JANUARY 2015

In this edition . . .

Welcome to year five of our humble little web journal, The Eclectic Kasper!

The beginning of our fifth year . . . wow!

At this point, we have completed 38 editions including the present one, and provided the world with over 220 articles that edify, encourage, or entertain; most of which can be accessed through our “Eclectic Archive.”

We have some changes this year: more content, shorter articles, and more variety! Also, we are planning to have many more authors on board writing about politics, music, culture, and much more.

Also, this year, we begin our most ambitious project yet: a commentary through the book of Romans. Yes, every edition, we will trickle out a bit of commentary about every verse in the book of Romans, sometimes, two or three verses combined, and sometimes up to two separate articles in each edition. In fact in this edition of The Eclectic Kasper we have three separate articles about the Book of Romans: an introduction to Romans, the influence of Romans, and the beginning of the commentary itself, starting with the first two verses of Romans.

Also, we’re having a Facebook drive in 2015 with the goal of getting to 200 “likes” by the end of the year. That way, we can have more people benefit from and participate in this eclectic dialog. So if you support Biblical thought, free speech, or would just like a forum for your opinions, then give our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page a “like.” You can leave comments there about any of our articles or you can start threads about new topics!

And we love feedback! Please send your thoughts, ideas, questions, praises and criticisms to feedback@eclectickasper.com; we reprint good feedback anonymously in subsequent editions, usually with a response.

Thank you for joining us on this eclectic journey. We hope that in 2015 we can continue to inform, entertain, and help you contemplate this big eclectic world from a Biblical perspective.

ROMANS: Introduction to Romans

In this edition, we initiate our most ambitious The Eclectic Kasper project yet: the beginning of a verse-by-verse commentary through the book of Romans.

I have been studying Romans for about a year now, taking notes from the original Greek and consulting several commentaries in my studies. I have also taught through Romans a time or two, and, therefore, I will try to make sure that we recognize practical application in the midst of our academic endeavors. My hope is that this series will be edifying to our The Eclectic Kasper readers and that it will be helpful to pastors and teachers that want to utilize this research, as well.

Keep in mind, too, that there are some great commentaries on the book of Romans. So if you are not patient enough to wait a half-century for us to finish this series, then you can always refer to some commentaries, several of which I will refer to often. My favorite is Leon Morris’s commentary on Romans (The Epistle To the Romans, Eerdmans, 1988), but I would also recommend an older two-volume work by C. E. B. Cranfield (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans, T & T Clark, 1975 for vol 1 and 1979 for vol 2; though Cranfield should be read with more caution that you would use with Morris). And of course, we cannot forget Martin Luther’s Epistle to the Romans, the richest and most influential part of which is his “Preface to Romans” from 1552. Other commentaries that come highly recommended, although I have not interacted with these as much, include James Dunn’s two volume work (Word Publishing, 1988) and Douglas Moo’s books including the more technical NICNT volume from 1996 or his more expositional NIVAC book from 2000).

So here are some introductory notes to orient us to the book of Romans before we delve into our first verse-by-verse treatment of Romans in the article “An Ancient Gospel, Romans 1:1-2” below.

Most theologians agree that Romans is the most systematic explanation of the Gospel in the New Testament. Remember that the Bible is not a systematic theology; that is, it does not begin by describing the doctrines about God and then move on to doctrines about the Bible (Bibliology), and then truths about Christ (Christology), and so forth. Rather, the truths about faith are intermingled in epistles, stories, Psalms, prophecies, and parables. However, more than most other Bible books, Romans lays out logically the message about the need for, the appropriation of, and the application of the Gospel of Christ.

Romans was written by the Apostle Paul. Triangulating information in Romans, Acts and 1 Corinthians yields the conclusion that he most likely wrote it on his third missionary journey around 55-56 CE. He probably wrote Romans while at Corinth; Acts 20:1-3 mentions that he spent three months in Greece and some of the individuals mentioned in Romans 16 (who also sent their greetings to the readers) are known to have lived in Corinth. Phoebe, mentioned in Rom 16:1, is said to be from Cenchrea, which is a mere six miles east of Corinth. Romans was written using a secretary, or an amanuensis, named Tertius (16:22). Paul probably dictated much of his thoughts to the scribe Tertius, who may have helped with the editorial process before the letter was sent to Rome. That final edited product is what we believe to be completely inspired by God, and therefore, is, like the rest of the Bible, inerrant and infallible. Other ancient authors, such as the Roman writer Cicero, used scribes; the apostle Peter also says that he used a scribe (1 Peter 5:12). Paul apparently used an amanuensis for several of his epistles, but then wrote a greeting in his own handwriting toward the end of the letter (1 Cor 16:21, Col 4:18; 2 Thess 3:17). This is the ancient equivalent of how today we authorize documents with our signature. Since he commonly utilized a scribe for his letters, it is noteworthy that in certain urgent situations he apparently wrote the entire letter out himself (Gal 6:11, Philemon 1:19).

The reasons for writing the book of Romans seem twofold. First Paul wanted to extend his apostolic authority to an influential church that he had not yet visited, but wanted to (1:11-15; 15:22-23). He provides apostolic leadership by laying out a full and systematic description of the gospel message and its implications for relationships, attitudes toward government, spiritual gifts and Christian living. A basic outline of the content of Romans is as follows:

A. Condemnation (1-3)

B. Justification (4-7)

C. Glorification (8)

D. Election (9-11)

E. Sanctification (12-16)

A second purpose for writing is that he had heard that there was tension between Jewish and Gentile believers. This energizes his discussions especially in chapters 2-3 that all people – Jews and Gentiles alike – are guilty before God and in need of justification. The Jews are not more saved nor more savable because they have a greater proximity to the Law. Tensions between Jews and Gentiles had apparently generated quarrels over non-essential issues regarding the dietary and religious regulations of the OT (Rom 14-15). Paul wanted the church in Rome to focus on the essential truth that the grace of God has provided salvation to sinners. The righteousness of God can be appropriated by sinful people simply by believing in the sacrificial death and literal resurrection of Christ. This faith then catapults the believer into a life of self-sacrifice and service to God and to His people; that service and compassion for other believers transcends ethnic and cultural boundaries.

If you would like to see some of the fascinating stories about great churchmen who were especially impacted by Romans, see our article “The Influence of Romans” below. If you want to jump right into the text of Romans, then see our article “An Ancient Gospel, Romans 1:1-2” below.

Every edition we will lay out one or two articles either on a single verse or a collection of verses through Romans. We hope that you will enjoy this journey into the profound heights and depths of the sovereignty, majesty, and compassion of the one true God through Christ as portrayed by the Apostle Paul in Romans.

SOCIETY/ CULTURE: The Race to Ferguson

When a police officer shot a young man in Ferguson, Missouri last August, the race was on.

However, it was not a race to obtain justice, or balance, or peace. It was a race to control a narrative and an interpretation about the events in Ferguson.

One value to writing a monthly web journal is that we often have the hindsight to avoid that kind of knee-jerk reactions that now characterize modern American journalism. Rarely in the media – from both the CNN/ NBC side as well as the Fox News side – do we get helpful facts, statistics and data. Rather, America is bombarded with mindless speculation about events under the guise that something “new” or “substantive” is happening, à la the coverage of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which neurotically reiterated that there was nothing new to report.

Now that we have some distance from the events of Ferguson, we can see plainly in hindsight that the situation in Ferguson created a race to control the narrative about . . . well . . . race.

In fact, this race to frame Ferguson as an event about race started with the need to identify the two individuals according to their race. The shooter was always designated as a “white” officer or policeman. The one who was shot was also always portrayed by his skin color, “black.” He was frequently referred to as a “teen,” which, while technically true, blurs the fact that he was eighteen, and therefore, really should have been considered an adult. It was also mentioned that the “victim” was “unarmed,” which again, while technically true, does not mean that he was innocent, or not violent (keeping in mind that this same “unarmed” individual and his friend had just robbed a convenience store). This rhetorical trident of “unarmed black teen” was used ad nauseum to forge a narrative that Michael Brown was a helpless and hapless boy who was the victim of institutionalized racial aggression incarnated by this pale cop.

Ferguson was never about police brutality, juvenile violence or self-defense. It was always framed about race, and it was always about controlling a narrative of how America -- supposedly -- remains a deeply racist country, as demonstrated by an allegedly angry and racist cop shooting an innocent black boy. Another moment of racing to control the racial agenda occurred when news networks described the result of the grand jury: They frequently stated that the grand jury “failed” to indict Darren Wilson. What may initially sound like a semantic nuance is actually a critical declaration. The talking heads were not saying that the grand jury “succeeded” in coming to a decision, or that they “succeeded” in carrying out justice. Rather, they “failed” by not declaring Darren Wilson guilty. It is as though they were saying, “We all expected that they should heap guilt on Wilson, which would have been the noble and PC thing to do!” But instead, the grand jury “failed.” They failed, and therefore society failed, race relationships failed, and, somehow, we all failed.

It was noteworthy however that on January 21, 2015, the New York Times reported that Department of Justice lawyers recommend that the DOJ not pursue civil rights charges against Darren Wilson. Why? Because, despite what we were all lead to believe, and surely despite their best efforts, they could not find evidence that Wilson acted with racist motives. Perhaps such evidence can’t be found because it didn’t exist.

I do not doubt that there is racial profiling, and racist stereotypes, animosity, jokes, and attitudes still in modern America. But we act as though racial tension is new and that the only form of “othering” that occurs in this country is of whites toward blacks.

By the way, where are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Eric Holder when there are episodes of black-on-black crime, or even when a white officer seems to use excessive force on a white young man? They are nowhere to be found because those kind of stories are simply not as lucrative as what happened in Ferguson. Or, at least, it is lucrative if you win the race to control the narrative of Ferguson. Setting racial fires where there are perhaps not even sparks of racism is the only way for these sultans of shtick to stay relevant and to feel needed in society. If we all recognize that many incidents of violence are not race oriented, then Jackson, Sharpton, and Holder lose their cultural pull, not to mention their funding and their invitations to deliver fancy speeches.

Let’s be honest about Ferguson: it was unfortunately tragic incident that was leveraged by some to promote artificial social agendas and by others because it is lucrative for them. It’s hard to know in every instance which individuals are profiting politically and which individuals are profiteering, but I suspect that the line between the two is pretty grey and not very . . . well . . . black and white.

Either way, I believe that this much is true: The more we fan the flames of race the longer it will take for the embers of racial division and prejudicial attitudes to die down.

To the major questions surrounding this incident and regarding the broader discussions about race, I am sure that I have not here provided suitable answers. In fact, I’m not even sure if we have correctly identified all of the questions. However, one main point stands out: Ferguson was about controlling the narrative about race, which is a tragic exploitation of the death of one man and the destroyed career of another.

Ferguson did not lead the country to have open and honest discussions about race relations that some claim we need. Rather, the embers of Ferguson still burn, and the issues of race relationships have not improved. But I believe that this is not because of endemic racism in America. Rather, it is mainly on account of those who keep fanning the flames of racial tension and racing to control the narrative about race for their own personal gain. And, in this instance, Al Sharpton’s gain is America’s loss.

So, do you agree or disagree? Send us your thoughts at feedback@eclectickasper.com.

ROMANS: The Influence of Romans

In the article about Romans above we discussed some introductory issues regarding the book of Romans in the New Testament, issues such as the authorship and the purposes of the book. Before we begin a verse by verse commentary, we wanted to mention some significant individuals who been influenced by Paul’s magnum opus.

The impact of Romans down through the corridors of Christianity can hardly be overemphasized. The enormously influential theologian Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 CE) claims that he was converted by his interaction with Romans 13:14: Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature. Augustine was convicted by this verse regarding his life of immorality and rebellion and he saw his need to trust Jesus Christ as his Savior.

One of the most compelling stories about the influence of Romans is found in the life of the great Reformer Martin Luther. Luther was a spiritually restless monk teaching Bible and theology at the University of Wittenberg. In 1515, he began a series of lectures from the book of Romans. The more he studied, the more he was struck by the inadequacy of his own works and merits to achieve God’s favor and grace. He was frustrated by the realization that he could not earn salvation through his deeds and devotion even as a churchman, a monk, and a theology professor.

It was specifically his interaction with Romans 1:17 and the phrase “the righteousness of God” that troubled him as he taught and agonized through these lectures. Luther finally saw that this phrase, taken from Habakkuk 2:4, was not just an indictment against his own guilt, but, as Paul described it, an opportunity for sinners to freely receive the grace of God. For those who could never justify themselves, it was the sole hope they had to receive justification through faith in the merits of Christ. Regarding this phrase, Luther later mused:

Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the justice of God and the statement that “the just shall live by his faith.” Then I grasped that the justice of God is that righteousness by which through grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors to paradise. The whole Scripture took on a new meaning, and whereas before the “justice of God” had filled me with hate, now it became to me inexpressibly sweet in greater love. This passage of Paul became to me a gate to heaven (Luther’s Works, Vol. 34: The Career of the Reformer IV, edited by Helmut L. Lehmann, 1960, p. 337).

His recognition of the true nature of the doctrine of justification by faith was revolutionary for Luther. But, he was disturbed by how this truth contradicted many teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Especially loathsome theologically to Luther was the sale of indulgences; the Roman Catholic Church taught that one could buy an indulgence in order to free a dead relative from Purgatory and thus, grant that relative entrance into heaven. Luther recognized this practice to oppose Paul’s teachings in Romans that sinners can be saved from Hell by the grace of God through faith in Christ without the need for personal merits or works. It was the sale of indulgences which Luther publicly opposed with the posting of his “95 Theses” on the Wittenberg Church door in 1517.

The influence of Romans is also seen in a significant moment in the life of English theologian John Wesley, who first really understood the Gospel when he heard someone reading Luther’s “Preface to Romans” at a Moravian meeting in 1738. And while Karl Barth, an early twentieth-century German theologian, is not often seen as the very model of a modern evangelical, his study of and writing about Romans were significant to his thought and career.

The epistle to the Romans is a wonderful, complicated, honest and thoughtful work that deserves our attention and study. So, ready to dive in? See our first article “An Ancient Gospel, Romans 1:1-2” below.

DISTANCE AND DENIAL: Two More Stumbles

This study has been describing in detail Peter’s denials of Jesus in Luke 22:54-62. In our last article in the December 2014 edition, we saw Peter take “That First Dangerous Step” away from Christ. Rather than recovering from that error and resolving to stand against further temptations, in Luke 22:58-59 we see Peter make two more stumbles.

That first episode of denial in verses 56-57 dies down. The threat passes, and perhaps Peter is feeling good about the fact that he dodged a bullet. However, the attacks are not over; they rear their head again “a little while later” (v. 58).

Both verse 58 and verse 59 begin with expressions about the passage of time. What is significant about the fact that the three denials are separated by time?

Or, think of this episode from another perspective: what if the three denials had been piled on top of one another? What if Peter had made three denials of his association with Christ in quick and close succession? Perhaps, then, we would have written this episode off as one big denial in three close statements.

But the fact that these episodes are separated by so much time demonstrates Peter’s ongoing, intentional denial of Jesus. It shows that the first denial was not a fluke; it was not committed in a moment of weakness nor in the heat of passion. There was a sustained period, apparently for over an hour, where Peter stood in denial of Christ. This is not one episode of denial with three expressions, but rather, three separate episodes of denial, at three different times in the evening, and, according to Luke’s account, denials to three different people.

What about the number three? Surely, there were three denials to fulfill what Jesus had said back in v. 34. But is there a deeper significance to the fact that this occurred at three different times throughout the night?

Many times, something happens in threes in Scripture to demonstrate the certainty of something or the truth about someone’s character. Sampson deceives Delilah and then is attacked three times (Judges 16:15); that pattern should have tipped him off to what would happen the fourth time. In 1 Samuel 3, the young boy Samuel hears someone calling to him, and the third time, Eli discerns that the voice is from God (1 Samuel 3:8). Saul is thwarted three times from capturing David (1 Sam 19:21), which should have been a sign that Saul was in the wrong. In order to convince Peter about a transition away from the OT dietary laws, God gives Peter the vision of the sheet and the unclean animals three times (Acts 10:16).

For more examples of this literary device, see Numbers 22:28, 1 Kings 18:34, Daniel 6:10, John 21:17 and 2 Corinthians 12:8. By the way, I can’t help but wonder if this is why God’s people in the Old Testament were required to attend feasts in Jerusalem three times a year (Exod 23:14, 17; 34:23-24; Deut 16:16). The idea of three demonstrates the certainty and reality of something.

See, if something happens once, it could be a fluke. The second time it happens, we start to wonder if there is some kind of template emerging. But the third time it happens, we can recognize a definitive path that someone has taken. We all encounter flukes in our lives, but when something happens three times, then it is no longer just an accident, but an established pattern.

The fact that Peter denied Jesus three times over a long period of time demonstrates a deep problem in Peter’s life: the denial was not just a fluke; but the second and third stumbles demonstrate a serious and sustained lack of faith on Peter’s part.

Peter is challenged about his association with Christ a second time in v. 58, but again definitively denies Christ. What motivations does Peter have for laying low at this point? He just assaulted a servant of the high priest (back in v. 50). The ear was fixed, but there may be some residual resentment from that servant or from someone else in the crowd. And again, Peter is still hiding out in the midst of that crowd, trying to lay low, and warming himself by their fire. About an hour goes by. For the third time Peter is identified as a follower of Christ (v. 59). The word diischurizomai is translated “to insist,” but literally means, “to be strong through” something (also in Acts 12:15). In classical Greek, this verb meant “to rely upon” or “to affirm confidently.” By this point, the rest of the crowd may be looking at Peter, comparing notes with one another, and may be in serious doubt about his insistence that he has no association with Jesus.

The man in v. 59 notes that Peter is a Galilean. Perhaps he points out an accent, or a manner of attire, or something to verify that Peter is from Galilee, where Jesus grew up and began His ministry. Also, this third accusation uses the prepositional phrase “with him” (met’ autou). This is a note not just of proximity near Jesus but association with Him. This association with Jesus is mentioned previously in this chapter in v. 15 (“I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you . . .”), in v. 28 (“You are those who have stood with Me in My trials”), and in v. 33 ([Peter] said to Him, “Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!”).

This now is Peter’s chance to fess up, to make a bold stand for Jesus, to not make that third stumble, and to demonstrate that he is not a perpetual deny-er! However, he has created a track record, and patterns of sin are hard to break. This is the problem with sin; one sin becomes a habit so quickly, that it makes the excuse of just “one little sin” a complete lie.

Peter responds with passion, a passion that we have seen from Peter previously in the gospel narratives. But that passion is not directed toward standing up for Christ, but rather for vindicating himself. Verse 60 reflects Peter’s agitation (though Matthew 26:74 and Mark 14:71 indicates that this is more than just a minor frustration!). He not only denies Jesus, he denies any knowledge of what he is being accused of.

In the middle of his rant in denial and defiance of Jesus, the rooster crows. Surely this would have struck Peter, but not, perhaps, as deeply as what happened next, as we will discuss in the next article in this series.

Peter’s acts are neither a fluke, nor done in the heat of passion. Given the extended time frame between the three denials, they relate an intentional attempt to distance himself from Christ for the sake of situational expedience.

We always have the choice to break patterns of sin in our lives or to continue on in those patterns. Those patterns then are no longer just something that we do, but they become a part of us and define our mindsets and course of life.

That, however, is true of virtue as well. Virtue can become a pattern that characterizes our lives once we continually make godly and wise choices that conform to Scripture.

Peter’s actions should give us pause and challenge the believer today as to whether we want to continue to make wrong choices, or whether we want to embrace wisdom and godly choices as soon as possible.

SOUNDTRACK REVIEW: Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, music by Michael Kamen

The following article is originally from the January 2011 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, with minor modifications.

The late Michael Kamen (who composed the music for Highlander, X-Men, and the Lethal Weapon series) wields an impressive and understated body of work on movie soundtracks that spans action, fantasy, drama, and sci-fi, not to mention his collaboration with groups like Pink Floyd, Queen and Rush.

His score for the 1991 film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is an especially outstanding tapestry of Kamen’s skills as he blends medieval sensibilities and orchestral expertise.

The first two minutes of the “Overture” (track 1) herald a rugged heroism that majestically sets the tone for the rest of the movie. The music then transitions into the haunting sounds of an Arabic prison and the drama of Robin and Azeem’s escape and return to England. The beginning of “Sir Guy of Gisborne and the Escape to Sherwood” (track 2) is beautiful and haunting, without abandoning the heroic tone.

The magical nuance of a medieval forest, even in a non-fantasy movie, is felt in “Little John and the Band in the Forest” (track 3) and the first half of “The Sheriff and His Witch” (track 4). The use of the oboe, which is Kamen's specialty, and the dulcimer in many of the album’s tracks contribute to the mystical and adventurous sensations in this particular rendition of the Robin Hood legend. These rich medieval strains, which propel either the romantic elements or alternatively the action elements of the plot, are carried through until the last orchestral notes in “The Abduction and the Final Battle at the Gallows” (track 8).

I actually like how the album breaks from its orchestral style for the last two pop/ rock tracks. Kamen has already integrated the melody from the song, “(Everything I Do) I Do It for You.” However, Bryan Adams’ rendition, which was co-written by Kamen, and enjoyed a good deal of success, still acts as an enjoyable finale to the orchestral sections. The last song, “Wild Times,” by Jeff Lynne, is only heard briefly in the background of the film, and in a much more accoustic/ tribal form. I must admit, I didn’t care for the song too much initially, but it did grow on me.

Kamen's score for Robin Hood has an enduring and universal quality to it. It has been really interesting to see segments of it, especially the theme strains from the “Overture,” utilized in other contexts. Once in a while, you'll hear a few measures of the “Overture” in the introduction to a Disney movie. It is also used occasionally as background or bumper music to certain ESPN segments; despite its orchestral style, there is actually something about the theme song that is sufficiently masculine and triumphal to seem at home in that context!

Any criticism of this album that I may have is in the way the tracks are divided on the CD format. The songs are long, and several of them should be broken down into their two or three constituent scenes, with the appropriate corresponding titles. I take it that the indexing just reflects a time when CDs were not as mainstream as they are today, and that is why the producers decided to combine sections and songs as they did. Of course, if you just want to just play the CD, and you don't care much about the track layout, then there’s nothing to worry about.

Michael Kamen’s work on Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is a profound and delightful fanfare of medieval tones and mature orchestration. His skills live on powerfully in this soundtrack.

WHY I AM A CESSATIONIST: The Main Spiritual Gifts Lists in the New Testament

We have been writing an ongoing series regarding whether all the spirituals gifts continue to persist into the present day or whether some have ceased. Charismatics believe that certain sign gifts, like healings and tongues, continue to be available to the church today; thus, this position is sometimes called “continuationism.” Others believe that the “subtle” gifts persist, but that the sign gifts have ceased, which is the position known as “cessationism.”

The stakes to this debate are high both theologically and in terms of how a church practices and worships together on a weekly basis. But it is also high because it means that one segment of Christianity is very wrong on this issue. If the cessationists are wrong, then they are depriving themselves of some very meaningful Christian experiences through which the Spirit can work to produce healing and revelation. If the continuationists are wrong, then they have either been fooling themselves with healings and strange tongues, or else they have been working under the auspices of supernatural powers other than God’s.

We have addressed several reasons why I am a cessationist, including, the “Dubious History” of the Charismatic movement (April 2014), interpretations of the book of Acts (May 2014), and considerations from 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 (November 2014). We will provide more reasons for the cessationist view as this series continues. But for now, we are taking a little rabbit trail for the purpose of listing out the gifts that are specifically mentioned in the NT.

In this article, we will make a few comments about spiritual gifts in the NT. Then we will describe the specific gifts listed in two passages and provide some definitions for them. Many of these definitions are taken, sometimes with modifications, from Robert L. Saucy’s The Church in God’s Program (pp. 132-140), as well as from the helpful websites http://mintools.com/gifts-list.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_gifts. The word in the NT usually associated with the gifts of the Holy Spirit is the word charisma (Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 7:7; 12:4, 28, 31; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Pet 4:10). There is another word for “gift” in the NT, dora, but that has a different connotation than charisma. One good definition for charisma follows: “A spiritual gift is a supernatural ability sovereignty bestowed upon every Christian by the Holy Spirit, enabling him or her to carry out their divinely assigned function as a member of Christ’s body, the church” (Bob Deffinbaugh, “Spirituality and Spiritual Gifts - Part 2 [1 Cor. 12:4-11]”). Most of the gifts are given in the context of encouraging church unity and mobilizing the body to use gifts in concert with those who have different gifts. It goes against the purpose of gifts when the gifts or arguments about gifts divide the body.

In this article, we will look at the list of gifts in two main passages, Romans 12:4-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:1-11, and we will look at a few more passages about gifts in the next article.

It is important to note that all of the gift lists in the NT are given illustratively; none purport to be exhaustive. This makes one wonder whether these are the only gifts available to believers, or whether there are more that simply weren’t mentioned in these lists because they did not suit the author’s specific purpose at that time.

Also, though we attempt to define the gifts below, very few of these gifts have Biblical, inspired definitions, and in some cases, definitions are somewhat speculative. In fact, there is much debate about what some of these gifts mean and how they were used in the early church or how they should be used today. The definitions that are included are, again, just attempts to speculate what the function of that gift is based on the context, the word, or other considerations.

Keep one other thing in mind: Many of the qualities that are implied in these gifts are commanded of all believers. While some believers may be specially gifted in mercy or service, acts of mercy and service are required from all believers according to other clear NT texts. It is simply implied that those with these special gifts are enabled and expected to exercise that particular quality to an advanced degree.

And as we mentioned in our Feb 2014 article “It’s a Trap!”, the cessationist does not believe that all, or even most of the spiritual gifts have ceased, but only that the few “sign” gifts have ceased to be operative after the first few generations of Christianity, a notion that this series attempts to demonstrate.

The first passage is Romans 12:4-8. It lists the following gifts, and again, we are providing a basic definition of each:

Prophecy (exhortation): To speak out a message of God to His people.
Service (from the Greek word diakonia): To identify and accomplish undone tasks in the church.
Teaching: To instruct others in the Bible in a logical, systematic way so as to communicate pertinent information for true understanding and spiritual growth.
Encouraging/ exhorting (the Greek word parakaleō): To come along side someone in order to comfort and console or to help them make decisions for their spiritual benefit.
Giving: To share material resources with unusual generosity and cheerfulness.
Leading (proistēmi, lit., “to stand before”): To provide direction for a church body with care and diligence so as to motivate others to get involved with the accomplishment of its goals.
Mercy: To be sensitive toward those who are suffering, physically, mentally, or emotionally; to be genuinely sympathetic and compassionate and able to help alleviate someone else’s distress.

The second main passage that contains a gifts list is 1 Corinthians 12:1-11:

Word of Wisdom: To apply spiritual truths relevantly and practically in decisions and difficulties of life.
Word of Knowledge: To demonstrate special acuity with the analysis and communication of Biblical data.
Faith: To demonstrate unusual confidence in God’s power and truth such that one’s Christian convictions are not disturbed by circumstances and obstacles.
Healing: To be used as a means through which God brings physical wholeness to someone else. Some interpret this to include emotional, mental and spiritual healing as well.
Miracles: To be enabled by God to perform an act that evidences direct supernatural power.
Prophecy: See above.
Distinguishing between Spirits (discernment): To clearly distinguish (diakrisis, meaning “to judge through” or “judge between”) truth from error by evaluating whether a teaching or behavior is from God, Satan, demons, human error, or human evil.
Speaking in Tongues: To speak in a known, intelligible language not previously known by the speaker with the purpose that unbelievers can hear God’s message in their own language.
Interpretation of Tongues: To translate (hermeneia) the message that was spoken in tongues; again this is refers to a language previously unknown to the interpreter, but known by someone else present.

So again, those are the main two lists. In the next article in this series, we will note other places that list gifts in the NT and then consider some OT passages that may refer to specific spiritual gifts.

What do you think of these lists or of the definitions that are used for these gifts? Send us a wave with your thoughts and opinions at feedback@eclectickasper.com!

ROMANS: An Ancient Gospel, Romans 1:1-2

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, separated for the Gospel of God, which was announced previously by means of His prophets in the holy Scriptures.

Is the Gospel of Christ a new fad that burst on the Greco-Roman world in the first century? Does it have roots that go deeper than that? If it is indeed part of a broader historical legacy, then Christianity should demand the allegiance of individuals in the first century, and also it should demand the attention of people living today.

The book of Romans in the Bible begins with a greeting from the apostle Paul. Most greetings at the beginning of ancient letters and Biblical epistles have both generic elements as well as information that is specific to the content of that particular letter.

While some NT epistles begin a bit more generically, Paul begins Romans with a more unusual greeting. He mentions that he is a “servant” of God, which he only uses in the introduction to Philippians of himself and Timothy, and of himself in Titus, where he says that he is a servant “of God.” James, 2 Peter, and Jude each open by their respective authors referring to themselves as “servants” of God or of Christ.

Paul said that he was “called” to be an apostle of the Gospel. The adjective here is klatos in the original Greek and it is used 10 in the NT (Matt 22:14; Rom 1:1, 6, 7; 8:28; 1 Cor 1:1, 2; 1:24; Jude 1:1; Rev 17:14). Paul uses it twice of himself—here and in 1 Cor 1:1—but in the other eight instances, the adjective is clearly applied to all believers without qualification. In fact, these references in 1 Corinthians are significant because he applies the term “called” to all believers in verses 2 and 24 quickly after using the word in regard to his own unique ministry in verse 1. There seems to be a special calling to apostleship, but not a special calling to any other kind of ministry that applies now, including being “called” to be a pastor, missionary, teacher or children’s worker. While some may feel like they have been “called” to a unique ministry, technically, that usage is not consistent with the NT. All believers are called to serve.

The role of “apostle” is a historically unique role that is not repeated nor necessary in our day. Even though some people claim to hold the title of apostle today, they do so without Biblical authority. The original twelve disciples that Christ selected are called “apostles” (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:14; 6:30; Luke 6:13; 9:10; 11:49; 17:5; 22:14; 24:10), which literally means “sent ones” in the Greek. In Acts, the apostles lead, teach, and cooperate with other leaders in evangelism, church planting, and decision making. Interestingly enough, the term “apostle” is not used again after Acts 16:4.

Paul uses the term “apostle” frequently of himself and often includes the other original apostles, with the possible exceptions of Rom 16:7, 2 Cor 8:23, and Phil 2:25 where the word may more naturally refer to those who are sent by the apostles, rather than the apostles themselves, and 2 Cor 11:13 where he refers to “false apostles” (see also Rev 2:2). The author of Hebrews applies the term “apostle” to Christ, where, again, it refers more to Christ’s role as one sent from God. Peter refers to himself as an apostle three times (1 Pet 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1; 3:2), and the term is used twice in Revelation (18:20, 21:14), the second of these references clearly referring to the Twelve Apostles (though it remains unclear as to whether those twelve would include Matthias or Paul). In summary, the role of apostle is a non-repeatable office that was significant during the original spread of the Gospel and writing of the NT documents, but is no longer necessary today.

As a result of his apostolic calling, Paul mentions that he is “separated” for the Gospel of God and for its spread into unevangelized regions. The word aphorizo means “to separate, take away; exclude (from someone’s company); to set apart.” In fact, I believe this is where we get the word “aphorism” from, which is a phrase or saying that is set apart because of its unique wisdom and insight. The word is used in the NT of the separation of the saints from the wicked in the eschatological period (Matt 13:49; 25:32), the “ostracism” that some believers may encounter now on account of their faith (Luke 6:22), designating certain individuals for certain tasks in ministry (Acts 13:2; Rom 1:1; Gal 1:15), separating oneself from another group of people (Acts 19:9; Gal 2:12), or of the purity and separation that believers should pursue (2 Cor 6:17). The idea of holiness and separation is a significant theme in the NT and in Romans.

Having mentioned that he was separated for the sake of the Gospel of God, Paul continues in v. 2 to describe that Gospel. He mentions that the Gospel was “announced” or “promised” previously. That is, the Gospel, which had come to fruition during Paul’s time, was predicted and prophesied long before Christ’s birth. Jesus’ interaction with the disciples on the Emmaus road demonstrates how much of the Old Testament pointed toward Himself (Luke 24:27). The gospel is not a passing fad nor a cultural craze. Rather the life, ministry, and work of Christ is the pinnacle of the redemption story, a story that had begun many years before Paul’s writing of Romans and would culminate several millennia later.

The announcement was made by God “by means of” (the Greek preposition dia as in “diameter”) His prophets. In the first century Jewish mindset, “prophets” were more than just the major and minor prophets. Moses is lumped with the other OT prophets in Luke 24:27, and he prophesied of the Messiah (Deut 18:15, quoted in Acts 3:22; 7:37). Jude 1:14 mentions that Enoch prophesied (although the quote is taken from the an intertestamental work 1 Enoch 1:9). Peter affirms the role of the prophets as vessels predicting salvation: “As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries” (1 Peter 1:10).

The phrase “holy Scriptures” appears only here in the NT. Most of the 50 occurrences of the word graphe in the NT refer to the “Scriptures,” i.e., the OT Scriptures. But only here is the adjective “holy” (hagios) attached to the word. Paul uses the phrase “sacred writings” in 1 Tim 3:15, though in both places, the NIV renders the phrase “holy Scriptures.” It seems significant that the term “holy Scriptures” would be included in the introduction of a book like Romans, which explains the Christian message so systematically and clearly.

Christianity was not a passing fad in the first century, and it has certainly stood the test of time some twenty centuries later. Ironically, Christians are often caught up with cultural fads, including Christian ones. It is important for believers to recognize the historical and theological roots and to rally around those essentials, rather than to jump from one spiritual craze to another. Christianity has endured opposition and oppression, sword and flame, and this ancient message should continue to earn our highest aspirations now.

FEEDBACK: The “Magi” and their Language

We received the following comments from one of our readers about the article “The Truths and Myths of the Magi” from the December 2014 edition of The Eclectic Kasper.

I was wondering about how the “magi” communicated with Herod. It leads me to suspect that Persia may be the furthest they could have come, as Persian would be translated in Herod’s court.

Great point: They probably all communicated in Aramaic, which was the lingua franca of the region from Israel to the east, especially in the Assyrian/ Babylonian/ Persian regions. Greek was more the lingua franca from Israel to the west throughout the Mediterranean areas, but I’m sure that the magi knew Greek as well. Within a century or two, Latin would take over as the primary language of the region, and there is even mention of its use in John 19:20. And you are correct, there would be many in Herod’s court who would have understood Persian and Persian dialects for diplomatic purposes such as this occasion. But I suspect that most of their conversation would have been in Aramaic. And, yes, this would probably help us ascertain how far the magi came from. I recently heard someone suggest that the magi may have been Chinese – though the suggestion may have been a bit tongue-in-cheek since that theologian was Chinese himself! – but I can’t imagine that anyone in Herod’s court would have understood Chinese or even any of the Hindi/ Urdu languages that were spoken in India; it would be interesting to research that though! But based on that assumption, that would limit the range of the magi geographically.

Thanks for your feedback. Please give our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page a “like” and you can leave feedback there and even start a new post about whatever eclectic ideas that you may have. Also, you can e-mail us at feedback@eclectickasper.com with any questions, praises or critiques that you have, and we will reprint them anonymously in future editions.