Welcome to the March 2024 edition of The Eclectic Web Journal

This month, more of Zechariah’s visions, and we discuss the influence of non-Biblical literature on the Bible. We continue our study through the book of Romans, and we contemplate the cost of canceling our society’s comics. All this and more here in the March edition.

You know the drill: if you haven’t yet, please give our Facebook page a “like,” and feel free to leave your comments and queries on one of our posts there.

Thanks for reading, and stay eclectic! 

ZECHARIAH’S VISIONS: Do God’s People Measure Up? Zechariah 2:1-13

If you missed them, see our other articles on Zechariah’s visions, including our introduction to this series, Zechariah’s first vision about a global patrol, and his second vision about the terror of the nations. Also, if you have a chance, take a minute to peruse Zechariah 2:1-13 before you read the article below; that may help the article make a little more sense!

God has shared His grace with humanity, gifting us with salvation for those who believe in Him and in Christ. He also has granted to humanity wisdom, law, general and special revelation, and even allows blessings like rain and sun to fall upon believers and unbelievers alike (Matt 5:45). We who are His children by faith receive adoption, blessings, direction, and provision.

But what do we do with the blessings He has given to us? How well do we steward God’s truth and love during the generation that we live in? How well do we measure up?

The Old Testament prophet Zechariah is given eight night visions as the post-exilic Jews are finally beginning to rebuild the temple. These visions contain lessons both for Jews struggling to reestablish their society five centuries before Christ, and have some important relevance for us today, as well. The third vision in Zechariah 2 deals with measuring Jerusalem; however, we come to find out that it is really a spiritual evaluation more than an architectural exercise.

Apocalypticism, or ways of thinking about the end times, has several components, three of which are powerfully illustrated in this vision, specifically, protection amidst tribulation (vv. 1-5), the overturning of the current order (vv. 6-9), and the eventual abiding presence of God (vv. 10-13). This third vision begins in Zechariah 2:1 with a person utilizing a measuring line, which seems appropriate as the post-exilic community is literally rebuilding their cities and beginning to rebuild the temple. A “measuring line” is mentioned several times in prophetic literature (Isa 28:17; 44:13; Jer 31:39; Ezek 40:3; Amos 7:17; Mic 2:5; Zech 1:16; 2:1), and a measuring rod is mentioned in Rev 11:1 and 21:15.

The man in Zechariah’s vision intends to measure Jerusalem (v. 2), and again, we saw this earlier in Zechariah 1:16, and we also see this in Ezek 40:3 and Rev 21:15-17; these references are eschatological, dealing with end times events. The man is going to measure Jerusalem so that they can determine how much materials they will need for building a wall.

This introduces an interesting tension. The logical thing to do when returning to rebuild Jerusalem was to start building a wall around it for protection. But God had told them to start building the temple. So which do we do, the sensible human priority or the divine priority that seems to make less sense, but is clearly God’s will?

It is interesting that in v. 4 the measurer is identified as a “young man”; one commentator asserts that this reflects a young ambitious person who wants to do it man’s conventional way, to build a wall, rather than rely on God to protect them. God’s priority was to build the temple, man’s instinct is to build a wall. Youth is extolled in Zech 9:17 and 11:3, but here it may point to youthful ambition and worldly priorities.

So much in the Bible is about aligning our priorities with God’s. Religious priorities are not luxuries, but necessities. You never “get around” to religious priorities until you make them a top priority. It makes sense that building a wall should be a top priority. However, working on the temple itself would be a better measurement of their obedience and trust in God.

An angel in the vision confronts the young man, and tells him that his priorities are off; for now, Jerusalem would be a city “without walls” (v. 4). They will eventually get around to building those walls, specifically, in Nehemiah’s day. However, the priority needs to be the temple. How, then will they be protected? In verse 5, God declares that He Himself would be a “wall of fire” around them. God will not call us to adopt His priorities and then allow us to be destroyed when we do so. God would personally protect them, but they had to be obedient and continue to build the temple.

There is a promise of protection in verses 6-9. The Lord warns people of the threat from the north (v. 6), probably referring to something in the Middle East that would reach Israel by going over the desert and coming down from the north. There is a call-back to the previous vision, about being dispersed to the four corners of the map, or the “four winds of heaven.” Similar phrases to indicate the global or extensive nature of something are used elsewhere (Jer 49:36; Dan 7:2; 8:8; Zech 2:6; Matt 24:31; Mark 13:27; Rev 7:1), and only in prophetic or apocalyptic contexts. Verse 7 summons others to return from exile, since only several thousand did and verse 8 indicates that God would defeat those nations who threatened His people. Whoever harms God’s people will themselves be harmed. They are the “apple of my eye” (v. 8), a phrase used also in Psalm 17:8 and Prov 7:2, signifying something that you protect. Usually when you are in danger, you cover your face and close your eyes. God would afford that kind of protection to the struggling Israelites returning from exile.

Those who opposed the Lord will be “plunder for their slaves” (v. 9), again, a basic tenet of apocalypticism is the dramatic overturning of the social order. Similar language and similar overturning are seen in Isaiah 14:2: “The peoples will take them along and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess them as an inheritance in the land of the Lord as male servants and female servants; and they will take their captors captive and will rule over their oppressors.” When this drastic overturning of the social order occurs, people will know that these eschatological events are being engineered by the Lord.

The point of the temple is to be a place of temporary interface with God. However, this vision ends with information about the actual arrival of God in their midst in vv. 10-13. After the turmoil described in the previous few verses, there will be “joy” and “glad[ness]” (v. 10), and a promise of the Lord dwelling with Israel. By the way, this is another reason why the Jews should return from exile to Jerusalem; God is going to be there and will uniquely protect His people there.

This promise of God dwelling with His people is one of the most enduring themes of Scripture; it culminates in Revelation 21:3: “And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, ‘Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them’” (see also Jer 24:7; Ezek 11:20; 36:28; 37:23, 27). God promises to arrive and remain “in your midst,” a phrase used in Zechariah 2:10 and in v. 11, as well. In v. 11, the Lord notes that many nations will join themselves to the Lord, a point noted occasionally in prophetic literature (such as in Ezek 38:8, 23; 39:27; Mic 4:2). This refers to the inclusion of many non-Jews who would receive the gospel in the church age as Gentiles are grafted into God’s redemptive plan (Rom 11:17-24).

The idea of the Lord “possessing” Judah in v. 12 indicates a renewed attention to and evident protection of the Jews through His visible presence, which is, again, reminiscent of the description of the new heavens and earth in Rev 21. Verse 13, then is the notion that at the end of this process, all will be silent in reverence before the Lord. There is a concern that God is silent, that is, not active in the situations of His people. This concern is so great, the Psalmists asks Him to rouse Himself (Psalm 30:12; 39:12; 83:1; 109:1). We are also told at times to “be silent” in light of the Lord’s imminent activity (Isa 23:2; Habakkuk 2:20). Sometimes it even has an eschatological aspect to it; Zephaniah 1:7 says, “Be silent before the Lord God! For the day of the Lord is near, For the Lord has prepared a sacrifice, He has consecrated His guests.” We are surrounded by a lot of noise in society today and even bombastic worship in churches nowadays. Also, I suspect many of our prayers are more of a monologue than a listening exercise. Sometimes churches and individual believers need to simply be silent and humble before the Lord.

The third vision in Zechariah 2 “looks ahead to that wonderful time when Messiah will be present, Jerusalem rebuilt, and Israel becomes a channel of blessing” (Paul Benware, Survey of the Old Testament, 243). This will probably be fulfilled right after the Tribulation in the early phases of the millennial kingdom. My own summary of this vision is this: The Lord promises both protection for vulnerable Israel, but also promises His future presence which guarantees future protection and prosperity.

And remember, there is a difference between man’s priorities and God’s priorities. We measure these differently, but God measures His people by how well we obey His Word and put His priorities and His kingdom first. For the post-exilic Jewish community of Zechariah’s day, it was a greater measure of their spirituality that they would not waste time measuring to build a wall, which would be logical. They were to adopt God’s priorities and build the temple first instead.

How would the obedience of the modern Christian church measure up to God’s word? How would your own obedience and service to God be evaluated?

APOLOGETICS: Proof, Reason, and Circularity in Faith

What is the role of proof in faith? How reasonable must a faith be before it can be reasonably believed?

Let’s face it: in the 1980s and 1990s, evangelicalism spent a lot of time trying to prove our faith. Back then, and even more recently, gents like Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig and organizations like The International Society of Christian Apologetics or Institute for Creation Research filled in an apologetic gap.

The idea of “apologetics” means a defense for our faith. It comes from the Greek word apologia, again meaning a “defense” or a “reply.” The word occurs eight times in the New Testament, but used most poignantly for our purposes in 1 Peter 3:15: “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (NIV). Sometimes we use logic, science, archaeology, to provide some extra verification for our faith to someone who is skeptical or even for the believe who struggles with some doubts about the historicity of the Christian faith.

This present article stems from some feedback that we received on our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page. Last edition, we had an article about the Gospel and its essential components. One individual wrote on our Facebook page, “The ‘gospel’ is just another myth. It would do as much good to worship Zeus.” OK, interesting perspective, but it didn’t seem like there was going to be a lot of fruitful interaction here.

But another comment exhorted us to “Start by proving that ‘God’ exists without resorting to the same old circular reasoning.” 

This comment was interesting on several levels. In fact, this individual was setting a trap that most evangelicals or people of faith fall into. In the following, I will describe that trap, how to avoid falling into it, and how to respond to such comments. 

First, the obligation of proof is not on those who believe, but on those who assert. We believe that God exists, that the Bible is reliable, and that Jesus’s life, suffering, death, and resurrection atones for the sins of the world. We never suggested that we could or had any reason to prove this scientifically or historically. When you think that you have to answer every antagonistic question or respond to every criticism, notice how Jesus always controls the conversation, such as in Matthew 21:24-27.

When you get down to it, demanding a believer to prove an article of faith is actually kind of stupid; if I could prove it, then I would accept it as fact, and not have to believe it by faith. The reality that something is accepted by faith means that there isn’t the kind of scientific proof we have for gravity, cells, or the movement of stars. We happily accept many facts, but there are also many things that we believe by faith.

Second, no amount of evidence will satisfy someone who refuses to believe. There is a tremendous amount of validation for the existence of an Intelligent Creator (see the Intelligent Design movement), and there is tremendous historical, textual, and archaeological veracity for much of what is found in Scripture. However, no archeological or historical discovery can definitively prove nor disprove Scripture. And they don’t need to; again, we ascribe to these things by faith.

But that epistemological stubbornness works both ways. We say that no amount of evidence against Christianity would hinder our faith. Similarly, no amount of evidence for Christianity can sway a serious skeptic. There is no amount of proof that one could offer to a skeptic to verify the reality or legitimacy of something that they refuse to believe anyway. There are still flat-earthers despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary; they will doubt any “evidence” that you place before them.

It may help to remember that Jesus Himself dealt with this kind of trap. The religious leaders in first-century Israel refused to believe Jesus no matter what He said or did. They asked Him to speak plainly about who He was, but He asserted that even if He did so, they would not believe (Luke 22:67; see also John 3:12). The religious leaders asked for a sign, but He asserted that even with that they would not believe (John 4:48; 10:25). When they did see His miracles, they attributed that power to Satan rather than God (Matthew 9:34; 12:24), creating an incredibly-convenient loophole in their logic. 

We will face similar refusal to believe today. It is helpful to remember that an unbeliever cannot be won by proof or evidence, but only by the Holy Spirit generating faith in their heart so that they would be able to believe in the message (Titus 3:5).

Third, the “circular reasoning” argument circles back both ways. Or, to put it another way, there is always circularity to faith. Circular reasoning means that you use an assumed premise as evidence to prove your assumed premise.

I saw a meme recently – and yes, we’ll do another fun article on memes soon! – that noted the circular reasoning of Christianity. The meme basically noted the irony of saying that I believe the Bible to be the Word of God because it says it is the Word of God so I believe it to be the Word of God. However, this is excusable: worldviews do create circularity: disbelief creates skepticism and faith creates acceptance. Most people willingly participate in the circularity of their worldview, or they decide to abandon it for the circularity of another worldview.

You can remember two things about the circularity of faith. First, it is easier to see the circularity of someone else’s worldview than it is to see the circularity in your thinking. People can point to predictable circularity in Christianity, but fail to see their own. When you push them on their own beliefs about God, they will say something like, “I don’t believe in God because I’ve never seen Him or heard from Him so He must not exist,” which is, of course, a circular argument. Or they may say, “We believe that the universe is billions of years old because there is evidence that suggests that the universe is billions of years old so we affirm that the universe is billions of years old.” Again: circular argument. By the way, that same formula works if you change “billion years” to “about ten thousand years.” That is, the evolutionist and the young-earth evangelical both subscribe to a worldview that is circular and that necessitates faith.

But also, faith allows us to have some circularity! We believe in the reliability of the Bible because of what the Bible says about the reliability of the Bible. I wouldn’t buy that argument if we were talking about the Koran or about Marx’s Das Kapital. However, I have a faith assertion of the reliability of the Bible because the Bible asserts its own reliability. Yes that is circular. But that also doesn’t mean that it is wrong.

So, let’s put these aspects together into a more cohesive response to the unbeliever. When someone asserts that God doesn’t exist, we can ask them if they are asserting that as fact or assuming that by faith. That is, if by faith, we ask how they came to that faith, and they will probably give us circular reasoning: God cannot exist because bad things happen and bad things would not happen if a loving God existed. They have accused you of a belief that utilizes circular reasoning, but they themselves possess faith and circular reasoning.

And if they say that they arrived at the non-existence of God by fact, then ask them to clearly irrefutably prove it. I think it will become very clear quite quickly that in doing so they will resort to assertions of faith and circular reasoning.

I thought of these tactics when we received that Facebook response mentioned above. I used these tactics to push back against the person who posted this. So, in addition to writing this article, I simply replied, “Thank you for your reply. I have no need to ‘prove’ what I arrived at by faith. The burden of proof is on you if you assert that God doesn’t exist. Do you believe in God’s non-existence by faith or proof? If by proof, please provide that proof. If by faith, kindly describe the reason for your faith in God’s non-existence. And please do not resort to the same old circular reasoning: ‘A loving God doesn’t exist because bad things happen, and bad things wouldn’t happen if a loving God existed.’ Thank you in advance for your thoughtful reply.”

This is one strategy for you to use as you strive to defend your faith. May you wield the weapons of faith, reason, and good argumentation for fruitful and victorious ends. 

CULTURE/ SOCIETY: No Laughing Matter: The Cost of Canceling Comics

Most people probably appreciate the folly of canceling a comedian.

Yet, cancel culture has raged on so unchecked that it is worth exploring how canceling our cultural comics may presage a dangerous trajectory for our society.

The list is extensive. Gilbert Gottfried played some of our culture’s favorite birds including Iago in Disney’s 1992 film Aladdin. His other famous bird was the Aflac duck, which he voiced from 2000 until 2011, when he was fired because he made some allegedly insensitive jokes and tweets after an earthquake in Japan. In 2018 Rosanne Barr tweeted something uncomplimentary about one of President Obama’s senior advisors Valerie Jarrett. Barr lost the ABC show that carried her name, and even the reruns of the show were removed from certain digital platforms. Soon after, Norm MacDonald defended Barr and other comedians whom he believed had been treated with excessive social punishment. As a result, MacDonald was literally canceled, or dis-invited, from a previously-scheduled appearance on the Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon. Cancel culture mercilessly and humorlessly punishes off-color comedians as well as anyone who attempts to defend them.

In 2019, Dave Chapelle spoke critically and comically about cancel culture and the LGBTQ+ community, earning him a great deal of ire. Yet, his special won a Grammy the next year, which means that while many may have been offended, many more connected with the honesty and humor of the special. In 2022, there was backlash against Ricky Gervais for telling some trans jokes; the trans community seems uniquely hypersensitive and humorless.

Interestingly, too, that in most of these cases, the comedians apologized, sometimes profusely, for their alleged crimes and comic indiscretions. But to the captains-of-cancel the penitence was insufficient and there was no opportunity for absolution. Cancel culture should be especially careful here; as the New Testament says, “For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment” (James 2:13).

The shift in our parameters for humor isn’t just in the imagination of those who claim the country is going down the tubes. A December 2022 article on Movieweb notes that Mindy Kaling, a writer and actor on the show The Office, one of the most popular shows ever, says that the episodes would be considered “inappropriate” and “problematic” now.

Today it is the animated shows, Simpsons, Family Guy, and South Park, which are the most valuable vehicles for social commentary and cultural irony, treading on elements of our culture upon which few comedians today would dare trod. Saturday Night Live will rarely be as funny or daring as Family Guy or South Park. In these shows, comedians and writers have the added advantage in these sensitive days of hiding behind the avatars of their animated selves.

In a previous article, I mentioned a book called A History of Madness in Sixteenth-Century Germany by historian H. C. Erik Midelfort. In that book, Midelfort broadens the discussion of madness to include different forms of comedy and folly in the late-medieval and early-modern periods. He discusses the social image and construction of Narrenfreiheit, which literally means “the freedom of a fool,” that is, the unique license that some “fools” had to challenge authority and say what others wouldn’t. Many medieval European courts had a royal jester who could mock the king, the court, and the law. He had the freedom to essentially say what was obvious to all, but would be dared uttered by nobody. The jester had a comic immunity; he could identify the problems of the land and blame the observations on his mental imbalance. Early-modern European literature similarly popularized the complex and valuable role of folly, such as in Sebastian Brant’s 1494 work Ship of Fools or the famous humanist Desiderius Erasmus’ 1511 work In Praise of Folly. Under the guise of satire, these works dared say about the crown and the church what other couldn’t get away with.

As important as free speech is, it is important to preserve free speech for the jesters and comics of our culture, because they will point out the ironies and idiosyncrasies of our society like no politician or pundit ever will.

Fortunately, comics are recognizing the danger that ensues when a society tries to cancel its comedians; some comedians are fighting back without regard for pushback and criticism.

In April 2022, soon after the infamous Will Smith slap, Bill Maher, provided some commentary about humor today, and how many people seem to not understand it. He tried, perhaps in vain, to help with a segment called, “Explaining Jokes To Idiots,” and described how the Will Smith slap demonstrated live the sinister dynamics of cancel culture (warning, this video is neither PG nor PC!). He noted how he had seen similar buffoonery in comedy clubs, and how woke hecklers, when offended, have to wait for the uproarious laughter to subside before they yell, “That’s not funny!”

“This war on jokes must end,” Bill Maher continued. He noted, as Jerry Seinfeld pointed several years ago, the odd problems comedians have on college campuses where students are being trained increasingly to dehumanize everyone around them by placing others in a socio-economic category. Then they are told they need to be offended by everything they hear that doesn’t honor those categories. The bastions of humorlessness today are not stuffy old church ladies, but students at “colleges . . . where comedy goes to die.” Maher notes, “Kids used to go to college and lose their virginity; now they go to lose their sense of humor.” 

And one more quote from Maher: “For all those who are constantly demanding an apology for jokes, maybe it’s you who should apologize to us for all the great jokes that we never got to hear, the brilliant thoughts that were never uttered. Those are the invisible scars of cancel culture.”

There may be comedians that you don’t like, that you don’t agree with, or that you find to be tasteless; yet we never thought of cancelling or censoring such people. The problem of cancel culture on comedians is that we crush the freedom of expression which is a staple of America. In fact, we may be denying ourselves some of the best humor and some of the most insightful critiques of our culture. Those critiques could help us identify our flaws and idiosyncrasies as a culture and then inspire us to improve ourselves. We may look back, and look down, on the barbarity of the medieval period. But at least they were enlightened enough to have jesters that would make jokes and utter truths that nobody else could, and the jester was not hanged nor decapitated for it. In our culture, we are far more barbaric: for we not only cancel conservatives, and censer anyone who is politically incorrect, but we also kill the comics, and in doing so, we have killed comedy and the insights it may bring.

Given how politically correct every athlete, politician, and actor is forced to be, comedy may be the last frontier for genuine cultural critique. Dave Chapelle, Rosanne Barr and Family Guy may become the only means by which the real problems and genuine idiosyncrasies of our society can be identified; and if these oddities are not recognized and acknowledged, then they cannot be fixed.

    The victim here is not the comedian who told an off-color joke, or the comic who tweeted something that a few found offensive. If comedy and satire get canceled, then how can art address grievances against society? The victim, then, is not just the canceled comedian; rather the victim is free speech, our Constitution, and everything that is great about our country.

For all our talk about safe spaces today, it seems like comedy is becoming less of a safe space for humor and social critique. Fortunately, the younger generations aren’t buying it; they would rather have comedy. But the concern is that in this highly sensitive culture, comedy is no longer a laughing matter.

Or to put it another way: if we have to over-regulate humor, then not only is comedy dead and free speech dead, but America is dead, too. 

ECLECTIC BIBLE QUESTIONS: Is There Pagan Literature In the Bible? Part 1, Genesis

Is there pagan literature in the Bible? Or are there signs that the Biblical authors were responding to and even refuting ideas that were popularized in pagan literature?

In this series we will discuss actual pagan literature, allusions, or literary forms that were integrated into the Bible. There are instances where the human author incorporates direct quotes from pagan authors to support their own arguments. In this article, we’ll just look at a few examples from Genesis and see how God inspired Moses to refute pagan stories and correct them with true stories. 

Also, in this series we will deal with the question of how integrating or refuting pagan literature relates to the doctrines of the inspiration, infallibility, and authority of the Bible.

In fact, maybe we should start with that, because just thinking about the presence of pagan forms or secular quotes in the Bible makes some evangelicals’ palms sweat. The bottom line theologically, is that the we here at The Eclectic Web Journal hold unflinchingly and unapologetically to the inerrancy, the infallibility, and authority of the Bible. If God inspired a human author to use a pagan literary structure or a quote from secular Greek literature, then He had a reason to do so. And we don’t need to be afraid of this, but rather, realize how brilliant God is to have occasionally used non-Biblical forms to communicate divine truths and expectations.

Much of Bible was constructed in reaction to pagan thoughts and literature, not in a vacuum set apart from them. The Biblical authors had a mandate to refute false ideas with divine truth. Sometimes this meant that the biblical authors under divine inspiration used the cultural methodologies and popular styles against the pagans to explain Biblical truth.

The creation of the world in Genesis 1 is clearly intended to contrast an ancient Babylonian creation myth. The Enuma Elish was the Babylonian story of the creation of the world from chaos written around 1700 BCE. It was discovered in 1849 by British Assyriologist A. H. Layard in Mosul, Iraq. The name Enuma Elish comes from the two first words in the text, which can be translated “then (enuma) up there (elish).”

According to this account, before heaven and earth were formed there were two vast bodies of water called Apsu, the male freshwater ocean, and Tiamut, the female saltwater ocean. Through the fusion of their waters successive generations of gods came into being. These younger, noisy gods disturbed the tranquility of Apsu, who devised a plan to dispose of them. The younger gods found a champion in the god Marduk, who agreed to defend them only if they would make him king. Marduk defeated Tiamut and split her in half. Marduk then created humanity to relieve the drudgery of the gods and he set himself up as king above the land and waters. (This is a basic summary of this story; for more information on these tales or for more about the influence of pagan literature on Biblical stories see John Walton’s Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context).

Since we are accustomed to the story in Genesis 1, we are probably less aware that Moses writes Genesis 1 as a carefully crafted refutation of this popular Babylonian myth. There are several critical contrasts. For instance, at the beginning of Enuma Elish, there are chaotic waters and the gods emerge from them. In the Bible, by contrast, God is in the beginning and He pre-exists the waters. In the Babylonian myth, creation comes after a cosmic struggle between Tiamut and Marduk. It Genesis 1, creation is peaceful and effortless; God creates unaided and unopposed.

There are other purposeful contrasts. In the Enuma Elish, human beings are created as an afterthought, and the purpose of humanity is to provide food for the gods. In Genesis, Adam and Eve were the center and crown of creation; they were placed in a fruitful and mature garden and food was created by God for them. In Babylonian mythology, as in other ancient pantheons, there is a sun god, a moon god, gods of the waters, gods of the animals, and other deities. However, in Genesis 1, God created the sun, moon, waters, and animals. No other deities exist, and besides, they are not necessary in light of the one all-powerful and awesome God of the Bible.

The creation account in Genesis is less about integrating pagan literature into the Bible, and more about recognizing that the author is clearly refuting pagan literature and mythology. Another instance of a refutation against pagan literature is the flood saga in Genesis 6-9. In this case, Moses is refuting another Babylonian (Sumerian) myth called The Epic of Gilgamesh created between 2000 and 1600 BCE. This story contains a section that describes a flood story similar to the Bible, but the role of Noah is instead, played by an individual named Utnapishtim.

Here is the basic idea: The Babylonian deity Enlil, tired of the “noise” of mankind, decided to destroy mankind with a great flood. The god Enki (credited in some accounts with creating mankind), warns Utnapishtim, who subsequently builds an ark and gathers two of each creature on earth into the ark. The flood comes, and after seven days, Utnapishtim releases a turtledove and a raven to find land. As the waters of the deluge recede, the ark comes to rest on top of Mt. Nimush, where Utnapishtim leaves and offers libations and sacrifices to the gods. At this point Enlil admits his folly, and he makes Utnapishtim immortal.

There are similarities between the two accounts that make it clear that Moses was aware of this myth. Both Noah and Utnapishtim were righteous individuals, instructed to build a large boat to survive a global deluge, and they bring two animals (male and female) of each species with them. In both stories, the arks came to rest atop mountains (Noah’s on Mt. Arrarat and Utnapishtim’s on Mt. Nimush). Both sacrificed to their respective deities upon the mountaintop.

But the differences demonstrate where Moses is intentionally countering the pagan literature of his day and correcting it with the authoritative Word of God. Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, destroyed the earth because mankind had become wicked, whereas the Babylonian deity Enlil destroyed the earth because mankind was “noisy.” Utnapishtim was made immortal after surviving the flood. Noah was blessed and told to replenish the earth, but never made god-like nor immortal. In this regard, Moses maintains a clear delineation between God and man. Enki “broke his promise” with the gods when he warned Utnapishtim of the coming flood; Yahweh kept His promise to preserve Noah and to not destroy the earth with water again.

Another significant contrast is that the Babylonian gods were terrified by what they had done in the Sumerian flood. On the other hand, Yahweh was not terrified by his decision, but was in complete control the entire time. Here again, Moses is writing the flood account to show Yahweh’s unparalleled power over nature and the length that He will go to in order to enforce and restore holiness to His creation. The episode shows that even bad things that happen, such as worldwide catastrophes, occur as part of a plan that is wisely and graciously engineered by the Lord.

Of course, for these examples in Genesis, this isn’t really pagan literature in these stories as much as the Biblical author responding to and refuting pagan myths and legends. The Biblical author is aware of those myths, but tells true stories that demonstrate the power and holiness of God.

In this series, we will look at some Egyptian literature that appears to have been integrated into an Old Testament book and some quotes from pagan literature in the New Testament, as well. We will see that God allows the human authors to refute and even incorporate some pagan elements into the Bible in order to make His inspired and inerrant truth even more clear. 

OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD: The Speed of Stupid

This article is originally from the November 2015 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, and presented here with minor modifications, and perhaps more relevant than ever!

    Back in August 2015, a man attending an Atlanta Braves game took the game a bit too seriously.

As the Yankees’ Alex Rodriguez came up to bat, the sixty-year-old man leaned precipitously over the railing, heckling and jeering the batter. The man plunged about 50 feet from the upper deck into the stands on the lower-level in front of a sellout crowd.

I take this particular death personally, not because I knew the guy, but because a few days earlier, I was standing in line to buy four tickets to attend that very game! Had the prices not been so ridiculously high, my wife, my two youngest children and I would have witnessed this folly first hand.

I talked to someone after the event who said that the stadium’s managers were planning to lengthen the netting behind home plate.

But I wondered how long that netting would have to be. How high must guard rails be in order to stop people from falling over them but also without obstructing our view? How much safer do playgrounds have to be before they completely cease to be fun? How many more restraints and constraints do we need to place on people before they can no longer breathe.

At some point, someone will have to wrap every American in netting, and then in bubble wrap, and then encase them in Styrofoam so that they don’t hurt themselves by doing something dumb.

But even then, I don’t actually think that would help. Do you want to know why?

Here’s my brilliant maxim for the day: Safety can’t outpace stupid; stupid runs too fast.

A few years ago, a grad student was atop a large granite mountain near Atlanta, brilliantly called “Stone Mountain.” At some point, he climbed over a four-foot-tall fence that differentiates between the safe places and the not-so-safe places; these fences are laced with warning and danger signs, as well. Having recklessly traversed this fence, the student found himself on ground steeper and slicker than he had anticipated. Soon thereafter, Antony Edge—yes, that’s his real name—plunged about 600 feet off the side of the mountain, and was found dead the next morning.

Here’s the real horrifying part of this story: we do not know for sure if he died immediately, or if he lay there for the last few minutes or hours of his life, thinking about those warning signs on that fence and considering how a bit of self-regulation and sense could have altered the trajectory of his life, literally.

So, what do we do as a society? Should a fence be so high that it blocks the panorama? Should the entire mountain be encased in netting obstructing one’s view of the sky? Should a giant grinder crush down the granite mountain until trespassing the safety fence means that someone risks falling a mere three feet to their potential slight discomfort?

How high, strong and safe does something have to be in order to completely thwart folly?

The answer is simple: Safety precautions are always slower than the speed of stupid.

Here is another way of saying this: no amount of externally-imposed safety measures can solve someone’s internally-driven stupidity. Life frequently provides opportunities either to impose safe restrictions on our own behavior, or to disregard those impulses and give way to stupid. The motivation to be self-restrained, for our own safety and for the safety of others, is often a stronger and more effective deterrent to foolishness than are externally imposed precautions.

Not to get too preachy—though it is a vocational hazard!—but the Bible frequently points to the virtue of self-control and self-regulation (see, for instance, Ps 39:1; Prov 16:32; 25:28; Acts 24:25; 1 Cor 7:5; 9:25; Gal 5:23; 1 Thess 4:4; 5:6, 8; 2 Tim 3:3; Titus 1:8; 2:2; Jas 1:26; 1 Pet 1:13; 4:7; 5:8; 2 Pet 1:6). Biblical self-control or sober-mindedness is distinct from government control or some kind of externally-imposed mind-control and behavior-control. Also, self-control does not negate our faith in God and dependence upon Him. Self-control is listed as one of the “fruit of the Spirit” in Galatians 5:23; that is, we show our dependence on God and on the Holy Spirit by exercising self-control.

Unfortunately, we cannot make everything slow enough or safe enough or dull enough to prevent someone from doing something stupid. We cannot print enough signs, because stupid ignores the ones we have anyway. Regulations cannot be created fast enough to prevent all foolishness, and those regulations also tend to restrict freedom more than they catch up with stupid.

Prison is a good example of this; those who cannot control their behavior and interactions with other citizens must be highly confined and regulated for their own safety and for the safety of others. Their freedoms must be removed in order to thwart their stupidity.

This is, of course, the problem with the nanny state that we’re living in, where every other person seems to be dependent on government for something. The government is increasingly going to use safety as an excuse for providing more and more regulations at the expense of individual freedoms. Many Americans created a hyper-regulated environment for all of us because of their fast foolishness.

But, even the quick encroachment of the government cannot outpace stupid. We can’t build a fence high enough to stop stupid; we can’t make a net wide enough to catch stupid; we can’t monitor enough people to prevent them from foolish habits; there are not enough educational programs to coach people away from stupid.

Let’s face it: stupid is fast! It moves fast, and it spreads fast. In a race, stupid beats smart and safe every time.

But there is one hope for slowing stupid, and that hope is that enough people will adopt personal responsibility. Legislating behavior does not thwart stupid as effectively as individual self-restraint does. 

ROMANS: The Price We Pay For Sin, Romans 6:19-21

You don’t have to be a sociologist or religious scholar to look at our society and feel like something is wrong. Dishonest journalism, rampant sexuality, gender confusion, governmental corruption, and even crookedness in our churches.

Though some blame for this rests on the fallenness of the world, much of it lies on the apathy of the church. More than that, blame lies on churches full of believers who never realized how important it is to pursue sanctification, to be holy, and to overcome sin in their lives. The ills in our society are not just to be blamed on Satan and sinners, but also on the church, an institution that should have been proclaiming and living the truth of God’s word more fully and faithfully.

Romans 6:19-21 gives us insight into the danger of allowing the flesh to have such reign in our lives even though we are believers. These verses remind us of the price we pay when we decide to sin even though we should be slaves to righteousness. Paul, therefore, appeals to believers to pursue righteousness and to make our bodies servants of God rather than sin.

In verse 19, Paul seems to realize that he may be speaking over his audience’s heads here regarding their ongoing struggles with immorality. Therefore, he tries to use “human terms,” which for Paul, may simply mean a more straight-forward way of communicating something, or, more “down to earth” (1 Cor 2:13; 10:13). This is not because of the lack of clarity on Paul’s part, but because of the weakness of the Romans’ flesh. People are dull, and our fleshly interests and desires often get in the way of hearing what is right. Clarification, repetition, and reiteration are valuable and necessary elements of the Christian life.

Paul asserts that as previously they presented their bodies and its different “parts” for unrighteousness and lawlessness, so now, as believers in Christ, they are to present all of their resources as slaves of righteousness. Twice, the verse uses the preposition eis, meaning, “to,” “toward,” or here, “for the purpose of”; previously his readers were slaves of evil “for the purpose” of lawlessness, but now they are slaves of God’s moral righteousness “for the purpose of” attaining greater sanctification. He also uses the word, outos which both the NASB and the NIV translate “so now.” But this word could also mean “thus” or “in the same way.” That is, at least as much passion and persistence that went into one’s pre-conversion unrighteousness should be directed into one’s post-conversion sanctification. Sanctification requires the intentional dedication of all parts and every part of our body to holiness; it includes treating our body like it is shackled to righteousness and like it has no recourse other than to accomplish wisdom, purity, truthful proclamation, and gracious reactions and responses.

The members of our body sometimes seem to have a mind of their own. However, they are not autonomous; we either control all of them, or we fail to control them. When we utilize parts of our body, mouth, hands, feet, etc., and devote them to evil, we lay them on the altar of sin, and the outcome can only be judgment, pain, and death.

Paul continues to explore the implications of the slavery to sin and alternately to righteousness noting that the two are mutually exclusive. Paul indicates in v. 20 that when the pre-converted individual was a slave to sin, she or he was “free” from righteousness. That is, we did not have the same obligation to and relationship with righteousness that we do with sin. Paul is not here suggesting that unbelievers have no moral expectations upon them. Rather, he is saying that the relationships and allegiance to sin excluded ultimate allegiance to righteousness. On the other hand, as Paul said previously in this chapter, ongoing sin is mutually exclusive with our status as servants of God in Christ and with our pursuit of individual and corporate holiness.

So what was the benefit of the sins that we committed before our conversion? What did we really get out of it? This is basically the question that he asks in v. 21. Paul notes a contrast of perception of those pre-conversion activities by noting the contrast between “now” and “then.” He also points to the “fruit” (karpos) or the “benefits,” “results” or “products” of the pre-conversion life. This is the same word used elsewhere for the fruit of the Spirit, or the idea of bearing fruit, either for good or ill (Gal 5:22-23, see also Matt 7:17-20 and John 15:1-8). The result of those sins were things that the believer would now view as “shameful,” certainly some of the vices listed in Romans 1, as well as others not listed. The benefit that we receive from sin is fleeting, but the price we pay is pain, suffering, servitude to sin, and ultimately, death.

In fact, Paul elaborates specifically on that concept at the end of v. 21. As he will say more clearly and famously in v. 23, the wages of sin is death. In v. 21, Paul here uses the word telos, meaning, “purpose” or “end”; it often signifies the end result of a long process. The idea of this verse is consistent with many other statements in Scripture, as well as in Romans, that affirm that sin produces and expedites mortal death and also assures the sinner of eternal death (Prov 14:12 [par in 16:25]; Rom 1:32; 5:12; 6:23).

Sin can sometimes bring brief pleasure and fleeting happiness. Sin is short-term fun at a long-term cost. It is a little bit of fun at a self-destructive price. Unbelievers and even believers would be better served if we understood the price we pay for sin, the sorrow, the heartache, as well as sometimes physical toll that sin can take. 

This is why Christ freed us from slavery to sin and allowed us to be servants of God and of righteousness. And that is exactly what Paul says in the rest of the chapter which we will cover in the next article in our verse-by-verse commentary on Romans. 

The Eclectic Web Journal is written by Matt Kasper and edited by Martha Kasper. Matt is a graduate of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, Dallas Theological Seminary, and recently completed a PhD. in Reformation history from Georgia State University. Matt is the pastor of a small church northeast of Atlanta called Grace Atlanta Bible Church, and is involved in several other groups and activities in the Atlanta area, as well.

We had written a decade’s worth of articles in our previous web journal, called, The Eclectic Kasper, which we published from 2011 to 2021. Those articles are also arranged topically in our “Eclectic Archive,” which you can access here.

Also, if you haven’t yet, please give our “The Eclectic Kasper” Facebook page a “like” and you can leave comments about any of our articles on our posts there.