Did Angels Have Sex with Women based on Genesis 6? – Part 3 Source of Fallen Angels Myth

1. Angels Are Not Equipped to Procreate

Reproduction was designed by God. The first man was called “Adam,” which means “earthling,” because he was made from the dust of the ground. When God formed all of His physical creatures, He limited their reproduction compatibility to the same “kind.” Every creature of God only reproduces after its kind. Breeding is not possible with a different kind. Dogs and cats cannot breed. Humans and animals cannot cross breed. The reason is the DNA is not compatible.

Angels are not only of a different “kind,” they are not even of this physical creation.

Angels are “spirits” as Peter indicated.76 Paul also referred to the obedient angels as “attendant spirits commissioned for those on the threshold of inheriting the deliverance.”[1]Jesus clearly stated that angels do not “marry or are given in marriage.”[2]He also said that just before the flood, people were “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage” [3] and were caught unaware by the flood. He was referring to the sons of Seth marrying pagan women and the associated feasting. He was not referring to fornicating angels.

2. The Source of the “Fallen Angels” Myth – The Book of Enoch

The myth of fallen angels procreating with women is ancient. The first known mention among the Jews comes from the Book of Enoch, written around 250BC. It is an apocalyptic piece, typical of certain groups like the Essenes. The writer of this book falsely claimed to be Enoch, written after God took him. It contains many fanciful and ridiculous claims. Enoch was allegedly caught up to the angelic realm, where he was shown many things, even becoming a go between for the fallen angels and God. They begged for mercy through Enoch, but were refused and condemned to eternal punishment. In his travels in the angelic realm, Enoch was shown how the solar system works in minute detail. There are so many things in this book that are absurd from a scientific standpoint, it is incredible that so many Christians think it should be included as Scripture. No doubt those who think this have not read through the book, but only heard excerpts from it. Some of the more preposterous claims are as follows:

  • The offspring of the fornicating angels were 3000 ells in height. An “ell” is a synonym for a cubit. It is the length between the elbow and fingertip, about 18 inches. So, these giants were about 4,500 feet tall![4]
  • These supposed great giants began eating all of men’s food, and when that quickly ran out, they began eating all the people, birds, and animals (even though meat was not food before the flood). Then, when those provisions became scarce, they started eating each other![5]
  • The Book of Enoch claims that “The women also of the angels who went astray shall become sirens.”[6] “Sirens” were pagan mythological creatures, birds with the faces of women, whose singing allegedly seduces sailors.
  • The earth is flat, the heaven is a hemisphere that rests on the edges of the earth.[7]
  • The sun is carried across the sky in a chariot blown by the wind. At dawn, it comes through a window in the sky in the east and then sets through a window in the west. Then once the sun sets in the west, it takes a 90 degree right turn, and moves around the earth by way of the north until it gets back to its place in the east, where it repeats the cycle daily.[8] 
  • The revolution of the stars causes lightning. Other stars change their form into lightning.[9]
  • God has a place of torment for punishing some of the stars of heaven because they failed to rise in the night sky at their appointed times.[10] Like the pagans, the writer of Enoch thought the visible stars were living beings.

 Other blatant inaccuracies:

  • There are exactly 364 days to a solar year.[11] 
  • The end of the world and last judgment would occur 70 generations from Noah.[12] (It was 77 generations from Adam to Christ).[13]

The book of Enoch is Jewish mysticism, paganism (evident in the claim that the wives of the fallen angels became “sirens” and the similarity of the “fallen angels” to pagan gods). The Cabalistic-like philosophy found in Philo of Alexandria is also found in 1 Enoch. “And all the waters shall be joined with the waters: that which is above the heavens is the masculine, and the water which is beneath the earth is the feminine.”[14]

Justification for taking the Book of Enoch as inspired Scripture is often claimed from Jude. He is alleged to have quoted from it as Scripture.

Jude 1:14-15 NKJV

14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, 15 to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” 

While these words do indeed appear in the first chapter of the Book of Enoch, this is not proof that Jude quoted from this book. Rather, it only indicates that both Jude and the author of the Book of Enoch were familiar with a genuine prophecy of Enoch. No doubt, the author of the Book of Enoch included a genuine prophecy of Enoch’s to add credibility to his book of fiction. It is important to note that Jude did not say, “it is written,” but “Enoch prophesied saying…” This very likely referred to an oral tradition.

3. Angels are Not “Sons of God”

The only verses in the Bible that call angels “sons of God” are three verses in Job. This is translated from the modern Hebrew text, the oldest copies of which are from around 1000AD. The much earlier Greek Septuagint does not refer to angels as “sons of God” in Job or anywhere else. And as we have already seen, the Septuagint has proven quite helpful and reliable regarding this issue.

Genesis 6:2 LXX

2 ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅτι καλαί εἰσιν, ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας ἀπὸ πασῶν, ὧν ἐξελέξαντο. (the sons of God)

Job 1:6 LXX

6 Καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἦλθον οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ παραστῆναι ἐνώπιον τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ ὁ διάβολος ἦλθε μετ᾿ αὐτῶν. (the angels of God)

Job 2:1 LXX

1 Εγένετο δὲ ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ παραστῆναι ἔναντι Κυρίου, καὶ ὁ διάβολος ἦλθεν ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν παραστῆναι ἐναντίον τοῦ Κυρίου. (the angels of God)

Job 38:7 LXX

7 ὅτε ἐγενήθησαν ἄστρα, ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί μου. (all the angels of mine)

Nowhere in the entire Greek Old Testament or Greek New Testament are angels referred to as the “sons of God.” The Hebrew text probably became corrupt in these verses of Job sometime after the second century as a letter written by Origen to Julius Africanus in the second century indicates. 

Origen did a great deal of textual criticism work, comparing various manuscripts and translations of the Old Testament available in his day – about two centuries after Christ’s death. Origen compiled the Hexapla – a six column parallel Old Testament containing all of the Old Testament versions available to Christians in the second century. The six columns were:

  1. The second century Hebrew text
  2. The Hebrew text transliterated using Greek characters
  3. Aquila’s translation
  4. Symmachus’ translation
  5. The Septuagint
  6. Theodotion’s translation

In his letter to Julius Africanus, Origen discussed the differences he had found between the Septuagint and the Hebrew manuscripts of his day. Here is what he wrote about the first chapter of Job.

“Then in Job, the words from ‘It is written, that he shall rise again with those whom the Lord raises,’ to the end, are not in the Hebrew, and so not in Aquila’s edition; while they are found in the Septuagint and in Theodotion’s version, agreeing with each other at least in sense. And many other places I found in Job where our copies [the LXX used by the Christian churches] have more than the Hebrew ones, sometimes a little more, and sometimes a great deal more: a little more, as when to the words, ‘Rising up in the morning, he offered burnt-offerings for them according to their number,’ they [the Jews] add, ‘one heifer for the sin of their soul;’ and to the words, ‘The angels of God came to present themselves before God, and the devil came with them,’ ‘from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.’ Again, after ‘The Lord gave, the LORD has taken away,’ the Hebrew has not, ‘It was so, as seemed good to the Lord.’ Then our copies [the LXX] are very much fuller than the Hebrew, when Job’s wife speaks to him, from ‘How long wilt thou hold out? And he said, Lo, I wait yet a little while, looking for the hope of my salvation,’ down to ‘that I may cease from my troubles, and my sorrows which compass me.’ For they have only these words of the woman, ‘But say a word against God, and die.’”[15]

Several points are worth considering here:

  • The LXX with which Origen was familiar (which he called “our copies”) certainly had “angels of God” and not “sons of God” in Job 1:6.
  • While he was comparing this with the Hebrew and other translations of the Hebrew, he made no mention of the reading, “sons of God” which is in the modern Hebrew text.
  • Origen noted that the Hebrew differs from the LXX in verse 7 “from going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.” The LXX has, “strolling around the earth and what is near under heaven.”

Origen was not only noting what was added by the Hebrew or missing from the Hebrew (compared to the LXX) but also variant readings. Yet, after quoting verse 6 as “angels of God” he made no mention of any variant reading in the Hebrew (or in any of the other Hebrew translations he was comparing). Apparently, the much older Hebrew text at Origen’s disposal, as well as the other translations of the Hebrew, also had “angels of God” instead of “sons of God” as in the modern Masoretic text. Not only does the LXX not refer to angels as “sons of God,” but apparently neither did the more ancient copies of the Hebrew. The change to “sons of God” in the Hebrew text must have occurred between the second and fifth centuries, where “sons of God” shows up for the first time in the Latin Vulgate.

Every Old Testament quotation in the book of Hebrews is from the Septuagint, including some passages that do not appear at all in the modern Hebrew text. In Hebrews, Paul argued strongly for a dichotomy between the sons of God and angels. In Hebrew culture and the Scriptures, “sons” automatically implies an inheritance.[16] Paul’s argument rests entirely on the fact that the Septuagint nowhere refers to the angels as “sons of God.”

Hebrews 1:4-7,14 LGV

4 having become so much better than the messengers, since inheriting a much more excellent name compared to them.

5 For to which of the messengers has He ever said, “You are My Son, today I have fathered You”? And again, “I will be to Him a Father, and He will be to Me a Son”?

6 Yet again, whenever He should be leading the Firstborn into the Land, He says, “And give worship to Him all the messengers of God.”

7 And indeed unto the messengers He says: “… the One making His messengers spirits, and His servants a blazing fire. …

13 When has He ever said to any of the messengers, “Sit on my right side until I should place Your enemies under your feet”?

14 Are they not all attendant spirits commissioned for those on the threshold of inheriting the deliverance?

Paul’s point in verses 4 and 5 is that Christ’s title as “Son” makes him greater than the angels. The reason is that a “son” is the heir of the inheritance. Notice in verse 14 Paul wrote that angels are servants to the real sons of God, those on the verge of receiving the inheritance. These are the heirs of God. The angels are NOT heirs of God and are therefore not “sons of God.” The angels are contrasted with God’s “Son” who has the inheritance.

Paul’s entire point in this passage rests on the Septuagint. Verse 6 quotes Deuteronomy 32:44 from the Septuagint, a sentence that does not appear at all in the Hebrew Bible. Had he or his audience been familiar with the reading we find in our modern Hebrew text of Job, they would have immediately challenged his argument that angels are not sons of God.

Hebrews 2:5-18 NKJV

2 For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels

6 But one testified in a certain place, saying: “What is man that You are mindful of him, Or the son of man that You take care of him? 

7 You have made him a little lower than the angels; You have crowned him with glory and honor, And set him over the works of Your hands.

8 You have put all things in subjection under his feet.” For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him. 

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. 

10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 

11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren

12 saying: “I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You.”

13 And again: “I will put My trust in Him.” And again: “Here am I and the children  whom God has given Me.” 

14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 

15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 

16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 

17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 

18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted. 

There is no question that Paul drew a clear dichotomy between the angels of God and the “sons” of God. Jesus Christ was “the Son of God,” and those who are in Christ are also “sons of God” and “children of God” by adoption. Paul’s point in verses 16-17 was that angels are not Jesus’ “brethren” and are therefore not “sons of God.” Jesus and believers are all “brethren” (fellow “sons” and “daughters” of God). He is the “only begotten Son of God” because He was literally begotten out of God,[17] as “the firstbegotten of all creation.”[18] We are “sons of God” by union with Him. The angels could never be “sons of God.” And this passage proves it beyond a shadow of doubt. Paul’s entire point rests on the fact that the Septuagint always distinguishes between the “sons of God” (humans) and the “angels of God.” We are therefore compelled to follow the readings in the LXX (particularly in Job), otherwise Paul’s whole argument collapses.

Time and time again, the Greek Old Testament (LXX) proves superior to the Masoretic Hebrew text in those places where the text reflects on the person of Christ,[19] and many other important doctrines of Scripture. As noted earlier, the book of Hebrews quotes the LXX exclusively, and several of the points made in Hebrews depend on the Greek version, and cannot be made from the Hebrew text in existence today.[20]

4. The Early Church

It is indisputable that some of the early Christians believed the fornicating angels theory. The earliest Christian writers to espouse it were Justin and Tertullian. Justin made only passing reference to it. But Tertullian expounded on the subject when discussing the veiling of virgins. However, it was by no means the universal view of early Christianity.

An early work, titled, The Recognitions of Clement, claimed to be the work of Clement of Rome who lived in the first century. The authorship is disputed by some scholars. However, it certainly predates Origen, since he quoted parts of it.[21] That would place it somewhere between AD 70 and AD 230. Clement states plainly that the “sons of God” were men.

“All things therefore being completed which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the waters, and the human race also having multiplied, in the eighth generation, righteous men, who had lived the life of angels [messengers], being allured by the beauty of women, fell into promiscuous and illicit connections with these.”[22]

Origen (AD 185-254), writing against an enemy of early Christianity, Celsus, pointed out that Celsus’ understanding of the fornicating angels myth was based on the Jewish Book of Enoch which was not widely accepted in the Christian churches. Celsus claimed that Jesus was not the only begotten Son of God. He attempted to prove this by appealing to the story of the fornicating angels in the book of Enoch, which he claimed were also “sons of God,” thereby showing that Jesus was not uniquely God’s Son. Origen countered this argument as follows:

“… what Celsus has adduced, from not understanding the contents of the book of Enoch. … For he does not appear to have read the passages in question, nor to have been aware that the books which bear the name Enoch do not at all circulate in the churches as divine, although it is from this source that he might be supposed to have obtained the statement, that ‘sixty or seventy angels descended at the same time, who fell into a state of wickedness.’

“But, that we may grant to him in a spirit of candor what he has not discovered in the contents of the book of Genesis, that “the sons of God, seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to them wives of all whom they chose,” we shall nevertheless even on this point persuade those who are capable of understanding the meaning of the prophet, that even before us there was one who referred this narrative to the doctrine regarding souls, which became possessed with a desire for the corporeal life of men, and this in metaphorical language, he said, was termed “daughters of men.” But whatever may be the meaning of the “sons of God desiring to possess the daughters of men,” it will not at all contribute to prove that Jesus was not the only one who visited mankind as an angel, and who manifestly became the Savior and benefactor of all those who depart from the flood of wickedness. Then, mixing up and confusing whatever he had at any time heard, or had anywhere found written — whether held to be of divine origin among Christians or not — he adds: “The sixty or seventy who descended together were cast under the earth, and were punished with chains.” And he quotes (as from the book of Enoch, but without naming it) the following: “And hence it is that the tears of these angels are warm springs,” — a thing neither mentioned nor heard of in the Churches of God!”[23] 

That the meaning of the “sons of God” taking the “daughters of men” was disputed in the early churches is quite clear a few sentences later. Origen wrote, “that even before us there was one who referred this narrative to the doctrine regarding souls, which became possessed with a desire for the corporeal life of men, and this, in metaphorical language, he said, was termed ‘daughters of men’.”[24] Here Origen argues for a metaphorical understanding of the passage. Yet he admits uncertainty, “but whatever may be the meaning of the ‘sons of God desiring to possess the daughters of men,’ it will not at all contribute to prove that Jesus was not the only one who visited mankind as an angel.”[25] He then repeated his charge that Celsus was quoting from the Book of Enoch, a document not generally held as authoritative in the Christian churches of the second century. “Then mixing up and confusing whatever he had at any time heard, or had anywhere found written – whether held to be of divine origin among Christians or not – he adds … (as from the book of Enoch without naming it).”102

Julius Africanus (AD 200-245) was aware of both views among Christians, and a corrupt reading in some of the copies of the Septuagint in Genesis 6.

“When men multiplied on the earth, the angels of heaven came together with the daughters of men. In some copies I found “the sons of God.” What is meant by the Spirit, in my opinion, is that the descendants of Seth are called the sons of God on account of the righteous men and patriarchs who have sprung from him, even down to the Savior Himself; but that the descendants of Cain are named the seed of men as having nothing divine in them, on account of the wickedness of their race and the inequality of their nature, being a mixed people, and having stirred the indignation of God. But if it is thought that these refer to angels, we must take them to be those who deal with magic and jugglery, who taught the women the motions of the stars and the knowledge of things celestial, by whose power they conceived the giants as their children, by whom wickedness came to its height on the earth, until God decreed that the whole race of the living should perish in their impiety by the deluge.”[26]

Augustine strongly opposed the idea that angels fornicated with women. He regarded the “sons of God” as the line of Seth. He also pointed out from the text that the “giants” were on earth before the sons of God cohabitated with the daughters of men.

“Giants therefore might well be born, even before the sons of God, who are also called angels of God, formed a connection with the daughters of men, or of those living according to men, that is to say, before the sons of Seth formed a connection with the daughters of Cain. For thus speaks even the canonical Scripture itself in the book in which we read of this; its words are: “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair [good]; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became the giants, men of renown.” These words of the divine book sufficiently indicate that already there were giants in the earth in those days, in which the sons of God took wives of the children of men, when they loved them because they were good, that is, fair.”[27]

“For the words are: “There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men.” Therefore there were giants both before, “in those days,” and “also after that.” And the words, “they bare children to them,” show plainly enough that before the sons of God fell in this fashion they begat children to God, not to themselves, — that is to say, not moved by the lust of sexual intercourse, but discharging the duty of propagation, intending to produce not a family to gratify their own pride, but citizens to people the city of God; and to these they as God’s messengers would bear the message, that they should place their hope in God, like him who was born of Seth, the son of resurrection, and who hoped to call on the name of the Lord God, in which hope they and their offspring would be co-heirs of eternal blessings, and brethren in the family of which God is the Father. But that those angels were not angels in the sense of not being men, as some suppose, Scripture itself decides, which unambiguously declares that they were men. For when it had first been stated that “the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose,” it was immediately added, “And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall not always strive with these men, for that they also are flesh.” For by the Spirit of God they had been made angels of God, and sons of God; but declining towards lower things, they are called men, a name of nature, not of grace; and they are called flesh, as deserters of the Spirit, and by their desertion deserted [by Him]. The Septuagint indeed calls them both angels of God and sons of God, though all the copies do not show this, some having only the name “sons of God.” And Aquila, whom the Jews prefer to the other interpreters, has translated neither angels of God nor sons of God, but sons of gods. But both are correct. For they were both sons of God, and thus brothers of their own fathers, who were children of the same God; and they were sons of gods, because begotten by gods, together with whom they themselves also were gods, according to that expression of the psalm: “I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High. ”For the Septuagint translators are justly believed to have received the Spirit of prophecy; so that, if they made any alterations under His authority, and did not adhere to a strict translation, we could not doubt that this was divinely dictated. However, the Hebrew word may be said to be ambiguous, and to be susceptible of either translation, “sons of God,” or “sons of gods.”[28]

There is therefore no doubt that, according to the Hebrew and Christian canonical Scriptures, there were many giants before the deluge, and that these were citizens of the earthly society of men, and that the sons of God, who were according to the flesh the sons of Seth, sunk into this community when they forsook righteousness, Nor need we wonder that giants should be born even from these.”[29]

It is apparent that the early Christians were far from unanimous in accepting the “fornicating angels” myth or the authority of the book of Enoch.

That some of the earliest (and otherwise orthodox) Fathers believed this myth should not influence us to adopt it. Neither should it cause us to throw them under the bus and label them heretics. They were a product of their times and culture. The early Church Fathers were not immune from residual Greek (Platonic) thinking, nor free from influence of popular fables. For example, the myth of the Phoenix – a bird that allegedly arises from the dead – was used in the debates against the Gnostics as proof that the dead can indeed rise again.

“Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

Do we then deem it any great and wonderful thing for the Maker of all things to raise up again those that have piously served Him in the assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird He shows us the mightiness of His power to fulfil His promise? For [the Scripture] saith in a certain place, “Thou shalt raise me up, and I shall confess unto Thee;“ and again, “I laid me down, and slept; I awaked, because Thou art with me;“ and again, Job says, “Thou shalt raise up this flesh of mine, which has suffered all these things.”[30]

“If, however, all nature but faintly figures our resurrection; if creation affords no sign precisely like it, inasmuch as its several phenomena can hardly be said to die so much as to come to an end, nor again be deemed to be reanimated, but only re-formed; then take a most complete and unassailable, symbol of our hope, for it shall be an animated being, and subject alike to life and death. I refer to the bird which is peculiar to the East, famous for its singularity, marvelous from its posthumous life, which renews its life in a voluntary death; its dying day is its birthday, for on it it departs and returns; once more a phoenix where just now there was none; once more himself, but just now out of existence; another, yet the same. What can be more express and more significant for our subject; or to what other thing can such a phenomenon bear witness? God even in His own Scripture says: “The righteous shall flourish like the phoenix;” that is, shall flourish or revive, from death, from the grave — to teach you to believe that a bodily substance may be recovered even from the fire. Our Lord has declared that we are “better than many sparrows:” well, if not better than many a phoenix too, it were no great thing. But must men die once for all, while birds in Arabia are sure of a resurrection?”[31]


The evidence strongly favours the idea that the “sons of God” in Genesis six were the descendants of Seth through Enosh – the first covenant people of JEHOVAH.

  • This view is best supported by the context and purpose of Genesis.
  • The Israelites to whom it was written did not have Job as sacred Scripture, and thus could not have interpreted “sons of God” as angels based on Job.
  • The “sons of God” had valid marriages after the manner which God instituted in Genesis 2. The nephilim were the children of marriage, not rape or fornication.  
  • The LXX translators believed the “sons of God” were men, since they consistently distinguished between “angels” and “sons of God.” They referred to the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 as “these men” and “flesh” in the next verse.
  • The “giants” already existed on earth before the sons of God took the daughters of men as wives, as both the Hebrew and LXX indicate.
  • No Scripture in the Old or New Testaments speaks of angels fornicating. When Jesus spoke of the human activity just before the flood, as “marrying and giving in marriage,” He was referring to the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” in Genesis 6. It is clear that Jesus was not speaking of fornicating angels, but men.
  • Paul’s argument in Hebrews, drawing a clear dichotomy between angels (who have no inheritance) and the “sons of God” who have the inheritance, proves that angels cannot be “sons of God.”
  • This view completely solves a previously problematic passage in Revelation.
  • It was the opinion of some of the earliest Christians. Whether it was the majority opinion is impossible to say, and irrelevant to the question.

The Book of Enoch is apparently the earliest source for the fornicating angels fable, written around 250BC. That many of the early Christians viewed this book highly is without question, because in many ways it was similar to the Christian view of the Messiah, contrary to the Jewish view. Its flat earth cosmology was something that did not immediately discredit it in the eyes of the early Christians who knew little of science and astronomy. In any case, there is no reason to suppose that the fornicating angels fable is in any way apostolic. Those who taught it did not do so from either exegesis of Genesis six, or from apostolic tradition, but from adopting “Jewish fables.” In the same way that Platonic and Gnostic concepts entered Christianity, so also did Jewish fables.

By Tim Warner, Copyright © http://www.4windsfellowships.net


[1] Hebrews 1:14 LGV

[2] Luke 20:34-36

[3] Matt. 24:37-39

[4] Book of Enoch, 7:2

[5] ibid. 7:3-5

[6] ibid. 19:2

[7] ibid. 33:1-3

[8] ibid. 72:1-5

[9] ibid. 43:2, 44:1

[10] ibid. 18:14-16

[11] ibid. 74:12

[12] ibid. 10:12

[13] Luke 3:23-38

[14] ibid. 54:8. For more information regarding the masculine and feminine principles of Eastern Mysticism, see the following website: http://www.transpersonal.com.au/masculine-feminine.htm

[15] A Letter from Origen to Africanus, 3; Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, pp. 784-785 

[16] Romans 8:17

[17] John 8:42 Jesus said, ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον (“for I issued forth out of God”).

[18] Col. 1:15

[19] Compare Psalm 22:16 in the Hebrew and LXX. The Hebrew says, “As lions, they surround my hands and my feet,” while the LXX has, “they pierced my hands and my feet.”

[20] See my article, “The Kingdom Hope in Hebrews,” http://www.oasischristianchurch.org/articles/hebrews.pdf

[21] Recognitions of Clement, Introduction

[22] Recognitions of Clement, ch. xxix

[23] Origen, Against Celsus, Book V, liv

[24] ibid. lv

[25] ibid. 102 ibid.

[26] Julius Africanus, Fragments of the Five Books on Chronography, Frag. 2

[27] Augustine, City of God, Book 15, ch. 23

[28] ibid

[29] ibid

[30] Clement of Rome, chs. 25-26

[31] Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, ch. 13

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s