Long or Short Sojourn? A Postmortem of Two Answers Research Journal Articles

There are some biblical subjects, like the length of the creation week days being of normal length, that have been covered to the extent that all young-earth creationists agree, and if one rejects the relevant conclusions, it is an indication that one isn’t really a young-earth creationist. But there are many second-level debates where one’s answers to the questions are important, but there may be more than one answer that a young-earth creationist with a high view of Scripture can arrive at. How do we think about researching these second-tier questions, and how do we work together with other young-earth creationists even when we disagree? This is not to say these issues are unimportant—the proper interpretation of Scripture is always extremely important—but there are issues on which sincere believers within the young-earth camp can reach different conclusions.

Recently, two ARJ articles about the Israelite sojourn in Egypt were published, one arguing for the short sojourn, the other for the long sojourn. They published online on the same day because we want people to read them together. We hold opposite views on the issue of the length of the sojourn, but we share a commitment to biblical authority and a young-earth creationist biblical hermeneutic (one of us is just a slightly younger-earth creationist by 215 years!).

We hold opposite views on the issue of the length of the sojourn, but we share a commitment to biblical authority and a young-earth creationist biblical hermeneutic.

These two papers were a unique experiment in attempting to work together to present the best possible exegesis of the relevant passages from both viewpoints. While our work was published as two separate ARJ papers, they originated as one piece of research that, rather than seeking to “prove” one or the other as the correct interpretation that all creationists must follow, sought to present the exegetical strengths and weaknesses of each view, critiquing and refining both views. This doesn’t mean that both can be correct—at least one of us is certainly wrong—but it is an acknowledgment that the biblical data can be interpreted in both ways by Christians with a high view of Scripture.

This process was not straightforward, partially because young-earth creationists are more likely to work alone than with others. One 2024 CRS conference presentation highlighted the fact that young-earth creationist journals predominantly publish solo-authored papers, while secular journals predominantly publish multiauthored papers. We could add to this observation that when creationists do coauthor, it is usually with those who agree with them.

Intentionally attempting to coauthor with someone who disagrees with you is not a straightforward process, and that ended up being part of the reason our research turned into two solo-authored papers (it is simply unwieldy to attempt to present two views in one paper). However, both of us found the exercise useful. We didn’t let each other get away with assuming things we needed to prove, and we both had to admit in places that our position’s interpretation of a particular passage was not necessarily the most straightforward.

Defending Biblical Creation Against Outside Criticism

The old-earth creationist organization Reasons to Believe used the issue of the length of the sojourn to attack creationists, claiming that Ussher’s assumptions about this point in history affected the 4004 BC date he gave for creation, which “might undermine the validity of young-earth arguments.”1 Therefore, biblical creationists, regardless of which position they take on the sojourn, have an interest in showing that this issue does not undermine taking the Bible’s chronology seriously. The implication that biblical creationism is dependent upon Ussher is badly misplaced. Chronologists long before Ussher arrived at similar dates. Biblical creationists follow their example by relying upon the genealogies and dates in the Bible (hence the name) and other relevant historical sources and astronomical events when calculating the age of the earth. While many creationists cite Ussher’s famous 4004 BC date because it approximates their own view, others believe Ussher’s assumptions about the sojourn and other matters caused him to miss the mark, perhaps by a couple hundred years or more.

This also highlights the importance of not allowing the biblical creationist movement to be split along secondary or tertiary issues. If something like the length of the sojourn becomes a litmus test of whether one is a “true” young-earth creationist, then we artificially and needlessly shrink the number of allies we have against compromising positions that are generally less scrupulous about the orthodoxy of the clubs they beat us over the head with. Unsurprisingly, within the first day of these papers being published, one of us received emails accusing the author of attacking God’s Word, even though both papers are earnest attempts to properly understand several relevant passages and do not rely on outside sources.

Prerequisites for Working Together

Even though we interpret these passages differently, we share a common commitment to the authority of Scripture. We believe that the Bible is accurate and that these passages tell the true history of Israel’s time in Egypt. We simply disagree over the proper interpretation of these passages.

As long as we have reached differing conclusions based on our study of Scripture rather than trying to reinterpret the Bible to fit a timeline derived from extra-biblical sources, then we can be equal in our commitment to biblical authority. While, ultimately, we cannot both be interpreting the Bible correctly, it does not mean that one or both of us has abandoned the authority of Scripture.

Importantly, in our papers, we reached our respective views on the sojourn length due to our study of the text itself, not because we were trying to make the Bible fit archaeology or other external factors. If that were the motive, then it would indicate a lower view of biblical authority. How the Bible’s history intersects with Egyptian and ancient Near Eastern history, for example, is an important question to be investigated after we have a firm grasp on what the Bible has to say on the matter.

Defending Biblical Truth as Allies on the Same Side

King Solomon once wrote, “The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17).

King Solomon once wrote, “The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17). Keep this passage in mind while you read these articles. If you prefer the long sojourn view at this point, be sure to carefully read the arguments for the short sojourn view. The same is true if you currently favor the short sojourn view. Learn the best arguments from the other side and decide which view makes the most sense of the biblical data. Perhaps you have never heard the best arguments from the opposing view and will find them persuasive. Or even if you do not find those arguments persuasive, they might give you a better understanding of how well-meaning believers can reach different conclusions from the same passages.

The Bible is accurate and authoritative, and we must strive to interpret it properly, even if we cannot be entirely certain of our interpretation of these types of issues this side of eternity. Maybe we can ask Moses who was correct, and there probably won’t even be a desire to say, “I told you so.”

It is our hope that these papers will be both a point of reference for further research into the length of the sojourn and a model for how biblical creationists can cooperate in research on these secondary but still important interpretive issues.