Much controversy has surrounded these verses. Who were the sons of God who married the daughters of men? There are two basic approaches to this, and a more recent third theory.
1. This is the most natural way to interpret the passage.
2. It is supported by Jesus’ statement in Matthew 22:30.
3. Because of the law of biogenesis, life begets similar life. (Note the statement “after its kind” in Gen 1:11–12, 21, 24–25.)
4. Moses, the author, did not use the regular Hebrew word for angel (malak) which he later employs at least twenty-eight times in the Pentateuch.
5. The expression “mighty men” in Genesis 6:4 (supposed offspring of angels and women) is the Hebrew word gibbor. The same word is used dozens of times in the Old Testament and always refers to human men (see Judg 6:12).
6. Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:38–40, “There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial,” would indicate these two can never cojoin.
1. The Hebrew language seems to favor it.
a. The Hebrew phrase bne-elohim (sons of God) always refers to angels in the Old Testament (see Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Dan 3:25).
b. The Hebrew word nephilim (translated “giants” in Gen 6:4) actually should be rendered “fallen ones.” The normal word for a huge man is rapha. Thus, men like Og and Goliath were described by the word rapha (see Deut 3:11; 1 Chr 20:6).
2. There is almost always a basis for commonly held ancient legends, however weird and distorted they might have become. Some believe the “men of renown” (Gen 6:4) are the historical basis for the legends of Hercules and other children of the gods of mythology. This corresponds to such later Babylonian figures as Gilgamesh, the supposed son of a goddess and a mortal. He was called “two-thirds god and one-third man.”
3. The common opinion of Jewish scholars. Josephus, the great Jewish historian, brings this out in his writings. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, the Scriptures used by Jews) translates Genesis 6:2 as the “angels of God.”
4. The interpretation of the early church. It was not until the fourth century that a view other than the angels of God theory was offered. Dr. James M. Gray (past President of Moody Bible Institute) writes, “There is reason to believe [this view] would not have changed . . . had it not been for certain erroneous opinions and practices of Christendom” (Spiritism and the Fallen Angels, p. 48). Gray then suggests two such reasons:
a. Angel worship. The church sometime after the fourth century began worshiping angels, so the natural thing would be to deny that an angel could do such vile things with a human.
b. Celibacy. If indeed these sons of God were human men, then the monks would have had scriptural justification for indulging in sexual activities in spite of their official vows of celibacy.
5. Various New Testament passages support this view. It is thought by some that the spirits in 1 Peter 3:18–20 were those sons of God in Genesis
6. The reason for their iniquity was a satanic attempt to corrupt human flesh and thus prevent the promised Incarnation (Gen 3:15) from taking place. But here Peter describes Christ as telling them their foul plan didn’t work! (For another suggested passage along this line, see Jude 1:5–7.)
6. Two kinds of fallen angels exist: the unchained and those already chained. The unchained presently have access to high places and to the bodies of unrepentant men (see Mark 1:23; Luke 8:27; Eph 6:12). The chained are already incarcerated (see 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 1:5–7). The thought is that these angels are chained because of their involvement in Genesis 6.