Also in this series:Introduction
Part
One: Biblical Authority
Part
Two: Authority from Tradition – the Jewish Sages and the Early Church Fathers
Part
Three: The Weight of Traditional Views
Part
Four: Man’s Fallible Opinions
Part
Five: Clues in the Text
Part
Six: More Clues in the Text
Part
Seven: What are the Days of Genesis?
Part
Eight: Misconceptions of Paradise
Part
Nine: Life and Death in the Pre-Fall Animal World, I
Part
Ten: Life and Death in the Pre-Fall Animal World, II
Part
Eleven: The Other Realm and the Other Fall
Part
Twelve: Tracing the Advent of Man, I
Shaping
the Genesis Text
Closely
related to the issue of possible gaps and telescoping in the Genesis
genealogies is the question of theological messaging. In brief, theological
messaging is the idea that a biblical text has been deliberately shaped in such
a way as to convey theological teachings in addition to other content, such as
historical narrative. The keyword here is shaped.
I doubt that anyone who has ever read Genesis would deny that the text is
trying to convey theological truths. The question is how the text communicates these things. Did Moses expect his
readers to take certain spiritual applications from straightforward historical
narrative the way we routinely learn life lessons from real-life stories? Or
did he employ various types of coding, figures of speech, and even allegory in
order to teach the lessons he sought to convey?
In
my opinion, the presence of at least some
deliberate theological messaging in the creation account is undeniable. This is
perhaps most readily evident in the reference to the sun and the moon as the
greater and lesser “lights” in Genesis 1:14-18. The terms “sun” and “moon”
appear numerous times in scripture, including in the books of Moses, so it
seems rather odd that they do not appear in the creation account. The most
plausible explanation I have seen on this matter to date is that the terms for
“sun” (shemesh/shamash) and “moon” (yareach)
were used in the ancient Near East as proper names for the sun and moon gods;
therefore, Moses or some later editor of Genesis substituted the word “lights”
in order to keep from giving the impression that these celestial bodies are
divine beings.
So,
given that it’s likely that there is at least some degree of theological
messaging in the phrasing of the creation account, we must consider whether it
may be present in the genealogies or in any other form that affects our
understanding of the time and manner of man’s creation. For the moment, I will
focus solely on the genealogies.
First,
as we have already seen, other biblical genealogies demonstrate compression,
suggesting that the Genesis genealogies may contain this as well. The problem
we have here is that, unlike the other biblical genealogies we’ve examined, we
have nothing earlier against which to compare the Genesis genealogies because
we do not have access to the original source material. Bottom line: while the
existence of gaps in the genealogies cannot be proven, nor can it be disproven.
Second,
if you include Abraham (or the second Cainan listed in the Septuagint and Luke
3—more on that later), the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 each contain ten
names. Ten is a significant number in scripture, and conveys a variety of ideas,
including completeness, proportion or representation, things set apart to God,
and the judgment of God. Prominent examples from scripture include the Ten
Commandments, the ten plagues of Egypt, the tithe, the Parable of the Ten
Virgins, various multiples of ten that we find (such as the 50-year Jubilee
cycle), the 70-year exile, and the comparison Jesus draws to the “good soil” of
the kingdom bringing forth fruit—some thirty, some sixty, and some a
hundred-fold. Many more references to the number ten in scripture could be
mentioned.
Third,
if you end the Genesis 11 genealogy with Terah instead of Abraham, then Genesis
5 and 11 each end with a man who had three named sons: Noah in chapter 5 and
Terah in chapter 11. If you combine the two genealogies into one listing,
however, then the first, middle, and last persons are all men who had three
named sons: Adam, Noah, and Terah. This arrangement adds weight to the argument
regarding symmetry, as mentioned previously in reference to Norman Geisler.
Fourth,
it’s interesting that in the Genesis 5 genealogy, Moses ends each entry by
totaling all of the years of the named individual’s life (“So all the days that
Adam lived were 930 years, and he died,” etc.), but he does not do this with
the individuals named in the Genesis 11 genealogy until the death of Terah, at
the end of the chapter.
Fifth,
it has been noted that there is an improbably high concentration of numbers
ending in 0 and 5 in the Genesis genealogies, certainly as compared with other
biblical listings of births and deaths. For instance, Adam becomes the father
of Seth at 130 years of age and dies at 930 years of age, an interval of
exactly 800 years.
Seth lives 105 years before becoming the father of Enosh. Enosh lives 90 years
before becoming the father of Kenan, after which he lives 815 more years and
dies at 905. Kenan lives 70 years before becoming the father of Mahalalel,
after which he lives 840 more years and dies at 910. Not all of the entries
conform to this pattern, however. There are a few deviations. For instance,
Seth lives a total of 912 years, including 807 years after becoming a father,
and Mahalalel’s son Jared lives 162 years before becoming the father of
Enoch—only to live an even 800 years longer, dying at 962.
In
spite of these deviations, many scholars have speculated that there could be
some sort of mathematical cipher at work here, similar to what has been
observed in another famous ancient record: the Sumerian King’s List.
The
King’s List chronicles the rule of a number of figures whose lifespans put
those of the biblical antediluvians to shame by comparison. These individuals
are said to have lived before the flood and to have reigned for thousands of
years, but scholars have pointed out that the enormous figures involved are all
multiples of 60, which was the basis of the Sumerian mathematical system. As
such, it is thought that the ages of the antediluvian rulers on the King’s List
are idyllic representations of some type. Also of interest here is the fact
that the recorded reigns of the antediluvian rulers on the King’s List shorten
dramatically after the deluge, just as we see with the lifespans of those named
in the Genesis 11 genealogy.
Old
Testament scholar Dr. Michael Heiser believes that this similarity is
coincidental. He argues that Genesis 1-11 is “very Mesopotamian in its flavor
in all sorts of ways,” and amounts to what he calls “a re-casting, a re-telling
of pre-flood and post-flood events,” from an Israelite rather than a pagan
point of view. In other words, he views it as a “Yahwistic theologizing of
history.”
However, if the Genesis genealogies are indeed modeled on the Sumerian King’s
List by means of some kind of mathematical cipher, to date no one has produced
a cipher that works consistently or presents a discernible message.
Observations
and Possible Solutions
For
my own part, while I have certainly seen some intriguing possibilities
suggested for ciphers and/or hidden theological teachings in the Genesis
genealogies, I am not persuaded that any of them are valid. There are some oddities
here to be sure, but I believe they are explainable by more conventional means.
Birth Order
To
begin with, as I’ve already illustrated, in compiling the Genesis genealogies
it’s evident that Moses was not interested in strictly conveying chronology,
given that he overrides birth order to give Abraham and Shem priority as if
they were first-born sons. I see no reason to look for theological messaging or
ciphering here, however. The birth order rearrangement is perfectly explainable
as a matter of ancestral primacy.
Lifespan Deviation
More
difficult to explain is why Moses deviates from providing total lifespans in
Genesis 5 to providing only a man’s age at the point he became a father (Terah
excepted) in the genealogy of Genesis 11.
There is no textually evident reason for this change in style, unless Moses was
trying to incorporate a timeline along with the genealogy in Genesis 5 but not
in Genesis 11. If so, this would be an argument for direct father/son
relationships in Genesis 5, and a possible mix of father/son/ancestral
relationships in Genesis 11. This is the most plausible explanation I see for
the deviation, unless Moses did not have records of the total lifespans of
those who lived from Shem to Terah, but it seems unlikely that he would have
the total lifespans of persons who were more ancient as opposed to those who
were more recent. For this reason, Genesis 11 would seem more likely ground for
genealogical gaps than Genesis 5, but that is supposition on my part.
Israelite Retelling of Ancient Near
Eastern Mythology
Sumerian
records such as the King’s List are widely acknowledged to predate the writing
of Genesis, but I believe it’s a mistake to assume that this must mean that
Genesis is an Israelite, Yahwistic “retelling” of the older myths of Sumer and
other ancient Near Eastern cultures. Genesis itself was written centuries after
the flourishing of Sumer, but it may well have been compiled from far more
ancient sources that have since been lost.
One
of the more popular theories concerning the origin of Genesis is the Toledoth
or Tablet Theory. Toledoth is the
plural form of the Hebrew word toledah,
often translated in scripture as “account,” “generation,” “history,” “family,”
or “record.” It
comes from a root word meaning “birth,” “beget,” or “bring forth.”
The phrase appears a number of times throughout the book of Genesis and
effectively divides the book into sections. Its first occurrence is in Genesis
2:4 – “This is the account [toledoth] of the heavens and the earth
when they were created…” The next example is Genesis 5:1 – “This is the book of
the generations [toledoth] of Adam.”
The
Toledoth Theory is also sometimes called the Wiseman Theory in honor of British
Air Commodore P.J. Wiseman, who proposed it in his 1936 book New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis.
In his book, Wiseman notes the following:
To this day, the
Rabbis in Mespotomia, who are immersed in Biblical Hebrew, use the word
“Toledoth” as the equivalent of the ordinary English word “history.” The Hebrew
collection of Jewish traditions about the life of Jesus is called Tolodeth Jeshu and this the Jews always
translate as History of Jesus.
Wiseman
goes on to describe a particular form of ancient writing that, in light of the toledoth of Genesis, provides evidence
for how the book was constructed:
Many tablets ended
with a colophon. This was the equivalent of the modern title-page. However, on
ancient tablets it was placed at the end of the written matter, instead of at
the beginning, as is now done. This colophon frequently included among other
things [including]:
3)
The name of the scribe who wrote the tablet.
4)
The date when it was written.
There are clear
indications in Genesis of the use of some of these methods.
If
the toledoth are indeed colophons,
they tell us that Genesis may have been compiled from tablets either authored
or owned by the persons they name, and passed down through generations until
Moses edited them together into a single book, noting for each section where he
got the information it contains. It’s doubtful that Moses possessed the
original tablets, though. More likely he worked from copies, just as those who
compiled the canon of New Testament scripture worked from copies of the
original apostolic writings.
Remember
here that Moses was among the most highly educated people of his era, having
been trained in the court of Pharaoh as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. Egypt
was one of the great centers of learning and civilization at that time. Thus,
Moses doubtless had access to many records that were already ancient even in
his day. Given that he was a member of a persecuted group, it’s also likely
that he would have had a keen interest in the heritage of his people, and may
have used his position to preserve their history.
He may have taken copies of such information from Egypt or else recalled the
information from his studies and wrote it down, either during his forty years
in Midian or else during Israel’s wandering in the wilderness, if not before
these events.
As
we’ve already seen, Michael Heiser, points out that early Genesis has a very
“Mesopotamian flavor” to it. This is significant when we consider that Abraham
himself originally came from Ur, a prominent city of Sumer: one of the other
great learning centers of the ancient world. He was a wealthy man and almost
certainly well educated. The records found in Genesis 1-11 may have originally
come from him and went to Egypt with his family during the days of Joseph, a
high-ranking Egyptian official who would have been in a position to see that
they were preserved in the Egyptian archives until Moses came along centuries
later.
To
my way of thinking, this is a very plausible train of events: God raised up and
positioned two educated men from two great record-keeping civilizations to
preserve and pass down the stories and genealogies that comprise Genesis 1-11.
This fully accounts for the “Mesopotamian” feel of these chapters without the
need for Moses to reverse-engineer local mythologies with a Yahweh-friendly
bent.
Indeed,
if we believe that the stories conveyed in scripture are authentic history, it
must have been the Sumerians and other ancient Near Eastern cultures (if not
others before them) who adapted the original creation account into the pagan
mythologies with which we’re familiar, rather than the other way around. For
this reason, the fact that Genesis was written after its Sumerian counterparts
does not by itself constitute proof that the story it conveys is
derivative of Sumerian and other ancient Near Eastern accounts of creation. It
may be that the opposite is true.
The Issue of Symmetry
The
factor of symmetry is one of the stronger arguments for theological messaging
in the Genesis genealogies. It seems highly improbable that there would be ten
generations from Adam to Noah, followed by ten more until Abraham—each line
beginning and ending with a man who had three named sons. This arrangement is
suggestive of the sort of symmetry we find in Matthew’s genealogy, where, as we
saw previously, we know that compression was employed to yield certain numbers.
This by no means indicates that the persons listed in the Genesis 5 and 11
genealogies were not historical, however. Scripture clearly treats them as real
persons belonging to real lineages, just as it treats those listed in other
genealogies.
Yet,
this does not mean that Moses did not have some sort of stylistic intent in the
way he presented the stories and genealogies of Genesis 1-11. He might have
presented the genealogies as one listing, just as the Sumerian King’s List
does, but he chose to divide them with the flood narrative. On the one hand, it
seems natural enough to chronicle the lives of those who lived before the flood
separately from those who lived after, but I believe he may have been
deliberately trying to evoke a certain type of imagery in his presentation of
the material.
Before
Israel entered Canaan, Moses, knowing that he would not be going into the land
with the people due to his actions in Numbers 20, charged them with a ritual
they were to perform after they entered the land. He outlined this ritual for
them in Deuteronomy chapters 11 and 27. Moses told the people that the tribes
were to divide from one another, with some standing on Mount Gerizim and some
across the way from them on Mount Ebal. While the tribes were facing each other
across the valley in this way, the Levites were to recite various blessings and
curses from the law, and the people were to answer with “Amen” at the reading
of each. According to the instructions of Moses, in this way the people were to
“place the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal” (Deuteronomy
11:29). Israel eventually performed this ritual under the leadership of Joshua
following the second battle of Ai (see Joshua 8).
It
is my own belief—and I am by no means adamant on this—that Mount Ebal is
reflected in the genealogy of Genesis 5, the line of cursing, while Mount
Gerizim is reflected in the genealogy of Genesis 11, the line of blessing.
Genesis 5 begins with Adam, whose disobedience resulted in his being exiled
from the Garden of Eden and cursed with eventual death. In this lineage, we
then have the stories of Cain’s murder of Abel, Cain’s exile, the “sons of God”
defiling the “daughters of men,” Lamech’s murder of “a young man” (after which
he boldly declares that he will be avenged even above Cain), and the earth plunged
into violence and defilement with every form of evil. The curse on man’s labor
also weighs heavily at this time, as evidenced at the birth of Noah, when his
father remarks: “This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of
our hands arising from the ground which the Lord has cursed” (Genesis 5:29).
After
describing this ritual the children of Israel were to perform on Mounts Ebal
and Gerizim, Moses warned them of the consequences of disobedience, remarking:
“So all these curses shall come on you and overtake you until you are
destroyed” (Deuteronomy 28:45). Evil and cursing dominate the legacy of Genesis
5 from Adam until Noah, finally terminating in the judgment of the flood,
which, as the apostle Peter says, destroyed “the world of the ungodly” (II
Peter 2:5). Thus, the line of cursing ends in a sweeping judgment, just as
Moses warned the children of Israel would overtake them if they forsook their
covenant with Yahweh.
By
contrast, the lineage of Genesis 11 begins with Noah’s family, whom God
blessed, apparently even lifting the curse he had placed upon the ground
(Genesis 9:1-17). The Noahic legacy then culminates with Abraham who, more than
any other biblical figure, embodies the favor and blessing of God promised to
Israel in Deuteronomy 28:1-14, and is held forth in the New Testament as “the
father of all who believe” (Romans 4:11). So, just as the line of cursing
culminated in a catastrophic judgment on the world, so the line of blessing
terminated in a man who represents the blessing of God, and whose faith brought
the ultimate form of blessing to the world in Christ.
For
this reason, I believe Genesis 5 represents Mount Ebal whereas Genesis 11 represents
Mount Gerizim. Yet, this stylistic usage does not invalidate the historicity of
either genealogy, nor does it do anything to resolve the issue of possible gaps
or numerical ciphers. Moses simply based the ritual of Ebal and Gerizim on the
two contrasting lineages to better illustrate the point of divine blessing and
cursing for the benefit of future generations.
Dynastical
Representation
Another
way some have argued we might approach the Genesis genealogies hearkens back to
the “days of Peleg” reference in Genesis 10. Genesis 11:18-19 tells us that
Peleg lived for 209 years total. What if the “days of Peleg” here do not
constitute the total years of his personal lifespan, but instead designate the
length of time that his family or dynasty held prominence after the “days of
Eber” and before “the days of Reu”? Could the genealogies really be a list of successive
dynasties rather than representing lines of direct descent? Is this why the
“and he died” references we find in the listings of Genesis 5 are left off in
the Masoretic Text version of Genesis 11?
In
fact, given that the various names listed in the genealogies have meanings (for
instance, “Noah” means “rest” or “repose”), is it possible that some of the
names represent hereditary titles or family names, such as the way the
Egyptians referred to all of their kings as “Pharoah” and the Philistines
appear to have used the term “Abimelech”? Is any of this plausible?
For
the sake of argument here, I’ll be as generous as possible in evaluating this
option, basing my calculations from the Septuagint (which gives larger numbers
than the Hebrew Masoretic Text) and counting the controversial second Cainan
(or Kenan) figure of Genesis 11.
First
off, if there is any truth to the dynastic view, it cannot account for all of
the names in the Genesis genealogies. Seth is spoken of in such a way as to
confirm that he was the actual son of Adam and Eve, not a dynastic descendent. Enosh,
the son of Seth, is actually named by Seth in Genesis 4:26, so a direct
father-son relationship is established there. Noah must also be an exception, as
he is named by his father, Lamech. It seems that Shem was actually Noah’s son
given that he accompanied Noah on the ark. Peleg was actually named by Eber
(Genesis 10:25), and Abraham is also quite obviously Terah’s actual son.
Thus,
right off the bat, we must eliminate a number of names from consideration:
Adam, Seth, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Peleg, and Terah. In Genesis 5, this leaves us
with Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah. Assuming these are dynastic
eras started by the individuals for whom they are named, if we lay the recorded
“lifespans” end to end, and count the lifespans of the remaining figures only
at the ages where they became fathers, this gives us a total of 5,629 years
from the creation of Adam until the birth of Noah. Given that the flood came
when Noah was 600 years old, if we factor this in, we get a total of 6,229
years from the creation of Adam until the flood.
Moving
on to Genesis 11…
Assuming
that Shem was the actual father of Arphaxad, adding in the second Cainan,
assuming Eber was the actual father of Peleg and Terah was the actual father of
Abraham, if we lay the recorded lifespans of Arphaxad, Cainan, Salah, Peleg,
Ragau, Serouch, and Nachor end to end again in the assumption that they
represent dynasties, we get a total of 2,967 years from the flood until the
birth of Abraham.
On
this basis, adding both genealogies together pushes Adam and Eve back 9,196
years. For convenience’s sake, if we assume Abraham was born in 4,000 BC, this
would mean that Adam and Eve were created in the year 13,196 BC. Accordingly,
the flood of Noah would have taken place in the year 6,967 BC. Anyone who
objects to including the second Cainan in the genealogy of Genesis 11 should
subtract 430 years to eliminate his lifespan from these figures.
This
is all highly speculative, and I’m prone to thinking it unlikely that
all of the names between the confirmed direct father-son relationships are
dynastic. Then again, it could be argued that maybe the direct father-son
relationships are emphasized for us in the text for the very reason that the
others were not direct relationships. Without the original source material for
Genesis, there is no way to either confirm or deny this speculation. I include
it here because it’s an interesting option.
Numerical Ciphering
With
regard to the numbers that recur in the Genesis genealogies, as I stated
previously, I’m sympathetic to the idea that they could convey something of
significance—and I would not be altogether surprised if this were proven—but in
the final analysis I do not believe there any hidden messages in the text here.
With all due respect to Michael Heiser and other fine textual scholars who are
persuaded otherwise, I believe there is another answer.
The
primary evidence that leads me to believe this is the fact that some of the
same numerical relationships continue beyond Genesis 5 and 11 and expand even
beyond the Abrahamic line. The following are some notable instances of this:
Abraham
was born when his father was 130 years old. He was called by God at age 75, was
100 years old when Isaac—the son of promise—was born to him, and died at age
175. Isaac was 40 years old when he married Rebekah, 60 years old when Esau and
Jacob were born to him, and died at 180 years of age. Jacob was reunited with
his son Joseph in Egypt at age 130, and was mourned by the Egyptians for 70
days. Joseph died at the age of 110. Israel was held captive in Egypt for 400
years, with the Law of Moses being given 430 years after God established his
covenant with Abraham. Moses was 40 years old when he killed the Egyptian and
fled to Midian, 80 years old when he confronted Pharaoh and led Israel out of
bondage, and died at the age of 120. Israel wandered in the wilderness for 40
years, and mourned Moses and Aaron for 30 days each. Joshua died at age 110. The
Feast of Pentecost was held 50 days after First Fruits, and the Day of
Atonement fell 10 days after the Feast of Trumpets. David became king over
Israel at the age of 30 and reigned 40 years, dying at age 70. His son Solomon
also reigned for 40 years. God prescribed that Jubilee years be held at 50-year
intervals, and exiled Judah to Babylon for 70 years. The famous 70 Weeks prophecy
of Daniel 9 is composed of “weeks” of 7 years each and totals 490 actual years.
Jesus began his ministry at age 30, spent 40 days fasting in the wilderness,
and ascended to the Father 40 days after his resurrection. The Holy Spirit fell
at Pentecost 10 days later.
If
there was a cipher employed in Genesis 5 and 11, it seems that it was carried
beyond the timeframes outlined in those passages and extended beyond the
lineage of Abraham, which leads me to believe that there is no cipher after
all. What I suspect we’re dealing with here is a matter of cycle rather than cipher. Remember that the Genesis genealogies are
ultimately the lineage of Christ, who, we are told, came forth from God “in the
fullness of time” (Galatians 4:4) and died for the ungodly “at the right time”
(Romans 5:6). During his ministry, Christ referred to certain set times, noting
“My time is near” (Matthew 26:18), “My hour has not yet come” (John 2:4), “the
hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (John 12:23), and “for this
purpose I came to this hour” (John 12:27). When his disciples asked him when
the kingdom of God was coming, Jesus replied: “It is not for you to know times
and epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority” (Acts 1:7). This
includes the time of Christ’s second coming, which he admitted he did not know
himself (Matthew 24:36). Further, while the apostle Paul was preaching on Mars
Hill, he told the crowd that God had “fixed a day in which He will judge the
world in righteousness” (Acts 17:31). Even demons cast out by Christ knew there
was a set time of judgment, for they asked him: “Have you come to torment us
before the time?” (Matthew 8:29).
These
examples and others that could be included indicate clearly that God has a
timeline he is following in his dealings with humanity. Jews living during the
Old Covenant era knew this very well, given that their calendar was full of
recurring “divine appointments,” right down to the weekly Sabbath observance.
There were certain days set aside for feasts and observances and days stipulated
for offerings and cleansing rituals. The Law of Moses is replete with such
things, and there are inklings of them in scripture even before the time of the
Law. For instance, Job draws on such assumptions while speaking to God about
the life and death of man in Job 14:5-6:
Since his days are
determined,
The number of his
months is with You;
And his limits You
have set so that he cannot pass.
Turn Your gaze
from him that he may rest,
Until he fulfills
his day like a hired man.
In
light of such things, it’s understandable that the Jews invested considerable
time in studying numerology, as they believed that divine cycles of time
governed all things. This is particularly evident in intertestamental
literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Commenting
in her article, “Enoch Son of Jared and the Solar Calendar of the Priesthood in
Qumran,” Rachel Elior of Hebrew University writes that the authors of the Dead
Sea Scrolls viewed time as “a divine reality” of “cyclic, numerical harmony”
that was beyond man’s capacity to amend:
Rather, time is of
divine origin, a cosmic pattern obeying preordained, immutable laws, a cycle
that has been repeating since sacred time was imprinted on nature during the
seven days of Creation and consecrated through the Sabbath day. Time was
envisaged as the reflection of divine order in the universe, so designed as to
perpetuate the cycle of life, blessing, and fertility, an order in which time
and space are sanctified and interdependent from the earliest stages of
Creation, which took place in time divided into seven days and in the space
formed during those seven days.
Elior
goes on to observe that the secrets of divine time and its cycles supposedly
came into the hands of men though Enoch, who the authors of the Dead Sea
Scrolls believed was taken to heaven to be initiated into these mysteries by
angels, and later returned to pass the secrets along to his sons.
This tradition is reflected in the pseudepigraphal book of Jubilees, which was
probably written about two hundred years before Christ:
And he [Enoch] was
the first among men who are born on the earth to learn who learnt writing and
knowledge and wisdom and who wrote down the signs of heaven according to the
order of their months in a book, that men might know the seasons of the years
according to the order of their separate months. And he was the first to write
a testimony, and he testified to the sons of men among the generations of the
earth, and recounted the weeks of the jubilees, and made known to them the days
of the years, and set in order the months, and recounted the Sabbaths of the
years as we made (them) known to him.
All
of this is made more interesting by the fact that Enoch lived 365 years, which
corresponds to the number of days in a solar year. Rachel Elior makes the
rather astonishing observation that the gematria (numerical value) of Enoch’s
name in Hebrew is 84, which is 7x12, “the product of the number of days in the
week and the number of months in a year.”
In his article, “Biblical Math as Heilsgeschichte,” Lloyd Baily points out that
Enoch’s apparent “counterpart” in the Sumerian King’s List is a figure named
Enmenduranna, who is said to have ruled for 21,000 years in the city of Sippar,
was taken to heaven to receive special instruction from the gods, and was
associated with sun worship.
Previously,
I noted that Dr. Hugh Ross suggests that the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies might
be “calibrated” to produce a timeframe for Adam and Eve by focusing on Peleg
and his possible relationship to the submersion of land bridges around the
world about 11,000 years ago. After delving into Jewish beliefs concerning
time, however, I began to wonder if it might be a better idea to focus on Enoch
rather than Peleg. When I did this, something interesting happened that appears
to answer the question of why Matthew compressed his genealogy as he did.
As
already stated, most scholars look at the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies as two
groupings of ten, but there is a potential fly in that ointment.
In
the Hebrew Masoretic Text, an individual named Cainan appears in Genesis 5,
where he is listed as the son of Enosh and father of Mahalaleel. In the
Septuagint, however, there are two Cainans, the one in Genesis 5 and another in
Genesis 11, the latter of whom is listed as the son of Arphaxad and the father
of Shelah. This second Cainan is also mentioned in the genealogy of Christ in
Luke chapter 3. Thus, in Luke’s genealogy, and in the Septuagint, there are two
Cainans in the Abrahamic lineage rather than one. Debate has raged over whether
this second Cainan was a real person or else the result a copyist’s error of
some type, and it’s not my purpose to get into that debate here. I mention this
only in order to make the following point:
If
we count the second Cainan in the Abrahamic lineage, then there are 21 names
from Adam to Abraham rather than 20. If we then calibrate the genealogies using
Enoch, who was the seventh from Adam, then the complete Adam to Abraham lineage
from Genesis 5 and 11 can be broken down into three groups of seven names: Adam
to Enoch, Methuselah to Shelah, and Heber to Abraham. Now recall here that
Matthew breaks his genealogy of Christ into three groups of fourteen names, 14
being 2x7. In light of these things, it is my belief that Matthew mirrored his
lineage of Abraham to Christ on the Genesis lineage of Adam to Abraham, but
doubled the listing of names in each division from 7 to 14, omitting three
generations from his own genealogy in order to make the parallel work.
Why
would he do this? As we have seen, Enoch had become a significant figure in
Judaism by the first century, and it appears that the Book of Enoch itself is
actually quoted in the New Testament book of Jude. In prefacing his quotation
(see Jude 1:14-15), Jude specifically notes that Enoch was “the seventh from
Adam.” Why Jude would point this fact out for his readers is odd, unless
Enoch’s position in the Genesis 5 genealogy was believed to be significant
somehow. Perhaps Matthew believed this as well, and ordered his genealogy of
Christ in conformity with it.
As
to why he would double the list of names, in scripture doubling something is
often associated with favor, blessing, atonement, and completion. Under the Law
of Moses, when a thief was caught, he was required to pay back double (Exodus
22:7). If a man lost something belonging to his neighbor, he was to give back double
(Exodus 22:9). If a man had more than one wife, and the unfavored wife gave
birth to a son first, the husband was required to treat her son as his oldest
and give him a double portion of his holdings (Deuteronomy 21:17). Elisha
requested a double portion of Elijah’s “spirit” (II Kings 2:9). The Lord swore
that Jerusalem would receive “double for all her sins,” but ultimately promised
that his people whom he had humiliated would receive a double portion of the
wealth of the nations and a double portion in their lands (Isaiah 40: 2, 61:7).
When Job’s time of testing was finished, God restored his fortunes, doubling
the number of herd animals he had originally possessed (Job 1:2-3, 42:10-12).
Thus,
it may be that Matthew saw the coming of Christ as a double portion in some
way, perhaps as a completion or “fullness” of the blessing that came down to
Abraham and is extended through him to all mankind. Perhaps Matthew saw events
coming full circle, completing a cycle of time, given that the New Testament calls
Christ “the last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45). Indeed, Christ repeatedly
referred to himself as “the Son of Man.” In Hebrew, he would have literally
been saying, “Son of Adam.” Whereas Adam received cursing for his disobedience,
forfeited his dominion, and was brought down to the dust in death, Christ has
been “highly exalted,” and raised up to rule over the nations, never to die
again. Surely, in Matthew’s eyes, Christ received a “double portion” in
comparison to Adam.
In
light of these things, I believe that what we have in the Genesis genealogies
is cycle rather than cipher—the outworking of divine time in
the Abrahamic line, which ultimately became the Messianic line. Given that God
was working out his purposes through a finite number of individuals in a finite
amount of time, to bring forth Christ at the proper moment in history, it’s not
really so surprising that we should find numerical patterns in the Messianic
line and the persons and events surrounding it. If we had access to the divine
calendar of events, the patterns would doubtless seem obvious; but as Christ
himself said to his disciples, the Father has chosen to keep these matters to
himself. In a way, it’s easy to see why. For if we could fully discern the
pattern, we could not only project it into the past but also into the future,
and we would come to know the time of Christ’s return and the judgments to
come. This is knowledge that God will not allow men, nor even his angels, to
possess.
So,
yes, Virginia, there is some
significance in the numbers we find throughout the timeline of scripture,
including in the Genesis genealogies, but we will not discover its full nature
on this side of the Kingdom.
Next in this series: Tracing the Advent of Man, III
