The Sons of God\u2014Gen_6:2<\/p>\n
We are informed in the beginning of the sixth chapter of Genesis, that when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, \u201cthe sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.\u201d And again, \u201cthere were giants (nephilim) on the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them the same became mighty men that were of old, men of renown.\u201d It is to be regretted that a passage, calculated, if rightly apprehended, to throw considerable light upon this obscure period, is in itself very difficult to comprehend. One broad fact, which is perhaps the only one that is really important for us to know, stands out, however, with sufficient distinctness\u2014that much evil, much irreligion, apostasy, violence, and wrong-doing, resulted from incongruous unions between two classes, distinguished as \u201cthe sons of God,\u201d and \u201cthe daughters of men,\u201d from whom spring \u201cgiants,\u201d who became \u201cmighty men which were of old, men of renown.\u201d<\/p>\n
The question at once presents itself, What were the two classes whose union produced this powerful and mighty race, distinguished as the Nehphilim or \u201cgiants,\u201d who acquired such bad eminence in the primeval world?<\/p>\n
The first impression of the reader would seem to be, that the \u201csons of God\u201d were angels, and \u201cthe daughters of men\u201d human females; and this is the view of the subject which has been entertained by many, both in ancient and modern times.<\/p>\n
But against this it is urged, there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage among the inhabitants of heaven, with whose spiritual nature earthly pleasures are incompatible.<\/p>\n
If these \u201csons of God\u201d are not angels, who then are they? One set of expositors, observing that in the Old Testament the children of Israel are sometimes called the children of the Lord, and the Moabites, the people of Chemosh, and strange women, the daughters of a strange god, conclude that the expression \u201csons of God,\u201d is but a figurative expression for the worshippers of God, Note: Deu_14:1; Num_21:29; Mal_2:11.] the Sethites, who are thus placed in opposition to those who worshipped no God whatever (\u201cthe daughters of men\u201d), the descendants of Cain. Another body of commentators, however, look to the genius and idiom of the Hebrew language for an explanation. They call to mind that a great rushing wind is called \u201ca wind of God;\u201d a lofty mountain, \u201ca mountain of God;\u201d kings and mighty men, \u201csons of God;\u201d and they urge the words which are translated \u201csons of God,\u201d should be rendered \u201csons of the mighty;\u201d Note: So actually rendered in De Sola\u2019s recent Jewish translation of Genesis.] and that the passage then means, that the antediluvian chiefs and nobles took wives of all the handsome inferior women that they chose.<\/p>\n
We must not conceal that these explanations appear to us far from clear of difficulties. They have the forced aspect of being framed for a purpose\u2014the purpose of avoiding the view which lets in the angels; and they do not account\u2014neither of them account, for the giants and mighty men of old, who are said to have been the issue of these marriages; or they account for them irrationally, by assuming that a race, whose physical and mental (though not moral or spiritual) superiority is very emphatically denoted in the text, was obtained by grafting a pure or noble, on an impure or inferior stock.<\/p>\n
To the interpretation which makes the \u201csons of God\u201d the family of Seth, it may be further objected, that although the Israelites are called the children of God, they are not called the sons of God, and that hence the alleged analogy does not exactly apply. If, also, the Cainite females were intended by the \u201cdaughters of men,\u201d and the Sethites by \u201cthe sons of God,\u201d we might expect the terms to have been more general, probably \u201cchildren,\u201d as intermarriages would in all likelihood have taken place, as well between daughters and sons, as between sons and daughters. Again, it is said at the outset, that \u201cmen began to multiply on the face of the earth;\u201d and this, doubtless, applies to all the race of mankind; and it may therefore be urged, that the \u201cdaughters of men,\u201d in the immediate context, are the daughters of the same men, that is, mankind without distinction.<\/p>\n
As to the other explanation, which makes the \u201csons of God\u201d to be chiefs espousing inferior women\u2014besides being open to the general objections which apply to both interpretations\u2014it may be remarked, that no such stigma as is here assumed, is attached in the Bible to the marriages of exalted men with women of inferior rank and position; nor does it consist with the ideas and usages of the East, where the great are not held to disgrace themselves, if they do sometimes honor the poor, by taking their wives from among them.<\/p>\n
The fault of this age lies in too strong a disposition to bring all ancient and remote things, existing under unknown conditions, down to the square and level of present ideas and known conditions. Taking the text as it stands, and trying to comprehend what it means to state, without any wish to extort from it a meaning which might consist better with our own ideas, we are bound to that the intrinsic evidence appears to us to be in favor of the opinion\u2014that the sacred record means to tell us, that beings not of mortal race attached themselves to the daughters of men. The way to reach the meaning of terms of uncertain interpretation, is to see what sense the same terms bear in books of the same or nearly the same age. Now very general consent ascribe the book of Job to the same age, and even to the same pen as the book of Genesis\u2014and in the introduction of that book we have these remarkable words\u2014\u201cThere was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.\u201d There the sons of God are various non-human beings, angels in their various degrees fallen and unfallen; and it is manifest that they are called \u201csons of God\u201d in the same sense in which Adam is in the genealogy of Luke (Luk_3:38), called the \u201cson of God\u201d\u2014namely, because he had no human father, but was created directly by God. In the same book of Job, which is more important than any other for the interpretation of Genesis, the same phrase once more occurs, and is again unmistakably applied to angels: \u201cWhen the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy\u201d (Job_38:7).<\/p>\n
The objection drawn from the nature of angels is scarcely valid\u2014for we know not what the nature of angels is. They may have, and probably they have, bodies of some kind; there may be, and probably are, various degrees of them, more or less spiritual. We know that angels are capable of evil, and have committed it; are capable of falling, and have fallen. If these \u201csons of God\u201d were angels, there is no evidence whether they were fallen or unfallen angels\u2014for, in the passage to which we have referred, the term seems to be applied to both with regard to their higher nature derived directly from God.<\/p>\n
Although it would not be wise positively to assert this to be the only possible interpretation of this obscure transaction, it certainly has the advantage of simplicity, and of taking the text in its obvious meaning. The interpretation is also ancient. It is embodied In the apocryphal book of Enoch, which is ascribed to the first century before Christ, and is supposed to comprise fragments of ancient truth, and certainly indicates the notions in such matters of the age to which it belongs. The \u201csons of God\u201d are there expressly said to have been angels, the inhabitants of heaven. It accords well, also, as might be largely shown, with the views of all ancient nations, which are full of legends of such intercourse of higher natures with the daughters of men\u2014notions which doubtless had their origin in many colored traditions of the same fact which Genesis 6 records.<\/p>\n
Let us not overlook the fact that this interpretation throws a clearer light upon the history of the deluge. The earth, which received its present goodly frame for man\u2019s use, becomes occupied by an intrusive race more powerful than man, and oppressing and destroying him\u2014a race essentially wicked; whose evil nature no time can change, no circumstances ameliorate, and whose very existence counteracts the designs of the Creator, and one which, therefore, in order that man may again replenish the earth, it became necessary to destroy utterly, while yet one family of pure race existed. In connection with this point, it is well worthy of notice that Noah, who had no children at the time that God declared (120 years before the event) his intention to destroy the world, although then nearly five hundred years old, soon after had his eldest son, and then the others\u2014suggesting that he had contracted marriage, perhaps under Divine direction\u2014with some special view to the preservation of a race of unmixed blood.<\/p>\n
This subject is undoubtedly difficult, and will perhaps never be clearly understood; but there is no safer or wiser course than to strive to understand what the Scripture means to teach, apart from all our notions of the probable, the possible, or the proper. In this record lies our only information of things and times so remote; and, receiving it as the word of God, our only thought must be to grasp the simple meaning of its communications.<\/p>\n
Autor: JOHN KITTO<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Sons of God\u2014Gen_6:2 We are informed in the beginning of the sixth chapter of Genesis, that when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, \u201cthe sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.\u201d And again, \u201cthere were … Continue reading ““038. THE SONS OF GOD\u2014GENESIS 6:2””<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16390","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16390","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16390"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16390\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16390"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16390"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16390"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}