Augustine of Hippo, also known as Saint Augustine, was a theologian and philosopher who greatly influenced Western philosophy and Christianity during the Patristic Period. As the bishop of Hippo Regius in Numidia, Roman North Africa, Augustine’s writings left a lasting impact on the development of Western thought.
Augustine authored many works, including The City of God, On Christian Doctrine, and Confessions where he delved into a plethora of theological and philosophical inquiries. Among these is the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.
Augustine Questions on Genesis Chapter 6
In Augustine’s Questions on Genesis Chapter 6, he discusses the debate on whether or not the Nephilim were born of sexual intercourse between human women and fallen angels, to which he rejects.
Augustine instead prefers the idea that the “sons of God” were righteous men, the Sethites, who, due to their lust, engaged in relationships with women.
“THE SONS OF GOD WENT IN TO THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN, AND THEY BROUGHT FORTH CHILDREN. — They also often ask how angels could have sex with the daughters of men, of whom the giants are said to have been born, although some manuscripts, not only Latin but also Greek, read not of the angels, but of the sons of God. To solve this question some have claimed that they were just men, and so it could also be said of them that they were angels.
Scripture, for example, says about John, who was a man: Behold, I send my angel before you to prepare your way. (Mt. 11:10; Mk. 3:1) But the problem is knowing how giants were born through sex of men, or how they could be joined with women, if they were not men, but angels. With regard to the giants, that is to say, very large and very strong men, I think that there is nothing strange in that they could have been born of men, because even after the flood they existed; as a matter of fact, in our own day there have also been some individual humans incredibly large, not only men but also women.
It is therefore more credible that righteous men, called angels, or sons of God, (Cf. Gen. 6:2) moved by lust, sinned with women, instead of angels, who could not commit that sin because they lack bodies; although certain demons have been evil with women, so many things are said and by so many people, that it is not easy to decide on an opinion on this question. [Question 3]”
Regarding the existence of giants, Augustine believed it was not far-fetched to think they could have been born of men, as large and strong individuals have been observed throughout history. He acknowledged that opinions differed on whether these righteous men were called angels or sons of God, emphasizing that determining a conclusive viewpoint was challenging due to the multitude of perspectives on the matter.
Unraveling Augustine’s Perspective in The City of God, Volume 1
Augustine also tackles the same topic in his book, The City of God, Volume 1. Augustine begins by drawing a parallel between the mythical accounts of the gods having sexual relations with mortals in Greco-Roman mythology and the biblical account of the Nephilim.
He mentions examples such as Venus bearing Æneas to Anchises and Mars begetting Romulus with the daughter of Numitor. Augustine considers these stories as unsettled questions, meaning that he does not take a definitive stance on their truth.
“But whether Venus could bear Æneas to a human father Anchises, or Mars beget Romulus of the daughter of Numitor, we leave as unsettled questions.
For our own Scriptures suggest the very similar question, whether the fallen angels had sexual intercourse with the daughters of men, by which the earth was at that time filled with giants, that is, with enormously large and strong men.
At present, then, I will limit my discussion to this dilemma: If that which their books relate about the mother of Æneas and the father of Romulus be true, how can the gods be displeased with men for adulteries which, when committed by themselves, excite no displeasure?
If it is false, not even in this case can the gods be angry that men should really commit adulteries, which, even when falsely attributed to the gods, they delight in.”
The primary dilemma Augustine poses in relation to this interpretation is as follows: If the accounts of the gods engaging in sexual relations with mortals in Greco-Roman mythology are true, how can the gods be displeased with human beings for committing adultery when the gods themselves commit such acts without drawing displeasure?
Similarly, if the accounts of the gods’ sexual relations with mortals are false, Augustine argues that even in that case, the gods cannot be angry with humans for committing adultery. He asserts that if the gods themselves are depicted as delighting in acts of adultery, even falsely attributed to them, then it would be inconsistent for them to condemn human beings for the same actions for that would be hypocrisy.
Unraveling Augustine’s Perspective in The City of God, Volume 2
To dig deeper, Augustine’s Volume 2 of The City of God, discusses the mixture and confusion of the two cities, the City of God and the earthly city, caused by a common iniquity.
Augustine explains that the calamity and corruption mentioned in the passage were brought about by women who belonged to the earthly city and had corrupt manners from the beginning. These women, known for their physical beauty, were loved by the “sons of God” or the citizens of the City of God, who sojourned in the world.
Augustine acknowledges that beauty is a good gift from God, but he emphasizes that it is a temporal and carnal kind of good, not to be loved more than God Himself, who represents the eternal, spiritual, and unchangeable good.
The “sons of God,” who were initially following godly ways within their own holy society, were enticed by the daughters of men and adopted the manners and values of the earthly city to win them as their brides. Consequently, they forsook their former righteous ways and fell to a lesser, common good.
“When the human race, in the exercise of this freedom of will, increased and advanced, there arose a mixture and confusion of the two cities by their participation in a common iniquity. And this calamity, as well as the first, was occasioned by woman, though not in the same way; for these women were not themselves betrayed, neither did they persuade the men to sin, but having belonged to the earthly city and society of the earthly, they had been of corrupt manners from the first, and were loved for their bodily beauty by the sons of God, or the citizens of the other city which sojourns in this world.
Beauty is indeed a good gift of God; but that the good may not think it a great good, God dispenses it even to the wicked. And thus, when the good that is great and proper to the good was abandoned by the sons of God, they fell to a paltry good which is not peculiar to the good, but common to the good and the evil; and when they were captivated by the daughters of men, they adopted the manners of the earthly to win them as their brides, and forsook the godly ways they had followed in their own holy society. And thus beauty, which is indeed God’s handiwork, but only a temporal, carnal, and lower kind of good, is not fitly loved in preference to God, the eternal, spiritual, and unchangeable good….
It was the order of this love, then, this charity or attachment, which the sons of God disturbed when they forsook God, and were enamoured of the daughters of men. And by these two names (sons of God and daughters of men) the two cities are sufficiently distinguished. For though the former were by nature children of men, they had come into possession of another name by grace.
For in the same Scripture in which the sons of God are said to have loved the daughters of men, they are also called angels of God; whence many suppose that they were not men but angels.
Whether we are to believe that angels, who are of a spiritual substance, fell in love with the beauty of women, and sought them in marriage, and that from this connection giants were born.”
Augustine does not firmly decide on whether angels, as spiritual beings, could engage in physical relationships with women. He mentions that Scripture indicates angels appearing in bodily form and interacting with humans, but he also refers to rumors and experiences of sylvans, fauns, and certain devils assaulting women, which could suggest embodied spirits engaging in physical acts.
Nonetheless, Augustine finds it difficult to believe that God’s holy angels could have fallen in such a way, and he suggests that the Apostle Peter’s mention of fallen angels refers to those who first apostatized with the devil, rather than the angels mentioned in Genesis.
“In the third book of this work we made a passing reference to this question, but did not decide whether angels, inasmuch as they are spirits, could have bodily intercourse with women. For it is written, “Who maketh His angels spirits,” that is, He makes those who are by nature spirits His angels by appointing them to the duty of bearing His messages.
For the Greek word ἄγγελος, which in Latin appears as “angelus,” means a messenger. But whether the Psalmist speaks of their bodies when he adds, “and His ministers a flaming fire,” or means that God’s ministers ought to blaze with love as with a spiritual fire, is doubtful.
However, the same trustworthy Scripture testifies that angels have appeared to men in such bodies as could not only be seen, but also touched. There is, too, a very general rumour, which many have verified by their own experience, or which trustworthy persons who have heard the experience of others corroborate, that sylvans and fauns, who are commonly called “incubi,” had often made wicked assaults upon women, and satisfied their lust upon them; and that certain devils, called Duses by the Gauls, are constantly attempting and effecting this impurity is so generally affirmed, that it were impudent to deny it.
From these assertions, indeed, I dare not determine whether there be some spirits embodied in an aerial substance (for this element, even when agitated by a fan, is sensibly felt by the body), and who are capable of lust and of mingling sensibly with women; but certainly I could by no means believe that God’s holy angels could at that time have so fallen, nor can I think that it is of them the Apostle Peter said, “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.”
I think he rather speaks of those who first apostatized from God, along with their chief the devil, who enviously deceived the first man under the form of a serpent. But the same holy Scripture affords the most ample testimony that even godly men have been called angels; for of John it is written: “Behold, I send my messenger (angel) before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way.” And the prophet Malachi, by a peculiar grace specially communicated to him, was called an angel.”
Augustine further points out that the term “angel” can be applied to godly men as well. For example, John the Baptist is referred to as a messenger (angel) sent before the face of God, and the prophet Malachi was also called an angel. Therefore, the reference to “angels of God” in the Genesis passage could be associated to humans.
Regarding the birth of giants from the union of the “angels of God” and women, Augustine argues that extraordinary human beings of great size can be found even in his own time. An example being of a woman in Rome who surpassed others in size, even though her parents were of average height. He suggests that giants could have been born even before the connection between the “sons of God” and the daughters of men occurred, as extraordinary individuals exist throughout history.
“But some are moved by the fact that we have read that the fruit of the connection between those who are called angels of God and the women they loved were not men like our own breed, but giants; just as if there were not born even in our own time (as I have mentioned above) men of much greater size than the ordinary stature.
Was there not at Rome a few years ago, when the destruction of the city now accomplished by the Goths was drawing near, a woman, with her father and mother, who by her gigantic size overtopped all others? Surprising crowds from all quarters came to see her, and that which struck them most was the circumstance that neither of her parents were quite up to the tallest ordinary stature.
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.”
Augustine suggests that the term “good” in the context of this passage refers to physical beauty, as it was a common usage in the Scriptures to describe those who were attractive in appearance as so. The mention of giants both “in those days” and “also after that” also indicates that this occurred before and after the union between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men.”
“”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. For it is the custom of this Scripture to call those who are beautiful in appearance “good.” But after this connection had been formed, then too were giants born. 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 angels 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.”
Augustine further explains that before this union, the “sons of God” begat children not for their own satisfaction or pride but with the intention of propagating a family that would be citizens of the city of God. He suggests that these beings, referred to as angels of God, acted as messengers to their offspring, instructing them to place their hope in God.
By doing so, they and their descendants would become co-heirs of eternal blessings and members of the family with God as their Father.
Augustine further supports his argument by referencing the subsequent statement in the Scripture where the Lord God declares, “My Spirit shall not always strive with these men, for that they also are flesh.” He explains that although they were initially made angels and sons of God by the Spirit of God, their decline towards worldly desires resulted in them being called “men” rather than angels. They were considered “flesh” because they had forsaken the Spirit of God and were abandoned by Him.
“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.”
There are several variations in the translations of the Hebrew word used for these beings, suggesting that it can be interpreted as either “sons of God” or “sons of gods.” Taking this into account, Augustine notes that the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament, refers to them as both “angels of God” and “sons of God,” while some versions only mention the “sons of God.” On the other hand Aquila, which is preferred by the Jews, renders them as “sons of gods.”
According to Augustine, both translations are acceptable, as these beings were sons of God and brothers of their own fathers, who were also children of the same God. Not to mention, they were considered sons of gods because they were begotten by gods, and they themselves were regarded as gods in the psalm: “I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High.”
“Let us omit, then, the fables of those scriptures which are called apocryphal, because their obscure origin was unknown to the fathers from whom the authority of the true Scriptures has been transmitted to us by a most certain and well-ascertained succession.
For though there is some truth in these apocryphal writings, yet they contain so many false statements, that they have no canonical authority. We cannot deny that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, left some divine writings, for this is asserted by the Apostle Jude in his canonical epistle.
But it is not without reason that these writings have no place in that canon of Scripture which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew people by the diligence of successive priests; for their antiquity brought them under suspicion, and it was impossible to ascertain whether these were his genuine writings, and they were not brought forward as genuine by the persons who were found to have carefully preserved the canonical books by a successive transmission.
So that the writings which are produced under his name, and which contain these fables about the giants, saying that their fathers were not men, are properly judged by prudent men to be not genuine; just as many writings are produced by heretics under the names both of other prophets, and, more recently, under the names of the apostles, all of which, after careful examination, have been set apart from canonical authority under the title of Apocrypha.
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.”
Augustine also states that although there may be some truths in certain apocryphal scriptures (not included in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures), the numerous false statements prevent them from having canonical authority.
Augustine mentions the Book of Enoch. However, he explains that these writings were not included in the canonical Scriptures preserved in the Hebrew temple. Their antiquity raised suspicions, and it was uncertain whether these were truly Enoch’s genuine writings.
Augustine compares these writings to the spurious works produced by heretics under the names of prophets, apostles, and other biblical figures. After thorough examination, such writings were excluded from canonical authority and labeled as apocryphal.
According to Augustine, the Hebrew and Christian canonical Scriptures confirmed the existence of giants before the deluge. These giants were part of the earthly society of human beings, and Augustine explains that not all the children of these unions were giants, but there were more giants during that period than in the post-flood era.
“Nor need we wonder that giants should be born even from these. For all of their children were not giants; but there were more then than in the remaining periods since the deluge. And it pleased the Creator to produce them, that it might thus be demonstrated that neither beauty, nor yet size and strength, are of much moment to the wise man, whose blessedness lies in spiritual and immortal blessings, in far better and more enduring gifts, in the good things that are the peculiar property of the good, and are not shared by good and bad alike.
It is this which another prophet confirms when he says, “These were the giants, famous from the beginning, that were of so great stature, and so expert in war. Those did not the Lord choose, neither gave He the way of knowledge unto them; but they were destroyed because they had no wisdom, and perished through their own foolishness.” [quoting Baruch 3:26-28]”
Augustine concludes by emphasizing that the birth of giants from the sons of God should not be a cause for wonder. He then wraps up by quoting Baruch who stated that the giants were not chosen by the Lord and perished due to their lack of wisdom and their own foolishness.
Augustine’s Rich Perspective in Context
It is essential to note that Augustine’s insights on the Nephilim and the Genesis 6:1-4 passage were not the primary focus of his writings. Instead, he briefly referenced the story while addressing other theological topics and acknowledged 2nd temple literature.
It is worth acknowledging that both ancient and modern scholars continue to grapple with understanding the events described in Genesis 6:1-4. Numerous questions remain, and unfortunately, online sources often propagate disinformation and sensationalized content on the topic of the Nephilim in Genesis.
However, seeking reliable resources and quality research is crucial in unraveling the truth behind this enigmatic narrative. Thus we, Chasing the Giants, serve as valuable repositories, compiling ancient sources and offering a dependable resource to explore the topic of the “sons of God” and the Nephilim.
Our aim is to guide you in your quest for answers and ultimately point to the Bible’s ability to provide explanations for the imperfect state of the world, while highlighting the truth found in Jesus.
