Old Testament: Morality Tale?

0:02 Looking at our world from a theological perspective. This is the Theology Central podcast, making Theology Central. Good afternoon, good early evening everyone. It is Friday, December sixth, twenty twenty four. It is currently five point thirty seven pm Central Time, and I am coming to you live from the Theology Central studio located right here in Abilene, Texas. Now, if you listen to a lot of sermons, I will argue that over and over again. When it comes to historical narratives in the Bible, I say, you find us mainly and well, I don't say mainly, you find it a lot in the Old Testament. Any of the historical narratives in the Old Testament, I think people I think they do the same thing with some of the Gospels and the Book of Acts. But wherever you have something written as a narrative in any way, shape or form, I say a time and time again, I think this is fairly common. I don't think anyone could argue with me too much. I think pastors have a tendency to take parts of the Old Testament, parts of the New Testament, anything that's more like in a narrative format, and they will preach it and they will teach it as if it's a morality tell, a morality tell. And I'm going to challenge that approach to preaching and to Bible interpretation,

1:32 because I don't believe the Bible was written to serve as a morality tale. I think when we approach that, we handle the text that way, approach it that way, read it that way, I think we do great damage to actually a true understanding of scripture. That's going to be my hypotheses. The Bible should not be read as a morality tale. It should not be preached as a morality tell. I will argue that most kids who grow up in church and go to Sunday school, Sunday school class, after Sunday school class, after Sunday school class, are Bible stories taught as morality tales, which then absolutely destroys those kids' ability to ever truly understand the Bible. I will say that in most cases, the children's ministries and most churches are actually hurtful and damaging the children's ability to understand the scriptures as they get older. I think if you take most kids who are raised in the church and ask them about Christianity and ask them about the Bible.

2:43 They will start talking about the Bible as a morality tale. They'll start talking about Christianity as basically just moralism, as just a system of morality. Do this, don't do this, do this, don't do this, This is bad, this is good, don't do this, don't say that. And it's all about does and don't. It's morality, morality, morality, and every Bible story is just a morality tell. And I think that that's actually destructive. I think that that's actually counterproductive to having people form the ability or to develop the ability to actually read and study the Bible. Now, I know immediately I'm gonna get some pushback on this, but I think it's a problem now for those who don't know it and know a good definition of what a morality tell is. Let me explain. A morality tell is a story that conveys a moral message or lesson, often by illustrating the consequences of good and bad behavior. Morality tales are characterized by simple plots and relatable characters. Morality tells use these to make complex ideas accessible and memorable. Typically, within a morality tell, not only do you have simple plots and relatable characters, you have a protagonist with a moral compass. The protagonist is either seeking redemption or wants

4:14 to silence their inner conscience. Number three, you have a focus on the consequences of choices. The story focuses on the choices to act on behalf of ourselves or others, and the consequences of that choice. Now, I will think that as soon as you start hearing that definition, many of you are going to be like, well, the Bible is one big morality tell because we have these stories that have simple plots, relatable characters. Right, they take maybe these big philological ideas, but they make them more accessible and rememorable. I mean pastors do that all the time. There's some philological point or point they want to make and that they're teaching from the New Testament. They'll go to the Old Testament. Take one of the stories to then make the story quote unquote accessible or memorable. Take to take the philological idea and make it accessible and memorable by using an Old Testament story. So many would be like, well, this describes the Bible. It has a protagonist with a moral compass. See, people will go to the Bible. Oh, here's our protagonists, here's the good guy in the story. It's David, it's this man, it's this man, it's Abraham, it's Moses. Right, And so then we teach this morality tell using this character. The story focus. The stories focus on the consequences of the choices. The story focuses on the choices to act on behalf of ourselves or others, and the consequences of that choice. So they're like, hey,

5:45 this person had this choice to make. Here's the choice they made. And so you can see that, at least to one level. You could say, well, the Bible is a morality tell, But I think that's us reading. We've been so brought up on morality details that we just read the Bible in that way, And I don't know if that's the right way to read the stories. Morality tells were commonly used in early forms of information dissemination to teach values in ethics. They have remained a strong influence in literature, inspiring modern works. Yeah, it has been a major influence on literature, and I will argue it's been a major influence within christiendom. Sunday school teachers just want to turn Sunday school into a morality tale. Moralism moralism, and I don't know if that's the correct way to understand the Bible. Now we have been talking about now for a number of hours. First Samuel chapter twenty six.

6:51 Right we started reviewing a sermon. We didn't make it all the way through it. And remember this pastor took First Samuel twenty six, which is a story of Saul hunting down David. He wants to destroy David. He wants to kill David. He has about three thousand men with him and they find a place to camp, right, they need a place to camp, so they're camping out. David finds out that Saul is coming into the wilderness after him. He sends some spies. They figure out, oh, that's where Saul is camping out. David takes someone. They go into the camp. All the men are asleep. David just walks into the camp. They're all sleeping, three thousand men. Saul's a commander is there, Saul is there. David walks in and he finds Saul sleeping with the spear right there next to his head. And David has a choice. The person with David is like, hey, just take that spear, kill Saul. And this is over all of this dramas over.

7:46 This man's been hunting you, trying to kill you. You could end it. You could solve all your problems right now. And David doesn't do it. And so the sermon that we heard turned this into a hypothetical. Hey, what would you do if you're facing a situation where you could end all of your problems but you would have to sin to do so. And it turns it basically into a morality tale. David is the good guy. David didn't do it. We need to be like David, And it was basically preached that way. Well, there were all kinds of problems with the message, and we've taken them apart. But one of the issues is when I read it, I think it's a morality tale. I think it's a morality tale. So I wanted to see if I was correct.

8:29 And so what I did as I took the sermon, found the text file of the sermon, and I gave it to AI, and I asked AI to examine the sermon and tell me if this is an example of taking an old testament, a historical narrative and turning it into a morality tale. This is what AI said, Yes, the sermon in the attached file is an example of taking an Old Testament historical narrative and turning it into a morality tell. While this approach may be engaging and may provide practical application, it comes with a significant textual, logical, and philological problem or problems plural. So AI is like, yeah, a lot of this. This may be engaging, but guess what it's gonna It's gonna cause problems logically, philologically, it's gonna cause problems. What are the problems? Uh uh? Textual problems, Textual, logical, and thiological problems. When you approach the text as a morality tell, you create these problems. But most people in the church has no idea that these problems are occurring because they were especially if they were raised in the church.

9:46 They just think the Bible's one morality, big morality tell Anyway, So I said, Okay, we need to criticize this, we need to analyze this, we need to see how this is a problem. So let's start with the text textual problems. Right, So we have first Samuel twenty six. We have this story of Saul trying to kill David. Saul finds a place to camp David goes in, finds Saul sleeping there. He could take the spear, he could kill him. God is the one who put them all to sleep, which raises all kinds of questions. And then David doesn't do so, and he rides off and he's the hero because he didn't do this. Okay, great, Now what can we learn from it? We turn it into a morality tale. Well, if we do this from a textual perspective, the first thing we tend to do is we tend to ignore the historical context. So when we go to these stories and turn them into morality tales, we have a tendency to ignore the historical context. Now, some pastors will mention the historical context, but ultimately they ignore it to create their morality tell You see, the Old Testament historical narratives like First Samuel twenty six are rooted in specific cultural, covenantal and redemptive context. So you turn it into a morality tale, you basically then ignore the cultural as how it relates to the covenant or covenants and its redemptive context.

11:17 You see, when you turn the narrative into a general moral lesson, the sermon risks stripping the story of its historical and philological uniqueness. You destroy what the text is actually about. For example, David's refusal to harm Saul is tied to Saul's unique role as God's anointed king in Israel. There's a specific reason David doesn't do so. There's a very specific reason. This is God's anointed. Well, does the Old Testament have something that could possibly happen to David if he harms God's anointed? If he kills God's anointed? Could there have been consequences that David could face. We turn it into oh, Dave, it was just such a great guy. Was he a great guy? Or is he thought hmm? If I kill the Lord's anointed? What does that mean for me my future? Could I am I going to be king? I mean, nobody wants to talk about that, because see, that takes the the motive of David and turns it into maybe more questionable. See if we apply this directly to modern moral dilemmas fails to consider the specificity of the situation. See we forget, Well wait a minute, what so is David just like well, all authority is appointed by God, Therefore I can't do anything?

12:39 Or is he thinking hmm? The Bible may seem to make it very clear if I touch the Lord's anointed or if I kill the Lord's anointed, there could be problems. It is his. We liked it. We love to make Bible characters very one dimensional good guy, bad guy, good good motives, bad motives, and instead of seeing them as complex human beings with all kinds of different motivations, so we ignore the historical context. Another thing we do is we kind of start cherry picking details. Do we not see?

13:24 Morality tells focus on select details of the story while ignoring or minimizing others. For example, the sermon that we reviewed emphasizes David's restraint and sparing Saul, but does not account for David's failures in First Samuel twenty seven, which immediately follow and complicate the narrative. And First Samuel twenty seven, David's out there killing people. Oh, he would not kill Saul, but he's got no problem killing these other people. Hm, why see see a morality tail is not going to try to figure out that? Why? Well, we'll just yeah, no. When we preach for Samuel twenty seven, we're not now David's being bad. See now be like David in twenty six, but don't be like David in twenty seven. But wait a minute, why is David so so it seems he has no problem killing these people in twenty seven, but he can't kill Saul. That seems to indicate maybe there's something to his motivation here. I'm not saying there is.

14:23 I'm not saying there isn't. I'm saying that. Then a good sermon would be like, so, why do we think do we have any anything in the Bible that David may have been aware of that made him go, I can't kill Saul? And it would have been for more maybe selfish reasons than godly reasons, because he has no problem killing people in twenty seven. Yes. No, Now see when we do this, right, when we cherry pick details, this selective focus distorts the fuller picture of David's character, in God's work, in his life, you begin to actually, you begin to just destroy the actual picture that's being painted.

15:12 So when we turn the Bible into a moralitytail, we end up with textual problems. And the first thing we do is we ignore the historical context. And the second thing, we cherry pick details, which actually destroys what the text is actually say. Another thing I think we do when we turn it into our morality detail is I think we neglect the narrative's purpose. Now I think this is I think this is a key hermeneutical issue. Before you ever debate with anyone about some verses in the Bible, whenever you start, you know someone wants to argue and they want to quote some scripture. I think what you should do is just say time out before we argue about the scripture, Before we even argue about how to interpret this scripture, should we not ask what is the purpose of this particular chapter in which this scripture is found.

16:05 What is the particular purpose? What is this chapter actually trying to say? Because so many times we ignore the actual purpose of the narrative and we go to the text to make it say we use it for our own purpose. We can't bring our purpose to the text. The text had a purpose, what is it? That's what we have to discover. See Biblical narratives. I know this is going to come as a shock to all of the Sunday school teachers. Okay, but Biblical narratives are not primarily moral instruction. I know that goes against everything. Look, I know that look, even as a preacher when I was being taught to preach, I mean, that's how I kind of under you go. You got to outline the story, and you need three or four principles. And these principles are going to be like, do this, don't do this, do this, don't do this, do this. Everything is turned into moral instruction. Be better, don't do this, stop doing this.

17:06 But the reality, the biblical narratives are actually philological accounts meant to reveal God's character, his covenant purpose, and his redemptive work. See when you moralize the text, what happens The preacher is actually obscuring the narrative's true philological intent. Nobody knows the actual theological intent. No one knows the actual intent of the passage because we've turned it into a morality tale. First Samuel twenty six is not about how believers should resist sin under pressure, but it is about God's sovereignty and preserving David as his chosen king.

17:49 God has chosen David, God has made covenant promise, the dividic covenant. There's all these things surrounding David that that or it's going to come to play. Why we'd have to look at I'd have to go put it all in its proper historical or chronological order. But the point is we know ultimately God has chosen David, and from David, He's going to establish a dividic covenant from the line of David comes Christ. There's a specific purpose and reason. You can't just take David out and just try to make David like us. David is in a completely unique and special situation, just like the same thing with Israel over and over and over again, and a covenant relationship a unique situation. So when we turn it into our morality tail, we end up with textual problems. We end up ignoring the historical context, We actually cherry pick details, and we neglect the narrative's purpose. Then we run into logical problems. What happens is we oversimplify complex characters. We take complex character characters and we make them one dimensional.

18:53 We oversimplify them. See, when you turn the narrative into a morality tale, you reduce the complexity of these individuals and you just make them, you know, kind of into a just kind of into a one dimensional David is righteous, David is a good guy. Now there will be some text you'll say, David is a bad guy. But it's not that simple, is it. Saul is the bad guy, David is the good guy. That's just we have to establish who's the good guy, who's the bad guy. So this is an oversimplification of what this happen. What happens we begin to ignore the nuance of their humanity and their spiritual struggles. No, we can These are not one dimensional human beings. I know. We may have a little picture of them hanging up in the Sunday school classroom that we put up on a board, and we just reduce them to a little you know, flannel graphe a one dimensional person. These are complex human beings with good, bad, all kinds of motivations. David is shown as a model of moral restraint and sparing Saul, yet his despair and moral felings in First Samuel twenty seven are not addressed, creating an inconsistent portrait. Hey, David maybe looking like a great guy in First Samuel twenty six, but in twenty seven man, he's running for his life. He's scared, he doesn't trust God, and he kills people and he steals property.

20:24 Not such a good guy. Wa Wait, how do you reconcile that. Now you could take that and go hmm. Then I wonder what was it? Why would he not kill Saul? Then I'm just asking a hypothetical question. See if I go to twenty seven, if he's so quick to kill these people, why wouldn't he kill that person? Well, he wouldn't kill that person, he says, because he's the anointed. Well what was it about Saul being the anointed that kept David scared to kill? He had no problem killing other people, So what was it? There's something about the context here, There's something about the history here, there's something about the theology here that would help us better understand first Samuel twenty six. But in the sermon we reviewed, he didn't bother to go into any of that because it was a morality tale. So we end up with a logical problems because we oversimplify and we take these complex characters when we make them one dimensional. Another thing is we create false dichotomies. See the sermon that we listen to presents a binary choice either commit one sin and suffering, or remain faithful and endoor suffering. However, real life moral dilemmas are often far more complex. Involving mixed motives, unintended consequences, and limited options. Things are not always so simple.

21:43 We like to make the story, you know, very like this false dichotomy, very simple, very binary, very it's either this way or that way. And things are never that simple. It's always much more convoluted, messy and complicated. And I think we should the convoluted, the complex, and the messy in the Bible because then we are much more prepared to deal with the complicated, convoluted and messy in life. Don't reduce the Bible and make it into a one dimensional morality tale. Get into it where it's ugly and dirty and messy and confusing and confounding and frustrating and discouraging and depressing, and embrace all that it's there, because that's how life is. Ladies and gentlemen. But we've got to have good guys and bad guys. We'd have to.

22:33 We have to reduce everything to this the most simple form. Now, listeners, then what will happen to listeners when they hear us create these false diconomies. They begin to feel guilt or confusion when their own moral struggle struggles do not fit neatly into such dichotomies. So the listener hears us tell these morality tales, but then they get into life and it's not always so simple. It's much more complicated and confusing and convoluted, and so they feel guilt and shame and like, why can't it just be this simple? Because nothing, ever is another logical problem. So when we come to the logical problems, we've oversimplified these characters, we create false dichotomies, and then we begin to apply ancient situations to modern context, which really becomes majorly problematic. See the preacher assumes that David's historical situation is and now is basically like ours and our modern ethical dilemmas. It says, it's basically like, hey, here's David's situation. It's just like our own modern ethical dilemmas.

23:48 It's just the same. Well, this approach risks creating artificial parallels that do not hold up under scrutiny. David's refusal to kill Saul reflects a unique covenant relationship between God, David and Saul, which cannot be directly mapped onto modern scenarios like workplace conflicts or personal temptations. It's not the same. But we go to these ancient problems, these ancient situations, and we try to apply them to modern context. It may sound good in preaching. Everyone may write down the points, but it's not. It doesn't fit always. So there's the textual problems, there's the logical problems. What about the philological problems? Well, when we turn the Bible into a morality tale, is there not a danger of misrepresenting the Gospel? You see by focusing in First Samuel twenty six. If we focus on David as a moral example, the sermon risks sidelighting the Gospel's emphasis on grace and Christ's ultimate fulfillment of righteousness.

25:00 The narrative is used primarily to teach what we should do, rather than pointing to what God has done. See, hey, it turns into you should do this, and you should do this, not turn into well, God has done these things for us because we fel to do them. No, no, no, it always turns into what we should do. Works works, works, works, works works. The sermon frames david action as a model for resisting temptation, but the Gospel calls us to look to Christ, the only one who perfectly resisted temptation and fulfilled the law on our behalf. See, we're like, hey, hey, you sometimes you're gonna find the spear and you're gonna want to use it. You're gonna want to kill this or stab this or no, no, no, don't do that.

25:45 Be like David. David didn't do it well, and somehow that that's supposed to I guess, fix my sinful nature. Just remember David, who didn't take the spear and kill Saul. He's killing people in the very next chapter. So do you really want to say, David figure out how to overcome temptation. No, he kills a woman's husband later on. So just stop that. We always think, oh, this story shows us how to overcome temptation, does it? Because that character falls fifteen other different ways. Maybe what it demonstrates is that ultimately we have to look to Christ. So it could misrepresent the Gospel. It could create a kind of a fight between moralism versus grace. See the Sermon on First Samuel twenty six. It emphasized human effort moral decision making, which can lead to moralism. It can teach that human obedience is the key to our right relationship with God. This undermines the theilological truth that salvation and sanctification are works of God's grace. I'm right with God because of what Christ did, not because of what I do or don't do. So then what happens Listeners may feel burdened by unrealistic expectations of moral perfection, neglecting the role of repentance, grace, and the work of Christ. That's a problem. Another problem here. Another philological problem is in

27:21 that sermon. It could have been possibly even misusing the concept of typology, which I'm not even a fan of, because the sermon appears to make David a typological or typological figure of Christ, but only selectively and inconsistently. While it draws some connections between David and Jesus, it fails to to acknowledge David's flaws, which underscores the need for a perfect and sinless savior. David is portrayed as a christ like figure in resisting sin, but he subsequently fails in First Samuel twenty seven, which revealed that he is not the ultimate model of righteousness. Only Christ is. David is a man who from his line comes Christ, but he is not Christ. He is not perfect, he is not righteous, He is a sinful man who fails, and that's why we need the one who comes in his line, which is Christ, but David himself. We want to draw these pictures, but we only want to selectively draw the picture.

28:24 Another problem is that is this approach. When you turn into a morality tale, you overemphasize human responsibility. The sermon highlights David's ability to choose righteous righteousness, potentially downplaying the role of God's sovereignty and preserving Biblical narratives often emphasize God's control over events even when human decisions are involved. See we want to turn it into David chose David could do the right thing, so you can do the right thing, which the then almost then we get into well, can then we do the right thing all the time, so then we don't really need Christ? Can we be perfect? All kinds of problems? The text wasn't so much about Again, maybe David's motives weren't as pure as we want them to be. If you look at the text, the deep sleep that falls on Saul's camp, all three thousand of them, that's an act of divine intervention and understands it underscores God's protection of David. The divine element is overshadowed by the sermon's focus on David's moral restraint. We forget God and we look at what David did. That's what happens in morality tell It becomes a story about people and not a story about God. So what happens if you approach the Bible as a morality tell Well, it can

29:55 lead to unrealistic, unrealistic expectations. It presents David as an idolized are idealized, maybe not idolized, idealized. He becomes the perfect ideal He becomes the perfect example of a moral model. So you set unrealistic expectations for everyone in the church, who, just like David, are flawed and prone to sin. This leads to feelings of guilt, failure, and inadequacy. Hey, why can't you be like David? Why can't you be like this person? Wait? Just remember they are just like those people.

30:38 They're flawed, but you don't let them. You only use the flaws certain times, but other times you just so build these people up into well what the people in the pew never are going to be. You even hear sometimes Christian songs and be like David, be like this, be like this, No, let's not be like them, because they're just as flawed as us. So that sermon turned it into a morality tale, and it asked the question, what if you could commit one sin to end all suffering? Well, guess what that sermon did. It oversimplified the reality of ongoing sin and the struggle to trust god fully. David was committing sin before first Samuel twenty six, who was committing sin after first Samuel twenty six? But we turned it into hey, hey, oh if just focus on one thing and don't do that one thing, and it just well, oh, so you know, if I can make all my problems of going away by not by committing this sin, Well the whole question becomes really becomes ridiculous, because why, well, we're already committing sin. So the sermon just ignored that entire concept. And when you focus on moral behavior, you can foster a works based mentality where righteousness is seen

32:10 as primarily dependent on human effort rather than on the imputed righteousness that comes from Christ. So this what you almost promote a form of legalism. We need to stop with the morality tell the moralism, and we need to get back to approaching the scripture in a more fair and honest way, not ignoring what's going on. When you turn the Old Testament historical narratives into a morality tell, it creates significant textual, logical, and philological problems. It risks misrepresenting the purpose of the text, oversimplifying the complex realities, and promoting a works based approach to faith. If you wanted to take First Samuel twenty six instead of turning into a morality tale, we could focus on God's sovereignty and preserving David. Now, it's going to raise some philosophical questions, but clearly the text emphasizes that we could show the contrast between David's flaws and Christ's perfection. Even in First Samuel twenty six, David looks like a great guy. But we want to just briefly mention chapter twenty seven, where you know, yeah, he's flawed. It could demonstrate that all of us, including David, need grace because we live a life filled with human weakness, frailty, sin and doubt and all the other things that happens to us. Now, if you approach it more this way, you're being more realistic.

33:41 You're being realistic about who David was you're being realistic about the complexities in the text. You don't just reduce it to this one dimensional Be good guys, don't be bad guys preaching loves the morality tale. Hey, are you being like this? You should feel really bad. Stop doing it now, be good. Now, come down to the altar, and let's see how many people we can get down to the altar, because then that demonstrates the success of my sermon. Or even if you don't do an alter call, still becomes very pragmatic, very practical. It's not dealing with the complexities of it at all. Now, honestly, in your Christian life, how many times have you heard the Bible handled as a morality tale? How many times have you been guilty of reading it as a morality tale? And what do you think has been the negative consequences and your spiritual life when it comes to truly understanding the text. Now, am I saying there aren't any moral lessons. I'm not saying there's not moral lessons, but the moral lessons must

35:13 be understood in light of the fuller context, the fuller narrative. The narratives don't just stop like enscene boom. They lived happily ever after, No, you may be ending that scene, but you can't let people walk away thinking that that's the definition of who that person was. There's more to that person. There's more to David than oh, he just wouldn't kill Saul. There. You have to at least understand that action and a lot of what he does in the very next chapter. Why is he killing these people but he wouldn't kill him? Why now see that? Now? Instead of turning it into a morality, tell, now we've got to answer this deeper question to see if we can figure it out. I'm not saying we have a good answer, but maybe there's a reason. Wait wait, wait, why would God put everyone to sleep here? But he doesn't He didn't intervene here. Now we got deeper quest.

36:03 If we turn it into a morality, tell, we don't care about any of those things. We don't care about the complexity, we don't care about the purpose, we don't care about the text. We just need good guy, bad guy, good actions, bad actions. Don't do this, do this, don't do this, do this, don't do this, do this. Now that's good preaching. I think it just completely destroys the text textually. I think it creates logical problems. And I could think it creates the logical problems. I'm not saying that there's not moral lessons, okay, and I'm gonna get but I teach moral lessons to the kids, okay, but are you doing so at the expense of the text.

36:52 Are you giving them really the wrong idea about these people? Sometimes it's good if you each kids to ask the kids what do you think about Christianity? What do you think Christianity is? Explain to me what Christianity is, and if it's just moralism, moralism, moralism, moralism, moralism, moralism, be good, don't be bad, be good, don't be bad. Then you may want to stop and go uh oh, maybe we've messed up. And then you can have the entire youth department from teenager to the smaller kids, have a meeting and say I think we may have a problem. Now they'll probably won't listen to you. But because I think in some cases, parents just want their kids to go to Sunday school so they learn to be good boys and good girls to make their lives easier. Some parents just want their kids to be involved in youth group so they'll learn to be good, and they won't smoke, they won't smoke dope, and they won't listen to rock and roll, and they won't be caught, you know, at midnight with their girlfriend. They just want them to be good.

37:53 They just want them to be good. We just want morality, morality, morality. All right, Thanks for listening. We'll talk about it more, probably at some point, but I wanted to at least look, if you did not listen to part one, part two of the Spear, Part one, Part two, that's the sermon that that's why we're still addressing for Samuel twenty six. I just always assume people have listened to everything before. If you haven't been a part of this, go listen to the Spear, Part one, Part two. Then you'll realize everything we've been discussing. All right, That's why I'm not sitting there going back reading everything in first Samuel twenty six.

38:33 But first Samuel twenty six we reviewed a sermon on that, and that's where all of this has been a rising from. All right, thanks for listening, everyone, Have a good evening. God bless