The start of the New Year has been a busy one and we thank all of you for your support this past year. We pray that you will continue to follow and support Creation Revolution as we continue to bring you a variety of useful information in 2012.
As we gear up for a year of growth, we are taking time to respond to a comment we received that dealt with Psalm 58 and abortion, that we felt it necessary to respond. Our second response deals with a number of responses we got concerning the question of who the sons of God in Genesis 6:4 were. I selected one response that represented a number of comments on this topic.
From: Juanita J
I believe these Doctors are innocent of the Christ, murder of the unborn, because Psalm 58, describes the procedure of abortion and these Doctors were defending their patient against an untimely pregnancy, Num. 24:17 also describes the prophecy of Jesus Christ, how he came to defend women of the untimely birth. When women knows their pregnancy is untimely, we have children in our world now that’s neglected because of irresponsibly parents. Psalm 137 Also describes the women that which that they had never had children and how they doom them.
Juanita, we appreciate your comments, but I have to admit that I do not see where Psalm 58 describes abortion in any way whatsoever. Here is Psalm 58 in its entirety:
1Do you indeed decree what is right, you gods? Do you judge the children of man uprightly?
2No, in your hearts you devise wrongs; your hands deal out violence on earth.
3The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.
4 They have venom like the venom of a serpent, like the deaf adder that stops its ear,
5so that it does not hear the voice of charmers or of the cunning enchanter.
6O God, break the teeth in their mouths; tear out the fangs of the young lions, O LORD!
7Let them vanish like water that runs away; when he aims his arrows, let them be blunted.
8Let them be like the snail that dissolves into slime, like the stillborn child who never sees the sun.
9Sooner than your pots can feel the heat of thorns, whether green or ablaze, may he sweep them away!
10 The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11Mankind will say, “Surely there is a reward for the righteous; surely there is a God who judges on earth.”
If you are referring to verse three that says the wicked are estranged from birth, that only means that their relationship with the righteous are hostile and alienated from before they are born. Some people are inherently evil and wicked from birth.
If you are referring to the second part of verse 8, the reference is of children that die in the womb and never see the light of day. The psalmist is saying that it would be better if the wicked died in the womb like the stillborn child who never lives long enough to see the light of day.
As for judging these doctors innocent of murdering unborn children because of the statements concerning the wicked in Psalm 58, it seems to indicate that you were judging the unborn children as being wicked and not deserving of life. I’m sorry Juanita, but I don’t believe that any of us are qualified to make such a judgment call against the unborn.
I’m a firm believer that any practitioner that preforms an abortion is guilty of murder in the first degree and they should be punished accordingly.
The commentator is incorrect. The reference in Genesis 6 of Fallen Angels coming down to have sex with women is backed up by Scripture in the New Testament. I can’t remember the verse, but I do believe it to be in first or 2nd Peter
This union of Fallen Angels with women caused men with super human powers to be born “men of renown”
Jingo, we appreciate your comments concerning the sons of God referred to Genesis 6:4.
This has long been a topic of discussion and disagreement among biblical scholars for several centuries. While there are actually several different views on who they were, the majority of scholars consider the two main versions. If you study a number of commentaries on Genesis, you will find that the authors are pretty much divided 50-50 as to whether they were fallen angels or descendants of Seth.
I will try to provide information for both viewpoints but want you to know up front that I believe that the sons of God were the line of Seth and not fallen angels, but understand why others believe differently.
My response below is taken partially from one that I wrote a few years back while working at another ministry and from a response I got from Dr. Michael Kruger. Mike and I attended the same church at one time and I respect his biblical knowledge and insight. Mike now serves as academic dean and professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Genesis 6:1-4 continues to be a source of debate among many learned scholars. There are some who believe that the ‘sons of God’ mentioned in this passage refer to fallen angels, while others believe this to be a reference to those in the line of Seth. Below are materials, which contain arguments for both sides, and trust that you will find them enlightening.
1) Sons of God referred to angels: Henry Morris in the Genesis Record (pp. 163-175) says: “The interpretation of the passage obviously turns on the meaning of the phrase “sons of God” (bene elohim). In the New Testament, of course, this term is used with reference to all who have been born again through personal faith in Christ (John 1:12; Romans 8:14; etc.), and the concept of the spiritual relationship of believers to God as analogous to that of children to a father is also found in the Old Testament (Psalm 73:15; Hosea 1:10; Deuteronomy 32:5; Exodus 4:22; Isaiah 43:6). Not one of these examples, however, uses the same phrase as Genesis 6:2,4; furthermore, in each case the meaning is not really parallel to the meaning here in Genesis. Neither the descendants of Seth nor true believers of any sort have been previously referred to in Genesis as sons of God in any kind of spiritual sense and, except for Adam himself, they could not have been sons of God in a physical sense. In the context, such a meaning would be strained, to say the least, in the absence of any kind of explanation. The only obvious and natural meaning without such clarification is that these beings were sons of God, rather than of men, because they had been created, not born. Such a description, of course, would apply only to Adam (Luke 3:38) and to the angels, whom God had directly created (Psalm 148:2, 5; Psalm 104:4; Colossians 1:16).” P. 165.
2) Sons of God referred to the line of Seth: Dear Dave, thanks for your letter inquiring about Genesis 6:2. That is a very common question and one that has confronted many an exegete. I’m not sure I can offer anything new and profound, but I will do my best. I do reject the idea that “sons of God” refer to fallen angels in this text. Instead, I agree with the idea that the phrase refers to the covenant line of Seth as mentioned in the earlier chapters. Allow me to give my reasons for such a conclusion:
1) First it is true that “bene elohim” (sons of God) does refer to angels in various places: Job 1:6, 2:1; Psalm 29:1, 89:6, etc.. However, the same phrase is also used to refer to believers, or those who are in God’s covenant line and therefore understood to be the people of God: Deut 14:1, 32:5; Psalm 73:15; Hos 1:10, etc.. So, we must therefore turn to the context to discover what meaning is intended by the author. The following considerations lead me to the latter use.
2) It is clear in scripture that angels are SPIRITS (Heb 1:14). They have no physical bodies like humans. It is true that they appear in the form of men, but there is no reason to think that they could have sexual relations that would produce any sort of offspring. That sounds more like pagan superstition imported from other religions.
3) Understanding this passage to refer to the “covenant line” and not angels best explains God’s anger with man over his sin. In the following set of verses (v.3-8) it is clear that God is angered with mankind, including much of his covenant people. Why? Well, it is clear that God is angered with the fact that his own covenant people (sons of God) are intermarrying with pagan women. God warns of this throughout scripture. This corrupts God’s covenant people and leads them into wicked rebellion. Apparently, Noah and his family were the only ones that avoided such moral decline.
4) One objection that is often made to this view is that it doesn’t explain the children of gigantic size (nephilim) in v. 4. However, do sexual encounters with demons explain such size? Not at all. Large size is no evidence of demonic sexual encounters. In fact, there are many large giants in the Bible (e.g. Goliath) that we don’t explain through angelic parenting.
5) The suggestion that “sons of God” refers to FALLEN angels is the real problem for the other view because that phrase never refers to the demons of hell, but only the angels of heaven. The scripture would never refer to fallen angels as “sons of God”. And certainly the text can’t be meaning heavenly angels because they have not fallen and are in still perfect obedience to God. They would never, therefore, perform such a wicked deed. Thus, the seemingly inevitable conclusion is that the text refers simply to God’s covenant people intermarrying with pagan women. There is no TEXTUAL reason that would suggest demonic sexual encounters being described. That has to be imported into the text from another source.
I pray that this helps to give you food for thought on the subject and explain why I believe as I do concerning the sons of God.