Note III: The Sons of God

Lsewhere we have given our interpretation of the passage in Genesis where the expression is found.! But there is room for some investigation both into the words themselves, and also into the history of the expositions which have been given of them. It may be worth our while to make a little further inquiry into this passage, as Dr. Maitland in his Zruvin, and Dr. Kitto in his Datly Bible Illustrations, have revived the patristic exposition, and affirmed that sons of God must mean angels. The latter writes diffidently, but the former abates nothing of his usual dogmatism, even in treating of a passage confessedly peculiar.” Dr. Maitland asks, How could the intermarriage of the seed of Seth and the seed of Cain produce giants? We might as

WiGen, vi. 2: 2 What would Dr. Maitland say to Hivernick, who denounces the “angelic’ theory as one of the silliest whims of the Alexandrian Gnosties and cabalistic Rabbins? VOL. VI. 2A well ask, How could the intermarriage of angels and men produce giants? When angels have taken man’s form (as to Abraham, etc.), they have not indicated any superior stature. If Dr. Maitland will tell us how the one class of marriages produces giants, we will satisfy him as to the other. Nor can we think it an unsupported affirmation in us to say, that from all that God has made known to us in His word regarding angels, good or bad, their nature, their history, their doings, etc., such intermarriages are impossible. Or, arguing physiologically, might we not say that in all the various parts of animal and vegetable nature, the intermixture of genera is impossible; so, 2 fortiorz, the intermixture of two races who differ more from each other than genus does from species is impossible.+

But the intermixture of the Sethites and the Cainites was very likely to produce a race of superior bodily constitution. For these two races, continuing separate, and intermarrying themselves with very near kindred, must have greatly degenerated; and the intermixture of the two was very likely to generate a stronger race. Nor is it at all unlikely that such was the result also in after years, when Israel intermarried with the Moabites. About this time we read of giants again. And this is one of the things in which Dr. Maitland’s theory halts. If intermarriage with angels was required to produce giants in the time of Noah, it must have been needed again afterwards to produce them in the time of Israel. It is not a little curious that the same word, ‘ Nepheelim, is used in both cases (Num. xili. 33), ‘There we saw the Nepheelim, the sons of Anak, who-come of the Nepheelim.’* As all the antediluvian ‘ Nepheelim’ must have been swept off at the flood, there must have been in after ages the recurrence of the same scenes as before (intermarriages with angels). If Dr. Mait-

1 Besides, as Hengstenberg remarks, ‘the standing designation of angels as holy ones, includes in it the neither marrying nor being given in marriage’ (Matt. xx. 30).

2 The word ‘ Nepheelim’ occurs only in these two places, Genesis and Numbers.

land’s theory be tenable, Anak must have married an angel, and his sons Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, who are called ‘Nepheelim, must have been semi-angels. Nay, some of Anak’s ancestors must have also married angels, seeing it is not only said that the ‘ Nepheelim’ were sons of Anak, but he himself came of the same race, being half an angel and half a man. Anak’s wife must have been a femade angel, whereas in former times the angels that came down must have been all male. To use the language ot patristic demonology, the antediluvian angels must have -been zzcudz, and the postdiluvian angels succubi>

We are told more than once, in the 6th of Genesis, that it was man’s sin that was so great in the earth; that it was on account of man’s sin that the deluge came. But if the old Jewish and patristic theory, revived by Drs. Kitto and Maitland, be true, then it was not man’s sin that wrought the evil, but the sin of angels. For it is clear that they were the guilty parties in this transaction, if they were parties at all. It. is against the ‘sons of God’ that the accusations are manifestly pointed. It was their superior guiltiness that brought the world’s criminality to its crisis.? If they were not men, what does the judgment that fell upon the world so specially for their sin, mean? Is earth to be punished for the sin of angels? Is man to be swept away because angels have corrupted themselves? On the other hand, how natural the whole scene, if the sons of God were the Sethites, the representatives of the patriarchal Church! They were the salt of the earth; and the moment that the salt lost its savour, corruption shot through the mass, and earth ripened for the wrath of God.

Nor can anything be more natural and likely in another way. For ages the two great sections of the race had kept

1 Pope Innocent VIII., in a decretal against witches, gives warning to all who abuse themselves in such ways, — ‘dzemonibus incubis et succubis abuti.’ ‘Tostatus states the two kinds, and relates the history of Merlin, ‘ vatem in Anglia celebrem,’ who was produced by means of a succubus.

2 «The genesis of human corruption, and its ascent:to the highest point, ‘are designed to be represented,’/ — -HENGSTENBERG, separate. Adam, Seth, and their posterity, retained the primeval seat of man. They still dwelt in Eden, though outside of paradise, and worshipped at the well-known altar, within sight of the flaming sword and the symbolic cherubim. Eden was to them what Canaan was to Israel. There they dwelt alone, and were not mingled with the nations. There these sons of God, headed by the patriarchs (for Seth must have lived to the days of Noah), maintained the true faith and the honoured name. But as ages went on, the population increased, and the two races, spreading out, approached each other. From the statement of Moses, it would appear that the Cainites had been specially fruitful in daughters. These, by reason of proximity of place, had at length come into contact with the sons of God. Like the Moabitish women in the case of Israel, like the ‘outlandish women’ in the case of Solomon, they tempted the Sethites by their beauty. The races mingled, and a new and peculiar progeny was the result. But more than this, the boundary between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent was now broken down, defection became general, wickedness increased, and the world was ripe for judgment.

Against all this Noah and his fellows (for he was the eighth preacher of righteousness) protested, ‘condemning the world;’ but in vain. They went on intermingling. They went on ‘eating and drinking, marrying and giving. in marriage, till the day that Noah entered the ark.’ The seed of the woman, called here the sons of God, dwindled down into two or three; the seed of the serpent covered the whole peopled earth.

Whilst, however, it is stated that the intermarriages of the sons of God and the daughters of men produced ‘ Nepheelim,’ it seems also implied that there were Nepheelim on the earth before, which completely upsets one of Dr. Maitland’s arguments. ‘The Nepheelim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, etc. Havernick goes further, and maintains that the Nepheelim are not said at any time to be the fruit of the intermixture. ‘There is nothing in vi. 4 of a race of giants springing from this union. “In those days were the well-known Nepheelim in the earth” cannot without violence receive such a reference, specially when what follows is taken into connection — “also after that, the sons of God went in unto the daughters of men,” z.¢. at that time there were men of that kind, and they continued even till a later period.’ Calvin, also, though he does not go so far, yet puts the matter thus: ‘ The giants had a prior origin, but afterwards those who were born of the promiscuous marriages imitated their example.’ He confirms this by the expression ‘amd also, as if it were implied that not only were these Nepheelim found previously in the race of Cain, but also afterwards in that race which resulted from the mixture of the two races.

An old writer has well asked, ‘ What sort of creatures could the offspring of men and angels be?’ Would they be men, or would they be angels? How far would they partake of the one nature, and how far of the other? And could these semi-angels semi-men produce offspring? In Genesis and Numbers it is implied that this was done, whereas we know that, according to physical laws, intermixtures of genera can go no further than the first generation. But granting that the intermixture goes on from one generation to another, what sort of race is it that is produced? And in what relation do they stand to Adam asahead? If they are either semi-angels or semi-demons, as the theory of Dr. Maitland and Dr. Kitto must concede, then they are but half-descended from Adam, and so cannot be represented by him, or partake of the corruption that flows from him. Nay, further, in what relation can these semi-angels stand in reference to salvation? Are they capable of salvation by Christ? Could they believe on Him who took not on Him the nature of angels, but who took on Him the seed of Abraham? Could they be washed in His blood, or made one with Him who is zo¢ bone of their bone, nor flesh of their flesh? And for what shall they be condemned? For rejecting Christ? For refusing Noah’s message about the promised seed of the woman? Yet what was the seed of the woman to those who did not belong to the human race?

The Jewish rabbis were the originators of the fable. From them the Fathers took it, as they did many other Jewish traditions, preserving and decorating them, as they would the relics

= or bones of an old saint. These doctors find no difficulty in telling us what became of the angels themselves who thus sinned with the daughters of men, as well as what became of the children. ‘ After they had begotten children,’ says one rabbi, ‘the holy and blessed God took them to the mountain o darkness and bound them in iron chains.’ The children of these angels, the rabbis have, like the heathen poets, buried beneath the mountains.2 Nay, more, some of them maintained that the sin of these angels and the sin of Eve was the same, so that, just as Sammael ensnared. Eve, so did Aza and Azail the daughters of Eve in Noah’s days.’ Others of them, such as Aben Ezra, have taken the more sober view.

It might be curious, but certainly not profitable, to go over at length the expositions of the Fathers upon this passage, — both on the words ‘sons of God,’ and also on the word ‘giants. We had noted a good many portions as specimens; but, on second thoughts, we leave them in their folios. They are all very much of the same cast.. Jerome does not tell us what he thinks; he simply says, ‘ Non angeli ;? Ambrose contradicts himself, but leans to the angelic theory; Augustine and Chrysostom are the chief Fathers that set themselves to refute the fabulous comment, and to establish the true one. Augustine’s remarks are so good, that we are inclined to give a sentence or two. ‘The human race advancing and increasing, there was produced, by this freedom of will, an intermixture and confusion of both cities (Church and world, Jerusalem and Babylon), each sharing the other’s sin. Which evil, again, found its origin in the female sex — not, indeed, in the same way as from the beginning; for it was not these women who, seduced then by the guile of any one, persuaded men to sin, but those who from the beginning were of depraved habits in the earthly city, were beloved by the sons of God, the citizens of another city sojourning in this world, on account of their beauty of person. Which blessing is indeed a gift of God;

1 Schottgenii Hore Hebraice et Talmudice, p. 1050.? See Bush on Genesis; Doughtei Anadecta Sacra, p. 9. 8 Hackspanii Caddala Judaica, p. 357. but seeing it is given to the bad, the good ought not to reckon it a great blessing.... Thus the sons of God were taken with the love of the daughters of men; and as they enjoyed these wives, they declined into the habits of the earthly society, forsaking the piety which they had retained in the holy community. And thus was beauty of person, made no doubt by God, but a temporal and carnal thing, the lowest good of all, evilly loved, and God slighted, — God the eternal, the internal, the sempiternal good. ... Of this love the order being confounded, these sons of God neglected God, and loved the daughters of men.’y

Bishop Patrick says: ‘ The plain sense is, that they who had hitherto kept themselves unmingled with the posterity of Cain, according to a solemn charge which their godly forefathers had given them, were now joined with them in marriage, and made one people with them. Which was the greater crime, if we can give any credit to what an Arabic writer saith, mentioned first by Mr. Seldon in his book De Dizzs Syrits, that the children of Seth had sworn by the blood of Abel they would never leave the mountainous country which they inhabited to go down unto the valley where the children of Cain lived. The same author (Patricides, with Elmacinus also) says that they were inveigled to break this oath by the beauty of Naamah (Gen. iv. 22), and the music of her brother Jubal. For the Cainites spent their time in feasting, music-dancing, and sports, which allured the children of Seth to come down and marry with them, whereby all manner of impurity, impiety, idolatry, rapine, and violence filled the whole earth. This Moses here takes notice of, that he might give the reason why the whole posterity of Seth, even those that sprang from that holy man Enoch, were overwhelmed with the deluge, as well as the race of Cain.’

it seems evidently to these scenes that our Lord refers when, speaking of the days of Noah, He says they were eating

i De Civ. Dei, book xv. chap. 22. Though he cites the passage as ‘the angels of God,’ he proceeds te show the meaning of the term, chap. 23 and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage; and just as it was the apostasy of the godly, and the intermixture between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, with the accompanying violence and lasciviousness, that hastened the flood, so shall it be the defections of the last days, the incontinency and ungodliness of the last generation, that shall consummate the world’s guilt, and prepare for its judgment.! Thus shall the salt lose its savour, corruption strike through the whole mass like leaven, and the fiery deluge sweep away another world of the ungodly; only, however, to deliver creation from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the SONS OF GOD.?

! May there not be a reference to these scenes in Rev. xiv, 4, ‘ These are they who were not defiled with women,’ z.e. these are the sons of God who kept themselves undefiled with the daughters of men?

2 The Ziterature of this passage is curiously extensive, beginning with the rabbis, and coming down to Dr. Kitto. The fullest discussion of all the points connected with or suggested by the passage is in the Jesuit Pererius Valentinus, who had devoted upwards of forty of his small folio pages to the subject (vol. ii.). He omits, however, the rabbinical views; indeed, his work, learned as it is in the Fathers, gives no indication of rabbinical or oriental lore. See Dr. Well’s Critical Notes, p. 9; Patrick’s Commentary; the 5th Excursus of Doughteus in his Azalecta Sacra; Pfeiffer’s Dubia Vexata Scriptura, locus xxii.; L. Vives’ Note on Augustine’s City of God, book xv. chap. 23; Suicer’s Zhesaurus under dyyeaos and vies; Suidas’ Lexicon under ‘Seth;’ Lord Barrington’s Zheological Works, vol. ii. p- 462; Calvin’s Commentaries. But the best statement on the subject is to be found in Hengstenberg on The Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 325. Havernick is also good — Introduction to the Pentateuch, p. 111.