Genesis 6:2

That the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair,.... Or "good" (k), not in a moral but natural sense; goodly to look upon, of a beautiful aspect; and they looked upon, and only

That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. The sons of God saw the daughters of men.

The sons of God; either, 1. Persons of greatest eminency for place and power, for such are called gods, and children of the Most High, ; where also they are opposed to men, , i.e. to meaner men. And the most eminent things in their kinds are attributed to God, as cedars of God, all of God, & c. But it is not probable that the princes and nobles should generally take wives or women of the meaner rank, nor would the marriages of such persons be simply condemned, or at least it would not be mentioned as a crying sin, and a great cause of the deluge. Or rather, 2. The children of Seth and Enos, the professors of the true religion. For, 1. Such, and only such, in the common use of Scripture, are called the sons and children of God, as , , , , , , &c. 2. This title manifestly relates to , where the same persons are said to be called by the name of the Lord, i.e. to be the sons and servants of God. 3. They are opposed to the daughters of men, the word men being here taken in an ill sense, for such as had nothing in them but the nature of men, which is corrupt and abominable, and were not sons of God, but foreigners and strangers to him, and apostates from him. 4. These unequal matches with persons of a false religion are every where condemned in Scripture as sinful and pernicious, as , , , &c.; , and therefore are fitly spoken of here as one of the sins which brought the flood upon the ungodly world. Saw, i.e. gazed upon and observed curiously and lustfully, as the sequel showeth, the daughters of men, of that ungodly and accursed race of Cain. They were fair, i.e. beautiful, and set off their beauty with all the allurements of ornaments and carriage; herein using greater liberty than the sons and daughters of God did or durst take, ; and therefore were more enticing and prevalent with fleshly-minded men. Either, 1. By force and violence, as the word sometimes signifies. Or rather, 2. By consent; for the sons of God were so few, in comparison of the wicked world, that they durst not take away their daughters by force; which also proves that they did not take them for harlots, but for wives. They took them wives, possibly more than one for each of them, after the example of those wicked families into which they were matched; of all which they chose, i.e. loved and liked, as the word choosing is taken, , , , , compared with .

Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.Ver. 2. That the sons of God saw the daughters.] Sons of God; such as had called themselves by his name, his peculiar professant people, called sons of Jehovah, yea, his firstborn, and so higher than the kings of the earth. Hence, after mention made of the four monarchies, a greater than them all succeeds; and that is the "kingdom of the saints of the Most High"; saints at large he means; all "that have made a covenant with him by sacrifice". Now we read of sacrificing Sodomites; "sinners in Sion"; profligate professors; who, though called "Israel," yet are to God "as Ethiopians". Such were these sons of God. Saw the daughters of men that they were fair.] Beauty is a dangerous bait, and lust is sharpsighted. It is not safe gazing on a fair woman. How many have died of the wound in the eye! No one means has so enriched hell as beautiful faces. Take heed our eyes are not windows of wickedness and loopholes of lust. Make "a covenant with them" as Job; pray against the abuse of them with David; and curb them from forbidden objects, as Nazianzen, who had learned τουςσφθαλμουςσωφρονιζειν, to nurture his eyes, as himself tells us. They took them wives.] Of their own heads, without God’ s licence, or parents’ consent; as Esau did; and of all which they chose, that is, that they liked and loved. Thus, as some marry by their ears, upon mere hearsay; others, by their fingers’ ends, for money; so these gallants married by their eyes. They were led by the "lust of their hearts, and sight of their eyes," as Solomon’ s young nobleman; not considering that "favour is deceitful, beauty vanity"; and that many a woman is like Helen without, but Hecuba within, or an earthen "potsherd covered with silver dross". Amor formae rationis est oblivio, insaniae proximus, turbat consilia, altos et generosos spiritus frangit. - Jerom.

(2) The sons of God. . . . —The literal translation of this verse is, And the sons of the Elohim saw the daughters of the adam that they were good (beautiful); and they took to them wives whomsoever they chose. Of the sons of the Elohim there are three principal interpretations: the first, that of the Targums and the chief Jewish expositors, that they were the nobles, and men of high rank; the second, that they were angels. St. Jude, Jude 1:6, and St. Peter, 2 Ep., 2 Peter 2:4, seem to favour this interpretation, possibly as being the translation of the LXX. according to several MSS. But even if this be their meaning, which is very uncertain, they use it only as an illustration; and a higher authority says that the angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. The third, and most generally accepted interpretation in modern times, is that the sons of the Elohim were the Sethites, and that when they married for mere lust of beauty, universal corruption soon ensued. But no modern commentator has shown how such marriages could produce “mighty men . . . men of renown;” or how strong warriors could be the result of the intermarriage of pious men with women of an inferior race, such as the Cainites are assumed to have been. The Jewish interpreters, who well understood the uses of their own language, are right in the main point that the phrase “sons of the Elohim” conveys no idea of moral goodness or piety. Elohim constantly means mighty ones (Exodus 15:11, marg.). (Comp. Exodus 12:12, marg., Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8-9, where it is translated judges; Exodus 22:28, 1 Samuel 2:25, where also it is translated judge.) In Job 1:6 the “sons of Elohim” are the nobles, the idea being that of a king who at his durbar gathers his princes round him; and, not unnecessarily to multiply examples, the “sons of the Elim,” the other form of the plural, is rightly translated mighty ones in Psalms 29:1. Who, then, are these “mighty ones?” Before answering this question, let me call attention to the plain teaching of the narrative as to what is meant by the “daughters of men.” It says: “When the adam began to multiply, and daughters were born unto them, the sons of the Elohim saw the daughters of the adam . . . and took them wives,” &c. But according to every right rule of interpretation, the “daughters of the adam” in Genesis 6:1 must be the same as the “daughters of the adam” in Genesis 6:2, whom the sons of the Elohim married. Now, it seems undeniable that the adam here spoken of were the Sethites. The phrase occurs in the history of Noah, just after giving his descent from Adam; Cain is absolutely passed over, even in the account of the birth of Seth, who is described as Adam’s firstborn, such as legally he was.

2. that the sons of God, &c.] This is one of the most disputed passages in the book. But the difficulty, in a great measure, disappears, if it is frankly recognized, that the verse must be allowed to have its literal meaning. According to the legend which it preserves, intermarriages took place between Heavenly Beings and mortal women. Commentators have often shrunk from the admission that this piece of mythology could have a place in the Hebrew Scriptures. Accordingly, very fanciful explanations have sometimes found favour; e.g. (a) “the sons of God” are the men of the upper classes, “the daughters of men” are “the women of the lower classes”; (b) “the sons of God” are “the sons of the god-fearing,” “the daughters of men” are “the daughters of the impious”; (c) “the sons of God” are “the descendants of Seth,” “the daughters of men” are “the women of the Cainite race.” Such interpretations may be dismissed as arbitrary and non-natural: and they furnish no explanation of the inference in Genesis 6:4, that a race of giants or heroes was the progeny of these marriages. the sons of God] Heb. B’nκ Elohim, “sons of Elohim,” i.e. beings partaking of the Divine nature. It has been pointed out above (see note on Genesis 1:26), that the Israelites believed the Almighty to be surrounded by a court of beings who were subordinate to Him in authority, office, and rank: their dwelling-place was in Heaven; their duty was to perform the tasks appointed them by the Almighty. They were “angels” or “messengers,” Heb. mal’βkhξm, Gr. ἄγγελοι. The sons of God are mentioned in Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7, Psalms 29:1; Psalms 89:1, Daniel 3:25; Daniel 3:28. The expression must be judged in accordance with Hebrew, not English, idiom. “The sons of the prophets” (1 Kings 20:35 : cf. Amos 7:14) are persons who belong to the guild of the prophets, members, as we should say, of the prophet’s calling. No family relationship is implied. Similarly “the sons of God” are not “sons of gods,” in the sense of being their children, but “sons of Elohim” in the sense of belonging to the class of super-natural, or heavenly, beings. There is no reference, on the one hand, to Oriental speculations respecting emanations from the Deity; nor to actual sonship, or generation. The description is quite general. Nowhere do we find in the O.T. mention of the “sons of Jehovah” instead of the “sons of Elohim.” of all that they chose] i.e. whomsoever they chose. The sons of God are represented as being irresistible. The sons of men could offer no effective opposition. The marriages, contracted in this way, are evidently implied to be wrong, and the result of mere unbridled passion. The men were powerless to defend their women folk.

2. Sons of God — There has been much dispute as to the nature and character of the “sons of God” mentioned in this section. Three different theories have been maintained in the Jewish and Christian Churches.