fbpx

Pete Enns & The Bible for Normal People

Episode 151 – 2020: Let’s Not and Say We Did

In this episode of The Bible for Normal People Podcast, Pete and Jared wrap up the fourth season of the podcast as they explore the following questions:

  • What is the intersection between the Bible and politics?
  • What is a good definition of politics?
  • How should Christians relate to power?
  • Why do we not have more conservative, evangelical guests on the podcast?
  • How do we talk about personal differences in constructive ways with other people?
  • What role does the Bible play in teaching us how to disagree with one another?
  • What are the benefits of a messy Bible?
  • Is there such thing as a biblical ethic?
  • Why is it important to consider our own humanity when interpreting the Bible?
  • What can the construction of the Bible teach us about faith?
  • Why doesn’t the Bible work well as an ethical guide?
  • What did Pete and Jared learn this year?

Tweetables

Pithy, shareable, less-than-280-character statements from Pete and Jared you can share. 

  • “Not every podcast has to be everything for everyone.” @peteenns
  • “How do we stand up for what we believe in and how do we not dehumanize people in the process?” @jbyas
  • “Our ethical decisions, I think, rarely, frankly, if ever, are outlined for us in a text that is so diverse, so ancient, so ambiguous.” @peteenns
  • “Whoever put the Bible together in the end didn’t lop out these challenging traditions but put them side by side.” @jbyas
  • “The Bible does not cooperate with us well to be used as the ethical guide. It can be a source of ethical contemplation and reflection, but that’s a very, very different thing.” @peteenns
  • “The energy that we may use to argue against people and to get really outraged against a platform, why don’t we shift that to taking that energy to furthering that cause?” @jbyas
  • “A messy Bible doesn’t have to paralyze our faith.” @jbyas
  • “If we say that Bible is our ethical guide, what we’re really doing is baptizing our own ethic.” @peteenns

Mentioned in This Episode

Powered by RedCircle

Read the transcript

[Introduction]

0:00

Pete: You’re listening to The Bible for Normal People. The only God-ordained podcast on the internet. I’m Pete Enns.

Jared: And I’m Jared Byas.

[Jaunty intro music]

Pete: Alrighty, welcome everyone to –

Jared: The final episode.

Pete: [Dramatic fake crying]

Our final episode of the worst year ever in the history of humanity.

Jared: You know what came to mind immediately was, “well, you’ve done it again! You wasted another perfectly good hour!” The Car Talk, did you ever watch Car Talk?

Pete: Oh yeah.

[Laughter]

Jared: At the end it’s like – “well, you’ve done it again! You wasted another perfectly good” year, although, this year it was not a perfect year.

Pete: We’re not the worst thing to happen to you this year.

Jared: No.

Pete: That’s what I think.

Jared: No.

Pete: It may be close, but not –

Jared: No, this was quite the year.

Pete: All kidding aside, yeah, it was –

Jared: It was…

Pete: What happened? I don’t know. Did anything good happen this year?

Jared: There were good things. There were good things. It’s a mixed bag, ya know?

Pete: What?

Jared: I mean, I had good days. Did you have any good days?

Pete: Good days, I mean, individual good days, but just a good thing that happened? Just –

Jared: Yeah, you didn’t have anything good happen?

Pete: Which out of control fire was a good thing, you know, which –

Jared: If you’re a Dodgers fan you had some good days.

Pete: Yeah, as we’re recording, the World Series just ended.

Jared: Lakers fans…

Pete: Okay. But they don’t mean anything because they’re shortened seasons because of the pandemic…

Jared: What I’m saying is if you listen to the wisdom literature the Bible, things are grayer, they’re not black and white.

Pete: Stop being so non-pessimistic.

Jared: [Laughter]

Pete: I want to be my German self and like, there’s nothing good, nothing happened.

Jared: Oh, so we’re going to reflect on some of these things of 2020, and –

Pete: Yeah, and things that have come up with us in terms of like, the podcast –

Jared: Yeah, yeah.

Pete: That, yeah, this is a year of thinking about stuff, I think.

Jared: Right.

Pete: Of reflecting, of like, having a lot of down time.

Jared: Mm hmm.

Pete: And questions have come up, you know, directed to us or, and very positive ways, but just how do you handle this, what do you think about that, so we thought we would just take a little time today in the last episode of 2020, yay, and just talk about them.

Jared: Yeah! Which one did you want to start with?

Pete: Oh, I don’t know. Okay, how about this? “You guys are too political.”

Jared: Mm hmm.

Pete: Or, “you guys need to get more political.”

Jared: Right.

Pete: So, that’s sort of a tough call and we do struggle with that a little bit, right Jared?

Jared: Mm hmm.

Pete: We don’t always know how to be.

Jared: Well, and not to eject this so that we don’t have to have that conversation, but, you know, it does raise the question of if we’re focused on the Bible, how, what is that intersection of the Bible and politics? What is appropriate and not appropriate for those conversations? And for me, personally, that’s something I wrestle with is what is appropriate when we’re The Bible for Normal People to talk about politics.

Pete: Yeah, the best of biblical scholarship, bringing that to bear in people’s lives and, you know, it’s a little bit off brand I guess, but you know, the thing we always want to avoid is the idea that the Bible will tell us how to be political.

Jared: Right, exactly.

Pete: The other way is, you know, what is the Bible, how do you read it? Right? So, the other side of it is how do our political inclinations affect how we read the Bible, what we focus on, and indeed how we interpret it.

Jared: Right.

Pete: In that sense, it’s very, very relevant, but I think where some people mean too is more expressing our own political opinions –

Jared: Right.

Pete: And you should be neutral or something. Others are saying, no, you shouldn’t be neutral.

Jared: Right, right.

Pete: So, c’mon people!

Jared: Yeah, we can’t please everyone.

Pete: That’s what happens when you have more than two people listening to your podcast, you get these different opinions of politics.

Jared: [Laughter]

Yes, right? Yeah, I mean, I think that’s valid but, you know, I think that one thing to say is, one thing I’m actually proud of that we do here is we want the scholars to have their words and have their say and to bring that scholarship to bear, and not necessarily for us to have these social commentaries on that.

Pete: Mm hmm.

Jared: And so, I think that’s one thing for me that I try to keep in mind as we have these episodes.

Pete: And yet if it comes up, the freedom to be people to say what we think about this issue or that issue.

Jared: Yeah, yeah. We’re not bound to be in the middle of the road. I mean, I think there’s a sense in which because the Bible can be used either way that we’re supposed to be kind of “neutral” about it, but we’re just like anyone else. We have our own ethics –

Pete: Mm hmm.

Jared: That, you know, guide how we read the Bible, how we see what it is, how we see what we’re supposed to do with it, and yeah.

Pete: And plus, you know, keeping politics and religion separate, that’s a good thing on the large scale. You don’t want a state church, although many would say that America actually does have a state church right now. But it’s hard to separate gospel and politics anyway, right, because it’s, it really isn’t, I think, a wise idea to say that you should just keep the Bible out of politics or politics out of the Bible. Or, forget the Bible, your faith, right?

Jared: Right.

4:49

Pete: And because that’s like, I think precisely not what we’re supposed to do. We don’t have to run for office, but to care about community and about life without getting sucked into it and identifying our faith with a particular political construct or party or system, whether it’s democracy or whatever, and not to sort of align God with that and say that God thinks the way we do about these political issues.

Jared: Yeah. I think that’s a great point that I think in a lot of the conversations this year, it was when we say politics, what we mean is fighting between platforms of republican versus democrat –

Pete: Mm hmm.

Jared: Where I think there’s a broader, more robust, and more helpful definition of politics that talks about social engagement and community and how we do this thing together as a society. And I think that, absolutely, our faith plays a huge part in.

Pete: Yeah. And I, I remember something I just heard N.T. Wright say years ago about how, now, he’s British, he has a different perspective which helps sometimes, but that the role of Christians in politics is to call power to account.

Jared: Mm hmm.

Pete: Not to cozy up to power. That’s, there, that’s a lot, I mean, the history of that in Christianity and Judaism very early on, that’s, it’s palpable, you know? That, you know, whether it’s buying and selling the high priesthood in, you know, during the Hellenistic period in Judaism or whether it’s the holy Roman Empire, and those things never, ever turn out good.

Jared: Right, right. So, there is, that is a political statement and depending on your perspective, could be seen as partisan, I guess, but it doesn’t have to be. I mean, I think that’s the point, is how are we, what’s our relationship to power?

Pete: Mm hmm.

Jared: As a Christian people.

Pete: Right. And why does it get partisan at all? You know? Why can’t people who claim, you know, the same faith, or even not claiming the same faith, why do we get so animated about these things? I mean, I think fear has a lot to do with it. Fear of losing the narrative that we’re used to, the life we’re used to, all that kind of stuff. But why are we afraid of that?

Jared: Right.

Pete: You know, and I think that’s, that’s the deeper spiritual question to be asked, and you know, if we’re operating on that level the question of whether it’s okay for us to engage in political views here, it sort of takes a backseat at that point because everybody has political views –

Jared: Right.

Pete: And you can engage with people that you disagree with politically and you pretty much have to in this country.

Jared: Right, yeah.


Pete: So yeah, I guess the issue is engaging politics without becoming politicizing/polarizing, and that’s, but the thing is if you voice a point of view that somebody doesn’t like, you’re polarizing at that point.

Jared: Yeah. Well, you know, I made this point before, you know, growing up, the boogeyman was relativism. That’s what we were afraid of, is if you don’t hold to these set of standards or whatever, you’re going to be a relativist. And what came to mind in the past few years politically is most people I talk to, they would all call themselves centrists and by that they mean anyone to the left of me is a liberal, and anyone to the right of me is a conservative.

Pete: Mm hmm.

Jared: And I thought, oh wait, that’s relativism!

Pete: [Laughter]

Jared: You just made the definition of all of these things, you centered yourself and you defined everything in relation to you as though you’re the center of, like –

Pete: That is self-centered isn’t it?

Jared: Yeah!

Pete: To say you’re the balance point, right.

Jared: And so, I just thought, oh, this is what my, you know, this is what my pastor warned me against.

Pete: Yeah. By the way, that’s a common criticism, and that I, it’s a common criticism that I’ve heard over the years in the evangelical world when you espouse an opinion and people say, well, that’s got to be more, let’s put some balance to that. And of course, that person is the picture of balance and you’re not.

Jared: Right, right. Which is really to say, you know, come a little bit more to my side please.

Pete: Right, exactly. But that, you know, I guess we’re all susceptible to that.

Jared: But let’s tie that in, because it kinda ties perfectly in with the podcast because something we get a lot of feedback on is, you know, why don’t we have balanced viewpoints on the podcast? Like, you know, by that, pretty much they mean why don’t we have more conservative, maybe evangelical perspectives on the Bible on the podcast?

Pete: Yeah, because they’re always wrong.

[Laughter]

Jared just fell over in his chair. I’m so funny.

Jared: [Laughter]

Oh, my word.  

Pete: Yeah. No, and we thought about that, and I think at the beginning our vision was to model things for people who are coming out of that environment. I mean, this sounds rather dramatic, I don’t mean it to sound quite that dramatic, but people who are really deconstructing from a conversative point of view that happens to be very tied to American politics.

9:52

Anyway, and giving, letting them see, you know, there are a bunch of people out there who’ve never heard of the evangelical hero you keep listening to in the back of your head and just let them talk and just let them be and, you know, we, it’s probably clear, we agree, Jared, with 99.9% of the guests. Maybe not every last word, but generally speaking we’re on board.


Jared: At least the framework.

Pete: The framework, we recognize the importance of the framework and bringing a different paradigm, a different model for understanding the Christian faith and for living the Christian faith and for connecting with the Bible, all that kind of stuff, and that’s what we want to do. I think, I mean, here’s what would happen if we had people on who were more conservative and were saying things that I know the people who come to us to listen to this podcast, they’ve heard all that before and they’re looking for something else. And at that point, the podcast would become more of a debate and that’s the last thing that we want this podcast to be. This is not a debate, there’s enough debating, this is just, listen folks, if you’re ready, if you want, if this is where you are, come on and listen and we got all this different stuff and you can make up your own mind what you think.

Jared: Well, you hit the nail on the head for me, because you know, I still have a very vivid mental picture when we started the podcast of the, you know, the impetus for me, the motivation for me was I grew up and on every other corner we had a Christian bookstore, Lifeway Christian Store, we had all these. And they all had the same, every single book in there had the same perspective of framework of what the Bible is and what we do with it, and I didn’t know that any of this other stuff existed. Going to seminary and learning about Jon Levenson or Kugel or some of these writers, and just thinking, oh my, where was this? This is so rich, this is so good, this is so, it resonates with me so much. Why was that not in any of these bookstores? And so, it just, it rings true when you say, you know, they’ve heard it before. It was like, well, we want to try to give a perspective that maybe a lot of people just haven’t had access to.

Pete: Right. It would be sort of analogous, like, in graduate school when I’m sitting in classes with Jon Levenson or Jim Kugel and others and they’re teaching for half a semester and somebody says, “let’s bring in an inerrantist here to balance this a little bit.” And it’d be like, well, no, I’ve heard that and it already doesn’t make sense to me. I actually know what they’re going to say here. So, I don’t, that’s not, I don’t want to do that here.

Jared: Right.

Pete: That doesn’t mean that there aren’t valuable places for people to give different perspectives, but not every podcast has to be everything for everybody.

Jared: Yeah, that’s true too.

Pete: And we can’t do that.

Jared: That’s right.

Pete: And we don’t want to! You know, so, you know, we have people on from all over the place from different walks of life, different perspectives, different backgrounds, who don’t talk like the people that have been in our background of our lives, Jared, and the background of a lot of people here who come and listen to the podcast. And that’s a good thing because the world is bigger than any one perspective.

Jared: Yeah.

Pete: And God is bigger than any one perspective and that alone is, I think, something that gives people a lot of hope and comfort that, oh, I’m not crazy.

Jared: Right, right.

Pete: How many times have we heard that? You know? I heard this podcast, and it’s, I’ve been thinking these things and not been able to put them into words and it’s so good to know that I’m not alone and not crazy. That’s the kind of thing we’re trying to create here, and to bring people on who will argue against that, even implicitly, is, I mean, there’s a place for that kind of debate, but not here.

Jared: Right, right.

Pete: You just don’t want to do that because that’s, I think that would be impeding the process, the journey that these people are on, so you just have to come back. Yeah, okay, you left the fold a little bit, but let’s get you back here as quickly as possible and sometimes the pressure to do that is really, really, really strong and I don’t think that’s right and neither do you.

Jared: Right, right.

Pete: So, we don’t want to create that space.

Jared: Well, and maybe that launches us into this next category, because I think the impetus, at least on occasion when I get feedback like that that says why don’t we have more conservative scholars on, usually it’s from the framework of, I kinda need to learn how to engage with more conservative people that are in my life.

Pete: Right.

Jared: And 2020 was, if nothing else, the test of that in our lives.

Pete: And we failed miserably.

Jared: Politics, racism, COVID, you know, how do we, if, and we talked a little bit about in the past, families divided over deconstruction and where people are in their faith journey and how do we talk about these differences in constructive ways?

14:55

Pete: Right, yeah. Well, I think to have podcasts about talking about those differences in constructive ways, which isn’t necessarily the same thing as having on very different points of view and like, let’s hammer it out in 45 minutes. I think that’s a kind of thing that’s modeled slowly just by absorption over weeks, months, or years, you know?

Jared: Mm hmm.

Pete: And not by us, necessarily, but by people we have on.

Jared: Right. Or you could write a book called Love Matters More.

Pete: You could do that.

Jared: You could, I mean, theoretically.

Pete: Well, yeah. The thing is that, here’s the thing though, that topic of how to talk to people you disagree with is sorta like the elephant in the room that we always focus on the realm of ideas and debating, but how to actually be human in those kinda situations, that’s that emotional and psychological dimension that, you know, Jared, we’ve talked about this before, that doesn’t really get talked about very much. And really, that needs to be brought to the surface, because when you talk about that, the other kinda stuff takes a backseat a little bit.

Jared: Mm hmm. It can, but I think, not to bring the thing we were talking about earlier back up, but, you know, this phrase I keep hearing of kinda both sides-isms, where it, where we want to be the neutral, I feel like that impetus, we’re motivated to do that because this is how we’ve learned to navigate these uncomfortable situations when we’re with family members and it allows us to be kinda the neutral party that’s like, well, I agree, I get what you’re saying, I get what you’re saying. And just to be clear, I think this idea of disagreeing with people is actually really important.

Pete: Yeah.

Jared: We have to actually disagree with them, not take the backseat and say, well, some of you and some of you, sure, I’m just gonna kinda wave the white flag and not engage. How do we actually stand up for our own convictions and our own political opinions, but do it in these ways that aren’t dehumanizing?

Pete: Right, to do it well, which, I think you just have to make up your mind and do it.

Jared: Mm hmm.

Pete: I think it’s learning communication skills. That sounds rather ridiculous, but I think once you try things out, remember when Brian McLaren was, he spoke at your church a few years ago

Jared: Yeah.

Pete: And he sort of gave an example of how he handles these very kind of situations and someone said something that he is, you know, polar opposite of politically and he’ll just listen and just nod his head and say, “hmm, I think differently about that.” And that’s the end of it, because, and just to say that without responding in anger –

Jared: Right.

Pete: That alone is a step that might make people think, like, “okay, maybe I don’t have to argue about this. Maybe I don’t have to be right all the time,” you know?

Jared: Right.

Pete: But it’s tough and yeah, love matters more, right?

Jared: Yeah.

Pete: It does, it really does.

Jared: But I think that’s, just, I mean, I feel like that topic, not to be self-promoting the book, but the idea of that is woven into all the topics we’ve talked about. You know, families divided over religion, it’s just been a year of such division. COVID, racism, politics, why don’t we have more conservative guests on, you know, this all comes to this conversation of how do we stand up for what we believe in and how do we not dehumanize people in the process.

Pete: Yeah.

Jared: And I think, we just have a long way to go –

Pete: Yeah.

Jared: I think, in being able to do this.

Pete: Yeah.


Jared: And what role –

Pete: For thousands of years we’ve had a long way to go.

Jared: Yeah, that was going to be my next question. What role does the Bible play or not play? Because as I think about it, I just think the Bible doesn’t have a lot to say about that kind of thing!

Pete: Yeah. I mean, the Bible has its own political opinions on things from an ancient point of view, but yeah. I guess, I mean, if you sort of pin me to a corner to answer that question, I would say that the Bible doesn’t tell you how to handle these situations.

Jared: Mm hmm.

Pete: I think, again, not to beat a dead horse too, but I think wisdom is what helps, and wisdom is accumulated understanding of situations, it’s learning how to navigate life, and engagement with the Bible is a part of that, I think. But it, frankly, it’s a selective engagement with the Bible because the Bible doesn’t really, it’s not this great rule book you follow. It’s not, what does Richard Dawkins say, or Bill Maher, one of those guys, one of those famous atheist guys says, you know, “God’s big bad rule book that drops out of the sky,” which is, you know, nobody thinks that but people act like it and the Bible doesn’t really function that way. And you know, we had an episode recently where one of our guests talked about under-selling the Bible which is a nice idea, I think.

Jared: Well, unpack that a little bit.

19:51

Pete: Yeah, don’t expect the Bible, don’t promote the Bible as the thing that’s going to answer all of your questions – scientific, historical, political, familial, all these things, or even religious, right? The Bible raises as many questions as it answers. And then don’t, you undersell it a bit, say, it’s a partner with you. You know? And you engage it, and you engage it wisely, but our ethical decisions, I think, rarely, frankly, if ever, are outlined for us in a text that is so diverse, so ancient, so ambiguous –

Jared: Meaning even if it is clear, which is a tough thing to get from the Bible. Again, when is it describing something, when is it prescribing something, that’s difficult.

Pete: Yeah.

Jared: But even when it’s clear, we have to take into account the diversity of it, which, okay, so it’s clear here but did you know that it says something very different here?

Pete: Yeah. Oh, no it doesn’t, it can’t, cause it’s the Bible.

Jared: Right.

Pete: But it does, yeah, and again, that’s not dissing the Bible, that’s actually trying to be very –

Jared: Hopefully it’s respecting it.

Pete: Yeah, it’s respecting it and trying to be descriptive of its contents which then leads us to ask the question, okay, what does it mean to read this well? What is the Bible and what do we do with it?

Jared: Stay tuned for more Bible for Normal People.

[Music begins]

[Producer’s group endorsement]

[Music ends]

Pete: You know, that’s why I, you know, I don’t, I mean, I sometimes have discussions with people like students, for example, and I say what are, which of our ethics comes from the Bible? “Well, do not murder.” Okay, that’s in the Bible, but does your ethic come from that or is it just something that you also agree with?

Jared: Did you know not to murder before you read that?

Pete: Right, yeah. Did ancient people know that murder is a problem, you know?

Jared: Well, historically I would guess this isn’t our first instance of prohibitions against murdering.

Pete: Right.

Jared: Or killing.

Pete: Absolutely not, no. And however they arose is another question, but, you know, these aren’t like, “wow, really? I shouldn’t steal?”

Jared: I know that sounds simplistic, but I just, you know, in my tradition growing up, that was, we never would’ve said that, but that was essentially what we believed was we had all these pagan, heathen, well, you know, to be honest, we didn’t because Adam and Eve were the first people and, you know. But you know, other cultures didn’t get it, they were all heathens and pagans and didn’t follow any of the right rules and they were just pissing off God all the time, and then God gives Israel, this group, you know, this law, a book, and “oh, this is how we’re supposed to act,” and that’s just not historically accurate in any sense.

Pete: Right. Yeah, it’s, you know, getting to the whole law of the Old Testament, so it would take us far afield, but the Bible does not cooperate with us well to be used as the ethical guide. It can be a source of ethical contemplation and reflection, but that’s a very, very different thing.

Jared: Well, maybe talk a little bit, I think that’s important. How would you, how would you talk more, or even just process out loud more the distinction between those two things?

Pete: I think, you see, it’s sort of like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which is another topic, but you know, our knowledge, our theological knowledge is this interaction between scripture and tradition and reason and experience. It’s a whole embodied engagement of what it means to be in communion with God who is all around us and in us anyway. And the Bible is a means of accessing that. It’s not the only means of accessing that. If we didn’t have a Bible, we’d still, okay, God is still real, right, all that kinda stuff.

24:41

So, you know, I think the more subtle understanding of the role that the Bible plays among all the other things that make us human, including our ability to reason, I mean, that’s one of the things I mention. “You should always not listen to your reason, listen to the Bible.” Dude! We use our reason to read the Bible! And everyone does, and if you have a study Bible, which you do, people have used reason to explain what the Bible is, right? So, it’s not just the Bible and it’s also the tradition we come from. It’s our social occasion, you know, the color of our skin makes a difference in how we appropriate the Bible and whether we use it for power or whether we speak for the marginalized, all these kinds of things. You know, the Bible is used by people and in that sense, I think it’s really important that we not, if we say that Bible is our ethical guide, what we’re really doing is baptizing our own ethic –

Jared: That’s right.

Pete: And saying it’s biblical.

Jared: That’s right.

Pete: And that’s been done in history, folks, right? And let’s say, let’s stop that and let’s think of another way of engaging this tradition that doesn’t sort of absolutize it.

Jared: So, then this ethical guide understanding, would it be fair to say then biblical is not an appropriate adjective if the noun is ethic? There isn’t a biblical ethic.

Pete: I mean, yeah, yeah, the way you’re using it, but I could just play with words and I could say a biblical ethic is one that treats the Bible not like a rulebook.

Jared: I see.

Pete: It’s an ethic where you’re engaging the text, right?

Jared: Yeah, yeah. Mm hmm.

Pete: And I do think, you know, anybody who’s been around the Bible for a long time, you’ve been burned by it. But you know what, and the good thing, you know, Jared, we’ve talked about this, our tradition, you know, the reformed tradition that we were a part of, one thing they got going for them is like, you read the Bible a lot and you become very familiar with its content. And there are still places that, I think about, passages, stories that I think about that are very important to me. There are other parts of the Bible that I would’ve ignored twenty years ago that now are like getting central attention from me, but as a means of grace, which is a language I’ve used for a while now, as a way of, as an entry point, one of the conduits or the funnels though which, you know, we can have a conversation about ultimate meaning, you know?

Jared: Hmm.

Pete: And it, you know, even when the Bible says something that seems very, very clear, we still have, how we understand that clarity is absolutely filtered through. And that can be almost anything in the Bible, anything that Paul says about whatever issue, it’s within a first century context and if, you know, and we have to have that responsibility, you have to take the responsibility of reading anything in the Bible, taking seriously our own experience and our own humanity because it, this life has not stood still for 2000 years, right? So, yeah, all that kinda stuff and if we do that, I think, we will, those kinds of differences within family members, that’s the thing to get back to is, you know, when there, you may not have, the polarization may sort of go to the background because we all understand what we’re doing with the Bible. No one’s more biblical than the other person.

Jared: Yeah. I was gonna bring up an episode that we had with Ben Sommer, because in some ways I’m going to take him out of context here a little bit, but there’s this sense in which, I don’t want to, it’s just anachronistic, but to call, you know, he talked about these differences between the J/E sources and the D/P sources and how they portrayed God, and this G/E source, which is more narratival, it’s more earthy, the word I want to come back to in this conversation is more naturalistic almost.

Pete: Mm hmm, yeah.

Jared: Where God can show up in many different ways –

Pete: Not as structured.

Jared: Right! In many different ways, and just see some parallels in the faith formation in communities around the US right now. It’s sort of the, well, frankly, there’s the law and order­ –

Pete: Mm hmm.

Jared: Right, group of Christians and that sounds more kinda Deuteronomic, like priestly. Bureaucracy is good, it keeps things in order, and that’s, you know, cleanliness is next to godliness, that’s kind of like the way it goes.

Pete: And there are people clearly in charge of making and enforcing that.

Jared: And God can only be accessed in these appointed ways!

Pete: Yeah.

29:31

Jared: And there’s this more “naturalistic” way where God’s more surprising and less groomed and more spontaneous and God can show up in that rock and God can show up here and that seems to be more in that Wesleyan Quadrilateral where what gets baptized isn’t just this book or this board of elders or this denomination, but what gets baptized is your own reason, your own experience, you own community, and that’s, it feels more liberating to me.

Pete: It is, and I, you know, you’re mentioning J/E and D and P and, you know, if you’re really interested go back and listen to the Wellhausen –

Jared: I’m assuming everyone has listened to the Wellhausen episode.

Pete: But here’s the thing, I mean, this breaking down of Torah, of the Pentateuch, into basically these four traditions is not a waste of time because it allows us, this is one of Ben Sommer’s big points, and others, many others say this too, but it allows us to see the religious dynamic within Israel itself, if anything, can be a model for a contemporary Christianity in America. It’s seeing this development, these shifts, these changes in how God is perceived within the biblical text itself. You’re seeing a debate, an argument, a discussion and they’re all valued, the discussion is valued.

Jared: Well, that’s the beautiful thing, right? It’s whoever put the Bible together in the end didn’t lop out these challenging traditions but put them side by side.

Pete: Yeah, what Brueggemann calls the counter-testimony, not just the main testimony where if you obey God everything turns out great, if you disobey God gets mad and you get what you deserve. There’s this whole strand of the Hebrew scriptures which is yeah, no. Job, Ecclesiastes…

Jared: I know that’s how it’s supposed to work, but…

[Laughter]

Pete: Yeah. It’s good in theory folks, but it doesn’t work that way. So, I mean, having, I think there might be a way forward for thinking positively about religious differences within a family or within friends at church or whatever. To think about them as being, those are valuable things to disagree, but the end product might not be, and now we all agree and we have all, I’ve convinced you of my point of view, because you have this true theological diversity in both testaments, frankly, the Gospels don’t portray Jesus the same way. They have differences of opinion. John’s Jesus is not Mark’s Jesus. They’re different, right? Paul, Peter, and James probably had a food fight at some point in time, maybe literally about kosher food or not, right?

Jared: Right, yeah.

Pete: So, and those are like the earliest writings of the New Testament already have conflict built into them. It’s hard to avoid it, let’s just say this is the way it is, but don’t hate each other because of the conflict. Because whoever compiled the Old Testament and the process of bringing the New Testament together, the different voices were essentially canonized, and we have to deal with them.

Jared: Right.

Pete: No, we don’t have to deal with them, we just have to accept that this is the way it is and maybe that affects how we think about things like whether COVID’s real or not, you know, or whether there really is systemic racism in our country, and people are going to have opinions about that, but no one, I mean, I don’t think people should be afraid to voice their point of view –

Jared: Right.

Pete: On those very, very important issues and, you know, not to be thought of a less than Christian for doing so. That happens a lot.

Jared: Yeah, well…

Pete: That happens to me.

Jared: Yeah, I think that’s –

Pete: “If you really listened to the Bible, Pete, you would know X, Y, and Z.” It’s like, actually, I’ve read it and it doesn’t really say that stuff.

[Laughter]

Jared: You pretentious person.

Pete: I know, I am! And that’s just it. Oh, the experts! right?

Jared: [Laughter]

Yeah, well I mean, I think that’s, it’s a tricky line to walk because on the one, you know, you don’t want to, again, you don’t want to come back to kinda, well, both sides-isms where each side is equally valued. But I don’t, I think that’s a, it could be a slippery slope, but I don’t think it’s the same as saying, listen, I’m going to stand my ground, I have my opinion, I’m actually going to fight pretty hard not against you, but for policies and platforms that enact the kind of justice that my ethic demands of me. But, you know, let’s, you know, one thing I’ve been coming up on as I talk about this more and more with people is, that’s one good strategy, is the energy that we may use to argue against people and to get really outraged against a platform, why don’t we shift that to taking that energy to furthering that cause?

Pete: To create, that’s cause it’s harder.

Jared: To create the platform that we want to see.

Pete: It’s not as fun as squashing your enemy.

Jared: Right, it’s not as cathartic.

34:32

Pete: No, seriously! I mean, I can relate to that because, you know, when I was, you know, if you know my story a little bit, when I left where I was teaching and it was a very combative environment, I had to re-, it took me years to think in terms of, okay, what do I want to create in the world and not just how do I want to argue better than somebody else and make sure they’re wrong?

Jared: I remember those conversations a long time ago with you even around some of the books you were going to write.

Pete: Yeah!

Jared: You’re like, you would start writing and it turned into what you’re against and you were like, no, like, I gotta figure out what I’m for.

Pete: But it’s so easy to just be what you’re against.

Jared: Mm hmm.

Pete: That’s really, that’s the default. I don’t know why, maybe there are a team of therapists who are listening to this who can tell us about it. But it’s harder, but it’s also life giving to try to be positive about –

Jared: Well, in some ways it’s easier because you have the materials right in front of you. I know what I’m getting.

Pete: Mm hmm.

Jared: To create something new is unchartered territory.

Pete: Right.

Jared: Yeah, I just have to be a good editor in some ways to kind of be able to critique this.

Pete: Right.

Jared: It’s very different.

Pete: You’re wrong here, here, here, here.

Jared: [Laughter]

Exactly.

Pete: But good try. Yeah, exactly, yeah.

Jared: And, you know, not to come back to this deconstruction, but I think that’s helpful is, I think that’s one of the reasons too why we don’t stay in this, like, how do we have more conservative people and we’ll debate and we want to talk more about that constructive side of how a messy Bible doesn’t have to paralyze our faith –

Pete: Mm hmm.

Jared:  But a messy Bible can actually energize our faith.

Pete: Right.

Jared: And I think that’s a big tipping point for people going on this journey, to move from, oh my gosh, I’m in this freefall, I’m anxious, I’m worried, I’m fighting with everyone, to this can be free, this can be freeing. This can be liberating, this can be energizing, I can see now how I can build a life of faith from this messy, ambiguous, diverse thing we have.

Pete: Even if it’s frightening.

Jared: Right, because life is frightening.

Pete: Because it’s frightening, it’s a good idea.

Jared: Right.

Pete: Because, I mean, not to sound Sunday schooly, but if God is big, bigger than us, right, whatever we mean by that, I don’t even know what I’m talking about right now. Like, God’s bigger than us, okay? Is that even the right way to talk? But anyway, you know what I mean. It’s, if we don’t limit God to our own preferences, that’s comfortable to do, but if we don’t do that it can be a little bit frightening. But it’s actually, if God exists that’s a good thing to do, is to get out of your own head.

Jared: Right, right.

Pete: Which was a hard thing for me to learn, I mean, I still learn it. I love being in my head. Nobody else does, but I do. It’s fantastic! It’s wonderful! I’ve got it all figured out. Actually, I don’t, I’m just kidding. I really don’t think I have it all figured out, but I do like to process and to put things in order and structures in my head and that makes me feel good.

Jared: Well, and again, we’re erring on the side here, we’re leaning on the side of being pretentious, but I do think there’s something to, I remember Peter Rollins said, you know, “the challenge is you end up in deconstruction when you take your faith really seriously.”

Pete: Hmm.

Jared: And I think for you and me, just because I know how our mind works, we’re super analytical and for me, that’s what drew me to the reformed tradition is they had their outlines of how this is how God works exactly. It’s only when you kinda get to the end of that that you realize, wait, that’s it?

Pete: Wait a minute…

Jared: That didn’t figure it all, I thought I was going to have God like, completely figured out!

Pete: I have some questions!

Jared: Why did I pay thousands of dollars to come to this seminary and I don’t end up having a complete grasp of God? What is this? False advertising.

Pete: But you see, the value of that process was that there was a structure from which you can even critique the structure and look outside of it, but there’s a framework. And I think all, in my opinion, all theological systems should work that way. It’s a structure because we’re only human –

Jared: We have to have that framework.

Pete: We have location, we have time and place, and there are personality types that are drawn to the reformed faith as opposed to let’s say, Pentecostalism, which is not driven by those same kinds of concerns.

Jared: Right.

Pete: But it’s within that system that you can branch out. But of course, as many people have experienced, people listening, that it’s the branching out from the systems that causes a lot of problems in their lives because often times the people who run those structures don’t feel that way. They, well, this is it.

Jared: Mm hmm.

Pete: You know, and that’s, we experience too. That’s the struggle, it’s not the structure, it’s the “you must stay here or you’re less than.” That’s the problem.


Jared: Yeah, it’s not seen as structure as provisional, which it always is.

Pete: Yes. As provisional, as temporary, right, as John Franke who we had on calls theology a second order discipline. It’s not the first, it doesn’t give you everything, it’s sort of a level below that where we’re just trying to mess with words and trying to make sense of stuff.

Jared: Yeah. Okay, so, as we wrap up this season, I thought it might be good to end with this question for you of, you know –

Pete: I thought I was going to sing a hymn or something.

Jared: As we –

[Laughter]

39:30

Pete: That sort of scared me. I had this flashback to the evangelical days. “Let’s end in prayer.”

Jared: Oh, man.

Pete: “Let’s hold hands.”

Jared: “Let’s roll through that chorus one more time.”

Pete: [Laughter]

Jared: No, just as we head into a new year, we head into 2021, what’s kinda been your lesson that you learned this year as it relates to your faith or to your, this intersection of faith and conversation and community and people? What’s a lesson that you’ve learned?

Pete: I think a lesson that I’m learning, okay, a lesson that’s been magnified for me in all this and I think many people have expressed, have experienced this too, is just the enforced solitude, which I like, by the way, but I also am going crazy now. It started hitting me around August. It’s like, I’m an introvert, so, like, the first few weeks and months was like, “awesome, no people, I can do whatever I want!” But I think all that enforced quietness, it helped me continue to see the importance of just, I start my day just being quiet. I don’t have an agenda. I sit there with a cup of coffee, if Marmalade lets me, check out the Instagram page. She keeps headbutting me at 5:00AM, but, and just trying to be quiet and not be in control of everything and I try to not have my phone with me. And it just, sometimes just a cup of coffee, half an hour, I’ll just sit there and not feel like I have to do anything, and that’s, to me, a really important part of just my continuing hope to become a human being.

Jared: So, it’s letting go of the need to control.

Pete: That’s the light motif of my life.

[Laughter]

Jared: Same here. It just, the reason I bring that out is it just goes back to you, those personalities who are maybe drawn to a systematizing ordering of the faith. For me, it was clearly an attempt to control.

Pete: Mm hmm.

Jared: Like, if I can know how God works then I have the algorithm for reality, nothing can take me by surprise, nothing can hurt me, I can just be in control of everything which is really what I wanted.

Pete: Yeah. And I just want to be smarter than everybody.

[Laughter]

That may be true. I don’t know, I have to keep thinking about that.

Jared: That you are smarter than everybody?

Pete: No, that I want to be. But that’s a good goal, but, yeah, letting go of all that sort of stuff and I know that sounds really simple to say, but it’s excruciating, and I guess that’s, I, when we get back to normal, I hope I don’t get back to normal. You know? In some respects, I do want to get back to normal; in other respects, I don’t want to get back to normal. And it’s been a hard year for people, people have lost loved ones and I haven’t, you know, so I might be thinking differently if that had happened to me. But just where I stand right now with all this stuff that’s happened, and, you know, the COVID chaos, the social chaos, the tensions with race, and the political tensions that probably everybody feels regardless of where they land on this stuff – that’s, we got a choice to make. Do we want to, like, fix all that or do we want to just sometimes take a step back and say, listen, I am, I’m gonna do the best I can to live right now and do what I think is right?

Jared: Mm hmm, right.

Pete: And that’s something that I hope that will stay with me.

Jared: Mm hmm.

Pete: Anyway, Jared, how about you? What’s your final thought on life and the universe?

Jared: I think similarly, you know, and for me what you’re saying resonates with me and I would put it this way though – what I learned this year is there’s no substitute for experience. That, you know, the Bible gives us information, maybe, all these other things give us information, but the pandemic, when you, when the world is a little outside of your control, which is what experience usually teaches us as we get older, that lesson goes deep, and it changes kind of who we are and it changes how we approach the world. And for me to not acknowledge that, if God’s involved in anything, how could God not be involved in that?

Pete: Right.

Jared: And so, just highlights that God’s presence isn’t just in a book and that the transformative stuff of life happens outside that book. And not that it’s wholly independent, but that could become part of this much larger journey.

Pete: Mm hmm, yeah.

[Music begins]

Jared: All right, well, here’s to a better year for many of you in 2021. Thanks so much for joining us for season four, and we’re excited to bring you season five, but not for a while.

Pete: Yes! It’s so good. I think we’re gonna just skip season five and just call it season six. It’s gonna be so good.

Jared: [Laughter]

Nice.

Pete: Yeah, and that’s six weeks away?

Jared: Six weeks away, yeah.

Pete: Okay, folks.

Jared: So, we’ll see ya in about six weeks.

Pete: Try to survive.

Jared: Yup, see ya.

Pete: See ya.

44:26

Narrator: Thanks as always to our team: Executive Producer, Megan Cammack; Audio Engineer, Dave Gerhart; Creative Director, Tessa Stultz; Marketing Wizard, Reed Lively; transcriber and Community Champion, Stephanie Speight; and Web Developer, Nick Striegel. From Pete, Jared, and the entire Bible for Normal People team – thanks for listening.

[Music ends]

[End of recorded material]

Get smarter about the Bible and stuff.

Get insider updates + articles + podcast + more.

* indicates required
More Episodes...
Pete Ruins Exodus (part 1)

Pete Ruins Exodus (Part 1)

March 11, 2019

There’s a lot more going on in the book of Exodus than what you’ve seen on the big screen or heard in church. More than a story of deliverance, Exodus is a subtle literary creation that contains many surprises when we read it closely. Join Pete here for Part 1 of this series where he looks at some big picture issues (like “did it happen?”) before walking us through the themes of chapters 1 and 2.

Read the transcript

00:00

Pete:  You’re listening to the Bible for Normal People, the only God-ordained podcast on the internet.  Serious talk about the sacred book.  I’m Pete Enns.

Jared:  And I’m Jared Byas.

[Jaunty Intro Music]

Hey everybody, welcome to another episode of the Bible For Normal People.  Today’s episode is a solo episode.  Not only that, but it’s the beginning of a series on the book of Exodus that I’m calling “Pete Ruins Exodus,” just because I like being that kind of guy.  This is not about ruining anything.  It’s more about digging deeper into something that is familiar to a lot of people.

The story of Exodus has this universal appeal.  But I’d like to take a look at this book from other angles, not ones we might have gotten from Veggie Tales or the Ten Commandments or the Prince of Egypt or something like that.  Because there’s a lot going on.  This is a deeply theological book.  I think it’s just a fun thing to look at.  That’s all.  I just like the Bible and I want to talk about it.  So here we go.

Also, I said a series.  This is a series.  Do not hold me to how many episodes.  I have no idea.  It just depends on how things go.  We’ll see.  It could be three.  It could be 30.  Not 30.  But, it’s going to be something more than just a couple, because there’s a lot going on.  Especially, with the first three/four chapters, those are such thick and rich chapters.  So much information is just baked into these chapters, that I think that it’s well-worth our time to maybe slow down a little bit at the beginning and take larger chunks as we go on.  That’s sort of what I’m planning.

My plan, then, is to, as you’ll see in a second, divide the book of Exodus into sections.  And for each section, drop down into the book and focus on things that, I think, are interesting or important or the kinds of things a lot of people talk about, all for the purpose of helping us understand the theology of this book more clearly, because it is a book of theology.  There’s no question about that.

Now as we get started, there are a couple of background issues that all have to do with history that keep coming up, and I want to introduce them here.  We’ll come back to them occasionally during the course of these podcasts.  But the first has to do with authorship of the book, namely who wrote it, and when.  The bottom line is nobody knows.  Nobody really knows who wrote the book of Exodus.  In fact, most scholars think that is was compiled more than written from various traditions over several centuries and then brought together at a later time in Israel’s history.  That is pretty much my point of view as well.  But it’s not the most important thing we’ll talk about here, because we are going to try to deal on the level of where theology and history sort of come together, and not focus entirely on things like where did the book come from, who wrote it.  Those things are relevant.  We’ll see that in a second.  But it’s not the focus.  But the bottom line is nobody really knows who wrote the book.  To say that Moses wrote it is really a guess because the book’s anonymous, just like Genesis.  They’re all anonymous.  We don’t know who wrote any of these books.

Tradition has Moses, but a lot of work, not just in the modern period, but even going back to Medieval Judaism and even before that, people have picked up that it’s hard to look at a book like Exodus and say, one person wrote this in one sitting at the time of Moses’ life, which might have been right around the 13th Century or something like that.  It’s unlikely that that’s the case.  But this podcast series is not about that.  I’m just throwing it out there because it will come up. 

The other issue is just, the basic(est) issue of historicity, fancy way of saying, “Did any of this happen?”  What I’ll do is, as we go through the podcast, is say things like, “In the logic of the narrative,” because I don’t necessarily want to commit myself to whether things happened or didn’t happen.  I do think things happened.  We’ll get to that in a second too.

Again, defending the book historically is not my point.  I don’t want to defend anything and I don’t want to presume anything one way or the other.  I want to just let the book have its way and talk the way it wants to talk.

Did any of this happen?  That’s a question that’s of some importance, especially for some modern readers, not for everyone.  I think of it this way.  The reason why digging into history is actually more than just interesting, but it’s important, is that, while these texts were written by people at some point in time in the past, and knowing something of context, knowing something of when might help us understand something of why these texts were written. 

I mean, think about this.  Pick a figure like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and say, “Yeah.  I want to talk about Martin Luther King Jr.  I want to talk about Franklin Delano Roosevelt.”  Somebody might say, “Okay.  Well, for Martin Luther King, Jr., we have to talk about also just the setting of the 1960s’ Civil Rights Movement.”  You say, “No way.  I don’t—I’m not interested in that.  I just want to talk about Martin Luther King Jr. or FDR.” “Yeah.  He helped America get out of the Depression and he was the president during the Second World War.”  And somebody says, “Hold on a second here.  Who cares? I just want to talk about Franklin Delano Roosevelt.”  You can see how nonsensical that is.  Right?  You have to talk about context because human beings are contextual beings and social beings.  No one’s an island.  Knowing something about the past setting might help us understand the theology of the text, which is really the goal for me.

05:24

Not only that, but you have sort of a triangle here.  You’ve got history, theology and then other aspect is the Bible as literature.  And it is.  We’ll see that too, here in the book of Exodus. 

Think of it this way.  You have a writer living in history who is trying to communicate something of a theological nature through writing.  How he writes the literature, when he writes the history affect how we read the theology.  Those things all hang together.  To just read Exodus without a view towards literature or history, it can really wind up obscuring the message and not helping it very much.

A few more words about history.  Because again, this is something that comes up a lot and so much of this book is an object of apologetic defense.  Did the Exodus happen as the Bible says it did?  Just introduce it here.  I don’t want to get into it too much.  We’ll see things along the way.  But it’s worth noting, first of all, that there is no direct evidence whatsoever for an Israelite presence in the land of Egypt at any point in time.  In other words, there’s just nothing there.  There’s nothing Egyptian, and the only source we have is an Israelite source, the Bible.  We don’t have any musings from other nations.  We don’t have any material, evidence, in other words, archeological evidence.  There’s nothing there. 

There’s evidence for a lot of things that are in the Bible.  But for this big event, we just don’t see much.  That’s at least worth stating.  That doesn’t prove nothing happened.  But it’s at least a fact.  It is a fact that we don’t have evidence.


Now some say, not to get into this too much, but some say, “Why would we expect the Egyptians to talk about this humiliating defeat on the part of a slave population that left Egypt?  They would want to bury that and not talk about it.”  That’s just not true.

What ancients did was, when something bad happened, they didn’t try to ignore it.  They spun it.  I would expect something.  We see this, actually, elsewhere in the Old Testament, vis a vis, other nations and how they talk about things.  We would expect the Egyptians to have spun and said, “Listen, our gods were mad at us.  Therefore, we lost our slaves.  It’s not that we’re weak.  It’s that we were disobedient.”  That’s a common ancient way of handling embarrassing moments.

Plus, you can’t really keep this quiet.  It’s not like no one would have heard of it.  It was pre-internet, but still, the Moabites, the Ammonites, the Edomites, the Babylonians, somebody would have heard of this mass escape of slaves and the economic and ecological destruction of Egypt.

It’s hard to imagine that the silence of Egyptian sources is actually an argument for historicity, which is how some people try to defend.  But I think it just doesn’t work.  Having said that, I think there is suggestive evidence for the fact that something happened, which is sort of my position.  Something happened.

For example, one of the oldest pieces of Hebrew literature that we have comes from the book of Exodus, Chapter 15.  The oldest manuscripts we have of Exodus are a couple of hundred years before Christ.  Nothing really before that.  That’s the Dead Sea Scrolls. That’s the oldest textual evidence we have of anything in the Bible, with a couple of exceptions, but not really relevant for this discussion.

But, Chapter 15, called the Song of Moses or the Song of the Sea—this is considered, by linguists, to be evidence of very old writing on the part of the Hebrews.  It could go as far back as about 1200 BCE, which would make it very old and would make it not long after these kinds of events would have transpired.  Just think about that.  Exodus 15 is a song praising Yahweh for killing the Egyptians in the sea.  That’s really what it is.  “You’re so great.  You’re awesome.  Blah.  Blah.  Blah.” 

Probably Exodus 15 was changed and adapted and added to later in Israel’s tradition.  Probably the Exodus 15 that we have was not all old from the 12th Century, but there are elements of it that linguists say make sense in that time period.

Think of it this way: if someone were to find a manuscript that has a lost Shakespearean play or something like that, we would know instinctively where to put that historically.  We wouldn’t put it in the 19th Century.  We wouldn’t put it in the 12th Century.  We wouldn’t put it in the 21st Century.  We’d put it where it belongs, right in the middle there somewhere.

10:09

We know enough about the development of the English language to know pretty much where things should belong.  That’s what linguists do of Semitic languages like Hebrew and others.  They’re able to see evolutionary developments in languages because all languages evolve.  All languages develop.  You can see signs of that in Exodus 15, along with passages like Judges Chapter 5.  This is the story of Deborah.  That’s another one.  Very often, scholars will look at Genesis 49, Jacob’s last words to his sons before he dies.

It’s interesting.  This is suggestive that the earliest memory we have of the Israelites is something that has to do with departing from Egypt.  It’s interesting.  That’s like the earliest record we have. 

It’s also the earliest record we have of. Yahweh as a warrior, which doesn’t stay that way throughout the whole Bible.  But early depictions of Yahweh as a warrior who rescues his people and beats up the Egyptians.  That suggests that this is a very old memory on the part of the Israelites and it’s not made up after the Exile or something like that.

Another echo of history here is several of the names, one of which is Moses’ name itself.  We’ll get back to that soon enough.  But Moses is almost—it just sounds like an Egyptian name.  You have that element.  Moses, that’s at the end of other names, like King Tut, King Tut Moses.  That’s the full name, which means something like “born of a god, born of the god Tut or Toth,” spelled, pronounced differently, depending on who you ask.

That Moses element seems to be part of an originally longer Egyptian name.  That doesn’t prove anything.  It doesn’t prove the historicity of Moses.  Doesn’t prove the historicity of the Exodus.  What is does indicate, though, is that there an Egyptian memory.  There’s something about Egypt that seems to be real and strong in Israel’s memory that would inspire the writing down of stories like this.

It doesn’t seem like this is simply made up of out of whole cloth. Who would make up, frankly, a story of national origins that goes, “Yeah, we were slaves for a long time and then we escaped.”  It doesn’t seem like the kind of story that you’re going to make up out of whole cloth.  There’s seems to be a real authentic memory of something that has made its way through Israel’s tradition and is now written down.

What some scholars say, and even Evangelical scholars (I shouldn’t say “even”), but just to indicate how relatively broad this way of thinking about it is, a way of looking at this book of Exodus is what some call mythicized history.  If you’re interested, I think I wrote a blog post about this a year or so ago.  You can find it on the website.

But mythicized history.  In other words, it’s history that mythicized.  Something happened, but then the way they tell the story gets overlaid with mythic elements.  I use that word without embarrassment or shame or hesitation, because that’s what they are.  We’ll get into this.  They’re mythic elements that are used to communicate the full force of the impact of the story.

There are ways of telling stories of origins in the ancient world and implying mythic themes is one of them.  We see that in the book of Exodus.  But here’s the point.  The root of it is some historical experience, but that gets told in any mythicized way, as opposed to the opposite, not historicized myth, but mythicized history is what I’m saying.

Others would say (this is really not a view that’s that common anymore that it would be, not mythicized history, but historicized myth.  In other words, it’s something that’s foundationally mythic, and then you just put some names and places attached to it to make it look historical.  That doesn’t seem to be the case.  You’re on pretty safe grounds saying something like, “There’s a historical base, but it’s mythicized.  That’s just the way they told stories back then.”

Again, those are just two preliminary issues:  authorship and historicity.  We’ll get back into all this stuff, no doubt, as we continue this series.

But here, let’s start this way.  The big picture.

Exodus, second book of the Bible.  Got it.  Good.

Forty chapters long and I like looking at books of the Bible from a thirty-thousand-foot view.  When I do that, I see these 40 chapters and I divide the book into two parts.  The first 15 chapters are all about departing from Egypt and then the rest of the book are all about the Sinai experience.  So 1-15 and then basically 16-40.  Most of Exodus happens on Mount Sinai.

By the way, Mount Sinai is really the location of, not just most of Exodus, but all of Leviticus and the first ten chapters of Numbers.  Basically, the center chunk, the heart of the Pentateuch, takes place on Mount Sinai.  About a year transpires in the logic of the narrative.  About a year transpires on Mount Sinai, which means, you’re really slowing down the clock here and spending a lot of time at what happens on this mount, which is an indication to us that this is important.  Exodus is really about getting to Mount Sinai.  That’s really what the story’s about.

15:24

Let’s break this down a little bit further, because this is where we’re going to go with this series.  Chapters 1 to 15.  This is all about the departure from Egypt.  I would say the first four chapters are all about preparation.  It’s about the preparation for the actual departure.  The problem is introduced.  Moses is introduced.  We can sort of see where this is going. 

Then, starting in Chapter Five and going to Chapter 13.  Now we have Moses engaged with Pharaoh and they’re battling and it’s the plague narrative.

Chapters 14 and 15 are the story of the departure from Egypt itself, the Red Sea Crossing or the Sea of Reeds.  We’ll get to that too.  It’s probably Sea of Reeds.  It’s not Red Sea.

Chapter 14 is the narrative version of the departure from Egypt.  Chapter 15 is the poetic section.  That’s one of the older sections of Hebrew literature, as I mentioned before.  You have the preparation, the plagues, then the departure.  That’s the first 15 chapters.

The rest of the book is all about, first of all, getting to Mount Sinai.  That’s Chapters 16 to 18.  They arrive in Chapter 19.  They won’t depart from there until Numbers Chapter 10.  They’re going to be there for a long time. 

Then, the laws—that’s Chapters 20 through 24—20 is the Ten Commandments.  The rest are something called the Book of the Covenant (which we’ll look at some of those laws later on in this series).

Then comes this Tabernacle section.  That begins in Chapter 25.  The last—more than a third of the book is taken with something to do with the Tabernacle.  It’s a bit tedious.  We’re not going to spend 15 weeks on the Tabernacle, but we’re going to spend a little bit of time, because there’s stuff happening there that’s really, really interesting theologically. 

This is the stuff you skip.  If you’re reading through Exodus and you make it past the laws, you didn’t give up and you’re at the Tabernacle section because “who cares,” right?  But the instructions for building the Tabernacle are Chapters 25-31.  The actual building of the Tabernacle are Chapters 35-40.

Sandwiched in-between is the famous episode of the Golden Calf, Chapters 32 to 34.  And we’ll take each of those in turn, obviously, when we get there.

That’s the basic gist of it and, I thought, today, we’ve got a little bit of time.  We can just start off her with Section One and see where we go, because I have no idea where we’re going.  We’ll see where we go.  Who knows where we’ll end up.  Anyway.  Okay.

Section One.  This is about Chapters 1 to 4.  This is about the preparation, as I said.  We’re going to take a little more time here because these are thick chapters.  There’s a lot going on.  It’s not just preliminary stuff to get out of the way.  It’s sets up what’s going to follow.  I think it’s worth paying some attention to.

The big view here (these first four chapters) is that there’s a problem, a big problem.  From the Egyptian point of view, here’s the problem.  The problem is that there are too many Israelites and they might rebel.  The solution is, eventually—well, there are actually three that are attempted.  One is enslavement.  That sort of works, but it doesn’t work.  We’ll look at that in a second.  Another is, you have—the midwives are told (if you’re familiar with this story)—the midwives, these two midwives, Shiphrah and Puah, are told to kill the mail children when they’re born.  That doesn’t work.  Eventually, the third solution is to throw the male Hebrew children into the Nile.

Israel is under threat.  They’re not just enslaved.  They’re actually under threat.  That poses a problem.  Israel’s under threat.  Now another solution is offered.  This solution is, of course, Moses—Moses is called to deliver the Israelites.  We’re introduced to Moses here in this part of the story.

In Chapter One—these are just some things that I think that are worth noticing.  Throughout, I’ll be looking at the New Revised Standard Version if you want to follow along.  That would be fine too.  In fact, I hope you do, as long as you’re not driving.

Chapter One.  Here are some things that I think are worth noticing in the chapter that aren’t always drawn out.  Actually, three in the first chapter.  The first is the introduction of a theme that will become very, very important in the course of this book, and that is the theme of creation.  You can see this already.  It’s hidden a little bit, but not too much.  In Chapter One, look at Verse 7.  It talks about how the Israelites were fruitful and prolific and they multiplied. 

This is echoing Genesis One language because the Israelites are actually doing what they’re supposed to be doing.  They’re in accordance with God’s will by increasing in number, which is exactly the thing that has this Pharaoh freaked out, this unnamed Pharaoh freaked out.  And so he wants to do something about it.  He says, “There are too many.  They might actually rebel against us and join with our enemies and fight against us.  We can’t have this.  We have to keep them under wraps.”  Which is why he enslaves them.  That’s the first attempt.

20:15

But you see, we should not lose sight here of how Pharaoh and Egypt are being posited here by the writer as sort of an anti-god force.  Not just ???? enslavement, but the problem they have is that there are too many Israelites, which is exactly what God wants.  By trying to keep the population down, they’re going against the creation mandate.

As I said, is something that will come up again and again and again in, especially, the first fifteen chapters—actually, no, the whole book.  What am I talking about?  The whole book has this creation theme happening and it’s introduced to you already.  Actually, when they’re enslaved, as an attempt to curtail the population, we read in verse 12, the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread.  It actually backfires.  That attempt to reduce the population actually results in them increasing all the more.  This is an indication of God’s favor.  This is actually an indication of where this whole book’s going.

Egypt’s attempt to hold the Israelites at bay and to squash the Israelites and to squash their god are going to backfire.  They’re not going to work.  This is already hinted at here at the very beginning.

Actually, speaking of Genesis here, this is a connection back to Genesis One.  But there’s another interesting connection here to Genesis, which again, shows us something of the literary style and intentionality of this writer.  Because in verse 10, this is the people saying, “Look.  The Israelites—they’re more numerous, more powerful than we.  Come let us deal shrewdly with them.”  That same cadence, that same language is used in the Tower of Babel story.  “Come let us make bricks.  Come let us build the tower up to heaven.”

Of course, that effort (if you know that story) is squashed by God, because God later says, “Come let us go down and see.”  The divine response also begins, “Come let us.”  As you’re reading this, you see here an echo of the Tower of Babel story.  Again, this is an indication that at some point in the Exodus story, God is also going to have a “come let us” moment.  And that’s called the Plagues and the Red Sea.

It’s not terribly subtle.  It actually jumps out at you when you’re reading this story.  If we’re looking for and even expecting these writers to make these connections to other parts of their story, especially the book of Genesis, oh boy, is Genesis just a wonderful place for this writer to go to draw connections with the story of the Exodus.  If we’re expecting that, we’re going to see it and I think we should just keep our eyes open to all that stuff.

BREAK

Creation theme.  That’s a big thing. 

A second thing is women in Exodus are being introduced here.  We have a few of them, especially in Chapter Two.  We’ll get to that.  They’re sort of heroes by undermining the work of this Pharaoh.  You have these two women, Shiphrah and Puah (by the way, who are named and Pharaoh isn’t).  I think one reason why Pharaoh isn’t named, because this may be very distant past memories and it doesn’t even matter who the Pharaoh is, but maybe they don’t remember his name.  But the point is that they do remember these midwives’ names, because they do something pretty good.  They outwit the king and they do so by lying.

24:58

The king says to—the Pharaoh rather—he says to “kill the male children when they’re born” and they’re not doing it.  He says, “What’s going on?”  They say, “You don’t understand, by the time we get there, these Hebrew women are so vigorous, by the time we get there, they’ve already given birth.  These are amazing women.  They just drop kids all over the place.  We can’t get there in time.”

That’s not true.  That’s a lie.  What a lot of my students wind up asking about this story (maybe you’ve asked it too), is why do they lie and why is it okay with God to lie like that.  I tell them, with complete respect, “that’s a very white question to ask.  That’s a very privileged question.”  Because when you’re living in a time where you don’t have power, where you’re disenfranchised, where you’re marginalized, you have no power.  There’s no court to go to.  There’s no lawyer.  There’s no legal system.  If you want to get away with stuff that you know is right, that you know that you have to do, in the face of absolute power, which is the king of Egypt, the Pharaoh, you have to be crafty and you have to lie.  This is not the only time we see this sort of thing in the Bible.  You have to tell stories to people in power to outwit them.  This is really not lying.  This is outwitting.  This is using your wiles and your abilities to think on your feet to allow God’s purposes to go forward.

It’s not a moral issue.  “Oh no.  They’re lying and it’s bad to lie.”  It’s not bad to lie.  Not here.  There’s actually something that scholars study.  It’s called the trickster theme.  This is the theme that appears in many places in the Old Testament, where, just like it suggests, you are tricking other because you’re disenfranchised and you’re out of power and this is what you have to do.

Again, we’re going to meet other women, especially in Chapter Two with Moses’ sister and Pharaoh’s daughter.  You have this group of women in Chapters One and Two who outwit the almighty Pharaoh, which makes him look rather ridiculous, that he’s being so easily outwitted by these women.  I think that’s, in my opinion, the intention of the writer.  It’s not simply—it’s not to elevate women in the abstract, although we can read it that way.  I don’t that’s the intention of the writer.  My opinion—I don’t think it’s to elevate women, as much as it is to make Pharaoh look ridiculous that you have his sister, Moses’ sister, and Pharaoh’s own daughter and these two lowly Hebrew midwives who are slaves, they’re able to outwit this Pharaoh so he doesn’t know what’s going on.  As a result, Moses is drawn into the household of Pharaoh and he grows up there, which will have rather significant implications as the story goes on.

Third thing.  We have the creation theme.  The introduction of women in Exodus.  Also, this idea of drowning the male children in the Nile.  That’s the third of the three attempts on the part of Pharaoh to reduce the population of the Israelites.  It’s only the male children, of course, as is with the midwives.  Here is it with the Nile.  It’s only the males because they’re the ones who go to war.  They’re also the ones through whom the lineage is traced and so if you want to further disenfranchise a people that have, let’s say, a nationalistic or an ethnic identity, the way to do that is to get rid of the men.  The women will become the property of other men, namely Egyptians.  So you get rid of them.  This makes some sense historically.

But the men here are thrown into the Nile.  Male infants are thrown into the Nile for drowning.  We have to think here of how this story will end.  The Red Sea.  Especially the Tenth Plague too.  The Tenth Plague and the Red Sea.  The way many interpreters, especially Jewish interpreters throughout history have read this, is that the Tenth Plague, which is the death of the firstborn, and also the Red Sea, which is the drowning of the Egyptians, that’s sort of tit for tat.  It’s eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth.  “If you do this to my children at the beginning,” Yahweh says, “Justice means it will happen to you at the end.”  That’s the Tenth Plague and the Crossing of the Red Sea.

The plagues as a whole are really, in my opinion, just an onramp to get to the Red Sea episode.  There are Ten Plagues.  They’re rather drawn out.  We’ll get into all that stuff.  It could have been one plague.  It could have been none.  It could have just been “go out.”  Just leave, just part, go through the Red Sea.  But you have this Ten Plagues and it goes on for a bit.  It’s all about building up the tension for that final moment where God finally does what, again, in the logic of the narrative, God finally does what God has been wanting to do, namely, vengeance on the Egyptians.  “You will die because of how you treated my children.”

It’s interesting.  When we get to Chapter Four, we’ll see how when God tells Moses to confront Pharaoh, he says, “Is this what you say?  Israel is my son, my first-born.”   Israel is like God’s child.  “If you do this to my children, then your children are going to get it too.”  It makes sense.  The theology makes sense is what I’m saying.  It may be a little bit gruesome, the violence here, but again, you’re reading the Bible, folks.  We got to get used to the violence.  It’s all over the place.

30:19

Ok, so those are three things that happen in the first chapter and some of these things we’ll come back to, namely the Nile and the Creation theme.  Those things hang together.

In the second chapter, this is where Moses is born.  We’re introduced to Moses.  We’re told that he’s a Levite.  When the Bible gives details like that, it’s probably important, because we’re not given much information about the book of characters, and when we are, there’s probably a reason for it.  But here, we’re told that he’s a Levite.  Of course, his brother Aaron will be the first high priest.  He’s of the tribe of Levi as well.  That’s an important detail for this author because Tabernacle, sacrifice, priesthood, all this stuff gets introduced in the book of Exodus.  The main guy here, Moses, is of that same tribe and nd his brother, Aaron, who will be the high priest.  That’s just laid out there right here at the beginning.

A second thing here in terms of Moses’ birth in Chapter Two, is, as you know, the famous story, he’s put into a reed basket or a papyrus basket as the New Revised Standard Version has it.  And it’s lined with bitumen and pitch to keep it from sinking.  The Hebrew word here for this basket is a rare word in the Old Testament.  It’s only used here and then way back in the flood story to describe the ark.  The Hebrew word is “tevah.”  That’s not irrelevant.  That’s pretty important because what you have is Moses—this is like another Noah, and he’s in an ark and he will be delivered from this watery threat.  As a result, there will be a new beginning for God’s people, just like the Noah story.  He and his family are saved through a threat of water and as a result, they’ll start something new.

We’re seeing the Noah story revisited here, but not just a “what a nice little literary connection.”  The point is more theological that God is doing something new and you know he’s doing something new when he’s saving people through water.  Guess where else in this story God is going to save people through water?  Exactly.  Chapter 14 and 15.  The departure from Egypt.  The crossing of the Sea of Reeds.  You’ve got this water deliverance in this story that actually echoes back to Genesis Chapter One as well.  I’m going to leave that for later, because it’s really clear when you get to Chapter 14 that it’s not just Noah, but we’re going back to Genesis Chapter One in this story.  There are echoes of the creation story itself later on, very prominently when we actually depart Egypt.

You have a reed basket.  Also, as I mentioned before, you have the sister here who puts him afloat and follows the basket and sees where it goes and Pharaoh’s daughter picks it up.  The two of them conspire to keep this infant safe from Pharaoh’s hands.  “I happen to know this guy’s mother.  You want me to bring him back and have her breastfeed him until he’s ready?”  “Yeah.  That’d be great.  Go ahead and do that.”

Three months or so and then he comes back.  Actually, it’s more than that.  It’s not three months.  Actually, we don’t know how long it is.  When he’s ready, he comes back and then he grows up in the house of Pharaoh.  We have these thoughtful women outwitting Pharaoh and finding a way to keep this infant safe, because they’re looking at this infant and for whatever reason, this is a kid worth saving.  At least, that’s Pharaoh’s daughter’s point of view.  Moses’ sister would not have that kind of an issue, but she looks at him and says, “Wow.  This is fantastic.” 

We have these women outwitting Pharaoh again.  Also, the name Moses—I mentioned before it probably has an Egyptian echo to it.  But in the story itself, the writer gives Moses a very different meaning, a Hebrew meaning from a verb, a rare verb in the Old Testament that means “to draw out,” meaning “because I drew Moses out of the water, I’m going to call him Moses.”

A problem with this is that who’s giving Moses this name.  It’s Pharaoh’s daughter, which raises a couple of questions.  Number one:  did she know Hebrew?  The chances for knowing Hebrew, maybe, maybe not.  I think it’s unlikely.  Most people think it’s unlikely.  Why would she bother learning the tongue of the slaves?  They have to learn their tongue, not the other way around. 

34:55

But more importantly, why would she give him a Hebrew name to begin with if the whole point is to keep him safe.  At the dinner table with Pharaoh: “Hi.  This is Moishe.”  You’re not going to do that.  You’re going to do something else.  It’s unlikely that she gave him this name, but here’s what’s happening.  This is the pretty standard answer in Biblical scholarship, if it’s of interest to you.  I hope it is.   This is what is called a folk etymology.  It’s not a scientific, linguistic etymology.  But it’s a folk etymology.  It’s how the Israelites later explain the name of Moses from their point of view.  It’s possible the author may not have understood Moses’ name, maybe few people did.  Who knows?  But at least, the writer intentionally gives this name a Hebrew significance that has something to do with the story itself.  So it’s unlikely that Pharaoh’s daughter named him this, because it would have been rather nonsensical for her to do that.  The name has some historical residences with Egypt.  But from the Hebrew point of view, “who cares?”  That’s not furthering our story.  We’re going to look at this differently and give him a Hebrew etymology, which means “to draw out of water.”

One more thing about Moses being drawn out of water.  Everybody talks about this.  This parallels a much, much, much older story, going back to late third millennium BCE, of a king, Sargon, of a place called Akkad (there’s where we get the word Akkadian from, if that helps).  We have a similar kind of rags to riches story.  He’s threatened and he’s saved by the court and his life is threatened.  But then he grows up in this court and winds up becoming a great king.

The Moses story follows that pattern very nicely, so much so, that scholars typically think, not so much in terms of the Moses story is borrowed from this story of Sargon from a long time ago, but it’s more like a standard way of talking about the origins of a great person, sort of like a rags-to-riches story.  That seems to be what’s happening here, and again, these are the kinds of things have to be discussed when you’re talking about the historicity, like we said earlier, when you’re talking about the historicity of this episode.  These are the kinds of things that you have to really take into account somehow and try to explain.  Again, it may not mean that Moses never lived.  But it may mean that Moses’ actual history, the way we think of it, may not be exactly how the Bible here is portraying it, like where he got his name from.  This is a Hebrew overlaying.  This is not really mythical.  We’ll get to mythical overlays later.  But this is still a legendary or a theologically meaningful way of telling this story that really speaks to the people who are recounting their past and setting a vision for their present and a vision for their future.

If we’re expecting this to be totally distant from history and have no connection with the Sargon story, I think that’s a tough hill to climb.  Using literary motifs from other nations is not unheard of in the history of humanity.  You sort of do that.  You learn how to tell stories from the environment that you’re in.  That seems to be what’s happening here as well.  Moses is already being styled as, clearly, this guy’s going to be a great leader.  Look at how history is beginning.  This is how you tell the story of a great leader in that time.

Then he flees (little Moses) to Midian and he flees there because he was found out.  He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew slave and he intervened and he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.  Way to go Moses!  Way to not be impulsive!  But you see what’s happening here is that we’re seeing Moses as a grown man.  We know nothing of his infancy except for that little story.  But here is a grown man and he’s doing now what he’s going to be later on.  He’s protecting his people from the threat, from the Egyptian threat.

Actually, this whole Chapter Two that talks about Moses’ flight to Midian is a preview of coming attractions.  We’re seeing Moses do things that he’s going to be doing later on his life throughout Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.  He saves a slave from the Egyptians, he protects his own people.  But then the next day, he sees two Hebrews arguing and he gets in the way of them and they say, “What are you going to do?  You going to kill one of us too?”

There’s this whole grumbling and rebellion against Moses’ authority on the part of his own people that pops up a lot.  If you know where this story goes, it pops up a lot in the story of Moses throughout the next few books of the Bible.  We have another example of something is that is a preview of coming attractions. 

40:01

The biggest one is that he flees and where does he flee to?  He flees to Midian, which anticipates the same path that the Israelites will take later on.  He goes to Midian (we’re jumping ahead here).  He meets Yahweh on Mount Sinai and Yahweh says, “Go get the people and bring them back here to worship.”  It’s almost like a trial run, escaping Egypt to go to Midian.  He’ll come back and then he’ll take the people. 

More subtlety, however, this story of going to Midian has another echo of something in Genesis, namely the Joseph story.  Joseph is cast into a well by his brothers, but then sold to the Midianites, who then give them over to the Egyptians.  There’s a Midian connection that brings Joseph to Egypt and there’s a Midian connection here to with Moses that will bring him back to Egypt.  Midian is also, if I remember this right, he’s also one of Abraham’s sons through Keturah named Midian.  There’s something about the ancestors in Genesis that is evoked by the word Midian. 

Another point about this flight to Midian is this is where he’s going to meet his wife by a well.  Zipporah.  She’s the daughter of Jethro, the priest of Midian.  This, again, connects him to these ancestral stories in the book of Genesis, namely Isaac and Jacob.  They both meet their wives by a well.  What is it about a well?  It’s like a bar.  I don’t know what it is.  It’s just where you meet girls or something.  Probably not.  It’s a motif.  It’s the dessert.  You’ve got to drink and you meet people by a well.  But he’s doing it too.  This is a continuation of this theme from Genesis. 

One last point and then we’ll stop for today.  We see here at the end of Chapter Two, I think, a very, very important moment in the story that is worth remembering.  It’s the last three verses of Chapter Two.  I just want to read them.

“After a long time, the king of Egypt died.”

This Pharaoh that had impressed them and enslaved them, he dies.

“This Israelites groaned under their slavery and cried out.  Out of the slavery, their cry for help rose up to God.  God heard their groaning and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  God looked upon the Israelites and God took notice of them.”

The reason I want to draw this out just a little bit is because this is giving us the reason for the Exodus.  Why does God deliver His children from Egyptian slavery?  It’s basically to keep a promise to the Patriarchs, meaning Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  This is who God speaks to in the Old Testament in the book of Genesis, especially, in Chapter 15, where he’s engaging Abraham and he says, “Listen, your descendants are going to be slaves in Egypt for 400 years, but I’ll get them out and I’ll bring them into this land and everything will be fine.” 

This is a promise that God made.  It’s not simply God hates slavery.  Forgive me.  God clearly doesn’t hate slavery because there are salves all over the place.  There are even laws in Exodus about what to do with slaves and how to keep them and how to treat them.  Slavery is not a bad thing.  Not for this god.  Not for here. 

It’s not just “I don’t want slaves and I hear you crying out.  I hear you groaning and I don’t like slavery.”  It’s more “I made a promise to Abraham and I’m going to keep it.”  That is the reason why they’re delivered from Egyptian slavery.

The last verse—I love the last verse here because if I could throw a little Hebrew on you here—in English, it’s rather cumbersome.

“God looked upon the Israelites and God took notice of them.”

But in Hebrew, it’s just a few words.  “God saw the Israelites.  God knew.”

I just love that.  God saw.  God knew. 

This is not taking God by surprise.  God is going to do something.  From here on out, what we’re really going to see is what God is going to do to deliver the Israelites.  Not so much Moses.  But God sees and God knows.  And now something absolutely is going to happen.

[Outro Music Begins]

Alright folks, well we’re going to stop there. That’s not bad, we did half of this preparatory section 1-4, we’ll finish it next time, whenever that’ll be. I have no idea, I’m not planning this out folks, it’s just going to happen by Divine direction I think; it’s just going to happen. But until then, and as always, thank you for listening. Folks, when you press download and then push to listen, we’re very thankful that you’re letting us into your lives. We don’t take that for granted at all, and one last thing, this is important, it’ll change your life. So 3 simple words: Grab. Some. Swag. You can go to our store at thebiblefornormalpeople.com and you can find t-shirts of various colors, even youth sizes, with all sorts of fun little sayings on them and polo shirts, which I have, and fleece hoodies, hats, beanies, all different colors and sizes. We have a lot of mugs, tote bags, and we even have onesies for your babies. We’re actually working on an adult onesie but we’re trying to figure out whether that’s actually legal in the state of Pennsylvania. But if it is, oh boy, you’re going to see adult onesies here on this website. Because, why not? That’s why. Because that’s how we roll, man, and that’s what we do. Ok folks, anyway, thanks again for listening and we’ll be with each other next time. See ya.

[Music fades]

45:48