SONS OF GOD.
A variety of opinions has been held regarding the passage in Gen. vi :2.
'The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair ; and they took them wives of all which they chose.' • (a) Perhaps the most ancient opinion was that the sons of God were the young men of high rank (as in Ps. lxxxii :6, "I have said, Ye arc gods, and ye are all the sons of the most High"), whilst the daughters of men were the maidens of low birth and humble condition; the word for men in this passage being a word used at times to signify men of low estate (comp. Is. ii :9; v :15). Ac cording to this interpretation the sin lay in the un bridled passions of the higher ranks of society, their corrupting the wives and daughters of their servants and dependents, and the consequent spread of universal licentiousness. This seems to have been the earliest interpretation among the Jews. It is adopted by the Targums of Onkclos and Jonathan, by Symmachus, Abcn Ezra, Rashi, Kimchi, and by some moderns, Seidel', Vorstius, and others.
(b) A second interpretation, also of great an tiquity, is that the' sons of God were the angels, who, moved to envy by the connubial happiness of the human race, took to themselves human bodies, and married the fair daughters of men. This interpretation is supposed to have the sup port of some ancient MSS. of the LXX (as men tioned by August. 'De Civ. Del,' xv, 23). It is argued that St. Jude (6, 7) evidently so under stood it, as he likens the sin of the angels to the sin of the cities of the plain, "the going after strange flesh." The same is thought to be al luded to in 2 Pet. ii :4. Philo (De Gigant. vol. i, p. 262) ; Josephus (Antic/. bk. i, chap. 4, sec. ) ; and the most ancient of the Christian fathers, as Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Terttillian, Cyprian, Lactantius, moved probably by their reading of the LXX and being ignorant of Hebrew, adopted this interpre tation. The rationalistic interpreters (Gesenius,
Ewald, Kalisch, Davidson. etc.) prefer it as fa voring their belief that the first chapters of Genesis exhibit merely the Hebrew mythology. But it is also adopted by several of the more or thodox German commentators, as Hofmann, Baumgarten, Delitzsch and Kurtz.
(e) It was suggested. by Ilgen, that the Cainitcs were called "sons of the gods" because of their ingenuity and inventions, and that their inter mingling themselves with the other races of men caused the general corruption of mankind.
(d) The author of The Genesis of the Earth and of Man suggests that "the sons of the gods" (so he would render it) may mean the worshipers of false gods. These he looks on as a pre-Adamite race, and would render, not "daughters of men," but "daughters of Adam." The pre-Adamite worshipers of the false gods intermarried with the daughters of Adam.
(e) The interpretation which is the most prob able is that "the sons of God" were the descend ants of Seth, who adhered to the worship and service of the true God. and who, according to some interpretations of ch. iv :26. were from the time of Enos called by the name of the Lord, and that "the daughters of men" were of the race of the ungodly Cain. This was the belief of the eminent Church fathers. Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria. Theodoret. Augustine, and Jerome. It was adopted by Luther. Calvin, and most of the reformers, and has been the opinion of a great majority of modern commentators (see Speakers' Commentary on Genesis).
(f) Angels are called Sons of God (Job i :6; 11 :1 ; xxxviii :7 ; Ps. xxix:i,—R. V. Marg.). In Dan. iii :25 we find a Son of the gods, R. V.
(g) Magistrates, rulers or men of the highest rank, are called sons of the Most High (Ps. lxxxii .6). Believers are sons of God (John i :I2 ; Phil. ii :15, etc.). (See Sort.)