POSTATE SETHITES. Al Ae ieee sera denies “ihe won of God a the godly line of Seth H seems more tppibprate io seer these indviduals apostate Setter, considering thei tinal sin and tie unpreoslened Judginent in contrast the frst view, the “sonsof God are denied a men and the “daughters of men” are women Upually (aktough some avon thi di Tinton) the "ans of God” are spe tally deoiied athe godly dexcenams ot Sethand the “daughters of men” are the ungodly ne of ats, The ain ine volved” is thus that of “mixed marriage,” that i, believer married to unbeliever, Impressive support may be arrayed in favor ofthis postion. The immediate Content certainly speaks of met “Men Began to muldply (.D;rthewickednets ofan was great in he earth” (6. 5 therefore, God sai, “My spirit shall not ahvays strive withman” (3). 1ftheangel Hypothesis sight why should the Sprit oF God strive with men vather than fngelt Its quite beyond comprehen Sion that the Spit should ste with then fora sin which the angel commit ted Another strong argument is based on the general context Te is argued that the context preceding Genesis 6 favored this view. Speatcall, the dewendants tind achivetments of Cain are listed in $1.24, while those of Seth appear in 4:25-5:82. Without question, fo lines are contrased here and they are distinct Cain and his descendants were ungodly. Cain’sline begins with improper worship tind murder and ends in polygamy ad iv arrogant boat of sll. defonse: That the"daughtersof me. were fai" (62) isin Keeping with the meaning of the ttanes ofthe women inthe line of Cait ‘Adah mest “ormament”” or "beauty." Zillah "means "shade" and Naamab means“ ples” Th connection with Seth’ ine iis said, "Then began men to call upon the name of Une LowD” (4:26). Enoch of this tine, walked with God? (:24); Noah was perfec in his generations” and also “valked with God" (6:8, Those In the Seth ine were trie worshipers of Cod Ande tide "sons of God" bette them Futhernore, the understanding of sons of God? to refer tothe godly ne i content with the BB concept that ali the son of Gnd and the hone people ae children, This concep cura BRodue 422 Deuteronomy Th 325, 5 1h, (9, Honea iy ah 12, 111, 488, {ST ere 31.20, Peat 93:152" Another argument for this view comes from the Lord Himself. On the Dr. Kober is an instructor at Faith Bap- sist Bible College, Ankeny, loa Page Eighteon ible By Manfred Kober basis of Matthew and Luke the marriages of Genesis 6 must be ofthe same nature 5 those among the ungodly in the fu ture, ‘The Genetis marlages must be the same as those of Matthew 24:37, 38 and Lake 17:26,27. Tn these New Testament pasages there is nothing to suggest that Ghirst had anything more than human marriages in mind. If Genesis 6 records svat angels di, there is no parallel tall between the antediluvian age and the days ofthe end of the age. -Phe view that the “sons of God!” are the godly lie fits in well with the pro- outed aversion of the Book of Genesis qo marriage between the godly and the ungodly a scen in the cases of Isaac (248, 4), Jacob @746—28:1-), Bean (26:34, 35; 28:6-8) and Dinah (hap. $4) Win this context, Genesis 6:1-4 furthers the practical aim of preventing indi criminate marriage without regard to spiritual status." Tnsummary, the view that the “sons of God!" were men of the godly line of Seth i tenable because the group isa ready distinguished from the ungodly Tne ge Cain tecontet Also. he ae ignation is consistent withthe Biblical conecpt of spiritual sonship; it fits the theme of Genesis which warns the godly against intermarriage with the ungodly: and it is consonant with the context which demonstrates the progressive cor- ruption and ukimate destruction of the hhuman race ‘While the view has much to com. mend itself t should be noted that itis also beset by cermin difficulties, Unger interestingly, callsit naive and perfectly orthodox" If the “sons of God!” and daughters of men” represent respec- tively’ the. godly Sethite and ungodly Cainite ines which intermarried, with the result that the godly line was broken. down, then serious textual objections ‘may be raised. This view takes the term “men” in two different senses in verses 1 and 2. In verse I the “men” are under stood as mankind generically ("When men began to multiply. . . daughters were born unto them"). In verse 2 the “men” are taken to be specifically of the Cainite line ("The sons of God saw the daughters of men”). That sueh a sudden, shift in meaning is not intended is evi= dent from the fact that the"men” of both, verses are the fathers of the “daughters” of the two verses. And the “daughters” of both verses are certainly identical, Tn verse |, daughters were born to men in general. In verse 2, the "daughters of men” must also be of mankind rather than specifically of the Cainite line. To overcome the difficulty it has bbeen suggested that "men" in verse 2, as inverse I, isto be understood as generic. ‘There would then be no specific refer ence to women of the Cainite line, The sinofthe"sons of God" ofthe Sethite line would be an indiscriminate choice of ‘marriage partners out of women in gen- eral, both Cainite and Sethite, to satisfy their own unbridled desire. They selected mates out “of all which they chose” (v. 2). The Sethites were charac terized by careless regard of the holy principles governing the selection of & Several glaring difficulties beset the position which makes the "sons of God! Sethites, One such problem isthe unten= able assumption that the "sons of God” must mean the godly line of Seth. This ‘would be in variance with the general use of that expression in the Ola Testament ‘THE BAPTIST BULLETINwhere it appearstobe restricted to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). Gacbelein rightly notes the designation is never applied in the Ola Testament to believers, whose sonship he rightly observes as distinctly a New Testament revelation."* While some Old Testament passages indicate that Israelites are God's sons (Deut. 14 32:5; Ps, 82:6; ete), the exact term "sons lf God" is never once used for believers. ‘To see a reference to individual spiritual sonship in Genesis 6 would be anach= ronistic. It would ignore the fact of progressive revelation, ‘A more serious problem for this prevalent view is posed by verse 4, From all appearances, the giants (nephitim) and mighty men (giblorin) are the offspring ofthe marriagesof the “sonsof God” and the "daughters of men.” As Kline says: It is not a all lear why the offspring of religiously mixed marriages should be tepllinegibborim, however these be under- "Mood within the range of feasible interpret. tion... But his the Biblical authors} refer fence to the conjugal act and to childbearing Finds jusaicaion only if he is deseribing the origin ofthe nphilon gibbon. Unless the di Fully which Follows from this conclusion can bbe overcame, the religiously mixed marriage interpretation of the passage ought to be det inicely abandoned. To summarize the problem: Why does one find the kind of offspring ‘mentioned in verse 4 if these are just religiously mixed marriages? "The difficulties of this view have driven many to adopt the angelic in terpretation, And, as Kline suspects, the continuing dominance of the angelic in- texpretation of the passage has been due to the absence of a satisfactory akternative."” Kline forcefully and cog: tently suggests such a satisfactory alterna live interpretation, based primarily on findings in ancient Near Eastern litera- ture and studies of the term "sons of God" in cognate languages. (concluded next month) tr Pagel rst Nal SKIN. Now 1974 Vacation Bible School and Summer Ministries Program Material 5-Day, Living Life God's Way will provide 10-Day your church with a reliable basic pro- Courses, gram for teaching pupils the applica- tion of Scriptural truths to their daily lives. It will introduce your students to the great patriarchs of the Old Testament, their faith and their achievements by that faith, By meet- ing these famous heroes and heroines the pupils of your summer ministry gtasp the teaching of the gospel and of their Christian heritage with greater understanding and appreciation. The gospel is clearly presented and the way of salvation is made plain in each lesson. Nursery - - o YOUR INTRODUCTORY KIT INCLUDES: $6.25 ctor's Guidebook @ Dept. Teacher's Manuals 5 Dept. Pupil Workbooks @1 Poster, 17"' x 22" BY" x 814" Blanks @ 1 Recognition Cortificate