tft-short-4578168
Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebookSearch

Nightmare on AskElm Street – angelic “Sons of God”?

Herein, Ask refers to the organization which calls itself The Associates for Scriptural Knowledge whose website is askelm.com. It appears to be a group of people whose purpose is to promulgate the teachings of the late Dr. Ernest Martin (1932-2002 AD) who founded the group.

Getting directly to the point; we will consider the content of their article Who Are the Sons of God? which is quite interesting and thought provoking. However, as seems common with askelm material; they mix biblical theology with philosophy and this gets them into trouble.

Right off the bat, the article states that the “Sons of God” (“mentioned in Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 and Psalm 89:6”) “are NOT angels.” They state that the “phrase ‘Sons of God’ can refer to one of two things…ordinary human beings” and “spiritual beings” who, nevertheless, are “NOT angels.”

Part of the confusion and fascination about the phrase Sons of God is that, just as is common in any language and literature, a phrase/term/word can mean more than one thing; ultimately, context determines meaning.

Thus, Adam is called a son of God, Jesus is a Son of God, redeemed humans are sons of God and the Genesis/Job/Psalms beings are sons of God. However, note that there is a difference between the Old Testament usage and the New Testament usage as we are dealing with different cultural contexts, historical contexts and grammatical contexts. Yet, in either case, the term appears to be a reference to a direct creation by YHVH.

elm-9677328

Adam was created from dust. Jesus was conceived without a human father and thus Mary is told “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35; note that since the Holy Spirit came upon her and Jesus is the Son of God this means that the Holy Spirit is God). Redeemed humans are a direct re-creation born anew. And, by implication, the Genesis/Job/Psalms beings are likewise created directly.

So, askelm holds that the Sons of God are not humans and are not angels but are; something else. The article states that “These ‘Sons of God’ are described by Paul in Hebrews 1:9 as being Christ’s ‘fellows’…And so” it is “these ‘Fellows’ in Psalm 45” which is what the Hebrews text is quoting.

They develop this identification as follows:
“They are actually equals of Christ in the sense of being Family members, though Christ has the superiority by being reckoned the firstborn. Equals of Christ? Yes, equals by token of being Christ’s brothers in heaven, while Christ is the Firstborn and has a designation rank over them because of His Firstborn position.

Indeed, this is precisely what Paul stated they were. He referred to them as the ‘Fellows’ of Christ. They were associated with Christ even before His birth in Bethlehem. They were His brothers as far back as when Psalm 45 was written…they are in many ways like Christ…being equal partners to one another….

Christ, however, is the firstborn of the ‘Fellows’ (see Colossians 1:15). He was created before the rest of these ‘Sons of God.’”

Well, all of this reasoning aside; it is not proven that the fellows are the Sons of God who are not angles; but we will continue, as their argument thickens. Also, note the reference to Jesus having been “created”; this may refer to His incarnation but considering that askelm states that the biblical doctrine of the Trinity is an “absurdity,” they may think that Jesus is not eternal—for biblical facts about the Trinity and Jesus’ eternality see Trinity : God’s Nature and Trinitarian Doctrine.

In fact, the article states, “And remember, Christ ‘thought it not robbery to be equal with God’ (Philippians 2:6)” but keep in mind that the verse begins by stating that Jesus was “being in the form of God” and that is why He “thought it not robbery to be equal with God” because He has always been God, eternally. The article states:
“These other ‘Sons of God’ of the Old Testament are parallel to the ‘Morning Stars’ referred to in the Book of Job as rejoicing when the earth was created.[1] These ‘Morning Stars’ are not angels because they have the same designation as Christ who is certainly not an angel.”

The footnote reads “See Job 38:7 where the ‘and’ in Hebrew parallels ‘Morning Stars’ with ‘Sons of God.’” The verse refers to “When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy” and yet, the Hebrew reads boqer (morning) kowkab (stars) ranan (sang) yachad (together) ben (son) Elohiym (God) ruwa (shouted). There is no word for “and”; it is merely implied. Yet, this does, indeed, mean that there is a parallel between the Morning Stars and the Sons of God as the article goes on the emphasize, “These ‘Morning Stars’ (similar to if not identical with the term ‘Sons of God’).”

That the Morning Stars “have the same designation as Christ” is in reference to the fact that:
“Christ is called ‘the Bright and Morning Star’ (Revelation 22:16). Christ is also called the ‘day spring’ (Luke 1:78) and the ‘day star’ (2 Peter 1:19), terms synonymous with the phrase ‘Morning Star.’”[2] The footnote reads:

“Even the King of Babylon (traditionally considered Lucifer) named himself the ‘Morning Star,’ erroneously, but God would not allow the Babylonian King to retain such an exalted title (which actually refers to Christ Jesus). The King of Babylon tried to usurp the role of Christ, but he failed to become such a ‘star’ (Isaiah 14:12–16).”

However, Isaiah 14 says nothing whatsoever about a morning star but refers to heylel (which came to be translated as lucifer) ben (son) shachar (morning/dawn). There is no reference to star at all. Also, askelm does not believe that Isaiah 14 is referring to “the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan” (Revelation 20:2) but to some other cherub. Well, satan is not a fallen angel but a fallen cherub and you can know that by reading Isaiah 14 and other texts—I elucidated this entire issue in the article Is lucifer a fallen angel? (contra Jim Brayshaw).

Now, we can finally come to the main point as to why the article repeatedly emphasizes that the Sons of God are “NOT angels”:
“It is by physical birth that human Sons of God are now created, but it is by their resurrection from the dead that humans assume a divine status as spiritual Sons of God…

Some of these ‘Sons of God’ in the Godhead are referred to in Genesis 6:1–4 and Job 1:6, 2:1 and 38:7. Remember, they are NOT angels! They are higher in power than any angel. And though angels can carry the general name ‘stars’ (Revelation 1:20), they are NOT the ‘Morning Stars’…Remember, NO angel has been elevated by God to be a ‘Son of God’ (Hebrews 1:4–14) nor to be a ‘Bright and Morning Star’ (Revelation 22:16).”

Well, make what you will about the assertion that there are “‘Sons of God’ in the Godhead.” It is accurate that angels are referred to as stars in certain texts. Yet, the key point is that they claim that the Sons of God are “NOT angels” based on Hebrews 1:4-14.

That text notes that “in these last days [God] has spoken to us in His Son” with Jesus “having become as much better than the angels” and then comes the key factor:
“For to which of the angels did He ever say, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You’? And again, ‘I will be a Father to Him And He shall be a Son to Me’?

And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, ‘And let all the angels of God worship Him.’”

FYI: the NASB, from which I have been quoting, writes quotation of the Old Testament within the New in all caps.

Thus, it seems pretty clear; since God did not say to any of the angels that they are His sons, are not Sons of God, then the Sons of God cannot be angels. This seems like a good point, on the surface. However, all things were created by Jesus:
“For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:16-17)

Again, see Trinity: God’s Nature and Trinitarian Doctrine for many other texts which affirm Jesus’ eternality and deity. Note that the Jehovah’s Witnesses insert “[other]” into this text as they believe that Jesus is not eternal God. Thus, in their translation reads “by means of him all [other] things were created…All [other] things have been created through him…he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist” in order to hide and confuse the text.

In any regard, the reason why this seems like a good point, on the surface but only on the surface is that there is a context and the context defines that to which Hebrews is referring.

The Hebrews text states, “through whom also He made the world…He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature.” But how, pray tell, is an eternal being also a begotten being? Well, because Jesus is eternal and was incarnated thus, begotten. Also, Jesus is the only begotten of God. But how could that be since others are referred to as sons of God?
Because, Jesus is the only eternal person within the Godhead, or otherwise celestial beings, who incarnated.

The Hebrews text is quoting Psalm 2 which states, in part:
“The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed…He will speak to them in His anger and terrify them in His fury, saying, ‘But as for Me, I have installed My King upon Zion, My holy mountain.’ ‘I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You…

Worship the Lord with reverence and rejoice with trembling. Do homage to the Son…”

Considering that the text references 1) “the Lord” and 2) “His Anointed” it may be that “the Lord” is the one saying “I have installed My King…” and “His Anointed” is the one saying, “He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You…” Yet, in any regard this text is also quoted in Acts 13:30-38 which states, in part:
“God raised Him from the dead…He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘You are My Son; today i have begotten You’…He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay…He also says in another Psalm, ‘You will not allow Your Holy One to undergo decay’…He whom God raised did not undergo decay.”

Firstly, as an important side note, the New Testament states that the Father raised Jesus from the dead, that the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead and that Jesus raised himself from the dead; ergo, the Trinity raised Jesus from the dead (see Acts 2:24, Romans 4:24 & 8:11, 1st Thessalonians 1:9-11, 1st Peter 1:21 & 1st Peter 3:18, or simply go to Trinity : Various Resurrection Related Issues).

Secondly, note the emphasis of the Acts text, “God raised Him from the dead…He raised up Jesus…He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay…WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY…He whom God raised did not undergo decay.” This, in the context of “as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.’”

Thus, taking Palms, Hebrews and Acts together we conclude that “to which of the angels did He ever say, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You’?” does not pertain to the identification of who the Sons of God are in Genesis 6, Job, etc. but contextually, both immediate and greater context, it pertains to asking “which of the angels did” YHVH ever beget by incarnating and raise from the dead? None. Ergo, Jesus is unique.

The article references “spirit entities” who are:
“So much like humans are they in appearance and function that these ‘Sons of God’ were able to have sexual intercourse with the daughters of men and produce offspring called Nephilim.”

As per Genesis 6, this is accurate. However, how can spirit entities have sexual intercourse? The article answers this thusly:

“those ‘Sons of God’…were able to have sexual intercourse with human females and impregnate them with semen that came from their bodies. Indeed, they have the same body characteristics and somatic functions as ordinary human beings. That is right, those ‘Sons of God’ had (and have) bodies. They look and perform like humans though their bodies are composed of spirit substance…

God the Father is a Spirit, but He still has shape and substance…The truth is, God has a body composed of elements that are spirit in substance…‘Spirit,’ we are shown in the Bible, can manifest itself in a solid state that can have definite form and shape.”

With this view in mind they further states, “Romans 8:26–27, Paul shows that Christ is called the ‘Spirit.’” However, while that chapter of Romans does reference Jesus, it references, in verse 11 “the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead.” However, askelm must dismiss this because the text of vss. 26-27 states:
“the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.”

The issue is that 1 Timothy 2:5 which states:
“For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

Thus, regardless of context, askelm insists that Jesus is referred to as a spirit because there is one mediator but the spirit is said to be the intercessor (this identification of their view is also based on other articles of theirs as well). However, note that even in the English of the NASB there is a difference between Jesus being the “mediator” and the Spirit who “intercedes.” Indeed, the Greek specifies that “the Spirit Himself hyperentygchano for us with groanings…because He entygchano for the saints” and Jesus is said to be the “one mesites also between God and men.” Also, for whatever reason, the article states that:
“God considers the genitalia of male and female humans to be unashamedly the most ‘comely’ (the most beautiful and attractive parts) of our bodies. See 1 Corinthians 12:22–24.”

For whatever it is worth, the text states that “If the foot says, ‘Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,’ it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body” and goes on to give examples of various body parts either considering themselves unnecessary or being considered the only vital part:
“it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.”

Askelm takes it upon themselves to interpret those members of the body which we deem less honorable to be genitalia; and they may be right. However, they miss the point that the physical human body is being employed as a metaphor for the body of Christ; believers. The relevant text begins by stating, “to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge,” and give other examples of various gifts. It then states:
“But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, ‘Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,’ it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.”

And then follows the statement about various body parts considering their usefulness. Some of you may have been thinking; what about Peter and Jude? Indeed, they are both very clear on this matter. Well, the articles deal with that:
“Angels were created to minister to those in the Family of God…It appears, however, that many angels associated in some fashion with the ‘Sons of God’ when those ‘Sons of God’ married and had sexual relations with the Daughters of Men. Peter and Jude indicated that many angels were in rebellion to God during the times when the ‘Sons of God’ had intercourse with the Daughters of Men. The apostles mention the actions of those angels within a context that shows * their ‘filthy behavior’ (2 Peter 2:7), * their ‘lust of uncleanness’ (verse 10), even

* their ‘lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness’ (verse 18).

We are told that these rebels were ‘angels which kept not their first estate [their normal authorized activities], but left their own habitation [their proper dwelling place]’ and participated somehow with the ‘Sons of God’ in their sexual intercourse with human females (Jude 6).

Those angels were mentioned by the apostles in the context of rebelliousness in which the ungodly gave ‘themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh [flesh that was foreign to them]’ (verse 7). They were walking ‘after their own ungodly lusts’ (verse 18), ‘who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit’ (verse 19)…it seems from the context of Peter and Jude that the spiritual powers were the ones who influenced the humans to do those terrible deeds.” [brackets in original]

Some of the qualifying terms are “It appears…in some fashion…participated somehow” which are meant to imply lack of clarity or confusion as to the texts’ meaning. However, the lack of clarity or confusion is only within askelm’s interpretation as they must force the texts to not apply the Genesis 6 action to angels but to non-angelic Sons of God with some angels on the side. Those interested in the details pertaining to this issue should read As in the days of Noah – the eschaton and the Nephilim. For now, we will simply quote the relevant texts.

The 2 Peter 2 text:
“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men…especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority.”

The Jude 6-8 text:
“And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.”

The actions of the rebellious angels are correlated with those of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah and sexual immorality is among those actions. There is no mention, reference or hint within these texts of the term Sons of God and certainly not a distinction between them and angels. Yet, the article continues along these lines to state:
“The angels also received a severe judgment, as we will soon see. However, there is not one word in the Holy Scriptures that tell us what the Father did to the ‘Sons of God’ who were also involved in the matter.”

Of course, by now you realize that this statement is simply erroneous through and through as it is premised on faulty philosophy and not on the text which tells us exactly that which YHVH did to the angels who did this as they are the Song of God of Genesis 6. While denying that the angles married and copulated with human women, askelm states:
“these angels apparently approved of the actions of the ‘Sons of God’…and joined the ‘Sons of God’ in their revelry, they are presently undergoing a punishment for a period of time for their rebellion (1 Peter 3:18–21; 2 Peter 2:4–5; Jude verses 6 and 7).”

While the citations are relevant, the reasoning is faulty philosophical guess work. One must remain vigilant when reading articles such as that by askelm as, for example, they go on to state:
“both Peter and Jude specifically state that the time of Sodom and Gomorrah was like that before the Flood, when sexual activities took place between celestial beings and human beings (2 Peter 2:6–9; Jude 6–7).

Now, they generically stated that it was “celestial beings” but the texts specifically and exclusively stated that it was “angels.” And while they go on to state, “But Peter and Jude made a distinction between the ‘Sons of God’ and the angels that sinned” this is utterly inaccurate yet, they emphasize this point thusly:
“Unlike the ‘Sons of God,’ Jude clearly indicated that the angels who cooperated with the ‘Sons of God’ in their revelry were going after ‘strange flesh,’ after humans who were foreign or strange to them in their body substance. See Jude 6–7.”

But we did see Jude 6-7 above and the only identifying terms within it is “angels.” They then state:
“angels…cannot interbreed with humans, though it is possible to have sex with them…That type of sexual relationship is precisely what Peter and Jude stated did occur between angels and human beings.”

They are just burring themselves deeper and deeper as the Peter and Jude texts make no distinction between Sons of God and angels and most certainly not between Sons of God having sex and producing offspring and angles only having sex. And they go on:
“Let us look at this matter more carefully. We are informed by Christ Jesus that angels in heaven do not marry (Matthew 22:30). That is right. Angels are not meant to marry as human beings do.”

Indeed, good point. They go on to state that some people take this text to mean that “angels are neuter” and reply thusly:
“We have the express teaching by Peter and Jude to the contrary. What Christ meant was that they were not intended to marry like humans because angels (if they do not sin) can live forever and the state of marriage always has death associated with it.”

More to the point; the issue is much simpler. Jesus states, specifically, that “angels in heaven do not marry” as the text puts it, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” Thus, angels “in heaven” do not marry which is why those involved in the Genesis 6 affair are fallen angels who were punished for leaving heaven in order to marry.

Lastly, note that along the way, askelm stated that “all descriptions that we have of angels in the Holy Scriptures show them to look like human beings” which is true. They also noted that, as per Genesis ch. 19 the two angels “did not have wings on their backs” which is also true. Thus, angels look just like human males and do not have wings. However, then for some odd reason, they state, “By the way, ‘wings’ on angels are metaphorical.” But what wings and whereabouts is such a statement made? Wings on angels are only seen in historical art and pop-occulture and they are simply and un-biblically inaccurate (cherubim and seraphim have wings, four and six respectively, but they are not angels nor kinds of angels; they are other categories of being).

Overall, one must attempt to reckon the payoff; just what is it that askelm is getting out of denying that the Sons of God are “NOT angels.” Yet, in any regard; their article is interesting and thought provoking but peppered with inaccuracies and thus, fails.


Posted

in

by

Tags: