Unborn Saved?

 

Can Unborn and Young Children Who Died Be Saved?

Bodie Hodge, Biblically Authority Ministries, March 12, 2021

  

Thank you for contacting the ministry. I want to give my personal views and I know others may disagree with me but my hope is to help give comfort to fellow Christians who ask about this serious topic. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong and ask forgiveness up front. Nevertheless, I ask that my fallible response not be a reflection of a perfect God and His Word. 

Who Are Sinners?  

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23 NKJV) 

Romans 5:12 also indicates that all have sinned because Adam sinned. Isaiah 48:8 (speaking of Israel and Judah) and Psalms 51:5 (speaking of David) alludes to the sinful nature of children even in the womb. The punishment for sin is death (Genesis 2:17, Romans 6:23). 

Why do I start here? There are some people who try to argue that the unborn (or even newly born children) are sinless or without sin—blameless and pure in the sight of God. Thus, they can be saved by having a form of righteousness and purity apart from Christ. I want to caution people from using this argument because there are significant theological problems with this view.  

Consider the implication of the unborn if they are not sinners. If the unborn have not sinned, then they cannot die because the punishment for sin is death. Sadly, they can die whether by miscarriage, abortion, still born, etc. God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18) so, as we (author and reader together) just read, all are sinners. I have four children in my house and from personal experience, I can attest from the moment they were born, they are definitely little sinners. 😊 

There is another theological problem if we assume that the unborn are not sinners. In Romans 5:6-8 and 1 Timothy 1:15 both indicate that Jesus came to save sinners, i.e., the ungodly. If the unborn are sinless, then Jesus didn’t die for them. This would pose a problem for the unborn then since no one comes to the Father except through Jesus (John 14:6).  If they were not sinners, they wouldn’t even have the possibility to go through Jesus so they wouldn’t make it to God the Father in Heaven.  

Another theological issue is in Hebrews 7:26 where Jesus is set apart from sinners as He is the only one blameless and pure. If there are others who are blameless and pure, then Jesus wouldn’t be set apart in that respect. 

In our hearts, we desperately want children to be blameless and pure but they inherit sin because we were all in Adam when he sinned. 

Let me explain this further. My life came from my parents and your life came from your parents. Where their life come from? It came from their parents…all the way back to Adam and Eve. When Adam sinned our life was wrapped up in Adam so his sin is also our sin. This is called original sin because it came from the original sin in the Garden of Eden. We are sinners by the nature of our life going back to Adam but we are also sinners by our own actions and choices. Hebrews 7 reveals: 

Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. (Hebrews 7:9-10 NKJV) 

Note that Abraham’s great grandson Levi was considered “still in the body” of his ancestor Abraham when Abe paid tithes to a priest called Melchizedek. Thus our life was indeed in Adam when he first sinned. The Son of God—Jesus Christ, being the Creator God Himself per John 1, Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1, was without sin (Hebrews 4:15) yet came in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3) to save sinners. So to argue that children are without sin would be to negate that they have the possibility of salvation. 

Significance of the Sinless Christ 

Jesus, being sinless, meant that rightly, He shouldn’t have been able to die either. Recall that death is the punishment for sin. But Jesus should not have been able to die. So how is it that He was able to die on the cross? According to the Bible, Jesus became sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21) in order to die. 

Upon Christ’s death via the Roman crucifixion incited by the Jews (including the High Priest himself), the infinitely powerful Son also took the infinitely powerful punishment we deserve from the infinitely powerful Father. Christ’s spilt blood satisfied God’s wrath upon sin and makes salvation possible. 

Thus Christ’s righteousness can be imputed (or transferred) to us when we repent of our sin and receive Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior (Romans 4:23-5:1) by believing in His death, burial, and resurrection (John 3:16-18, Romans 10:9). 

Salvation is a work of God and a free gift offered to sinners (Ephesians 2:8). So believers are seen as without blemish and pure and spotless as the perfect bride of Christ to enter into a perfect heaven (Revelation 21:27)  with a  perfect God for eternity. 

Jesus being the new federal head of humanity (Matthew 28:18, 1 Peter 5:11), unlike Adam (who led us into death through sin) cannot sin and therefore cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13); so for eternity we will never fall back into sin and death. This is why we can have eternal life enjoying God’s goodness forever (e.g., Daniel 12:2, Matthew 25:46). 

Are human babies “human”? 

It is hard to believe that people in our culture fail to understand this basic fact of life, but yes. human babies are human—even the unborn. They are people, albeit younger, but people nonetheless and we were all like this except Adam and Eve. Our respective grandparents were made with fully mature bodies and God supernaturally gave them life—this is not a problem because God is omnipotent (i.e., all-powerful). 

Some evolutionist have argued that babies are not yet human but going through evolutionary animal phases during embryonic development (called: “embryonic recapitulation”). Sadly many are deceived into believing this religious view as it is taught in most state schools. This religion is why some people try to justify abortion children. 

Even so, such a story is absurd as babies are unique persons from the moment of fertilization where a new child is made by the combining of the DNA from both mother and father. At no stage in the womb are baby humans going through animal phases—and this can be eye witnessed today through technology. 

Sadly, many Christians today try to mix their religion with the secular evolutionary religion. In doing so, some join with this idea of human babies are going through animal phases in the womb and they assume their baby can be aborted because it is just like an animal and not made in the image of an eternal God to have an eternal soul yet. 

Thus, they reason that the child in the womb isn’t eternal but more like an animal and so salvation isn’t necessary for discussion. Even so, murdering a child is simply that—murder and God will deal with those sins on judgment day if one doesn’t repent. God is merciful to those who humble themselves and admit and repent of their sin to Him.   

 

Don’t Be Rash 

For many years, I quickly assumed that the children that died early or were aborted were saved without much thought. I do want to encourage caution on this position though too. If this position is taken, then the conclusion could result that Christians should encourage abortions and the murder of the young particularly among non-believers, so that these children can be saved. Of course, this should never even be a thought of Christians who should be holding to the sanctity of life and the repeated biblical commands not to murder. 

But look at the converse. Consider the possibility that all the aborted, still-born, or miscarried children are lost for eternal damnation. Such a  sobering thought could dissuade even the most ardent evangelical from action knowing that nearly a billion children have been aborted the world over since I was born in the 1970s. Although one can see why Christians often stand up against abortion and the killing children. But let’s look at this issue in more detail before succumbing to such a rash conclusions one way or another.  

How Do We Know If Someone Is Saved? 

Jesus died for all (who receive Him—e.g., John 12:48) including those prior to and after His death on the cross and resurrection as indicated in Hebrew 2:9. The Old Testament people of God could not testify of Jesus in the flesh because He hadn’t come yet but they knew God and with Jesus being God, they were His when they placed their faith in God. 

The godly Old Testament persons looked forward to Christ’s finished work on the cross and His resurrection in the same way we look back to what Christ did. This is why the Greek word for “everyone” in Hebrews 2:9 indicates all people of all time – Old Testament, New Testament, those up to now, and those hereafter until Christ bodily returns.  

But determining who is saved and not can become a hairy situation sometimes – from a human perspective that is. Of course, God knows and He is the best judge anyway.   

If someone were to ask me if someone walking down the street was saved, that would be a very difficult task to ascertain, unless I could ask that person. And then see if they were producing the fruits a Christian should produce as a potential confirmation (e.g., Luke 6:43-44). 

Let’s face it, a non Christian can lie and say they are a Christian even when they have not received Christ as their Lord. Leading atheist Richard Dawkins often calls himself a “cultural Christian” or “cultural Anglican” (the Church of England).[1] He is by no means a follower of Christ. So seeing fruits are a good confirmation but even then it is still not absolute.  

When it comes to children—namely the unborn, seeing fruits and even asking is impossible from a human perspective. So in reality, it would be extremely difficult for me to say if anyone is saved or not. But that is really between God and that person, even the youngest of children. 

God Searches And Draws All People 

God says He searches all hearts for example when He is speaking to Solomon: 

"As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a loyal heart and with a willing mind; for the LORD searches all hearts and understands all the intent of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever. (1 Chronicles 28:9 NKJV) 

This includes the heart of children – even in the womb. It is God that draws them to Himself.  Consider: 

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44 NKJV) 

Jesus affirmed that He draws all people to Himself: 

"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself." (John 12:32 NKJV) 

The unborn are people and Jesus said He draws them. This means that God has drawn children  in the womb that is about to be aborted and a child that dies while very young, even after being born. For one to be saved though, God is the one who works in them and who of us can know who the Holy Spirit has saved in the womb and young children out of the womb? 

God, who knows the future, is aware if a child is about to be aborted, die early of disease, or other problem. Who are we to say that God has not already been working in the hearts of the unborn and the young children who have been born and will die soon. God has mercy on those on whom He wills to have mercy. 

Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.  (Romans 9:18 NKJV) 

I believe that children can be saved even though they are extremely young but they can only be saved through their faith in Jesus Christ (John 14:6). It would not be via any other means. 

If someone argues that a child is too young to be saved because they do not have sufficient understanding to properly ascertain a thorough comprehension of the salvific work of Christ unto saving believability then we must ask how young and how much understanding must one have? (See what I did there—did you have to read that sentence twice?!? 😊). Don’t forget that it is a child-like faith that is the type of faith for which we strive (Matthew 18:2-4)! 

What I’m getting at is that salvation is predicated on Christ’s work in one’s heart by the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3) unto saving faith—not the depth of knowledge that we learn about Christ and His Work. I am still learning daily about His awesomeness and am overwhelmingly dwarfed by the immensity of the wisdom in His Word. I feel like a child in the depth of what I want to know about God and His Word. Consider the fact that we are all very young little children to someone like Jared and Methuselah who lived 962 and 969 years old respectively. 

David 

Now consider Psalm 22:10:

I was cast upon You from birth. From My mother’s womb You have been My God. (Psalm 22:10 NKJV) 

The Bible teaches us that David, while in the womb, knew God and was His (Psalm 22:10).  Take note that this doesn’t negate that David was sinner prior to birth. 

Now the point I’m getting to is that there is a difference in being aware of sin and being a sinner. Even now, there are adults living that don’t realize they are sinners and are well beyond the state of awareness. Does this make them sinless? No. 

So with respect to the unborn, just because they are unaware that they are sinners, does this make them sinless? No. We are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation when we equate being sinless with salvation. There were elect angels (e.g., 1 Timothy 5:21) that did not sin and thus were not in need of salvation. The only way we can have salvation is to be in need of salvation (i.e., be in sin). Being sinful doesn’t negate salvation, but what it does do is give eligibility to be saved through Jesus Christ. If children weren't sinners, they couldn't be saved.     

But I believe children and the unborn have the possibility of salvation because the Bible says that the Lord was David’s God as early as the womb (Psalm 22:10). Psalm 22:9, just before this, indicates that God gives trust as well. Jeremiah was a similar case—God both knew and sanctified Jeremiah in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5). 

Therefore, there is the possibility that even extremely young children can be saved for their faith in the Lord Jesus – as far back as the womb as in the case of David and Jeremiah. Though we need to be careful about projecting this to all children in the womb. Because God has not revealed that all children in the womb are His. Judas wasn’t and he was in the womb once too. Consider these passages: 

Even a child is known by his deeds, Whether what he does is pure and right. (Proverbs 20:11 NKJV) 

The father of the righteous will greatly rejoice, And he who begets a wise child will delight in him. (Proverbs 23:24 NKJV) 

Children can be known by their deeds and even have wisdom. It is the Lord that gives wisdom (Proverbs 2:6). So at early ages, the Lord is already working in children as well. Has He drawn them to salvation? That is between the Lord and the child.   

But a little more comfort presents itself. You may also recall the instance with David’s young child in 2 Samuel 12:15-22 indicating that even though the child died, David would again be with him.  This indicates that the child was still in the care of God and thus Jesus Christ and David was saved (Psalm 27:1). 

Judas 

Consider another instance. Judas. Satan entered him and he betrayed Christ (John 13:27). He committed suicide by hanging himself (Matthew 27:5) then later his body fell and was split open (Acts 1:18). But Jesus said of him: 

"The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born." (Matthew 26:24 NKJV) 

"The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had never been born." (Mark 14:21 NKJV) 

It sounds as though the nature of a child dying prior to birth has a better outcome (i.e., still born or miscarriage) than dying in sin as Judas did. However, the word for “born” means “to beget” or to be fathered”. So the passage may be saying prior to Judas’s conception/fertilization from his father (i.e., when he was beget). Does this mean it would have been better for Judas to have remained in the his father’s loins rather than to have been made. Anything would be better than an eternal hell in which he now is.  

The Ten Commandments 

The Ten Commandments states something that has intrigued people down through the ages. In the Second Commandment, God writes: 

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. (Exodus 20:4-6 NKJV) 

The last part of this discusses God’s judgment of iniquity down to the third and fourth generation of children to those who hate God. Consider this with regards to the children of those who hate God and have them aborted. The punishment for abortion is immediate in having your child taken away from you. 

But look also to the blessing. God shows mercy to a thousand generations of children of those who love God. David was a great example here. David did love the Lord. Although he sinned and had a child with Bathsheba in adultery and murdered Bathsheba’s husband, the child was taken from them regardless of David’s subsequent actions. David repented, he did love God even though he made mistakes. And he was comforted in knowing that the He would again see the child when he would die many years later.        

My Fallible Final Remarks 

The point in all this is that there is much to consider. But as a fallible humans on this side of heaven, it is difficult for me to put a perfect answer down on paper for this difficult subject. God simply didn’t reveal enough for me to be definitive. Although I must caveat, perhaps God did and I am just not able to have reasoned it yet. If so, the fault is mine alone. 

I also understand that people asking this question have often undergone loss and for that I’m sorry. It can be difficult. You may think that I don’t know how to deal with this loss but the fact is I do. My wife and I lost a child to a miscarriage many years ago and it is a painful reminder of a sin-cursed and broken world. It was unbelievably tough on us. It is all the more reason to turn our eyes to Christ who is the Great Healer. 

From this perspective, my advice is time and prayer are among the best things you can do. Search the Scripture and find comfort in Christ and remember that God knows all things and He knows best and He is a righteous judge—far better than you or me. With sincerity, take humble comfort in that.     

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] For example see: Dawkins, the Cultural Christian? December 15, 2007,  https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/dawkins-the-cultural-christian/.

 

Was Jesus mistaken about angels?

 Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, December 2, 2020 (Donate)

Who makes His angels spirits, His ministers a flame of fire. (Psalm 104:4)

Perhaps another “nail in the coffin” to the fallen angels view came from Christ Himself. Upon the resurrection, Jesus makes a statement about the nature of spirits.  Luke 24 says: 

33  So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together,

34  saying, "The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!"

35  And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread.

36 Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, "Peace to you."

37  But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit.

38  And He said to them, "Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts?

39  "Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."

40  When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 

Jesus appeared in a room with the disciples but they were terrified and thought they had seen a spirit. They recognized it was Jesus, but they didn’t think it was Jesus in bodily form. They seemed to think it was Jesus’ spirit and that was it—no body. In their minds, it was like the spirits that some of them had encountered at the transfiguration for instance. 

Jesus then says something profound to dispel this idea that it was just His spirit. He says that a spirit doesn’t have flesh and bones as He had.  Jesus did this as proof of the bodily resurrection.    

But it is fascinating that he who knows all things (Colossians 2:3) made it clear that spirits do not have flesh and bones as Christ’s body had. Why is this so significant? Angels are ministering spirits per the book of Hebrews.  Hebrews 1 says: 

13  But to which of the angels has He ever said: "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool"? 14  Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation? 

Angels then do not have flesh and bones as Christ did. They are spirits. So how can a spirit breed physically with a woman? This would be impossible without the power of God! 

One friend who recognized this could be the death kneel of his fallen angel view made the argument that what Jesus meant here is “ghost” and not spirit. In other words when the disciples saw this ghost in the room they were terrified.  My friend defended this by arguing that the Greek word [pneuma] could also mean “ghost” and so it doesn’t necessary refer to “spirits” like angels which could then presumably still materialize when they want to.   

But this explanation falls tragically short and presents a problem. First why didn’t the text use the common word for ghost (phantasma)? Why did Jesus use the word pneuma or spirit as in Holy “Spirit” or God is “Spirit” (John 4:24) or angels are ministering “spirits”, etc. Was Jesus just being inaccurate? 

Phantasma is where we get our modern word “phantom”, which means “ghost” or “apparition”. It was used when Jesus was walking on water: 

Matthew 14:26  And when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, "It is a ghost (phantasma)!" And they cried out for fear.

Mark 6:49  And when they saw Him walking on the sea, they supposed it was a ghost (phantasma), and cried out; 

In the distance from the boat the disciples saw something and the use of phantasma gives us a clue as to what they meant. It appeared in the distance as an apparition, phantom, or ghost.  They couldn’t quite make out what it was. The disciples weren’t even sure what it was because they could not discern it very well. This is why they were troubled. That is until Christ called out to them and they recognized who it was. Then they realize their error. 

The difference of context of being in the room with Christ when He appeared to the disciples is simple.  They saw Christ immediately, and knew it was Christ. But they simply thought it was the spirit of Christ, not him in bodily form (again think of the spiritual transfiguration with Elijah and Moses). It wasn’t a question of identification of Jesus from a distance (not knowing what they saw) but a question of the nature of Jesus after the resurrection. So using the word pneuma was indeed significant. It meant that Christ did not mean ghost at all—but truly did mean spirit.  Otherwise, it destroys the very meaning of why Christ responded the way he did distinguishing his bodily resurrection.  

But let’s analyze this further. If pneuma really meant, “ghost” instead of “spirit” in Luke 24:39, then it still doesn’t help the case anyway! The reason is simple, if pneuma really meant ghost, then when pneuma is used in Hebrews 1:14 where angels are ministering spirits or “ghosts”, the pneuma could just as easily be ghost there too and so we are right back to the problem of angels not having flesh and bones as Christ had regardless of the terminology! This really is a death kneel argument for the fallen angels view. 

This is a situation where someone has a belief about something and they are willing to try to play  games of strange semantics to reinterpret the plain meaning of Scripture. 

Implications 

Let’s consider for a moment the implications of this idea that fallen angels can materialize when they want to and do things (like marry women) when they want to. How can those who hold to this view consistently argue that it was not a fallen angel that faked the resurrection? If they could materialize whenever they want to in an effort to deceive people, then how can one know? If one responds, well the Bible says so. The Bible also says angels are spirits that don’t marry (Mark 12:25)… So this is problematic either way for a fallen angels view. 

The fact is that never once in Scripture is there even one instance where fallen angels materialized. Not one. This is why Christ’s proof of the bodily resurrection is so powerful when presented to the disciples by the Word of God. Spirits do not have flesh and bones as the resurrected Christ has. 

Earliest View

 

Weren’t the Earliest Views of “Sons of God” Almost Always Leaning to Angels?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, November 12, 2020 (Donate)

It is often pointed out that the earliest records about the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 by the Jews  were viewed as angels (predominantly but not exclusively). The earliest we have is about 250-200 B.C. as shown in the deviations in the LXX Jewish translation from Hebrew into Greek.  

Nevertheless, Jews writing in the Apocrypha, though not Scripture, also yielded “sons of God” as people/men from 400 B.C. to the opening pages of Matthew. So even the earliest Jewish thought on this was actually split.  

One thing needs to be noted up front. All the recorded views of the “sons of God” originated long after the original events took place by nearly 1500 years. So if one were to argue that the true account is the one view that showed up slightly earlier than another, this would be fallacious.  Consider:

The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him. Proverbs 18:17  NKJV

Think of it this way: we are disconnected from Christ’s earthly ministry by about 2,000 years. Imagine if someone today published that Jesus had orange ears and began promoting that idea. And a few others buy into it too. Since no one else commented on His ears up to this point and this would essentially be the first reference, does this mean this is the truth—that Jesus had orange ears? By no means. 

The earliest we have been able to determine anyone’s viewpoint on the Genesis “sons of God” was with some copies of the LXX that was originally translated about 200-250 B.C. This is about 2,250 years after the Flood (where the original issue of the “sons of God” was well before the Flood). Even from Moses's record of it in Genesis, it is still very disconnected. 

Also, consider that it has been well over 1400 years since Moses penned these words in Genesis 6 as well. To make things worse, the Jews, in their history had walked away from the Lord on numerous occasions and in one grossly negligent instance, even had to find a copy of the Scriptures (in 2 Kings 22:8-13) because no one knew God’s Word anymore! Furthermore, the Jews had been conquered and put into captivity and the Old Temple had been destroyed with many precious documents and items that were carried away.

For the Lord was not pleased with the Jews for quite some time now. And the Lord sent them no prophet for 400 years and the LXX translation occurred in the midst of this time and therefore, was not overseen by a prophet. Don’t get me wrong, the LXX is very useful, but not inerrant and not without its problems. 

The Jews, if they would have understood the Old Testament better, should have been expecting Jesus Christ—for the whole Old Testament points to Him. But due to many errant theologies among the Jews of that day, be it Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, or others, most missed Jesus Christ when He stood amongst them and had it preached by apostles.

So how good has the Jewish record and transmission of events, theology, people, and angels been in the translation of the LXX and their traditions? It is not the best. Even Jesus disputed with them over their traditions and defended the Word of God that had been distorted by traditions (Matthew 15:1-6, Mark 7:1-13). But due to the translation of “sons” as angels in the LXX in some copies, this influenced many reading Greek to follow suit with this poor translation, simply because they didn’t know better.

But take note that some copies of the LXX did retain “sons of God”, not “angels of God.” It is possible that the original retained the “sons of God” and later this change was made due to the fallen angel theology during copying. The earliest copies we have of the LXX is around the 4^th century A.D. So somewhere in these 600 years or so of Greek copies of the LXX, we find that some had the change of “sons” to “angels” or vice versa where someone had corrected it in accordance with the Hebrew text.   

So why did some Jews feel the need to change “sons” to “angels”? Though we may never know for certain, one possible reason is that a “son” carries the weight of the father. For example, when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, the Jews wanted to stone Him for claiming equality with God (e.g., John 10:29-39).

A “son” of God would be near blasphemy to many Jews during this intertestamental period (because of some deviant theology).  So rendering “sons” as metaphorical for “angels” was more acceptable in their theology. If this were the case, why didn’t the LXX do this with the “sons of God” in Job? This would become a Jewish theology that is elevated in stature to a position above the plain meaning of the Word of God.

Why the shift from fallen angels? 

Beginning about A.D 400, we find a major shift in theology from the fallen angels view to fallen men views? This view persisted through the Reformation and until modern times. But why?  

Consider that many LXX copies translated “sons” as “angels” in Genesis 6:4 from about 200 B.C. until about A.D. 400. So the average reader, without consulting the Hebrew text, would have naturally thought this to be angels because the common trade language that dominated the area was Greek during much of this time. 

However, Koine Greek was rapidly becoming obsolete by about A.D. 400. Most readers were already utilizing translations that were in Latin, the common vulgar tongue (pre-Latin Vulgate translations) throughout the Roman Empire. But there existed no standardized translation yet. Then Jerome, the famous scholar, was commissioned to translate the Bible into Latin for an official translation. 

Jerome began translating the Bible from original language texts but still consulting translations like the LXX (OT: Hebrew and some Aramaic and NT: Koine Greek) into Latin. This was completed about A.D. 400. In it, Jerome translated the “sons” properly as “sons”, instead of as “angels” in Genesis 6:4. 

So the translational bias was now removed. Naturally, people were not reading into the text that angels bred with women anymore. And the context of godly men given in the lineage immediately prior to Genesis 6 was now read naturally. 

Few Christians felt the need to take the Jewish myth that had persisted for so long. Hence, the fallen angel view died a quick death with a more accurate translation. Even influential theologians of the time (e.g., Augustine) began promoting the view that “sons of God” were just as they were in most of the Scripture, godly men. 

But this a lesson to learn. An errant theology, imposed on Scripture in translation can cause false belief to linger for a long time if not checked. The error of the firmament has persisted much longer because Jerome also took the Greek view of the heavens being solid and put it into the Latin Vulgate (firmamentum) which was the dominant translation that influenced early English translations which made the same error (firmament).  Only in recent times have people really gone back to the Hebrew for raqia to arrive at expanse, which deviates from the Greek view of the heavens to a better understanding of the sky.   

In the 1800s, the LXX was translated into English and once again people began seeing "angels of God" instead of "sons of God" in Genesis 6 and thus some scholars began reviving the Jewish myth about angels and women marrying and breeding. 

Why Do People Believe "Sons of God" Mean "Godly Men"?

 

Why Do Some People Think “sons of God” Mean Humans (godly men)?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, November 1, 2020 (Donate)

Obviously, not everyone agrees with the arguments presented for “angels” being the proper interpretation of “sons of God”. So, what is the biblical case for interpreting “sons of God” as humans or specifically godly men? 

What about other instances of “sons of God” in the Bible? 

Did you know that the Bible talks extensively about the “sons of God”—not just the passages in Job? Why are so many of these passages ignored? 

If there was a verse or phrase within a verse that was difficult to understand, the place to go was elsewhere in Scripture—including the New Testament. The whole counsel of Scripture should not be ignored. Use clear Scriptures to interpret unclear Scriptures. That should settle the issue. 

If one wants to know how to interpret “sons of God”, then look to the whole of Scripture to gather a better understanding. In doing this, we are not limiting an interpretation to one metaphorical use in Job 38 while ignoring other passages.  

Table of Scriptures to interpret “sons of God” in Genesis 6 

	Sons of God used	Style	Meaning
1	Exodus 4:22-23 (God’s son Israel)	Historical Narrative	Godly men (Israelites)
2	Deuteronomy 14:1 (the children of the LORD your God)[1]	Historical Narrative	Godly men (Israelites)
3	Job 1:6[2] (sons of God)	Historical Narrative	Disputed (godly men, or godly angels)
4	Job 2:1[3] (sons of God)	Historical Narrative	Disputed (godly men, or godly angels)
5	Job 38:7[4] (sons of God)	Poetic/Metaphorical	Godly angels, luminaries
6	Psalm 2:7 (My Son)	Poetic/Metaphorical	Kingly men of Israel; prophetic of Christ per Acts 13:33
7	Psalms 82:6 (sons/children of the Most High)[5]	Poetic/Metaphorical	Godly men (Israelites)
8	Hosea 1:10 (sons of the Living God)[6]	Prophetic	Godly men (Israelites)
9	Hosea 11:1 (God’s son)	Prophetic	Godly men (Israelites)
10	Luke 3:38 (son of God)[7]	Historical Narrative	Godly man/Adam (who afterward sinned)[8]
11	Luke 6:35 (sons of the Most High)[9]	Historical Narrative	Godly men
	Luke 20:36 (sons of God/sons of the resurrection)	Historical Narrative	Godly men
12	Matthew 5:9[10] (sons of God)	Teaching Sermon by Christ	Godly men (peacemakers)
13	Matthew 5:45 (sons of your Father in heaven)	Teaching Sermon by Christ	Godly men
14	Romans 8:14[11]	Epistle/Teaching	Godly men (those led by the Spirit)
15	Romans 8:19[12]	Epistle/Teaching	Godly men (those who are saved)
16	Galatians 3:26[13]	Epistle/Teaching	Godly men (those who are saved)
17	Only begotten Son of God (Numerous)	Gospels, Epistles	Fully man and Fully God—Jesus Christ

To argue that “sons of the Most High”, “children (Hebrew:  ben or bene—“sons”) of the LORD your God”, “sons of the Living God”, etc. should be excluded for discussion would be to argue that God is referring to someone other than the true God (e.g., a false god). But they clearly refer to the true God and should be used.  

Children of God

Furthermore, in the New Testament, there are multiple uses of “children of God” and they all refer to godly men/mankind.[14]  In one case, there is the use of “children of the devil” (1 John 3:10) and even these are in reference to human too, but ungodly ones! See the list[15] (NKJV): 

·         John 1:12  But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:

·         John 11:52  and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.

·         Romans 8:16  The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

·         Romans 8:21  because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

·         Romans 9:8  That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

·         Philippians 2:15  that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world,

·         1 John 3:1  Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.

·         1 John 3:2  Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

·         1 John 3:10  In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

·         1 John 5:2  By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. 

What can we learn from all of this? 

1.      Nowhere does “sons of God” [or varieties of it] refer to the ungodly. So why interpret sons of God in Genesis 6 as ungodly [angels]?2.       The vast majority are in reference to godly men, so the rendering of Genesis 6’s “sons of God” should not ignore godly men. 

3.      The only one that definitely means “angels” is based on a passage that interprets it as angels in a poetic/metaphorical context. Why take a metaphorical meaning of a phrase and use it to interpret a passage that is historical narrative?

4.      One should not miss that one man in the Old Testament, who lived prior to Genesis 6, was directly called a “son of God” (not to be misconstrued as the only begotten Son of God), and he happen to be a man and the father of us all—Adam (Luke 3:38). 

5.      The New Testament passages exclusively use “sons of God” as godly people, so this should settle the issue. The New Testament is not “off limits” regarding this issue of theology in the Old Testament. Imagine if someone said Jesus and Peter’s comments about the Flood in Noah’s day were “off limits” when discussing Genesis 6-8 because they used the Greek word (kataklusmos), and not the Hebrew word (mabbuwl)? This would be fallacious. 

What else can we learn about the “sons and children of God”? 

Reading the context of who has the right to be called “sons of God” are those who are led by the Spirit, receive and are faithful to Christ, practices righteousness, love God and keep His commandments, loving your enemies, and doing good, peacemakers, etc. 

For an obvious reason, rebellious fallen angels who join the ranks to fight against God, doing evil, and so on are not the marks of one who can be counted among the “sons of God”. But godly men do fit these requirements and many godly men have fallen from their positions of good grace due to sin throughout their lives (e.g., Saul, Solomon, and many others)—hence the fallen man position.  

Consider that Adam was called a “son of God” in Luke. This connects that “sons of God” are those godly men continuing to call upon the name of the Lord continuing with Seth (Genesis 4:26). Interestingly, this is the immediate context preceding Genesis 6. No doubt this line had godly men—Enoch, for example, walked with God and He took Enoch without death (Genesis 5:24, Hebrews 11:5). 

Few would dispute that Lamech (Noah’s father) and Methuselah (Noah’s grandfather) were godly. Methuselah was raised by extremely godly father Enoch after all. But were Lamech’s and Methuselah’s wives godly? I ask this question sincerely—as both Lamech and Methuselah had children and other descendants that died in the Flood (e.g., Genesis 5:26 and Genesis 5:30) that were not among the eight on the Ark unless three of them were Shem, Ham, or Japheth’s wives. Were these pre-Flood patriarch’s wives among the “daughters of men”—ungodly wives who led most of their children astray to fall from God’s grace and be judged in the Flood? It is something to ponder indeed. 

There are many cases in Scripture where children “of men” (e.g., similar to “daughters of men”) were seen as ungodly. Passages such as 1 Samuel 26:19, Psalm 14:1-2, Psalm 89:47-48, and Lamentations 3:31-35 do not give a good light to the title of one being the “children of men”, so why assume “daughters of men” are not ungodly in Genesis 6?  

I find it fascinating that the fallen angels position, that I was once part of, held that the title “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were those who were ungodly and the “daughters of men” were the godly! This is back-to-front when looking consistently at the rest of Scripture. 

---

[1] "You are the children of the LORD your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave the front of your head for the dead.

[2] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.

[3] Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

[4] When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

[5] I said, "You are gods, And all of you are children (“sons”) of the Most High.

[6] "Yet the number of the children of Israel Shall be as the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered. And it shall come to pass In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There it shall be said to them, ‘You are sons of the living God.’

[7] the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

[8] Yes Adam sinned, but who hasn’t. It should be safe to say Adam was saved, he only had one sin on record and we knew the prophecy to look forward to Christ (seed of a woman), Eve clearly knew it and looked forward to it. The knowledge of God was clearly passed along from Adam to Seth (Genesis 4:25) to people like Enoch (Genesis 5:24). The Lord did offer a sacrifice to cover Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21).

[9] "But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.

[10] Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God.

[11] For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

[12] For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.

[13] For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

 

[15] There is one use of “children of God” in the apocryphal book of Wisdom (verse 5:5) as well.