Now, it’s clear that Matthew regards Jesus’ descent from David as being not only genuine but also a very important point. And he traces Jesus descent from Adam, on to David, and on to Joseph.

I have studied the genealogies of the Bible with a very serious attitude. I’ve compared Genesis and the other books of the Old Testament against the New Testament accounts in Matthew and Luke, going even so far as exact detailed comparisons of the spelling of Hebrew names in the NT, the differences of ages in different manuscript traditions, the name “Cainan” in Luke, etc. etc.

And so I have absolutely no excuse for writing that about Matthew, except perhaps that in my desire to summarize and show my thinking in broad brushstrokes I somehow fused both genealogies. Although I won’t change the text of the main body of the post because it strikes me as dishonest, I will most definitely add a small note toward the beginning of the article acknowledging the problem and your correction.

Regardless of what you’re viewpoints on the Bible might be (and I have no idea what they are, only that you’re more familiar than most with N.T. genealogies), your quibbles are always welcome on this blog.

Thanks,
Mitchell.

The reason I only call this a minor quibble is because Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3), while different, does go back through David, Abraham, Noah, Adam, and then to God.

Thanks for this excellent and very well reasoned article.

Grace & peace,
Derek Ashton

I would never think of Genesis 1-11 as a starting point for Christian pacifism, but it does seem like everything traces back to Genesis one way or another, and so it makes sense that a history of Christian pacifism would too. I’d be interested to buy a copy of your book when it gets out. If you could let me know when it becomes available, I’d be greatful. And although I won’t promise anything one way or another, I think I’d like to review it on my blog too.

Christian pacifism is just an issue I don’t know how to approach. I’ve heard inteligent arguments for the “Just War” concept, and I’ve also heard inteligent arguments for the idea that Christians must never engage in any sort of violence at all. Practically, I’ve adopted a non-violent approach myself, but I don’t know if I would or should in all ocassions.

Now, if I took a naturalistic method of thinking about Genesis, the coincidences between the Cain-line and Seth-line would be enought to prove that someone invented the genealogy. But because I believe in a God who acts through history, coincidences in history can also be attributed to providence, and so they don’t at all prove made-up-ness. So it’s hard to say exactly how one would go about proving or disproving historicity.

So that all being said, I basically believe the OT history is history in the common sense of history because it looks that way and because claims about the truth of Jesus seem to hinge upon a fact-based view of OT history. But do I have a watertight case worked out at this point? Definitely not.

It’s definitely crucial for us to avoid straw man arguments. After all, the snake was the first one to use that trick in Genesis 3.

I must admit that I gained a good amount of insight from Victor Hamilton’s Handbook on the Pentateuch when it comes to comparing the two genealogies. I can’t take credit for most of the comparisons we just drew.

This may be a bit off-topic, but I’m actually working on a book on Christian pacifism at the moment, and the first chapter is dedicated to a very thorough analysis of Genesis 1-11. That’s usually not anyone’s starting point, is it? My thinking is that by starting there, I can make a case for a proper view of God as sovereign. Plus, a layperson reading it will soon get rid of the notion that pacifists skip over little details like God flooding the world, etc.

Anyways, I brought that up simply to say that I’ve been very into Genesis 1-11 lately, so this post really caught my interest (I followed Jeff’s link here). I also mentioned it because the strong contrast between Cain’s line and Seth’s line will be a theme in my book.

So, I will say that I personally don’t bother with a creation-ID-(theistic) evolution debate — whatever happened, God did it, and we know God is good. However, this related issue of historicity in the Bible is always fascinating to me for its own sake (and its impact on pacifist interpretation).

Thank you for mentioning that about Sarah — I didn’t know she was the only woman given an age. That’s definitely noteworthy.

OK, now back on topic: just as I remain undeclared about creation-evolution, I also remain undeclared about the history of Genesis overall. It’s clear to me that history is not the primary focus, and certainly not history for its own sake. The fact that the text omits details to make literary points makes it clear to me that history is not the major focus. The question remains, though: are the included details historical or not?

I’m excited to explore this question with you! I hope that others will join in this discussion, too.

I’m always up for discussing genealogies. They remain for me one of the interesting puzzles of scripture, because I start to wonder sometimes why we even bother with genealogies in the Bible. But if we take the Bible as God’s word for us, they also are useful in some sort of way.

About your five points:

1-2. I hadn’t realized that Cain’s father is not mentioned in his genealogy. And there you make sense. That’s a great bit of insight, and it’s a hidden note about how seriously God takes disobedience.

3. I had thought before that there were similarities, but I never bothered to sit down and check them. Let’s see, there’s Qayin/Kenan, Enoch/Enoch, Iyrad/Yered, Mehuyael/Mahalalel, Methusha’el/Methushelah, Lamek/Lamek. That’s something else. That would also mean Seth’s bonus generations are Adam, Seth, Enosh, Noah, etc. Also interesting.

4. I definitely agree with you on the significance of ages being given. Note, also, that Sarah is the only woman given an age in the Bible, which is a great honor for her.

5. As to the Enochs, that’s awesome. I never thought of the Enochs as a lessen in the contrast between being materially-focus and spiritually-focused. It reminds me of how we can’t serve both God and Mammon.

So in conclusion, I definitely agree that genealogies are meaningful story devices. But I wouldn’t agree with you that they are not fully historical. I’d contend that they are both, although I could be wrong about that.

But I think one important thing to note is that both those who take a historical view of the Genesis genealogies, and those of us who don’t can both look at the spiritual significance of the genealogies–and this is something that I think is too often missing in the discussions of Genesis. The Young-Earther’s think the Old-Earthers are just throwing away God’s word on the one hand, and the Old-Earther’s think the Young-Earther’s are throwing away all the literary and metaphorical messages in the book.

And it’s this narrow insistence by both sides on the spiritual ignorance of the other side that seems to be a greater stumbling-block than disagreement over the historical significance of the book.

First, I’d like for us to discuss genealogies a bit, if you’re up for it. From what I can see in Genesis 1-11, genealogies play a very important role. Yet, they are not fully historical. Take a look at Cain’s genealogy in ch 4 for a moment and compare it to Seth’s. Several fascinating things to compare:
1. Cain, genealogically speaking, has no father (because he’s been disowned)
2. Seth’s genealogy has a foreword that God made Adam, and that Seth is in Adam’s image. The implication is that Cain is no longer in Adam’s image.
3. Every name in Cain’s line has a counterpart with either the same name or a similar name in Seth’s line (and Seth gets BONUS generations).
4. Nobody cared to note how long someone in Cain’s line lived or when they died — which is a dishonor. Not recording death is like not burying someone.
5. Cain’s Enoch found immortality through civilization, having a city named after him. Seth’s Enoch gained immortality through walking with God.
… and other cool features.

The point I’d like to make is that in Scripture, genealogies don’t just record time or history. They actually contribute to the story. The difference between Seth’s line, who called on the name of the Lord, and Cain’s line, who did not, is played out through the genealogies as well as the flood story. Whereas the greatness of Cain’s line ends with the rise of secular society and Lamech’s arrogant statement, Seth’s lineage ends with Lamech’s prophetic statement — but wait — no, that’s not the end. Seth’s lineage goes beyond Lamech.

So, in short: I believe the genealogies are storytelling devices that contribute to the story in a meaningful way different from straightforward history. The information recorded, the information omitted, and the wording all relate to making some point. The conscious omission of the deaths of Cain’s line indicates that historical details can be suppressed to make a literary point, and so I contend that the Bible is literature first and foremost.

I look forward to your response!

–Gary