver me from your hand” (on “deliver me,” shâphaṭ, cf. Ps 35:24).    

2. Parallelism of specification

            α          Malicious witnesses rise up;

            β          they ask me of things that I do not know.  (v 11)

a. Specification defined

“In the parallelism of specification, each succeeding stich makes more specific what the opening stich states in general.  In other words, the movement is from general to specific.”[5]  There are various types of specification, e.g., spatial or geographical.  The example I have chosen represents the explanatory type. 

b. The author’s use of specification in 35:11

In Ps 35:11 the first stich (α) tells what the malicious witnesses did, they did “rise up” against David; the second stich (β) tells how they did it, by means of spurious, groundless interrogation.  This is one of many places where David is demonstrating his own relative “righteousness” in the circumstances (v 27a).  Whatever the charges of these violent accusers were, David had no consciousness of any wrong done by him, especially with respect to the particular allegations.  Thus, the second stich specifically explains the generality of the first in qualifying the “maliciousness” as bringing perfectly baseless allegations against David.  

In 1 Sam 24:9 we read, “And David said to Saul, ‘Why do you listen to the words of men who say, 'Behold, David seeks your harm'?”  This is reflected in both Ps 35:11 and 15.  This appears to be another solid allusion to the historical context of Saul’s pursuing David, especially the climax in 1 Sam 24. 

II. The uses and purposes of figures in Psalm 35

Let me say at once that parallelism, the verse form in which virtually all biblical poetry is written, is not the most essential thing that a reader needs to know about biblical poetry.  Much more crucial to the reading of biblical poetry is the ability to identify and interpret the devises of poetic language.

—Leland Ryken[6]

A. Simile  

I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother:

I bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother. (v. 14 KJV, italics added)

1. Simile defined

“The use of simile and metaphor is the most pervasive element of biblical poetry.  The essential feature of both is comparison.  A simile draws correspondence between two things by using the explicit formula ‘like’ or ‘as’…They both secure an effect on one level and then transfer that meaning to another level,” which “work(s) by indirection.”[7]

2. The author’s use of simile in 35:14

David highlights his pathos in the situation as emphatically as possible.  Few could deny that they bereave the calamity or death of their own kin more than they do that of others.  In this distich, David is prompting the reader to vicariously transfer their deepest feelings associated with  losing a close friend or family member to the same for a hotly-pursuing enemy, so that the word picture painfully illustrates David’s extension of true loving kindness for his enemies.  In this, David is incarnating the heart of his Greater Son’s teaching on the topic of loving one’s enemies (cf. Matt 5:43—48). 

Although not likely an allusion, 2 Sam 1:11ff provides a wonderful illustration of this situation. 

Then David took hold of his clothes and tore them, and so did all the men who were with him.  And they mourned and wept and fasted until evening for Saul and for Jonathan his son and for the people of the LORD and for the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword.  (vv 11—12)

In connection with the first section above (I.A.1, intensification), the parallelism is worth noting.  We also see in this distich the parallelism of intensification.  That is, David heightens the intensity of the pathos in the second stich by mention the grief of losing a mother.  Friends and brothers may be many in number and sort, but every person has only one mother.  Some crass family dysfunction notwithstanding, the is no closer earthly bond than that between mother and child (cf. Gen 24:67, “So Isaac was comforted after the death of his mother.”). 

B. Chiastic figure

Bullinger discerns an interesting chiastic structure with an extended alteration that frames the entire psalm.[8]  He proposes the following. 

A   a | vv 1—3. Appeal for help.

         b | vv 4—8, Imprecation.

            c | vv 9, 10, Praise.

               B | v 11, Evildoers.  Words.

                   C | v 12, Their evil for good.

                       D | v 13, His good for evil.

                       D | v 14, His good for evil.

                   C | v 15, Their evil for good.

               B | v 16, Evildoers.  Words.

A   a | vv 17, 18, Appeal for help.

        b | vv 19—26, Deprecation. 

           c | vv 27, 28, Praise. 

---

[1] William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, Robert L. Hubbard contributors, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation.  Thomas Nelson: Nashville, Tennessee (2004), p. 284.

[2] Ibid.  

[3] All Scripture is taken from the English Standard Version.

[4] Klein, et al., p. 295, op cit.

[5] Ibid., p. 293.

[6] How to Read the Bible as Literature.  Zondervan: Grand Rapids, Michigan (1984), p. 90. 

[7] Ibid., pp. 91—92. 

[8] The Companion Bible.  Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, Michigan (1990), p. 751.

FIGURES IN PSALM 24

In addition to the chiastic structure illustrated below under parallelisms, there are several figures that are significant to Ps 24. 

A. Metonymy

            First, there are at least two instances of metonymy in Ps 24.  Metonymy is a figure by which one name or noun is used instead of another, to which it stands in a certain relation.[1] 

1. Mountain of YHWH (v 3a).  A clear reference to Jerusalem, “the city of the great King” (Ps 48:1—2; cf. Matt 5:35), is made here by metonymy.  The mount footing of the city is put for the city itself.  This may serve as a poetic play on “founded” and “established” in v 1, as the sure foundation of the temple mount concretely illustrates the rock solid founding of Jerusalem and the Davidic throne, which are being commemorated in this psalm. 

2. Innocent hands…clean heart (v 4a).  These two terms are put for a holistic character that pleases YHWH, the whole person is to be innocent and clean.  Innocent hands refer to one’s practical life, while “clean heart” speaks into the inward attitude and motive of the worshipper.  Together they forcefully emphasize the singularity of absolute devotion and holiness required of the worshipper, and that by metonymy. 

B. Anthropopatheia

            This figure is used of the ascription of human passions, actions, or attributes to God.[2]  Interestingly, “the Hebrews had a name for this figure, and called it…Derech Benai Adam, the way of the sons of man.”[3]  This figure is less-than explicitly used in vv 7—10, which present YHWH as actually entering Jerusalem by means of the city wall gates. 

C. Personification

            Poetically, in vv 7 and 9, the “gates…eternal doors” are given the command to open.  In vv 8 and 10, the gates, seemingly, respond to the procession, seeking the identification of the King entering the city.  Jerusalem is often spoken of in feminine pronouns (see e.g., “God, in her palaces, has made Himself known…” Ps 48:3 NAS).  The notion of her, Jerusalem, even having “daughters” (Zech 9:9) and “children” (Matt 23:37) is commonplace in both the Old and New Testaments.  This concrete, organic portrayal of places and things was a convention of the Hebraic worldview.  It strikes the modern Western reader’s ears as odd; having been steeped in the language of abstractions inherited from the influence Greco-Roman thought has had on the development of the Western societies. 

D. Epistrophe

             There is a fine example of epistrophe in v 10a and c of Ps 24.  Epistrophe “is a figure in which the same word or words are repeated as the end of successive sentences or clauses, instead of (as in anaphora) at the beginning.”[4]

                        Who is this King of glory?

            YHWH of Hosts,              |

                            He is the King of glory. (v 10)

This figure brilliantly highlights YHWH as the King of glory, he who enters and dwells in Jerusalem.

---

[1] Bullinger, p. 538, op cit.

[2] Ibid., p. 872.

[3] Ibid. 

[4] Ibid., p. 241. 

PARALLELISM IN PSALM 24

A. Parallelisms of specification

1. Specification defined

“In the parallelism of specification, each succeeding stich makes more specific what the opening stich states in general.  In other words, the movement is from general to specific.”^[1]

 

2. Examples of parallelisms of specification in Ps 24

a.         α          The whole earth is YHWH’s,                           and the fullness of it;                                      

β          the habitable world [is YHWH’s],                  and they that inhabit it. (v 1)

The first stich of this couplet first presents the cosmos and its contents in the most general sense, the entire earth and all that in it is; the second stich uses the more specific term “world” (têbêl), which connotes the habitable terrain of the earth, as well as “they that inhabit it.”  This general à specific move, especially in this creational sense, is not unlike what we see in Gen 1 and 2, where the author give the panoramic scenes of Creator God bringing the cosmos into existence in chapter 1, and focusing in on YHWH creating and culturing Eden with a garden nook for to tabernacle with his people.  Psalm 24:1 likely carries the same sense; YHWH is Creator and Owner of all, even all of the inhabitants of the hospitable domains.  In other words, all domains, even those of Israel’s enemies, are under YHWH supreme Kingship and rule.  Moreover, if the foregoing observations on the background are correct, then there may be a ring in this distich of YHWH’s universal Kingship, and especially Israel and Jerusalem. 

b.         α          Who shall go up into the mountain of YHWH?          

            β          Who shall stand up in his holy place? (v 3)

This parallelism also moves from the general, the mountain or hill of YHWH, or Jerusalem, the City of God, to the specific, YHWH’s mediated presence in the tent/tabernacle/temple via the Ark of the Covenant.  The purpose of this was to prepare the pilgrims for the gravity of the worship to which they were going.  It is one thing to go up to Jerusalem, but once there, the worshipper would find themselves in the presence of YHWH, the Most Holy God of Israel!

c.         α          Such is the generation of them that seek him,

             β         that seek his presence—[even] Jacob.  Selah. (v 6)

Granted, the translation is this couplet is a source of disagreement among scholars.  However, if this translation is correct, then here lies another specification parallel.  It may also be arranged in a chiastic structure to highlight the specification.

            i. Such is the generation (α-)

                        ii. of them that seek him, (-α)

                        ii. that seek his presence/face (β-)

            i. [even] Jacob (-β)

The answers to the question regarding who can stand in the holy place in v 3 where answered in terms of the individual in vv 4—5.  In v 6, there is a shift to the corporate community and their desire to seek YHWH.  The general “generation” (or class or group) is used in the first stich, as is the general “seek him.”  The second stich specifies what they seek YHWH for, namely his presence/face and who exactly it is that does seek his presence, “[even] Jacob”!  Like the parallelism of  v 3 above, here too the worshipper is awakened to what lies before them, specifically. 

B. Parallelism of alteration with intensification[2]

1. Alteration defined

            An alteration is when there are series of members that have a particular correspondence, in which the first stich of one series corresponds to the first stich in the next series of member, the second with the second and so on.  For example, the pattern looks something like this.

            A.

               B.

                  C.

            A.

               B.

                  C…etc.

2. Parallelism of intensification defined

“A parallelism of intensification…occurs when the second stich of a couplet restates the first in a more pointed, extreme, or forceful way…we might way the second develops the first by saying, ‘Not only that but more so.’”[3]              

3. Example of parallelism of alteration with intensification in Ps 24

            A1. YHWH’s Right to the City | Lift up…that the King of glory might come in (v 7)

               B1. The Gates Seek Identification | Who is this King of glory? (v 8a)

                  C1. The Coming King Identified | YHWH, strong and mighty;

                                                                                    YHWH, mighty in battle. (v 8b, c)

            A2. YHWH’s Right to the City | Lift up…that the King of glory might come in (v 9)

               B2. The Gates Seek Identification | Who is this King of glory? (v 10a)

                  C2. The Coming King Identified | YHWH of Hosts,

                                                                                    he is the King of glory. (v 10b, c)

                                                                         

            Members A and B are synonymous in both series; the change, the intensification occurs in the C members.  C1 identifies the coming King in terms of what he does, he is “mighty in battle” (v 8c), for example.  In C2, however, the unconditioned title of the God of the armies of Israel is stated without qualification; “YHWH of Hosts, he is the King of glory!”  This key term, this technical title for YHWH is connected with the Ark and the establishment of Jerusalem and her king, David.  C2, therefore, identifies the coming King as the rightful owner of King of the city; it identifies him in terms of Who he is rather than what he does, which intensifies the C member. 

---

[1] William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, Robert L. Hubbard contributors, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation.  Thomas Nelson: Nashville, Tennessee (2004), p. 293.

[2] The alteration structure of the parallel is indebted to E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible: Explained and Illustrated.  Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, Michigan (1968), p. 373.

[3] Klein, et al., p. 295.

KEY TERMS IN PSALM 24

The first term of interest is the mountain of YHWH (Ps 24:3a).  The mountain of YHWH is Mount Zion.  To Messiah, God says, “But as for Me, I have installed My King upon Zion, My holy mountain” (Ps 2:6 NASBU).  Zion is a surrogate for Jerusalem, as Ps 78 makes clear, “On the holy mount stands the city he founded; the LORD loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob. Glorious things of you are spoken, O city of God. Selah” (vv 1—3 ESV, italics added; cf. Ps 15:1; 132:12—14).  As the worshippers coming to Jerusalem neared the terminus of their pilgrimage, it was this mount they saw as they sang the psalm. 

Another term that catches our interest is holy place (24:3b).  This term is used only twice in the Psalms, here and 134:2; in the latter instance, its translation is even more uncertain.  Prudence dictates that we not be read this term too strictly; that is, as denoting the second section of the tripartite temple complex (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:8, 10).  The psalmists, for poetic purposes, will couple the mountain of God/Zion with the temple (in part or in whole) to highlight the worship context of the song.  For instance, Ps 20:2 has “sanctuary” translating the same word (qôdesh) as is here translated “holy place.”  “May he send you help from the sanctuary (qôdesh) and give you support from Zion!” (20:2 ESV, italics added).  This term, therefor, represents the general loci of the temple worship, from whence YHWH’s blessings overflow for his people.

Lift up and vain things of 24:4b are also worth mentioning.  “Lift up” (nâśâ' / nâsâh) represents a case of repetition in this psalm, see vv 4b, 5a, 7a, b, and 9a, b.  Because it has 659 uses in the OT, its semantic range is as far as the east is from the west.  It is an important term for various idiomatic phrases in Hebrew.  In this figurative sense, it can carry a sense of complete dependence on its object, such as in Deut 24:15, where the impoverished laborer has literally “lifted up his soul” (or “set his heart on”) to his daily wages, without which he will parish.  In the Psalter, the idiom occurs three other times (25:1; 86:4; 143:8).  In each of these occurrences, YHWH is the object of devotion for the uplifted soul of the psalmist.  Therefore, the term connotes a singularity of religious devotion in the psalter.  This is significant, granting the object of the verb in Ps 24:4, vain things. 

Vain things (shâv') in 24:4b are idols.[1]  This term is used directly in reference to idols.  For instance, Ps 31:6 says, “I hate those who pay regard to worthless idols (shâv'), but I trust in the LORD” (ESV).   Again, “Yet my people have forgotten me and offered sacrifices to worthless idols!” (Jer 18:15 NET).  Especially in Ezekiel, the idiom “lift up…eyes” is a common one, with “idols” as its object of the longing gaze (see Eze 18:6, 12, 15; 33:25), and is likely to be taken in the same sense in Ps 121:1.  Therefore, the phrase lift up his soul to vain things is a clear reference to idolatry; it is the singularity of devotion that YHWH exacts from his worshippers, but given to the utter worthlessness of idols, which are “no gods” (Jer 5:7). 

King of glory is used only here in Ps 24 (vv 7, 8, 9, and 10).  It may also be translated “glorious King” or “majestic King” (so NET). 

YHWH of Hosts is a name for YHWH that connotes his absolute power as “God of the armies of Israel” (1 Sam 17:45) and even stellar powers (Gen 2:1).  Psalm 24:10 is the first of many instances of the title in the psalter.  Interestingly, the title dos not come into usage until the Samuel literature, 1 Sam 1:3, to be precise.  If 1 and 2 Samuel provide the historical background for the psalm, then this is significant.  The exact phrase, “YHWH of Hosts,” again, is first used in 1 Sam 1:3, in reference to Eli’s worship of YHWH at Shiloh, the then-resting place of the Ark; its last occurrence is 2 Sam 7:27 in David’s response to YHWH’s gracious covenant with him, these two have eight instances between them.  Only once is this title used with any reference to the interim kingship of Saul, which was in Samuel’s instructions, concerning the battle with the Amalekites (1 Sam 15:2f).  Granting, therefore, these textual perimeters, it can be concluded that the title “YHWH of Hosts” is meant to present YHWH as Israel’s mighty Warrior, who commands the armies of Israel for the purpose of establishing the kingdom of David. 

Another point that warrants notice is the title’s peculiar connection with the Ark itself.  In 1 Sam 4:4 and 2 Sam 6:2, the title is conjoined with the Ark and its purpose as YHWH’s throne-footstool. 

YHWH of Hosts / Ark of the Covenant / Enthroned on Cherubim in 1 & 2 Samuel

So the people sent to Shiloh and brought from there the ark of the covenant of the LORD of hosts, who is enthroned on the cherubim. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God. (1 Sam 4:4 ESV)

And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Baale-judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the LORD of hosts who sits enthroned on the cherubim. (2 Sam 6:2 ESV)

  

The phrase “which is called by the name of” (2 Sam 6:2) was probably used to prevent an idolatrous view of the Ark, lest the people begin to think that YHWH was either in the Ark or confined to its presence. 

            These two threads, the connection of the title “YHWH of Hosts” with the establishment of the Davidic dynasty and with the Ark, are tightly tied up in 2 Sam 7, when both David and the Ark of God are settled in Jerusalem.  With both David’s and YHWH’s thrones established in Jerusalem, YHWH gives David “rest from all his surrounding enemies” (7:1; cf. v 9, 11).  YHWH establishes his kingly vice-regent David, who obediently leads the hosts of Israel into the subsequent battles, and YHWH “gave victory to David wherever he went” (8:6, 14).  With Israel’s enemies subdued under the rod of Jesse, and the Ark and YHWH’s king securely planted in Jerusalem, now the blessings of YHWH can flow out of Zion, “Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God shines forth!” (Ps 50:2).  Thus, hereafter, the militaristic title of “YHWH of Host” fads from the purview of the Samuel narrative.  Therefore, the references to the mountain of YHWH and his holy place, his tabernacle (v 3), and YHWH being strong and mighty, mighty in battle (v 9b, c), and the unconditional identification of the King of glory as YHWH of Hosts, as a great throng moves in mighty procession toward the walls of Jerusalem, all demonstrate with a good measure of certainty that 2 Sam 6 is the historical background for Ps 24, a liturgical antiphon commemorating the Ark’s triumphal entrance into Zion!

---

[1] Leland Ryken, et al., “Idol, idolatry,” pp. 416—18 in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery.  Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III editors.  Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic (1998), p. 417.

WHO WERE THE SONS OF GOD?

INTRODUCTION AND INTERPRETATIONS FROM ANTIQUITY

The phrase “sons of God,” in Gen 6:2 and 4, has been subject to a variety of interpretations.  Once fringe views are excluded, we are left with three possibilities.  The phrase “sons of God” refer to either (1) fallen angels, or (2) Sethites, or (3) rulers/nobles.  The earliest interpretations were almost unanimously view (1), fallen angels. 

            The Second Jewish Commonwealth apocryphal work 1 Enoch, dating around the second century B.C., provides one of the earliest commentaries on Gen 6:1—4, presenting the sons of God as angels (see 1 Enoch 6 – 11).  The primitive popularity of the angel view is also reflected in some of the manuscripts of the Septuagint (e.g., Alexandrinus), which translates the Hebrew term בני  האלהים (bene elohim) with ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ (aggeloi tou theou), “angels of God.”  The angel view is further testified to by a number of other Jewish apocryphal and apocalyptic works, such as, Jubilees 4:15, the Testament of Reuben 5:6,  2 Baruch 56:12—16, 2 Enoch 18:4, and the Genesis Apocryphon 2:1.  Both Philo (Gig. 2:6) and Josephus (Antiq. 1.3.1) appeared to follow this view (1) as well.  In addition to these early Jewish interpretations are a number of early Church fathers who likewise viewed the sons of God as angels.  Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Lactanitus, Irenaeus, Cyprian and Ambrose are names that the angel view may boast as authorities.[1] Finally, the two central NT texts that appear to support angel view must not be ignored (i.e., 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6).  However, these passages will be adequately interacted with in the sections below in parts comparing modern perspectives.

            The following table is illustrative of the historical and statistical dominance of angel view over that of the Sethite in early Jewish and Christian interpretation.[2]

Date	Writer	Angels	Sethites	Reference
c.250 BC	Various	X		Septuagint, Gen. 6:3
165-64 BC	Unknown	X		1 Enoch 6-19; 86-88; 106: 13-15, 17
150 BC	Unknown	X		Jubilees 4:15, 22; 5:1
100 BC	Unknown	X		Damascus Document (Qumran) 2:16-19
20 BC-50 AD	Philo of Alexandria	X		Giants 6-7
37-100 AD	Josephus	X		Antiquities, Book 1.3.1 (73)
c.70	Pseudo-Philo		X	Biblical Antiquities 3:1-2
Late 1st Cent.	Unknown	X		Genesis Apocryphon 2:1
Late 1st Cent.	Unknown	X		2 Baruch 56:10-14
c.100-c.165	Justin Martyr	X		1 Apology 5; 2 Apology
c.115-202	Irenaeus of Lyons	X		Demonstration 18; Heresies 16.2
c.130	Rabbi Akiba		X	[Greek translation of OT]
130-160	Rabbi Simean b. Yohai		X	Genesis Rabbah 26:5-7
130-160	Rabbi Jose		X	Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108a
2nd Cent.	Athenagoras	X		A Plea for the Christians, 24.
Late 2nd Cent.	Symmachus		X	[Greek translation of OT]
c. 150-215	Clement of Alexandria	X		Miscellanies 5.1.10
c.160-c.225	Tertullian	X		Idolatry 9; Veiling 7; Women, 1.2
c. 160-240	Julius Africanus		X	Chronology, Fragment 2
240-320	Lactantius	X		Divine Institutes 2.15
263-339	Eusebius of Caesarea	X		Eusebius, Preparation, 5.5
306-373	Ephrem the Syrian		X	Commentary on Genesis 6.3.1
340-397	Ambrose of Milan	X		Noah and the Ark 4.8
c.345-420	Jerome	X		Hebrew, 6.4
374-407	John Chrysostom		X	Homily on Genesis, 22.6-8
363-420	Sulpicius Severus	X		History, 1.2
354-430	Augustine of Hippo*	X	X?	City of God 15:22-23

KEY: X indicates agreement with this view

            Although views (1) and (2) dominated in antiquity, view (3) was not without a voice.  “Genesis Rabbah 26:8 (fifth-sixth century A.D.) cites R. Simeon b. Yohai (A.D. 130—160) as insisting on the interpretation ‘sons of nobles’ and placing a curse on anyone who promulgated the ‘angels’ theory.  By the time of the medieval rabbis, this interpretation had become entrenched.  Rashi, Ramban and Ibn Exra all favored identifying the sons of God as rulers or judges.”[3]  

            Among critical scholarship today, all three views identified above have their heavy-hitting protagonists.  View (3), the Sethite view, however, has consensus among conservative scholars. “The most common view of orthodox interpreters has been that the ‘sons of God’ were the men of the godly Sethite lineage.”[4] We will now turn to three modern scholars, each supporting one or the other of the respective views on the sons of God.

SONS OF GOD AS SETHITES: GEERHARDUS VOS

The old Princeton student and then professor of biblical theology, Geerhardus Vos, was a proponent of (2), the Sethite view.[5]  Vos is particularly sensitive to two motifs that appear in the fore of the antediluvian epoch of revelation.  First, he notes that the antediluvian context of Genesis is not primarily concerned with the sphere of redemptive progress, but with the development of the race in general, which he recognizes is ultimately significant for the development of the plan of redemption.  Second, Vos points out that the revelation on the whole bears negative rather than positive connotations.[6]  These observations, with others below, play a role in him settling on the Sethite view.

            Vos further notes that the narrative develops in three stages. 

It first describes the rapid development of sin in the line of Cain.  In connection with this it describes the working of common grace in the gift of invention for the advance of civilization in the sphere of nature.  It shows further that these gifts of grace were abused by the Cainites and made subservient to the progress of evil in the world.  We have here a story of rapid degeneration, so guided by God as to bring out the inherent tendency of sin to lead to ruin, and its power to corrupt and debase whatever of good might still develop…The details of the description are evidently chosen with a view to emphasize the result.[7]

With this backcloth in mind, the narrative goes on to contrast the wickedness of the Cainite to the progress of the godly line of Seth (Gen 4:25—5:32).  With respect to the Sethites, nothing is said of secular or civil progress; rather, it is the continuity of redemption that is stressed.  “The two kinds of progress appear distributed over the two lines of the Cainites and the Sethites.”[8]

            Vos couches the situation in the context as he interpreted it, saying, “The character of the period in this respect finds clearest expression in what is said…about the commingling of the Cainites and Sethites through intermarriage.  The latter allowed themselves to become assimilated to the wickedness of the former.”[9]

            Because he so carefully recreated the context of the unit, Vos does not believe that the Sethite view needs much technical defense; “[it] alone would seem to fit into the construction of the period to serve the purpose of showing the necessary outcome of sin, when left to work itself out freely.  If the angel theory be accepted, this will tend to obscure the idea aimed at.”[10]  To inject a source ab extra, i.e., fallen angels, would interrupt the development of human sin that Moses so carefully created.  Vos recognizes that the evidence for the angel view from Jude 6, admitting that it does give the angel view some force, yet it is far from conclusive.

            Furthermore, in connection with the terms ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of men,’ Vos makes the point that in Hebrew idiom sometimes a genus is set over against a part of that genus as though they were mutually exclusive.  He cites Ps 73:5 and Jer 32:20 as explicit cases of this idiom.  Both classes mentioned are naturally speaking, mere men; so, the sons of God are men, but sons of God besides, thus marking their distinguished status.  These are the Sethites, for Vos.  Finally, he mentions that in 6:3, 5—7 we find the divine evaluation of things and pronouncement of pending judgment on the antediluvian race of man and his sphere of sovereignty; angels are not mentioned at all.

SONS OF GOD AS ANGELS: HENRY MORRIS

Henry Morris represents a resurgence among orthodox interpreters, which is increasingly adopting the angel view, and not without good exegetical reason.[11]  For Morris, taking the term bene elohim to refer to angels is the “obvious meaning.”[12]  That the term is used explicitly for angels elsewhere in the OT is crucial for Morris.  He cites, of course, Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7.  The similar language of Dan 3:25 (bar elohim) refers to either angels or a theophany.  Finally, in Ps 29:1 and 89:6 the variation of the term (bene elim) clearly means angels.  Morris also references presidents in both Jewish and Christian historical theology, dominated by the angel view, in support of his thesis. 

            Liberalistic interpreters are quick to dismiss the angel view on the ground that it smacks of supernaturalism, something that is presuppositionally incredible for them.  Some, however, will accept a mythologized variation of the angel view.[13]  Morris does not concern himself with treating these objections; rather, he treats the primary rejection of conservatives who discard the angel view on the basis of Jesus’ teachings in Matthew. 

            The primary objection raised against the angel view is Jesus’ teaching concerning the resurrection in his debate with the Sadducees in Matt 22:23—33.  Therein, Jesus makes the remark that “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (NIV).  This, it is said, would appear to preclude the angel view of the sons of God, which presents them as having “took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.”  Therefore, if in the resurrection people will not marry, and this makes them similar to the angels in heaven, then angels must not marry, or so the reasoning goes.  Morris, however, does not find this reasoning persuasive at all; he deals at length with its implications. 

            Morris raises the point that Jesus’ remark is not equivalent to saying that angels are sexless.  Instead, in Scripture, angels are given masculine pronouns and are described as having the appearance of men.  Moreover, in Jesus’ teaching the angels are qualified as the angels “in heaven” (Matt 22:30).  What is true for angels “in heaven” may very well not be true of fallen angels, Morris contends.[14]  A count against the Sethite view, according to Morris, is the fact that not all the Sethites were godly, which is made obvious by their demise in the deluge.[15] 

              For Morris, the toughest issue that the angel view must wrestle with is the nature of the union of women and angels and the prospect of their offspring.  “Admittedly, however, there is a grave difficulty in the idea of angel-human sexual unions, not only the question of whether such a thing is possible, but even more in the theologically paradoxical and grotesque nature of the progeny of such unions.”[16]  Morris answers the difficulty by postulating that angels were using the bodies of possessed men.  “Thus, the ‘sons of God’ controlled not only the men whose bodies they had acquired for their own exploitation, but also the women they took to themselves in this way, and then all the children they bore.”[17]

SONS OF GOD AS NOBLES/RULERS: JOHN WALTON

Walton begins his investigation respecting the identity of the sons of God with the cautious reminder that “This issue is one of the thorniest in Old Testament interpretation.”[18]  Walton admits that the case for the angel view has tremendous lexical strength, especially based on a synchronic analysis of the phrase.  He warns, however, that confident conclusions drawn from such an analysis depends in good measure on the phrase or term having a broad lexical base throughout Scripture.  It is this dependence on a broad lexical base that Walton calls “the weak link in the armor of the ‘angels’ view.” [19]  Despite the term sons of God having a limited lexical base, Walton offers three lines of reasoning for why it cannot be maintained.

            (1) Cohabitation between angels and humans has no immediately obvious connection with the purposes of Genesis; (2) an angelic intrusion is considered out of place in the sequence of episodes recounting the advance of human sin;[20] and (3) the mythological tone is at odds with life in the real world as we know it, though in the end our interest in the world as the Israelites knew it.[21]  Nevertheless, Walton has the honesty to admit that the burden of proof still lies with either the Sethite or rules view to build a convincing lexical case for the respective view, one that makes sense in the literary, cultural, and theological context.  Walton says, “I believe such a case can be built for a variation of the ‘rulers’ view.”[22]

            Walton assumes that the ‘sons of God’ were oppressive despotic kings, rulers, or nobles, whose sin—an primary source of oppression—was the practice of the ancient, ever-despised practice of the divine right of the first night.  “In this practice, the local authority (whether king, governor, or lord of the manor) imposes his will in his people by demanding and exercising the right to spend the first night with any woman who is being married…The wording of Genesis 6:2, that ‘the sons of God…married any of them they chose,’ would be an apt description of this practice.”[23]

            Walton argues that accepting this view allows for a very natural progression of the account of sin in the narrative:  individuals (Adam and Eve) à family (Cain) à society leaders (sons of God) à everyone (Flood).[24] His argument for this view, however, is one largely dependent on ancient Near Eastern background material, which helps provide a window into the worldview and culture of the original audience.  The concept of the divine descent of kings and nobility in the ancient Near East was copious, a point which strengthens the ruler view.  Walton cites numerous examples of this.  “From Sumerian times (e.g., Eannatum, Gudea), through Old Babylonian (e.g., Hammurabi), into Middle Assyrian (e.g., Tukulti-Ninurta) and Neo-Assyrian (e.g., Ashubanipal), it was part of the royal prerogative to claim divine heritage.”[25]  Walton leans most heavily on parallels between parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis 6.[26]

            Birney, who also deftly defends the ruler view, offers this summary of the passage.  “The ‘daughters of men’ were women in general, the ‘sons of God’ were famous mighty rulers…the sin was polygamy, and the judgment was that the breath of life would be taken away from man in 120 years.”[27]

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS

I personally find the ruler view interesting and challenging, although far from convincing, due to its crass dependency on reconstructive background parallels and inferences.  Furthermore, the scanty background parallels for the practice of right of first night, and utter lack the practice elsewhere treated in Scripture, the ruler view has a deep sense of anachronism for me.[28]

            In the unity and context of the rest of Torah (even into Joshua and Judges) the Sethite view holds pride of place in my estimation.  The original audience was saved out of the house of Egyptian bondage and “set-apart” as Yahweh’s special people.  As such, the whole of Torah commands and galvanizes a perpetual antithesis between Israel and the nations, especially those in the land to which they were headed, the Canaanites.  I believe, therefore, that the Sethite view provides the best framework for reading Gen 6 as the original audience would (or should) have. Genesis 6 was another illustration of the war between the “seeds,” set into motion in 3:15. 

            My settlement on the Sethite view is, however, an uncomfortable one.  When confronted with the pertinent latter-NT texts, and the accompanying background material concomitant with them, it seems most likely that the NT authors did themselves espouse the angel view, which was part and parcel of their literary, cultural, and theological context.  This presupposition would have therefore been back of their inspired writing, and thus is an authoritative interpretation for Gen 6.  I find myself hard-pressed between the angel and the Sethite views, praying that further study and illumination will help me to resolve the dilemma and create a cognitive rest on the issue.   

---

[1] This paragraph is greatly indebted for its content to John Walton’s entry, “Sons of God, daughters of men.” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch.  T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, editors (Downers Grove, IL: IVP.  2003), 794.

[2]  Robert I. Bradshaw, “Creationism & the Early Church,” chapter 5. http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm (Accessed on November 18, 2010).  *Exception must be taken with Bradshaw’s reading of Augustine’s view, presenting him as subscribing to view (1), angels.  Henry Morris understands Augustine’s position as (2), Sethites (The Genesis Record [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.  1976], 166), as does this present writer’s reading of Augustine, see City of God XV:23.  Also see John Walton, who calls Augustine’s view a variation of the Sethite view, “Sons of God, daughters of men,” DOT:P, 794.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Leroy Birney, “An Exegetical Study of Genesis 6:1—4.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 13, no. 1, pp. 43—52 (Winter 1970), 45.

[5] Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.  1948), 45—51.

[6] Ibid. 45.

[7] Ibid. 45—6. Italics added.

[8] Ibid. 46.

[9] Ibid. 48.

[10] Ibid.

[11] The Genesis Record, see 164—70.  Also, Walton cites Westermann, who said that we can basically consider the debate “closed.”  Westermann adds, “The number of voices supporting the view that they [sons of God] are human has diminished,” in “Sons of God, daughters of men,”  DOT:P, 795.

[12] The Genesis Record, 166.

[13] Ibid. 168.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid. 168—9.

[17] Ibid. 169.

[18] Genesis in The NIV Application Commentary.  Terry Muck, editor (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.  2001), 291. 

[19] Ibid. 292.

[20] Note the similarity of this line of criticism to that of Vos, see fn. 7.

[21] Genesis, 292.

[22] Ibid. Op. cit.

[23] Ibid. 293.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid. 294.

[26] These parallels are presented on pp. 294—95.

[27] Leroy Birney, “An Exegetical Study of Genesis 6:1—4.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. (Winter: 1976): 43—52.  52.

[28] Walton actually appeals to the movie Braveheart in a footnote, see Genesis, 293 fn. 2.