The great mystery woven into this script is the completely unnatural relationship involving the “sons of God” and “the daughters of men.” Why was there an attraction here? Verse two gives us our only clue: “. . . the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair…” The Hebrew word translated “fair” in this verse is TOWB (tobe). It can mean: “Good, beautiful, favor, gracious, joyful, kindly, pleasant, precious, or sweet.” In verb form, it means “to do better, to be or make better.” TOWB is the word used in Genesis 26:7 when speaking of Rebekah, saying that she was “fair to look upon.” It appears that the “sons of God” were attracted to the “daughters of men” in much the same fashion as men were and are attracted to them. Does this mean that the “daughters of men” were mutually attracted to the “sons of God”? This could be a rather logical conclusion, for it is consensus that angels are attractive, even beautiful. Judges 13:6 speaks of an angel of God’s countenance as “very terrible.”
The Hebrew word is YARE (yaw-ray), meaning “to revere,” even to be “astonished unto fear.” A supernatural brilliance could cause this reaction. In Acts 6:15, the face of the dying martyr Stephen was “. . . as it had been the face of an angel.” “A bright and attractive countenance” must surely be allowed between the lines here. It is a small step for us to conclude that the “sons of God” and “the daughters of men” had a mutual admiration society. Also, there is no way for us to get away from the sexual implications of these verses. Undoubtedly the “sons of God” had human-like proclivities and abilities. Could these conjugal unions of angels and humans produce children that were more than just the normal – natural? The answer lies in verse four, which explains that “giants” of remarkable abilities were the progenetic results. Could this progeny have instituted in them a peculiar DNA? We will address this in some detail later in our study.
James R. Spillman, in his masterful book, A Conspiracy of Angelsii, presents the persuasive possibility that the scapegoat is not actually a type of Christ. In English the goat is called scapegoat and in Hebrew he is called Azazel. Spillman describes this event and its meaning perfectly.