Ancient Patriarchs in Genesis

Ancient Patriarchs in Genesis

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, April 3, 2025 (Donate)

Imagine the possible headlines of long ago:

“Methuselah and Adam have long talk”
“Noah outlives great, great, great grandson Peleg”
“Shem and Abraham go fishing”

Many people are unfamiliar with the historical figures in Genesis. It is sometimes difficult to believe that people lived such long lives, too—although they did. There is much to learn from these patriarchs (an early father of the human race).

In heaven our lives will overlap for eternity! Even in the original creation, God designed man to live forever, but due to sin and the Fall in Genesis 3, man was sentenced to death—to return to dust. It is appointed for man to live once and then die and face judgment. It is for this reason that we need a Savior in Jesus Christ to save us from death.

Even Moses was a young pup compared to these ancient patriarchs in Genesis; 

Picture by Bodie Hodge

What we live today though, is miniscule compared to the great ages of the ancient patriarchs in Genesis.

The Great Ages

Many of the ancient people listed in the Bible’s genealogies lived very long lives. Methuselah holds the title of oldest-known man who died at 969 years old (interestingly his father Enoch outlived him and has still not tasted death!). After Methuselah died, the Flood came.

After the Flood, we see the ages of these men declining. For example, Noah lived to be 950 years old, Shem to 600, Shelah to 433, and Abraham to 175.

	Patriarch	Age	Bible reference
1	Adam	930	Genesis 5:4
2	Seth	912	Genesis 5:8
3	Enosh	905	Genesis 5:11
4	Cainan	910	Genesis 5:14
5	Mahalalel	895	Genesis 5:17
6	Jared	962	Genesis 5:20
7	Enoch	365 (translated)	Genesis 5:23
8	Methuselah	969	Genesis 5:27
9	Lamech	777	Genesis 5:31
10	Noah	950	Genesis 9:29
11	Shem	600	Genesis 11:10–11
12	Arphaxad	438	Genesis 11:12–13
13	Shelah	433	Genesis 11:14–15
14	Eber	464	Genesis 11:16–17
15	Peleg	239	Genesis 11:18–19
16	Reu	239	Genesis 11:20–21
17	Serug	230	Genesis 11:22–23
18	Nahor	148	Genesis 11:24–25
19	Terah	205	Genesis 11:32
20	Abram (Abraham)	175	Genesis 25:7
21	Isaac	180	Genesis 35:28–29
22	Jacob (Israel)	147	Genesis 47:28
23	Joseph	110	Genesis 50:22, 26

Table 1. Ages of the Patriarchs from Adam to Joseph

Until the Flood (Noah’s day), living to about 900 years old was the norm . . . unless you were Enoch or Lamech. Like Elijah, Enoch was translated without dying (Genesis 5:23; Hebrews 11:5). Noah’s father Lamech, it seems, was a bit unusual by being about a quarter of a century away from making 800.

Lamech and Shem were the only two listed as being born before the Flood that didn’t reach 800. We simply do not know how old Japheth or Ham lived—it could have been about the same as Shem or they could have still lived upwards of 900! We simply do not know.

The Overlaps

Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine that Abraham could have spoken to Shem (Noah’s son), who surely talked to his great-grandfather Methuselah, who in turn could have spoken to Adam, the first man, directly. Although the Bible never records that Adam and Methuselah or Abraham and Shem met, that possibility is likely. Consider the other patriarchs that could have talked to one another:

Table 2. Patriarchs from Adam to Israel (Jacob)

Everyone today shares the same lineage from Adam to Noah, since only Noah’s family survived the Flood. After the Flood, Noah’s three sons and wives populated the earth. Noah had three sons: Japheth, Shem, and Ham (Genesis 9:24, 10:21).

The list of men in the table above record Shem’s line to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who is also called Israel. Israel had twelve sons, and through his son Judah, the Bible traces the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Luke 3:23–38). The book of Genesis ends with the death of Joseph at 110 years old, one of Israel’s others sons.

Extra-biblical Support

Other ancient cultures have legendary periods or ancient kings lists that support the vast ages of the patriarchs. For example, the Sumerian kings list has eight kings whose lives span a great period of time. Then, accordingly, the Flood came. Removing Enoch, who was translated, and Noah, who survived the Flood, these eight could easily “match up” with remaining pre-Flood patriarchs.[1]

Greek myths point to the patriarchs as well, equating Zeus and Hera as deified corruptions of Adam and Eve.[2] The Chinese also have a legendary period with various rulers. Some researchers have said:

“Could it be that the Legendary Period recalls a time when the ancestors of China’s first dynasties were indeed kin to Noah’s descendants before the great dispersion of mankind over the earth? 

Since all peoples of earth are descended from Noah or his sons, the early Chinese ancestors were likely contemporaries of Noah, who lived 350 years after the flood (Genesis 9:28). Therefore, information could have been passed to them by word-of-mouth, even Noah himself. He in turn, obtained historical data from his father Lamech, who was 56 years old when Adam died. 

Thus, all the details of creation and life before the flood could have been passed to the Chinese from Adam with only two intermediaries, Lamech and Noah.”[3]

Such recollections support the idea that information passed from Noah to his descendants who then spread across the globe. (though other accounts were prone to corruption).

Are There Gaps?

The genealogies are very specific in giving the age of the father when the son is born.[4] However, in some translations of the Bible in Luke 3:36, there seems to be an extra Cainan. Because of this, some have proposed that there may be gaps in the genealogies. However, one needs to understand this specific instance better. Expositor Dr. John Gill points out:

“This Cainan is not mentioned by Moses in #Ge 11:12 nor has he ever appeared in any Hebrew copy of the Old Testament, nor in the Samaritan version, nor in the Targum; nor is he mentioned by Josephus, nor in #1Ch 1:24 where the genealogy is repeated; nor is it in Beza’s most ancient Greek copy of Luke: it indeed stands in the present copies of the Septuagint, but was not originally there; and therefore could not be taken by Luke from thence, but seems to be owing to some early negligent transcriber of Luke’s Gospel, and since put into the Septuagint to give it authority: I say “early,” because it is in many Greek copies, and in the Vulgate Latin, and all the Oriental versions, even in the Syriac, the oldest of them; but ought not to stand neither in the text, nor in any version: for certain it is, there never was such a Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, for Salah was his son; and with him the next words should be connected. . . .”[5]

This appears to have been one of a few copyist mistakes that have crept into the manuscripts after Luke wrote the original, inspired manuscript.[6] Others have pointed out how this error could have occurred rather easily.[7] There is no legitimate reason to introduce gaps into the genealogies—other than the desire to extend the dates based on extra-biblical ideas.

Conclusion

The book of Genesis spans nearly one-third of world history, but sadly in today’s church, much of it is overlooked. Perhaps if we realized the heritage that each of us have from these ancient patriarchs, we would gain a better understanding of where we came from and where we are going. Romans 4:3, NKJV, says:

For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

Surely, there is much to learn from our ancestors.

Updated from: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/ancient-patriarchs-in-genesis/; Reprinted with Permission

Footnotes

1. Raúl Erlando López, “The Antediluvian Patriarchs and the Sumerian King List,” TJ 12 no. 3 (1998):347–357.
2. Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr., “Athena and Eve,” TJ 17 no. 3 (2003):85–92.
3. Ethel Nelson, Richard Broadberry, and Ginger Chock, God’s Promise to the Chinese (Dunlap, Tennessee: Read Books Publisher, 1997), p. 118.
4. See also Ken Ham, gen. ed., The New Answers Book 2 (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2008), pp. 173–182.
5. Dr. John Gill, Commentary notes on Genesis 3:36, adapted from the Online Bible.
6. Copyist mistakes do not affect inspiration or inerrancy. It is the original manuscripts that were inerrant, and as fallible copyists made mistakes these things can be traced via textual criticism to preserve the text. Please see the following article for a more complete explanation by Dr. Ron Rhodes: “Manuscript Support for the Bible’s Reliability.”
7. Ken Ham, gen. ed., The New Answers Book 2 (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2008), pp. 296–297.

 

---

[1] Raúl Erlando López, “The Antediluvian Patriarchs and the Sumerian King List,” TJ 12 no. 3 (1998):347–357.

[2] Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr., “Athena and Eve,” TJ 17 no. 3 (2003):85–92.

[3] Ethel Nelson, Richard Broadberry, and Ginger Chock, God’s Promise to the Chinese (Dunlap, Tennessee: Read Books Publisher, 1997), p. 118.

[4] See also Ken Ham, gen. ed., The New Answers Book 2 (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2008), pp. 173–182.

[5] Dr. John Gill, Commentary notes on Genesis 3:36, adapted from the Online Bible.

[6] Copyist mistakes do not affect inspiration or inerrancy. It is the original manuscripts that were inerrant, and as fallible copyists made mistakes these things can be traced via textual criticism to preserve the text. Please see the following article for a more complete explanation by Dr. Ron Rhodes: “Manuscript Support for the Bible’s Reliability.”

[7] Ken Ham, gen. ed., The New Answers Book 2 (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2008), pp. 296–297.

Images of Jesus

 

Did Jesus Look Like The Pictures We Often See?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, August 20, 2020 (Donate)

Introduction

In our culture and cultures around the world, images of Jesus abound. What did Jesus look like—in other words, are the images we often see remotely close to what Jesus may have looked like when He became a man?

As one who rarely, if ever, uses images of Christ in my writing and speaking, I can’t write this without utilizing images of Jesus both present and past. The reason is simply that I have little choice but to show images when discussing this very delicate topic of “images of Christ”. Please don’t worship these images, but worship God in heaven in spirit and in truth. But I ask for a little grace on this since I am trying to educate readers on this subject.

Jesus from the Old Testament to the Cross

In the Old Testament book of Isaiah, Jesus, the “Anointed One” or Messiah/Mashiach (e.g., Daniel 9:26; “Christ” in Greek), is prophetically described. In His humanity, He was apparently not given to any attractive or beautiful form that we should look to Him. He had no noble rank or majesty by which would we would desire Him.  

For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. (Isaiah 53:2-3, NASB) 

This should automatically be a red flag to the many movies and images of Jesus that have him have a great looking gent! He was likely an ordinary looking man with ordinary form and average, yet modest, clothes for ancient Israel.  

Naturally, Christ was marred and disfigured beyond human recognition at the Cross (Isaiah 52:14). After staying up all night praying, sweating blood in anguish, being tried by the Romans and Jews back and forth all night and then finally undergoing a beating by Roman soldiers, much of His fleshly form was destroyed. 

The Jews would administer no more than 40 lashes minus 1 in keeping with the Law. However, Roman did not honor the Law of Moses and beat Jesus until they felt like stopping. Jesus likely endured far more than the Old Testament limitations. After lashes and striking, with skin torn, blood, and mangled muscle and flesh, the ordinary body of Jesus was clearly broken for us—though no bones were broken (e.g., Psalm 34:20, John 19:36).  

Images of Jesus Influenced by Locale

When I look at images of Jesus in Ethiopia, Jesus looks like an Ethiopian—very dark skin for example. When I look at Jesus in England, He looks like an Englishman—fair skin for example. [Editor: I encourage internet searches to see these types of variations].  Interestingly though, I usually see certain commonalities though—with exceptions of course. 

The point I’m making is that most people want to picture Jesus like what they see in their local culture. In the past, cultures  were usually rather isolated from cultures in other distant parts of the world. Naturally, there were exceptions here too. 

For instance, nations that that bordered or were near in proximity to one another were often familiar with each other’s ways, styles, looks, food, and so on. But disconnected cultures were less so. In other words, in the AD 900s, Ethiopians were largely unfamiliar with the cultural goings-on in England and the English were largely disconnected with the cultural goings-on in Ethiopia.  

In the late AD 1800s and early 1900s, as news and magazines began allowing cultures to peer into each other’s societies around the world, things began to change. With the advent of the internet, information about cultures the world over began to be instant. In the grand scheme of history, information at our fingertips is a relatively recent luxury we have. 

But centuries and millennia ago this wasn’t the situation. Artists who pictured Jesus were limited to the people around them as well as previous images of Jesus that they had seen and had passed down to them. This is why many images of Jesus in various parts of the world resemble peoples in their local regions. So I don’t fault the artists attempted renderings of Christ even though they are tainted with the local flavor. It was really most of what they had to go on.    

In fact, I believe there are certain things we can learn from these images from around the world that may be more surprising than you might think.   

Jesus Hair

Was Jesus hair shaggy  and “short”? First, in accordance with the Law, the hair was to be kept kempt—orderly and in nice form. Jesus’ hair was not to be hanging loose since He was anointed—only lepers were to have their hair hanging out or unkempt as a sign to avoid them (e.g., Leviticus 10:6, 13:45, 21:10). 

When someone ministered inside the gate of the Temple (inner court) they were to wear turbans when men were ministering generally; they were forbidden to have their head shaved nor could they have long hair (by a female standard) but in the middle (per Ezekiel 44:20). Leviticus 19:27 indicates that men were not to cut the hair on the sides of their head and nor clip the edges of the beard. So Jesus, who fulfilled the law perfected abided by this. 

Though today we have a different standard of long hair and short hair since the Civil War and WWI began redefining long and short hair on men due to very short hair-cutting due to trench and military warfare. Typically long hair, for example on a woman, was extended down her middle back and longer as a covering, where a short hair would include shoulder length or even a little longer. 

Men with shoulder-length+ hair was not good in war trenches or other undesirable conditions due to disease, rats, lice, and fleas—unclean conditions. So they started cutting it even shorter and that has become the norm over the past 150 years. But we need to be careful of applying our modern cultural norms to what long and short hair were in Christ’s day. In years past, a man with short hair could have hair that was shoulder length.    

A Nazarite, who took a vow to God, was to grow their hair very long and this distinguished those men in vow (Numbers 6:18). But it was to be cut at the end of the vow as an offering—Paul once did this (Acts 18:18). 

The point is that Jesus’ hair should have been kempt instead of wild looking—most Jesus images have Jesus’ hair well-groomed and combed/brushed. I’ll credit them on this. Other images of Jesus fall short of this. Although I am forgiving on this issue, I would rather see the hair of Christ more kempt than this: 

The hair above is more of a leper’s hair. Interestingly, this style of hair is actually considered a “cool” hair style in the late 1990’s through the 2020’s. This image was also done in the United States by an artist of European descent. Notice how this particular image also looks like a person of European descent. So you can see how local and contemporary hairstyles and physical features still dominate how artists view Christ—even in our modern culture. Sadly as a taste, artists are making Christ in our image instead of following biblical guidelines. 

Early Images of Jesus

If we jump to early images of Jesus and James, perhaps there is a ring of truth to certain aspects of images of Christ. 

Ignatius was a disciple of John, the apostle of Jesus. He was much like Luke or Timothy was to Paul. A number of letters and documents from early church fathers have been kept and handed down through the church. Some of these items are correspondence between Ignatius to John and Mary (the mother of Christ) who was in John’s care. Mary even responds. The correspondence is repeated below: 

In A SECOND EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO ST. JOHN, he writes to John to whom Mary is in his care (John 19:26-27), 

His friend Ignatius to John the holy presbyter.

If thou wilt give me leave, I desire to go up to Jerusalem, and see the

faithful saints who are there, especially Mary the mother, whom they

report to be an object of admiration and of affection to all. For who would

not rejoice to behold and to address her who bore the true God from her

own womb, provided he is a friend of our faith and religion? And in like

manner [I desire to see] the venerable James, who is surnamed Just, whom

they relate to be very like Christ Jesus in appearance, in life, and in

method of conduct, as if he were a twin-brother of the same womb. They

say that, if I see him, I see also Jesus Himself, as to all the features and

aspect of His body. Moreover, [I desire to see] the other saints, both male

and female. Alas! why do I delay? Why am I kept back? Kind teacher, bid

me hasten [to fulfill my wish], and fare thou well. Amen.

 Then Ignatius writes to Mary too. He says in THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE VIRGIN MARY,

Her friend(1) Ignatius to the Christ-bearing Mary.
Thou oughtest to have comforted and consoled me who am a neophyte, and a disciple of thy [beloved] John. For I have heard things wonderful to tell respecting thy [son] Jesus, and I am astonished by such a report. But I desire with my whole heart to obtain information concerning the things which I have heard from thee, who wast always intimate and allied with Him, and who wast acquainted with [all] His secrets. I have also written to thee at another time, and have asked thee concerning the same things. Fare thou well; and let the neophytes who are with me be comforted of thee, and by thee, and in thee. Amen.

Probably to his surprise, Ignatius receives a response back from Mary called, REPLY OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN TO THIS LETTER, and it says,

The lowly handmaid of Christ Jesus to Ignatius, her beloved fellow-disciple.
THE things which thou hast heard and learned from John concerning Jesus are true. Believe them, cling to them, and hold fast the profession of that Christianity which thou hast embraced, and conform thy habits and life to thy profession. Now I will come in company with John to visit thee, and those that are with thee. Stand fast in the faith, and show thyself a man; nor let the fierceness of persecution move thee, but let thy spirit be strong and rejoice in God thy Savior. Amen.

By the way, Catholics despise this letter by Mary and say it is a forgery because they believe Mary was perpetually a virgin contrary to Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. Regardless of Catholicism’s errant views on Mary, these letters teach us something significant about the way Jesus looked. James was also known as James the Just (not to be confused with James the apostle). He was Christ’s brother and later became a famous leader in the church. He looked very much like Jesus. An early image of James, the brother of Jesus is: 

Another later image of James with gray hair is: 

Many images of Jesus actually have similarities to this image of James. What can this tell us about the preservation of artwork of many images of Jesus? They might retain a few more elements of Jesus’ actual form than we realize.   

But there is more. The early images of Jesus in the Catacombs of Rome and other early Christian sites and objects in the early centuries look similar to James. Is it possible artists were using images of James as a baseline? Or did illustrators use paintings or drawings from earlier images that were passed down (now lost to history or decay) that they used as their baseline for their illustrations of Christ? A sampling of early images of Jesus is given below. 

In the AD 200s, there is a the moskophrus otherwise known as the bearer of the calf on the walls of St. Callisto catacomb in Rome: 

Also in the AD 200s is the Epiphany of the magi with baby Jesus on a sarcophagus now in the Vatican Museum in Rome[1]: 

Then there is the healing of the Paralytic in the AD 200s from a baptistery in an abandoned church in Syria[2]: 

The AD 300 brought us a painting in the Catacombs of Rome, specifically of St. Marcellinus and St. Peter on the Via Labicana. It depicts six martyrs pointing to Christ—the Apostle Peter, Apostle Paul,  and later martyrs Marcellinus, Gorgonius, another Peter, and Tiburtius. These last four martyrs were buried in that catacomb: 

Also in the fourth century in Rome we have: 

By the 6^th century a Jesus image looked like many today:

These images give us some clues to what early artists thought Christ looked like. Some have glaring similarities in look to James, who was “a spitting image” of Jesus and younger brother of Jesus through Mary. 

Are these early images an accurate portrayal of Jesus? Great question. I’m not sure I could answer that question on this side of heaven with much precision. Although something interesting happened regarding the images of Jesus that many may not notice—churches all over from Orthodox, to Roman, to Oriental, to Protestant have images of Jesus that do share a lot of similarities—even with certain local flair thrown in. Why? 

The two reasons I’ve given before are: 

1. Possibly using known  early images of James as a baseline
2. Using paintings or drawings from earlier images that were passed down (now lost to history or decay) that they used as their baseline 

I’m not the only one to spot this. Consider another researcher (who only one week prior to my article going live), was writing on the same subject parallel to me. He just posted this in his article: 

“Even if that were true, how could Christians so quickly have united on one image? I mean, take a hundred artists scattered about without internet, and ask them to draw a picture of someone whom they have never seen, only heard of. What would we get? A hundred different fanciful images. But the Church emerged into freedom, with Christian iconographers quickly writing essentially the same icons of the Lord. Why didn’t one “Jesus” become the norm in Spain, and another in Egypt? Why the uniformity? 

For these artists and iconographers were scattered very far apart, through many regions from Ethiopia to Spain, in thousands of parishes. There was no central Church authority to decree that only this one image of Jesus must be used. And even if they had, there was no way to enforce that image on Christian artists. So what could possibly have produced this conformity? Why was it quickly produced all over the Church. 

I can imagine only one answer: They must all have been working off one already commonly accepted prototype of the Lord, passed down in the Church from the beginning.”[3]

I concur that this may well be the answer. Although, it is “not a hill to die on”. Nevertheless, we should remember that Jesus’ physical body was resurrected and He ascended to the Throne of God where He sits at the right hand of the Father. So one day, Christians will get a chance to see Jesus and see what He looks like—at least in His glorified, resurrected body.   

At any rate, I hope this helps you think more deeply about what Jesus really looked like and how that relates to images of Jesus around the world.   

---

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XV14_-_Roma,_Museo_civilt_romana_-_Adorazione_dei_Magi_-_sec_III_dC_-_Foto_Giovanni_DallOrto_12-Apr-2008.jpg

[2] https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/34498.

[3] Bill Olnhausen, Do we know what Jesus looked like?, August 14, 2020, https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/frbill/211-do-we-know-what-jesus-looked-like/.