The Pulpit Commentary — Genesis — Section 180

danger to the pious Set hill's rose: " who monstrous. (2) It is Scripturnl, e.nd not ~ccame snnres to the rnce of Seth" (\Vords- mythi.ca.l (cf, Numbers xxv. ; Judges iii. ; worth). That t.he sons of God. Bene-ha 1 Kings xi., xvi. ; Rev. ii., for sins of a Elohi,n. 1. Not young men of the upper similar description). (3) It nccords with th.o ranks, ns distinl{Uishcd from maidens of designation subsequently given, to tho pio!~s humble bil'lh (Onk., Jon., Sym., Aben Ezra)'· followers or God (cf. De~t. XIV. 1; XXJ:!!· nn opinion "hich " mny now be regarded a~ 5 ; Ps. lx:xm. 15 ; Prov. xiv. 26 ; Luke m. ei.:i~o_dcd" (Lange). 2. Still less the angels 88; Rom. viii. 14; Gal. iii. 20). (4) It has (LXX. ,-some 1\fSS. lutnng ayy,>..o, roii a historical basis in the fact that Seel~ wns 6Mi•,-Philo, Josephus, Jnstin Martyr, Cle- regarded by his mother BB a son from God ment, Tertullian, 1..uther, Gesenius, Rosen- (eh. iv. 25), and in the circumstance that miiller, Yon Bohlen, E"nld, Baumgarten, already the Sethites had begun to call them- Delitzsch, Kurtz, Hengstenberg, Alford); for selves by the name of Jehovah (eh. iv. 26). (1) they arc either good angels, in which Dathius translates, "qui de nomiue Doi voca- case they might be rightly styled sons of bantur." (5) It is sufficient as an hypothesis, God (Ps. xxix. 1 ; lxx:rix. 7; Job i. 6; ii. and therefore is entitled to the preference. 1 ; x:xxnii. 7 ; Dan. iii. 25), though it is Saw the daughters of men (not of the Cain- doubtful if this expression does not denote itic race exclusively, but of men generally} their official rather than natnrnl relationsl1ip that they were fair, and had regard to this to God, but it is certain they would not alone in c'.mtracting marriages. "Instead be guilty of the sin here referred to ; or they of looking at the spiritual kinsma.nship, they are bad angels, in which case they might had- an eye only to the plellSure of sense " readily enough commit the sin, if it were (Lango). "What the historian condemns is possible, but certainly they would not be not that regard was had to beauty, but that called " the sons of God." (2) The state- mera libido regnaverit in the choice of ment of Jnde (vers. 6, 7), though seemingly wives" (Calvin). And they took them wives. in fa'rnur of this interpretation, does not Lakachi,sl1,<1,, '' a standing expression through- necessarily require it; since (a) it is uncer- out the Old Testament for the marriage re- tain whether the phrase "rov O/U>'°" rovTO&f: lationship established by God at the creation, rp01rov ir;7op1,r'Uaaoat rai O,uABoL'aa, lnriaw is never applied to ,ropvEia, or the •simple 17ap,;o,; i.ipar:" refers to the angels or to "ai act of physical connection, which is sufficie1ft r.Epi avrtir: r.o>..ELr," in which case the e.ntece• of i~self to ex.elude_ an~_rcferen~e to angels" dent of -:-ov.o,, will not be the ayy,>..o, of ver. (Keil; cf. eh. 1v. 19; xu. 19; XlL H; Ex:od. 6, but :F.oooµa s:ai I'oµop/,a ofver. 7; (P) if even vi 25 ; 1 Sam. xxv. 43). Qf all whom they it refers to the angels it does not follow that ohose. The emphasis on ~1lt;') (of a.11) signi- the parallel between the cities and the angels fies that, guided by a love· of merely sensual consisted in the " going after strange flesh," attractions, they did not confine themselves and not rnther in the fact that both departed to the beautiful daughters of the Sethito race, from God, " the sin of the apostate ang.els hut selected their brides from the fair women being in God's view a sin of like kind spirit- of the Caiuites, and perhaps with a preference ually with Sodom's going away from God's for these. The opinion that they selected order of nature after strange flesh" (Fau'!Set); "- both virgins and wives, they ,cared not (r) again, granting that Jude's language de- whom," and "tqok them by violence" scribes the sin of the angels as one of car- (Willet), is not warranted by the language nal fornication with the daughters of men, of the historian. The sons of God were the sin of which the sous of Elohim arc neither the Nephilim nor the Gibborim represented as guilty is not '1f'opv,ta, but the afterwards described, but the parents of the forming of unhallowed matrimonia.l alliances. latter. The evil indicated is simply that of Hence (3) the assertion of our Lord in Luke promiscuous marriages without regard to xx. 35 is inconsistent with the hypothesis spiritual cha.meter. that by the sons of God are meant the angels; Ver. 3.-And the Lord-Jehovah; not ancl (4) consistent exegesis re<,_uires that only because due to the Jehovist (Tuch, Bleek, extreme urgency, in fact absolute necessity Colenso), but because the sin above specified ( uei ther of which can be alleged here), should was a direct violation of the footing of grace e;, use the sons of God to be looked for else- on which the Sethitcs stood - said, - to where than among the membei;s of the huma.n himself, i. e. purposed,-My spirit-neither race. 3. The third interpretation, therefore, " ire., seu rigida Dei justitia" (Venema), which regards tb e sons of God as the pious nor "the Divine spiiit of life bestowed upon Sethites (Cyril of Alexandria, Tbeodoret, man, the principle of physical nnd ethical, Augustine, Jerome, Calvin, Keil, Haver- natural and spiritual hfe" (Keil) ; !Jut the nick, Lange, Murphy, Wordsworth, Quarry, Holy Ghost, the Ruach Elohim of eh. i. 2 'Speaker's Commentary'), though not with- -shall not always strive. Lo-yadon :-1. out its difficulties, has the most to re- Shall not dwell (LXX., ov /JT/ ,caraµilvp; commend it. (1) It is natural, ancl not Vulgate, non permambit; Syria.c, Oukelos), en. v1. 1-B.] THE BOOK OF GJrnESIS,