One of the greatest challenges to the Reformed faith and an acceptance of the inerrancy of Scripture is that there’s an assumption that for Scripture to be true that every particular element of it must be true (ie literal), even down to the matter of numbers.
Unbelievers and those willing to compromise the authority of Scripture will often use inconsistency in matters of numbers between books to argue against either (a) inerrancy as practice or (b) the truth of Scripture over all.
I would argue that for those who are willing to compromise the authority of Scripture due to a wooden understanding of inerrancy as a doctrine are not helping the faith but are surrendering it to the judgement of the world, a world that has already itself been judged (John 3:19).
We—believers—come to Scripture, recognizing that “the whole...and...parts [of Scripture]...were given by divine inspiration”[1] and that “inspiration was the work of God by His Spirit” and while we may not know the exact mode by which it was accomplished, we recognize that it is not of human origin[2], but also we recognize that “inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers who He had chosen and prepared”.[3]
The difficult part for many is the fact that God allowed the writers of Scripture to tell things as they saw fit, in accordance with their decisions and accepted methods of presentation. One of those methods of presentation includes the use of numbers in symbolic ways. Ways that can effect how we interpret the text.
One of the issues that makes meaningful biblical interpretation so difficult and seem so subjective to modern readers is that we are essentially disconnected from a culture that was dependent upon symbols to carry meaning is that we are a culture that communicates through words. We use words, an arrangement of letters that are dependent upon a particular semantic and contextual arrangement, that are themselves symbols. We have mentally disconnected the immaterial reality that is conveyed by material representation. Modern readers expect numbers to reflect represent a literal counting.
We encounter this issue of numerical literalism/symbolism on the first page of Scripture in the account of creation.
There’s an entire debate about whether or not the days of Genesis 1 should be taken as literal, 24-hour days or symbolic days. The problem with making such a distinction is that we think of a “day” as a 24-hour period, and the ancient Hebrew author might look at us debating the question and call us a bunch of nuts. The answer to the question of whether the days of creation are literal or symbolic would most likely be replied to with an emphatic, “yes!” that would cause us to throw up our hands in frustration because we have a narrow perspective on the use of numbers.
This is because there are those who argue argue that for certain biblical claims to be literally true (ie the resurrection, Jesus as the divine incarnate one, etc) all claims have to be literally true (seven, 24-hour days of creation, global flood, etc).
The ancient Babylonians and Egyptians had a developed numerology based on astrological divination, which is forbidden in the Hebrew Scriptures. The ancient Chaldeans sectioned the stars into twelve regions. Numerology is also consequential in Hinduism, Buddhism, Magic texts, and other occultic, pagan religions.
In contrast to the numerical speculation of Gentile religions, the Hebrew Scriptures use numbers in their conspicuous, literal sense, although occasionally numbers may have a representative meaning….The symbolic, even poetic use of numbers in the Bible is not inordinate speculation concerning the universe. Even in the later, more apocalyptic texts of Daniel and Isaiah, prophetic symbolism is rooted in historical data.
Further, we have to question whether or not the symbolism that becomes associated with certain numbers (ie seven, 7, in the creation text) gets its meaning from the text or is already being assumed by the audience. There is always some sense that the symbolic meaning of a number cannot be separated from its literal meaning. The best example is the fact that Israel (Jacob) literally had 12 sons, thus establishing what would later become the 12 tribes of Israel. As such, this number becomes associated with God’s power and authority. It is why there are twelve disciples (later apostles). Multiples of numbers can also have meaning, as seen in the book of Revelation, where there are 24 thrones established. So, a number’s symbolic use must be grounded in something literal for it to be meaningful.
Another matter that needs to be considered is that of the long ages of the patriarchs. I mean do we take the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis 5 to be their literal ages?
There are those who will argue that the writer(s) of Genesis clearly meant for these to be understood literally. The question is, if we consider that the author(s) were composing their text from an earlier source, and given the clear Babylonian flavor of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, should we consider such ages to be representative of a decimal counting system (base-10) as moderns use, or a sexagesimal counting system (base-60) as the Babylonians used?
If the former is the case, then we cannot take the ages seriously. However, if the latter is the case, then the literalness of the ages can be reconciled only in terms of apologetic necessity, as one study on the question has concluded. Another argues that the numbers (ages, troop counts, etc), "are simply reflective of a rhetorical device common in ancient Near Eastern literature" and are therefore inapplicable to matters of inerrancy or historical integrity.
To that end, just how should we deal with the numbers that appear in the biblical text?
First, we need to recognize that the Bible contains ancient texts and uses their writing and messaging conventions. If we have a coherent and consistent doctrine of inspiration, we must recognize that what was written had to have meaning for the original audience, and we have to be ready to admit that it wasn’t us. We benefit from it, we can learn form it,but it wasn’t written to us, it was written for us.
Second, we must let the author(s) tell us how they expect the numbers to be understood. This has to do with reflecting on issues of genre. Is a particular number being used literally or figuratively? If there isn’t a clear reason to assume that a number is being used figuratively or literally, one should assume that the number is literal, but should also consider the purpose for which the author is writing (ie is the text propagandistic in intent).
Last, don't be afraid to be skeptical. Do not assume that you, or the interpretation that you are looking at are correct. If someone makes a particular numerical interpretation a matter of faith or morals then you should probably assume that they are making too much of it. Don’t be afraid to question it.
Biblical interpretation is not an exact science. It should be engaged in carefully, thoughtfully, and—above all—prayerfully. If we are going to do it correctly, we must be prepared to follow our logic to its obvious conclusions, else we be proved to be fools.
Texts involving numbers are no different that other texts: they have a context, a genre, and an authorial intent behind them, and we have to be willing, with a heart and mind receptive to the Spirit of God to be willing to hear what is being said, as well as a willing to not go beyond what is written.
Notes
1. Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article VI
2. Ibid, Article VII
3. Ibid, Aricle VIII
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment