That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
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 Gen 6:4, that a race of giants or heroes was the progeny of these marriages.
the sons of God ] Heb. B’n Elohim, “sons of Elohim,” i.e. beings partaking of the Divine nature. It has been pointed out above (see note on Gen 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’khm, Gr. . The sons of God are mentioned in Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7, Psa 29:1; Psa 89:1, Dan 3:25; Dan 3:28.
The expression must be judged in accordance with Hebrew, not English, idiom. “The sons of the prophets” (1Ki 20:35: cf. Amo 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.
In the later days of Judaism, this passage became the source of the strange legends respecting “fallen angels,” of which we find traces in the N.T.: 2Pe 2:4, “for if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to Hell”; Jdg 1:6, “angels which kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation”; and in the Book of Enoch.
There is no trace, however, in the Book of Genesis of any tradition respecting either the fall, or the rebellion, of members of the angel-host. Unquestionably English ideas are profoundly affected by the influence of Milton’s Paradise Lost, and by the vague impression that a great and noble religious poem must have been founded upon literal facts.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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, Psa 82:6; where also they are opposed to men, Gen 6:7, 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 Deu 14:1; 32:19; Isa 1:2; 45:11; Hos 11:1; Luk 17:27; &c.
2. This title manifestly relates to Gen 4:26, 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 Gen 26:35; Exo 34:16; 1Ki 11:2-3; Ezra 9:12; Neh 13:23, &c.; Mal 2:11; 1Co 7:39; 2Co 6:14, 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, 1Pe 3:3; 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, Psa 25:12; 119:173; Isa 1:29; 42:1, compared with Mat 12:28. This is noted as the first error, that they did promiscuously choose wives, without any regard to their sobriety and religion, minding only the pleasing of their own fancies and lusts, not the pleasing and serving of their Lord and Maker, nor the obtaining of a godly seed, which was Gods end in the institution of marriage, Mal 2:15, and therefore should have been theirs too.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. the sons of God saw the daughtersof menBy the former is meant the family of Seth, who wereprofessedly religious; by the latter, the descendants of apostateCain. Mixed marriages between parties of opposite principles andpractice were necessarily sources of extensive corruption. The women,religious themselves, would as wives and mothers exert an influencefatal to the existence of religion in their household, andconsequently the people of that later age sank to the lowestdepravity.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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 regarded their external beauty, and lusted after them: those “sons of God” were not angels either good or bad, as many have thought, since they are incorporeal beings, and cannot be affected with fleshly lusts, or marry and be given in marriage, or generate and be generated; nor the sons of judges, magistrates, and great personages, nor they themselves, as the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, and so Jarchi and Aben Ezra; but this could be no crime in them, to look upon and take in marriage such persons, though they were the daughters of the meaner sort; and supposing they acted a criminal part in looking at them, and lusting after them, and committing fornication with them, and even in marrying irreligious persons; yet this could only be a partial, not an universal corruption, as is after affirmed, though such examples must indeed have great influence upon the populace; but rather this is to be understood of the posterity of Seth, who from the times of Enos, when then began to be called by the name of the Lord, Ge 4:25 had the title of the sons of God, in distinction from the children of men; these claimed the privilege of divine adoption, and professed to be born of God, and partakers of his grace, and pretended to worship him according to his will, so far as revealed to them, and to fear and serve and glorify him. According to the Arabic writers l, immediately after the death of Adam the family of Seth was separated from the family of Cain; Seth took his sons and their wives to a high mountain (Hermon), on the top of which Adam was buried, and Cain and all his sons lived in the valley beneath, where Abel was slain; and they on the mountain obtained a name for holiness and purity, and were so near the angels that they could hear their voices and join their hymns with them; and they, their wives and their children, went by the common name of the sons of God: and now these were adjured, by Seth and by succeeding patriarchs, by no means to go down from the mountain and join the Cainites; but notwithstanding in the times of Jared some did go down, it seems; [See comments on Ge 5:20] and after that others, and at this time it became general; and being taken with the beauty of the daughters of Cain and his posterity, they did as follows:
and they took them wives of all that they chose; not by force, as Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom interpret, for the Cainites being more numerous and powerful than they, it can hardly be thought that the one would attempt it, or the other suffer it; but they intermarried with them, which the Cainites might not be averse unto; they took to them wives as they fancied, which were pleasing to the flesh, without regard to their moral and civil character, and without the advice and consent of their parents, and without consulting God and his will in the matter; or they took women as they pleased, and were to their liking, and committed fornication, to which the Cainites were addicted; for they spent their time in singing and dancing, and in uncleanness, whereby the posterity of Seth or sons of God were allured to come down and join them, and commit fornication with them, as the Arabic writers m relate.
k , Sept, “bonae” Cocceius. l Elmacinus, Patricides apud Hottinger. Smegma, l. 1. c. viii. p. 226, 227, 228. m Elmacinus, Patricides apud Hottinger. Smegma, l. 1. c. viii. p. 232, 235, 236, 242, 247.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
2. That they were fair. Moses does not deem it worthy of condemnation that regard was had to beauty, in the choice of wives; but that mere lust reigned. For marriage is a thing too sacred to allow that men should be induced to it by the lust of the eyes. (259) For this union is inseparable comprising all the parts of life; as we have before seen, that the woman was created to be a helper of the man. Therefore our appetite becomes brutal, when we are so ravished with the charms of beauty, that those things which are chief are not taken into the account. Moses more clearly describes the violent impetuosity of their lust, when he says, that they took wives of all that they chose; by which he signifies, that the sons of God did not make their choice from those possessed of necessary endowments, but wandered without discrimination, rushing onward according to their lust. We are taught, however, in these words, that temperance is to be used in holy wedlock, and that its profanation is no light crime before God. For it is not fornication which is here condemned in the sons of the saints, but the too great indulgence of license in choosing themselves wives. And truly, it is impossible but that, in the succession of time, the sons of God should degenerate when they thus bound themselves in the same yoke with unbelievers. And this was the extreme policy of Balaam; that, when the power of cursing was taken from him, he commanded women to be privily sent by the Midianites, who might seduce the people of God to impious defection. Thus, as in the sons of the patriarchs, of whom Moses now treats, the forgetfulness of that grace which had been divinely imparted to them was, in itself, a grievous evil, inasmuch as they formed illicit marriages after their own host; a still worse addition was made, when, by mingling themselves with the wicked, they profaned the worship of God, and fell away from the faith; a corruption which is almost always wont to follow the former.
(259) “ Est autem res sanctior conjugium quam ut oculis ferri homines debeant ad vluptatem coitus.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(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, Jud. 1:6, and St. Peter, 2 Ep., 2Pe. 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 (Exo. 15:11, marg.). (Comp. Exo. 12:12, marg., Exo. 21:6; Exo. 22:8-9, where it is translated judges; Exo. 22:28, 1Sa. 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 Psa. 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 Gen. 6:1 must be the same as the daughters of the adam in Gen. 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 Adams firstborn, such as legally he was. The corruption described is that of the Sethites; for the Cainites have already been depicted as violent and lustful, and their history has been brought to an end. Moreover, in Gen. 6:3, the adam with whom God will not always strive is certainly the family of Seth, who, though the chosen people and possessors of the birthright, are nevertheless described as falling into evil ways; and their utter corruption finally is the result of the depravation of their women by a race superior to themselves in muscular vigour and warlike prowess.
Where, then, shall we find these men? Certainly among the descendants of Cain. In Gen. 4:17-24, we find Cain described as the founder of civil institutions and social life: the name he gives to his son testifies to his determination that his race shall be trained men. They advance rapidly in the arts, become rich, refined, luxurious, but also martial and arrogant. The picture terminates in a boastful hero parading himself before his admiring wives, displaying to them his weapons, and vaunting himself in a poem of no mean merit as ten times superior to their forefather Cain. His namesake in the race of Seth also indites a poem; but it is a groan over their hard toil, and the difficulty with which, by incessant labour, they earned their daily bread. To the simple daughters of the adam, these men, enriched by the possession of implements of metal, playing sweet music on harp and pipe, and rendered invincible by the deadly weapons they had forged, must have seemed indeed as very sons of the Elohim. The Sethites could not have taken the Cainite women according to their fancy in the way described, protected as they were by armed men; but the whole phrase, whomsoever they would, reeks of that arrogancy and wantonness of which the polygamist Lamech had set so notable an example. And so, not by the women corrupting nobler natures, but by these strong men acting according to their lust, the race with the birthright sank to the Cainite level, and God had no longer a people on earth worthy of His choice.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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 . The first, arising apparently from the Samaritan, which translates the phrase sons of mighty men, is found in the Targums of Jonathan and Onkelos, and was maintained by eminent Jewish commentators, like Aben Ezra and Rashi, but is now abandoned. A second view, which seems to have some countenance from the LXX, some copies of which read , instead of , makes the sons of God angels, as in Job 1:6; Job 2:1. The Alexandrian commentators, and Jews who fell under strong Greek influences, as Philo and Josephus, in their anxiety to bridge over the chasm between Judaism and heathenism, and many of the Rabbins and oldest Church Fathers, (Justin . , Clem . , Alex . , Tertul . , Cyp . , etc . ,) adopted this view; while others of the Rabbins, and Chrysostom and Augustine, vehemently opposed it . Modern commentators who regard the early history of Genesis as mythical, as well as some orthodox commentators, from Luther to Stier and Delitzsch, embrace this view . The third view, that of Chrysostom, Cyril, etc . , and now generally held, is, that the “sons of God” were the children of the godly Sethite line . Against the second view it may be conclusively urged 1) that we have had thus far no account of the creation of the angels, and the author would not for the first time mention them thus incidentally . 2) Our Lord expressly says (Mat 22:30) that angels “neither marry nor are given in marriage . ” 3) Although in poetical pieces (as in Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7; Psa 29:1; Psa 89:6) angels are styled sons of God, in pure historical composition this never occurs. On the other hand, godly men and the chosen race are expressly said to stand in this filial relation to God. Exo 4:22-23, “Israel is my son;” Deu 14:1, “Ye are the children of the Lord your God;” also, Hos 11:1; Hos 11:4) It is not the corruption of angels but of men that forms the subject of the narrative . No judgment is pronounced upon angels, but a flood destroys the race of men. If the sin of angels is here recorded, it is inappropriate to follow it with an account of the punishment of men. 5) “Sons of God,” is a Hebrew idiom for “men in the likeness of God.” Noah (Gen 5:32) is called the “son of five hundred years;” Abraham calls Eliezer (Gen 15:3) “son of my house;” Rachel named her son Benoni, “son of my sorrow,” but Jacob called him Benjamin, “son of the right hand;” “sons of the prophets” (1Ki 20:35, etc . ) are the disciples or followers of the prophets . “Son” thus has a latitude of meaning in the Hebrew idiom that specially fits it to convey the idea of the text, as is also seen in the New Testament phraseology, wherein “sons of God” and “born of God” are applied to true Christians. Joh 1:12-13.
Took them wives of all which they chose Sensuality, polygamy, and the intermarriage of the Sethite and Cainite families were the great causes of the “corruption” and “violence” that now filled the earth. These causes may have been centuries in operation, even from the time of Seth and of Cain. The author has separately described the fleshly and the godly race; and now, after his manner, he returns to take up events which were transpiring contemporaneously. From the time that “men began to multiply” the godly race did not keep itself wholly distinct, but the “sons of God” looked on the beauty of the “daughters of men,” rather than on their moral character, and took them wives of all which they chose, that is, took such and as many as carnal choice might prompt. The personal charms of the daughters of the Cainites are commemorated in the names of Lamech’s wives, (Gen 4:19,) yet we are not to suppose that it was these women only that are intended by the daughters of men . The phrase is general, and means simply womankind . The word from all, is noteworthy and emphatic. The choice was indiscriminate among those that were fair, selecting one or many, according to a carnal desire. Not the amours of angels, but family degradation, does the historian assign as the great cause of the antediluvian corruption. This is written for our instruction. It is a solemn warning against poisoning with sin the family fountain. See the Mosaic law, Deu 7:3-4, repeated by Joshua . Jos 23:12. Thus Israel was led into apostasy in the desert, (Numbers 25,) and in the time of the judges. Jdg 3:6. Thus Solomon fell, and Ezra and Nehemiah could not deliver the restored nation from idolatry till the people had put away their “strange wives . ” The anxiety of Abraham concerning the marriage of Isaac, and of Isaac and Rebekah for their sons Jacob and Esau, (Gen 24:3; Gen 26:34-35; Gen 27:46,) will illustrate the text.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair, and took to wife such of them as they chose.’
In the Old Testament the term the ‘sons of God’ (bene ha-elohim) always refers to heavenly beings (Job 1:6 and context; 38:7; Psa 29:1; Psa 89:7; Dan 3:25; Deu 32:8 in the LXX; see also Jud 1:6-7, 1Pe 3:19-20, and 2Pe 2:4-6).
But if we take that meaning here we need not think of it as a crude representation of heavenly beings becoming men to slake their desires. It is true that they thought these women were ‘desirable’, but it could have been for another reason, and that was because they were seen as presenting a means by which these evil ‘angels’ could interfere directly in the affairs of men, take over human bodies and possibly even regain acceptability. The thought would thus be more of occult practises, and especially demonic marriages rather than of sex. The Bible regularly covers up gross sin by euphemisms, and this is one such case. The writer is describing it in folksy terms as though it were normal marriage. But it is describing demon possession of a most dreadful kind.
“Saw that the daughters of men were fair.” The word for ‘fair’ means more literally ‘good, useful’ for some purpose. Thus they saw them as suitable for their purposes.
We cannot, however, avoid the thought that the women were very willing. They were not just helpless tools. This interest in the occult was clearly rampant almost right from the beginning (so Gen 6:1 suggests), with the result that the evil angels were able to take their pick. Thus by opening themselves to occult practises of an extreme kind, and especially to voluntary demon possession, these women, presumably the large majority, were being ‘bound’ to these ‘fallen angels’. Whereas Eve had unknowingly succumbed to temptation by the powers of evil, these women glory in it and throw themselves fully into it.
There are a number of other alternatives suggested for the significance of the term ‘the sons of God’ which we will now consider.
1). That ‘the sons of God’ represent the so-called godly line of Seth and ‘the daughters of men’ represent the cursed line of Cain, (or indeed the daughters of other sons of Adam). In favour of this is that it directly follows the genealogies of Cain and from Adam to Noah.
But there is no reason why we should think that all the line of Seth were godly. Certainly, many of their ‘sons and daughters’ must have had descendants who perished in the flood. Nor is there any reason why they would be seen above all as especially producing ‘mighty men’ and ‘men of renown’. Indeed Lamech appears to be a simple son of the soil (5:28). Nor does it explain why they should be called ‘nephilim’ (compare Num 13:33), nor why such men should be able to have their pick of women anywhere. The fact is that by the time of the Flood the vast majority of the line of Seth were anything but godly and were also destroyed in the Flood. Nor is this concept of a ‘godly’ line being called the ‘sons of God’ (bene ha elohim) found in the Old Testament, whereas the phrase is used otherwise.
In favour could be said to be the fact that God calls Israel ‘my firstborn son’ (Exo 4:22). But this rather contrasts Israel as a whole, as adopted by God, with the ‘divine’ Pharaoh’s son and is not really parallel with this.
A better parallel is perhaps ‘you are the sons of Yahweh your God’ (Deu 14:1). But again this refers to the special position of the children of Israel as those who have been delivered from Egypt, demonstrating their unique position with God. They are adopted by Him as His own.
Both these phrases are very different from the phrase the ‘sons of the elohim’ where the very nature of elohim, heavenly beings, is usually in mind. Besides why are they not called the ‘sons of Yahweh’ here, as Moses does, if the godly line were meant? It was Yahweh they worshipped (Gen 4:26). It is Yahweh which is the name connected with the covenant, not Elohim, and the name Yahweh is used in the passage.
And if the line of Seth were godly enough to be called ‘the sons of God’, why did they marry the daughters of men, deluded by their charms? Surely if the writer had this in mind he would have included a reference to them as ‘sons of God’ somewhere in the genealogy. Yet Seth was specifically described as being the image and likeness of Adam, not the image and likeness of God.
2). That ‘the sons of God’ are Neanderthals, or a similar species, appearing as from nowhere and being seen as supernatural beings because of their size and therefore being given this name in popular parlance, and they, or their children, being also called Nephilim. It is possible to imagine the effect produced on the population if a considerable group of these huge beings arrived and forced themselves on the ‘daughters of men’, with no one daring to offer resistance.
The daughters of men are then seen as intermarrying with them, producing huge offspring. This is feasible and would tie in with Num 13:33, the point being that the huge men there were seen as somehow connected with a similar situation. Nephilim might be thus seen as a term for the progeny of such alliances.
Such alliances might well have been seen by the people and the writer as unholy alliances bringing God’s anger down on the them. One of the points later brought out is the violence which preceded the flood which might well have resulted from such an ‘invasion’.
3). That the sons of God (sons of the gods) represent royal personages. These often set themselves up as being divine or semi-divine, seeing themselves as sons of their gods. Thus the idea may be that they exalted themselves and set up their harems, and took whom they would, whether willing or not. The rare word Nephilim is then accepted as meaning powerful men, then men of renown. The idea is then that the writer sees this as resulting in multiple marriages, a further downward step in man’s behaviour.
All these theories, except perhaps 2 where they were thought to be heavenly beings, founder on the fact that the ‘sons of elohim’ (those of the nature of the elohim) is a recognised form for supernatural beings and suggests exactly that, but some nevertheless prefer them to our suggested interpretation.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
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 increase of mankind is, in itself a blessing. Gen 1:28 . But see Pro 29:16 .
Observe the different expressions: sons of God, and daughters of men. If you turn to Gen 4:26 you there discover that the children of Seth are said to call on the name of the Lord; including both sons and daughters; and hence, therefore, these are meant by the sons of God. See 2Co 6:18 ; Gal 3:28 . And if you turn to Gen 4:16 , then Gal 4:19 and then compare both with Gen 2:24 , you will discover that the posterity of Cain, both by departing from God, and throwing off the reverence due to his Divine authority in the institution of marriage, by a plurality of wives, are they which are thus distinguished as the daughters of men. See, also, in the further confirmation. Mat 19:3-9 ; 2Pe 2:14 ; 2Co 6:14-15 ; Exo 34:15-16 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Gen 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, Gen 4:26 his peculiar professant people, called sons of Jehovah, Deu 14:1 yea, his firstborn, and so higher than the kings of the earth. Psa 89:27 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”; Dan 7:17-18 saints at large he means; all “that have made a covenant with him by sacrifice”. Psa 50:5 Now we read of sacrificing Sodomites; Isa 1:10 “sinners in Sion”; Isa 33:14 profligate professors; Mat 7:23 who, though called “Israel,” yet are to God “as Ethiopians”. Amo 9:7 Such were these sons of God.
Saw the daughters of men that they were fair.
They took them wives.
a Amor formae rationis est oblivio, insaniae proximus, turbat consilia, altos et generosos spiritus frangit. – Jerom.
the sons of God = angels. See App-23, and App-26.
God = ha-Elohim = the Creator.
men: in contrast with angels. Hebrew. ha-‘adham, singular. the man Adam. See App-14.
they: emph.
wives = women. Gen 2:22.
the sons: Gen 4:26, Exo 4:22, Exo 4:23, Deu 14:1, Psa 82:6, Psa 82:7, Isa 63:16, Mal 2:11, Joh 8:41, Joh 8:42, Rom 9:7, Rom 9:8, 2Co 6:18
saw: 2Pe 2:14
that they: Gen 3:6, Gen 39:6, Gen 39:7, 2Sa 11:2, Job 31:1, 1Jo 2:16
and they: Gen 24:3, Gen 27:46, Exo 34:16, Deu 7:3, Deu 7:4, Jos 23:12, Jos 23:13, Ezr 9:1, Ezr 9:2, Ezr 9:12, Neh 13:24-27, Mal 2:15, 1Co 7:39, 2Co 6:14-16
Reciprocal: Gen 12:14 – beheld Gen 13:10 – and beheld Gen 24:37 – And my Gen 26:35 – Which Gen 28:1 – Thou shalt Gen 34:2 – saw her Gen 34:9 – General Gen 38:2 – saw Deu 21:11 – desire Jos 7:21 – I saw Jdg 14:1 – Timnath 1Sa 9:2 – choice 2Sa 13:1 – a fair sister 1Ki 11:1 – loved 1Ki 16:31 – took to wife Ecc 2:10 – whatsoever Ecc 11:9 – in the sight Eze 23:16 – as soon as she saw them with her eyes Mat 24:38 – they
Gen 6:2. The sons of God Those who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name; married the daughters of men Those that were profane, and strangers to God. The posterity of Seth did not keep to themselves as they ought, but intermingled with the race of Cain: they took them wives of all which they chosen They chose only by the eye. They saw that they were fair Which was all they looked at.
6:2 That the {a} sons of God saw the daughters {b} of men that they [were] {c} fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
(a) The children of the godly who began to degenerate.
(b) Those that had wicked parents, as if from Cain.
(c) Having more respect for their beauty and worldly considerations than for their manners and godliness.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes