Genesis 5 – Walking With Giants

From Adam to Noah, 1-

5:1 This is the record of the family line of Adam.

When God created humankind, he made them in the likeness of God. 5:2 He created them male and female; when they were created, he blessed them and named them “humankind.”

This is the written account of Adam’s line – Or, ‘the book of’. This form of words suggests that the editor is drawing on a pre-existing written account.

The two genealogies, in Gen 4 and Gen 5, have some similarities but many differences. Some scholars think that different editors have adapted a common genealogy for their own purposes, whereas others (e.g. Wenham and Hamilton), think that they trace different lineages. Wenham cites R.R. Wilson as stating that ‘peoples often retain variant genealogies alongside each other without sensing any contradiction between them.’

‘In April 1890, William Henry Green of the Princeton faculty wrote an article in Bibliotheca Sacra pointing to some clear principles used by the writers of Scripture in the construction of genealogies. Those principles include the following:

1. Abridgment is the general rule because the sacred writers did not want to encumber their pages with more names than necessary.

2. Omissions in genealogies are fairly routine. For example, Mt 1:8 omits three names between Joram and Ozias (Uzziah); namely, Ahaziah, (2 Kings 8:25) Joash (2 Kings 12:1) and Amaziah. (2 Kings 14:1) In verse 11, Matthew omits Jehoiakim. (2 Kings 23:34) In fact, in Mt 1:1 the whole of two millennia are summed up in two giant steps: “Jesus Christ, the son of David about 1000 B.C., the son of Abraham about 2000 B.C..”

3. The span of a biblical “generation” is more than our twenty to thirty years. In Syriac it equals eighty years. Often in the Exodus account a generation is 100 to 120 years.

4. The meanings of begat, son of, father of and even bore a son often have special nuances, as the context often indicates. To beget often means no more than “to become the ancestor of.” To be the father of often means being a grandfather or greatgrandfather. The point is that the next key person was descended from that male named “father” in the text.’

(Hard Sayings of the Bible)

Just as there are parallels between the Sumerian flood story and elements of Gen 4 (references to nomadism, building of cities and institution of public worship), so (writes Wenham) there are parallels regarding the exceptionally long reigns ascribe to the antedeluvian kings (the numbers are even a magnitude higher in the Sumerian account). Nevertheless, there are many differences too, making direct dependance of one upon the other unlikely.

He created them male and female – ‘Both “image” and gender distinction (“male and female”) are emphasized as in 1:27–28 because the blessing, as evidenced through procreation (1:28), is realized by the prolific Sethites. By this genealogy creation’s order is perpetuated (vv. 1b–3). The recitation of ten names (indicating completeness) in chap. 5 and the common refrain “other sons and daughters” (vv. 4, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 26, 30) trumpet the mercy and provision of God for the line of Seth. Just as we remember the uniform six days of creation, we hear in chap. 5 the same drumbeat of God’s orderly creation by the regular birth of human life.’ (Mathews)

He named them “humankind” – ‘Together they were called man (CSB, ESV, TNK), humankind (NET, NRSV) or humans (GW). In Hebrew this word is the same as Adam’s name.’ (Steinmann)

‘The problem really lies in our transliteration of the Hebrew names: if we used “Man” for “Adam” and “man” for “mankind,” our translation could oscillate between “Man” and “man” as easily as Hebrew does between האדם and אדם. Since in vv 1 and 3 the personal name “Adam,” “Man,” is clearly intended and v 2 actually speaks of giving a name, the older translations, LXX, Vg, and AV, are correct in understanding the personal name “Adam” here despite the incongruity of its apparently referring to both sexes.’ (Wenham)

5:3 When Adam had lived 130 years he fathered a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and he named him Seth. 5:4 The length of time Adam lived after he became the father of Seth was 800 years; during this time he had other sons and daughters. 5:5 The entire lifetime of Adam was 930 years, and then he died.

Concerning the historicity of Adam, Bruce Ware observes:

‘The language and kinds of descriptors of Adam in Genesis 5:3-5—the number of years he lived after Seth, that he had other children, and the total number of years he lived—are identical to the language and kinds of descriptors used of other historical persons in Genesis and elsewhere (cf., the rest of Gen 5; Gen 11:10-26; Gen 25:7-11; 1 Chron 1-9).’ (SBJT 15.1 (2011): 100-07)

Whatever questions we may have about the details of these narratives, these genealogies clearly root them in historical realities. It is just so with the genealogies with which the NT accounts begin the story of Jesus. As Mathews remarks:

‘Luke particularly takes the universal view of the work of Jesus in tracing Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam. It shows dependence on Genesis 5 and 11 specifically (Lk 3:34–38), where Luke pointed out the unique relationship Adam enjoyed as the “son of God” (Lk 3:38). He utilized Jesus’ human credentials to contribute to his wider Christological purpose (Lk 3:21–38), appealing to Adam as a prototype of Jesus as the Son of God.’

And then he died – A sobering refrain. These patriarchs lived long, but they did not live for ever. In the midst of life we are in death.

And yet, hope permeates these accounts:

‘Genesis’s early genealogies indicate that hope prevails through Adam’s successors—namely, in Noah and later Abraham (5:1–32; 11:10–26), both of whom are instrumental in the preservation of the blessing. Carrying on, the Christian message proclaims that those born to the “last Adam” realize that hope, one that transcends even the clutches of Ancient Death (Rom 5:12–21; 1 Cor 15:22, 45–49).’ (Mathews)

The ages of the antedeluvians

Aside from textual difficulties (there are many differences between the most ancient texts on this matter) we are faced with the question of how to explain these exceptionally long life spans (all these individuals were at least 65 when their first child was born, and most lived for up to 1,000 years!). The problem is compounded by the fact that if we put the various data together, we come up with a date for the creation of Adam (about 4004 BC) which would be even more recent if we assumed normal life spans for his descendants!

Wenham, after reviewing various options, concludes that no adequate explanation is available at present. McKnight (DOT:P, art. ‘Seth’) wryly notes:

‘there are no successful attempts at explaining the ages of the antediluvians other than that each one met the same end.’

Various theories have been put forward. They cluster around two possibilities: either that the numbers are to be taken more or less as they stand, or that they are inflated in some way.

A. Literal interpretations

1. The traditional view is that the numbers are to be taken literally, without gaps, and that the earth is, accordingly, just a few thousand years old. Howe and Geisler (When Critics Ask) offer the following points in favour:

‘(1) First of all, life was later shortened to 120 years as a punishment from God (Gen. 6:3). (2) Life span decreased gradually after the flood from the 900s (Gen. 5) to the 600s (Shem 11:10–11), to the 400s (Salah 11:14–15), to the 200s (Rue 11:20–21). (3) Biologically, there is no reason humans could not live hundreds of years. Scientists are more baffled by aging and death than by longevity. (4) The Bible is not alone in speaking of hundreds of years life spans among ancients. There are also records from ancient Greek and Egyptian times that speak of humans living hundreds of years.’

2. As a variation on the first option, Kaiser (Hard Sayings of the Bible) thinks that the ages Adam and others are to be understood literally. The long life spans reflect ‘the fact that the effects of the Fall into sin had not yet affected human generative powers as seriously as they have more recently’. However, he takes an ‘age-day’ view of Genesis 1, and thinks that the sons attributed to Adam and others may have been between one and six generations away. (In support of this latter point, Kaiser points to Gen 46:18, where Zilpah is said to ‘bear’ her grandchildren, and Gen 46:25, where the same is said of Bilhah). Kidner takes a similar view.

Writing in the Apologetics Study Bible (art. ‘Numbers in the Bible’), Kirk Lowery writes:

‘Some have suggested that environmental conditions could explain it; others suggest mankind’s closer proximity to its original sinless estate explains it. We just don’t know how to explain the apparently impossible life spans. What we have is a witness (the Bible) that has proved trustworthy too often to dismiss.’

According to Jonathan McClatchie, there are some frequently-overlook problems with the literal interpretation. For example, the note that “Abraham breathed his last and died in a good old age, an old man and full of years,” (Gen 25:8), does not ring true if the ages of his ancestors are to be understood literally. In fact, four of them (Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, and Eber) would still have been alive when Abraham entered Canaan; indeed, the two last-named would have outlived Abraham. But ‘the text treats these men as respected ancestors, not contemporaries. There is no hint that these men were living at the same time as Abraham, and the narrative would not make sense if they were’ (Craig Olson). The age given for Abraham as his death (175) can scarcely be described as ‘old age’ in the light of the ages of his ancestors (Shem (600), Eber (464), Methuselah (969), Noah (500), Enoch (365), Terah (205)).

McClatchie adds that Abraham’s protest that he is too old, at 100, to bear children (Gen 17:15-19) does not make sense if his own father, Terah, bore him at the age of 130. Still less does it make sense if Noah fathered children at the age of 500.

Sarah, likewise, expressed incredulity at the prospect of bearing a child at the age of ninety Gen 18:11-15. The narrative clearly suggests that the birth of Isaac was of the nature of a miracle, a deviation from the norm. This suggests that the extreme ages (at death and at the time of bearing children) given for the antediluvians are not to be taken literally.

Turning to the New Testament, we do not need to accuse Matthew of error or blinder when he arranges his genealogy in three groups of 14, totalling 42 generations from Abraham to Christ. To put it bluntly, Matthew is manipulating the maths in order to make a theological (and memorable) point.

B. Non-literal interpretations

McClatchie notes that according to archaeological evidence dating back to 9000 BC, the maximum age for humans has been 70 or so, with the majority dying much younger.

1. Some think that the years of Genesis 5 were much shorter than ours. Perhaps we should understand them as months, rather than years. Adam’s age of 930 years would then become a more manageable 80-odd years. The trouble is that according to this theory Nahor would have fathered Terah at the age of two, rather than 29 (Gen 11:24)!

4. According to W.H. Green, the numbers cover multiple generations, with long gaps in the genealogy. In this case the numbers might indicate the lifespan of the family, rather than the lifespan of the individual (Kidner). But this would not work for Enoch, of course, who was ‘taken up to heaven’. Howe and Geisler state a number of valid objections to this interpretation:

‘First, some of these names (e.g., Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah) are definitely individuals whose lives are narrated in the text (Gen. 1–9). Second, family lines do not “beget” family lines by different names. Third, neither do family lines “die,” as each of these individuals did (cf. 5:5, 8, 11, etc.). Fourth, the reference to having “sons and daughters” (5:4) does not fit the clan theory.’

6. It has been suggested that a different numerical system (e.g. sexagesimal rather than decimal) is used here. This was the case with the Sumerian King List, which lists the kings of the pre-flood and post-flood periods.

7. Barnouin theorises that the ages relate to various astronomical periods.

8. For some, the long life spans reflect theological (and not necessarily historical) truth: not only procreation, but long life, is seen as a blessing and hope from God. Mathews writes:

‘In the Mosaic law long life was the product of God’s blessing for obedience. This was etched in the mind of the community by the Fifth Commandment (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16), which is distinctive as the first of the commands with a promise (Eph 6:2–3). Long life was commonly tied to the heritage of living in the land (e.g., Deut 4:25; 30:20). Outstanding heroes, such as Abraham, Gideon, and David, were said to have lived to a “good old age” (Gen 25:8; Judg 8:32; 1 Chr 29:28). Strikingly, apart from the patriarchs of Genesis, in the Old Testament only Job (140), Moses (120), Joshua (110), and Jehoiada (130) lived longer than a century of years. Isaiah also points to long life as a feature of blessing in the eschatological age (Isa 65:20).’

McClatchie notes that the Sumerian King List records some absurdly long reigns (thousands of years) for some of the pre-flood kings. Both, however, are supposed to record kings who actually lived and reigned, even if the lengths of reign are implausible. Kitchen suggests that the numbers may have been inflated using sexagesimal multipliers. A reign of 60,000 years (given for Alalgar and Dumuzi), when divided by 10 × 60, would yield a reign of 60 years. This method, according to Kitchen, works smoothly for all the pre-flood kings. In the case of the (less heroic) post-flood Sumerian kings, plausible numbers can generally be obtained by appplying a factor of 60 (not 60 x 10).

Turning to Gen 5, McClatchie notes that of the 30 numbers listed, 21 are divisible by 5. Of the remaining 9, 8 are divisible by 5 5 after subtracting 7. (The one exception is Methuselah, who died at 969). Lloyd Bailey observes a similar pattern in the Sumerian King Lists. In Gen 5, the final digit is 0, 2, 5 or 7 in all but one case. The probability of ranson ages falling into the pattern is surpassingly small. Compare the random distribution of the length of reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah, as recorded in the books of King – 17, 3, 41, 2, 24, 2, 7 days, 12, 22, 25, 2, 8, 1, 28, 40, 17, 16, 29, 52, 41, 6 months, 1 month, 10, 2, 20, 16, 16, 9, 29, 55, 2, 21, 3 months, 11, 3 months, and 11.

Another similarity between the Sumerian and the biblical lists is that the importance of the seventh person in the list is stressed.

McClatchie concludes that some kind of symbolism is going on in the Genesis account, even if we cannot be sure what that symbolism is.

What About Genesis 6:3? (asks McClatchie). This seems to teach that from that time onwards a man’s lifespan would be limited to 120 years, which itself would imply that it had hitherto been longer than this. But this is not decisive, because even after this point some individuals (including Abraham) lived longer than 120 years. In fact, this verse may not be referring to human life span at all, but, rather, giving a countdown to the flood.

R.K. Harrison (JETS 37/2) discusses a number of possible factors:

In some ancient cultures, the measurement of age is more a sociological, than a biological matter. It is reported, Harrison writes, that ancient Chinese society:

‘deemed a baby to be one year old on the day it was born. Some months later the baby was accorded its second birthday, and by the time that it was biologically about seven years of age by occidental reckoning it could be regarded locally as being fourteen or fifteen years old.’

Moreover, writes Harrison, the ancient biblical scribes may have been following the custom (attested in Egypt and elsewhere) of ascribing great age to a person on account of the contribution that individual was deemed to have made to society. In some cultures, such a person was deemed worthy of ancestor worship, and the attribution of great age would have enhanced the esteem in which he was held.

5:6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. 5:7 Seth lived 807 years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had other sons and daughters. 5:8 The entire lifetime of Seth was 912 years, and then he died.
5:9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 5:10 Enosh lived 815 years after he became the father of Kenan, and he had other sons and daughters. 5:11 The entire lifetime of Enosh was 905 years, and then he died.
5:12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 5:13 Kenan lived 840 years after he became the father of Mahalalel, and he had other sons and daughters. 5:14 The entire lifetime of Kenan was 910 years, and then he died.
5:15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 5:16 Mahalalel lived 830 years after he became the father of Jared, and he had other sons and daughters. 5:17 The entire lifetime of Mahalalel was 895 years, and then he died.
5:18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 5:19 Jared lived 800 years after he became the father of Enoch, and he had other sons and daughters. 5:20 The entire lifetime of Jared was 962 years, and then he died.

5:21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 5:22 After he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God for 300 years, and he had other sons and daughters. 5:23 The entire lifetime of Enoch was 365 years. 5:24 Enoch walked with God, and then he disappeared because God took him away.

Enoch walked with God – Here is a figure of speech which recalls the intimacy of fellowship between Adam and God in paradise. ‘used twice of Enoch, here and in v 24, and once of Noah, in 6:9. Later patriarchs “walked before” God (17:1; 24:40; 48:15) and the LORD God walked in the garden of Eden (3:8). The priests were expected to walk with God (Mal 2:6) and Micah 6:8 describes this as God’s basic requirement for all persons.’ (Wenham)

Enoch had not always so walked: it seems that the birth of Methuselah marked a spiritual turning point for him. God can use the cradle as well as the coffin to awaken a sense of himself and of eternal things.

Enoch’s walk with God was, (a) in the midst of ungodliness, Jude 14-15; (b) voluntarily chosen: it was not that God chose to walk his way, but that he chose to walk God’s way; (c) in the same direction as God: to walk together, there must be agreement. Amos 3:3.

See Heb 11:5

5:25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 5:26 Methuselah lived 782 years after he became the father of Lamech, and he had other sons and daughters. 5:27 The entire lifetime of Methuselah was 969 years, and then he died.

The patriarchs who lived before the Flood had an average lifespan of about 900 years (Gen. 5). The ages of post-Flood patriarchs dropped rapidly and gradually leveled off (Gen. 11). Some suggest that this is due to major environmental changes brought about by the Flood.

Kitchen, however, thinks that

‘long lives like Methuselah’s 969 years are no bar to personal historicity; ancient Sumerian documents maintain that King (En)-me-bara-gisi reigned for 900 years. The 900-year reign is not credible, but King (En)-me-bara-gisi was not fictional. He is known to be historical because archaeologists have discovered inscriptions bearing his name. It was a widespread ancient convention to “stretch” spans of true events and ages of people that hailed from primeval times.’

Checking some questionnaires that had just been filled in, a census clerk was amazed to note that one of them contained figures 121 and 125 in the spaces for “Age of Mother, If Living” and “Age of Father, If Living”. “Surely your parents can’t be as old as this?” asked the incredulous clerk. “Well, no,” was the answer, “but they would be, if living.”

5:28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 5:29 He named him Noah, saying, “This one will bring us comfort from our labor and from the painful toil of our hands because of the ground that the LORD has cursed.” 5:30 Lamech lived 595 years after he became the father of Noah, and he had other sons and daughters. 5:31 The entire lifetime of Lamech was 777 years, and then he died.

“He will comfort us” – ‘But of course any optimism engendered by chap. 5 is dashed by chap. 6. There the abuse of sexuality leads into the decree of the flood. Lamek’s hopes for mankind were not fulfilled as he expected. Instead of mankind’s being comforted by Noah, Noah is the only survivor of the cataclysm.’ (Wenham)

5:32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

‘The genealogy in chap. 5…serves to link the first founder of humanity, Adam, with its refounder, Noah. The long period of peace and apparent prosperity described in this chapter serves to make the sequel in Gen 6:1–8 the more surprising and shocking, just as the creation stories in Gen 1–2 make the fall in chap. 3 the more poignant.’ (Wenham)

Post Views: 45