Page Content (OCR)
strength, for the tradition is that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants." expression "sons of God" as designating angels. These included Justin Martyr,**® Irenaeus,”*? Athenagoras,240 Pseudo-Clementine**! Clement of Alexandria,' 245 to list a few This interpretation was «243 : 244 : Tertullian,” Commodianus,~” and Lactantius, also espoused by Luther and many more modern exegetes including Koppen, Twesten, Dreschler, Hofmann, Baumgarten, Delitzsch, W Kelly A. C. Gaebelein, and others. Yet, many able scholars hold a different view Many students of the Bible have been taught that Genesis 6 refers to a failure to keep the "faithful" line of Seth separate from the worldly line of Cain. The idea is advanced that after Cain killed Abel, the line of Seth remained faithful while the line of Cain became ungodly and rebellious. The "sons of God" are deemed to be referring to the line of Seth, the "daughters of men" to the line of Cain, and the resulting marriages blurred the separation between them. (Why the resulting offspring are called the "Nephilim" is still without any clear purpose.) resulting called the are The "sons of Seth and daughters of Cain" interpretation obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute this view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and Early Church scholars. Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose this view. Furthermore, the term "daughters of Adam" does not denote a restriction to the line of Cain, but indicates that many of Adam's descendants seem to have been involved. In fact, these "daughters" are the same as those referred earlier in the same sentence! And what about the "sons of Adam?" Were they innocent? Why were they not spared in the teed 10 judgment? Perhaps even more to the point, procreation by parents of differing religious views does not produce unnatural offspring. Believers marrying unbelievers may produce "monsters," but hardly superhuman, unnatural, children! The lexicological antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the "angels" and the women of Earth. (A more complete discussion of some of the problems with the "Sethite" view has been included in an appendix.) It should also be pointed out that most conservative Bible scholars reject the "Sethite" view." Among those supporting the "angel" view are G. H. Pember, M. R. DeHaan, C. H. McIntosh, F Delitzsch, A. C. Gaebelein, Arthur W Pink, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Henry Morris, Merrill F Unger, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Hal Lindsey, and Chuck Smith. 122 In accordance with the ancient interpretation, the Early Church fathers understood the THE "LINES OF SETH" VIEW between them. NEW TESTAMENT CONFIRMATIONS In Biblical matters, it is essential to always compare scripture with scripture. The New Testament appears to confirm the "angel" view in its comments concerning the