Daughters of God and sons of men

[Skepti Que]

In Gen 6:1,2 Moses speaks of men who had daughters and there were sons of God who married these women
Did the same men who had the daughters have sons?
Did God have daughters?
Did any of the sons of men marry the daughters of God?
And who were all these people?
How do the sons of God and daughters of men relate to the Nephalim?
Were the nephalim the sons of God or the product of the mating of the sons of God with the daughters of men or a different species entirely?
SQ

[Dr. John Nay]

To the best of my knowledge there are two major views of the following passage:

When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, ?My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.? The Nephilim were on the earth in those days ? and also afterward ? when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:1-4, NIV)

View 1: This view proposes that the ?sons of God? are the descendants of Seth and the ?daughters of men? the descendants of Cain. Those of Seth were good and those of Cain were evil. Their union resulted in the Nephilim, men of wickedness, the heroes (in wickedness) of that time just before the flood.

View 2: This view proposes that the ?sons of God? were fallen angels that took possession of the physical bodies of those that were willing to receive them. The ?daughters of men? in this view were women that those possessed to for their wives. This union resulted in the Nephilim, i.e. men of wickedness, the heroes (in wickedness) of that time just before the flood. The word ?Nephilim? means, ?wicked ones? or ?fallen ones?; it does not necessarily have to mean large or giant. In Numbers 13:32-33 it is used to refer to people of great size (giants).

Given in support of this view:

1. ?sons of God? (Hebrew, ?bene elohim?) is translated angels in Job 1:6,2:1,38:7; Daniel 3:25; and in the LXX (Greek translation of the O.T. completed in approx. 250 B.C.)
2. 2 Peter 2:4 speaks of a time when angels sinned:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgement; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)?
if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgement, while continuing their punishment. (2 Peter 2:4-9, NIV) The chronology of this passage (deals with false teachers and their certain judgement) is important is cited in this view as pointing to the time, i.e. before the Flood.

3. In Jude 6 & 7 we read:

And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home ? these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgement on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (NIV) This passage is used to point to the type of sin, i.e. sexual immorality.

Personally, view 2 makes more sense to me, although view 1 has been the accepted view of the Restoration Movement for the most part. I personally believe that view 1 does not have the Scriptural support necessary for it, especially in the immediate context.

View 3: ?

[Skepti Que]

If one holds view two then does that mean that all fallen angels are male?
Could not a fallen angel have possessed the body of a male and bred with a daughter of God? Does God have only sons? Or are males the stronger in resistance to temptation? Also were the only offspring sons? or were there female heroines (of wickedness)?
Having spent fifty years in the RM tradition I must agree that the only explanation I have heard put forth has been the first. It is not, however, something that people spend a lot of time on.

[Dr. John Nay]

Fallen Angels Male: Hebrews 1:14 says, ?Are they not all ministering spirits, ....? It appears (pun intended) that when they take human form, it is the form of a male, e.g. Acts 1:10, ?They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them.? (NIV) (Don?t want to get into another topic, but the NIV is far from my personal favorite, it?s simply carried by the majority of professing Christians today.)

Possessed male body & bred: I think this is a possibility.

Males? resistance of temptation: I don?t know. I do think that temptation is a very individual thing for both male and female. It IS interesting that, at least in the case of Adam and Eve, that it was the woman who was deceived and not the man (1 Timothy 2:14)

Only Sons: I would think not.

First Option: I don?t see this in the context, as neither Seth nor Cain are mentioned, where bene elohim is translated angels in the passages mentioned earlier.

Time spent: I agree that not many people spend time on this, but you did bring it up. Thank you for bringing it up, as I do think that it is important in that many have asked about this passage; at least that has been my experience.

By-the-way, thank you for you help in building an archive. This is all new to me and I appreciate you thought provoking questions and apologize for not being more timely in my replies. I pray my response time improves when the semester is over and I have more time.