We are therefore decidedly of opinion that by " sons of God" in the narrative of Genesis is meant, as the great body of the best interpreters have understood it, a se- lect class of men on earth, those who belonged to the line that had maintained in a measure the true filial relationship to God (the Sethites). Though fallen and sinful, yet, as children of faith and heirs of promise, they were the spiritual as well as natural offspring of one who was originally made in God's image, and who still through grace could look up to God as a father. From this select class the Cainites were cut off, the un- believing and godless spirit they manifested showing them to be destitute of the childlike spirit of faith and love; whence Adam and Eve, by reckoning their seed only through Seth, had in a manner disowned them. Alienated from God, the offspring of Cain were merely sons of men, and their daugliters might fitly be called in an emphatic sense the daughters of men, because knowing no higher parentage. But the other class Contained members of a family of God on earth ; for, if "in that olden time there were pious men, wlio, like Enoch and Noah, walked with (iod, or who, even if they did not stand in this close, priestly relation to God, made the divine image a reality tlirough their piety and fear of God, then these were sons of God (Elohim), for whom the only correct ai)pellatiou was 'sons of
Elohim,' since sonship to Jehovah was only introduced with the call of Israel" (Keil). The name in question, " sons of God," was made prominent at the critical time when it was on tlie eve of becoming altogether inap- plicable in order the more distinctly to show how will- ing God was to own the relationship as long as he well could, and how grievous a degeneracy discovered itself when the distinction belonging to them as (iod's elect began practically to be obliterated by their ungodly al- liances with the world. It is impossible here to enter into tlie collateral arguments urged by those who op- pose the view given in the text and understand bj-- " sons of God" the fallen angels. They are cliiefiy two. They conceive the nephilim (q. v.), the men of gigantic energj', or superhuman might, mentioned in Gen. vi, 4, to be the product of those unnatural connections, and a proof of it. But the text speaks of the nephilim as being on the earth before the improper marriages in question were formed; and it is not at all clear that the fjibbnrim, or " mighty men" subsequently referred to, were the same or similar persons (see Keil, On Gen. vi, 4). The other line of support is derived from the sup- posed reference, in Jude 6, 7, to the wickedness of the fallen angels in a lustful and fleshly direction, as if they left their proper habitation to mingle in the pol- lutions of sensual indulgence here; but this is quite a fanciful interpretation. The sensuality and defiling of the flesh spoken of have reference, not to them, but to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, who indulged in wanton and rebellious courses like the angels, but in these took, of course, a different direction, (ioing after fornication, or strange flesh, implies, as Keil remarks, a flesh of one's own (i^ia oapt,), which the angels had not.
It was thus plainly in reference to men's moral state and relationship that the epithet "sons of God" was applied to some before the Deluge; and so was it ever afterwards. In a mere physical sense, as having de- rived their being from God, men are not in Scripture designated his sons; though there is an approach to it in the appropriation by Paul of a passage from a hea- then poet (" We are also his offspring," Acts xvii, 28), in order to give it a higher application. Israel, when about to be called out of Egypt, or when actually de- livered, was called collectively the son of Jehovah, or, in the plural, sons (Exod. iv, 22, 23 ; Deut. xiv, 1 ; Hos. xi, i) ; and this because they were by special election and privilege called to be "a holy people unto Jeho- vah their God, and Jehovah had chosen them to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth" (Deut. xiv, 2 ; Exod. xix, 5, 6). In this sense are to be understood all the passages which speak of God as the Father, the Former, or Begetter, of Israel (Deut. xxxii, 18; Jer. ii, 27; Isa. Ixiv, 8; MaL i, 6 ; ii, 10). The sonship they indicate is one of a mor- al or spiritual nature, having its origin in the free grace of God, and its visible manifestation in the peculiar re- lation of Israel to the knowledge, service, and blessing of Jehovah. They are also called God's first-born, be- cause the distinction thus conferred upon them was not to be theirs exclusively ; they only took precedence of others, and received their place and privileges in or- der that through them all the nations of the earth might be similarly blessed. But from the manifest failing, on the part of the great body of the people, to fulfil their calling and destiny, the sonship was again, as it were, denied of the collective Israel, and limited to the better portion of them. The one had not the marks of true children (I)cut. xxxii, 5), and the other alone could properly call (iod Father, or be owned by him as sons (Jer. iii,4; Hos. i, 10). And even in their case all Avas imperfect, and could not but be till " the time of reformation," when (iod's purpose of grace reach- ed its full development, and the partakers of it attained to a far higher position in the gifts and blessings of the divine kingdom. From that time it was formally as the regenerate, those who have been born again