In my Generations of Heaven and Earth (pp.36-39) I deal with the odd story of the sons of God marrying the daughters of men, related (but not necessarily genealogically) with the mysterious nephilim, often translated “giants” and much beloved of YouTube fantasists.
I mention the commentator Nahum Sarna’s probably correct opinion that the story was, originally, well known, and therefore only sketched in Genesis, but that its brevity precludes authoritative interpretation now the cultural memory is lost.
There are two major understandings of the “sons of God, daughters of men” part. The first, attested from the second century AD and the commonest Jewish interpretation today, is that the “sons of God” are Seth’s line, and the “daughters of men” are outsiders. This understanding was very convenient for the thesis of my book, which is that God formed Adam amongst an existing human race, as evidenced by archaeology and anthropology.
The second explanation is that introduced in 1 Enoch, in perhaps the second century BC, that “sons of God” means angelic beings, and “daughters of men” Adamic women. In 1 Enoch, this event is linked to the origin of demons. I rejected this view in my book on what seem to me the strong grounds that spiritual beings (other than God’s Holy Spirit) can scarcely have the capacity to impregnate physical women, let alone to marry them and have children. Why in heaven would God have created them thus?
I didn’t mention Jesus’s teaching that, in the age to come, people will not marry but be “like the angels in heaven,” which is most naturally taken as a statement about their nature, rather than their self-restraint.
One fly in my interpretive ointment is that (as I mention in the book) two New Testament passages (2 Peter 2:4-5, and Jude v6) seem to reference 1 Enoch in their mention of angels leaving their appointed place, and conversely it is hard to think of a source for their thinking if they are not hinting at Enoch.
It has recently occurred to me, though, that the gist of the Enoch story may genuinely represent the meaning of Genesis 6, if instead of considering the angelic sons of God as free-living spiritual beings, we see them as spirits parasitising earthly men. It would then be through these men that they illicitly relate sexually to women.
This, at least, would make sense of 1 Enoch’s claim that this was the origin of demons, for such evil spirits could not, reasonably, be the children born to the “daughters of men.” “Spirit possession” is rare in the Old Testament, though all too common in the New. But King Saul was oppressed by just such an evil spirit from heaven, and a lying spirit influences the false prophets in 1 Kings 22.
But perhaps there is also a more proximate clue in the account of the serpent in Eden. This, too, has two alternative interpretations, though it is eminently possible that both are intended. The first is that the serpent is an “unclean” animal with no rightful place in the garden, and that in heeding its (not very natural) speech, Adam is reversing the established order of authority in creation, God > Adam > Eve > creature, so that the creature comes to rule Eve, Eve Adam, and Adam – in effect – God. The second interpretation, as argued by the late Mike Heiser, is that “serpent,” nachash, may etymologically refer to one of the divine council, with a rightful presence in the garden, the ability to speak, and the motive to corrupt humanity.
In fact, Scripture overall affirms elements of both, for biological serpents retain their accursed nature, as in the subdued serpents in Isaiah’s eschatology, the viper that bites Paul, and John’s metaphorical reference to the Jewish leaders as a “brood of vipers.” Yet “that ancient serpent” is also identified as Satan, clearly treated as a senior angelic being. And so it is at least possible to think of the Edenic serpent as a spiritual entity “indwelling” an ordinary creature, and so likewise to draw a parallel with angelic “sons of God,” just a few chapters later, “indwelling” human males to indulge their unnatural desires for Eve’s offspring and incurring more widespread angelic judgement, as in Psalm 82.
That might not convince materialists or Sadducees who reject both angels and demons, but would circumvent the implausibility of disembodied spirits producing sperm and signing marriage certificates. It would make 1 Enoch’s “origin of demons” theme something more credible than demons as the children of women.
Do I accept that interpretation? Actually I’m with Nahum Sarna in regarding the passage as too under-determined for confident interpretation. The purely human version’s recorded history post-dates the NT by a couple of centuries, but 1 Enoch only precedes it by a couple, which still leaves many centuries of separation from the writing of Genesis, let alone whatever event it records.
So if I’m thinking about the history of demon possession, I’m inclined to go with my recent reappraisal. But if I’m trying to support Genealogical Adam and sell books, then it’s humans all the way down!
