In Genesis 4:26, many Jewish doctors were of the opinion that the word " הוחל" (huchal) is translated "began profanely". This of course, would have significant impact in interpreting the line of Seth to be a line called to be Holy, sons of God.
Maimonides has elaborated this issue in his "Treatise on Idolatry".
Although "הוחל" huchal is rooted to "חלל" (chalal) which can mean "profane" as well as begin-as if by an opening-wedge. There are other instances in the Bible where הוחל is used solely for "began" without any negative indication.
However, by means of motive, I would rather assume that it is not improbable that the Jews are of the intention:
1. Sons of God, always to be understood as angels/supernatural beings.
2. Maintaining that should there be any people of God, the Jews(Of Abraham) are the first and only: Enoch and Noah are individuals, not a full race. Thus interpreting Seth's line to be a Godly one would contradict the primal favor of the Jewish line.
Hence I am in disagreement with Rev. David Chen in this argument. Although I can appreciate Rev. Chen's enthusiasm in the Jewish culture, I wouldn't consider the modern Jews having much to say about Biblical edification since many of its tradition and foundational beliefs have been altered significantly after time.
Naturally, when it comes to interpreting "sons of God" in Genesis 6, it would be easier to assign it as "fallen angels" rather than Seth's descendants, had we understood Genesis 4:26 to be corruption of the line of Enos.
It was until Julius Africanus, a Christian writer, during the 3rd century, disagreed on the interpretation of "Nephilim" which also means "fallen one/men" with what earlier church fathers believed to be "fallen angels". Augustine then made it popular in his "City of God" in the idea of "line of Seth".
Even today, this is still widely debated. I personally, do not feel the necessity to denounce one after another. However, for simplicity, I would lean towards the "line of Seth" interpretation. It is also more edifying and keep me Biblically centered. While the other interpretation would bring in a more complex understanding of the whole universe, one that can easily perverse oneself. Not that I would reject this one, but I would hold on to one simpler interpretation while carefully examine the other one.
[@more@]
