APRIL 2018

In this edition . . .

Welcome to the April 2018 edition of your favorite monthly web journal, The Eclectic Kasper!

This month is heavy on exegesis and theology. However, we also highlight an array of conservative inconsistencies and we discuss several movies that we have seen recently.

How can you get in on this literary extravaganza? Simple: you can send your thoughts and responses to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll publish great feedback anonymously in a future edition.

You can also give our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page a “like”; you can respond to any of our posts there and you can even start a new thread on your own. We are trying to get to 300 “likes” by the end of the year, and we would love your help and support with that.

Thanks for reading and, as always, stay eclectic!

CONSERVATIVE CORNER: Conservative Inconsistencies, Part 1

Everyone is a bit hypocritical. No worldview or political ideology is perfect and nobody practices their own worldview and ideology perfectly.

Adherents to different views and ideologies can undermine their own cause and agenda when they allow inconsistency and hypocrisy to contaminate it. I am conservative, and I believe that it is the most honest, cohesive and beneficial socio-political ideology. But, here are some of the more glaring examples of how conservatives allow inconsistencies to slip into their thinking and practice.

Out-Of-Control Spending

Conservativism is the party of a smaller, streamlined government. Pursuing a less expensive and more efficient government means that there will be more freedom for all citizens and less tax burden upon citizens. While this may benefit some people disproportionately, it will somehow benefit all Americans to some extent.

And yet, the GOP-controlled congress recently passed a spending bill that demonstrates both irresponsible spending and an apparent inability to negotiate for a smaller, cheaper, streamlined government. There seem to be few Republicans who can lead us toward and even articulate the value of conservative fiscal principles. I understand President Trump’s reason for signing the bill, but he was not the one in charge of designing it; Republicans in Congress were! They failed to put conservative principles into practice. I simply don’t believe that the so-called “conservatives” in D.C. – if there actually are any in D.C. – tried hard enough to bring spending down and to make government cheaper and more efficient. And depending on how the mid-term elections go, this may be the last time in a long time that the GOP has the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Therefore, this may be the last chance to create a conservative budget, and we may all have to pay for this short-sightedness for years to come.

Speech Silencing

In addition to the other times that Laura Ingraham has “stepped in it” lately, the most un-conservative error she made was telling Lebron James to “shut up and dribble.”

Lebron’s remarks about politics were made in an interview released Thursday, February 15, when he and Kevin Durant were egged into a political discussion, and Ingraham reacted to Lebron’s comments that evening on her show.

This is a tough one for me because these are two people that I admire for very different reasons. I often appreciate Ingraham’s views and spunk, but as a lifelong Cleveland fan, Lebron is simply one of my heroes!

So who is the most wrong in this scenario: Lebron who was goaded into getting political and gladly opined on his unhappiness with Trump, or Ingram who chided Lebron for only having a high school education? Or Lebron who pontificated in a field that is not his area of expertise or Ingraham who tried to silence free speech?

Clearly the most wrong thing about this scenario is one public person telling any other person to “shut up.” Conservatives like to champion the U.S. Constitution, and the First Amendment protects and encourages the right of free speech. Why then would any conservative try to abridge the freedom of speech? The First Amendment also protects dumb free speech, but does not make that person impervious to the consequences of their dumb ideas. It is usually the left that we criticize for forcing others into their ideological box and attempting to discredit and silence those who disagree with them. Of all people, the right should invite conversation from the left, ask them to speak, and demand that they try to articulate their views rather than resorting to mud-slinging and sentimental arguments. Conservatives should encourage everyone to speak; I believe that if we gave liberals more forums to speak, more of the common-sense people in this country would realize how vacuous and impractical liberalism is.

Conservativism is the movement of free speech; liberalism has become the movement that squelches free speech and diversity of thought. Let’s not fall into their trap of claiming to champion the Constitution on one hand but then telling people to “shut up” on the other.

There are more inconsistencies that conservatives commit, and we’ll address those in Part 2 down below.

BIBLE/ THEOLOGY: No Hype, No Hypocrisy, Just the Gospel

A few months ago, our church was studying Romans 1:18 which discusses how the truth about God is often suppressed by ungodly antagonists.

For believers today, the vast and influential mechanisms of the suppression of truth should compel us to be that much more eager to promote the gospel by all means possible. We should promote it verbally, face-to-face, through acts of kindness, and utilizing social media, as well.

I thought that I should try to lead by example, a good thing for all church leaders to consider. So, I tried to condense the message of Christianity into a single, but long, post on my Facebook page, and I reproduce that here for your reading edification, clarification and enjoyment.

The simple message of Christianity is often misrepresented. So, I wanted to take a few minutes to relate the basics about Christianity, and let you decide for yourself. Don’t base your perceptions of Christianity on hype or on hypocrites, or on your past good or bad experiences with churches or with Christians. Find out what Christianity actually asserts and then proceed from there. And I know that this is TLDR for some, but I still hope some of you will read through this and think about it.

Christianity is not doom and gloom, in fact, our fundamental message is called the “Gospel” which means “good news.” It is the news of how we can be rescued from deserved judgment. I understand that you may have a different opinion and perspective, but I hope what follows clarifies the Christian message.

Although God created people to have perfect fellowship with Himself (Genesis 1), the first couple rejected that in hopes of something better, plunging themselves and their descendants into sin (Genesis 3, Romans 5). The Bible is clear that all people are sinners: “There is none righteous, not even one” (Romans 3:10, quoting from Psalms 14 and 53). All people have both inherited sin from our predecessors and we have all committed acts of sin.

God must punish sin because He is perfect and holy. Yet, God wants to have loving fellowship with people. Therefore, God sent Jesus Christ, fully God, to also become fully human (Philippians 2). He lived a perfect life, suffered and died as a sacrifice to fully pay the penalty for human sinfulness. He physically rose from the dead three days later to demonstrate that His sacrifice was legitimate and accepted by God and also to demonstrate His power over sin and death. Christ’s death and resurrection provide salvation from the punishment of sin for all who would accept it.

How do we receive that gift of salvation and deliverance from deserved punishment? This where I like to have a little bit of fun with people when I am telling them about the basics of Christianity: How many times do you have to attend church to earn salvation? How much money do you have to contribute to receive forgiveness? How many good deeds do you have to do to deserve God’s grace and mercy?

Well, that’s just the point: salvation is based on what Christ has done, not what we have done. We could never rescue ourselves from the judgment that we deserve and we could never earn forgiveness. We only receive salvation by believing in who Jesus Christ is and what He has done. Scripture is clear about this: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

If you would like to trust in Christ as your Savior and receive this free gift, you can do so at any time. Afterward, you can pray a prayer to God like the following one. Remember, the prayer doesn’t save you; only trust in Christ will save you. Prayer is just the opportunity to communicate to God that you have trusted in Christ. “Dear God, I recognize that I am a sinner and that I deserve to be punished because of my sin. I trust that Christ died in my place and received the punishment that I deserved. I also believe that He rose from the dead, and that as a result I can have new life both now and for eternity. I trust in Christ alone as my Savior. Thank You for the gift of salvation, forgiveness, and also for also granting me everlasting life with you. In Jesus’ name, amen.”

Once you have believed in Christ as your only Savior, you receive forgiveness from God, greater purpose in this life, and the promise of a blissful eternity with our Creator. As believers, then, we will want to follow and obey; in Matthew 16:24, Jesus said, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” You will also want to find a church that teaches the Bible so that you can know more about Christ, the Gospel and following Him in your life. Following Christ and living out our faith is not always easy, but there will be nothing more meaningful and satisfying in your life than embarking on the journey to follow Jesus all your days.

Some people protest that many Christians are hypocrites. Yes, there are hypocrites in churches; I have met many of them. But, keep in mind, at least many of these hypocrites are doing something about it and going to church and hopefully, becoming less hypocritical!

And furthermore, don’t let the fact that there are hypocrites in church stop you from believing in Christ as your Savior. After all, there are hypocrites everywhere: in politics, in schools, at the store, making movies and TV shows. If our goal was to avoid hypocrites then you and I would never be able to leave our homes! By the way, are you going to stop watching movies and TV shows now that we’re finding out how many hypocrites and scandals there have been in Hollywood over the last few decades? Probably not.

Additionally, recognizing that many Christians are hypocrites doesn’t solve your problem of sin. So why should the fact that there are hypocrites in church stop you from trusting Christ as your Savior and Redeemer? Once you trust in Christ, then YOU can follow Him faithfully and you can strive to be one of those Christians who is NOT hypocritical.

And sure, we could talk about the Crusades, and evolutionism vs. creationism, and politics, and a whole host of other issues. But don’t let those issues distract you from the fundamental problem: You and I are sinners, worthy only of judgment from an unspeakably holy God. And, yet that same God is loving enough to sacrifice His Son, the God-man, Jesus Christ, so that we can escape the wrath we deserve, and receive forgiveness, a higher purpose in this life, and the promise of eternal bliss with our Creator. To accept that gift or reject it is the choice that now lies before you. Choose wisely.

Thanks for reading this. If you have any questions about this, feel free to PM me; I would love to have a civil conversation with you regarding what this good news about Christ means for you, and how you can know for sure that you have received forgiveness from a loving God and the promise of a beautiful eternity with Him.

ROMANS: To Whom Is Romans 2 Written?

As we have discussed, the book of Romans was originally written to first century Jew and Gentile believers in the city of Romans. Of course, it is such a magisterial discussion of Christian doctrine and practice that it continues to be relevant to readers beyond the original audience.

This understanding works well for most of the book of Romans. But there seems to a different dynamic at play in Romans 2.

In fact, I noticed this the afternoon after I had begun preaching in Romans 2. My family and I were driving home talking about the message from 2:1-4 which discusses the proclivity that we all have to judge others unfairly and unnecessarily. I had thought that I did an exceptionally masterful job handling this chapter until my wife asked me a simple question: Whom is Romans 2 written to?

“Like” us on Facebook!

Do you love freedom, traditional values, and conservative ideas? Please support our cause and give our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page a “like”!

You know how you ask someone a question and watch them stumble through an answer, but you realize that they have no idea what they are talking about? Well, that is exactly what I did for the next few minutes. My very-perceptive wife recognized quickly that I was clueless on this extraordinary fundamental answer. So after trying to convince her for a few minutes, I finally uttered those three words that men find so hard to say: “I don’t know!” So, let’s start again at the beginning: Romans is written by Paul to believing Jews and Gentiles in the church or in a collection of churches in Rome. The broader audience includes subsequent believers who have benefited from the book down through the centuries.

But, what about Romans 2 specifically? To whom is Romans 2 written? Who is it being written about? These may be different answers that can help us understand some of the more difficult elements of Romans 2. For instance, Romans 2:7-8 seem to proclaim a works-oriented salvation. Knowing to whom and about whom Romans 2 is written will help us interpret some of these tricky questions.

The simple answer is that Paul is writing Romans 2 to believing Jews about unbelieving Jews. Perhaps is it even more accurate to suggest that Romans 2 is written to Jews about their pre-conversion status. Remember that Paul is trying to get us lost before he gets us saved. That is, he is trying to remind us of the depth of human depravity for both Jews and Gentiles before he points us to the one and only true Savior, Jesus Christ, and he will arrive at that dramatic theological climax at the end of Romans 3.

Describing the plight of unsaved Jews would remind the Jewish believers that their salvation, like Gentiles, is based entirely on Christ, and not on their Jewishness, their familiarity with the OT, or their adherence to the Law (Hebrews and Galatians similarly deal with these issues).

Thus, the Jews were as much in need of a Redeemer and of justification as the Gentiles were. They didn’t have a spiritual advantage relative to the Gentiles; the Jews were not more “savable” or more worthy of being saved. This reality should minimize the condescension that Jewish believers in Rome were demonstrating toward Gentile believers. In fact, Paul will address this subject of boasting, or not boasting, again in Romans 3.

This view – that Romans 2 is written to believing Jews but about Jewish people in their unbelieving state – helps us answer some thorny interpretative questions in Romans 2. Again, in Romans 2:7-8 Paul seems to be portraying a works-based salvation. But what Paul is doing is explaining an ideal situation, where people perfectly keep the Law or any other set of regulations. If some are inherently righteous, as many people then and now falsely believe, then they will keep the law perfectly, earn eternal life, and they would then have the right to judge others. But as Paul quickly points out in v. 12, if someone sins even once under the law, they will be judged by the Law. Even the self-righteous individual would admit that they have sinned at least once, in which case, they would be as guilty as anyone else.

Verse 13 is another tricky one; Paul suggests that if people keep the whole law, then they will be justified. This, essentially, is true: if someone is perfect, and never breaks the law, then they will be considered just. Paul’s point here, seems to be that some self-righteous people are more concerned about hearing the law than they are about doing it. They then judge others based on what they have heard rather than simply striving to live out the law in their own lives. Thus, as people who do more hearing than doing, they are guilty of breaking the law.

More keys to this come in the second half of the chapter. Paul mentions that the people about whom he is writing “bear the name ‘Jew’” and they “rely upon the Law” (v. 17). Furthermore, they have confidence in themselves as guides and spiritual leaders (v. 19). However, they are not teaching themselves (v. 21), and their attempts to obey the law backfire. The problem with such people – and we all act a bit like this! – is that they are always going to fall into some form of hypocrisy; they boast in the Law or in their preferences or in some religious standard on one hand, and yet break it on the other, and thereby dishonor God (v. 23).

Paul’s quote in v. 24 from Isaiah 52:5 – only the second OT quote used in Romans thus far – is poignant: the arrogance of self-righteous people who try to be their own saviors doesn’t help others, but actually encourages distaste of God and blasphemy of Him. The label of “supreme hypocrite” is the most people can expect to achieve when they try to justify themselves apart from faith in the Messiah.

Thus, even playing by the rules of his antagonists, people who are self-righteous or who rely on the Law to justify them will still be declared guilty and their hypocrisy will be seen. The guilt of all people, both the evident sinners and the self-righteous, is a point that Paul will emphasize quite forcefully in Romans 3.

MOVIES/ TV: Some Great Movies of 2018 (So Far!)

by Matt Kasper and Luke Kasper

As usual, we Kaspers have seen an interesting and eclectic array of movies this year, and we wanted to make a few comments on some of them. You will probably appreciate some of these comments, but you may be surprised to find out which movie we didn’t much care for. Each movie will be given a grade by Matt and a rating by Luke of 1-10, with 10 being best.

And, technically, the first two movies that we mention below came out in December, but we’re covering them in this article because we saw them in 2018. Enjoy!

The Greatest Showman (December 20). I went to this movie somewhat reluctantly after I heard that it was a musical about P. T. Barnum. I couldn’t have been more wrong. It was a spectacle of great music, a solid and not-always predictable story line, and a tremendous cast. Hugh Jackman had already showcased his pipes as Jean Valjean in the 2012 movie rendition of Les Misérables. Once again in The Greatest Showman, he demonstrates that he is one of the most talented and versatile actors of our time. Well-paced, solid characters and tension, a unique premise and great performances, this film is a rare star in the recent cinematic constellation. Matt’s grade: A. Luke’s rating: NA (didn’t see yet). Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (December 20). This movie was a surprise delight. Four individuals are pulled Tron-like into a video game, where their survival outside of the game depends on their successful navigation within the game. It was very funny, showcasing the great chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart. Despite that, there was a serious plot that had meaningful twists and turns without being too complicated. Matt’s grade: B+. Luke’s rating: 7 (out of 10).

More Movies and Shows . . .

Do you like movies and pop-culture? Check out more great articles about your favorite films and shows in the “Movie/ TV” section of our “Eclectic Archive.”

Maze Runner: The Death Cure (January 26). This is the third movie of an apocalyptic trilogy where there is a virus spread throughout the world and the virus, if you get it, turns you into a zombie. And there are different groups who are trying to find a cure and there are some people who are immune to it. Now so far, this sounds like it’s just a stereotypical apocalyptic movie, but it’s not. It was a great movie with good action, good characters, and even some interesting twists help make this move stand out in this genre.

It is also hard to end a series like this; you can’t have everyone survive, but you can’t have everyone die, either. This film struck that balance well. Also, you can’t just go back to the way things were; the normal way of life in the world can’t stay the same, and there’s no way to save everyone. But the ending was satisfying, nonetheless. Matt’s grade: B. Luke’s rating: 7.

Black Panther (February 16). Black Panther was invoked as a movie that would finally break some glass ceilings; unfortunately, it came off as as too political and too ancestral. The fictional nation of Wakanda has developed this amazing tech but they still have a tribal aspect to their culture, and that juxtaposition is awkward. The whole aspect of hiding their nation and tech from everyone else was interesting but it seemed implausible, even for a sci-fi movie. Black Panther is such a cool idea and we like the character but we didn't like him in his own movie; he's a great concept, but probably better as a side character, as in Captain America 3: Civil War. He is a very flat character; he doesn’t have many different facial expressions, many emotions, and he doesn’t say that much; most of the time he just has a blank expression, like he is thinking about something. The great effects and graphics couldn’t fix the flat and dispassionate characters; the only character that had any semblance of a personality was the main antagonist.

In some ways Black Panther reminded us of Wonder Woman which was released last year. Wonder Woman was also seen as groundbreaking, which is odd, in light of the fact that there was a well-received Wonder Woman TV show in the 1970s that lasted for three seasons. Both of these movies had tremendous build-up, were surrounded by incredible hype, but both were fairly average at best. They both failed to stand out in a now cluttered and overcrowded superhero genre. Matt’s grade: C. Luke’s rating: 5.5.

Ready Player One: While this is yet another movie about spending time in a video game/ virtual world, it is nothing at all like Jumanji. In fact, for all of the movies that showcase the collision of the real world and the virtual world, like Tron and The Matrix, RPO really stands out. It also gives us some hope that there may be some value to the ridiculous amounts of pop culture facts that we have stored in our heads. While none of the performances in RPO were outstanding, none of them were distractingly bad. Ample amounts of nostalgia supplemented a plot that is very modern and relevant. If I have a criticism of this movie, it is just the implausibility that one or two kids could figure out so many important clues that slews of well-funded workers and researchers at large companies did not. Nonetheless, the movie was a little bit like a detective story, a little like a political thriller, with loads of nostalgia and tons of visually gratifying moments as well. Matt’s grade: B+. Luke’s rating: 7.5.

So, what are your thoughts about these movies? Do you like or dislike our grades and ratings? Send your comments and thoughts to feedback@eclectickasper.com and we will present them in a future edition.

ORTHODOXY AND HERESY: The Finale of False Teachers

We’re starting a new series about false teachers in our modern Christian context. This is sure to stir some controversy and unhappiness, but it is important anyway.

In fact, back in 2011, the first year of our humble little web journal, we rolled out a series of articles about essential doctrines and practices of the faith (you can access the articles in that series here).

One of the last essential practices that we listed was the refutation of heresy. This may sound like an odd “essential” of Christianity until you consider a few factors. First, many OT and NT books were written specifically to correct error and heresy that showed up in a people group’s thinking or lifestyle. Second, since Christianity is about both grace and truth, and Jesus is the only truth, then error and heresy cannot be tolerated, but should be corrected and refuted kindly, graciously, but firmly and unapologetically.

In this series “Orthodoxy and Heresy” we will examine teachers and movements and compare them to the clear and evident truths of Scripture and of historic Christianity. Some of these teachers and movements will be obviously off-base. Others are closer, but still riddled with slight divergences from Biblical Christianity. These, of course, can be more dangerous for their subtlety and for the confidence of these erroneous teachers and leaders.

But by way of introduction, I want to spend some time in 2 Peter 2:3. The entire chapter of 2 Peter 2, of course, is dedicated to the methods, attitudes, and destiny of false teachers. But verse 3 provides a good summary for the entire chapter: “In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping” (NIV). This verse summarizes the motives, the methods, and the finale of false teachers. In terms of motives, false teachers and false prophets are driven by some sort of “greed.” Whether their motives include financial gain, or a desire for acclaim and attention, greed is the underlying force. Some may even have fooled themselves into thinking that they are doing what they do for God’s kingdom, not even recognizing their own sinful greed and selfishness in their activity. The extravagant homes and lifestyles of many modern false teachers have even been highlighted in exposés (this 4-minute video by Inside Edition is especially eye-opening).

The methods of false teachers is their “fabricated words.” The word for “fabricated” or “made-up” is used only here in the NT; it is the Greek word plastos, from which our word “plastic” is derived. In our own day, plastic is often made to look like wood, metal, or stone, even though it is rarely as strong. False teachers can use “fabricated words” in the form of wrong interpretations of Scripture or of placing too much emphasis on relatively unimportant doctrines. Many false teachers today contort Biblical words into fabrications, or concoct their own theological systems with words or images that they have created themselves. It sometimes comes in the form of allowing certain experiences to become guiding principles rather than God’s Word. It sometimes happens when story-telling replaces strong expositional teaching and preaching, or when business and secular methods for organizational growth become the governing methods for how a church is run. All of these fabricated words can lead churches and movements away from orthodoxy into heresy.

Finally, 2 Peter 2:3 addresses the destructive end of heretics and false teachers. These last two phrases are an example of parallelism, which is when two different phrases that essentially have the same meaning are used next to each other for emphasis. This figure of speech is used frequently in Old Testament poetic literature and are like rhyme.

The judgment on these individual is not “idle” or “delayed”; the word used here is argeo and is a hapax, or a word used only once in the NT. Their destruction is not “asleep” or “slumbering.” There is historicity to this judgment, as it is from “of old” or “from a long time ago” (the Greek word is ekpalai and is also in 2 Peter 3:5). Peter draws a line of continuity with the destruction of false teachers from long ago, and argues that the fate of false teachers of old will be the same as false teachers of his own day; this certainly applies to heretics today, as well.

The fact that this judgment is coming is an important issue to Peter’s readers, some of whom are apparently questioning God’s timetable. Some take God’s inactivity against falseness or injustice to be a statement regarding His lack of power and maybe even a sign of His apathy (2 Peter 3:4). Just like the falseness of old, accusations concerning God’s inactivity are not new (Is 5:19; Jer 17:15; Ezek 12:22; Mal 2:17). However, they are not a justification for doubt or disbelief. As Peter argues in the remainder of 2 Peter 2, the destruction of false teachers, though delayed, is certain, and it is certainly deserved.

While false teachers and wrong theological movements abound today, we can be assured that they will be dealt with appropriately in the future by our discerning and unspeakably wise God. In the meantime, we should refute falsehood with compassion and truth. Also, we should strive to be as Biblical as we can in our doctrine and practice so that we avoid falling into falseness ourselves.

CONSERVATIVE CORNER: Conservative Inconsistencies, Part 2

In Part 1 of “Conservative Inconsistencies” above, we listed several instances of inconsistent thought or practice that conservatives frequently commit including out-of-control spending and speech silencing.

Here in Part 2, we address two more inconsistencies that conservatives need to think through.

Obama Bashing

Conservatives were bothered when Obama spent all of his first term and most of his second blaming George W. Bush for almost everything. We felt like Obama’s whining and complaining indicated his failure to take responsibility for his own presidency, policies, and actions.

Yet now Trump, and many conservatives, have spent the last year blaming Obama for certain aspects of the situation we are still in with social issues, international relations, and even some economic problems. Trump even continues to compare himself to Obama, which makes him look weak and paranoid. For instance, on April 15, Trump tweeted, “Just hit 50% in the Rasmussen Poll, much higher than President Obama at same point.” Trump and conservatives need to let Obama go!

While Obama’s Bush-blaming was legendary and over-the-top, I’m pretty sure that our Obama-bashing is just engaging in the same blame-shifting and making us guilty of pure hypocrisy.

Trump’s Libido

I have supported Trump from the beginning of his run for the presidency. I have always thought that we needed more business smarts and real-world toughness in the White House, and Trump brings that. And, we all knew that we weren’t getting a saint or a boy scout in Trump.

Conservatives tend to be the movement of traditional morality and family values. So, the multiple sexual allegations against Trump put us in somewhat of a pickle. And it’s difficult to believe that all of these allegations are false. In fact, most of them seem plausible, especially for someone of Trump’s stature, means and braggadocios character.

He would not, of course, be the first high-profile politician to be accused of sexual indiscretions. And though comparisons with Bill Clinton abound, there are several key differences. In many of the Clinton cases, the activity was not consensual; some of what Clinton did to women could be considered rape and molestation. Also, some of Clinton’s indiscretions occurred while he was in the White House (literally in the White House!), while Trump’s are several years old.

But are these differences really that significant? We were ready to tar and feather Clinton, and the GOP even had him impeached. Yet we are far more quiet about Trump’s alleged misconduct. We wanted to make heroes of Juanita Broadrrick and Paula Jones, but we now discredit Trump’s accusers. In fact, whether he is guilty or not is hardly the issue. The point is that conservatives get very unhappy about sexual indiscretions by politicians and pundits on the left, but seem more forgiving when similar and plausible accusations are leveled toward those on the right; I'm not sure that were consistent in our attitudes toward Roy Moore and Al Franken. Isn’t this the same double standard that we frequently accuse the left of?

So, is the solution to conservative inconsistencies to become a liberal? May it never be! In fact, I think that liberalism in theory and in practice is far more contaminated with inconsistency.

But, hypocrisy and contradiction abound on both sides. We should all think through our views, practices, and speech patterns. We should note which ones contradict, which ones don’t match, and which ones may yield unintended consequences. The goal is simply to strive for consistency, no matter what your party or persuasion happens to be.

So, what other conservative inconsistencies have you seen? Send your thoughts and views to feedback@eclectickasper.com. We’ll reprint good feedback anonymously in a future edition.

ROMANS: Getting Real About People, Part 2, Romans 3:15-18

It is hard for us to appreciate how all people really are evil and fallen when in our experience most people we encounter are relatively decent.

But that veneer of decency and social-appropriateness covers layers of sin, fallenness and depravity.

Here in Romans 3, Paul continues to appeal to the Old Testament to discuss how sinful, evil and lost all human beings are. This, of course, only points us to the majestic grace of God and the opportunity that all have to receive salvation by grace through faith in Christ.

There is a flow of thought in Romans 3:15-18,which Paul pieces together from several different sources. And there is an inspired connectivity of concepts in this passage: Verses 10-12 demonstrate the root cause of fallenness, namely, the fact that all have turned away from God. Verses 13-14 shows that the first line of expression of fallenness is found in our speech. The next few verses, vv. 15-18, portray the second line of expression of depravity, namely, in our behavior, lifestyles and interpersonal relationships.

Again, these verses follow exactly from some of the additional material in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament, also indicated with the abbreviation “LXX”) from Ps 14 (LXX 13:3). There are echoes and specific words from other passages, specifically Psalm 36:1, Proverbs 1:16, and Isaiah 59:7. That is, the Old Testament testifies and the New Testament verifies that humans are evil and wicked, and cannot earn or merit salvation or favor from God on our own.

The first word of Rom 3:15 is oxus, meaning “sharp” or “swift.” All seven other occurrences of this word are in Revelation and always refer to the sharpness of a (literal or metaphorical) sword or sickle (1:16; 2:12; 14:14, 17, 18 [2x]; 19:15), and it is used that way in the LXX of Ps 57:4 [56:5], Isaiah 49:2 and Ezekiel 5:1. It is used of something that is physically sharp in Job 41:22 and Is 5:28 or of something swift and speedy in Amos 2:15 and Habakkuk 1:8. This semantic field bleeds over into degree or intensity; it is used of someone who is skilled in Proverbs 22:29 and of intense anger or antagonism in Proverbs 27:4 and Job 16:10. The idea of oxus in Rom 3:15, therefore, points both to the haste of the individual as well as the severity of their effect.

The Greek verb ekcheo, “to pour out” or “to shed blood,” is an infinitive of purpose. In a competition, swift feet are advantageous for the winning of a race. However, here, the purpose of those with swift feet is to shed innocent blood. Romans 3:16 continues to demonstrate what the “way” or “path” of the sinner looks like. While this verse follows the extended Septuagint version of Psalm 14:3 (LXX 13:3), this verse is identical to the last phrase of Isaiah 59:7, as well. The two words for “destruction” and “misery” are also used together in Jeremiah 4:20.

The picture is not pretty: the road of the fallen sinner is paved with “destruction” and “misery.” The word for “destruction” (suntrimma) is used only here in the NT. However, it is used 35 times in the OT of something that is either broken, like a bone (Lev 21:19; 24:20), or some kind of physical wound (Ps 147:3 [146:3]; Prov 20:30; Job 9:17). In the prophetic literature the word is sometimes also used for a larger city-wide or nation-wide destruction (Isa 15:5; Jer 17:18; 48:3; Lam 3:48; see also 1 Macc 2:7). While a more individual or personal scope is in view in Romans 3:16, this word affirms that there are often grander and more epic consequences to our sinful decisions and behaviors than we initially realize.

The word talaiporia, “misery,” “trouble,” is used only here and in James 5:1: “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you.” That verse in James also connects one’s fallen behavior and decisions with unexpected but inevitable consequences, which in light of James 5:3, 7 and 8 seem to suggest an eschatological referent. Both near-term misery as well as long-range, eschatological misery may be in view here in Romans 3:16, also.

The verse literally says “destruction and misery in the paths of them.” The omission of a verb in this phrase can be fixed easily enough by adding the implied word “are”, rendering, “destruction and misery are in their paths.” One could take this a step further to suggest that destruction and misery are not merely in their paths, but align with their paths closely. The way and course of the sinner is characterized and defined by destruction and misery. Some recognize this during their lives. Some who live apart from God spend their entire lives deluded by their wealth, fame, prestige and power; they don’t realize until after this life that the sum of their life ends only in destruction and misery.

Two more verses round out this thought. Romans 3:17 says that “the way of peace they do not know.” The “way of peace” is a lifestyle of peacefulness rather than contention, antagonism, conflict or unnecessary drama. James reminds believers that “Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness” (James 3:18). Believers can possess and promote a Biblical worldview and even argue and debate in a peaceful way and with a peaceful and loving demeanor. But without Christ, peace, satisfaction, and contentedness elude even the wealthy and powerful.

Romans 3:18, then, notes that “there is no fear of God before their eyes.” The godly person is to be motivated in part by a love and adoration for God as well as by a fear of God; the two are not mutually exclusive, but mutually constructive. Scripture is clear about the motive of fear for a believer (Deut 4:10; 14:23; 31:12; Josh 4:24; Ps 15:4; 34:11; 111:10; Prov 1:7; Is 11:3; Acts 19:17; 2 Corinthians 5:11).

In the Bible, fear is not merely an emotion or an occasional state of being, it is both of those as well as an framework through which all other truth is processed and understood (again, Ps 111:10; Prov 1:7). The fear of the Lord is related to gaining knowledge of Him: “Then you will discern the fear of the Lord and discover the knowledge of God” (Prov 2:5). The fear of the Lord is not only academic, emotional, and relational, but it is ethical and moral: “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; pride and arrogance and the evil way and the perverted mouth, I hate” (Prov 8:13). Those who refuse to fear the Lord shun this framework of thought and also reject all of the truth, clarity, certainty and blessings that come with it (Prov 1:28-29).

Romans 3:18 mentions that fallen people are naturally without such fear of God. The preposition apenanti means “opposite; before, in full view of; contrary to, against.” Three of the four other uses of the prep in the NT are in the context of public opposition or defiance of some kind (Matt 27:24; Acts 3:16; 17:7).

The verse also mentions “their eyes,” which are often considered the gates of perception and understanding. Again, the framework of knowledge of these individuals does not include knowledge of God. Rather, their eyes look away from and even defy Him. There are ramifications, both temporal and eternal, for resisting God and rebelling against Him.

The life of the Christian should be starkly different from the depravity discussed here in Romans 3:15-18. Unfortunately, however, the tendrils of depravity continue to grip many Christians, and we too often give in to the evil and sinfulness from which Christ has delivered us.

Later in Romans, Paul will discuss this battle between the flesh and the Spirit within each Christ. However, for now we can recognize that even as believers, we still fight against these tendencies of depravity within ourselves. We should identify them, confess them, and then strive to live a life that is more consistent with Christ’s character and less like the character of depraved and fallen people.

Commentary on Romans

See other articles in our ongoing verse-by-verse and passage-by-passage commentary on Romans here in our “Eclectic Archive.”