JSOT 13 (1979) 65-73

65

A Contextual Identification of the bene ha'elohim

and benoth ha'adam in Genesis 6:1-4
Lyle J5s linger
Department of Religious Studies
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario
The questions of the identity of the bene ha'elohim and
benoth ha'adam and the purpose of Genesis 6:1-4 have provoked
many different answers from interpreters, past and present. One
of the oldest and most reliable ways of coming to understand an
obscure word or paragraph in a text is to read the context very
carefully. St. Augustine's suggestion that the bene ha'elohim
are the Sethites and the benoth hafadam the Cainites, is one of
the most well-known examples of the contextual approach-to vv.
1-4. Augustine's interpretation was based on two things: first
he read the title "son of God" as a ti.tle of election and the
title "daughter of man" as descriptive of the fallen human state.
These readings of the titles result from Augustine's ideas about
earthly and heavenly cities and are not textually based. Second,
he found, in chapters 4 and 5, descriptions of two separate
groups of people that indicated to him which group was to be
identified with which title.
The present study follows the example of Augustine's con
textual reading, but differs from his interpretation by also
finding 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 the
titles is 6:3, which is God's reaction to w . 1-2. Since God's
reaction is a reaction against man (t)*TN) who is flesh (:),
one would expect the culpable actions of w . 1-2 to be human
actions. Recalling that the multiplication of man in v. 1 is in
obedience to the command and blessing of 1:28, "be fruitful and
multiply", 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
ha'adam is suggested, first, by certain details in 6:1-2:

66

JSOT 13 (1979)

1. The description of the increase (^^)

of men and
daughters in 6:1 suits the Sethites of ch. 5, whose multiplica
tion is indefinitely largethe total number of Cainites in ch.
4 is only 13.
2. The birth of daughters to anyone occurs only amongst
the Sethites of ch. 5.
3. The Cainites had been banished (lit. "cursed") from
the face of the in'4:11-14. In 6:1 the multiplication of
man 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
self 4:19. HI
5. The description of the actions of the bene ha'elohim in
6:2 is very similar to that of the woman's actions in her bid
for God-like knowledge in Eden.
3:6

And the woman saw how good (^ O )

the tree was to
eat, desirous to the eyes, and desirous to make one
wise, and she took some fruit and ate.

6:2

And the sons of God saw how good (ID ) the

daughters 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 episode

and the actions of the bene ha'elohim is confirmed by the further
parallel in God's reactions. In both cases God emphasizes the
animal aspects of the transgressors' existences and notes their
limitations as creatures. God's responses are similar because
they are directed against Eve, the would-be god, and the bene
ha'elohim, both of whom, as the responses illustrate, are human
creatures and not gods.
Having uncovered certain features of w . 1-4 that point to
ward the identity of the benoth ha'adam as Sethites and also to
a connection between Eve and the bene ha'elohim, a close
examination of chapters 3-5 must now be made in order to test
these hypotheses.

Eslinger: Genesis 6:1-4

67

In the Fall story the woman is the dominant individual of

the human pair. She is the one who makes the decision to take
the fruit that was supposed to make one like God. The woman
eats some fruit and then gives some to her man who also eats.
Adam's role in this sequence is almost passive. He receives the
fruit from the woman not as Adam, but as * , the woman's
man./2/ The woman's reasons for eating the fruit are given;
Adam's motivation, on the other hand, is only visible in the
fact that the woman gives the fruit to him. The woman's trans
gression is unprecedented whereas the way has been prepared for
Adam. In short, Adam is somewhat of a sheep. Judging from
3:16, the punishment of the woman, this sheep-like quality is
exactly what God requires of man, for here God subjects the
leader to Adam the led.
The bid for divine equality is less than successful. Ad
mittedly God himself says that the human pair have become like
God (gods) knowing good and evil (3:22), but the explicit re
sults are a knowledge of nakedness, embarrassment, and fear of
God. The knowledge that the man and woman obtain is actually
very human.
The sentences handed out to Adam and the woman reflect their
crime, which was hubris. They are forced to be aware of their
creatureliness and of the fact that they have alienated them
selves from it. The multiplication of the woman's pains in
child bearing, a process which in itself is a natural part of
woman's life as a mammal, is God's therapeutic program designed
to combat her hubris and to bring her to the realization that
she 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 his
ability to extract food from the ground which is cursed on his
account. Man's proper sphere of knowledge is not the divine,
but rather the knowledge of toil and the sweat on his brow. God
concludes his remarks to the man with a harsh rebuke in terms of
the creator-creature relationship, "For dust you are, and unto
dust 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 the
garden. The cherubim and the flaming sword are set at the bound
ary of the garden to make sure of the separation (3:24).

68

JSOT 13 (1979)

Chapter four records the beginnings of man's purely mundane

existence. The first undertaking of Adam and Eve is to be fruit
ful and multiply (2:28). Trouble appears, however, in Eve's
attitude towards the birth of Cain. The nature of her attitude
can be easily seen by comparing it with her attitude towards
Seth's birth as such are demonstrated in the etymologies.

1.
2.
3.
4.

subject
verb
object
dative of means/
indirect object

Cain (4:1)
I(Eve)
made/created/3/
a man (BPN)
with the help
of Yahweh

Seth (4:25)
God
appointed
another progeny
to me

In Cain's birth, Eve reasserts herself. She exults in her

own abilities to create (M3p) a man, and places herself ahead
of Yahweh in the creation of the man Cain. I. Kikawada suggests
that behind Eve's name and character lies the figure of the
creatress mother-goddess Marni of the Atrahasis epic (1972:34)./4/
The use of the name Eve in 4:1 suggests that Eve has not accepted
her God-given role as woman and her statement confirms this.
She plays the role of mother-goddess Eve alias Marni, the princi
pal agent of Cain's creation. There is a great difference be
tween this attitude and that reflected in Seth's birth where Eve
has finally accepted her role as 9 (4:25).
While Eve seems not to accept her humanity until thebirthof
Seth where she loses her semi-divine title/5/, is simply called
Adam's wife, and accepts God's appointed offspring, the man
seems to have accepted his humanity at once. Adam runs on a
more even keel right through his life. He does what is asked
of him (2:19-20) and causes no trouble until Eve gives him the
fruit, whereupon he simply follows the leader. He apparently
accepts the fate pronounced on him in 3:17-19 and is only seen
thereafter exposing Eve's continuing hubris /6/ (3:20) and ful
filling the "be fruitful and multiply" command (4:1, 25; 5:3-4).
Adam's one .act of disobedience to God was mixed with obedience
to his wife. Obedience, it seems,is characteristic of Adam, and
he errs only because he is easily led.
In chapters 4 and 5 the two attitudes, displayed in various
measures by Adam and Eve, become separated into two lineages.
The .line of Cain stems from a birth announced by Eve's statement
that she, with Yahweh's help, created/made a man. Cain bears
the mark of this would-be-creatress in his name, and, as demon
strated by the events of ch, 4, also in his character. From

Eslinger: Genesis 6:1-4

69

Cain this wrong attitude, which began as hubris, is inherited by

the entire Cainite line as is shown by the actions which begin
and end the description of the Cainites. The Cainites come
into existence as a separate group through the murder of Abel,
and conclude that story with another murder (4:23-24).
The beginning of the Sethite line is described twice; first,
in evident contrast to Cain's birth, which is the result of Eve's
creating, Seth's birth is a result of God's establishing action
(4:25). Having been God-given, Seth acts in accord with God's
concept of divine-human separation. By calling his son "Man"
(Enosh) Seth signals his acceptance of the human role. As Eve
says in her new found humility, Seth is another seed ( ))^
a different type than Cain./7/ Seth's ties to Eve are only with
the reformed Eve, the wife of Adam. The second report of the
Sethite beginning goes even further to dissociate the Sethites
from the attempt to bridge the gap between man and God. Eve is
not even mentioned, but instead the Sethites are traced to the
largely obedient Adam (5:3). Furthermore, while Adam, created
before the fall, was created in the image of God, Seth, born
after the fall and outside of the garden, is the likeness and
image of Adam. Seth's pure humanity is hereby emphasized and
sharply distinguished from Cain's inheritance from the unreformed
Eve.
Cain reveals his affinities to his mother in the actions
leading to Abel's murder. The fact that Cain grows angry when
God neglects his offering shows that he questions God's
judgement just as the woman did in 3:6. God recognizes that
Cain's anger and implicit questioning is a result of Cain's
Eveite heritage and cautions him against it, using the same words
that he used to reprove Eve in 3:16. To Eve, the leader in the
bid for divinity, God said, "Your desire shall be for your hus
band and he shall rule over you." To Cain, Eve's creation, God
says, "(Sin's) desire is for you but you must rule over it."
Cain is encouraged to get his priorities straight, and to govern
inherited impulses. By ruling over the sin (his anger) Cain
would implicitly take up the role of an Adam and rule his way
wardness by submission to God.
Cain answers God by murdering Abel. His punishment reflects
the twofold nature of his crime, which is a crime against God
and man. By spilling Abel's blood Cain has committed an affront
against the image of God in Abel (9:6). The punishment for this,
as it was for Adam's hubris, is a blight on the adam-adamah re
lationship which was instrumental to Cain in his insolent gesture

70

JSOT 13 (1979)

towards God via Abel's murder (4:11). Cain's less able but more
savage act of hubris against God results in an even greater sep
aration of man and God (4:14). For his crime against man he is
banished from further society and made to live as a fugitive
away 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 of murder, is on the downhill course
begun by Cain. Seth is to be the foundation of a new group of
men./8/ The name that Seth gives to his son, Enosh ("Man"),
and the beginnings of religion in 4:26 demonstrate the Sethite
submission. As Cassuto notes, "There is a parallelism of both
language and theme here: a human being is called by a name
suited to himEnosh; and God is called by a name befitting
HimLord."/9/ Instead of trying to be like God (3:5-6) or
striking out against him (4:8) man takes the stance of a humble
suppliant who petitions God.
The repetition of the formulaic description of Adam's life
(5:3-5) for all of the Sethites emphasizes their identification
with Adam, who though not infallible, was generally compliant
with God's wishes. The exception to this repetition of life
events is Enoch who walks (^) with God rather than
dying (5:22). As with Noah in 6:9 the emphasis seems to be on
the harmony between man and God and may even suggest a return
to the unguarded relationship of innocence in the garden, where
man lived in the garden in which God strolled
(lJMl , 3:8).
One final illustration of the characteristic differences
between Sethites and Cainites is seen in a comparison of the
words of the Lamechs (4:23-24, 5:29). The Cainite Lamech continues in the murderous way of Cain and even boasts of surpassing
Cain. "If Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventysevenfold" (4:24). There is no indication that the Cainite Lamech
has any concern to comply with God's expressed wishes, but, on
the contrary, he twists God's words to suit himself. The Sethite Lamech, on the other hand, still concerns himself with the
penalty of 3:17 and expresses hope that with Noah some relief
from the curse will be experienced. One Lamech is the end product of the line that has multiplied wrong-doing since the
first 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, and
which, moreover, has been atoning and paying for that first
and only sin ever since.

Eslinger: Genesis 6:1-4

71

From the foregoing it is possible to identify the bene

ha'elohim as the descendente of Eve, the Cainites. The actions
of the bene ha'elohim bear a close similarity to Eve's actions
in wordingA0/ and in the reaction they provoke in God, who replies by emphasizing the humanity and creatureliness of the
offenders. The title bene ha'elohim may, therefore, point to
the identity of these persons as the descendente of the "goddess"
Eve who "created" (M^P) Cain with Yahweh's aid. This theory
receives further confirmation from the repetition in 6:2-3 of
the pattern of events seen in the Fall. Just as Eve was the
initiator who led Adam astray, apparently without resistance in
3:6, so the bene ha'elohim (sons of Eve "the goddess") initiate
the action resulting in the downfall of the benoth ha'adam
(daughters of Adam), again without resistance (6:2, 4). Thus the
Cainites have once more fulfilled the pattern of actions initiated by Eve; they have violated their decreed limits/11/, and
taken something that God had established (4:25) as especially
his.
Besides the similarities between the bene ha'elohim and Eve
there are also important differences that reveal the eventual
degradation resulting from the type of actions initiated by Eve.
Eve sins against God because she desires the divine knowledge of
good and evil. The bene ha'elohim sin against God out of lust.
The title bene ha'elohim may be seen as an ironic description of
the Cainites whose claims to divinity, tenuous even by pedigree,
are further weakened by their actions in 6:2. These 'little
gods' can only commit their evil acts of transgression by acting
like animals; they exhibit their divine powers by fornicating.
God's reaction to Eve's hubris is to force her to face her
humanity (3:16), just as Nebuchadnezzar is made to live amongst
the beasts of the field for his self-exaltation (Dan. 4:14-26).
When Eve submits to God, he offers a second chance at normal
human existence through his gift of Seth (4:26), just as the
humbled Nebuchadnezzar is reinstated once he submits to God
(Dan. 4:36-37). The continued unrepentance of the pre-submissive Eve's progeny results in the decline from Cain to Lamech
to the bene ha'elohim whose crime against God is to pollute the
pious Sethites by impregnating them with the evil Cainite heritage.

72

JSOT 13 (1979)

In 6:3 God himself states that it is this degeneration

from DTK to 5 that provokes his own reaction. Created
from the as a being with limitations man has an ordained
position 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 refer
only to the male sexual organ. As euphemistically used in
Ezek. 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 120
years." The persistence of disobedient self-aggrandizement in
the line of Eveites/Cainites brings them and their unfortunate
victims to a lower level of existence than that originally
granted to Adam. The sense of ^ ^ in this case is not so
much the frailty or mortality of man, but rather the quality
of moral depravity that results from continued disobedience to
God.
From this perspective, 6:1-4 assumes an important and necessary function in the narrative leading up to the flood. The
attempt by man to become more than he is results in his becoming less. The flood comes exactly at the time when man "abandons 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 the
ruafr, while possibly a threat to withdraw the breath breathed
into man at creation (2:7), may also be an allusion to the ruafr's
powers to dry up the primeval waters (8:1-2, 1:2)./13/ By withdrawing the ruafr God withdraws a principle of order and allows
the 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. As
will be seen the bene ha'elohim also abandon the established
orders of God.[* Now pp.33-46 above.]
2.
1979.

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

3. For this usage of m p : Gen. 14:19, 22, Deut. 32:6,

Psa. 139:13, Pr. 8:22.

Eslinger: Genesis 6:1-4

4. "Two Notes On Eve", JBL

73

91(1972), 33-37.

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

correspondent to the title Marni "mistress of all the gods"
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 ("she
was taken out of man"). From 2:19 and 3:16 it is apparent that
God accepts the names Adam gives to the animals and woman and
seeks 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 calling
her Eve, Adam reveals that the woman is remaining outside of the
established 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 M means "foundation, stay of society".

9. U. Cassuto, Commentary on Genesis I, Jerusalem:

Magnes Press, 1978, p. 246.
10.

See above, p. 2.

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

NMI multiplied, was

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 in
making a habitable place for man in the midst of the primeval
waters.

^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an 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.