SONS OF GOD

Verse one:  "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Verse two:  that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 
Verse three:  And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 
Verse four:  There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown" (Gen. 6:1-4).

For years, I have heard "expert theologians" debate this passage of Scripture, and more often than not, the discussions ended up with both sides believing the others were idiots.  Like most points of disagreement, I say that if it hasn't been settled in the past 2000 years, I would be an arrogant fool to assume I could resolve the issue.  And yet, here I am writing about the identity of the "sons of God."  Oh well, the "fool" label most likely fits this writer anyway. 

As I read this passage, I observe that:
     1)  men had daughters (v. 1).
     2)  the "sons of God" married the daughters of men (v. 2).
          *  biblical marriage is between a man and a woman (Gen. 2:18-25).
          *  angels do not marry (Mt. 22:30).
          *  God's Spirit does strive with man, not with angels (v. 3).
          *  man's lifespan is numbered; not that of angels (v. 3).
     3)  in addition to men, daughters, sons of God, there were ALSO giants (v. 4).
          *  "giants" is from the Hebrew נָפִיל (nĕphiyl), (plural -  Nephilim).
          *  the "giants" were the offspring of Anak (Num. 3:17-33).
             - Anak was a man who lived in Canaan AFTER the Exodus! 
             - perhaps that explains why there were no "giants" mentioned in Abraham's day.

Some have said that because of the passages in the Book of Job (1:6; 2:1; 38:7), that "sons of God" must always refer to angelic beings.  That is not necessarily true.  There are at least three kinds of "sons of God" which are identified in the Bible: 
     1)  angelic beings (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).
     2)  God's only begotten Son (Ps. 2:7; Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; etc.).
     3)  born again believers in Christ (Jn. 1:12; Rom. 8:14, 19; Phil. 2:15; 1 Jn. 3:1-2; etc.).

An alternative view which seems more likely, at least to me, is that the line of Seth would be recognized as being "of God," while the line of Cain might well be viewed as being "of Satan." 

Does it really matter?  If not, then why argue about it?