Page Content (OCR)
the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation. 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" a date ee ate Late 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 Biblical term "Sons of Elohim," (that is, of the Creator Himself), is confined to the direct creation by the divine hand and not to those born to those of their own order. In ro. er toad 7 woaon eo awe , mat oa Luke's genealogy of Jesus, only Adam is called a "son of God." The entire Biblical drama deals with the tragedy that humankind is a fallen race, with Adam's initial immortality forfeited. Christ uniquely gives them that receive Him the power to become the sons of God. Being born again of the Spirit of God as an entirely new creation, at their resurrection they alone will be clothed with a building of God and in every respect equal to the angels. The very term olio-pip Lo”, oiketerion, alluding to the heavenly body with which the believer longs to be clothed, is the precise term used for the heavenly bodies from which the fallen angels had disrobed. 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. The concept of separate "lines" itself is suspect and contrary to Scripture. National and racial distinctions were plainly the result of the subsequent intervention of God in Genesis 11. There is no intimation that the lines of Seth and Cain kept themselves tem oe separate nor were even instructed to. The injunction to remain separate was given much later. Genesis 6:12 confirms that all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth. There is no evidence, stated or implied, that the line of Seth was godly. Only one person was translated from the judgment to come (Enoch) and only eight were given the protection of the ark. No one beyond Noah's immediate family was accounted worthy to be saved. In fact, the text implies that these were distinct from all others. (There is no evidence that the wives of Noah's sons were of the line Seth.) Even so, Gaebelein observes, "The designation "Sons of God" is never applied in the Old Testament to believers," whose son-ship is "distinctly a New Testament revelation." 192 and the women of the Earth. 2. THE INFERRED LINES OF SEPARATION 3. THE INFERRED GODLINESS OF SETH