Spring is a wonderful time for growth, for romance, . . . and for reading great articles online!

Welcome to the April 2026 edition of The Eclectic Web Journal. We’re so excited about April, that we’ve included several articles from previous April editions of our other online effort, The Eclectic Kasper, which we ran for ten years. Lazy? Perhaps. But some of these articles remain helpful and relevant today.

But we have some new articles, as well, including our continuing investigation of Zechariah’s visions, interesting memes and what they say about America, and a great quote from a surprising source.

You may not agree with every article or perspective, but if you like the free exchange of ideas and civil discussion, please give our Facebook page a “like.” And if you’d like, feel free to leave a comment on any of our articles there or you can comment on any of our posts.

Thanks for reading, and stay eclectic! 

ZECHARIAH’S VISIONS: A Basket Case, Zechariah 5:5-11

Maybe it’s an older epithet that we hardly use anymore; I’m not sure that kids today are going around and referring to each other as a “basket case.”

I don’t even know the origins of this insult, but I remember hearing it often growing up. Being “a basket case” refers to someone in a tough situation, perhaps of their own making. Sometimes it refers to someone who was emotionally fragile or frayed as a result of their circumstances.

Here in Zechariah, we have a literal case of a basket case! A person in a basket, in an odd vision, and we have to find out what specifically that means.

This is one of the odder visions in a series of already-odd visions. Additionally, Zechariah doesn’t seem to spend much time on the interpretation of this seventh vision. This doesn’t mean that it is unimportant, but just a bit obscure and ambiguous. We’ll walk through this carefully and try to discern what the point of this vision is.

Zechariah 5:5-8 portrays a woman who is in a basket. The word used in the NASB is “ephah,” which would be a large basket, or perhaps a small barrel, which could hold about five gallons worth of material. This would be about as much grain as a relatively strong individual could carry around by themselves. Anything much bigger than that and transporting it would require another person; smaller than this, it would be a wasted trip. That’s why an ephah is strategic; it is a convenient amount of something.

But let’s back up a bit. The angel who has led Zechariah on this visionary journey comes again to the prophet, and asks him to lift his eyes to see the next vision (v. 5). I’m not sure how far to press this interpretively, but the word “to lift” (the Hebrew word nasa) occurs fairly commonly in the OT, but is used frequently in this passage (5:1, 5, 7, 9 [2x], 6:1, 13); in fact, 7 of the 11 uses of this word by this prophet occur in Zech 5-6. He elsewhere uses it of lifting up his eyes to see one of these visions, but it is also used of lifting the lid of the basket (v. 7), and then lifting the basket itself (v. 9).

Zechariah looks and sees a “basket” or an “ephah” (v. 6), again, a word used either of a measure of grain, or of a container which could hold that much grain. At this point, the idea of dimensions becomes less important than the meaning of the symbols, so we have a presumably full-sized woman fitting inside the basket.

Then there is the phrase “their eye” or “their appearance” is “in (or through) all the earth,” which is probably a shortened form of a phrase Zechariah used earlier (4:10). The phrase “in the earth” or “in all the earth” is used in 1:10, 4:10, 5:6 about God’s patrolmen and God’s omniscience. I think the idea here is that evil similarly wants to spread throughout the land and have dominion all over the world. Yet, God collected it, and wants to remove it from among His people. We are all sinners, and even redeemed people sin, but God wanted to collect the most grievous habits, such as idolatry, false worship, greed, injustice, and take these far away from His people. For us, too, God wants to remove our sinful habits and addictions far from us, “As far as the east is from the west” (Psalm 103:11-12; see also Isa 43:25; Heb 9:26; 1 John 3:5).

In a book like Zechariah that frequently points to God’s sovereignty and power, this vision reaffirms something important about God, specifically, that He can collect and contain evil anytime He wants to and deposit it anywhere He wants to. That God can easily contain evil as simply as He commands the waves and controls the sea is a testimony to His power. For instance, Babylon the great city is thrown down quickly (Rev 18:21); the beast and the false prophet will be seized and thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 19:20), as is the devil soon after (Rev 20:10). Evil has not been vanquished by God yet, not because He lacks power or ability, but because He has simply decided not to vanquish it yet.

The basket has a lead lid because they are trying to contain what is inside (v. 7). The woman is “wickedness” (v. 8), the personification of all the evil that they were trying to contain with the law and the rituals and the commandments. This is not some product of ancient misogyny, for both vices and virtues are occasionally personified in the OT as women (see, for example, Prov 7:11, 9:1, and 13; see also Rev 17:1-3). The step implied in v. 8 is that this lady of wickedness tried to get out of the basket. She has places to go, people to see, nations to corrupt. The angel has to “throw her down”; the Hebrew verb shalak occurs twice in this verse, and the double use probably suggests urgency (Eugene Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, p. 174). We don’t advocate violence especially to women, but he has to shove her down into that basket, and then put a lead weight on top to contain the wickedness within. This is similar to the mythological story of Pandoras’ Box, the containment of evil which is then released into humanity. We believe that sin originates from people; it was not injected into humanity later. However, what is being pictured here is the gathering of wickedness in one place, and the purification of the land, which is related to the previous vision.

A superficial scan of the Old Testament Prophets reveals what seems like a lot of gloom and doom imposed on many nations but especially on Judah and Israel. But rather than just seeing all the judgment and punishment, we have to recognize that God has a passion to make His people pure and holy. That applies to God’s people now, as well, but I’m not sure that we are as on board with that program as God would like.

As if this vision wasn’t already odd enough, we suddenly see two stork-like ladies drift down from heaven. After the wickedness is contained, the women lift the ephah between them and between heaven and earth (v. 9). “Stork” is the Hebrew word chasidah, mentioned six times in the OT, including in lists of unclean animals (Lev 11:19; Deut 14:18). The other few uses imply that they are high-altitude birds who tend to soar more than flap, and who inhabit the tops of tall trees (Psa 104:7; Jer 8:7).

Zechariah asks where the basket is being taken (v. 10), and the angel says that they will build a temple in Shinar and set the woman of wickedness on her own pedestal there (v. 11). “Shinar” is an archaic name for Babylon (Gen 10:10; 11:2), but was also used of the area of Babylon where the Jewish exiles would be taken (Dan 1:2). Also, Babylon has apocalyptic significance, and that may be indicated here by how all the vices of humanity will be gathered in the great city of Babylon in Revelation (Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2). I think that the idea here is that the wickedness which should not contaminate the worship of the remnant in Judah would be taken away and dumped where it belongs, in a false religious system.

So what do we make of this odd vision? It would be easy to declare that it is just weird and to keep on moving. But we do believe that God’s Word is inspired, inerrant, authoritative, and beneficial for doctrine, conviction, and spiritual maturity (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:21). While not every part of the Bible is as relevant or applicable to us today as it was to the ancient readers, every part still has some value for us, and this vision in Zechariah 5 is no exception.

First, it signifies that God wanted there to be no sin, impurities, and evil in the post-exilic Jewish community who had returned home from Babylonian exile. “The Lord would not tolerate sin in the post exilic community. Those who violated his standards would be sent back into exile” (Robert Chisholm, Handbook on the Prophets, 463).

Second, it signifies that God would go to any lengths to try to shield us from evil. He put it in a basket, pushed it down in to the center, put a heavy cover over it and allowed it to be removed far away. The model prayer that Jesus provided for us includes the phrase in Matthew 6:13, “And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” The reality is that if we find ourselves engaged in sin and evil, it is not because God led us toward it, but rather because we ourselves invited it into our lives.

To bring this ancient vision into a modern context, we can declare that the toleration of sin and wrong doctrine in the church is unsustainable (1 Cor 5:11, 13; 6:18). We know that evil is within us, within our flesh (Rom 7:18), but that Christ has redeemed us through faith in Him (Rom 8:3). But we have to strive to contain those evil impulses that come from within through practicing self-control, studying and applying God’s Word, and by being around godly people. Vice and virtue passages in the NT can also serve as checklists to help us know if we are suppressing wicked habits and tendencies as well as we should be (Gal 5:19-23; 2 Cor 12:20; Jas 3:14-18; see also passages like Prov 6:12-19). All of this will help prevent us from becoming a spiritual basket case, and instead, help us to be useful servants and warriors for God during this age.

OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD: A Note on Nomenclature

This article is originally from the April 2011 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, and is presented here 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. (the phrase anno Domini, which is 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.

In June 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention, characteristically making a mountain out of a molehill, published a conciliar document called, “On Retaining The Traditional Method Of Calendar Dating (B.C./A.D.).” This statement reigns hellfire down on those who use the BCE/ CE system, and 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 document “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 5771 [as of 2011, when this article was originally written]. The Japanese sometime reckon the year relative to the reign of their current emperor, and they are thus in year 23 of Emperor Akihito [again, as of 2011]. Muslims typically use the Hijri 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 else measures time is inherently silly.

So, why do I use BCE and 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 phraseology for many cultures and belief systems and thus lends itself to greater clarity when operating on an international or inter-religious platform.

There is something else that I like about using the BCE/ CE system. But before I mention this shocking irony, I will 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! Some 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 the names we use for many of the days of the week are rooted in the names of Norse and Germanic deities. So, while it’s 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 preferential, and even religious, 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, 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; the BCE/ CE system concedes 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, whether others choose to acknowledge that fact or not. People may deny His deity, or that He is the only Savior (John 14:6; Acts 4:12); but nobody can deny that He created a fracture between the past and present like no other person on earth ever did.

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 than 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. 

DEVOTIONAL THOUGHT: Better Than Gold, Proverbs 3:14

This article is originally from the April 2013 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, and is presented here with minor modifications.

. . . Because it is a better profit than the profit of silver and its revenue than that of the best gold (Proverbs 3:14).

Have you ever thought how valuable virtues like faith, love and wisdom really are? Perhaps if we had a monetary value attached to every good decision or every kind act, we would truly appreciate their worth.

In Proverbs 3:13, the author affirms the overwhelming value of attaining wisdom: “How blessed is the man who finds wisdom, and the man who gains understanding.” The detractor, however, may scoff at the assertion that an intangible virtue such as wisdom is worth more than a tangible metric like monetary gain or acquiring jewels or gems. So in the next verse, Proverbs 3:14, the sagacious author addresses the materialistic cynic in every human soul. It features commerce-oriented diction to negate the cynic. Another feature of 3:14 is the absence of any verbs, a clear-cut approach that may pacify bottom-line accountant types.

The reason (note the Hebrew word ki meaning “for”) an individual who pursues wisdom will be blessed, is because the intangible virtue of wisdom is a “better gain” or a “better profit.” The Hebrew word tov, or “good” is used here as a comparative adverb rather than an adjective; wisdom is not just “good” but “better than.”

The noun “profit” translates the Hebrew word sachar, which means “commercial gain” or a “business profit.” The cognate verb of that noun means “to go around” or “to travel about.” It is almost always used in the context of trade or of commercial enterprise, and specifically of a merchant or a merchant ship. The word is repeated twice in the first phrase relative to the gain of wisdom and “silver.” The author is not necessarily comparing wisdom to gold and silver, which would be comparing the tangible to the intangible, or the proverbial “apples to oranges.” Rather, he is minimizing the market discrepancy between silver and gold, and suggesting that the “gain” of wisdom is worth far more than either of these precious metals. The counter-intuitive conclusion is that gaining wisdom is a grander and more profitable pursuit than gaining wealth.

While one may dismiss the acquisition of silver, the author suggests in the second parallel phrase that gaining wisdom is even better than receiving “a revenue of gold.” The word “revenue” refers to the income from business or produce from crops (Deut 22:9; Josh 5:12; Ps 107:37; Prov 3:9; 8:19; Eccl 5:10; Is 23:3). “Fine gold” or “high quality gold” translates the word charuts. It may be related to the Greek word kerátiōn, from whence we receive the word “carat,” a measure of the purity and worth of gold.

What is in view here is a very high quality of gold, and yet even this is not as good as having wisdom and discernment. Wisdom is portrayed as preferable to gold in Prov 8:10, 19 and 16:16, also. In a modern setting, a crumpled $20 bill is as valuable as a crisp, new $20 bill. However, in ancient times, the worth of gold was defined by its quality as well as its amount. Wisdom is not merely a better pursuit than mere gold, but even better than fine gold.

The author asserts, again counter-intuitively, that striving to find wisdom will be more profitable for the individual than striving to make money. How much different would countries, churches, and individuals be if we gave as much attention to acquiring knowledge and wisdom from God’s Word as we do from trying to gain wealth and goods from the world?

In a society dominated by material pursuits, we can stand out as individuals who pursue wisdom and who apply it in our interactions, relationships, and business practices. Scripture is clear that increasing in the knowledge of Christ and growing in wisdom and understanding the are worthier pursuits (Matt 6:33; Eph 3:19; 2 Pet 3:18). Those pursuits are better than acquiring anything that this world could offer. 

AMERICA IN MEMES: The Memes Strike Back

We have written articles on memes in the past, and our last installment in this series was “The Revenge of the Memes” from the January 2022 edition.

“Want to know the secret of turning $40 into $400? Put the $40 in your gas tank, then drive to work.”

They’re back, and they’re even worse than before: our survey of memes!

Again, for those of you who are over the age of 34, a “meme” is a picture that you may find on Facebook or Twitter that has a statistic, a funny quip, or an insightful quote. It may be attributed to a famous person, and sometimes they are mis-attributed. But no matter who came up with them, or who they are associated with, they still have a way of condensing a great deal of truth into just a few words.

And I’m a bit on the conservative side, so some of these are going to lean in that direction; but even then, most of us should see the sense in them. For instance, I saw a meme that I think that we can all resonate with: “Your triggers are your responsibility. It isn’t the world’s obligation to tiptoe around you.” Of course, we shouldn’t go around triggering people, especially those with legitimate psychological or medical issues. However, this meme addresses how people need to be responsible for what triggers them and be careful not to put unwieldly expectations on everyone around them. Those triggers and perceptions relate to another issue that seems to be an issue today, but I think that this meme presents a concise solution: “If a man wants to pretend he’s a woman, that up to him. But if he wants us to pretend he’s a woman, that’s up to us.”

I’m not inclined to believe in what people call luck. In fact, I believe that most luck is just a combination of natural skill, divine blessing, hard work, and a good attitude. Or, to put it another way, one meme, attributed to author Robert A. Heinlein, said, “Luck is a bonus that follows careful planning—its never free.” I can tell you from having planned innumerable events of varying complexity over the last thirty years, that the success of the event is indeed tied to large amounts of planning beforehand. With all that “careful planning,” any infringement of “luck,” either good or bad, then affects the outcome only slightly, but usually not entirely.

I saw a lot of interesting memes about student loans and the loan forgiveness discussions that were swirling around in our country a year or so ago. This is one of those issues that circulate back through the public sphere every few years, so I guess these memes are still pertinent. One, leveraging language from another hot-button issue, suggested the following prescription: “To the ‘my body, my choice’ crowd . . . Your student loan, your payments.” I think that this next one is not just a good meme, but a brilliant insight, and perhaps an indictment about college tuition these days: “If your college degree isn’t valuable enough for you to pay it off, then it’s not valuable enough for me to pay it off.” And since we alluded to that hot button issue of abortion already, I’ll just highlight another meme that leaned into that abortion debate strongly: it shows an ultrasound of a baby in utero, and the caption says, “I am not a potential human; I am a human with potential.” Well played, fetus; well played!

Some memes capture the spirit of society better than others. I recently saw a chilling one that said, “They are conditioning you to view your freedom as selfish.” Another meme cites Luke 17:26 and notes that, “Noah was a conspiracy theorist . . . then it rained.”

As a pastor, I hear a lot of people who make excuses for not going to church, so I liked the meme that says, “Church should be your reason for missing everything else.” Wouldn’t it be amazing if Christians today made church such a priority in their lives that church was the reason that they didn’t receive visitors at home on Sunday morning, or watch the game, or leave for vacation on Sunday morning?

And while we’re talking church, we may as well cover a few theological sayings. Those who believe they are sinners and who trust in Christ’s sacrificial death and literal resurrection, they then receive grace, forgiveness, and eternal life (John 11:25-26; Rom 3:22-24). On Good Friday a few weeks ago, my son Luke posted a meme that may have been words from a song: “I owed a debt I could not pay. HE paid a debt HE did not owe. It’s Friday, but Sunday is coming. Christ is King.” Before Easter, I saw someone else post a meme attributed to R. C. Sproul Jr., pertaining to Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection: “Why do bad things happen to good people? That only happened once, and He volunteered.” 

But then some believers think that now that we have received grace, we don’t have to be as concerned about sin. Of course, Scripture deals with this directly, such as in Rom 6:1-2: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” One meme, deals with this even more decisively: “When grace becomes an excuse to live in sin, you are no longer under grace but under deception.”

I’ll end with a statement that wasn’t a meme, but was just some good advice that I saw on a commercial. I believe that it was in the context of encouraging people to invest in a particular company. The ad showed older people living in a small apartment, and dreaming about the bigger house they could have been living in if they had managed their money better. It was a very effective commercial, and one of the tag lines toward the end says, “Don’t make your future you hate you.” This accords with what Atlanta radio personality Eric von Haessler says about not getting too drunk, or high, or not doing dumb stuff that you would regret the next day; I’m paraphrasing here, but he says something like, make your today self not have to apologize to your tomorrow self. Good words.

Hopefully, these wise words and clever memes have helped you to think, maybe to reassess your own position, and to be a smarter and better person that your future self won’t have to hate! 

HISTORY: More From Marburg: The Colorful Martin Luther

This article is originally from the April 2014 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, and is presented here with minor modifications.

*** Warning, this article is PG-13 ***

Readers of The Eclectic Kasper are aware that I have done some research on the Marburg Colloquy of 1529, and we did a series of articles called, “Why Marburg Matters.” The Marburg Colloquy was a meeting between Martin Luther, the Swiss theologian Ulrich Zwingli, and other Protestant Reformers to resolve some of their differences and attain unity. Unfortunately, that meeting did not work. Having read much of Luther, I contended that his acerbic tongue and his general inability to “play nicely with others” was the primary cause preventing unity and agreement at this meeting.

Having done much research on Luther [I have since completed a PhD. dissertation on Luther and other early Reformation leaders], I ended up with a series of Luther’s . . . shall we say . . . less gracious statements. Many of them could not fit in some of the other papers and projects that I have done, but fortunately, I have my own web journal!

Below are several quotes from Luther mainly from three treatises written in 1520 that demonstrate his more acerbic side. These quotes are in one sense amusing, and clearly intended for rhetorical effect. But are some of these statements too strong, and in some cases, unnecessarily so? We present these for your entertainment, but also to challenge you to think about how Christian dialog should – and perhaps should not – be conducted.

In a treatise called To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (1520), Luther had some not-very-kind words for Catholic priests, but mainly he aims his vitriol at the pope. Proposing that the church was engaged in overreach he says: “How is it that we Germans must put up with such robbery and extortion of our goods at the hands of the pope?” (page 29). He suggests that the pope is so evil and satanically-inspired that he “would have to be called a destroyer of Christendom and an abolisher of divine worship” (38). He later comments that the pope “is the worst thief and robber that has ever been or could ever come into the world, and all in the holy name of Christ and St. Peter!” (44). Railing against the pope and all the priests complicit in system of indulgences Luther says: “Thus these people go to the sacrament with such consciences that they become irregulars and even worse. O blind shepherds! O mad prelates! O ravenous wolves!” (69).

Later that year, Luther wrote his famous treatise The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. He rails justifiably against the Medieval Roman Catholic leaders, but again, one wonders if he sometimes goes too far with his rhetoric. Referring to the friars who defended the sale of salvation via indulgences, Luther said: “I saw that they were nothing but impostures [sic.] of the Roman flatterers, by which they rob men of their money and their faith in God” (124). In response to the writing of one such church leader, Isidoro Isolani, Luther says of him, “The wiseacre imagines he is adoring his drivel with the multitude of his quotations. The rest I will pass over, lest I smother you with the filth of this vile-smelling cloaca” (129). Of the priests and friars in general, Luther comments: “Being wolves, they masquerade as shepherds, and being Antichrists, they wish to be honored as Christ” (195). Another quote on page 226 cannot be repeated here, because it would turn this “PG-13” article into a solid “R”; suffice it to say, that Luther makes several references to both male and female genitalia.

The year 1520 was quite a year for Dr. Luther. He wrote another treatise called The Freedom of a Christian. In a preface written specifically to Pope Leo X, Luther says: “I have truly despised your see, the Roman Curia, which, however, neither you nor anyone else can deny is more corrupt than any Babylon or Sodom ever was, and which, as far as I can see, is characterized by a completely depraved, hopeless, and notorious godlessness” (268). He further suggests: “Is it not true that under the vast expanse of heaven there is nothing more corrupt, more pestilential, more offensive than the Roman Curia? It surpasses beyond all comparison the godlessness of the Turks so that, indeed, although it was once a gate of heaven, it is now an open mouth of hell, such a mouth that it cannot be shut because of the wrath of God” (270).

In the April 2013 edition of The Eclectic Kasper we used several choice quotes from a 1527 treatise and a 1528 work to demonstrate other instances where Luther spoke with unnecessary crudity and vulgarity in discussions with other Reformers regarding the Eucharist. Of Reformers who espoused the memorial view Luther states: “May God repay you, Satan, you [explicative] wretch, for the shameful and cocksure way you ridicule us!” (Luther’s Works, Vol., 37, page 48). He says of his opponents: “I am through with them . . . lest Satan become still more frantic and spew out still more lies and follies” (LW 37: 162). After describing one of Zwingli’s arguments, Luther comments, “The children should pelt it with dung and drive it away!” (LW 37: 212). Of his opponents, he remarks, “They are exactly like a person who, just as I was about to greet him, would turn around thunder with his backside and then walk away. Well, they will not run off so insolently and leave their stench behind them, if it be God’s will!” (LW 37: 349). 

Luther was many things, but he was hardly ever a diplomat. Not to be preachy, but it does raise the question of civility in discourse, which has become a concern in recent years in our own society. But we are also talking here about civility in theological discourse, and specifically among church leaders. On one hand, we can appreciate Luther’s bold ferocity against the atrocities of the medieval church. On the other hand, we may also feel that some of these statements are vulgar, and below a church leader.

Many have said “Oh, that’s just how they talked back then!”, but I think that is a superficial response. I have read volumes of works by Zwingli, Melanchthon, Bucer, and Karlstadt, where the authors are clearly frustrated, firm, and they regularly assert that their opponent is from the devil. But my research convinced me that Luther was far more acerbic and vulgar in his discourse than most of his other Protestant amigos. Others rarely descend to the level of crudity and petulance of Luther’s personal attacks.

Some scholars see similarities between Luther and other harsh communicators like fellow-reformer Thomas Müntzer or contemporary French author Francois Rabelais. But these similarities do not demonstrate that Luther’s rhetoric was normative, but rather, they verify that he was exceptionally harsh in both a theological and cultural context, like Müntzer and Rabelais. And, having read almost everything that was written by Thomas Müntzer, I can assert that Müntzer was harsh, sometimes too sensitive, but rarely exhibited the level of petulance and vulgarity that Luther often did.

So, this brief survey leaves us asking some very relevant questions about Luther and about us: When in the 1500s or now, does boldness and bravery in speech cross the line into evident, sinful slander and unnecessary name-calling? At what point does “courageous” communication become speech that defies passages such as Colossians 4:6, 2 Timothy 2:24-25 and 1 Peter 3:15 and that is clearly condemned by Colossians 3:8, Ephesians 4:29, and 5:4?

It seems to me that the line between bold communication and sheer ungodliness was crossed by Luther far too often, and—as in the case of the Marburg Colloquy of 1529—to disastrous effects. 

JUST WORDS: What is God’s “Foreknowledge”?

This article is originally from the April 2016 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, and is presented here with minor modifications.

One of the big debates between Calvinists and Arminians is the issue of God’s foreknowledge. The resolution to this debate, however, is more clear Biblically than many realize.

The idea of “foreknow” or “foreknowledge” is often misrepresented to mean that God looks ahead to see whether we will choose Him, and then bases His election of us on our will rather than His own. This is the position of foreknowledge that is associated with Arminianism. However, Calvinists believe that God elects believers without any reference to their own choice or will. He does not need to know ahead of time if someone will decide to believe in Him because, as Calvinists assert, people will always reject God on their own. Thus foreknowledge must be based on God’s knowledge alone; God must actually choose people for salvation against their will, rather than as a result of their will.

There are many problems with the Arminian stance that “foreknowledge” means God looks ahead and elects those who would choose Him of their own volition. Let’s start by looking at the words that are in play in this discussion.

“Foreknow” comes from the Greek verb proginosko, meaning “to know already, know beforehand; choose from the beginning, choose beforehand,” and is used in Acts 26:5, Romans 8:29, 11:2, 1 Peter 1:20, and 2 Peter 3:17. The noun form of the word is prognosis, from whence we derive the word “prognosis”; it means “foreknowledge, purpose” and is used in Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:2.

First, Arminian misrepresentation of “foreknowledge” contradicts what Scripture says about the fallen human will. Specifically, when offered a spiritual choice, nobody would decide to believe in God because we are all spiritually dead (Eph 2:1; Col 2:13). Fallenness and sin have crippled our spiritual capacities to do good as well as our moral volition to choose good or to choose God. Scripture is not ambiguous on this point (Psalm 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Isa 6:5; 64:6; Rom 3:9-18, 23; 28; Eph 2:1-10; Titus 3:5). 

The second problem with the Arminian position is the problem of “will.” Salvation is portrayed in the NT as a product of the will of the One who saves, not a result of the will of those who are being saved. That is, the focus is on the gracious will of God, not on the wise choice of saints. God chose some “according to the kind intention of His will” (Eph 1:5), “according to His purpose” (Rom 8:28; Eph 1:11; 2 Tim 1:9; see also 1 Peter 3:9), and “according to His mercy” (Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3; see also Eph 2:4-5). Scripture never portrays God consulting the will of people to see if they are worthy for justification or salvation.

The third problem has to do with the words themselves as they are used elsewhere in Scripture. Specifically, we should investigate the places where the verb proginosko or the noun prognosis are used to see if any of them even hint at the idea of looking ahead to discover something as opposed to deciding something before it happens.

An instance of the verb proginosko later in Romans is very instructive. Romans 11:2 notes that God foreknew the Jewish people even though throughout their history, many of them rejected Him. That is, according to the misunderstanding of foreknowledge, God should have looked ahead, seen that many of the Jews would reject God, and therefore decided not to elect the entire nation. Rather, God chose the Jewish nation despite His previous knowledge of how most Jews would respond to Him rather than because of the knowledge of how they would respond.

Another point about this word is that the activity of “foreknowledge” is located before the creation of the world according to 1 Pet 1:20. This would mean, again according the Arminian view, that before anything was created, God had to look forward to consult the wills of yet-uncreated people. Surely, with God all things are possible, but this interpretation of 1 Pet 1:20 stretches the normal usage of this word and stretches the boundaries of plausibility, as well. Similarly, the use of the noun in Acts 2:23 focuses on God preordaining the life and purpose of Christ. God did not base these plans for Christ on future contingencies regarding who would choose to follow Him and who would reject Him.

Another instructive use of this word, specifically, the verb form proginosko, is in 2 Peter 3:17 and it is applied to believers. The idea is less that believers look ahead and know how something is going to happen. Rather, they are instructed to understand presently that many people generally twist Scripture, and therefore, we should determine now not to be carried away by the error of false teaching. That is, we understand circumstances and make moral decisions now, and do not base our choices on contingencies in the future. 

The word “foreknow” or “foreknowledge” simply means to have previous knowledge or to know something beforehand. It is illegitimate exegetically to read anything else into this word, such as that God appealed to human will to attain this knowledge or that God looked ahead to see how we would respond to Him before making a decision about us. The word simply means that God knew something before it happened because He had already planned it out.

Furthermore, most of the passages where foreknowledge is discussed are clearly in relationship to the will and plan of God, and explicitly undermine the notion that human will is a factor. In Romans 8, Paul mentions human weakness (v. 26), but then mentions God’s will (v. 27), and God’s purpose (v. 28) and God’s foreknowledge and election. The mention of foreknowledge in Rom 11:2 is clearly describing God’s will and choice (v. 5) of some despite the rejection of others. And of course, these references to foreknowledge in Romans must be seen in light of chapters 1-3 of Romans, which strenuously argue that human will has been universally and without exception turned away from God.

The foreknowledge of God is referred to twice in 1 Peter 1 (vv. 2 and 20), a chapter saturated with truths about God’s will (vv. 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 17-21) as well as exhortations for how we are to respond to God’s will (vv. 6, 8, 13-16). Also, human will in regard to salvation is frequently in the passive voice in this chapter: believers were “caused . . . to be born again” (v. 3); we “are protected” (v. 5); we “were redeemed” (v. 18), further implying how human will had no place in God’s foreknowledge and election.

In conclusion, we must reject any sense that divine foreknowledge – or the knowledge that God had ahead of time – was contingent on human response and will in any way. God inherently possessed at all times all knowledge, and that knowledge was not based on any will but His own. 

GREAT QUOTES: The Sacrifices of a Rebel

The Star Wars franchise isn’t known for its great writing or Shakespearean dialog. In fact, the awkwardness of the scripts and the strained dialog are usually highlighted, though there are some very quotable moments, such as “You must unlearn what you have learned,” and “Laugh it up, fuzzball!”

Oddly enough, from such a franchise springs a tremendous quote, and that, from one of the best characters in the franchise, Luthen Rael. For those of you who are franchise purists and have only seen the films, Luthen is a character featured in the two-season run of the streaming series Andor, a surprisingly well-done and gratifying show. This series leads up to the film Rogue One, which is itself a precursor to the original trilogy. In Andor, Luthen is portrayed, along with Mon Mothma and Bail Organa, as a well-connected socialite, trying in secret to stoke the rebellion that we see in the original trilogy. He works tirelessly and sacrificially to undermine the emperor’s regime.

In the Andor episode “One Way Out” toward the end of the first season, Luthen covertly meets with an operative, named Lonni Jung, who feeds Luthen information. Lonni expresses his nervousness about continuing in this capacity, fearing for his career, his family, and his own safety. Luthen seems unmoved by all of this, prompting Lonni to ask Luthen, “And what do you sacrifice?” He may have come to regret asking that question, but Lonni’s interpersonal blunder grants us some of the best lines in the franchise, and perhaps one of the greatest descriptions of sacrifice in science-fiction.

Whether we are raising children, serving others, or trying to stoke a galactic rebellion, we can all relate to what Luthen says about the sacrifices, the thankless efforts, and the unheralded heroism that many people exhibit, often in secret. Whether you are a sci-fi fan or not, I think that we can all relate to some extent to how Luthen answers the question, “And what do you sacrifice?”

Calm. Kindness. Kinship. Love. I’ve given up all chance at inner peace. I’ve made my mind a sunless space. I share my dreams with ghosts. I wake up every day to an equation I wrote fifteen years ago from which there’s only one conclusion, I’m damned for what I do. My anger, my ego, my unwillingness to yield, my eagerness to fight, they’ve set me on a path from which there is no escape. I yearned to be a savior against injustice without contemplating the cost and by the time I looked down there was no longer any ground beneath my feet. What is my sacrifice? I’m condemned to use the tools of my enemy to defeat them. I burn my decency for someone else’s future. I burn my life to make a sunrise that I know I’ll never see. And the ego that started this fight will never have a mirror or an audience or the light of gratitude. So what do I sacrifice? Everything!

The Eclectic Web Journal is written by Matt Kasper and edited by Martha Kasper. Matt is a graduate of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, Dallas Theological Seminary, and he recently completed a PhD. in Reformation history from Georgia State University. Matt is the pastor of a small church northeast of Atlanta called Grace Atlanta Bible Church, and is involved in several other groups and activities in the Atlanta area, as well.

We had written a decade’s worth of articles in our previous web journal, called, The Eclectic Kasper, which we published from 2011 to 2021. We will work on repairing access to these articles, and let you know about our progress on that front.

If you haven’t yet, please give our “The Eclectic Kasper” Facebook page a “like” and you can leave comments about any of our articles on our posts there.