Gênesis 6:1-2

EXPOSITION

And it came to pass. Literally, it was ; not in immediate sequence to the preceding chapter, but at some earlier point in the antediluvian period; perhaps about the time of Enoch (corresponding to that of Lamech the Cainite), if not in the days of Enos. Havernick joins the passage with Genesis 4:26 . When men — ha'adham , i.e. the human race in general, and not the posterity of Cain in particular (Ainsworth, Rosenmüller, Bush)— began to multiply —in virtue of the Divine blessing ( Genesis 1:28 )— on (or over) the face of the earth . "Alluding to the population spreading itself out as well as increasing" (Bonar). And daughters were born unto them. Not referring to any special increase of the female sex (Lange), but simply indicating the quarter whence the danger to the pious Sethites rose: " who became snares to the race of Seth" (Wordsworth). That the sons of God . Bene-ha Elohim .

1. Not young men of the upper ranks, as distinguished from maidens of humble birth (Onk; Jon; Sym; Aben Ezra); an opinion which "may now be regarded as exploded" (Lange).

2. Still less the angels; for

( α ) it is uncertain Whether the phrase " το Ì ν ο ̔ ì μοιον του ì τοις τρο ì πον ε ̓ κπορνευ ì σασαι και Ì α ̓ πελθου ͂ σαι ο ̓ πι ì σω σαρκο Ì ς ε ̔ τε ì ρας " refers to the angels or to " αι ̔ περι Ì αυ ̓ τα Ì ς πο ì λεις ," in which case the antecedent of του ì τοις will not be the α ̓ γγε ì λοι of Jude 1:6 , but σο ì δομα και Ì γο ì μορ ̓ ρ ̔ α of Jude 1:7 ;

( β ) if even it refers to the angels it does not follow that the parallel between the cities and the angels consisted in the "going after strange flesh," and not rather in the fact that both departed from God, " the sin of the apostate angels being in God's view a sin of like kind spiritually with Sodom's going away from God's order of nature after strange flesh" (Fausset);

( γ ) again, granting that Jude's language describes the sin of the angels as one of carnal fornication with the daughters of men, the sin of which the sons of Elohim are represented as guilty is not πορνει ì α , but the forming of unhallowed matrimonial alliances. Hence

3. The third interpretation, therefore, which regards the sons of God as the pious Sethites, though not without its difficulties, has the most to recommend it.