Who I think the "sons of God" are in Genesis 6:2.
Angels are described as being spirits (Hebrews 1:14) who are sexless, that
is they will neither marry nor will be given in marriage (Matthew 22:30).
(But at least two of them have male names.) I have trouble with the idea
of angels mating with humans for two serious reasons; redemption and contradiction.
Angels cannot be redeemed (Hebrews 2:14-16, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6). Bloodlines
are extremely important in our religion because the Bible places great importance
upon them. Our redeemer had to be of the bloodline of David, both in blood
and law. If unredeemable angels indeed mated with humans (after the flood
of course, [Goliath?]) then it is conceivable that some portion of us have
angelic blood coursing through our veins. If so, are half breeds redeemable?
I have listened to Chuck Missler’s argument for the interbreeding of angels
with the daughters of men. He is a clever man but his argument is not airtight.
The phrase "sons of God" does refer to angels most of the time in the Old
Testament. Job 1:6 for instance, the KJV translates the phrase "sons of God"
as just that "sons of God" when clearly referring to angels. More modern
translations, which in my opinion pay more careful attention to context,
translate "sons of God" as "angels" in that same verse. Yet the NIV translates
in Genesis 6:2 as "sons of God" because of the controversy.
Jude 6 according to the NKJV speaks of "the angels who did not keep their
proper domain," and according to some say that this implies that the angels
took on fleshly bodies and married human women as described in Genesis 6:2.
(Do angels really have the power to do this? What about the incarnation of
Christ? How would that be so special then if mere angels could clothe themselves
in flesh as well?) But I think this is reading into the text something that
isn’t really there. I think it refers to their positions of authority in
Heaven as translated by the NIV & ASV. Their intended "dwelling" was
Heaven and their authority was based upon their position there. I don’t see
anything here that screams that the "dwelling" referred to here is flesh.
Humans are also referred to as "sons" in the Old Testament (Isaiah 43:6).
I think it is here that this dilemma can be solved. Interpreting the "sons
of God" in Genesis 6:2 as being the descendants from the line of Seth is
consistent with the context of the passage and with how God refers to men
in Isaiah 43:6. I think the comparison of the "sons of God" with the "daughters
in men" in Genesis 6:2 is showing a dichotomy between the union of godly
men with sinful women (2 Corinthians 6:14). Interpreting the "sons of God"
in Genesis 6:2 as human avoids angelic bloodline problem and contradiction
it would create between Matthew 22:30 and Genesis 6:2. Any translation which
creates contradictions, such as a the marriage of angels with the daughters
of men when Jesus said angels do not marry, must be rejected.