On Labels: Pre-Augustinian and Why Sinai isn't in... er... Sinai

I don't usually write on archaeology, and this is possibly a one-off.  The purpose of this is twofold.  I'll explain later.  But for now, sit comfortably and hopefully enjoy.

The Egyptian tourist industry won't thank me for this post.

If you have a set of maps at the back of your Bible, they probably look a bit like this:

There will probably be a set of lines showing you the route of the Israelites through this area.  There's Sinai, the triangular wedge of land between Egypt and Israel, right?

A bit of an issue here is that what we call the Red Sea could consist of either the body of water that now forms the Suez Canal on the left half of the map above or it could mean the body of water that ends with Aqaba on the right side.  When the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, it could have been either branch.  This is a list of reasons why I believe it was the Gulf of Aqaba, not the Gulf of Suez.

Here are my reasons:

1. It is accepted that Midian, where Jethro lived is on the right of the above map, where it says 'Saudi Arabia'.  Why did Moses wander 100-200 miles to pasture his sheep, all the way to where it says 'Mount Moses' above?  Would this make any sense?  See Exodus 3:1-12.
2. Outside of the account of the Israelite crossing, the only other passages in the Bible that refer to the Red Sea, specifically refer to the Gulf of Aqaba.  See 1Kings 7:26, Jeremiah 49:21.
3. The topography of the narrative suits an Aqaba crossing.  See for Example, Exodus 14:3.
4. Strong evidence that what we call Sinai was a part of Egypt in the Bible.  Firstly, it is easy to get to.  Much of the water is shallow.  Trading routes to Egypt cross this area.  Why would the Israelites feel safe there, for a full 40 years?  Secondly, the Biblical 'River of Egypt' is in the North of what we call Sinai, near Canaan, suggests Egyptian control.  See Numbers 34:5, Joshua 15:4, 47.
5. No archaeological evidence for the Israelites having spent any significant time in the area.  No burial sites for the 1 million+ Israelites who died during the 40 years wandering.
6. The meeting with Jethro in Exodus 18:5-12 suggests they were in or near Midian, east of the Gulf of Aqaba.
7. Galatians 4:25 specifically states that Sinai is in Arabia.  In scripture, Arabia is always east of Aqaba.
8. The existence of a land bridge across the Gulf of Aqaba that fits the narrative with the remains of chariot wheels at the bottom of the Gulf.

To me, the scriptural evidence is completely compelling.

So why do our Bible maps put Mount Sinai where they do?  And why is modern Sinai called Sinai?  Tradition tells us that it dates back to a dream the Emperor Constantine had, which became church teaching.  In those days, the institutional church had control over the education system and the training of church leaders.  So it was widely taken that Sinai was where the above map says, in spite of the scriptural and archaeological problems.  There is no evidence, no tradition within Judaism to back the churches claims.  As simple as that really.  And our Bible maps and tourist firms stick to the traditional line to this day.

Let's think through the implication of this.

• Somebody who has an important position in the church 1,500-1,600 years ago says something incorrect.
• Everybody listens to them for the following few centuries due to the control the church has over the education system.
• Believers to this day don't question it, because it is enshrined in church tradition.
• Unbelievers pour scorn on Christianity because they hold a view that cannot be sustained by the evidence.

The above is not an isolated example.  I'll give you two more.

1. BC and AD.  A monk called Dennis the Little (should we call him Dennis the Menace?) invented this dating system based on when Christ was born.  The thing is.... he was born a few years earlier than that - maybe 4 BC.  But the dating system (first popularised by Jarrow's most famous son, the Venerable Bede) has stayed.
2. The dating of Egypt's history is based on 1Kings 19:25 which says that Shishak, king of Egypt attacked and plundered Jerusalem.  It has been assumed since the early 1800s that this was the Pharaoh Shoshenq I.  It has enabled many academics to dismiss the Bible as myth because (for example) it leaves Solomon reigning in Israel during a time of deep poverty rather than prosperity.  A secular British archaeologist, David Rohl (I highly recommend his books and videos) has argued persuasively that the conventional dating is out by over 300 years and that it was actually Rameses II who attacked Jerusalem.  This dating system is far more in line with the Biblical evidence and Rohl has made a number of startling discoveries based on his dating which would confirm the accuracy of scripture (evidence for Joseph in Goshen, the Egyptian palace Solomon built for his wife the daughter of Pharaoh, the thick walls of Jericho destroyed during Joshua's campaign etc).  A simple misreading of names has led to the Bible being dismissed as inaccurate.

So can the kind of situation described above apply to theology too?  Suppose an important church leader teaches something that is incorrect and not backed up by the Bible.  Then it becomes widely accepted, but... wrong.  Can that happen, and can it damage the church for centuries afterwards?

You bet it can!

Watch this space.

The Spirit of Rehoboam: Marginalising the Old Folks

Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king.  And as soon as Jeroboam the son of Nebat heard of it (for he was still in Egypt, where he had fled from King Solomon), then Jeroboam returned from Egypt.  And they sent and called him, and Jeroboam and all the assembly of Israel came and said to Rehoboam,  “Your father made our yoke heavy. Now therefore lighten the hard service of your father and his heavy yoke on us, and we will serve you.”  He said to them, “Go away for three days, then come again to me.” So the people went away.Then King Rehoboam took counsel with the old men, who had stood before Solomon his father while he was yet alive, saying, “How do you advise me to answer this people?”  And they said to him, “If you will be a servant to this people today and serve them, and speak good words to them when you answer them, then they will be your servants for ever.”  But he abandoned the counsel that the old men gave him and took counsel with the young men who had grown up with him and stood before him.  And he said to them, “What do you advise that we answer this people who have said to me, ‘Lighten the yoke that your father put on us’?”  And the young men who had grown up with him said to him, “Thus shall you speak to this people who said to you, ‘Your father made our yoke heavy, but you lighten it for us’, thus shall you say to them, ‘My little finger is thicker than my father's thighs. And now, whereas my father laid on you a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke. My father disciplined you with whips, but I will discipline you with scorpions.’”....
And when all Israel saw that the king did not listen to them, the people answered the king, “What portion do we have in David? We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse. To your tents, O Israel! Look now to your own house, David.” So Israel went to their tents.  But Rehoboam reigned over the people of Israel who lived in the cities of Judah.  Then King Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was taskmaster over the forced labour, and all Israel stoned him to death with stones. And King Rehoboam hurried to mount his chariot to flee to Jerusalem.  So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day.  And when all Israel heard that Jeroboam had returned, they sent and called him to the assembly and made him king over all Israel. There was none that followed the house of David but the tribe of Judah only.1Kings 12:1-11, 16-20

We need to stop marginalising and ignoring the old folks in our churches.  I'm not trying to be sympathetic.  I'm simply being practical.  Why wouldn't you take advantage of such a tremendous resource?  On average, they pray more than our young folk.  They have more experience and wisdom.  They've seen more.  They have a more rounded view of life, including our mortality and the brevity of this life.  They have practical skills and the time to use them.  I even think that on average they have more evangelistic zeal and are more willing to go into the streets with the Gospel.

A healthy church has a good range of ages, I think.  So why do so many churches do what Rehoboam did and focus almost entirely on the 'Yoof'?

• Is it because the church is in the world?  Money-centred and image-conscious marketing people and employers are interested in young people, and we can easily absorb these attitudes.
• Is it because young people like louder, trendier music and we're not prepared to turn the sound down?
• Is it because younger people as a generation are more self-absorbed than ever before and we don't even think of what it's like to be over 30 or 40?
• Is it because our society divides families up by age group?  The old folks stay in homes, the little children go to nursery, twenty-somethings live together and few households have more than 2 generations living in them?  So even Christians don't know how to co-exist with older folks?
• Is it because they have illnesses and die more often, and we don't want to be reminded that this body is a temporary one?
• Has it got something to do with the overall decline in respect for the elderly in our society?
• Is it because a generation of young leaders want to experiment with the latest fad, or do what they want to do and they don't want advice?
• Is it because young people are easier for leaders to manipulate, ask fewer questions and do what we want them to do?

I fear for churches that, maybe even unwittingly, overlook those with more experience in life.  I don't think I have ever heard anyone in church quote the scripture below:

You shall stand up before the grey head and honour the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the Lord.

Leviticus 19:32

Is that because it speaks of something so foreign to our present culture?  I believe the commandment:

“Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

Exodus 20:12

Doesn't just refer to to our natural parents.  Surely it also refers to our fathers and mothers in the faith.  I honestly believe that our trendy mono-generational churches are doomed to be a flash in the pan.  We need to welcome and involve our older folks.

Where are the Christian Families? Is this you?

Indulge me while I put finger to keyboard and show a bit of vulnerability.  This is the cry of my heart right now.

I know something of what Elijah felt when he said:

'I am the only one left and they're trying to kill me too!'  1Kings 19:10

Alright.  Nobody's trying to kill me, as far as I know.  But it's worse in a way.  There's an Enemy who is trying to destroy the Christian family.  And he knows very well, that if he destroys the Christian family, he's effectively destroyed the church.  I believe it's as simple as that.  And my wife and I get lonely.  Will anyone join us in fighting this battle for the family?  It can be done, but we'll win it more easily if we fight together!

Forgive me if I am being judgemental, but I despair of finding a well functioning Christian family anywhere.  Maybe someone will prove me wrong.  Granted, there are a few.  All the ones I know are a good drive away from here though.

So let me ask you something.  Is this you?

• You are married with children.  Both of you love the Lord, pray and read the Bible most days both separately and together. Okay, lets throw in single parents. You have an ongoing walk with the Lord. It is the most important relationship you have.
• You take the Bible very seriously. It really is the final word.
• You take your children to church. You teach your faith to your children through regular organised bible studies and prayer at home, casual discussion and setting an example. You don't leave it to the church to do all of that for you.
• Your children (even the teenagers) are relatively well behaved and do not have a wild or rebellious spirit.
• Dad - you play your part as the head. You are ultimately responsible for teaching and disciplining the children and you take this seriously. Having said that, both of you work as a team in this respect. Single mam - you work at this also, leaning on the Father to the Fatherless (Psalm 68:5) and teaming up with other families in the church seeking good male role models.
• You show lots of love and affection to your children, (try really hard, by God's grace, to) stay even tempered and build a strong bond of love them.
• You prayerfully and carefully consider issues such as your children's education, the media they are exposed to, the holidays they go on, the friends they spend time with, the chores they do and their interests. Without stifling them, you develop healthy interests and activities in their children.
• You prayerfully guide your children towards good jobs and suitable marriage partners, protecting them from sexual predators as they grow older and finding suitable social activities where they can make the right friends.
• You live in (or very near) Sunderland.
• You have time to make new friends.

If so, let's join together in the Lord, for the sake of the next generation.  We may be only a tiny remnant, but God has the habit of raising up small remnants to fulfill His purposes!