Problems
Inside the Bible: Long Lifespans
First, the statement that “Abraham
breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man and full of years”
(Gen 25:8, NIV) is clearly false if the ages of his ancestors are literal
numerical values. If the pre-Abrahamic ages are assumed to be a gapless
chronology, then all of Abraham’s post-flood ancestors were his contemporaries
and four of them—Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, and Eber—were still alive when Abraham
entered Canaan, with Eber and Shem outliving him (Gen 11:10-32). Yet the text
treats these men as respected ancestors, not contemporaries. There is no hint
that these men were living at the same time as Abraham, and the narrative would
not make sense if they were. Why would God choose Abraham to be the father of
the Hebrews if their namesake—Eber—were still alive? Abraham is the first man
in Scripture who is called an old man and is said to have lived a full life,
but, how can that be when he lived a much shorter life than his ancestors?
The concordist solution for this
dilemma is to posit that the genealogies are “open” rather than “closed.” But
this does not solve the problem. Abraham’s paltry lifespan of 175 cannot be
described as “a good old age . . . full of years.” It pales in comparison with
Shem (600), Eber (464), Methuselah (969), Noah (950) and even the relative
youngers Enoch (365), or Terah (205). If those ages were intended as numerical values,
whether there are gaps in the genealogies or not, Abraham did not die an old
man, he was a mere youth.
Second, Abraham’s disbelieving
laughter at the possibility of fathering a child at 100 year old (Gen 17:15-19)
clearly indicates that he did not believe his ancestors fathered children at
130 (Adam and Terah), 187 (Methuselah), or 500 years old (Noah). Sarah also
laughed at the propsect of bearing a child when she was ninety (Gen 18:9-15).
Jeremy Sexton says, “Abraham’s laughter, whatever it means, does not imply that
100 years old was an unusual age for a man to have children” (“Who Was Born
when Enoch was 90?: A Semitic Reevaluation of William Henry Green’s Chronological
Gaps,” Westminster Theological Journal 77 [2015], 217). However, that is
exactly what the text not only implies but explicitly states. Abraham’s
incredulous questions are, “Shall a child be born to a man who is one hundred
years old? And shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a
child?” (Gen 17:17). Similarly, the narrator spells it out by saying, “Now
Abraham and Sarah were old, well advanced in age; and Sarah had passed
the age of childbearing”( Gen 18:11). Sarah’s disbelief is reflected in her
reference to both herself and her husband being old (Gen 18:12). Even
Yahweh’s response assumes that it is impossible for someone so old to
bear a child (Gen 18:13-14).
The major point in the passage is
that Isaac’s conception and birth was a miracle, not a normal occurrence. Yet
the face value reading of the patriarchal ages seem to remove the miraculous
element from Isaac’s birth. (Craig Olson, “How
Old was Father Abraham? Re-examining the Patriarchal Lifespans in Light of
Archaeology,” pp. 11-13. Part 2 of this article can be found here)
Further Reading
Ben
Stanhope on the Ages of the Patriarchs in Genesis