This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.
Feed Back

Does Psalm 58 Defend Abortion? And Who Were the Genesis 6 Sons of God

Posted on

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.


Abortion Doctors Face Murder Charges

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.


Exorcism, Demons, Witchcraft, and Astrology

From: Jingo

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.


This entry was posted in Apologetics, Biology, Christian Values, Creation Worldviews, Design, Ethics, Family, Feedback, Genetics, History, Origins, Philosophy, Scripture, Theology, Worldviews and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

  • Thomas Underwood

    If one wants to understand Genesis 6:1-7, they should read Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the subject. I too thought these scriptures meant Angels of God, but Henry explains the subject so well, using scripture, that it is truly easy to understand who the Sons of God were, and who the daughters of men were. This is a rather long read, but the payoff in full understanding is great indeed.

    For the glory of God’s justice, and for warning to a wicked world, before the history of the ruin of the old world, we have a full account of its degeneracy, its apostasy from God and rebellion against him. The destroying of it was an act, not of an absolute sovereignty, but of necessary justice, for the maintaining of the honor of God’s government. Now here we have an account of two things which occasioned the wickedness of the old world:-1. The increase of mankind: Men began to multiply upon the face of the earth. This was the effect of the blessing (ch. 1:28), and yet man’s corruption so abused and perverted this blessing that it was turned into a curse. Thus sin takes occasion by the mercies of God to be the more exceedingly sinful. Prov. 29:16, When the wicked are multiplied, transgression increaseth. The more sinners the more sin; and the multitude of offenders emboldens men. Infectious diseases are most destructive in populous cities; and sin is a spreading leprosy. Thus in the New-Testament church, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring (Acts 6:1), and we read of a nation that was multiplied, not to the increase of their joy, Isa. 9:3. Numerous families need to be well-governed, lest they become wicked families. 2. Mixed marriages (v. 2): The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done, both for the preservation of their own purity and in detestation of the apostasy. They intermingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain: They took them wives of all that they chose. But what was amiss in these marriages? (1.) They chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair, which was all they looked at. (2.) They followed the choice which their own corrupt affections made: they took all that they chose, without advice and consideration. But, (3.) That which proved of such bad consequence to them was that they married strange wives, were unequally yoked with unbelievers, 2 Co. 6:14. This was forbidden to Israel, Deu. 7:3, 4. It was the unhappy occasion of Solomon’s apostasy (1 Ki. 11:1-4), and was of bad consequence to the Jews after their return out of Babylon, Ezra 9:1, 2. Note, Professors of religion, in marrying both themselves and their children, should make conscience of keeping within the bounds of profession. The bad will sooner debauch the good than the good reform the bad. Those that profess themselves the children of God must not marry without his consent, which they have not if they join in affinity with his enemies.

    This comes in here as a token of God’s displeasure at those who married strange wives; he threatens to withdraw from them his Spirit, whom they had grieved by such marriages, contrary to their convictions: fleshly lusts are often punished with spiritual judgments, the sorest of all judgments. Or as another occasion of the great wickedness of the old world; the Spirit of the Lord, being provoked by their resistance of his motions, ceased to strive with them, and then all religion was soon lost among them. This he warns them of before, that they might not further vex his Holy Spirit, but by their prayers might stay him with them. Observe in this verse, I. God’s resolution not always to strive with man by his Spirit. The Spirit then strove by Noah’s preaching (1 Pt. 3:19, 20) and by inward checks, but it was in vain with the most of men; therefore, says God, He shall not always strive. Note, 1. The blessed Spirit strives with sinners, by the convictions and admonitions of conscience, to turn them from sin to God. 2. If the Spirit be resisted, quenched, and striven against, though he strive long, he will not strive always, Hos. 4:17. 3. Those are ripening apace for ruin whom the Spirit of grace has left off striving with. II. The reason of this resolution: For that he also is flesh, that is, incurably corrupt, and carnal, and sensual, so that it is labour lost to strive with him. Can the Ethiopian change his skin? He also, that is, All, one as well as another, they have all sunk into the mire of flesh. Note, 1. It is the corrupt nature, and the inclination of the soul towards the flesh, that oppose the Spirit’s strivings and render them ineffectual. 2. When a sinner has long adhered to that interest, and sided with the flesh against the Spirit, the Spirit justly withdraws his agency, and strives no more. None lose the Spirit’s strivings but those that have first forfeited them. III. A reprieve granted, notwithstanding: Yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years; so long I will defer the judgment they deserve, and give them space to prevent it by their repentance and reformation. Justice said, Cut them down; but mercy interceded, Lord, let them alone this year also; and so far mercy prevailed, that a reprieve was obtained for six-score years. Note, The time of God’s patience and forbearance towards provoking sinners is sometimes long, but always limited: reprieves are not pardons; though God bear a great while, he will not bear always.

    We have here a further account of the corruption of the old world. When the sons of God had matched with the daughters of men, though it was very displeasing to God, yet he did not immediately cut them off, but waited to see what would be the issue of these marriages, and which side the children would take after; and it proved (as usually it does), that they took after the worst side. Here is, I. The temptation they were under to oppress and do violence. They were giants, and they were men of renown; they became too hard for all about them, and carried all before them, 1. With their great bulk, as the sons of Anak, Num. 13:33. 2. With their great name, as the king of Assyria, Isa. 37:11. These made them the terror of the mighty in the land of the living; and, thus armed, they daringly insulted the rights of all their neighbours and trampled upon all that is just and sacred. Note, Those that have so much power over others as to be able to oppress them have seldom so much power over themselves as not to oppress; great might is a very great snare to many. This degenerate race slighted the honour their ancestors had obtained by virtue and religion, and made themselves a great name by that which was the perpetual ruin of their good name. II. The charge exhibited and proved against them, v. 5. The evidence produced was incontestable. God saw it, and that was instead of a thousand witnesses. God sees all the wickedness that is among the children of men; it cannot be concealed from him now, and, if it be not repented of, it shall not be concealed by him shortly. Now what did God take notice of? 1. He observed that the streams of sin that flowed along in men’s lives, and the breadth and depth of those streams: He saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth. Observe the connection of this with what goes before: the oppressors were mighty men and men of renown; and, then, God saw that the wickedness of man was great. Note, The wickedness of a people is great indeed when the most notorious sinners are men of renown among them. Things are bad when bad men are not only honoured notwithstanding their wickedness, but honoured for their wickedness, and the vilest men exalted. Wickedness is then great when great men are wicked. Their wickedness was great, that is, abundance of sin was committed in all places, by all sorts of people; and such sin as was in its own nature most gross, and heinous, and provoking; it was committed daringly, and with a defiance of heaven, nor was any care taken by those that had power in their hands to restrain and punish it. This God saw. Note, All the sins of sinners are known to God the Judge. Those that are most conversant in the world, though they see much wickedness in it, yet they see but little of that which is; but God sees all, and judges aright concerning it, how great it is, nor can he be deceived in his judgment. 2. He observed the fountain of sin that was in men’s hearts. Any one might see that the wickedness of man was great, for they declared their sin as Sodom; but God’s eye went further: He saw that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually —a sad sight, and very offensive to God’s holy eye! This was the bitter root, the corrupt spring: all the violence and oppression, all the luxury and wantonness, that were in the world, proceeded from the corruption of nature; lust conceived them, Jam. 1:15. See Mt. 15:19. (1.) The heart was naught; it was deceitful and desperately wicked. The principles were corrupt, and the habits and dispositions evil. (2.) The thoughts of the heart were so. Thought is sometimes taken for the settled judgment or opinion, and this was bribed, and biased, and misled; sometimes it signifies the workings of the fancy, and these were always either vain or vile, either weaving the spider’s web or hatching the cockatrice’s egg. (3.) The imagination of the thoughts of the heart was so, that is, their designs and devices were wicked. They did not do evil through mere carelessness, as those that walk at all adventures, not heeding what they do; but they did evil deliberately and designedly, contriving how to do mischief. It was bad indeed; for it was only evil, continually evil, and every imagination was so. There was no good to be found among them, no, not at any time: the stream of sin was full, and strong, and constant; and God saw it; see Ps. 14:1-3.

    Here is the point to it all, I. God’s resentment of man’s wickedness. He did not see it as an unconcerned spectator, but as one injured and affronted by it; he saw it as a tender father sees the folly and stubbornness of a rebellious and disobedient child, which not only angers him, but grieves him, and makes him wish he had been written childless. The expressions here used are very strange: It repented the Lord that he had made man upon the earth, that he had made a creature of such noble powers and faculties, and had put him on this earth, which he built and furnished on purpose to be a convenient, comfortable, habitation for him; and it grieved him at his heart. These are expressions after the manner of men, and must be understood so as not to reflect upon the honor of God’s immutability or felicity. 1. This language does not imply any passion or uneasiness in God (nothing can create disturbance to the Eternal Mind), but it expresses his just and holy displeasure against sin and sinners, against sin as odious to his holiness and against sinners as obnoxious to his justice. He is pressed by the sins of his creatures (Amos 2:13), wearied (Isa. 43:24), broken (Eze. 6:9), grieved (Ps. 95:10), and here grieved to the heart, as men are when they are wronged and abused by those they have been very kind to, and therefore repent of their kindness, and wish they had never fostered that snake in their bosom which now hisses in their face and stings them to the heart. Does God thus hate sin? And shall we not hate it? Has our sin grieved him to the heart? And shall we not be grieved and pricked to the heart for it? O that this consideration may humble us and shame us, and that we may look on him whom we have thus grieved, and mourn! Zec. 12:10. 2. It does not imply any change of God’s mind; for he is in one mind, and who can turn him? With him there is not variableness. But it expressed a change of his way. When God had made man upright, he rested and was refreshed (Ex. 31:17), and his way towards him was such as showed he was pleased with the work of his own hands; but, now that man had apostatized, he could not do otherwise than show himself displeased; so that the change was in man, not in God. God repented that he had made man; but we never find him repenting that he redeemed man (though that was a work of much greater expense), because special and effectual grace is given to secure the great ends of redemption; so that those gifts and callings are without repentance, Rom. 11:29. II. God’s resolution to destroy man for his wickedness, v. 7. Observe, 1. When God repented that he had made man, he resolved to destroy man. Thus those that truly repent of sin will resolve, in the strength of God’s grace, to mortify sin and to destroy it, and so to undo what they have done amiss. We do but mock God in saying that we are sorry for our sin, and that it grieves us to the heart, if we continue to indulge it. In vain do we pretend a change of our mind if we do not evidence it by a change of our way. 2. He resolves to destroy man. The original word is very significant: I will wipe off man from the earth (so some), as dirt or filth is wiped off from a place which should be clean, and is thrown to the dunghill, the proper place for it. See 2 Ki. 21:13. Those that are the spots of the places they live in are justly wiped away by the judgments of God. I will blot out man from the earth (so others), as those lines which displease the author are blotted out a book, or as the name of a citizen is blotted out of the rolls of the freemen, when he is dead or disfranchised. 3. He speaks of man as his own creature even when he resolves upon his ruin: Man whom I have created. “Though I have created him, this shall not excuse him,’’ Isa. 27:11. He that made him will not save him; he that is our Creator, if he be not our ruler, will be our destroyer. Or, “Because I have created him, and he has been so undutiful and ungrateful to his Creator, therefore I will destroy him:’’ those forfeit their lives that do not answer the end of their living. 4. Even the brute-creatures were to be involved in this destruction— Beasts, and creeping things, and the fowls of the air. These were made for man, and therefore must be destroyed with man; for it follows: It repenteth me that I have made them; for the end of their creation also was frustrated. They were made that man might serve and honour God with them; and therefore were destroyed because he had served his lusts with them, and made them subject to vanity. 5. God took up this resolution concerning man after his Spirit had been long striving with him in vain. None are ruined by the justice of God but those that hate to be reformed by the grace of God.

  • Myrtle Linder

    There is not the vaguest indication that Psalms 58 promotes abortion. I doubt that is as much as one verse in the Bible that has not been twisted out of shape until it fitted someones selfish desire.

    Children are born into this world without one idea of good or evil. However we, as parents train them, that is the way that 95% of them will go in life. We have children that are eager to do what is expected of them and there are some that are troublemakers from the time they learn what they can get away with. Just recently, I heard a mother say, my two year old really beat up on me. If he got away with it, he will continue to beat up his mother. Most of them are exactly what they learn to be. If they are not trained, what is accepted in the first 3 years of life, the way they need to go, it will be difficult to train them in another way. What kind of parent will an abortion believer make???? I ahve always wondered!!

  • Juanita Johnson

    Thanks Mr. David Jolly, I hope this clear up your misunderstanding about abortion, the Bible states there is nothing new under the sun and many more scriptures describe abortion in old english term. I Tim 1:6 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather then godly edifying. Anyone preaching for the pro-life should be careful because 2 Peters describes the false teachers.

    • R.L. David Jolly


      I am so sorry that you are so deceived by your own desire to justify the murder of innocent lives. I want to know who made you God that you can judge the unborn as to their wickedness? You seem to indicate that any woman seeking an abortion is doing so because she herself is wicked and her baby is either wicked or retarded. To use the excuse to abort mentally challenged children because of some archaic practice is one of the most illogical groundless arguments one could use. Using your logic, one could justify killing all male children under the age of 2 because they may pose a threat to the current leadership of the country or we should torture and kill all Christians because that’s what they did in Rome. I know families that have children born with various forms of mental deficiencies and everyone of them have loved their child and told me what a blessing they really are to them.

      So are we to understand that you have the ability to see into every woman’s life and into her womb so that you can judge them and condemn them to death? I take it that you ignore John 8:7 which states: “And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

      Your perversion of Scripture is shameful and blasphemous. You have twisted and turned the Word of God to fit YOUR own agenda and in so doing have set yourself up as judge, jury and executioner of countless unborn lives that you know nothing about. I gather you also have a perverted version of Exodus 20:13 which states, “You shall not murder” or Matthew 18:10 that says, “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.”

      I, and many others on this site will pray that God softens your hardened heart and that you may see the truth of what God’s Word really says about the sanctity of life.

  • believeroftheway

    “That the sons of GOD saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose,” Genesis 6:2.
    “For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven,” Mark 12:25.

    The key word in the Genesis 6:2 scripture is “wives,” the key word in the Mark 12:25 scripture is “marriage.” The female partner in GOD’S marriage design is the wife. The sons of GOD took wives so they were married, and JESUS clearly tells us that angels cannot marry.

    The second idea is wrapped around the word “Nephilim” which is another name assigned to the giants mentioned in Genesis 6:4. It has been posited that GOD sent the flood to destroy these hybrid angel/human giants. However, this possibility loses all relevance because the Nephilim are mentioned as living in promised land after the flood in Numbers 13:33

Proudly built by WPDevelopers