MARCH 2019

    I found A Game of Thrones to be a frequently tedious rendition of disconnected medieval political plots. Other than the occasional presence of non-human characters and occasional (and usually vague) references to magic, the only interesting fantasy feature arrived at the very end of the book. It was, granted, a very cool twist, but by then, my inner fantasy fan had checked out, and this event was not sufficiently compelling to catapult me into book two. I even found that reading a summary of A Game of Thrones for the purpose of writing this article was dull. 

    The fact that I only made it through the first book and the fact that HBO decided to turn this series into a made-for-TV series gives my criticism pause [Editor’s Note: Please keep in mind that this article was originally written in March 2012!]. However – and I may get some hate-mail on this – I’m gonna stick with my original assessment: A Game of Thrones has too much medieval politics for medieval fantasy, and not enough fantasy for medieval-fantasy.

    Speaking of dragons, I would have to put Eragon on the this same side of the spectrum of being too cliché and having too few innovative fantasy elements. And again, it’s not enough to just have fantasy components; each series should strive to introduce something new and innovative to a genre that is already saturated with generic wizards, spells, and magical objects. The book Eragon and the movie have both been criticized for their lack of originality and for feeling like a Star Wars and LOTR knock-off.

    I’ll illustrate by summarizing the plot of Eragon: boy finds dragon egg, tames dragon, faces tragedy, learns magic, faces another tragedy, takes trip, finds chick, wins battle. If pushed, I could probably summarize the story down even more. Ergo, I’m not really sure why it took 900 pages to fill in the gaps of this tale! So here’s a principle for aspiring medieval-fantasy writers: length and superfluous description do not substitute for a lack of originality. To be fair, I didn’t make it past the first book; one can only hope that the author’s writing has matured in subsequent books in the series now that he has nearly completed puberty.

    We have mentioned LOTR, which balances expected and innovative medieval-fantasy elements and combines them compellingly. We have also mentioned two other series (or books) that, in my opinion, have too much cliché elements but not enough original fantasy contributions. In the next installment of this series, we’ll explore the unique fantasy ingredients that guide some medieval-fantasy series and we’ll evaluate how well they balance those distinctive traits with the typical medieval-fantasy elements.

BIBLE INTERPRETATION: You Are Mark 17!; Part 3: More Internal Evidence for a 16:8 Ending

    So far in this series, we have explored both external and internal considerations for whether Mark 16:9-20 was written by Mark or not. In terms of external, textual considerations, the earliest copies of the New Testament as well as the early translations and witnesses from church history indicate that this passage was added later and is “non-Marcan.”

    Last edition, we noted internal considerations, such as differences in vocabulary and writing style that clearly indicate that Mark 16:9-20 was not written by the same individual that penned the rest of the Gospel.

    Again, at this point we are not exploring the theological implications of this, especially regarding the question of whether this additional ending is inspired. Rather, we are just trying to determine exactly where Mark ended his gospel and if he did conclude it at 16:8, what is the intended rhetorical effect of that awkward ending. For now, we will continue to provide evidence from a different angle that also shows discontinuity between Mark 16:9-20 and the rest of Mark’s gospel.

    There are some odd theological statements in Mark 16:9-20 that do not seem to fit well either in Mark specifically or in the NT in general. It says in 16:12 that Jesus appeared in a “different form.” The word “form” here is the Greek word morphē, and is used elsewhere in the NT only in Philippians 2:6-7. In Philippians 2:6 Paul says that Jesus shares the “form” of God, probably a reference to His essential or ontological divinity. Philippians 2:7, goes on to say that Jesus then took on the “form” of a man, again, probably referring to sharing the essential nature of humanity, including possessing the physical flesh-and-bone reality of human beings.

    To say, as Mark 16:12 does, that Jesus took on yet another “form” after the resurrection is problematic theologically. While there are certainly differences between Jesus’ pre-resurrection body and post resurrection body, these differences should not be extrapolated to mean that Jesus was in a different “form.” In fact, even the scars from the crucifixion apparently remained on Christ’s post-resurrection body such He could verify His identity to His perplexed disciples (Luke 24:39; John 19:34; 20:20).

    Also tricky is the idea that believers will handle “snakes” and drink “poison” (Mark 16:18, the word “poison” is used only here in the NT). This in itself has led to some wacky church practices especially centering around the issue of “snake-handling.” Another interesting theological/ lexical point is that the word “rebuked” or “reproached” in 16:14 is used elsewhere (9 times in NT) of an adversarial interaction as in the phrase “stubborn refusal” or “hardness of heart” (3 times in NT). These words are used of those who persecute believers and of Jesus’ interaction with antagonistic religious leaders of His day. While Jesus issued the occasional reprimand to His followers, these words in 16:14 are probably far too harsh for what would have been used between Jesus and His disciples.

    In the previous article of this series I teased that we would point out an interesting connection between Mark 16:9-20 and another NT author. Mark’s additional ending is very similar to Luke and sounds specifically like a summary of Luke 24. The episode of seven demons being cast out of Mary Magdalene which is referred to in Mark 16:9 does not appear in Mark, but is alluded to in Luke 8:2. The story of the two men walking in the country in Mark 16:12-13 is probably an allusion to Luke’s story of the two men on the “Emmaus Road” (Luke 24:13-32). The lack-of-faith issues in 16:14 are similar to those Jesus mentions in Luke 24:41, though the reason given for the lack of faith is different in Luke. Mark 16:17 mentions “signs” and “speaking in tongues.” The word “signs” (sēmeion), though used several times in the gospels is used 13 times in Acts (written by Luke), and is a key word especially to the first half of Acts. Similarly, “speaking in tongues” is never mentioned in the Gospels, but works its way into Acts several times (Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6). In fact, it seems like a later writer (perhaps Luke himself) wrote Mark 16:9-20 to create a smooth transition from Mark to Acts just as there is a naturally smooth transition from Luke to Acts.

    There is more evidence that ties Mark 16:9-20 to Luke. “Snakes” (Mark 16:18) have not been mentioned previously in Mark, but they are mentioned in Luke 10:19 and Acts 28:3-5. Additionally, the “women” in Mark 16:8 are left in a negative light; thus, Mark 16:9-20 may be an attempt to vindicate the women by Luke, who speaks highly of the women surrounding Jesus in his gospel (see, for instance, Luke 8:1-3; 24:4-9). Also, the word “to take up” (Mark 16:19; the Greek word analambanō) is used elsewhere in the NT only in Acts (eight times) and by Paul (four times). The entire phrase “taken up into heaven” reflects language used in Luke 9:51, 24:51, Acts 1:11 and 22 (see also Acts 10:16 and 1 Tim 3:16).

    Paul’s connection with both Luke and Mark should be taken into consideration, as well. In 2 Timothy 4:11 Paul says, “Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him (the words ‘bring him’ are translated from the previously mentioned word analambanō) with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry.” This connection between Paul, Mark and Luke can also be seen in Philemon 1:24, “And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers.”

    We have verified that Mark 16:9-20 was most likely not written by Mark, but the similarities between this passage and Luke (and even Paul!) are intriguing. In the next installment of this series we will begin unpacking why Mark may have chosen to end his gospel at Mark 16:8 and what rhetorical and literary effect that would have had for his original readers, and for us, as well.

MOMENTOUS MOMENTS: America’s First Flirt With Communism (1623)

    Could it be true that America encountered communism a few centuries before Karl Marx even appeared on the global scene? While the fact that America flirted with communism is significant, what we did with it is even more critical.

    In 1620, about one hundred individuals sailed from Europe to the Plymouth colony under the leadership of William Bradford. These pilgrims left England and Europe for a variety of reasons, including for religious freedom, economic opportunities, adventurous ambition, and perhaps based on motives that we may never know. But between disease, a harsh environment, and skirmishes with Indians, the population of Plymouth declined to about 50 by the end of the first winter. Despite their diverse motives, after the first few winters the colonists shared a common goal: survival.

    The initial strategy was simple: For the first seven years of the colony’s establishment there would be no private land ownership. Everything that was produced went into a common storehouse, and from this storehouse everyone was given an equal share of food, clothing, and supplies. A few more settlers arrived from England those first few years, and the colony enjoyed the benevolent tutelage of some Indians who taught the colonists to grow maize and corn. However, under this communal system, the initial harvests were paltry and production was pathetic.

    The prolific William Bradford himself explains the reason for this in his book Of Plymouth Plantation, which were his memoirs and records that he kept about these first colonists up until 1647. Bradford recognized that a system of collective holdings was conventional social and economic thinking, which he summarized: “that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing.” But in regard to the practical implementation of that communal style the first few years of the colony, he “found [it] to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to [the colonists’] benefit and comfort.” He specifies:

“For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.”

The equalization of everyone’s efforts actually bred resentment and squashed incentive. It also did not create reciprocal admiration and gratitude within the group, but rather, as Bradford asserts, “it did . . . much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them.”

    After considering the paltry harvests that had been produced under this communal mentality, the leadership of the colony decided in 1623 to apportion each family their own parcel of property, or, as Bradford records it, that they should “set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves.” Of this new philosophy of incentive and private land ownership, Bradford recounts: “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.” He observes that, for instance: “The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.” 

    As one writer explains: “Bradford realized that collectivism had been a costly and destructive mistake. Bradford and others realized that socialism gave no incentive to the most creative and industrious among them to work any harder than anyone else. Collectivism had prevented the exercise of personal motivation.” The plenteous harvests in 1623 was the result of abandoning communism and providing motivation and economic incentives that the distribution of private property provided for the struggling settlers.

    Keep in mind that we’re being a bit reductionistic about communism. A detractor would argue that there is so much more to communism and Marxism than just what we are presenting here, and they are not wrong about that. However, history seems to dictate that attempts to impose communistic principles have the effect of minimizing incentive in workers, whereas capitalism (executed justly and properly), leverages the self-interest of leaders and workers alike for the benefit of all involved.

    Some argue that communist and socialist principles work better with small groups or with individual families. But that’s the problem; communism is not scalable. That is, even when one tries to transfer it to a greater amount of people, it still has the effect of killing individual incentive. In fact, as Bradford proved in 1623, it is not even scalable to 50 to 100 people let alone to populaces of 50 to 100 million or more.

    America’s first foray with and implementation of communism was a complete, and almost fatal, failure. America flirted with that suitor, and decided to reject him outright. May we in the present learn from those of our country’s past, and may she continue to stay as far away from her flirtations with communism possible.

    For the entire text of the pertinent section from Bradford’s Of Plymouth Plantation click “here.”

TALES OF TRIALS, FAILURES, AND ENTRAILS IN THE BIBLE: A Real Cut-Up, Part 2 – Ending and Implications

    If you haven’t read the first half of this two-article series, you may want to do so before continuing.

    If you’re just a bit rusty, here’s a brief summary of our story from Judges 19. A Levite is traveling with his concubine and his man-servant. While staying overnight in a house in Gibeah, some men of the city brutally gang-rape the Levite’s concubine, and essentially leave her for dead.

    The next morning, the Levite awakes, well-rested and well-fed. Upon exiting the house he finds his concubine strewn lifelessly upon his host’s porch. I picture him prodding her discourteously with his feet, as one might check the status of a felled animal. With a heart full of compassion and concern (sarcasm intended) he says to her, “Get up!” This “man of God” is so spiritually jaded and selfish that he can only see how the girl’s battered condition has the potential to crimp his own traveling plans.

    What would you do if you came out and found your mate abused to death on the ground? Well, of course, you’d cut her up and send pieces of her all over the country! Yes, that’s exactly what the Levite did (and it is interesting to consider whether this was a precedent for what another spiritual giant did in 1 Samuel 11:7). 

    What the Levite did to his concubine in her death reflects the low regard he had for her in her life. As soon as he arrives home, he dismembers the girl and sends twelve pieces of her to leaders of all the twelve tribes of Israel to protest what happened in Gibeah. However, this symbol of outcry seems less motivated by the man’s sorrow for his mate, and more driven by his own egoism (note his self-concern in Judges 20:5). That is, he seems more disturbed by the insult to himself than by the horrific act done against the girl.

    On par with the morally ambiguous nature of the story is the morally confused nature of those (presumably the tribal leaders) who receive twelve gory packages from the Levite. Judges 19:30 connects this isolated story with the larger plot and themes of Judges in two ways. First, those who hear about the story agreed that this entire scenario is so horrible that it is unprecedented since Israel came out of Egypt. The nation had sunk to a new low on account of a lack of godly leadership and general adherence to God’s Law. Second, the verse, as well as the two chapters that follow, demonstrate the spiritual ineptitude of the leadership. They are speechless, and unsure how to proceed. Like America today, it reflects the difficulty of civic leaders struggling to make moral decisions without a moral compass.

      So, what are the ramification of the story, which sets the stage for civil war (Judges 20), the near annihilation of one of the twelve tribes of Israel (20:43-48), a foolish and self-defeating vow (21:1, a vice that seems to pervade this time period [Josh 9:14-15; Judg 11:30, 31, 35]), and a lusty group kidnapping (21:20-23)?

      First, we need to go back to the phrase that reverberates through the final quarter of Judges: “In those days Israel had no king” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). In half of the instances this phrase is accompanied by an equally poignant one: “everyone did as he saw fit”; and in the other instances, that principle needs only to be seen empirically in the story that follows. The author’s point seems clear: Without competent leadership, any country or organization can suffer tremendously and vice will spiral out of control. This latter phrase echoes what Moses had declared back in Deuteronomy 12:8: “You are not to do as we do here today, everyone as he sees fit.” In light of that, God provided divine law to the people, and when Moses passes off the scene, there is still competent human leadership steering Israel. However, as the book of Judges progresses, the competency of the judges decreases, until, as in Judges 17-21, leadership evaporates and anarchy ensues.

    Second, Judges illustrates that one of many litmus tests for the morality and spirituality of a society is its treatment of women. This is a subject that goes far beyond the scope of this modest article, so I’ll try to summarize. The role of women and, specifically, how they are treated, changes dramatically as the period of the Judges progresses. Stated another way, the declining spiritual state of the Israelites seems linked to the increasingly poor treatment of women throughout Judges. Early in the book, Caleb gives his daughter in marriage and then generously grants her a plot of land (1:12-15). As strong male leaders like Joshua and Caleb pass off the scene, Deborah assumes judgeship (4:4) and Jael, the wife of Heber, becomes a hero when she kills Sisera, a Canaanite commander (4:21). Later, Abimelech is fatally wounded by a woman during a siege (9:53). Unable to bear the insult of being injured by a woman and by a “female weapon” (an upper millstone was associated with “women’s work”), Abimelech asks his armor bearer to run him through (9:54).

    The situation of and for women degrades quickly about halfway through the book of Judges. Jephthah’s daughter is given as a sacrifice as the result of a foolish vow (11:34). The temptress, Delilah, entraps Samson and escorts him to his doom (16:5). The Levite’s concubine is abused and cut-up as an object lesson (19:25). Women are kidnapped to replenish the tribe of Benjamin (21:23), which was nearly exterminated in an overreaction by a nation struggling to execute justice apart from God’s laws.

    The lesson? A society’s, community’s or individual’s treatment of women is a litmus test of spiritual health or spiritual poverty. By this standard, I am forced to conclude that our own country is somewhere in Judges 19. That is, I don’t think that the Levite’s treatment of his concubine is far afield from the verbal misogyny liberally demonstrated by modern political pundits and entertainers on a regular basis.

    This leads us to another point: people need laws and direction. These last chapters of Judges pulsate with the mantra: “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes” (17:6; 21:25; see also 18:1 and 19:1). These chapters illustrate that there is a difference between freedom and anarchy, and these concepts are not synonymous. Freedom is the ability to enjoy self-direction within the protective confines of laws and rules. Anarchy is the abandonment of laws and rules which always leads to self-destructive ends (Prov 14:12; Rom 6:21; 1 John 3:4). A Biblical anthropology understands that societies need to be governed with sensible laws and sensible leaders that protect the basic rights of individuals without allowing them to live in destructive anarchy.

    Antipathy toward laws leads to, what I call, the “Sheryl Crow Syndrome.” Musician Sheryl Crow seeks a carefree life that casts off restraint and responsibility of any kind. In her 1993 song, “All I Wanna Do,” she sings, “All I wanna do is have some fun; I got a feeling I'm not the only one.” In her 1996 hit, “If It Makes You Happy” she refocuses morality from objective truth to personal preference when she intones, “If it makes you happy, it can’t be that bad.” In her very popular “Every Day Is A Winding Road” (another 1996 hit) she provides her seminal and Judges-esque commentary on modern culture: “Jump in, let’s go; Lay back, enjoy the show. Everybody gets high, everybody gets low; these are the days when anything goes.” Once again, I think that we find our own society squarely aligned morally and philosophically with Judges 19.

    Another disturbing lesson to this disturbing episode is that it displays the depth to which people, even those claiming to be “God’s people,” can can sink socially, morally, and spiritually. We would expect this “Levite” to be a person of stronger moral character. Also, the city of Gibeah at that time was an Israelite city in one of the areas allotted to the twelve tribes. Yet, the inhabitants of Gibeah exhibited mentalities and behavior that contradicted God’s laws at every turn. Believers are in no way fundamentally better than “non-believers”; we just happen to be forgiven by God’s grace. We are just as capable of the horrific moral evils of anyone else, and, unfortunately, we regularly make that fact clearly and publically known.

    And maybe we are just naïve—a bit too naïve—regarding the depth of sin that unbelievers or believers regularly exhibit. We are shocked when politicians, TV stars, or mega-church pastors fall into grievous sin. We are astounded over shootings, murders, and beatings or by the profound vice disseminated by Hollywood. But, Bible-reading Christians should not be shocked. The popularization of vice happened over three millennia ago, far before Hollywood, mass shootings and Jerry Springer.

    Judges 19 is a sobering and disturbing departure from any glimmer of hope that we may put into humanity. Just as some historical events remind us of how great humanity can be, others show us how bad mankind can be. This, of course, just reflects the need that humanity has for a Savior.

    Furthermore, the evil of mankind is exacerbated when God is removed from society. No depth of moral depravity seems beyond the capacity of people who jettison God, whether those people are ancient or modern.

    Perhaps most helpful and relevant for today, a story like the one in Judges 19 can be used to knock the naïve out all of us.

    The picture above is called Outrage at Gibeah, a woodcut by Gustave Doré, circa 1890.

FEEDBACK: Mass Gullibility and the Innocence of Children

    In January 2012 we presented an article about those who try to predict the date of the return of Christ or the end of world. In response to “The Psychology of a Date Setter (with a special emphasis on ‘Psycho’!)”, one writer commented: “Were it not for the mass gullibility of the masses, aka Christians need to know what they believe and why, the False teachers would not have an audience or a following. The false teachers have always been around but it used to be only the fringes of society accepted them or listened to them. Now it is considered ‘judgmental’ and ‘hating’ to question the validity of any teaching no matter how unfounded it is.”