Repetition in scripture

[Jimlarmore]

Some points have been brought up on another thread about repetition in the Bible. I'd be interested to read some of the other participants on this forum as to what repetition does in the Bible.

Just briefly I would like to give my own perspective on the uses of repetition as I see it. The repetitions that come to my mind that are very important are the prophecies in Daniel where we see basically the same thing presented three times in different ways. I.E. the four major kingdoms of the world initially given by the great image in Dan 2, then the same thing given by animal representation with an expansive addition of a little horn in Dan 7. Then in Dan 8 the ram and the goat which is a symbology of the kingdoms of Greese and Persia with the Roman power coming up represented by the little horn coming up after the four generals of Alexander the great. Each time these prophecies were given an expansion ( or new information ) of the previous one was given as well.

We see repetition of prophetic time given as well in the 42 months or 1260 years. This is repeated 7 times between the book of Daniel and Revelations.

God repeats Himself in scripture not because we are to primitive to understand the initial revelation but for expansion and solidification of the sureness of what He is saying will/did happen.

Please feel free to expound on your philosophy for this.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[OntheDL]

Some points have been brought up on another thread about repetition in the Bible. I'd be interested to read some of the other participants on this forum as to what repetition does in the Bible.

Just briefly I would like to give my own perspective on the uses of repetition as I see it. The repetitions that come to my mind that are very important are the prophecies in Daniel where we see basically the same thing presented three times in different ways. I.E. the four major kingdoms of the world initially given by the great image in Dan 2, then the same thing given by animal representation with an expansive addition of a little horn in Dan 7. Then in Dan 8 the ram and the goat which is a symbology of the kingdoms of Greese and Persia with the Roman power coming up represented by the little horn coming up after the four generals of Alexander the great. Each time these prophecies were given an expansion ( or new information ) of the previous one was given as well.

We see repetition of prophetic time given as well in the 42 months or 1260 years. This is repeated 7 times between the book of Daniel and Revelations.

God repeats Himself in scripture not because we are to primitive to understand the initial revelation but for expansion and solidification of the sureness of what He is saying will/did happen.

Please feel free to expound on your philosophy for this.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Hi Jim,

The bible does use many repetitions to stress important points. Some methodical repetitions are chiasms.

For examples,

Here we have the central point D and each supporting points leading up to and building up to point D.

For example, I made a post on the 7 scenes of sanctuary in the Revelation is a chiasm.

Earth----Intro 1:12-20 -------------outer court
Heaven------Inauguration 4,5--------sanctuary
Heaven-----------Intercession 8:2-6---------HP
Heaven------------------Judgment 11:19---MHP
Heaven-----------Cessation 15:5-8-----------HP
Heaven------Absence 19:1-10--------sanctuary
Earth----Exit 21:1-22:5-------------Outer Court

Here is the central point of Sanctuary scene is judgment. And because the corresponding points on the each arms of the chiasm must match, it prevents mistakes and manipulations that each point can not be used or applied out of place.

I want to say the entire bible is written in Chiasm. But I have not studied it due to its complexity. There are infinite combinations. Only a divine mind can devise it. The book of Revelation is written in a three dimensional chiasm (at least) that I'm trying to fit every piece into this 'volumn under the curve'.

There is a simplier form of repetition/chiasm in the bible: ABBAA...AABBA to illustrate a parallel contrast of two ideas.

 

[Jon0388g]

Hey Jim,

Yeah this topic has really interested me lately. Don't forget also the last chapters of Daniel also depict the conquests of Rome and what leads up to 1844. It is here that no symbolic language is used, and we have internal proof that prophetic time were being used in the previous prophecies (the phrase "after a period of several years" is repeatedly used). This is an important point many people aren't aware of.


The chiasms of Scripture are also extremely fascinating, and the places they are found are especially suprising considering what they focus around. As OntheDL rightly states, the whole of Revelation follows a chiastic structure.

There are two other important chiasms in Scripture which are especially important in nowadays' controversy over certain doctrines of Scripture:

• The chiasm in Leviticus, with the central point being, you guessed it, the Day of Atonement (chapter 16) and judgment
• The chiasm in Hebrews, with the central point being the entry of Christ into the holy place of the heavenly tabernacle.

I can dig these up if anyone wants them in detail.

Jon

 

[Sophia7]

Repetition, parallelism, chiasm--these are all recognized Hebrew literary devices. I don't believe that the use of them in any way suggests that OT narratives such as creation and the flood are not meant to be taken as events that literally happened but only as allegories to teach spiritual truths to primitive peoples. If someone tells a story, is the rhetorical style the determining factor in whether it is true or fictional?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

IF your account of a story is in the form of a poem, and it is the only account you have it is not likely that by structure it can relate the events in a literal fashion.

But what you think of the story if it is literal or not is going to be up to the reader. The other factors in the the story also effect whether the story sounds like it should be literal or not. For instance God was sorry He made man yet provides escape for man. How sorry was he for making man if he destroys them yet saves some to start it all over again. So many of us see this as merely the author assigning to God human characteristics, something poems do nicely but taken literally it causes trouble. In an epic poem epic things happen like the whole world flooded, something that would be pretty much an impossibility on many physical science areas. But for the poem of the story it works well.

This all goes back to what people think is the inspiration of the Bible, is it to tell literal history of is it to show the progression of understanding of people through history. Why was Ecclesiastes included in the Bible. Is it literally true that as is found in Chapter 1 God has laid a heavy burden on man? Or is this part of man's exploration upon what is valuable and important. The poem of Ecclesiastes is again not something of literal nature but or theological and philosophical implications. What is life is this is all there is? The author never really answers the question but I think it can be safely inferred that his questions led to other's developing bigger ideas about God, the messiah and salvation. It is a step in the process that the Bible allows us to see. Inspiration for education, and education is often not about facts and figures but about using ones mind.

 

[djconklin]

>If someone tells a story, is the rhetorical style the determining factor in whether it is true or fictional?

No, because of the way memory works. In order to memorize large chunks of material the Semitic mind used all sorts of devices to help the organize and keep track of it all. Even today experts in the field recommend that you use various "hooks" to help momorize the material.

 

[djconklin]

There are two other important chiasms in Scripture which are especially important in nowadays' controversy over certain doctrines of Scripture:

• The chiasm in Leviticus, with the central point being, you guessed it, the Day of Atonement (chapter 16) and judgment
• The chiasm in Hebrews, with the central point being the entry of Christ into the holy place of the heavenly tabernacle.

I can dig these up if anyone wants them in detail.

Please do--this is great!

 

[djconklin]

Do you happen to have more?

Have you read Jon Paulien's study on Revelation? He had studied the entire book and I studied under him at Andrews while in the seminary. You can get more info on his studies through Dr. Bacchiocchi.

 

[Jimlarmore]

RC_NewProtestants response slants the reader to a mental reckoning that the flood story could be false because it was supposedly Hebrew poetry as well as being a story. The problem I have with this is that if you take this stance then you have to reject what Christ said as well. In Matt 24:37-39 Jesus solidly supports the validity and literalness of the global flood.

The Bible stands or falls on it's truth. It is either totally true or it's false and should be rejected. I choose to place my faith in the veracity of the Bible and it's total truth.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[OntheDL]

Do you happen to have more?

Have you read Jon Paulien's study on Revelation? He had studied the entire book and I studied under him at Andrews while in the seminary. You can get more info on his studies through Dr. Bacchiocchi.

I have a chart on Revelation from Maranatha media. It's a 2D chiasm. I had a hard time following the latter part of it. I think it's a good starting point. I'm trying to figure out the complete picture.

 

[OntheDL]

Here's one example of simple chiastic struture.

Amos 5
4 For thus saith the LORD unto the house of Israel, Seek ye me, and ye shall live:
5 But seek not Bethel, nor enter into Gilgal, and pass not to Beersheba: for Gilgal shall surely go into captivity, and Bethel shall come to nought.
6 Seek the LORD, and ye shall live; lest he break out like fire in the house of Joseph, and devour it, and there be none to quench it in Bethel.

LORD Bethel Gilgal Beersheba Gilgal Bethel LORD
-A-----B------C--------D-------C------B------A-

 

[djconklin]

I have a chart on Revelation from Maranatha media. It's a 2D chiasm. I had a hard time following the latter part of it. I think it's a good starting point. I'm trying to figure out the complete picture.

Thanks! That looks great. Now I'll have to sit down and check it all out!

 

[Jon0388g]

Please do--this is great!

Here goes!!

The chiasm in Hebrews follows this structure:

1a) Veil - 6:19-20
2a) Priesthood - 7:1-25
3a) Sacrifice - 7:26-28
4a) Sanctuary - 8:1-5
5a) Covanent - 8:6-13
6a) Sanctuary - 9:1-10

6b) Sanctuary - 9:11-14
5b) Covanent - 9:15-22
4b) Sanctuary - 10:23-28
3b) Sacrifice - 10:1-10
2b) Priesthood - 10:11-18
1b) Veil - 10:19-20

Important points to consider:

• Many people use 6:19 to prove that Christ entered 'within the veil' - as in, the Day of Atonement was fulfilled at His ascension. The truth is, there is no indication to what OT event was being met in antitype here. The only two events whereby the MHP (within the veil) was entered was Yom Kippur, or the Inauguration Ceremony. Furthermore, the phrase 'within the veil' can be refering to either the first or second veils - it is used to denote both throughout the Bible. (MHP- Exodus 26:33, HP - Numbers 18:7)
• We thus can infer what is being depicted in 6:19 by its parallel verse which, thankfully, makes it plain. 10:19-20 expands on its former, 'by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh.' In my opinion, the 'veil' of 6:19 is the second veil; whereby Christ entered to dedicate the Heavenly Sanctuary services.
• The first half of the chiasm seems to be stating some foundational facts about the whole message. Then, the parallels to it seem to expand on what has been previously said, particularly emphasising what Christ has achieved and what He continues to achieve in heaven for us.
• And that is the central point of the chiasm, found in 9:11-12, where Christ 1)appears as High Priest 2)entered through the Heavenly Sanctuary 3)not with any old blood but with His own blood 4)to enter the holy places once and for all 5) having obtained eternal redemption.

Taking this into account, this sheds light on the prophecy we find in Daniel 9:24:

"...to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place." Daniel 9:24

Jon

 

[Jon0388g]

The chiasm in Leviticus follows:

1a) Sanctuary Laws/Sacrifices: 1-5
2a) Priestly Laws: 6-10
3a) Population Laws: 11-15

The Day of Atonement: Chapter 16

3b) Population Laws: 17-20
2b) Priestly Laws: 21-22
1b) Sanctuary Laws/Festivals: 23-25

Important points:

• The overriding theme of the chiam's halves are: 1) Blood 2) Holiness. Leading up to ch 16, blood and forgiveness, leading away from ch 16, holiness and sanctification.
• The Day of Atonement is central as the Most Holy service of the year for the Israelites; a day of judgment and of cleansing.
• Chapter 16 can be seen as the central point of the whole Torah if Genesis, Exodus (1a, 2a) Numbers (2b) and Deuteronomy (1b) are considered at the appropriate ends of the chiams (although, I thought this was a stretch).

Jon

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Jim wrote:

RC_NewProtestants response slants the reader to a mental reckoning that the flood story could be false because it was supposedly Hebrew poetry as well as being a story. The problem I have with this is that if you take this stance then you have to reject what Christ said as well. In Matt 24:37-39 Jesus solidly supports the validity and literalness of the global flood.

The Bible stands or falls on it's truth. It is either totally true or it's false and should be rejected. I choose to place my faith in the veracity of the Bible and it's total truth.

Jim uses the typical method of many traditional SDA's where he reads what he wants into the Bible. You will notice that in the text cited there is nothing about it being a global flood. Further even in the use by Jesus the point would be the same were it a local flood.

(Mat 24:37 NIV) As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
(Mat 24:38 NIV) For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;(Mat 24:39 NIV) and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

The point of the story was destruction. Because something is mentioned from well known folklore does not indicate that it's usage is to indicate the reality of the reference used. Such as saying something is mickey mouse, or referring to Camelot or Dragons. If you were going to do that just because it is mentioned then Revelation tells us that there really were dragons.

The flood story is an attempt to describe the world we see around us just as the Garden of Eden story attempts to explain why snakes crawl and why weeds grow. If you were God and you were sorry you made man would you throw the world into a global flood or just strike down the wicked. That God would kill all the animals just to horribly kills humans is really a problem for those who say God is love or even those that say God is wise.

So the story is probably based upon some local flood occurrence written to express the idea that God must be obeyed. Let's face it the story is all about obedience, there is nothing at all about repentance of anyone, not even the offer. It then goes on with man's foolishness after the flood continuing the theme of God rescuing those who he has chosen to bring about the nation of Israel.

 

[djconklin]

You will notice that in the text cited {Matt 24:37-39} there is nothing about it being a global flood. Further even in the use by Jesus the point would be the same were it a local flood.

While technically true that Jesus does not use the word "global" we should also note that He used the word "flood" twice. Secondly, we should ask ourselves what kind of flood would Jesus and his hearers have in mind when they heard this.

If you were God and you were sorry you made man would you throw the world into a global flood or just strike down the wicked. That God would kill all the animals just to horribly kills humans is really a problem for those who say God is love or even those that say God is wise.

1) Gen. 6:5 says that it was because of the wickedness of man that God decided to destroy man and beast (vs. 7) it was not a whim that caused God to destroy the wicked.

2) It is not the place for sinful erring man to question the acts of God and to decide what is an act of love an dwhat is not.

3) Those of us who have seen the love of God for us (He sent His Son to die for our sins!) can always trust Him with those things we cannot explain at this time.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

) Those of us who have seen the love of God for us (He sent His Son to die for our sins!) can always trust Him with those things we cannot explain at this time.

Or you could love God enough to see that events are often represented through very imperfect human eyes. Of course the events in Genesis were not witnessed by the writer so it is entirely possible that even under inspiration the writers own ideas are present in the text. Thus things that could have very complex explanations are rendered in a very simplistic all encompassing form because it fits the writers goal though it is far from serving to explain reality.

As far as it not being the place of man to question God, it may not be his place but it will always happen, you might recall the story about Adam and Eve. In fact the early books like Genesis do not have much in the way of questioning God, in fact not until Abraham asks God would he destroy Sodom if there were x number of people, surely God would do justice, do we see that the followers of God can question God. Then in the later prophets you see much more questioning and in poetic books like the Psalms you see abundant questioning of God.

In many a Christian's life there is a time when they say God said it I believe it, thought they don't know where God said it and they don't know why they believe it. But Christianity does not have to remain in that state and Christians should seek a much more reasoned religion.

 

[Jimlarmore]

The Bible tells us that everything that has breath would be destroyed in this flood . I.E. Gen 7:21 amplified version says, " And all flesh ceased to breathe that moved upon the earth- fowls and birds [tame] animals, [wild] beasts and swarming and creeping things tha swarm and creep upon the land and all mankind."

Now we can make some logical conclusions based on this scriptural evidence. If the biota at that time had spread over the entire earth then the flood would have had to be world wide or global for this verse to be true. If the biota hadn't spread world wide then it could have just effected the parts of the planet that had life.

Based on the physical evidence that we see globally the flood indeed happened all over the world.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Based on the physical evidence that we see globally the flood indeed happened all over the world.

Well the physical evidence does not suggest a worldwide flood as much as it suggest multiple seas and then land and seas again. For instance here in the pacific northwest there are 13-14 layers of coal beds (Centralia area). Each one has marine fossils above and below every layer. Kansas was once a vast sea.

The geologically challenged look at things and assume a flood yet it is really not, they see the evidence of water from the ice age meltdown and again see the flood. So what you think you see and what the evidence really shows are quite different.

By the way if you are going to be literalistic then everything would have included all life even in the ark. Yet all mankind did not die, so at least in your argument you should allow for some exaggeration in the Biblical text.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Well the physical evidence does not suggest a worldwide flood as much as it suggest multiple seas and then land and seas again. For instance here in the pacific northwest there are 13-14 layers of coal beds (Centralia area). Each one has marine fossils above and below every layer. Kansas was once a vast sea.

The geologically challenged look at things and assume a flood yet it is really not, they see the evidence of water from the ice age meltdown and again see the flood. So what you think you see and what the evidence really shows are quite different.

By the way if you are going to be literalistic then everything would have included all life even in the ark. Yet all mankind did not die, so at least in your argument you should allow for some exaggeration in the Biblical text.

I won't continue this with you any further other than I want the readers to know that for every claim that the uniformatarians make concerning the geological sediments there are clear explanations. I have spent the last 25 plus years of my life studying the geology of our planet. The sediments scream of a global flood. Fossils themselves tell us that a flood happened. Fossils don't even form unless special conditions are provided. Conditions like the flood buried and preserved millions of animals that eventually became fossils.

Talking of coal? The coal beds on our planet could not have been place there by slow accumulation. You don't get a thousand feet of pure coal placed by slow accumulation. Also, the boundaries in many coal beds show no transitional components like peet on the top, but only laminar sediments with wash in breccia. Most sediments show evidence of lamination with clear lines of demarcation. This shows that the laminations were place rapidly or there would be evidence of internal erosion.

In the arctic they have drilled up fresh frozen palm trees from a thousand feet down. Not fossilized, frozen, how did they get there?

God Bless
Jim Larmore