Question: How can
you be certain that the "sons of Elohim" in Genesis 6 are not the
"sons of Seth"? Doesn’t John 1:12 say that the righteous are
considered the "sons of Elohim"?
|
The Sethite theory posits that the "sons of Elohim" in Genesis 6 are the descendants
|
Answer: It is
true that John 1:12 refers to the believers as the sons of Yahuwah (as do many
other New Testament passages). Praise Yahuwah!
But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become
the sons of Yahuwah, even to them that believe on His name. (John 1:12)
This, however, does not justify discarding the overwhelming weight
of Biblical evidence that makes clear that the "sons of Elohim,"
in context, are angels. See: "Nephilim (Giants) in the Bible: Is Yahuwah a Genocidal Maniac or a Loving Creator?"
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 Elohim [B’nai
HaElohim] saw the daughters
of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. .
. . There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of Elohim [B’nai
HaElohim] came in unto the
daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men
which were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:1-2, 4)
Let us briefly examine a few of the clear issues with
insisting that the "sons of Elohim" in this passage are the "sons of Seth."
Problem #1: Nowhere in
Scripture are the descendants of Seth referred to as the "sons of
Elohim" (B’nai HaElohim). B’nai HaElohim (the phrase used by Moses in Gensis 6:4)
is used exclusively to denote angels in the Old Testament. Job 38 is especially
clear that the B’nai HaElohim are angels, for what man was present when
Yahuwah laid the foundations of the earth?
Then Yahuwah answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, . . .
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast
understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath
stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or
who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and
all the sons of Elohim [B’nai HaElohim] shouted for joy? (Job 38:1-7)
There is no
Scriptural precedence for deducing that the "sons of Elohim" in
Genesis 6 are the descendants of Seth.
The "Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain" interpretation
strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of
God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text
flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text
among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical
antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the
"angels" and the women of the Earth.
If the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and
the daughters of Cain," why didn’t it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain
was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of
Seth?" There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of
Adam’s descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)
And how does the "Sethite" interpretation contribute to
the ostensible cause for the Flood, which is the primary thrust of the text?
The entire view is contrived on a series of assumptions without Scriptural
support. . . .
The attempt to apply the term "Sons of Elohim" in a
broader sense has no textual basis and obscures the precision of its denotative
usage. This proves to be an assumption which is antagonistic to the uniform
Biblical usage of the term.1
Another
point to consider here is that Scripture does not even say that Seth’s
descendants were righteous.
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his
name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of Yahuwah. (Genesis 4:26)
While the
above passage is often cited to prove the righteousness of Seth and his
descendants, there are two distinct problems with this assertion: (1) The text
says "then began men to call upon the name of Yahuwah."
It does not say "then began the descendants of Seth to call upon
the name of Yahuwah." (2) In addition to this, many scholars have
suggested that this verse is not accurately translated. A more accurate
translation would be: "And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and
he called his name Enos: then began men to profane the name of Yahuwah."
It must not be dissembled that many eminent men have contended
that הוחל
huchal, which we translate began, should be rendered began profanely, or
then profanation began, and from this time they date the origin of idolatry.
Most of the Jewish doctors were of this opinion, and Maimonides has discussed
it at some length in his Treatise on Idolatry; as this piece is curious, and
gives the most probable account of the origin and progress of idolatry . . . (Adam
Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible)
The Book of Jasher, which is
recommended by Scripture itself (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18), corroborates
this understanding.
And Seth lived one hundred and five years, and he begat a son; and
Seth called the name of his son Enosh, saying, Because in that time the sons of
men began to multiply, and to afflict their souls and hearts by transgressing
and rebelling against [Elohim]. And it was in the days of Enosh that the sons
of men continued to rebel and transgress against [Elohim], to increase the
anger of [Yahuwah] against the sons of men. And the sons of men went and they
served other gods, and they forgot [Yahuwah] who had created them in the earth:
and in those days the sons of men made images of brass and iron, wood and
stone, and they bowed down and served them. And every man made his god and they
bowed down to them, and the sons of men forsook [Yahuwah] all the days of Enosh
and his children; and the anger of [Yahuwah] was kindled on account of their
works and abominations which they did in the earth. (Jasher 2:2-5)
Problem #2: There is
absolutely no reason to believe that the "daughters of men" is a
specific reference to the descendants of Cain. In context, the
"daughters of men" simply denotes earthly women, i.e. the daughters
that were born to men as they began to multiply upon the earth.
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
Elohim saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they
took them wives of all which they chose. (Genesis 6:1-2)
Problem #3: There is
absolutely no reason to believe that the union of Seth’s descendants and Cain’s
descendants would result in giants [Nephilim].
Procreation by parents of differing religious views do not produce
unnatural offspring. . . . It was this unnatural procreation and the resulting
abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment
of the Flood.2
Problem #4: The New
Testament vindicates the understanding that angels somehow procreated with
women in the days of Noah, even commenting on their judgment for this great
sin. In the following passage, Peter tells us that prior to the flood,
angels sinned and were consequently cast down to hell [Greek Tartarus]
to await the judgment.
For if Yahuwah spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them
down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto
judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a
preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
(2 Peter 2:4-5)
In the
following passage, Jude echoes Peter’s testimony regarding the angels that
sinned. Jude compares the sin of these angels to Sodom and Gomorrah,
stating explicitly that they gave "themselves over to fornication"
and went "after strange flesh."
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their
own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the
judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about
them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after
strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal
fire. (Jude 1:6-7)
To insist that the
"sons of Elohim" are actually the "sons of Seth" would
simply not be true to the text. If we are to be honest Bible students, we
must let Scripture speak for itself. In this, as in all studies, we must without
prejudice follow the evidence wherever it leads.
For those who take the Bible seriously, the arguments supporting
the "Angel View" appear compelling. For those who indulge in a
willingness to take liberties with the straightforward presentation of the
text, no defense can prove final.3
Note: Some object
to the angelic incursion interpretation of Genesis 6 on the grounds that
"angels cannot marry." The verses presented to support this
objection, though, pertain specifically to the angels of heaven and
marriage (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34-36).
There is nothing in Scripture that says the rebellious "angels which kept
not their first estate, but left their own habitation" (Jude 1:6) are incapable of reproducing.
For those still
tempted to cling to the "Sethite" interpretation of Geneses 6,
kindly take the time to prayerfully consider the following:
Question: Does Moses
ever refer to the descendants of Seth as the "sons of Elohim."
Answer: No.
Question: Does Moses
ever refer to angels as the "sons of Elohim."
Answer: Yes. Moses refers to angels as the "sons of
Elohim" three times in the Book of Job. (Job
1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7) Every time "sons of Elohim" is used in the Old Testament, it is a reference to angels.
Question: Does
Scripture even say that Seth’s descendants were righteous?
Answer: No. Genesis 4:26, a proof text often submitted to
prove the righteousness of Seth’s descendants, is discussed in detail
above. (See "Problem #1.")
Question: Does Moses
ever refer to the descendants of Cain simply as "men" or the
"daughters of men"?
Answer: No. Let’s look at the passage again:
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 Elohim saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of
all which they chose. (Genesis 6:1-2)
The text
clearly says that "MEN [not the descendants of Cain] began to multiply on
the face of the earth, and DAUGHTERS were born unto them." "The DAUGHTERS OF MEN," in the very same sentence, then, is a clear reference to the daughters that were born to men [not the descendants of Cain].
Those who cling to the "Sethite" interpretation of Genesis 6
must posit that this verse is actually saying,
"And it
came to pass, when men the descendant
of Cain began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were
born unto them, That the sons of Elohim saw the daughters of men Cain that they were
fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."
This is blatantly adding to
Scripture. This supposition irrefutably
destroys the meaning of language and the context of the passage.
"Men" in Genesis 6:1 and 6:2 is translated from the Hebrew ‘adam [H120] , which means mankind or human being. There is absolutely nothing in this word/phrase that pertains specifically to Cain or his descendants. Genesis 6:1-2 is plainly contrasting mankind (ha-‘adam) with the sons of Elohim.
|
A CRUCIAL NOTE: Even if one were to take the liberty of
|
Question: Does the
marriage of those with differing religious views result in the birth of giants?
Answer: No. To suggest otherwise would be absurd.
Question: Does the
New Testament vindicate the angelic incursion understanding of Genesis 6?
Answer: Yes. (2 Peter 2:4-5; Jude
1:6-7)
Question: Does the
New Testament vindicate the "sons of Seth" understanding of Genesis
6?
Answer: No. The New Testament nowhere even alludes to
such an understanding.
Question: Do first
century historians vindicate the angelic incursion understanding of Genesis 6?
Answer: Yes.
For many angels of [Elohim] accompanied with women, and begat sons
that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on
account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is,
that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the
Grecians call giants. (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of
the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 3, 1.3.1,http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-1/chapter-3.html)
"And it
came to pass when there began to be many men upon the earth, that daughters
also were born to Them. . . . And when the angels of [Elohim] saw the daughters
of men that they were beautiful, they took unto themselves wives of all of them
whom they Chose." (The Works of Philo Judaeus, On the Giants, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book9.html)
Question: Do first
century historians vindicate the "sons of Seth" understanding of
Genesis 6?
Answer: No.
The
understanding that rebellious angels mated with woman before the flood (Genesis
6) was prevalent in the first century.
It wasn’t until the 5th century that the "Sethite"
interpretation of Genesis 6 began to take hold.
It was in
the 5th century a.d. that the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was
increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. . . .
Celsus and
Julian the Apostate used the traditional "angel" belief to attack
Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more
comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox
"angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation.
Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the
Middle Ages.4
Conclusion:
To force the
"sons of Seth" interpretation into Genesis 6 requires manipulating
the text from all angles while ignoring a mountain of evidence to the contrary. While it is true that believers in the New
Testament are referred to as "sons of Elohim/Yahuwah," this in no way
gives us license to add to Moses’ words or take the passage at hand out of
context. If we are to walk in advancing
light, we must lay all of our cherished preconceptions and presuppositions at
the door of investigation and allow Scripture to speak for itself.
Related Content:
1 Chuck Missler, Textual Controversy:
Mischievous Angels or Sethites?, http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
Comments