JULY 2018

    There was, predictably, some anger and hurt feelings expressed on Facebook and elsewhere. But these reactions were far more muted and tempered this time around. The first time Lebron left Cleveland, we all thought that it was his fault; but this time, there seems to be an unspoken acknowledgement that this was our fault.

    The Cavs front office exhibited their incompetency by allowing Kyrie Irving to become increasingly unhappy in Cleveland, and then by letting him go to Boston last summer. The front office started the 2017-2018 year with a team that looked too good to be true, and, in fact, it was: the perpetually injured Derek Rose, the overhyped Isaiah Thomas, and the underutilized Dwayne Wade.

    Blunders too numerous to recount continued throughout the year. But I suspect that the JR Smith blunder at the end of Game 1 of the Finals was perhaps the death knoll for Lebron’s time in Cleveland. And lest you think that I’m being too hard on Smith, remember that he gets paid insane amounts of money to know what the score is and how much time is left on the clock, especially when you are in the last moments of the first game of the NBA finals.

    Of course, I could never cheer for the Lakers, but, somehow, I will find a way to avoid that and yet still cheer for the greatest player that the NBA has ever seen.

    Lebron, you gave Cleveland a prominence that we rarely receive. You led us to four consecutive finals appearances and helped us earn one championship. There are few cities that have enjoyed that and we should consider ourselves fortunate.

    So, Lebron, thanks for all you did for our city; goodbye, good luck, and God-speed.

DEITY OF CHRIST: Like Father, Like Son, Part 2

    As with the previous article in this series from the June edition, we continue to explore Biblical and theological proofs for the deity of Jesus Christ.

    In that article, we demonstrated that Jesus displays many of God’s incommunicable attributes. We explain this term more fully in the other article, but this basically refers to attributes or qualities that belong only to God, and are not shared by or “communicated to” people.

    In this article, we are moving from attributes to activities. That is, by showing the theology of how Jesus accomplishes many of the activities that are also ascribed to God, we demonstrate a strong case for Jesus’ full, unqualified deity.

    Let’s start at the very beginning, which, I am told, is a very good place to start. Genesis 1 portrays God creating the world in one week (see our articles in this series for more about why we should take this as seven literal days). However, over the progress of revelation, and especially in the New Testament, it is revealed that Jesus Christ also participated with this effort. He both participated in the creation of all things and He continues to maintain the existence of all things (John 1:3, 10; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2).

    We can get even more specific about Jesus’ role as co-Creator. The word, ktizo, “create” or “make,” is used in the NT mainly of God creating all things (Matt 19:4; Mark 13:19; Rom 1:25; Eph 3:9; 4:24; Col 3:10; 1 Tim 4:3; Rev 4:11; 10:6). However, it is also used at least twice of Christ’s activity and involvement with creation (Eph 2:10; Col 1:16).

    Several NT verses are exegetically significant to this discussion. First Corinthians 8:6 is especially crucial because it both admits that there is one God, and yet then describes how both the Person of the Father and of the Son participated in creation. Also, we need to ask why God would need to create “by” or “through” a mere human being (John 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2)? The very suggestion that God needed to utilize a human, or even an exalted angel, to create all things only diminishs God.

    In addition to being like God the Father by participating in the act of creation, Jesus also shares in God’s extensive, cosmic reign. Several well-supported Biblical points bear this out. Scripture states that all authority is given to Christ (Matt 11:27; 28:18; John 13:3; 17:2; Heb 1:2). Also, the kingdom and authority of God and of Christ overlap (Rev 11:15; 12:10); how would this be possible if Jesus were merely human? Jesus is frequently said to be at the right hand of God (Matt 22:44 [par. Mark 12:36]; Acts 7:55; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22), a position reserved for someone of equal status, even if they are in a lesser role.

    Scripture is even more specific about this, too. There is a “glorious throne,” mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 19:28 and 25:31, that He says would belong to Him after His resurrection. This glorious throne hearkens back to verbiage in Jeremiah where it was understood that this was a throne belonging to God alone (Jer 14:21; 17:12). Scripture associates Jesus with the throne of God in several other passages, also (Heb 1:8; Rev 3:21; 7:17; 12:5; 22:1, 3). What could it possibly mean for a mere human to share the throne of God? These verses demand that Jesus Christ is fully divine as well as fully human.

    Another set of activities that Jesus shares with the Father include the many miracles that Jesus performed. Of course, God performed miracles through many individuals in the Bible. But Jesus’ miracles are different in several ways. First they are different in quality; certain miracles seem unusual in scope or nature, such as the stilling of the storm in Matt 8:24-27 and the feeding of five thousand individuals in 14:19. Matthew 14:22-33 portrays Jesus both calming the storm (or “wind” vv. 24 and 32) and also walking on water (vv. 25-27). As a result of this event, Jesus’ disciples link His activity with the title “Son of God” and they worship Him (v. 33), that is, they recognize His inherent deity. Notably, no one else in the Bible through whom a miracle is accomplished also accepted worship afterward. In addition to the scope and quality of Jesus’ miracles, also distinguishes Himself by the quantity of miracles; the sheer amount of healings, miracles, and exorcisms seem unusual (Matt 8:16; 15:30; 21:14; Mark 1:34; though note Acts 8:7).

    In terms of a Biblical “proof” of Jesus’ deity, I would add a few qualifiers to this point about miracles. First, as alluded to previously, many others participated in miraculous activities throughout Scripture, and therefore, the performing of miracles cannot in itself be proof of Christ’s deity. There is definitely a sense that the manner in which Christ performs miracles is different, in that He exhibits inherent divine ability and authority as opposed to merely serving as a messenger or representative of God like Moses, Elisha, or Peter (Acts 3:6; 4:10). This fact cannot be ignored as a verification of Christ’s full deity. Nonetheless, I would be cautious to press this as a “proof” of His deity.

    The last activity that we will mention here that Jesus uniquely shares with God is that Jesus forgives sin, as demonstrated by Jesus’ healing of the paralytic in Matthew 9:1-8. The original observers would be acutely aware that God alone is the one who forgives sin (1 Kings 8:34; Ps 51:1-2; 103:4; Isaiah 43:25; 44:22; 55:7), because this kind of general forgiveness implies the moral perfection and purity of the one granting forgiveness. Those watching know exactly what Jesus is claiming when He offers clemency to the paralytic (Matt 9:2). Therefore, they accuse Him of blasphemy, or of claiming to be God, and significantly, Jesus does not refute them (v. 3).

    We may think that Jesus is claiming that it is easier to say “Your sins are forgiven” than “get up and walk” (v. 5). However, D. A. Carson asserts that from the perspective of a first century Jew, “Your sins are forgiven” is harder to say, because only God could do it (Carson, Matthew, 222). Also, the antagonistic scribes believed that Jesus wouldn’t have been able to heal with divine power if He had just blasphemed (John 9:31). In Matthew 9:6, then, Jesus is probably suggesting that He would do the easier healing so that they could know that He accomplished the harder task of divine forgiveness.

    But why is this a proof for Jesus’ divinity? Or to put it another way, why is Jesus’ act of providing forgiveness to this man different than when we forgive someone? Actually, the difference is incredibly important. We can only forgive offenses against us (Matthew 6:12; 18:21; Colossians 3:13). God alone can forgive all moral sin and heal us from its consequences (Ps 41:4; 103:3; Is 43:25). The fact that Jesus did so is definitive proof of His full deity.

    Just as Jesus reflects many of God the Father’s incommunicable attributes, so also, He does many of the activities that are recognized as works only God could accomplish. I will end this article by quoting the end of the previous article in this series: “When one considers the ways in which Scripture equates the Son’s power, authority and glory with that of God the Father, the inescapable conclusion is that Christ is God, and possesses the fullness of deity to the same extent as the Father does. To interpret Scripture in any other way is theologically illegitimate, lacks exegetical integrity, and is also profoundly self-deluding.”

    So, do you agree? Are these acceptable arguments for the full deity of Jesus Christ? How important is this issue and how central is it to the Christian faith? Send your comments and responses to feedback@eclectickapser.com, and we’ll present good reader feedback anonymously in a future edition. 

THE ABORTION DEBATE: Is An Unborn Baby Human?

        by Luke Kasper

    I suspect that most The Eclectic Kasper readers are against abortion. But the reason for this article is not to ‘convert’ you to anti-abortionism. Rather, I am trying to equip Christians so that they can have a better defense of their perspective on this issue.

    Let’s start with the fundamentals. If you are in a discussion with someone who is pro-abortion, you should start by getting to the heart of the issue. People think that it is very complicated and that there are many different variables; but they are wrong. There is only one question that will decide who is right about the issue: Is the unborn baby human or not? The answer to that question will decide the whole debate.

    If the fetus is not human, or is not a person, then it is acceptable to kill them. It is fine to let abortion clinics exist. It is acceptable to let our taxes go toward helping people pay for abortions. Fundamentally, if a fetus is not human then killing one is logically not murder. Murder of humans is, obviously, against the law and more importantly against God-given laws.

    But if fetuses are human, then it is undoubtedly wrong to kill them. It is wrong to let abortion clinics exist. It is wrong to let our taxes go toward helping people pay for abortions. And abortion is obviously murder if the fetus is a human.

    First is a simple point regarding how the Bible describes God’s initial interaction with the material order. The verb that is used in Genesis 1, verses 1, 21, and 27 is the Hebrew word bara which we translate “created.” The three uses of this word in Genesis 1 indicate a brand new kind of thing being created, including the entirety of the created order in v. 1, the creation of sentient animal life in v. 21, and in the creation of humanity in v. 27 where the verb is used three times.    The last two of these are especially pertinent. Evolutionism suggests that animals and people developed the same way over billions of years from single-celled organisms. However, Genesis 1 and 2 teach that while humans and animals are both sentient and aware, humans were created differently with a spirit-ness, and an image of God that animals lack. They had different moments of bara, or being created, that initially and permanently distinguish the two orders apart from each other. 

    The other pertinent verb in these chapters is yatsar, “to form” or “to fashion,” used in Gen 2:7, 8, and 19. This word, used 74 times in the Old Testament, almost always refers to directly forming something, rather than to make something using secondary means (i.e., like God using evolutionary processes to form humanity). The verb is sometimes used of “pottery” or of a “potter” (2 Sam 17:28; 1 Chron 4:23; Ps 2:9; Is 30:14). That is, it refers to something that was formed directly by the hands of someone else. That Adam was formed from dust and dirt (Gen 2:7) reflects this idea of a potter directly forming a vessel from earth and clay. The verb itself undercuts the idea that God merely allowed humanity to develop by secondary, “natural” means over millions of years. 

    Another important key is the fact that the fall of humanity (Genesis 3) precedes death, not the other way around. Theistic evolution asserts that all species were formed by a process of evolution but concedes that God initially created life or that God governed those evolutionary processes. What theistic evolution fails to recognize, however, is that evolution is a process of life, procreation, and death, and that this cycle would occur for millions of years while the different species formed.