Why it’s worth wrestling with details in the Hebrew Bible!

Q: I’m trying to get a handle on how long it took to construct the tabernacle. Exo 19:1 says that Israel camped at Sinai in the third month after leaving Egypt. Then Exo 40:17 says that the tabernacle was set up on the first day of the first month of the second year. But after that, Num 10:11 says that the cloud lifted from the tabernacle in the second year, on the twentieth day of the second month. Does this mean that the tabernacle was built in less than a year, and that it only stood in place at Mr Sinai for about a month and a half until the Israelites had to take it down again? How long did it actually take to build the tabernacle, and how long did the Israelites stay at Mt Sinai after coming out of Egypt?

Oh my goodness, these are such great questions! I really love these questions because they point to some dynamics about reading OT literature that are sometimes overlooked but are actually quite important for scholars like myself who believe in divine inspiration and hold to a very high view of Holy Scripture. And sometimes the Bible presents us with details that seem confusing, or, in the extreme, perhaps objectionable or even unbelievable. Such is often the case with timekeeping in the Hebrew Bible. In modern society, we are accustomed to non-relative methods of timekeeping. There is more-or-less a global standard of referring to days, months, and years. We know the exact day, month, and year when we were born, when JFK was shot, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, etc. And we have non-relative means of indicating these dates. 2 May 1978. 22 Nov 1963. 4 July 1776.

But this wasn’t the case in the biblical era. As far as we know, there was no universal standard of timekeeping. Rather, ancient peoples used relative means of keeping time. Events were described as happening in relation to other events that were commonly known at the time of writing. This is the standard method of timekeeping used in all the Bible. The Gospel of Luke states that Jesus was born while the Roman census was taking place that occurred during the reign of Caesar Augustus and when Quirinius was governor of Syria. The book of Daniel says that Nebuchadnezzar first besieged Jerusalem during the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah. Amos the prophet describes his prophetic vision as occurring two years before the earthquake, when Uzziah was king of Judah and Jeroboam II was king of Israel. As modern readers, accustomed to measuring time in non-relative terms, we struggle with the fact that relative methods of measuring time are less precise. It takes a lot more work to piece together a proper timeline. And such is the nature of the questions you’re asking.

[Allow me a brief excursus here to affirm that precision and accuracy are not the same thing. Just because relative methods of timekeeping are less precise than non-relative methods does NOT mean that they are less accurate. Some readers of the Bible encounter convoluted timelines and then rush to the conclusion that certain dates and/or events must not be accurate. But this is not necessarily the case. With non-relative methods of timekeeping, determining accuracy is relatively simple. Any given date is either wrong or right. But with relative methods of timekeeping, determining the accuracy of any given date is much more difficult, because many more temporal markers must be taken into account. So…just because timelines in the Bible seem confusing does not automatically mean that they are incorrect. It just means that we have to work hard to determine if they are correct or incorrect. And in some cases, we may not be able to determine the accuracy of a given date, because we don’t have enough information. Again, this is frustrating for us who are accustomed to more-or-less absolute methods of keeping time, but it’s reality.]

Thankfully, in the case of the Israelites encamping at Mt Sinai and building the tabernacle, we actually have quite a lot of data to work with! And I think we can piece together a reasonably accurate timeline of events from the available evidence. So let’s proceed systematically to examine the evidence that we have. I’ll say here that it helps to be able to read Biblical Hebrew, because as with any language, the Hebrew authors used words and phrases according to prototypical patterns. And it might be semantically important when an author deviates from those prototypical patterns, but we might not be able to see those deviations when the text is translated into English. But we can see those deviations when we read the Hebrew text. And such is the case here, but more on that later.

To untangle the chronological timeline, let’s begin with Exodus 19:1.

בַּחֹ֙דֶשׁ֙ הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֔י לְצֵ֥את בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם בַּיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה בָּ֖אוּ מִדְבַּ֥ר סִינָֽי׃

In the third month of the sons of Israel going out from the land of Egypt, on this day, they came to the desert of Sinai.

So the Israelites arrive at Sinai in their third month after having left Egypt. So when they get to Mt Sinai, if they had been carrying a “travel stopwatch,” their stopwatch would be reading two months and change. That little Hebrew phrase “on this day” might suggest that they arrived at Sinai exactly three months (that is, to the day) after leaving Egypt. At least, that’s how the NIV translators appear to understand it. But let’s go back and check. At what point did the “travel stopwatch” start? Rewind to Exodus 12.

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household…Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the members of the community of Israel must slaughter them at midnight…This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD –– a lasting ordinance…Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day"…At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead. During the night Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said, "Up! Leave my people, you and the Israelites! Go, worship the LORD as you have requested. Take your flocks and herds, as you have said, and go"…With the dough the Israelites had brought from Egypt, they baked loaves of unleavened bread. The dough was without yeast because they had been driven out of Egypt and did not have time to prepare food for themselves…Because the LORD kept vigil that night to bring them out of Egypt, on this night all the Israelites are to keep vigil to honor the LORD for the generations to come. [Exodus 12:1-42, NIV]

The narrative in Exodus 12 is actually quite specific here! The text does not say in which specific month of the year the Israelites left Egypt, that is, in which season. But whichever month of the year it was, the Israelites left Egypt on the night of the 14th day of that month. And God is very specific that, from that point on, the Israelites should reckon that month as the first month of their year, and that the Festival of Unleavened Bread will commence on the 14th day of that month. So the “travel stopwatch” began at the end of Day 14 of Month 1 of Year 0. Now, the ancient Israelite calendar was reckoned by the monthly lunar cycles rather than by the annual solar cycle. So let’s begin our chronology accordingly. We’ll set the temporal point of origin as the beginning of the lunar cycle on the month that the Israelites departed Egypt. That’s the beginning of our Year 0. The “travel stopwatch” starts at the end of Day 14 of Month 1 of Year 0. Which means that the Israelites arrive at Sinai sometime during Month 3 of Year 0. That phrase “on that day” in Exodus 19:1 could mean that the Israelites arrived at Sinai on Day 1 of Month 3 of Year 0. Or it could mean that the Israelites arrive at Sinai on Day 15 of Month 3 of Year 0. But it’s sometime during Month 3 of Year 0. That seems clear. And now we can get to the meat of your questions.

The Israelites definitely stay encamped at Mt Sinai for many months, during which time many things happen. God gives the 10 commandments. Moses takes the 40-day “extended stay” tour of Mt Sinai, and he comes back down only to encounter the incident of the golden calf already in progress. Moses apparently takes another 40-day excursion on Mt Sinai, and the Israelites busy themselves with the work of constructing the tabernacle and making all the furnishings that are required for tabernacle worship. The next major time-stamp occurs in Exodus 40.

וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃בְּיוֹם־הַחֹ֥דֶשׁ הָרִאשׁ֖וֹן בְּאֶחָ֣ד לַחֹ֑דֶשׁ תָּקִ֕ים אֶת־מִשְׁכַּ֖ן אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד׃

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: "In the first month, on the first of the month, you shall set up the tabernacle, the tent of meeting." [Exo 40:1-2]

וַיְהִ֞י בַּחֹ֧דֶשׁ הָרִאשׁ֛וֹן בַּשָּׁנָ֥ה הַשֵּׁנִ֖ית בְּאֶחָ֣ד לַחֹ֑דֶשׁ הוּקַ֖ם הַמִּשְׁכָּֽן׃

And it happened in the first month in the second year, in the first of the month, the tabernacle was set up. [Exo 40:17]

We’ve now encountered the first substantive ambiguity in our timeline. If we’re just reading the narrative naturally, it seems like the tabernacle is set up on Day 1 of Month 1 of Year 1. So about nine months after the Israelites arrive at Mt Sinai. If this is correct, then it is certain that the construction of the tabernacle could not have taken longer than 9 months. But we don’t know for certain yet if this is correct, because of that little phrase “in the second year” that appears in Exo 40:17. There are two different ways that we might understand that phrase. It all depends on how the author is reckoning years. The author might have started counting years at the time when the Israelites actually leave Egypt (i.e., with no “year zero”). If so, then the Israelites arrive at Mt Sinai in the third month of the first year, and they set up the tabernacle on the first day of the third month of the second year. That seems the most natural reading. But it’s possible that, when reckoning years, the author is counting the number of times that the calendar turns over (i.e. with a “year zero”). If so, then the phrase “in the second year” would actually mean Day 1 of Month 1 of Year 2 in our reconstructed timeline. This would indicate a much longer period for the construction of the tabernacle, a maximum of 21 months instead of 9 months.

At this point I should note that the Greek Septuagint (i.e., the ancient translation of the Hebrew Bible into Koiné Greek, completed before the time of Jesus) includes a phrase in Exo 40:17 that is not present in the Hebrew Bible. I’ll translate the Greek text and underline the extra phrase:

αὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ μηνὶ τῷ πρώτῳ τῷ δευτέρῳ ἔτει ἐκπορευομένων αὐτῶν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου νουμηνίᾳ ἐστάθη ἡ σκηνή·

And it happened in the first month, the second year of them going out from Egypt, at the new moon, the tabernacle was set up. [Exo 40:17, LXX]

The inclusion of this phrase in the Greek Septuagint does not help our ambiguity, or at least not yet. But it does suggest to us that the author of Exodus 40 is using the same temporal reference point for their “point of origin” as the author of Exodus 19. There appears to be a single method of reckoning years at play, even though we still don’t have enough evidence to conclude whether there is a “year zero” in the mix or not. Fair enough. For now, let’s proceed with what appears to be the most natural reading of the text. In our reconstructed timeline, the tabernacle was set up on Day 1 of Month 1 of Year 1. (And we acknowledge that perhaps the tabernacle was not actually set up until Day 1 of Month 1 of Year 2.)

Of course, when we turn the page after Exodus 40 we encounter the book of Leviticus. And the book of Leviticus contains no time-stamps. Most of the book of Leviticus is comprised of God speaking to Moses and/or Aaron, communicating the laws that should govern the religious and civil life of Israelite society and culture. There are also included a few narrative episodes: the ordination of Aaron and his sons as priests and the initiation of tabernacle worship (Leviticus 8-9), the incident of Nadab and Abihu being struck dead (Leviticus 10), the celebration of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16 & 23), and the incident of the blasphemer being stoned (Leviticus 24). The very last sentence of Leviticus reads thus:

אֵ֣לֶּה הַמִּצְוֺ֗ת אֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֧ה יְהוָ֛ה אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֖ה אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל בְּהַ֖ר סִינָֽי׃

These are the commands that the LORD commanded Moses for the sons of Israel at the mountain of Sinai. [Lev 27:34]

I attach significance to the fact that this sentence occurs at the very end of the book of Leviticus. I take the author of Leviticus to be indicating that everything written in the book occurred while the Israelite were encamped at Mt Sinai. Now, chronology in the Hebrew Bible can be very tricky. Just because the book of Leviticus comes after the description of the tabernacle being set up does NOT mean necessarily that all the events in the book of Leviticus actually took place after that event. However, the broad narrative of Torah certainly appears to read that way. In other words, a continuous natural reading of Exodus and Leviticus would seem to indicate that everything written in Leviticus took place after the tabernacle was set up and before the Israelites left Mt Sinai. This still doesn’t solve our temporal ambiguity, but it’s more evidence to consider as we turn the page to the book of Numbers. And the early chapters of the book of Numbers contain several time-stamps!

וַיְדַבֵּ֨ר יְהוָ֧ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֛ה בְּמִדְבַּ֥ר סִינַ֖י בְּאֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד בְּאֶחָד֩ לַחֹ֨דֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִ֜י בַּשָּׁנָ֣ה הַשֵּׁנִ֗ית לְצֵאתָ֛ם מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרַ֖יִם לֵאמֹֽר׃שְׂא֗וּ אֶת־רֹאשׁ֙ כָּל־עֲדַ֣ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָ֖ם לְבֵ֣ית אֲבֹתָ֑ם בְּמִסְפַּ֣ר שֵׁמ֔וֹת כָּל־זָכָ֖ר לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָֽם׃

And the LORD spoke to Moses in the desert of Sinai in the tent of meeting, in the first day of the second month, in the second year of them going out from the land of Egypt, saying: "Take a census of all of the congregation of the sons of Israel, by their clans, by the house of their fathers, by number of names, every male by their heads." [Num 1:1-2]

So I’ve translated the Hebrew text quite literally here, which produces very awkward phrasing in English. The NIV contains a much more natural reading, and I agree with the meaning provided by the NIV translators. God is commanding Moses to count every single male person in the nation of Israel who has passed the age of 20 years old and to write down their names, listing them according to their tribe and clan affiliation. In other words, this was a very large task. And the text is quite clear about where and when this command was given. The command was given at the desert of Sinai. So the Israelites have not departed from Mt Sinai when this command was given. And this command was given “on the first day of the second month, in the second year of them going out from the land of Egypt.” There are two things to notice immediately here. First, this time-stamp does not yet solve our temporal ambiguity regarding when the tabernacle was set up. It still could be either Day 1 of Month 1 of Year 1 in our reconstructed timeline, or it could be Day 1 of Month 1 of Year 2. However––and this is the second thing we should immediately notice––the author of Numbers here appears to use the same temporal reference point for their “point of origin” as the author of Exodus 19 and Exodus 40. That is, the date of the Israelites departure from Egypt. In other words, it seems that God gave this command to Moses approximately two weeks after the tabernacle was set up. The author of Numbers affirms that Moses and Aaron summoned the nation to begin this task on that same day, the “first day of the second month” (Num 1:18). So far, so good.

The next time-stamp occurs in Numbers 3, and here we get some more temporal information that is very helpful to us. Numbers 3 confirms that the incident of Nadab and Abihu being struck dead occurred in the desert of Sinai (Num 3:4), so before the Israelites left Mt Sinai. Numbers 3:14-15 indicates that God commanded Moses “in the desert of Sinai” to count all the Levites. And not only the Levites, but also the three major clans of the Levite tribe: the clans of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. This also would have been a large task. And all of this census data is included in the book of Number before the author describes the Israelites leaving Mt Sinai in Num 10:11. Therefore, the natural reading of Torah would seem to indicate that not only did all the events of the book of Leviticus happen at Mt Sinai, but also all the events of Numbers prior to chapter 10. In other words, it seems that all the census data was both collected and recorded while the Israelites were still camped at Mt Sinai. I must admit that the text is not conclusive about this, but it really seems to be the most natural reading of Torah. It also seems that all the events of the book of Leviticus and of Number 1-9 occur after the tabernacle has been set up. In other words, there seems to be a substantial interval of time between when the tabernacle is set up and when the Israelites depart Mt Sinai. File that away for later. But in all of this, we still don’t know if the tabernacle was set up at the beginning of Year 1 or Year 2 of our reconstructed timeline. We’re still gathering data on that point.

The next time-stamp occurs in Numbers 7, which describes everything that was done to dedicate the tabernacle in order to commence daily worship for the Israelites. The text stipulates that this was at least a 12-day process, because each tribe brought their offering of dedication on successive days. Furthermore, the specific Hebrew construction used in Num 7:1 (the preposition בְּ with an infinitive construct) indicates contemporaneous action, which would seem to indicate that the dedication of the tabernacle began immediately after it was set up. So the author of Numbers appears to have gone back in time a month. That is, it seems like the dedication of the tabernacle occurred during Month 1––of either Year 1 or Year 2, we still don’t know for sure––but before God commanded Moses to take the census of Israelite men.

So let’s take stock of our reconstructed timeline thus far:

Year 0, Month 1, Day 14 –– the Israelites depart Egypt
Year 0, Month 3, Day ?? –– the Israelites arrive at Sinai
Year 1 or 2, Month 1, Day 1 –– the tabernacle is set up
Year 1 or 2, Month 1, Day 1ff –– the tabernacle is dedicated
Year 1 or 2, Month 2, Day 1 –– the census of Israelite men commences
Unknown –– the death of Nadab & Abihu, the Day of Atonement, and the execution of the blasphemer

The next time-stamp occurs in Numbers 9.

וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר יְהוָ֣ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֣ה בְמִדְבַּר־סִ֠ינַי בַּשָּׁנָ֨ה הַשֵּׁנִ֜ית לְצֵאתָ֨ם מֵאֶ֧רֶץ מִצְרַ֛יִם בַּחֹ֥דֶשׁ הָרִאשׁ֖וֹן לֵאמֹֽר׃וְיַעֲשׂ֧וּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל אֶת־הַפָּ֖סַח בְּמוֹעֲדֽוֹ׃בְּאַרְבָּעָ֣ה עָשָֽׂר־י֠וֹם בַּחֹ֨דֶשׁ הַזֶּ֜ה בֵּ֧ין הָֽעֲרְבַּ֛יִם תַּעֲשׂ֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ בְּמוֹעֲד֑וֹ כְּכָל־חֻקֹּתָ֥יו וּכְכָל־מִשְׁפָּטָ֖יו תַּעֲשׂ֥וּ אֹתֽוֹ׃וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר מֹשֶׁ֛ה אֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לַעֲשֹׂ֥ת הַפָּֽסַח׃וַיַּעֲשׂ֣וּ אֶת־הַפֶּ֡סַח בָּרִאשׁ֡וֹן בְּאַרְבָּעָה֩ עָשָׂ֨ר י֥וֹם לַחֹ֛דֶשׁ בֵּ֥ין הָעַרְבַּ֖יִם בְּמִדְבַּ֣ר סִינָ֑י כְּ֠כֹל אֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֤ה יְהוָה֙ אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֔ה כֵּ֥ן עָשׂ֖וּ בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

And the LORD spoke to Moses in the desert of Sinai, in the second year of them going out from the land of Egypt, in the first month, saying: "Now the sons of Israel shall perform the Passover at its appointed time.  In the fourteenth day of this month, between the evening times, they shall perform it at its appointed time.  According to all of its statutes and all of its commands they shall perform it." So Moses spoke to the sons of Israel to perform the Passover.  And they performed the Passover at the first in the fourteenth day of the month, between the evening times, in the desert of Sinai.  According to all that the LORD commanded Moses, thus did the sons of Israel perform. [Num 9:1-5]

[NOTE: the phrase “between the evening times” almost certainly refers to the period of time between when the sun sets below the horizon and when daylight is no longer visible in the sky, i.e., “twilight.”]

Here we should take note of the same two things as the time-stamp at the beginning of the book of Numbers. This time-stamp does not clarify the ambiguity of years, but it appears to use the same temporal reference point as before for its “point of origin” for the timeline. The command to celebrate the Passover comes sometime during the two week period following the tabernacle being set up, whether that be in Year 1 or Year 2 of our reconstructed timeline. This also appears to be the first official celebration of Passover as an institutional festival, which would perhaps indicate that the tabernacle was set up in Year 1 rather than Year 2. If it was Year 2, then did the Israelites just not celebrate Passover during Year 1, while the tabernacle was presumably still under construction? I mean, God seemed pretty adamant back in Exodus 12 that the Passover was to be celebrated every year. It doesn’t make much sense that they would just skip it, especially on the very first anniversary of the exodus event! It makes perfect sense that the Israelites would celebrate the first institutional festival of the Passover on the actual first anniversary of the exodus event. So a Year 1 timeline for the construction of the tabernacle is looking better and better, but the conclusion is still not airtight yet. But again, let’s recap the timeline:

Year 0, Month 1, Day 14 –– the Israelites depart Egypt
Year 0, Month 3, Day ?? –– the Israelites arrive at Sinai
Year 1 or 2, Month 1, Day 1 –– the tabernacle is set up
Year 1 or 2, Month 1, Day 1ff –– the tabernacle is dedicated
Year 1 or 2, Month 1, Day 14 –– the Israelites celebrate Passover
Year 1 or 2, Month 2, Day 1 –– the census of Israelite men commences
Unknown –– the death of Nadab & Abihu, the Day of Atonement, and the execution of the blasphemer

Now we come to the all important time-stamp, the date when the Israelites actually leave Mt Sinai. This is found in Numbers 10:11-12.

וַיְהִ֞י בַּשָּׁנָ֧ה הַשֵּׁנִ֛ית בַּחֹ֥דֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִ֖י בְּעֶשְׂרִ֣ים בַּחֹ֑דֶשׁ נַעֲלָה֙ הֶֽעָנָ֔ן מֵעַ֖ל מִשְׁכַּ֥ן הָעֵדֻֽת׃וַיִּסְע֧וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל לְמַסְעֵיהֶ֖ם מִמִּדְבַּ֣ר סִינָ֑י וַיִּשְׁכֹּ֥ן הֶעָנָ֖ן בְּמִדְבַּ֥ר פָּארָֽן׃

And it happened in the second year, in the second month, in the twentieth day of the month, that the cloud lifted from over the tabernacle of the congregation.  And the sons of Israel set out by their stages from the desert of Sinai.  And the cloud dwelt in the desert of Paran. [Num 10:11-12]

Do you see what is different about this time-stamp from all the previous ones? The temporal reference point of origination is omitted! The author does NOT say “the second year of their going out from the land of Egypt.” The author simply says, “in the second year.” Hmmm. Maybe this difference is important, and maybe it’s not, but it’s certainly noteworthy for the observant reader. Let’s see what we might make of this. Since we now have a definite date for when the Israelites leave Mt Sinai, perhaps we can figure out which of our temporal options make sense.

Let’s start with the assumption that the reckoning of years in Number 10:11 is the same as all the previous time stamps, with the same ambiguity. The reconstructed timeline now looks like this:

Year 0, Month 1, Day 14 –– the Israelites depart Egypt
Year 0, Month 3, Day ?? –– the Israelites arrive at Sinai
Year 1 or 2, Month 1, Day 1 –– the tabernacle is set up
Year 1 or 2, Month 1, Day 1ff –– the tabernacle is dedicated
Year 1 or 2, Month 1, Day 14 –– the Israelites celebrate Passover
Year 1 or 2, Month 2, Day 1 –– the census of Israelite men commences
Unknown –– the death of Nadab & Abihu, the Day of Atonement, and the stoning of the blasphemer
Year 1 or 2, Month 2, Day 20 –– the cloud lifts and the Israelite depart Sinai

So let’s examine each of these two options in turn. Let us suppose that the tabernacle was constructed in Year 1 and that the cloud lifted the following month. This would yield the result that the Israelites spent a grand total of 11 months encamped at Mt Sinai. The reconstructed timeline would look like this:

“SHORT” OPTION

Year 0, Month 1, Day 14 –– the Israelites leave Egypt
Year 0, Month 3, Day ?? –– the Israelites arrive at Sinai
Year 1, Month 1, Day 1 –– the tabernacle is set up
Year 1, Month 1, Day 1ff –– the tabernacle is dedicated
Year 1, Month 1, Day 14 –– the Israelites celebrate Passover
Year 1, Month 2, Day 1 –– the census of Israelite men commences
Unknown –– the death of Nadab & Abihu, the Day of Atonement, and the stoning of the blasphemer
Year 1, Month 2, Day 20 –– the cloud lifts and the Israelite depart Sinai

Under this timeline, if all the events of Leviticus and Number 1-9 actually occurred while the Israelites were encamped at Mt Sinai, then that would mean that the entire census of Israelite men was completed in three weeks! It also brings up questions about when the three unknown incidents actually occurred. It strains credulity to think that all three of these events happened in the seven weeks between the tabernacle being set up and the cloud lifting! One might say, “Well, the chronology isn’t certain. Maybe those three unknown events actually happened either before the tabernacle was set up and/or after the Israelites left Sinai.” Yes, maybe, but the general narrative of Torah certainly doesn’t seem to read that way. The “short” option really seems unrealistic, given all the other details of the story.

Now at this point is where some readers of the Hebrew Bible might throw up their hands and say, “See? Biblical timelines are inaccurate and therefore must have been fabricated.” And to that I respond: “Not so fast, my friend. Let’s explore all the options.” So by all means, let’s keep exploring the options.

“LONG” OPTION

Year 0, Month 1, Day 14 –– the Israelites leave Egypt
Year 0, Month 3, Day ?? –– the Israelites arrive at Sinai
Unknown –– the death of Nadab & Abihu, the Day of Atonement, and the stoning of the blasphemer
Year 2, Month 1, Day 1 –– the tabernacle is set up
Year 2, Month 1, Day 1ff –– the tabernacle is dedicated
Year 2, Month 1, Day 14 –– the Israelites celebrate Passover
Year 2, Month 2, Day 1 –– the census of Israelite men commences
Year 2, Month 2, Day 20 –– the cloud lifts and the Israelite depart Sinai

Well now, this timeline still has some problems, but it looks better than the first one! This option allows for a significant passage of time at Mt Sinai, which seems to accord with the sense of the overall narrative of Torah. But this option still would seem to indicate that the census of Israelite men occurred in less than three weeks. And again, the sense I get from reading Leviticus is that the three unknown events occurred after the tabernacle was set up rather than before it. To me, this timeline still strains credulity too much. But we still have at least one more option to explore…

Perhaps the omission of the temporal reference point of the exodus event in the phraseology of Numbers 10:11 is a textual indicator that the reckoning of years in that instance is different from the reckoning of years used previously. When Num 10:11 says “in the second year,” perhaps the author in that instance is counting the number of times the calendar has turned over, whereas in all the previous instances the author has been counting the progression of years since the temporal point of origin. I know, to say it that way is kind of a mind-bender. Let me express it this way. Perhaps the “second year” in Num 10:11 is different than the “second year of their going out from the land of Egypt” in Exo 40:17, Num 1:1 and Num 9:1. This would yield the following reconstructed timeline:

MULTIPLE TIMELINE OPTION

Year 0, Month 1, Day 14 –– the Israelites depart Egypt
Year 0, Month 3, Day ?? –– the Israelites arrive at Sinai
Year 1, Month 1, Day 1 –– the tabernacle is set up
Year 1, Month 1, Day 1ff –– the tabernacle is dedicated
Year 1, Month 1, Day 14 –– the Israelites celebrate Passover
Year 1, Month 2, Day 1 –– the census of Israelite men commences
Unknown –– the death of Nadab & Abihu
Year 1, Month 7, Day 10 –– the Israelites celebrate the Day of Atonement
Unknown –– the stoning of the blasphemer
Year 2, Month 2, Day 20 –– the cloud lifts and the Israelites depart Sinai

This proposed timeline appears to harmonize all the time-stamps, and it intuitively makes coherent sense of the general narrative of Torah. Granted, the events are not always told in chronological order, but that is not really a problem in the Bible. We know already that the biblical authors were not bound by chronology when telling their stories but had other ways of organizing narratives. This timeline allows a reasonable amount of time for the construction of the tabernacle, about 8 months. This timeline also allows a full year to complete the multiple censuses commanded by God while encamped at Mt Sinai, as the narrative seems to indicate. Furthermore, this timeline also allows for the celebration of the Day of Atonement at Sinai after the construction of the tabernacle, as the narrative also seems to indicate. There is also plenty of time for the incident of the death of Nadab and Abihu to occur both after the construction of the tabernacle and before the Day of Atonement, as indicated by Leviticus 16:1. There is no definitive time-stamp given for the incident of the stoning of the blasphemer, but the book of Leviticus includes it after the Day of Atonement. This timeline allows for that, too.

This, then, is my conclusion. It took no more than about 8 months to construct the tabernacle, and it was set up on the first day of Israelite new year after departing Egypt. The Israelites remained encamped at Mt Sinai for a full year after that, during which time they were busy counting all the men and doing all the things necessary to carry out all their rituals of daily worship and annual festivals. They didn’t leave Sinai until the second month of the following year, meaning that they were encamped at Mt Sinai for about 23 months, or nearly two full years.

But the larger lesson is this: Just because things in the Bible don’t appear to make sense at first glance doesn’t mean that they are inaccurate or contradictory or false. We may need to work harder and/or think further outside our pre-conceived boxes in order to understand the text we’re reading.

How many times did Moses schlep up and down Mt Sinai?

Q: Both Exodus 24:18 and 34:28 state that Moses spent 40 days and 40 nights on Mt Sinai. That’s an awful long time to be on top of a mountain in the middle of the desert. To be honest, it’s kinda hard to believe that Moses would do it even once, let alone twice. So I’m wondering…are these two separate occasions (as they appear to be) or just one occasion stated two different times?

Great question! I love this question because it shows how observant you are as a reader. Good ol’ Moe does appear to be quite the mountain-schlepper! But you raise a good point. Is it believable that Moses would have stayed on Mt Sinai for over a month on two different occasions? The text certainly appears to say so, as you rightly point out. But, as you also rightly point out, maybe the text is repeating itself for some unknown reason, describing the same trip twice. In order to answer the question, we need to do first things first. So let’s count. How many times does the text say that Moses hauled himself up and down Mt Sinai?

The Israelites arrive at the Desert of Sinai at the beginning of Exodus 19. Moses is described as “going up” in 19:3 and then “coming down” in 19:14. [That’s 1x.] Moses “goes up” again in 19:20 and “comes down” in 19:25. [That’s 2x.] Later on, Moses again “goes up” in 24:9, at first taking along Aaron and Nadab and Abihu and 70 elders. Apparently they go only partway up, just enough to “see God” (whatever that means in context). God then calls Moses to come up further, and he takes Joshua along with him. Apparently he is on the mountain for 40 days and 40 nights (24:18) and comes down along with Joshua in 33:15. But it’s a definite pairing of Moses “going up” in 24:13 and then “coming down” in 33:15. [So that’s 3x.] And finally, we have yet another verbal pairing of Moses “going up” in 34:4 and then “coming down” in 34:29, and again he is described as being on the mountain 40 days and 40 nights (34:28). [That’s 4x.] So if we take the narrative at face value, Moses appears to ascend and descend Mt Sinai four separate times.

I myself see no reason to read chapter 19 as anything other than its plain sense. Moses appears to ascend and descend Mt Sinai (either in whole or in part) twice during the three-day period immediately before God speaks the 10 commandments from the summit of the mountain. The big debate here is whether Moses took an “extended-stay” trip up the mountain on two different occasions, or whether the text is describing one-and-the-same trip two different times. And here is where roads diverge in terms of how to explain the text, including the possibility of multiple source documents/traditions that were combined somehow to form the text of Exodus that we have today. But let’s work with a single author theory for the moment.

So if we assume that the book of Exodus is written by a single author telling a single story, then the question we have to ask is whether the author is describing two different trips up the mountain, or whether the author is describing the same trip two different times. It is possible that a single author might be describing the same trip two different times, but it seems highly unlikely, for a couple different reasons. First of all, the second time Moses is specifically instructed to bring up two tablets of stone to replace the ones that he broke earlier, after having come down from the mountain the first time. The narrative doesn’t really make sense if a single author is retelling in chapter 34 the same trip as described in chapters 24-33. Secondly, there appears to be a narrative thru-line that fits perfectly with twin trips up the mountain. The first time God gives the 10 commandments, they come directly from God himself, first as spoken by the voice of God (20:1-17) and then written by the finger of God (31:18) as received by Moses on his first long trip up the mountain. Then, the second time God gives the 10 commandments, they do not come directly from God but are written/transcribed by Moses on his second long trip up the mountain. Moses takes the replacement stone tablets up the mountain with him, and while on the mountain he writes the 10 commandments on the tablets and then brings them back down with him. [This fits with the more general pattern of the Torah as well. The 10 commandments appear twice in Torah: the first time as spoken by God in Exodus 20, and the second time as spoken by Moses in Deuteronomy 5.] The story cogently coheres together as Moses making two separate trips up the mountain. The story does not cogently cohere as Moses making a single trip up the mountain that is being described twice. So if we assume a single author of Exodus, then I side with the view that Moses makes two long excursions on Mt Sinai.

However, it has been suggested that the book of Exodus contains two separate accounts of Moses going up Mt Sinai that have been compiled together. If this is the case, then perhaps Moses in real life actually made only one “extended-stay” trip up Mt Sinai, and what we are reading in Exodus is two differing accounts of one event––that is, a longer version (the first one) and a shorter version (the second one). If this is the case, then the person who composed Exodus would not really be an “author” but rather a “redactor” who is working with at least two different source documents/traditions that both included a story of Moses going up the mountain for 40 days and 40 nights. And the redactor wove both of these documents/traditions into the book of Exodus that we are reading now. I think this is a perfectly plausible theory––and who knows? maybe one day we’ll find one of those source documents!––but until then, it’s really nothing more than a theory. And there might be any number of other plausible explanations for the textual evidence that we just haven’t thought of. The point is, I don’t think there’s a substantive reason to assume that the two stories of Moses going up the mountain for 40 days are from two different sources.

Of course, these two options are not mutually exclusive. Both might be true! It’s possible that there are two different source traditions describing two different events. Perhaps Moses really did make two different “extended stay” trips up Mt Sinai, and that one source described the first trip, while a second source described the second trip. But again, this is really just speculation, and I think by now we’re venturing very far afield from what is actually helpful for understanding the text that we have in front of us. I don’t think we need to keep going down this path.

Therefore, I think the best explanation of the available text is that the book of Exodus intends to communicate that Moses made two different trips up the mountain that lasted 40 days. Some scholars don’t find that believable, but I see no compelling reason to doubt it. Maybe there are multiple source traditions at play, and maybe there aren’t. I can’t determine that from the textual evidence, and I’m content to say that I don’t know.

“…between Migdol and the Sea…”

***Vincent Malo, “Moses Parting the Red Sea” (1631)***

When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter…God led the people around by the desert road toward the Red Sea…By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night. Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people.

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites to turn back and encamp near Pi Hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea. They are to camp by the sea, directly opposite Baal Zephon. Pharaoh will think, ‘The Israelites are wandering around the land in confusion, hemmed in by the desert.'”…So the Israelites did this.

When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his officials changed their minds about them…So he had his chariot made ready and took his army with him…The LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, so that he pursued the Israelites–all Pharaoh’s horses and chariots, horsemen and troops–pursued the Israelites and overtook them as they camped by the sea near Pi Hahiroth, opposite Baal Zephon.

Exodus 13:17-14:9

This story is so compelling to me. In case you don’t immediately know the context, this is the set-up for the Red Sea crossing in the book of Exodus. What’s so compelling to me about this story is how God orchestrates every single detail of it. And it makes absolutely no sense. [Well, unless God intends to do something so incredibly mind-blowing you never would believe it.].

If we were to speak in simple militaristic terms, God leads the Israelites into a trap. Then God Himself springs the trap that, apparently, He Himself has set. Do you see that? The Israelites are on their way out of Egypt, and then God tells them to … wait for it … Turn. Around. Then God tells them to go to a very specific place, “between Migdol and the sea.” We don’t know exactly what this place “Migdol” refers to, but in Hebrew the word means “tower” (presumably a fortified place). This specific place is near Pi Hahiroth and opposite Baal Zephon––again, two places where we don’t know the precise locations. But God wants them to camp by the sea. And apparently, there’s only one way out of this place, which is back the way they came.

At this point, the author says that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh so that he and his army would chase the Israelites. God explicitly says what Pharaoh and his officials will think. The Egyptians observe that the Israelites have gone to a place that they can’t get out of, because they are “hemmed in by the desert.” So the Israelites are encamped by the sea with the desert all around, and then they see the Egyptians blocking the only route of escape.

Every single one of these happenings and events are directly orchestrated by God. The author is very careful to tell us this. The Israelites have been following God, exactly like they’re supposed to do. And they are trapped. Trapped “between Migdol and the sea.” The story continues…

As Pharaoh approached, the Israelites looked up, and there were the Egyptians marching after them. They were terrified and cried out to the LORD.

Exodus 14:10

[Of course, you know how the story progresses. The Israelites complain to Moses. Moses cries out to God. God tells Moses to lift up his rod and tells the people to go forward, then God divides the waters and the Israelites cross the sea on dry land. The Egyptian army pursues them into the sea and are swallowed by the abyss when the waters return to their normal state.]

But I’ve stopped the story at this exact point for a reason. The Israelites are terrified, understandably so. The Israelites cry out to God, and so they should. God is the one who got them into this mess in the first place! [Except it’s not a mess. It simply appears that way in the moment. But I’m getting ahead of myself again!] What I want to point out here at this precise moment in the story is how terrifying this mode of travel is. The Israelites are, literally, “following God.” Into the desert. Into the unknown. Into certain death, for they know that they will all die eventually. Pause a moment.

Now fast forward…across the Red Sea to the foot of Mt Sinai, where the Israelites camped for over a year before they continue their journey home…

This is how it continued to be…Whenever the cloud lifted from above the Tent, the Israelites set out; wherever the cloud settled, the Israelites encamped. As long as the cloud stayed over the tabernacle, they remained in camp. When the cloud remained over the tabernacle a long time, the Israelites obeyed the LORD’s order and did not set out. Sometimes the cloud was over the tabernacle only a few days; at the LORD’s command they would encamp, and then at his command they would set out. Sometimes the cloud stayed only from evening till morning, and when it lifted in the morning, they set out. Whether by day or by night, whenever the cloud lifted, they set out. Whether the cloud stayed over the tabernacle for two days or a month or a year, they Israelites would remain in camp and not set out; but when it lifted, they would set out. At the LORD’s command they encamped, and at the LORD’s command they set out.

Numbers 9:16-23

This paragraph clearly communicates that this literal practice of “following God” was the normative mode of travel for the Israelites from the time they left Egypt until the time they entered their ancestral homeland about 40 years later. When God took a step, the Israelites took a step. When God stopped, the Israelites stopped. When God turned right, the Israelites turned right. When God turned left, the Israelites turned left. When God went up over the mountains, the Israelites went up over the mountains. When God famously went through the Rea Sea, the Israelites also went through the Red Sea.

As Christians, we often conceptualize the spiritual life as a journey of inner transformation, and that is wholly appropriate. Most of the New Testament is concerned with this very thing…how the people of God should be inwardly formed more into the likeness of Jesus. Over time, we should grow in love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control, etc. But if we see this journey of the Israelites through the desert as somehow instructive for our spiritual life as Christians, then there is more to it than simply an internal journey. We can see some external evidence of inner change taking place among the Israelites as they travel through the desert. But the journey through the desert is equally external as well as internal, as demonstrated by this mode of travel. We can say in a very literal sense that the Israelites “walked about with God,” which is the phrase the author of Genesis uses to describe both Enoch (Gen 5:22) and Noah (Gen 6:9). God determined the actual path they traveled through the desert.

Now let’s fast forward again…this time all the way through the incarnation, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus to St Paul the apostle writing his letter to the Romans…

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death…[God’s Son] condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit…Those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit of life is life and peace…You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you…Therefore, we have an obligation––but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Romans 8:1-14 (emphasis added)

The Israelites were led by the Spirit of God. They thought they were going to die. But they lived.

The Christian spiritual life means to keep in step with God’s Holy Spirit. When He steps, we step. When He turns right, we turn right. When He turns left, we turn left. When He stops, we stop. St Paul is primarily talking about internal transformation here, but he uses a metaphor grounded in the Israelite story of the Old Testament. To walk in accordance with the Holy Spirit means to be led by Him, even controlled by Him. It’s not only internal transformation; it’s external direction as well.

Here’s the moral of the story. If you ever find yourself “between Migdol and the sea,” and you feel terrified because the Egyptians are bearing down upon you, cry out to God. Perhaps, like the Israelites, He Himself led you there. It’s not a mistake. Trust God.

Or, perhaps more likely, you fear to “walk about with God” because God might lead you into that very place––”between Migdol and the sea.” If that is you, cry out to God. Take courage. Follow God, and you will live.

Is there a “Divine Council” in Genesis 1?

Q: I recently heard a teaching about Genesis 1:26 that I’m confused about. The verse says, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” I was always under the impression that this pointed to the Trinity, although it’s not explicitly stated. However, this pastor was saying it’s NOT the Trinity but rather that it’s referring to “God and his divine council made up of sons of God, created in the image of God and share in the reign of the spiritual world with God” (direct quote from his sermon). I had never heard this before and feel like this is a poor exegesis of the text. I did a little research, and I think he pulled it from Michael Heiser’s work (possibly his book The Unseen Realm). I feel like it’s a little controversial. This pastor’s teaching is bothering me, but I don’t have much knowledge to really back up why I feel that way!

When you come across something that sounds skeptical, what you should do to look and look and look at the text, and then look at the text some more, to see if what is being said actually does match up with it. It’s the looking at the text part that many people don’t do, when it comes right down to it. And it is the same with this particular textual problem.

It is very common among Christians to understand the plural pronouns used in God’s speech in Genesis 1 as evidence for the Trinity. And indeed, as a Christian that is how I understand them. At the same time, however, I absolutely must affirm that I read the text this way because I am importing Trinitarian theology (post-Incarnation of Jesus) back into that pre-Incarnation text. There is nothing in Genesis 1 itself that would lead us to read that speech of God as some sort of Trinitarian conversation.

However, the “Divine Council” view of that speech is also not substantiated anywhere in the Genesis 1 text. That view, whether it comes from Michael Heiser or others, is a projection onto the text of other information about the ancient Israelite conceptualization of the heavenly realm (either from other parts of the Bible or from other extra-biblical sources). This means that the Divine Council view is just as problematic as the Trinitarian view in terms of the exegesis of the actual text itself.

When we read Genesis 1 and come across the plural pronouns used by God in his speech, we should look at the local text for clues regarding how to understand that peculiar aspect of the text. In the case of Genesis 1, there are two clues which can help us. First of all, the word for God is plural instead of singular. Now just because a word is plural does not mean that the referent is plural. A plural form in Hebrew can refer to something singular, similar to how “pants” in English refers a singular article of clothing even though the word itself uses a plural form. So it is possible to read the Hebrew plural form for God as somehow referring to some kind of multiplicity in God, but it is not assured simply from the form itself. Secondly, there is a reference to a “spirit of God” in Genesis 1:2. Of course, this brings up the question: “How does the ’spirit of God’ relate to ‘God’ within the conceptual world of the author writing the story?” And we don’t know the answer to that question. I’m only saying that, if we read the text itself and look for the contextual clues in the local context, the plural pronouns in reference to God would appear to refer to some kind of relationship between “spirit of God” and “God.”

Of course, Christian Trinitarian theology quickly speaks up and suggests an answer. And rightly so, if we believe the manifold witness of Christian interpreters throughout the centuries. However, as I said earlier, we must affirm that that view does not truly arise from the text itself but is rather a later explanation of the text provided after Jesus came to earth as revealed to us that God is Trinity and not simply unity.

If we want to speak strictly about the point of view of the Genesis author, we must confess that we don’t know what the author had in mind when God speaks using plural pronouns. It is a mystery of the text. In theory, the “Divine Council” might be correct…but it could just as easily be incorrect. It’s really just speculation. And most of the time, as an exegete and theologian I usually prefer to stop at the place of mystery rather than speculate on solutions that could just as easily be wrong as right. Generally speaking, I think it’s a wiser way to handle the Scriptures.

“Waiting for the other shoe to drop”

Q: I have noticed that, since taking a deep dive into the OT, I am wrestling with some tension around how God disciplined the Israelites. I feel suddenly like I need to “walk the line” or God will inflict consequence. I have always struggled with a performance based personality. In my head, I know God is loving, kind and merciful. I know God sent Jesus so we could live free. But I am having a hard time truly believing that as I work through the OT. It’s as if I feel as though I am being watched, and if I don’t do “right” in God’s eyes, that my family will become hurt or ill, or our business will suffer, etc.

I don’t want to live as though I am always waiting for the other shoe to drop. I just want to rest in my faith, in God’s goodness and graciousness. I want to feel loved by God and to trust that I am not constantly being judged or criticized. Yet I don’t know how to get from here to there. If you have any insight or wisdom to share, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

I feel honored that you would trust me to ask me about the emotional tension that you’re feeling. You are certainly not alone, and, in fact, I truthfully think that the tension you are beginning to feel is a good thing and not a bad thing. Because I don’t think it will last forever.

There were two sentences in your question that stood out to me. The first one was, “I feel suddenly like I need to ‘walk the line’ or God will inflict consequence.” The second one was, “I don’t want to live as though I am always waiting for the other shoe to drop.” In these two sentences particularly, I hear you wrestling with the discomfort of feeling like judgment is pending and saying, essentially, “This doesn’t feel good. I don’t like this.” Furthermore, I can recognize myself in some of what you are saying here. I also have insecurities around my performance, and I often feel the self-imposed pressure to be perfect all the time. I understand what you’re saying, from first-hand experience. I have a cluster of thoughts in response.

First, you’re perfectly normal to feel the way you feel. One of the primary messages of the Old Testament, starting from the very opening chapters, is that God judges sin. We rightly stand under God’s judgment for the ways in which we trespass the boundaries that God has prescribed for us as human persons. And, in fact, one day Jesus will come back to earth and judge us, all of us. To extend your metaphor: the Scriptures say that a day is coming when the other shoe will, in fact, drop. If that is true, then I think it means that there is something truthful about the fear and anxiety you feel about God judging you. God is a just judge. And if God judges us justly, we stand condemned. In other words, I don’t think it is helpful to rationalize away fear of judgment. Accept the fear, but listen to what God says to that fear. Which brings me to the second point…

Secondly, as you read the OT, listen to what God says to people who feel afraid of judgment. I would encourage you especially to pay close attention to how incredibly sloooooooooow God is to judge. That’s what the sacrifices were all about. God made a way for the people to receive a “stay of execution” over and over again until God sent Jesus to deal with the problem of sin once and for all. [That’s what the book of Hebrews in the NT is all about!] So take your fears of judgment to the Scriptures and hear what God says in response. What God says in response is (paraphrasing): “My property is always to have mercy.”

Thirdly, apply the Gospel to your fears. Take your fear to Jesus. God has given Jesus the authority to judge. Jesus is the one who is tasked with judging you. He is also the same person who died and rose again to save you. Jesus has promised that He will judge you. You can’t escape it. But Jesus also promises that, if you believe in Him, He will save you from that judgment. You have no other hope. Jesus promises to judge, but He also promises to save. All we have to do is trust His promises. Easier said than done, I know, but I think trusting in the promises of God really does bring comfort to our fearful and anxious hearts.

Those are my thoughts. I hope it helps. I’ll pray for you as you (and I, too) rest in Jesus.

Obedience, not sacrifice

Q: I’ve been reading 1 Samuel and got to the part in chapter 15 where Saul is disobeying God. Samuel says to him that submission and obedience is better than sacrifice. I’m confused, because I feel like sacrifice IS obedience and submission. I never considered the hierarchy or that God prefers one over the other. What then would you say is the difference? What is it about obedience and submission that God desires more than sacrifice? Is it a heart condition? What is God truly after?

1 Samuel 15 is a really interesting chapter, for many reasons. God had unequivocally told Saul what to do, via Samuel the prophet. God’s instructions were to kill the Amalekites along with all their belongings and possessions. Saul did not obey. Instead, he preserved the best sheep of the livestock and then reported to Samuel that the purpose was for sacrificing to God. Maybe Saul was lying about that. Maybe Saul was telling the truth. We don’t know. Samuel’s point in reply is that God does not take pleasure in the killing of animals for the sake of killing animals. God takes delight in us heeding His voice. Saul had his priorities mixed up. In the end, he didn’t care very much about doing what God asked him to do. And that’s why God rejected him as king. Saul rejected the “word of Yahweh.” Therefore, Yahweh rejected him from being king.

I wonder if the actual words “sacrifice” and “obedience” themselves are confusing the issue here. Maybe think about the word “ritual” instead of the word “sacrifice.” In reality, that’s what the sacrificial system was for the Israelites. It was a series of elaborate religious rituals that reminded the people that the animals they were sacrificing were taking their place in receiving the judgment of Yahweh on account of sin…for one more day, one more week, one more month, one more year, etc., until Messiah could come and take the judgment permanently. If you replaced the word “sacrifice” with “ritual”, would you still be as inclined to say that “ritual IS obedience and submission.”

Think of your own religious rituals. We all have them. The Eucharist, for example. If you took the Eucharist (or perhaps you call it “communion”) faithfully, every day, but then murdered someone once a week, what would be the moral value of your religious ritual? Jesus commands us to celebrate the Eucharist. You’re “obeying”, but only in a manner of speaking. By murdering, you would be disobeying on a much grander scale, so much so that it would make your celebration of the Eucharist next to meaningless, if not wholly meaningless. Granted, it’s an extreme analogy, but I did that on purpose to make the point.

In short, God desires that we do His will in the world. God does not desire that we kill animals just for the sake of killing animals, or ingest some bread and wine just for the sake of ingesting bread and wine.

Help! I need answers…

Q: When I have questions about the Bible, how do I look for the answer in Scripture? I know Google is not a trusted resource. For example, last night I was thinking more on Genesis, and God created the heavens and earth. But did he create them at the same time? If Jesus was always with God, wouldn’t that mean there was a heaven before this? Or some other realm? These are things I would like to dive into when I have free time, and the process in which to do so seems unclear. How would you suggest I find answers in the Bible to questions like these, if they are available?

I hear and understand your primary question here. “How do I look for answers in Scripture?” This is an important question. First, I think this is why regular Bible reading is so important, and especially reading large portions. For example, if you read the Bible through every year and do so repeatedly for years on end, you would start to notice connections that you didn’t notice before simply as a function of becoming increasingly more acquainted with all the text that is actually there. It’s why I have titled this blog, Reading the Old Testament. In the end, the absolute best thing we can do to study the Bible is simply to READ it…and read it over and over and over and over and over and…you get the idea.

Secondly, I recommend finding a good book on biblical hermeneutics and working through it. I think you would find that really helpful. In my opinion, the very best book out there on this topic is Methodical Bible Study by Robert Traina. It’s out of print now, so you have to find used copies, but it’s not difficult to find. Like I said, I think it’s the best book out there on how to study the Bible. However, it’s a seminary textbook, so it’s not an easy read. If that seems a bit too daunting, then I would recommend Living By the Book by Howard Hendricks. A third, middle-of-the-road option would be Introduction to Biblical Interpretation by William Klein, Craig Blomberg, and Robert Hubbard. The only drawback to that book is that it is very long, but it’s not too difficult, and it’s good. But the very purpose of these books is to help answer the very question you are asking — “How should I be looking for answers in the Bible to my questions?”

But if you have an inquisitive mind and you feel like you have questions about the Bible, then by all means you should look for answers both in the Bible and outside the Bible! God gave us minds for a reason. And yes, we should always pray and ask God for wisdom. [After all, God promises to give us wisdom when we ask for it honestly.] At the same time, we read the Bible in community, since all of us as Christians are indwelt by the same Holy Spirit. So it is good and right and proper for us to teach and listen to each other when we are asking and answering questions. So by all means, research biblical topics that you’re interested in!

Prov 25:2 says, “The concealing of a matter is the glory of God; but searching out a matter is the glory of kings.” I take this verse to mean that God has “hidden” all kinds of things in the world for us to search out and discover, and God is glorified when we do. Including in the Bible! Truth always stands up to inquiry. So by all means, ask away! God is not obligated to answer all our questions, but I think He delights in our asking them, when we do so honestly and with a desire for His glory.

If you’re looking for a good commentary series, I recommend the New International Commentary series. However, in my opinion the very best theological commentary on the Old Testament is the book of Hebrews in the New Testament (followed by the whole of the New Testament itself). Commentaries are great and all, but the very best way to try to understand theological problems in the Old Testament is to keep reading the Bible, over and over again. Keep the main thing the main thing!

“…in the Garden of the Lord”

Do you hear the people sing
Lost in the valley of the night?
It is the music of a people
Who are climbing to the light.

For the wretched of the earth
There is a flame that never dies;
Even the darkest night will end,
And the sun will rise.

They will live again in freedom
In the garden of the Lord.
They will walk behind the plough-share,
They will put away the sword.
The chain will be broken
And all men will have their reward.

Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Somewhere beyond the barricade
Is there a world you long to see?

Do you hear the people sing?
Say, do you hear the distant drums?
It is the future that they bring
When tomorrow comes!

So goes the final chorus of the musical, Les Miserables. As a Hebrew scholar, what’s remarkable to me about this piece of exquisite poetry is that nearly all the imagery is taken directly from ancient Hebrew writings in the Tanakh (i.e. the Old Testament of the Bible). I would like to expound on this imagery as it is used in the song, which mirrors the usage of the imagery in the ancient documents.

First, let’s identify the images in the song that are NOT taken from the Hebrew writings: of singing and music; of the valley and climbing; of the barricade and its rhyming term, crusade; of the broken chain; and finally, of distant drums. The concepts of music and singing are to be expected, since the poem itself is a song set in a musical drama. The image of the barricade comes from the immediate context, a musical depicting the events of the June Rebellion in Paris during the summer of 1832. None of these images provide the primary meaning of the lyrics, however. Rather, particularly in the case of the barricade and distant drums, these images are endued with their meaning in this particular context by the other images in the song, taken from the Hebrew writings.

The most easily recognized images appear in the middle section, the single stanza of the poem that contains six lines instead of the usual four. Let us examine the first line, “They will live again in freedom in the garden of the Lord.” In this line, the author introduces the source text for the poem’s imagery as well as the central theme that the poem expounds. The specific phrase that sets the source text for the poem is, “the garden of the Lord.” This is fairly recognizable as a reference to the biblical story of the garden of Eden, sometimes also called the “garden of God” in the Hebrew writings. In case there is any doubt of this, the term “the Lord” proves the case. Since ancient times, the Hebrews would not voice the name of their deity, Yahweh, because of religious traditions rooted in the Ten Commandments. They would instead say, “the Lord,” just as it is rendered in our English Bible nowadays (usually in all caps, the “LORD”). So we have established that the author is drawing from the imagery of the ancient Hebrew writings, as we will continue to see.

Let us now examine the phrase, “They will live again in freedom….” The key word here is again. The song is making a statement about a future life; not the present life, but a life after death. It turns out, this small detail makes all the difference in the song. What gives the poetry its power is not a pie-in-the-sky type of unfounded sentimentalism that somehow the poor and wretched of the earth will lift themselves from their squalor and everything will be right as rain. Our collective human experience proves the falsehood of these dreams, honorable though they are. No, the poem declares that the freedom of the oppressed peoples of the world lies not in this life, but in the next. Ironically, though, this declaration is paired with a call to action of behalf of poor and wretched souls on earth now. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Where will these poor and wretched people live in freedom? In the garden of the Lord, i.e. in paradise, with God. [I won’t relate all the details of the story of the Garden of Eden because it’s so familiar, but the main point is that humankind is banished from paradise on account of sin, because they have disobeyed God.] This sense of freedom is described throughout the prophetic Hebrew literature in terms of peace; and in a few select locations, using the contrasting ideas of a sword to represent violence and war and a plough-share to represent peace and work (specifically the work of tilling ground). This image is also familiar, since it comes from the patron text of the United Nations: “They will beat their swords into plough-shares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war any more” (Isaiah 2:4b). This is quoted again by the prophet Micah (Micah 4:3), and a strange inversion of it by the prophet Joel in calling the nations to prepare for war as a divine judgment on Israel (Joel 3:10). The main point here is that the elysian vision of the Hebrew writers was a return to life in the Garden of Eden — a life of peace with God, peace with humanity, peace with the cosmos.

When does this paradisical life occur? The song avers this will happen when the “chain is broken” and “all men have their reward.” At this point, we still do not know what is meant by the chain, so we will pass over it for now. However, given the biblical imagery already offered in the stanza, we can understand the thought that all men will have their reward. In the Hebrew vision, the life of peace and justice is brought about because God Himself, as divine judge, will mete out to all people what they deserve. If we look in the Isaiah text to the line immediately preceding the bit about swords and plough-shares, we read, “[The LORD] will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples” (Isaiah 2:4a). Again, this is an undeniable theme throughout all of the literature of the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew sages continually urge their readers not to fall into wickedness because “the day of the LORD” is coming when He will judge everything and everyone. Take note of this metaphor … the day of the Lord.

So we have now set forth the fundamental ideas of the poem, centered around the middle stanza: that the hope of the poor rests not in the present time, but in the afterlife, living in paradise in the presence of God, following the just judgment of God in dispensing justice both on the oppressor and for the oppressed of the world. The person and action of God cannot be divorced from this vision, for it is He who actuates it. But the song goes one step further here to suggest that God will not simply judge on behalf of the oppressed in paradise, but that God is doing so even now, in the present life. This we will see presently.

We now come to the first image in the previous stanza, i.e. the everlasting fire. “For the wretched of the earth there is a flame that never dies; ….” The question is, of course, “What is the ‘flame that never dies?'” Once again, the answer comes from the Hebrew writings. The specific reference to a fire that never goes out is found in Exodus 3, in the lesser-known story of Moses and the burning bush. “The angel of the LORD appeared to [Moses] in flames of fire within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.” In case there is any doubt about who is here in the fire, the text identifies Him two sentences later: “…God called to him from within the bush, ‘Moses! Moses!'” God Himself is the everlasting fire. The poem is saying that God is the present hope of the oppressed, but that this present hope is grounded in the reality of future judgment, when the night is over and the sun rises.

Let us now consider the nature of this night and the coming dawn. In the imagery taken from the Hebrew writings thus far, it seems clear enough that the terms night and light are metaphors for death and resurrection. Not only this, but even the Hebrew text itself uses the same metaphors in the same way! I have already mentioned that the Hebrew writers referred to the coming judgment of God as the day of the LORD. In the Hebrew worldview, a day started with the evening; thus the movement of a day in the Hebrew mind was from darkness to light, from dusk to dawn, from night to day. This same mindset extended to their vision of the afterlife as well. To the ancient Hebrew, death was not permanent but temporary, like sleep. In fact, one of the clearest texts showing the Israelite view of the afterlife affirms this very thing. “There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. … Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever” (Daniel 12:1-3). Death is the sleep of night, followed by the awakening of resurrection, at which time the judgment will occur and the afterlife (or after-death, for some) will commence. This use of night/darkness contrasted with the coming day/light as metaphors for death and resurrection is central throughout each stanza of the poem and finds its climax in the final line, “…when tomorrow comes!” Death is the night, the chain, the barricade, the distant drums. In the future, at dawn, comes judgment, and after that, the world beyond the barricade … paradise.

All this brings us to the central theme of the poem, the fundamental question that the author asks the listener. Do you see the world beyond the barricade, or have you shut your eyes? When the people sing, they are singing of their lostness in the night and their hope for a new day. Do you hear them sing, or are your ears stopped up? And most directly, will you join in God’s crusade on behalf of justice for the poor and oppressed, not only for tomorrow, but for today? Or will you, like the general populace of Paris, do nothing? The drums are beating. Judgment is coming. And when it comes, will you stand or fall?

This is the message of the song. But if you will indulge me for just a moment longer, I want to press the issue a little further — further than is explicitly expressed in the poem, because the central question of the song begs a deeper question still. Finally, what actually makes the difference between those who pass the judgment, and those who fail? I believe the song hints at the answer, but we must look back to the Hebrew writings to see it fully. In the Garden of Eden story, death is the penalty for sin, and eternal life is only gained by eating the fruit of a certain tree, the Tree of Life. However, God evicted humankind from paradise and placed the cherubim at the entrance to the Garden of Eden. Now often, the images conjured up in our minds are one or two large flaming angels, wielding longswords and looking fierce, ready to cut down anyone who attempts to re-enter paradise. But I do not believe this is the proper conception from the Hebrew text. And the key lies in the flame imagery, not just highlighted in the song but developed in the ancient writings as well. Here is my translation of the verse in Hebrew:

And [God] made to dwell in front of the Garden of Eden the cherubim and the flame of the sword that goes back and forth, to keep the way to the Tree of Life.
Genesis 3:24

Now, these are my personal opinions only, but I believe the purpose of the cherubim, the flame, and the sword is NOT to prevent humankind from eating from the Tree of Life. That objective was already achieved by sending humankind out from paradise. The objective of the cherubim, the flame, and the sword is to ensure that a way remains for people still to eat from the tree and live forever in spite of the punishment of death that has already come to all humanity. In other words, God has provided a way to escape the punishment — not to avoid death, but rather to pass through death and come out the other side — just as Noah and his family came out the other side of the flood, and the Israelites came out the other side of the Red Sea. If we understand the story of the Garden of Eden in this way, this draws our attention as the reader to these objects in the story: the cherubim, the flame, and the two-edged sword. [Because of the grammatical construction, it’s difficult to tell from the Hebrew text whether the flame and the sword are different objects or the same object.] I will not address the cherubim here because it would take too long to explain. The flame imagery, in the context of the Hebrew writings, seems to speak of God; that is, that God Himself keeps the way to the Tree of Life, so one must pass through Him in order to live forever. This much is not difficult to understand. But what about the sword?

For the answer, let us turn to the book of Revelation, which expounds much imagery from the early Genesis texts. When St. John sees the vision of the risen Jesus on the Isle of Patmos, he writes, “In his right hand [Jesus] held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, two-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance” (Rev. 1:16). And just a little bit later Jesus says, “Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.” I believe this refers to the ancient Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden story, just like the tree in the Eternal City mentioned in Revelation 22 also refers to the same Tree of Life.

Jesus of Nazareth keeps the way to the Tree of Life. And the message of the Hebrew writings, as developed by the later Jewish writers who came to embrace Jesus as LORD, is that He is the difference between those who stand or fall at the final judgment. If you claim Jesus, you will forever live. If you do not claim Him, you will forever die. The hope of the poor, and of all humanity, is with Jesus. He is the Flame That Never Dies.

WWJD: What Would Jacob Do?

Scripture readings:

Genesis 32:9-13a, 22-32; 33:18-20

Malachi 1:1-5

Matt. 22:34-40

The Lord be with you.

And also with you.

Let us pray.

“O God, you have taught us to keep all your commandments by loving you and loving our neighbor: Grant us the grace of your Holy Spirit, that we may be devoted to you with our whole heart, and united to one another with pure affection; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.”

Book of Common Prayer, p.230

Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.

The words jolt us out of ambivalent observation of Jacob’s story and demand that we choose a side. After all, God Himself chose a side. God says that He loved Jacob and hated Esau. If you were to read the entire story of Genesis from beginning to end, you might understand why God hated Esau, because Esau does not come out looking like a very worthy character in Genesis. But why does God choose Jacob? What’s so lovable about him? After all, it was Jacob, not Esau, who took advantage of his brother to gain the family birthright. It was Jacob who deceived his father and stole Esau’s blessing. It was Jacob who left his home and family and didn’t come back for twenty years. So why does God love this man Jacob – Jacob the “heel-grasper”, Jacob the supplanter, Jacob the liar, Jacob the cheat?

Madeleine L’Engle suggests an answer in her book about Jacob, entitled A Stone for A Pillow. She writes: “All through the great stories, heavenly love is lavished on visibly imperfect people. Scripture asks us to look at Jacob as he really is, to look at ourselves as we really are, and then realize that this is who God loves. God did not love Jacob because he was a cheat, but because he was Jacob. … If God can love Jacob – or any single one of us – as we really are, then it is possible for us to turn in love to those who hurt or confuse us. … And that makes me take a new look at love.” [Madeleine L’Engle, A Stone for a Pillow, The Genesis Trilogy (WaterBrook Press, Colorado Springs, 1997), p.222] That’s exactly what this strange story from Genesis, the most unusual wrestling match in the history of mankind, teaches us – a new look at love, a new look at Jacob, and a new look at God.

Jacob was the younger of twin brothers born to Isaac and Rebekah in southern Palestine. This family had problems from the very beginning. Jacob and Esau fought even while they were in the womb! Isaac favored Esau; Rebekah favored Jacob. Evidently, Esau thought quite highly of his family birthright; so highly, in fact, that he traded it to Jacob for a bowl of stew. But this wasn’t enough for Jacob, who went on to deceive his father Isaac and steal the family blessing, with help from his scheming mother, of course. This was the last straw for Esau, who plots to kill Jacob as soon as his father dies. So what does Jacob do? Probably the same thing you or I would do. He runs for his life. Let’s pick up Jacob’s story in Genesis 28, verse 10:

Now Jacob went out from Beersheba and went toward Haran. So he came to a certain place and stayed there all night because the sun had set.

So Jacob is on the run, at this point he’s probably been on the road for a day or two, maybe three, and he has reached the vicinity of a little town called Luz. Jacob has left everything behind. He is entirely alone. The sun has set on Jacob, and night has come.

And he took one of the stones of that place and put it at his head, and he lay down in that place to sleep. Then he dreamed, and behold, a ladder was set up on the earth, and its top reached to heaven; and there the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. And behold, YHWH stood above it, and said: “I am YHWH, God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and your descendants. Also your descendants shall be as the dust of the earth; you shall spread abroad to the west and the east, to the north and the south; and in you and in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed. Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have spoken to you.”

God repeats to Jacob the covenant that he made with both Abraham and Isaac. But there are three additional promises that God makes to Jacob specifically. First, God says that he is with Jacob and promises to keep him wherever he goes. Two, God promises to bring him back to this land, the land of Canaan that lies between the Jordan River and the Great Sea. And three, God will not leave Jacob until He has done everything that He has spoken. That middle promise is important. God promises to bring Jacob back to the land. The Jordan River is an important landmark in this story, because the Jordan River marks the boundary of the land of Canaan. He will have to cross the Jordan River in order to get to his Uncle Laban’s place in Syria, and God promises the bring him back across the Jordan River and back into his homeland. Remember this, because this will become a very important detail later in the story.

Also, notice that these promises of God are unconditional. God doesn’t say that Jacob needs to do anything in order for God to keep his word. It’s an unconditional statement: “I will bring you back to this land.” What does Jacob do in light of this reassuring promise? Probably the same thing you or I would do. He immediately starts bargaining with God for more.

Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, “Surely YHWH is in this place, and I did not know it.” And he was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven!” Then Jacob rose early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put at his head, set it up as a pillar, and poured oil on top of it. And he called the name of that place Bethel; but the name of the place had been Luz previously.

[Let me interject here to say that these practices of setting up rocks, pouring oil over them, then giving that place a special name were all common religious practices in ancient Palestine. In modern terms, we would say that this was an important event in Jacob’s “spiritual journey.” YHWH God has appeared to him, and he commemorates the event appropriately.]

Then Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me, and keep me in the way that I am going, and give me bread to eat and clothing to put on, so that I come back to my father’s house in peace, then YHWH will be my God. And this stone that I have set as a pillar shall be God’s house, and of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You.”

I feel like the text is being generous to Jacob here. The story says that Jacob made a vow to God; it sounds to me like Jacob cut a deal! Essentially, Jacob says to God, “OK, YHWH, you can be my God, but you have to do four things for me first.” The four demands Jacob makes of God are: 1) that God will be with him; 2) that God will keep him in his way, whatever that means; 3) that God will give him bread to eat and clothes to wear; and finally, 4) that God will bring him not just back to his homeland, but to his father’s house.

At this point in the story, I don’t think that Jacob is “sold out” to worshipping YHWH. In fact, if you keep reading, you will find that nowhere does Jacob refer to YHWH as his God; instead, he always refers to YHWH as the God of his father Abraham and of his father Isaac. This little episode between Jacob and God leaves us with some tantalizing questions. Will God keep his promises to Jacob? Will God kowtow to Jacob’s demands? And if not, what will Jacob do? And from an ancient Palestinian perspective, perhaps the most important question of all – if Jacob reneges, what will God do to Jacob? There is relational tension here between God and Jacob, significant tension that we ought not ignore if we are to feel the full impact of this story.

And so the time of Jacob’s night begins. The tables are about to turn, and Jacob the deceiver is going to be deceived. For the next twenty years, things go from bad to worse for Jacob. After seven years of labor, Laban tricks Jacob into marrying the daughter that Jacob doesn’t love and coerces him to work seven additional years to marry the daughter he does love. After those fourteen years are completed, Jacob goes to Laban and asks for his release so that he can get on with his life. Laban insists that Jacob stay, and Jacob agrees on the condition that he be paid with all the brown sheep, and all the specked and spotted goats. Fair enough, Laban says. But notice what Laban does next, picking up the reading in chapter 30, verse 35.

So [Laban] removed that day the male goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had some white in it, and all the brown ones among the lambs, and gave them into the hand of his sons. Then he put three days’ journey between himself and Jacob, and Jacob fed the rest of Laban’s flocks.

Do you catch what’s going on here? Immediately after making the agreement, Laban takes everything that he said he would pay Jacob and disappears into the wilderness with it, leaving Jacob with all the livestock that, per their agreement, belongs to Laban. Jacob the cheat has been cheated. You can read the whole story for yourself, but at this point God now begins to intervene on behalf of Jacob. No matter how much Laban tries to get the best of Jacob, God works it out so that Jacob always gets the better livestock. Then God speaks to Jacob again:

Then the Angel of God spoke to [Jacob] in a dream, saying: “Jacob.” And [Jacob] said, “Here I am.” And He said, “Lift your eyes now and see, all the rams which leap on the flocks are streaked, speckled, and gray-spotted; for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you. I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed the pillar and where you made a vow to Me. Now arise, get out of this land, and return to the land of your family.”

Twenty long years have passed. Remember the promise of God to Jacob way back in chapter 28, to bring him back to the land? The moment of truth has finally come. Jacob is about to cross the Jordan River and come back to his native homeland. He has sent messengers ahead to Esau his brother, and the messengers have returned saying that Esau is coming to meet him with 400 men. The text doesn’t tell us why Esau brings so many men with him, but Jacob fears the worst – that Esau is out for revenge. So what does Jacob do? Probably the same thing you or I would do. He calls out to God for help.

Then Jacob said, “O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, the LORD who said to me, ‘Return to your country and to your family, and I will deal well with you’: I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies and of all the truth which You have shown Your servant; for I crossed over this Jordan with [only] my staff, and now I have become two companies…”

Do you hear the difference in Jacob’s tone?

Deliver me, I pray, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau; for I fear him, lest he come and attack me and the mother with the children. For You said, ‘I will surely treat you well, and make your descendants as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.’ … And he arose that night and took his two wives, his two female servants, and his eleven sons, and crossed over the ford of Jabbok. He took them, sent them over the brook, and sent over what he had. Then Jacob was left alone…

Put yourself in Jacob’s shoes now. You have been banished from your family, exiled from your homeland, taken refuge with your distant uncle who tricked you into marrying both his daughters and cheated you ten times in regard to your payment for shepherding his flocks. And just when God seems to be on the verge of keeping his promise to you to bring you back to your native land, it looks like you are about to lose everything, perhaps even your very life. Oh yes, the lives of your family, too. You have called out to God for help and done everything you can do to protect the ones you love so dearly. It is dark, you are alone, and all indications show that the morning will bring swift disaster.

Does this sound familiar? Have you been in this place, in the desert, in the dark, alone, with no hope? Of course you have. We all have. Take yourself back to that place for a few moments and remember it; then you will be ready to hear the story, to really hear it. I challenge you to resist the urge to mentally jump ahead because you’ve heard the story before and know what happens. Take the story one sentence at a time, just as it unfolds in the text.

Then Jacob was left alone, and a Man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day.

Picture Jacob now, getting ready to camp out for the night. He’s probably not far off the main road. Maybe he’s built a small fire. He’s trying to find as comfortable a place to sleep as he can. Suddenly, a man emerges from the sagebrush and attacks Jacob, which would not have been an uncommon occurrence at this time of history. Jacob doesn’t know who this man is. Jacob defends himself, of course, and they end up wrestling all night long, until the morning light starts to appear in the eastern sky.

Now when He saw that He did not prevail against him, He touched the socket of his hip, and the socket of his hip was out of joint as he wrestled with Him.

Jacob has been wrestling with an unknown stranger and doing very well; when suddenly, with one slight touch of the hand and a monstrous whelp of pain, Jacob is completely disarmed. And in one horrifying moment, he realizes that the person with whom he has been tangling all night long is YHWH Himself, although it doesn’t seem like the full force of this has hit him yet. God speaks:

“Let Me go, for the day breaks.”

Remember how the sun set on Jacob so long ago at Bethel when he slept on a rock and God appeared to him in the dream? Now the sun is about to rise. I imagine Jacob probably utters this next line through angrily clenched teeth, out of breath and between screams of pain.

But he said, “I will not let you go unless You bless me!

Can you hear the cry of the desperate man – the man who would stoop to deceiving his father and stealing from his brother in order to secure a divine blessing?

So He said to him, “What is your name?” He said, “Jacob.” And He said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed.”

I still remember the first time I translated this verse in my Hebrew class in seminary. I had heard many sermons on this passage before, but none of them really seemed to make much sense. Isn’t struggling against God a bad thing? So why does God praise Jacob for it? And how can God say that Jacob prevailed when clearly, Jacob did NOT prevail? After all, God doesn’t have the dislocated hip right now, Jacob does. But as I came to this verse in my arduous translation work – with books and papers all strewn about my cluttered desk – everything suddenly came together, and the power of the entire story hit me with the unexpected force of one tiny preposition.

I will discuss that in a second, but first let us look at the name given to Jacob, for it is central to the text. Jacob’s old name, Yacov, literally means “heel-grasper.” The name is a double-entendre, not just indicating the circumstances of his birth, clinging to the heel of his twin brother, but also referring to his character as a supplanter, a conniver, a schemer. Now, God gives him a new name, Israel, which is a compound word consisting of the verb SARAH which means “to struggle” and the noun EL, which simply means, “God.” This name Israel can mean either one of two things, depending on whether God is the subject or object of the verb. The name either means “God struggles” or “He struggles with God.” Given the context of the story paired with the explanation God gives for the name, I conclude that this second meaning is the correct one. God no longer identifies Jacob as a scheming conniver but as one who struggles with God. But what does this mean, to struggle “with” God? This little word – the preposition “with” – makes all the difference in the story.

When we read the story in English, we naturally think that Jacob is being praised for struggling against God. But when you read the story in Hebrew, this preposition “with” jumps off the page like a big, bright, flashing neon sign saying, “PAY ATTENTION!” The term used here is the short Hebrew word IM. The simplest definition of the word is, “together with.” Do you see the difference? Jacob is not being praised for struggling against God, but for struggling together with God. The primary definition of this word IM connotes fellowship and companionship. In Hebrew Bible, this is the term of divine presence. It’s the term used in Gen 28 when God promises to be WITH Jacob. It’s the term used in Psalm 23 when David says that, even when he walks through the darkest valley, he will fear no evil because God is WITH him. And it is the term used in that great title for Jesus found in Isaiah 7, IM-MANUEL, God WITH us. God praises Jacob not for struggling against God, but for struggling “together with” God, in fellowship with God; and ironically enough, in fellowship with men.

Now wait just a second. Hold the phone! Jacob has struggled in fellowship with men? Where do you get that from, God? This is Jacob we’re talking about, remember? Jacob, the “heel-grasper” – the supplanter – the liar – the cheat? Where does God get off praising Jacob for struggling “in fellowship with” men? Well, the story is about to tell us, and we’ll see it in just a minute.

This leaves one last phrase to consider. God says, “You have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed.” How has Jacob prevailed? Jacob has most certainly struggled in his fellowship with Laban. All along the line Jacob could have run away from Laban, but he didn’t. He stayed and continued in fellowship, even though he got taken advantage of again and again and again. When all was said and done, Jacob still ended up with the best livestock. God was not blind to the injustice Jacob suffered at the hands of Laban. And now, God pronounces blessing on Jacob and gives him in a new name in accordance with the character that Jacob has demonstrated. At one time, Jacob was the cheater. Now, Jacob has been cheated, yet Jacob remained in fellowship with Laban until – wait for it – God told him to leave. Do you see the change that has taken place in Jacob’s character? It seems that God saw it, God praises Jacob for it, and God renames Jacob on account of it … Israel, “He struggles in fellowship with God.”

And Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.” And He said, “Why do you ask me my name?” And he blessed him there.

I love God’s question here, mainly because I am wondering the exact same thing. I’m right there with God on this one – “Yes, Jacob, why are you asking God’s name?” This seems like a strange request, especially since God has already told Jacob His name way back in chapter 28. And I wish I had a nice, neat answer to offer, but I don’t. And none of the commentators that I read seem to know, either. So rather than trying to make up something clever, I will let it be, and we can all wonder together. At any rate, the point is that God reaffirms his blessing to Jacob. In the midst of all Jacob’s bargaining, his demanding, his fear and need for reassurance, God has remained consistently true to His word from the very beginning. The only thing lacking is for God to bring Jacob back over the Jordan River, into the land of Canaan, and everything God promised will have come to pass. What hangs in the balance is, “what will Jacob do?” Will he keep his end of the bargain?

So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for I have seen God face to face, yet my life is preserved.

Now we have come to the unexpected twist, the iconic irony of this great story. Jacob expects his life to be taken in the morning when he meets Esau, when really, he shouldn’t have even lasted the night. Jacob knows that no one can see the face of God and live, something that we the readers won’t be told until near the end of Exodus. Now, the weight of this divine encounter settles on Jacob’s shoulders, and he is a changed man. God has met him and changed him, not just his name but also his character. But Jacob is wounded now, and he walks with a limp. I bring attention to this small detail to say this: if God has met you in your journey, and now you walk with a limp, don’t be ashamed of it. Instead, do what Jacob did. Jacob’s limp became the memorial of his encounter with God, the means by which his story was told.

Just as he crossed over Penuel the sun rose on him, and he limped on his hip. Therefore to this day the children of Israel do not eat the muscle that shrank, which is on the hip socket, because He touched the socket of Jacob’s hip in the muscle that shrank.

So we’ve seen Jacob’s struggle with God, although we don’t yet know exactly how it’s going to turn out. Let’s turn our attention to Jacob’s struggle with men, particularly with his brother Esau. The text talks about these two relationships in parallel, that is, Jacob’s relationship with God and his relationship with Esau. This story of Jacob wrestling with God comes smack dab in the middle of the story of Jacob’s reconciliation with Esau. And it’s my opinion that when God blesses Jacob for his struggle with men, God is offering his commentary on Jacob’s attempt to reconcile with his brother. So let’s pick up the reading in chapter 33, verse 8.

Then Esau said, “What do you mean by all this company which I met?”

And he said, “These are to find favor in the sight of my lord.”

Now many people interpret this as Jacob trying to buy off Esau in order to assuage his anger, but I don’t think that is the correct interpretation. Let’s keep reading.

But Esau said, “I have enough, my brother; keep what you have for yourself.”

And Jacob said, “No, please, if I have now found favor in your sight, then receive my present from my hand, inasmuch as I have seen your face as though I had seen the face of God, and you were pleased with me.”

And now comes the key phrase:

“Please, take my blessing that is brought to you, because God has dealt graciously with me, and because I have enough.”

So Jacob urged him, and Esau took it.

The key word here is the word blessing. This is the same word that is used back in chapter 27 when Jacob steals the blessing that Isaac intended for Esau. I don’t think that Jacob offers these hordes of gifts to Esau as a bribe, but rather as restitution for what he had taken, the family birthright and the family blessing. At this time in history, the family birthright meant receiving a double share of the father’s inheritance. Twenty years earlier, Jacob had taken advantage of Esau’s weakened condition in an attempt to secure future wealth for himself. Now Jacob is trying to make it right in order to be in fellowship with Esau. Jacob loves his brother, but this love has undergone a journey. Jacob has sinned, and Jacob has repented, and now Jacob makes restitution. The implication of the story is that Esau forgives him, because the text later tells us the Jacob and Esau together bury their father Isaac in the family burial ground.

Jacob’s love for God has gone through a similar journey, but we’re still waiting to see how it’s going to turn out. Well, let’s find out, shall we?

Then Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padan Aram; and he pitched his tent before the city. And he bought the parcel of land, where he had pitched his tent, from the children of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for one hundred pieces of money. Then he erected an altar there and called it El Elohe Israel [which being interpreted means, “God is the God of Israel”].

Ah, there it is. God has now fulfilled all his promises to Jacob from way back at Bethel. He has been with him every step of the way and brought him back across the Jordan to the land of Canaan. But do you see what God has not done? God has not fulfilled all the conditions of Jacob’s vow! Jacob has not come back to his father’s house, he has only come to Shechem. But here, in Shechem, Jacob buys a piece of land and erects an altar to YHWH, similar to what he did twenty years earlier as a desperate young man fleeing for his life. But did you catch the significance of the name that he gives to this altar? He names it, El Elohe Israel, which means, God is the God of Israel. Jacob has repented of his bargaining, his demanding, his “vending machine” theology that demands payment in exchange for services rendered. Instead, he finally bows the knee to YHWH, proclaiming to his idolatrous neighbors through his pile of rocks that YHWH is not only the God of Isaac his father and Abraham his grandfather, but is also his God – Jacob’s God – the God of Israel.

So what would Jacob do? This story tells us that Jacob loved God and loved his brother Esau, just like Jesus commands us now to love God and love our neighbor. But this love came through great struggle. Jacob struggled in his fellowship with God, struggled in his fellowship with men. Now we could debate whether God loved Jacob because of these things or whether Jacob did these things because God loved him first. But all of this misses the point, doesn’t it? The truth of the matter is that Jacob sinned, but he repented and made restitution. Yet the real question for today is not what would Jacob do, but rather, what will you do?

Let us pray.

Almighty God, you have surrounded us with a great cloud of witnesses: Grant that we, encouraged by the good example of your servant Jacob, may persevere in running the race that is set before us, until at least we may with him attain to your eternal joy; through Jesus Christ, the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
Book of Common Prayer, p.250

[I preached this sermon at North Baltimore Mennonite Church on Sunday, 1 July 2012.]

A Theological Conversation on Sexual Identity

Recently I sat down with a pastor acquaintance of mine to chat about an upcoming sermon on sexual identity. This pastor wanted to pick my brain as they prepared to preach, and we recorded our conversation. The pastor’s voice is in bold type, and my voice is in italics type. Enjoy!

In our church we’ve been doing a series through the book of Proverbs over about seven weeks, using proverbs as wise sayings. Like it’s the end of the year with your family around the house and just talking about some wisdom and giving wisdom into certain issues. We’ve touched on finances and sex and pornography, so it’s been those kinds of issues. What I’m doing this week is talking about sexuality. I’m doing sexual identity from the perspective that sexuality was created by God. That we have a sexual identity which is not defined by what we have or what we desire or anything like that. Rather, who we are in God is who we are, outside of those things. So what do our desires mean to our humanity? The things we have, for instance, the gift mix that we have, the things that we’re born with, what do those things mean about our humanity? And so, what are the things that are true about identity, regardless of how we feel, what we desire, or what we have. Then, I would like to speak to the community about how then do we exist as a community with the reality that people are born with, you know, our biology. How do we exist with the tension that is in Scripture? Then, informing us to view the world this way and to view ourselves this way, but we’ve got these experiences that people have that seem to contradict what the Scriptures say. How do we help people integrate into the community and accept them as being an extension of the image of God, even though they feel a particular way––they might be inclined to recognize themselves or identify in a particular way? So in all of that, I think that the anchoring theme for me is identity.

And then I would like to give some good scriptural analysis for people. Because I think a lot of people inherit beliefs or philosophies, but we don’t really understand how we actually look at the Scriptures around this issue. So I would appreciate input around the Old Testament. There are people who just go, “It’s in the Old Testament.” I’ve got friends within this community always complaining that their biggest barrier is that they feel like Christians pick and choose what they’re going to be passionate about. That we’re going to stand on this issue, but there are so many other things, too! There’s so many laws in the Old Testament that even if you try, you can’t appropriate them in the New Testament just by virtue of the fact that cultures change and so forth. But when they’re speaking to Christians, they feel like Christians have this staunch approach to this one issue, but they don’t actually know why the other laws are not applicable, or even the ones that can be applicable feels like, “But why aren’t you doing this one?” because you could be.

And finally, how do we catch God’s heart? Because another thing that I’ve experienced on the other side of these sermons is there’s the clarity of Scripture but God’s heart is not always translated. It’s like “Here’s the line,” but what does that mean for people who feel on the other side of that line? I mean, I don’t think you can stay away from this topic being a campus missionary for as long as we have been. But I think this is fairly new looking at it from an identity perspective and creating a framework to help people gain clarity around how they go about thinking about it. For me as a preacher, I’m coming in on a Sunday, people are seeing these issues differently, and I want theological clarity for people. Then I also want people who are in that community not to see themselves as people who need to do something to be seen as whole, to be seen as an extension of the image of God, so I think if I would summarize my goals that’s what I’m trying to do.

Wow, that sounds really good. I’m so glad! So, if I can summarize what I hear you saying, you would like to focus your sermon especially on the idea of sexual identity or gender identity, and what is some sensical biblical thinking about that. And then, how to communicate that not just in an academic headspace, but in a way that God’s passion and love really come through. That’s what I hear you saying you want to do. That’s fantastic.

So I definitely think that Genesis 1 is really important. I don’t know what kind of theological background you’re coming from, or your specific church. But I feel like, when it comes to biblical thinking about gender, that portion of Scripture is really important. I’ll say that I myself grew up in a fundamentalist and patriarchal kind of upbringing. And largely through my own study of the Scripture I have come to think that those perspectives are just wrong. I think the picture of gender identity with God is that neither men nor women have a trump card in terms of the nature of God. Both genders together exhibit the image of God. Now I’m getting into more theology now as opposed to just exegesis, but I would say that the reason why we use male pronouns for God is because that’s what Jesus used. It’s not because God is somehow intrinsically male or female. Or, if you want to say it this way, it’s like God is both male and female at the same time.

Can I just ask you a question on that? I’ve heard some theology lectures where God is no longer referred to as he or she, but they say “God-self.” So how do you bring clarity around that? I hear what you’re saying that Jesus refers to God as “he” but that God is neither he nor she. What is the correct framework for that?

Yes, so again, this is a distinction that’s important for me as a theologian, and as a biblical exegete. Theology and exegesis are not strictly the same thing. Those are distinct disciplines, and theology goes further than exegesis does. At some point, your exegesis has to be founded on some presuppositions, and those presuppositions are your theology. It’s important for me to make that distinction, that this stuff we’re talking about right now has to do with one’s faith commitments about God. Right, so you can’t exegete your way to your faith commitments about God necessarily. At some point, all of us as Christians have to take what Scripture says, and then we choose what we believe about God. And this idea of gender identity is clearly in that realm of theology. Christians do come to different conclusions about these things, and it’s not necessarily a matter of right or wrong. Although, there is such a thing as good theology and bad theology.

So, now that I’ve kind of clarified that disclaimer, I’ll keep talking. So let me come back to another kind of faith commitment I have that I think is very important for theology. I am a firm believer that the non-physical aspect of our being, or non-physical aspect of reality, is reflected in physical aspects of reality. And I think that’s so important in all kinds of ways. We as people, how God has created us, we are not disembodied. We are not disembodied spirits that just happen to live inside a body. At some point when we die, we will be a disembodied spirit outside a body. But right now, we’re a whole being. We have our spirit and our body, and you can’t really pull those apart. There are all kinds of different ways that Christians have gone about trying to explain the differences between masculinity and femininity, and in the end I think most of those constructs are unsatisfying in terms of how the genders actually relate to one another.

In a marriage relationship, at least, I think the male partner is the penetrating partner and the female partner is the penetrated partner. And I think it’s the same in our relationship with God. This is my own thinking now. I think that the reason why God uses masculine pronouns for himself in his revelation to us is to show that in our relationship with God, he is the one who penetrates us, we are not the ones who penetrate him. So that’s how I reconcile that in my own theology. That’s my own personal thinking. But I think we have to read the revelation of God in Scripture in light of this fundamental truth that is set forth at the very beginning, that the image of God is both genders together. Neither one has a privileged position over the other. Now I understand that we could get into some stuff in the New Testament about preaching and stuff like that, but we don’t need to do that right now.

The other thing that I would say is that this differentiation between “penetrating” and “penetrated” really only applies within a sexual relationship. Apart from that, men and women really do stand on their own in God’s economy. I don’t think the idea is scriptural that a woman is under her father’s authority until she gets married and then her authority transfers to her husband. I think that is just bogus. All of us as Christians, we’re all under Jesus. Jesus says, “All authority is mine.” We’re all under Jesus. So those are my thoughts on Genesis and why I think Genesis 1 is so important. But you said that your series is really in Proverbs?

Yeah, so the wisdom is drawn from Proverbs, but it’s obviously very difficult just to preach out of Proverbs. Generally, I think the whole proverbs thing means just the wisdom literature around it. And that’s what has allowed for conversation, the tone of the preaching has allowed it because we’re talking wisdom literature. We’ve been able to take the posture that Proverbs has, sort of thinking around the Scripture to help how people think through things. Because that’s what proverbs do: as you look at it, it’s not obvious, and so it goes. So it’s been a nice way to see and hear preaching differently.

Do you have a specific passage that you’re focused on in Proverbs?

Not at the moment. Generally, what I do is to zoom out before I zoom in. I’m currently in the zoomed out phase. The reason why I thought it would be good to speak to you is because we just came out of the Proverbs series. So…okay, what’s the appropriate way to use the book of Proverbs to tie in, or at least link, the concepts from Genesis 1 and Romans 1 to put it all together.

Right. So let me ask you, what are you hoping to appropriate from Romans 1 specifically?

So the reason why I like Romans 1 is because it speaks about choosing to dishonor God. And there are ways in which God removes himself when there’s that dishonor, where we’ve chosen something other than God. What I’d like to do with Romans 1 is speak about how the ordering of our affections is important, right? And when our affections are not ordered, our submission is not ordered, it has consequences. It’s like society likes to order affections to our own lives, but there’s a reason for God’s order. And that if we don’t subscribe to that order, this is what happens. So I like Romans 1 for that.

Right. Okay, so I’m just going to share thoughts that come to mind. What is troubling, at least in a modern context with the current kinds of social debates about gender identity and sexual expression and stuff––one of the reasons why this is hard for Christians is because if you read the Bible, it is impossible to escape, and particularly in the New Testament. that our relationship with God affects what we do with our genitals. The Bible is very clear about that. Which makes perfect sense, right? If it’s true that we are made in the image of God, and God has made us male and female. And if our world has been marred by sin, it makes sense that sometimes those boundaries don’t work exactly the way that one might feel like they should. I mean, things like gender dysphoria make sense in a biblical worldview. God has created us male and female, and yet here we exist in a world that has been marred by sin. It makes sense that those things would not always work perfectly. But actually, thinking about the problem isn’t necessarily the issue, right? It’s how do we solve these problems? That’s what’s hard. But in the end, you cannot escape this fact that how we relate to God does, in fact, impact what we do with the male or female parts of our body. Paul is very clear about this.

For my own self, I think the path of wisdom is to say that it is not my place to change others. I have people very close to me who are Christians and are homosexual. How I have dealt with that, personally, is to say that it is not my place to change them. It’s my place to love them. I don’t condone homosexual behavior, I don’t think it’s in God’s will. But at the same time, I think that there are more important things in our Christian expression. I mean, I’m not just going to say to someone else, “I’m not going to talk to you” or “I’m not going to be your friend” just because you’ve come to a belief that homosexual expression is okay in your relationship with God. If I got into an honest conversation, what I would say is that I don’t think homosexual expression matches what the Bible reveals. But at the same time, I would say that sexual ethics is an issue of theology. It’s not really an issue of exegesis. So it’s an issue of faith. Yes, and another reason why it’s hard is because we have this big verse in Galatians where Paul says that, in Christ, there is no longer Jew or Gentile, or even male and female! So we’re like, “Oh, what is Paul really saying about gender identity there?” I don’t think he means it in a physical way. I don’t think he means that just because I’m a Christian, that doesn’t make me not a man anymore. I think what he means is something like, it’s often tempting for me as a man to just view myself as being a man and then, when I interact with women, to say, “Well, you don’t understand because you’re a woman.” Basically, I think Paul’s point is that that kind of thinking for Christians is not allowed. We’re not simply men and women anymore, we are all under Christ. Even further, there is something going on in our person when we come to Jesus and the Holy Spirit begins his work in us. My very manhood is, in fact, being changed. I’m becoming a new man.

I’m reminded of Jesus’ story to the Sadducees. They ask him a question about the woman who marries seven different brothers and then eventually dies, whose wife will she be in heaven? They’re trying to trap him because they believe there really is no such thing as a resurrection. And he says no, you’ve got it all wrong. In the eternal state, when we are with God, we won’t be married. This kind of inter-dynamism of the two genders in the gift of marriage is God’s gift for us while we are living. But in the eternal state, there’s something else for us, like we really will be individual people in our relationship with God.

While all these things are true, I think the weakness of this is coming to some kind of strictly individualistic view of my relationship with God, which Paul is also very clear that that is not what’s happening. The new self, the new man that God is making in me, as a Christian is not an individual identity, but is a communal identity. It’s all of us, as the body of Christ together. I think all of these things are woven into this idea of gender identity.

Bringing my thoughts back to Romans now, I think you are right. It’s a principle of the world that what we sow is what we will reap. What we do with our genitals is going to impact us either for better for worse, and I don’t know if anyone other than God is really in a position to know specifically what we deserve and what we don’t. But I think it is biblical wisdom to say. As a man, if I were to choose to sleep around, I would lose my marriage. I think we are on safe ground to preach that from a pulpit. I think the Bible is very clear that God has given us free will to make our own moral choices, but that we will reap the consequences of those choices for good or for ill.

Yes, so I have two questions on opposite ends. First, what is good news for the homosexual? How do we preach good news to somebody who is in that position? And then the second one is, as a community of faith, how do you walk with somebody faithfully, speaking directly to the person who finds themselves wrestling? So, what is the good news for person individually, and then the other end as a community of faith, as the body? How do we love faithfully? I find it easier in my personal relationships than in relating to people as a pastor. Because in your personal relationships, you know what you think. But when you have that pastoral role, or when people are in church and you’re thinking of yourself as a disciple maker, I think that community makes it a bit complicated. I don’t find it to be complicated at all in my personal relationships. But I do find it to be complicated in the body.

That makes perfect sense, because in some ways that community is looking to you for answers and for guidance.

Yeah.

I’ll just let you know that I’m not a pastor now, and I’ve never served a church as a pastor. So I’m only speaking from my experience as a Christian friend, a Bible teacher, a small group leader, a person who has preached occasionally but not specific pastoral experience. I need to be forthcoming about that. Let me ask you, is this a major issue in your church community?

It isn’t a place for conversation around it. But what people can’t deny is that the pervasive culture is growing, like the pride experience, that whole thing is growing. And people don’t know how to engage, so they are just sort of hiding. So I think I would be mostly speaking to our community of faith and rebuking them for their own identity idolatry. So that’s another thing that’s strong in my heart, that we have our own identity altars that we worship. And yet we say that this [homosexual] community has been wrong for doing the very thing that we do. So that’s something that I will mention. I think the the whole concept of identity is a strong one. And to highlight that this is an identity issue and we all wrestle with that in different ways. So I’m hoping that if people would see the ways in which they have their own identity idolatry, they’ll be able to walk more faithfully with others and see all of us as people who need Christ. And it’s manifesting in different ways, but in a way, I can relate because I’m struggling to lay down my own altar, so I’m not expecting others to do something that I’m not doing myself, so I’m hoping to bring it from that perspective.

Okay, so these are a few thoughts I have. It’s similar to the way that children are a gift from God. Nothing more, nothing less, right? None of us are promised children, which seems so counterintuitive. It seems like having babies is just what we do. But actually, the Bible says that children are a gift from God, which means that if God chooses not to give us children, we are not really in a position to be angry with God about that. Even though that, what I’ve just said, that’s really hard. For someone who is not able to have a baby, that’s a really hard thing. I’m not naïve to that. There’s a sense of grief and, like, “That’s just not how it should be.” We should have children. You know what I mean?

Yes.

In a similar vein, sexual expression is also not a right God has given to us. And this is true even in marriage. I’m very convinced that God has given us our bodies and God has given us a gift of sexual expression, but that does not give us a license to break the boundaries of another person. If my wife were to say to me, “I’m not having sex with you anymore,” I have to deal with that.

Yes, exactly.

I cannot stand on this, like, sexual right. I really can’t. Because her body is still her body. This comes back to the faith commitment I have that the non-physical part of us is reflected in the physical part of us. As people, we have boundaries, and it’s not okay to break them. So I think that’s the first thing, and that’s really hard. Or another thing, like, let’s say something happened to either me or my wife physically and we couldn’t have sex anymore, I still have to be married to her. I’m not released from my vow.

Right, you are not released!

So I think that’s the first thing, and I think that’s a huge hurdle.

I love the heterosexual examples of the unfairness, because that’s the whole thing: “It’s not fair that I can’t express!” So I appreciate the examples from the other way, that is the same unfairness. Even in that unfairness it doesn’t change the standard of God and his expectation.

Right. It is very tempting, even for me as a married man, to start being entitled. But we can’t. If we are to think of ourselves as creatures of God’s creation, made in his image, there’s no place for entitlement. We have to acknowledge that, and we have to abide by that limitation. But I think there’s another issue that’s more difficult. For me, in my life, I have very, very, very seldom had any kind of homosexual urge. It’s just not really a thing for me. So I feel like this issue I’m about to talk about is something that really needs to be talked about by someone who does have same sex attraction. I mean, I’ve basically been attracted to women all my life, and it’s not like I made this choice at some point to be attracted to women, I just am. And there is solace for me, to be honest, knowing that this is actually a good thing. This is a good part of me that actually God wants. God wants us to get married and to have babies and to show communal love in a family, the way God himself exists in a community of love. This is a wonderful thing! But if I were to flip it around and say, “I actually shouldn’t be attracted to women. What God wants me to do is to be attracted to men, not women,” that would be really hard.

Yeah.

I mean, I’d be like, “But…”

“…I just don’t want to.”

Yeah. And in the end, for me as a person who struggles with lust in a heterosexual way, I think it’d be very difficult for someone who was different to hear that kind of message from me. That doesn’t necessarily mean I shouldn’t say that message, but I think it does mean that I should be very, very careful.

And extremely compassionate. Yeah.

And we see this kind of thing in how Paul in the New Testament talks about Christian living. He advises men to hang out with each other and women to hang out with each other and to help each other. He doesn’t say this explicitly, but I think his reason for that is that often across genders, we just don’t understand each other. We think really differently, and it’s hard. There are aspects of my wife’s spiritual life that I can say, “I hear that,” and I mentally assent to it, but I don’t really fully understand her experience. And that makes it hard, particularly in our spiritual life, if she is going through things that I don’t really understand. And I think it’s the path of wisdom for me to be with her, to listen, to pray with her, but to try to speak into that is just not helpful. And it works the other way, too. There are some times in my own spiritual life where I need a man’s perspective.

The other thing that is not lost on me is that there are some other aspects of our identity that exhibit similar dynamics, when you could always say to another person, “Well, you just don’t understand.” We have this same dynamic with black vs white skin, or any kind of difference where there’s some kind of obvious physical distinction between me and another person that I can point to, that’s really clear. It’s really tempting to use that to either take advantage of that difference somehow or to simply ignore the difference and dismiss the other person’s experience. But neither of those are the path of wisdom. Not gender, not race, not even an adult-child difference. God has not given us the gift of our humanity in order for us to take advantage of each other or to ignore the fact that our differences exist.

I like speaking tension, so I am not always trying to resolve tensions. Because I think in our attempt to resolve tensions we quickly want a black and white answer and a lot of it is resolved in community. And I think that’s okay. Yeah, so I can highlight the places of tension and say it’s on us to to read the word faithfully. And to figure out how to resolve those tensions, I think every generation has that responsibility. So I don’t see myself as responsible for making it all okay for everybody.

Yes, I think that’s good and healthy.

This is all good. I think it’s clarity in thinking. I gravitate more to the apologetic side of things, but I thought this would probably need a little bit more biblical frameworks than apologetics.

The other thing that you talked about is wanting to communicate the substance of God’s heart. I think this is something that we can always say. Regardless of who you’re attracted to, I think we can rightly say that the desire in all of us for intimate relationship with another human person, regardless of gender, that desire is actually good and wholesome and comes from God. God wants us to connect with each other, and not just on a superficial level. God wants us to be so close to another person that we would have sex with them. (I hope you understand that I’m using the term God’s “will” in a general sense there.) I think that is comforting.

So I got married when I was 29. Of my group of friends, I was one of the later ones to get married. And there was a time of my life when I really prayed about whether God wanted me to be a monk and have that life. And for about six months I prayed about that. And I kind of came to the end of that, and I was like, “No, being married and having a family is something I really want.” And there were times in my life when, dealing with loneliness and sexual frustration, it was a comfort for me to say to myself, “You know, this thing is actually good, even though this is causing me a lot of frustration right now.” It’s not pleasant to have sexual urges that you cannot fulfill, but I think it is comforting to know that the desire at the bottom of that is good. If we are created in the image of God, and if the physical reflects the non-physical, then to have sex is not simply an animal act, but it really is about the desire to connect to another person, and that desire is good and right. If God himself is three persons in one, then being united with another person is living out God’s community. I really do think that that’s tremendously important. And that God wants that kind of relationship with us, too. It’s not just with each other. There is a sense in which God loves each of us enough that if God could have sex with us, he would.

Right, yes! And when you speak about physical things that sometimes point to spiritual things, or the other way around. For me, when I think of the the whole concept of “knowing” that is all throughout the Old Testament and that sometimes God uses that term for his deep intimacy with us. So for me, I see that parallel of covenant and relationship with the Lord as well. Okay, and then lastly Proverbs.

Right. Proverbs is an interesting book because there’s a very strong sexual subtext in Proverbs but it’s almost all from a man’s perspective. The first nine chapters of Proverbs is where sexuality is explored the most. It’s a series of conversations from a father to a son about who to marry. And basically what this dad says is: When it comes right down to it, don’t go for the woman who wants to sleep with you, especially if she’s married already. Don’t do it! Instead, look for the woman who worships Yahweh has a good head on her shoulders. That’s what you want. Which is really interesting! There’s all kinds of things that can be explored in that. So if I were teaching on sexual identity centered around Proverbs, that’s probably where I would start. With this notion that the advice a father gives to a son is don’t go for the woman who wants to sleep with you, but go for the woman who worships Yahweh and who thinks well and has good sense. Oh, and I should say, the message from the father to the son is he also needs to worship Yahweh. That’s a given. But I think that kind of tension really does highlight what is healthy versus unhealthy masculinity and healthy versus unhealthy femininity.

In the end, what God wants for me as a man is to find my masculinity in him, not in a woman. And that’s the temptation, right? That’s the lure of the woman who wants to sleep with me. Aside from the physical pleasure and that it feels good, spiritually the lure is that I’m looking for validation of my manhood in that person or in that experience as opposed to finding the validation of my manhood in the fact that God has created me to be a man. Does that make sense? And I think that there are lots of things that you can explore in that. I’ve never been a woman, of course, so I can’t speak from a woman’s perspective. But I should think that it would only make sense that it would work a similar way for what drives a woman to be seductive or try to seduce a man. I would imagine it’s a similar thing of trying to find validation of one’s own femininity in this other person or this experience as opposed to the fact that God has created her to be a woman.

I love that. For me, I think that is the link I was looking for. I was feeling like it was three different threads.

Yeah. Oh, another thing. I’ve heard women talk about reading Proverbs 31 and feeling very…

Exhausted.

…like “I can never live up to this,” you know? But I don’t think that’s how an ancient woman would have read it. I think an ancient woman would have read that chapter and said to herself, “Oh, I’m not just a bedroom performer, or a kitchen performer. God wants me to be just as much a productive member of society as a man!” Right? That’s the picture of the woman in Proverbs 31. She is equally as involved in the social community as the man is.

I love it.

And I think that’s the heart of God. I don’t subscribe to this notion that Proverbs 31 is about Lady Wisdom. I don’t think it’s painting a picture of wisdom, I just don’t agree with that. I think the book of Proverbs opens with this advice from a father to a son about the kind of woman he should look for to marry. Then I think Proverbs 31 is kind of like the answer: You don’t want to marry the type of woman who is out to sleep with you but who is out to make their community a better place. And I think that’s a really encouraging and wholesome message.

It is. Yeah, it is. I think also what’s nice is that the text has all the information. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. I think it would have taken me much longer to try and bring it all together.

Yeah, sometimes it helps just to talk things out! Before we say goodbye, can I pray for you and for your sermon?

That sounds great. Thank you. Thank you so much.