Page 338 - Foundations

justify rendering “daughters of Adam” as “daughters of Cain.” The argument is based strictly on the
assumption that the descendants of Cain were all wicked and that the name “Adam” somehow
described this wickedness, while the line of Seth was righteous, earning them the highly favorable
expression of “sons of God.” This is all conjecture, however.

If we are to look to the Scriptures for evidence, there is a far better argument to be made for Seth’s
line to be referred to as descendants of Adam than for the Cainite line. In the genealogy recorded in
Luke we looked at previously, we find the phrase, “Seth, the son of Adam.” Furthermore, after Seth
was born to Adam and Eve, the Scriptures provide the following statement.

Genesis 5:3
When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own
likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.

Since the Bible describes Seth as the image and likeness of Adam, it seems difficult to argue that
Cain’s descendants should be called after the name of Adam, while the Sethite line should not. The
plain and obvious meaning of the expression “benot ha Adam” is the daughters of Adam, or the
daughters of men. There is no contextual justification to suggest that “benot ha Adam” refers only to
the daughters of Cain. This entire argument is necessitated only because some Christians have
rejected the more defensible interpretation that the fallen angels, referred to as “bene ha Elohim,” had
sexual relations with women resulting in men of renown and great stature being born.

A further argument against the Seth/Cain view is that it would have been very easy for the author of
Genesis to write that the sons of Seth saw that the daughters of Cain were beautiful, and began to take
wives from them. Yet, neither Seth, nor Cain, receive any mention.

An additional, and equally problematic difficulty is describing why the sons of the Sethite line
marrying the daughters of the Cainite line should have produced men of renown, much less have
resulted in a race of giants. I have read some attempts to defend this view, and they are particularly
weak on this point. One author suggested that the offspring of these inter-family marriages would
have enjoyed a political advantage, being accepted by both lines. Consequently they would have risen
to prominence. I do not find much merit in such an argument, and find it hard to imagine why such
slight political advantages, if they did exist, should merit mention in the Scripture. In contrast, if the
fallen angels took wives to themselves from the descendants of Adam, and through them sired men
of immense stature and strength, this would certainly be worthy of mention.

A final difficulty I will mention that arises from the Seth/Cain view is that if we deny the
transgression of the fallen angels described in Genesis chapter 6, we are left without any explanation
for the passages in Jude and II Peter that describe the angels transgressing. I have read some attempts
at explanation by those who hold to the Seth/Cain interpretation, but they were wholly dissatisfying
as they deny there was any sexual transgression by the fallen angels warranting comparison with the
citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, despite the linking of these events in these Scripture passages.

One of the popular advocates of the Seth/Cain view of Genesis 6 is J. Sidlow Baxter, a Baptist
minister from England who wrote at some length on this subject. Mr. Baxter produced a book in the