Genesis 5: Preservation of the Patriarchal Line

Introduction

Genesis 5 continues the priestly account of origins. Now I don’t want us to get the idea that there are two separate messages here, because the two sources (priestly [P] and Yahwist [J]) have been brought together with their own message. Nonetheless, we can get some additional breadth and depth to this message by noting how we might understand these passages if we had only one of the two sources.

The priestly writer continues from the creation that is found good and moves to the patriarchal line. He mentions the curse in connection with Lamech, who believes that his son Noah represents some form of relief (see comment below), but he doesn’t mention the corruption of the world until Genesis 6:11, though the comment that Noah was found perfect in his generation suggests that there was something less than perfect going on. For P, the preservation of the patriarchal line is critical. We learn that the world became corrupt, but not how. More of the action is placed in God’s hands and less in people’s hands.

J, on the other hand, emphasizes the human side. We have an explanation for the corruption in human action, we have a line of people who are in rebellion, and then, at the end of chapter 4, we have the simple statement that there was also a patriarchal line. Seth is born, then he has a son, and with that we are told that people began to call on YHWH.

There is a certain elegance and simplicity to each of these source documents, but there is a depth that is provided by combining them. I’m reminded of the debate between Calvinists and Arminians, specifically about the sovereignty of God, and which view gives God more glory. By attitude, P could be a Calvinist and J an Arminian, as P puts all the focus on God, while J spends his time talking about the action of creatures. The redactor combines these into a story of God in relationship to people. This is one of the benefits I see in using critical methodologies. It is easy, however, to stop by observing the sources, as though identifying sources amounted to interpreting the text. It doesn’t. Sometimes it doesn’t even produce anything of real interest. But at other times it does help us get a bit closer to the author’s aim.

There will be only a few verse by verse comments. Most of Genesis 5 is self-explanatory. At the end I will deal with an overview of the type of literature involved, chronological calculations, and ways in which the chapter has been understood.

Genesis 5: Translation and Notes

¹This is Adam’s genealogical record. When God created humankind he created them like himself, ²he created them male and female, blessed them, and called them Adam (human).

Note that Adam produces a son in his likeness as God produced Adam in his own likeness. I would imagine that those who support a physical likeness, i.e. that God physically looks like a human being, might use this verse for that purpose. I would see the reverse. The likeness is not primarily physical, it is in being a choosing, acting, moral creature. This was the foundation of the patriarchal line.

The likeness of God must somehow be preserved, and as we can see in chapter 4, Cain’s clan is not doing so well at preserving it.

³Adam lived 130 years and gave birth to someone like him, in his image, and he called his son’s name Seth. ⁴After he gave birth to Seth Adam lived 800 years, and gave birth to sons and daughters. ⁵His full lifetime was 930 years. after which he died.

⁶Seth lived 105 years, and gave birth to Enosh. ⁷and Seth lived 807 years after he gave birth to Enosh, and he gave birth to sons and daughters. ⁸And Seth’s full lifetime was 912 years, after which he died.

⁹And Enosh lived 90 years, and gave birth to Kenan. ¹⁰And Enosh lived 815 years after he gave birth to Kenan, and gave birth to sons and daughters. ¹¹Enosh’s full lifetime was 905 years, after which he died.

¹²Kenan lived 70 years, and gave birth to Mahalalel. ¹³And Kenan lived 840 years after he gave birth to Mahalalel, and gave birth to sons and daughters. ¹⁴Kenan’a full lifetime was 910 years, then he died.

¹⁵Mahalalel lived 65 years, and gave birth to Jared. ¹⁶And Mahalalel lived after 830 years after he gave birth to Jared, and he gave birth to sons and daughters. ¹⁷Mahalalel’s full lifetime was 895 years, after which he died.

¹⁸Jared lived 162 years, and gave birth to Enoch. ¹⁹And Jared lived 800 years after he gave birth to Enoch and gave birth to sons and daughters. ²⁰Jared’s full lifetime wsa 962 years, after which he died.

Thus far note the pattern. The phrase “and he died” is not likely to be accidental, as it is repeated throughout. We are noting physical mortality.

²¹Enoch lived 65 years, and gave birth to Methuselah. ²²Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah for 300 years, and he gave birth to sons and daughters. ²³Enoch’s full lifetime was 365 years, ²⁴but Enoch walked with God, and he was just no longer there, because God took him.

We tend to focus on long lives in reading this passage, but the focus of the Bible writer is on the walk with God. Even those who have long lives are living on the ground that is under God’s curse. The one who is truly blessed is Enoch, who lives on earth a short time, and then is taken. The structure of the chapter points an arrow at Enoch because his story is missing that one phrase: “and he died.”

Cain’s line goes seven generations, though the focus is on the sixth, named Lamech as is the ninth patriarch of Genesis 5. Lamech in Cain’s line is a murderer. The seventh in the patriarchal line walks with God and proves it is still possible. In Genesis 3 God walks in the garden, and Adam and Eve are afraid (Genesis 3:10). Enoch doesn’t have this fear of going for a walk with God. This passage affirms the possibility of a walk with God.

²⁵Methuselah lived 187, and gave birth to Lamech. ²⁶And Methuselah lived 782 years after he gave birth to Lamech, and gave birth to sons and daughters. ²⁷And Methuselah’s full lifetime was 969 years, after which he died.

Methuselah is the longest lived patriarch, but he is not the hero. He is more or less a footnote to his father, Enoch, who walked with God.

²⁸Lamech lived 182 years, then gave birth to a son. ²⁹He called his name Noah, saying, “This child will comfort us as we work and toil with our hands as the result of the ground being cursed by YHWH.” ³⁰And Lamech lived 595 years after he gave birth to Noah, and gave birth to sons and daughters. ³¹And Lamech’s full lifetime was 777 years, after which he died.

³²Noah was 500 years old. He gave birth to Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Translation taken from my TFBV project.)

Note that it can be presumed that Noah bore his three sons over the course of those 500 years, and that this is a summary. The 500 years note gives us some chronological data, and suggests that Noah’s call to build the ark may have come around this time, while the flood began, according to this chronology, when Noah was 600 years old (Genesis 7:6).

Discussion

The single most discussed and debated issue of this chapter deals with chronology, which was probably a secondary consideration of the author/redactor. He was more concerned with demonstrating the preservation of the patriarchal line, which then leads to the genuineness of the call to Abraham.

But the simple fact is that on the surface, at least, it appears that one can generate some chronology from a genealogy like this. I have reproduced a portion of this chronology below.

Name	Age at Firstborn	Remaining Years	Age at Death	Birth AM	First Child AM	Death AM
Adam	130	800	930	0	130	930
Seth	105	807	912	130	235	1042
Enosh	90	815	905	235	325	1140
Kenan	70	840	910	325	395	1235
Mahalalel	65	830	895	395	460	1290
Jared	162	800	962	460	622	1422
Enoch	65	300	365	622	687	987
Methuselah	187	782	969	687	874	1656
Lamech	182	595	777	874	1056	1651
Noah	500	*600	500	1056	1556	1556
*Beginning of the flood. Noah’s death will be dealt with later.

Looking at this from the point of view of known history, there are several problems. Around the time suggested for the flood (between 2300 and 2400 BCE, depending on how one dates creation), there was a flourishing Eblaite civilization, there had been a Sumerian civilization for around a thousand years, and Egypt was being ruled by its fifth and sixth dynasties. To put it quite simply, this chronology cannot be reconciled with what we know of ancient near eastern history. It is not simply a small discrepancy; the issue would be thousands of years. You not only need to move the flood prior to the advent of Sumerian and Egyptian history, you also need to leave enough time for the population to grow such as to form the people groups involved and produce an adequate population.

There have been a number of solutions to this problem. One, of course, is to stick with the chronology as “God’s word” no matter what it may imply. This is often presented as the choice of faith. But faith in what? Actually the faith involved is in a chronology and in a particular way of reading the text. Is it truly honoring God to insist on reading the text of scripture, his written word, in such a way as to blatantly contradict his history as written in the natural world? I think we must consider the possibility that insisting that the form of chronology presented in the chart above is God’s word–the message God intended from this passage–is perhaps a bit arrogant.

Old earth creationists, though they are particularly dealing with geological evidence and the age of the earth solve this problem as well by assuming gaps in the chronology. If you look at the structure of the chronology, however, it looks as though it was put together rather tightly. The father’s birth is recorded, followed by his age at his son’s birth, followed by the years he lived after that, and then the full lifespan. In response to this, old earth advocates would note that there is also a formal element in the number of patriarchs. There are ten here and another ten in Genesis 11; ten before and ten after the flood. In addition, if one had a longer list of patriarchs, one could remove individual names while leaving the remainder of the list unchanged. Thus if there was someone removed after Seth, we would understand “gave birth to” as “starting the genealogical chain that gave birth to” Enosh.

There is a further option, which is the view that I have taken throughout these chapters. They are simply not narrative history. There is a theological point being made. There are two lines, or two categories of people: Those who follow God and those who don’t. The ultimate goal of those who follow God is to be with God (Enoch), while the ultimate goal of those who oppose God is to wind up like Lamech in further destruction. The chronology itself is simply a tradition whose form is maintained to hold together the full story that is being told–a story that teaches.