Conflicting Genealogies (4:17-26)

If I were to tell you I think culture, the arts, and technology are dangerous, you’d probably have mixed responses. Some of you older folks would probably heartily agree with me, and most of the youth would probably write me off as an old dad who has some ridiculous phobias.

So then, let me refashion my initial statement. Cultural advancement, the arts, and increasing technology share a common and significant danger. Let me take this a bit further. I’m going to prove this to you by way of two genealogies.

The Comparison

Before we jump into a comparison of the two genealogies in the next two chapters, let us address a few observations. First, Cain’s genealogy does not contain any dates. While somewhat speculative, the author appears to want to emphasize Seth’s line in chapter five but has a passing point to make in offering this brief section about Cain’s genealogy. His point does not require an awareness of dates or length of life.

Secondly, verse eighteen contains the names of five generations with no additional information in contrast to the information offered of each generation in chapter five. True, each generation in chapter five only includes a little bit of information – the age when the next generation was born and that individuals remaining years of life. However, the generations of Cain are offered so quickly as to provide two things. First, these names in 4:18 allow us to definitively conclude that this a distinct genealogy to that of chapter five. Chapter four discusses Cain’s genealogy and chapter five discusses Seth’s genealogy. This could be confusing because both include a Lamech and Enoch (these names are more easily confused in the Hebrew than in the English). Secondly, the brevity of the genealogy in chapter four acts as a transition for Lamech to receive the primary emphasis. Cain’s Lamech finds a prominent place in this genealogy – odd as it may seem. Cain’s entire genealogy lasts for eight verses and five of those discuss Lamech.

So then, Moses desires to offer a comparison between two of Adam’s genealogical lines – those of Cain and Seth. Consider three realities within the text that indicate this passage as a comparison.

The Seventh Grandson

Lamech, a murderer and polygamists. To start with, let us jump to the end of Cain’s genealogy – verses 19-24 and the odd discussion surrounding Lamech. With the introduction of Lamech, the biblical story introduces polygamy for the first time. The text does not outright condemn polygamy,[1] however, with no uncertainty, the biblical author offers Lamech as a plight on humanity. His polygamy conflicts with God’s original design and his negative and murderous character hardly shed any positive light on polygamy. Lamech also boasts to his two wives of his murderous heart. In so doing, Lamech establishes himself as a murderous bigamist – in stark contrasts to the seventh generation in Seth’s line.

Enoch walked with God (Gen 5:24). In the next chapter we find the seventh grandson of Adam from Seth’s line. Moses writes, “Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him” (Gen 5:24). Enough said! Enoch offers a brief although extreme contrast to Lamech, the murderous bigamist. Enoch walked with God!

The Two Lamech Statements

Cain’s Lamech: Taunt Song. Let us go back to chapter four and Lamech. In verses 23 and 24 we find a weird song by Lamech. Lamech said to his wives, “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold” (Gen 4:23–24).

This is a bit strange. Let us quick work through it. This brief “song” falls into the biblical and literary form referred to as the “taunt song.” Leland Ryken defines the taunt song as an “entire passage or composition that taunts an opponent. The taunt song can therefore be thought of as an expanded taunt.”[2]Lamech states this to his wives, so potentially he is boasting to his wives or potentially he is ridiculously taunting God. (1) The Hebrew is a bit less clear than the English, resulting in some commentators concluding that Lamech is boasting about what he would do – not what he has done. [3] If this is the case, Lamech is not admitting to his wives that he has murdered but that he would be willing to if he were ever hurt by another. This seems unlikely. Lamech offers a poor contrast to holiness if his guilt lies in talking smack about potentially killing someone. No. Lamech was a murderer. (2) But how many had he murdered? Once again, the Hebrew offers some challenges. Possibly, Moses offers two parallel phrases[4]which would mean that Lamech had only killed one person. However, more likely, Lamech killed multiple people, and Lamech boasts about how he killed a “young man for striking” him.[5] (3) Finally, what does Lamech mean by “if Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold”? Some of the early church fathers propose that Lamech is confessing his sins to his wives as an act of contrition and repentance.[6]As much as I prefer to agree with Chrysostom, this conclusion seems implausible in context. More likely, Lamech twists Cain’s punishment into some sort of “greater license to sin, as if God had granted murderers some special privilege.”[7] The reformer, Wolfgang Musculus writes best:

Wolfgang. Lamech was a violent and godless man, and the things he said to his wives here about his homicides were said not as if they concerned some hidden crime but one done openly, and he was moved not by repentance but by arrogance. And what he added about Cain, he added in order to set them forth as a threat to punish seventy-sevenfold, lest someone off in the future plan his murder on account of the slaughters he had perpetrated. Indeed, I think Moses wanted to relate these things about Lamech, namely, that he took two wives and that he killed both a man and a boy, in order to record the godlessness, malice and tyranny of Cain’s posterity. Commentary on Genesis 4:23–24.[8]

Seth’s Lamech: Prayer to God (5:28). There is another Lamech in these genealogies. Seth’s genealogy includes a Lamech as well. Throughout this entire genealogy (in chapter five), no one speaks except this Lamech. In stark contrast to the wretched taunt song of Cain’s Lamech, Seth’s Lamech looks to his son, Noah, as a blessing and the potential fulfillment of God’s promises. Seth’s Lamech says, in reference to Noah, “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands” (Gen 5:29).

Cain’s Lamech taunts God, scares and abuses his wives, and kills people that wound him. In contrast, Seth’s Lamech looks to God and finds hope in God’s promises in his son Noah.

Their Earthly Pursuits

Cains family pursued culture. Let us consider one final contrast in these two genealogies. Moses includes in Cain’s genealogy additional information that, once again, seems a little out of place. Moses offers descriptions of Lamech’s sons. Lamech’s wife, Adah, “bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah”[9] (Gen 4:20–22).

Why is this information included? The section begins with Cain building a city and ends with his grandsons developing culture and technical progress.

Like Solomon in Ecclesiastes, humanity tends to look for satisfaction in things other than God. Those avenues are not inherently bad – but the satisfaction they provide is fleeting. The Fall produced with mankind a hole – a cavern of dissatisfaction. We all want it filled. Cain’s family pursued progress and cultural advancement to fill the hole.

Cole. Sounds like our world, doesn’t it? There were children, cities, culture, and careers. We get married, have children, build “planned communities,” take the kids to music lessons, and pursue our careers. But when you do all these good things apart from the presence of the Lord, they become only the illusion of progress. The world tries to fill the emptiness of life without God with all these good gifts which God has given for the human race.[10]

Seth’s family pursued worship. In contrast, Seth’s family offers a contrast. We have already acknowledged how Enoch walked with God and Noah walked with God but let me draw your attention to the final statement in chapter four. “To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord” (Gen 4:26). The problem with Cain’s family was not that they made helpful strides in culture and technology, but that their pursuit did not include God. In contrast, Seth’s family called upon the name of the Lord.[11]

Theological Implications

A hole of emptiness. The Fall has left an enormous hole of emptiness within the heart of man. Cain’s family pursued filling this hole with things other than God. Seth’s family, in large part, pursued filling this hole with a pursuit towards God.[12] Each of us possesses this same yearning for satisfaction. We will attempt to fill it with something. In fact, we can fill our lives with a bunch of acceptable and good things, but if our primary pursuit is not God and his will, then we will ultimately find no satisfaction.

Blaise Pascal. There once was in man a true happiness of which now remain to him only the mark and empty trace, which he in vain tries to fill from all his surroundings, seeking from things absent the help he does not obtain in things present. But these are all inadequate, because the infinite abyss can only be filled by an infinite and immutable object, that is to say, only by God Himself.[13]

In Ecclesiastes, Solomon offers us a clear example of someone pursuing satisfaction in good things (although twisted at times) yet resulting in no satisfaction. He searches for wisdom under the sun and finds it to produce fleeting satisfaction. He hopes to find satisfaction in pleasure. He experiments with wine, looks to find enjoyment in nature. He pursues satisfaction in possessions and buildings. He possesses large choirs and a lot of women. Yet, he concludes the pleasures of this world possess no lasting satisfaction.

Each generation must choose. Every generation tends to spiral into corruption. Even though Seth’s line is contrasted as the good line in which many generations pursued God, even Seth’s line ends up being part of the group that is characterized as “every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6:5) and all but Noah and his family were destroyed.

Evil generations can produce good things. Every generation, even when corrupt, has the potential to produce incredible good. The problem with Cain’s generations were not that they produced amazing parts of culture but that their pursuit in culture was looking for satisfaction apart from God.

Footnote

[1]I don’t want to spend much time on Lamech’s wives, although there may be some value in such study. A number of commentators point out the meanings of Lamech’s wives and conclude that Lamech was drawn away by their beauty and seduction. This may be true but seems to be too speculative to be of much value. Mathews. “The meaning of their names is uncertain, but “Adah” usually is associated with ʿădî, meaning “ornament”; and “Zillah” (ṣillâ) with Hebrew ṣēl, “shadow, shade,” or ṣll, “shrill, tinkle.” Some have related the latter to the Hebrew word for “cymbal” (ṣilṣûl), suggesting that the two are praised for their beauty and sweet voice (as Song 2:14).” Murphy. “The names of the two wives, Adah, beauty, and Zillah, shade or tinkling, seem to refer to the charms which attracted Lamek.” Wenham. “Cassuto and Westermann prefer to derive the name from צלצל “to tinkle” and see in the name “an allusion to the sweetness of the human voice.” If this be correct, the names of the two women form an excellent parallel, pointing to the two charming feminine attributes mentioned in Cant 2:14: “a sweet voice and a pretty face” (Cassuto, 1:234). “Probably the holy author wanted to show Lamek as a person who had succumbed to sensuality” (Gabriel, Bib 40 [1959] 417).” [Mathews, Genesis 1-11, 1a:286; Murphy, Notes on the Old Testament: Genesis, 159; Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 1:112.] [2] “Taunt Song,” Leland Ryken, A Complete Handbook of Literary Forms in the Bible(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014). [3] Hamilton. “Lamech, if provoked, would not hesitate to kill even a child, let alone an adult. His capacity for retaliation is nondiscriminatory…. Lamech’s song speaks not of something that he has already done, but of something that under duress he would not hesitate to do.” [Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, 241.] [4] Wenham. “I have killed a man for bruising me, a youth for hitting me” should probably be taken as two ways of describing the same incident rather than as two separate incidents.” [Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 1:114.] [5] Hamilton. “Most translations have Lamech claiming to have killed (hāraḡtî) a man for wounding him. The four lines of v. 23 are taken as an illustration of parallelismus membrorum. In other words, the second line repeats the first line, albeit with different vocabulary. For example, Adah and Zillah is parallel to wives of Lamech; man is parallel to boy. The problem with the latter point is that nowhere else in the OT do ʾîš(“man”) and yeleḏ (“boy”) form a word pair” [Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, 240.] [6] Chrysostom. You see, confession is of the greatest efficacy for correction of faults. Thus the denial of guilt after the committing of sin proves worse than the sins themselves. This was the condition of that man who killed his brother and who when questioned by the loving God did not merely decline to confess his crime but even dared to lie to God and thus caused his life to be lengthened. Accordingly Lamech, when he fell into the same sins, arrived at the conclusion that denial would only lead to his receiving a severer punishment, and so he summoned his wives, without anyone’s accusing or charging him, and made a personal confession of his sins to them in his own words. By comparing what he had done to the crimes committed by Cain, he limited the punishment coming to him. Homilies on Genesis 20.6–7 Theodoret of Cyr. He escapes vengeance through confession of sin, and pronouncing judgment on himself, he prevents divine judgment. Questions on Genesis 44 [Chrysostom, ed. Louth and Conti, Genesis 1-11, 112; Theodoret of Cyr, ed. Louth and Conti, 114.] [7] Calvin and King, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, 222; Ephrem the Syrian, ed. Louth and Conti, Genesis 1-11, 112. Ephrem the Syrian. When these wives saw the plight of their generation, they became fearful and knew that the judgment decreed against Cain and his seven generations had come upon their generation. Lamech, then, in his cleverness, comforted them, saying, “I have killed a man for wounding me and a youth for striking me. Just as God caused Cain to remain so that seven generations would perish with him, so God will cause me to remain, because I have killed two, so that seventy-seven generations should die with me. [8] Wolfgang Musculus, ed. George, Timothy, Manetsch, and Thompson, Genesis 1-11, 1:211. [9]I’m not addressing this at all in my message, however, some commentators discussed the presence of Lamech’s daughter – Naamah. I didn’t quite understand their thinking, but it seemed possible they were connecting her presence to a shift in focus in Cain’s line emphasizing giving birth to daughters instead of sons so that their line could endure. Additionally, it seems possible, depending on one’s interpretation of Genesis 6, that Naamah’s presence connects to the daughters of man. Some Jews also propose Naamah was Noah’s wife. [10] Cole, Genesis, Ge 4:16-24. [11] Murphy. “The Shethites contemplated the higher things of God, and therefore paid less attention to the practical arts of life. The Cainites, on the other hand, had not God in their thoughts, and therefore gave the more heed to the requisites and comforts of the present life.” [Murphy, Notes on the Old Testament: Genesis, 160.] Keil & Delitzsch. “While the family of Cainites, by the erection of a city, and the invention and development of worldly arts and business, were laying the foundation for the kingdom of this world; the family of the Sethites began, by united invocation of the name of God of grace, to found and to erect the kingdom of God.” [Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 1:75.] [12] Ross. “In contrast to Cain’s descendants, who, while altering the institutions of God and disdaining the value of life, produced cities, music, and all kinds of implements for the good life, the descendants of Adam through Seth primarily promoted the worship of the Lord.” [Ross, Creation and Blessing, 165–66.] [13]Blaise Pascal, Pascal’s Pensees, trans. W. F. Trotter (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1958), 113, thought #425.