Why Should

We Care About
The Genealogies
Of Genesis?
Rev. Don Crowe
Why are those genealogies of Gen. 5 and 11
in the Bible? So many strange names and so
many numbers of years mean that few practical-
minded Americans will have the interest or the
patience to wade through them. But we know that
"all scripture is God-breathed and profitable ... "
so what is the purpose of these genealogies?
Students have heen known to complain
about the study of history, saying it is only a
bunch of names, dates, and places. But wait,
the Bible is largely history, so it should not
surprise us to finds names, dates and places
specified in the record. God has revealed His
\Vord to us in real time and space history. God
dealt with real people with specific names,
who lived an exact number of years.
Chronology is to history as the skeleton is to
the body. It provides a structural framework
to which the other parts must attach. Some
have said that the Bible is not interested in
chronology, but that suggestion is hard to take
seriously. Compare these two statements:
Genesis 7:11, In the six hundredth year
of Noah's life, in the second month, the
seventeenth day of the month, on that day all
the fOlmtains of the great deep were broken
up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Now this: "Long, long ago there was an
old man. One day there was a flood."
The Counsel Ql Chalceclon
The actual Bible verse Gen.
7:11 gives the YEAR, MONTH
and DATE that the worldwide
}l100d began. It also names the
specific individual Noah. It has
the marks of historical narrative.
The second version sounds like
a mythical story: no names, no
dates, and no details. Chronology
is one very important difference
between history and mythology.
It is obvious from a close look
at Gen. 5 and 11 that God did
not give them merely to teach
some moral lesson. God gave
us the account of real people.
God has given us in Scripture
the only absolutely reliable history
of the earliest people that we can
ever have. Christians can easily
forget that in a Biblical worldview
there is no such thing as "pre-
historic" man because the Bible
tells us the history of man from
the very first man (Adam) who
ever existed. We need to learn
to think Biblically, instead of just
'soaking in' the 'knowledge falsely
so called' of the fallen world.
God has given us a great
treasure: the only reliable
chronology of the earliest
times of man. Yet many
Christians are embarrassed by
the biblical chronology. They
scramble about trying to find
some way to 'explain them
away.' Their 'reinterpretations'
sound extremely improbable
to say the least. Aren't the
genealogies quite plain?
Even many Christians, who
affirm with the Bible that God
created the world in six calendar
days, shy away from taking the
genealogies seriously. They claim,
without any basis, that there are
"gaps" in the genealogies. Since
the genealogies of Genesis are so
tightly connected together, where
could these 'gaps' possibly be?
Making the Nations Ch,-ist's Disciples
Read Genesis 5 and 11 carefully
for yourself and ask where these
gaps could be. Here is just one
sample of the genealogical1inks
from Gen. 5:3-5, "And Adam
lived one hundred and thirty
years, and begot a son in his own
likeness, after his image, and
named him Seth. After he begot
Seth, the days of Adam were eight
hundred years; and he had sons
and daughters. So all the days that
Adam lived were nine hundred
and thirty years; and he died."
Notice the tight links between
generations: Adam was 130 years
old when he had his son Seth.
Alter he had Seth, Adam lived
another 800 years. The total life
span of Adam was 930 years.
Every time we know more about
the persons named as the one who
"begat" a son, it is always talking
about the son's own father, not
some remote ancestor. When we
compare Scripture with Scripture
there are no gaps. For example,
from Gen. 4.25 we know that
Seth is definitely a direct son
of Adam and Eve and we know
that Enosh must be the direct
son of Seth because Seth (as his
father) named him. Even if we
WRONGLY assumed that Seth (or
some other name in the list) was
a GRANDSON instead of a son,
it would make NO DIFFERENCE
in the chronology. There would
still be 130 years from Adam to
Seth, 800 afterward, and 930 totaL
Such folly serves no purposel
If you have ever been to a
"magic show" you know that one
of the magician's techniques is
"misdirection." He wants to do
something with his left hand that
will not be noticed, so he draws
attention to his right hand. Those
who want to say there are 'gaps' in
the Genesis genealogies, misdirect
our attention-away from the
actual text of Genesis-to the
li."lt of names in Matthew One.
We know from the COMPLETE
genealogies of the Old Testament
that there are three names
omitted between Joram and
Uzziah. Critics then say: "See
how the biblical genealogies always
skip generations." Of course, we
see no such thing. First, Matthew
One is merely a list of names,
lacking the detailed information
on the number of years between
each one. Secondly, the ONLY
way we know there are some
names left out in Matt. 1 is
because the Old Testament gives
us a complete genealogy. [If you
want a detailed study of Matt. 1,
see F.N. Jones, The Chronology of
the OT. This booh: explains the
Biblical chronology much more
fully.] This kind of misdirection
does nothing to give us a credible
exegesis of Gen. 5 &11. \\Then
the plain meaning is rejected,
a dozen guesses rush in to fill
the void. Here is an extremely
important question: Does the
Bible have its own meaning arising
from the text itself? OR Does
everyone devise a meaning of
his own to read into the text?
A closer examination of the
actual Biblical text leads to greater
confidence in its reliability.
Not only is the rejection
of the Biblical chronology
unnecessary, it is inexcusable
to reject what God has spoken.
There is however, ONE thing
that is selective about the
genealogies. Even though they
present a complete 'no gap'
chronology, they mention only
one son. "Vhy? The reason only
one son is mentioned is that only
one son was an ancestor of Noah
and through Noah of Abraham.
Gen 5 and 11 are not about the
history of everyone, but the
precise genealo,gicalline that
25
26
leads us to Abraham, the father
of the faithful. It is not necessary
that the one son mentioned
be the first or the only son.
I suppose that those looking
for an excuse to reject the plainly
written Genesis record will
continue to put imaginative spins
on it, as long as the world endures.
But I will note one more 'objection'
commonly raised because actually
looking at the text will increase
our confidence. Sometimes we
will hear this complaint, but how
can we Imow which genealogy to
trust since the Septuagint (Greek
OT) and the Samaritan Pentateuch
do not always agree with the
number of years mentioned in the
Hebrew text. This is an extremely
weak objection that was answered
1,600 years ago by St. Augustine
in his City of God.l Augustine
knew that the translators of
the Septuagint (or LXX) were
rationalists, as were the translators
of the Samaritan Pentateuch.
(Pentateuch:::: 5 books, Gen.-
Deut.) Besides all this, the people
'objecting' don't believe ANY of
the versions. Their objection is
merely a smokescreen to hide the
fact that they are rejecting biblical
chronology totally. Neither LXX
nor Samaritan, erroneous as
they are, gives the compromisers
the millions of years needed to
appease evolutionists. There is
no point to their objection.
The rationalists translating the
LXX reasoned that no one could
live 969 years, so they 'guessed'
that it takes 10 "Bible years" to
make one of our years. That way
they could feel better thinking
that Methuselah 'really' lived only
96.9 years.2 But their foolish
theory ran into trouble in verses
like Gen. 11 verses 12-24. Several
fathers are listed as 30 years old;
by the rationalistic translators'
theory they would be only 3
years old in "our years." This is
ridiculous. So the LXX translators
arbitrarily added 100 years to the
age listed in the text of Scripture,
so he could at least be 13 years old
at the birth of his son! Somehow
that made them feel better about
it, though it is still ridiculous.
The Samaritans rationalized
that all the patriarchs had to
be at least 50 years old, but no
more than 150 years old. That
meant they often had to either
add or subtract 100 years from
the Biblical text. Whether they
worked from the Hebrew text or
the Greek LXX their results would
have usually been the same.
Actually there is nothing that
says these sons were the first sons,
nor the only sons. Methuselah
could have had 7 daughters and
5 sons (or more!) before Lamech
was born. Remember the biblical
genealogies are tracing the line
of descent that wil1lead through
Noah to Abraham. Ultimately
it is the MESSIANIC line that
is of supreme importance.
So the genealogies actually
turn out to be a marvelous gift
of God to us, showing every
step of the way from Adam to
Christ. Do we care that the LXX
and the Samaritan versions do
not agree? Of course not! They
have deliberately corrupted the
biblical text. How could they
agree with the God-breathed
record after such arbitrary
and intentional tampering!
SUMMARY: So why
should we care about the
genealogies of Genesis?
Because no human being has the
right to decide what is important
in the God-breathed Scriptures
and what is not! Since God
revealed it, we must take heed.
Because the genealogies give
us a chronological framework
for history. We can place the
specifically named people in a
particular time in history. God
has chosen to reveal His word IN
HISTORY. When the God-given
chronology of Genesis is rejected,
the Genesis record becomes more
of a "fuzzy long, long ago story"
instead of real space-time history.
It is a very important point that
God revealed His truth in real
history to real people. Adopting
an evolutionary time scale causes
one to lose sight of that reality.
Because the historical narrative
of Genesis is quite straightforward
and not difficult to tmderstand.
To give Gen. 5 & 11 some
figurative "spin" just to conform to
the evolutionary time scale, is to
adopt a faulty hermeneutic (rules
of interpretation) by imposing
man's notions on the Biblical
text instead of bringing the
meaning out of the Biblical text.
If we were to apply this twisted
method of reinterpretation,
finding the objective meaning
of any Biblical text would be
impossible. If we can make a
text mean whatever we want it to
mean, the Biblical text has lost
all objective meaning-not just in
Genesis but all the way through.
There is no good reason to
compromise the
chronology of the
Bible (-4004 BC) or the creation
of the world in six calendar days.
Neither should we compromise on
the Worldwide Flood in the time of
Noah as an act of Judgment. The
perfect chronology delivered to us
by the Omniscient LORD God of
truth, could not be more reliable
than it is. When we build our
thinking on the right foundation
we wi1llearn to trust the '\lord of
God absolutely and on ANY topic
lIe has been pleased to reveal to
The Counsel of Chalcedon
us. Here is the basic question: Whom
do you trust? Is it the God of truth and
omniscience, or it is man who "goes
astray as soon as he is born"? CPs. 58:3).
Endnotes
1. Augustine, City of God, Book
15, Chapter 14. "That the Years
in Ancient Times were of the
Saute Length as Our Own."
2. We should remembeT that man
was created to LIVE FOREVER, so
sin cut theiT lives short! Death had
set in and subsequent generations
would deteriorate much sooner. Sure
enough "dying you shall die."

Practical Applicatibns from Word
for ALL Areas of Your Lifestyle
Biblical Basics
II' The foundation for a complete
Christian worfdview
II' Insights from the most noted
scholars throughout history
Making the Nations Christ's Disciples
Business & Politics
II' The debate for our future is not
liberal vs. conservative ideas. but
non-Christian vs. Christian ideas
II' Ten traits of succesSful leaders
Everyday Life
t/ Our particular calling
II' How to turn America back to God
I.flll. TtiEIiANSON GROUP LlC
... . ..... bhon,o.,@)grace,,,,,lIa,,,,corn
27