How can you be certain that the sons of Elohim in Genesis 6 are not the sons of Seth? Print

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 of Seth and the "daughters of men" are the descendants of Cain. This theory suggests that through the intermarriage of Seth's righteous descendants and Cain's wicked descendants, the world became irreparably corrupted. Consequently, Yahuwah was forced to flood the world and begin again with righteous Noah and his family.

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:

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 replacing "sons of Elohim" with "sons of Seth," another change would be required, i.e. "men" would have to be changed to the "descendants of Cain." Yahuwah forbid that we add to Scripture to make it fit our preconceived ideas.

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.