DECEMBER 2014

Welcome to the December 2014 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, a web journal about theology, politics, history, music, culture, movies, and more!

This is the last edition of 2014, and therefore, we included a more personal piece that notes a medieval and renaissance motif to our year. Additionally, we continue our series on cessationism and continuationism as well as our study about Peter’s denials of Christ. Also, we look at some other great articles online and we have an “Eclectic Flashback” about the Magi from Matthew 2.

We will be back in January with more hard-hitting journalism, challenging thoughts about religion, politics, and culture, fun articles about TV and movies, and much more eclectic goodness.

But now, at the end of our fourth year, I would simply like to thank those of you who read some of our articles, who send in your thoughts, questions and encouragements, and who have participated in this eclectic journey. 

So, spread the word this Christmas season! Give us a “like” on our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page, share some of our Facebook posts, or e-mail someone else to invite them to read some of our eclectic articles!

WHY I AM A CESSATIONIST: 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, Part 2: “The Perfect”

    For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away (1 Corinthians 13:9-10, NASB).

    We began exploring these verses in our article 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, Part 1: “Done Away” in the November edition. As we argued there, these verses indicate that the sign gifts would cease to be used and cease to be necessary. The grammar and vocabulary makes clear that these sign gifts would only persist until “the perfect” comes.

    Now we come to one of the more tricky interpretative issues in the entire book of 1 Corinthians, namely, the meaning of “the perfect” in v. 10.

    Many continuationists and Charismatics believe that “the perfect” refers to the appearance of Christ. They claim that the start of the eschatological period -- beginning, I believe, with the rapture of the church and climaxing with the literal return of Christ after the Tribulation -- is indeed the culmination, maturation, or “perfection” of this present age, also referred to as the “fullness of times” (Eph 1:10).  Therefore, miracles, signs, prophecy and tongues will continue to be in operation throughout the church age.

    A problem with this view, however, is that the word here is actually never used in the NT in conjunction with the rapture, or with Christ’s return or appearance. I think that there are two other views that are far more likely.

    The word here in 1 Cor 13:10 is teleios, meaning “complete,” “mature” or “finished,” and referring to the final version of something (used also in Matt 5:48; 19:21; Rom 12:2; Eph 4:13; Phil 3:15; Col 1:28; Heb 5:14; Jas 1:4, 17, 25; 3:2; 1 John 4:18). Since the context of 1 Cor 13:8-10 is knowledge, prophecy, tongues, revelation, the final version of this would be the authoritative and inspired apostolic writings which would eventually be collected and contained within the completed canon.

    This is the standard cessationist view, that “the perfect” is the completion of the writing and canonization of the Bible. A more nuanced version of this view is that “the perfect” indicates the completion of the apostolic ministry, including their efforts to proclaim and explain the Gospel and also including the last inspired writings by them and their associates (such as Luke or Mark). This view is far more in line with the context of 1 Corinthians than the continuationist view. The completion of the writings of the NT documents signals that sign gifts are no longer necessary once the canon is completed.

    However, there may be an even better way to interpret “the perfect,” especially in the context of 1 Corinthians.

    Again, the word teleios can mean “mature” or “grown up.” In secular Greek, the word is used more for the maturity of something, such as reaching adulthood, rather than the completion of something, such as reaching death! (Moulton-Milligan, 629). In the NT, it is used more often to describe individuals or a group of people reaching a level of spiritual maturity than of completing something (Matt 19:21; Rom 12:2; Eph 4:13; Phil 3:15; Col 1:28; Heb 5:14; Jas 1:4). This does not mean that they have to be perfect; in fact, note how Paul uses the word of himself and his associates in Phil 3:15.  Rather, it simply implies that they have achieved a measure of maturity as demonstrated by their growth in Christian knowledge, their persistence through trials, and their evangelistic witness. This idea of reaching spiritual maturity, rather than completing something, is clearly how the word is used in its other two occurrences in 1 Corinthians (2:6 and 14:20).

    On the other hand, Paul likens the sign gifts to “childish things” that one needs to mature beyond (see 14:20, which also uses teleios). Here in 1 Cor 13:10 Paul again uses the verb katargeō (meaning “to render ineffective, nullify, cancel, destroy”) that he had used twice in v. 8 after “the perfect” comes, meaning, after the church has attained to a level of spiritual maturity and doctrinal completeness, the sign gifts must be put away, as childish, not necessary for further levels of growth and maturity. Jesus also noted that the need for signs indicates an immaturity or a lack of faith: “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign . . .” (Matthew 12:39, see John 4:48 and also Jesus’ light rebuke to his followers in Luke 10:17-20). Significantly, in 1 Cor 13:11, Paul describes the difference between how he communicated as a child versus how he communicates and thinks as a mature adult. The implication is that the early church needed the dramatic verification that sign gifts provided, but then the church would mature beyond the need to use them anymore.

    Again, “the perfect” refers most likely to the maturing of the church beyond the need for sign gifts or perhaps even the completion of the canon, after which, the sign gifts were no longer necessary. It is unlikely that “the perfect” refers to the return or appearance of Christ, which really doesn’t fit the context anyway. The church matured beyond the need for signs and churches today must similarly mature beyond the obsession with visible confirmations of the Holy Spirit’s work.  Rather, they should focus on doctrinal and ethical maturity and embrace deeper levels of faith that require no signs. In this case, the “perfect” or “mature” is not something that occurs in the end times, but apparently occurred closer to Paul’s time.

    Signs were important to the infant church to provide immediate confirmation of the Gospel message as well as to verify the legitimacy of God’s apostolic messengers (John 2:11; Acts 2:22, 43; 5:12; 6:8; 8:13; Heb 2:3-4). And imagine how vital signs were in Paul’s ministry as they proved his conversion from one who persecuted the church to one who proclaimed the Gospel (Acts 15:12; Rom 15:18-19; 2 Cor 12:12). The NT writers frequently pointed to the importance of the apostolic teachings and their ministries, signs and writings (John 19:35; 21:24; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 1:10; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Peter 3:15-16). But when the apostles and prophets finished writing and passed off the scene, there was not the same need for signs and wonders. Rather, at that point it was important simply to know and follow the apostolic writings about Christ.

    Paul’s discussion of prophecy and tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 must be understood in light of what he had already said in chapter 13, specifically, that sign gifts are a childish necessity to the church, but they would soon pass away after the churches attain a measure of doctrinal stability or after the apostles complete their ministries. Thus, many of the instructions for the use of sign gifts in 1 Corinthians 14 are not necessary today because these sign gifts are no longer operative. This is somewhat like finding an instruction manual for an appliance that you disposed of three years ago. There are helpful instructions in chapter 14, but many are simply not applicable now that sign gifts have passed off the scene.

    Some may wonder why Paul would have given the instructions of 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 if sign gifts would cease anyway. The answer is simple: these chapters contain important inspired instructions to help the early church through their initial confusion about the value and use of sign gifts. There are, of course, still truths from these chapters that we can apply to current worship practices, such as the often cited 1 Cor 14:40, for instance. But the fact that there are instructions about the use of sign gifts in these chapters does not demand that these gifts will remain operative throughout the entire church age. This is similar to the fact that even though we don’t practice the rituals and sacrifices depicted in Leviticus, we still recognize that Leviticus is inspired, canonical, and contains valuable and relevant lessons about God’s holiness and His desire for a high level of morality from His people of any age.

    In summary, 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 indicates that there would definitively be a time when sign gifts would pass off the scene. As we will notice from future articles in this series, we can even see that tapering of attention to sign gifts in the New Testament. This reduced emphasis on sign gifts is in contrast to the permanent value of love, which should be our focus during the church age. The “perfect” or the “mature” seems to refer to the completion of the canon of the NT, to the end of ministries of the apostles, or more probably, to a time when the church had attained a measure of maturity beyond the need for the sign gifts that had dramatically inaugurated the post-resurrection church age.

    This lesson should guide us even today: those who long for signs do so out of a spiritual immaturity, rather than a maturity that focuses on the propositional truths of God’s Word.

OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD: Getting Medieval in 2014

            by Matt Kasper

    Looking back over 2014, I noticed a few themes to the year for myself and my family. One of the more inescapable themes was our proximity to the Medieval and Renaissance time periods.

    Now, I understand that the Medieval period and the Renaissance are not the same. My own historical snobbery compels me to proclaim that there are tremendous discontinuities between the two (in fact, it’s not even really appropriate to speak of a homologous Medieval period!). However, there is enough overlap between the two time periods, especially on the popular level. For my purposes in this article, I will simply recognize commonalities between the two, especially from an idealized and a thematic perspective.

    Four activities made 2014 an especially Medieval year for us.

ECLECTIC WEB: Great Online Articles, Volume Uno

    There are many other websites. Of course, you shouldn’t read them . . . you really should only read this website, The Eclectic Kasper . . . yes, only this one . . . ever . . .

    But I guess there are some other good websites out there . . .

    OK, we’ll let you read other stuff as well.

    Seriously, writing a web journal means that one has to come up with a great deal of original content. Often I am researching a topic and I find that someone has said exactly what I am thinking, but they said it far better than I ever could have!

    I wanted to present some of these articles for your consideration. I may not agree with every word of each of these, and you should read discerningly, and take each with a grain of salt. But these articles and websites can certainly spark some thinking about faith, culture, and current issues.

    Most of these articles in “Volume Uno” are about church or theology, because those are the topics that I research most, but a few are more political in nature. Some are quick reads, some are a bit longer, but still worth your time. Some are serious; some are humorous; some are compelling; some are so deliciously counter-cultural that I am both surprised and glad that their website hasn’t been shut down by our society’s thought police yet!

    Anyway, here are ten great online articles that have I found recently. This is an eclectic list, no theme, no agenda, just some great articles:

• “10 Things That Drive Us Crazy at Church . . . That Probably Shouldn’t” by Brian Orme

• “Six Factors that Do Not Affect Inerrancy” by C. Michael Patton

• “Christianity, the World’s Most Falsifiable Religion” by C. Michael Patton

• “How To Shrink Your Church In One Easy Step” by Alexander Griswold

• “5 Things Jesus Is Not” by Bud Brown

• “20 Obama Quotes About Islam Contrasted With 20 Obama Quotes About Christianity” posted by Michael Snyder

• “Pastor Osteen and Christian Narcissism: Symptom of a Larger Problem” by Daniel B. Wallace

• “When We Are Not Robustly Trinitarian, Our Gospel Will Not Be Robustly Christian”; this is actually a 10-minute video presentation of Mike Reeves.

• “The Real ‘Entitlement Mentality’ That Is Bankrupting America” by Scott Rasmussen

• “The Emergent Deception—the evolution factor” by Lita Cosner

DISTANCE AND DENIAL: That First Dangerous Step

    In the November 2014 edition, we began a series on Peter’s denial of Christ from Luke 22:54-62 entitled “Distance and Denial.” We featured two of these articles in the November edition called “Putting Christ Above Crisis” and “The Importance of Proximity.”

    Those articles just set the stage for the spiritual showdown that is about to begin; Peter is in the wrong place with the wrong mindset, and the wrong set of loyalties to himself rather than to Christ. In this article, we examine the first denial in vv. 56-57, or that first dangerous step.

    It is worth remembering that Jesus has told Peter that he will be sifted, tested, and this by no less than Satan himself. Luke 22:31 records Jesus saying, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat.” Interestingly enough, the “you” in that verse is not a “you” singular in the original Greek, but rather a “you” plural (or “ya’ll” as we say here in the South!). That is, Satan is not just sifting Peter to test his mettle, but rather, Satan will sift all of the disciples (or “all ya’ll”) to see which ones would not stand up to the challenge. Having had this warning, one would think that Peter would have prepared his heart and fortified his resolve to identify with Christ no matter what.

    Yet, in this first of three moments of denial, Peter buckles when challenged about his relationship to Christ. Again, Peter is in a courtyard surrounded by those who have just captured Jesus, surrounded by the enemy and even warming himself by their fire (v. 55).

    At this critical and vulnerable moment, Peter is confronted by the fiercest and cruelest of antagonists: a servant-girl (v. 56).

    What can we discern from the text about this servant girl? The Greek word is paidiske, similar to the word paidion, which usually refers to a child or even a baby. The word paidiske probably implies to a relatively young woman, and except for Luke 12:45, that word is only used of this specific individual in the gospels (Matt 26:69; Mark 14:66, 69; Luke 22:56; John 18:17). In Acts it is used of the servant-girl Rhoda (12:13) and of another girl with a spirit of divination (16:16). The word is used five times in Galatians 4 of Hagar, servant-girl to Sarah, who bore a child to Abraham (Gal 4:22, 23, 30 [twice], and 31). Bringing these references together, we can affirm that this girl in Luke 22:56 was probably a young woman though perhaps of post-child-bearing age; but keep in mind that in the first-century, child-bearing age was much younger, in some cases around fourteen years old or so. Peter does call her “woman” in v. 57, but again, that could be still be late teens or even early twenties.

    She is a servant-girl, and is therefore, not much of an adversary to the apparently-easily-intimidated Peter. Servant girls don’t have much social or political clout, and did not wield much of a threat to Peter. She perhaps had some standing; Mark 14:66 clarifies that this girl was also a servant of the high priest, but that that doesn’t necessarily make her more intimidating.  She may have been part of the mob, and that’s where she saw Peter with Jesus.

    I wonder too, if she had seen Jesus when He was teaching in the city; perhaps on those occasions Peter and the other disciples were vying for chances to sit next to Jesus and to be seen with Him. They wanted just a sliver of the spotlight that He received then. Then . . . just not now.  Now, Peter preferred to hide in the shadows of obscurity.

    This observant servant-girl identified Peter as a companion of Jesus who had been “with Him.” It is interesting to track the phrase “with him” (sun auvtō in the Greek) throughout Luke. It was used earlier in Luke (8:1, 38, 51; 9:32; 22:14 and even in 23:32) of those who were somehow identified with or associated with Jesus. Several of these references are to the disciples, who were not just with Jesus physically, but they wanted to be with Him mentally, spiritually, on board, with the program.  They wanted people to see them with Jesus and they wanted the crowds to associate them with Him.

    But now, being identified with Jesus had lost its shimmer. In fact, Mark records of the disciples that after Jesus was arrested, “they all left Him and fled” (Mark 14:50). And suddenly, for Peter, too, being associated with Jesus had no glamour nor allure. There were no crowds or spotlights, just an interrogation lamp.

    Surrounded by the enemy, Peter is suddenly faced with a conundrum: faithfulness to and identification with Christ on one hand, or immediate, personal expediency on the other.

    We do not need to be in as dramatic a situation to be faced with the exact same conundrum; to move closer toward identification with Christ or to move farther away. Few of our decisions in life are neutral; they will either move us closer to or farther from Christ. We are always threatened with that first dangerous step that could take us down a road far from our Lord. Christ is not subtle about His expectation that we move closer, and that we grow in grace and knowledge and familiarity with Him and His Word. Satan, however, is subtle about moving us farther away from Christ; this necessitates great discernment on our part to recognize Satan’s influence and to appreciate the ramifications of poor decisions, preferably, before we make them.

    Peter’s response in Luke 22:57 drips with irony. Peter declared just over twenty verses previously – in v. 33 – “to prison and to death”! His identification and association with Christ was more important than his own well-being or his own life. Now, just over twenty verses later in v. 57, he vociferously denies association with Christ in response to the servant-girl. What a difference twenty verses can make!

    The word, arneomai in v. 57 means “to deny; disown, renounce or refuse.” Luke has been setting us up for this very event with the way he used this word previously. Jesus said in Luke 9:23, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.”  In 12:9, Jesus declares, “he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.”

    But here in 22:57, that is exactly what Peter does; he takes the first dangerous step and denies Christ with his response. In fact, Peter employs a very strong formulaic statement: “I do not know Him.” This is similar to statements made when the Jews were banning someone from the synagogue (Darrell Bock, Luke, p. 1783).  Peter could hardly have placed more distance between himself and Christ.

    For the believer there is forgiveness through the work of Christ, or as the hymn says, God has “grace greater than all our sin.” However, if our mistakes are not corrected soon, then that first dangerous step can take us far away from opportunities to experience growth in Christ.  That greater distance makes coming back that much harder.

    On the other hand, our past mistakes can also catapult us into future victory and into opportunities to edify and exhort other believers (Jesus seems to imply exactly that in Luke 22:32 and also John 21:15-17). Specifically here, Peter’s denial of personal knowledge about Jesus perhaps motivated him later to teach and lead others into a deeper knowledge of Christ.

    In fact, I believe that Peter’s assertion “I do not know Him” haunted Peter the rest of his life. “To know” Christ and to proclaim the knowledge of Christ should be the goal of our Christian life. Ironically, the last thing that the apostle Peter contributed to the canon of Scripture is a statement about knowing Christ: “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity” (2 Peter 3:18).

    If we can know Christ and put that knowledge into practice no matter what obstacles or adversities we face, that can perhaps prevent us from taking that first dangerous step away from our Savior.

FACEBOOK FEEDBACK: Misunderstandings from the Mid-terms

    Our article “Lessons from the Mid-terms” from the November 2014 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, elicited some odd feedback on our Facebook page. Since both the comments and the response were lengthy, we have reprinted excerpts of both of them here in the feedback section.

    Part of the initial comment about our article on the mid-term elections was this:

What I see from the mid terms, is the majority of the people who voted want social security cut, Medicare cut, Medicaid totally eliminated, education funding cut, low interest student loans eliminated, the minimum wage lowered, the food stamp program and government assistance for the poor eliminated, the extremely wealthy to become wealthier, and last but not least, the middle class moved to the lower class. Oh, also on a positive note, abortions eliminated, and the unwanted children who might have otherwise been aborted, left to fend for themselves or starve to death. . . .

    These comments were just too far over-the-top to go unchallenged.  Excerpts of The Eclectic Kasper response to those comments follows:

You are using some hyperbole in your first paragraph above, but you are getting it correct with the repetition of the word “cut.” The mid-terms reveal that Americans overwhelmingly want to see D.C. drastically cut the amount of money it spends. We want to cut our deficit and our debt because these issues are critical to our economy and national sustainability.

Keep in mind that government does not have any money of its own for welfare, handouts, education, or foreign affairs. Therefore, GOVERNMENT STEALS MORE OF OUR MONEY – yours and mine – in order to spend as recklessly as it has over the last generation. I will gladly support candidates who will make aggressive efforts to cut Washington spending. When more Americans have more of their own money to save, spend and invest, this can only have a positive impact on our society.

Of course, some spending on food stamps, student loans, and government assistance may be “compassionate”; but to engage in fiscal redistribution to the extent that currently takes place is nothing short of institutionalized extortion. And of course, your comments on abortion are misrepresentative. I would direct you to our new series in “The Eclectic Kasper” on abortion which you can access at https://sites.google.com/site/theeclectickasper/archive/politics#TOC-THE-ABORTION-DEBATE.

    So what do you think of this exchange? Which side better represents your views? Do you have any feedback on this feedback? Send your thoughts and responses to any of our articles to feedback@eclectic.com and we will reprint them anonymously in future editions.