MAY 2015

    For example, the “House of David” inscription, discovered in Tel Dan in 1994 claims to be the first extra-Biblical reference to King David. However, there is great debate as to whether the word that seems to say “David” really says that or something else. In fact, there are debates as to whether this inscription is authentic or if it is an elaborate forgery. Most inscriptions that seem to “prove” or “disprove” something pass through a similar gauntlet of criticism regarding its content or authenticity.    In the next article in this series about important archaeological finds, we will look at artifacts and inscriptions that help us unlock the secrets to some of the ancient languages of the people in the Bible.

ECLECTIC FLASHBACK – OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD: A Note on Nomenclature

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

    Some people just make too big a deal out of something that isn’t a big deal. For instance, I prefer when discussing years and events to use the BCE/ CE (Before Common Era/ Common Era) nomenclature that has become standard in scholarly parlance, rather than the designation B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (anno Domini [Latin for, “In the year of the Lord]). Perhaps, I used BCE/ CE initially just to look scholarly and snobby. But now, I use it because of its hidden secret that detractors of the “new” system overlook.

    A few years ago, the Southern Baptist Convention, characteristically making a mountain out of a molehill, published a June 2000 conciliar document “On Retaining The Traditional Method Of Calendar Dating (B.C./A.D.).” This statement rains hellfire down on those who use the BCE/ CE system.  The document naïvely asserts that, “This practice is the result of the secularization, anti-supernaturalism, religious pluralism, and political correctness pervasive in our society.” The authors of this statement “encourage Southern Baptist individuals, churches, entities, and institutions to retain the traditional method of dating and avoid this revisionism.”

    Every culture has their own calendrical system. The Jewish calendar begins from their reckoning of the creation of the world, and we are now allegedly in year 5775. The Japanese sometime reckon the year relative to the reign of their current emperor, and they are thus in year 26 of Emperor Akihito. Muslims typically use the Hijrah calendar, the first year of which is Muhammad’s voyage, or Hijra, from Mecca to Medina. 

    I am not offended when I hear or read something about these reckonings, which are institutionalized in certain contexts. I think that getting “offended” about how someone measures time is just silly.

    So, why do I use BCE/ CE rather than B.C. and A.D.? First, BCE and CE are in English, rather than Latin or some other dead language. It is, essentially, “our” language, not just their language. Also, the BCE/ CE system is increasingly used as standard scholarly terms in many cultures and belief systems and thus lends itself to greater clarity when operating on an international or inter-religious platform.

    That alone won’t satisfy most of you, so I’ll continue with the shocking and ironic secret of the BCE/ CE system, but not before we clarify another point: People who use BCE/ CE are not accommodating political correctness or pagan practices. . . at least not any more than anyone else does on a regular basis. 

    For example, do you celebrate Christmas by putting up a Christmas tree? This practice has its roots in Germanic, Roman, and maybe even Egyptian pagan mythos! The ancient Germanic tribes, for instance, believed that their dead ancestors resided in the tops of the trees, so they would cut down one tree and bring it into their house for the winter so that the spirits of great grandma and grandpa could stay warm. Christian missionaries gradually morphed this practice into a Christian tradition, using a fir tree to symbolize eternal life. They would top it with an angel, replacing ancestral spirits with celestial ones, or they would put the Star of Bethlehem on top. 

    Also, you may be disturbed to know that many of the days of the week are rooted in the names of Norse and Germanic deities.  For instance, Wednesday was named after the chief deity Woden, or Odin and Friday is named for the goddess Frig or Freja.  So, while its easy to bludgeon someone else with the accusation of accommodation and cultural compromise, we should at least be honest enough to recognize the amount of pagan accommodation infused in our own personal practices.

    So, here’s the fun little secret of the BCE/ CE system: Though it is intended to be religiously/ culturally/ politically neutral, it is still based on the significance of Christ! The Southern Baptist document sited above states that “The traditional method of dating is a reminder of the preeminence of Christ and His gospel in world history.” But, I assert that they are wrong in assuming that B.C./ A.D. is the only or even the best way to remind the world of the historical impact of Christ. 

    In reality, the BCE/ CE system reflects the age-shattering influence of Jesus much better. When “those in this secular age” utilize BCE/ CE nomenclature, whether they are Jewish, Muslim, Japanese or atheist, they are still intentionally or unwittingly acknowledging the global significance of the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth. No other individual’s birth has created a global framework for reckoning time before His birth into one era, and conceding that His birth ushered in a new “common” era of human existence. The “Common Era” of the present was fundamentally altered for all by His majestic virgin Birth, as well as his subsequent perfect life, sacrificial death, and literal resurrection, whether others choose to acknowledge that fact or not.

    Many significant faiths ground their calendar in the birth, death or deeds of a religious founder. The BCE/ CE system suggests that the birth of Christ was so momentous that it brought about the end of one age, and the beginning of another for everyone worldwide. That is why I think it is funny when those of other faiths use the BCE/ CE nomenclature; they are subtly acknowledging how much more widely significant is the birth of our Founder is then theirs!

    Indeed, He shatters ages and expectations, just as He has also proven worthy to one day judge the entirety of humanity. He realigns time and calendars and will one day make time and calendars obsolete by granting eternal life to those who have trusted in Him. He is not merely Founder, but Teacher, Healer, God-Man, Savior, and Emmanuel.

ROMANS: An Audience Called For Grace and Peace (Romans 1:6-7)

. . . among whom you are also called of Jesus Christ. To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be holy people, grace and peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ

    Romans 1:6-7 deal with the audience of this great book of Romans. But that audience is not just the initial recipients two millennial ago who were called and loved by God. Believers today are also recipients of God’s enormous grace, and also beneficiaries of the inspired wisdom and truth of the book of Romans. We, too, are the audience, and therefore we should strive to understand God’s love and how we are to live out our calling to salvation.

    In Romans 1:6, Paul concludes his peal of praise to Christ that he began at the beginning of the book. The redemption plan and the salvation available to mankind all pivots on the work, efforts, and perfection of Jesus Christ. He then transitions from this praise of Christ to a greeting to his audience, and in doing so, he hints toward several of his theological tenets that he will describe in more detail later in Romans.

    Paul reminds his mostly non-Jewish audience that they are included among those who were called to obey God by faith. The adjective klētos, “called,” is used in the NT of Paul two times, only in Rom 1:1, 1 Cor 1:1, but of all believers eight times, in Matt 22:14, Rom 1:6, 7, 8:28, 1 Cor 1:2, 24, Jude 1:1, and Rev 17:14. 

    In fact, the word “also” in 1:6 (kai) may be a way of tying the “calling” of the audience back to Paul’s statement in 1:1 that he was “called” to be an apostle. That is, while some have a special calling for a specific role at a specific time, the idea of being “called” to salvation and service is something that is shared by all believers. All Christians have a truly special calling, and unique opportunities to live out that calling. The calling is special because it is “of Jesus Christ.” The genitive here is probably a subjective genitive, where the noun produces the action implied in the word that it modifies: that is, we could translate this phrase “a call produced by Jesus Christ.” Christ himself called all believers into eternal salvation and meaningful service.

    This does not contradict the prerogative of the God the Father to elect, nor does it contradict the universal nature of the atonement of Christ, the limit of which atonement is the election of the Father. Rather, it means that the Son shares in the calling of those that He has provided salvation to and who have been selected by the Father. Just as Christ is personally involved in providing redemption, so also does the Father allow Christ to participate in the calling of Christians. 

    That calling, however, rarely takes place unmediated; that is, most believers didn’t share Paul’s road-to-Damascus experience. Rather, the calling is mediated by believers who are proclaiming the Gospel to unbelievers, and the unbelievers respond to the free gift of eternal life by grace through faith in Christ.

    After this lengthy theological introduction in Romans 1:1-6, Paul greets his audience in verse 7. He says that they are “beloved” of God. The Greek word agapetos, is used elsewhere in Romans in 11:28, 12:19, 16:5, 8, 9 and 12. Paul also repeats again from v. 6 the fact that his audience is “called.” 

    Specifically, they are called to be “saints.” The word that is used here is agios meaning, “set apart to or by God, consecrated, holy, morally pure, upright.” It is perhaps a bit misguided when the translations render this word “saints”; more specifically than just that, believers were called to be holy and upright people who are consecrated and set aside for God’s purposes.

    The greeting here “Grace to you and peace . . .”, or some close version of this is fairly common in the NT epistles (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:2; Titus 1:4; Phlm 1:3; 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 1:2; Rev 1:4). Perhaps, the unique relationship between this greeting and the book of Romans is the structure of Romans itself. Romans 1-11, seen as more of the doctrinal or theological section, focuses on the mechanics of grace from God, and the Greek word for grace, charis, is used nineteen times in this section primarily in chapters 5 and 6 (yet it is used only four times in chapters 12-16).

    In contrast, chapters 12-16 are the “ethical” or “practical” passages; in these chapters Paul focuses more on the post-salvation peace that we can have with God and that we should strive for with each other. The word “peace,” eirene, is mentioned disproportionately more frequently in this last third of the book (five times in these five chapters [14:17, 19; 15:13, 33; 16:20]) than in the first two-thirds of the book (only five times in eleven chapters [1:7; 2:10; 3:17; 5:1; 8:6]). 

    Thus, more so than other epistles that utilize this greeting, the phrase “grace to you and peace” reflects the outline and theological themes of Romans. These virtues are important not just for that first century audience reading Romans for the first time, but also for us today. The critical mechanics of God’s merciful grace should help us to understand peace with God and also peace with one another. 

    It is to this grace and peace that believers have been called, and we should, therefore, radiate this exclusively Christian grace and peace in our thoughts, speech, actions and interactions.

ON MY BOOKSHELF: Analyzing Alchemy

    In Alchemy and Authority in the Holy Roman Empire, Tara Nummedal describes the practice and practitioners of alchemy in central Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Alchemists engaged in a variety of activities and experiments in the fields of mining, military, medicine, and metallurgy.  Therefore, their efforts, successes and even failures, were a driving force in the scientific advancements of this time period.

    The variety of activities that alchemists participated in made it difficult to find consensus about alchemists, about how to achieve alchemical training, or how alchemists could legitimize themselves to wealthy patrons, upon whom they depended. This ambiguity and lack of any kind of guild oversight, however, also allowed many fraudulent individuals (called Betrüger in German) to invade the practice. 

    The potential for fraud is the entry point for Nummedal’s discussion of alchemy: “This is a social history of alchemy in central  Europe, and a cultural history of why it proved so contentions” (page 6). Nummedal explains the practice of alchemy “from below” by exploring the cases and careers of several specific alchemists such as Philipp Sömmering, Hans Heinrich Nüschler, Georg Honauer and even Tycho Brache. She also describes the materials, contracts, laboratory space and the frequent need for secrecy required by alchemists.

    The alchemists’ diverse skills provided an obvious appeal to early modern kings and noblemen. “As [mining] veins became less productive in the sixteenth century, methods of extraction and refining became more important, stimulating an interest in new techniques” (89). The promise of improved mining techniques, the creation of gems, the manufacture of medicinal and mysterious potions, and the transmutation of less-valuable metals into gold were irresistible to rulers racked with the costs of governance and war. 

    Alchemists strove to prove that they were not phony, but that they could perhaps create something valuable and enviable to a ruler or monarch, if they were provided adequate resources and time. The contracts that ensued between patrons and alchemists provided some sense of legitimacy to the practice. Patrons, however, were not gullible or naïve; contracts often included clauses placing financial burdens upon the alchemist if they failed to live up to their promises (114). Nummedal’s discussion of the contracts between patrons and alchemists provides a corrective to modern thinking; the field of alchemy during this time was less helter-skelter and far more intentional and entrepreneurial than we sometimes realize.

    Nummedal explains the portrayal of the alchemist by authors and artists in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by utilizing Marcel Mauss’ definition of a persona: “a cultural identity that simultaneously shapes the individual in body and mind and creates a collective with a shared and recognizable physiognomy” (Marcel Mauss, quoted in Nummedal, 42). 

    Sometimes alchemists were portrayed as learned, scholarly and aloof. However, as the sixteenth century progressed, engravings and literature portrayed the alchemist more for his failures than his successes. Into the seventeenth century, alchemists had more difficulty distancing themselves from the label of Betrüger, or frauds, and found it increasingly difficult to legitimize themselves. Belabored attempts to spin gold from more common materials consumed many alchemists, and plunged them into financial and social ruin. Even earlier than this period, Francesco Petrarch asserted that it was not the alchemist who transmutes metals, but alchemy transmutes the alchemist into an intellectually and economically destroyed and pitiful character (51).

    Nummedal certainly succeeds in her effort by not just writing in generalities, but by investigating the careers of specific alchemists and the difficulties that they had with issues of sponsorship, finances, and their attempts to establish legitimacy in a field increasingly perceived as illegitimate. In many cases, the careers of alchemists ended far less gloriously then they had hoped, such as in prison or on the gallows.

    I appreciated the discussion of the laboratory and how the arrangement of the alchemists’ workspace did not suggest that they were just engaged in a random jumble of unrelated activities.  Rather, it dictated a diversity of activities connected by a single vocation and a unified laboratory process (140). I also enjoyed the recognition of how the diversity and ambiguity of the alchemist’s vocation allowed them to evade the auspices of guilds and universities. 

    I would have liked more information about how alchemists interacted with and were perceived by Protestant leaders or by the Catholic Church. Nummedal briefly mentions Pope John XXII’s denunciation of alchemists, but that was in the fourteenth century (150). She also mentions a work that was probably by reformer Johann Valentin Andreae, who drew a connection between “weak morals and alchemical misdeeds” (quoted on 163). But surely there are additional examples beyond these two of the various interactions and attitudes that existed between clerics and alchemists ranging from synergism to mutual skepticism.

    Nonetheless, Nummedal’s work provides a substantive and personal account of a subject often marginalized or ignored in works about the early modern period or the Holy Roman Empire.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD: More New Arguments For the Existence of God

    It is impossible to prove by modern scientific standards something that cannot be demonstrated and replicated; people cannot prove assumptions that they accept by faith, such as the existence of God, the resurrection of Christ, evolutionism, or the premise that Elvis still lives.

    However, it is still possible to provide compelling arguments for something that we adhere to by faith. That is exactly what this series sets out to do, to present and analyze older and newer arguments for the existence of God. In fact, back in the June/ July 2013 edition, we even explored some bad arguments for the existence of God that people use, but probably should stop using.

    We have described some older and more “modernistic” arguments which tends to lean toward ways of thinking that are more rational and logical. Modernistic arguments, ironically, go back to Greek philosophy and were taken over by medieval thinkers. They include recognizing that the God of the Bible is the first “Unmoved mover” and “Uncaused Cause” (the motion argument and cosmological argument respectively). We have also explored some newer arguments like the “Moral Transformation” argument and the “Hostility” argument (one of my favorites!). These newer arguments align more with postmodernism which tends toward thinking that is more holistic, emotional and experiential.

    Recently, I had an opportunity to teach a short series on how to answer objections to the existence and character of God. We went through the five classic arguments for God and then turned to several newer arguments for the existence of God, including the three below.

    The “Hall Of Shame” argument basically explores the beliefs of some of the most ruthless and notorious people in history. Examples in modern times include diabolical political rulers like Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Benito Mussolini, and Fidel Castro, as well as some infamous activists and authors like Karl Marx, Richard Dawkins, Che Guevara and Margaret Sanger. These people are all atheists who are acting consistently with their belief that there is no divine accountability and therefore, that there is no true transcendent human dignity. Their philosophies and actions are based on relativistic standards rather than celestial ones. 

    One may counter that there were horrible people who were Christians, too, and that is quite true.  But the difference is this: horrible Christians were horrible because they were not applying their Christianity knowledgeably and properly. Horrible Christian thinkers and leaders were living and acting inconsistently with their worldview, whereas notorious atheistic thinkers and leaders are living consistently with their worldview. The atheistic worldview allows human evil, while the Christian worldview strives to restrain it, and then also provides complete salvation from it.

    I will not judge these inconsistent Christian politicians and leaders regarding whether they were truly saved and regenerated people or whether they were just Christian in name only. However, this argument demonstrates that the problem is not just with the system, but with whether someone is living consistently with that system or not. Inconsistent Christians are labeled as hypocrites or false teachers in the Bible; consistent atheists are intentionally evil people who are living out the implications of their atheism to predictably destructive ends.

    Another newer argument that I like is the “Transcendent” argument. More people today embrace the reality that there is something more to life than what we see (Job 12:7-9; Psalm 19:1-2; Eccl 3:11; Acts 14:17; Rom 1:18-21). There are transcendent and supernatural powers beyond what can be explained by scientific means. 

    This is demonstrated by the proliferation of shows today that recognize the plausibility of the supernatural. Examples include Raiders of the Lost Ark (an older example, but somewhat ahead of its time), Sixth Sense, X-Files, Ghost Whisperer, Constantine (both the movie and the TV series), Supernatural, and many other shows that portray supernatural elements (not just alien, superhuman, or mutant) of some kind. In fact, the thriller/ horror genre is primarily based on supernatural assumptions. This media would not be as popular if people did not appreciate the plausibility of the transcendent.

    This gives Christians the opportunity to ask people individually if they recognize the possibility of supernaturalism and of a supernatural deity. If so, we can guide them to the God of the Bible from there. If a transcendent being exists, did He not create us? And if He created us, are we not accountable to Him? If we are accountable to Him, is it not reasonable that He has revealed to us stories of how He interacted with people of the past and revealed to us His expectations for people then and now? The Bible is exactly that corpus of truth that the transcendent Creator God provided to humanity to demonstrate His mercy, grace and truth to us. He has placed inside people a realization that God exists, and He has provided the Bible to reveal what kind of God He is and how we can have a right relationship with Him.

    A third newer argument is what I call the “Happy Ending” argument. 

    Let’s face it: everybody loves a happy ending! I recently saw a movie that was well done, and I wondered why it wasn’t more popular. Then I got to the ending. It wasn’t a happy ending. Then I understood why more people didn’t like the movie.

    Religion generally, and Christianity specifically, is portrayed as dour, depressing and legalistic and, simply put, not joyful, liberating and happy. Christians have done much damage by portraying faith in God as overly rigid, boring, and depressing.

    But, everyone loves a happy ending, and Christianity provides the happiest ending possible. Every one of the four Gospels concludes with the happy ending of the resurrection of Christ after many chapters of opposition and antagonism and after a gruesome, sacrificial death. In fact, the apostles’ early witness and sermons in the book of Acts were dominated by the resurrection (Acts 2:24, 31-32; 3:15; 4:10, 33; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30-34; 17:18; 17:32; 23:6; 24:15, 21; 26:23). Additionally, the book of Revelation, concludes with several chapters of happy ending. These chapters include Christ’s almost effortless defeat of evil in the world. They detail the glorious future afterlife for those who trust in Christ’s death and resurrection as the only viable solution to our corporate and individual sin problem.

    My concern is that we don’t often present the Good News as good news! Gospel presentations often start on a morbid note when we ask someone What happens to you when you die? or Where will you go if you get into a car crash on the way home from this event? We need to keep in mind that car crashes are not our enemy, and that salvation doesn’t just apply when we die. The good news is about life now, renewed life in part now and a blissful existence in the next life.

    While the road of faith certainly has its difficulties and potholes, in reality, Christianity provides the only happy ending to humanity’s sin and suffering. Christians need to proclaim the death and resurrection of Christ, and make this the highlight of our sermons, events, songs, and evangelistic presentations. The resurrection means a rejuvenation of life, relationships, feelings, power, and truth for individuals. The happy ending of Christ’s resurrection guarantees a happy ending for all who believe in Christ, a happy ending that we appreciate in part now and experience in full in the next life. The Gospel is the only “good news” and happy ending for all who trust in Christ as the only true Savior.

    Are you aware of any other “newer” arguments for the existence of God? If so, send us a wave at feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll publish it in a future edition of The Eclectic Kasper.

Commentary on Romans

You can find previous articles from this verse-by-verse series through the book of Romans in our Eclectic Archive here.

“Like” us on Facebook!

Do you love theology and Biblical studies?  Please support our web journal by giving our “The Eclectic Kasper” Facebook page a “like”!

Verifying God's Existence

For previous articles in this series about “Arguments for the Existence of God,” see “Classical Arguments” in the August 2012 edition, “More Classical Arguments” in September 2012 edition and “New Arguments for the Existence of God” in the February 2013 edition, or you can see the whole list of articles in our Eclectic Archive here.

More Bookshelf Fun!