NUMERICAL SAYINGS IN THE BIBLE: X/X+1

“Numbers play a prominent and varied role in the Bible. They appear throughout both Testaments, even though no part of the Bible has a purely scientific or mathematical purpose...Numbers are not only prevalent in the Bible, but their use is varied.” These uses include the conventional, rhetorical, symbolic and mysterious or hidden. (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

As for the rhetorical utilization of numbers, one type found in the Hebrew Bible is known as x / x+1 poetic parallelism. This sounds like a rather technical term, but it represents a rather simple concept.

In the Bible, this translates to expressions such as “Three things are too wonderful for me; four I do not understand.” (Proverbs 30:18) This phrase is followed in verse 19 by a listing of four examples that the poet has observed on earth. Did the poet start out with only three items in mind and then happen to remember a fourth one to add at the end? Obviously not since that same type of expression appears again and again in the Bible.

Note that “too wonderful for me” is another way of saying “I do not understand.” Thus, it falls into the general category of biblical parallelism of thought typical of Hebrew poetry. But since there is no synonym for the number “three,” to put in the second line of poetry, the poet utilizes the next highest number there. But what is the overall intent of expressing an idea in that manner?

G.V. Smith outlines three different understandings of the x/x+1 pattern in Amos 1-2:

    A. “Numerical sequences refer to a large indefinite number of sins. It is an idiomatic or rhetorical device which should not be taken literally.” Thus, perhaps it is another way of expressing the idea that the author could have listed many more if he wished to do so. Stuart translates the beginning of each oracle in Amos 1-2 as: “For multiple transgressions of [nation named], I will not restore it.” Smith rejects this explanation with the words: “Certainly the use of numbers indicates more than just an indefinite number.”

    B. “The actual listing of the items after some sequences has led other to conclude that the highest number should be understood literally.” For example, Smith quotes the Babylonian Talmud which says that God can forgive a sin up to the third time it is committed by a person, but not on the fourth time. That explanation may apply to the sins condemned in the “3 / 4” oracles found in Amos 1:3-2:5, since only one sin is actually mentioned there, but it fails in other cases found in the Bible.

    C. “Three and four are components of the number 7, which symbolizes completion.” Thus, Smith and others count exactly seven sins against Israel in Amos 2:6-8. However, Carroll notes that other commentators only count four.

    D. In addition to those three possibilities, most other commentators start out by stating that the main rhetorical function (i.e. how it affects the reader or hearer) is that it leads to an increase in intensity with each subsequent phrase. A rough equivalent in English might be the expression: “One for the money, two for the show, three to get ready, and four to GO!” In this case, there is no particular significance to the numbers themselves except for the fact that they get higher each time. The same rhetorical effect can be brought about by numbers recited in reverse order:

                    “Ten-Nine-Eight-Seven-Six-Five-Four-Three-Two-One”

                    followed by “BLAST OFF” or “HAPPY NEW YEAR!”

In two separate articles in DBI, authors attempt to explain the exact meaning of this phenomenon, but they do not quite agree with one another. Thus, one says that “the intended effect of the parallelism is to impress the reader that there are many other unspecified [items] at issue here.” (Explanation A) But another commentator states that “the move from the lower to the higher number is not for the purpose of arriving at the 'right' number, but to intensify the thought” (Explanation D)

For one thing, consider the symbolic meaning of the number four. Without going into much detail, it is generally agreed that “four” is often a number associated with God's creation, as in “the four winds,” “the four corners of the earth,” or even Peter's vision of a four-cornered sheet containing all manner of animals (Acts 10:11-12).

So if we couple this symbolic meaning of “four” with its appearance in some x/x+1 sayings of the 3 / 4- type, we come up with Hubbard's contention: “Numerical sayings are illustrations drawn from creation to shed light on the behavior of creation's most puzzling creature: the human being.”

By contrast, Andersen and Freedman say concerning the first seven oracles in Amos 1-2, “The oracles themselves contain no indication of why these particular numerals [3 + 4] are used. The indictment sets forth only one crime, perhaps the last and worst (the fourth after three bad ones, or perhaps the seventh).”

To explore these possibilities, look at what some commentators have to say regarding other specific examples of x/x+1 sayings in the Bible:

Job 5:19   Hartley discusses this case, which reads “He delivers you from six sorrows, no harm shall touch you in seven.” He states that the stress is on the latter number, which stands for completeness in this case. This explanation seems to make sense since, according to his count, seven sins are then listed. However, he must admit that it is not quite clear exactly how many plagues are enumerated.

Proverbs 6:16 says, “There are six things that God hates, seven that are an abomination to him,” followed by a list of exactly seven. In this case the final number is definitely the important one. But it is also obvious that there are many other items that could have been listed; these are only representative examples. Thus, Explanation A may be the best one for this verse.

Proverbs 30 contains a series of four numerical sayings. They beginning at verses 15, 18, 21, and 29, respectively. Each introductory statement is of the “3 / 4” type, and each one lists exactly four following examples. These enumerate both good (wonderful things, small but wise things, and stately things) and bad (things that are never satisfied and things the earth cannot bear) characteristics. Both animal and human examples are included, all part of God's creation (thus the use of the appropriately symbolized number “four”).

Ecclesiastes 11:2: “Divide your means into seven ways, or even eight for you do not know which earthly disaster may happen.” The general idea is not to put all your eggs into one basket in case you drop one. Since the number “seven” means perfection or completeness, the number “eight” figuratively expresses the idea of “more than enough.” Thus, “be extra careful” or “take more than adequate precautions” regarding the future.

Micah 5:5 also contains another “7 / 8” saying: “We shall set up over him seven shepherds and eight leaders of men.” This should not be construed to mean 15 people altogether. “This is a Hebrew literary device to indicate that an indefinite yet adequate number of leaders will arise to overthrow the Assyrians.” I would amend that statement to say “a more than adequate number.”

Some Dubious Examples

Weinfield and others consider with the authentic sayings that utilize this rhetorical device the comment appended to the Second Commandment saying that “God will remember the fathers' guilt against the sons of the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” (Exodus 20:5; 34:7; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 5:9) Cole says, “This is a typical Semitic phrase denoting continuity, not to be understood in an arithmetical sense.”

However, both Mayes and Clements feel that there is a a literal meaning to the phrase. Thus, Mayes explains that the third and fourth generation “reflects the greatest probable extent of the range of members of any one family actually living together in one household.” And C.J.H. Wright states that expression “must be understood in the context of the solidarity of extended families (of three or four generations living together), in which the sin (especially idolatry) of one generation would affect the others detrimentally.”

The literal KJV rendering of Job 33:14 states, “For God speaks once, yea twice, yet man perceives it not.” That would make it appear to be an obvious example of the figurative type we are discussing. However, Pope translates it as “God may speak in one way or another, and one not perceive it.” indicating that no x/x+1 pattern may be intended at all.

Psalm 62:11-12 is a quite similar saying which also may or may not be a true example of an x /x+1 saying. A literal rendering of the Hebrew reads: “Once God has spoken; twice I have heard this [followed by two statements].” That doesn't make a whole lot of sense as is. So here is what some translators do with it:

    NEB: “One thing God has spoken, two things I have learnt...”

    The Message: “God said this once and for all; how many times have I heard it repeated?”

    TEV: “More than once have I heard God say...”

    The Living Bible leaves out the whole phrase and skips directly to the “two things.” And Beth Tanner paraphrases it as “first God spoke, two things I heard...”

Hosea 6:2 reads “After two days he will revive us, on the third day he will lift us up.” But Davies notes that this is nothing but a simple case of synonymous parallelism in which “he will revive us” is the same as “he will lift us up.” And “after two days” is just another way of saying “on the third day.”

Related Examples

Somewhat associated numerical sequences are found in the Bible that are not strictly x, x+1 in nature, but are built on other methods of mathematical progression such as multiplying the first number by ten, writing the first digit twice, etc. These include Lamech's “7 / 70” boast in Genesis 4:24; the song praising the relative exploits of Saul and David (1,000 / 10,000) in I Samuel 8:7; and Jesus' comment to Peter regarding the times you should forgive your brother (7 / 77; the second number is given as 7x70 in some manuscripts) in Matthew 18:22. In each case, we should recognize that non-literal language is being employed.

I have known a number of Christians who have been especially confused regarding the last example above. That is probably because Peter starts out talking on a strictly literal level wanting to know if seven times forgiving someone is enough before he can stop doing it. But Jesus, as he often did, immediately jumped to the figurative level to get at the root of the question. Whichever of the two textual traditions one chooses, 77 or 7x70, it is obviously not a number that is to be taken literally. “Seven times” in biblical symbolism simply means “completely.” You need to completely forgive the other party.