Gaps within genealogies is one of the more practical studies among genealogical discussions. The principles in this study affect many other topics. Many references to this topic have already been made in these articles without much specific identification. Let us first define our terms and boundaries. By “gaps” I mean simply that there are missing names in the genealogies that would be present in literal documentation. I do not imply that names are dropped due to inaccuracy, spite, or negligence. We will look at examples in the Biblical text that give us reason to believe that Gaps are part of the acceptable format for genealogies.
Some biblical genealogies intend to be compressed lists of family names. One example of this is the end of Genesis where the names of Israel’s family is given before entering Egypt.[1] Each of Israel’s sons were designated by their mothers. The sons of those sons (grandchildren) are included as children of the first generation. This cultural family connection still exists somewhat today. Our own attachment to former generations grows weaker as we become less familiar with the identity of the persons. The same heritage pride that exists among royals in recent ages existed among Israelites. This shouldn’t surprise us if we believe that man’s life span at one time extended hundreds of years.[2] At the founding of mankind, each generation was known to several successive generations at once. The attachment to the previous generations was more personal and long lasting. God uses this principle in proclaiming the curse to the serpent. He uses the term “seed” to refer to future generations that still have personal connection to the predecessor.[3] It set up the principle that man’s sons extend past one generation and include a number (if not all) the successive generations.
Outside of genealogies, the concept of Sonship impacts the gap mentality. To see a full review of this subject, please read again the first two articles about Genealogy Apologetics. The gist of this argument shows that “sons” include those who retain the same identity as their forerunners. This identity is not impacted at all by distance of years or generations. Action and mentality are included as legitimate means of obtaining sonship. While this view of sonship overflows into the era of Christ, the Jews applied it differently. Jesus informs us that we are sons by nature of whom we follow. The Jews tended to think that biological sonship dictated action (see Ezekiel 18). The context of most if not all biblical genealogies is biological in nature.
Matthew 1:1 portrays a perfect example of a condensed genealogy. Some may say that Matthew 1:1 does not characterize other genealogies. Yet I would argue that the principle does transfer based on Sonship. A similar example is in 1 Chronicles 4:1. There, the author lists successive generations as a template where in other places he spells out specifics. There should be no problem in accepting sonship that skips generations. The problem lies in our terminology. We use “son” and “grandson” and “great –grandson” when they did not. They would describe all those terms as “son.” We also see terms like “begat” or “birthed” and think this must apply to single physical generations. At times we forget that the term “begat” is figurative because the men do not birth, the women do. “Begat” must then be looked at within a genealogical context.[4]
Understanding that Gaps are possible does not address the issue of application. At what point can we claim a genealogical gap, and at what point does it become a “catch-all” argument? One obvious marker is stated or implied time frames. When the children of Israel move to Egypt they are there long enough to grow from 70 to minimum 600,000. Exodus 1 does emphasize the rapid growth rate, however this does not happen over three generations as Exodus 6 would imply. An average of 12 sons per person (forgetting couples, which would imply 24 children per couple) for three generations only allows for 120,000 people. Gaps cannot determine dates and times, however. A generation could extend anywhere between 20 and 100 years (more closer to the time of the flood).
For the generations of Egyptian slavery we find the study of numbers to be the driving force. God promised to Abram that by the fourth generation the nation would be freed from Egypt (Gen 15:13, 16). Four generations covers 400 years in this text. We must remember that while some families may have children starting at 20 years old, they may continue having children through 100 years. In this way one generation may cover the same amount of time as four. The Genealogists consistently report four generations between the tribal patriarchs and the individuals leaving Egypt. Generations and gaps are unable to determine time frames. The unknown cannot accurately fashion a proper time table. It can help supplement boundaries of plausibility. The gaps argument is not intended to be a catch-all answer, but it does emphasize that the unknown should not be over or under estimated.
Gaps and Names can often be mistaken for each other. One will have difficulty determining if the persons under consideration are the same with different names, different with the same names, or separated by generations. We must first consider: is it contextually plausible for the persons to coincide as the text (all the texts!) would first imply? Preference must first be given to the apparent meaning of the text. It is highly doubtful that any author of scripture intended mystic interpretation of their Genealogies. Most misunderstandings we have is located in cultural expectations. Next, other passages must be considered. If a discrepancy exists in either time or name, the next question is: Is a generational gap plausible in the context of another passage? In the event that one passage necessitates interaction between persons, the other passage may provide a gap. When both passages possibly use gaps, there is no theological reason to worry about the difference.
When several names are given in a genealogy where a gap must occur, one may need to determine in which generation the gap occurs. In the lack of information, I have personally made the judgment that the first forefather(s) mentioned is/are the nearest generations and the last forefather may jump back a ways if the passage requires. For example, in 1 Chron 9:4, there are 6 generations between the Judah patriarch and the return from exile nearly a thousand years later. The text itself helps lay out a pattern by listing four generations then saying “from the sons of” Perez and Judah. Perez is a well established direct son of Judah. The first generations are most likely the first four direct generations from the man Uthai, before it skips to Perez. I use this pattern even when the text does not supply the obvious clues.
Gaps must be accepted as legitimate means of recording accurate history. The question lies in when to apply this argument. An ill use of gaps would oppose the natural reading of the text without further evidence. Personal preference cannot be the guide; historical data must be guide. A proper use of the Gap argument would be to resolve two passages that are not mutually exclusive of each other, or a single passage that implies a timetable.
[1] Genesis 46
[2] This discussion does not intend to make specific comments on the Genesis 5 and 11. Longer life spans recorded in Genesis 5 and 11.
[3] Genesis 3:15
[4] Matthew clearly skips three generations of kings and still uses “begat.”