After asking some obvious contextual questions about these four verses, perhaps we should ask some that aren’t so obvious. For instance, “How did the men feel about the ‘sons of God’ marrying their women? Was a sense of rejection and anger widespread? Did the men feel an attraction to the ‘sons of God’ as well?” This is Genesis chapter six. By Genesis chapter nineteen, we see rampant homosexuality. Did it begin in chapter six? Was it part of the description of verse five? “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5)

In Genesis nineteen, it was homosexuality that destroyed Sodom. Was it the same lascivious sin that helped bring the world to a watery destruction?

These are questions that beg consideration whether or not we can provide ready answers. The more we study the Nephilim, the more we will feel this burden. As demons proliferate, sexual perversions and anomalies multiply. Considering these things, it is clear that in the mind of a concerned and righteous Creator, complete catastrophic judgment was the only solution.

beginnings of homosexuality

We have established that the sons of God were “fallen” or “cast down” angels. When these “sons of God came in unto the daughters of men” their offspring were “giants.” We also concluded that the “Sons of God” were still beautiful in their angelic creation. Perhaps their beauty was such that even the men of that day were attracted to them. Could this be the beginning of homosexuality? Homosexuality is not mentioned before this, but by the time we get to Genesis 19 (the destruction of Sodom), homosexuality is rampant. Also, in Genesis 19, it is the men of Sodom that are violently drawn to the angels in a perverted way. If the men of Genesis 6 were drawn to the fallen angels in a sexual way because of the beauty of the angels, homosexuality could be the result. This would provide a bridge of understanding, perverted as it is, from the angel-man confrontation of Genesis 6 to the angel-man confrontation of Genesis 19. If it can be concluded that homosexuality began in Genesis after the arrival of the “sons of God,” it might well explain the abrupt change of subject and tone between 6:4 and 6:5.

James R. Spillman, in his masterful book, A Conspiracy of Angelsii, presents the persuasive possibility that the scapegoat is not actually a type of Christ. In English the goat is called scapegoat and in Hebrew he is called Azazel. Spillman describes this event and its meaning perfectly.

Dr. Jim Richards

Founder, Impact Ministries