PROOF THAT THE “SONS OF GOD” IN GENESIS 6:4 ARE ANGELIC OR SPIRIT BEINGS

Genesis 6:1-4 has had different interpretations. Some believe that the term "sons of God" used in the passage means the sons of Seth, others say they are just humans while others believe they are angels. However, there are more facts to believe that these "sons of God" are angelic or spiritual beings and here are some of those facts:

1. It would not have been necessary for the bible to emphasize that women (either godly or ungodly) had children if the “sons of God” were ordinary men but having children with angels was something to make special mention. The giants, the Nephilim, that existed in those days (Genesis 6:4) are as a result of the union between the angels and humans. The fact that giants were mentioned points to some type of extraordinary explanation as to their existence. If the giants were not the offspring of these two groups then why is it injected here in the text? The best answer seems to be that the giants were the offspring of this union.
2. The term “sons of God” was used three other times in the Bible outside of Genesis 6 (i.e. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). In all three of these instances they are spirit or angelic beings, including Satan himself.
3. The fact that giants came only from a union of sons of God and daughters of men) proves that their fathers were not ordinary men of the Adamite stock. No such monstrosities have been nor can be produced from a union of any ordinary men and woman, regardless of how righteous the father is or how wicked the mother is. Many converted men who are sons of God in the sense of adoption and righteousness through Christ, have been married to unconverted women, and no such off-spring the size of Bible giants has ever resulted from these unions. If, as some teach, giants were born of such unions both before and after the flood, then why do not such marriages produce that kind of offspring today? Why did this happen in every case then and in no case today? If the sons of God were ordinary men in the same sense that the daughters of men were ordinary women, then we must also accept the following 4 wrong conclusions: i.That ungodly women have the power to produce such monsters if married to godly men. ii. That godly men have the power to produce giants when married to ungodly women iii. That a mixture of godliness and wickedness produces giants iv. That extreme wickedness on the part of either parent will produce giant offspring.
4. Gen. 6:4 teaches that there were giants on the earth in those days (before the flood), and also after that (after those days which were before the flood) as a result of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men. If, as is wrongly taught, the sons of God were the sons of Seth, we can account for them after that (after the flood), for the line of Seth was continued through Noah. But, with the daughters of Cain (supposed to be the daughters of men), the story is different, Cain's line perished in the flood, both men and women, which means there were no daughters of Cain after the flood, for sons of God to marry.
5. The angel view is not refuted by Christ's statement that angels do not marry (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35,36). First, Jesus says angels in heaven cannot marry. This does not preclude the angels who came down to earth from marrying. Second, though angels are deathless and have no need to perpetuate their own species, the fallen angels may seek to produce another species through women. Third, Jesus says nothing about the sexual capabilities of angels, leaving open the possibility that they are capable of sexual relations but refrain from such in heaven. Further, the Sodom and Gomorrah story implies that angels have such sexual capabilities and can put on human figures. They were at least perceived by the Sodomites as beings that could be raped (Genesis 19:5).
6. Jude 6 speaks of “angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling.” Unless Jude is speaking of an unknown event, he seems to be referencing the angels of Genesis 6:1-4 who left heaven to live on earth. (Jude seems to be adopting the view of the Apocryphal 1 Enoch 7, which references Genesis 6:1-4 and makes the angel explanation explicit.) This becomes even clearer when Jude compares these angels to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, “which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire" [literally “other flesh”] (Jude 7). We know that Sodom and Gomorrah sexually pursued “other flesh” in that they practiced homosexuality (Genesis 19:5). (Though “men” in the passage were angels, which could also explain the “other flesh.”) What “other flesh” did angels “likewise” pursue? This only makes sense if Jude is referring to the angels of Genesis 6:1-4 pursuing sexual relations with humans. (Recall Genesis 6:3, where God calls man “flesh.”)
7. 1 Peter chapter 3 seems to link angels with perversion in Noah's day:  1 Pet 3:19-20 (KJV) By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. These angels, whom Peter speaks of, are confined to gloomy dungeons or chains of darkness. It is possible that some of these fallen angels have been allowed to plague humankind as demons, while others have remained imprisoned. The account of the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 seems to be the reference Peter had in mind.
8. Early Christian writers believed that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1–4 were fallen angels who engaged in unnatural union with human women, resulting in the begetting of the Nephilim.
9. Most of the earliest bible sources interpret the "sons of God" as angels.

If you like our blog, kindly share your views, suggestions, and comments. Like our Facebook page @BibleWatch, follow us on Twitter @bible_watch and click the Subscribe button above.