Last time we were together, we
saw the line of Cain, the ungodly line of Cain. Tonight, it's the
genealogy of Adam through the godly line of Seth. And the genealogy
here in chapter 5 does not technically end until chapter 9 with the
death of Noah. Noah is the 10th one mentioned
in this chapter. And then by way of an extended
excursus, there is the account of the flood. And then, as I
said, Noah's death is recorded in chapter 9. I want to begin
reading in verse 1 of Genesis chapter 5. This is the book of
the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man,
he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and
female and blessed them and called them mankind in the day they
were created. And Adam lived 130 years and
begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him
Seth. After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were 800 years,
and he had sons and daughters. So all the days that Adam lived
were 930 years, and he died. Seth lived 105 years and begot
Enosh. After he begot Enosh, Seth lived
807 years and had sons and daughters. So all the days of Seth were
912 years, and he died. Enosh lived 90 years and begot
Canaan. After he begot Canaan, Enosh
lived 815 years and had sons and daughters. So all the days
of Enosh were 905 years and he died. Canaan lived 70 years and
begot Mahalaleel. After he begot Mahalaleel, Canaan
lived 840 years and had sons and daughters. So all the days
of Canaan were 910 years and he died. Mahalaleel lived 65
years and begot Jared. After he begot Jared, Mahalaleel
lived 830 years and had sons and daughters. So all the days
of Mahalaleel were 895 years and he died. Jared lived 162
years and begot Enoch. After he begot Enoch, Jared lived
800 years and had sons and daughters. So all the days of Jared were
962 years, and he died. Enoch lived 65 years and begot
Methuselah. After he begot Methuselah, Enoch
walked with God 300 years and had sons and daughters. So all
the days of Enoch were 365 years. And Enoch walked with God, and
he was not, for God took him. Methuselah lived 187 years and
begot Lamech. After he begot Lamech, Methuselah
lived 782 years and had sons and daughters. So all the days
of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died. Lamech lived 182 years and had
a son, and he called his name Noah, saying, This one will comfort
us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of
the ground which the Lord has cursed. After he begot Noah,
Lamech lived 595 years and had sons and daughters. So all the
days of Lamech were 777 years, and he died. and Noah was 500 years old, and
Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth." Amen. As I said, we have a contrast
here between chapters 4 and 5. You have the genealogy of Adam
through the ungodly line of Cain in chapter 4, and here the genealogy
of Adam through the godly line of Seth. and it certainly does
demonstrate the collective application of Genesis chapter 3 in verse
15. There's a seed of the woman, and then there's the seed of
the serpent, or the devil, and you see that contrasted here
between the Cainites and between the Sethites. Well, I want to
look first at the origin of Adam in verses 1 and 2. It sort of
serves as a prologue before the actual genealogy, and then the
genealogy of Adam in verses 3 to 32. But notice in verses 1 and
2, we are reminded of what's preceded in Genesis chapter 1,
and I think there are reasons for that. Note, this is the book
of the genealogy of Adam. The idea that there was a book
of the genealogy of Adam suggests that there was not only oral
tradition, but probably written records prior to the time that
Moses actually composed the Pentateuch. Remember that persons lived a
long time and so oral things were passed on but certainly
record-keeping was involved and this seems to indicate that there
was a document or documents that recorded the genealogy of Adam.
We're reminded basically what we find in Genesis 1, 26 to 28.
In verse 1, it says, in the day that God created man, he made
him in the likeness of God. This is repeated over and over
again so that we'll get the message. We're not like the animals. We
are like them in the sense that we're creature, but we are not
like them in the sense that we bear the image of God, or we
are made in the likeness of God. Man has dignity that animals
do not possess. As a result, God has stationed
man over animals, not to abuse them and not to harm them and
not to misuse them. We need to be responsible in
the way that we exercise dominion. But nevertheless, man exercises
dominion. That's an aspect of His calling. That's a commission that God
has given Him. He is to exercise that kind of dominion, and that
reflects the fact that He is made in the likeness of God. And then it goes on to say, He
created them male and female, and blessed them and called them
mankind in the day they were created. So again, the repetition
of Genesis 1, and then the reminder that God is Creator. That can
never be stressed enough. There is a great distinction
between the Creator and the creature. Everything, not God, is creature. God alone is creator. And we
need to always maintain that. We need to understand it's not
the case that God is just man writ large or God is just a version
of man but a whole lot better or super. God is in a different
category of being altogether. He is God and there is none like
Him. It's not the case that we ascend
from the lower creation up to God. No, God's over here and
we're over here. He's creator, we're creature,
and the Bible everywhere makes that emphasis so that we'll know
our place before God, that we'll fear Him, and that we'll bring
glory and honor to Him. This is one of the reasons why
man ought to fear God, because He is creator. In fact, this
is one of the things sacrificed when we get rid of a literal
interpretation of the creation account in the book of Genesis.
Several times in the Psalter, as well in the book of Revelation,
you see that the creation that God has wrought is a reason for
the creature to praise and to worship and to glorify Him. If
we rip that out of the Bible, we are effectively ripping out
of the Bible one of the reasons why the creature brings glory
and praise to God. And then the reminder here that
God is creator also speaks to the difference between the way
God made Adam and the way that the rest of the genealogy progresses. God made Adam by an act of immediate
creation. God made Adam in a very particular
and specific way. All the rest of the names that
we find here in Genesis 5, all the ones that we found in Genesis
chapter 4, did not come immediately from the hand of God. They are
created by God, to be sure, but it's through the agency of Adam
and Eve. Gil says that God made him and
not he himself, that the first man was not begotten or produced
in like manner as his sons are, but was immediately created. And then note there in verse
2, He created them male and female and blessed them and called them
mankind. in the day they were created.
If you go back for just a moment to chapter 1, at verse 26, let
us make man in our image according to our likeness. Let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air,
and over the cattle, over all the earth, and over every creeping
thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in his own
image. In the image of God, he created
him. male and female he created them. Then God blessed them and
God said to them, be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth
and subdue it." So we see an application of that here in the
genealogy. The specific task or rather action
of God's blessing upon Adam in verse 2 is probably indicative
of the fact that he had a great deal of sons and daughters. God
blessed him so that he could indeed produce, propagate, and
fill the earth with image bearers to reflect the glory of God.
So that's the origin of Adam by way of a reminder in verses
1 and 2. Now notice secondly the genealogy
of Adam in verses 3 to 32. Now there's a recurring pattern
that is found here. Now the only two that actually
get more play than just telling us how old they were when they
had their sons and how old they were when they died are Enoch
and Noah. So we're going to more than likely
focus on them tonight. We're not going to spend a lot
of time parsing out the numbers and all that stuff here. It's
probably going to be an earlier night. than is normal. It's a
tough passage to try and draw out practical lessons, though
I think Enoch does furnish us with a bit of practicality in
terms of our own lives. But there is a recurring pattern.
First you get the name of the patriarch, Second, you get the
age of the patriarch at the time of the birth of his son. Thirdly,
you get the additional years after the birth of the son. Fourth,
you get the acknowledgment of other children. And then fifth,
there's that refrain. In all the cases but for or except
for Enoch and Noah. It's going to come later with
Noah in chapter 9, and he died. It doesn't say that with reference
to Enoch. Now, when you look at other genealogy,
say, for instance, in Genesis chapter 11, that refrain is not
appended to each of the particular individuals. It doesn't say with
reference to each name given, and he died. Why in the world
is it mentioned here in chapter 5? Probably to highlight the
fact that the curse pronounced by God had in fact come to fruition. But as well, the uniqueness of
Enoch, the fact that he did not die, the fact that in eight other
instances we read that refrain, and he died, and he died, and
he died, conspicuously highlights the man that walked with God.
And that might be Moses' intention, not alone, not solely, but one
of the particular themes that Moses wants us to garner from
this passage is the blessing and the joy and the delight of
one who walks with God, the way that Enoch did. In other words,
life goes better, such that you may not even die, but rather
be translated into the eternal stay. Now, I'm not suggesting
that ought to be in your mind, so I'm going to live in such
a way that God is going to translate me. No, just live in such a way
to be faithful. If God decides to translate you,
then, you know, so be it. But be assured, by God's grace,
one day you will be translated. Whether it's Jesus returning,
or whether we go into the grave and our soul goes to be with
Christ, and then our bodies are raised on that day of resurrection.
So that's the pattern. Now notice the particular persons.
Adam begot Seth in verses 3 to 5. So Adam lived 130 years and
begot a son in his own likeness after his image and named him
Seth. Now again it goes on. After he
begot Seth, the days of Adam were 800 years. He had sons and
daughters. So all the days that Adam lived
were 930 years and he died. But that's additional information
here. He lived, he begot a son in his
own likeness after his image and named him Seth. Now John
Gill suggests that this is mentioned to distinguish from the image
of God. In other words, in verse 3 where
it says, he begot a son in his own likeness after his image. Gil argues that post-fall, this
reference distinguishes Seth's creation in the likeness of Adam
rather than Adam's creation in the likeness of God. Gil posits
that we lost the image in the fall, but he doesn't say we lost
it completely. Now, in my mind, you either lose
it or you don't. He says that it's been defaced,
and I would certainly agree with that. Gil repeats his comments
in James 3.9. He says, on the one hand, we
lost it. On the other hand, it's not completely
obliterated, but rather it is retained. I don't personally
agree with Gill here. You might want to mark this down
as a time that Jim Butler disagreed with John Gill. I do this with
fear and trepidation, but I think the connection is better understood
this way. Adam lived 130 years and begot
a son in his own likeness after his image. Now the fact that
God, or the fact rather, that Adam is mentioned having been
created in the image of God, and then Seth's creation in the
likeness of Adam, I think the idea is that we are to infer
that Seth as well bears the image of God. Added to this with reference
to Cain, there's no reference whatsoever to him or Abel being
created in the likeness of Adam. Now, I don't think we're supposed
to conclude that therefore they're not image bearers of God. No,
the image of God is passed on, it is passed down. It is defaced,
it is deformed, it is distorted by sin, but nevertheless it is
retained. I don't think the idea of verse
3 is to distinguish the likeness of Adam from the likeness of
God, but the close connection to the fact that Adam is created
in the likeness of God and then Seth is created or made in the
likeness of Adam means that he possesses the image of God as
well. I think the distinction that
we're supposed to take from this is not a distinction of no likeness
for Seth, but rather likeness for Seth in terms of the distinction
with the Cainites. There's the two seeds in Genesis
4 and 5. I think it's going to help us
when we get to Genesis chapter 6. If you think tonight's going
to be fun, wait till we get to the few verses that begin Genesis
chapter 6. I don't know if any of you have
done any look at that passage before, but there is a big, big
interpretative problem when it comes to Genesis chapter 6. On
the Nephilim, on the sons of God going into the daughters
of men, Some posit angelic beings having relations with women,
and that's an interpretation that goes all the way back to
the early church. Many, many good men hold that
particular position. My current position is that Genesis
6 records for us what we're already seeing laid out in Genesis 4
and 5. The distinction is between the
ungodly Cainites and the godly Sethites. I think that's the
way to go when we get to Genesis chapter 6. So if you think I
am beating this horse to death, there's a reason for that, so
that hopefully when we get to Genesis chapter 6, it will make
sense that we have this distinction maintained in Genesis 4 and 5. So the image found in verse 3
is not to alienate Seth from God, but to link Seth with God. In fact, I think Waltke is on
the right path when he says the godly line of Seth, in contradistinction
to that of Cain, is linked with the original creation. He goes
on to say, moreover, by linking the creation of the image with
Seth and not with Cain, the narrator implies that God's purpose for
his image will be realized through Seth and his named descendants. Now, of course, this makes perfect
sense when we get to Luke's gospel in Luke chapter 3. Because all
of this, essentially, is the line of Messiah. Jesus is directly
and uniquely linked to these particular individuals, not to
Cain and to that ungodly line. And then Klein agrees. He says,
the concern of Genesis 5 is the continuance of the covenant community
through the entire pre-Diluvian age." Now, Diluvian simply means
that which pertains to the flood. He calls it pre. Sometimes you'll
hear the word anti-Diluvian, and that means prior to the flood. Post-Diluvian means after the
flood. So if when we get to the flood
narrative you hear those words anti-Diluvian or post-Diluvian,
which you most certainly probably will, it just means prior to
the flood or after the flood. You might just say, Butler, why
don't you just say flood? Okay, I'll try to keep that in
mind and keep Diluvian on the back burner. But that's what
it means if you're ever reading Bible commentaries and you see
that particular word. So the beginning of a son in
his image links this with the image of God. Not to distinguish
from, but rather to join with, but to distinguish from the ungodly
Cainites. And then he had, obviously, other
sons and daughters, and then he died in his 930th year. And then Seth begot Enosh in
verses 6 to 8. Seth as well had other sons and
other daughters. His lifespan was 912 years. Enosh begot Canaan in verses
9 to 11. Enosh additionally had other
sons and daughters, and his lifespan was 905 years. Canaan begot Mahalaleel
in verses 12 to 14. He likewise had sons and daughters. Now the probable reason for the
great age of the patriarchs, I'm going to quote Gil tonight
at the end of the study, but one of them is to propagate and
to fill the earth. And this is obviously what these
men were doing. And so Mahalaleel's total lifespan
was 895 years. And then Jared begot Enoch. Jared
as well had other sons and daughters. And his ultimate lifespan was
962 years. Now, when we get to Enoch there
in verse 21, we need to understand this isn't the Enoch mentioned
in Genesis chapter 4. Neither is the Lamech later in
this genealogy, the Lamech of Genesis chapter 4. In the ungodly
line of Cain, you had an Enoch and you had a Lamech. In the
godly line of Seth, you had an Enoch and you had a Lamech. Now,
I don't know if you're like me, but sometimes you read, especially
in the New Testament, and it's like every other person's name,
John, or any kind of thing. Couldn't you throw a Ralph on
the scene so that we could keep sort of these names intact? But
it's important to understand that. We're not dealing with
the same Enoch in the family of Cain, and we're not dealing
with the same Lamech in the family of Cain. Now, look with reference
to Enoch. It's described for us something
about his life. He walked with God. Now again,
that's a beautiful description of intimacy with the Lord, communion
with the Lord. Remember back in chapter 4, we
see in verse 26, with reference to Seth. And as for Seth, to
him also a son was born, and he named him Enosh. Then men
began to call on the name of the Lord. So that implies or
infers that there was a time or a season, certainly immersed
in the ungodly line of Cain, where persons were not calling
on the name of the Lord. We can't just assume that everybody
was a godly and a righteous man. Now this is indeed the godly
line of Seth. We have no reason to believe
that any of these men were unconverted, or they were ungodly, or they
were horrible, wretched people. But with reference to Enoch,
he stood out. With reference to Enoch, there's
something different. With reference to Enoch, it is
said that he walked with God. Now, later in chapter 6, verse
9, it's going to say the same thing about Noah. This is the
genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect
in his generations. Noah walked with God. Now, other patriarchs walked
before God. Now, we probably shouldn't put
a whole lot of emphasis on, you know, prepositions and whatnot,
but the Holy Spirit chooses his words carefully, and here we
read that he walked with God. With reference to Abram, he's
told to walk before God in Genesis 17.1, Genesis 24.40, Genesis
48.15. Jacob says, concerning Abraham
and Isaac, that they walked before God. Enoch, however, walked with
God. The demand for priests in the
prophet Malachi. In Malachi 2.6, the covenant
with Levi is sort of paradigmatic for Israel's priesthood. And
God calls Israel's priesthood at the time of Malachi, which
was especially corrupt and especially horrible, to repent. And one
of the things that he says, the law of truth was in his mouth,
referring to Levi, and injustice was not found on his lips. He
walked with me in peace and equity and turned many away from iniquity. So Enoch walked with God 300
years. This is intriguingly, as well,
something that makes its way into the prophet Micah. Micah
chapter 6 and verse 8. This is the demand of God for
all of God's people. In Micah 6.8 it says, He has
shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require
of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with
your God? So you see, an emphasis in Genesis
5 is certainly on the lineage and the line of Messiah. It is
certainly the distinction between the godly Sethites and the ungodly
Cainites. It may hopefully be the very
basis or foundation upon which we can understand the notoriously
difficult section beginning in Genesis chapter 6. But Moses
accentuates the reality that Enoch walked with God. And as
we look at the lifespan of Enoch, he lived 365 years, which is
about half of the rest of the patriarchs that are mentioned
here in Genesis chapter 10. The idea being is that long life
is a blessing. Nobody should doubt that. or
deny that, with reference to the patriarchs, with reference
to the nation of Israel, with reference to persons today. For
the most part, we count long life a privilege. We count it
a blessing. We count it a good thing. But
when he introduces the reality that Enoch walked with God, and
he was not, for God took him, he introduces the thought that
there's something that's a greater privilege than even a long life. And that greater privilege is
to be in the immediate presence of God. Now, some suggest that
the Jews had no real concept of resurrection. They most certainly
did, and it finds its tap roots here with reference to Enoch. Enoch walked with God, and then
he was not, for God took him. Enoch walked with God in the
midst of having sons and daughters for 365 years. I find that incredible. That's
the normal day-in, day-out rub of trying to be faithful with
reference to sons and daughters. Now, I know all the patriarchs,
it's appended for each of them that they had sons and daughters,
but you think about Enoch. He walked with God 300 years
and had sons and daughters. He did this in the midst of the
normal. He did this in the midst of the ordinary. He did this
in the midst of the routine. Jude 14 and 15 even tells us
that he was a preacher, he was a prophet, he was one that spoke
the word of God most high. So he was a preacher slash prophet,
he was a father slash husband, and he was a man who in the midst
of those things was able to walk with God. So the idea is, or
the lesson is, whatever your station, whatever your lot, whatever
your place in life, you ought by the grace of God to be able
to walk with God. God does not make this something
unattainable or unachievable, but rather God enables His people
by the Spirit to walk with Him. And then notice, Enoch walked
with God and was not, for God took him. In other words, he
didn't die. There's no refrain at the end
of Enoch's sort of genealogical entry. There's no, and he died. Now, I remember working with
a guy at Northrop Grumman, and he said, well, the Bible doesn't
say that he didn't die. Yeah, the Bible most certainly
does say that he didn't die, and it says it right here. And
then later, Revelation interprets it for us. Enoch walked with
God, and he was not. What can that mean, but that
he was no longer on earth? That doesn't mean, that means
that he was not anymore, for God took him. Now, in 2 Kings
2, verses 3, 5, 9, and 10, this same language, taken away, is
used with reference to Elijah. Remember in our study in 2 Kings,
I know it's going back a long ways, but way back in 2 Kings,
remember that Elijah did not die. Elijah was taken away by
God into heaven by a direct and immediate act. And then the interpretation
is given in Hebrews 11.5. 11.5 in the book of Hebrews says,
by faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death.
By the way, I told that fellow who said the Bible didn't say
he didn't die. I said, yeah, it does in Hebrews
11.5. So just so you know how that story ends. This guy just
He loved to argue about the Bible. He loved to debate. He loved
to try to throw these odd questions into the mix. He was just an
interesting guy. I've often wondered whatever
happened to him. At any rate, Hebrews 11.5, "...by faith Enoch
was taken away, so that he did not see death, and was not found,
because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he had
this testimony that he pleased God." I think when we look at
Hebrews 11 of 5, similar to the way that we used Hebrews 11 to
help us understand the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, we can sort
of flesh out in a little bit more detail what it means that
that Enoch walked with God. Remember, we looked at Hebrews
11 to see that the instrumental agent or rather the fundamental
principle that was pleasing to God in terms of Abel's sacrifice
versus Cain's was it was by faith. It was by faith that Abel brought
the sacrifice to God. Cain didn't bring it by faith. Cain was an externalist. Cain
was a formalist. Cain was a man who went through
motions, but he had no heart for God. So Hebrews 11 helped
us understand that. Well, I think Hebrews 11 helps
us understand or at least flesh out or try to draw out practically
what it means to walk with God. We know in the first place that
walking with God entails faith. By faith, Enoch, right? So whatever walk with God means,
it certainly implies the presence of faith. Later on in Hebrews
11, it will say, by faith or rather without faith, it is impossible
to please God because those who believe not only that God is,
but that He's a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. So
faith is absolutely requisite. So Enoch was a man of faith. What does it mean to walk with
God? It means to have faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. It means
not only to have faith in our Lord Jesus Christ in terms of
the object of our salvation vis-a-vis justifying faith, but also living
by faith in the Son of God who loved us and who gave himself
for us. living each and every day by faith in God, realizing
that difficulties come and trials come and there's sorrows and
there's hardships, but I'm going to lay hold of God by faith. That's what it means to walk
with God. It doesn't mean you have to go be a pioneer missionary. It doesn't mean you have to quit
your job, buy a stack of Bibles and travel through Canada, giving
them away. Now, if God puts that on your
heart, and in Providence opens those doors, then by all means,
may you be blessed. But it doesn't necessarily entail
that. I think that we have this mindset,
it's been evident to me in my own life, it's been evident to
me in persons that I've observed, not anybody here to be sure,
but we have this idea that we can only please God in certain
aspects of ministry. And that's simply false. Enoch
walked with God. He had sons and daughters. He
didn't, as far as we know, sell everything he had, buy a stack
of Bibles, and travel to Mesopotamia giving away Bibles. Wherever
God has placed you, you can walk with God, because the essential
ingredient is faith. And whatever our condition, whatever
our situation, we have faith in God. Notice as well this idea
of faith and one who pleases God. So he walked with God implies
the presence of faith and as well implies a life that is pleasing
to God. If we tease that out further
and we ask the question, What is indeed a life that pleases
God? Well, it's actuated by faith,
but it's lived in terms of God's written law. In other words,
if we ask the question, what does God love, Exodus 20 and
Deuteronomy 5 is a great place to go. If we ask what God hates,
what's a good place to go? Anyone, for all the bonus points,
Proverbs, What's that, Galatians 5, yes? Yeah, I was thinking
Proverbs 6 as well. We had a sermon on that not too
long ago, on the things that God hates, but certainly Galatians
5, there's a great contrast there between the works of the flesh
and the works of the spirit. So when we ask the question,
what pleases God? It's not esoteric. You don't
need to join a cult. You don't need to shave your
head. You don't need to bang a tambourine at the airport.
You need to be faithful and you need to look to God's holy word
for your marching orders. You see, it's the law that informs
us concerning those things that are pleasing to Yahweh. If I
ask the question, what pleases God, the law answers it for me. Now, make sure you understand,
I am not suggesting a life of obedience to the law in order
that one may be saved. You know me better than that.
I do not believe that you'll get a millisecond down that road. But those saved by grace through
faith by the Redeemer are appointed by the Redeemer after having
been justified to the law of God as the rule of life, as the
norm, as the pattern, as the standard. And so when we ask
what it was about Enoch, what made him so special? He was a
man who had faith in God and he was a man who did what God
said. That's what it means to walk
with God. That's what it means not only
here in Genesis chapter 5, but it certainly means that in Micah
chapter 6, and it means that everywhere in the New Testament
as well. So if tonight you go home and
you pray, or tomorrow morning you pray, and you say, God, I
want to walk with you, you don't have to look for any mysterious
answers in the scriptures. to the law and to the testimony.
Live by faith in the Son of God and pattern your life after the
Word of God." That is certainly what it must mean that he walked
with God. Kylin Dalich makes the observation,
In Enoch, the seventh from Adam through Seth, godliness attained
its highest point, whilst ungodliness culminated in Lamech, the seventh
from Adam through Cain, who made his sword his god. You see, there's
great balance in the Bible as well. I don't mean in terms of
doctrine or I'm talking literarily, the way the Bible is written.
It's written as a masterpiece. And the Lamech, the seventh generation
in the genealogy of Cain, is the exact opposite of Enoch,
the seventh in the genealogy of Seth. They are diametrically
opposed. The one possesses faith and he
pleases Yahweh. The other does not possess faith
and he is an abomination to Yahweh. So Enoch walked with God and
he was not for God took him. What a blessed thing to live
in a world where there's an Enoch by the grace of God. And then
he bore Methuselah and Methuselah has the reputation of being the
oldest of all of them at 969 years. This is a great question
for you parents with kids. Ask them who was the oldest man
in the Bible. They should all be able to get
that. If they don't, shame on you. No, I'm just kidding. They used to say, I've heard
it, I read it somewhere that if a rabbi asked a Jewish kid
the 10 commandments and he stumbled or faltered, the parents got
in big trouble. The parents got in big trouble
if the kid couldn't recite the Ten Commandments. And then Lamech
begot Noah. Again, this is not the Cainite
Lamech. This particular Lamech had sons
and daughters, and his lifespan was 777 years. But notice with reference to
Noah. Again, one who gets a bit more
space, and one who is set off in the narrative, and one who
will certainly occupy the narrative in the coming chapters in terms
of the flood. But notice that his name is prophetic,
verse 29. He called his name Noah, saying,
this one will comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our
hands because of the ground which the Lord had cursed. He would
provide rest and comfort. That's what his name signifies. And then when we get to Genesis
chapter 9, we know that Noah distinguishes himself as a planter
of a vineyard. I know there's a particular word
for that and I just can't remember it. Not vintner, that's the...
but a Vichyr something. It's got V-I-T at the beginning.
But he planted a vineyard. I don't think that Lamech's prophecy
only extends to that reality. In other words, Noah obviously
had a green thumb or a purple thumb, no pun intended, to grow
wine grapes and have a vineyard and that sort of thing. But I
think the prophecy concerning his name as being the one of
rest and comfort points even further to what's called the
Noahic Covenant. Now, the primary emphasis of
the Noahic Covenant is to provide stability for the created order
for the exercise of God's special grace. Some have called it the
common grace In other words, God promises to Noah what? He promises that he will never
again destroy the earth. God cursed the earth in Genesis
chapter 3 with reference to Noah, God lifts at least partially
the curse in terms of saying or committing to never again
destroying it. So the name Noah provides rest
and comfort, yes, in terms of his ability agriculturally, but
further than that, his place with reference to the covenants
of God. The Noahic covenant, as we move through this next
section, is a covenant of common grace. It's not a covenant of
special grace. It's not salvific, but rather
it provides the context or the theater for the exercise of the
special grace of God. So the Noahic covenant is very
important. and it provides the background
or the backdrop or the context for the preaching of the gospel
and the salvation of sinners through God's covenant of grace.
So this prophecy, this one will comfort us concerning our work
and the toil of our hands because of the ground which the Lord
has cursed extends beyond the vineyard planted to the covenant
made by God with Noah that he would never again destroy the
earth for man's sake. And then we see that Noah fathered
Shemham and Japheth and more on them later. Well, just a couple
of thoughts before we close. First, the age of the patriarchs. I would quote John Gill here.
He says, and though the length of time they lived may in some
measure be accounted for by natural things as means, such as their
healthful constitution, simple diet, the goodness of the fruits
of the earth, the temperate air and climate they lived in, their
sobriety, temperance, labor, and exercise, Those are all good
reasons, right? If you go to answers in Genesis
or creation science sites, you'll probably get a good dose of that,
where conditions were different. Conditions in the antediluvian
world were not as hostile. as in the post-flood world. See
that? I'm showing the definition there,
diluvian flood. You had conditions that were
not as harsh or severe in that pre-flood situation. And so Gill,
long after, answers in Genesis of the Creation Science, guys,
highlights that. But what Gill goes on to say
ought to be reckoned with as well. Yet no doubt it was so
ordered in providence for the multiplication of mankind, for
the cultivation of arts and sciences, and for the spread of true religion
in the world, and the easier handing down to posterity such
things as were useful both for the good of the souls and bodies
of men. In other words, we may not have
all of the reasons why men did, but it should satisfy the believer
that man did. I feel like at times believers
get a little bit caught off guard by the age of the anti-flood
men. Brethren, God ordained it so.
We should never have a problem with that. I may not know what
their diet consisted of. I don't know, you know, you probably
heard about the canopy that obtained above the earth prior to the
fire. That's not my area of expertise.
My area of expertise is yea and amen and gill most of the time. And he's right. Providence ordered
it this way. If your kid says, well, why did
they live to 969? Because God wanted him to. See, that's a legit answer, brethren. I know in this academic scientific
age we get a little embarrassed, but we ought not to be embarrassed
by any word that's in this book. If God wanted Methuselah to live
for 969 years, God had his good reasons to do so. Were there
things in terms of their diet, in terms of the canopy, in terms
of their environment, in terms of a lack of disease that sort
of inundates the world. Now, yeah, those were factors
to be sure, but it was ordered by Providence for this reason. Now, in terms of the date of
the flood, we'll get to this more later, but I thought I'd
introduce it now. The date of the flood in the
Masoretic text, which is what our new King James is based on,
is 1656. Now that's not 1656 BC, it's
1656 AM, and that means Anno Mundi, the year of the earth,
or the year of the world. So 1656 would be the 1,656th
year, then comes the flood. Now, there's a difference in
the Samaritan Pentateuch and in the Septuagint in terms of
the numbers with reference to the genealogy. So those dates
are a bit off. If you do any research in this
section of Scripture in terms of the flood, you'll see competing
dates. Well, that's the reason. The
Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint have different ways
of reckoning and add years with reference to the genealogy. Now,
as I've mentioned, the distinction between the godly and the ungodly
is absolutely evident and obvious in Genesis 4 and Genesis 5. I will ask you to keep that in
your mind as we approach Genesis 6. And then with reference to
the emphasis on communion with God in Enoch. His communion with
God in life. He walked with God. And then
his communion with God in the life to come. He was not, for
God took him. That is a clear definitional
explanation that there is life after earth. There is life after
the physicality that we experience in the world. This is an explicit
statement of that. Now, the recurring emphasis,
and he died, in eight of the patriarchs mentioned here in
Genesis chapter 5 indicates the grim reality of the curse pronounced
by God in Genesis 2.17 and then carried out by God in Genesis
3.19. That eight times that we read, and he died, and he died,
and he died, and he died. We're so used to death that it
probably doesn't affect us a whole lot, but remember that God made
man in His image. that not long after God made
man in his image, man rejects God, man rebels against God,
and then man's son Cain murders his other son Abel. And so this
commentary, and he died, is the evidence that God's curse is
upon man. John Gill says eight times in
this chapter the phrase is used, and he died, to put us in mind
of death, to observe that it is the way of all flesh, that
those that live longest die at last, and it must be expected
by everyone. So eight times it's pronounced
here, except with reference to Enoch. That ought to promote
hope, and that ought to produce anything other than despair. The presence of Enoch in this
chapter indicates that life, or rather, hope that lies beyond
physical death. This is a sampling of, this is
a taste of, this is a dose of the resurrection in a genealogy
in Genesis chapter five. It really is glorious. Listen
to Calvin. Since in the translation of Enoch,
an example of immortality was exhibited. There is no doubt
that God designed to elevate the minds of his saints with
certain faith before their death. and to mitigate by this consolation
the dread which they would know that a better life was elsewhere
laid up for them. He calls this a visible representation
of a blessed resurrection. You could preach a resurrection
sermon from Genesis chapter 5 on Enoch. He walked with God and
he was not, for God took him." Waltke says, Enoch's life affirms
that those who walk with God in this fallen world will experience
life, not death, as the last word. So it really is a conspicuous
literary arrangement to have these eight fellows, and he died,
and he died, and he died, and this one that was not, for God
took him. God is calling us to hope in
the resurrection. God is calling us to confess
with the Apostles' Creed, I believe in the resurrection from the
dead. God is calling us to look beyond this present world to
that eternal glory that awaits us in the future. God is calling
His people to be a heavenly-minded lot. And then finally, the focus
of the genealogy is on Christ. You can turn to Luke chapter
3. We'll end here at Luke chapter 3 to see that Christ is in fact
the scope of the whole. Picking up at Luke 3, 36. the son of Canaan, the son of
Arphakad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the
son of Mahalaleel, the son of Canaan, the son of Enosh, the
son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. That is our Christ. Luke's gospel traces Jesus' lineage
all the way back to Adam. In Matthew, obviously, he goes
back to Abraham and David. The reasons are theological in
nature, serving the purpose for which Matthew wrote, serving
the purpose for which Luke wrote. But the point of Genesis chapter
5, ultimately, is the Lord Jesus Christ. Well, let's close in
a word of prayer. Father, we thank you for your
word. We thank you that the consistent testimony of all of scripture
is upon our Lord Christ. We thank you as well for the
resurrection from the dead. We look forward to that age when
we enter into the presence of God most high. And Lord, help
all of us in this world to walk with you. Help us to live by
faith in the Son of God who loved us and who gave himself for us.
Help us to seek by your grace and the power of your Holy Spirit
to be pleasing in your sight. And we know that this is revealed
clearly in the law. It's revealed clearly in the
New Testament epistles. And we pray that you'd give us
ears to hear, hearts to receive these things, and a genuine willingness
and a desire to let our conduct be worthy of the gospel. And
we ask this in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
