In the previous post we saw how, having separated themselves from the presence of God, Cain’s family line descended into increased violence culminating in the arrogance and uncontrolled vengeance of Lamech. With that sort of approach to things there would be no hope for humans for that level of vengeance is unsustainable. If everyone took a life for an eye, there would soon be no one around. From this darkness, the narrative now pans back to Adam and Eve to show that all is not lost.

Hebrew text:

This is a large chunk of text. For the parallel Westminster Leningrad Codex and NIV texts click here.

Transliteration:

Chapter 4

25 way·yê·ḏa‘  ’ā·ḏām ‘ō·wḏ ’eṯ-  ’iš·tōw, wat·tê·leḏ bên,  wat·tiq·rā ’eṯ- šə·mōw šêṯ;  kî šāṯ- lî ’ĕ·lō·hîm ze·ra‘ ’a·ḥêr,  ta·ḥaṯ he·ḇel, kî hă·rā·ḡōw qā·yin. 

26 ū·lə·šêṯ  gam- hū yul·laḏ-  bên, way·yiq·rā ’eṯ-  šə·mōw ’ĕ·nō·wōš; ’āz hū·ḥal,  liq·rō bə·šêm Yah·weh. p̄ 

Chapter 5

1 zeh  sê·p̄er,  tō·wl·ḏōṯ ’ā·ḏām;  bə·yō·wm, bə·rō ’ĕ·lō·hîm  ’ā·ḏām, biḏ·mūṯ ’ĕ·lō·hîm ‘ā·śāh  ’ō·ṯōw.  

2 zā·ḵār  ū·nə·qê·ḇāh  bə·rā·’ām; way·ḇā·reḵ  ’ō·ṯām, way·yiq·rā ’eṯ-  šə·mām ’ā·ḏām, bə·yō·wm hib·bā·rə·’ām.  s 

3 way·ḥî  ’ā·ḏām, šə·lō·šîm  ū·mə·’aṯ šā·nāh, way·yō·w·leḏ  biḏ·mū·ṯōw kə·ṣal·mōw; way·yiq·rā  ’eṯ- šə·mōw šêṯ.  

4 way·yih·yū  yə·mê- ’ā·ḏām,  ’a·ḥă·rê hō·w·lî·ḏōw  ’eṯ- šêṯ, šə·mō·neh mê·’ōṯ  šā·nāh; way·yō·w·leḏ bā·nîm ū·ḇā·nō·wṯ.  

5 way·yih·yū  kāl- yə·mê ’ā·ḏām  ’ă·šer- ḥay, tə·ša‘  mê·’ō·wṯ šā·nāh, ū·šə·lō·šîm  šā·nāh; way·yā·mōṯ. s  

6 way·ḥî-  šêṯ ḥā·mêš  šā·nîm ū·mə·’aṯ  šā·nāh; way·yō·w·leḏ  ’eṯ- ’ĕ·nō·wōš.  

7 way·ḥî-  šêṯ, ’a·ḥă·rê  hō·w·lî·ḏōw ’eṯ-  ’ĕ·nō·wōš, še·ḇa‘ šā·nîm,  ū·šə·mō·neh mê·’ō·wṯ šā·nāh;  way·yō·w·leḏ bā·nîm ū·ḇā·nō·wṯ.  

8 way·yih·yū  kāl- yə·mê- šêṯ,  šə·têm ‘eś·rêh šā·nāh,  ū·ṯə·ša‘ mê·’ō·wṯ šā·nāh;  way·yā·mōṯ. s  

9 way·ḥî  ’ĕ·nō·wōš tiš·‘îm  šā·nāh; way·yō·w·leḏ  ’eṯ- qê·nān.  

10 way·ḥî  ’ĕ·nō·wōš, ’a·ḥă·rê  hō·w·lî·ḏōw ’eṯ- qê·nān,  ḥă·mêš ‘eś·rêh šā·nāh, ū·šə·mō·neh  mê·’ō·wṯ šā·nāh; way·yō·w·leḏ bā·nîm  ū·ḇā·nō·wṯ.  

11 way·yih·yū  kāl- yə·mê ’ĕ·nō·wōš,  ḥā·mêš šā·nîm, ū·ṯə·ša‘  mê·’ō·wṯ šā·nāh; way·yā·mōṯ.  s  

12 way·ḥî  qê·nān šiḇ·‘îm  šā·nāh; way·yō·w·leḏ  ’eṯ- ma·hă·lal·’êl.  

13 way·ḥî  qê·nān, ’a·ḥă·rê  hō·w·lî·ḏōw ’eṯ- ma·hă·lal·’êl,  ’ar·bā·‘îm šā·nāh, ū·šə·mō·neh mê·’ō·wṯ  šā·nāh; way·yō·w·leḏ bā·nîm ū·ḇā·nō·wṯ.  

14 way·yih·yū  kāl- yə·mê qê·nān,  ‘e·śer šā·nîm, ū·ṯə·ša‘  mê·’ō·wṯ šā·nāh; way·yā·mōṯ.  s  

15 way·ḥî  ma·hă·lal·’êl,  ḥā·mêš šā·nîm wə·šiš·šîm  šā·nāh; way·yō·w·leḏ ’eṯ- yā·reḏ.  

16 way·ḥî  ma·hă·lal·’êl,  ’a·ḥă·rê hō·w·lî·ḏōw  ’eṯ- ye·reḏ, šə·lō·šîm  šā·nāh, ū·šə·mō·neh mê·’ō·wṯ  šā·nāh; way·yō·w·leḏ bā·nîm ū·ḇā·nō·wṯ.  

17 way·yih·yū  kāl- yə·mê ma·hă·lal·’êl,  ḥā·mêš wə·ṯiš·‘îm šā·nāh, ū·šə·mō·neh  mê·’ō·wṯ šā·nāh; way·yā·mōṯ. s  

18 way·ḥî-  ye·reḏ šə·ta·yim  wə·šiš·šîm šā·nāh ū·mə·’aṯ  šā·nāh; way·yō·w·leḏ ’eṯ- ḥă·nō·wḵ.  

19 way·ḥî-  ye·reḏ, ’a·ḥă·rê  hō·w·lî·ḏōw ’eṯ- ḥă·nō·wḵ,  šə·mō·neh mê·’ō·wṯ šā·nāh; way·yō·w·leḏ  bā·nîm ū·ḇā·nō·wṯ.  

20 way·yih·yū  kāl- yə·mê- ye·reḏ,  šə·ta·yim wə·šiš·šîm šā·nāh,  ū·ṯə·ša‘ mê·’ō·wṯ šā·nāh; way·yā·mōṯ.  p̄  

21 way·ḥî  ḥă·nō·wḵ, ḥā·mêš  wə·šiš·šîm šā·nāh;  way·yō·w·leḏ ’eṯ- mə·ṯū·šā·laḥ. 

22 way·yiṯ·hal·lêḵ  ḥă·nō·wḵ ’eṯ- hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm,  ’a·ḥă·rê hō·w·lî·ḏōw ’eṯ- mə·ṯū·še·laḥ,  šə·lōš mê·’ō·wṯ šā·nāh; way·yō·w·leḏ bā·nîm  ū·ḇā·nō·wṯ.  

23 way·hî  kāl- yə·mê  ḥă·nō·wḵ; ḥā·mêš  wə·šiš·šîm šā·nāh,  ū·šə·lōš mê·’ō·wṯ šā·nāh.  

24 way·yiṯ·hal·lêḵ  ḥă·nō·wḵ ’eṯ- hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm;  wə·’ê·nen·nū kî- lā·qaḥ ’ō·ṯōw  ’ĕ·lō·hîm. p̄ 

25 way·ḥî  mə·ṯū·še·laḥ,  še·ḇa‘ ū·šə·mō·nîm  šā·nāh ū·mə·’aṯ šā·nāh;  way·yō·w·leḏ ’eṯ- lā·meḵ.  

26 way·ḥî  mə·ṯū·še·laḥ,  ’a·ḥă·rê hō·w·lî·ḏōw  ’eṯ- le·meḵ, šə·ta·yim  ū·šə·mō·w·nîm šā·nāh, ū·šə·ḇa‘  mê·’ō·wṯ šā·nāh; way·yō·w·leḏ bā·nîm  ū·ḇā·nō·wṯ.  

27 way·yih·yū  kāl- yə·mê mə·ṯū·še·laḥ,  tê·ša‘ wə·šiš·šîm šā·nāh, ū·ṯə·ša‘  mê·’ō·wṯ šā·nāh; way·yā·mōṯ. p̄  

28 way·ḥî-  le·meḵ šə·ta·yim  ū·šə·mō·nîm šā·nāh  ū·mə·’aṯ šā·nāh; way·yō·w·leḏ  bên.  

29 way·yiq·rā  ’eṯ- šə·mōw nō·aḥ  lê·mōr; zeh yə·na·ḥă·mê·nū  mim·ma·‘ă·śê·nū ū·mê·‘iṣ·ṣə·ḇō·wn  yā·ḏê·nū, min- hā·’ă·ḏā·māh, ’ă·šer  ’ê·rə·rāh Yah·weh.  

30 way·ḥî-  le·meḵ, ’a·ḥă·rê  hō·w·lî·ḏōw ’eṯ- nō·aḥ,  ḥā·mêš wə·ṯiš·‘îm šā·nāh,  wa·ḥă·mêš mê·’ōṯ šā·nāh; way·yō·w·leḏ  bā·nîm ū·ḇā·nō·wṯ.  

31 way·hî  kāl- yə·mê-  le·meḵ, še·ḇa‘  wə·šiḇ·‘îm šā·nāh,  ū·šə·ḇa‘ mê·’ō·wṯ šā·nāh;  way·yā·mōṯ. s  

32 way·hî-  nō·aḥ ben- ḥă·mêš  mê·’ō·wṯ šā·nāh; way·yō·w·leḏ  nō·aḥ, ’eṯ- šêm ’eṯ- ḥām wə·’eṯ-  yā·p̄eṯ. 

NIV:

This is a large chunk of text. For the parallel Westminster Leningrad Codex and NIV texts click here.

Study:

Having described the disastrous descent of Cain’s line to uncontrolled violence and vengeance, the narrative swings back to Adam and Eve. We are told that they had a third son, Seth (שֵׁת, sheth), whose name is derived from שִׁית (shith), meaning ‘put’, ‘set’ or ‘appoint’. The first time this word is used in the bible is in Genesis 3.15, where God promised enmity between the woman and serpent and between her seed and the serpent’s seed. Since the word appears explicitly for the second time in Genesis 4.25 in relation to the naming of Seth, it seems that there is a strong allusion to the promise God made in Genesis 3.15. By naming her third son Seth, Eve is recalling the promise and confessing her reliance on it. 

Seth then has a son, whom he names Enosh. Then the narrative tells us, “At that time people began to call on the name of the Lord.” This is enigmatic. What are we being told? Are we being told that people had forgotten the name of God and that only after Enosh was born did they remember his name? Or is it saying that God revealed his name ‘Yahweh’ to humans only after the birth of Enosh? Or is it saying that humans began corporate worship only after Enosh was born? All these views have been proposed with different reasons suggested for each of them. Since the name is intended to have meaning it helps to call to mind the fact that אֱנוֹשׁ (enosh) means ‘mortal’. The link between the name and the claim that proceeds from it should not be severed. By calling his son Enosh, Seth was declaring that humans are mortal. And by declaring that humans are mortal, Seth was implicitly making a contrast with Yahweh, who later declares to Moses, “I am who I am” (or perhaps, “I am who I will be”). In contrast to Enosh, the mortal one, Yahweh is the self existent one, the immortal one. So the naming of Enosh is taken as a signifier that humans have recognized their mortality and therefore Yahweh’s immortality. 

The narrative then briefly recounts the creation of humans from the first account in Genesis 1, focusing on the ‘likeness of God’ and the gendered nature of humans. This was dealt with in earlier posts. So we will not dwell on it here.

After this, the narrative lists the descendants of Adam right down to Noah and his three sons. For each person in the list, his age when he fathered his son is given as well as the number of years he lived after fathering that son. In his book, The Annals of the World, published in AD 1650, Archbishop James Ussher used these numbers to work backward from the known date of the death of Nebuchadnezzar to claim that the world was created in 4004 BC. While some who support a young earth have suggested alternate timelines, there is considerable agreement with the timeline proposed by Ussher.¹ I bring this up only so that reader’s who might agree with the young earth view would know where the dating comes from. I myself disagree with this sort of literalistic reading of the Genesis text, as should be quite clear by now. 

The narrative lists nine individuals from Adam to Lamech, the father of Noah. And eight times we read the refrain “and then he died.” The consequences of the rebellion of the first humans is hammered home to the reader by this repeated refrain. While Adam and Eve did not physically die on the day when they rebelled, death nonetheless set in and began its relentless reign. 

The only relief from this is the account of Enoch, about whom we read, “Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.” (Genesis 5.24) Somehow God spared Enoch from death. We are not told what it means to walk faithfully with God. And while the text does not explicitly claim it, we are led to believe that his walking with God was the reason why God spared him from experiencing death and took him away.

Enoch is also taken by some to be the first prophet, with his prophecy being hidden in the naming of his son, Methuselah, which means ‘his death will bring’. The dates given in the narrative actually indicate that the flood began in the same year that Methuselah died. The claim then is that Enoch knew about this and hid this fact in his son’s name. While the narrative does not explicitly make this claim, Methuselah’s enigmatic name and the timing of his death in relation to the flood do provide strong evidence to support the claim. 

In a similar manner, Lamech names his son Noah, meaning ‘comfort’. Lamech explains the name by saying, “He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed.” (Genesis 5.29) Per our earlier discussion on God’s words to the first man after he had rebelled, it seems that Lamech has misunderstood God’s words in Genesis 3.17. God does not say, “I am cursing the ground because of you” but “Cursed is the ground because of you.” The fruitlessness of the ground is a direct consequence of the man’s rebellion and not something inflicted on the ground by God. How Noah is going to be a source of comfort also is unclear since the flood will soon wipe out all but eight people. It is my view that Lamech, having misunderstood why humans had been exiled from the garden, also misunderstood what Enoch had prophesied through Methuselah’s name. Since Lamech believed that God had cursed the ground, it stands to imply that he believed that the curse could be taken away. Hence, he interpreted Methuselah’s name as being a prophecy about the end of the curse rather than a prophecy about judgment. So he names his son ‘comfort’, which is precisely what the end of the curse would bring. 

Prayer:

Gracious, loving Father. We ask you to enable us to see, even in the relentless march of death, your hand of mercy. We ask you to open our eyes daily to see the signs of life and love in this good world that you have created. And we ask you for the wisdom to appreciate these signs. We ask this in the name of Jesus. Amen.

---

^{1. John D. Morris. Can the Ussher Chronology be Trusted? (Accessed on 5 September 2019)↩}