|It came to pass that the sons of God |
saw the daughters of men that they fair
a. "That the sons of God..."
Who were they? There are two main opinions on this: the popular one, they were the godly men from the elect line, and the unpopular one, they were fallen angelic beings who have taken upon themselves real human flesh, thus indistinguishable from men.
It is my opinion that the former is not only woefully inadequate to explain the hard facts presented in Gen 6, it also involves much inconsistencies and contradictions. We will discuss these as we go along. I have alluded to some of them in the commentary on verse 1 above. [http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.my/2016/02/and-it-came-to-pass-after-15-long.html]
The term "sons of God" like the term "daughters of men" simply indicates the origin of both, the former from God, the latter from men. Adam is said to be the son of God (Luke 3:38) because he came directly from God, i.e. of God, and not of men. The two terms say nothing about godliness or ungodliness. Such ideas are read into the passage, necessitated by the prior presupposition that the passage speaks of mixed-marriage. In Job, angels are called sons of God.
In Genesis 19, the two men sent by God to do His errands were angelic beings who had taken upon themselves human flesh. Did Lot know that the two men were actually sons of God? “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” Heb 13:2.
Supposing the "sons of God" were godly men indeed as many imagined, how did they end up doing such ungodly thing, lusting after and marrying the women of the ungodly line? Does the Scriptures ever ascribe such lofty term to designate people of such character? Some avoid this obvious difficulty by proposing the ingenious idea that "sons of God" indicated sonship only without any reference to godliness, i.e. they were God's children but manifest no godliness, which explains their lusting for and uniting with the ungodly women of the non-elect line! Do the Scriptures ever waste and squander such title on men of such character? I seriously doubt it.
b. "The daughters of men..."
Who were they? As explained before the term simply means the female offspring of men. The context clearly requires that. But the popular and common idea is that these were the ungodly women of the non-elect line. What's the basis of such idea? None, but the presupposition that the passage speaks of mixed marriage with the necessary idea that the daughters of men must be women of the ungodly line since the "sons of God" have been taken to mean men of the godly line.
This idea implies that verse 1 is describing the procreating activities of the so called ungodly line, producing ungodly female offspring. The ludicrous nature of this idea has been indicated above. Gen 6:1 is the continuation of the long account in Gen 5, making such idea more ludicrous!
c. "The daughters of men that they fair..."
The "sons of God" saw something in the daughters of men, that they were fair. What does that mean?
The common and popular idea is that those ungodly women of the ungodly lines were beautiful and attractive and seductive, and the supposedly godly men ("sons of God") lusted for them, and took them as wives. If fairness was the only thing about those women of the ungodly line that attracted the "sons of God", it begs a question, "weren't there similarly fair women among those of the godly line? Were fair women born and raised in the ungodly line only? I speak as a fool!
Did the fairness have anything to do with the outward beauty of the daughters of men? Was it the outward beauty of the daughters of men that drew the attention of the sons of God towards them? Did that kind of thing happen in the prior 15 long centuries? May be there were no fair women among the ungodly line then, so that didn't happen. Suddenly after 15 centuries fair women were born in the ungodly line, and attracted the godly men of the godly line!
The word translated "fair" has several other distinct meaning apart from the idea of outward beauty. Take a look at this link, and take careful note of the various meaning of the word translated "fair" in Gen 6:2. https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2896&t=KJV
When it is suggested that the sons of God are angelic beings, everyone knows enough to rightly retort, "but angels neither marry nor are given in marriage." But they fail, or refuse to acknowledge the simple biblical fact that angelic beings are capable of becoming real men, taking upon themselves human flesh, and have real interaction with sons and daughters of men. Take a look at the angels/men in Gen 19.
When elect angels took flesh and became men, they did so temporarily, and at the will of God, running divine errands. But when the fallen angels did the same, it was against God's will, and left their own habitation, and intruded into the human habitation. They SINNED for doing so. They kept not their first estate - the estate ordained for them in the spirit realm. Read 2Pet 2:4-5 and Jude 6 - do they make some sense to you now?
Please note also that verses 4 and 5 are mentioned in the same breath by Apostle Peter. They are related.
d. So, what is described in Gen 6:2?
Fallen angels saw that the daughters of men were fair, i.e. they were useful and suited for executing their grand scheme. So they took upon themselves human flesh, and became real men, as real as the two angels became men. They probably became some of the most attractive dazzling men of the time, thus making themselves attractive and irresistible to the daughters of men. This is implied in the words, "and they took them wives of all which they chose." They did so with great ease, probably picking daughters of prominent and influential households to produce offspring that were described as "giants... mighty men... men of renowned." In what sense were they giants, mighty men and men of renown? Just read the effect they had upon Noah's world.
Did the people of Noah's generation know what happened? No, none of them.
Did the LORD see it? Read Gen 6:3. Nothing caught God by surprise.
Did the Jews know it? Peter and Jude knew the incident, and they took it for granted that the recipients of their epistles knew it. They stated that ANCIENT event in a matter-of-factly without further explanation. Read 2Pet 2:4-5, and Jude 6.
Do you know it? You can, and you should. The Scriptures has revealed it to us, to instruct us about the glorious grace of God. Grace triumphed AGAIN, Satan thwarted again. Grace was shown in a completely hopeless situation.