1. The Four Views of the Sons of God Having Ability to Mate with Humans Genesis Ch 6:1-8
Sons of God as Human Rulers
B.Sons of God as Human Rulers
The sons of God could be understood as human rulers—kings. Thus, “daughters of men” may refer to the harems of these kings. In this case, the sin in question would be polygamy. The offspring would be humans born into the kingly line.
The earliest date for this viewpoint is the mid-second century AD. This view developed as a result of the belief that angels could not engage in sexual intercourse.
Evidence for this view comes from the reference to the Davidic king as the son of God in Psalm 2:7 (compare 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 17:13). It is further supported by other ancient Near Eastern beliefs that kings were divine or semi-divine.
However, the major weakness of this view is its inability to account for the unusual offspring, who seem to be the nephilim (Gen 6:4; compare Num 13:33). Also, while ancient Near Eastern parallels refer to individual kings as sons of the Gods, there are no instances where the plural phrase (“sons of God”) refers to human royalty. Furthermore, while ancient Near Eastern cultures considered their kings to be divine or quasi-divine, no ancient Near Eastern evidence exists for an aristocratic household at large being considered divine sons.
C.Sons of God as Godly Descendants of Seth
In the fourth century AD, Augustine argued that the sons of God are the godly male descendants of Seth. Here, the “daughters of men” represent the ungodly females of Cain’s line. The sin is the intermarriage of godly and ungodly humans, and the offspring are humans.
There are several weaknesses to this view. First, nowhere in the Old Testament are Sethites identified as the sons of God. Second, this view forces two divergent meanings on the Hebrew word ʾadam in Genesis 6:1–2: the term would have to mean “mankind” in Genesis 6:1, but a specific group of humans—the Cainites—in Genesis 6:2. Additionally, this view implies that all the women of Cain’s line were ungodly, whereas all the men of Seth’s line were godly. While this might be averted by noting that no law existed prohibiting intermarriage of any kind prior to the great flood, this would in turn undermine the entire premise of the view. Also, since only Noah and his family were considered godly in the days of the flood, we can presume that the vast majority of Seth’s descendants were far from godly; Seth had more than one descendant (Gen 5:7). Lastly, the daughters born in the previous chapter of Genesis were born to Seth’s line, not Cain’s—the precise opposite of what this explanation requires.
D. New Testament Views
Two passages in the New Testament may allude to this tradition. In 2 Peter 2:4, God “did not spare the angels who sinned, but held them captive in Tartarus with chains of darkness and handed them over to be kept for judgment.” The next verse situates the sin and punishment at the time of the flood: God “did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a proclaimer of righteousness, and seven others.” The writer connects this illustration to “licentious ways” (2 Pet 2:2) and “defiling lust” and despising of authority (2 Pet 2:10). More specifically, he strikes an analogy with the sexual sins of Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Pet 2:6–7). Thus, the passage seems to indicates angelic sin of a sexual nature at the time of the flood.
The letter of Jude (Jude 5–7) takes the same view, using some of the same language. While Jude does not refer to Noah and the Flood as 2 Peter does (2 Pet 2:5), both passages reference the same episode. Second Peter and Jude demonstrate that the episode of Genesis 6 involved “angels,” and a decision made by those divine beings to cross a divinely ordained boundary—God’s authority or out of their proper dwelling.