How Am I Going to Preach a Genealogy?

This is the book of the generations of Adam. (Genesis 5:1a)

I'm currently preaching through Genesis. We started with Genesis a few months ago and I felt like after completing chapter 3 we were at a good stopping point to do something different for a while. Last week I returned to Genesis 4 and I intend to preach up through chapter 11 before taking another excursion into something different. While I want to bring variety to the preaching diet, I also want to have the consistency of regularly systematically going through the biblical books. One of the reasons for this commitment is that I don't want to give into the temptation to skip over hard texts. This week is one of those weeks. In Genesis 5 we will look at the Genealogy of Adam through Seth's line. Genealogies are often looked at as boring and monotonous. However, because of my commitments, I'm not going to skip it. So, how will I preach it?

Options

There are basically three options I can think of for doing this. Two of these options are ones that I would not advocate, and one is the one I will be putting to practice. 

First, a preacher could preach through a genealogy going through and looking at the meaning of the names of each character presented. I would say that this is a mystical approach. The idea is that there is a hidden meaning in the names of the people in the genealogy and that knowledge of the original languages will reveal a hidden meaning of the text that isn't obvious to anyone else. While I'm definitely a proponent of the use of the biblical languages, I think this method falls short of faithfulness to the text. It falls into what is called the "word study fallacy." The problem with it is that texts have their meaning as words are put together into sentences. Looking at a word by itself will give you information about the language, but it's missing the forest for the trees! The meaning of the words is determined by the way that they are used, not their etymology, and not necessarily by combining all their lexical possibilities. While I've heard of people using this method before and church members being impressed, I think it misses the point. 

Second, a preacher could create a chart with all the lengths of the lives of all the people in the genealogy to try to show how old the world is. 

While I've seen this done before by people I love and respect, I think this misses the point as well. I am a six day young earth creationist, and I actually think there are a few things we can gain from this kind of exercise, but I don't believe this is the point. God didn't reveal these things to us to satisfy our curiosity about the age of the earth. I believe he had something much more deeply theological for us to understand. 

Finally, I advocate a literary approach. There are two principles that I will keep in mind as I describe this literary approach. First, the genealogies in the biblical text function as a bridge between narratives. Before this genealogy we see the narratives of creation, the Fall, the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, Cain and Abel, and a brief story about Cain's descendant, Lamech. The next major story in the narrative will be the Flood. The genealogy functions as a literary bridge from what has happened already to what is coming next in the narrative. It is showing us that all of these things are happening are connected. It is giving us a framework for the Pauline theology that all human beings are all descended from Adam and that the events that happened in the Flood narrative are further consequences of the Fall that had happened earlier.  Second, if we want to know what is significant in the genealogy, then we must look for the items which break the normal pattern. The emphasized points will be found in the variations.

Variations

The genealogy of Genesis 5 follows a distinct pattern. It goes like this: 

When (X) had lived (Y) years, he fathered (Z). (X) lived after he fathered (Z) (W) years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of (X) were (V), and he died. 

 There are three significant variations from this pattern that I see. 

1. Adam varies from the pattern. Instead of saying "When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered Seth," it says "When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth." This is significant for a few reasons. It shows us that the image of God from the creation narrative was passed on through successive generations. It shows us that even though sin had drastic consequences for humanity and introduced death, human beings are still image bearers of God. This variation in the pattern also does one more thing. It links Seth to Noah. It says "he fathered a son...and named him...." This is something we don't see in any of the following generations until you get to Noah, and it will be mentioned again later. 
2. Enoch varies from the pattern as well. It says, "When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah. Enoch walked with God after he had fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters.... Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him." This break in the pattern does two things. It highlights an important part of the pattern. Everyone died! Every generation in the list ends with the words "and he died" except Enoch. From this we should see that the genealogy intends to show us that death came to all men through Adam--just as we read in Paul. However, Enoch is a significant break in this pattern. What does this mean? What does it mean that he walked with God? What does it mean that "he was not?" What does it mean that "God took him?" Each of those ideas are ambiguous in the text. It is hard to say with certainty. It has been traditionally understood that Enoch never physically died and that he was taken directly into Heaven just as Elijah was taken in a fiery chariot. Why didn't Enoch die? It can be assumed that it was because he walked with God. Enoch apparently had a close personal walk with God. We don't have any details telling us what this means. I do not think that it means that Enoch was sinless. Rather, Enoch walked in reliance on God. He trusted in God. I would guess that it means that he lived a life of faith in God. Unfortunately, we aren't given much information. Jewish apocalyptic literature abounded with curiosity and speculations as to what happened to Enoch, but as for the biblical record, we don't have much to go on. 
3. Lamech also varies from this pattern. Lamech was Noah's father, and he was also the last person in this genealogy to die. His record says "When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son, and called his name Noah, saying, "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." Just as I mentioned before, the only other person of which it is said, "he fathered a son, and [called his] name" was Adam. This begins and ends the genealogy with the same break in the pattern. Then it gives a reason for Noah's name. "He will give us relief." The word for "relief" or rest is built off the same word as Noah's name. So Lamech named his son "Rest." What would Noah give humanity rest from? Noah was expected to give relief from "our work" and from "the painful toil of our hands" because of "the ground which the LORD has cursed." These are all references to Genesis 3. The "painful toil" that Noah was to give relief from was the painful toil mentioned in the pain of childbearing from 3:16 and the pain of man's labor in 3:17-19. The vocabulary links these passages, but so does the author's explicit reference to the LORD's curse on the ground. In short, I believe that Lamech expected Noah to be the seed of the woman who would reverse the curse and crush the serpent's head. It is on this basis that I believe it is legitimate to preach Jesus from the genealogy here in Genesis 5.  

When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son and called his name Noah, saying, "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 5:28-29 ESV)