MARCH 2015

In this edition . . .

Welcome to the March 2015 edition of The Eclectic Kasper!

In this edition we continue our series on Peter’s denials of Christ. We also discuss Biblical prescriptions for defying discouragement and Paul's adoration of Christ in the opening verses of Romans.

We also explore the mystery of the even and odd numbered Star Trek films as well as a dangerous societal cluelessness.

As always, we would love to have your feedback on any of our past and present articles. You can give our Facebook page a “like” and you can comment on or start a post there. Or you can e-mail any questions, comments, praises or critiques that you may have to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

Thanks for reading and stay eclectic!

DEVELOPING A PASSION FOR GOD (PSALM 42): Defying Downcast (Psalm 42:5)

Psalm 42:5: Why are you downcast, my soul? And why do you groan within me? Wait for the Lord, for I will still praise Him for the deliverance of His presence.

We are often so quick to blame spiritual depression or discouragement on someone or something else; it may be the fault of a family member, a boss, a flat tire, or a difficult financial situation. But what if the cause of our own discouragement was not outside of us, but inside?

The author of Psalm 42 is desperate for the Lord like a hunted deer that pants for water (v. 1). He remembers back to times of joy when he walked with the throng of God’s people on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem (v. 4). But in light of his current troubles, those days of joy seem far in the past. At present, he is left with the problem of his own downcast soul. How does he . . . and how can we . . . avoid the plights of discouragement in our spirit and defy the downcast-ness that slithers into our soul?

The psalmist recognizes that a great deal of his problem is his own attitude. His attempt to address his soul throughout this psalm as though it were as separate entity is not an attempt to shirk responsibility. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that there is a rational and mature side of him that is recognizing spiritual drag created by his emotional immaturity. This is similar to the spirit vs. flesh conflict that Paul describes in Romans 7. Thus, rather than shirking responsibility or assigning blame elsewhere, the author recognizes that reasonability is localized in himself; he has the ability to realign his attitude with Scriptural truth, and he asks critical, self-evaluative questions of his own soul.

The first word “Why?” (the Hebrew word mah) is usually translated “What?” More than merely a reason for the soul’s depression, the psalmist is looking for the source or agent of that condition. The word shachach in the form here in 42:5 means “to be cast down, despairing.” Is a hithpolel imperfect; the hithpolel stem tends to indicate a reflexive nature of the verb; that is, the subject is both the subject and the object of the verb, both producing and receiving the action. In this case, the soul is causing itself to bow down. The verb is often used in a religious context of bowing oneself before God. The extent that one can be bent down is demonstrated in the national lament in Psalm 44:25, where the psalmist declares that “our soul” is bowed down into the dust.

A very similar form of this verb is used in Isaiah 51:23: “I will put it into the hand of your tormentors, who have said to you, ‘Lie down that we may walk over you’ ” (the Hebrew verb is represented by the underlined words). That same verb is used also in Proverbs 12:25 “Anxiety in a man’s heart weighs it down, But a good word makes it glad.”

The author sees the illogic of his situation. He literally asks, What is causing you to bow yourself down? This means that the “What?” at the beginning of the sentence is actually rhetorical; the agent (the “What?”) that is causing depression in the Psalmist’s soul is the author himself!

The next verb is hamah meaning “to murmur, growl, roar, be boisterous.” It describes a soul in unrest, murmuring and churning with worry and frustration. That this soul is “within” the author means that the churning of the soul has created his entire constitution to become unsettled. The distraught soul creates a distraught person.

The Psalmist recognizes that the answer is to “wait on” or “hope in” the Lord, rather than to continue to churn in anxiety and discouragement. The word yachal, “to hope,” is sometimes used in instances where the character is surrounded by unknown and distressing circumstances and unknown time frames (Gen 8:12; 1 Sam 13:8; Ps 119:81; Is 42:4; Micah 7:7). It thus reminds believers of the need to wait for and trust in the Lord, even in the worst of circumstances (Lam 3:21, 24).

In a time of uncertainty, the author assures himself with a theological reality, namely, that there will be a time when he will again “praise” or “thank” the Lord. He will again be aided by the help of the Lord’s benevolent “presence” or “face” (Hebrew paneh). In hoping for a time when he will again exalt the Lord, the Psalmist can recover some of the joy he felt when going to Jerusalem surrounded by God’s people.

I knew an individual who posted a sign over his office door, so that every time he or someone else walked in, they would see the words “Chose joy.” Joy is not a feeling, nor a circumstance. It is not defined by our prosperity, grades, cars or prestige. It is a choice to embrace, not a situation to endure.

The happiness that we find when we anchor ourselves in the things of this world is often so fleeting that it usually leaves a residue of disappointment and downcast-ness. We can find a more durable joy when we chose to think about our salvation, and when we thank God for His many blessings. We also find joy by sharing that faith with others and helping other believers grow in their faith. Watching the kingdom expand before our eyes provides a joy that no wealth or prestige ever could. Joy helps us to rise above life’s frequent discouragements and to root our anchor in the joys and riches of the next life.

So what about you; is your soul downcast? You can defy discouragement whenever you intentionally chose joy!

SOCIETY/ CULTURE: Clueless!

There are so many ways in which people today are clueless and delusional.

Few of these ways, however, are like the cluelessness that many today have about Islamic terrorism.

The cluelessness about Islamic terrorism is puzzling: ISIS, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Taliban, Hezbollah . . . and this is just the all-star team! How many forms of Islamic terrorism will bombard the world before we recognize that Islamic terrorism – not just terrorism but Islamic terrorism – is one of the greatest threats to modern civilization?

None of these groups try to hide their affiliation with Islam, nor their antagonism toward the United States; this makes the attempt of some to separate these terror groups from their Islamic roots seem, well, clueless. These groups are not ashamed of their connection to Islam, nor do they try to cover it up for political reasons or for social advancement. Why, then, can’t we get over our cluelessness and recognize that these different terrorist groups are Islamic terrorists?

Imagine that there were a Christian terrorist organization in America: a cohesive, well-trained group that blew-up mosques, synagogues, abortion clinics, and Starbucks, and claimed that they did so in the name of Christ. Regarding such a group, I would not deny their self-proclaimed affiliation with Christianity. In fact, I would heartily decry any ruler, nation or organization – from the Crusades until now – that claims to carry out murders and atrocities in the name of Christ. Rather than deny their claims of association with Christianity, I would vociferously argue that they have misinterpreted Christianity egregiously.

In fact, I do this with groups that claim to be Christian, but do not actually represent Nicene, orthodox, Biblical Christianity, groups like Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science and the Unification Church. I do not deny that these groups claim that they have a strong association with Christianity; I simply argue that they are not, in fact, truly Christianity in doctrine and practice.

And one more difference; these groups don’t kill people!

It is also clueless to assume that Islamic terrorists are reacting to something, such as colonialism or Western intrusion. Rather, Islamic terrorism has a goal for something, specifically, the submission of everyone on the planet to Sharia law and the death of anyone who would oppose them. We can’t understand the enemy if we don’t identify them. They are Islamic terrorists, a transnational movement that kills in the name of Allah; and to deny that is ultimately naïve and clueless.

I’m sure that there are many swell Muslims out there; although I frequently find myself asking why we don’t hear about them more often. And I’m sure that the Muslim community is completely opposed to the radical nature of these terrorists, though again, I would like to hear this said more often by “normal” Muslim leaders. But in the absence of such statements I have to believe that radical Islamic terrorism is really far closer to the core of Islamic, Quranic thought then some want us to realize.

It is also clueless to believe that this problem will be fixed with talk. All our U. S. President does is talk. There’s a problem; he talks about it. There’s a threat; he gives a speech about it. Some people get killed in the Middle East by terrorists; so he has a summit. Many in Washington want to talk to Iranian leaders and assume that we can have a respectful, bi-lateral conversation about minimizing violence in the Middle East. That, my friends, is clueless.

But this cluelessness is not just puzzling, but it is also dangerous. A clueless foreign policy that doesn’t recognize the profound threat that Islamic terrorism poses may recognize how evil that threat is only when it is too late.

For the last few weeks I have been preaching through 2 Thessalonians 2. This chapter begins with a exhortation for believers to not be deceived in v. 3 (the Greek grammar is an aorist subjunctive; Paul literally exhorts the Thessalonians, “Don’t start being deceived). The chapter ends with an exhortation for believers – then and now – to “stand firm and hold to” the apostolic tradition of Biblical doctrine and practice.

These exhortations bookend a discussion of the eschatological Anti-Christ, or “man of lawlessness,” a Satanically driven individual who will be characterized by wickedness and deceit (vv. 3-10). In addition, there will be a widespread delusion (vv. 11-12) where people will be increasingly gullible, clueless and susceptible to end times deceptions. They will chase after quasi-religious leaders who peddle false doctrines and they will embrace humanism that says that we started as microbial slime but have since evolved into something much better, or at least, slightly better.

In the middle of this discussion, however, the Apostle recognizes a haunting reality. In v. 7 he says that the “mystery of lawlessness” is “already at work.” He is acknowledging that Satan is preparing the world to be more clueless. While the man of lawlessness and the great delusion will occur during the eschatological period (probably during the “Great Tribulation”), the dynamics of increased gullibility are “already at work.” Satan is already perpetuating lies and deceptions to greater degrees so that when the seven-year tribulation comes, humanity will easily fall for the variety of deceit and lies that he will unleash upon the world.

It is hard to imagine that the cluelessness many embrace about militant Islamic terrorism is not part of this Satanic deception. In reality, I believe that it is one of the most profound delusions being perpetrated today. When people deny that these terror groups are associated with Islam they minimize the impact of these groups on our own safety and national security.

People in this country – and especially people on both sides of the aisle in Washington – need to wake up to this danger. We need to snap out of the sleepy delusion that most terrorism today is not done in the name of Allah. Middle Eastern terrorists are Islamic terrorists. They cannot be negotiated with and they cannot be trusted. We must be discerning as a country rather than travel down a self-destructive road of increasing cluelessness.

ROMANS: Concerning Christ, Romans 1:3-5

Concerning His Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was designated as the son of God in power according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom I received grace and apostleship for the obedience that comes from faith among all the gentiles concerning His name (Romans 1:3-5).

Paul sets the stage early in the book of Romans by noting that it is all about Christ. Romans 1:3-5 demonstrate how everything that follows in Paul’s magnum opus centers on the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In Romans 1:3, Paul describes how Jesus literally fulfills the Davidic covenant as a descendant of David. This idea is expressed in two different ways. The first is that Christ is born from the “seed” of David. The word “seed” is sperma in the Greek; it is used most often in the New Testament of literal seeds for planting (as in Matt 13) or of one’s biological descendants. Paul spiritualizes the term in Gal 3:29 by saying that people can be “descendants” of the promises and blessings of Abraham through faith in Christ. The word is used in a more metaphorical, or perhaps, spiritual sense in 1 John 3:9, where John also utilizes birth imagery.

Just in case there was any ambiguity, Paul continues in Romans 1:3 by affirming that Christ is literally the descendant of David “according to the flesh.” For Paul, this phrase kata sarka (used 20x in the NT and only by Paul) means either to be a literal descendant of someone (as in Rom 4:1) or to live in a way that is consistent with the dictates and sinful longings of the human nature (living “according to the flesh”) as opposed to living in conformity to the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:4-5). Since Christ does not have a sin nature, the meaning here in 1:3 is clearly that Jesus is literally from the lineage of David, and thus able to fulfill the covenant that God made with David in 2 Samuel 7.

In verse 4, Paul turns from Jesus’ heritage to Jesus’ work. The first verb in this verse is orizō, “to decide, determine, appoint, or designate.” The term is used for God’s determination of the life spans and geographical distribution of the human race (Acts 17:26) or of God’s designation of a certain eschatological day (Heb 4:7). It is used once of the apostles determining to contribute sacrificially to the needy in Judea (Acts 11:29). Most often, however, it is used of Christ; He was predestined or preordained to be betrayed and crucified (Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23), which made Him uniquely qualified to judge the world eschatologically (Acts 10:42; 17:31). In Acts 17:31, the resurrection is explicitly stated as the verification that Christ was appointed to this task. Similarly, in Rom 1:4, the resurrection verifies Christ’s identity as the Son of God who is powerful and capable to also fulfill the Davidic Covenant (v. 3).

More about Psalm 42

You can find previous articles from this series on “Developing a Passion for God” from Psalm 42 in our Eclectic Archive here.

MOVIES: Analyzing the Even and Odd Numbered Star Trek Movies

***Spoiler Alert: This article contains spoilers for the movies described.***

We all know of the curse of the odd numbered Star Trek movies.

We can argue the point all day long, but from the original Star Trek movie released in 1979 through The Next Generation movies (the last of which was Star Trek: Nemesis in 2002), the even numbered movies are clearly considered superior to the odd ones (for this article, we are not including the more recent reboot series by J. J. Abrams). I even found an article that offered some statistical proof for this (here).

Right now, we are in a valley between great Star Trek movies (the second and third of the J. J. Abrams’ reboot) and we are in between Star Trek TV series; Star Trek: Enterprise ended almost ten years ago, and despite rumors of potential new series (Captain Worf!), it seems that any real possibilities for Star Trek to beam back into TV land are far off.

In the meantime while we wait for more content, I would like to discuss the Star Trek movies. In this article I will analyze the axiomatic even and odd numbered rule and then in a follow-up to this article, I will mention a little puzzle that may help explain why the even numbered films are superior.

But first, a quick recap of the ten movies with the cast from Star Trek: The Original Series (or TOS for short) and the cast from The Next Generation (henceforth, ST:TNG or just TNG). And by the way, this article will include a lot of abbreviations, but hopefully, you’ll be able to keep up with the nomenclature.

The highly anticipated, but weak 1979 movie was enough at the time to fuel the appetites of ardent Trekies, but it is now almost painful to watch. The second movie, Wrath of Khan (WoK) seems a bit dated now, but its superior production quality propelled the movie series to a new level; and many consider WoK to be the best of the original ten ST movies. The ending of Wrath of Khan basically demanded the making of Search for Spock; or perhaps, the fandom demanded it after what happens to Spock at the end of WoK. Search for Spock is an admirable outing and probably my favorite of the odd numbered movies, but this is mainly because it is clever and edgy (stealing the Enterprise, commandeering a Klingon Bird of Prey) and because it is a critical link between two of my favorite even numbered movies.

Next comes The Voyage Home, commonly known as “the whale one.” While I am not a tree-hugger, or an environmentalist, this clever, humorous, and very personable outing sent our intrepid crew back to 1986 San Francisco on a mission that had some subtle socio-political overtones. It forms a very warm conclusion to the story arc that practically makes movies two, three and four a stand-alone trilogy.

And then comes The Final Frontier, the fifth ST film, which was written and directed by Shatner himself. It is unremarkable, cheesy, and at times, somewhat pitiful, earning a 21% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, while not escaping some of the weakness of its predecessor, is more epic, had more character, and attempts to provide a stronger plot line. In some cases the sentimentality of this last movie with all the original cast compels us to be more forgiving of some plot gaps and of the aging cast’s occasional acting lapses.

A comparison of the ST:TNG films (movies 7 to 10) to the TOS films is similar to a comparison of the two series: the TNG movies are better quality but simply would never be as epic, personable, or iconic as the films with the original cast. Also noteworthy is the fact that the TOS films dropped the Roman numerals, perhaps as a way of distancing themselves from the first six films.

Star Trek: Generations is, I believe, an underrated outing and a good – though at times, a bit forced – transition from the TOS to the TNG movies. It features a few TOS cast members before presenting the TNG characters, and even includes significant interaction between Kirk and Picard. Generations contains commendable visual effects, a decent plot line and villain, and it portrays the second time in the film series that an Enterprise gets destroyed (which is both kind of sad, but also pretty cool!). However, it is at times too self-referential and many accuse it of feeling more like a double-episode from the series rather than a stand-alone movie.

In Star Trek: First Contact, the eighth ST movie, the TNG cast find their film footing. Leaving any tie-ins with TOS behind them, First Contact fully engages in the world, lore, and villains of TNG. Great effects, plot, and some of the most authentic interaction between the crew of all the TNG movies. But while First Contact was a triumph, by this point, the franchise was getting fatigued, and the box office especially reflected that.

Then came Star Trek Insurrection . . .

I am a faithful and devoted Star Trek fan (I have seen almost every episode of ST:DS9; yes, I’m that committed!). Yet Insurrection was a disaster in practically every way. I saw it once, and I have no intention of ever wasting two hours of my life on it again (a declaration that I only reserve for the likes of Batman and Robin and the second Transformers movie). It’s hard to identify everything that went wrong with this flick, from Data’s ridiculous singing to painful dialogue to a stomach-turning romance (either one) to a ridiculous plot and villain (surely a low point in the career of the brilliant F. Murray Abraham of Amadeus fame). I will move on before I lose consciousness.

The tenth installment, Star Trek Nemesis, was actually a surprisingly solid film, with an interesting plot, a good bad guy (played almost flawlessly by Tom Hardy), a car chase (kind of!) and an unparalleled scene of two ships colliding into each other (spoiler alert: one of them is the Enterprise!).

However, by that point, the franchise had really lost steam, a fact probably best illustrated by the TV series Star Trek: Enterprise, which though probably overall a stronger series than either Deep Space 9 or Voyager was received with only lukewarm enthusiasm at best. Another TNG film after Nemesis was planned but never materialized (which was probably good, because it would have been an odd-numbered one!); yet Nemesis still provided an adequate finale for the TNG cast. Unfortunately for Star Trek, when Nemesis emerged in 2002, we were at the beginning of the Spider-Man, Harry Potter, and Bourne franchises and in the middle of the LOTR, Men In Black, Matrix and new Star Wars movie series; in this midst of these far-more-innovative franchises, Nemesis was lost in lethargy.

So, there’s the run down; now I’m going to go back through and rate each of the ten TOS and TNG movies. I’ll use a scale of one to ten, with ten being the “best”; but keeping in mind, that I reserve “10” for cinematic titans like LOTR:TT and LOTR:ROK and probably even Avengers.

The first ST movie tried hard and it presented a good plot twist at the end. However, though released late in 1979, it looked old and dated even by late 70s and early 80s standards. It seemed cinema had made absolutely no progress since the 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey; the first Star Trek film was like the slower and more puzzling parts of 2001 but even slower, though slightly less puzzling. I give the first feature-length Star Trek outing a 3.

Khan is a gritty classic; James Horner’s music, Ricardo Montalbán’s accent (make sure you roll your r’s whenever you pronounce his name!), iconic scenes and a bold ending. It gets an 8. Search for Spock is a solid and clever movie but is really very dependent on the two great movies that bookend it. I’ll give it a 6.

I need a whole paragraph (even a short paragraph) for Voyage Home; it is my favorite of all ten movies. It is the most natural and authentic of all ten. It is very funny and personable without losing sight of its sober, earth-saving plot. In good Star Trek tradition, it strives for social commentary without being preachy. Voyage Home is a chiseled plot with the kind of feel-good ending that we love in Star Trek. I’m going with 9 on this one.

Final Frontier represents a drop off in plot, acting, and overall quality; I give it a 4. Undiscovered Country recovers a bit, and provides a nice, if slightly cheesy, formal farewell for the original cast; we’ll give it a 6.

The TNG films are more consistent in quality, with Insurrection being the obvious exception. Generations is about a 6 providing a solid and plausible transition between the two series by including some TOS characters without gypping the TNG cast. First Contact is the strongest and sharpest of the TNG films so I give it an 8; it includes fan-favorite antagonists and the addition of James Cromwell and Alfre Woodard rounds out the chemistry of the regular cast. I give Insurrection a 2, only because I’m in a really generous mood. Nemesis is probably the most underrated of the TNG movies scoring, in my opinion, an admirable 7 at a time when, unfortunately, interest in Star Trek had waned considerably.

You may argue that these numbers are subjective; I would respond that they aren’t to me!

So, now that I have thoroughly discredited anyone who would oppose my scientific methodology and journalistic credibility, I will proceed to the analysis stage.

If you to add up the ratings for the odd numbered movies, you arrive at 21 or an average rating of 4.2 for these movies (and yes, the first and the ninth really drag this average down). The five even numbered movie ratings add up to 38 and average 7.6. Interestingly, according to these numbers, the two sets of movies are about even: the total for the six TOS films is 36 for an average rating of 6.0 for those films; the four TNG movie ratings add up to 23 rendering an average rating of 5.8.

But again, the more startling comparison is the odd vs. even dichotomy, a rating of just over 4 out of 10 for the odd-numbered films and just over 7.5 for the evens. But why is this? What makes every other movie better? Is it something about the franchise, the timing, the writing, the production?

Having recognized the reality of the odd and even syndrome in the Star Trek movie series, in a follow-up article we will try to provide some explanations for this. In fact, I will mention an interesting correlation between allusions to great literature in certain Star Trek movies and how that relates to the quality of these movies.

So what do you think of the odd and even syndrome or of our ratings of individual Star Trek movies? Send a subspace transmission to feedback@eclectickasper.com and let us know what you think!

DISTANCE AND DENIAL: Consequences and Fallout

Consequences. Neither a fun topic for an article nor a popular idea in our own culture.

Yet consequences – material and spiritual – are an unavoidable reality in this crazy cause-and-effect world, and they cannot be ignored.

In this series “Distance and Denial” we have explored Peter’s denial of Jesus from Luke 22:54-62, carefully examining the basic context of this story and noting “the importance of proximity.” We then investigated Peter’s three denials in “That First Dangerous Step” and then looked at “Two More Stumbles.”

In this article we turn to the consequences of Peter’s denial of Christ, especially the immediate shame he experienced, and in the next article, we will note the restoration that he was graciously granted. It is a reminder that there are indeed consequences in the here and now for the mistakes that believers make, but there are also consequences to grace which, as the song suggests, is even greater than all our sin.

The three denials are over (vv. 56-60). We have noted that these denials were separated by some time; they were not three denials uttered in the heat of the moment, but rather, three intentional denials with as much as an hour’s time between the second and the third (v. 59). Additionally, by the third denial, one can sense Peter’s agitation and vehemence, and the parallels in other synoptic gospels affirms that even more strongly (Matt 26:74; Mark 14:71).

As Peter finishes his third denial, the rooster crowed (v. 60); this is the sign that Jesus predicted would accompany Peter’s denials (22:34).

As with the rest of the people in the courtyard, Peter does not know exactly what is going on inside with Jesus. But Luke 22:61 indicates that he could somehow see Jesus at a distance. Perhaps Jesus is being transferred elsewhere and He is able to make eye contact with Peter at that moment. In the other gospels, the rooster crows, and Peter is immediately aware of his folly. However, only Luke mentions that Jesus and Peter made eye contact. Both heard the rooster; both knew what that meant; both realized that the other knew what it meant, also.

Another noteworthy detail in v. 61 is that Luke refers to Jesus as “the Lord.” Peter had used this title of Jesus earlier in Luke 22. First, Peter calls Him “Lord” when affirming that he would follow Jesus anywhere into any danger (v. 33). He also calls Jesus “Lord” two other times when he believed that Jesus would sanction the violent reaction that Peter was planning (vv. 38 and 49). But now that Peter had denied his association with Jesus three times, Luke injects this title “Lord” to demonstrate contrast to Peter’s denial of the Lordship of Christ in his life at this moment.

Ironically, too, this word “Lord” characterized Peter’s knowledge of Jesus from the beginning of their relationship. In the first mention of Peter in the book of Luke, Peter calls Jesus “Lord”: “When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!” (Luke 5:8). (Curiously, the nasb uses the word “Lord” twice in Peter’s statement, while other translations, and the Greek itself only has the word once.) Also interesting is the fact that Jesus never contradicts Peter’s assertion about himself being a sinful individual, which perhaps portends Peter’s denial of Jesus in Luke 22.

But the word “Lord” not only begins their relationship to one another, but bookends it as well. Six times in 2 Peter 3 the apostle uses the word “Lord,” including in the last verse that Peter contributes to the canon: “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever!” (2 Peter 3:18).

Yet during these denials, Peter’s devotion to his Lord has temporarily slipped away.

The verb “to turn” is the Greek word strephō; often Luke says that Jesus would “turn” and address a crowd, a person, or His disciples (7:9, 44; 9:55; 10:23; 14:25; 23:28); it was a signal that Jesus was giving that person or group of people His full attention. Despite everything that is going on around them, Jesus turns toward Peter, and for a moment, He gives Peter His full attention.

Jesus “looked” at Peter.

I know a little bit about what “the look” is. It may be hard for many of you to believe that this genius web journal writer was not always the best behaved kid. I frequently found myself on the wrong end of a “look” of disappointment or chastisement from a parent, teacher, church leader, or relative. I still occasionally find myself on the wrong end of that look even as an adult! I can’t believe, however, that all of these “looks” that I have received over my life cumulatively could hold the shame and pain of this one single glance exchanged between the perfect Master and His denying disciple.

The apostle John, says that believers will one day see our Savior, Master and Lord Jesus Christ in person “just as He is” (1 John 3:2). While it will be an eternal delight to behold the God-Man Jesus Christ forever, John warns believers of the possibility that this first meeting with Christ could be littered with shame for the believer who is not living faithfully (2:28; see also 3:21; 4:17 and Mark 8:38). Peter himself, probably pulling from the well of self-loathing that this moment produced, later tells the recipients of his first epistle: “If anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name” (1 Peter 4:16).

Peter understands that Jesus knows what he has done. For all his bravado in private, Peter could not produce in public; he chose self over God, crisis over Christ, and now he knows that Christ knows. Peter had forgotten what Jesus had specifically said to him just a few hours before. The verb hupomimneskō means “to remind, or to call to mind,” and implies remembering something that was temporarily forgotten or pushed to the background of one’s thoughts. It is used only seven times in the NT; Peter himself uses this word again to highlight the importance of spiritual memory: “Therefore, I will always be ready to remind you of these things, even though you already know them, and have been established in the truth which is present with you” (2 Peter 1:12). At a critical moment, he had forgotten; he doesn’t want believers to forget, too.

Verse 62 is one of the shorter verses of the Bible, and yet one of the most profound. It portrays the convergence of truth, decision, consequence and emotion. When we sin too habitually, we marginalize the profound emotional fallout from denying Christ’s lordship in our lives.

Peter “went out” in v. 62; the word exerchomai is very common, used 218 times in the NT; and, yet, there was perhaps no “going out” like this. Peter had struggled to be closer and draw near to Jesus. In this passage, he also struggled to fit in among the crowd of Jesus’ enemies, warming himself their fire and dodging their accusations.

But having willfully denied his association with Christ, he now has nowhere to go but out. There was no place for Him so long as he allowed no place in his life for His Master. The text doesn’t say where he went; in fact, the Gospel record gives no indication of where Peter is for a few days until we find him again in Luke 24:12. Peter’s ongoing decision to separate himself from Christ leads him to flee out into darkness and Peter’s literal flight away from Christ and from the courtyard points to a profound spiritual and emotional dislocation, as well. The phrase “wept bitterly” is used a few other times in the Bible (Judg 21:2; 1 Sam 1:10; 2 Kings 20:3; Ezra 10:1; Is 38:3); but surely, the consequences of what Peter had done elicited a unique pain that Peter would never forget.

What are some implications for the believer today? Luke seems to be using this passage to identify a distinction between proclaiming the Lordship of Christ with our lips, but not providing the follow-up to that claim with our lives. Another dimension to this is the danger of proclaiming our allegiance to Christ in private, but denying or even minimizing that allegiance in public.

This passage is also a reminder that denial begins in the mind, the decision to put self before God, or to put crisis above Christ. The very act of going to Christ first in the moment of need and difficulty is one way that we can better acknowledge His lordship in our life. Jesus has the answer, even at times when all we seem to have are questions, doubts and uncertainties. However, the more we distance ourselves from Christ, the more we suffer the consequences of locating ourselves farther away from truth, certainty, and resolution.

But just as there are consequences of sin, there are consequences of grace, too. God overcame some of the consequences of our sin problem by granting us the chance to confess. He has graciously provided to us the ability to be forgiven through Christ’s redemptive work and opportunities to be restored and to serve even after sin has been committed. Another beautiful consequence of grace is that no sin we commit on earth can take away the salvation that God has granted us.

Pictured above is Raphael’s The Miraculous Draught of Fishes (1515).

WHY I AM A CESSATIONIST: Additional and Possible Gifts Mentioned in the Bible

Are musical abilities, artistic acuity, poverty and singleness spiritual gifts?

Last edition and this one we have diverged a bit from our series on “Why I Am A Cessationist” so that we can focus on specific spiritual gifts, or gifts of the Holy Spirit, that are listed in the New Testament. In the January 2015 edition, we looked at the “The Main Spiritual Gifts Lists in the New Testament” in Romans 12:4-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:1-11. Several gifts are listed in both of these lists, and we even took a shot and providing some definitions to them.

But are the more gifts listed in the New Testament? And, for that matter, are there any listed in the Old Testament?

A few verses in 1 Peter lists out a few gifts. This list is not nearly as long as the two in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12. And keep in mind that none of these lists purport to be exhaustive; that is, none claim to be a complete list of gifts. Specifically, 1 Peter 4:10-11 lists two gifts. The first is “speaking,” from the word laleō, “to speak,” which basically refers to the public explanation of the truth of God’s Word. I believe that this is a general word that includes both preaching in a more formal church context, or teaching in a Bible study or a Sunday School class.

The second gift mentioned here in 1 Peter 4 is service. It is the verb diakoneo, from where we get the word “deacon”; it means “to serve” or “to wait on someone” and it is used in both vv. 10 and 11. It is the verb form of the noun diakonia, “service” which is used in the gifts list in Rom 12:7. The definition that we gave for “service” or “to serve” in the last article was: To identify and accomplish undone tasks in the church. Some think Peter is referring to two broad categories of faith rather than to specific gifts. Peter is likely just giving basic examples of gifts that can be used since Paul had already provided more thorough lists of gifts elsewhere.

We should also address Ephesians 4:7-13. The question here is if Paul is listing gifts or roles. On the “gifts” side, there are two references to the Spirit in 4:3-4 and a reference to “gifts” in 4:7-8. However, the word for “gifts” there is doma and dōrea rather than charisma, the word used elsewhere for the gifts of the Spirit. Also, v. 8 specifically says that these are the gifts of Christ, rather than gifts of the Holy Spirit. On the “roles” side, gift lists are usually comprised of qualities or abilities (like “mercy” and “healing”) rather than people (like “prophets” and “teachers”). Therefore, I am inclined to believe that the list in Ephesians 4:11 is a list of roles for the church, rather than spiritual gifts for individuals to use within the church.

A similar problem exists in 1 Corinthians 12:28-30, except that here, roles and gifts are listed together. The difference can be seen in the different verbs that are used; v. 29 says that some “are” apostles or teachers, and v. 30 says that some “have” (or “had”) gifts of healings or tongues. But these are listed together in v. 28, which starts by listing the roles of apostles, prophets and teachers; these roles are also distinguished from the gifts in that the roles are given some priority or order (“first . . . second . . . third”), whereas the gifts are simply listed.

We discussed miracles and healings in the previous article under 1 Corinthians 12:1-11. The word “helps,” (antilēmpsis, meaning “lay hold of” or “help”) seems to refer to a rendering of tangible assistance to others. Next comes “administration” meaning to steer the body toward the accomplishment of God-given goals by planning, organizing, and supervising others. The Greek word here is kubernēsis, and it refers to “the ability to lead.” A similar word, kubernētēs, is used of a “captain” or “navigator” in Acts 27:11 and Rev 18:17, again, implying leadership that affects the direction and movement of the church. The last one mentioned in 1 Cor 12:28 is speaking in tongues which we also covered in the article on 1 Corinthians 12:1-11.

Are there other gifts listed in the NT? There are debates as to whether the following qualities from a variety of passages are actual spiritual gifts or merely conditions that a believer engages in willingly as a sign of spiritual maturity.

Celibacy: Voluntarily remaining single without regret and with the ability to maintain control of sexual impulses so as to serve the Lord without distraction (1 Cor 7:7-8).
Hospitality (from the word philoxenos, a “love” or “concern for strangers”): To warmly welcome other believers, even strangers, into one’s home or church especially those in need of food or lodging (1 Peter 4:9).
Intercession/ Prayer: A heightened ability to focus and concentrate on prayer for others (Eph 6:18).
Martyrdom: To give one’s life, to suffer or to be put to death for Christ (1 Cor 13:3).
Missions: To show proficiency in ministering in a cross-cultural context (Eph 3:6-8).
Poverty: To purposefully live an impoverished lifestyle in order to relate to the lifestyle of others or to aid others with additional material resources (1 Cor 13:3).

There are certain gifts that are given to individuals or groups of individuals in the OT which may or may not carry over into the NT. These include craftsmanship (Ex 28:3; 31:3; 35:31; 36:1), worship/ music (1 Sam 16:16-23; 1 Chron 15:22, 27), and interpretation of dreams (Gen 40:8; 41:38; Dan 2:27-28; 4:8-9). However, the question here is whether these are spiritual gifts or just talents or abilities. Also, we need to ask whether or not it is it legitimate to suggest that these OT gifts, which were given in specific moments of OT history, are normative for NT believers. Does the fact that they are not listed as spiritual gifts in the NT mean that they are not actual gifts of the Holy Spirit?

These are good questions, but we don’t really have space or time to settle them here.

So what do you think? Does Ephesians 4:11 refer to gifts or roles? Do these Old Testament gifts like craftsmanship and music carry over in the New Testament? Let us know what you think by posting on our Facebook page or by sending your thoughts to feedback@eclectickasper.com.

QUOTE FOR CONTEMPLATION: Western Decline

I love Western civilization: Christianity, Shakespeare, Mozart, Football, and Firelfy. Yes . . . I love Western civilization.

But nothing lasts forever and all good things come to an end. Is Western culture in decline? Have we passed over the apex of Western civilization and are now sliding toward its nadir? If so, is such decline inevitable and irrecoverable?

Two thinkers, perhaps obscure, but great in their own rights, consider this notion of cultural decline. Norman Cantor hints at the cultural decline in the West by speaking more in theoretical terms, while George Steiner applies this notion specifically to Western civilization and hints that our best days as a culture are far behind us.

“It is easier to explain failure than success; it is easier to account for the lassitude and failure of nerve involved in cultural collapse than for the novel energy, intelligence, and leadership that mark the beginning of a new civilization” (Norman Cantor, The Civilization of the Middle Ages, p. 161).

“A deep intuition whispers to us that the high noon of the arts, music, and possibly literature lies behind us in the West. Tells us that the chances for the reappearance of an Aeschylus, a Dante, a Michelangelo, a Shakespeare, or a Mozart are very slim” (George Steiner, Chronicle of Higher Education, June 21, 1996).

Have you run across any great quotes lately? If so, send them to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll including them in an upcoming edition.

FEEDBACK: Continuation and Cessationism

The following is feedback regarding our series on Continuation and Cessationism, or rather, the theology of whether all of the gifts of the Spirit described in the NT continue to be in use or whether some of them have ceased. This is the main issue that divides Charismatics from non-Charismatics. One individual wrote in with the following:

I was raised as a cessationist in theology, but lately have started to try and better understand why. I believe this is a critical part of being able to give a defense for the faith within us. :)

1 Cor 13 is probably the key proof-text in cessationism, as I read your series of articles to imply. As you, I always focused on vv. 8-10 in understanding the cessation of gifts in the early church (whether it was when the Canon was complete or the Apostolic Age ended I have no strong opinion).

The issue that has been grabbing me lately concerns the later v 12 (I'm using the NIV below). It compares a "now" and a "then". In context this seems to indicate the "now" is when sign gifts function and the "then" is when they cease/are stilled/pass away.

If this is correct, then Paul is saying the sign gifts will cease/pass away when we see face-to-face or when we know fully as we are known. He says himself that he only saw partially, at the time of writing.

What was there he had not yet seen but that he would see? Not the finished canon of Scripture, which was completed decades after his martyrdom.

This last bit continues to trouble me. What do we see “face to face” or what do we “fully know” when the Canon is complete/Apostolic Age has ended? Do I now fully know as I am known? Am I seeing face to face? There is a strong pull in my mind towards other Scriptures such as 1 John 3:2.

Just one idle thought and comment on your series. I appreciate everything else you have written on the topic. But right now I'm wondering if there may not be signs. Don't get me wrong, I'm no charismatic blathering mindless gibberish at a tent revival. But I wonder about, for example, what signs God may grant believers who go out to the lost especially into third-world cultures.

Thanks for this feedback; hopefully our continued time in this series will answer some of these questions. In the meantime, however, I would say regarding 1 Cor 13:12 that I don't think that the now/ then dichotomy refers to a time when all the spiritual gifts are available vs. a time when some of them are unavailable. I think that it refers more generally to maturity; there is a time of immaturity and there is a time of growth and spiritual adulthood, which seems consistent with what Paul says in v. 11. During the first stages of the church, the faith and growth the chruches were aided by signs and wonders. As the church progressed toward maturity, visible spiritual gifts would desist and the virtues of “faith, hope and love” would become more prominent (v. 13). In the next chapter, Paul urges the Corinthians to be more “mature” which means in this context, to give more focus on truth and edification and less on experience and signs (14:20, see also 14:12, 14, 26).

Not sure that’s a good answer, but its the best I’ve got for now!

And if you have some thoughts, comments and queries on this or any of our other articles or series, feel free to send them to feedback@eclectickasper.com; we look forward to hearing from you!