By naming his son “Noah,” then, Lamech expresses hope for the human family through his offspring. His vision for Noah rings with the reverberating sounds of the garden’s tragedy. Reference to toilsome labor and the cursed ground reflects the verdict of God’s judgment in 3:17–18, where “cursed is the ground,” and the man is doomed to beat out his existence by “painful toil.” Also the naming formula (“and he/she named him X”) correlates with what we find in the naming of Seth and Enosh at the close of the former tōlĕdōt section (4:25–26) and the naming of Seth in the present chapter (5:3). Noah’s naming is set then in the circumstances of the garden’s failure and in the earlier framework of creation’s promise (imago Dei) in 1:26–28; 5:1–3.

Lamech’s yearning for a redeemer not only backtracks but also anticipates the iniquity of Noah’s day, as described in 6:5–8. The same tandem of terms in 5:29 occurs again in 6:6, where “grieved” (from nāḥam) and “filled with pain” appear. Thus Lamech tied the widespread wickedness of human society to man’s first act of disobedience in the garden. Yet the naming of Noah is preeminently optimistic. Lamech looks ahead to a future victory (as 3:15) and prays that Noah will be instrumental in achieving it. His sweeping expression “he [Noah] will comfort us” refers in a general sense to the Sethite ancestral line. Lamech envisions an inclusive vindication. Moreover, the naming of “Noah” anticipates his critical role in the following flood narrative where he, while not achieving his father’s highest aspirations, keeps alive the hope of a final deliverer. Lamech’s naming of Noah then propels the Sethite line forward to the next tōlĕdōt narrative (6:9–9:29).

We have just said that Lamech’s plea for “comfort” refers to Noah’s future role. What specific “comfort” does Noah actually achieve? Some interpreters have taken the phrase “by the ground” (“from the ground,” NASB) as descriptive of “comfort,” thus pointing to Noah’s discovery of viticulture as “relief” from the curse (see 9:20). If so, Noah’s vineyard would evidence a covenant reprieve from the Edenic curse of the ground, interpreting the Lord’s promise in 8:21–22 as its repeal. The difficulty with this interpretation lies in the absence of such a respite after the flood. Man does not return to Eden, and the harshness of the ground continues despite the new covenant with Noah and can only be tamed by toilsome work. Rather, the reprieve in 8:21 concerns the flood, not the curse of 3:17–19. The floodwaters are thus another curse that is revoked by God’s promise of seasonal regularity (see 8:21 discussion). Such a flood will not “again” be implemented by divine decree, but there is no suspension of the garden’s curse. “From the ground” in v. 29 then refers to the source of the “pain” (as in 3:17–19), not the source of the “comfort.” Noah’s vineyard is not the answer to the curse of 3:17–18 but part of the new order, which guarantees fruition in the seasonal calendar (8:22).

Lamech’s hope then resides with God’s blessing on Noah, who, as the flood account shows, perpetuates the Sethite lineage and hence the imago Dei promises of creation as the recipient of God’s renewed covenant commitment (8:21–9:17). This alleviation (“comfort”) does not come about as Lamech wishes, however, for the relief comes only after a calamitous flood. Ironically, it is the Lord, not Noah, who ultimately accomplishes the salvation of the human family (see 6:6 discussion). Because of God’s injured heart at the sin of mankind, both the purge of sinful man and the preservation of the divine plan are consequently set in motion. Afterward we find a final play on the motif of “rest” and “Noah” in the acceptance of Noah’s offering as a “soothing aroma” (rêaḥ ḥannîḥōaḥ; see 8:21 discussion). By the patriarch’s worship and propitiatory offering, the Lord’s wrath is satisfied. The “comfort,” then, is righteous Noah’s role in initiating a new era as the “new Adam” who perpetuates the family blessing by virtue of God’s covenant mercies (6:8; 8:1, 21–22; 9:1–17).

(6) Noah (5:32)

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

5:32 The linear feature of the genealogy, which has been followed rigorously up to this point, is abandoned for the inclusive listing of Noah’s three offspring (cf. Terah’s three sons, 11:26). This prepares for the segmented genealogy of chap. 10, the “account of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, Noah’s sons” (10:1), which tracks the postdiluvian families who emanate from him. Whereas the genealogy to this juncture has presented the same information for each patriarch (except Adam and Enoch) in its stereotypical way, the presentation of Noah departs considerably. Verse 32 reads “Noah was” rather than the standard “Noah lived.” The formulaic “lived” occurs, however, in 9:28, where the genealogy is resumed after the flood. Also the standard conclusion “and then he died” is likewise delayed until 9:29. Genesis 6:9–9:29, then, is a narrative elaboration about Noah, sandwiched between the genealogical linkage of Adam (5:1–32) and the postdiluvian world of Noah’s sons (10:1–32). By embedding the narrative in this way, the genealogical stratagem of the account is given priority. The author’s theological concerns are the initiation and momentum of the promissory blessings. This the author achieves by establishing the genealogical relationship between Adam and Abraham (1:26–28 with 5:1–32; 11:10–26).

Of Noah’s sons, Shem is most likely the eldest, based on the congruity of chap. 5 and 11:10–26, which cite the firstborn son for each generation. The etymology of “Shem” is uncertain; in Hebrew it means “name” (šēm). Perhaps the appellation for his firstborn reflects Noah’s aspirations for his son to attain a reputation. If so, it is realized in a way that Noah could not have imagined. Shem’s lineage dominates the postdiluvian interests of our author, since he is the ancestor of the “Hebrews” by his son “Eber” (10:21) and the forefather of Abraham (10:21–31; 11:10–26). He is also his father’s favored son (9:26–27).

Ham, on the other hand, becomes the disgraced son in his father’s household (9:26). He is the youngest of the trio (9:24) and the ancestor of many of Israel’s traditional enemies (10:6–20). The etymological derivation of “Ham” is uncertain, but some attribute it to the native term for Egypt, “Keme,” which meant “the black land” in reference to the soil of Egypt. “Ham” is synonymous with Egypt in select psalms (78:51; 105:23, 27; 106:22). “Japheth” has been related etymologically to Egyptian “Keftiu” (= Crete) or the name of the Greek Titan, “Iapetos,” father of Atlas. In the biblical account, however, the name “Japheth” is related to “extend” (ypt), at least as the source of a sound play, where Noah prays that God will “enlarge” his territory under the auspices of Shem (9:27).

3. Conclusion: Procreation and Perversion (6:1–8)

At the end of the Sethite genealogy is the narrative epilogue that consists of two literary segments. Verses 1–4 describe intermarriage and procreation by the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men,” and vv. 5–8 relate God’s angry sorrow over the expanding wickedness of the human populace. Unquestionably, 6:1–4 is the most demanding passage in Genesis for the interpreter. Every verse is a source of exegetical difficulty. Also disconcerting is its trappings of mythological story, which make it, if myth is to be sought, the most likely candidate in the Bible. This requires us to give special attention to it in the following discussion.

Intertwined through chaps. 1–11 is the tension between the progression of God’s blessing on mankind and the threat to that blessing. Cain’s career and his genealogy point to the unfolding expansion of wickedness among the descendants of Adam (4:1–26). Conversely, the genealogies of Seth showcase Enosh and Enoch, whose reputations were related to worship and godly behavior (4:26; 5:21–24). Though Seth’s genealogy shows that the hope for humanity was alive through a righteous offspring of Adam (5:1–32), the power of sin’s grip continued (“and then he died”). For Lamech, man endured the ongoing burden of sin’s consequences, but there remained a hope in the birth of a son (“Noah”) who might deliver them (5:29). That tension continues as the “tōlĕdōt of Adam” (5:1) comes to conclusion in the narrative afterword (6:1–8).

Here the end of the tōlĕdōt section describes how the corruption of the human population reached an alarming measure (6:1–7), but at the same time it points to the survivor of the flood generation (6:8). Motifs nurtured through chaps. 1–5 are now drawn together in 6:1–8 as the finale to the antediluvian world and in anticipation of the flood: (1) exploding population under God’s blessing (6:1; 1:26–28), (2) the vanity of human power (a “name,” 6:4 with 3:6), (3) violence and ever-expanding sin (4:1–26; 6:4–7), and (4) hope in a deliverer, namely, Noah as a descendant of Adam’s lineage via Seth (3:15; 4:25–26; 5:29; 6:8).

Genesis 6:1–8 backtracks by lexical connections, linking it with chap. 5: (1) hāʾādām (“man”), 6:1–7 (7×) with 5:2; (2) hāʾādāmâ (“earth,” ground”), 6:1, 5, 7 with 5:29; (3) diverse verbal forms of yālad (“born,” “became the father,” “had children”), 6:1, 4 with 5:3–32 (28×) (cf. also 4:1ff. [10x]); (4) the interest in “name” (šēm), 6:4 with chap. 5’s naming of each descendant, esp. 5:3, 29 (cf. also 4:17, 25–26); and (5) by recalling “Noah” (6:8), who is the last member cited in the honored Sethite genealogy (5:29–32). Also the language of vv. 1–2 reflects the genealogical table of chap. 5 by reference to increasing population and by the cryptic expressions “sons (of God)” and “daughters (of men)” (v. 2), which recall the formulaic phrase “other sons and daughters” attributed to each patriarch (5:4ff.) (except Noah). Additionally, 6:1–8 has language reminiscent of humanity’s first sin and its judgment (e.g., “saw,” “beautiful/good,” and “married/took,” 6:2 with 3:6).