The phrase “son(s) of God” is used very differently in the New Testament compared to the Old Testament. This post is about this phrase, variations of it, and how they are used in the Holy Bible (in the King James Version (1769 edition), as well as the Geneva translation (1587 edition) and the Bishops translation (1568 edition) (Note the spelling throughout). This post also includes a defense of the conclusions reached.
In the New Testament the phrase “sonnes of God” is used in the Bishops translation in Luke 20:36, John 1:12, Romans 8:14,Romans 8:19, Romans 8:21, Romans 8:16, Luke 20:36, Romans 8:21, Philippians 2:15, 1 John3:1-2 and Galatians 3:26. In the Geneva translation it is found in Luke 20:36, Romans 8:21,Romans 8:19, Romans 8:14, Philippians 2:15, 1 John 3:1-2, John 1:12, and Galatians 3:26. The phrase “sons of God” in the KJV is found in John 1:12, Romans 8:14, Romans 8:19, Philippians 2:15, and 1 John 3:1-2. In the KJV the verses of Romans 8:16, Luke 20:36, Romans 8:21, and Galatians 3:26 use the phrase “children of God” instead. The phrase “Son of God”* is used in many places throughout the New Testament (Matthew 4:3, Matthew 4:6,Matthew 8:29, Matthew 14:33, Matthew 26:63, Matthew 27:40,Matthew 27:43, Matthew 27:54, Mark 1:1, Mark 3:11, Mark 15:39,Luke 1:39, Luke 3:38, Luke 4:3, Luke 4:9, Luke 4:41, Luke 8:28,Luke 22:70, John 1:34, John 1:49, John 3:18, John 5:25, John 9:35, John 10:36, John 11:4, John 11:27, John 19:7, John 20:31,Acts 8:37, Acts 9:20, Romans 1:4, 2 Corinthians 1:19, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 4:13, Hebrews 4:14, Hebrews 6:6, Hebrews 7:3, Hebrews 10:29, 1 John 3:8, 1 John 4:15, 1 John 5:5, 1 John 5:10,1 John 5:12, 1 John 5:13, 1 John 5:20, and Revelation 2:18).
In the Old Testament the phrase “Son of God” is used only in Daniel 3:25. The phrase “sons of God”* is used in Genesis 6:2, and Genesis 6:4 in the Geneva and Bishop translations, and in the KJV it is also used in Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 (in the verses in Job the Geneva and Bishops translations use the phrase “children of God” instead).
So What Is The Point Of All This?
In the Old Testament the phrases “sons of God” and “children of God” always refer to Angels (or at least beings created by God other than Mankind).
In the New Testament the phrases “sons of God and “children of God” always refer to those who have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
Also, the phrase “Son of God” always refers to Jesus Christ (at least in the New Testament).
A Defense of The Aforementioned Statements
The Hebrew words used for “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2,Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 are H1121 for son and H430 for God (in Strong‘s Hebrew and Greek Concordance). These are the same two Hebrew words used together in each of these verses. Now this is noteworthy because many commentaries such as the three I specifically checked (Matthew Poole’s, the Geneva Bible translators notes, and the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown) claim that the “sons of God” mentioned in the above verses of Genesis were merely men from the descendents of Seth, and they claim that the “daughters of men” listed in Genesis were also merely men (women, I know, but I mean mankind) from the descendents of Cain. Matthew Poole pointed to verses such as Deuteronomy 14:1, Deuteronomy 32:19, and Isaiah 1:2 to support that claim by pointing out that those considered the “sons of God“ in these verses are merely men. Those described as children and sons of God in those verses in Deuteronomy and Isaiah are merely men, but those described by the phrase "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2-4 are not. Why is the view of these commentators incorrect? First, it does not make logical sense. Why would the breeding of mere men make giants? Second, the verses used to support their view do not have the phrase “son of God” there are other words in between, which changes the meaning. Third, the word for God in Deut. 14:1, Deut. 32:19, andIsaiah 1:2 is H3068 in strong’s concordance not H430. Forth, this violates the principal of “letting scripture interpret scripture.” Even these three commentaries clearly state in Job 1:6 that “sons of God” means Angels, but they seem afraid to admit such a thing regarding the Genesis 6:2-4 account. Fifth, there is no Biblical support for such a supposition, as the one supposed by these commentators (this should send up a red flag). Sixth, this theory presents a false dichotomy which assumes that everyone at that time was either of God’s chosen people, the descendents of Seth or of God’s unchosen people, the descendents of Cain. It fails to consider Adam’s other sons and daughters (Cain and Seth’s brothers, Genesis 5:4).
Perhaps one reason they shy away from the clearest and true interpretation is that the claim of Angles procreating leaves them in confusion. Some point to Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." They say "see angels never marry" but they neglect the qualifier "in heaven." If Angels can appear as men as they did in Genesis chapter 19 (Genesis 19:1-5 note that they are called angels in verse 1, but the people thought they were men in verse 5) than is it any stretch that fallen angels who rebel against God are able to procreate? No it is not. It appears that nearly all writers of antiquity believed this**, and that the New Testament writers suggest this more than they oppose it (Matthew 25:41, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6). But regardless of all other points the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2-4 are most clearly understood by the same references to "sons of God" as shown in Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7.
*(with different spellings for “Son”, such as "Sonne" in some translations and older editions)
** In old writings such as The Works of Josephus (The Antiquities of the Jews) in book 1 chapter 3 section 1, Jubilees 4:15, Jubilees 5:6, 1 Enoch 6:1-2, The Works of Philo (On the Giants) the beginning of section 2, and many others including post New Testament Church leaders (see above link for a list of them). However, as we know, something is not true because men believe it, but only because the Bible teaches it. These writings mentioned above in no way approach canonicity and all that comes with it (exempli gratia, authority).