One of the stumbling blocks for people looking into Christianity has been believing that the Bible is accurate, trustworthy, and true – and one of the major difficulties for such people are the incredibly lengthy lifespans of the people listed in Genesis 5. As Christians, we simply must admit this reality. Yet very intelligent people read that same passage and do not flinch. They don’t “throw the baby out with the bathwater”, as the old saying goes.
Part 1 of this blog was written last week when we looked at six “explanations” people have made that address how to respond to the lengthy lifespans found in Genesis 5. Those six explanations do not seem rational to me and thus I encourage people to not honour them. In this week’s blog, we will explore four other explanations – ones that I find to be much more plausible. So, without further ado, we will begin with the first plausible way of reading through those huge numbers:
1. The numbers should be taken as literal. “If the Bible says it, then it must have been so” is really the approach behind a literal reading of the numbers. For some, the huge numbers are simply not an issue. So, were those lengthy lifespans for real? A straight-forward reading of the Bible answers, “yes” for there is nothing in the Biblical text here or anywhere else that suggests those numbers were not literal. Clearly, people have been reading the Bible for thousands of years without losing their faith when they come to the long lifespans recorded in Genesis 5. Many conservative Christians believe this to be so but with this understanding of what caused the long lifespans: the individuals could live so long because they were alive in an age close to the time of Creation, which means that the poisonous, decaying effects of sin had not fully taken hold in their bodies. Just prior to the Great Flood, God decreed (in Genesis 6:3) that the maximum lifespan for humans (from the Flood onwards) would be 120 years, a figure that has remained constant throughout the rest of human history, and then in Psalm 90 (a psalm attributed to Moses), that the normal lifespan of a human would be between 70 and 80, again a number which has been consistent over time. Going on now to the first of 3 other possible approaches:
2. Our understanding of the ancient texts might be limited when it comes to understanding “vowel points”. To believe in “the inerrancy of the original text” is one of the accepted “fundamentals” of conservative Christians but, because we don’t have the “original” texts (i.e. the very first Biblical texts), this has led to attempts by conservative Christian scholars to put forward theories or explanations that support the “inerrancy of the original text” doctrine while recognizing the difficulties potentially found in our understanding of the Hebrew “vowel points”. There were only consonants in ancient Hebrew; thus, no vowels. Vowel “points” were added at a later date to help readers understand how to pronounce a word. However, some of those vowel points were almost identical and a misunderstanding of which vowel point was being used produced absurdly huge numbers (which may explain the lengthy lifespans in Genesis 5). Just as ‘eight’ and ‘eighty’ differ only by a single letter in English; so in Hebrew, especially in the older style of writing, the addition of a single letter would make ‘three’ into ‘thirty,’ etc. etc. Henrietta Mears in her book, What the Bible is All About, and David Alexander and Paul Alexander, editors of Eerdmans’ Handbook to the Bible (see pages 191-192) are three such conservative writers. These scholars are not suggesting that all numbers in the Old Testament are inaccurate, or even that all the large numbers are inaccurate, but they do offer a possible explanation of the huge numbers while confirming the original text. Space doesn’t permit for a full discussion of this issue here, but feel free to do more research on your own.
3. The fact that the ten individuals named in Genesis 5 lived in Mesopotamia may have influenced the oral passing down of the lengthy lifespans. This would be because the Sumerians who lived in Mesopotamia (they were the pre-Babylonians who later lived there) also had their own accounts of Creation and the Great Flood. The lifespans of their kings were ridiculously long. The thinking may have been that the longer a person lived, the more important that person was. The “Epic of Gilgamesh” records that “In Eridu, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28,800 years. Alalgar ruled for 36,000 years. Two kings; they ruled for 64800 years. Then Eridu fell and the kingship was taken to Bad-tibira.
In Bad-tibira, Enmen-lu-ana ruled for 43,200 years. Enmen-gal-ana ruled for 28,800 years.
The divine Dumuzi, the shepherd, ruled for 36,000 years. Three kings; they ruled for 108,000 years. Then Bad-tibira fell and the kingship was taken to Larak. In Larak, En-sipad-zid-ana ruled for 28,800 years.” The proposed explanation for the lengthy lifespans for the ten individuals named in Genesis 5 was simply that the oral traditions passed down to Moses, who then put them down in writing, was simply an early attempt to compete with the Sumerians and the other Ancient Near Eastern societies who’s great “men of old” allegedly lived very long lives. If so, the lengthy lifespans found in Genesis 5 were simply a “we had great leaders, as well” mentality. Of course, there is no support, biblically or elsewhere, for this assertion but we would do well to be aware of the fact that the earliest Biblical characters lived in Sumer/Mesopotamia/later Babylon.
4. The lengthy lifespans were a product of Biblical numerology. Even a cursory reading of the Bible will reveal that certain numbers were used over and over again. For example, three is the number used for emphasis in ancient Hebrew. The first time a number was used was as a statement of fact, the second (repeated) time was as a comparative, the third (or the second repetition of the original number (was as a superlative). That God is described as “Holy, Holy, Holy” indicated that He is “holy”, “holier” than others, and the “holiest” of all. Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days, and Jesus rose from the dead in three days. Plus, the number seven was especially sacred to the Jews because of the Sabbath being the seventh day of the week. Seven thus signified wholeness, contentment, and peace. The Book of Revelation uses seven without ceasing, it seems. And, the number forty was used both literally and figuratively, it would appear, to signify a long period of time: the Great Flood lasted 40 days and 40 nights, both Moses and Jesus fasted 40 days and 40 nights, the Israelites were in the wilderness for 40 years, Jonah preached in Nineveh for 40 days, Moses’ life consisted of three 40-year periods, and Kings Saul, David, and Solomon all reigned for 40 years. So, the suggestion in this second proposed explanation of the numbers and lengthy lifespans in Genesis 5 is that they have some sort of numerological meaning. In other words, each lifespan or number has a meaning behind it. Biblical numerology has a bad reputation because too many people have abused it to come up with all sorts of “code messages” embedded in Scripture, as is seen in the convenient ability of too many to be able (they claim) to understand the day and hour of Christ’s return. So, if numerology is embedded in the huge Genesis 5 numbers, what do they mean? No one has put forward a convincing argument (at least, in my opinion) thus far, but it seems likely that there was numerological significance behind the numbers.
The lengthy lifespans of the ten individuals named in Genesis 5 are not easy to understand. What is easier to understand is that they were ten righteous men through whom, because of their righteous lives and faithfulness to God, the world would be saved and humanity restored. The Messiah, Jesus Christ, was a direct descendant of those men. Those men were in God’s plans for His salvation being offered to all, and to the Paradise of the Garden of Eden being restored in the “new heaven and new earth” mentioned in Revelation 21 and 22. So, no matter what ages those ten men lived to (and, I believe that their ages were accurately presented as there is no evidence to show otherwise) we can be thankful for them!
