MARCH 2016

Want To Know More About the Bible?

Check out our wide variety of articles about Bible study that are categorized in our “Eclectic Archive.”

Can’t Get Enough Politics?

Neither can we! Check out our articles about politics here in our “Eclectic Archive.” Also, we would be thrilled if you would give our Facebook page a “like,” and you can comment on posts or start new threads of your own!

    There is evident tapering of miraculous activity in many places in the NT. In Acts, miracles are found frequently in the first few chapters (Acts 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10), but then there are decreasing occurrences of and emphasis on supernatural activity as Acts progresses (Acts 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 28).     We see this tapering in the two epistles of Paul to Corinth. First Corinthians emphasizes sign gifts frequently, and yet, there is only one verse about them in 2 Corinthians (12:12). More significantly, this verse in 2 Corinthians speaks of the miraculous “signs” in the past tense, and not, apparently, as something that was currently taking place among the Corinthians. This contrasts with 1 Corinthians 14:22, which speaks of signs in the present tense. Additionally, the word for “tongues” occurs twenty-one times in 1 Corinthians, but not at all in 2 Corinthians. In fact, 1 Corinthians is the only epistle that mentions “tongues” as a spiritual gift, which demonstrates that the gift of tongues should not be as central to church, theology, and conversion as some Charismatics make it.

    We see the attrition of the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit elsewhere, also. In Romans 12:6-8 (probably written a few years after 1 Corinthians), Paul listed seven gifts—the Greek word here is charisma—none of which are sign gifts, with the possible exception of “prophecy.” A few years later, Paul wrote Ephesians, which frequently mentions the Holy Spirit (about eleven times over six chapters), and yet is devoid of any reference to sign gifts. Paul commands believers to be filled with the Holy Spirit in Eph 5:18, but the context lacks any mention of tongues, miracles, signs and wonders. Rather, the visible signs of the filling of the Spirit are speaking truth, giving thanks, and demonstrating humility and submission. Similarly, the Apostle Peter mentions some spiritual gifts (again, this is the word charisma) in 1 Peter 4:10-11, but these are subtle gifts, rather than the miraculous sign gifts.

    One can also track references to specific gifts in order to detect tapering in the first century. Speaking in tongues is only associated with three events in Acts: Pentecost in Acts 2, the conversion of Cornelius’ family and friends in 10:46, and the conversion of a group of OT believers that were for the first time receiving the complete Gospel of Christ in 19:6. That is, the use of tongues is exceptional even in the book of Acts! It is not a normal activity, and clearly tapers off as the book progresses. 

    Also, one should note the mention of some sick people in the NT. Healings were significant in Jesus’ ministry and in the early chapters of Acts. But then we find sick people in several different contexts. Paul mentions the ailments of some of his associates (Phil 2:26-27; 1 Tim 5:23) and even had to leave one behind because of sickness (2 Tim 4:20). If the sign gifts were still normal and operative, why didn’t Paul just heal these people? Why does James command a sick person to call the elders to pray rather than call the person with the gift of healing (James 5:14-16)?

    What explains this tapering? As we argued previously, tongues, healings, signs and wonders were mainly associated with the initial spread of the gospel, to verify both the message about Christ as well as the legitimacy of the apostolic messengers. Also, the tapering of the sign gifts mirrors the passing away of the offices of apostle and prophet (note, for instance, that Heb 2:3-4 describes signs and wonders in the past tense). The message of the apostles is God’s Word (1 Thess 2:13), and once the apostles write Scripture and passed away, visible verifications of their message and authority were no longer needed. 

    Today, we do not have, and we do not need, signs and experiences to recognize the truth of the Gospel of Christ. We simply need to believe, obey, and grow in devotion to Jesus Christ our Lord and in our proclamation of the truth of God’s Word.

MOVIES: Film Tropes that We’re Tired Of

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

    We have some incredible movies coming up soon, most notably Batman V Superman and Captain America: Civil War. It is worth thinking about the great traits of these superhero, fantasy, and adventure movies, but also to consider the many film tropes and literary devices that we’re simply tired of. Some of these shticks may have impressed us once or twice, but now they are simply overused; some don’t even really make sense. There are many tired tropes to chose from, but we’ll mention three below. Feel free to send other examples of these film tropes, or other plot devices that you’re tired of.

    Deus Ex Machina. The phrase deus ex machina combines some Greek and Latin and could translate into “god in the machine” or “god from the machine.” It is a literary device that shows how “a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability or object” (from Wikipedia). In the climax of any good movie, the good guys teeter on the edge of defeat in order to make their victory that much more dramatic and satisfying. Maybe they call in for reinforcements, or some added element arrives toward the end of a big battle (such as in LOTR: The Two Towers or Avengers 2). 

    But some movies bring in a completely unexpected and unrelated element to resolve the gigantic crisis. While I love the movie Independence Day—and can’t wait for the sequel this Summer!—many believe that the uploaded virus in the climax of the movie was implausible (surely the aliens have some advanced version of Norton or McAfee to prevent this!) and resolved the story too easily. The giant eagles serve in a deus ex machina capacity in the otherwise brilliant LOTR and Hobbit movies; they are used so often in this capacity that their involvement becomes tired and almost comical. And of all the reasons for which we could justifiably criticize Matrix: Revolutions, one would have to be Neo’s final fight with Agent Smith, which somehow stopped the machines from attacking Zion and reset the Matrix (I guess?). These kinds of endings leave the viewer feeling robbed when a movie or series concludes so quickly or lazily.

    The Chitauri Effect. This plot device occurs when the mothership or some other control mechanism is destroyed and therefore all the sub-units suddenly cease to operate. This trope is used most notoriously at the end of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. I know that it’s easy to take cheap shots at this perhaps underappreciated flick, but the conclusion of the Gungan vs. droid fight is both comical as well as frustrating, lazy and implausible. Anakin blows up the ship that controls the droids and then the droids suddenly stop fighting. Who builds a droid army like that? Someone should have the sense to program the otherwise autonomous droids to continue fighting even if they stop receiving command signals from the control source. Apparently nobody thought of that and the droid army simply stopped working as soon as they cease receiving commands. 

    More recently, this same ploy concludes the otherwise awesome first Avengers movie; as soon as the control ship is destroyed, the Chitauri . . . well, they . . . actually, I don’t know what happens to them! If they are robots, they are immediately disabled, but I thought that they were biological beings, so why would they just suddenly stop operating? In this instance, the plot device is both cheap as well as confusing. The Chitauri Effect contaminates the final episode of TNT’s otherwise interesting Falling Skies and this trope also seems to be in play in the previously mentioned ID4. I hate to provide aid to aliens that may want to invade earth anytime soon, but an intelligent species, fictional or otherwise, would create ships or droids with enough independence that they can carry on basic fighting during missions even when the command mechanism gets kaboomed. Why in the world would any empire or alien race make “automatons” that cease to function when the mothership blows up!?

    Retiring the Hero Persona. One last trope (for now!) that we are tired of is when an alter ego decides to abandon or retire their superhero persona. They do this because they are conflicted about their vigilante ego or because they are worried about jeopardizing the lives of those close to them. This is an especially overdone trope used in many major superhero franchises, for example, in Superman 2, Spiderman 2, Batman Forever, and even at the end of the dreary Ironman 3. 

    There are several problems with this trope. First, nobody believes it. In fact, it’s insulting because the audience knows that he’s not really going to walk away from that superhero role. Second, it is implausible. Like the meme says: “Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman; then, always be Batman.” It is improbable that someone would invest so much time, energy, and perhaps money and effort to be a superhero only to walk away from it. If we had the powers of Spiderman or Superman, or if we could be Batman or Ironman, why would we want to be anything else? 

    Another problem with this abandoning-the-hero-persona trope is that when we watch these movies, we don’t tune in to see more of Peter Parker, Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne. We want to see more of the hero and less of the alter ego. It is worth noting here—as I always annoyingly do when I watch The Dark Knight Rises with my kids—that Batman doesn’t appear in DKR until 37 minutes into the movie! Sorry, I just really don’t care that Bruce Wayne has knee problems and had abandoned his cape and cowl for eight years; I just want to see Batman kick some bad guy buns. I understand that film makers are trying to make alter egos that are pensive, introspective, and multi-layered; but we’re not paying to see a movie called The Psychological Conflicts of Peter Parker or Inside the Mind of Bruce Wayne. We’re tired of the altar egos retiring their hero personas because we know that it’s a cheap ploy that won’t last the rest of the movie.

    So what do you think of these tropes? Are you tired of them, too? Any other film plot devices that you think are overused? Send your thoughts and ideas to feedback@eclectickasper.com and we’ll print them anonymously in a subsequent edition.

DEITY OF CHRIST: Just as You Honor the Father, John 5:18-24

    When someone accuses us of something that we didn’t say or didn’t intend, we are usually quick—sometimes too quick—to correct the misperception. How did Jesus respond when people thought that He was making Himself equal to God? One would think that if He was not fully God, or if He was only partly God, that He would have been quick to clarify the point. He would stop and carefully explain that He wasn’t deity incarnate and that He wasn’t even claiming to be so. However, He did not distance Himself from accusations that He was claiming to be God. In fact, in John 5, He continued by demonstrating all the ways in which He is just like God and is just as deserving of praise and honor as is God the Father.

    The context of John 5:18-23 is that Jesus was healing on the Sabbath, and the Jews are ruffled by such presumption. For many first-century Jews, the Law, the Temple, and the Sabbath were gods rather than means to express and encourage faith in the one true God. For Jesus to cure someone on the Sabbath meant that He was doing work; He was also encouraging others to do work and break the Sabbath (vv. 8-10, 16). In response, He asserted that He was working and that God His Father was working through Him as well (v. 17). Aside from His insolence in admitting that He was working on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders also recognized that He was asserting full equality with God by calling Him “My Father” (v. 18).

    Referring to God as Father or as “our” Father is commonplace for believers today. It is much rarer, however, to find God referred to as Father in the OT (rare exceptions include Isaiah 63:16 and 64:8), and even into the first century most Jews wouldn’t dare presume to be close enough to God to call Him “my Father.”  This is why Jesus’ model of prayer in Matthew 6:9 was so revolutionary. Also, writing after Christ’s death and resurrection, Paul asserts that because of Christ, believers have a closeness with God that previous believers couldn’t enjoy, such that we can refer to Him as “Abba Father” (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). For first century Jews, they would not have minded if Jesus generally said something about God as their Father. They were specifically offended in John 5:18 when Jesus was referring to God as “His own Father.” From their perspective, Jesus was asserting a unique and individual relationship with God and portraying Himself to be equal to God. From Jesus’ perspective, they were not misunderstanding His implication. The problem was that they rejected His clear assertion that He was just as divine as God the Father.

You Like Theology?

Theology is one of our specialties at The Eclectic Kasper. You can find tons of theological topics here in our “Eclectic Archive,” including a series about the “essentials” of Christianity, concerns about the emerging church movement, a series about charismatic churches, and several articles about Martin Luther.