When we read Genesis 6:1–4, the short lines raise big questions about the sons of God, the daughters of men, and pre-Flood evil.
Tertullian reads the passage the same way many early Christians did: the sons of God were angels, their unions were illicit, and their teaching pushed culture toward idolatry and sorcery.
He does not dwell on the Nephilim; he drills into the angels’ guilt, the origin of astrology, and the need for modesty among believers. (New Advent)
Who was Tertullian?
Tertullian (c. 155/160–after 220) wrote in Carthage and helped shape Latin Christian vocabulary and argument. A lawyer by training, he wrote sharp, practical treatises against paganism, lax morals, and heresy.
He addressed everyday church life with unusual force, aiming to guard holiness and public witness. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
What he says about Genesis 6
Tertullian assumes the angel view without debate. For him, some angels deserted their post, lusted after women, and taught dangerous arts that led people from the worship of the true God.
He targets two arenas where this story still bites: idolatry in public life and immodesty within the church. (New Advent)
Key text: “the lovers of women” and the birth of astrology
Here’s an excerpt from On Idolatry 9:
We observe among the arts also some professions liable to the charge of idolatry.
Of astrologers there should be no speaking even; but since one in these days has challenged us, defending on his own behalf perseverance in that profession, I will use a few words.
I allege not that he honours idols, whose names he has inscribed on the heaven, to whom he has attributed all God’s power; because men, presuming that we are disposed of by the immutable arbitrament of the stars, think on that account that God is not to be sought after.
One proposition I lay down: that those angels, the deserters from God, the lovers of women, were likewise the discoverers of this curious art, on that account also condemned by God.
Oh divine sentence, reaching even unto the earth in its vigour, whereto the unwitting render testimony!
The astrologers are expelled just like their angels. The city and Italy are interdicted to the astrologers, just as heaven to their angels.
On Idolatry, Chapter 9
In the same passage he argues that astrology robs God by assigning divine rule to stars and is therefore a species of idolatry.
He adds a striking comparison: astrologers are expelled from cities the way the rebel angels were expelled from heaven. Tertullian’s logic is moral and pastoral: if the practice was birthed in rebellion, Christians should have nothing to do with it. (New Advent, Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
Head-covering “because of the angels”
Tertullian connects Genesis 6 to modesty in the church. In On the Veiling of Virgins he argues that virgins should be veiled, appealing to the early angel story as a caution about unbounded desire. He reasons that if angels fell through concupiscence, the church should not invite that pattern by careless display. Elsewhere he can summarize the point crisply: women are veiled “because… on account of the daughters of men angels revolted from God.” (New Advent)
Turn we next to the examination of the reasons themselves which lead the apostle to teach that the female ought to be veiled, …
For if (it is) on account of the angels—-those, to wit, whom we read of as having fallen from God and heaven on account of concupiscence after females—-who can presume that it was bodies already defiled, and relics of human lust, which such angels yearned after, so as not rather to have been inflamed for virgins, whose bloom pleads an excuse for human lust likewise?
For thus does Scripture withal suggest: “And it came to pass,” it says, “when men had begun to grow more numerous upon the earth, there were withal daughters born them; but the sons of God, having descried the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all whom they elected.”
For here the Greek name of women does seem to have the sense “wives,” inasmuch as mention is made of marriage.
When, then, it says “the daughters of men,” it manifestly purports virgins, who would be still reckoned as belonging to their parents—-for wedded women are called their husbands’—-whereas it could have said “the wives of men: “in like manner not naming the angels adulterers, but husbands, while they take unwedded” daughters of men,” who it has above said were “born,” thus also signifying their virginity: first,”born; “but here, wedded to angels. Anything else I know not that they were except “born” and subsequently wedded.
So perilous a face, then, ought to be shaded, which has cast stumbling-stones even so far as heaven: that, when standing in the presence of God, at whose bar it stands accused of the driving of the angels from their (native) confines, it may blush before the other angels as well; and may repress that former evil liberty of its head,—-(a liberty) now to be exhibited not even before human eyes.
But even if they were females already contaminated whom those angels had desired, so much the more “on account of the angels” would it have been the duty of virgins to be veiled, as it would have been the more possible for virgins to have been the cause of the angels’ sinning…
Tertullian of Carthage, On the Veiling of Virgins Chapter 7
The focus is not fear of angels in church; it is the lesson of Genesis 6. Desire untethered from obedience corrupts both watchers and worshipers.
Why he leans on 1 Enoch
Tertullian knows the Book of Enoch is controversial. He still treats it with respect, arguing that anything edifying and Christ-ward should not be rejected, and noting that Jude cites Enochic material.
Here’s the excerpt from On the Apparel of Women 1.3:
I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself; and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather’s “grace in the sight of God,” and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity. Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of (his) preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition (of things) made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house.
If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit’s inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.
But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that “every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired. By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude.
On the Apparel of Women Chapter III – Concerning the Genuineness of “The Prophecy of Enoch.”
He also argues that Noah could have preserved Enoch’s teaching through family tradition, or else the Spirit could have renewed it after the Flood, much as biblical writings were renewed after the Exile.
The point is not to expand the canon; it is to explain why a widely used backstory to Genesis 6 deserved a hearing. (The Tertullian Project)
What he does not emphasize
Unlike some writers, Tertullian does not linger on the Nephilim. He aims at the cause (angelic lust and teaching) and at present sins (idolatry, vanity). That choice fits his larger program: confront public pagan practices and shape Christian habits that honor God. (New Advent)
How his view matches Scripture
- Genesis 6:1–4 is brief: “sons of God” take wives; Nephilim are present; human wickedness surges.
- Genesis 6:11–13 highlights violence and divine judgment.
- Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 speak of angels who sinned and are held for judgment.
Tertullian reads the sons of God as angels and sees their sin as the spark behind cultural decay. That reading explains why Jude and Peter can speak about sinning angels next to the Flood without re-telling the story. The audience already knew it.
Typical counter-view and a fair reply
Later, many Christians embraced the Sethite view: “sons of God” = the line of Seth; “daughters of men” = the line of Cain. This interpretation avoids questions about angelic embodiment and keeps the warning on mixed marriage between faithful and unfaithful.
Tertullian represents an earlier stream where the angelic reading was assumed. In favor of that reading, the phrase “sons of God” often refers to heavenly beings in older biblical usage, and Jude/2 Peter seem to echo an angel backstory. Still, charity toward the Sethite reading is wise, since Christians have long wrestled with how best to guard holiness without speculation.
Terms in plain language
- Sons of God: in this article, angels who overstepped God’s boundary.
- Daughters of men: human women.
- Nephilim: usually understood as offspring of those unions, remembered as giants or mighty ones.
- Watchers: extra-biblical label for the sinning angels, known from 1 Enoch.
- Astrology (as Tertullian attacks it): reading fate from stars in ways that displace God and nourish idolatry. (New Advent)
How his teaching presses on Christian life
Idolatry in public
If astrology traces to rebellious angels, then Christians should abandon practices that ascribe divine rule to stars. For Tertullian, that is not culture war; it is worship clarity. (New Advent)
Modesty in the church
If angels fell through lust, the church should cultivate modest dress and demeanor. Veiling in his setting was a concrete way to guard desire and honor God. The details of dress vary by culture, but the principle remains. (New Advent)
Discernment about sources
Tertullian’s appeal to Enoch shows a willingness to use background literature while keeping Scripture first. He is not expanding the canon; he is reasoning from a story many already knew to urge holy living. (Bible Hub)
My thoughts
Tertullian’s focus feels refreshingly practical. He does not chase giants; he asks whether our worship and habits are clean. His critique of astrology is not about superstition alone; it is about what rules the world.
His push for modesty is not about policing women; it is about how desire behaves apart from the fear of God.
Conclusion: back to the Bible, eyes open
Tertullian stands in the early Christian stream that read Genesis 6 as an angel story with present-tense consequences. Angels lusted, humans learned corrupt arts, and God judged. That frame helps us hear Jude and 2 Peter and keeps our attention on worship, desire, and daily obedience.
Use the background wisely; keep Scripture first; aim for holiness in a watching world.
Resources and editions
- On Idolatry 9: angels, astrology, and idolatry. (New Advent, Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
- On the Veiling of Virgins 7: modesty and “because of the angels.” (New Advent)
- On the Apparel of Women 1.3: Enoch’s usefulness and “every Scripture… is divinely inspired.” (The Tertullian Project, Bible Hub)
- Tertullian overview (biography and dates). (Encyclopedia Britannica)
