NOVEMBER 2013

    Here is something else that is clear. The Framers of the Constitution lived in a very different time that we do, and wrote to a society that is over 220 years in our past. They produced the second amendment with a sense of the responsibility of American’s citizens. More so than today, people of that day had a mindset about the preciousness and precariousness of life. They believed in a divine Creator and in their need to be accountable to Him. I am not so naïve as to believe that they were all saints, but they did live under a different epistemology, one that didn’t assert that life is meaningless because we all evolved from slime. They knew how to use guns, they had a respect for life, and for a gun’s ability to quickly remove life, whether animal or human.    Also, there are vastly different technological and cultural shifts between the Framers and today. In the late 1700s, they didn’t have rapid fire weaponry; not that people then wouldn’t have liked such weaponry, and used it and abused it as we do now. But they simply didn’t possess weapons with the capabilities that we have now. And, the Framers wrote before the advent of violent movies, rap music, Grand Theft Auto, and the host of other media that promote the careless use of arms and the devaluation of life. I do believe in the Constitution, but I don’t believe that event the brilliant authors of the Constitution had in mind the urban thuggery and gang violence that is rampant today.

    An armed citizenry makes sense if that citizenry recognizes the responsible use of a weapon, specifically for hunting, self-defense, or in a military context. We should be concerned about a population that uses guns for casual, even virtual (as in many video games) killing, and who, on top of that, further devalues life by not seeing that every person is created by God to have a purposeful existence. It is unsustainable to have such a proliferation of shoot-‘em-up video games and to expect that this method of handling stress and conflict won’t drift off of the screen and into real life.

    Here’s something else that I know: In every mass shooting that I can recall, the shooter is a male. In many instances, he was white, and from a middle-class background. I’ll let someone else do the research about the prevalent problems with inner city violence; but that doesn’t solve the puzzle of why most of these mass shootings are perpetrated by young, suburban, white guys.

    Here are some things that I am not so sure about. I have seen reports that say that higher gun regulation prevents crime and other studies that say exactly the opposite. I think that sometimes pundits on both sides mindlessly gravitate toward studies and data that “prove” the point they want to hear or are just making up their own numbers without really understanding the issue.

    There are other questions that I am not sure how to answer in a rational and logical way. One is, How many times do we need to agonize over stories about murder and mass-shootings before we reassess how we look at guns? Again, I don’t know the answer to this, but there must be a tipping point that deserves a more sophisticated answer than conservatives telling the government, “Don’t touch my guns!”

    Another question is, How do we enforce the unenforceable? Here is one place where our liberal friends are completely off their wagons: more laws do not make us safer, because those who do wrong with guns are already, by virtue, breaking the law. More laws would just mean more laws for them to break, which they would do without thinking. But the end would be the same, namely, the death of innocent people, which could not have been prevented by any amount of laws. It is virtually impossible to stop one person from killing another in their home if they have a gun. You can’t prevent the gun from going off accidentally or intentionally unless you physically remove the gun from the person’s possession.

    I am also prone to rethink a conservative position on the second amendment because of the dubious arguments that some conservatives make in defense of their position. I’m tired of the wore-out adage that guns don’t kill people, but people kill people. That seems somewhat like saying, If we give sharp knives to toddlers, it is not the sharp knives that kill toddlers, but the toddlers that kill toddlers. I am also tired of the false slippery-slope arguments made by some on the right, who sarcastically say that since people die in car accidents, we should let government take away cars, too! If people parroting this thinking understood logic, they would quickly see that the issue with cars is a categorically different issue than with guns. The difference is that the primary function of cars is not killing, but transportation. However, the primary function of guns is to kill, whether animal life or human life, whether in a military context or not. The “cars” argument demonstrates that some conservatives illogically misunderstand the intent and implications of the second amendment. Meanwhile, many people die needlessly, because of the proliferation of tools that were created to kill.

    Again, my great concern about modern America is that our federal government is slowly – and in some cases, not-so-slowly – removing individual liberties from its citizens. I am aware that this discussion about the second amendment is situated against that reality.  However, I am also concerned about an increasingly godless, irresponsible, and violence-desensitized population that has free and fluid access to rapid-fire weapons. I hope that the America of the future gives me a better option than to live in fear of a totalitarian government on one hand and a trigger-happy citizenry on the other.

    These are just some of the things that go through my mind as I attempt to reassess my conservative approach to the second amendment. I would love to have you join in this process of reflection with me. Please send your civil thoughts and ideas about the second amendment to feedback@eclectickasper.com and we will reprint them in future editions of The Eclectic Kasper.

DEVOTIONAL THOUGHT: Sealed By The Spirit (Ephesians 1:13)

    By whom also you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also you believed having been sealed by the promised Holy Spirit.

    There are very few guarantees in life. A promise seems to mean little today, and a contract is merely seen as a piece of paper. Fortunately, God’s ways are different from man’s ways; when God promises salvation to those who believe, he seals the deal with the presence of the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of our future salvation no matter what befalls us in the present.

    Ephesians 1:13 begins with a reference back to Christ, using the relative pronoun “in whom,” who has been the centerpiece of this passage. The truths discussed here are continually rooted back into the work of Christ; Paul never strays in his argument far away from Jesus’ oversight, activity and person.

    The parallel verbs in verses 7 and 11 were first person plural; that is, they use “we” as in “we have redemption” in v. 7 and “we received an inheritance in v. 11. But here in v. 13 Paul says “you heard”; that is, he doesn’t use the first person plural “we”, but the second person plural “you” (or “ya’ll” as we say in the South!). In v. 13, Paul is distinguishing between from those first believers in Christ and the readers of Ephesians who are next-generation (but not second class) believers. The English translation “you heard” is actually a participle that is the aorist tense, which often points to a specific moment in time, and in this case, refers back to the evangelization of the Ephesians. That Paul is referring to the initial evangelization of his audience is indicated also by mention of the “gospel of salvation” as well as the aorist tense of “believed” used in the next phrase.

    This gospel is called the “word of truth,” a phrase which Paul also links to the gospel in Colossians 1:5. Paul’s use of the phrase in 2 Timothy 2:15 seems to be referring more broadly to the accurate handling of the gospel, and to presenting the fuller implications of the gospel as Timothy should in pastoral ministry. The combination in 2 Tim 2:15 of “right” (the Greek prefix ortho-), “truth” (alethia) and “gospel” (euangellion, from where we get the word evangelize) is seen also in Gal 2:14, but in an example where someone was not practicing the implications of the gospel truth accurately. James also uses the phrase “word of truth,” likening it to a midwife that was present at the believer’s spiritual birth.

    The second “in whom” phrase in Eph 1:13 is also followed by a participle, translated “you believed.” But that participle is immediately succeeded by a true verb, “having been sealed” (from the Greek word sphragizo). Options regarding the grammatical relationship between the aorist participle, “believed,” and the aorist verb, “having been sealed,” basically fall into two categories: 1) The participle could be stating a precondition for sealing by the Holy Spirit: “Having believed, you were sealed.” The form of “believed” here is identical to Acts 19:2, where Paul asks believers at Ephesus if they received the Holy Spirit since they had already believed. 2) The participle could be adverbial of time indicating a time frame in relationship to the sealing: “When you believed, you were sealed.” Either way the link between initial belief and the sealing of the Spirit is close both thematically and chronologically.

    A “seal” accomplished two primary functions in the ancient times. First, it identified the author or architect of a given action, and as such, is was a seal of identity and authenticity (Dan 6:17; John 6:27; Rom 15:28). Those who possess the seal of God testify that God in Christ has masterminded our salvation and redeemed us on his own accord and by his own resources (John 3:33; 2 Cor 1:22). Second, a seal secured something to prevent it from being moved from its intended position or affected by external circumstances (Matt 27:66; Rev 20:3; see also Bel and the Dragon 11, 14 and the Gospel of Peter 34 [The Gospel of Peter is a fragment that remains from what was perhaps a Docetic Pseudepigraphical writing from the early 2nd century.]). The saint sealed by the Spirit cannot be moved from his salvation status. In a chapter full of proof texts for eternal security, this image in Eph 1:13 of a believer being sealed is another plank in that apology. The Spirit “seals” believers so that they cannot be removed from God’s deliverance by any means (Eph 4:30; Rev 7:3).    Another significant interpretative issue in v. 13 is whether the word “promise” is a subjective genitive or an objective genitive relative to “Spirit”? That is, is this the Holy Spirit the one who promises (acting as subject) or the one who was promised (acting as a direct object)? A third option is that “promise” is a genitive of content; F. F. Bruce suggests that the genitive “indicates that the Holy Spirit brings with him when he is received the promise of glory yet to come” (The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 265). The second option, objective genitive translating “the promised Holy Spirit” is preferred for at least three reasons: A) In the immediate context, the Father is seen as the one who acts and works, and the Spirit is not seen in that proactive role, B) The Spirit is elsewhere depicted as the one who is promised, not the one who promises (Acts 2:33; Galatians 3:14), and, C) The Father and the Son are portrayed as senders of the Spirit (Luke 24:49; John 14:26, 15:26; 16:7; Acts 2:33). The Spirit does not send himself, but accomplishes the bidding of the Father and the Son. The Father’s role as the sender of the Spirit is also seen in the OT (Is 44:3; Ezekiel 36:27; 37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28, 29; Zech 12:10). The third option, that the Spirit brings with him the promise of glory to come, is consistent with the context (especially v. 14) and may have some merit. However, the second option seems preferable: the Father does the “promising” and the Spirit himself is the one who was “promised.” 

    Within Ephesians 1 the reader recognizes the complex interaction of the members of the Trinity to make the salvation possible. In verse 13, we see that those whom the Son has redeemed have been sealed unalterably by the Holy Spirit, never to be lost from the Father’s grip.

ARCHAEOLOGY: Solomon’s Temple, Part 2

    Last month we began a series about Solomon’s Temple from an archaeological perspective.  How much was Solomon’s temple, probably built around 960 BCE, like other Ancient Near Eastern religious structures and how was it different?  Last time we focused more on the structure of other ancient temples.  This time we look at the similarities between the function of these structures.  

    Ancient temples had a variety of functional uses.  Throughout the ancient world, temples were most commonly seen to be a house of a god or gods that signified that deity’s presence to in the midst of his or her adherents.  On the other hand, Amihai Mazar discusses the sacred area at Dan which was built by Jeroboam I.  He defines a typical Iron Age temple as “a sacred enclosure intended for formal royal cult practices” (Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 492), and implies that by the Iron Age, the temple had taken on more of a ritualistic purpose.  Additionally, some temples may have served a military function. It has been suggested that the temple at Arad may have been one of a series border temples which would function as more of a garrison for protection than a shrine for worship (496).

    One of the most important uses of a temple is to centralize the worship of a nation to a specific location.  Beth Alpert Nakhai in her article “What’s a Bamah? - How Sacred Space Functioned in Ancient Israel” discusses the sporadic worship of Yahweh (a transliteration of the name of God used in the Old Testament) during the Judges period (Biblical Archaeology Review 20:3 [May/June 1994] 20).  As Israel consolidated from a tribal confederation to a nation-state, an attempt to consolidate Yahwism was made as well.  Though not without fault, a revised Jerusalem-centered Yahweh worship formed and the focus of its activity was the Temple.  Despite this, tension arose from those who continued to worship at cultic high places (in Hebrew, bamah or bamot), and the kings and prophets who opposed this movement (2 Kings 12:3; 17:9; 18:4; Is 36:7; Jer 7:31; 19:5; Amos 7:9).  Throughout the Monarchy period, “the bamot priesthood evidently grew increasingly independent of the royal clergy” (22).  Still, the Temple played a key role in the preservation and maintenance of true (non-syncretized) Yahweh worship. 

    As if it weren’t enough that different temples would have very different functions, often the same structure would be perceived by different people as having different functions.  The most pertinent example is the Jerusalem Temple itself.  David saw it primarily as a resting place for the Ark of the Covenant, whereas Solomon envisioned it as a House of God (Avraham Biran, Temples and High Places in Biblical Times, 10). The priest or group of priests who compiled 1 & 2 Chronicles may have recognized an evangelistic significance to the temple, like a giant Gospel track pointing to the superiority of Yahweh.  Undoubtedly, temples in general, and Solomon’s Temples specifically, would have served a variety of purposes.

    The word for “deer,” “stag” or “hart” is ayyal (not to be confused with ayil meaning “ram”). It is listed with the gazelle as animals that are clean and can be eaten (Deut 12:15, 22; 15:22) and also with similar styles of animals in Deut 14:5. The menu for Solomon’s household in 1 Kings 4:23 seems to be consciously mirroring Deut 14:5, and insinuating that these animals, including the ayyal were regularly hunted. The deer is also used in a simile in Isaiah 35:6 for the lame person who is healed by the Lord and thus “leaps like a deer.” Thrice in Canticles (Song of Solomon) the female suggests that her male “beloved” is like a gazelle or a young stag (2:9, 17; 8:14). Surely, this simile suggests the virility of her male pursuer. The male twice in Canticles (in 2:7 and 3:5) appeals to the gazelles and the hinds of the field (here “hind” or “doe,” ayyalah, is the feminine version ayyal). In Lam 1:6 the leadership of Judah are also compared to “deer that have no pasture,” and thus flee skittishly in light of danger.    A deer is frequently hunted, both then and now. Deer are skittish; they spend much of their time running away, and therefore, build up quite a thirst. Deer generally have little fat, and thus, are that much more in need of water, sustenance and refreshment from an outside source. The believer also, frequently finds himself or herself on the run from opposition, trial, and temptation. Believers are often skittish, and prone to run from danger, which can be a good thing if we are fleeing temptation (1 Cor 6:18; 10:14; 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22). At all times, but especially in those moments, we must long for the refreshment, comfort and sustenance from an outside source, namely from God Himself.

    What ties the situation of the deer pursuing water together with the Psalmist pursuing God is the Hebrew verb arag, “to long for.” The verb is used twice in this verse and elsewhere in the OT only in Joel 1:20, which is also about animals longing for the provision of the Lord of water and pasture. In both verses, one could argue that the longing includes a desperate, and even life-threatening urgency. So, too, must the believer have the same urgency in his spiritual life.

    The word “brooks,” “streams” or “channels” (the Heb. word aphiq) is also used in 2 Sam 22:16 in the phrase “channels of the sea,” implying an enormous amount of water (note the parallel phrase in Ps 18:16). Job uses the word in relationship to a wadi, or a dry riverbed; however in these images, he suggests that there were “torrents” of water that have now gone dry leaving an empty riverbed (Job 6:15). In Isaiah 8:7 the prophet refers to “the strong and abundant waters of the Euphrates.” Joel 1:20, which as mentioned above, is the only other verse that uses “to long for,” also uses the word “streams” or “channels,” but suggests that these streams of water have dried up. The point is that these dried-up streams are very unusual, signaling a situation that should get the people’s attention. On the other hand, in an eschatological vision at the end of Joel, the prophet assures the people that “all the brooks of Judah will [once again!] flow with water” (3:18). Thus the word aphiq usually implies large streams gushing with water. With God there is not merely water for sustenance and enjoyment; there are torrents and streams of water that will never run dry.

    The second line in the verse provides the reality of the simile to which the first line is being compared. The second line begins with the conjunction ken, meaning “so,” “thus” or “in this same way.” In the first line the author describes how an urgent need of a frightened and skittish animal found complete satisfaction through virtually inexhaustible resources. In the second line, the author suggests his own situation is just like that. Despite his prominent status, wealth, and the fact that the author is probably well taken care of, beneath it all, he is like a desperate and scared deer seeking refreshment and sustenance from a source that cannot be depleted.

    The author refers to “his soul” (nephesh) indicating a spiritual parallel to the material scenario described in the first line. The longings of the soul can only be satisfied by God and his truth. He repeats the verb arag, “to long for,” in exactly the same form; that is, both are Qal imperfect third feminine singular verbs. The second line ends with the phrase “for you, God.” The preposition here is generally translated “to” or “toward” and can most broadly be taken to indicate the indirect object. However, it also possesses a terminative (end point or destination) nuance, such as Noah and his family going “into” the ark (Gen 6:18). It is worth considering that the author of Psalm 42:1 intends some ambiguity in this preposition; the direction nuance of “toward” God, is not necessarily mutually exclusive with the terminative nuance “to” God. Logically, destination and termination are similar, but spiritually, we should keep in mind that God provides both direction for our longings, as well as a glorious terminus for us after we endure the trials of this world. 

    There are a variety of ways in which we can nurture a longing for God in the way that a deer longs for water. We will excavate ways in which to do this as we explore Psalm 42. But here’s a few hints on the front end. One way to nurture a thirst for God is to recognize that so many of the things that we long for from this world and this life do not bring permanent joy and satisfaction like God can. Along these lines, we need to identify specific material desires that drown out our desire for God and our longing to be in his Word and with his people. Also, a thirsty deer has a singular desire and focus, to just find a safe place to drink water from a sufficient provision. However, many believers today are scattered in their focus and upside-down in their priorities. Society propositions us to thirst for a variety of goods, services, and possessions.  These competing messages can drag a believer away from staying focused on God’s will for our lives. Believers need to recognize that we also can find direction, meaning, and abundant provision in the Lord and we need to stay focused on putting his priority of the kingdom of God first (Matt 6:33).

FEEDBACK: A Unique Feedback Challenge

    The Eclectic Kasper wants to extend a unique feedback challenge to our readership . . .

    I frequently get asked some wild theological or Bible questions. Unfortunately, it is often hard to find definitive answers to some of these questions through the haze of books, commentaries and online articles.