Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
Genesis 5:3-32
‘When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.'
This is the pattern for the whole genealogy with the partial exception of Enoch. We have here, repeated again and again, the formula ‘became the father of, lived after, had other sons and daughters, total number of years, died'. So each is fruitful, each lives a long life, and each dies.
It is stressed that Seth is in the image and likeness of Adam. Thus he shares the likeness with the heavenly court (see on Genesis 5:1 b). He too is more than just an earthly creature. Yet because man is now a fallen creature the writer deliberately does not say he is in the image and likeness of God. He is in the image and likeness of Adam, for like Adam he must die. (In Genesis 9:6, however, God can still describe man as made in His image).
Adam's death at nine hundred and thirty years, which is seventy short of a thousand is significant. Certainly in later times a thousand years represented a full and perfect period, the ideal. But Adam does not reach the ideal for he has sinned. Thus he is a God appointed time short of it, seventy years (intensified seven). The message is that God controls all things, even this.
We note again that the list does not necessarily list the first born. In Genesis 11:12 Arpachshad is mentioned, but he is probably only the third son (Genesis 10:22).
The names of the patriarchs are interesting, although it is too easy to translate them to suit a theory and we must beware of doing so. The present names are Hebrew renderings of an unknown primitive original and are probably renderings on the basis of sound rather than meaning. ‘Seth' means ‘the appointer', or, if a substantive, ‘foundation'. Enosh means ‘man' in his frailty, no longer the strong ‘adam' but the weak ‘enosh'. Kenan (qaynan) is closely related to the name Cain (qayin). Attempts have therefore been made to suggest that this is a duplicate line to that of Cain. But far more likely does it bring out the primitive nature of the names and that there was a tendency to keep to familiar names with familiar ideas. We would not expect great inventiveness in the early use of names. The point is that they are different names but similar in meaning and idea. There may well also have been the deliberate intention of demonstrating that Seth's line have replaced that of Adam-Cain.
Mahalal-el means ‘praise of God'. Yared means ‘descent'. Enoch means ‘dedication' or ‘beginning'.
‘When Enoch had lived sixty five years he became the father of Methuselah. Enoch walked with God after the birth of Methuselah three hundred years, and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty five years, and Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.'
Like Noah (Genesis 6:9), Enoch is said to have ‘walked with God'. This is clearly an indication of extreme godliness, and of a close relationship with God. We can compare Malachi 2:6 - (spoken of Levi) ‘he walked with me in peace and uprightness and turned many from iniquity'. In contrast Abraham only walked ‘before God' (Genesis 17:1; Genesis 24:40). There is a possible deliberate contrast between Enoch's walk with God and the activities of Lamech and his sons, seventh in the line of Cain.
His walk with God is mentioned as occurring ‘after the birth of Methuselah'. This may just arise from following the regular pattern of the descriptions or may signify a deep spiritual experience some time following that event. The name of his son may mean ‘man of Lach (a god)' indicating idolatry. This is in interesting contrast with Methusha-el (Genesis 4:18) ‘who is of El'. Enoch seemingly began his walk with God after the birth of Methuselah.
But of Enoch alone is it said that ‘he was not, for God took him', rather than that he died. The phrase is enigmatic. While as a result of later revelation we may see in this phrase the thought that he was taken up to God the Pentateuch mentions nothing of an afterlife. A man was seen as living on in his sons. Yet it was clearly felt that Enoch's demise was somehow different.
This may not, however, mean that he did not die. If we take his age even partly literally Enoch, in fact, departed this life relatively young, and we have to consider the possibility that what happened to him was that he met a violent end, a martyrdom (the earth was filled with violence - Genesis 6:11). As one who walked with God he may well have been the target of evil men. Perhaps one day he left his family home and was never heard of again. As time passed and he did not return, his family recognised that he was no longer on earth and they therefore thought in terms of God having ‘taken him', how they knew not. One moment he was there, the next he was gone. And they would find comfort in the thought that he was ‘taken'.
It may be said, on the other hand, that Hebrews 11:5 does say ‘by faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death, and he was not found, for God translated him'. But this may only be signifying his unique departure in the context. It may be saying that he was not one of those who died a lingering death and of whom it was said, ‘and he died'. Was he also there seen as ‘translated' through martyrdom which was seen as God taking him? The context is one of martyrdom.
However, if we see the ten patriarchs as representative of a whole line stretching over thousands of years, with the specific ages being symbolic, then the deliberate positioning of Enoch as seventh (the number of divine perfection) in contrast with the sons of Lamech (who were also placed seventh) may be seen as contrasting the holiness and godliness of Enoch with the ‘worldliness of either Lamech (the seventh from Adam) or the sons of Lamech (the seventh in their genealogy), and show him uniquely as ‘the heavenly man'.
The age of Enoch, 365 years, was the number of days in a year, almost certainly intended (if not literal) to indicate his connection with the heavens through his especially godly life. Once we see Enoch like this the phrase ‘he was not, because God took him' may be seen as taking on a new meaning. It may now become a positive affirmation of a unique experience, a claim that for those very few who ‘walk with God' a further life awaits with God in contrast with the shadowy world of the grave, because they are so special. Of all the other patriarchs it is said, ominously, that they died. Is there here the suggestion that death may be counteracted? If so it is only a hint not taken up further until much later on. Nor was it seen to contradict the standard belief in Sheol.
But the fact is that his ‘early' cessation could be seen as indicating a short life, which might have suggested the displeasure of God. To speak of an early death could point to failure and weakness on his part. Thus the description may be deliberately counteracting that idea. The extreme age given for Methuselah might then also have arisen because the writer is seeking to make up for this by making his son ‘live' the maximum age possible (up to the flood) so that he is the longest living man. It may be that this, at least partly, was seen as counteracting the ‘shortness' of Enoch's life.
‘When Lamech had lived one hundred and eighty two years he became the father of a son, and called his name Noah (noach = to rest), saying, “Out of the ground which Yahweh has cursed this one shall bring us relief (nacham) from our work, and from the toil of our hands”. Lamech lived after the birth of Noah five hundred and ninety five years, and had other sons and daughters. So all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy seven years, and he died.'
Lamech lives for seven hundred and seventy seven years. This threefold seven must be seen as in indication of the ‘perfect' life and contrasts with the seventy and seven of Lamech in Genesis 4:24, showing the superiority of the line of Seth both in holiness and prestige.
Lamech's statement about his son demonstrates a knowledge of the fall, and the curse and covenant which ensued. The ground is cursed by Yahweh and yields its fruits reluctantly. Noah will thus be a comfort to them because he can help with the work of survival. The birth of a man child is always looked on as a special blessing in the East because he will be a major producer. Note the play on words of two similar roots, which is typical of namings as we have seen (when looking at the roots it is the consonants that we must consider. The vowels were mainly not part of the text).
It is possibly noteworthy that just as the son of Lamech the Cainite reintroduced domestication of animals among the Cainites (see Genesis 4:20), a sign of a new beginning and a claim that the curse on Cain was over, so the son of Lamech of the line of Seth is indicated to have similar potential with regard to the curse on the ground. After the flood God will promise the reliability of the seasons in order to take away the uncertainties of agriculture. So Lamech's words can be seen as prophetic.
Some see in the words a reference to the fact that Noah would become a vine dresser and wine producer (Genesis 9:20).
Some try to suggest that Genesis 5:29 is an interpolation. This is solely in the interests of the Documentary Theory (making the verse so-called J rather than so-called P). But similar brief comments in a genealogy were commonplace where they were an integral part of the narrative (see the king lists) and there are no grounds for the suggestion apart from the interests of a Theory. The suggestion must therefore be rejected.
‘And Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begat Shem, Ham and Japheth'.
As with Lamech at the end of Cain's line, Noah begets three sons, a sign of complete fulfilment.
We notice that while Noah's end is later mentioned (Genesis 9:28) no mention is made of ‘sons and daughters'. It is, of course, possible that he had no other sons and daughters, but in view of what has preceded it seems very unlikely. Thus the omission of a mention of sons and daughters is probably so that no suggestion might be seen in 6:1 that the daughters there might include Noah's. The writer wishes him to be kept free from the disgrace that would come with such an idea. Only the sons who were faithful and came through the flood are mentioned.
Note that what might be described as the ‘usual' ending comes in Genesis 9:28, and also refers back to the flood. Both these factors demonstrate the interconnection of the stories and genealogies so that all are part of one whole.
The unusual age of begetting must have some significance. Five is the number of the covenant, thus five hundred is five intensified, and it may be that this is stressing that these sons will all participate in the coming covenant.