THE NUMBER "FIVE" IN THE BIBLE

Strict literalists are often dismayed to learn that not only are words in the Bible often used figuratively or symbolically, so are numbers. For some examples, see my post titled “How Numbers are used in the Bible.” The most common numbers used in these unconventional manners are 3, 4, 7, 1000, and their multiples. But what about the number “five?”

Here a few different views on the subject, starting first with an appropriate warning from Hemer, who says, “Care must be taken not to attribute theological significance to the use of particular numbers where it is arguable that no such significance was intended. Many cases are better treated as literal or rhetorical or as round-number approximations where these explanations seem natural and sufficient.”

As one concrete example, John 5:2 mentions a pool in Jerusalem which had five porticoes. But scholars for years were skeptical that a pentagon-shaped pool would ever have been built. Then archeologists uncovered the site and found that the pool was in fact rectangular in shape, but had in addition a colonnade right down the center, making five covered pathways in total.

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery discusses the number five in particular and notes its appearance throughout Scripture. In many of these cases, the meaning comes from the number of fingers on one hand, and thus can be used to express a small round number. It has a completeness in itself although at the same time it is only half of ten, a symbolically complete number. DBI cites as examples the Pentateuch and the literary arrangement of the Gospel of Matthew into five discourses of Jesus. More specifically are three types of usage in the Bible:

    1. “At times five is used to represent a small sum, numerically possessing high value nonetheless.” Examples the author of Genesis cites include the number of righteous people necessary to save Sodom from being destroyed (Genesis 18:22-33) and Paul's words in I Corinthians 14:19 concerning speaking words in (or with) his mind rather than many in tongues. Similarly, Oswalt states, “It has been observed that five is sometimes used for several, so 'five shall chase one hundred' (Lev 26:8; cf. also Gen. 43:34; 1 Sam 17:40; 2 K 7:13; Isa 30:17; 1 Cor. 14:19). Thus, it is suggested that 'a small number' is intended.”

    2. “At other times the number five indicates just recompense or bounteous reward,” as in Genesis 43:34; 45:22; Exodus 22:1; and Numbers 3:47. To these examples, Jenson adds Deuteronomy 22:9 and Leviticus 5:16; 22:14.

    3. “Most commonly five is represented as half the basic number ten.” Examples include Exodus 26:3; I Kings 6:24; and Matthew 25:2. And as half of the standard decimal measure in use in Palestine at the time, it with its multiples can also be found in the descriptions of the tabernacle and temple (see Genesis 6:15; Exodus 26:36; Ezekiel 42:15-20).

Concentrating on the New Testament occurrences specifically, Hemer makes the blanket statement: “There is no clear evidence that this number should be given any symbolic meaning.” Instead, he feels that a “natural usage” is preferred, i.e., literally or as a small round number instead. But despite this opinion, on some of the occasions in which “five” is utilized, there may be something in addition in mind. For example, consider the times this number appears in the Gospel accounts:

Matthew 14:17 – Feeding of the 5,000

Is there any special significance to the “five” loaves that were multiplied? Hill says, “There is no satisfactory explanation of the numbers 'five' and 'two' [fish].” The fact that this detail appears in three of the Gospel accounts may indicate that it was an historical truth widely remembered. But in addition, note the progression of numbers: 5; 5,000. This is a standard rhetorical device using factors of 10 to distinguish small numbers from larger ones. We see it also in Jesus' teaching in Luke 7:41 where the numbers 50 and 500 are compared.

In addition, despite Hill's statement above, it should be noted that the numbers “five” and “two” also appear in Jesus' Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:15). In both cases, significant multiplication of those two numbers occurs.

Matthew 25:2 – The Parable of the Ten Virgins and the Wedding Party

This falls into the pattern set by the figurative use of the number ten as a complete number. Therefore, it divides regularly into two groups of five each, with different fates for each group. We could understand this as an analogy between the difference in doing something with both hands versus and single-handedly.

Luke uses the number “five” even more times than Matthew:

Luke 12:6 – Five Sparrows for One Penny

Morris does not see any other reason for the number five in his words since obviously that must have been the literal cost of sparrows at the time. But he ignores the fact that in the parallel account in Matthew the price is given as two sparrows for one penny. This change is one which Marshall finds confusing: “There is no obvious reason for editorial alteration of the value here.” However, it appears obvious that this teaching of Jesus is another example of DBI's type 1 of a small number which is nevertheless valuable.

Luke 12:52; 14:19; and 16:28

The number “five” is used by Jesus in each of these three teachings. Thus, it may have the literary function in this case of unifying this block of instructions.

Luke 16:48 – Lazarus and the Rich Man

This passage warrants a few extra comments. The rich man is said to have five brothers. Marshall says, “Five is no doubt a round number; attempts to find allusions to the Herod family are ill-directed.” However, I should add that “five” may have been specifically chosen by Jesus to fit in with the five books of Moses, which are mentioned in the very next verse.

John 4:18 – Jesus and the Samaritan Woman

In this encounter Jesus informs the woman that he knows she has had five husbands. There are at least three ways we can take this statement. The most straightforward just takes it at face value as a statement of literal truth. If so, then this gross violation of levitical law is one way of indicating the woman's dire need of repentance.

But then there is another interpretation, explained by R.E. Brown who says that “since earliest times many have seen a symbolism in the husbands. Origen saw a reference to the fact that the Samaritans held as canonical only the five books of Moses.” In favor of this possibility is the similarity this story has with the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man mentioned above. Both deal with people who are in need of changing their life completely. If this is the way we should read this story, then the Samaritan woman also stands condemned along with her fellow Samaritans in limiting God's revelation to five books only, and not accepting the whole counsel of God.

Thirdly, Brown describes a more allegorical interpretation meaning to the number “five” in this narrative. Namely, in II Kings 17:24ff, “foreign colonists brought in by the Assyrian conquerors are said to have come from five cities and...have brought their pagan cults with them...Since the Hebrew word for 'husband' (ba'al, 'master, lord') was also used as a name for a pagan deity, the passage in John is interpreted as a play on words...Such an allegorical intent is possible; but John gives no evidence that it was intended...” But if this reading is accepted, then it condemns the Samaritan for merging Judaism with pagan religions in their beliefs and practices.

Adding to the unlikelihood of this final interpretation are a number of powerful refutations, and he concludes, “It is much better to take the passage literally, as a factual statement about the men with whom the woman had lived.” Borchert adds, “Such an interpretation is an inappropriate homiletical application of the principles of typology...”

Revelation 9:5,10 – The Demon Locust

This is the final occurrence of the word “five” in the Bible. It concerns the time period during which these creatures are allowed to torment men. The same two options for understanding “five months” are mentioned by both Hemer and Morris: (a) it refers to “a limited period of chastisement,” “a time of limited, but undefined duration” or (b) it is an allusion to the approximate life span of a natural locust.