Chuck Larsen

Before he lists the names in Adam’s genealogy from Seth, he reminds his readers of one significant fact. He looks back at the very beginning of the creation of man and says, “When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.” In Genesis 1:27, we read, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” In this verse, it says, “When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female, he created them.” Hughes explains this well. He writes, “This retrospect reminded the descendants of Seth that the fall had not obliterated the image of God in them (cf. 9:6). And because they were image-bearers, they had the unparalleled privilege and potential. First, as image-bearers, they had the capacity to hear God’s word, which is something no other creature except angels could do. Second, as image-bearers, they were charged to rule the earth in God’s stead (cf. 1:26, 28). And third, the image of God in them suggested the possibility of an intimate spiritual relationship as children of God.”^[1]

The word “image” is used in the first Chapter, whereas a different Hebrew word is used in Chapter five, translated as “likeness.” Irenaeus, around 150 A.D., distinguished between them by saying, “He argued that the image of God is our reason and volition, and the likeness of God is our holiness and spiritual relation to God. As a result, the likeness of God is lost in the fall and regained in redemption. Still, all humans are the image of God by their capacities of reason and will.”² Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin also suggest it is the “image” of God that has been significantly marred by the fall but not destroyed and can be salvaged through redemption through faith in Jesus.

Although some want to argue that one or the other, the image or the likeness, refers to our physical bodies (see Mormon Theology), most will agree that neither refers to the human body but is like God in a non-physical sense. And still, again, some point to Jesus, God in the flesh, and argue that this is what God wants for us all and that at the end, that is the way it will be. When we “see Him, we will be like him.” Whatever way one might understand the “image” of God, the sanctity of human life cannot be missed. Allen Ross says, “The ‘image’ of God was passed on seminally to the descendants, for the text states that Adam begat Seth in his image. In other words, the spiritual and intellectual capacities that God had given to the parents are passed from generation to generation by natural reproduction.”^[2] Upon conception, another human being in the image or likeness of God is created and is sacred to God and should be sacred to us as well.

^[1] Hughes, R. Kent. 2004. Genesis: Beginning and Blessing. Preaching the Word. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

² Irenaeus, Against Heresies, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953).

^[2] Ross, Allen, and John N. Oswalt. 2008. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Genesis, Exodus. Vol. 1. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

Cain fathered a line of men who advanced civilization in many ways: the domestication of animals with Jabal, the advancement of music with Jubal, and the invention of metallurgy and instruments of war with Tubal Cain. It ends in polygamy, violence, and murder with Lamech. But as Gowan observes, “Cain the murderer, the city builder, the father of civilization, is not to be the ancestor of the rest of humanity, as the story is now told. His genealogy is broken off by announcing the birth of another child to Adam and Eve. His name is Seth, and his son’s name is Enosh, an old Hebrew word meaning “man.” This helps explain the fragmentary new family tree at the end of Cain’s story. Enosh can be a virtual synonym for Adam, so in effect, the human race is starting over.”^[1] Genesis 4:26 says, “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.”

When Eve says the “God” had given her another son to replace Abel, she uses Elohim instead of God’s name, Yahweh, introduced earlier. This generation began to call on the name of God, which is his personal name, not the general concept of God. The last phrase has several different ways it might be understood. Courson mentions two of those ways. He says, “From Seth came those who called upon the name of the Lord, or literally those who were called by the name of the Lord.”^[2] Ross adds a third possibility. He says, “In the days of Enosh, Seth’s son, men began to call on (better, ‘proclaim’) the name of the Lord (Yahweh).”^[3] I’ve always seen it as “proclaiming” the name of the Lord. The name is now, as Ross observed, is “Yahweh,” the personal name for the creator God, not the general word Elohim, which is often used to refer to spiritual beings in general or at times God. We’ll see Abraham “calling out” in the name of the Lord later in the book also, and it seems to be used to mean “proclaim.”

I’m not sure, however, that it couldn’t mean both to proclaim and be known by the idea of “believing in” as well. Courson has an interesting argument for one of his views. He understands it to refer to their being referred to by others as believers in Yahweh. He argues, “In today’s terminology, they would be called ‘Christians.’ That’s us. We’re not Jubalites or Jabalites. We’re not musicians or entrepreneurs, or military men. We’re believers. That’s our identity. Oh, we might raise cattle or play a harp. But that’s not who we are. We find our sole identity, not in the line of Cain, but the line of Seth—as believers in the One who loves us.”^[4]

^[1] Gowan, Donald E. 1988. From Eden to Babel: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis 1–11. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.

^[2] Courson, Jon. 2005. Jon Courson’s Application Commentary: Volume One: Genesis–Job. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

^[3] Ross, Allen P. 1985. “Genesis.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, 1:35. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

^[4] Courson, Jon. 2005. Jon Courson’s Application Commentary: Volume One: Genesis–Job. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Adam had named all the animals and Eve, but with the birth of the son God gave them to replace Abel, it was Eve who named him. Genesis 4:25 says, “And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, ‘God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.’” When their first son, Cain, was born, Eve exclaimed that God had given her a man child, and it has been widely commented that she might have thought that it was the promised “seed” of Genesis 3:15. Boice says, “Cain was the first child of Eve (born after the fall), and the essential meaning of his Hebrew name is ‘Acquisition,’ or colloquially, ‘Here he is!’ The name was a mistake on Eve’s part. She had heard God’s promise of a deliverer who should crush the head of Satan. He was to be born of her. So, when Cain was born, she assumed that he was this deliverer. She was wrong. Instead of a savior, she had given birth to a murderer.”^[1]

Eve’s excitement at Cain’s birth turned into deep disappointment. If she thought he might have been the promised “seed,” one would think that the new child might have been seen as the replacement for Cain. But Eve says Seth is the replacement for Abel instead. The practice of God choosing the younger over, the older might have its roots in this instance. Sailhamer sees this, “A pattern is established in chapter 4 that will remain the thematic center of the book. The one through whom the promised seed will come is not the heir apparent, the eldest son, but the one whom God chooses.”^[2]

Some argue that Adam and Eve only had three sons to begin with. Others like Spence suggest that she had many other children during the years of the maturing of her eldest Son Cain and his brother Abel. She must have had sons and daughters. They are not mentioned because they do not play into the theme of the promised deliverer that would come through a holy line. Spence suggests that “Her other children probably had gone in the way of Cain, leaving none to carry on the holy line, till this son was born, whom in faith she expects to be another Abel in respect of piety, but, unlike him, the head of a godly family.”^[3] Eve’s words at Seth’s birth indicate that she thought Seth was the seed of Genesis 3:15. Her words in Hebrew are literally, “For God has given me another seed.” Briscoe observes, “The reference to ‘seed’ suggests that she trusted the promise she had heard from the Lord about the serpent’s bruising. Attributing the birth to the Lord’s appointing shows that in the midst of the chaos, God still had His people. It is still true today.”^[4]

^[1] Boice, James Montgomery. 1998. Genesis: An Expositional Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

^[2] Sailhamer, John H. 1990. “Genesis.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, 2:69. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

^[3] Spence-Jones, H. D. M., ed. 1909. Genesis. The Pulpit Commentary. London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company.

^[4] Briscoe, D. Stuart, and Lloyd J. Ogilvie. 1987. Genesis. Vol. 1. The Preacher’s Commentary Series. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc.

Lamech’s two wives gave him four children. There were probably more, but only four of them are mentioned in the Bible. After we learn about Jabal, Jubal, Naamah, and Tubal-Cain, Genesis 4:23 tells us, “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.’” There is a lot of attention paid to Lamech’s taking two wives. He does seem to be a slave to the lusts of the flesh. But there is more than just that. He is also a murderer like Cain. Then he brags about it to his two wives. I’ve always been suspicious of the connection between his lust for the 2^nd wife and the murder afterward. I’ve suspected that they were connected. According to one website, the four main motives for murder are love, lust, loathing, and loot.[1] Love and lust deal with sex, and here we see Lamech trapped in what appears to be a love triangle. Was the “young man” that Lamech murdered a rival for one of his wives? Indeed, this is just speculation, but doesn’t it seem possible?

Another piece of speculation concerns how many men Lamech killed. It’s been suggested by many ancient commentators that there were two men. Basil, as far back as the 4^th century A.D., “…interprets Lamech’s words to mean that he had committed two murders and deserved a much more severe punishment than Cain.”^[2] The first man that Lamech killed might have been Cain. According to the early legend of Lamech, he had poor eyesight and accidentally shot an arrow at movement in the bushes, and it ended up being Cain. This tradition continued well into the 12^th century, as we see in this photo. The second man Lamech killed, “The young man,” has been identified as Tubal Cain. This legend finds support from the book of Jashar. The book of Jashar is quoted in both Joshua and Samuel. It has been lost for centuries but then showed up again in the 18^th Century, which is mainly considered a forgery. One writer says, “While I do not consider the book of Jashar an authoritative book, I do believe that it sheds more light to understanding reasons why some things happened in the Bible. Having read it twice, I don’t see anything contradictory to the Bible.”

Barker defends Lamech! He argues that Lamech’s killing was in self-defense. He writes, “Lamech appealed to the fact that he killed a man ‘for wounding’ and ‘for injuring’ him. He did not ‘hate his neighbor, lie in wait for him, rise up against him, and kill him’ (cf. Dt 19:11), as Cain had done, but rather based his appeal on a plea of self-defense.” Barker suggests we get a glimpse at the kind of society that Cain had built. He writes, “The point is not that Lamech’s sense of justice was correct or even exemplary, but that Cain’s city and descendants had a system of law and justice representative of an ordered society.”^[3] This seems to miss the overall theme of the moral deterioration that leads to the flood. What cannot be missed and must not be ignored was the increased focus on sex and violence in a society destined for destruction. Can we learn anything from this?

[1] https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/09627250608553401.pdf

^[2] Smith. 1882. “La′mech.” In Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, 5:209. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers.

^[3] Barker, Kenneth L., and John R. Kohlenberger III. 1994. Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Abridged Edition: Old Testament). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Lamech’s wife Adah bore him two children. His second wife also bore two children: a boy and a girl. Genesis 4:22 says, “Zillah also bore Tubal-Cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah.” God has given us the ability to do and accomplish much in this world. Jubal’s music can be something praised or condemned by God. It depends on the intent of the wielder. This is true of all human technology. Paul Johnson explains this well. He writes, “These cultural skills (the production of food, the arts, and technology) should be and can be devoted to the highest interests of human life, and to the glory of God. However, civilization’s advances apart from God have untold potential for evil. Nuclear technology, for example, is a double-edged sword. Today thousands of lives are being saved by diagnostic procedures only possible through nuclear medicine. What a boon it has been and will become. The potential for good is staggering. However, in a flash an H-bomb could kill more people than nuclear medicine could save in a generation—and maim generations to follow. Oppenheimer’s quotation of the Bhagavad Gita at Alamogordo as he watched the initial explosion of the neutron bomb comes to mind: ‘the radiance of a thousand suns … I am become as death, the destroyer of the worlds.’ A microchip can be used to help you find your dog or to guide a smart bomb through your bedroom window.”^[1]

Unfortunately, when we look closely at Tubal-Cain’s situation, we see the danger. Matthews writes, “Tubal-Cain’s metallurgy probably included weapons as well as agricultural tools. Bearing his ancestor’s name, ‘Cain,’ and his descent from murderous Lamech suggest that his craft could be used for ill. With the appendage of ‘Cain,’ the grim side of his craft comes to mind first. Cain’s family is a microcosm: its pattern of technical prowess and moral failure is that of humanity.”^[2]

As far as Naamah is concerned, there are numerous ancient myths about her. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, “The cabalists have as a third queen of the demons… ‘Na‘amah,’ the sister of Tubal Cain.”^[3] Since her three brothers were all credited as the “father” of various crafts, she was not left out. One source says, “Naamah is affirmed by them to have invented the spinning of wool and making of cloth. In the Targum of pseudo-Jonathan, Naamah is commemorated as the “mistress of lamenters and singers;” and in the Samaritan Version, her name is given as Zalkipha. According to others she was distinguished merely by her beauty”^[4], But the most interesting and most frequent story about her is that she became Noah’s wife. One web article refers to an ancient Jewish midrash that suggested this. It says, “According to the midrash known as Genesis Rabbah (c. 300–500 C.E.), a collection of ancient rabbinical interpretations of Genesis, she was Naamah, the daughter of Lamech and sister of Tubal-Cain (Genesis 4:22).”[5] Carasik gives us a much more thorough understanding of what Genesis Rabbah says. He writes, “Why was she called Naamah? Because everything she did was sweet and pleasant. (Which the name means). The point of this midrash is that she was well known in her time as a righteous woman who produced righteous children; this is why the text mentions her. If that is so, then Cain does have some slight remnant on earth. Certainly, if she was not the woman who bore Noah’s three sons there would be no obvious reason to mention her.”^[6] Utley found a list of 103 suggestions for the identity of Noah’s wife, so it is not wise to take any of them too seriously. Pilch looks at current attempts to fill in unknown facts not mentioned in the Bible with human speculations. He calls it “pious imagination.” He adds, “The popularity of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ and Ron Howard’s translation to film of Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code attest to the unfailing fertility of pious imagination to flesh out sketchy, high context information, whether in the Bible or in other sources.”^[7]

^[1] Hughes, R. Kent. 2004. Genesis: Beginning and Blessing. Preaching the Word. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

^[2] Mathews, K. A. 1996. Genesis 1-11:26. Vol. 1A. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

^[3] Singer, Isidore, ed. 1901–1906. In The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, 12 Volumes, 4:518. New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls.

^[4] M’Clintock, John, and James Strong. 1894. “Na’ämah.” In Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, 6:815. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers.

[5] https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/who-was-noahs-wife/

^[6] Carasik, Michael, ed. 2018. Genesis: Introduction and Commentary. Translated by Michael Carasik. The Commentators’ Bible. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

^[7] Pilch, John J. 2012. A Cultural Handbook to the Bible. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.