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.

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!

What does “Heaven” mean in Gen 1:8?

Q: Does the name “Heaven” in Day 2 of the creation story in Genesis 1 mean the place where God and the angels live (i.e. “Heaven”) or the place where the sun, moon, and stars are (i.e. “heaven”)? Asking for a 2nd grader.

Thanks so much for passing on this question! This question is difficult because the term heaven in the OT (Heb. שָׁמַיִם) can mean different things. Sometimes it refers to the physical space above the earth; this would be similar to the words “sky” and “space” in modern English. Sometimes it refers to the divine realm, where God and the angels live, like what we mean when we say “heaven” in modern English today. Scholars disagree about which meaning is intended in various places within Genesis 1. Not only this, but in Psalm 148 you can see how the distinctions between the sense of heaven as “the sky” versus “the divine realm” are blurry. The truth is that words are rather imprecise tools for indicating what we are talking about when we refer to things, but we usually find a way to get by. And we can do the same in regard to heaven in the OT. We can read and understand that heaven refers to “up there” as opposed to “down here.” And that’s the whole point, I think.

So here’s my take. In Day Two, God gives the name “Heaven” to the “thing” (Heb. רָקִיעַ, perhaps meaning vault or dome or firmament, but some kind of barrier) that separates the earthly ocean from the heavenly ocean. When I say “heavenly ocean,” I mean the ocean of the divine realm where God lives (see Psa 104:3ff). When you read the creation narrative in Genesis 1, you can see how the name “Heaven” plays on both meanings of the term heaven described above. When the “barrier” separates the water into two oceans, this action creates the “divine realm” (as a realm separate from the earth) as well as both “space” and “sky” (as physical spaces above the surface of the earth).

But what is important about Day Two (I think) is that the human realm and the divine realm are separated. God lives “up there,” and we live “down here.” Of course, this sets the table for the entire story of the Bible. We can’t get “up there” to God. If we are to have any relationship with our Creator at all, God has to come “down here” to us.

A Triptych of Light for the Triduum: Great Vigil

Alberto_Piazza_Apostoles_entorno_al_Sepulcro_Staatliche_Museen_Berlín

Apóstoles entorno al Sepulcro (“Apostles around the Grave”), by Albertino Piazza da Lodi [c.1520]

From the deeps I call out to you, O Lord; my Lord, hear my voice!
Let your ears be attentive to the sound of my pleadings. …
I await the Lord!
My spirit looks––and for His message I am waiting––
my spirit looks for my Lord
more than the watchmen for the morning, the watchmen for the morning.
–from Psalm 130

Today is the Great Vigil, the feast which marks the end of the Lenten season. For the last forty days, we have prayed and fasted to one degree or another. We have acknowledged our own sin and mortality, remembered our need for forgiveness and redemption, and awaited the advent of our Messiah on His royal steed to save us from our distress. Over the past week, the week of His holy Passion, we have grieved as the cheers of adulation turned to jeers of mockery. We have stood by as a best friend betrayed Him with a gesture of feigned affection. We have both pounded the nails into His hands and kissed His feet as He hung on the cross. All this we have done, and tomorrow we will celebrate. But today…

Today is Holy Saturday, the Great In-Between Day, the cosmic sabbath rest of Jesus Christ entombed in stone. A friend of mine once whimsically reflected on this particular Saturday, saying that it always feels like “the deep breath before the plunge.” The sentiment is fitting; today, the clockwork of the entire universe is held in suspended animation. The Three Days (called “triduum” in the church-Latin) are days of activity: on Maundy Thursday, Jesus washes our feet, showing us the way of the cross and teaching us His new command to love and serve and sacrifice for His sake. Yesterday, on Good Friday, Jesus suffers the pain of our atonement, breaking His own body and pouring out His own blood, even unto death. Tomorrow, on Easter Sunday, Jesus rises from the dead and ascends to God in triumph. Yesterday we despaired, and tomorrow we will exult. But today…today is, well, in-between.

Today is also the seventh day, the day of rest. It is a day of nothingness, of darkness and chaos, of anticipating the creative and re-creative work of God. Tomorrow is a day full of life and light, when the Sun rises and fills all the earth with the knowledge and glory of God. The ground will sprout forth its vegetation, the trees stretching out their hands in praise. The sea, the air, the land, all teeming with swarming creatures, will revel in the beauty and grandeur of what God has done for us and with us. And God will say that it is Very Good. Tomorrow, God will speak out into our darkness, “Let there be light!” But all of that is still Tomorrow. For as long as it is called “Today,” it is not Day; it is Night.

Today, the deep covers the earth, and darkness is over the face of the waters. Yet the Spirit of God hovers in the air, looking, yearning, groaning for the redemption of our bodies, of His body. Can you see? The days of creation and redemption and re-creation are all ordered alike: darkness, then light; evening, then morning; death, then life; for first comes the night, and afterward the dawn.

But the Resurrection is not yet come. So we wait, our spirits looking for our Lord, more than the watchmen for the morning…

…the watchmen for the morning…

A Triptych of Light for the Triduum: Good Friday

Jacobello_del_Fiore_Crucifixion

Crucifixion, by Jacobello del Fiore [c.1400]

Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I am distressed;
my eye wastes away in grief, my spirit and my body.
My life is spent from sorrow, and my years from groaning;
my strength fails in my iniquity, and my bones are wasted away.
I have become a reproach to all my enemies––and to my neighbors especially––
and a dread to my acquaintances; those who see me in the street flee from me.
I am forgotten, like a dead man, out of mind;
I have become like an earthen vessel, destroyed.
For I hear the whispering of many, terror from all around in their scheming together against me;
they plot to take my life.
But me––on you I am trusting, O Lord; I am saying, “You are my God.”
The seasons of my life are in your hand;
rescue me from the hand of my enemies and my persecutors.
Shine your face on your servant! Save me in your lovingkindness.
–from Psalm 31

Yesterday’s meditation was quite cerebral; in contrast, this passage is exactly the opposite. This psalm is sentimental, even visceral in its portrayal of emotions that we have all experienced. But for today, let us not personalize this prayer with ourselves as the target. It is tradition in the Christian religion to re-enact in our worship during Holy Week the events of Christ’s Passion––we wave palm fronds, wash each other’s feet, venerate Jesus on the cross, and hold vigil until his resurrection. Today, I encourage us to take the imagination one step further, to transport ourselves back in time and participate in the events themselves. We are the same crowd that chants both “Hosanna!” and “Crucify!” So let us forget our lazy and fickle selves and rather seek to identify with Christ.

Let us plead with the Father to be gracious to Jesus as his spirit and body expire upon the cross. Let us groan with sorrow at the reproach that Jesus endured from his enemies, and especially from his closest friends. Let us lament that in his death Jesus has been forgotten, out of mind, by the very people he came to save––in spite of the fact he is indeed risen from the dead! Let us hear the plotting and the scheming against his very life; and let us not raise our voices in protest but instead say…

Not my will, Father; but Your kingdom come, Your will be done.

Jesus trusted God his Father. Let us also trust. Jesus prayed, “You are my God.” Let us also pray. Jesus placed his life in the hand of his Father, truly and literally, even in the midst of a rejection and forsaken-ness that he had never known before. The most intimate and everlasting fellowship of the Triune God was broken somehow during those few hours while Jesus hung on the cross. Is it really so much for us to trust Him in the midst of our loneliness and pain? Yes, it is so much: too much, in fact. It was not too much for Jesus, but it is too much for us. However, God’s grace is sufficient even for that. In the end, all we can say is this:

Father, we beg You, please smile on us and save us in Your lovingkindness!

So let us say it, together, today. Then let us empathize with Jesus our Mediator, the one close to the Father’s heart, His one-and-only well-beloved Son, in whom He is well pleased.

A Triptych of Light for the Triduum: Maundy Thursday

William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_(1825-1905)_-_The_Flagellation_of_Our_Lord_Jesus_Christ_(1880)

The Flagellation of our Lord Jesus Christ, by William Adolphe Bouguereau [c.1890]

But he was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that gave us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.
He was oppressed, and he was humiliated, but he did not open His mouth;
for he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people.
They placed his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death;
because he had done no violence, with no deceit in his mouth.
Out of his anguish he shall see light; he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge.
The Righteous One, my servant, shall justify many; and their iniquities he himself shall bear.
–an excerpt from Isaiah 53 (emphasis added)

These words are worth contemplating as we memorialize once again the holy Passion of Jesus. This is the very passage which the Holy Spirit used––via a series of extraordinary events that you can read about in the book of Acts, chapter 8––to introduce the Gospel to the continent of Africa several chapters ahead of the missionary endeavor to Europe (which does not commence until Acts 16). On the return journey from Jerusalem to his own country, a man whom we know simply as the “Ethiopian eunuch” was reading this text and was confounded by the question, “Is the prophet here speaking of himself or someone else?” Philip the Evangelist answered him by affirming that this passage speaks about Jesus the Messiah, the Suffering Servant of the book of Isaiah. One of the ways we know that this text is about Jesus is because of the word “light” which I have highlighted in the translation above.

In modern English, we use the expression “see the light” to communicate figuratively the idea of recognizing or realizing the truth. But in ancient Israel, the expression “to see light” was used in a literal way to communicate the idea of being alive as opposed to either unborn or dead (see Job 3:16; Psa 36:10, 49:20). In the book of Isaiah, the prophet takes great pains to communicate to the reader that the Suffering Servant will suffer, die, and be buried (v.10), but then afterward will be alive again and “see light.” In other words, the prophet foretells the story of the resurrection of Messiah, not with a grand flourish but with a common figure of speech. That is God’s way, is it not? We might have missed it had not Jesus pointed out to his disciples (and the Holy Spirit to us) that the Hebrew Scriptures prophesied that the Messiah would both die and rise again.

Then Jesus opened their minds to understand the Scriptures; and he said to them, “Thus was it written for Christ to suffer and to rise again from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sin to be proclaimed to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses to these things” (Luke 24:45-48, emphasis added).

Yes, Jesus, we are witnesses. Thanks be to God.

Jesus Christ: God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God; the Light of the World, prepared for all the world to see, for the enlightening of nations; He who descends into the earth like the sun and ascends into heaven with the dawning of a new day, a new age, a new covenant of peace between God and humankind. By His light we see light. By His wounds we are healed. He who knew no sin was made sin for us, so that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. We eat His flesh, broken for us; and we drink His blood, the cup of our salvation.

For we proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Meditation for the Feast of St Patrick

patrick

Icon of Saint Patrick, Enlightener of Ireland

“The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?
The Lord is the strength of my life; whom shall I dread?
One thing I have asked from the Lord, that will I seek:
to remain in the house of the Lord all the days of my life;
to stare at the beauty of the Lord, and to pray in his temple.
So I will offer in his tent sacrifices of joy;
I will sing and make praise-music to the Lord.”
– an excerpt from Psalm 27

The Lord is my light, writes the psalmist. The phenomenon of light is one of the most primitive of all human experiences, yet we rarely give it a second thought except for when we need it. The sun is one of the most dazzling of earthly wonders, yet it blinds us when we stare at it. If in the modern age we were to take away the comfort of electrical technology, we would not be left with many other sources of light other than the sun. Starlight doesn’t illuminate very much, and lightning only shines for a split second at a time. Firelight is a little better, but still not very useful for the actual work of living. Can you imagine trying to plow a field with a team of oxen by torchlight?

When considered from this perspective, one can understand why sun-worship was such a common practice in ancient cultures and yet a relatively rare practice today. [Of course, we worship other idols––self, money, family, and the list goes on.] It is truly remarkable that in ancient Israelite culture there existed a group of people who did not worship the sun but claimed instead that God was their “light.” They claimed that this Divine Being, who created both the sun and the light, could not be seen or touched but that his Voice could be heard in some mystical way. So let me ask you, who would worship a god like that when the sun makes itself available and perceptible each and every day, without fail?

Who could? Surely, not us, blind sinners that we are.

Patrick of Ireland, whose feast we celebrate today, wrote strong words for those who worshiped the sun (see below). Consider his reasoned argument: the sun is temporal and has no power; Christ, on the other hand, has ruled with the Father and the Holy Spirit for all eternity; therefore, worship Jesus. He affirms that it is Jesus––not some delicate balance between the properties of physics that we call gravity and inertia––who commands the sun to rise each and every day. But this is not a theological innovation on the part of bishop Patrick; no, he simply repeats what the Israelite prophets said of old (Gen 8:20-22; Job 9:7; Isa 45:7; Jer 31:35-37; Amos 5:8-9). The psalmist goes a step further, however, declaring his desire to worship God not because it is rational––although it is that, since God has saved him, after all––but because it is pleasurable to “stare at the beauty of the Lord.”

Jesus takes this theological metaphor of light to its final conclusion when twice he says, “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12, 9:5). In English, it’s a ready pun: not the sun, but the Son. However, the truth of the matter is so much more devastating, for Christ is the “light” NOT because we are blinded when we look at Him, but because we are blind until we look at Him. Jesus himself uses this exact conceptual wordplay: “For judgment I have come into this world; so that those who do not see might see, and the ones who see might become blind” (John 9:39).

Therefore, seeing the truth of these things, today let us offer a sacrifice of joy alongside Patrick our brother, and (literally!) sing and make praise-music to the Lord. For He Himself is our Light and our Salvation.

“For this sun which we now see rises each new day for us at his command, yet it will never reign, nor will its splendor last forever. On the contrary, all who worship it today will be doomed to dreadful punishment. But we who believe and adore the true sun that is Christ, who will never die, nor “will those who have done his will” but “abide forever, just as Christ himself will abide for all eternity”: who reigns with God the Father all-powerful, and with the Holy Spirit before time began, and now and through all ages of ages. Amen.”
–an excerpt from The Confession of Saint Patrick, translated by John Skinner (New York: Doubleday, 1998), p.75.

Must Jesus be called “Son of God” in a Bible translation?

Q: “I recently read an online article that describes how some Bible translations in Muslim-majority countries are not using the phrase “Son of God” (Grk. υιος θεου) because the concept is too easily rejected within the Muslim worldview. Instead, certain Bible translations are using the phrase “Beloved Son who comes (or originates) from God,” with much greater success in terms of the numbers of people reading the Bible and believing the Gospel. What do you think––is this a good or bad change in language for a Bible translation?”

First of all, here is a link to the article being mentioned. It’s worth reading through, and I will write my response with the assumption that the reader is familiar with the contents. Second, I need to stipulate that there is a difference between theology (i.e. what is actually true about God) and language (i.e. how we say that which is true about God), and I would argue that theology transcends language. We as humans are limited by our bodies; that is, we cannot engage in theology except by using language, so there is considerable overlap between these things. But this does not blur the fundamental difference between the two, and that distinction is very important for the current question. We cannot “do theology” without using language, but human language cannot fully plumb the depths of theology. We are finite human beings who touch an Infinite Divine Being; or rather, He touches us.

The best answer I can give is that I believe both sides of this debate are correct. There is no such thing as an “equivalent” translation, languages are too complex for that. Any translation, of any kind, is a negotiation of the construals of conceptual worlds. This means that ALL translations require some level of negotiation between the two languages. So whether the term “Son of God” must be maintained in a translation really depends on what the translation sets out to do at the beginning. Not all translations are created equal. There’s lots more to discuss here, but the shortest answer is that both arguments are correct, depending on what “job” the translation is intended to do.

But speaking theologically, I think this debate really boils down to one thing. When Jesus said he was the “Son” of God, what did He really mean? I propose a thought experiment. Suppose an alien spacecraft landed in your back yard, and an alien came out, someone who had no frame of reference for understanding what the word “son” means. How would you explain to that alien what you mean when you say Jesus is the “Son of God”? Could you do it without using either your own father or your own son as examples, or are you as a human person bound by those biological realities in your linguistic communication? The issue is still a bit more complex than that, but I think the entire issue ultimately really is decided by that question.

Concerning the issue whether “Beloved Son who comes (or originates) from God” is acceptable over against the simple phrase “Son of God,” that depends on how strict the translation must be in terms of the rigorous of its faithfulness to creedal Trinitarian theology. Professor Horrell (quoted in the article) is correct when he affirms that the human father-son relationship is the closest thing we have in the physical world that can describe the relationship between Jesus and God the Father. However, we humans are made in the image of God, not the other way around. It is an error to think that the human father-son relationship communicates everything about the intra-trinitarian relationship between Jesus and the Father, because Jesus clearly says that he and the Father are one [whereas this is absolutely NOT true of human fathers and sons]. So the human father-son relationship is an incomplete analogy, but it’s the closest thing we have, and we cannot do without it. But at the same time, any kind of human linguistic expression is finally inadequate; we cannot truly understand a tri-personal being. We simply cannot; that’s all there is to it. So to answer my own thought experiment above, I affirm that our linguistic communication is genuinely bound by our biological realities, but our biological realities still fall short to express actual trinitarian theology.

But this theological question is really different than a translation question, because theology finally transcends Scripture alone. Scripture is merely one among a company of witnesses that profess theology — ultimately, our expression of theology must come from the incarnate Christ and not only the written Scriptures. Therefore, theology is like a globe that spins on three axes simultaneously: textual, i.e. it must be faithful to Scripture; historical, i.e. it must be faithful to the witness of Jesus Himself; and philosophical, i.e. it must express what is true and not what is false. So the question of what is acceptable in a Bible translation really is a linguistic issue more than a theological issue, although I would also confess that a Bible translation must not transgress the other witnesses (historical and philosophical) to proper theology. Take the Nicene Creed, for example. In theory, at least, the Nicene Creed could be superseded if the textual witness of Scripture, the historical witness of the Church, and the philosophical witness of human reason together demonstrated that the Nicene Creed does not accord with what Jesus proclaimed about God and about Himself.

So the bottom line is that all linguistic translations of Scripture are inadequate to express theology. The question is how much “inadequacy” is tolerable in any particular linguistic translation. In my opinion, there’s room for disagreement on this issue, depending on many, many factors. In the final analysis, I really think this is a *linguistic* issue more than a *theological* issue in the proper sense. But my personal opinion is that, both in the case of language and theology, the term “Son of God” must be retained, in spite of the difficulties it presents for other worldviews outside Christianity.

A creation theology…of sex?

Q: My understanding of the Catholic theology of sex is that the only sex that is without sin is intercourse between a husband and wife that is “open to life” –– meaning that the only permissible means of birth control is having sexual intercourse only during a wife’s infertile periods. What bothers me most about this teaching is that it may be true. If so, this means that the use of condoms and/or a vasectomy as a means of birth control would be willful disobedience to the will of God. I have a hard time determining whether or not this theological teaching is an articulation of God’s truth or a form of man’s legalism. What does the Bible say?

Before launching into this issue, I want to thank this reader for asking such an honest and vulnerable question, and for giving me permission to post it here. It is an honor to be asked this kind of ethical question of another person, something that I do not take for granted. I want to honor the reader in return by offering the best answer I can. Since this blog is dedicated to reading the OT and not to the particulars of Catholic theology, in this post I will not seek to argue either for or against the teaching of the Catholic church regarding sexual ethics. But the reader here is quite correct that neither condoms nor a vasectomy are acceptable means of birth control as sexual ethics are defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (see ¶2370, p.629).

[Note: I myself am Anglican, not Catholic, although generally I have a high regard for the ethical teachings of the Catholic church.]

Rather, my aim in this post is to investigate the perspective of the OT text in regard to sexual ethics, particularly in the creation narratives (i.e. Genesis 1-4). In short, I’m seeking to answer the question, What is a creation theology of sex? I will then apply the results of that theological investigation in order to provide some kind of answer to the question at hand. But I need to offer a caveat that, in my opinion, there are many aspects of life and spirituality concerning which the Bible does not prescribe rigid laws. God has created us as creatures of conscience, which is a gift of God to us to help us navigate life. In my opinion, the issue of whether the specific Catholic teaching being referenced here is “an articulation of God’s truth or a form of man’s legalism” finally can only be answered by the married couple themselves in their relationship with God.

A creation theology of sex must start with Gen 1:26-28.

Then God said, “Let Us make humanity in Our image, after Our resemblance; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the flying creatures of the heavens, and over the beasts and over all the earth, and over all the crawling creatures that crawl on the earth.”
So God created the human race in His image;
in the image of God He created it;
male and female He created them.
And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the flying creatures of the heavens, and over all the living creatures that crawl on the earth.”

In sum, there are three theological arguments to be made from this short paragraph of text concerning the human condition in regard to sexuality. First, all humanity is created in the image of God, both male and female persons. In other words, both masculinity and femininity together express the image and likeness of God. Neither masculinity alone nor femininity alone can suffice, and neither gender identity is more or less “divine” than the other. Rather, it is the case that masculinity requires femininity, and femininity requires masculinity, both simultaneously, in order to fully express the image of God. Second, the entire human race, both male and female, is blessed by God. There is a sanctity to being human that extends beyond simply the fact of having been created. As humans, we stand in a special relationship to God; even as sinners, we are not cursed. The ground has been cursed, but we as people remain blessed simply on the basis of being human. Thirdly, all humanity has an inherent obligation to our Creator to procreate for the purpose of filling and managing the planet Earth. This is a collective responsibility to God that we bear as a human race, hence the human phenomenon of sexuality (in all its enormous complexity).

For each of us as human beings, our maleness or femaleness––although marred by sin–– is God’s creative design for our personhood. We are engendered sexual beings because we are human beings, and to be an engendered sexual being is profoundly good and right and wholesome, in and of itself, with no qualifications, because we are blessed by God. In other words, a person’s sexual identity intrinsically carries no shame whatsoever. Period. Full stop. But we mustn’t end there, because the third axiom adds a dimension of purpose to our sexual identity as engendered persons. Collectively as humans, God has created us as sexual beings to carry out a specific function in the world, that is, to procreate and manage the planet that God has entrusted to us to steward. And if sexual identity is created for a specific function, then it is only natural that there could be limitations placed on sexual expression in order to ensure that its function is fulfilled. For example, let’s say I make a hammer for the purpose of driving a nail, but try to drive a screw instead. I could cause unnecessary damage because I have acted outside the inherent limitations of the thing that I have made. These limitations derive from the intended purpose for which I, the maker, designed the hammer.

But there is still more to say about this notion of God’s expressed purpose/function for human sexuality. This brings us to Genesis 2:24.

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother, and clings to his wife; and they become one flesh.

Here the narrative is terse and does not explain what is meant by the term “one flesh,” but it is clear from Paul’s writings in the New Testament that he understands the term as a reference to sexual union (see 1 Cor 6:12-20). So in addition to the procreating function of sexual expression that is explicit commanded in Genesis 1, there is also a uniting function for sexual expression that is implicitly stated in Genesis 2. God has created sexuality as the means by which a man and woman both unite to each other and procreate with one another. So far, so good, says the Catholic catechism.

But Catholic doctrine then takes this a step further, affirming that God has created these two functions for human sexuality as both universal and inseparable; and this makes all the difference for the question being asked. Part Three of the Catholic catechism, entitled “Life in Christ,” includes a section on the “fecundity of marriage”:

¶2366. Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act” [Catechism of the Catholic Church, p.628].

The definitive element here is the phrase “each and every marriage act”––meaning sexual intercourse––which is NOT a quote from Holy Scripture but rather from the Catholic doctrinal document called Humanae vitae (Eng. “human life”). Thus, the primary question being asked by the reader is whether the Catholic catechism is correct when it affirms that God has indeed created these two functions of sexuality as both existentially inseparable and universally applicable. If so, then the Catholic doctrine is unassailable and must be followed in order to adhere to God’s natural law for human sexuality. But if not, then there is room for varied application of these two functional principles. So how can one evaluate whether the Catholic claims are indeed correct?

First, one should note that the Bible itself does not stipulate either the inseparability or universality of these two functions for human sexuality. This decision is left to the reader, which may itself imply a kind of answer to the question; that is, perhaps this question is rightly considered a matter of personal conscience (similar to Paul’s advice in Romans 14 concerning the Christian observance of the Sabbath), which would of itself negate the absolute “universal applicability” of these functions.

Secondly, the fact that the Catholic catechism specifically affirms that children are a “gift” from God also implies that perhaps the unitive and procreative functions of human sexuality are not quite as inseparable as the catechism states. This seems reflected in the Genesis narrative itself, since the procreative function of sexuality is stated as an explicit command (Gen 1:28) whereas the the unitive function is stated as an implicit fact (Gen 2:24). This would seem to indicate that the unitive function is a genuine constitutive reality of human sexuality––that is, that sexual expression serves to unite persons whether we like it or not. But this is plainly untrue concerning the procreative function of human sexuality, because not all sex leads to procreation, as many people can painfully attest.

Thirdly, there are several instances in the Scriptures where the biblical writers as well as Jesus Himself affirm and emphasize the unitive function of sexuality as well as God’s desire that such a union should not be broken (see Gen 20:1-18; Prov 5:15-23; Mal 2:10-16; Matt 5:27-32, 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12; 1 Cor 7:1-16). However, I do not find the same kind of emphasis in Scripture concerning the procreative function. The biblical writers seem quite concerned that married people should be faithful to one another and remain united to one another. The biblical writers do not seem concerned nearly so much that married people should be producing children. I think the biblical exegete can make a compelling case that God has created an imbalance in this functions for human sexuality, with greater importance on the unitive function but not to the negation of the procreative function.

In the end, I cannot specifically answer the question of the reader, whether the Catholic sexual ethic is divine truth or human legalism. However, I think I can confidently say that the Catholic sexual ethic exceeds a biblical creation theology, i.e. it goes beyond what is expressed in the creation narratives. But whether the Catholic ethic exceeds the bounds of natural theology (a.k.a. natural law) is quite another matter, one to which I must appeal to conscience.