OBADIAH: INTRODUCTION TO LITERARY STRUCTURE

A more detailed version of this analysis will be sent to anyone requesting it at elmerphd21@hotmail.com.

John D. W. Watts begins his commentary on Obadiah by stating, “This smallest of the books in the Old Testament has earned disproportionate attention from the scholars.”  The reason given by Allen for this phenomenon is that the book “cries out to be considered as a model upon which to demonstrate structural and strophic theories.”  A random survey of fourteen proposed divisions found in the literature based on these theories, some involving textual rearrangements, showed virtually no agreement among them.

Five-fold Divisions

It is hard to do justice to the text with less than five major divisions. Thus, Raabe begins by considering the divine speech formulas (“Thus spoke the Lord Yahweh” and “utterance of Yahweh”) at Obad. 1, 4, 8 and 18 as boundaries for at two of his proposed sections. He then divides Obad. 8-18 into two speeches directed to Edom (vv. 8-15) and Judah (vv. 16-18), respectively. These five resulting sections exhibit almost perfect symmetry in regard to their length:

Verses             Words             Syllables

1-4                  48                      114

                                    5-7                       43                      100

                                    8-15                         106                  241

                                    16-18                    47                     103

                                    19-21              46                     111

As appealing as this proposal is, it artificially interrupts the flow of the book and the parallel sections above do not show any corresponding parallelisms of thought.

Watts also divides the book into five separate units (discounting the title) using form-critical standards: 1-4, 5-10, 11-14, 15-16, and 17-21. These divisions preserve both the coherent flow of ideas within each section and the observed unity of vv. 17-21. In addition, they may be tentatively grouped as shown below to bring out the symmetrical organization of the whole composition.

Figure 1: Five-part Structure of Obadiah

A. The Lord Yahweh (Obad.1-4)

B. Day of the Lord (Obad. 5-10)

C. Edom's Sin (Obad. 11-14)

B'. Day of the Lord (Obad. 15-16)

A'. Yahweh the King (Obad. 17-21)

If a chiastic structure is intended for Obadiah, as the data seem to suggest, then the powerful indictment of Edom in vv. 11-14 stands at the center of the composition to highlight with uncompromising repetition the major sin for which Edom will have to face judgment on the coming Day: siding not with her brother Judah but with Judah's enemies instead.

Repetition in Obadiah

This is not the end of a discussion of Obadiah's structure, however. There is another literary technique acting to unify and order the book in a much more overt manner than the possible use of chiasm: the utilization of repeated words and phrases. Magary provides a list of these repeated phrases, such as:

“If..., would they not...” vv. 5-6

            “on (in) the day” vv. 11-14

            “you should not have...” vv. 12-14

            “house of Jacob/Esau” vv. 17-18

            “shall possess” vv. 19-20

A more in-depth look at some of the repetitions in Obadiah reveals additional patterns generally unnoticed by other students of the book until Raabe's Anchor Bible entry. Much of what follows will be a summary of and interaction with his insightful findings.

There are two Hebrew words for “people” used in Obadiah: goyim (generally referring to the Gentile nations) and 'am (usually applied to the Jews). These terms have special theological significance for Obadiah since one of the major questions answered by the book is, “In which camp is Edom?” These words are used a total of five times in the text. Their pattern of occurrence is as follows:

Obad. 1 (goyim)

                                    Obad. 2 (goyim)

Obad. 13 (‘am)

Obad. 15 (goyim)

                                    Obad. 16 (goyim)

The central appearance refers to Judah while the others are addressed to Edom. In vv. 1 and 2, Edom is included “among the nations,” and in the last two usages she is addressed as “you” and her fate is specifically compared to that of the nations. Another important pattern centering on Section C of the book is found with the key word “day.”  It appears ten times in Obad. 11-14, in each case referring to the past pillaging of Judah. These occurrences are bracketed by the only other appearances of the word, in Obad. 8 and 15, where they refer to the future Day of the Lord which will be experienced by all the nations. These two work patterns centering on Section C help to confirm the validity of the structure in Figure 1.

There is a seven-fold appearance of “Yahweh” in the book. The first and last are especially noteworthy. The rare compound name “Lord Yahweh” in Obad. 1 pictures him “as Lord of all, of heaven, of earth, of history, of Israel, of himself.” Bridger notes that these two verses, as well as v. 15 in the middle of the work, stress the sovereignty of God.

Also mentioned seven times in the text are the words “Esau” and “mount.” The exact number of occurrences is again an indication that their presence is purposeful and, in fact, both terms are highly significant when applied to Edom. The first harkens back to the origin of the nation as a brother to Jacob, making their crime against Judah especially heinous. In addition, Watts notes another possible reason for the Genesis allusion: “Esau's early ascendancy is overcome by Jacob's tenacity. It is Jacob, not Esau, who finally possessed both the blessing and the land.”  Raabe speculates that the use of “Esau” for Edom in v. 8 predicting the disappearance of its wisdom may point back to the foolishness of Esau's selling of his birthright. The term “mount” points to the arrogance of Edom in relying on geography to preserve her rather than on Yahweh (see Obad. 3-4). These terms thus emphasize the two charges Yahweh levels against Edom that will earn them judgment on the coming Day.

Vertical Parallelism

Allen notes, “All three (sic) sections of the book and the individual strophes are tied together by various interlocking devices.” Raabe uses the phrase “vertical parallelism” to denote this literary peculiarity so evident in Obadiah. He illustrates the concept with the example of vv. 3 and 4:

3e. “Who will bring me down to the ground?

--------------

4a. Though you soar aloft like the eagle,

            4b. though your nest is set among the stars,

4c. thence I will bring you down, says the Lord.”

The common poetic parallelism within a line pair, such as 4a and b, is styled “horizontal parallelism” and distinguished from the repetition of phrases spaced more distantly in the text, which are called examples of “vertical parallelism.” Vertical parallelism can be used to unite an individual section (as in the example above) or act as a bridge to connect two adjacent sections of the book. The problem comes in distinguishing between these two different functions. Such ambiguity resulting from the use of multiple interlocking devices functioning at different levels (both within a section and between sections) is the prime reason for confusion among commentators on how to divide the book. Of course there is confusion! Since the main purpose of the vertical parallels is to unify the text, any attempt to divide it into neat parcels goes against the author's original intent.

The above argues that any attempted division of the text will be somewhat arbitrary given the nature of the book. But it is still instructive to demonstrate how the proposed structure of Fig. 1 utilizes both levels of vertical parallelism to unify individual sections (Level I) and tie together adjacent sections (Level II). This exercise is shown graphically in Fig. 2 for repeated words and phrases in the book.

In conclusion, we should note that the strand of pearls pictured in Fig. 2 is really not complete without the clasp that completes the circle: namely, the appearance of “Yahweh” at the end of the book to match its occurrence at the beginning. As Livingston states, “The sovereignty of God is never far from sight... As the prophecy of Obadiah begins with the Lord dominating the scene, it ends with the proclamation that he is to be King of all.” (G. H. Livingston)

Figure 2: Vertical Parallelism in the Book of Obadiah

Section                     Level I Parallelism                                     Level II Parallelism

A                                  “says the Lord,”

“up / down,”

                                    “your heart,”

                                “will bring down,”

                                    “nations”

    “Edom,”

                            “deceived you,”

                                    “if...”

B                         “If..., would...?,”

                                                            “Esau / Jacob,”

                            “understanding,”

                                “cut off”

“your brother,”

                                “day,”

                                “cut off”

C                         “on the day,”

                    “you should not have,”

                    “distress / calamity,”

                    “entered gate(s),”

                            “wealth”

“day,”

                            “you...”

B'                  “all the nations,”

                    “just as you have”

“mount”

A'                  “mount,”

                        “house,”

                    “Jacob / Esau,”

                    “possess,”

                    “Negeb”

 

MATTHEW 1:17 JESUS' GENEALOGY

One contradiction that biblical critics sometimes point out concerns the number of ancestors for Jesus listed in Matthew 1:17. This verse breaks down the names into 3 groups of 14 each, but as someone on the internet points out, “A carful account of the generation(s) reveals only 13.”

        14 from Abraham to David

        14 from David to Babylonian deportation

        14 from the deportation to Jesus

1. Actually, if you want to be even more “carful” in your counting, you will find out that Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah are omitted from the first group, comparing names with the OT record.

2. There are too few generations listed for other groups. From the exile to Jesus = 600 years with only 13 names compared to Luke's 22 names for the same period. We also know that many names were omitted because there are no grandfather-father-son alternations in the list, which was the normal naming pattern in the Middle East. This points out why you can't just add up genealogies in the Bible to calculate the age of the earth since “son of” could also mean “descendant of.” Thus, Jesus is called the son of David. So it is obvious that Matthew was being selective in which ancestors he listed so that they could come out to 3x14. This number is important since (a) 14 = the numerical value of the letters in “David” and (b) it is also a multiple of 7, standing for perfection.

3. Now, what about the specific objection to the last series? Jechoniah is counted twice since, as several commentators point out, he closed out the second grouping on a gloomy note by being taken into exile and put into prison. But then in 2 Kings 25:27-30 he is released and gets to eat at the King of Babylon's table, symbolizing the upturn in the affairs of Israel that follows in the third grouping.

Regarding this manner of counting, Craig Blomberg, in his commentary on Matthew, notes that reckoning in the Bible is sometimes exclusive (the way we would count) and sometimes inclusive, where parts can be counted as a whole. Another example of inclusive counting in the Bible is when it states that Jesus spent three days and nights in the tomb although technically it appears that he was in the tomb for one full day and only parts of two other days. This same method of counting is also found in Esther 4:16 and 5:1.

 

MATHEMATICAL OBJECTIONS TO THE BIBLE

In discussing this subject we must first keep in mind that most of the objections you will find on-line are really examples of internal contradictions rather than poor arithmetic, and they are a little more challenging to explain for a number of reasons.

Let's start out this section with a general summary of the basic problem, taken directly off the internet: WHY MATHEMATICAL ERRORS IN YOUR WORDS OF GOD?, AUTHOR OF BIBLE WHO IS PRESUMED TO BE GOD DOESN'T KNOW SIMPLE MATHEMATICS?, THIS IS NOT MISTAKE OF GOD IT IS MISTAKE OF PEOPLES, BIBLE IS NOT WORDS OF GOD , ITS WORDS OF SOME, UNEDUCATED,ILLITERATE, ILLOGICAL,UNSCIENTIFIC PEOPLES AND MADE YOU TI BELIEVE THAT IT IS WORDS OF GOD

I suspect that the author used all capital letters because he didn't really know which letters should be capitalized. It is rather interesting that he has the nerve to call the authors of the Bible uneducated and illiterate.

Many of the inconsistencies in the Bible are due to the concept of redundancy in language. We all understand what this anonymous person on the internet was trying to say even with the grammatical errors, atrocious punctuation, missing words and transposed letters. Why? Because there is built-in redundancy to words in any language. Words contain a lot more information than we really need.

Here is a slightly more complicated example: “THS SENETNSE CONTAN 7EORRS.” What did I mean to say? Letters are transposed, missing or incorrect, and the word division is wrong. But remember that written Hebrew of the time did not include any vowels and often they crammed their words together to save space on a scroll. But we can still almost always reconstruct the original wording of a given passage even if scribes over the ages may have made a number of accidental errors in copying them. But to accurately reconstruct it, we may have to compare the variations found among all the early manuscripts we have. This process is called textual criticism, and it is discussed a little more in other postings.

Unfortunately, textual criticism doesn't work quite as well when it comes to numbers because unlike words, numbers possess virtually no redundancy. For example, what if early in the history of transmitting this sentence, someone confused 7 with 2? There would be no way to recapture the original number unless, as in this case, the text itself provided a clue as to the actual number. Here, for example, we could count the obvious errors to determine that at least #2 can't be correct.

Here is a concrete example of this concept from I Samuel 13:1, which in the Hebrew says literally, “Saul was...years old when he began to reign; and he reigned...and two years over Israel ” KJV attempts to make sense of this by saying, “Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel...” while modern translations either note that some numbers are missing here or they provide the missing numbers by comparing chronologies found elsewhere in the Bible.

Some other things to keep in mind when looking at numbers in the Bible:

    1. The Bible also uses numbers in a symbolic sense: 3 (God) + 4 (creation) = 7 (completeness). Or if you multiply the two numbers you get 12 as a symbol of God's chosen people (tribes of Israel, judges, or apostles).

    2. And remember that the Hebrew language uses letters for numbers just like Roman numerals where X = 10, etc. So some of the seemingly impossible numbers of soldiers in various OT historical accounts have been explained as confusing a word for a number. 'lp = 1,000 or tribal unit or military leader, so that an army of 10,000 might also be translated as 10 military leaders and their soldiers. Also, the Hebrew word for cubit and 100 is the same if you happen to transpose two letters, which may explain some additional inconsistencies in the text.

    3. Approximate numbers are given quite often in the Bible. Here are two numbers which pop up in the Bible many more times than we would expect by accident: 40 = one generation; 70 = a lifespan. And in a few cases you can actually demonstrate that they were rounded off from the literal numbers. For example, Exodus 12:40 is probably literal while Acts 7:6 apparently uses a round number for the same time span. Another example is found in I Kings 6:1 where the stated time of 480 years is too long by archeological findings. The number probably stands for 12 generations.

    4. Confusion in transmission may have arisen in cases where a second method of counting was used, such as we see on jars and weights of the time. In those cases, a vertical stroke meant a digit and a horizontal stroke meant tens. Similar strokes were also used for hundreds and thousands.

    5. Often when numbers in the Bible are suspected as being improbably high, we must admit that we have no independent measure of what is actually “improbably” high.

Much of the above is totally foreign to scientists for whom numbers are almost sacred. That is also a general mindset that has rubbed off on some Christians who might reluctantly admit that words may have different meanings, but numbers are only to be understood one way -- literally. You will especially see this in the way prophetic passages in the Bible are sometimes interpreted. For example, those who feel that Satan has to be chained for exactly 1,000 years would usually admit, if pressed, that it might not be with literal chains or in an actual locked pit in the ground.

So with that background, here are some mathematical objections to the Bible that you might run into on the internet. They involve differences between some numbers in Samuel-Kings and those found in the parallel passages in Chronicles. Actually there are about 20 such examples, but we will only go through the few here as pretty typical of the rest.

A. God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?

Seven in 2 Samuel 24:13 (Hebrew) followed by KJV and Living Bible

but three in LXX (Greek translation) followed by RSV, NEB, NRSV, TEV, NIV.

Three in 1 Chronicles 21:12

"Seven" in 2 Samuel may actually be a symbolic number indicating that the devastation from the famine will be complete, rather than indicating the literal number of years. This is similar to Jesus saying to forgive people 7 x 70 times (i.e., completely).

 

B. How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?

22 in 2 Kings 8:26 (LXX, Syriac) followed by KJV, RSV, NIV.

20 in some Greek manuscripts followed by Jerusalem Bible.

42 in 2 Chronicles 22:2, which would make him older than his father.

“The MT [standard Hebrew text] of Chronicles may represent the conflation of two traditions and exhibits a striking example of the effort to preserve two divergent traditions.” Jacob B. Myers, II Chronicles, p. 125 

In other words, Chronicles may have included both 20 and 22 in the text, perhaps with one in the margin, and a later copyist mistakenly felt that the two numbers were meant to be added together.

A skeptic in one internet picture complains, “The hardest things about being an atheist is the time it takes to explain basic science exceeds the attention span of who I'm talking to.” I'm afraid that the explanation of this next one may exceed the attention span of the atheist who proposed it (He also needs a lesson in basic English grammar.) The Bible is not a simple-minded children's book any more than an upper level science book is. Both need careful study to be fully comprehended.

C. How many fighting men were found in Israel?

“2 Samuel 24:9 says that it is Eight hundred thousand mens were fighting and 1 Chronicles 21:5 says that it was One million, one hundred thousand mens were fighting.” (another literary gem found on-line)

D. How many men were found fighting in Judah?

Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9) or

Four hundred and seventy thousand (1 Chronicles 21:5)

                                                    Census of Fighting Men

Reference                                              Israel                                                     Judah

2 Samuel 24:9                                      800,000                                                  500,000

1 Chronicles 21:5                              1,100,000                                                 470,000

We approach this contradiction between two different traditions and books of the Bible by utilizing the same approach that textual critics use when they see discrepancies in details in an individual verse when comparing different ancient copies. You basically try to reconstruct the most logical way the copying errors in the two different traditions could have arisen in the first place, and here are two different possibilities.

   (1) The Chronicler added the numbers for both kingdoms since he used the term “Israel” in the larger sense to refer to the combined 13 tribes (The Chronicler always counts the twin tribes of Joseph as two). That gives an average of 100,000 men from each of the 13 tribes. Then he subtracted 100,000 each for the tribes of Levi and Benjamin, which Joab refused to number (I Chronicles 21:6) to get 1,100,000 for all Israel. And the differences between the two numbers for Judah are due to the fact that 2 Samuel counts in Benjamin as part of the Kingdom of Judah while the Chronicler is only counting the men in the tribe of Judah (excluding Benjamin). (Jacob M. Myers, I Chronicles, p. 147)

    (2) An alternative, and somewhat simpler, scenario is explained by Payne. First, the Samuel account simply rounded off the number for Judah, which is given more precisely in I Chronicles. Then he gave the census figure for Israel where all able-bodied men subject to being drafted were counted. The Chronicler, however, included into his figure the standing army of almost 300,000 (I Chronicles 27:1-5) to get 1,100,000.

                        (J. Barton Payne, quoted in Hard Sayings of the Bible, pp. 226-227)

 

MARK 4:30-32 HOW SMALL IS A MUSTARD SEED?

One often-cited "error" in the Bible is the fact that Jesus called the mustard seed the smallest seed on earth in Mark 4:30-32 when in fact a particular South American orchid actually produces a smaller seed.

“With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it? It is like a mustard seed, which when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.” First, note that the black mustard seed was indeed the smallest seed that a local, Palestinian farmer might have “sowed in his field,” and the plant in Israel will typically grow to the heights of 12 feet, big enough for a bird to nest in.

1. Only Mark (not Matthew or Luke) adds the phrase “in the world” and there are textual variations in some of the manuscripts at this point.

2. The Greek word geos is used here, having the general meaning of “land” (especially tillable land), not kosmos meaning the whole world. Geos actually appears twice in this passage, and the other time it is translated as “ground.” So you could read the phrase this way: “the mustard seed which when sown upon the ground is the smallest of all the seeds on the ground.” This understanding clearly excludes the particular orchid seed mentioned since that seed takes root in treetops, not on the ground at all.

3. The use of mustard seed in proverbs in the Middle East was common and would have been immediately understood by his audience to whom a reference to the orchid plant would have meant nothing at all.

4. There is a qualifying phrase in this verse translated more accurately elsewhere:

    “smaller than any seed in the ground at its sowing.” (NEB)

    “the smallest seed you plant in the ground (NIV)

By contrast, the orchid seed isn't sowed but is naturally distributed by the wind.

 

DOES THE EARTH MOVE AND WILL THE STARS FALL?

Astronomers have also weighed in on the subject of the accuracy of some statements in the Bible. Here are two typical astronomical objections:

A. There are five places in the Old Testament where it says the earth is fixed in place and immovable.

1. All five passages are poetic, not prose and certainly not meant to be scientific statements by any means. Adjacent verses in these passages have God dressed in strength, the rivers talking, the earth is told to rejoice, and the trees singing for joy. Only a dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist or a scientific atheist would understand these statements in a literal sense.

2. “Fixed”(kun) = formed, prepared or established.

3. Not to be “moved” (mot) = not fallen into decay, not be out of their course, not removed, not slipped , fallen or shaken.

“The Lord's act of creation is thus to bring order out of chaos and thus to fashion within and among the chaos of the universe, a safe and trustworthy space in which life can flourish.”

The Book of Psalms, New International Commentary on the Old Testament

B. Stars falling from the sky are given as signs of the Second Coming, but even if one of the many stars in the cosmos actually fell on the earth, it would totally demolish it. 

This objection comes from the noted astronomer and TV personality Neil deGrasse Tyson.

1. These are all apocalyptic passages in the Bible, which seldom contain literal language.

2. On many occasions in the Bible, stars are used as symbols for spiritual forces (Daniel 8:10; Revelation 1:20, 9:1, 12:4) and that may very well be what is referred to.

3. Parallel passages use other poetic and phenomenological language (according to how it will appear to an observer) to describe the same event: light was darkened (Revelation 8:10-12), the sky vanished (Revelation 6:14), the host of heaven will rot away and the skies be gathered as a scroll (Isaiah 34:4), and stars will not give their light (Isaiah 13:10).

4. But if you want to get more literal, in biblical parlance, the stars were any heavenly bodies other than the sun and moon. The term thus included meteorites and comets, which can fall to the earth without totally destroying it.

To give Tyson credit, he also states that you should not try to go around making scientific statements built primarily around biblical passages whose main intent is totally different. I would agree with that. Nevertheless, when understood properly, those passages shouldn't contradict firmly established scientific findings.

 

LEVITICUS 13-14 CURING LEPROSY

Here is an interesting medical objection to teachings in the Bible: The so-called treatment for “leprosy” in walls of the house by sprinkling blood actually spreads germs.

This objection refers to the discussion of “leprosy” in Leviticus 13-14. The first thing to point out is that the passages in the Bible referring to leprosy probably do not refer to Hansen's disease at all since it wasn't introduced into the Middle East until much later. The Hebrew word refers to any discoloration or scaliness appearing on a surface.

    On human skin (13:1-46; 14:1-32)

    On clothing (13:47-59)

    On the walls of a house (14:33-57)

In the case of humans and houses, the blood ritual is only performed after they have already been pronounced clean. This is a religious ritual for atonement (14:13,53), not for disinfecting.

 

GENESIS 1:30 WERE CARNIVORES ORIGINALLY PLANT EATERS?

This is my 1,000th post on this blog, and I still have about 100 more to go before I run out of my backlog of teachings and have to start developing some more. So if anyone has a biblical passage they would like me to research, just drop me a line at elmerphd21@hotmail.com and I will delve into the    many good resources I have in my home library.

We are covering some of the objections to the Bible found on the internet and usually generated by various atheistic organizations. Parenthetically, I am rather bemused by the whole concept of active groups whose sole purpose is to tell people that something doesn't exist. I guess it does give them a purpose in life to fill the void they have created by rejecting the only thing that could truly give them purpose.  In researching some of these criticisms of the Bible, I was amazed to see that I could hardly find any scientific objections to teachings in the Bible on the internet, especially if you exclude the stories of creation and the flood. Most of the criticisms involved internal contradictions instead.

Here is one of the few "scientific" objections I found, not counting any general objections to miracle stories in the Bible because they all stem from an apriori rejection of anything supernatural based on an unproveable postulate.

How could carnivores exist in the beginning if they could only eat plants?

This objection is based on Genesis 1:30. There are two common responses to this. All animals were originally herbivores, even today's carnivores. Some defend this point of view based on a literal understanding of the idea that death didn't enter the world until after the fall of man, death referring to the physical death of all animal and human life. One problem with this view is that "death" may instead refer to the spiritual death of mankind and say nothing at all regarding the physical death of animal life. I won't try to defend that theory, but there are Christians out there who argue the scientific possibility of carnivores existing without animal life as food. 

Other believers point out that it never really states in the text that the animals were to eat plants only. This second approach treats this verse as a good description of the food chain in which plants are the primary producers of food from which all animals get their nourishment, either directly or indirectly.

 

THE BOOK OF NUMBERS: INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERARY STRUCTURE

Below is a summary of a chapter in my unpublished book The Structure of Scripture. I will forward the unedited chapter to anyone requesting it at elmerphd21@hotmail.com.

The Book of Numbers is a seeming hodgepodge of miscellaneous legislative material, narratives told out of chronological order, and long formulaic lists relieved occasionally by minor literary variations. Childs has collected comments on Numbers characterizing it as “the least unified composition within the Pentateuch,” “difficult to discern any pattern in its construction” and “without any unity of subject matter.”

In addition, the question has been asked whether Numbers should even be considered as a stand-alone text apart from the other books of the Pentateuch. For example, various authors have suggested that the first nine or ten chapters of Numbers should be read in conjunction with Exodus and/or Leviticus. In spite of these intriguing suggestions, many commentators do see a logical arrangement to the material in the Book of Numbers itself. However, there remains a fair amount of disagreement as to what exactly constitutes the overall organization of the book. The key to the book's structure has been variously proposed to lie in (a) the alternation of numerous legal and narrative sections, (b) geographical markers, or (c) chronological notes in the text.

One simple two-part structure for Numbers separates the mainly legal material in 1:1-10:10 from the rest of the book. Alternatively, the two censuses beginning at 1:1 and 26:1 may be used to divide the book into two parts, the second being more positive in tone.  By combining these two criteria, one arrives at the three-part scheme – 1:1-10:10, 10:11-25:18, 26:1-36:13 – favored by many commentators, although others locate the break between the second and third sections differently. It is this basic three-part scheme, with variations, that is defended below with supporting data and further definition. It should be noted parenthetically that this proposed scheme preserves most of the detailed unit divisions identified by Milgrom.

Section I: Order (1:1-10:36)

The first major section of the book has an overall positive tone in which the congregation of Israel is divided by tribes, each in its proper place and with a place of honor for the Levites. Various laws are prescribed by God, and His presence with and blessings on the people are guaranteed. These same elements are given twice in this section according to the scheme shown below. Serving as a rough inclusio are the only occurrences of “banner” in the book, nine times in chapters 1-2 and four times in 10:14-25. Another approximate inclusio consists of the similar time formulas found in 1:1 and 10:11.

Figure 1: The Structure of Section I

A. The Tribes Numbered (chs. 1-2)

B. Levitical Duties (chs. 3-4)

C. Various Laws (5:1-6:21)

D. God's Blessings on the People (6:22-27)

A'. The Tribes Offer Sacrifices (ch. 7)

B'. Levitical Duties (ch. 8)

C'. Passover Laws (9:1-14)

D'. God's Presence with the People (9:15-10:36)

The parallelism between the two halves of this section is evidenced not only in the common themes, but also in the similar starting and ending formulas. Both A and A' begin with reference to “head of house of fathers” and then proceed to “heads of thousands.” Sections B and B' end on the note: “according to all that the LORD commanded to Moses” while C and C' conclude with the words “according to the law.” Many other similarities between the material in B and B' and between that in C and C' have been previously noted.

The parallels between sections D and D' are not as pronounced except in the general theme of Yahweh's closeness to his chosen people. Most commentators see a distinct break after verse 10:10, but the proposed division shown above can be defended on grounds that the concluding verses of ch.10 fit the optimistic tone of the rest of Section I much better than the downbeat nature of the following section. In addition, since D' begins with mention of the cloud of the LORD in 9:15, it is appropriate to conclude with its appearance again at the end of the section (10:34).

Section II: Disorder (11:1-25:18)

The same four basic elements that comprise Section I (order established by Yahweh, the place of the Levites, legislation from Yahweh, and Yahweh's relation to His people) are also present twice in this section, with two major differences: they appear in chiastic, rather than parallel, order and they occur as perversions of the ideal order demonstrated in Section I.

Figure 2: The Structure of Section II

A. God's Wrath (ch.11)

B. Rebellions Against God's Leadership (chs.12-14)

C. Various Laws (ch.15)

D. Rebellion Against Levitical Authority (16:1-35)

E. God's Wrath (16:36-50)

D'. Restoration of Levitical Authority (17:1-12)

C'. Various Laws (chs.18-19)

B'. Result of Rebellion Against God's Leadership (20:1-21:3)

A'. God's Wrath (21:4-25:18)

One similarity tying together sections IIA and IIA' is that each contains an apparent example of Yahweh changing his mind without explanation (at 11:33 where Yahweh smites the people with a plague after giving them quail to eat and in ch. 22 where He opposes Balaam's visit to Balak after giving him permission to go). These incidents perhaps demonstrate the sovereignty of Yahweh's decisions and His right to display wrath on whomever He chooses.

There are a number of parallels between sections IIB and IIB'. The rebellions of Miriam and Aaron in B lead to their deaths in B'. The lack of faith displayed by the people in B when the spies give their report leads to their inability to enter Canaan on their own in B'. Similarly, God's pronouncement in B dooming the present generation from entering Canaan is paralleled by the same judgment against Moses himself in B'. Moses and Aaron fall on their faces in both sections (14:5; 20:6) in narratives where the glory of Yahweh appears, emphasizing the proper response of man to Yahweh in contrast to that evidenced by the congregation of Israel.  In both sections, the same order of events occurs: complaining by the people, response of the leaders, appearance of God's glory, and an oracle given.  Stubbs points to the irony of the people complaining about the lack of figs, vines and pomegranates in 20:5 when those are the very items brought back from Canaan by the spies in 13:23-24. In spite of these reverses, a surprising turn of events can be seen if one compares the final verses of sections B and B'. In the first instance, the people are defeated in battle at Hormah. In the second instance, God leads them to victory, signaling an upturn in Israel's fortunes.

The sections labeled C and C' above contain ritual material and are unified by the phrase “a perpetual statute throughout the generations,” which occurs exactly ten times between the two sections. Both sections end with dual mention of offenders being “cut off” from the people (15:30,31; 19:13,20).

At the center of this section is the story of the Korahite rebellion in Numbers 16-17, divided into three separate but related units according to the scheme of Ashley. The negative situation of ch. 16 culminating in the death of thousands is given a positive slant in the subsequent chapter with the budding of Aaron's rod. And although Aaron dies, Israel is given a new priest in Eleazer. The wrath of Yahweh directed against the people of Israel in Section IIA is redirected toward her enemies in IIA'. And, most telling, the abortive war with the Canaanites in IIA (14:39-45) is turned into a victory in IIA' with the “seemingly misplaced report (Levine)” of 21:1-3.

The important final unit of Section II centers around the Balaam incident, which has been called “in some ways the centerpiece of the book of Numbers. As examples of unity within IIA', this section contains (a) exactly seven occurrences of the pair “Jacob/Israel” (followed by the deliberate switching of this order in a final occurrence) and (b) exactly seven uses of the noun masal referring to an oracle.

Section III: A New Order (26:1-36:13)

The literary structure of this last section is the most complex in the book, incorporating the parallel arrangement of Section I and the chiastic structure evidenced in Section II. The intended unity of this section is best seen in the use of the phrase “in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho” at its start (26:3) and conclusion (36:13).

Figure 3: The Structure of Section III

A. The Tribes Numbered (26:1-56)

B. Levites Numbered (26:57-65)

C. Inheritance Laws for Daughters of Zelophehad (27:1-11)

D. End of Moses' Leadership (27:12-23)

E. Final Legislation Before Crossing Jordan (ch. 28-29)

F. Women's Vows (ch. 30)

E'. Final Narratives Before Crossing Jordan (ch. 31-32)

D'. Summary of Moses' Leadership (33:1-49)

A'. The Tribes' Inheritance (33:50-34:29)

B'. Levites' Inheritance and Cities of Refuge (ch. 35)

C'. Inheritance Laws for Daughters of Zelophehad (ch. 36)

The outer elements in the above structure (A, B, C and their parallels) are very similar to, and occur in the same order as, the corresponding sub-sections of Section I (see Fig. 1). As in Section I, an enumeration of the tribes (A and A') is followed by a special emphasis on the Levites (B and B') and the description of a new piece of legislation. The last case is especially striking since sections IIIC and IIIC' deal with the same specific issue (noted by most commentators), and the present division of its discussion into two separate passages is incomprehensible outside of a structural rationale such as shown above. These paired sections are of special importance to feminist interpreters in recognizing that “these women are also entitled to a self-sufficient and financially secure life, independent of men.” (Tiemeyer) These narratives present the daughters as positive models of the new generation in the wilderness.

Many potential schemes are possible for dividing the miscellaneous central material constituting 27:12-33:49. The divisions of Fig. 3 were obtained by the following reasoning:

1. There are similar endings for Sections D, E and F.

“as the LORD directed through Moses” (27:23)

            “as the LORD had commanded Moses” (29:40)

            “which the LORD commanded Moses” (30:16)

2. Although sections D' and E' are not as clearly delineated, each consists of two separate subjects tied together with a repeated key phrase:

a. Section D' contains an enumeration of the encampments made by the people in the wilderness (33:1-49) and a command by Yahweh to utterly destroy the inhabitants of Canaan (33:50-56). The enumeration ends with the same phrase used to begin the command: “in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.”

b. Section E' contains two narratives: the war with the Midianites (ch. 31) and the decisions involving Reuben and Gad (ch. 32). These somewhat diverse texts provide two prominent examples of legislation prompted by narrative events and are unified by mention (at 31:12-13 and 32:2) of the key leaders: “Moses and Eleazar the priest and....the congregation.”

The most prominent features of the structure shown in Fig. 3 are its three centers of emphasis. The stress in the parallel repetitions A, B, C and A', B', C' falls naturally on the last elements, the laws guaranteeing a fair inheritance for the daughters of Zelophedad. The emphasis in the center chiasm is on Section F – regulations protecting women from rash vows, a section of the book that appears to have no obvious relationship with what has proceeded or with what follows. This amazing preoccupation with women's rights in a so-called patriarchal document has been noted by Ashley, who comments, “At the beginning, middle and end of this unit the rights of a normally underprivileged group are addressed. Yahweh's land would be a place where all God's people would find rest.”

Sections I and III

Taken as a whole, the Book of Numbers with its three major sections has an ABA' pattern with the correspondence of the first and last sections most clearly indicated by the way in which they both begin: with a census of the people and similar instructions given to Moses by Yahweh. Another more subtle parallelism can be seen in the similarities between the vows occurring at the center of each section.  Many other similarities between the first and third sections have been cited in the literature.

Overall Structure

In the first major section of the book, the strength of Yahweh's people is first measured, and their relation with Him is detailed through the Levitical duties and various commands that must be obeyed. The end result is a blessing on the people. This four-fold pattern is given twice in Section I.

In Section II, all the elements of the first section are seen to be in disruption. The people, including the Levites, are aligned against Yahweh and his appointed leadership; the laws given in this section concern transgressions by the people and the Levites; and Yahweh's wrath, not His blessing, falls on the people. Within this section, however, are hints (through its chiastic structure and various reversals that occur in the second half) that the situation is not irredeemable, especially for the next generation.

Section III begins and ends with three of the elements found in the first two sections:

a. The strength of a new generation (stressed in 26:64 as containing “not a man numbered by Moses...in the wilderness of Sinai”) under Yahweh's leadership is assessed.

            b. The particular position of the Levites is noted, including their place in the new land to be                    occupied.

c. A sticky legal issue, this time related again to the inheritance of land, is resolved.

What will be the fate of the army of Yahweh as it proceeds to carry out its mission to occupy the Promised Land? Will it rely on His strength to lead them to victory or fall back into a pattern of grumbling and disbelief? It appears that two literary devices have been used in the last section to purposely leave the reader in suspense regarding the outcome. First, by combining in Section III the literary pattern of the optimistic Section I (repetition) with that of the pessimistic Section II (chiasm), the reader is left with no structural hint as to the subsequent conclusion. The second, and most important, consideration is the element present in the first two sections of the book but missing in the third: Yahweh's relationship with the congregation of Israel. Will it be one of wrath or blessing? Only a subsequent reading of the books of Joshua and Judges will resolve these questions.

Stubbs aptly characterizes this final section of the book as being “a bittersweet portrait of the new generation” in which “almost every chapter is marked with a sense that while everything is better, it is not quite as it should be.”  Reaching his conclusion by an independent line of reasoning, Olsen  echoes the above comments on this intended open-ended effect of Numbers: “The concern of the book is to establish a model or paradigm which will invite every generation to place itself in the place of a new generation.”