JUNE 2016

    And let’s be honest about all the rich-haters who criticize that top one-percent: If you had that kind of dough, you’d have mansions, yachts, jets, and luxury cars too! Let’s not pretend that the rich are fundamentally less moral than us because they are rich or that we are essentially more moral than them because we are not.    Again I will concede that many wealthy people received their wealth through wickedness, extortion, bribery and unethical business practices. But those people will be judged, perhaps through our modern legal system, but certainly they will be judged by God, who is never wrong in His judgments (Prov 5:21). We should not dislike such people on account of the fact that they are rich but because they are evil; remember, despite what Marx would say, the two don’t always overlap.

    We should celebrate those whom God blesses with wealth who have worked hard (which was once an American virtue), earned their wages, and been innovative (another American antique!). And the reality of life is that some have been blessed by God in more evidently material ways than we have been. Who are we therefore to suggest that they shouldn’t have something that God gave to them?

    Maybe the real contrast isn’t between the rich and the good, but maybe between the rich and the lazy. Proverbs often links laziness with poverty and also links diligence with wealth (Prov 6:9-11; 10:4; 12:24, 27; 13:4; 19:15; 24:33-34; 28:19). Proverbs 12:11 is a warning against laziness and a reminder of the rewards of hard work and the dangers and senselessness of pursuing “worthless things.”

    Maybe our country would be in a better place if we had more antagonism toward those in our society who were lazy – like we used to – than toward those who are hard-working, industrious and successful.

    Thoughts or feedback? Critiques or praises? Great! Send 'em to feedback@eclectickasper.com and we'll dialog about these important social issues.

DEITY OF CHRIST: “Before Abraham Was . . .” John 8:58

    In this series on the Deity of Christ, we have noted that if Jesus in any way claimed to be God then He couldn’t be merely considered a “good teacher.”

    C. S. Lewis summarized this best: because Jesus claims to be undiminished deity, He could only be either a liar, a lunatic or the Lord; there are no other options. We have reframed this by suggesting that in light of His own claims to be fully divine, Jesus Christ can only be either delusional, deceptive or deity.

    But did Jesus really claim to be God? Investigating John 8:58 in its context answers this question definitively.

    The context is a spat with the Jewish religious leaders who are continually dogging Jesus. Jesus says that His teachings can provide eternal life (vv. 46, 51), but the Jews to whom He is speaking counter that Jesus was demon-possessed (v. 48) and inferior to Abraham (v. 53). Note then the question at the end of v. 53, which according to the NASB is: “Whom do you make yourself out to be?” The focus is less on how Jesus perceives Himself (NIV) and more on how He presents Himself (NASB). What exactly are you claiming yourself to be? This is, of course, the key question of the passage, and indeed, the most important question that humanity will ever face: Who exactly is Jesus and who did He claim to be?

    Jesus asserts that the audience’s rejection of Him demonstrates their lack of knowledge of God and that they are liars (v. 55). Jesus further asserts that Abraham would have rejoiced to see “My day.” The phrase “my day” does not emphasize the time or time period, but really emphasizes the person signified by the word “my.” It is almost equivalent to Jesus just saying, “Abraham would have rejoiced to see Me.” The word “day” also makes the statement more momentous; Western civilization so values the person of Christ that we even divide our conception of time by the event of His birth (B.C. and A.D., the latter of which is a Latin phrase meaning “In the year of our Lord”); Jesus is literally epoch-making.

    Just when the audience is really grumbling about this, Jesus makes a point that is even more stunning: Abraham did see Jesus! Their existence did overlap! The audience does some quick math: in their minds there is no possible way that the life of someone who is less than fifty years old could have overlapped with the life of someone who existed almost two millennia previously (v. 57). This is absolutely impossible if Jesus is a mere human being.

    Jesus’ response in v. 58 is prefaced with the phrase, “truly, truly, I say to you,” a strong and solemn expression used twenty-five times only in John (1:51; 3:3, 5, 11; 5:19, 24; 6:26, 32, 47, 53; 8:34, 51, 58; 10:1, 7; 12:24; 13:16, 20, 38; 14:12; 16:20, 23; 21:18); He is about to say something very important that should not be misunderstood nor taken lightly.

    He then says, “before Abraham was . . .” Initially the audience may think that Jesus is going to say something like, “Before Abraham was, I was” or “before Abraham was born, I was born.” From their point of view, that would be one of the craziest things He could say. Again, their math in v. 57 completely eliminates the possibility that Jesus could have been born before Abraham and that He could have existed throughout the intervening eras. But He is not going to say “Before Abraham was, I was”; He is going to say something even more outrageous!

    Instead, Jesus intentionally employs bad grammar (in English and in Greek) to make a pertinent theological point; He uses a verbal pun: “before Abraham was born, I am!” The Greek phrase in John 8:58 for “I am,” is ego eimi; it is the exact same phrase that is used in the the Greek translation of the Old Testament (called, the Septuagint) of Exodus 3:14 (see also 8:22; 20:2) regarding God’s revelation of Himself to Moses and Israel.  

    So what’s the big deal about the phrase “I am”? We use it all the time! However, when we use the phrase “I am” we never use it in an absolute sense, but always in a descriptive sense: I am married, I am hungry. It needs a modifier, another word to explain and limit the phrase “I am.”

    However, God’s use of “I am” has no limits; back in Exodus, God used this phrase with Moses to assert that He defines all existence, rather than being defined by it. Only God can claim to be the great “I Am” in an absolute, limitless sense. In John 8:58, Jesus claims that this title that was reserved only for God could be applied to Himself, as well. This is actually the third time that Jesus has used this phrase for Himself in the chapter; in verses 24 and 28 the translators add the word “He” or “the One,” but in those verses Jesus just simply affirms that He is the “I Am.”

    When this happens the third time in v. 58, His Jewish audience finally catches on. They knew exactly what He meant and what He was claiming about Himself. It, therefore, seems odd that anyone today wouldn’t recognize Jesus’ claim to be full and undiminished deity from this verse, also! In verse 59 as a consequence of hearing this claim (the Greek uses the inferential conjunction oun) the Jews pick up stones to kill Jesus for blasphemy. This was the only proper punishment for such arrogance, audacity, and sheer blasphemy (Lev 24:16; 1 Kings 21:10). One commentator affirms: “This a supreme claim to Deity, perhaps the most simple and sublime of all the things He said . . . These are the words of the most impudent blasphemer that ever spoke, or the words of God incarnate” (Morgan, quoted in Morris, John, 420, n. 119).

    The audience’s reaction reveals something about opposition toward Christ that continues to persist today: it is thoughtless and irrational. The Jews under Roman oppression were not allowed to carry out capital punishment without Roman approval (John 18:31); to do so would merit significant backlash from the Romans. However, at this moment in light of Jesus’ assertion that He was God, the crowd was so angry, that they didn’t care. They were murderously mad and fatally furious! Both then as well as now, only an illogical, irrational, and demonically-inspired hatred can explain hostility toward the deity of Christ (check out our article about the “Hostility” Argument for the existence of God from the February 2013 edition).

    Jehovah Witnesses is a cult that, among other false teachings, also denies the deity of Jesus Christ. Their translation of the Bible is called The New World Translation; it conveniently mis-translates many verses to accommodate JW heresy (we noted another example earlier in this series in an article called Is Christ Just “a god”? from the February 2016 edition). They, however, have a huge exegetical problem here in John 8:58, which they translate “before Abraham was, I have been.” This rendering misunderstands the phrase ego eimi as a historical present (Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 530-531) or a perfect tense when it is clearly a simple present tense construction. But this translation also doesn’t solve the “problem” that JW’s have regarding Jesus’ claim of being divine! If Jesus has been and has always been, that means He is claiming to be the foundation for all existence. 

    Jesus’ own action at the end of v. 59 is telling. They were about to stone Him for blasphemy and for claiming to be God. If this is not what He intended, then this would have been the ideal moment for a retraction or a clarification: I wasn’t claiming to be God! You’ve got me all wrong! Put down your stones and let’s talk this through! However, Jesus doesn’t back down and doesn’t clarify.

    In fact, the problem is not that the crowd didn’t understand what Jesus was saying, but rather, it was that they knew exactly what He was claiming and who He was claiming to be! They clearly understand what He was asserting, but they chose to disbelieve His testimony about Himself, as do Mormons, Muslims, and JWs today. They responded with hate, because they didn’t want to believe the truth. Rather than retract, Jesus retreats to a safer location.

    Jesus clearly and unambiguously claimed to be on par with the great “I Am” of the Old Testament. He claimed to be fully divine and He did not back down from that claim even in the face of crowd pressure and literal danger. Nor should we retreat from proclaiming the deity of Christ despite the pressures and hostilities we face today.

    So, what do you think? Are you convinced that Jesus was claiming to be God in John 8:58 or do you interpret this differently? Let us know by sending your thoughts and perspectives to feedback@eclectic.com. 

WHY I AM A CESSATIONIST: A Theology of Tongues

    We return to our debate between cessationists, who believe that the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased during the first century, and Charismatics or continuationists, who believe that the sign gifts continue to be operative today. The foremost distinction between the two is the use of tongues, or speaking in an unknown language, which is allegedly a sign of the Holy Spirit’s presence and influence.

    The premise of this article is simple: Understanding what the Bible stays about the function of tongues helps us to evaluate whether they are being used legitimately today or not. The implications for this are immense: If the Charismatics are right, then a vast majority of Christians are depriving themselves of power, gifts, and signs that are still available to them today. If cessationists are right, then the diverse denominations of Charismatics are both being deceived and are also deceiving others.

    First, as we mentioned in our article “The Taper Caper” in the March 2016 edition, the use of tongues is never seen as a normal experience for believers or for churches in the NT. Tongues are only mentioned in conjunction with three events in Acts, namely, with Pentecost in Acts 2, the conversion of Cornelius’ family and friends (10:46), and with a group of believers that were for the first time receiving the complete Gospel of Christ (19:6). These are exceptional events even in Acts signifying transitions from the Old Testament economy to the New; tongues are never portrayed as a sign that is frequently or regularly used in the church. This gift, as well as other signs and miracles, taper off as the book of Acts continues.

    The way the gift of tongues was supposed to be used is not like the chaos that often occurs in some Charismatic services. Instead, Paul provides guidelines for the use of tongues in 1 Corinthians. In the corporate gathering of believers, the one with tongues must keep silent without an interpreter present: “But if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God” (1 Cor 14:28). Many instances of tongues today simply are not known languages, and there is nobody present to interpret the language. While tongues may have had some limited usefulness, Paul is more concerned in these chapters about the development of a believer’s mind (14:14-16, 19). Also, tongues must be used in an orderly way (1 Cor 14:27-33, 40). Paul’s greater concern among the Corinthians is intellectual and spiritual edification, not that they have wild experiences. He wants them to have an environment that is conducive to spiritual growth for both believers and even as unbelievers come into their midst (14:24).

    It is also helpful to point out a correction to those who accuse cessationists of forbidding certain gifts or of quenching the Holy Spirit. Cessationists “do not forbid” someone from speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:39; see also 1 Thess 5:20). We simply believe that the legitimate use of this gift has passed off the scene, and we reject the disorder and divisiveness of many today who claim that they are using tongues legitimately. It is also worth noting that speaking in tongues is not a uniquely Christian phenomenon. Theologian Millard Erickson notes, “The oracle of Delphi, not far from Corinth, made ecstatic utterances not unlike the glossolalia found in the Corinthian church” (Christian Theology, p. 894). The use of ecstatic utterances have also been found in pagan and shamanistic contexts elsewhere.

    Believers today have the duty and obligation to test the spirits and to be discerning when people claim to be able to speak in tongues (Jer 29:8; 1 Cor 14:29; 1 Thess 5:21; 1 John 4:1). In light of the tremendous deception in the last days and the deceptiveness of Satan, believers today have the right and responsibility to be skeptical of the assertion that all speaking in tongues is from God.

MODERN SPIRITUALITY: The Deification of Humanity, or, Are You “I Am”?    

    I recently saw a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode called “Journey’s End” (1994). Wesley Crusher returns from Starfleet Academy to visit those on the Enterprise, but unbeknownst to his friends, he is struggling to find his identity. He has a conversation with an individual who serves as a mentor in this episode, named Lakanta. In an Indian village on another planet, Lakanta asks Wesley, “What do you think is sacred to us here?” Wesley replies, “Maybe the necklace you’re wearing? The designs on the walls?” Lakanta continues, “Everything is sacred to us – the buildings, the food, the sky, the dirt beneath your feet – and you. Whether you believe in your spirit or not, we believe in it. You are a sacred person here, Wesley.”

    This seems to be one of the more prominent messages of our society: People are like god, or we are god, or we are becoming god, and we are inherently sacred and holy.

    I saw the point even more explicitly in a new age periodical called Aquarius. The paragraph-long heading of an article called “You Are ‘I Am’” stated the issue in this way:

Perhaps the most profound philosophical feature of the past 2,500 years – in Western culture – has been ‘Duality’ – that is, the Otherness of God, the separation of God and human, and the basic ‘sinfulness’ of humanity. As the Age of Aquarius dawns, we are discovering that duality does not accurately portray the collective reality of consciousness. Science, philosophy, and religion are acknowledging the Unity of Consciousness, and the divine nature of the human being. Humanity is becoming more aware of what it shares rather than what differences exist. We are awakening to the power of collective consciousness, unity with all life (and non-life) and the sacred honor that belongs to every living being (May 2016, pg. 5).

There are clearly segments of our society who want to deify humanity.

    Previously in this study of the proliferation of paganism in our culture, we have investigated the tendency of paganism – or neo-paganism – to veer toward interconnection and also to attempt the humanization of God. Part of the neo-pagan agenda, though, is not merely diminishing God, but also exalting man, and in some cases, lifting human beings to the level of deity. We mentioned this in the article on interconnectedness, but it is worth elaborating on this point.

    New age and neo-pagan literature and media strive to make human beings seem innately sacred or divine, such as in the Star Trek episode mentioned above. In a previous article we noted how in Alanis Morissette’s popular 1998 song “Thank U,” she exhorts her listener, “How ‘bout remembering your divinity.” One author in a new-age magazine suggests that “Deep within our genetic makeup is an inherently moral energy that continually seeks to express itself” (Sri Ram Kaa and Kira Raa, “Claiming Divine Choice: The Springboard of Freewill, Oracle 20/20, April 2010, p. 25).

    Professional new-age weirdo Gerald O'Donnell says the following about mankind: “You were born, naked, with all the necessary and sufficient equipment within your spiritual make-up to far surpass and overcome the sub-gods and dark energies that have been trying to keep your real Divinity down. . . . Man is the only being amongst all created beings who carries within his created-self the ability to become fully the Eternal and Infinite Power and Divinity” (from his article “Back to Oneness”). He later states, “You were never really born, and you will never really die. . . . Birth and Death are illusions. You are, were, and will always be eternal being, eternal one, no matter what you experience, think, or do.”

    This error-filled anthropology can lead to a cosmic sense of entitlement: “The most powerful statement that you can make is the words I AM. These simple words, spoken consciously, activate the truth. These words make the statement to the Universe, of you owning your unique divine place within the oneness, and consciously claiming your place. . . . It starts a wave of reaction throughout the Universe, activating your energetic signature outward” (Christine Day, Pleiadian Initiations of Light: A Guide to Energetically Awaken You to the Pleiadian Prophecies for Healing and Resurrection, p. 94).

    Key to new-agism’s understanding of humanity is a sense that we are innately divine but have been contaminated by negative elements outside of us, rather than the sin nature within us. Looking ahead to the 2012 apocalypse that never happened, one author says:

Since this apocalypse [on December 21, 2012] . . . would be both a spiritual and physical experience, I would want to be my best in both realms. Since I would be passing over I particularly like to be at my best spirituality, I would like to be clean and fresh and totally myself without any negative energies contaminating who I really am. I believe that I was created clean with a set of talents and capabilities and since I am the guest of this banquet, I would like to show what I have accomplished with the gifts I was given” (Charles Skillas, “Are You Ready?” Oracle 20/20, June 2012, p. 10).

    The new age anthropology regarding the innate goodness of humans is important: if I am inherently good, I can know and interpret truth properly through my experiences: “But I think there would always have been a little voice at the back of my head saying, ‘How do you know any of this is true?’ Well, I know it’s true because I experienced it myself. And so I can state to you with absolute confidence and certainty that I believe that we as souls are made quite literally from the energy of unconditional love” (Robert Schwartz, “Your Soul’s Plan,” Oracle 20/20, June 2012, p. 25). In this way, modern society can root truth in our own infallible and divine perceptions and opinions rather than admit our inability to discern truth and rely on Scriptures from the past. 

    Scripture provides a clear response to the notion that humanity can be deified and elevated to the status of God. The sinfulness and depravity of man is clearly and unambiguously articulated in the Bible. While many of God’s attributes are communicable to man, there is a fundamental (ontological) separation between man and God that cannot be bridged (Num 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Psalm 56:11). And though human beings were created in God’s image, man sinned willfully and deliberately (Gen 3:1-7) and thereby plunged creation into a state of condemnation, accursedness and chaos (Gen 3:12-24; Rom 8:20-22). The inheritance of sin and death is passed to all human beings, who are fundamentally guilty and sinful and who consequently commit acts of transgression (Jer 17:9; Rom 3:9-20; 5:12, 17-19). 

    Furthermore, people are easily deluded (Jer 4:22; 10:8, 14; 23:26; 49:16; Ps 4:2; Obad 1:3; Col 2:4; 1 Thess 2:11; 2 Tim 4:3-4), and cannot apprehend truth without divine grace and illumination. Thus, anyone’s claims to the infallibility of their personal experience is highly suspect. In fact, as we stated in that article on interconnectedness, the lie of human-deification and ascendancy to a greater level of existence is usually associated in Scripture with some kind of satanic deception (Gen 3:5; Is 14:14; Ezek 28:2, 6, 9; 2 Thess 2:3-4; Rev 13:5-6, 12, 15; 14:9; 19:20).

    So what about you? Are you “I AM”? Not even close! And yet, we have the opportunity to have a relationship with the one true God and the only “I AM.” We do this first by defying popular new age lies that we were created perfect and that sin is merely cultural. Rather, we recognize our inherent sinfulness and our subsequent multiple acts of sin. We then admit and confess our need for someone to save us from our sin and from the eternal punishment that a completely holy God must enforce. We trust alone in Jesus Christ, His perfect life, His sacrificial death to turn away the just wrath of God, and Jesus’ bodily resurrection from the dead. By trusting in Christ we receive forgiveness of sins, new purpose and direction in this life, and the hope of eternal life with God. We can thus abandon the phantasm that we can become God and recognize the joy that can only come through knowing and serving the one true God through Christ.

BROWNCOAT BAY: More of What Made It To The ‘Verse

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

    Back in the February 2014 edition we mentioned some aspects and artifacts of Earth-that-was that made it to the ‘Verse. But we’ve found some more. It is clever how Joss Whedon integrated some elements of our world into the fictional planets and moons that would become the setting of Firefly. If there are any that we missed, feel free to send a wave to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

    The worship of bipeds is odd, but the worship of quadrupeds is even stranger. The word tetrapoun literally means “four-footers,” again, probably emphasizing that man’s worship became less sophisticated and picky. The Psalmist also emphasizes the folly of this: “Thus they exchanged their glory for the image of an ox that eats grass” (106:20). The more frequent word in the NT for animals is zōön, from whence we receive the word “zoo.” This word is used 23 times in the NT, all but three of which are in Revelation. The word tetrapoun is only in Acts 10:12, 11:6 and here in Rom 1:23. While we don’t refer to it as “worship,” my personal sense is that many pet-owners today, and the multifarious modern pet industry, including shows, stores, and spas, flirts with the fine line of worshiping four-footed animals.    The word herpeton refers to “crawling animals” or “reptiles”; it is from the verb herpō, which means “to crawl, creep, or to move slowly.” The word is used in the LXX (the Septuagint, or the Greek translation of the Old Testament) several times in catalogs of animals specifying those that “creep on the earth” (esp. in Gen 1, 6, 7, 8), but it is, curiously, not used of the serpent of Gen 3. Herpeton are forbidden for consumption (let alone worship!) in Lev 11, and worshiping an image of animals including herpeton is forbidden in Deut 4:16-18. 

    People were created with an urge to worship their Creator. However, because of our sinfulness, we have rejected that true privilege and mandate of worship and fashioned images and idols that we prefer instead. We worship images that please us more, and idols that do not ask nor expect much from us. Ultimately, however, humanity simply wants to worship itself; and false worship, as we will see from the next few verses, has very catastrophic consequences.

FEEDBACK: Religious Liberty and Foreknowledge

    One individual sent in responses to two different articles from the April 2016 edition of The Eclectic Kasper.