Episode 97: Pete Enns - Pete Ruins Exodus: Part 4

In this episode, Pete continues his deep dive into the book of Exodus covering chapters 14-19 and the following topics:

• The Red Sea
• Mount Sinai
• Manna and the Sabbath
• Genesis (who knew the books of the Bible were connected!?)

Mentioned in this episode:

• Book: "Sinai & Zion" by Jon Levenson
• Class: Genesis For Normal People (Pay What You Can!)
• Conference: Evolving Faith Conference
• Book: "How the Bible Actually Works" by Pete Enns
• Support: The Bible for Normal People Patreon

[bg_collapse view="link-inline" expand_text="Read the transcript" collapse_text="Hide the transcript" ]

00:00

Pete:  You’relistening to the Bible for Normal People, the only God-ordained podcast on theinternet.  Serious talk about the sacredbook.  I’m Pete Enns.

Jared:  And I’m JaredByas.

MUSIC

00:11

Hey everybody. Welcome to Part 4 of the Pete Ruins Exodus series.  Before we begin, a couple of very quickannouncements because I’m afraid I’m going to forget.  First of all, October 4 and 5, I’m going tobe at Evolving Faith which is in Denver, CO this year.  That should be fun.  Also, on September 23, we’re offering aone-time only, one evening, one-hour class on Genesis.  Here’s the good news.  You pay what you want.  Just have to reserve your seat.  You can get information about that on thewebsite, like exactly when and where. Hope you can make it to that.  Itshould be fun.  It’s a one-hour onlyclass.  I’m just talking about what Ithink are highlights of the book of Genesis and why I think is really importantand what I think is really cool about the book that doesn’t always get pickedup in casual readings of the book itself. 

Commercial’s over. Let’s get into Part 4 of Pete Ruins Exodus.

This is going to take us from the departure from Egypt overthe Red Sea through Chapter 19, and that is specifically beginning in Chapter13, verse 17.  The middle of Chapter 13through to the end of Chapter 19.  That’sthe departure from Egypt and the journey to Sinai.

Just to review where we’ve been up to this point in thisseries as a whole.  We started with Mosesand he gets this call from God to be the agent through which the Israeliteswill be delivered.  He has earlystruggles.  He really doesn’t want to doit.  But he finally gives in and goesahead and he confronts Pharaoh.  Pharaohdoesn’t care what Moses says or what their no-name God says.  He never heard of Him. 

Of course, that results in the plagues which wind upconvincing Pharaoh that, “Yeah, I’m no match for Israel’s god.”  Especially the plague of death, which is thetit-for-tat, payback for what Pharaoh did drowning the male infants in the Nileway back in Chapter 1.  Now they’re deadas well.  The firstborn of Egypt aredead.  That’s how the story goes. 

So now they depart. All that’s over.  Now, they’releaving Egypt never to go back again. Remember, Mount Sinai, also called Horeb—we talked about that in severalplaces in Exodus—Sinai is the goal of the rescue.  Aaron and Moses say, “Let my people go sothat they might worship Me in the wilderness.” The wilderness is where Sinai is. 

They have no clue at this point about where they are goingafterward, namely into the land of Israel to take over for the Canaanites andto eradicate them and exterminate them and take their land.  They don’t know where that’s going.  All they know is that they’re going to MountSinai.  Even though the land and entranceto the land, and I’m going to say, just frankly, the monarchy, is really thetrue end goal of Israel in the Hebrew scriptures. 

I’ve written about this elsewhere, but the Pentateuch as awhole is really an entrance ramp onto that central, important period of timewhen the Israelites are in the land. That’s where I think all this is going. 

We’ve got six plus chapters. They can be divided into two parts. The one is the actual departure from Egypt itself.  That starts in 13:17. It goes to the end ofChapter 15, 15:21.  Then the journey toSinai, which picks up at 15:22 and goes to the end of Chapter 19.

These six chapters have some pretty well-known stories inthem.

First, let’s look at some highlights from part one, thedeparture from Egypt across the Red Sea. One thing to note is that we have two versions of the same event.  We have a prose version, which is 13:17through Chapter 14.   Then the poeticversion, which is in 15:1-21.

This is similar, if you’re familiar with the book of Judges,in Chapters 4 and 5, we also have a prose version and a poetic version of theexploits of the judge Deborah.  The poetry,the poetic version, is, according to biblical scholars who study Hebrew, it iscertainly older.  At least, the core ofit is older, if not the whole thing. There are reasons for saying that. That becomes important in a minute when we get into Chapter 15 becauseof the kinds of things that it says.

This is just a reminder to us that we have, here again, aswe have so often in the Bible, evidence of different traditions that areprobably written or originated orally in different times and places, and herewe have editors at a later time putting them together, just back-to-back.

It’s like Genesis 1 and 2. You have two creation stories and they are back-to-back, edited togetherand left there, even they don’t say exactly the same thing.

Let’s look at that prose, the narrative version first.  That’s the first one that pops up in 13 and14.  They depart from Egypt and Yahwehmakes them look lost in order to pick a fight with Pharaoh.  The people freak out (Israelites) and Goddrives back the Red Sea to open an escape route.  The Israelites pass through safely, but theEgyptians drown and they wash up on the shore. That’s how the story goes.  Veryfamous story.

One thing to note is that Pharaoh was all ready to let themgo.  He had been convinced after the lastplague.  He said finally, “Just go.  I don’t want to see you again.  Just get out of here.”  He was ready to let them go, and he did.  But God wants Pharaoh to follow theIsraelites.  God hardens Pharaoh’sheart.  You see it in Chapter 14, verse 8and 17, and especially 17 is explicit that the purpose of the hardening is sothat the Egyptians will follow the Israelites. It’s hard to pass over the fact that God wants them dead.

As harsh as that is, and I think it is harsh, we can offer acontextual, theological explanation.  Bycontextual, I mean the groove of the story itself up to this point.  We can read this drowning of the Egyptianarmy in the Red Sea as tit-for-tat, payback for another Pharaoh drowning theIsraelite male infants in the Nile way back in Chapter 1.  Also, “You’ve been treating my peopleharshly,” says Yahweh, “so I’m going to treat your people harshly.”  Although, I still wonder if this is necessaryto drown them.  How about just lettingthe sea close up so they can’t cross. But they drowned.  That’s how thestory goes.

This is an example of violence in the Bible and it raises some eyebrows, notjust for today, but this is a story that has made people think for quite awhile.  It’s caused a lot ofconsternation for one of my own children. When she was very young, she came home from Sunday School and this wasthe story and she came home just very, very upset, asking, “What kind of a godis this?  Aren’t these God’s childrentoo?  Why does God do stuff like this?” 

This is not the Bible’s best moment, in my opinion.  But this is how the might and power of God isexpressed in an ancient tribal context. Your god is great because your enemies are destroyed before you.

Some of you know how I handle this sort of divine violence,not as a depiction of what really happened, or not as a depiction of what Godis really like, but as a depiction of ancient people of faith, true ancientpeople of faith, albeit in a tribalistic, Iron Age society—the Iron Age startedin 1200 BCE and goes well into the first millennium BCE.  That’s the basic time of Israel’s existenceas a people is during the Iron Age.  Thisis how people in the Iron Age expressed their faith, expressed theirunderstanding of the gods or of God. This is what gods did.  They go tobattle.

Remember, way back in the first episode, along with mostbiblical scholars, I said that I don’t think Exodus is a historical account,even if it preserves an ancient, historical memory, as biblical scholars liketo call it.  I don’t think we would seethis if someone had been videotaping, so to speak.  This reflects an ancient understanding ofancient Israelites about what their god is like.  That’s my opinion.  That’s how I “get out of it.”  But I’m not trying to get out ofanything.  I’m trying to understand it.

If you’re interested, you can see some blog posts that I’vewritten on violence.  You can just type,“violence” in the search bar or in an earlier chapter in The Bible Tells Me So,I deal with biblical violence as I understand it.  It’s the number one question I get from youngpeople today.  That and humansexuality.  Those are the things thatthey really want to talk about.

09:30

Another thing about this prose narrative section.  The Israelites see the Egyptians coming andthey grumble and they complain. Basically, “we could have died just as easily in Egypt, Moses.  Why bring us all the way out here to justtrap us at the sea?” 

Then Moses says something interesting that I think is oftenmisunderstood, which is why I want to bring it up.  He basically says, “Don’t be afraid.  After today, you’ll never see these Egyptiansagain.”  I’m quoting verse 14 of Chapter14.  “The Lord will fight for you.  You only have to keep still.”  That’s not a soothing word.  It’s typically interpreted, “There,there.  Just calm your hearts.  God will take care of everything.  Just be still and know that I am God,” as weread in the Psalms.  “The Lord will fightfor you, but just chill.”

I don’t think that’s at all what Moses is saying in thisstory.  This is a rebuke.  “The Lord will fight for you.  You need to keep your mouth shut.  You need to stop complaining.”  This is the first of many rebukes of Mosesthat we’re going to see toward the Israelites in Moses’ lifetime.  This is the real beginning of this grumblingtheme that we’re going to see a lot of. 

He’s not making them feel calmed about this.  He’s just saying, “Just shut up.  You’ve seen plagues, the Red Sea open, forheaven’s sake, and you’re still complaining. Come on.” 

Another thing.  Thisconcerns the actual parting of the Red Sea. This is in verse 21.  The Red Seais really the Sea of Reeds.  That’s whatit says in Hebrew.  Where the Sea ofReeds is a topic of a lot of discussion among people who look for these sortsof things.  Is it a lake?  Is it a marsh or something like that?  But the reason why we say Red Sea in ourEnglish translations is that this has to do with influence of Greek translatorsof the Bible before the time of Jesus.

There was a little bit of confusion about what body of waterwas actually represented by this term “red sea.”  If you look at a map today of the modernMiddle East and where it says “Red Sea,” it’s this massive body of water,that’s not what anybody meant.  It’s hardto know exactly what they meant, when they said “Red Sea” back in this Greek period.

In the biblical text, the Hebrew text, it says, “Sea ofReeds,” but again, we don’t know where that is either.  All that to the side.  The parting of the Red Sea echoes thecreation story.  This is the theologicalpoint I want to make.  Moses stretchedout his hand with the staff, and an East wind divided the waters of the Red Seaand they parted.

Now wind—the Hebrew word is “ruach,” which means “spirit” or“wind” and that’s the same “ruach” of Genesis 1 that is hovering over the“deep.”  What’s the “deep?”  The deep is the primordial sea at the dawn ofcreation that God has to tame, that God has to put in its place to allow forlife to appear.  The wind drives backwater giving life.  That’s the same inboth the Genesis creation story of Genesis Chapter 1 and this parting of thesea here in Exodus. 

The wind, “it turned the sea to dry land”—I’m quotinghere.  “And the waters weredivided.”  It’s better to think of thewaters as not maybe divided, although that’s fine, but as pushed back, pushed outof the way, revealing the dry land beneath, which is also the language inGenesis Chapter 1.  The third day ofcreation, it’s the same thing.  Thewaters were divided, revealing the dry land beneath.

In both stories, waters are separated, pushed aside,revealing what was there all the time: dry land.  In other words—this is getting into Genesis 1a little bit more than you’re paying for here—in Genesis 1, this is why it’snot creation out of nothing.  What youhave is a “deep,” a massive chaotic water that God divides and splits,revealing the dry land, i.e., the earth beneath it.  Those things were already there in GenesisChapter 1.

Actually, Genesis Chapter 1 makes no sense unless weunderstand the ideology of the ancient Israelites here and how they thoughtabout what a creator god does.  It’s notout of nothing.  That comes later.  It’s in the Bible.  It’s just not here.

Think of taking a leaf blower to a big puddle on a sidewalkafter a heavy rain.  The water is pushedaside by the wind, by the force of the leaf blower, and the sidewalk isrevealed, that’s always been there underneath. That’s what’s happening in Genesis 1 and in Exodus 14 in the parting ofthe sea. 

Now the point—we touched about this is a couple of earlierepisodes—the point is that God’s act of redemption, here crossing the Red Sea,is a replay of God’s act of creation, which is to say, redemption (saving,delivering, redeeming) is an act of re-creation.  Hang with me.

As with the plagues, parting the sea is getting creation involvedin saving God’s people and destroying the enemies of God’s people.  In the flood, you have the waters of theupper atmosphere above the vault, above that dome, those waters are let go andthey come crashing down to defeat the bad guys, which is basically everybodybut Noah and his family.

That’s what’s happening too, here in the Exodus story inChapter 14.  These waters are againseparated and just like the flood story, they come crashing back downagain.  But Israel, or Noah, are notaffected negatively.  They’re actuallydelivered through that.  To save is tocreate again.  We here echoes of that inthe New Testament.  I know I’ve mentionedthis, but just very briefly I want to mention it again, because I think it’s soimportant theologically, in the New Testament we see echoes of this.  For example, where Paul says, “if anyone isin Christ, there is a new creation.” 

To be saved means to start anew and to use the language ofJohn’s gospel, that you’re “born again.” You’re starting over.  You have anew start.  Which is certainly what ishappening here at the Red Sea.  Israel isbeing transformed, re-created from a group of slaves and now beginning to beformed into what it’s going to become, namely a nation.

Having said all that, it’s still a really violentstory.  Let’s not cover over that.  But there are theological things happeningthere as well.  Speaking of violence,let’s turn to Chapter 15 here, the poetic version of the Red Sea crossing.

For one thing—I alluded to this before—this may be one ofthe oldest pieces of Israelite literature we have, because of the Hebrewstyle.  Scholars can tell where we are instages of the evolution of biblical Hebrew.

17:05

Biblical scholars—this is routine.  This is very early.  This is not written during the monarchy, butprobably going back to before the time of David.  It could be that old, which is very old.  Here’s the thing:  this very, very old piece of ancient Hebrewliterature depicts God as a fierce warrior. It’s not uncommon to hear scholars muse that Israel’s view of God beganas one of being a warrior, understandably due to the cultural influences andthen the view of God grew to include other metaphors like gardener, planter,potter, law-giver, things like that.

Warrior might become less prominent, less harsh,perhaps.  God’s depiction might becomeless harsh.  I don’t want to paint thatin too simplistic a way, like there’s an evolution where God starts off as awarrior and ends as a tree-hugger.  But wedo have the earliest reflections of Israelite religion in these poeticsections.  There, God is a fierce, no-nonsense,take-no-prisoners warrior.

You come later to the book of Jonah, where God says, “Iactually have compassion on Israel’s enemies. I don’t want to kill them.”

Something is going on in this trajectory within the HebrewBible or Old Testament itself. 

So this song praises Yahweh for destroying his enemies bydrowning them in the sea.  For thatreason, Yahweh is praised as a god who has no equal, as we read in verse11.  “Who is like you, O Lord, among thegods?” 

Catch that there. “Among the gods.”  We have hereone of many examples, and you’ve heard this before, in the Old Testament ofIsrael’s belief that their god, Yahweh, was not the only god, but was the bestgod, the one truly worthy of worship. 

In fact, as I said before, that might be the point of the whole Pentateuch, tomake the case that Yahweh alone is worthy of Israel’s worship.  Israel does not practice—I have a whole blogpost series probably and a podcast from way back in Season 1 talking aboutthis—but Israel did not practice monotheism, at least through most of itshistory that we see in the Old Testament, but monolatry. 

The difference is this: monotheism means there’s only one god. Monolatry means you only worship one, but you acknowledge the existenceof others. 

We saw this is the plague story.  God is passing judgment on all the gods ofEgypt.  Exodus 12:12. What does thatmean?  Passing judgment on all the godsof Egypt?  It means—there’s an assumptionthere that there are other gods that Yahweh is passing judgment on.  If we miss this dynamic that Yahweh is betteror the best by far of all the other gods or if we try to step around it becausethe theology bothers us a bit, we’re gonna miss the theology of the book. 

Making the Israelites into monotheists here ispremature.  That happens later on inIsrael’s history.  I would say certainlyby the time you get to Jesus and well before that, we can call the Israelitesmonotheists.  Only one god exists.

The heavens might be active places, but they’re notgods.  But here, that’s not the case.  Making these Israelites here of Exodus intomonotheists just creates confusion in the story.   You can’t make sense of things like Exodus12:12, where Yahweh says he’s passing judgment on all the gods of Egypt.  I’ve beaten that dead horse enough.

20:57

Next point.  This songthat’s sung at the sea mentions something. It’s subtle.  It mentionssomething that doesn’t happen until much later in the biblical story.  Namely, I’m talking about verses 17 and 18.

Here’s how it begins: “You (Yahweh) brought them in andplanted them on the mountain of your possession, the place, O Lord, that youmade your abode.”  What is this mountainof your possession?  What is thisabout?  Maybe, it’s talking about MountSinai, because that’s where they’re going. They’re not there yet, but nearly so. Give it a couple chapters. They’ll be there.  Still in thepast tense, though. 

This raises another question.  Could it be referring to another mountain andanother abode all together?  Hang inthere.  Keep reading.  “The sanctuary, O Lord, that your hands haveestablished.”  The sanctuary.  The holy place.  What is that sanctuary?  Could it be Sinai?  Perhaps. It could be Mount Sinai.  Orperhaps another sanctuary entirely.

Keep reading.  Verse18 says this: “The Lord will reign forever and ever.”  From where? From the mountain?  From theabode?  From Mount Sinai?  Probably not, since Yahweh will leave foreverSinai when he goes with the Israelites into the Promised Land.  He doesn’t go back.  Yahweh doesn’t show up on Mount Sinai againand say, “I live here really.”  He’sgoing to live with Israel.  Where is he goingto live with Israel?  In the temple. 

In Old Testament theology, the language we see here fitsvery nicely with the ideology of the temple in Jerusalem as the sanctuary, theabode, the mountain.  Mount Zion.  The temple is on a mountain.  Theology, Mount Zion takes the place of MountSinai in Israelite theology.  It’s fromthere that Yahweh will rule.  Through thekings, but forever and ever. 

We see this language in various places in the Old Testament,including the Psalms and II Samuel 7.  Sowhat?  Well, for one thing, this illusionto the temple suggests that this ancient poem, as in pre-David, may have beenadded to as time went on to reflect Israel’s growing theology.  It’s developing theology.  In other words, this ancient poem, Chapter15, may have gotten its final shape after the Israelites were settled in theland with their own king and temple. 

Note that (and I hope that your English translations getthis because some don’t) the entire poem, all the stuff that talks about theExodus and all the stuff that seems to be talking about the conquest of theland and entering it and building a temple where Yahweh’s going to beworshipped, all that stuff is in the past tense.

For this writer, both the Exodus and the establishment ofthe monarchy and the religious life of the people, those things are pastevents.  I think that’s interestingbecause it suggests something, once again, of the dating or at least thegeneral time frame of when this stuff was written or when this poem, when thissong got its final form.  Probably wellinto the monarchy, if not later.

Again, it’s interesting. Some translations put the second half of this poem that talks about theland and the temple as future to avoid this kind of conclusion, but I thinkthat they’re wrong.  I think the Hebrewreally lends itself very naturally to just keep reading everything in the pasttense.  There is no indication that youshould switch to future in Hebrew when you get to this part.

Another so what.   Whyam I dragging this out?  I’m not draggingit out.  I think it’s reallyinteresting.  Another so what.

This is a huge issue because scholars routinely, and I thinkcorrectly, see the temple on Mount Zion as a replacement for Mount Sinai.  The temple mount replaces Mount Sinai.  Or perhaps, as is more commonly thought amongbiblical scholars, maybe it’s the other way around.  Maybe Sinai is the later Israelite templebrought back into ancient mythic time.  Howis that for a mouthful?

Which came first?  Thedepiction of Mount Sinai as a sanctuary, as an abode, as a holy mountain andthen the temple is modeled after that? Or is the temple there first and then the stories of Sinai are writtenin such a way to reflect that later glory of the temple?  Which came first? 

That’s a lot to wrap our arms around.  That’s actually a few podcast episodes all byitself.  I only bring it up here becauseit might help to explain the ambiguity of verses 17 and 18.  You’re reading it, and what are we talkingabout?  Sinai?  Or Zion? That’s a good question.  Maybethat ambiguity is intentional.  Maybethey are both the same.

If you’re really motivated, I highly recommend a book by oneof my professors, John Levinson, called Sinaiand Zion.  The book is those twomountains, comparing them and how they’re analogous to each other.  It’s a fascinating book.

I should plug my own books, not somebody else’s.  What’s wrong with me?

26:45

Okay, a lot more to this.  Let’s move onto the second part, the journey to Sinai itself that begins at the end of 15and goes through 19. 

Here’s the big picture. After Moses’ song that we just went through, his sister Miriam and thewomen, they sing what looks like the same song and then they all head out tothe dessert where they are immediately thirsty and wonder why no one thoughtahead that this might be a problem.  Theyare in the wilderness, for heaven’s sake. 

They take a couple of drinks in a couple of specialplaces.  Then they receive the manna fromheaven, the bread from heaven.  Manna isthe Hebrew word, “manna,” which means “what is it?”  Because that’s what the Israelites said.  I might say, “What the heck is this?” but Idon’t think there is a Hebrew word for that. “What is this stuff that lands like dew on the ground?  We’re supposed to eat it?  Come again. What is this stuff?”

27:42 BREAK

29:10

Next, after that, they get a miraculous supply of water froma rock just in time to ward off an attack from the Amalekites.  Where did they come from?  This is the first battle.  Things are moving rather quickly here in thisstory.

Next, they keep moving. They’re going toward Mount Sinai. Next, Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, shows up and he advises Moses to gethelp “herding the cats,” so to speak, judging the people, adjudicating differences,things like that. 

You might be asking what Jethro’s doing there.  Remember, he is where?  He is from Midian.  On the way to Sinai, we are close to Midian,it seems.  That is—I touched on this inthe first episode—Mount Sinai, in the logic of the story, seems to be inMidian, not in the Sinai Peninsula way south at Saint Catherine’s Monastery.  Look on a study Bible map.  It seems to be some place in Midian.  That’s the logic of the story.

Finally, after three months, they reach Sinai and the peopleare consecrated by going through a cleansing ritual, because they’re going toneed this powerful god who defeated the Egyptian pantheon and the army by allthese signs and wonders.

That’s the gist of what’s happening in the end of 15 through 19. 

Just a few highlights:

First, water and food are going to be a problem because weare in the wilderness.  We actually seetwo miraculous supplies of water.  Thefirst is turning the bitter waters in Mara into sweet water.  It happens to be that “Mara” in Hebrew means“bitterness.”  This story is often seenby scholars as a story written to explain some phenomenon, in this case, whythis location is called “bitterness,” of all the things to call a town.  Why call it “bitterness?” 

The story is written to explain that.  We know of stories like this too.  Where do things like sickness, death and evilcome from?  Pandora opened the box.  Adam and Eve ate a piece of fruit.  These are stories that are called etiologicalstories that seem to be written to explain why things are the way they are.

Why is the Grand Canyon so deep?  Because Paul Bunyan and his ox had awrestling match.  It’s a story written,told to explain a phenomenon.  That mightbe what’s happening with this site, “Mara,” calling it “bitterness.”  This story of making the bitter water sweetby throwing a branch in there.

The second miraculous supply of water happens at a placecalled Rephidim.  This is in chapter17.  The people grumble again, whichmakes sense, because they had gotten a drink at Mara and at another placecalled Elim, which is an oasis.  But now,they left those places and they still need water.  So they complain.  Again, “Moses, what are you trying todo?  Kill us?” 

Moses is told by God to strike the rock to let water flowout of it which he does.  Moses promptlygives the place two names:  Massa andMeribah, which mean “test”—they’re testing God—and “quarrel.”  Again, possibly stories to explain howlocations got their names.  Possibly.

Here’s the thing: water, for the Israelites, presented more of problem for them than foodbecause in between these two water stories, the waters of Mara and the watersof Rephidim, in between these two stories, God gives them bread from heaven,the manna to eat.  That manna is promisedby God to come every morning dew, except on the Sabbath, so gather twice asmuch the day before. 

Side issue:  gatheringbread on the Sabbath would be work and you don’t do work on the Sabbath eventhough there’s no Sabbath command given until Chapter 20.  I just wonder, in the logic of the story,were the people thinking, “What’s a—what do you mean Sabbath?  Where did that come from?”  Or are we seeing, again, the story writtenfrom a later point of view where Sabbath-keeping was already a thing.

Questions that are really hard to answer definitively, butI’m intrigued enough to ask them because they let us in a little bit on thenature of this literature.

The manna is a daily gift from God for the entire 40 yearsthey wandered in the wilderness.  Itdoesn’t cease until they come to the borders of Canaan.  We read that in 16:35. It’s also stated inJoshua Chapter 5.  In other words, itceases after they’ve entered the land. They have bread to eat for 40 years. Great!

34:19

No such permanent supply of water is given in thisstory.  They’re left to wander, maybestress out about all that.  Not to getoff the track, but again, this is so intriguing again to me.  This is the kind of stuff that reading Exodusjumps out at me as I read it. 

We see a close version of this very same story of gettingwater from a rock in Numbers Chapter 20. That’s toward the end of Israel’s 40 years in the wilderness.  There, too, water comes from a rock.  Ancient Jewish interpreters—this is beforethe time of the New Testament—perhaps also wondering why there was no dailyprovision of water, came up with a rather ingenious solution.  The rock of Exodus 17 that gave water and therock of Numbers 20 that gave water, though they’re separated by 40 years andlocated in completely different places, were one in the same rock, which hadapparently rolled around the wilderness for 40 years supplying water, like aportable water fountain.

One reason I find that so fascinating is because Paul, ourvery own Paul, in I Corinthians, seems to be aware of this rather creativeexplanation and even drops it into Chapter 10, verse 4 of I Corinthians.  He recalls this episode of the Israelites inthe wilderness and he talks about how the rock back in Moses’ day wasChrist.  Paul is trying to say thatChrist’s presence was with them too.  Avery Paul thing to say.  A very NewTestament thing to say.

Note that Paul doesn’t just say the rock was Christ making aChristological connection.  He says “therock that followed them,” followed the Israelites was Christ.  Followed. He got that idea from somewhere. He got it from his Jewish tradition.

I know we’re just biting off a big chunk off to the side here.  If you’re interested, I talk more about thisin the Bible Tells Me So.  Sorry for thedeviation, but I just love looking at how Jewish the New Testament writers werewhen they used their Bible, what Christians call the Old Testament.  It’s actually this story, specifically, thatstarted me down a different path over 30 years ago, about thinking about howthe Bible actually works and what it is and how we read it.

One more comment on the manna.  Let’s pause there for one more second.  We’re told that they’re to gather an omer ofmanna per day, two omers on the day before the Sabbath so you can eat for twodays. 

An omer is a unit of measurement.  It’s about one to two liters.  Frankly, that’s no help to me because I’mAmerican and my phone app says that a cubic liter is about a half drygallon.  My point is that Exodus 16:36seems like it needs to explain what an omer is. Because this is what Exodus 16:36 says. It says, “An omer is a tenth of an ephah.”  An ephah is about 23 liters or somewhere betweenfive to six gallons. 

Could I pick a more boring verse to mention?  I don’t think so.  Not for me anyway.  An omer is a measurement known to us onlyfrom this story.  The ephah is the morecommon measurement in the Old Testament used over 30 times.  We’re seeing here, again, a clue about whenthis story was written.  It seems thestory of omers of manna being gathered preserves something of the past, maybethe deep past from the point of view of the later biblical writer. 

He needed to explain what that was to his readers, who livedat a time when ephah was the measurement used. In other words, we’re seeing here in this little editorial comment ahint of how these biblical stories have a history.  Maybe they’ve developed and they’ve evolvedand things needed to be added as things were handed down.  It’s like us reading in the New Testament—maybeyou’ve come across this—we have footnotes that explain a denarius, a unit ofcoinage.  A denarius is about a day’swage.  That’s what my study Bible says.

Today, a day’s wage—I actually Googled this—an averagelaborer’s day’s wage today is $14.57 an hour which is $116.56 cents a day.  It actually helps to know that a littlebit.  A denarius is about a day’swage.  What was a day’s wage?  What would it be for us?  It helps us to put it into context.  Because simply to say denarius—what do Icare?  I don’t even know what thatmeans.  Oh, it’s about what a workermakes in a day.  $15 an hour.  $120. Okay.  I get it.

So much for food and water.

39:45

Another point.  ThisIsraelites right away find themselves in a battle against the Amalekites.  This is in Chapter 17, verses 8 to 16.  For one thing, it’s worth asking whence theIsraelites got their weapons.  Exodusdoes say earlier in the story that they left Egypt with plunder, likes clothesand valuables.  It’s really unlikely thatthe Egyptians would have decked them out in military gear.  I don’t think I’m crazy for suggesting that.

One explanation for where they got their armor and theirswords and their shields from—one explanation that ancient Jewish interpreterscame up with is that the Israelites stripped the armor and the weapons off ofthe Egyptian soldiers whose dead bodies washed up on the shore of the Sea ofReeds.

That actually makes some sense if you think about it.  It’s worth noting that the story itselfdoesn’t seem at all concerned about with filling in this logical gap.  I don’t think the writer actually cared verymuch.

I also think that a story about an Amalekite battle heremight be for the purpose of giving the later reader something to chew on seeingthat the Amalekites were enemies during the times of David and Saul, in theirattempts to unify Israel around a monarchy.

I’m willing to think more about that, to entertain thatpossibility.  I have a feeling that thismay be more complicated than what we’ve seen before, reading Israel’s laterhistory back into an earlier time.  TheAmalekites have been around for a long time. I don’t think this is a made-up thing. But there may be something more to it than what I’m seeing.  Again, we do see this sort of thingelsewhere, where a writer places something of his present back in thepast.  In other words, I don’t know, butit is curious that the first thing that happens when they come into the land isthat they have a battle with the Amalekites. It’s not just that they have a battle, however we explain that, thestory also serves a purpose of a couple things: 1) introducing Joshua as Moses’ general and he plays a huge role lateron in the conquest of Canaan.  I see thisas a bridge between the Egypt experience and then the later experience inCanaan.  We have here Joshua teaming upwith Moses, so-to-speak, bringing an end to an enemy.  Joshua is going to be that bridge for thepeople between the Egypt experience and then later, the conquest of Canaan.

Let me elaborate on that a little bit more.  Again, I think it’s important.  We have to look at how they win the battle atall, this whole deal of how they win the battle.  Moses climbs a hill and he stands there withhis arms raised.  You know thisstory.  I’ve heard many sermons onthis.  As long as his arms are up, theIsraelites are winning.  When they dropdown, they begin to lose.  So brotherAaron and some guy named Hur, who will appear later in this story, they seewhat’s happening.  They rush over to helpMoses.  They have him sit down on a rockand they prop up his arms with rocks.  Bysunset, the Amalekites were defeated.

Frankly, folks, that’s a little bit weird.  Some commentaries say that this seemssomewhat magical almost.  One way oflooking at this is that Moses was holding his staff in his raised arms.  It’s not mentioned, so I want to be verycautious about that.  When we’re thinkingabout that, he’s holding his staff in his raised arms.  That’s why his arms are raised.  He has a staff.

In other words, this is another Egypt-like miracle whichmakes some sense since the Amalekites are playing an Egypt-like role in tryingto squash the Israelites, even when their god was with them and had otherplans. 

The power that delivered them from Pharaoh will also nowdeliver them from the Amalekites, who would also be the god who delivers themfrom the Canaanites.  Joshua and Mosesare in this Amalekite episode.  It’s justMoses in Egypt.  It’s just Joshua inCanaan.  But here, the two aretogether.  It’s like a continuation ofthe promise that the warrior god will continue being with them in fightingbattles. 

“Moses isn’t here. That’s okay.  Joshua is.  He was with Moses before.  They’re tight.  So it will be good.”

It’s still weird. This whole battle depends on Moses not getting tired.  The best explanation that I come up with iswhat I just said.  I think this is anextended Egypt-like experience where the staff comes into play and as a result,the sign and the wonder is done.  It’s abetter explanation.  It’s the one that Igo with.  It’s better, in any case, thansome more common explanations like Moses’ arms were raised in prayer toGod.  There’s nothing in the context thathints at that at all.  Or a popularChristian explanation is that Moses’ arms were raised like Jesus’ arms wereraised on the cross.

On one level, I think that’s fine.  It’s well-attested in church history.  It’s fine for Christians to bring these storiesand Jesus together like this.  But thatdoesn’t really help me what the writer here is trying to communicate.  I don’t think he’s saying, “Let’s slipsomething in here about Jesus.”  It meanssomething to them.  Again, as I said,perhaps this is an extension or continuation of Exodus power at this moment.

45:45

But it’s still one of the weirder episodes in Exodus, alongwith God almost killing Moses right after he had told him to go to Egypt anddeliver the Israelites, back in Chapter 4. These are just weird things that happen in Exodus.

Another point here in this second big section on the way toSinai, just a quick comment on Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law.  Moses and the Israelites are close to Sinaiin Midian.  Jethro comes out to meet themwith Moses’ wife and two sons.  This isin 18:6. They had been staying apparently with Joseph (ITHINK YOU MEAN JETHRO) whileMoses was busy at work. 

Early inChapter 4, we hear of just one son, Gershom. Now, we see he has a second son, Eliezer.  Fine. Not a big deal.  Just didn’tmention Eliezer.  Who cares?  But there is actually a bigger problem here.

According toExodus 4:20 in that story where God almost kills Moses, we read there thatMoses’ wife, Zipporah, and their one son were with Moses on his way toEgypt.  That’s when the angel of the Lordalmost attacks them and kills Moses. They weren’t with Jethro in Midian. They were with Moses on the way to Egypt.

It seems herein this boring little detail that we’re seeing evidence of multiple traditionsof the Exodus story that were respected enough to be woven together in themaking of this book we have before us today. As is usually the case, the fact that the traditions don’t line up witheach other doesn’t seem to bother the editor at all.  I want to suggest it shouldn’t botherus.  It should be a window to helping usunderstand the nature of this literature. 

Here’sMoses.  He tells Jethro all that hadhappened in Egypt, which is a nice development in their relationship.  You remember when he left Jethro, Mosescouldn’t quite bring himself to tell Jethro the truth of why he was leaving,which is to say, “God told me to leave to deliver the Israelites.” 

Moses justmumbled something about needing to see how his kindred were doing.  “I’ve got to check in on my family”(4:18).  Now Moses puts it out there.  He’s just got this feeling ofconfidence.  He puts it out there like ason-in-law who earned his stripes and now, his father-in-law can be proud ofhim.  By the way, I have a son-in-law andwas a son-in-law myself.  I get this.  Anybody who’s lived this can understand.

It’s likethey’ve reached a new stage in their relationship where shy and unconfident Mosesfeels like, “Sure.  I stared downPharaoh.  I stood there and watched thesea split in half.  I think I can handleJethro.”  “Hey Jethro.  Let me tell you what’s been going on.” 

How doesJethro react?  He’s blown away enough toconfess Yahweh as greater than all the gods. Again, another monolatry thing.

Not so fastMoses.  Right after that, Moses, we read,is burned out from judging disputes between the Israelites who apparently forma line outside his door from morning to night. Jethro sees what’s going on.  Maybethis is actually too much for Moses.  Hetells him, “Well, looks like you could use some help there, Pal?  You should get some able men to help youdivide the tasks and leave you to handle only the most important ones.  Not feeling so big now, are you Moses?” 

I’m not sureif that family dynamic is central to this episode.  I know some friends of mine who think thisstory is a prooftext for how God ordained Presbyterian church government.  You have a head pastor surrounded by his maleelders.  Maybe. 

Maybe the biggestpoint of this story is that this bureaucracy of Israel is the brainchild of anon-Israelite, a priest of Midian, Jethro. Israel seems to owe a lot to Midian. After all, that’s where God’s mountain is.  There’s something about Midian that’simportant for the origin of the Israelites religion.

Scholars havelong wondered whether the origin of Israel’s religion, which historically is avery complicated thing and very mysterious thing, might owe something to Midianin the deep south, with respect to where Israel is, alongside of other storiesthat the Israelites preserved.  Liked ourancestor Jacob was a wondering Aramean. This is more in the north.  Youcan see this in Deuteronomy 26:6. Or if they were from the far east in the landof Babylon.  That’s where Abraham isfrom.  Or as we read here in this story,some connection historically, some rootage in the land of Egypt.

This story ofIsrael in the Old Testament seems to suggest that Israelites have variouspoints of ancestry and that were later united under Yahweh’s banner.  Maybe. I think that’s true.  To me, thatexplanation makes the most sense. 

In thisstory, the only point is that Midian is very prominent in this ancient tellingof the story of the departure from Egypt.

Moving towardthe end here.

They allreach Sinai three months to the day after they left Egypt.  Two things strike me.  First, even those God rules all the earth, aswe read, Israel is God’s special possession and their role will be to be a—thisis in verse 6 of Chapter 19—their role will be to be a priestly kingdom and aholy nation.  I think this is huge.

This meansthat Israel’s purpose, already here in the story, is to be priestly, to mediatebetween God and who?  The nations.  Feel free to think back to the story ofAbraham in Chapter 12 where Abraham is called. Abraham will have an influence on the nations themselves. 

Here you haveit.  You’re to be a priestly kingdom anda holy nation.  That’s why you’rehere.  That was the plan anyway.  They were rescued from Egypt, not to go free,but to become holy, which means “set apart for special purposes.”  It’s not about moral perfection.  To act as priests mediating God to thenations around them.  A priestly kingdomand a holy nation.  Those aren’t twoseparate things.  They’re actually two partsof one role.

That’s whyit’s so tragic in Israel’s story as we read on in the Old Testament.  Rather than mediating God to the nations,Israel, through its kings, winds up becoming a problem that God needs to solvesomehow.  In some cases, He doesn’t solveit at all.  The northern tribes, thenorthern kingdom go to Assyria and never come back.  The southern tribe of Judah goes into exilein Babylon and comes back and has to rebuild, but never really does.

This plan tobe a priestly kingdom and a holy nation doesn’t work out very well.   But that was the plan.

53:50

Another pointhere.  It seems that no one is to touchthe mountain itself.  “Keep yourdistance.”  In fact, they’re to washtheir clothes and to abstain from sex to prepare to meet God.  At a distance.

Now Moses, ofcourse, may go up the mountain.  He cango to the top, but only he.  The holinessof the mountain must be protected.  Ionly mention this here because a little later in the story, in fact, I mentionit in the next episode of this podcast series, we will see more clearly how theholy mountain is marked off in segments, three to be specific, which reminds usof the Tabernacle, which is also the model for the temple later on during thetime of the monarchy.

Hangingaround the outside of the sanctuary at a distance is fine.  Say the temple.  Only priests can enter the next stage, theholy place.  But into the holy of holies,the third stage, only one may enter: the high priest. 

Moses here onMount Sinai is like a high priest entering God’s most sacred presence.  You may remember that Chapter 6 which is sortof a boring chapter because there is a genealogy in it, but it makes a big dealof letting you know that Moses and Aaron are from the tribe of Levi, thepriestly tribe.  Here, we’re beginning tosee why.

We also seehere what is glimpsed earlier in the song of Moses in Chapter 15, that thetemple and Sinai are closely connected. To speak of one is to speak virtually of the other.  Both are marked off in segments of approachability. 

In Chapter19, Moses is spending some time hearing from God on the top of MountSinai.  He is about to come down and tellthe people what he heard and what God wants from them and what God is going todo for them.  But that is the topic ofthe next episode, where we look at the section of law in the book of Exodus.

55:57  MUSIC

All rightfolks, thanks again for listening to another episode here of the Exodusseries.  I appreciate you listening andpressing download and all that stuff again. Just a quick reminder, the “pay what you want class” discussing Genesisis September 23.  Also, I’ll be atEvolving Faith October 4 and 5 in Denver, CO. Tickets are still available.  Ihope you can make it. 

All rightfolks, thanks so much for listening.  Seeyou next time.

[/bg_collapse]