Christianity Through Jewish Eyes

Home » Levitt Letter » LLX News

Important articles that didn't make the Levitt Letter

Archive for the ‘2010-05 Levitt Letter’ Category

Sinai in Arabia

Saturday, April 10th, 2010

By David Klinghoffer, blog.beliefnet.com

Sinai from space

Where is Mt. Sinai? And does it matter? The second question is easier to answer than the first. If God’s giving the Ten Commandments to Moses there is a historical event then yes, wanting to attach a genuine geographical location to the mountain makes sense. But finding Mt. Sinai presents a problem different from locating the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, or the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. Unlike those two holy sites, Mt. Sinai’s exact location isn’t attested by any clear tradition among the people you would expect to be most likely to remember — that is, the people whose ancestors actually stood at Sinai for the occasion, the Jews.

The famous “Mt. Sinai,” called Jebel Musa, in the southern Sinai Peninsula is known from Christian, not Jewish, tradition. It’s popular with modern tourists who hike up to see dawn break. Bible scholars have sought to identify other mountains in the Sinai as the true Mt. Sinai, but these have no traditional backing at all. You would think that if the Sinai event really happened, then somewhere, somehow, the Jews themselves would have kept a memory of its location preserved.

Well, maybe they did. Imagine you knew nothing about later scholarly opinions on the question. What if you were simply handed a Bible and some of the more prominent Jewish traditional sources, ancient and medieval, that explain the biblical text. Let’s say you had a map in front of you with the important surrounding countries and geographical features, including their ancient names, printed on it. You have Egypt, for example, on one side of the Sinai peninsula. And you have Midian, today’s northwest Saudi Arabia, on the other. The Sinai peninsula is framed on its south, by the Gulf of Suez to the west and the Gulf of Aqaba to the east, like two fingers raised in a victory sign.

Midian is the country where Moses fled from Pharaoh when the Egyptian king sought his life. When the English explorer Richard Burton visited in 1877, he reports the inhabitants still called the place Arz Madyan, the land of Midian. In Midian, Moses met his father-in-law, Jethro, and his wife, Zipporah. He lived there for 40 years before returning to Egypt to lead the Jews out to freedom. He was living there too when he first encountered God in the burning bush on the slopes of Mt. Sinai, the “mountain of God.” Many of the Hebrew prophets were shepherds, and so was Moses. The Bible relates that in search of pasture, he lead his flock into the “backcountry” of the wilderness, which is where Sinai was. The King James Version gives a good rendition: “Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb” (Exodus 3:1).

Shepherds can be long-distance wanderers. But from Midian to the familiar Mt. Sinai would be an extremely long walk to take, all by yourself in a fierce uninhabited wilderness, with your family’s flock entrusted to you. It would require you to go all the way up and around the Gulf of Aqaba before descending on the other side and only then proceeding across the peninsula to “Mt. Sinai.” Why bother?

It’s for that reason among others that recent research suggests the true Sinai is not in the peninsula known now by that name but, instead, in today’s Saudi Arabia. Though the idea is controversial, a straightforward reading of the Bible and Biblical tradition would lead you to exactly that conclusion.

In describing Moses’ experience at the burning bush, the book of Exodus (3:1) intimates that Mt. Sinai was at least convenient to Midian. After that experience, God speaks to Moses again, in Midian, and tells him the time is right to return to Egypt and lead his people to freedom, since Pharaoh, who wanted to kill Moses, has himself died. On the way back, Moses meets his brother Aaron at “the mountain of God” (4:27), namely Sinai. We learn from this that the mountain was en route to Egypt. It was along the way — something that is not true of Jebel Musa. Meeting at the more familiar “Mt. Sinai” would have taken both Moses and Aaron on a wildly inconvenient and dangerous detour. It’s especially hard to picture them doing so when you consider that God had just instructed Moses the time was right now to free the Jews.

Is there a mountain en route to Egypt from Midian that suggests itself as a likelier candidate? The first-century Jewish historian Josephus clearly indicates there was. In his history of the Jews, Jewish Antiquities, he writes of Midian, or Madian in Greek, as a “city.” The mountain of God and of the burning bush, writes Josephus, was “the highest of the mountains in this region.” The Greek Egyptian geographer Ptolemy, who lived at the same time as Josephus, clarifies that Madian was on the east side of the Gulf of Aqaba, opposite the southern Sinai peninsula. The ruins of Madian are identified with al-Bad’ in Saudi Arabia. Local traditions there too associate the place with Jethro and Moses. You can even visit what’s said to be the “Cave of Jethro.” Such traditions are no more and no less credible than the Christian tradition, publicized in the 4rd century by the Emperor Constantine’s mother, that identifies Sinai with Jebel Musa.

The highest mountain in the region, and convenient to al-Bad’, is Jebel el-Lawz. Not coincidentally, the Saudi government has fenced the mountain off against foreign visitors seeking to substantiate its connection with Moses and the Exodus. It happens to be just east of the road you would take from Jethro’s Midian around the north end of the Gulf of Aqaba on your way by the most direct route to Egypt. In ancient times that route was called the Way of the Wilderness. It goes nowhere near the conventionally identified Mt. Sinai. By contrast, Jebel el-Lawz is on the way to Egypt, for Moses, and on the way to Midian, for Aaron. It could well have been the mountain in whose shadow the two brothers met and where Moses first met God.

The Biblical narrative gives us another clue when it tells how Jethro visited the Jews in the wilderness. This was after the Exodus, after the children of Israel had miraculously crossed the Sea of Reeds. Jethro appears and is greeted by Moses. Jethro gives his son-in-law some sound advice about sharing leadership responsibilities, and then takes his leave. He speaks of returning “to his land” (Exodus 18:27). That is just before the Israelites encamp at the mountain of God to receive the Torah.

Interestingly, we find Jethro taking his leave on a later occasion, in the book of Numbers, soon after God had given the signal to the Jews to pick up and leave Sinai for their journey to Israel. Their first stop is the wilderness of Paran. Jethro on this second occasion says goodbye once more, seeking Moses’ agreement that he should return “to my land and to my family” (10:30). Both of these statements may sound as if his land were far away — after all, it seems to be in a different “land” from Sinai.

The literal meaning of the Biblical verses may sound that way but ancient Jewish explanatory traditions, midrash, suggest otherwise. So does common sense. The midrash called Mechiltah, on Exodus, and the midrash called Sifrei, on Numbers explain that on his first leaving-taking, Jethro intended to convert the rest of his Midianite family, encouraging them to join the Jewish people at Sinai. Presumably he did not intend to miss the revelation at the mountain of God. He meant to be back quickly, in time for the great event. His second leaving-taking, after the giving of the Torah, was for a different but related reason. Returning “to my land and to my family” should really be translated “for my land and for my family.” (The Hebrew preposition, el, is used similarly elsewhere in the Bible.) He meant to sell his real estate and gather his family members. We know from the later Biblical narrative, in the Book of Judges, that Jethro’s family in fact did rejoin the Jews and settle in Israel in the city of Jericho.

Far from indicating that Mt. Sinai was distant from Midian, Jethro’s making these repeated back-and-forth trips between Sinai and Midian tells us the two places were, once again, convenient to each another. Jebel el-Lawz fits that criterion. The better known Jebel Musa doesn’t. Nor do any of the other suggested Sinais.

Later Jewish commentators on the Bible amplify the point. Rashi, the preeminent medieval rabbinic sage who explained the details of the Bible in great detail based on much older sources, transmits both of these midrashic explanations of Jethro’s reasons for making his trips between Sinai and Midian. Another great commentator, Rabbi Moses ben Nachman, called Ramban, devoted care to matters of geography. Ramban lived in Spain in the 13th century but migrated to Israel at the end of his life and added to his Torah commentary in light of physical facts about the Land of Israel that he only discovered on having moved there. He writes explicitly (on Exodus 4:27) that “Mt. Sinai is between Egypt and Midian” and (on 18:1), “It is possible that [Jethro] went there [back to Midian] to convert his family to Judaism, and he returned to Moses while [Moses] was still at Mt. Sinai, for it is close to Midian.”

If these Biblical and extra-Biblical sources mean what they seem to mean, then that also helps us answer a related question about geography. With Mt. Sinai located in Saudi Arabia, the Israelites’ passage of the Sea of Reeds, the Yam Suph, can be pictured in a more suitable spot than as imagined by many Bible scholars. They prefer to see it as having happened, if it did happen, at a lake or lagoon by Egypt’s eastern border — Lake Timsah, Lake Balah, the Bitter Lakes. This is a disappointing and improbable spot for a miracle that God meant to cap the Exodus from Egypt in a most spectacular way, as the ecstatic Song of the Sea in Exodus makes clear.

The book of Exodus describes the Jews as having allowed themselves to be trapped by Pharaoh’s army, crying out in terror because, between the water and the Egyptian chariots, they have no route of escape. In front of a lake, and a fairly shallow one at that? Why not just go around it?

In fact, the Bible is unambiguous that Yam Suph was a much more awesome body of water than just a lake. The first book of Kings relates that King Solomon anchored his fleet on the Yam Suph, the Sea of Reeds, near Eilat (9:26). The city of Eilat is easily identified in Israel today. It’s a popular beach resort as well as being Israel’s port city. It’s at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba. The Gulf of Aqaba can lay a strong claim on being the Biblical Sea of Reeds. A lake in Egypt can’t make such a claim.

So here is the likeliest interpretation of the Hebrew Bible and Jewish traditional explanations of it. In the Exodus, the Jews left Pharaoh’s land and crossed the peninsula that is today erroneously called Sinai. Pursued by the Egyptian army, they miraculously crossed through the Gulf of Aqaba, perhaps at a gently sloping underwater land bridge, known to divers who have investigated there, which begins at Nuweiba in ancient times on the west side of the Gulf. The children of Israel then proceeded in good time to Mt. Sinai — in today’s Saudi Arabia.

The Doctrine of Progressive Dispensationalism Revisited

Saturday, April 10th, 2010

Todd Baker
reprinted from the May 2000 Levitt Letter
By Todd Baker Th.M.

Today there is a growing movement within dispensational theology that is gaining influence among some leading dispensational seminaries and churches across the land. It is called “Progressive Dispensationalism.” Traditional dispensationalism has always maintained a clear distinction between Israel and the Church, and that the Messianic Kingdom, of which the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:8-16; Ps. 89) is a main feature, still is a future earthly event that will occur when Christ returns to Jerusalem to reign over the earth for 1,000 years (Rev. 19:11 – 20:1-6).

However, proponents of Progressive Dispensationalism have changed some of this with their interpretation of Acts 2 (particularly verses 30-36). They teach from Acts 2:30 that the throne of God in heaven where Jesus now sits is the throne of David. Hence, Jesus is currently reigning from David’s throne in heaven, and the Messianic Kingdom is now inaugurated and is beginning to be fulfilled! What was once clearly a future event is now, somehow, a present reality. This is a disturbing departure from a normal literal understanding of Bible prophecy that views the Throne of David as an earthly throne Christ will sit on and reign from Jerusalem when He returns (Is. 2:1-5; Ezk. 43:1-7).

To believe this is now being “progressively” fulfilled blurs the distinction between Israel and the Church and minimizes the prophetic importance and position of modern-day Israel. The context of Acts 2 does not teach that Jesus is now reigning on the throne of David. Rather, the main point of Peter’s sermon is that God has demonstrated the man Jesus, who was crucified by the Jewish leaders, to be “both Lord and Christ” by the following three events in Acts 2: (1) By the resurrection v. 31; (2) By the exaltation at God’s right hand v. 33; (3) By sending the Holy Spirit of promise v. 33. The gist of Acts 2:30-36 is Christ’s resurrection and exaltation at the right hand of God on the heavenly throne that guarantees His future reign on the earthly Davidic thrones as David’s Lord and greater descendant.

Nowhere in Acts or, for that matter, in the entire Bible does one find the earthly throne of David and the heavenly throne of God explicitly identified as ever being the same.

They are always distinct and different in Scripture. In the book of Acts, it is even more evident that Christ is not presently reigning on the throne of David as Progressive Dispensationalism claims. Luke opens Acts with Christ’s post-resurrection ministry to the disciples for forty days. During that time, Jesus spoke to them “of things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). Surely, in all that time, if Jesus were to shortly reign on the throne of David in heaven, He would have plainly told them of this important change and transference of David’s throne from earth to heaven when they asked Him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the Kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). Christ did not reply, “You are mistaken about this Jewish misconception of an earthly throne and Kingdom in Israel. The throne of David has been transferred to the throne of God in heaven where I will ascend and shortly reign from.”

Instead, Jesus told the disciples that God the Father has appointed the time and season in the future when the Davidic Kingdom will be established in Israel (Acts 1:7). In the meantime, they were to go out and preach the Gospel in all the world, starting in Jerusalem (Acts 1:8). The Davidic rule and Kingdom did not begin when the Lord ascended to heaven, or He would have obviously told them so when questioned about the time and season for the establishment of the Kingdom in Israel. If Jesus is currently reigning on David’s throne in heaven, then Acts 15:16-18 contradicts this novel idea of Progressive Dispensationalism. The passage in Acts 15 deals with the issue of Gentile salvation and whether or not Gentiles must be circumcised and observe the Mosaic law to become Christians. James answers for the group at the Jerusalem Council by saying the calling out of Gentile believers is in keeping with the future promise of a Davidic Kingdom in Israel. Once the present age ends after the taking out of a Gentile body of believers “for His name” (a distinct characteristic and divine work of the present age), Christ will return to rebuild and restore “the tabernacle of David.” The phrase “Tabernacle of David” is a descriptive synonym of the Davidic throne and earthly Kingdom that has long been in ruins (Acts 15:16). It still remains this way during the present age and awaits the final restoration at the return of Christ to earth. If Christ were reigning on the throne of David in heaven at this time, why then did James say the Davidic monarchy was still in ruins? The only reasonable and clear answer is that Jesus has yet to return to earth to repair and rebuild it when He comes to reign on an earthly throne of David in Jerusalem, not heaven.

Clearly, in the book of Acts, the Jewish disciples, along with the Jewish Church of Jerusalem, were looking forward to a future, earthly, literal Davidic Messianic Kingdom in Israel to be ruled over by the Messiah Jesus. It was not spiritualized and transferred to heaven where Christ presently is, contrary to the belief of Progressive Dispensationalism. Carried to its logical conclusion, Progressive Dispensationalism could lead to saying the Church is Israel followed by a denial of the Jewish people’s status as God’s Chosen People and the vital role Israel will play in the future Davidic Kingdom to come. Christ is King over the created universe and His Church. He will be an earthly King over a redeemed Israel as their Davidic ruler on David’s earthly throne when He returns to earth. Therefore, …

Christ’s rule from the throne of David totally awaits a future fulfillment currently not realized now.


Zola Levitt Presents
Levitt Letter
Tours
Podcasts