Numbers play a significant literary role throughout the Bible, so it makes sense that they would find their way into Genealogies. If we can make an argument that not all numbers in the Bible have to be literal, then it is possible to make the same argument for numbers within Genealogies. There are several avenues that numbers can appear within this discussion: Ages of individuals, numbers of children, and numbers of generations.
Of the three, the numbers of Generations appears to be the most malleable of all the number sets. Both Matthew and Luke use this to their advantage in their genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1:1). Matthew uses three sets of fourteen in the same way that one might use literal numbers. Yet it can be shown from the OT that Matthew clearly and quite intentionally skipped several generations.[2] He uses the number fourteen to accomplish a literary end. This end has few other connections except to the Hebrew designation for 14: which has the same letters as “David.”[3] Luke adds two names that are not found in the Jewish record in order to arrive at the number 77. Jesus is the 77th generation (from Adam if you include Joseph or from God if you exclude Joseph). The same types of patterns can be seen in the Genealogies preceding the flood as well as post Exodus. There are seven generations from Adam to Lamech through Cain, and seven generations from Seth to Lamach of Methuselah. There are eleven generations before the flood and eleven generations after the flood. There are also seven generations from Abram to the Exodus generation (in general). More on this topic is dealt with in a skipping generations discussion. The reason the authors choose these numbers is to drive home their point. Matthew’s point is that Jesus is the perfect successor of David. Luke’s point is that Jesus is the perfect human being both God and man. The points around the Genesis generations (the number 7) probably indicates God’s divine guidance of the events and nations (see Acts 17:26; Eph 3:15).
This leaves Ages and Family numbers as the two next most used number sets in genealogies. Although we would like to think that Family numbers are concrete or absolute figures, it can also be shown that they can be lucid or at least up to interpretation. To establish the principle, we shall note the children of Judah. 1 Chronicles 2:3-4 says that the “sons of Judah were five,” and lists them as: Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez, Terah. Later in chapter 4:1 it says the “sons of Judah were Perez, Hezron, Carmi, Hur, and Shobal.” Although five are listed in each, only one name is consistent. Upon investigation we see that the sons listed in chapter four are in consecutive order by generation, whereas chapter two lists a single generation. This principle applies to numbers in the case of the sons of Israel and their sons. In Genesis 46 when listing the numbers who went into Egypt, verses 15, 18, 22, and 25 all compress the sons and their sons into one number set that is applied to each wife. For instance, “These were the sons of Leah… all the persons, his sons and daughters: 33.” Yet even in that account there are no daughters mentioned, nor wives counted. The point is that even numbers of children can include or exclude persons as the author sees fit in order to accomplish his goal. There is no biblical discrepancy about this.
Lastly comes Ages within genealogies. This is limited to Genesis 5 and 11. No other Genealogy list uses ages like these two passages. In the recounting of names in 1 Chron, it does not even repeat the ages, even though it is using Genesis as a pattern. There is something specific, then, to the context of Genesis 5 and 11 that the author thought was worthy of ages. Since the other examples of numbers within genealogies have been shown as not always literal (not be confused with un-real), it is worth considering the possibility that numbers in Gen 5 and 11 could have alternative meanings also. The overall point of the passage is that: Time passes, and Mankind dies due to sin. There is very little correlation we can find to why the numbers are what they are. They follow no apparent pattern one to another,[4] and they are not rounded to any significant number set. When we look of figurative numbers we usually look for patterns and rounded figures. Since the author does not identify nor make a big deal out of the numbers, we should be hesitant to invent that motive for them. The easiest explanation from a literary standpoint is that they represent the accurate ages of the individuals, which are made important by the longevity of the lives yet their unavoidable death, save Enoch who lived the shortest of all.[5]
The argument for these numbers being figurative is based purely on historical grounds. Many historians severely doubt that the times would match with what we find in archeology and historical time frames (not to mention the scientific feat of living that long). The biggest discrepancy is the total time frame. When counted there is roughly one thousand years before the flood, and a thousand years after the flood to get to Abraham. This post flood timeframe leaves the entire eastern civilization only a thousand years to develop before Abraham encounters entire nations.[6] Egypt, being one of archeologist’s prize civilizations, appears to have history that far preexists this timeframe. Yet no scholar who holds to modern historical methods can adequately explain the ages presented in Genesis. Therefore until further historical evidence is found, I conclude that what Genesis indicates is accurate to it’s intended meaning.
I would suggest that using Genesis 5 and 11 for dating the earth is flawed due to context. The purpose of the author is not to date the world. With what we know about the selective nature of the authors toward history, I would assume that the author of Genesis 5 and 11 is not intending to give a full history report. The numbers in Genesis indicate ages, and I argue that these numbers themselves are accurate. Our understanding of how to fit them together I believe takes another study (see articles on Genesis 11 Chronology) This does not mean there can be no other explanation as to how our perception of history fits with this mold. But any time man’s knowledge is pitted against scripture, there is no question which side I will choose.
True history coincides with the Biblical narrative. Our understanding of both sides is growing. We should feel free to re-interpret History based on scripture and understand scripture in light of History. Concerning numbers within Genealogies we must treat them like numbers in the rest of scripture: when there are patterns and rounded numbers we should look for figurative meanings; when there is no pattern or rhyme to the number we simply take it for what it is.
[1] Matthew 1:1
[2] compare Matthew 1:8 to 2 Kings 8:16, 24; 11:2; 12:1; 14:1, 21; 15:7
[3] דוד = 4+6+4= 14. There is no connection to the answer to the universe: 42 as proposed in pop-culture, even though that is the number of generations
[4] Some argue that there is a remarkable correlation between the age of the father at birth and the age of the same father at death, subtracting the abnormal numbers like Noah and Enoch.
[5] Genesis 5:24
[6] This is actually feasible at the rate of population growth expected by God and culture. No mention of size of nations is made in the text. We would expect a significant number from the story of Babel, however. If each generation had ten children each at average beginning with 10 couples the generation after the flood, then by ten generations later you could theoretically have as many as 200 million people. At half that rate of growth to allow for death and gender you would have near 200 thousand, more than enough for empires and nations during the days of Abram.