Royal Priestly Heirs To The Restoration Promise Of Genesis 3:15: A Biblical Theological Perspective On The Sons Of God In Genesis 6

By Rita F. Cefalu

[Rita F. Cefalu is Adjunct Assistant Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of San Diego as well as a Ph.D. candidate at Queen’s University Belfast. This article is a revised version of a paper she presented at the Far West Regional Meeting of the ETS, Costa Mesa, Calif., April 19, 2013.]

The quest for the identity of the “sons of God” in Gen 6 has a long history of interpretation.[1] Three main views have been advanced: (1) The line stemming from Seth, (2) angelic beings, and (3) dynastic rulers. The consensus of modern scholarly opinion favors the second interpretation.[2] Meredith Kline suggests that “what has contributed most to the continuing dominance of the mythical (or at least angelic) interpretation of the passage has been the absence of a satisfactory alternative.”[3]

In his article “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1–4, ” Kline critiques the prevailing interpretations and lays out a refreshing alternative which challenges mainstream views.[4] Drawing on ancient Near Eastern sources, he proposes that the phrase “sons of God” refers to the notion of “divine kingship” in which human kings were often regarded in some sense as divine. On this basis, Kline argues that the “sons of God” in Gen 6 are human kings that descend from the line of Cain.[5] It is my conviction that Kline is right on two main points: (1) that the “sons of God” is an appellation for divine kingship, and (2) that a biblical theological analysis that takes into account a contextual reading of the text confirms this interpretation.[6] However, a closer reading of Gen 6:1–8 within its immediate and broader literary contexts reveals that a stronger case may be made for the line of Seth. I shall attempt to make this argument in the pages that follow.

In order to make the case for the divine kingship Sethite interpretation, I shall first provide a critique of the three main views. Then, using a contextual and biblical theological approach, I shall point out details that have been overlooked in the discussion to date, but have direct implications for our understanding of Gen 6:1–8. Lastly, these observations will be applied to interpreting the text within the broader literary context of Israel’s Primary History (Gen 1:1–11:26), followed by a very broad biblical theological treatment of how these themes are picked up and developed throughout the rest of the canon. In so doing, I hope to lay a biblical theological foundation for understanding the conceptual title, the “sons of God,” in Gen 6, thus establishing the basis for further discussion of its usage in Paul and other NT writers from within a redemptive-historical framework (cf. Matt 5:9; Mark 1:1; 15:39; Luke 1:35; 20:36; John 19:7; Rom 1:4; 8:14–16, 23; 9:4, 26; Gal 3:26; 4:5; Eph 1:5; John 1:12; Phil 2:15; 1 John 3:1–2; cf. Eph 4:17–32; Col 3:1–11, especially as they relate to the themes of “image of God” and the believer’s “walk”).

I. Critique Of The Three Main Views

1. The Sethite View

The first view proposes that the sons of God are the godly line descending from Seth, and that the daughters of men come from the line of Cain. The chief arguments in favor of this view are that immediately following Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:24), Genesis traces two major lines of descent: one from Cain (Gen 4:1–24) and the other from Seth (Gen 4:25–5:32). Both Cain’s and Seth’s genealogies immediately precede the Gen 6 episode, in which two contrasting groups also appear, designated the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men,” whose activities are somehow responsible for God’s judgment by flood (Gen 6:1–8). The transgression in view therefore is intermarriage between the two lines, indicating a moral failure on the part of the Sethites to show discretion in their selection of marriage partners. Among representatives of the Sethite view are church fathers such as Augustine, and Reformers such as John Calvin. It also has support from modern interpreters.[7]

A contextual reading of Genesis supports this view in the following ways: first, the Sethites are already singled out as the godly line (Gen 4:25–5:32) in contrast to the violent and rebellious line of Cain (Gen 4:1–24). Second, the theme of marrying within a particular family line is prominent within Genesis, while marrying outside the line is looked upon with disfavor (cf. Gen 24:4; 27:46–28:9). Third, elsewhere in Scripture, “sonship” language is used in a variety of ways.[8] Old Testament usage refers to God’s covenant people. For example, in Exod 4:22–23, the nation Israel is collectively referred to as “my son, my firstborn” (see also Hos 11:1). In addition, God’s chosen king over his people and the nations is also referred to in the language of sonship (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chron 17:13; Pss 2; 89:26–27).

One weakness of the Sethite view, however, is that it takes the term “man” (האדם) in Gen 6:1 and 2 in two different senses. In the first verse, האדם is taken as a collective, meaning humankind in general; in the second, it is in direct reference to the daughters of the Cainite line. Nevertheless, Kline has shown that this difficulty may be resolved if האדם in both verses is applied to humanity in general. From this perspective, therefore, the Sethite intermarriage view still stands, as they would be selecting marriage partners out of the general population of women from both groups, without regard for covenantal discretion.[9]

A second major weakness, according to Meredith Kline, is the reference to the “Nephilim-Gibborim” of Gen 6:4. He asserts that these are the offspring of the intermarriage between the sons of God and the daughters of men. The problem for Kline is that it is not clear why believers marrying unbelievers should produce the “Nephilim-Gibborim.” He writes, “Unless the difficulty which follows from this conclusion can be overcome, the religiously mixed marriage interpretation of the passage ought to be definitely abandoned.”[10]

The third and final weakness with the Sethite view, as David Clines notes, is that the phrase “does not appear as a collective term for the Sethites, either in these chapters or elsewhere.”[11] These last two weaknesses, in particular, have led some to look beyond the Sethite view for another alternative.[12]

2. The Angelic View

The second main view suggests that these sons of God are angels. This is argued on the basis of the interpretation of the Hebrew phrase, the “sons of God” (בני האלהים), appearing in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7. In the Job texts, the sons of God are angels who serve as members of the divine heavenly council and stand in the presence of God (cf. 1 Kgs 22:19; Ps 89:5–7). A similar phrase is found in Hos 2:1 (בני ישראל) and in Pss 29:1 and 89:6 [7] (בני אלים), where these are generally thought to refer to angels as well. According to the angelic view, these left their proper abode in order to have intercourse with human women. The Nephilim and Gibborim of Gen 6:4 are considered to be the offspring of this unorthodox union, and are responsible for bringing about God’s judgment.

Support for the angelic view comes primarily from the biblical texts listed above and from extra-biblical materials, most notably, the pseudepigraphal 1 Enoch that states: “And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied, in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose wives from among the children of men and beget us children’” (1 En. 6:1–2).

The NT Epistles of 2 Peter and Jude are also enlisted in support of the pseudepigraphal interpretation of Gen 6: “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned . . .” (2 Pet 2:4), and “. . . angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 6–7). Justin Martyr is listed among those in support of the angelic view, as are some modern interpreters.[13]

The major strength of the angelic view is that the exact phrase “sons of God” appears elsewhere in Scripture, most clearly in Job, where it is used to describe angels in attendance at the divine court. This observation is also a weakness, since Job is the only place where the exact phrase occurs. Thus, we have no other biblical contexts with which to compare the “sons of God” terminology except the Job passages and Gen 6. Therefore, to automatically conclude that the phrase’s usage in Gen 6 is a reference to angels because of its usage in Job is to commit the fallacy of “unwarranted restriction of the semantic field,” and to fail to take into account other possibilities that may offer a more plausible interpretation.[14] In fact, angels are seen throughout the book of Genesis, but they are never referred to as “sons of God.” Rather, the term used to identify them is מלאך (Gen 16:7, 9–11; 19:1, 15; 21:17; 22:11, 15; 24:7, 40; 28:12; 31:11; 32:2, 4, 7; 48:16).

Outside of Genesis, other Scriptures have been cited in support of the divine council for the sons of God interpretation, but these are less convincing. Psalm 82 serves as one example. Verse 1 states:

God takes his stand in the congregation of God (אלהים נצב בערת־אל) 

In the congregation of the gods he judges (בקרב אלהים ישפט)[15]

Contextually, these “gods” are indicted for showing partiality to the wicked and for not executing justice for the widow and orphan (Ps 82:2–4). Verses 6–7 testify to God’s judgment concerning their dereliction of duty:

I say you are gods (אני־אמרתי אלהים אתם) 

And sons of the Most High (ובני עליון כלכם) 

Nevertheless, like man you will die (אכן כאדם תמותון) 

And like one of the princes you will fall (וכאחד השרים תפלו)

While some maintain the angelic view of this psalm,[16] others have shown that neither the context nor the theology can support this reading. Angels are not entrusted with defending the widow and orphan. Moreover, angels do not die.[17] Instead, Kline rightly sees that these “sons of the Most High” are “Israelite magistrates,” who are vested with this God-like dignity and authority even though they are misusing it.[18]

Another weakness with the angelic view, according to Green and others, derives from the further lack of biblical evidence in support of angels ever marrying human beings.[19] Both in the examples cited above and in the case of Gen 6:1–8, the immediate and broader literary contexts are key. From a contextual standpoint, the abrupt appearance of angelic beings intermarrying with human women seems to be quite out of place in a narrative that has been largely concerned with tracing human genealogical lines.

Lastly is the theological problem of the flood. Why would human beings be held culpable for a crime that was committed against them by rebellious angels?[20] Unless one holds to a source critical and mythological reading of the text, the angelic view offers a less than satisfactory explanation, even in spite of the linguistic support found in the book of Job.

3. The Divine Kingship View

We have previously noted that Meredith Kline’s two main concerns regarding the Sethite view center on the issues of religiously mixed marriages producing the “Nephilim-Gibborim,” and the additional problem that the “sons of God” phraseology does not appear elsewhere in the book of Genesis to describe the covenant community.[21] In search of a more plausible explanation, Kline turns to studies outside the Hebrew text in order to examine how the phrase “sons of God” may have been understood in ancient Near Eastern contexts. This is appropriate since Israel belonged to a broader culture that shared similar worldview concepts, such as the notion of divine kingship. Kline writes: “From the several great kingdoms which formed the setting of the Old Testament history the evidence has been amassed, showing that kings were often regarded as in one sense or another divine and that they were called sons of the various gods.”[22]

With this background in view, Kline then returns to the biblical texts to see if this insight comports well with Scripture. Second Samuel 7:14 and Exod 4:22 are cited as examples, about which he writes: “God’s identification of Israel as ‘my son’ seems to signify Israel’s royal status as heir of the kingdom of God. That is suggested by the contrast drawn between Israel, God’s firstborn son, and Pharaoh’s firstborn, who was of divine birth according to Egyptian king ideology and so one of ‘the sons of the gods.’”[23] In addition, Kline makes use of extra-biblical Jewish sources that held to the view that the sons of God in Gen 6 were men of nobility, and that the daughters of men were their social inferiors.[24]

Having proposed that the biblical phrase “sons of God” denotes divine kingship, Kline moves to a contextual reading of Gen 6:1–4, noting that the beginning of this dynasty is to be found with the line of Cain (Gen 4:16–24). His arguments in favor of the Cainites are as follows.

First, this line is the first to build a city, which sets the stage for the emergence of kingship. An outstanding figure in this dynasty is the person of Lamech, noted for his bigamy and “royal enforcement of law,” which was nothing more than a tyrannical policy of personal revenge (Gen 4:19–24). Here Kline observes structural parallels between the activities of Lamech in Gen 4:19–24 and the sons of God in Gen 6:1–4. They both take wives and bear children. The former passage closes with Lamech’s boast, while the latter with the Lord’s announcement of judgment. Thus, Gen 6:1–4 presents the final stages of wanton violence produced by these royal tyrants before God determines to end it all by sending the flood.[25] Second, the transgression of these despots is that of the Cainite Lamech legacy: polygamy. Third, the princes born as the result of this union are the Nephilim-Gibborim (Gen 6:4), whom Kline labels as “the mighty tyrants who Lamech-like esteemed their might to be their right.”[26]

Kline then examines similarities between ancient Near Eastern flood texts and Gen 6:1–4 in order to further substantiate his case. He draws from the Atrahasis Epic, which introduces the Mesopotamian flood story with the following: “The land became wide, the peop[le became nu]merous, the land bellowed like wild oxen. The god was disturbed by their uproar. [Enil] heard their clamor (and) said to the great gods: ‘Oppressive has become the clamor of mankind. By their uproar they prevent sleep.’”[27] Kline sees parallels between this epic and Gen 6:1–4, suggesting that the Genesis pericope is not a misplaced fragment, but rather is an integral part of the narrative which serves to introduce the biblical flood narrative.

Other evidence drawn from ancient Near Eastern literature is the Sumerian King List. The list begins with the sentence: “When kingship was lowered from heaven,” and talks about the successive establishment of kingship in five different cities. It chronicles the names and reigns of the kings who ruled in these cities before the flood came upon the earth.[28]

Thus, the major support for Kline’s dynastic ruler view comes from the contextual parallels seen in Gen 6 and Gen 4, as they are read against an ancient Near Eastern background that witnesses to the “theme of antediluvian kingship centering in cities under the hegemony of various gods.”[29]

Having established his thesis, Kline then moves to a biblical theological reading of Gen 6:1–4 in light of the theme of divine kingship as it develops in the earlier and later chapters of Genesis and beyond.[30] He begins with the “royal mandate” to subjugate and cultivate the earth through the institutions of marriage and labor according to Gen 1 and 2: “Through these the earth was to be filled with a race of gifted rulers who would exercise their stewardship of talent and dominion in the perfecting of the consecration of all sub-human creation to the interests of man, as the royal representative and priest of God. This program was reinstituted after the Fall with the intimation given that it would be realized as a soteric accomplishment of the Lord (Gen 3).”[31] Kline sees Noah, seed of Seth’s lineage, “together with his princely heirs” emerging from the flood “as the redeemed king into the new world” (Gen 5, 7, and 8).

Parallel to this ideal is the failure of Cain’s dynasty, which not only desecrates the divine ideal for marriage, but also further misuses the special office of kingship by exacting violence through tyranny. As was seen, according to Kline, these tyrants are the “sons of God” in Gen 6:2, 4.

After the flood, the rebellious dynasty once again asserts itself in its failed attempt to build the tower of Babel. The parallels between Gen 11:1–9 and Gen 6:1–8 demonstrate that “the spirit of the two are the same; the kingdom builders of Shinar, like the ancient Gibborim, were bent on a name (11:4; [see also] 6:4),” and each epoch ends with divine judgment.

But while there was this rebellious development of human kingship that led on to the judgment of God, the era of Genesis 9–12 like that of Genesis 3–8 moved toward an outstanding realization of a kingship of man which was after God’s own heart and towards a significant portrayal of the kingdom of God among men. The fall of the dynasty of the בני־האלהים was the foil to Noah’s triumph. So in contrast to the debacle at Babel there is set the establishment of God’s covenant with Abraham as the crowning fruit of the Noahic era, the fruit in which there was in turn the seed of the future of God’s kingdom and of a righteous kingship on earth.[32]

There is much to be commended with respect to Kline’s divine kingship view. As Hamilton aptly points out, “It removes Gen. 6:1–4 from any mythological or nonhistorical” reading of the text, and allows it to serve as an introduction to the Flood narrative, while at the same time attempting “to be faithful to the immediately preceding context about Cainites and Sethites.”[33] Next are the biblical references Kline cites, which identify the people of God in the language of sonship. Also significant is the ancient Near Eastern concept of divine kingship that is linked to city-building. And lastly, there is his biblical theological treatment of these themes as they develop throughout the rest of the canon. I am in general agreement with Kline’s theological assessments as he lays them out. However, the weaknesses of his view may be observed in the following points.

First, Kline is too quick to attribute the title “sons of God” to the line of Cain. It is understandable why he does so, namely, because this line is the first to build a city. Nevertheless, it appears that he is depending solely upon ancient Near Eastern sources to make this designation, while overlooking certain indicators within the biblical narrative itself that make a stronger case that the sons of God belong to the line of Seth. I shall develop the case for the Sethites in the next section.

Second, a close reading of Gen 6:1–8 reveals that v. 4 introduces a parenthetical comment about the Nephilim’s presence on the earth during the time—and also after the time—that the sons of God and the daughters of men gave birth to children. The text states: “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they gave birth to them—these are the great men of old, men of name” (Gen 6:4).[34]

This verse indicates that the Nephilim were already in existence at the time that the events of Gen 6:1–2 took place. Therefore, they could not have been the offspring that were produced by these marriage unions. It is unclear if some of the daughters of men were from among the Nephilim whom the sons of God went in to, and thus produced the Gibborim, or if “Gibborim” is simply another reference to the Nephilim, who were “men of name.” The main point I wish to make however is that the union between the sons of God and daughters of men did not produce the “Nephilim-Gibborim,” as Kline asserts. Rather, Gen 6:4 is only providing the reader with the information that the Nephilim were in existence when the events of Gen 6:1–3 took place. Why this information is important is another question. I am certain that the original audience would have understood the significance of this comment. Perhaps it occurs here because the author wanted his readers to know that these marriages did not produce the Nephilim, nor did these unions bring an end to their existence before the flood.[35] A careful reading of Gen 6:1–4 actually solves one of Kline’s main concerns over why the so-called “religiously mixed marriage interpretation” of the passage would have produced such unusually large people. The text simply does not say this.[36]

Third, David Clines raises the objection that while the phrase “son of God” is a designation for human kings in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Canaan, and Israel, the plural is rarely attested to in the ancient Near East for kings in general.[37] But this objection betrays a wooden view of the Hebrew, implying that one must have the exact phrase for the exact identity. We have seen elsewhere in Scripture that similar phrases are used to designate the people of God. Thus, if the case can be made that the sons of God in Gen 6 are in some way connected to the notion of divine kingship, then it is fitting that the plural attestation be applied to them. Moreover, the answer to David Clines’s objection speaks also to Meredith Kline’s second concern, namely, that the phrase “sons of God” does not appear in the rest of Genesis as a designation for members of the covenant community.[38] However, the same argument may be made with regard to the Cainites. They are never directly called the “sons of God” in Genesis either, and as we have already seen, neither are angels. In sum, Meredith Kline’s main argument for a Cainite reading of the text is based primarily on ancient Near Eastern concepts of divine kingship. While I do affirm that divine kingship is in view, I think that a better case can be made for the Sethite line. To these arguments we now turn.

II. The Divine Kingship Sethite Interpretation

1. The Notion Of Divine Kingship In Relation To The Image Of God

One need not look very far to find the concept of divine kingship in the opening chapters of Genesis. Genesis 1:26–28 reveals the statement that humanity is made in the image and likeness of God. While there has been much discussion concerning its precise meaning, there is a growing consensus that understands “image” and “likeness” to represent humanity’s ruling function over creation as God’s royal representatives.[39] As such, humanity was to reflect God’s kingship over the earth through the agency of vice-regency.[40] There was also a priestly dimension to the royal task. In Gen 2:15, Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden to “cultivate” it and to “keep” its charge.[41] Thus, the opening chapters indicate that humanity’s purpose was to reflect the divine image by means of being a royal priesthood.

The next reference to humanity created in God’s image comes in Gen 5:1–2. Interestingly, it appears within the context of Adam’s genealogy. Gladd makes an important observation when he writes:

The rehearsing of the creation account at this point in the narrative is telling. This is the second genealogy thus far. Genesis 4:17–26 comprises the first, but, unlike that genealogical section, this is prefaced with a review of 1:26–28. Therefore, perhaps 5:1–32 is viewed according to the Genesis narrative, as the beginning fulfillment or continuation of the 1:26–28 mandate and blessing; juxtaposed with the genealogical section of blessing is the ungodly line in 4:17–26.[42]

While this view is possible and would certainly accord well with our understanding of the original commission in Gen 1:26–28, at least two factors are against it. First, Cain’s genealogy ends with Gen 4:24, not v. 26. Instead, vv. 25–26 form the conclusion to ch. 4, while at the same time taking us back to the story of Adam and Eve (cf. Gen 4:1–2). In so doing, Gen 4:25–26 reveals a very telling statement concerning the significance of Seth’s birth, which serves also to introduce the genealogy of Adam that begins in Gen 5:1.

Second, conspicuously absent in this view is any reference to the events of Gen 3. Gladd does make reference to the fall much later in the article when he writes, “Though the fall obviously hampers and brings serious dilemmas to humanity’s mandate, Adam and Eve begin to fulfill Gen 1:28 and continue to produce other legitimate image bearers, albeit imperfectly.”[43] However, a closer look at Gen 3 reveals that a drastic change has taken place with respect to the couple’s original status and mandate.

Genesis 3 closes with Adam and Eve’s banishment from the Garden of Eden, the man now being subjected to working the ground in a state of exile (Gen 3:22–23). The privileges of divine presence, blessing, and mission so intricately bound up with obedience to God and reverence toward his garden sanctuary have now been forfeited. Adam’s failure to guard the garden’s sanctity by succumbing to the serpent’s temptation has resulted in devastating consequences for the entire creation and the human race. Cherubim are therefore vested with the privilege that should have belonged to the man. Man’s priestly service is now given over to angels that take up the charge, stationing themselves at the east to guard the way to the tree of life (Gen 3:24).

In other words, Adam and Eve’s original royal priestly status and mission have now been forfeited due to rebellion. Nevertheless, God’s plan for creation will not be thwarted by evil. He intends to reverse the terrible consequences brought on by the couple’s disobedience through an offspring from the woman who shall ultimately crush the head of the serpent, while experiencing a crushing blow to his heel in the process (Gen 3:15). Thus, I would suggest that this promise anticipates a future restoration of humanity’s royal priestly status and mission. Somehow this is to take place through the agency of a coming seed of the woman. The specifics of who this is and how this plays out on the larger scene still remains to be seen as the narrative unfolds. Thus, Gen 4:25–26 serves to pick up on the theme of this coming seed in its introduction to Adam’s genealogy:

25 Adam knew his wife again and she bore a son and called his name Seth, “for God has appointed for me another seed instead of Abel for Cain killed him.”[44] 

26 And to Seth also was born a son and he called his name Enosh. Then he[45] began to call upon/proclaim the name of the Lord.[46]

The language concerning the birth of Seth in Gen 4:25 takes us back to the births of Adam and Eve’s first two sons,[47] recalling Cain’s murder of Abel (Gen 4:1–8), and also back to the promised seed of Gen 3:15. As Collins points out, Eve’s pronouncement concerning Seth’s replacement of Abel “looks back to the rest of the pericope and forward to what follows in Genesis with its reference to the seed/offspring theme; also, by acknowledging that neither Abel nor Cain was the promised ‘offspring’ of [Gen] 3:15, it invites us to look beyond the immediate descendants of Adam and Eve.”[48] Thus, this bridge to Adam’s genealogy keeps us focused on the hope of a coming seed that will appear through the line of Seth (Gen 5:1–32).[49] From this perspective, the reference to the original creation (Gen 1:26–28) in Gen 5:1–2 may be viewed not as the beginning fulfillment or continuation of the original mandate, but rather as the beginning of the restoration promise of humanity’s status and mission that will come through the line of Seth.

Interestingly, Gen 5:3 uses the same language of Gen 1:26–28 in its description of Adam giving birth to a son in his own image. Hamilton takes note of the parallels: “The reference to Gen 1 at the start of this chapter [ch. 5] permits a contrast between a divine creative act and human creative acts. In a sense, Adam and his posterity are doing what God did.”[50] Gladd makes the case that Adam’s unique image is being passed on to his son Seth, carrying with it the original mandate of Gen 1:26–28 to rule as God’s representatives.[51] However, given the point that was made earlier, the image being passed on to Seth is a fallen one. Further evidence in support of the “fallen image” reading is the recurring refrain concerning the death of Adam and his descendants with the exception of Enoch (Gen 5:1–31; cf. 5:24). Moreover, Adam’s genealogy ends with Lamech’s reference to the curse of Gen 3 (cf. Gen 5:29). Thus, although Adam’s offspring are blessed with the powers of reproduction, nevertheless, both death and the curse permeate this section, reminding the reader that humanity is still under God’s judgment. Yet, the narrative offers the hope of restoration through the theme of a coming seed. Therefore, it appears that Adam’s line continuing through Seth holds not the beginning fulfillment or continuation of the original commission, but rather the restoration promise of a renewed royal priesthood and mission. In fact, Lamech’s naming of his son Noah seems, at the very least, to reflect some kind of hope for future restoration tied up with his particular seed (Gen 5:29).

In sum, given the rebellion that has occurred in Gen 3 and God’s own statements about the overall condition of the human heart, at this stage in the Primary History, no human being is fit to serve in a representative capacity (cf. Gen 6:5, 11–12; 8:21). Nevertheless, the Sethite line is the chosen line that bears the restoration promise of Gen 3:15 with the hope of humanity’s renewed status and mission. Moreover, individuals within this family line evidence a close relationship to God, as may be observed in the comment surrounding Seth’s firstborn son, Enosh, where it is said that he began to “call upon the name of the Lord” (Gen 4:26). As Collins points out, to call upon the divine name is “to evoke that deity in worship.”[52] The exact same language appears later in Genesis where it is used in connection with patriarchal worship and the building of altars (cf. Gen 12:8; 13:4; 21:33; 26:25). Thus, early on in the Primary History we may observe the principle of an elect line, bearing individuals who are characterized by a close relationship with God as evidenced by faith in his saving promise.[53] Seen within this light, I shall argue that the sons of God that appear in Gen 6:2 and 4 may be rightly identified as the elect line of Seth, the royal priestly heirs to the restoration promise of Gen 3:15.[54]

2. Structural And Linguistic Parallels

Kline observed structural and linguistic parallels between the activities of Lamech and the sons of God in the taking of wives and bearing children, thus arguing that these sons derive from Cain’s lineage.[55] However, stronger parallels may be seen between the activities of Eve and these sons, which support a Sethite identity, especially when taken in light of the Sethite relationship to Adam and Eve with respect to the original divine image and restoration promise of Gen 3:15 (cf. Gen 4:25–5:2). Eslinger points out the following linguistic parallels that exist between the actions of Eve and the sons she produces:[56]

The woman “saw” (ראה) that the tree was “good” (טוב) . . . she “took” (לקח) (Gen 3:6). 

The sons of God “saw” (ראה) that the daughters of men were “good” (טוב) and they “took” (לקח) (Gen 6:2).

Both Eve and the sons of God “see” something, consider it “good,” and “take” it. This allusion to Gen 3:6 in Gen 6:2 shows the correspondence between two actions that are regarded as sinful. In both accounts, the punishment is inflicted upon humans, resulting in ramifications for the entire human race, and all of creation as well. Both accounts feature God’s judgment, as well as his provision of grace (Gen 3:13–24 [noting v. 15]; 6:3, 5–7, 8). Furthermore, these structural and linguistic parallels make the stronger case for sin that is committed by humans and not by angelic beings.

3. Genesis 6:1–8 In The Broader Literary Context Of Israel’s Primary History

As was seen in the traditional Sethite view, the immediate literary context of Gen 6:1–8 is linked to the broader context that narrates the development of two contrasting family lines of descent following the creation account and Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Eden (Gen 4–5). The contrast seen in Gen 4:1–24 and 4:25–5:32 comes into sharp focus when we are presented with two family lines that run parallel with one another, each having individuals within them bearing similar or identical names. However, the behavior of these individuals could not be more different.[57]

Unlike Cain’s rebellious descendants, individuals within Seth’s family line actually act like sons of God. Whereas Cain’s Enoch has a city named after him (Gen 4:17), Seth’s Enoch “walks” with God and is miraculously “taken up” (Gen 5:24). Moreover, as Cain’s Lamech boasts of his murderous exploits, proclaiming himself to be master of his own destiny (Gen 4:23–24), Seth’s Lamech, in naming his son Noah, appears to be placing hope in the promise of a coming deliverer (Gen 3:15), while at the same time making reference to the curse of the ground recorded in Gen 3:17: “This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands arising from the ground which the Lord has cursed” (Gen 5:29).[58]

It is against these genealogical backgrounds that Gen 6:1–8 opens with a statement about humanity’s multiplication on the face of the earth (Gen 6:1). In the following verses, we are presented with two contrasting groups, designated the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” (Gen 6:2). Apparently, these two groups are indiscriminately intermingling in marriage, an activity that arouses the divine displeasure, prompting God to shorten the span of human life (Gen 6:3). The fact that marriage between these two groups displeases God seems unusual, since fruitfulness and multiplication have been part of the divine plan since the beginning (cf. Gen 1:26–28; 2:23–24; 4:17–22; 4:25–5:32). Therefore, this union must be viewed as something contrary to the divine will, and it somehow poses a threat to his restoration purposes for creation.[59]

The observation that two contrasting groups follow two contrasting genealogies seems to argue that the Sethites and Cainites are in view. I suggest, therefore, that the sons of God are the descendants of Seth and that the daughters of men are women in general, taken from both the main lines, but probably more specifically from the line of Cain. The transgression in view is intermarriage between these two lines, indicating a moral failure on the part of the Sethites to show discretion in their selection of marriage partners. This transgression of boundaries now precipitates the way for the further moral and civil breakdown of society, and concludes with God’s grievous decision to end it all by sending the flood (Gen 6:5–7). Noah alone stands out in this generation as the sole righteous offspring of Seth’s line. He and his family become the recipients of God’s grace and are spared the oncoming judgment (Gen 6:8–9; compare Gen 6:11–12). This salvation can only be due to God’s larger purposes for creation, as may be evidenced by the covenant he makes with Noah and the entire creation.

In spite of it all, God covenants that he will never again deal with human depravity in this way (cf. Gen 6:18; 8:21–22; 9:8–17). As such, this covenant represents a new beginning for the earth and humanity. Noah and his sons receive God’s blessing to ensure their fruitfulness as they multiply upon the earth. And although one may hear an echo of the original benediction of Gen 1:28 in Gen 9:1, it is significant to highlight that there are notable differences.

Some have also considered the command of Gen 9:1 (“be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth”) to be the re-commissioning of Noah and his sons in accordance with the original mandate of Gen 1:28.[60] A closer look at both of these texts, however, reveals that the original commands to “subdue” and “rule” do not appear in Gen 9:1 as they did in 1:28:

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky and every living thing that moves on the face of the earth.”

Gen 9:1–2 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. And the fear and dread of you shall be on every living thing on the earth and upon all the birds of the sky and on all that moves on the ground and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given.”

While the concept of subjugation may be implied in Gen 9:2, the command to rule is strikingly absent. Moreover, the tone is remarkably different. What might be the significance of these differences?

The postdiluvian world will indeed continue due to God’s gracious provision, but humanity has not been re-instated to its commission as originally set forth in the earlier chapters of Genesis. In Gen 3, we saw that both status and mission were forfeited through Adam and Eve’s rebellion. Even though God blesses the human race with the powers of procreation to multiply and fill the earth’s surface, not much has changed with respect to the recesses of the human heart (Gen 9:1; cf. Gen 8:21). This is the primary hindrance that disqualifies humanity from serving as God’s representatives. Thus, a covenant is established with Noah, his sons, and the creation in order to restrain human wickedness, and to serve as a promise that both the earth and humanity shall continue until God’s purposes for creation will be finally realized (cf. Gen 9:5–17). Nevertheless, the re-instatement of humanity’s status and mission are not included in it. That will have to wait for a time in the future, as God now works to restore what was lost through Adam and Eve’s rebellion. So far, the narrative has led us to Noah and his three sons. Nevertheless, human rebellion will once again come to the fore in the story of Babel, as we witness the earth’s second set of autonomous city-builders (Gen 11:1–9).

III. Conclusion

This interpretation has the advantage of bringing together the traditional Sethite view with Kline’s divine kingship view. This interpretation proposes a dramatic reversal, however, with respect to the identity of these royal sons. They are the Sethites, not the Cainites. They are the sons of Adam, who is a son of God, and thus the chosen line that bears the restoration promise of Gen 3:15.

IV. Further Biblical Theological Conclusions

Humanity was originally created in the image of God (Gen 1:26–28), and vested with the royal privilege of subjugating and cultivating the earth.[61] Thus, to be in the image of God was to represent God’s kingship on earth. The first couple’s molding of the earth was to be a continuation of God’s creative acts. As loyal vice-regents, they were to extend the divine presence throughout the earth through a process of multiplication and filling. The biblical perspective reveals, in the words of Beale, that “God’s ultimate goal in creation was to magnify his glory throughout the earth by means of his faithful image bearers inhabiting the world in obedience to the divine mandate.”[62] Middleton adds that, fundamental to this task was the human development of culture, which included “technological innovations such as city-building ([Gen] 4:17; 11:1–9) and nomadic livestock-herding, music, and metallurgy (4:20–22).”[63] However, all that was forfeited due to the couple’s rebellion (Gen 3). Yet, in spite of this disastrous outcome, the narrative offered a ray of hope. As was seen, God will not allow the entire race to go the way of the serpent. A seed shall come from the woman who shall ultimately crush the serpent’s head (Gen 3:15).

Following Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Eden, Gen 4 and 5 contrasts two main family lines: one showing a certain affinity with the serpent; the other, with the seed of the woman. Although Cain’s line is the first to develop culture, they do not do so as God’s vice-regents. Rather, they do so apart from a living relationship with God. It is no surprise therefore to see the same thing happen again with the builders at Babel (Gen 11). These autonomous building activities show the true nature of these builders’ character. Sadly, this has been the general story of humankind ever since Gen 4. As Motyer points out, “There will always be a Babylon principle operating in world history: humankind’s attempt (as in Gen 11:1–9) to impose order and unity on the world and to create its own security.”[64] However, the attempt to establish world order apart from God is a doomed endeavor (Isa 13:1–27:13).[65]

Although God intends to renew humanity’s status and commission according to his original purposes for creation, that renewal is still a long way off from both a narrative and historical perspective. In order for this restoration to take place, humanity must wait in faith for God to bring it about. Intriguingly, this explains why Seth’s offspring do not immediately engage in city-building.

In contrast to autonomous humanity’s attempt to make a “name” for themselves (Gen 11:4), God will call Abram out of the city in order to make his “name” great (Gen 12:1–4). Abram will be led, interestingly, to the land of the Canaanites, a land that God promises to give to Abram (Abraham) and his “seed” (Gen 15). Later, God will hold out several covenant promises, among which is included the mention of “kings” coming from the line of Abraham, provided he “walks” before God and is blameless (Gen 17:1–19). As Alexander points out, “By changing Abram’s name to Abraham, God underlines the importance of the fact that he will be the father of many nations. This occurs not because these nations are Abraham’s natural descendants but because he is for them the channel of divine blessing.”[66]

This covenant will be confirmed by the divine oath in Gen 22:16–18: “By demonstrating his obedience to God, even to the point of being willing to sacrifice his only son, Abraham fulfils the conditions laid down in 17:1; he shows beyond doubt his willingness to walk before God and be blameless.”[67] Significantly, this oath points to a promised “seed” who will not only “possess the gate of [his] enemies, but will also become the channel of blessing for “all the nations of the earth” (Gen 22:17–18).[68]

At Sinai Israel will become God’s special people. Interestingly, this takes place only after their redemption from slavery; their royal priestly status and commission, however, are still conditioned upon their obedience (Exod 19:5–6).

Although kingship will emerge, and a temple will be built in the city of Jerusalem, sadly, both kings and nation will ultimately fail and end up in exile (2 Sam 7:1–17; 1 Kgs 6:1–11:43; 2 Kgs 17:7–23; 24:1–25:30). Nevertheless, God promises to bring about a new covenant through the obedience of a royal seed of David who shall fulfill the conditional aspects of the broken covenant in order to usher in its unconditional aspects (Isa 9:1–7; 11:1–16; 52:13–53:12; Jer 31:27–34; Ezek 37:24–28; 2 Sam 7:10–11). This royal seed shall re-gather the lost remnant of Israel, while also opening the way for Gentile inclusion (Isa 49:1–13). Thus, Jesus is the Son of God par excellence. The only one who has both the true status and heart of a son shall enter the world on a mission to restore what Adam and Eve forfeited, in fulfillment of Gen 3:15. His atoning death, resurrection, and ascension are at the heart of the restoration promised by God, and through these events, he gains the victory over the serpent (Luke 24:44–49; John 12:27–33; Acts 2:14–36; 3:13–26; Col 2:8–15).

Jesus’ death satisfies God’s justice in paying for all of his people’s transgressions since Adam and Eve (Rom 3:21–26). His resurrection makes way for the new beginning, and the ascension sets him up as the True King and Great High Priest over the cosmos, the one who is currently officiating in power and authority, serving his people and putting the remainder of his enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15:20–28). The sons of God therefore are those who through faith in his finished work on their behalf, coupled with the enabling power of the Spirit of the new covenant promise, have now both the status and heart of sons, and are co-heirs with Christ of the new heavens and earth which are to come (Rom 8:1–17).

Although possessing both status and heart, they, like him, suffer in this world and look forward to the glory that shall be revealed when they are displayed for who they are at Christ’s Second Coming, at which time the creation itself shall be finally liberated from its bondage to futility and decay (Rom 8:17–39). In the time between the times, their mission is one of witness in the proclamation of “the excellencies of Him who has called [them] out of the darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Pet 2:9).

Both the book of Daniel and John’s Revelation give us insight into why the redeemed suffer: Daniel 7 shows that although Satan and his kingdom have been conquered through the Son of Man, God allows Satan a little more time before ushering in the end.[69] Revelation 12 reveals a defeated foe that, enraged with the woman who bore the Christ child, continues to make war against both her and her seed. In spite of this sustained conflict, the restoration of the royal priesthood has been accomplished through the person and work of Jesus Christ, and presently belongs to those who are united to him by faith (1 Pet 1:1–11; 2:4–10). Indeed, the kingdom of God has been inaugurated at the first coming of Christ, and yet the full inheritance still lies in the future when he returns in glory to usher in the new heavens and earth. Meanwhile, like the sons of God of old, we do not build any earthly city. Rather, like Abraham and his seed, we put our trust in God’s promises, and live godly lives, declaring his praise, while waiting in hope for that city whose foundations and builder is God (Heb 11:8–16; 12:18–28; Isa 43:21; Rev 21:1–22:21).

Notes

1. For an interesting article surveying the ancient exegesis of Gen 6:2 based on both Jewish and Christian extant sources, see Robert C. Newman, “The Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6:2, 4, ” Grace Theological Journal 5 (1984): 13-36.
2. In addition, and apart from a select few, the consensus typically sets the boundaries for the “sons of God” pericope to begin at Gen 6:1 and conclude with v. 4. Among those who take Gen 6:1-8 as a unit are Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC 1; Waco: Word, 1987), 136-37; Laurence A. Turner, Genesis (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 43-45. Moreover, as Fockner points out, it is universally assumed that Gen 6:1-4 is “to be treated independently of everything that comes before or after it” (Sven Fockner, “Reopening the Discussion: Another Contextual Look at the Sons of God,” JSOT 32 [2008]: 442). I take Gen 6:1-8 to be part of a larger unit that is marked off by two toledot formulas in Gen 5:1 and 6:9. The first part chronicles Adam to Noah (Gen 5:1-32), the second focuses on the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” (Gen 6:1-4), and the third culminates with Yahweh’s decision to send the flood (Gen 6:5-8) (see David A. Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis–Malachi [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999], 51).
3. Meredith Kline, “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4, ” WTJ 24 (1962): 188-89.
4. Ibid., 187-204.
5. Ibid., 191, 194-96. A detailed account of Kline’s particular view will be taken up later.
6. In this article, I use the term “biblical theology” to describe the progressive accomplishments of God’s redemptive purposes for creation in history as they unfold across the pages of Scripture. As such, I assume this progression is organic, and so I use this term differently from most who consider themselves to be in the line of J. P. Gabler (cf. Krister Stendahl, “Biblical Theology, Contemporary,” IDB 1:429-30; Brian S. Rosner, “Biblical Theology,” New Dictionary of Biblical Theology [ed. T. Desmond Alexander et al.; Leicester: InterVarsity, 2000], 3-11). As Sternberg has persuasively argued: “On the one hand, [biblical] history unfolds a theology in action—one distinctively grounded in God’s control and providence, enjoining a remembrance of his wonders from Creation onward. . . . As a record of God’s lordship and his people’s indebtedness, history-writing doubles as a sacred contract, uniquely explaining the processes of time by reference to a covenantal relation with divinity. On the other hand, this history makes a story and therefore not only accommodates but also co-determines the rules of narrative. For instance, its passion for the factual (no matter how assumed) so chimes in with objective storytelling as to render it impossible to disengage the historical from the aesthetic motivation for this strategy” (Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985], 45).
7. Augustine, Civ. 15.22; John Calvin, Commentaries on The First Book of Moses Called Genesis (trans. John King; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1:239. Cf. K&D 1:131-38; William Henry Green, The Unity of the Book of Genesis (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1897), 53-61; William Henry Green, “The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men,” Presbyterian and Reformed Review 5 (1894): 654-60; John Murray, Principles of Conduct (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 243-49; John D. Currid, A Study Commentary on Genesis, Volume 1, 1:1-25:18 (Darlington, U.K.: Evangelical Press, 2003), 174-75.
8. For a full treatment on this subject, see Rick Brown, “Explaining the Biblical Term ‘Son(s) of God’ in Muslim Contexts, Part 1,” International Journal of Frontier Missiology 22, no. 3 (2005): 91-96.
9. Kline, “Divine Kingship,” 189.
10. Ibid., 190.
11. David J. A. Clines, “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode (Genesis 6:1-4) in the Context of the ‘Primal History’ (Genesis 1-11),” JSOT 13 (1979): 33.
12. Cf. Kline, “Divine Kingship,” 191.
13. Justin, 2 Apol. 2.5; Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (6th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1964), 55-56; Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 113; Newman, “Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6:2, 4, ” 13-36.
14. D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 57.
15. Translation mine.
16. Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BSac 158 (2001): 61-65.
17. James M. Trotter, “Death of the אלהים in Psalm 82, ” JBL 131 (2012): 221-39.
18. Kline, “Divine Kingship,” 193. If this reading of Ps 82 is correct, it illustrates another example where divine terminology is being used to describe human beings. In this case the terminology applies to Israelite magistrates who rule on God’s behalf.
19. Green, Unity of the Book of Genesis, 54. He observes further that in the NT Christ specifically states that angels do not marry (cf. Matt 22:30; Mark 12:25). Although this could be used as a silent argument in favor of the angelic view (i.e., angels that should not have married did marry), still there is no direct biblical support for angels cohabitating with human women—not even in 2 Peter or Jude (cf. K&D 1:130-31).
20. Clines, “Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode,” 34.
21. Kline, “Divine Kingship” 191.
22. Ibid., 191-92. Cf. Ivan Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (Oxford: Blackwell, 1967); Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948).
23. Kline, “Divine Kingship,” 192-94.
24. Ibid., 194. He references the Aramaic Targums and the Greek translation of Symmachus, as well as many “Jewish authorities down to the present.”
25. Ibid., 194-95.
26. Ibid., 196.
27. Ibid., 197.
28. Ibid., 198.
29. Ibid., 199.
30. The scope of this article does not permit me to follow this development in detail, but only to highlight the main points.
31. Kline, “Divine Kingship,” 200.
32. Ibid., 202. That kingship will be ultimately realized in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
33. Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 264.
34. Translation mine.
35. The term “Nephilim” also appears twice in Num 13:33 with reference to the “sons of Anak.” Nephilim most likely refers to “Giants,” or to people of great stature, which fits the context of Num 13:33 well: “There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.” The question is, does the phrase “and also afterward” in Gen 6:4 indicate that the Nephilim survived the flood? To which I answer, the fact that men of great stature appear after the flood does not mean that this particular group survived the flood independently of Noah and his three sons. In the same way that particularly large people were on the earth before the flood, so too would they also appear after the flood, as humans multiplied and filled the earth. Interestingly, however, the sons of Anak, to which the Num 13:33 passage refers, were in Canaan, so they must have descended from Noah’s son Ham, whose line is representative of the serpentine seed that emerges from Noah’s three sons after the flood (cf. Gen 9:20-29). Shem continues the line of the righteous seed descending from the “sons of God,” which eventually leads to Abraham and the sons of Israel.
36. Fockner takes the same view. For the full discussion, see Fockner, “Reopening the Discussion,” 453-55. See also Hamilton, Genesis, 261-68.
37. Clines, “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode,” 34-35.
38. Kline, “Divine Kingship,” 191.
39. A close syntactical reading of Gen 1:26-28 reveals that the idea of the image of God in humanity is associated with the exercise of human power over creation, as may be observed by the verbs רדה (rule; 1:26) and כבש (subdue; 1:28) (cf. J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 [Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005], 43-55; G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004], 81-87). The notion of divine representation denoted by image comports well with ancient Near Eastern concepts (cf. David J. A. Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” TynBul 19 [1968]: 53-103; John H. Walton, Genesis [NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001], 130-31; John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible [Nottingham: Apollos, 2007], 212-13).
40. Beale, Temple and the Church’s Mission, 81.
41. The limits of this article do not permit me to develop this theme here. For more on humanity’s priestly task against the background of temple-building, see ibid., 66-70, 84-87.
42. Benjamin L. Gladd, “The Last Adam as the ‘Life-Giving Spirit’ Revisited: A Possible Old Testament Background of One of Paul’s Most Perplexing Phrases,” WTJ 71 (2009): 301.
43. Ibid., 303.
44. Interestingly, in Gen 4:1 Cain is referred to as a man (איש), whereas here in v. 25 Seth is referred to as the promised seed (זרע) that replaced Abel.
45. Both Adam and Enosh can serve either as proper names or in a neutral sense to designate humankind in general (Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 114). I take it to be the individual, since the son born to Seth is given a proper name in Gen 4:26a. Moreover, the verb appears in the third person singular. Note also the LXX’s interpretation: καὶ τῷ Σὴθ ἐγένετο υἱός ἐπωνόμασε δὲ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, Ἑνώς· οὗτος ἤλπισεν ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ. This one, meaning Enosh, began to “hope” in the name of the Lord God. It also evokes the contrast between Cain and Abel’s sacrifice, suggesting both by Eve’s comments about Seth and by Seth’s firstborn son, that individuals in this line will be characterized by their worship of God. Cf. Gen 12:8; 13:4; 21:33; 26:25, speaking of Abraham and Isaac. It may also suggest the proclamation of the name of the Lord, which, as McConville reminds us, is “both to affirm his faithfulness (cf. Exod 3:14-15) and to call the people to obedience to his covenant” (J. Gordon McConville, Deuteronomy [Apollos Old Testament Commentary; Leicester: Apollos, 2002], 452).
46. Translation mine.
47. והאדם ידע את־חוה אשתו“And the man knew his wife Eve” (Gen 4:1a). Compare to וידע אדם עוד את־אשתו “And Adam knew his wife again” (Gen 4:25a).
48. C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2006), 209.
49. Note Lamech’s comments concerning Noah, “This one will give us rest from our work and the toil of our hands arising from the ground which the Lord has cursed” (Gen 5:29).
50. Hamilton, Genesis, Chapters 1-17, 255.
51. Gladd, “The Last Adam,” 302-3.
52. Collins, Genesis 1-4, 207.
53. Cf. Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17.
54. Significantly, Luke’s Gospel traces Jesus’ genealogy back to Adam, whom he calls the “son of God.” Interestingly, Jesus’ genealogical link back to Adam as the son of God is traced through Seth (Luke 3:36-38).
55. He writes, “In each case there are the taking of wives, the bearing of children, and the dynastic exploits. The one passage closes with the boast of Lamech concerning his judgment of those who offend him; the other issues in the Lord’s announcement of the judgment he purposes to visit on the earth which has become offensive to him” (Kline, “Divine Kingship,” 195).
56. Lyle Eslinger, “A Contextual Identification of the bene ha’elohim and benoth ha’adam in Genesis 6:1-4, ” JSOT 13 (1979): 65. The first part of the article is excellent, but Eslinger’s remaining arguments and conclusions are not convincing.
57. Even though the six names listed in Seth’s line (i.e., Enoch, Jared, Mahalel, Methuselah, and Lamech) show similar or identical parallels with the names listed in Cain’s (i.e., Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methushael, Lameh), their differences are striking.
58. An allusion to Gen 3:17-19.
59. While it is possible that polygamy is in view, this does not detract from the idea of failure to show discretion in the selection of marriage partners within a certain family line. For a biblical example of someone who both married outside the family line and also engaged in polygamy, see Esau in Gen 28:8-9; cf. Gen 28:1-5. As for the idea of forced rape, see Hamilton’s comments in Hamilton, Genesis, Chapters 1-17, 265.
60. Cf. Beale, Temple and the Church’s Mission, 94-96; N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 21-26.
61. Kline, “Divine Kingship,” 201.
62. Beale, Temple and the Church’s Mission, 82.
63. Middleton, Liberating Image, 89.
64. J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 165.
65. It is interesting to observe that the descendants of Ham’s Cush, under the leadership of Nimrod, are the first to build the cities of Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh “in the land of Shinar” (Gen 10:10). From there, other cities are founded, among which are Nineveh, Pathrusim, and Casluhim “(from which come the Philistines)” (Gen 10:11-14).
66. T. Desmond Alexander, “Abraham Re-assessed Theologically: The Abraham Narrative and the New Testament Understanding of Justification by Faith,” in He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12-50 (ed. R. Hess, P. E. Sattherthwaite, and G. J. Wenham; Carlisle: Paternoster/Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 13.
67. Ibid., 14.
68. In this earlier article (ibid., 15) Alexander argues for the plausible idea that one descendant is in view here. In a later one, he establishes this thesis by demonstrating it syntactically. Alexander, following the insights of Collins, shows that “when a writer wishes to indicate that זֶרַע ‘denotes a specific descendant, it appears with singular verb inflection, adjectives, and pronouns’” (T. Desmond Alexander, “Further Observations on the Term ‘Seed’ in Genesis,” TynBul 48 [1997]: 363-67; cf. C. John Collins, “A Syntactical Note (Genesis 3:15): Is the Woman’s Seed Singular or Plural?,” TynBul 48 [1997]: 139-48 [Alexander quotes from p. 144 of Collins’s article]).
69. Although the “beasts” and “their dominion” have been taken away, “an extension of life was granted to them for an appointed period of time” (Dan 7:12).