Scripture Study

Cover image via Gospel Media Library.

When reading the introductory chapters of Genesis, readers can be confused by the longevity of the patriarchs. Even a casual reading suggests life before Noah’s flood was significantly longer than the typical lifespan after the flood. Yet, the modern Western reader assumes the ages and other details are chronological narratives to be taken literally. Not only does the biblical text suggest another interpretation, but the cultural context does as well. Ancient authors, including biblical writers, exaggerated numbers to convey theological concepts. Such a practice seems strange, if not deceiving, but those of the biblical world operated on a different set of cultural assumptions. More importantly, the numbers are meant to illustrate rather than narrate greater principles than simple chronology.

Recently, I heard someone assert, “Well, I just believe what the scriptures say.” Here is the problem with that statement: scriptures don’t say anything; we interpret words through the lenses of our vocabulary, authorities, culture, presuppositions, and assumptions. In other words, we read meaning into words rather than words objectively communicating meaning to us. When our Lord taught we should forgive our neighbor “until seventy times seven,” does he mean my neighbor has precisely 490 opportunities to offend me, but on the 491st offense, he’s toast? (see Matthew 18:22). When is a passage to be understood, as we say, “literally,” and when is it figurative or metaphorical? Are there other options beyond literal and figurative? How should we know?

When a teenager calls his teacher a “stud,” are we to assume the teacher is a male horse used for breeding, 2×4 support beam, or a metal earring? When my Little League baseball coach quipped, “it’s colder than a brass toilet seat in the Yukon!” did Coach Peterson have someone in Tombstone Territorial Park taking temperature measurements with a brass toilet seat in tow? When my daughter says the groceries in her hand “weigh a ton,” is she literally toting around 2,000 pounds of bread, Greek yogurt, and oatmeal? When I took my cat to the vet last week for his vaccinations, the vet said my cat was the size of a horse. Have I misjudged my feline friend, or does my cat actually weigh 1,500 pounds?

In the scriptures, one of the most common examples is the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17. Matthew recounts the family history of Jesus back to Abraham and concludes, “so all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations” (Matthew 1:17). Even a cursory reading of 1 Chronicles 3 suggests Matthew played with the numbers by either omitting or duplicating generations. When Matthew lists Boaz immediately after Salmon, it seems to modern readers Salmon was Boaz’s father, but in fact, there’s about a 300-year gap. Matthew is not simply recording the history of generations culminating in the birth of Jesus. Matthew is making a larger theological point that Jesus is the long-anticipated Messiah.

Likewise, John the Revelator tells us the beast looming over much of the wickedness in the last days has the number “Six hundred threescore and six,” or 666 (Revelation 13:17). Are we to conclude John saw the number tattooed or bar-coded on some nefarious bad guy’s forehead? What about those saved in the vision of heaven in Revelation 7? John states, “there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel” (Revelation 7:4). Taken literally, does God only intend to save a population of his children roughly the size of West Valley City, Utah? Gratefully, Doctrine and Covenants 77:11 comes to our rescue to suggest the number 144,000 is a symbolic number representing greater realities. Furthermore, 144,000 is a multiple of twelve, which carries great significance regarding priesthood authority to the ancient Israelites.

Many readers of the Bible recognize the significance of the number seven as a representation of completion, wholeness, and perfection. “In Hebrew, the word for seven is sheba’ or sheva. It derives from the root savah, which means “to be full” or “satisfied,” “to have enough of.” Such is the derivation of our English word Sabbath, which is a day of rest in which no worldly labor is to be done.”[1] The ages of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—in addition to many other significant individuals in the Old Testament—are “ideal numbers.”

Additionally, Joseph and Joshua both have strong connections to Egypt, and both die at the age of 110, which is the ideal age in Egyptian inscriptions.[2] To the Egyptians, the biblical text affirms through the ages of Joseph and Joshua that they lived a perfect, complete, and whole life. To a modern Western reader, we assume they died at the age of 110. This may or may not be true because it is likely not the author’s point. What is true is that by stipulating the age of 110, the author attests to their integrity and honor.

When the Lord revealed to Abraham he and Sarah would have a child, “Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?” (Genesis 17:17). Why would this cause such mirth if it was commonplace to have a child beyond the age of one hundred (see Genesis 5)? Moreover, according to the biblical record, Abraham’s father, Terah, was 130 years old when Abraham was born (see Genesis 11:32; 12:4). Clearly, if Abraham was one hundred and Sarah was ninety years old, there is no need for Abraham to raise a ruckus where age was concerned. Now, to be clear, the scriptures do say Abraham and Sarah were past child-bearing years, but their stated ages are not to be taken literally but as a hyperbolic statement designed to make a theological point.

 Abraham died at the age of 175. Moses then noted, “Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people” (see Genesis 25:7-8). If the ages of the patriarchs were literal as we measure time, then Abraham was not only relatively young, but he was a spring chicken. Why would he be considered “an old man, and full of years” when his patriarchal ancestors lived beyond 900 years?! Furthermore, according to the biblical narrative, Noah’s great-grandson Eber would have outlived Abraham. Put another way, Eber was Abraham’s great, great, great, great grandfather.[3] If the patriarchal ages are literal representations of a chronological timetable, then Abraham’s death was a tragedy because of the relative brevity of Abraham’s meager 175 years.

Perhaps most dramatic of all, if we were to add the patriarchs’ ages from Adam down to Moses, we would arrive at 12,600. On the surface, that may mean nothing, but the number 1,260 is frequently used as a time of probation or sacred time where God brings about his purposes. Daniel speaks of “a time and times and the dividing of time” (Daniel 7:25; 12:7), which could be expressed as three and a half. This number correlates to the apostle John’s use of the number in the book of Revelation, where two witnesses with sealing power prophesy for “a thousand two hundred and threescore days” (Revelation 11:3). Furthermore, the woman who gives birth to her child, which is a symbol for the Church giving birth to the kingdom of God, is persecuted by the great dragon for “a thousand two hundred and threescore days” or “years,” according to the Joseph Smith Translation.[4] Daniel’s prophecy of Messiah being “cut off” midway through the week correlates to three and a half days (see Daniel 9:24-27).

In the patriarchal 12,600 year narrative, we see Adam leaving the Lord’s land of Eden and the children of Israel entering back into the Lord’s earthly land of promise, which, like Eden, was a land “flowing with milk and honey.”[5] I would submit the ages are not literal chronologies but hyperbolic to teach greater theological truths. Abraham and Sarah were beyond typical child-bearing years, but we should take the stated numbers as teaching theological rather than chronological points. Moses’s age of forty years in Egypt, forty years in the wilderness, and forty years leading Israel is not stating a chronological narrative but affirming God’s hand working through Moses in the salvation of Israel (see Acts 7:23-36).

The Doctrine and Covenants witness the patriarchal lineage in the biblical narrative. The Lord revealed his authority, work, and glory first to Adam, then succeeded through each generation. Finally, “three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing” (Doctrine and Covenants 107:53, see verses 41-56). Clearly, there is a span of generations present that could never occur under current conditions and life expectancies. However, two things can be true at the same time. I would submit the numbers and ages are to be understood according to the ancient cultural context while at the same time, conditions were such that multiple generations could live and serve together. The more significant point is that the ages working in harmony with each other affirm God’s hand and direction through the generations.

To those of the ancient Near East, one way to typify God, or the gods, working through an individual, king, or pharaoh was to exaggerate numbers and years while binding historical events together with those same numbers. This is not only manifested in the biblical record but it is attested in the larger cultural context of the ancient Near East. For example, one inscription of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser I, who lived roughly around the time of the Exodus and conquest of Canaan, stated he blinded and carried off 14,400 in his capture of the Mittani. His immediate successor declared he enslaved 28,800, or precisely double what Shalmaneser accomplished. Hyperbole was part of the culture, not to mislead but to emphasize significant principles greater than the simple chronological narrative.

Clearly, the Lord works in the affairs of his children through all generations of time. The Lord takes individuals, “those who are unlearned and despised,” and threshes the nations by the power of his spirit. “Their arm shall be my arm,” the Lord said, “and I will be their shield and their buckler; and I will gird up their loins, and they shall fight manfully for me; and their enemies shall be under their feet; and I will let fall the sword in their behalf, and by the fire of mine indignation will I preserve them” (Doctrine and Covenants 35:13-14).

Lastly, the biblical authors demonstrate the typical life expectancy to be like ours. The Psalmist affirms a life span between 70-80 years (Psalms 90:10). Isaiah prophesied that one of the great blessings of the millennium is long life—a life beyond the typical 70-80 years. Isaiah wrote, “There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.” He later taught that life will be just and fruitful and “as the days of a tree are the days of my people” (Isaiah 65:20-22). It seems the duration of life during the millennial reign is the round number of 100, but the quality of life is that of the tree. I would submit the reference to the tree is an echo of Psalm 1 and other references where our lives will be like the One who is the Tree of Life.[6]

Noah’s Ark and Flood

“God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5). Does this mean every man, woman, and child only thought of killing the rube next to them? How evil is “evil” here, or is it anything past a misdemeanor? Whose standard for a misdemeanor should we use anyway? Readers assume that Genesis 7:17-24 is evidence that the flood was global rather than local when reading the flood narrative. While a casual reading does suggest this, problems quickly arise when reading the rest of the Old Testament. Remember, those of the ancient Near East frequently use hyperbolic language to emphasize vital theological concepts.

On the surface, Genesis 7 seems quite clear regarding how wide-spread and global the flood prevailed: “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered” (Genesis 7:19). Further, “all flesh died that moved upon the earth” seems quite cataclysmically final. However, in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, we find this lament, “Thou hast called as in a solemn day my terrors round about, so that in the day of the Lord’s anger none escaped nor remained: those that I have swaddled and brought up hath mine enemy consumed” (Lamentations 2:22). The passage seems final, to say the least. Except, the biblical record indicates some were carried off to Babylon while others remained in Jerusalem.

When the Lord said, “the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth” (Genesis 9:2), does that prophecy of “every beast” include my rather winsome Golden Retriever? When the Bible states, “all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth” (Genesis 41:57, ESV), are we including those living in lands now called China, New Zealand, Nauru, and those freezing their tails off in the Yukon? Again, the use of hyperbole is a method of emphasizing theological concepts for rhetorical effect. They are not to be taken literally.

We cannot pick and choose when things are literal and figurative. If you want your global flood, go for it, but you cannot use the biblical text to support the claim unless you apply the same standard everywhere else as well. The key to interpretation is what the original author meant to convey, and not our assumptions read into the text to fit our tradition. Getting at the meaning of the original authors must include literary, religious, linguistic, and historical context. While many cultures worldwide have myths, legends, and stories of a great flood, the biblical text does not necessitate a global catastrophe any more than ancient Hawaiians were seeking grain from Joseph because the Bible says “all the earth came” to buy grain from Joseph. Oh, and are we talking about the earth or people of the earth buying grain? How literally do we want to push the words?

While the flood may have been a global catastrophe and the patriarchs could have lived 900+ years, those ideas cannot be asserted or demonstrated using the biblical text. If we are to be true to the genre, intent of the authors, and cultural assumptions, we must enter into their world as best we can. The ancient Near East used numbers for dramatic effect instead of literal quantitative descriptions. Many modern contemporary readers are entirely lost in hyperbolic use of numbers, gematria, and other such practices. Therefore, when someone says, “I believe the text literally,” it misrepresents the original author’s intent because what a text meant anciently can mean something dramatically different today. Words and translations do not have meaning in and of themselves. We impute meaning to text based on our assumptions, culture, and language.

In conclusion, when reading the Old Testament, or any other scripture for that matter, Nephi’s perspective is paramount. Nephi declared, “My soul delighteth in proving unto my people the truth of the coming of Christ; for, for this end hath the law of Moses been given; and all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of him” (2 Nephi 11:4). The large numbers and array of other oddities are the product of cultures separated by hundreds and thousands of years. Many of the questions we have can be answered by looking at the entire biblical text rather than myopically interpreting passages through the lenses of modern assumptions. In all of this, God works in the affairs of his children. The Old Testament is another witness that Jesus Christ “was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New,” and continues the ongoing work of restoration today.[7]

[1] Patrick D. Degn and David S. Christensen, Types and Shadows of the Old Testament: Jesus Christ and the Great Plan of Happiness, 36.

[2] As an example, the Stele of Amenhotep III; see Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 351; Nahum Sarna, Understanding Genesis, 84-85.

[3] See Genesis 10:24, 11:14-19; 1 Chronicles 11:18.

[4] Revelation 12:6; JST, Revelation 12:5. Relative to the symbolism of the woman and the child, the JST states, “And the dragon prevailed not against Michael, neither the child, nor the woman which was the church of God, who had been delivered of her pains, and brought forth the kingdom of our God and his Christ” (JST, Revelation 12:7).

[5] See Exodus 3:8; Numbers 14:8; Deuteronomy 31:20; Ezekiel 20:15.

[6] See Isaiah 61:1-3; Revelation 2:7; 1 Nephi 11:25; Alma 5:34, 62; 32:4-43.

[7] The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.