8/10/2019 4. Cain.pdf

1/10

JSOT 13 (1979) 6573 65

A Contextual Identification of the bene ha'elohimand benoth ha'adam in Genesis 6:14

Lyle J5s linger

Department of Religious StudiesMcMaster UniversityHamilton, Ontario

The questions of the identity of the bene ha'elohim andbenoth ha'adam and the purpose of Genesis 6:14 have provokedmany different answers from interpreters, past and present. Oneof the oldest and most reliable ways of coming to understand anobscure word or paragraph in a text is to read the context verycarefully. St. Augustine's suggestion that the bene ha'elohimare the Sethites and the benoth ha

fadam the Cainites, is one of

the most wellknown examples of the contextual approachto vv.14. Augustine's interpretation was based on two things: firstheread the title "son of God" as a ti.tle of election and thetitle "daughter of man" as descriptive of the fallen human state.

These readings of the titles result from Augustine's ideas aboutearthly and heavenly cities and are not textually based. Second,hefound, in chapters 4 and 5, descriptions of two separategroups of people that indicated to him which group was to beidentified with which title.

The present study follows the example of Augustine's con-textual reading, but differs from his interpretation by alsofinding a contextually determined meaning for the two titles,which is quite different from Augustine's understanding of them.

The first clue to the identity of the characters behind thetitles is 6:3, which is God's reaction to w . 12. Since God'sreaction is a reaction against man (t)*TN) who is flesh (:),one would expect the culpable actions of w . 12 to be humanactions. Recalling that the multiplication of man in v. 1 is inobedience to the command and blessing of 1:28, "be fruitful andmultiply", the objectionable human acts must be those of v. 2.Since the subjects of all three verbs are the bene ha'elohim,

they should be human.

The specific identity of the bene ha'elohim and benoth

8/10/2019 4. Cain.pdf

2/10

66 JSOT 13 (1979)

1. The description of the increase ( ) of men anddaughters in 6:1 suits the Sethites of ch. 5, whose multiplica-tion is indefinitely largethe total number of Cainites in ch.

4is only 13.

2. The birth of daughters to anyone occurs only amongstthe Sethites of ch. 5.

3. The Cainites had been banished (lit. "cursed") fromthe face of the in'4:1114. In 6:1 the multiplication ofman and his daughters occurs on the face of the , increas-ing the likelihood that they are Sethites.

4. The action of taking wives for oneself (6:2) is paral-lelled only by the Cainite Lamech who takes two wives for him-self4:19.HI

5. The description of the actions of the bene ha'elohim in6:2 is very similar to that of the woman's actions in her bidfor Godlike knowledge in Eden.

3:6 And the woman saw how good ( O ) the tree was to

eat,desirous to theeyes,and desirous to make onewise,and she took some fruit and ate.

6:2 And the sons of God saw how good (ID ) thedaughters of man were and they took wives for them-selves from all whom they chose.

The similarity between the woman's actions in the garden episodeand the actions of the bene ha'elohim is confirmed by the furtherparallel in God's reactions. In both cases God emphasizes the

animal aspects of the transgressors' existences and notes theirlimitations as creatures. God's responses are similar becausethey are directed against Eve, the wouldbe god, and the beneha'elohim, both of whom, as the responses illustrate, are humancreatures and notgods.

Having uncovered certain features of w . 14 that point to-ward the identity of the benoth ha'adam as Sethites and also toaconnection between Eve and the bene ha'elohim, a close

examination of chapters 35 must now be made in order to testthese hypotheses.

8/10/2019 4. Cain.pdf

3/10

Eslinger: Genesis 6:14 67

Inthe Fall story the woman is the dominant individual ofthe human pair. She is the one who makes the decision to takethe fruit that was supposed to make one like God. The womaneats some fruit and then gives some to her man who alsoeats.

Adam's role in this sequence is almost passive. He receives thefruit from the woman not as Adam, but as * , the woman'sman./2/ The woman's reasons for eating the fruit are given;Adam's motivation, on the other hand, is only visible in thefact that the woman gives the fruit to him. The woman's trans-gression is unprecedented whereas the way has been prepared forAdam. In short, Adam is somewhat of a sheep. Judging from3:16, the punishment of the woman, this sheeplike quality isexactly what God requires of man, for here God subjects theleader to Adam the led.

The bid for divine equality is less than successful. Ad-mittedly God himself says that the human pair have become likeGod (gods) knowing good and evil(3:22),but the explicit re-sults are a knowledge of nakedness, embarrassment, and fear ofGod. The knowledge that the man and woman obtain is actuallyvery human.

The sentences handed out to Adam and the woman reflect their

crime,which was hubris. They are forced to be aware of theircreatureliness and of the fact that they have alienated them-selves from it. The multiplication of the woman's pains inchild bearing, a process which in itself is a natural part ofwoman's life as a mammal, is God's therapeutic program designedto combat her hubris and to bring her to the realization thatshe is no god. Furthermore in response to the woman's leader-ship in the transgression God subjects her to her husband.

Adam is similarly punished by being brought to face his own

ungodlike existence. His continued existence will depend on hisability to extract food from the ground which is cursed on hisaccount. Man's proper sphere of knowledge is not the divine,but rather the knowledge of toil and the sweat on his brow. Godconcludes his remarks to the man with a harsh rebuke in terms ofthe creatorcreature relationship, "For dust you are, and untodust you'll* return" (3:19).

The gap between God and man, insignificant when man was

obedient,is now defined and broadened by the expulsion from thegarden. The cherubim and the flaming sword are set at the bound-ary of the garden to make sure of the separation (3:24)

8/10/2019 4. Cain.pdf

4/10

8/10/2019 4. Cain.pdf

5/10

Eslinger: Genesis 6:14 69

Cain this wrong attitude, which began as hubris, is inherited bythe entire Cainite line as is shown by the actions which beginand end the description of the Cainites. The Cainites comeinto existence as a separate group through the murder ofAbel,and conclude that story with another murder(4:2324).

The beginning of the Sethite line is described twice; first,inevident contrast to Cain's birth, which is the result of Eve'screating, Seth's birth is a result of God's establishing action(4:25). Having been Godgiven, Seth acts in accord with God'sconcept of divinehuman separation. By calling his son "Man"(Enosh) Seth signals his acceptance of the human role. As Evesays in her new found humility, Seth is another seed ( ))^

adifferent type thanCain./7/ Seth's ties to Eve are only withthe reformed Eve, the wife of Adam. The second report of theSethite beginning goes even further to dissociate the Sethitesfrom the attempt to bridge the gap between man and God. Eve isnot even mentioned, but instead the Sethites are traced to thelargely obedient Adam(5:3). Furthermore, while Adam, createdbefore thefall,was created in the image of God, Seth, bornafter the fall and outside of the garden, is the likeness andimage of Adam. Seth's pure humanity is hereby emphasized andsharply distinguished from Cain's inheritance from the unreformed

Eve.

Cain reveals his affinities to his mother in the actionsleading to Abel's murder. The fact that Cain grows angry whenGod neglects his offering shows that he questions God'sjudgement just as the woman did in 3:6. God recognizes thatCain's anger and implicit questioning is a result of Cain'sEveite heritage and cautions him against it, using the same wordsthat he used to reprove Eve in 3:16. To Eve, the leader in the

bid for divinity, God said, "Your desire shall be for yourhus-band and he shall rule over you." To Cain, Eve's creation, Godsays,"(Sin's) desire is for you but you must rule over it."Cain is encouraged to get his priorities straight, and to governinherited impulses. By ruling over the sin (his anger) Cainwould implicitly take up the role of an Adam and rule his way-wardness by submission to God.

Cain answers God by murderingAbel. His punishment reflectsthe twofold nature of his crime, which is a crime against God

and man. By spilling Abel's blood Cain has committed an affrontagainst the image of God in Abel(9:6). The punishment forthis,

i i i i

8/10/2019 4. Cain.pdf

6/10

70 JSOT 13 (1979)

towards God via Abel's murder(4:11). Cain's less able but moresavage act of hubris against God results in an even greater sep-aration of man and God(4:14). For his crime against man he isbanished from further society and made to live as a fugitiveaway from the pene ha'adaman.

The birth of Seth, the separate stock ( 3) esta-blished by God(4:25),offers some hope for the race, which,judging from Lamech's boast ofmurder,is on the downhill coursebegun by Cain. Seth is to be the foundation of a new group ofmen./8/ The name that Seth gives to his son, Enosh ("Man"),and the beginnings of religion in 4:26 demonstrate the Sethitesubmission. As Cassuto notes, "There is a parallelism of both

language and theme here: a human being is called by a namesuited to himEnosh; and God is called by a name befittingHimLord."/9/ Instead of trying to be like God (3:56) orstriking out against him (4:8) man takes the stance of a humblesuppliant who petitions God.

The repetition of the formulaic description of Adam's life(5:35) for all of the Sethites emphasizes their identificationwith Adam, who though not infallible, was generally compliantwith God's wishes. The exception to this repetition of lifeevents is Enoch who walks ( ) with God rather thandying(5:22). As with Noah in 6:9 the emphasis seems to be onthe harmony between man and God and may even suggest a returnto the unguarded relationship of innocence in the garden, whereman lived in the garden in which God strolled (lJMl , 3:8).

One final illustration of the characteristic differencesbetween Sethites and Cainites is seen in a comparison of thewords of the Lamechs (4:23-24,5:29). The Cainite Lamech con

tinues in the murderous way of Cain and even boasts of surpassingCain. "If Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventyseven-fold" (4:24). There is no indication that the Cainite Lamechhas any concern to comply with God's expressed wishes,but,onthe contrary, he twists God's words to suit himself. The Sethite Lamech, on the other hand, still concerns himself with thepenalty of 3:17 and expresses hope that with Noah some relieffrom the curse will be experienced. One Lamech is the endproduct of the line that has multiplied wrong-doing since thefirst sin of 3:6, the other is the near end-product of a line

that sinned once, but appears not to have done so again, andwhich,moreover, has been atoning and paying for that first

8/10/2019 4. Cain.pdf

7/10

Eslinger: Genesis 6:1-4 71

From the foregoing it is possible to identify the beneha'elohim as the descendente of Eve, the Cainites. The actionsof the bene ha'elohim bear a close similarity to Eve's actionsin wordingA0/ and in the reaction they provoke in God, who replies by emphasizing the humanity and creatureliness of theoffenders. The title bene ha'elohim may, therefore, point tothe identity of these persons as the descendente of the "goddess"Eve who "created" (M^P) Cain with Yahweh's aid. This theoryreceives further confirmation from the repetition in 6:2-3 ofthe pattern of events seen in theFall. Just as Eve was theinitiator who led Adam astray, apparently without resistance in3:6, so the bene ha'elohim (sons of Eve "the goddess") initiatethe action resulting in the downfall of the benoth ha'adam

(daughters ofAdam),again without resistance (6:2, 4). Thus theCainites have once more fulfilled the pattern of actionsinitiated by Eve; they have violated their decreed limits/11/, andtaken something that God had established (4:25) as especiallyhis.

Besides the similarities between the bene ha'elohim and Evethere are also important differences that reveal the eventualdegradation resulting from the type of actions initiated by Eve.Eve sins against God because she desires the divine knowledge ofgood andevil. The bene ha'elohim sin against God out of lust.The title bene ha'elohim may be seen as an ironic description ofthe Cainites whose claims to divinity, tenuous even by pedigree,are further weakened by their actions in 6:2. These 'littlegods'can only commit their evil acts of transgression by actinglike animals; they exhibit their divine powers by fornicating.God's reaction to Eve's hubris is to force her to face herhumanity(3:16),just as Nebuchadnezzar is made to live amongstthe beasts of the field for his self-exaltation (Dan.4:14-26).

When Eve submits to God, he offers a second chance at normalhuman existence through his gift of Seth(4:26),just as thehumbled Nebuchadnezzar is reinstated once he submits to God(Dan.4:36-37). The continued unrepentance of the pre-submis-sive Eve's progeny results in the decline from Cain to Lamechto the bene ha'elohim whose crime against God is to pollute thepious Sethites by impregnating them with the evil Cainiteheritage.

8/10/2019 4. Cain.pdf

8/10

72 JSOT 13 (1979)

In6:3 God himself states that it is this degenerationfrom DTK to 5that provokes his own reaction. Createdfrom the as a being with limitations man has an ordainedposition within creation. The attempt to surpass those limita-

tions,however, ultimately results in a degradation of mankind.As H.W. Wolff points out, IKD as a particular limb can referonly to the male sexual organ. As euphemistically used inEzek.16:26, 23:20, "I3 emphasizes the qualities of faithlessness and impurity./12/ Chapter 6:3 might thus be translated,Yahweh said, "My spirit shall not always remain with man forever because he is a male member, and his days will be 120years." The persistence of disobedient self-aggrandizement inthe line of Eveites/Cainites brings them and their unfortunatevictims to a lower level of existence than that originallygranted to Adam. The sense of ^ ^ in this case is not somuch the frailty or mortality of man, but rather the qualityof moral depravity that results from continued disobedience toGod.

From this perspective, 6:1-4 assumes an important andnecessary function in the narrative leading up to the flood. Theattempt by man to become more than he is results in his becomingless. The flood comes exactly at the time when man "aban

dons his own position and leaves his proper dwelling" (Jude 6).In response to man's subversion of the created order, God decides to destroy it completely. His threat to withdraw theruafr,while possibly a threat to withdraw the breath breathedinto man at creation(2:7),may also be an allusion to the ruafr'spowers to dry up the primeval waters(8:1-2,1:2)./13/ By withdrawing the ruafr God withdraws a principle of order and allowsthe waters of chaos to destroy the chaos of man become .

1. As D.J.A. Clines notes in an unpublished paper>*Lamech abandons the monogamous order established by God. Aswill be seen the bene ha'elohim also abandon the establishedorders ofGod.[*Now pp.3346 above.]

2. From a lecture by A.M. Cooper at McMaster University,1979.

3. For this usage of m p : Gen.14:19,22, Deut. 32:6,Psa.139:13, Pr. 8:22.

8/10/2019 4. Cain.pdf

9/10

Eslinger: Genesis 6:1-4 73

4."Two Notes On Eve", JBL 91(1972),33-37.

5. The appellation "Eve the mother of all living'is

correspondent to the title Marni "mistress of all thegods"in the Atrahasis epic. See I. Kikawada,33-34.

6. Adam had already named the woman MN in 2:23, thereby noting her subordination to and dependence on man ("shewas taken out ofman"). From 2:19 and 3:16 it is apparent thatGod accepts the names Adam gives to the animals and woman andseeks to maintain the respective roles of domination and%

submission. The renaming of the woman with the mother-goddess

title in 3:20 is .therefore contrary to both Adam's own estimation of the woman's role and to God's words in 3:16. By callingher Eve, Adam reveals that the woman is remaining outside of theestablished hierarchy of authority.

7. For the use of V^T as a moral type; Pr.11:21,Jer.2:21, Mai. 2:15.

8. The noun form Mmeans "foundation, stay of society".

9. U. Cassuto, Commentary on Genesis I, Jerusalem:Magnes Press, 1978, p. 246.

10. Seeabove,p.2.

11. The lOTKn O D , upon which NMI multiplied, wasoff-limits to Cainites(4:14).

12. H.W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament.

Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973,27-28.13. Although the ruafr does not cause the dry land to appear

in 1:2, it is at least to be associated with God's actions inmaking a habitable place for man in the midst of the primevalwaters.

8/10/2019 4. Cain.pdf

10/10

^ s

Copyright and Use:

Asan ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American

Theological Library Association.