Category: Question & Answer

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.

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!

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.

On exegesis, theology, and homosexuality

Q: I am a Christian and came across this documentary recently.  Like most everyone these days, I’m interested in the issue of same-sex relationships, especially since this is a “lightning rod” issue within global Christanity right now.  I know the traditional view of the Church, and I have read and continue to research the matter.  I would like to deepen my understanding of this matter and apply it to how I live my life as a Christian.  May I ask how you see this issue, and how did you come to that understanding?

Thank you for asking!  I’m honored that you would ask for my opinion about this, I do not take it lightly.  I hope that my response will demonstrate equal honor to you.  First of all, before going any further, let me affirm you that I think you are wise to “deepen your understanding of the matter and apply it to how I live my life as a Christian.”  Regardless of whether you are personally convinced one way or another about the issue, to approach conversations from a strident and rigidly dogmatic approach will probably not fulfill St Paul’s admonition to “if it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all people” (Rom 12:18).  And especially for people like myself who move in theological circles, we probably need to do much more listening than talking in any conversations we are involved in.  Actually, that’s probably not bad advice for Christians as a whole.

I have watched the documentary, and I thought it was very well done!  Although, certainly the video was advocating a particular position on the issue at hand.  Homosexual expression within the Christian tradition is a very difficult issue, for all of the reasons that are given in the documentary.  Most all of the exegetical points raised are valid, in my opinion.  However, I would say that none of the arguments presented necessarily mean that the conclusion is correct.

To answer your question directly, I myself hold a traditional Christian view of sexual expression.  Having said that, let me also say that I know people who are practicing Christians and practicing homosexuals.  Personally, I am friends with astute theologians on both sides of this issue.  I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this topic, as have many Christians all around the world.  I would add that this issue (as a theological issue, at any rate) is fairly confined to Protestant expressions of Christianity.  In Catholic and Orthodox expressions of Christianity, there is very little discussion here (as far as I know, at least).  According to my present understanding, both of those fellowships would denounce homosexual expression as not in accordance with God’s will, and would do so unapologetically.  [For a brief description of the Catholic position, see Laudato Si, III.155 (pg. 115).  You can visit this webpage to read a brief description of the Orthodox position.]  My point here is that worldwide, I’m not sure there is quite so much movement to bless same-sex romantic relationships as often seems portrayed in Western culture(s).  Yes, there are Christians who have changed their minds about this issue, but there are many Christians who have not.

Q: Are there any scholarly works that you feel help the modern church understand what Scripture says about this?

I personally have not come across much theological scholarly material on this topic, although I’m always looking for more, and I’ll gladly accept any and all referrals!  I suppose that theological publishers are hesitant to publish books that deal with this issue, but that’s merely a guess on my part.  This is a legitimate issue of theological debate right now, especially within the global Anglican communion.  And there are some books that have been published about the issue of homosexual expression within Christianity, both for and against. Two popular books that were published a number of years ago are Wesley Hill’s Washed and Waiting and Matthew Vines’ God and the Gay Christian.  Both of those books were written by Christians who identify as gay and come to different conclusions about homosexual expression within the Christian faith.  But I would not regard either of these books as serious theological or exegetical works, nor do I think they were intended to be.  Fundamentally, I think those are books about Christian spirituality and Christian living.  Two other books that are more thorough are Karen Keene’s Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships as well as Sarah Coakley’s God, Sexuality, and the Self. However, I would venture to say that neither side has dug deep enough yet into the presuppositions of their own arguments.  I think the global Church has a lot more work to do on this issue before it can be considered theologically “settled” to the satisfaction of modern Christianity.

Q: Hmmm…what do you mean by that?

Thanks for asking!  Well, to explain myself there, I’ll need to back up a bit.  So please bear with me on what might seem like a long-winded detour, but I’ll bring it back around.  As the documentary points out very well, I think we should avoid drawing simplistic conclusions about a difficult issue and minimizing others with expressions like, “The Bible says that…”. I feel like Christians (especially in the evangelical world, where the Bible is held very highly) often don’t like to admit it, but the actual truth of the matter is that no one ever reads Scripture from an unbiased perspective.  I suggest that EVERYONE is ALWAYS interpreting when we read the Bible.  The Scriptures were written in languages that no one has spoken for centuries!  We all come to the Scriptures as non-mother-tongue exegetes, so all of us are “second-language speakers,” at best.  This necessarily means that there is a vast interpretive gulf between us and the original author/audience.  We absolutely must acknowledge that if we are to handle the Scriptures responsibly and with any kind of intellectual honesty and integrity.  So rather than saying things like, “The Bible says,” I think we are much wiser to say things like, “My understanding of the Scripture is…” or “I believe that the biblical author here means…”. Statements like these are much more honest about what is actually happening when we read and teach the Scriptures.  And certain interpretations are more sound than others, to be sure.  We should layer our theology accordingly.

But here’s the thing.  The task of exegesis itself is not neutral.  That is, we actually do bring our theology to bear on our exegesis, and we have no other choice in the matter (whether we admit it or not).  For example, the Gospels record that Jesus held up a piece of bread and said, “This is my body” (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19).  How do you interpret what Jesus meant by that?  Try as anyone might, I do not think there is any truly neutral way to exegete that statement.  I submit that, in the end, a person must choose what they believe Jesus meant.  Which means that it is not really an exegetical matter at all.  It’s a theological matter.  We believe what we choose to believe.  And the same is true about exegesis as a whole.  We interpret the Scripture according to whatever method(s) that we believe is the best, and that method affects our conclusions.  We should not pretend to be more than we are as exegetes.  Yes, our exegesis is, in fact, informed by our presuppositions about God and about truth.  We are wise to own up to that from the very beginning, and then get on with doing the very best exegesis that we can.

Now, I’m not going to delve deeply into the Scriptural passages at play here.  You (along with other Christians) can study the Scriptures for yourself and conclude what you believe in fellowship with the Holy Spirit and in accordance with Holy Scripture.  But I will say this.  If you read 1 Corinthians 6, which is perhaps the Pauline passage that deals most explicitly with sexual ethics, you should notice that St Paul does not treat sexuality as a moral code.  That is, St Paul does not appeal to some moral law that condemns certain sexual practices but allows others.  Rather, his entire moral argument proceeds something along this line: “You have been made one with Christ, so why are you sleeping with a prostitute?” (1 Cor 6:15).  In other words, his sexual ethic is derived logically from our new identity in Christ and not strictly prescriptively from textual evidence.  I think we are wise to pay attention to this.  St Paul could have quoted OT passages to say that sleeping with prostitutes is wrong.  But he did no such thing.  Rather, he said (paraphrasing): “Hey, you’re one with Christ now!  Why are you making yourself one with a prostitute?”  Almost as if the expected reply is: “Of course! That’s just silly!”  The fact that St Paul NEITHER appeals to prescriptive Scripture (as does the “heterosexual” camp, usually) NOR appeals to science or culture or knowledge (or any of the other things that the “homosexual” camp does) should be instructive to us, I think.  That’s what I’m referring to when I say that I think the global Church has a lot more work to do on this issue before it can be considered theologically “settled.”  I have yet to see theological or exegetical studies that (I think) sufficiently take into account the way that St Paul treats sexual ethics in Holy Scripture and then work it out in what I would consider a satisfactory way in modern Christianity.

Q:  I’m not sure I fully understand yet.  When you say, “We believe what we choose to believe, and the same is true about exegesis as a whole,” are you referring to situations where people choose material, techniques and sources to back up what they want to believe?  Wouldn’t that deem this a futile exercise, especially when it comes to matters that are gray?

Right, I think you have understood me correctly.  I’m suggesting that a person can start with a certain set of presuppositions about God and about truth and then exegete their way to concluding that homosexual expression is OK for Christians.  Another person can start with some other presuppositions about God and about truth and then exegete their way to concluding that homosexual expression is NOT OK for Christians.  If this is true (and I would say that is what is happening right now in the global Church), then the corollary that can reasonably be drawn is that perhaps this issue is not really about exegesis (i.e. what Scripture means) at all, but is rather about theology (i.e. what is true about God and about truth).  If you listen carefully to the arguments presented in the documentary both for and against homosexual expression, I think you will find that they are not arguments about what Scripture means, but arguments about the nature of God and the nature of truth.

I further suggest that St Paul himself does not try to exegete his way to sexual ethics.  In contrast, we should note that he DOES exegete his way to salvation theology in the book of Romans.  So St Paul uses exegetical arguments sometimes, and sometimes not.  And if he does not try to exegete his way to his sexual ethics, perhaps we shouldn’t try to do it, either.  Essentially, he builds his sexual ethics by saying, “You’ve become one with Christ, so now what?”  Perhaps we should do the same.  Rather than approaching the issue from textual exegesis or from adherence to moral codes, perhaps we should approach the issue from the perspective of our new identity in Christ.  I suggest that we should be asking, “Now that your body belongs to Jesus, what does He want you to do with your body?”  The scary thing about this approach is that Christians might come to different conclusions, but that is happening already anyway.  Regardless, I think Romans 8:5 (and surrounding context) is helpful here.  I think it is clear that God wants Christians to live according to God’s Holy Spirit and not live according to their own flesh.  And I think that advice is applicable to all Christians at all times in all places.

Q:  OK, I think I’m beginning to understand, but I’m still not sure I’m following you completely.  You mention that Paul does exegesis in the book of Romans, and one of the most difficult passages on this topic is Romans 1:26-27.  By what you are saying, do you think Paul is exegeting sexual ethics?

No, I do not believe that St Paul is exegeting his sexual ethics in Romans 1.  I would say that he is theologizing his sexual ethics.  That is, he is assuming certain practices are “natural” and “unnatural” based on his presuppositions about God and about truth.  St Paul is not exegeting an OT passage and saying on the basis of that passage, “Look!  This OT passage means that homosexuality is unnatural and heterosexuality is natural.”  I don’t think St Paul really starts exegeting OT passages until chapter 3, and he continues well into chapter 11.  Again, I’m drawing a distinction between exegesis (i.e. what Scripture means) and theology (i.e. what is true about God and about truth).  This is what I mean that I think sexual ethics in the church is not so much an exegetical issue as it is a theological issue.  Or to say it another way, I’m not sure sexual ethics within the Church is rightly determined by what Scripture means so much as by what is true about God and about truth.  Does that help?

Q: Yes, I see now, thank you for that.  One final question.  I know that there are some places in the world where civil laws are being considered to ban the practice of “conversion therapy” (that is, therapy with the goal of changing someone’s sexual orientation).  Do you have any thoughts on that?

That is a very difficult question theologically, for many reasons.  My general position is that I think it is usually a bad idea for the Church to get involved in political causes.  In my opinion, it is almost always a distraction from our mission to preach the Gospel and to proclaim Christ and Him crucified.  Also, I think it is wise for Christians to abide by civil laws when we can do so in good conscience.  I am not a pastor, so I don’t have any specific pastoral experience with this issue.  My personal experience is that I have seen examples of conversion therapy that appeared to fail and conversion therapy that appeared to succeed.  Again, I think as ministers of the Gospel (as all Christians are) we can always encourage each other along the line that St Paul uses in his sexual ethic: “Now that your body belongs to Christ, what does God will for you to do with your body?”  And in answering that question, I think we can always appeal to what St Paul writes in Romans 8, to live according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh.  As a Christian and a scholar, I think that is the best perspective I can offer.

Q: Thank you for your thorough, considered, and very helpful responses.  

It’s only a pleasure!  Again, I’m honored that you would ask me.  There’s no two ways about it, these are difficult issues with no easy answers.  I pray that you and other Christians will be guided by the Holy Spirit of God as you minister the Gospel of Jesus to those around you.

So…what does “beyond the Jordan” mean?

Q: I’m wrestling with the phrase “on the other side of the Jordan,” which appears twice in Joshua 1:14-15. The way the expression בְּעֵ֥בֶר הַיַּרְדֵּ֖ן gets used most often leads me to translate it as a fixed expression naming a place (“Beyond-the-Jordan”), similar to בַּ⁠עֲבַ֣ר נַהֲרָ֔⁠ה (“Beyond-the-River”) in Nehemiah and Ezra. As far as I can tell, when a geographic location is mentioned with this kind of expression, it is treated like a place name. Thus it wouldn’t be odd for Joshua to call it “Beyond the Jordan” even before crossing the Jordan. Regardless of what side of the river they are on, it always seems to be called “Beyond the Jordan” as distinguished from the Land of Canaan (the Promised Land proper). What do you think?

This is a difficult issue.  I can see how it looks very much like the Hebrew phrase ֹעבר הירדן appears to be a proper name, like the phrase עבר נהרה common in the later OT literature.  The question is, how do we know whether the phrase is a proper name or not?  We have to look for contextual clues in places where the phrase appears.  Of course, the first clue that this phrase might be different is reasonably apparent in that the absolute noun “Jordan” carries the Hebrew definite article.  This isn’t a foolproof indicator, because sometimes in Hebrew the definite article does appear on proper nouns.  And, in fact, the proper name “Jordan” very often takes the definite article, although not always.  So this contextual clue is extremely inconclusive.  

To gain ground here, we want to look for the most relevant contextual clues pertaining to all the instances of the term in question throughout the OT.  For the current case study, I’ll identify the following four factors: 

1) What preposition accompanies the Hebrew phrase (if any)?

2) What side of the river is being referred to? east, west, or ambiguous?

3) What accompanying geographical information is provided by the context?

4) Is the geographical area being referred to on the opposite side of the river from the author/speaker’s point of reference, or on the same side of the river from the author/speaker’s point of reference? Or is the point of reference unknown?

Based on cognitive science, we know that cognitive categories (including semantic categories) are organized according to prototype structures. [See George Lakoff’s book Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things (1987) for more information on cognitive categories and prototype structures in linguistics.]  So what we are really after is to see, based on contextual clues, what kind of prototypical structures we can observe regarding the data pertaining to the phrase in question.  If we can identify the prototypical structure for the meaning of this phrase, we’ll probably make significant progress toward understanding what this term really means.

Here is the raw data from the survey:

ReferenceHebrew
Preposition		Directional
Referent		Geographical
Information		Point of
Reference
Gen 50:10בְּwest?land of Canaanitesunknown point of reference
Gen 50:11בְּwest?land of Canaanitesunknown point of reference
Num 32:19מִןeasteast/risingsame side as point of reference
Deut 1:1בְּeastwildernessunknown point of reference
Deut 1:5בְּeastland of Moabunknown point of reference
Deut 3:8בְּeastArnon, Mt Hermonsame side as point of reference
Deut 3:20בְּwestgenerally conclusiveopposite side from point of reference
Deut 3:25בְּwestgenerally conclusiveopposite side from point of reference
Deut 4:41בְּeastsunriseunknown point of reference
Deut 4:46בְּeastBeth-Peor, Sihonunknown point of reference
Deut 4:47בְּeastsunriseunknown point of reference
Deut 4:49noneeasteast/risingunknown point of reference
Deut 11:30בְּwestsunsetopposite side from point of reference
Josh 1:14בְּeastgenerally conclusivesame side as point of reference
Josh 1:15בְּeastsunrisesame side as point of reference
Josh 2:10בְּeastSihon, Ogopposite side from point of reference
Josh 5:1בְּwestwest/seaunknown point of reference
Josh 7:7בְּeastgenerally conclusiveopposite side from point of reference
Josh 9:1בְּwestGreat Sea, Lebanonunknown point of reference
Josh 9:10בְּeastSihon, Og, Bashanopposite side from point of reference
Josh 12:1בְּeasteast/risingunknown point of reference
Josh 12:7בְּwestwest/seaunknown point of reference
Josh 13:8בְּeasteast/risingunknown point of reference
Josh 13:27noneeasteast/risingunknown point of reference
Josh 22:4בְּeastgenerally conclusiveunknown point of reference
Josh 22:7מִןwestwest/seaunknown point of reference
Josh 24:8בְּeastMoabopposite side from point of reference
Judg 5:17בְּeastGileadopposite side from point of reference?
Judg 10:8בְּeastGileadunknown point of reference
1 Sam 31:7בְּeast????unknown point of reference
Isa 8:23nonewest?Way of the Sea, Galilee?unknown point of reference

First of all, we should note that this phrase almost always occurs with the exact same Hebrew preposition בְּ (“in, at, by”), which is the preposition that one would expect.  The preposition מִן (“from”) is used in two instances that specifically discuss from where a particular group will receive their inheritance, and it is not readily apparent why the preposition is omitted in three instances.  The point is that there is probably not very much to be gained semantically from the selection of preposition for this particular term.  So we can move on to the next column of data.

Secondly, we should note that the phrase clearly can refer to either the east side of the Jordan or the west side of the Jordan.  Also, it is almost always conclusive which side is being referred to in any given instance.  Out of the 31 attestations, only 4 are ambiguous, and two of those (in Gen 50) probably refer to the west side of the Jordan because of the mention of “Canaanites” in the immediate context.  So even if we don’t necessarily know exactly what the specific phrase actually means, we almost always know what the phrase physically refers to.  This is extremely helpful to our task.

Thirdly––in tandem with the above paragraph––we can see fairly plainly that the specific side of the Jordan being referred to is almost always either (a) explicitly specified by the narrative or (b) implicitly conclusive from the narrative context.  The fact that several instances of the term are explicitly specified as either east (toward the “rising,” i.e. of the sun) or west (toward the sea) is a significant clue that this phrase by itself is probably not conclusive for a particular region (either west or east of the Jordan river).  [As an aside, this is a huge clue that supports the conclusion that this phrase is NOT a proper name, like עבר נהרה, which always refers to the region on the west side of the Euphrates river.]  In other words, if the naked phrase עבר הירדן was always conclusive to the reader regarding which side of the river was being described, then the author probably would not include modifiers to specify which side is being referred to in any given case.

Fourthly, we should note that most of time the specific point of reference of the author/speaker is unclear.  However, in cases where we know the point of reference for the biblical speaker, the term more often refers to the opposite side of the river from where the speaker is standing.  So the phrase has potential to mean either the “same side” or the “opposite side,” but it most often refers to the “opposite side.”  So the “opposite side” sense of the term is probably more prototypical than the “same side” sense of the term.

Finally, we should notice that the vast majority of instances where the phrase occurs refers to the east side of the Jordan, that is, the other side of the Jordan from the defined land of Canaan (i.e. on the west side of the Jordan). And now we can start to get a reasonable picture of what this phrase means and how it was probably used by the OT authors.  Most likely, the most basic and prototypical sense of the phrase probably is, “the other side of the Jordan.”  For an ancient Israelite, most people would probably use this phrase while they themselves were on the west side of the Jordan as a way of referring to the east side of the Jordan.  However, if an ancient Israelite were on the east side of the Jordan, they could also use the same phrase to refer to the west (i.e. opposite) side of the Jordan.  It is not too difficult to imagine, then, how the phrase could also absorb an additional sense of “the same side of the Jordan,” especially if there wasn’t a good word readily available in Hebrew that meant “same side.”

So to bring this to a translational outcome, I think one is on safe ground to translate this phrase as either “the other side of the Jordan” or “this side of the Jordan” in places where the point of reference is known.  The challenge comes in those places where the point of reference of the author is unknown.  There are a few options, all of which are employed by modern translations in various places.  One could specify either “eastward” or “westward” on a case-by case basis. One could make an educated guess at the point of reference depending on the narrative context and then translate accordingly. One could also apply some kind of standard default position: unless contextually specified, “this side” will refer to the west, and the “other side” will refer to the east. In many instances, modern translations do not specify and simply translate the phrase as “beyond the Jordan”––which is a safe translation, but it also leads one to ask the very question at the beginning of this post!

Does the “pillar of cloud” turn into fire?

Q: Does the “pillar of cloud” actually turn into fire in Exo 14:20, as the New Living Translation states?  I’m confused, because other translations don’t say that.  What is going on there?

Here is how Exo 14:20 reads in the New Living Translation (NLT):

“The cloud settled between the Egyptian and Israelite camps. As darkness fell, the cloud turned to fire, lighting up the night. But the Egyptians and Israelites did not approach each other all night.”  Exo 14:20, NLT

In my opinion, the NLT is a clear over-translation of the Hebrew text in this verse.  It could very well be that the author intends to describe that the cloud turns into fire, but we don’t know for sure from the Hebrew text that is there.  Here is how I would translate Exo 14:20 in a very literal way (pay attention to the textual notes):

And [the pillar of cloud] came between the camp of Egypt and the camp of Israel. And the cloud was there with the darkness*, and [the cloud] shone with the night**, and neither came near the other all the night.
* or perhaps “and there was both cloud and darkness”
** or perhaps “and lit up the night”

It is clear from the Hebrew text that the cloud produces light somehow. Given the overall context of the entire exodus narrative––where the pillar is a cloud during the day and fire during the night––it makes complete sense that “the cloud turning to fire” is exactly what happened that night. But I think it’s too much to say that the Hebrew phrase there definitively means that the cloud turned to fire.

I understand the Hebrew text in the same way as the New International Version (NIV), which starts the sentence back in v.19.  The NIV states that the theophanic cloud produced light on the Israelite side and darkness on the Egyptian side.

“The pillar of cloud also moved from in front and stood behind them, coming between the armies of Egypt and Israel. Throughout the night the cloud brought darkness to the one side and light to the other side; so neither went near the other all night long.”  Exo 14:19b-20, NIV

This verse contains a Hebrew word that could be either the preposition “with” (shone with the night, as per my translation above) or a particle that marks the direct object of a verb (lit up the night, as per the alternate text in my textual note).  For a couple different reasons, I think it makes much better sense to read that word as a preposition. I’m pretty sure that’s how the NIV translators understood it, which (I think) is how the NIV gets the “darkness on one side, light on the other” idea.  I myself feel reasonably confident that the story is saying that, on that particular night, the pillar was dark on the Egyptian side and light on the Israelite side.  Perhaps the pillar was both cloud and fire at the same time?  We don’t really know for sure, but it’s fun to imagine!