In the early centuries of Christianity, numerous theologians contributed to the development and shaping of Christian thought. Among these was Tertullian, an influential figure known for his theological prowess and moralistic approach.
While he never directly mentions the Nephilim, he discusses the Book of Enoch and the controversy around its authority and authenticity in his writings. Tertullian recognized Enoch as a divinely inspired author and cites the book to establish doctrine against excessive ornamentation of women and the origins of idolatry and astrology. His references to Enoch reflect his belief in its authenticity, even though it was not accepted into the Jewish canon.
Background of Tertullian:
Tertullian, whose full name was Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus, lived during the 2nd century CE in Carthage, a prominent cultural and educational center of the time.
Having received a high education encompassing various disciplines, including grammar, rhetoric, philosophy, and law, Tertullian possessed a solid foundation for his later theological endeavors.
Born to pagan parents, his conversion to Christianity was kicked off by his time in Rome during his early career. Inspired by the courage of martyrs, moral rigorism, and the belief in one God, Tertullian’s faith became the driving force behind his intellectual pursuits.
Tertullian’s References to Genesis 6
Within the context of Genesis 6:1-4, Tertullian’s perspective on this passage is limited to his examination of modern issues he was facing.
He clearly takes it for granted that the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis were angels that lusted after women, married them and taught them forbidden knowledge, which sums up the common interpretation at the time among other early church fathers, and is the basic tenets of 2nd Temple writings like the Book of Enoch and Jubilees, among others.
However, unlike other early writers who mention the Nephilim or giants as part of the tale — the offspring of the union between the “sons of God” and human women — Tertullian notably omits any reference to them.
Instead, he focuses on the fallen angels themselves, attributing their sinful actions to their lust for women. Tertullian argues that these angels were responsible for introducing astrology to humanity which he equates to idolatry.
THE ANGELS AND THE INTRODUCTION OF ASTROLOGY:
In his work “On Idolatry,” he confronts the practices of astrology and idol worship, emphasizing the condemnation of the angels and the expulsion of astrologers from society. He attributes the origin of astrology to the fallen angels, highlighting their actions as a divine judgment.
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
Tertullian on the Practice of Veiling Women
Furthermore, in his treatise “On the Veiling of Virgins,” Tertullian refers to Genesis 6:1-4 while discussing the reasons for women to be veiled. He ponders the nature of the angels’ desire for women and presents arguments that underscore the importance of veiling, emphasizing the need for modesty and the avoidance of temptation.
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
Tertullian’s Recognition of Enoch:
In his work “On the Apparel of Women” (Book I), Tertullian acknowledges Enoch as a genuine, human author, considering it divinely inspired and quoting it as attestation in the New Testament. Despite not being included in the Jewish canon, Tertullian argues that any Scripture suitable for edification should not be rejected, including Enoch’s writings.
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.”
It’s well established that both Peter and Jude borrow specific terminology from the Book of Enoch, and Tertullian even specifically mentions the direct quote from the Book of Enoch that is found in the book of Jude.
Conclusion
Tertullian’s unique perspective on Genesis 6:1-4 offers a window into the early Christian understanding of the fallen angels’ role in human history. His omission of the Nephilim and emphasis on the angels’ actions and introduction of astrology seems to reveal his acceptance of the Genesis 6 story being the actions of angels, while his full thoughts on the expanded story presented Book of Enoch remain uncertain.
Exploring Tertullian’s writings allows us to appreciate the rich diversity of early Christian thought and gain insight into the profound influence he exerted on the development of Western Christianity.
