Even the Demons (Part 7a)

In the previous section on Psalm 82 we began to examine texts which speak of beings besides YHWH that are called elohim. We advanced the thesis that elohim can be used analogically, or improperly, to speak of beings with status, power, or majesty. In Psalm 82, the term likely refers to magistrates. Even if it speaks of angels, this does not mean these beings are truly gods. Here, we continue to explore other texts which refer to angels as elohim and sons of elohim. Again, we see that to interpret these elohim as “real gods” does not do justice to the sense of the passages.

Before continuing, we must comment on Genesis 6:1–4 and why we will not address this text directly.[1] Proponents of other real gods often cite the passage as a key instance of powerful divine beings. These beings are called “sons of God” (Gen 6:2). We bypass discussion of this text because the passage reveals many complexities.[2] However, since the only issue for our purpose is whether “sons of God” are “real gods,” we need not delve into this account. Other passages which contain the phrase “sons of God” more plainly describe spiritual beings in a heavenly realm.

Lower than Elohim

Psalm 8 speaks of the first and last “Adams,” the first man and the Son of Man. The fifth verse states that YHWH made the son of man “a little lower than elohim (God/the gods/angels).” What does elohim mean here? The MT uses the Hebrew elohim, while the LXX uses angelos (angel).[3] The quotation of Heb 2:7, and its exegesis in Heb 2:9, also uses the Greek angelos rather than theos (god). The quotation of Psalm 8 fits the argument of Hebrews, which claims that the Lord Jesus is greater than the angels, though as a man he was made “for a little while” lower than those heavenly beings.[4] Thus, we can at least conclude that the passage refers not to YHWH as elohim but to other heavenly beings.[5] Owen goes so far as to say that to render the text in Psalm 8 as “God” is, “. . . plainly to contradict the apostle, and to accuse him of corrupting the word of God.”[6] Good reasons exist to take the reference to “gods” or angels, not God.

Our main question from this passage pertains to what to conclude from the NT quotation of Ps 8:5. Do we give priority to the OT term elohim or to the NT designation of angel? In other words, are the angels actually “gods” because Hebrews affirms Psalm 8’s use of elohim for angels, or do we conclude from the NT that these beings ontologically are angels, and in Psalm 8 are merely referred to with the term elohim? Gill concludes the latter, primarily based on the history of interpretation, especially the NT’s interpretation. He writes, “[S]ince the word is rendered ‘angels’ . . . above all by the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, it is best to interpret it of them: and Christ was made lower than they by assuming human nature . . . .”[7] The lexicographer Tregelles makes the lexical argument based on the quotation in Hebrews. On the lexical entry for elohim, he writes, “Hebrews, chaps. 1:6 and 2:7, 9 shew plainly that this word [elohim] sometimes means angels, and the authority of the N.T. decides the matter.”[8] Notice, Tregelles says “angels” can be one of the lexical meanings. The “illegitimate totality transfer” fallacy teaches that we should not import all the meanings of a word into a single instance. Psalm 8:5 either means that these beings are “real gods” or angels, but cannot mean both. In this case we see that the Bible sometimes calls the angels elohim. In other words, as Gesenius says, in this case elohim simply means “angels.”

Recall why Scripture would designate the angels by this term. Elohim signifies power, majesty, and/or rule. As Matthew Henry says about the elohim of Psalm 82:1, “They are elohim. Angels are so called both because they are great in power and might and because God is pleased to make use of their service in the government of this lower world . . . .”[9]Likewise, John Owen writes, “An especial, immediate power over [the church] was committed unto angels. And hence was the name [elohim], ‘god,’ ‘judge,’ ‘mighty one,’ communicated unto them, namely, from their authority over the church; that name expressing the authority of God when unto him ascribed.”[10] The use of the term elohim for angels need not signify anything of their ontological essence as gods. The angelic beings are “supernatural but subdivine.”[11]

Sons of elohim

The term “sons of god” does not take us too far afield from other references to elohim. In OT terms, to be a “son of” serves much as a synonym for the “parent” object. For example, Ezekiel is called “son of man [adam],” meaning that he possesses the attributes of a man. He is Adamic. YHWH gives him this title probably to remind him of his mortality. Likewise, the term “son of an elohim” should be understood as an equivalent term to elohim. Of course, we have been laboring to define what we mean by “gods” or elohim in this case. This is an analogical term to demonstrate the majesty or rulership of angels. Just as elohim need not mean these beings are “real gods,” so it goes with the sons of elohim. Gill articulates the unique benefit of the term sons of elohim, writing, “[T]hese may be said to be sons of God . . . by creation, being made in the image of God, which consists in wisdom and knowledge, in righteousness and holiness; and being his favourites, and beloved of him.”[12] Gill here proposes two aspects of the relationship between YHWH and the angels—the latter are made in God’s image, and are especially beloved. In this sense, “sons of God” becomes an appropriate term for angels. Thus, we move now to examine some texts about the “sons of God.”[13]

Job 1:6 

The book of Job begins with sons of God coming to stand before the Lord, and “even

(the) Satan” was in their midst (Job 1:6).[14] These are sons of the God, YHWH. The LXX translates the term as “angels of God.”[15] Calvin and Bavinck are some of those who takes these “sons of God” to be angels.[16] But why the term “sons of God” instead of elohim? Interestingly, the opening lines of the book repeatedly mention “sons” (banim). Job 1:2, 4, and 5 mention Job’s sons. Job 1:3 states that Job was greater “than all the sons of the East.” Moreover, the name Elohimoccurs in Job 1:1 and 5. Not until Job 1:6 do we see the name YHWH. So, we read that Job fears elohim and desired for his sons to not curse elohim, while soon after the sons of elohim appear before YHWH. Perhaps the writer presents a contrast between Satan and Job. While Job desires for himself and his sons to honor elohim, Satan seeks to be a son of elohim who instead curses elohim. Or, for a simpler explanation, perhaps the writer simply wished to use literary artistry to compare Job’s sons to God’s “sons.”

An intriguing interpretation arises among the Reformed such as Henry and Gill. These commentators state the possibility that the term “sons of God” in Job indicates a godly line of men rather than the angels, just as some believe is the case in Genesis 6:1–4.[17] Since the book of Job reflects a setting in the patriarchal age, a similar use of language would be appropriate. Gill provides several other reasons in his argumentation and is worth quoting in full. After discussing the “angels” view, he says,

But though the stream of interpreters run this way, I cannot say I am satisfied with it; for, setting aside the passages in this book in question, angels are nowhere called ‘the sons of God’; for besides, this being denied of them in the sense that Christ is, they are represented as servants, yea, as servants to the sons of God, ministering spirits to the heirs of salvation; they call themselves the fellow servants of the saints, and of their brethren, but do not say that they are sons of the same family, or fellow heirs, or their brethren, Heb 1:5, moreover, they always stand in the presence of God, and behold his face, be they where they will, Mat 18:10 nor is there any particular day assigned them for the service of God; for though they are under the moral law, so far as it is suitable to their nature, yet not under the ceremonial law, to which the observance of days belonged; and besides, they have no rest night nor day, but continually serve God, and glorify him, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty: and if this presentation of themselves to God is supposed to be in heaven, as where else should it be? it is not possible that Satan could come among them; he is fallen from heaven, being cast down from thence, nor can he, nor ever will he, be able to find a place any more there, see Luk 10:18 it seems better therefore to understand this of the people of God, of professors of religion, who, earlier than the times of Job, were distinguished from the men of the world by this character, ‘the sons of God’, Gen 6:2, such that were truly godly being so by adopting grace, and which was made manifest by their regeneration by the Spirit of God, and by their faith in Christ, and all were so by profession: now these assembled themselves together, to present themselves, their bodies and souls, before the Lord, which was but their reasonable service; as to pray unto him, and praise him, to offer sacrifice, and perform every religious exercise enjoined in those times; the apostle uses the like phrase of the saints’ social worship, Rom 12:1 now for this there was a ‘day’; though I very much question whether any sabbath, or much less a seventh day sabbath, was as yet instituted; but inasmuch as men agreed together to call on the name of the Lord, or to worship him in a social way, Gen 4:26 as it was necessary that a place should be appointed to meet at, so a time fixed by consent and agreement; even as now, the seventh day sabbath being abrogated, Christians agree to meet on the first day of the week, called the Lord’s day, in imitation of the apostles of Christ; and on one of these days thus fixed and agreed on was the above meeting, at which Satan came among them, as he frequently does in the assembly of the saints, to do what mischief he can; by snatching away the word from inattentive hearers, and by directing the eye to such objects, and putting such things into the mind, as divert from the service of God; or by suggesting to the saints themselves, that what is attended to does not belong to them, with many other things of the like kind . . . .[18]

One need not necessarily hold to the view Gill presents, but this shows that several legitimate understandings of the text present themselves. Readers have no need to posit the existence of other gods based on the story of Job.

Job 38:7

In this verse, God asks Job if he was present at creation when, “all the sons of God shouted for joy.”  Here again we see the term בְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים, “sons of God.” This text appears to indicate that the sons of God already existed at the creation of our planet. For example, Van Mastricht argues, “The majority of the Reformed state that they were created on the first day, with the empyrean heaven (Gen. 1:1 with 2:1). At least that they were created before the creation of the earth seems to be spoken of clearly enough in Job 38:7.”[19] In such an instance, no trouble arises in considering these to be angels.[20]

In his sermon on Job 1:6, Calvin repeats why we need not be concerned if Scripture refers to angels as “sons of God.” He explains, “But the Angels are so called in the Scripture, because they draw unto God, & are as it were bearers of his brightness. And therefore in as much as God calleth them Principalities, Virtues, and Highnesses, it is good reason that we also should acknowledge them to be as it were the sons of God, for as much as we may not separate the virtue that is in them, from the virtue of God, because they be as streams that gush out of that fountain & spring, and we must always repair thither. Let us know then that this honour of being taken & reputed for the children of God, belongeth to the Angels, because his glory uttereth and sheweth itself in them.”[21] In a sermon on Job 38:7 he explains in similar terms, “Truely this title of being termed the children of God is granted to the Angels by a special privilege, because they approach near unto him, & have such a nobleness in them, that they be above all other creatures. They are not only Gods’ messengers: but also are called principalities & powers, because that by them, as by his hands he executeth whatsoever he thinketh good.”[22] Whether the book of Job refers to men or angels, “sons of God” are not real gods.




[1] This author holds the “Sethite” view that the “sons of God” speaks of the godly line of Seth.

[2] We can take this opportunity to remove an objection, which is that proponents of the Baptist Dogmatics view “don’t understand” the issues at hand. This is a red herring used to dismiss arguments without dealing with them. We do not ignore Genesis 6 here because we do not understand the views or are afraid to touch a supernaturalist text. The same applies to other texts and topics addressed in these articles.
Though these articles are not directly about Michael Heiser, Heiser takes this tactic in dealing with his opponents. He mentions the article by Amar Annus, “On the Origin of Watchers: A Comparative Study of the Antediluvian Wisdom in Mesopotamian and Jewish Traditions,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 19:4 (2010): 277–320. Heiser says, “This article deals a death blow to any non-supernatural (or non-mythic as some prefer) interpretation in the sense that, if you care about interpreting the Bible in context, no human interpretation of the sons of God can work. It violates every point of context. Annus’ article is the most current study on the Mesopotamian apkallu. It supersedes ALL preceding work on this subject. That means your standard academic commentaries that all pastors are using are hopelessly out of date and mis-informed. Anyone commenting on Gen 6:1-4 hereafter will have to account for this article or else be academically inept. Read it and be amazed. This is what comparative analysis is supposed to look like. The Sethite view was incoherent before. Now it’s become the position for ostriches.” (https://drmsh.com/the-ancient-near-eastern-context-for-genesis-61-4/)

Suffice to say, I have read Annus’ article and maintain my ostrichian position.

[3] The Syriac version and Targum Psalm 8 also refer to angels. The Vulgate uses “God.”

[4] George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews,” CNTUOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), 946–947.

[5] Tremper Longman III, Psalms, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: 2014), 80–81, argues for a reference to God, saying, “. . . humans are closer to God than anything in the created order . . .” because God creates only mankind in his image. However, this view flies in the face of Hebrews 1–2’s argument. John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Vol. I, trans. James Anderson (Grand Rapids, Baker: 2009), 102–103, takes the same view Longman propounds, but claims that the apostle in Hebrews took freedoms to change the word “God” to angels. However, Calvin also “does not disapprove” of the rendering “angels,” since, he says, “. . . this name, as is well known, is often given to angels. . . .” Longman also argues that mankind is “crowned with glory and honor” and thus only lower than God, reflecting his glory. Nevertheless, mankind’s crown of glory can be equally relevant when mankind is only “a little” lower than the angels. The term “little” highlights mankind’s nearness to angelic glory. Thus, if angels are glorious, then what of mankind that is only a little lower? Finally, 2 Peter 2:11 says the angels are “greater in might and power” than either the blasphemers or the “glorious ones,” implying a higher rank than humanity.

[6] John Owen, Works of John Owen, Vol. XIX (Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth, 1991), 339.

[7] John Gill, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Psalm 8:5 ad loc. He lists many commentators and versions in the portion replaced by ellipses. See also John Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, Vol. I (Paris, AR: Baptist Standard Bearer, 2007), 263, “The name of Elohim is [angels’] principal [name], translated gods, Psalm 97:7, and interpreted of angels, Heb. 1:6, the same word is translated angels, Psalm 8:5, and which is justified by the apostle, Heb 2:9. Now angels have this name because they have been sent with messages from God, in his name, to men; and they have spoken in his name, and been his representatives; and may be called so . . . because God’s vicegerents. . . .”

[8] Samuel Tregelles, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (London, UK: Bagster, 1857), 49.

[9] Matthew Henry, “The Book of Psalms” in Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Vol. 3 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 451.

[10] Owen, Works, Vol. XIX, 327.

[11] Christopher Ash, The Psalms: A Christ-Centered Commentary, Vol. II (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024), 95.

[12] John Gill, Body of Doctrinal Divinity, 264.

[13] In two places, Psalms 29:1 and 89:6, a variation of the phrase occurs, using the plural form of El, translated as sons of the gods (בְּנֵי אֵלִים). LXX’s rendering also translates in English to “sons of gods” (υἱοὶ θεοῦ). The terms in these two Psalms designate angels (Ash, Psalms, Vol. II, 341–342).

[14] A nearly identical scene arises in Job 2:1. Therefore, we need not examine both texts.

[15] οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ. LXX also translates “the Satan” as “the devil.”

[16] John Calvin, “The Fourth Sermon Upon the First Chapter,” trans. Arthur Golding, Sermons of Master Iohn Caluin, upon the booke of Iob(London, UK: Henry Bynneman, 1574), 16, says, “And the manner of speech which we see here when it is said that the Angels appeared before God as it were on a solemn high day. . . .” (Language updates mine). Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. II, 456, writes, “Though this designation [sons of God] is used repeatedly for angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), it can also very well denote humans.”

[17] Matthew Henry, “The Book of Job” in Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Vol. 3 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 5.

[18] John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testament, Job 1:6 ad loc.

[19] Petrus Van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology: The Works of God and the Fall of Man, Vol. 3, trans. Todd M. Rester (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage, 2021), 189. So also Gill, Body of Doctrinal Divinity, 382.

[20] So also John Calvin, “The Cxlviij. Sermon which is the second upon the xxxviij. Chapter,” 732–733.

[21] Calvin, “Fourth Sermon Upon the First Chapter,” 17. Orthography changes are mine.

[22] Calvin, “The Cxlviij. Sermon which is the second upon the xxxviij. Chapter,” 733.