Genesis Genealogies And Messianic Promise

By Andrew E. Steinmann

[Andrew E. Steinmann is distinguished professor of theology and Hebrew at Concordia University, Chicago, Illinois.]

Abstract

Because they include numbers indicating ages of the pre- and postdeluvian patriarchs, the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 have often been used as chronological information useful for determining the date of Creation. However, since antiquity it has been recognized that these genealogies present insuperable difficulties for such chronological calculations. This article explores these problems as well as ancient and modern proposed solutions. This study suggests that the genealogies were not intended to present chronology but to present the history of the messianic promise from Adam to Abram.

---------------

Since antiquity the pre- and postdeluvian genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 have been used extensively in speculations concerning the date of Creation and the age of the earth.[1] Such speculation began as early as with Josephus[2] in the first century and has continued from the second-century Jewish Seder ‘Olam Rabbah[3] to Bishop Ussher in the seventeenth century[4] to contemporary evangelicals.[5] Based on the Genesis genealogies, modern Jewish rabbinic reckoning of Creation places it at October 7, 3761 BC. The temptation to view the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies as primarily chronological or at least secondarily intended to provide a chronology of the early chapters of Genesis comes from their extensive use of numbers. The age at which a patriarch “fathered” the succeeding generation is given along with the age at which the patriarch died. In addition, the Genesis 5 genealogy lists the number of years lived after the patriarch “fathered” a succeeding generation. This seemingly provides an unbroken chain of generations from Adam (5:1–3) to Abram (11:27) and appears to offer the data to calculate the age of the earth.

However, from antiquity there have been those who have recognized that taking these genealogies as continuous is problematic when used for chronological calculations. Thus, there are evangelicals today who believe that the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies do not provide a reliable way to determine the age of the earth.[6] Yet that leaves a nagging question: What is the purpose of all those numbers in Genesis 5 and 11? While the genealogies cannot be used to calculate the age of the earth, a different, messianic reading of these genealogies better characterizes what those numbers are intended to tell readers.

Problems Presented By The Genesis 5 And 11 Genealogies Vis-À-Vis Chronology

Ages Of The Patriarchs Compared With Narrated Events

If one assumes that the genealogies provide a way to calculate how long after Creation someone mentioned in the genealogies was born, a number of peculiarities arise. In the predeluvian genealogy of Genesis 5, such calculations would place Methuselah’s death in the year of the great flood. Are we to assume that this oldest man in the Old Testament drowned while Noah survived?

In the postdeluvian genealogy of Genesis 11 such calculations would depict six ancestors of Abram other than his father Terah—Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Reu, and Serug—as being alive when Abram was born. It appears preposterous on its face that Shem, who survived the flood, was still alive when Abram was born. Moreover, such calculations would require that Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, and Eber were still alive when Abram left Haran for Canaan. In addition, all four men would still have been alive when Ishmael was born, while Shem, Shelah, and Eber would have been living when Isaac was born. Eber, in fact, would have been living as late as the birth of Jacob!

If that is not troubling enough, the presence of so many extremely old ancestors in Abram’s day seems to fly in the face of Genesis 17:17, where Abraham doubted that a man 100 years old was vigorous enough to have a son. If Shem, Shelah, and Eber were still alive, and all were well over 300 years of age, why would Abraham have thought that a man of 100 could not father a child?

Later it is assumed that Isaac is an old man and near death (27:2, 41). From information given in Genesis it is possible to calculate Isaac’s age at this time as 136 years.[7] Yet if Eber was still alive and well into his fourth century and if Shem, Arpachshad, and Shelah had each lived over 400 years and died in recent memory, why would Isaac or Esau assume that after only 136 years Isaac was near the end of his life?

Strategic Placement Of Certain Individuals In The Line From Adam To Abram

Another factor that argues against viewing the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies as continuous chains of father-to-son links is the placement of certain individuals in the line from Adam to Abraham. As is well known, Enoch, the righteous man who walked with God, is seventh in line from Adam (Jude 14). Noah, the righteous man through whom humankind survived the great flood, is tenth from Adam. When the line continues in Genesis 11, Eber, the eponymous ancestor of the Hebrews, is in the honored fourteenth position—double seven—from Adam. Finally, Abram is in the esteemed twentieth position—double ten.

These locations in the genealogies suggest something other than a strictly continuous chain of father-to-son links in these genealogies. Instead, the strategic placement of these individuals suggests that these genealogies are selective, that they skip over some generations in order to place certain individuals in positions of honor.

The Birth Of Shem’s Son

Another problem for reading the genealogies as chronological information useful for dating the Creation comes from Genesis 11:10: “These are the family records of Shem: Shem was 100 years old, and he fathered Arpachshad two years after the flood.” If this is taken to mean that Shem was 100 years old when Arpachshad was born, there is a problem. By the same assumption, Shem was born when Noah was 500 years old: “Now Noah was 500 years old, and he fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth” (5:32).

If this means that Noah was 500 years old when Shem was born, it also means that Ham and Japheth were born that same year.[8] Moreover, the flood took place when Noah was 600 (7:6, 11). Even if we are to assume that Shem was born at the end of the year when Noah was 500 years old, then Shem was at least 101 years old two years after the flood. Clearly there is a problem with reading Genesis 11:10 as if Arpachshad was born when Shem was 100 years old. At the very least, there is a problem with reading Genesis 5:32 as if Shem was born when Noah was 500 years old.

The Birth Of Terah’s Sons

An even greater problem arises at Genesis 11:26: “Now Terah was 70 years old, and he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran.” Genesis 12:4 notes that Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran, and this occurred after Terah died at the age of 205 years (Gen 11:32; cf. Acts 7:4). Terah was actually 130 years old when Abram was born (205 – 75 = 130). Again, it would appear that either all three sons were born when Terah was 70 or Genesis 11:26 is to be read some other way.[9] Yet from the information given elsewhere in Genesis, Abram was not born when Terah was 70 years old.

This has grave consequences for anyone attempting to read the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies as continuous links in a chronological chain. The wording of Genesis 11:26 is formulaic and shares the wording of almost every other instance of the reporting of a patriarch’s age and the birth of a descendant in these genealogies. If one cannot read Genesis 11:26 as locating Abram’s birth when Terah was 70 years old, one cannot reliably read any other of the twenty notices in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies that way, either.

Attempts To Ameliorate The Problems In The Genealogical Numbers

The problems with reading the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies as providing a continuous series of chronological links between Adam and Abram have been recognized since antiquity. While it is not possible here to treat all of the proposed solutions, I would like to examine a few examples.

Septuagint

In the Pentateuch, the Septuagint tends to adjust the text in order to ameliorate perceived chronological problems.[10] Larsson notes, “All chronological differences between the MT and LXX can be explained as rational alterations from MT to LXX while alterations in the other direction make no sense.”[11] An examination of the changes made in the Septuagint in order to make sense of Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 support Larsson’s claim. They demonstrate that the Septuagint translators (or the producers of its Vorlage) understood the problems that present themselves when the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies are assumed to be useful for reconstructing a continuous chronology from Adam to Abram.

One interesting change addresses the problem of Methuselah appearing to die in the great flood. A small alteration is made to the age of Lamech, Methuselah’s son, when he “fathered” Noah. Lamech’s age is changed from 182 to 188 years (Gen 5:28, LXX), thereby pushing the date of the flood back six years and removing the suspicion that Methuselah may have drowned in the flood.[12] This change fits the pattern that Larsson notes.

Changes to the postdeluvian genealogy of Genesis 11 alleviate the problem of long-lived patriarchs in Abram’s day and beyond. By adding 100 years to the ages of Arpachshad (v. 12), Shelah (v. 14), Eber (v. 16), Peleg (v. 18), Reu (v. 20), and Serug (v. 22), the Septuagint presents Serug (Abram’s great-grandfather), Nahor (Abram’s grandfather), and Terah (Abram’s father) as alive at his birth, but depicts the more ancient ancestors as having already died.[13] According to the numbers in the Septuagint, all these predecessors of Abram were dead when Ishmael was born.

In an attempt to neutralize the problem of Shem’s age at Arpachshad’s birth, the Septuagint makes an interesting translation choice at Genesis 10:21, which calls Shem ‎אֲחִי יֶפֶת הַגָּדוֹל, “the elder brother of Japheth.” The adjective הַגָּדוֹל must modify the construct noun אֲחִי, “brother,” not the proper noun Japheth, since when a masculine singular definite attributive adjective follows the construction of masculine singular construct noun trailed by a proper name, the adjective invariably modifies the noun in the construct state, not the proper name.[14] The Septuagint translators of the Pentateuch understood this, as demonstrated by their translation at Deuteronomy 11:7:

MT: ‎אֶת־כָּל־מַעֲשֵׂה יְהוָה הַגָּדֹל

LXX: πάντα τὰ ἔργα κυρίου τὰ μεγάλα

All the great deeds of the Lord. (Not “all the deeds of the great Lord”).

Despite this, at Genesis 10:21 the Septuagint reads ἀδελφῷ Ιαφεθ τοῦ μείζονος, “brother of the greater [i.e., elder] Japheth.” This slight change makes Japheth older than Shem in an attempt to explain how Shem could be 300 years old two years after the flood. Apparently the Septuagint translators sought to make Japheth born 300 years after the flood, and sought to imply that Shem was not. In addition, at Genesis 5:32 the Septuagint translators made a slight supplement:

καὶ ἦν Νωε ἐτῶν πεντακοσίων καὶ ἐγέννησεν Νωε τρεῖς υἱούς τὸν Σημ τὸν Χαμ τὸν Ιαφεθ

And Noah was 500 years old and Noah fathered three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

With these two changes the translators hoped to remove Shem’s birth from the year when Noah was 500 years old.[15]

Finally, the Septuagint translators also attempted to overcome the problem with Abram’s birth when Terah was 130 years old, since they understood Genesis 11:26 to place Abram’s birth when Terah was 70 years old. To accomplish this they made a small addition to Genesis 11:32:

καὶ ἐγένοντο αἱ ἡμέραι Θαρα ἐν Χαρραν διακόσια πέντε ἔτη καὶ ἀπέθανεν Θαρα ἐν Χαρραν

And the days of Terah in Haran were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran.

This allowed a possible understanding that Abram left Haran before Terah’s death.[16] However, it is suspect, because every other entry in the Genesis 11 genealogy ends with the patriarch’s age at death.

All of these changes made by the Septuagint translators appear to be attempts to overcome the problems introduced when the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are understood as a continuous chain of twenty generations from Adam to Abram. They demonstrate Larsson’s observation about the changes introduced in the Pentateuch by the Septuagint translators: In each case the change is rational if the alterations were introduced into the Septuagint and if the Masoretic text’s readings are original—the Septuagint is making sense of the assumed chronology that does not work in the Masoretic text. It makes no sense that the Masoretic text introduced changes from an older Septuagint, which in each case would have caused problems if the genealogies were understood to present a continuous chronology from Adam to Abram.

Modern Examples

In more recent times attempts have been made to explain these difficulties. Most notably, the problem with Shem’s age at the birth of Arpachshad has drawn much attention (Gen 11:10). In the nineteenth century Keil argued that Shem was born at the very end of the year in which Noah was 500.[17] Then Arpachshad was born at the very end of the year in which Shem was 100. This would place Arpachshad’s birth almost two years after the flood. The problem is that the text does not say that Arpachshad was born about two years after the flood (i.e., it does not read הַמַּבּוּל אַחַר ‎כִּשְׁנָתַיִם).[18] Keil’s suggestion is simply not in line with the Hebrew text, which reads שְׁנָתַיִם אַחַר הַמַּבּוּל, “two years after the flood.” That is, according to common usage in the Old Testament, at least two years had passed since the flood.[19] Wenham discusses several attempts to explain Genesis 11:10, including the suggestion that some of the numbers are approximations or that “two years after the flood” is a late gloss inserted into the text or that, as in the Septuagint, Japheth is the oldest son, born when Noah was 500, but Shem was born when Noah was 502.[20] All of these supposed solutions appear to be nothing more than special pleading.

Modern English versions also sense the problem with Shem’s birth. Some seek to avoid the problem by translating Genesis 5:32 as “after Noah was 500 years old” instead of “when Noah was 500 years old.”[21] This is a tendentious change from the way all of the similar previous formulaic statements in the Genesis 5 genealogy are translated. There is no reason to translate Genesis 5:32 this way other than the obvious problem caused by the perceived conflict of 5:32 with 11:10. But if Genesis 5:32 is to be understood as Noah fathering sons sometime after he was 500, how are 5:3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 25, 28 to be understood? Why are they translated “when X was Y years old” when they employ the same expression that is used at Genesis 5:32? Clearly there is a problem with saying that the age given for the patriarch is the time when the descendant was born. That proposition does not hold for the births of Shem (5:2) and/or Arpachshad (10:11) or the birth of Abram (11:26).

Reading The Genealogies As Other Than A Continuous Chronology

Perhaps the solution to these problems lies in abandoning the notion that these genealogies are intended to give a chronology linking Creation and the birth of Abram. To see how they might be understood as something other than strict chronologies, we must first examine the features of these two genealogies.

The Meaning Of “Fathered” In The Genealogies

The first item that needs to be examined is the use of the verb often translated “fathered” or “became the father of ” throughout Genesis 5 and 11. The verb used consistently is the H stem (Hiphil) preterite ‎וַיּוֹלֶד.

While this verb is often treated as if it is virtually equivalent to its G-stem (Qal) counterpart, it is not. In the G stem the verb would signify having a child. However, in the H stem the verb is, like the vast majority of H-stem verbs, the causative counterpart of the G stem. It signifies causing the birth of a child.[22] The distinction is important, since in the G stem with a masculine subject, the direct object must be the son of the subject. However, since the verb is causative in the H stem, the subject and direct object may be more distantly related—perhaps grandfather/grandson or great-grandfather/great-grandson and so forth.[23]

An example of the more distant relation between the progenitor and the subsequent descendant can be found in the genealogy of David (Ruth 4:18–22). This genealogy begins with Perez and ends with David. Perez was one of the two sons of Judah by his daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen 38:27–30). With information given in Genesis and elsewhere in the Old Testament, it is possible to date the birth of these twins to about 1877 BC.[24] David’s birth can be dated to 1039 BC.[25] That is a span of 838 years in which the nine generations subsequent to Perez must have been born. A simple calculation reveals that if no generations were skipped in the genealogies of Ruth 4, the average age of a father when his son was born would have been 93 years old. That is an average, and one would expect some fathers to be younger than the average and some to be older than the average at the birth of their sons. Therefore, it is quite unreasonable to conclude that no generations have been skipped. It is more likely that the average age of a father when his son was born was 25, implying that there were about 33 or 34 generations from Perez to David, and that fewer than one-third of the generations are listed in Ruth 4.

Moreover, there is more information that Ruth 4 presents a select genealogy, not a complete genealogy, for David. Matthew 1:5 states that Salmon fathered Boaz by Rahab (Σαλμὼν δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Βόες ἐκ τῆς Ῥαχάβ). Since Jericho fell to Israel in 1406 BC, forty years after the Exodus from Egypt,[26] this would place Salmon’s fatherhood sometime around 1400 BC. There are four generations subsequent to Salmon. This means that without skipping generations from Salmon to David the average age for a father when his son was born would have been 90 years old. Instead, given that the sequence from Boaz to David is probably without gaps, it is likely that 12 or 13 generations are skipped from Salmon to Boaz.

Working in the opposite direction, five generations subsequent to Perez culminate in Salmon, who had to have been born during the wilderness wanderings and could not have been more than 40 years old in 1406 BC (cf. Num 14:35; 32:13). The period between Perez’s birth and Salmon’s birth spanned at least 431 years and at most 451 years, producing an average age at fatherhood of 86–90 years if no generations were skipped. This implies that there are missing generations—again probably 12 or 13 generations—somewhere between Ram and Salmon.

Another genealogy in 1 Chronicles bears out that there are missing generations in David’s genealogy. Unlike the other tribes, the Levites would have had reason to keep track of every generation. One had to be certain of direct descent from Aaron in order to serve as a priest. Similarly, other Levites had to be able to prove descent from Levi to serve in the tabernacle or temple. At 1 Chronicles 6:33–37 there is a genealogy of eighteen generations from Korah, an adult at the time of the Exodus (Exod 6:21, 24; Num 16:1–49; 26:9–11), to Heman, a temple musician in David’s day (1 Chr 6:33), making the average age of a father when his son was born about 25 years old. Is it reasonable to assume that during the same period there were only five generations from Salmon to David?

The upshot of this examination of David’s genealogy is this: the H-stem forms of the verbal root ילד are causative, and they permit multiple generations to be skipped over without mention. Thus, in the Genesis genealogies we may find an entry such as the one at Genesis 11:16–17:

וַיְחִי־עֵבֶר אַרְבַּע וּשְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד אֶת־פָּלֶג וַיְחִי־עֵבֶר אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ אֶת־פֶּלֶג שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת

Eber lived 34 years, and he caused the birth of Peleg. Eber lived after causing the birth of Peleg 430 years and caused the birth of sons and daughters.

This statement does not make Eber the father of Peleg. Because the verb is causative, Genesis 11:16 simply states that Eber did something when he was 34 years old, and it led to the eventual birth of Peleg. We cannot know from this statement how many generations separated Eber and Peleg. Nor can we know when Peleg was born. We do not even know whether Peleg was born during Eber’s lifetime. No information in this entry in the Genesis 11 genealogy tells us about the date of the birth of Peleg. To illustrate why this is we need to examine why there can be a time lag between the causing and the result.

Why The Age Of The Progenitor Is Not The Date Of Birth Of The Successor

To illustrate the problem with using the information in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 for chronological purposes, let us look at a modern example: the assassination of James Garfield. On July 2, 1881 in a train station in Washington, DC, 39-year-old Charles Guiteau shot President James Garfield twice. Garfield’s wounds would eventually lead to his death on September 18, 1881. In the meantime, Guiteau was taken into custody and held until after Garfield’s death, when he would be charged with murdering the president. When Garfield died, Guiteau, who had been born on September 9, 1841, was 40 years old. Guiteau’s trial was a sensational event, being one of the first high-profile trials featuring an insanity defense. The jury, however, found Guiteau guilty of murder, and he was executed by hanging on June 30, 1882. It was admitted by all at the time and has been acknowledged ever since that Guiteau caused Garfield’s death. The prosecution and the jury thought this to be so. By pleading him not guilty by reason of insanity, even Guiteau’s attorney admitted that Guiteau caused Garfield’s death.

The question could be asked, “How old was Guiteau when he caused Garfield’s death?” The obvious answer is that Guiteau was 39 years old.[27] Even though Guiteau was 40 years old when Garfield died, the 40-year-old Guiteau did nothing to Garfield. Guiteau was in federal custody and far away from Garfield on September 18, 1881. So, we are left with facts about Guiteau that tell us nothing about when Garfield died: Guiteau’s age when he caused Garfield’s death (39 years old), the time Guiteau lived beyond causing Garfield’s death (almost one year),[28] and Guiteau’s age at death (40 years old). None of these pieces of information singly or collectively tell us when Garfield died. In fact, they do not tell us whether Guiteau died after Garfield or whether Garfield died first.[29] The only piece of information that tells us when Garfield died is direct information about the date of his death, not indirect information such as the age of the person who caused Garfield’s death.

Turning back to the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies, we can see the parallels to the Garfield example. These genealogies tell us these facts:

1. The age of the progenitor when he caused the (eventual) birth of his successor.[30]
2. The number of years that the progenitor lived after causing the birth of his successor (Gen 5 only).
3. The age at which the progenitor died.

However, just as in the scenario about Guiteau causing Garfield’s death, none of these facts individually or collectively say when the successor was born or even whether the progenitor was alive when the successor was born. Only direct information about the date of the successor’s birth could provide that. However, because the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies use causative verbs to relate the birth of the successor to the progenitor, we have no direct information about the time of the birth of the successor.

Let us now go back to the example from Genesis 11:16–17: “Eber lived 34 years, and he caused the birth of Peleg. Eber lived after causing the birth of Peleg 430 years and caused the birth of sons and daughters.”

Chronologically, these verses tell us much information about Eber, but offer no chronological information about Peleg. The only thing they tell us about Peleg is that he was descended from Eber. They do not say how many generations Peleg was removed from Eber. They do not say when Peleg was born. They do not say that Eber was still alive when Peleg was born.

Once we accurately understand what the Hebrew texts of the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies are saying and are not saying, we can see how the perceived problems with the chronological information in these texts evaporates. The texts do not necessarily tell us about a continuous succession of links, each link being from father to son. We need additional information to determine whether the progenitor and the successor were father and son, such as the information at Genesis 11:27–31 that makes Terah the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran.[31] Moreover, we need additional information about the date of the birth of a successor to date his birth. We have such information in only two cases: the information on Arpachshad’s birth two years after the flood (11:10) and the information on Abram’s birth, which can be derived from Genesis 12:4.

In most cases we have no information that gives the exact relationship between the progenitor and the successor. Was Peleg the son of Eber? Was he Eber’s grandson? Was he Eber’s great-grandson? Was he from an even a later generation? We cannot know. When was Peleg born? We do not know. All we know is that Peleg was descended from Eber. There may be quite a few unmentioned generations.[32]

This leads to two important conclusions:

1. The purpose of the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies is not to tell us, even secondarily, about the age of the earth or the date of Creation, and adding up the ages of the patriarchs listed there to determine chronology is not a valid exercise.
2. The purpose of the numbers in Genesis 5 and 11 must be to tell us something other than when persons listed in the genealogy were born.

So, if they do not give the chronology from Adam to Abram, what are these genealogies designed to tell readers? The answer lies in the larger context of Genesis as a whole.

A Solution: Reading The Genesis 5 And 11 Genealogies As A Chain Of Messianic Blessings

Before exploring Genesis to determine the purpose of the genealogies, let us look at another modern example for guidance. Consider the following two sentences:

• The Watergate burglary caused Richard Nixon’s downfall.
• Obstruction of justice caused Richard Nixon’s downfall.

Each of these sentences is accurate in its own right. However, each sentence points to a different cause for Nixon’s downfall. That is because events may have several contributing causes that the author of a sentence could choose to highlight.

Now, if we turn back to the Genesis genealogies, we need to ask, “What is it that the author of Genesis has highlighted as the cause of the birth of the men listed in the genealogies?” We might think it was a patriarch impregnating his wife. However, that is definitely ruled out of consideration by Genesis 10:11, 26. We might propose that the author is pointing to the patriarch’s age at marriage, but Genesis 5:3 rules this out in the case of Adam, who was married to Eve at Creation (Gen 2:23–25; cf. Matt 19:5; Mark 10:7; Eph 5:31). Instead, we must turn to the wider context of Genesis as a whole.

Since the very beginning, Christians have seen a golden thread that runs through the book of Genesis: the messianic promise that God will—through his designated agent—reverse the fall and its effects. This promise begins at Genesis 3:15, the so-called protoevangelium that promises a seed of the woman who will crush the serpent’s head (cf. Rom 16:20), thereby bringing salvation to all nations and peoples.

The messianic promise was repeated in various forms to Abraham (Gen 12:3; 17:16; 18:18; 22:18), Isaac (26:4), and Jacob (26:4; 27:29; 28:14). In his last recorded words Jacob passed this promise on to Judah (49:8–12). An unbroken chain of recipients of the messianic promise reaches from Abraham to Judah. However, where is the chain from Adam to Abraham? I submit that this is the purpose of the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies, and it is signaled not only by the chain of generations that are traced between these two men, but also by the mention of the age at which each listed patriarch is said to have caused the birth of his successor as well as the subsequent blessing of long life. Turning first to the blessing of long life: Note that Abraham thought he was old at 100 years of age (Gen 17:17), yet God blessed him with an even longer life of 175 years. Isaac was thought to be near death at 136 years old (Gen 27:2, 41), but God blessed him so that he lived to be 180 years old. Jacob was blessed with 147 years. In each case these men lived much longer than normal for their era (i.e., the twenty-second through nineteenth centuries BC).[33] Perhaps the long lifespans listed for the patriarchs in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies are likewise due to the blessing of God and were not necessarily typical for their eras.

More importantly, I would propose that the age of each patriarch when he caused the birth of his eventual successor is counted from the time that God blessed that man with the promise that he would be an ancestor of the Messiah. The patriarch appropriating that blessing by faith became the cause of the birth of a descendant who would sometime later also receive this blessing. Indeed, there are three other lines of evidence that point to this as the reason each patriarch could cause his eventual successor to be born.

First, there is the disappointment over Cain. When Cain was born, Eve stated the reason for giving him his name: “I have obtained a man with Yahweh” (Gen 4:1). This clearly points back to God’s promise that the woman was to bear a seed (3:15). It implies that Eve assumed (incorrectly) that Cain was at least the first step in bringing forth God’s promise. Of course, that hope was dashed with the events of the rest of Genesis 4: the murder of Abel and Cain’s banishment. So Genesis 5:3 indicates that when Adam was 130 years old God graciously renewed his promise of a deliverer to crush the serpent’s head, this time promising Adam that he would indeed have a son who would fulfill the pledge of Genesis 3:15.

Second, consider Noah’s words following his drunkenness and the associated actions of Ham, Shem, and Japheth. As regards Ham’s son Canaan, there is a triple prediction of what would happen to him and his descendants (Gen 9:25, 26b, 27b). There is also a prediction of what would happen to Japheth’s descendants (9:27a). However, there is no prediction about Shem. Instead, there is a blessing for Yahweh, the God of Shem. This presumes that Yahweh and Shem had a prior close relationship. I submit that this relationship was initiated by Yahweh when Shem was 100 years old, and Yahweh revealed that Shem would be the bearer of the messianic promise (11:10). This is why there is a time lag between Shem’s age of 100 and his implied age of 102 when Arpachshad was born. This would also explain the time lag between Terah’s age of 70 years (11:26) and the birth of Abram 60 years later. In both cases the ancestor caused the eventual birth of a son through his faithful appropriation of God’s promise.

Finally, there is the genealogy of David at Ruth 4:18–22. David is the only person in the Old Testament outside of Genesis to receive the promise that he was to be a bearer of the messianic line (2 Sam 7:12–16; 1 Chr 17:11–14).[34] The genealogy in Ruth traces that promise through the generations from Judah’s son Perez to David, completing the link from Judah, the last person to receive the promise in Genesis. Moreover, this genealogy accomplishes this in imitation of the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies. Just as the Genesis genealogies appear to be selective and not complete, placing key figures in positions related to the numbers seven and ten, so does David’s genealogy: Boaz, the most outstanding figure among the ancestors of David mentioned in Ruth, is seventh in the genealogy—just as Enoch is seventh after Adam and Eber is fourteenth. David is the tenth person in the Ruth genealogy—just as Noah is the tenth after Adam and Abram is the twentieth. This clear imitation of the use of the seventh and tenth generations points back to the messianic promise in Genesis and forward to the messianic promise given to David.

Perhaps someone will raise the objection that at least some of the patriarchs listed in the Genesis genealogies were polytheists, worshipers of pagan gods. This is certainly true of Nahor and Terah (Gen 31:52; Josh 42:2). Does that preclude God from working through them or even giving them the blessing of the messianic promise? It certainly does not (Rom 3:3–4). Consider that Jacob apparently tolerated pagan gods in his household for many years after receiving God’s messianic promise (Gen 35:2). Even the great David at one time had teraphim in his household (1 Sam 19:13).

Thus, the point of the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies is not to supply numbers that make it possible for readers to calculate the date of Creation. Although these genealogies have been used this way since antiquity, there has been no solution to the apparent problems posed by these genealogies when they are treated as giving continuous father-to-son links from Adam to Abram. Instead, there are multiple indications that these genealogies list the generations from Adam to Abram selectively, and their numbers are used to highlight the messianic promise and its blessings given to those who were revealed to be bearers of the messianic line.

Notes

1. The genealogies are found at Genesis 5:1–32 and 11:10–32.
2. Ant. 8.62 [8.3.1]. Josephus reckons Creation as 3102 years before Solomon built the temple in Jerusalem, which would yield a date of about 4069 BC.
3. Seder ‘Olam Rabbah would date Creation to 3760 BC.
4. Ussher famously dated Creation to nightfall on October 22, 4004 BC.
5. E.g., J. Paul Tanner, “Old Testament Chronology and Its Implications for the Creation and Flood Accounts,” BibliothecaSacra 172 (2015): 24–44. Tanner calculates the date of creation as 4199 BC, plus or minus 25 years. See also Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, ” Origins 7 (1980): 53–70, republished at http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/hasel.htm, accessed March 16, 2016. Hasel calculated the date of Creation as 4118 BC.
6. E.g., Andrew E. Steinmann, “Gaps in the Genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11?,” Bibliotheca Sacra 174 (2017): 141–58; Mark A. Snoeberger, “Why a Commitment to Inerrancy Does Not Demand a Strictly 6000-Year-Old Earth: One Young Earther’s Plea for Realism,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 18 (2013): 13–17.
7. Andrew E. Steinmann, From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011), 72–74.
8. If this is saying that someone was born when Noah was 500, then the birth of one element of the compound direct object when Noah was 500 requires the birth of all elements of the compound direct object at the same time. Compare Genesis 14:5: “In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim.” It would be absurd to say that the Rephaim were defeated in Chedorlaomer’s fourteenth year, but the Zuzim and/or Emim were not. Or consider 2 Kings 15:29: “In the days of King Pekah of Israel, King Tiglath-pileser of Assyria came and captured Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee—all the land of Naphtali—and deported the people to Assyria.” Again, it would be nonsensical to say that Ijon was captured in the days of King Pekah but some or all of the other cities were not captured during his reign.
9. Admittedly, in Steinmann, “Gaps,” 158, I wrote, “This . . . implies that at least one of Abram’s brothers was born when Terah was 70 years old, but Abram was not born that year.” By that I meant that if one were using the genealogies to determine that someone was born when Terah was 70, it could not be Abram, but it must be one of the other brothers. That, however, is incorrect, and my wording was infelicitous. Clearly, however, the syntax of Genesis 11:26 requires that if one of the brothers was born when Terah was 70, they all were born when Terah was 70.
10. For instance, at Genesis 48:5–6, where Jacob adopted Joseph’s two sons as his own, Jacob noted that any sons born to Joseph after Ephraim and Manasseh would be counted as Joseph’s and would be enrolled in the tribes of either one of their brothers. However, neither Genesis nor the rest of the Bible records any other sons of Joseph. Interestingly, however, the Septuagint attributes nine sons to Joseph (Gen 46:27, LXX). In this case, since Jacob mentioned the possibility of other sons born to Joseph, the Septuagint adds another seven sons so that readers will not puzzle over Jacob’s statement. Another example can be found by comparing Genesis 26:34 with 36:2. Esau is said to have married two Hethite women at 26:34, but only one Hethite wife is named at 36:2. The Septuagint apparently attempted to solve this problem by changing the text of 26:34 to “Basemath, daughter of Elon the Hivite,” thereby giving Esau one Hethite wife and one Hivite wife instead of two Hethite wives.
11. Gerhard Larsson, “The Chronology of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the MT and LXX,” Journal of Biblical Literature 102 (1983): 402. Larsson gives examples from throughout the Pentateuch, demonstrating that this tendency is pervasive in the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch.
12. This follows the numbers in Codex Alexandrinus. If one uses the numbers in Codex Vaticanus, Methuselah would have died fourteen years after the flood—an impossibility. No matter which Septuagint manuscript tradition one chooses, the Septuagint is obviously an alteration of the numbers in the Masoretic text. Interestingly, Josephus (Ant. 1:86–87 [1.3.4]) combines elements of Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus concerning the numbers associated with Methuselah and Lamech, thereby implying that Methuselah died ten years after the flood. Josephus, therefore, is an indirect witness to the antiquity of both versions of the Septuagint genealogy in Genesis 5.
13. I am assuming that Kainan was a later addition to the Septuagint of Genesis 11:13. Therefore, I have not included him in any calculations. See Andrew E. Steinmann, “Challenging the Authenticity of Cainan, Son of Arpachshad,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 60 (2017): 697–711.
14. See Deut 11:7; Judg 1:13; 2:7; 3:9; 9:5; 2 Kgs 15:35; 2 Chr 27:3; Neh 3:30; Jer 13:9; 36:10; Ezek 10:19; 11:1.
15. Of course, these changes do not actually accomplish their goal, since if Noah fathered one of his sons at 500 years old, he fathered them all at that time—all three sons are part of a compound direct object in the sentence. Syntactically Noah’s age when a son was born applies equally to all three.
16. This alteration, like the alterations involving Shem, fails to accomplish what it intended, since even in the Septuagint the narrative implies that Abram left Haran after Terah’s death (see Gen 11:32–12:1, LXX).
17. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes (repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 1:177.
18. See Genesis 38:24 ‎כְּמִשְׁלֹשׁ חֳדָשִׁים, “about three months”; Ruth 1:4 ‎כְּעֶשֶׂרשָׁנִים, “about ten years.”
19. That Arpachshad was born two years after the flood means he was born after the second full year following the flood but before the end of the third year after the flood. This is in keeping with the ancient custom of counting in whole numbers without rounding up as in modern mathematical convention. See Hosea 6:2, where “after two days” is parallel to “on the third day,” thus equating the two expressions.
20. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary 1 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 250.
21. ESV, NET, NIV, NRSV.
22. Technically, “to cause [someone (unstated)] to bear a child.” For the sake of convenience I will use “cause the birth of ” throughout this study. For a fuller discussion, see Steinmann, “Gaps,” 143–48.
23. This should be obvious from a passage such as Deuteronomy 4:25: “When you have [‎תוֹלִיד] children and grandchildren and have been in the land a long time, and if you act corruptly, make an idol in the form of anything, and do what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, angering him” (CSB).
24. Steinmann, From Abraham to Paul, 78–79.
25. Ibid., 115–23.
26. Ibid., 45–65.
27. I took an informal survey of over 30 people, using a PowerPoint slide presentation to lay out for them this historic scenario. At the end, when each person was asked, “How old was Guiteau when he caused Garfield’s death?” all of them thought that Guiteau was 39 years old when he caused Garfield’s (eventual) death. No one chose Guiteau’s age of 40 years old (i.e., his age when Garfield died).
28. Eleven months and twenty-eight days, to be exact.
29. Only when we know the dates of death of both men can we determine this. Knowing Guiteau’s date of death alone tells us nothing about the date of Garfield’s death. In fact, one could imagine a theoretical situation in which Guiteau died in prison after his fortieth birthday but before Garfield died.
30. Note that Genesis 11:10, 26 must be speaking about the eventual birth of Arpachshad (two years after Shem was 100 years old) and Abram (60 years after Terah was 70 years old).
31. Other information that indicates a few father/son relationships in these genealogies includes the naming of the son (Gen 5:3, 29).
32. For instance, in Ezra’s genealogy (Ezra 7:1–6), six generations are missing between Azariah and Meraioth (compare 1 Chr 5:33–36 [6:7–10, Eng]), making Azariah Maraioth’s fifth great-grandfather.
33. The Old Testament also records other persons who were blessed by God with long lifespans for other reasons, even though they were not bearers of the messianic promise: Joseph (110 years; Gen 50:22); Kohath, the father of the Levitical clan that produced Israel’s priests (113; Exod 6:13); Amram, father of Moses (137 years; Exod 6:20); Aaron, Israel’s first high priest (120 years; Num 33:39); Moses, the great prophet (120 years; Deut 34:7).
34. See Andrew E. Steinmann, “What Did David Understand about the Promises in the Davidic Covenant?,” Bibliotheca Sacra 171 (2014): 19–29.