One problem is that the reference in it's original language is not so specific as some would like and the text neither dictates nor forbids the interpretation "angelic being". So what we do is read Scripture and decide which one makes sense. For me, angelic being does not for several reasons which I have listed. Another problem that we have here is that the identity of these "sons of God" is not important to the passage. The point is that mankind had become wicked and under the judgment of God.
Insofar as commentaries, I can without hesitation tell you that both sides (actually...all three major interpretations) have been represented. I don't want people to think that all, or even most, major modern commentaries side with the Angelic interpretation because this is simply not true. Some do, other's don't.
Here are just a few examples:
Bruce Waltke notes that “the traditional Christians interpretation since the third century, supported by Luther and Calvin, understood the sons of God and the daughters of men to be the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain, and the sin the mingling of the two seeds, defiling the line”. He also notes that the idea of angels having sexual relations with mortals is extremely ancient and was held in the early apocalyptic literature, but that it does not fit in the context of the Flood (the judgment against humanity). Waltke suggests these were mighty men who were tyrants and demon possessed. (Genesis, Bruce Waltke)
John J. Davis states the interpretation of angels impregnating women is one of a few legitimate interpretations, but that it is impossible to make a definitive claim (Paradise to Prison).
Bill Arnold notes that while some claim the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:8 are angels or fallen angels, this is probably not the intent of the author (Encountering the Book of Genesis).
Michael Green (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) attributes the account in Jude 6 to be the author using a popular myth to illustrate a point.
John MacArthur teaches that these angles were demons who possessed men and under their influence married women (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary).
Well aware of all the works mentioned---[& you forgot Matthews NAC]--& while all of these are credible-- most are either outdated or do not give the detail needed to the debate---here is an outline I wrote for my thesis on this topic--
Who are the “daughters of man”? Human woman (no family classification)
Since
“ha’adam” is used as a generic term for mankind as a whole in verse 1, it should also be used as a generic term for mankind as a whole in v 2. Thus the daughters of ‘man’ are simply human women with no classification or family distinction. In essence, based on the original language & the context--
these daughters cannot be limited to the line of Cain. In fact, based on the preceding chapters mention of ‘daughters’ 9 times (5:4,7,10,13,16,19,22,26, 30)—the Sethite woman would be the logical identity of the these daughters. However, this misses the point of the text. Basically all that it is saying is that more women were born in the pre-flood world, than one might expect based on the genealogies given in Gen 4-5. The Main focus of v 1 is: The multiplication of mankind (population expanse) and in particular the existence of women. Verse 2 explains what specific role these human woman played.
Who are the “sons of God”? Angelic/celestial beings (fallen angels or angels that fell b/c of this sin)
Evidence for angelic interpretation of “sons of God”:
The original language: ‘
Sons of God’ (Hebrew:
bene ha’elohim) is Hebrew idiom for angelic/celestial beings. The only other time the exact phrase is used in Scripture is in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; & the LXX of Deut 32:8—all of which clearly refer to celestial creatures. The closest other use of the phrase is in Ps 29:1 & 89:6, both of which refer to angels. There is no instance in Scripture where this idiom refers to anything other than superhuman entities. The closest argument against this would come with Ps 82. But the exact Hebrew phrase is not used & more modern scholars are opting for a celestial interpretation of this passage as well (see Michael Heiser)
The context of Gen 6:2, 4-In the Hebrew the phrases “sons of God” & the “daughters of men” are meant to be contrasted from each other. The contrast that is implied between ha’adam (mankind, earthly sphere) & bene elohim (divine or heavenly sphere) is achieved in an angelic view but not with a purely human view.
The NT evidence (esp 2 Peter 2:4 & Jude 6, & possibly 1 Pet 3:19, 1 Cor 11:10)-- There is clear historical evidence that the angelic theory of Gen 6 existed during NT authorship (cf
1 Enoch 6-19; Jubilees 4: 15, 22; 5: 1; Damascus Document 2: 17-19; 1QapGen 2: 1; Testament of Reuben 5: -7; Testament of Naphtali 3:5; 2 Barach 56: 10-14)—some of these Jewish writings even describe the angels of Gen 6 as being locked away in chains (similar to 2 Pet 2:4 & Jude 6), while 1 Enoch actually uses the rare term Tartarus that is found in 2 Pet 2:4 (Greek tartarosas). There is no biblical or historical record of any other chained angels that would be relevant to NT readers besides the “sons of God” in Gen 6 (the context & grammatical structure of Rev 20 maintains this). As Thomas R. Schreiner explains in regard to 2 Peter 2:4, “Peter’s readers would naturally have understood the account in terms of such tradition unless Peter indicated clearly that he was departing from the common understanding of his day.” In addition, the simple fact that Peter followed his account of the sinning angels with a description of the flood, allows a natural connection to be drawn between 2 Pet 2:4-5 and Gen 6:1-4. Although Jude does not follow his description of the sinning angels with a reference to the flood, he does show familiarity with 1 Enoch by quoting the work in Jude 14-15. This is important because 1 Enoch treats Genesis 6:1-4 as the sin of the angels. 1 Enoch also describes the fallen angels from Genesis 6 as imprisoned (e.g. 1 En 10:4-7, 12-14; 19:1; 20:2-3; 21:10). Based on this, Jude should offer an explanation to his readers if he is referring to another group of chained angels.
[ie,
Jude talks about angels being chained—he then a few sentences later shows familiarity with 1 Enoch—considering the brevity of Jude’s letter & emphasis of the angelic interpretation of Gen 6 in 1 Enoch, it seems most logical that Jude agrees with 1 Enoch’s identification of the sons of God in Gen 6 as angels]. Further, Jude follows his description with a reference to Sodom & Gomorrah, linking the sexual sin of two with the Greek phrase: ton homoion tropon toutois or “in the same manner as these.” As Schriner explains, “this establish a parallel between the sexual immorality of the angels and the sexual immorality of Sodom.”
The History of interpretation- The angelic view can be dated back to the early
3rd century BC (with parts of 1 Enoch). It was
maintained by Jews & Christians alike until late 2nd century AD, when Rabbi Simeon b. Yohai proposed a human ‘nobles’ interpretation. The Sethite view did not originate until the 3rd century AD, with Julius Africanus’ proposal. It was not popularized until the 4th century AD when Augustine favored it. Regardless, the angelic view dominated the first 300 years of Christian thought being supported by such thinkers as: Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lactantius (to name a few). In addition, the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) actually translates Gen 6 as angels, although some scholars question if this is original.
I have a lot more to add---but like i said i don't need to get sucked into this debate--& i've debated this for so many years--i'm well aware some just won't get past the difficult premise--God bless
