FEBRUARY 2016

    The Biblical answer is that God’s care, providence and power are evident from creation itself, and difficulties and disasters do not in any way thwart His care and compassion. Tragedies are not the fault of God who created the world in perfection; rather they are the fault of humanity, who tarnished that perfection through rebellion against God; we continue to corrupt the created order through sin down to the present day.    In Romans 1:20, Paul asserts that some of what can be known about God can be clearly perceived from nature and creation. That anyone would deny the handiwork of an intelligent and compassionate Designer is more a reflection of them than it is of God Himself. In this verse Paul is substantiating the claim that he made previously in v. 19, specifically that God has caused His existence and character to be evident to humanity.

    In Greek, the first concept introduced in verse 20 is “His invisible attributes.” Paul concedes the challenge implicit behind making evident something that is invisible. The word aorata, meaning “invisible,” is used in reference to God the Father also in Col 1:15, 1 Tim 1:17 and Heb 11:27. In fact, Col 1:16 uses the word in relation to the creation of some things that are “invisible,” presumably, members of the angelic order. 

    In Rom 1:20, the pronoun “His” specifies that the unseen elements being discussed are those which belong to God, thus the translation “His invisible attributes.” Elsewhere Scripture attests that God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and exists primarily in ways that are undetectable by humanity. That is, we do not see evidence of Him directly, but by secondary means, as Paul will explain in this passage. However, the Father has at times manifest Himself visible in visions (such as in Isaiah 6), though these are rare. He will apparently be visible to our glorified eyes on a more consistent basis in the eternal state (Rev 21:22-23).

    We will jump ahead to a clause that explains these “invisible attributes” which are basically summed up in the phrase “eternal power and divine nature.” Again, we do not witness these things first-hand but through secondary means. Used elsewhere only in Jude 1:6, the Greek word aidios “eternal power,” seems to have an archaic ring to it. It is used of the perennial virtue of godliness in the apocryphal book of 4 Maccabees 10:15. In another apocryphal book, the Wisdom of Solomon, wisdom is said to be a “reflection of eternal light” (7:26). The word is addresses the eternality of God, but it is more of a qualitative word, expressing something of the highest order. This word modifies the “power” of God.

    The second element of the phrase is theiotes, His “divinity” or “divine nature.” The word is a hapax (only used once in the NT), and it is used rarely in contemporary Greek literature of allegedly divinely appointed-rulers and rituals to Greek deities.

    Paul locates the evidence of God’s attributes all the way back “from the creation of the world.” While we cannot verify His existence through primary means (that is, we cannot “see” or “touch” God presently), creation verifies His existence through secondary means, such as the beauty and order of creation. This is similar to how we cannot see the wind, but we know that it exists because we can see its effects on trees.

    I think that it is interesting here to note also that the created order is the arena in which created sentient beings are placed so that they could interact with their Creator; it will continue to be the arena of interface and interaction with the Creator for all eternity. The created order originally lacked sin which currently inhibits interaction between sentient creatures and the Creator. Paul will spell out the effects of sin in the next few chapters.

    Paul juxtaposes two words of perception to show that the created order clearly demonstrates evidence that God created it. God’s character and attributes have been “clearly seen” and can be “understood.”

    What is the purpose of Paul pointing this out? The last phrase of the verse begins with the phrase “in order that” or “so that,” which signals a purpose clause (the Greek phrase eis to einai could literally translated as “for the ‘to be’,”). This exact purpose phrase is used eight times in the NT: once by James in 1:18, and by Paul in Eph 1:12, and the other six uses occur in Romans (1:20; 3:26; 4:11, 16; 8:29; 15:16); Paul continually gives the purposes for the intricate theological arguments that he makes in Romans.

    The specific purpose of the perceivability of the Creator in creation, even if indirectly rather than directly, is so that humanity is “without excuse.” The adjective used here anapologetos (used also in 2:1), and you may be able to see most of the word “apology” in that word. In ancient times, “apology” didn’t mean saying you’re sorry, but rather, it described giving a logical defense of something in such a clear manner that someone who opposed you would be “without excuse” and would have to agree with you. In fact, the related word apologia, a defense for one’s faith or actions, is used in the NT also (Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Cor 9:3; 2 Cor 7:11; Phil 1:7, 16; 2 Tim 4:16; 1 Pet 3:15).

    Despite all of the allegedly logical and scientific claims, people do not have any reason for not seeing God’s design, creativity, and providence in the world. Tragedies do not disprove God’s existence, but rather prove the fallenness of humanity and of the current world order. This world longs to be restored to its original beauty and order (Rom 8:18-22), and believers in Christ will be restored with creation, as well. 

    In light of the overwhelming beauty and order of creation—even creation marred by human sin and evil—people are still “without excuse” when they try to deny the existence, sovereignty or care of God.

BROWNCOAT BAY: Making Tracks – “River’s Afraid / Niska / Torture”

    ***Spoiler Alert: This article may contain spoilers for the episodes described.***

    We have an article series called “Great Firefly Moments,” which spotlights some of our favorite lines or events from the series or from the BDM, that is, the film Serenity.

    But in this series called “Making Tracks,” we want to examine some of the music behind Firefly, either from the series or from the film, and perhaps we’ll get into some of the fan Filk, as well.

    Firefly is a very eclectic show, a fact we even wrote about in our inaugural edition of The Eclectic Kasper in January 2011. The music from Greg Edmonson’s soundtrack reflects that variety, integrating western sounds with eastern sounds, and blending classical orchestration with more modern instrumentation.

    I had a difficult time actually locating where in the episode this part of the song is played (it may actually be from another episode), but it definitely sounds like River’s airy mentality. This first part of the track closes with some lower chimes that sound as though someone has had an epiphany or made a resolute decision.    The transition into the second section, “Niska,” begins at the 0:54 mark with low percussion sounds. These are also accompanied with high sustained strings, which now seem more foreboding. Slow and subtle string and brass undercurrents project a menacing tone; this tone is accentuated by the random instrumentation spotlighted in this section, such as the cool aboriginal sound at 1:15 mark and then the reed instrument at around 1:25.

    Much of this part of the track is ambiance, portaging a gritty and threatening feel without featuring a definitive melody. This middle part of the track has the kind of low percussive and subtly metallic sounds that one might expect in a space station, as well as the kind of subtly eastern European sounds one would expect to be hovering around someone named Niska. It is played while Zoe is being escorted through Niska’s Skyplex to negotiate for Mal and Wash, a mission which is only partially successful. This second section ends as the doors open and she sees the two captives. 

    The third part of this track, beginning around the 1.51 mark, “Torture,” is actually the first music heard at the beginning of the episode. It starts with a guitar strum, which is noteworthy because this is one of the songs on the sound track that seems to feature very little guitar. The guitar cord sounds like a classic firefly moment, and sure enough, we see Serenity float across the screen. This moment, however, is fascinatingly deceptive, as the scene cuts quickly away to Niska’s Skyplex on the other side of the planet. 

    The rest of this third section mirrors many of the ominous tones from the second, such as the low sustained and percussive notes and the eastern European reed instrument sounds. The track begins to feature some mid-range strings that get more animated and excited as Niska himself hears what for him is “exciting news.” This section ends in a dramatic crescendo as Niska menacingly mentions to his torture victim the psychopathic philosopher and dictator Shan Yu and then the scene cuts suddenly to black.

    As with many songs on the Firefly soundtrack, I am amazed at the multitude of instruments and sounds that are employed in this track. Also typical of many of these songs, I love how symphonic and modern instruments are blended seamlessly. The tones created by these interacting instruments are not extreme or stereotypical; that is, the sound created in the first section, “River’s Afraid,” is not the sound of terror, but rather of apprehension and unease. Similarly, the tone in the last two sections of this track are more ominous and dark than they are pure evil. As with most of the songs on this CD, this ambiguity of sounds, instruments and melody, echo the ambiguity of the relationships in the story. 

    “River’s Afraid / Niska / Torture” showcases Edmonson’s expertise with a variety of instruments and his ability to blend them flawlessly in a way that matches the tone and plot of the episode perfectly.

GETTIN’ TECHNICAL: Is Christ Just “a god”?

    In the article “The Word Is God” above we surveyed John 1:1-3 and noted the very powerful and unambiguous ways in which these verses affirm the full deity of Jesus Christ, but also recognize the difference between God the Father and God the Son.

    So, what about the claim of Jehovah’s Witnesses that Jesus was merely “a god” in the New World Translation?

    The explanation is fascinating, but rather technical, so I’ll boil it down as best as I can.

    We’ll explain this phrase from back to front. You are probably familiar with the idea of a predicate nominative; this basically describes a direct object that is being identified with a subject. If I say “I am a dad,” the subject is “I,” and “dad” is not merely the direct object, but more specifically, it is a predicate nominative. I belong to the broader category of “dad” and hold a status as a parent that reflects my “dad-ness.” Similarly, when it says that “the Word was God,” this means that “the Word” (subject) possesses everything that it means to be “God” (predicate nominative).    This second instance of the word “God” is also a pre-verbal predicate nominative. This means – as the name implies – that the predicate nominative is placed before the verb, which is very unusual. Think about the above example: we usually would say, “I am a dad” or “I am strong.” In both of these cases, the predicate nominatives come after the verb, or they are “post-verbal,” if you will. It would be very awkward to say “Dad am I” or “Strong am I.” The only real reason why we would do so is to really emphasize the predicate nominative. The phrase “I am strong” is not as forceful as the phrase “Strong am I.”

    In John 1:1, the fact that the second occurrence of the word “God” is a predicate nominative that is placed before the verb means that the phrase is strongly emphasizing that predicate nominative. It is a characteristic that fully belongs to the subject, and could be translated “the Word was definitely God” or “was absolutely God.”

    The word anarthrous in Cowell’s construction of an anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative just means that this second instance of the word “God” in John 1:1 doesn’t have a definite article. But, the reason for this is not because John is asserting that this word is indefinite or ambiguous somehow. The reason why it lacks a definite article is because this is the only way in Greek for the author to distinguish the subject from the predicate nominative. If both “Word” and “God” had definite articles with a verb in between, the reader would not know which was the subject and which was the predicate nominative. One would be able to read the sentence both as “the Word was God” as well as “God was the Word.” But this is not what John is saying. John uses this specific construction to emphasize that Christ was truly and absolutely God.

    The use of Cowell’s construction here means that to render this phrase with the indefinite article “a god,” rather than merely rendering the word “God,” is very unusual to the point of being grammatically implausible. Researcher Paul Stephen Dixon found fifty-three other instances of Colwell’s construction in John and not a single one was considered indefinite (Daniel Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 262, note 19).

    The bottom line: There is no exegetical, grammatical, or contextual reason for using the translation “a god” in John 1:1 or for not recognizing the assertion of the full deity of Christ in this verse. Again, the Greek construction here emphasizes the deity of Christ rather than minimizes it (Leon Morris, John, 69).

    Why, then, would the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation here render John 1:1 “the Word was a god,” in intentional contradiction to mainline translations and Greek grammar? 

    The reason is because the grammar and meaning of this verse clearly affirms the full deity of Jesus Christ, which completely conflicts with Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine. As we have tried to show in this article, that affirmation is even more clear in the Greek than it is in the English. One scholar who studied the NWT noted the “arbitrary dogmatism” of the JW’s translation specifically in these early verses of John 1 (R. H. Countess quoted in Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 276). The New World Translation here and on other occasions mistranslates from the Greek because they do not want to affirm the full and undiminished divinity of Christ. Greek scholar Dan Wallace himself suggests that “one can only suspect strong theological bias in such a translation” (Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 267).

    This last phrase in John 1:1 is a theologically revolutionary statement: “The Jews knew with an unshakable certainty that there was, there could be, only one God. When John says, ‘the Word was God,’ his words must be understood in the light of Jewish pride in monotheism. Even though this writer regarded monotheism as a central tenet in his religion he yet could not withhold from the Word the designation ‘God’” (Leon Morris, John, 69). 

    The first chapter of John in an unmistakable affirmation of the full deity of God’s Son, Jesus Christ. Any assertion that Christ is merely “a god” is exegetically and grammatically flawed.

MODERN SPIRITUALITY: The Great Con of Interconnectedness

    We have been discussing the spirituality of neo-paganism and new-ageism, which is swiftly becoming the spiritual ideology of many in Western societies. Someone doesn’t have to attend a Wiccan ritual or a Hindu festival in order for them to drift toward neo-pagan and new-age ways of thinking.

    In this article we will discuss the notion of interconnectedness between the idea of God and creation, as well as between people and creation. This notion that humanity can forge a global connectedness on our own is nothing but a complete con. In fact, the neo-paganism and the new age movement put the “con” in “interconnectedness.”

    These ideas of interconnectedness bring the one true God down to the level of creation, and they also minimize the biggest problem that creates disconnection between creation and between people, as well.    In the January 2016 edition, we discussed the issue of bringing God down to earth. The idea of pantheism is rampant and it asserts that god (or gods or goddesses) are interconnected with the created order.

    The idea of interconnectedness also extends to people being connected with nature; the material and spiritual orders and everything included are supposedly intertwined. In James Redfield’s influential 1993 book Celestine Prophecy, one of the book’s characters says to the protagonist: “During your mystical encounter on the ridge top, your energy flashed a word into the whole universe. Essentially you connected into energy from the entire cosmos and in turn your energy swelled to encompass everything, everywhere” (p. 117). In The Empire Strikes Back, Yoda famously says to Luke Skywalker, “For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter [indicating Luke’s muscles]. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.”