There are three major views about the identity of the sons of God. [source][source][source]
1.They were fallen angels who married women. [1] Arguments in favor of this view follow with responses. [source][source][source]
a.The term "sons of God" as it occurs here in Hebrew refers only to angels in the Old Testament ( Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7; et al.). Response: Angels do not reproduce ( Matthew 22:30). [source][source][source]
b. 2 Peter 2:4-5 and Jude 1:6-7 appear to identify angels with this incident. Response: There are no other references to angels in the context here in Genesis. These New Testament passages probably refer to the fall of Satan. [source][source][source]
c.If God could impregnate Mary, spirit beings may be able to do the same thing to human women. Response: Spirit beings cannot do everything that God can do. [source][source][source]
2.They were godly Sethites who married ungodly women. I prefer this view. Arguments in favor of this view follow with responses. [source][source][source]
a.The Old Testament often refers to the godly as God"s sons (e.g, Exodus 4:22). Response: This would have to be an exception to the technical use of "sons of God" as a reference to angels in the Old Testament. [source][source][source]
b.Moses had already established the concept of a godly line in Genesis ( Genesis 4:26). [source][source][source]
c.Sonship based on election is common in the Old Testament. [source][source][source]
d.Warnings against marriages between believers and unbelievers are common in the Pentateuch. [source][source][source]
3.They were dynastic rulers who married women. [2] Fallen angels (demons) may have indwelt or at least controlled them. [3] Arguments in favor of this view and responses follow. [source][source][source]
a.Ancient Near Eastern literature often called kings sons of gods. [source][source][source]
b.The Old Testament refers to administrators (e.g, judges) as gods. Response: Scripture never regards them as descendants of deities, as pagan ancient Near Eastern literature does. [source][source][source]
c.This story is similar to Babylonian antediluvian stories. [source][source][source]
Scholars have debated this passage heatedly, but there is not yet decisive evidence that enables us to make a dogmatic decision as to the correct interpretation. One writer expressed his frustration as follows. [source][source][source]
"What does he [4] mean? I do not know, and I do not believe anyone knows. So far as I am concerned, this passage is unintelligible." [5][source]
Context is very important in any interpretive problem, and I believe it argues for view2in this case. [6] If Song of Solomon , the purpose of this segment appears to be to document the degradation of even the godly, thus justifying the flood. [source][source][source]
Some people who believe that the angelic conflict is a major theme of Scripture have emphasized this passage. I do not believe that the angelic conflict is a major theme of Scripture. I believe the angels are important primarily because of their function as God"s messengers sent forth to minister to people ( Hebrews 1:14). [source][source][source]