Matthew Henry wrote:
Mixed marriages (Gen.6:2): The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness.
The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done, both for the preservation of their own purity and in detestation of the apostasy. They intermingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain: They took them wives of all that they chose. But what was amiss in these marriages?
(1.) They chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair, which was all they looked at.
(2.) They followed the choice which their own corrupt affections made: they took all that they chose, without advice and consideration. But,
(3.) That which proved of such bad consequence to them was that they married strange wives, were unequally yoked with unbelievers, 2Co.6:14. This was forbidden to Israel, Deu.7:3, Deu.7:4. It was the unhappy occasion of Solomon's apostasy (1Ki.11:1-4), and was of bad consequence to the Jews after their return out of Babylon, Ezra 9:1-2.
Note, Professors of religion, in marrying both themselves and their children, should make conscience of keeping within the bounds of profession. The bad will sooner debauch the good than the good reform the bad. Those that profess themselves the children of God must not marry without his consent, which they have not if they join in affinity with his enemies.
This follows so much more closely to Biblical principles and Biblical teaching than that of fallen angels taking wives for themselves.
I admit, it seems more interesting that demons could take a wife, and it lends much more "credibility" to those fabrications of Hollywood movies whereby demons invade earth to destroy it.
It makes far more sense that Satan used the tactic of infiltration to destroy from within. A house on a bad foundation will always fall. And, as Henry pointed out, Solomon fell prey to that tactic as well. If at first you succeed, use the same tactic.
Furthermore, the concept that women and demons can engage in actual, physical sexual intercourse mus be rejected, for several reasons.
First, demons are nonsexual beings. As a unique category of non-material beings, they are incapable of having sexual relationships with corporeal sexual beings, producing biological offspring. As Dr. J. Sidlow Baxter put it, Let us be frank and explicit. The angels are bodiless, purely spiritual beings, and sexless. Being bodiless and sexless means that they are without sex organs, and that they are therefore absolutely incapable of sensuous experiences or sexual processes; nor are they capable of procreation or reproduction in any way whatever.
Nowhere in Scripture is there any reference to fallen angels being able to produce human bodies. And nowhere does Scripture affirm that the bodies Gods angels take on are capable of sexual reproduction. To say that demons can create real bodies with DNA and fertile sperm to say that demons have creative power, which is an exclusively divine prerogative. To create is the prerogative of the Creator, not of any creature, angelic or human. While a biblical world view would allow for fallen angels to possess human beings, it does not support the notion that a demon possessed person can produce offspring that are part demon, part human.
Second, if demons could have sex with women in ancient times, we have no assurance that they cannot do so in modern times. If demons do, in fact, have the capability of creating real bodies with real sperm, we have no assurance that the people we encounter every day are fully human.
Third, it is interesting to note that in the account of an event which occurred 800 years after the Flood, the term Nephilim was used to describe the descendants of Anak (Num. 13:33). While proponents of the mutant theory sometimes point to the phrase and also afterward (Gen. 6:4) to try to deal with this problem, they only succeed in transferring the same problem to another passage. Furthermore, Numbers 13:33 poses a special difficulty for the mutant theory. Moses authored both Genesis and Numbers, yet Moses gave no indication that Nephilim means something different in Numbers than in Genesis. This entails either that not all mutants were destroyed in the Flood, in which case the Scripture is in error with respect to the extent of the judgment, or that mutants were produced again after the Flood, in which case we actually have scriptural precedent by which we might hypothesize that such mutants are being produced again today.
Fourth, it is worth noting that Genesis 1 makes it clear that all of Gods living creations were designed to reproduce according to their own kinds. Mutants would have no place Gods expressed creative purposes. Some have argued that angels may have been created originally with an inherent capacity to become human, but the Bible nowhere teaches this notion and Genesis 1 militates against it. Others have argued that because demon-humans had no place in Gods expressed creative order, they would have conspired to contaminate the human race in order to thwart Gods plan for humanitys redemption. Therefore, God brought the Flood for the purpose of restoring the purity of the human bloodline. But this presupposes that Satan is capable of usurping Gods prerogative in creation, which is not possible as I have already pointed out.
Fifth, the scriptural perspective is that the Flood was solely a judgment on humanity, as opposed to a judgment on fallen angels or demon-humans.
Sixth, the mutant theory creates very serious questions pertaining to the spiritual accountability of the demon-humans, and their relation to humanitys redemption. Angels rebelled individually, are judged individually, and no plan of redemption is offered to them in Scripture. On the other hand, humans fell corporately in Adam, are judged corporately in Adam, and are redeemed corporately through the second Adam, Jesus Christ. We have no biblical way for determining what category the demon-humans fit into whether they are to be judged as angels or as men, or more significantly, whether they might be among those for whom Christ died.
Seventh, no other verses in Scripture explicitly support the view that demons can have sexual relations with women. While advocates point to 1 Peter 3:19-20, 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6 to support this theory, a quick review of these passages demonstrates that they do not establish the position. In Jude 1:6,7 is a simple comparison, not angels and humans intermingling, but factually and historically both "indulged in gross immorality." It was man that "went after strange flesh." Angels don't have flesh. Reading the account of Sodom and Gomorrah you see there that actual human beings, not fallen angels, are involved. Just as the angels that fell and sin and will be severely judged, so will these men, also fallen and sinful, will be so judged. There's nothing to suggest here that angels can have sexual relations with human beings. Nor is that ever suggested anywhere in Scripture. The plain reading of the account in Gen. 6 is that it is speaking of human beings only - people (as has already be pointed out).
The better interpretation is that sons of God simply refers to the godly descendants of Seth, and daughters of men to the ungodly descendants of Cain. Dr. Gleason Archer explains,
What Genesis 6:1-2,4 records is the first occurrence of mixed marriage between believers and unbelievers, with the characteristic result of such unions: complete loss of testimony for the Lord and a total surrender of moral standards. In other words, sons of God in this passage were descendants of the godly line of Seth. Instead of remaining true to God and loyal to their spiritual heritage, they allowed themselves to be enticed by the beauty of ungodly women who were daughters of men that is, of the tradition and example of Cain.
Critics of this view say that sometimes the Bible refers to angels as sons of God; therefore sons of God in this passage may refer to angels. Yet, that term is explicitly applied to good angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). The only other references applying the term or a related term to angels are in Psalms 29:1 and 89:6 7. In all of these places the term appears to refer to angels who praise and glorify God. Archer notes, The term sons of God (ben elohim transliterated from Hebrew) is used in the Old Testament of either angels or men who are true believers, committed to the service of God. The use of the Hebrew term to refer to humans who love and worship God is well established in Scripture (see, for example, Deut. 14:1; 32:5; Ps. 73:15; Hos. 1:10).
Another objection is that the Nephilim are considered to be giants. But, the Hebrew is more often and contextually translated men of renown. The NlV Study Bible note for Genesis 6:4 says, In mens eyes they were the heroes of old, men of renown, but in Gods eyes they were sinners (fallen ones) ripe for judgment. Even if the Hebrew could be translated giants, there is no necessity of giving the Nephilim demonic paternity. While such concepts are common in Greek mythology, they are foreign to a Christian worldview.
