MAY 2017

    Also, several have commented that this is the worst time for Trump to have fired Comey, given the alleged, but completely unsubstantiated, ties between Trump and Russia. Vice President Pence said that it was the right time, while, predictably, others like professional whiner Chuck Schumer and Democrat-in-Republican’s-clothing John McCain called Trump’s timing into question. 

    In truth, there is no time between January 2017 and January 2018 when Trump firing Comey would not have been considered good timing. In fact, there could never have been good timing for this as long as both Republicans and Democrats continue to entertain baseless accusations about Trump’s collusion with Russia.

DEITY OF CHRIST: In the Form of God, Philippians 2:6-8

    Philippians 2 contains one of the clearest affirmations of Christ’s deity in the NT.

    The funny thing is that the point of the passage is not just Christology, but practical—very­­ practical—Christian living, as well. In Philippians chapter 4, Paul addressed two women who are not getting along well (4:2). In Philippians 2, Paul lays the groundwork for those exhortations by admonishing all believers to be unified, selfless and humble (2:2-4). If Christ as fully God can become fully human, suffer and die a miserable death in humble service to God the Father and to undeserved people, then we, too, can exhibit sacrificial humility toward one another.

    The power of making this point, however, rests in Paul’s affirmation that Christ is indeed fully, fundamentally God, which makes His descent into the realm of man that much more dramatic. In Philippians 2:6, therefore, Paul states that before His incarnation, Jesus existed “in the form of God” and did not consider it robbery to be “equal with God.” The affirmation that Jesus “existed” as God in the past demands that He is still God now, even though He divested Himself of the free exercise of His divine attributes according to verse 7.

    The word “form” is the Greek word morphē; it is kind of an unfortunate term as, in English, it implies something that looks like something else, but, in reality, is not that thing and does not share the essence of that thing. Imagine a cardboard cut-out of a celebrity, which is nothing like that person except in its basic external appearance. In fact, it is used in this way in Isaiah 44:13 of an idol that has the external shape of a person, but, internally and essentially, it is just a piece of wood. 

    But the Greek word morphē can sometimes imply both the outward appearance of something as well as the substance or essence of something. It is used of how a child can have both external (physical) and internal (spiritual) resemblance to a parent (4 Macc 15:4). In Daniel 3:19, morphē is used for how someone’s facial expression, or the “form” of their face, reflects feelings that they are genuinely experiencing inside. In the NT, the verbal form (morpheo) appears once in Galatians 4:19 of Christ being formed within Christians, which, obviously, means not that they are be changed externally, but their essential internal qualities, mindset, and virtues are becoming more like Christ.

    In the NT the noun morphē only appears here in Philippians 2:6 and again in verse 7, which is very significant. In verse 6, Jesus is said to be in the form of God, which means that He is essentially and fundamentally God. God the Father does not have a perceivable form, except in certain moments in which He manifests Himself to a prophet. To be in the “form” of God must, therefore, mean more than merely the external look of something but also possessing the foundational quality of something or someone. After a long explanation of this word, one commentator concludes: “To say, therefore, that Christ existed [“in the form of God”] is to say that [before His incarnation] Christ had no other manner of existing . . . apart from being in possession of all the characteristics and qualities belonging to God” (Hawthorne, Philippians, 84).

    In verse 7, Paul states that Jesus is also in the “form” of a human servant. That is, whatever you say about Jesus’ humanity also applies to His deity. If Jesus was fully and fundamentally human, then according to verses 6-7, He was also fully and fundamentally God.

    Other clues in Philippians 2:6 clearly affirm Christ’s deity. The word “equality” is isos from which we get the words “isosceles” triangle (or a triangle having two sides of equal length) or “isometric.” The word similarly denotes the identical nature of two things in Matt 20:12 and Rev 21:16, and is also used in John 5:18 of the fundamental equality and equivalency between Christ and God. Philippians 2:6 says that this equality was not something that Jesus “grasped.” The Greek word arpagmos means “something to grasp after; something to hold onto.” A similar form of this word, arpagmē, means “robbing or seizing” something (Matt 23:25; Luke 11:39; Heb 10:34). It therefore means to grasp onto something that you don’t have or that you shouldn’t have. But, Christ did not consider equality with God to be a status that He held illegitimately. Nor did He consider that His deity prevented Him from coming to earth to become fully human as well.

    Yet, verse 7 says that Christ “emptied” Himself. The contrast is important; Jesus didn’t seize something that was already His, but He relinquished it instead. But, the word kenoō, does not really mean “to empty,” but rather, “to deprive of power, make of no meaning or effect; to give up or lay aside what one possesses” (Rom 4:14; 1 Cor 1:17; 9:15; 2 Cor 9:3). Christ never ceased to be fully divine, though He did willingly restrict the use of His divine abilities. The transfiguration is a graphic illustration where the disciples saw a contrast between Jesus’ restricted and His unrestrained glory.

    I sometimes play hide-and-seek with my kids outside; you can hide in the back yard, on the side of the house, or in the front yard, as long as you stay on our property (and out of the street!). When I am “it,” I sit on the front step of our house, close my eyes and also cover my ears, so I don’t hear the directions in which my kids scamper while I count to twenty. In such a state, my hearing is diminished and my vision is of no use. That is, I am voluntarily depriving myself of the free and uninhibited use of my abilities for the sake of the game. This doesn’t mean that my status has changed, and that I am now a blind person; it simply means that I have suspended the use of my sight for a specific purpose and context. Christ, too, though He never ceased to be fully divine while on earth, did temporarily chose to not use fully His divine attributes.

    It takes at least two things for us to restrain ourselves in this way. First it takes power, or, self-control, and secondly, it takes humility. This is where the power of this teaching comes in, and why the deity of Christ is critical to Paul’s pastoral exhortation. Jesus always was, even during His time on earth, fully divine, and yet, He had the humility and the power to control and restrain the fullness of His divine abilities, privileges, and rights for the sake of others, specifically, for us. He restricted and suspended the use of His divine power and His enjoyment of divine privileges in order to live a human life perfectly, suffer and die sacrificially, and then rise bodily from the dead.

    We, too, should be willing to do this for one another. As we follow in our Savior’s footsteps, we must lay aside our position, status, rights, or privileges for others, out of love for one another and out of obedience to God.

    Of course, there are more clear signals from this passage that affirm Christ’s deity, and we will discuss those in the article “Above Every Name” below.

TV/ MOVIES: One Rogue Reviews Rogue One (And A Few Other Films)

        *** Spoiler Alert: The following may contain spoilers for the movies and franchises described. ***

    We have seen a diverse array of movies over the last few months that demonstrate the eclectic nature of our family, and I just wanted to briefly sound off on a few of them.

    Star Wars: Rogue One. Yes, this review is a bit late, but I wanted to comment on this movie anyway.     The latest installment of the Star Wars franchise was Rogue One, released this last December. This is Star Wars at a high quality, easily ranking up there with Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi (the last of which is my personal favorite in the franchise). 

    Rogue One notably lacks the great character-chemistry of the original trilogy, in fact, character development is perhaps this film’s greatest drawback. However, it makes up for that weakness in plot, visuals, the introduction of new planets, and even some clever tie-ins with other Star Wars movies. Ultimately, Rogue One solves an important question regarding the construction of the Death Star, which plays such a key role in the original 1977 Star Wars movie, a question that Star Wars fans have been pondering for forty years.

    We Kaspers may be in the minority regarding our perceptions of the Star Wars franchise: most of us actually liked the prequel movies (Episodes I-III), and overall we didn’t much care for The Force Awakens (Episode VII). On the other hand, Rogue One, and especially the second half of the film, is an excellent movie that gave us “a new hope” for the direction of the franchise in the future.

    Is Genesis History? I was frankly not sure what to expect from this film, but I was not disappointed. The film contained interviews with experts in the fields of archaeology, geology, linguistics, and biology, all of whom sought to verify the historicity of the accounts in Genesis 1-12. It was both a substantive movie intellectually and it was gratifying graphically; the cinematography was spectacular, and there were helpful charts and graphics that accompanied some of the more technical explanations.

    This is a weird complaint about the movie, but I’ll mention it anyway. The movie had a dramatic conclusion with a sweeping view and a deep though. But then the film continued with a scene of four of the participants basically having an interesting, but anti-climactic discussion around a table. At first I thought that this was just going to be a short summary of the movie and then maybe a plug for some of the participants’ organizations and causes, but the scene went on for a painful and awkward 20 minutes or so. It wasn’t un-interesting, it just was a bit jerky and it felt tacked-on.

    Anyway, this is definitely a great effort to provide some historical and scientific verification to the Bible, but I say that as someone who is already positively inclined to the authority and inspiration of Scripture, and has engaged in and taught apologetics often. I am not sure how much this movie would convince someone who is inclined away from Scripture, and I would like to see how the movie played with antagonists of the historicity and credibility of the early Biblical accounts.

    Logan. So, let’s just get the obvious stuff out of the way: This movie had enough violence and “F-bombs” to justify an “R” rating. I can’t think of the last time I went out and paid to see an “R” movie, but in this case, I can hardly imagine how this story would have been possible without some of these elements (though, I could have done without much of the language).

    Logan was an unusual movie both relative to other X-Men movies and also compared to the now-overcrowded superhero film genre. It broke that mold by being sweet without being romantic, and by being violent without being gratuitous. It was filled with meaningful and even profound dialog and symbolism against a gloomy backdrop that featured one of our favorite jaded anti-heroes. Despite that “R” rating, it was incredibly charming; but it was also at times heart-breaking reflecting a sadness, desperation and regret that is foreign to these kind of movies.

    The X-Men franchise can be confusing, and even frustrating, with enough time-travel and retcons to keep your head spinning. Yet, Logan made sense as a stand-alone film and also provided an elegant and touching tribute to characters that have dominated the silver screen now for years. Though the ending was definitive (there wasn’t even a post-credits scene!), the movie nonetheless provided some fodder for future installments that can build upon it. After some other questionable installments in the X-Men franchise, I am grateful that it took such a bold cinematic step with these characters in this movie.

    So what great films have you seen recently? Send your responses to these or other films to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll include your thoughts in an upcoming edition.

ROMANS: Blasphemy By Believers, Romans 2:17-24

    The Bible frequently notes the many inconsistencies between our faith and our practice. If we were to be honest with ourselves, we would notice several divergences between the things that we believe and the way we live. It is with good reason, therefore, that unbelievers consider Christians to be frauds and they often dismiss our faith, our God and our Messiah.

    In Romans 2:17-24, Paul notes this kind of discrepancy among believers. In fact, he abhors this hypocrisy so much that he invokes a verse from the Old Testament and notes that the hypocrisy in the life of believers provokes blasphemy among unbelievers.

    Here’s the basic idea of this passage: When we proclaim that we are associated with God but then compromise that association in our actions and behavior, the resultant hypocrisy when viewed by unbelievers not only makes us look bad, but it makes God look bad, also. Of course, God Himself is perfect, so when unbelievers think badly of God, it is not His fault, but the fault of those who claim to represent Him. Believers have a powerful privilege of representing the Creator of the world, and yet, we often sour the world’s perceptions of a completely holy and perfect God.

    In Romans 2:17, Paul addresses Jews, but he curiously refers to them as “you who call yourself a Jew.” That is, they claim to be a Jew, but their real “Jewishness” is in question. Later, Paul will argue that Jewishness is less about one’s lineage, but more about the condition of one’s heart (v. 28). However, they define their Jewishness by their trust in the Law and their boasting in God. 

    The word for “trust” or “rely” here is epanapauo, used elsewhere in the NT only in Luke 10:6. It is used in the OT (in the LXX) of the Holy Spirit resting on someone (Num 11:25-26) or even someone else’s spirit or character resting on something else (2 Kings 2:15). It also refers to relying on something physically (2 Kings 5:18; 7:2, 17), politically (Exek 29:7), or spiritually (Mic 3:11). But to lean on something does not always mean that the act is legitimate. Micah 3:11 makes the point that the religious and political leaders take bribes and practice extortion, and then presume that they can lean upon the Lord for protection. Similarly, Paul says in Romans 2:17 that some Jews rely on the Law, and yet, the Law is incapable to save, but only to judge. Furthermore, they boast in God, but do not necessarily trust in Him.