saw that the daughters of men
The "daughters of men" are generally understood to be human women, specifically from the lineage of Cain. This phrase highlights the interaction between the divine or semi-divine beings and human beings, which was contrary to God's intended order. The emphasis on "saw" suggests a visual attraction, which is a recurring theme in the Bible where sight leads to temptation and sin, as seen in Genesis 3:6 with Eve.

were beautiful
The beauty of the daughters of men is noted as a significant factor in the sons of God's decision to take them as wives. This reflects a recurring biblical theme where physical beauty can lead to moral and spiritual compromise, as seen in the stories of Samson and Delilah (Judges 16) and David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11). The focus on physical appearance rather than spiritual qualities often leads to negative consequences.

and they took as wives
This phrase indicates a formal union, suggesting that these were not mere acts of lust but involved marriage. However, the marriages were not sanctioned by God, as they were unions between beings of different natures. This act of taking wives parallels the later Israelite warnings against intermarriage with pagan nations, which could lead to idolatry and turning away from God (Deuteronomy 7:3-4).

whomever they chose
The phrase implies a disregard for divine guidance or moral considerations, highlighting the autonomy and rebellion of the "sons of God." This choice reflects a self-centered decision-making process, similar to the autonomy exercised by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. It underscores the theme of human (or semi-divine) rebellion against God's established order, which is a precursor to the judgment that follows in the narrative of the Flood.

• Genesis 6:2 introduces “the sons of God,” a phrase also used of heavenly beings in Job 1:6 and Job 38:7, indicating literal angelic creatures who once dwelt in the presence of the LORD.

• Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 describe angels who “did not stay within their own domain” but sinned and were placed in gloomy chains—a clear echo of the events just before the Flood.

• 1 Peter 3:19-20 links these same spirits to Noah’s day, reinforcing that supernatural beings, not merely human males from Seth’s line, are in view.

• The angelic beings “saw” (Genesis 6:2) in a way that mirrors Eve’s gaze on the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:6), highlighting a lustful fixation.

• 1 John 2:16 warns of “the lust of the eyes,” and James 1:14-15 shows how unchecked desire conceives sin, paralleling the angels’ deliberate indulgence.

• The “daughters of men” points broadly to human women descended from Adam, emphasizing the crossing of a boundary God never authorized (cf. Deuteronomy 7:3-4, where Israel was warned against unlawful unions).

• The word “took” reveals forceful initiative, suggesting domination rather than covenantal love (contrast with Genesis 2:24, God’s pattern for marriage).

• Jesus affirms that angels “in heaven” do not marry (Matthew 22:30), underlining how these fallen beings acted outside their created order.

• The result in Genesis 6:4—the birth of the Nephilim—shows that these unions produced violent giants, explaining the drastic increase of wickedness recorded in Genesis 6:5.

• The phrase underscores unrestrained, selective desire driven by self-will, not by God’s guidance (Proverbs 3:5-7).

• Such autonomy matches the tragic refrain “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6).

• This abuse of choice highlights why God’s judgment through the Flood was both righteous and necessary (Genesis 6:7, 13).

Genesis 6:2 portrays real angelic beings who lustfully crossed God-ordained boundaries, seized human wives, and modeled a rebellious independence that spread corruption across the earth. These illicit unions escalated human depravity, prompting the Flood. The passage warns every generation that disregarding God’s design for marriage and authority invites judgment, while obedience preserves God’s created order.

The Jewish interpreters, who well understood the uses of their own language, are right in the main point that the phrase "sons of the Elohim" conveys no idea of moral goodness or piety. Elohim constantly means mighty ones (Exodus 15:11, marg.). (Comp. Exodus 12:12, marg., Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8-9, where it is translated judges; Exodus 22:28, 1Samuel 2:25, where also it is translated judge.) In Job 1:6 the "sons of Elohim" are the nobles, the idea being that of a king who at his durbar gathers his princes round him; and, not unnecessarily to multiply examples, the "sons of the Elim," the other form of the plural, is rightly translated mighty ones in Psalm 29:1. . . .

Parallel Commentaries ...