The Symbolic-Generations "Solution"

by Farrell Till

A variation of the skipped-generations "solution" to the 430-year discrepancy in Exodus 6and Exodus 12:40 claims that the names Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Aaron were not actual generations but just symbolic generations, which began with the births of individuals with these names and ended with their deaths. Thus, a "generation" in this sense would last as long as the life of the person whose name was given to that generation. Roger Hutchinson, who frequently tried to defend biblical inerrancy in articles submitted to The Skeptical Review,was an advocate of this interpretation of the Exodus-6 genealogy. In "The 430-Year Sojourn of Israel in Egypt," he made his first defense of this position.

Four key people are identified in Exodus 6. They are Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Aaron. We know that Levi was among the group that originally entered Egypt.

Now these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt; every man and his household came with Jacob. Reuben, Simeon, Levi... (Ex. 1:1-2).

Exodus 6 then tells us that Levi died at the age of 137, which would have been some time after he entered Egypt. We are also told that Aaron was among the group of Israelites that left Egypt with Moses and that Aaron was 83 years old when the Israelites left Egypt.

And Moses was fourscore years old, and Aaron fourscore and three years old, when they spake unto Pharaoh (Ex. 7:7)

Between Levi and Aaron, Exodus 6 tells us that Kohath lived 133 years and Amram lived 137 years.

The Hebrew word "ben" translated as son in Exodus 6 can also be translated as offspring or descendant. So, in Exodus 6, we can take "son of" to mean either that Kohath was Levi's immediate son or that he was a direct descendant of Levi. Likewise, Amram could have been a direct descendant of Kohath rather than his immediate son, and Aaron could have been a direct descendant of Amram.

Because Levi died in Egypt at 137 years, we are able to speculate with some confidence that he was less than 137 when he entered Egypt. We can assume that Levi was 60 when he entered Egypt and that he lived in Egypt 77 years before his death at 137. The assumption that Levi was 60 seems consistent with other information we find in the Bible. More important, this assumption allows us to develop the following scenario in an effort to harmonize Exodus 6 and Exodus 12.

Years Israelites Lived in Egypt

· Levi 77 years

· Kohath 133 years

· Amram 137 years

· Aaron 83 years

· Total 430 years

Let's notice how convenient Hutchinson's assumption was about how long Levi had lived in Egypt. When he added the years in his "symbolic" generations of Kohath, Amram, and Aaron, he had 353 years; hence, he "assumed" that Levi had lived 77 of his 137 years in Egypt so that his four "symbolic" generations would total 430 years, which was the number he needed to have the Exodus-6 genealogy agree with the claim in Exodus 12:40 that the Israelites had sojourned in Egypt 430 years, but just how did Hutchinson determine that Levi was 60 when he went into Egypt? He didn't tell us except to say that this number "seems consistent with other information we find in the Bible." In other words, Hutchinson needed Levi to be 60 when he went into Egypt in order for the math in his "symbolic-generations" theory to work, and so Hutchinson made him 60 when he entered Egypt. If he had needed Levi to have been 69 or 72 when he went into Egypt, you can be sure that Hutchinson would have found either one of these numbers to be "consistent with other information we find in the Bible." If one is allowed to make assumptions like this, he could "prove" just about anything.

A major problem in Hutchinson's assumption, however, is that an age of 60 for Levi when he entered Egypt is not "consistent with other information we find in the Bible." In this section of "The 210-Year 'Solution,'" I showed that Jacob, who was also named Israel, was in his late 70s before he had any children and that he was 130 when he entered Egypt (Gen. 47:9). Hence, the "children of Israel" could not have suffered oppression in Canaan for 210 years before the Israelites went into Egypt, because there were no "children of Israel" until about 50 years before they entered Egypt. The chronology of Jacob's (Israel's) life will also show that Levi was younger than 60 when he entered Egypt. Since this chronology was discussed in detail in the article just linked to, I will only summarize the details here.

As just noted, Jacob was 130 when he entered Egypt. At this time, Joseph had been in Egypt for about 40 years. Joseph was 30 when Pharaoh made him food administrator over Egypt (Gen. 41:46). During the seven years of plenty, Joseph gathered the surplus food and stored it to be prepared for the seven years of famine (Gen. 41:47-49). In the second year of the famine, Joseph identified himself to his brothers, who had come into Egypt to buy grain (Gen. 45:6). Hence, Joseph would have been about 39 (30 + 7 + 2 = 39) at the time of his reunion with his brothers. He ordered his brothers to return to Canaan and bring his father and their families back to Egypt (Gen. 45:19). If it took even a year for Joseph's brothers to bring their families into Egypt, Joseph would have been about 40 when his father Jacob (Israel) stood before Pharaoh and told him that he was 130 years old. Hence, Jacob (Israel), if you can believe it, would have been 90 when Joseph was born (130 - 40 = 90).

With this chronology in mind, we can determine about how old Jacob (Israel) was when Levi was born. Those familiar with Jacob's sojourn in Paddanaram will remember that he had agreed to work for his uncle Laban for seven years to receive permission to marry Laban's daughter Rachel (Gen. 29:18). At the end of the seven years, Jacob demanded his right to marry Rachel (Gen. 29:21), but Laban pulled a fast one on Jacob and sent his other daughter Leah into Jacob (verse 22), who, if you can imagine it, spent a whole night with Leah before he realized the switch had been made (verse 23).

Jacob protested but was stuck with Leah, so he agreed to work for seven more years for the right to marry Rachel.

Genesis 29:25 When morning came, it was Leah! And Jacob said to Laban, "What is this you have done to me? Did I not serve with you for Rachel? Why then have you deceived me?" 26 Laban said, "This is not done in our country--giving the younger before the firstborn. 27 Complete the week of this one, and we will give you the other also in return for serving me another seven years." 28 Jacob did so, and completed her week; then Laban gave him his daughter Rachel as a wife. 29 (Laban gave his maid Bilhah to his daughter Rachel to be her maid.) 30 So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah. He served Laban for another seven years.

This passage can be interpreted to meant that Jacob worked another seven years or a total of 14 before Rachel was given to him, but an interpretation that is more advantageous to Hutchinson would be that Jacob (Israel) worked for Leah for seven years and that Laban also gave him Rachel at this time on his word that Jacob would work for him seven more years. Jacob, therefore, received Rachel at the same time that he received Leah, i. e., seven years after he had begun working for Laban. At the end of these seven years, when Jacob (Israel) had both Leah and Rachel, his children began to be born. The births began with Leah, who had Reuben first, Simeon second, and then Levi (Gen. 29:31-35). If we can determine how many years passed between the births of Levi and Joseph, we can then know about how old Levi was when he went into Egypt.

That determination is possible. Levi was the third son born to Jacob (Israel) and Leah, and Joseph wasn't born (to Rachel) until the end of his second seven-year period of servitude. We can determine that Joseph was born at the end of the second seven-year period, because Jacob (Israel) went to Laban after Joseph's birth and asked for permission to return to his homeland.

Genesis 30:25 When Rachel had borne Joseph, Jacob said to Laban, "Send me away, that I may go to my own home and country. 26 Give me my wives and my children for whom I have served you, and let me go; for you know very well the service I have given you."

Laban, however, promised to give Jacob (Israel) whatever wages he wanted and persuaded him to stay (Gen. 30:27-28). Jacob stayed for six more years and then secretly one day stole away to return to his home. Altogether, then, Jacob (Israel) was in Paddanaram for 20 years. We know this, because the biblical text explicitly states twice that he was there for 20 years. When Laban learned that Jacob and his family was gone, he gathered his servants to pursue them. The record of a conversation that occurred when Laban overtook Jacob clearly states that Jacob had been with Laban for 20 years.

Genesis 31:36 Then Jacob became angry, and upbraided Laban. Jacob said to Laban, "What is my offense? What is my sin, that you have hotly pursued me? 37 Although you have felt about through all my goods, what have you found of all your household goods? Set it here before my kinsfolk and your kinsfolk, so that they may decide between us two. 38 These twenty years I have been with you; your ewes and your female goats have not miscarried, and I have not eaten the rams of your flocks. 39 That which was torn by wild beasts I did not bring to you; I bore the loss of it myself; of my hand you required it, whether stolen by day or stolen by night. 40 It was like this with me: by day the heat consumed me, and the cold by night, and my sleep fled from my eyes. 41 These twenty years I have been in your house; I served you fourteen years for your two daughters, and six years for your flock, and you have changed my wages ten times.

With this additional information, we can determine that Levi was much younger than 60 when he went into Egypt, because the chronology cited above shows that Levi was probably no more than three years older than Joseph. If the births of his children didn't begin until Jacob (Israel) had served Laban for seven years and if Levi was the third of these sons (all three of whom were borne by Leah), then Levi could have been born no sooner than about 10 years (7 + 3 = 10) after Jacob (Israel) had begun working for Laban. Then, if Joseph were born to Rachel at the end of Jacob's second seven-year period of servitude, Joseph would have been only about 4 years younger than Levi (14 - 10 = 4), so if Joseph was about 40 when Jacob stood before Pharaoh and said that he was 130, Levi would have have been about 44 at that time. If Jacob (Israel) had worked for Laban for six more years after the birth of Joseph, then Joseph would have been six and Levi about 10 (6 + 4 =10) when Jacob (Israel) removed his family from Paddanaram. Joseph was 17 when he was betrayed by his brothers and sold into Egypt (Gen. 37:2), so Levi would have been about 21 at the time of the betrayal. If Joseph was 30 when he was made food administrator over Egypt, then Levi would have been 34 at that time. If Joseph was 39 when he revealed his identity to his brothers, Levi would have been 43, and if Joseph was 40 when Jacob's family went into Egypt, then Levi would have been about 44. This would have been 16 years younger than Hutchinson's hypothesized age of 60. This would mean that Levi spent 93 years in Egypt instead of 77; hence, the math of Hutchinson's pat "symbolic-generations" theory falls apart. It isn't at all "consistent with other information we find in the Bible."

After Hutchinson had conveniently but incorrectly hypothesized that Levi had lived 77 years in Egypt, he then turned to showing that the four "symbolic generations" of Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Aaron would fit into Yahweh's prophecy in Genesis 15 that Abraham's seed would be afflicted in a land not theirs for 400 years and then "come out" in the fourth generation.

We see how context affects our understanding of the Bible when we look at Genesis 15:13-16:

And he [the LORD] said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years.... But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. (Genesis 15:13-16)

In defending his theory that these four "symbolic generations" were the key to harmonizing the Exodus-6 genealogy with the prophecy in Genesis 15, Hutchinson made a strategic error that he didn't even recognize. Notice the part that I have emphasized in bold print in the quotation below from Hutchinson's article.

Based on our hypothesized scenario, Levi would represent the first generation, Kohath the second, and Amram the third. Finally, Aaron would represent the fourth in which Israel would leave the land that was not theirs. Thus, under the above scenario, we draw the conclusion that generations can be measured by the lives of certain individuals. A generation would begin with the birth of some unique individual and end with his death. A new generation would then be identified with a new unique individual who would be born immediately after the death of the prior generation figure. With this view of a generation, we see how it is possible for God to say that Israel would leave Egypt in the fourth generation.

Here Hutchinson said that a new generation of the "symbolic" kind would begin with the birth of "some unique individual" and end with his death. A new generation would then begin with the birth of "a new unique individual who would be born immediately after the death of the prior generation figure." These statements are completely inconsistent with Hutchinson's attempt to make Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Aaron the four "symbolic generations" that had lived in Egypt for 430 years, because Kohath, for example, was not born immediately after Levi's death. Hutchinson surmised that Levi was 60 when he went into Egypt, but whether Levi was 60 or 44 at the time, when he went into Egypt his son Kohath had already been born (Gen. 46:11). Hence, even if we granted him his assumption that Levi was 60 when he went into Egypt, Hutchinson would be left with the problem of having to explain how Kohath could have been a "symbolic generation" separate from the symbolic generation of Levi if Kohath had been born well before and not "immediately after" the death of Levi. Since the lives of Levi and Kohath, even by Hutchinson's own suppositions, would have overlapped by 77 years, Kohath does not meet Hutchinson's criterion that a "symbolic generation" was a "unique individual" who had been born immediately after the death of "the prior generation figure" whose name was given to the previous generation. Furthermore, since Amram was evidently the firstborn of Kohath's four sons, Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel (Ex. 6:19), Amram was obviously not born immediately after the death of Kohath. Furthermore, Aaron was the firsborn of Amram (Ex. 6:20), so he could not have been born immediately after the death of the "unique individual" Amram whose name was given to Hutchinson's third "symbolic generation." In other words, Hutchinson's "symbolic generation" theory turns out to be just another failed attempt to explain a biblical discrepancy. When subjected to careful scrutiny most of these speculative attempts to explain discrepancies will fall apart.

In his article linked to above, Hutchinson then turned to trying to prove that Uzziel was not the actual uncle of Aaron.

The Hebrew word dod translated as uncle in this verse [Lev. 10:4] is also translated as love, beloved, and well beloved elsewhere in the Bible. The word appears broad enough in scope to refer to any relative, not just an uncle. Thus, Leviticus 10:4 could legitimately be translated as, "Uzziel, the relative of Aaron," which would be consistent with the proposed scenario. Limiting the range of dod by requiring that it be translated uncle and nothing else is not a supportable position even though that translation is found in several versions of the Bible. The translation of dod as uncle reflects the conclusion of the translator that the proper context was that Aaron was the immediate son of Amram. Had the translator believed that Aaron was a descendant of Amram, he would not have translated dod as uncle. He would have chosen the proper English word that reflected the meaning of dod within the different context. Thus, Leviticus 10:4 is not inconsistent with the above scenario.

Unfortunately for Hutchinson, I just showed that his "above scenario" is itself inconsistent in that he said that a "symbolic generation" was named after a "unique individual" who had been born immediately after the death of another unique individual who had been "the prior generation figure," but since the lives of Levi and Kohath had overlapped by several years, as did the lives of Kohath and Amram and Amram and Aaron, Hutchinson's "symbolic-generations" scenario just won't work. As for his attempt to make the Hebrew word dodmean relative instead of uncle, I shot that theory to pieces in my original reply to Hutchinson, so I need only to quote what I said then.

Mr. Hutchinson, of course, isn't arguing for any two-Amrams or two-Uzziels theory; he is arguing that Amram was simply a symbol of a generation but not literally the "immediate" son of Kohath and that Aaron was also just a symbol of the fourth generation but not literally the "immediate" son of Amram. Hence, the description of Uzziel in Leviticus 10:4 as "the uncle of Aaron" should not be understood literally but figuratively. To think of Uzziel as only a "relative" of Aaron, Hutchinson said, "would be consistent with the proposed scenario" that he is arguing for.

A frustrating thing about Mr. Hutchinson's approach to argumentation is his habit of making assertions for which he offers no proof. For example, he said that the Hebrew word dod, translated uncle in Leviticus 10:4 is "also translated as love, beloved, and well beloved elsewhere in the Bible," but he cited no examples. He could have made my task much easier had he cited book, chapter, and verse where dod was so translated. Before I discuss what my own research uncovered, I must point out that it really doesn't matter how many times dod was translated love, beloved, or well beloved; to give credibility to his argument, Mr. Hutchinson needs to find a place where dod was translated relative, and I think if he had known of such a place, he would have cited it.

In a sense, Mr. Hutchinson is right in saying that dod did have meanings other than uncle, although it is questionable that dod in those other places was the same word as the dod used in Leviticus 10:4. Simply because words are spelled alike and pronounced alike doesn't make them the same word. We can use "mean" in English as an example. To say that a person is mean is not to use the same word as in either of the following sentences: (1) I know what you mean, and (2) the mean distance from Earth to the sun is 93 million miles. Each sentence uses a different word, and the technical designation for such words as these is homonyms, words that are spelled alike and pronounced alike but have different meanings.

The people who speak and read a language are able to determine from context which homonym is being used. For example, what English speaking person hearing someone say that the mean distance from Earth to the sun is 93 million miles would think that "mean" was the word that meant "lacking qualities of kindness or goodness"? He would know that the sentence was using the mean that "means" middle point or average. So it is with dod in Hebrew. The context determines what was meant by dod, and this is where Mr. Hutchinson's scenario runs into deep trouble.

A check of Strong's concordance will show that when dod was used in the sense of love, beloved, or well beloved, it almost always referred to concepts or objects but not persons. When the reference was to a person, it was used in the sense of an object of romantic love. The following quotations will illustrate that this is so:

Come, let us take our fill of love (dod) until morning (Prov. 7:18).

For your love (dod) is better than wine (Song of Solomon 1:2).

We will remember your love (dod) more than wine (Song of Solomon 1:4).

How fair is your love (dod), my sister, my spouse (Song of Solomon 4:10).

(I)ndeed your time was the time of love (dod); so I spread My wing over you and covered your nakedness (Ezek. 16:8).

My beloved (dod) is to me a cluster of henna blooms (Song of Solomon 1:14).

Like an apple tree among the trees of the woods, so is my beloved (dod)among the sons (Song of Solomon 2:3).

A bundle of myrrh is my beloved (dod) to me (Song of Solomon 1:13).

As you can see, dod used as Mr. Hutchinson said appears almost exclusively in the Song of Solomon, a book with strong sexual overtones, and those same overtones are also present in the passages in Proverbs and Ezekiel. Let's compare these uses of dod to the places where it has been translated uncle:

If a man lies with his uncle's wife (dowdah, "aunt"), he has uncovered his uncle's (dod) nakedness (Lev. 20:20).

After he [a slave] is sold, he may be redeemed again. One of his brothers may redeem him; or his uncle (dod) or his uncle's son may redeem him (Lev. 25:49).

Then Saul's uncle (dod) said to him and his servant, "Where did he go?" (1 Sam. 10:14).

And Saul's uncle (dod) said, "Tell me, please, what Samuel said to you" (1 Sam. 10:15).

So Saul said to his uncle (dod)... (1 Sam. 10:16).

And Mordecai had brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle's (dod) daughter, for she had neither father nor mother (Esther 2:7)

Now when the turn came for Esther the daughter of Abihail the uncle (dod) of Mordecai, who had taken her as his daughter, to go in to the king, she requested nothing... (Esther 2:15).

Also Jehonathan, David's uncle (dod) was a counselor, a wise man, and a scribe (2 Chron. 27:32).

There are other passages where dod was used in reference to a specific male person, rather than an abstract concept or object of romantic love, and each time, it has been translated uncle in the major English translations. When these passages are compared to the places in the Song of Solomon where dod was used to refer to the emotion of romantic love or to a person who was the object of that emotion, the difference in the meaning of the two words is obvious. This is all I need to say about Mr. Hutchinson's quibble that Uzziel was just a "relative" of Aaron and not his uncle. Obviously, the Leviticus writer meant that Uzziel was the brother of Aaron's father, and Uzziel is listed in the Exodus 6 genealogy as a brother of Amram (v:18). So if Amram and Uzziel were brothers and if Uzziel was Aaron's uncle, then Amram was Aaron's literal father, not just an ancestor, and Mr. Hutchinson's "scenario" vanishes into thin air.

We have Mr. Hutchinson's own testimony to the inadequacy of his "scenario," because he himself said, "If we find one scripture that cannot be reconciled with this context, we will have to reject this particular scenario and look for another explanation." I see no way for Mr. Hutchinson to reconcile his theory that Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Aaron were merely symbols or representatives of generations with the fact that Leviticus 10:4 was clearly intended to mean that Uzziel was Aaron's uncle, so Mr. Hutchinson must reject his "scenario" and look for another explanation.

Hutchinson's statement about looking for "another explanation" is typical of an inerrantist mindset that I have encountered more times than I can estimate. An inerrantist will present an "explanation" to a discrepancy, and when it is shown to be unworkable, instead of acknowledging that the discrepancy might actually be real, he will go away and come back later with another scenario. Then if that one also proves untenable, he will come back with still another. As many times as Hutchinson's reconciliation scenarios were shot down in The Skeptical Review, one would think that he would have learned that there is a real possibility that the Bible just may be errant in places, but that is not the way that the mind of an inerrantist works. When he fails in an initial attempt to explain a discrepancy, he will go back to the drawing board and come back later with "another explanation." That this is done so often by inerrantists should indicate to those who are more open-minded that biblical inerrancy is very likely an untenable belief.

After failing to prove that Uzziel was not the actual uncle of Aaron, Hutchinson then tried to prove that Jochebed was not the actual mother of Aaron and Moses but only a more distant ancestor. I will leave Hutchinson's punctuation as it was in his article.

Exodus 6:20 is a little more difficult, but the same basic argument applies:

And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years. (Exodus 6:20)

In Hebrew thought, an individual giving birth to a child becomes a parent to all who are descended from that child. The Hebrew word yalad, translated as bear, can also denote paternity, so that either the wife or the husband can be said to bear a child. The word encompasses many ideas, and its translation relies on the context in which it is used. Jochebed can be said to have borne Aaron and Moses even though she may have actually given birth to their great-grandfather. Because of this, it is not possible to assert dogmatically that Jochebed was the physical mother of Moses and Aaron just because yalad is used. Again, yalad has a breadth of meaning that would allow it to be translated in a manner that supports the context of the proposed scenario.

Exodus 2 describes the birth of Moses and can be confusing. Here we read, "And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi" ( Ex. 2:1). Many people assume that the unidentified man and woman in Exodus 2 were Amram and Jochebed. At the same time, we see that these people are not specifically identified. This leaves open the possibility that the unnamed man and woman in Exodus 2 were not Amram and Jochebed, which must be the case for the above scenario to work. While many people dogmatically assert that Moses' parents were Amram and Jochebed, such a conclusion is basically speculative. The Bible leaves the door open for a different conclusion.

Notice how Hutchinson will make an assumption and then argue from the assumption that other assumptions he has made are true. Hence, he said above that for his "above scenario to work," Amram and Jochebed were not the unnamed parents of Moses in Exodus 2. He is apparently unwilling to acknowledge that his "above scenario" just might not be correct. In this section of "How Long Were the Children of Israel in Egypt?" I showed clear evidence that both biblical and extrabiblical writers, like Philo and Josephus, recognized that Amram and Jochebed were the actual parents of Moses. Hutchinson, on the other hand, offered nothing except a speculative claim that they could not have been the parents of Moses or else his "above scenario" would not work. I suggest that he consider the probability that his scenario is wrong.

Hutchinson's speculations continued. Please notice that he admitted that we must make "certain assumptions" in order for his scenario to work.

Clearly, the scriptures dealing with the genealogy between Levi and Aaron are confusing. However, because of the nuances in meaning of critical Hebrew words, we are able to propose an explanation to harmonize Exodus 6 and Exodus 12. The validity of this explanation requires that we make certain assumptions. The assumptions that we made fall within the realm of acceptable possibilities. This makes the proposed explanation valid. It does not mean that there are no problems with the explanation. However, it does show that there is at least one way to reconcile Exodus 6 and Exodus 12.

So when Hutchinson has had his say, one fact detrimental to his "explanation" remains: he must pile assumption onto assumption in order to make the Bible not mean what it plainly says. This is rather ironic. Inerrantists are the ones who say that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God, yet in order to resolve biblical discrepancies, they must constantly propose assumptions and speculations contrary to plain language in the Bible. Why would an omniscient, omnipotent deity have revealed his eternal truths in such a way that such far-fetched speculations must be resorted to in order to find consistency in the Bible?

Biblicists have tried and tried, but they have been unable to resolve satisfactorily the chronological discrepancy that exists between the Exodus 6 genealogy and the claim in Exodus 12:40 that the children of Israel sojourned in Egypt 430 years. Go to the Finley "Solution."