Welcome to the May 2023 edition of our relatively new online effort The Eclectic Web Journal, from the same people who brought you the famous, and infamous, The Eclectic Kasper.
In Fall 2021, we began this new effort called The Eclectic Web Journal. You can find the inaugural October 2021 edition here and subsequent editions using the drop-down menu next to “Home” in the upper right corner. In The Eclectic Web Journal we remain committed to carrying on the tradition of interesting articles, a variety of topics, and a desire to entertain and inform. We are evangelicals, so we come at these topics from that perspective. However, we welcome your kind feedback in the form of affirmations or disagreements with any of our articles.
This month in The Eclectic Web Journal, we discuss a great Firefly moment and we explore an unexpected apocalyptic author. We continue our verse-by-verse study through Romans, and guest author Anna Rose Kasper presents her debut article which is a review of an ancient classic.
Please drop by our Facebook page and give it a “like.” Feel free to leave comments or questions there under any of our posts, or start a thread of your own.
Thanks for reading, and stay eclectic!
THEOLOGY: The God of the Second Verse, Part 2
Is there an alternative to the syrupy, genie-like deity that is pedaled from some Christian pulpits in America today?
Of course a return to the deep doctrines and expositional teaching of the Bible is needed in evangelical churches. But more than that, the second verse of many of the Old Testament prophets gives us a startlingly authentic vision of God as He is, and how He has revealed Himself. This serves as a helpful substitute to the consumeristic and prosperity-oriented idol that is presented currently in many churches.
We introduced this series in the December 2022 edition of The Eclectic Web Journal. The first verse of many minor prophets contains introductory information about the author and the timeframe of the book. They then discuss God in the formal beginning of their series of messages in the second verse of the book. In this article, we’ll provide two more examples of the grand, majestic, and true God portrayed by the minor prophets starting in the second verse of their respective works.
The God of the Unprecedented and Unpredictable, Joel 1:2. After a brief introduction in Joel 1:1, verse 2 contains a rhetorical question that creates the tension of the book: “Has anything like this happened in your days?” Admittedly, this verse is not directly about God, but more about something that God in His sovereign chastisement was allowing to happen.
Joel points to the exceptional nature of the locust invasion in v. 2. He calls the elders of the land to think through the implications of what they are seeing, but then “all inhabitants,” that is, everyone in Judah, were invited to consider this unusual event. Joel suggests that this was a scourge of unprecedented proportion. The reference to “fathers” here probably does not merely refer to the generation above, but may refer to several generations. God decided to do something unprecedented and unpredictable; he intended to use a devastating locust invasion to get the attention of His people. The severity of the locust invasion is discussed in most of Joel 1; Joel 2 then notes that this is just a prelude to an unparalleled Babylonian invasion, and then parts of Joel 3 seem to envision a more-distant apocalyptic battle (especially 3:9-17).
We tend to put God in a box of what we think He will or won’t do. How often have you heard someone say “God would never do that…” or “God would never let that happen…”? Our puny minds and limited thinking should not presume to imagine what God can do or won’t do. We should worship and obey God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture, knowing that He has the freedom to accomplish deeds that are unprecedented and unpredictable. The prophets themselves point out the limits of our knowledge about God and the danger of trying to predict his deeds or assume too much about Him (Isaiah 40:12-14).
God as the First Avenger, Nahum 1:2. Forget Captain America; God was the first Avenger, and the obscure and ignored prophet Nahum reminds us of that. “A jealous and avenging God is the Lord; the Lord is avenging and wrathful. The Lord takes vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserves wrath for His enemies.”
In neglecting Nahum, we neglect some critical planks in our theological foundation. Specifically, Nahum gives unique attention to God’s prerogative to properly and proportionately avenge and judge sinners and sin.
Almost a century after Jonah’s revival in Nineveh, Nahum announces that city’s inevitable demise on account of their sin. They had slid back into their vicious and conquering ways. Nahum 1:2 uses a form the Hebrew verb naqam, “to avenge” or “to take vengeance” three times. The verse notes that God “maintains” (NIV) or “reserves” (NASB) His anger for His enemies. The original word is natar, which means to “keep” as in caring for a garden (Eccl 1:6; 8:12) or “bearing a grudge” (Lev 19:18; Jer 3:5). Robert Chisholm says, “The sovereign Lord, who is the most powerful of all warriors, would avenge the harm done to His covenant people by appropriately and thoroughly judging their Assyrian oppressors” (Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Interpreting the Minor Prophets, 179).
While we often tend to fashion God in the image of our own humanism and sentimentality, it is important to know that God is jealous for His own honor, and will seek righteous vengeance on those who have opposed Him and harmed His people. The notion of God’s vengeance is seen elsewhere in the Bible, such as Psalm 99:8, Isaiah 1:24, Joel 3:21, Romans 12:19 and 1 Thessalonians 4:6, among other places. We may not like to think of God being jealous, yet Scripture attaches this attribute to Him frequently (see Deut 5:9; 6:15; Isaiah 26:11; James 4:5). His jealousy is untainted by sin and is, instead, holy and righteous. So, the positive side of that jealousy is that He is avenging, fiercely concerned about what is His, and will stop at nothing to defend His honor and possessions.
I have heard that the prophet Nahum is the only prophet in the Old Testament whose prophecies are entirely fulfilled. God thoroughly and lastingly exacted His vengeance on the city of Nineveh. This should be a wake-up call to all who try to oppose Him, as well as any believers who are tempted to stray from His loving guidance and plan for their life.
We’ll look at more second verses from Old Testament prophetic works in a future article. For now we will just say, the Bible also presents the other side of God as an avenger. It notes that God also sent His Son to be Savior. We are all sinners and subject to divine judgment: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). However, by believing in Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death for our sin and His literal resurrection, we can have eternal life: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). God will still avenge sin and sinners; however, we can escape that deserved fate and enjoy a blissful future life with Him through faith: “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). Through faith, God ceases to be our enemy, and becomes our Avenger, Father, and Friend.
ON MY BOOKSHELF: Musings on Homer’s Iliad
by Anna Rose Kasper
The Iliad is one of the most famous tales written in the last two and a half thousand years. It has been referenced, acclaimed, and celebrated all over the world.
I recently read through Homer’s iconic poem for the first time, and although it was a fantastic read, it appeared to have no clear direction to its plot. I observed various characters flit on and off the page, and saw the focus shift each chapter from person to person, and from one Greek god to another. I began to wonder, “ Who is The Iliad really about? What story did Homer want to tell?” There seems to be a new main character every chapter. The book even starts in the middle of a war, and doesn’t show its ending! Why not?
Perhaps the book is about Menelaus and Helen, and how Menelaus loves his wife so much that he will go to war to win her back. But we don’t see him lose her or get her back, so it can’t be about them. Maybe wise Odysseus is the main character, the one who will come up with the brilliant plan that will bring down Troy and will have an entire sequel named after him. If that were the case, he would have gotten more attention, and those brilliant plans would have been showcased in the Iliad, but they aren’t. No, after reading every word of this poem, I firmly believe that the Iliad is about two warriors, Achilles and Hector. Here are my reasons:
Hector and Achilles are each the best men in their armies. Think of all the action, adventure, or fantasy books or movies that you’ve seen, and make a list of ones that are about someone who is not that good at whatever they do. Those stories just don’t exist. Nobody wants to heroize the mediocre. In our case, we don’t see Achilles fight until chapter twenty out of twenty-four, and until then, Hector has few rivals in either army for the best warrior. Later, when Achilles finally joins the battle, he has no equals; even his bronze armor, made by the gods, is unparalleled. They are each undoubtedly the best of their respective sides.
Hector and Achilles are contrasts in character. They may be the best fighters among their Trojan and Greek comrades, but they couldn’t be more different types of champions. Hector and Achilles are opposites. Achilles is, was, and always will be made for war. He is like a sword, made only to kill. He fights for glory that he may be remembered; essentially, he fights for himself. His counterpart, Hector, is the complete opposite. A warrior he is, but at the heart he is made for peace. He is like a hammer: it’ll make a fine weapon, but it’s intended to build things, not break them. Hector only fights so that his wife, his baby son, and his city may be safe; he fights for necessity, not for glory.
The book ends when their stories end. I didn’t know this until I read it, but the story about the Trojan Horse is not even in The Iliad; it’s in The Aeneid! The last chapter of The Iliad is about Priam coming to Achilles and begging for Hector’s body, Achilles granting his request, and Hector’s funeral, but not the destruction of Troy. So at the end of the book, we see Achilles fight and beat Hector and take his body, to finish off Hector’s storyline. Then, King Priam comes to Achilles, and, for the first time in twenty-four massive chapters, Achilles shows mercy and humility. Finally, he realizes that there is more to life than war. He gives up Hector’s body, allowing Hector to have the royal funeral that he deserves. Achilles, who knows from the gods that he, too, will soon die, has completed his character arc. And then, Homer puts down his pen; his work is finished. The story he wanted to tell is done, the tale of Achilles versus Hector.
An article about The Iliad wouldn’t be complete without a word about the 2004 movie Troy, a film adaption of the classic book. I think the movie was even better than the book. The plot was streamlined, removing all the influence and drama that comes from the Greek gods, and it focused on Achilles and Hector as main characters. The portrayal of iconic scenes such as Achilles and Hector’s duel, Priam coming to Achilles, and Troy’s destruction, were flawless and captivating. The casting was stellar, and James Horner’s epic soundtrack captures the gritty reality of ancient battle perfectly. Ethereal vocals and harsh drums made the city of Troy more majestic and every death more grim. In my opinion, Troy was a masterpiece of filmmaking.
The Iliad is not driven by its overarching plot, but by the personalities of Achilles and Hector. By showing them as comparisons, we see honor, humility, loyalty and brutality from these ancient warriors. The legacy of Achilles and Hector, two renowned heroes, will live on through the years in legend, and now in my memory.
CHURCH: The Authenticity of Mysterious Growth
One of many dangers in churches today is the propensity to try to manufacture numerical growth and higher attendance.
Manufactured growth has been a mainstay of American Christianity since Charles Finney in the early 1800s tried to perfect revival techniques. The use of performance choirs, special music, entertaining preaching, and altar calls were all introduced around that time to encourage people to continue to attend church. This apparently, was more important to people like Finney than was edifying people with expositional preaching and substantive church music.
Church growth conferences and books continue to appeal to these kinds of techniques to get more rear ends in the pews. But there are two main problems with this. First, the commission of the church is not first to make converts and to have high attendance. It is, rather, to make disciples, people who have trusted in Christ and are being taught to have a deeper commitment and service to Him (Matt 28:18-20; see also Acts 14:21; 1 Cor 14:12, 26; Eph 4:11-15; 2 Pet 3:18). Christianity is to be more concerned about the quality of believers, not on the number of believers, and ideally, quality leads to quantity (Acts 2:40-47; 5:12-14).
The second problem with the manipulated growth that takes place in many churches today is that because of how entertainment-oriented churches have become; people may be coming to church for the music, or for the preacher, or for the social atmosphere that the church creates. It may be that many people don’t go to church for the purpose of growing in the love and knowledge of Christ.
An interesting NT passage indicates that numerical and spiritual growth in the church takes place not through predictable and manufactured means, or by entertaining people with music and programs and feel-good teaching. Rather, Jesus tells a parable in Mark 4:26-29 which asserts that true kingdom growth is mysterious and divinely-produced.
First, all of the parables in Mark 4 are all about growth: surprising growth, inexplicable growth, unexpected growth, obstacles to growth. In this parable, the man “casts” his seed on soil (v. 26); despite the previous parable about some seed falling among the rocks and thorns, most farmers would cast their seed carefully, into soil that had been prepared to receive the seed.
Then verse 27 notes how the farmer enters into a state of inactivity. He goes to bed, and allows the divinely-ordained process of growth to take place. The wording in the original seems to indicate that this is not just one day, but it is a pattern that occurs over several days (the Greek literally says, “he sleeps and rises night and day”). After those several days, the seed that he had planted “sprouts and grows.” Here Jesus uses two rare verbs; the first is used only four times in the NT and only here in Mark, and the second verb is only used here in the NT. Also, they are two redundant verbs, emphasizing that growth is the key to this process.
The farmer’s labor takes place before the process of growth, but not during the process of growth. In fact, he understands the conditions that make for optimal growth, but he does not know how growth actually happens. Growth is a divine-mystery not humanly manufactured. Similarly, true growth in the church is usually not the result of a great VBS, or an entertaining teen ministry, or awe-inspiring worship, or needs-oriented preaching. These are human contrivances, not divinely-ordained growth mechanisms. The YMCA has a great kids outreach, modern musicians fill arenas with great music, and TV shows become popular with secular needs-oriented messages. But none of this is legitimate spiritual kingdom growth. To put it another way, if your church grows in numbers and you can point to something specifically you did to get more people in, then that growth was probably not from God, but from you. It was human-manufactured growth, and not divinely-ordained growth.
Note what v. 28 says about growth and produce. The growth of the plant in the soil is “by itself,” and the Greek word here is automatos; this word is also used in Acts 12:10 about a subtle act that could only be from God. The word refers to a mysterious divinely-produced process. The verb “to bear fruit” is the single word karpophoreo, and is used of fruitful and effective believers in Rom 7:4, Col 1:6 and 10. The quality of bearing fruit is more important than how much fruit is grown (see Mark 4:20). Jesus portrays that some of the growth is visible and evident, such as the blade and the head, and some of it is more internal, such as the grain in the head. Also, note that “maturity” is more important than amount. Taking all of what Jesus is saying here into account, our goal as churches should not be to try to manufacture growth or cause growth, but rather, to nurture the soil so that God can do His work, and in which people can learn and grow.
In the end, the farmer benefits from the growth that he helped to cultivate, but did not cause (v. 29). Farmers can maximize opportunities for growth; they plant, water, nurture, and remove obstacles to growth. But they cannot force growth. Paul says something similar in 1 Corinthians 3:7: “So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.”
I think that there are some important implications of Mark 4:26-29 for church growth:
First, this parable indicates that nobody can achieve genuine kingdom growth, and nobody knows how genuine kingdom growth takes place. If you see a post or a book that guarantees numerical growth if you follow these steps, you know that it is written by someone who doesn’t understand theology and true spiritual growth. Beware of any statement like, If you want to grow your church, you need to do this ...
Second, growth comes only from God, but it is predicated on the responsible attention that believers put into making their churches Christ-centered, high-quality, nurturing, substantive, and relationship-oriented. As plants need clean water and good soil, so also all believers need discipleship-oriented relationships, good preaching and teaching, and substantive music on Sunday mornings.
One of the few books that I believe gets this right is by Christian Schwartz called Natural Church Development. The mentality of this book is that churches should increase the quality of what they do, or nurture the soil. His consistent observation is that when churches strive to raise the quality of their ministries, their small groups, their discipleship, and their worship, numerical growth frequently occurs. “The goal is to let God’s growth automatisms flourish, instead of wasting energy on human-made programs” (Schwarz, Natural Church Development, 7). In a quote like this, the author is not demonizing church programs, but saying that church programs should be about making the church more Biblically substantive and relationally rich. He asserts that, “We should not attempt to ‘manufacture’ church growth, but rather to release the . . . potential which God has put into every church” (Schwarz, 10).
We have to keep planting seeds, nurturing the soil, and nurturing whatever growth we do see, knowing that there is plenty of growth that we don’t see and much of the process that we simply don’t or can’t understand. “Since we have very little control over outside factors, we should concentrate on the removal of obstacles to church growth and multiplication within churches” (Schwarz, 10). We are not results based nor process based, and that is very comforting. We are faithfulness and proclamation based. But when we nurture the soil, and strive for higher quality ministries in church, then God often uses that to bring greater spiritual growth to individuals, and greater numerical growth to churches, as well.
APOCALYPTIC AUTHORS: Greg’s Prognostications
We are not the first generation to think that we are the last generation.
Many have come before us who didn’t think that anyone would come after them. They looked at their culture, technology, politics, and the pathetic state of the church. From these factors they assumed that the world would end soon and that Jesus would return any minute.
Of course, those previous generations have been one hundred percent wrong.
They weren’t wrong in looking for the coming of Christ, or longing for His return (Phil 3:20; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 3:12). They weren’t wrong in noting the ills of our society or pointing out legitimate problems in the church.
But they were wrong about the Antichrist ascending, the world ending, Jesus coming, and the millennial kingdom being inaugurated.
Eventually, one generation will be right. It may or may not be ours. We’ll see!
In the meantime while Jesus tarries, it is interesting to investigate those who have gone before us and their conviction that the world would end soon or within their lifetime. We tend to think of eschatology and apocalypticism as more of a modern obsession, but there have been many who have written about end-times topics for centuries. It is worth noting where they were right, where they were wrong, and how that can inform our apocalyptic thinking today.
Our first author in this series of apocalyptic authors seems like an odd one. A man named Gregorius was born around AD 540 to a wealthy patrician Roman family. In his 30s, he decided to devote that wealth to establishing monasteries. Renowned for his faithfulness, he was eventually elected to the papacy, and was named Gregory I, or Gregory the Great, who served as pope from 590 to 604. His papacy is often considered to mark the beginning of the medieval period.
On the upside, Gregory had a true pastor’s heart and a passion for evangelism. Unfortunately, he probably emphasized the authority of the Roman papacy more than he needed to, which would have a lot of negative ramifications as the medieval period continued.
I recently read through Gregory’s Dialogues, which is composed of four books or chapters. It is styled as a long discussion that Gregory has with a deacon named Peter, with Gregory doing most of the talking and teaching. Most of the content is Gregory relaying miracles that had been performed in his time. Gregory intended for these tales of miracles to encourage the faith of Peter, and of subsequent readers, as well.
But it is toward the end of the third book and throughout the fourth and last book that Gregory’s apocalypticism really comes out. Initially, there are just sporadic statements about potential judgment. Early on, Gregory notes, “We must, therefore, fear the anger of the just from a firm conviction that the One who is present in them has full power to inflict whatever vengeance He may choose” (Dialogues, tr. by Odo John Zimmerman, page 38). Describing the alleged rise of demonic opposition in their day, Gregory comments: “This malicious spirit constantly besets our thoughts, words and actions, looking at all times for evidence to bring against us on the day of judgment” (151).
In the list of all of the supposed visions and miracles, Gregory offers the testimony of a bishop named Redemptus, and a vision he had of a martyr named Justicus. In the vision, this martyr told Redemptus three times, “The end of all flesh has come!” Redemptus saw terrible signs in heaven, and soon after, the Lombards attacked, killing Italians, and destroying many cities. Gregory commented in summary, “Our seeking after the things of heaven must, therefore, be all the more urgent, since we know that the things of earth are quickly slipping from our grasp” (187). For Gregory, these political and military upheavals were just birth pangs before the final apocalyptic day of the Lord.
But it was not all unpleasantness for those would endure the apocalypse. Gregory reminds Peter that believers will “see an increase in their reward on the day of judgment” and after this they would enjoy “bodily bliss” (218). Even if their bodies had been mangled in horrible ways as martyrs or in battle, they would still receive a new body and a white robe in which to enjoy “the double glory of body and soul” (219).
At one point, Peter asks about the greater instances of alleged miraculous experiences that Gregory had been talking about and whether this is an indication that the end is near: “It seems that the spiritual world is moving closer to us manifesting itself through visions and revelations.” To this, Gregory responds, “That is right. For, as the present world approaches its end, the world of eternity looms nearer, manifesting itself by ever clearer signs” (251). He later clarifies, “In this way the end of the world merges with the beginnings of eternal life. We can therefore discern many truths about the future life, but we still see them imperfectly” (251).
While Gregory was certainly interested in apocalypticism, not all of his ideas and interpretations harmonize with modern conservative or dispensational eschatology. For instance, when his padawan Peter asks about the “streets of gold” and other depictions of the heavenly city, Gregory responds, “Surely, no one with common sense will take the phrase literally” (241). He seems to take a metaphorical view of hell, also (241).
More generally, evangelicals emphasize that salvation and eternal life can only be received by believing in Christ’s death and resurrection as the only viable sacrifice to God for our sins. Gregory, however, appears at times to adopt more of a works-oriented gospel: “We should also remember that in the world to come no one will be cleansed even of the slightest faults, unless he has merited such a cleansing through good works performed in this life” (249). Other than that, he says many things about the imminence of Christ’s return and about the end of this age that sound like what some evangelicals say about the days that we are living in today.
The issue with a work like this is that the apocalypticism is couched in stories of miracles, many of which seem implausible. Yet, Gregory is writing these stories as someone with a high church office and the presumed legitimacy that comes with that status. But the sheer number of miracles he describes and the kinds of miracles mentioned in this work, including raising people from the dead, can cause even the most faithful person to be skeptical. The question then is how seriously we should take Gregory’s apocalypticism if we are unsure of the legitimacy of his miracle stories.
In the end, whether we believe all or some or none of the miracles he describes, we can commend Gregory on his desire for the Lord to return and for reminding others that believers must always have a sense of eschatological urgency (Matt 25:13; Romans 13:11; 1 Peter 4:7; James 5:8; 1 John 2:18).
BROWNCOAT BAY: Great Firefly Moments – “May Have Been the Losing Side . . .”
*** Spoiler Alert: This article contains spoilers for the episodes described. ***
When is the losing side not the wrong side?
Actually, probably more often than we think!
In a way, this is one of the more interesting motifs of Firefly and the follow-up film Serenity. It’s not a show about those the winners or the people in control, like the Federation in Star Trek. And it’s not about people who fought against a powerful political force and won, like the Alliance in Star Wars.
Firefly tracks two people who were the underdogs in a war, and then lost the war, and yet they still feel that the cause they fought for is right. In fact, they seem to lose frequently, or, at best, to barely escape. But the losing that they often endure in the series doesn’t make them wrong.
All our lives we’ve heard variations of the phrase “might makes right.” But implicitly, we know, that might just helps you to win, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you are right.
This quote in the title of this article is from the Firefly episode “Bushwhacked,” the second aired episode, but the third in the series (remember that Fox aired the pilot episode last after they cancelled the show). Serenity’s captain and crew are captured by the powerful government alliance that oversees the planets in humanity’s new star system five-hundred years in the future. A clever exchange takes place between captain Mal and his inexperienced but overconfident captor, Commander Harken:
Commander Harken: I notice your ship’s called “Serenity.” You were stationed on Hera at the end of the war. Battle of Serenity Valley took place there, if I recall.
Mal: [sarcastic] You know, I believe you might be right.
Commander Harken: Independents suffered a pretty crushing defeat there. Some say that after Serenity, the Browncoats were through, that the war ended in that valley.
Mal: Hmm.
Commander Harken: Seems odd you’d name your ship after a battle you were on the wrong side of.
Mal: May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.
The matter-of-fact way in which Mal delivers this line reflects that he recognizes the verbal trap; Harken is antagonizing Mal into getting defensive, but Mal’s reply is thoughtful and profound. He’s not about to entertain Harken and re-litigate a war that’s in the past. He wants to communicate that the loss of the battle and the war didn’t dampen his sense that their cause was just. In a sense, this quote gets to the heart of the series, and speaks to an important aspect of life: right is not defined by who wins and loose.
Many revolutions feature rebels who would echo similar sentiments. We lost, that doesn’t demand that we were wrong. We were overpowered, outflanked, outnumbered but not incorrect in effort or in intent. And, of course, this is a big theme in our own media and entertainment, from Braveheart to Star Wars, multiple examples of rebels opposing those in charge with mixed results.
It seems like every series nowadays leverages this trope to some degree. Or it features some brooding protagonist with a dark and painful past (Batman, John Wick, The Last of Us). However, for Mal, the brooding is deeper than having lost a loved one. Mal labors under this painful and confusing contradiction, specifically, the paradox that on one hand, he lost, but, on the other hand, he was right.
Most of us know that wrong isn’t as subjective as we make it out to be in our society. Oppression, excessive interference, manipulation, all have been historically not awesome. These historical patterns, in addition to the moral problems, remind us that wrong is usually fairly easy to identify.
Also, this reminds us that often that in life there is a clear difference between a loss and something that is outright wrong. The outcome is not the battle or the war, but the continued fight even though that fight has yielded many losses. Their conviction was that the major loss in Serenity Valley was not a referendum on the appropriateness of the cause. In fact, the crew of Serenity continue to fight against the Alliance throughout the series and until the end of the film Serenity. They may have lost the battle, and even the war, but they still carry the cause, and fight under the conviction that they are right, and that makes them mighty.
I recognize that not all Browncoats are Christians, and I don’t mean to get preachy. Some of you may resonate with Mal’s adage: “Sermons make me sleepy,” and even as a preacher myself, I don’t disagree.
Mal’s quote about being the losing side but not the wrong one has some deep resonance for many ideas or movements, but especially for Christianity. Church history demonstrates how the church often fights, and often loses. Of course, Christianity’s worst wounds are self-inflicted. But today, it seems like Christianity is losing big: losing the cultural wars, losing the younger generations, losing the rhetorical battles in our society. However, none of the losing that we go through undermines the legitimacy of our faith.
For many people who struggle today to work hard, feed their family, and fight against the many injustices in our world, we may feel like we’re on the losing side. But like Mal, who ends up gaining some vindication in the series and in the film, we have confidence that despite the losses, that doesn’t mean that our cause isn’t just or that our efforts aren’t beneficial.
So, keep your chin up, and don’t allow the losses to shake your faith or make you think that your cause isn’t right. You may be losing, but that doesn’t mean you’re wrong!
ROMANS: Governed by God’s Grace, Romans 6:12-14
We are all ruled by something. We may not recognize that reality, or we may not want to admit it, but we all have governing principles that operate in our lives. Those principles motivate the things we do, the attitudes we exhibit, and the ways we think. We may act out of regret, or spite, or duty, or patriotism. But we all have a governing principle of some kind.
In Romans 6, Paul points to two governing principles. One of those is being governed by our flesh and our sin (vv. 1-2). However, for those who have trusted in Christ, the power and governing necessity of our flesh was crucified with Christ (v. 6). For the believer, our new governing principle is the grace of God, which both liberates from the dictates of our evil flesh, but also grants us greater freedom to serve God.
Unfortunately, too many believers still live under the governing principles of the flesh and of their natural sinful dictates. Romans 6:12-14 addresses this situation and exhorts believers to live under the governance of God’s grace, instead.
The implication of the death-to-sin principle from verses 6-11 is important, and we discussed 6:10-11 in an article in the last edition of The Eclectic Web Journal. One of those implication is, as v. 2 says, “How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” Verses 12-14 elaborate on that phrase from v. 2.
But first, a quick lesson in Greek grammar: There are several ways to express a negative command in Greek. The first is using a future tense, as though to say “You shall not do something,” as in Matt 6:5: “You shall not be like the hypocrites . . .” The second is to use a present imperative, as in John 2:16: “Stop turning my Father’s house into a marketplace.” This usually implies stopping activity already taking place; stop doing something that you’re currently doing. The third way is using an aorist subjunctive. This usually implies that the recipient should not start something that they’re tempted to do as in 2 Thess 3:13: “Do not [start to] become weary in doing good.”
The second of these three grammatical forms is used here, a simple imperative: Do not let sin reign in your body. But again, the grammar implies that they are to stop action already in progress. Apparently, the recipients of this letter were not controlling their flesh to the extent that they should based on the theological tenets Paul has presented in Romans up to this point.
The idea that Paul is championing here, however, is not that his audience should be sinless, but that they should not let sin “reign.” The sinful and lustful impulses should not take precedent in one’s thoughts; they should not be the default, and these sins do not need to be obeyed. This is especially difficult in our “mortal” bodies. The word thnetos is used elsewhere with specific focus on the physical and weak nature of our current state (Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:53, 54; 2 Cor 4:11; 5:4). Presently, we are especially conducive to sin and temptation and therefore, we are that much more in need of following the command in this verse.
The grammatical construction in the last phrase of the verse indicates purpose. The reason why sin wants to reign over us is so that we will obey its evil lusts. The word epithumia does not always refer to an evil desire, as Jesus uses the word of Himself (Luke 22:15), as does Paul (Phil 1:23; 1 Thess 2:17). However, the apostles frequently refer to the destructive nature of wrongly-directed desires (Gal 5:16; Eph 2:3; 4:22; 1 Tim 6:9; Jas 1:14-15; 1 Pet 2:11), especially in the church (see Jas 4:1). If we allow sin to reign, it will steal our allegiance and compel us to follow its evil will.
Paul adds another complementary imperative in v. 13. The verb paristemi, means “to offer,” “to yield” or “to present.” In Romans, the word has a sense of religious offering, and therefore is used of presenting ourselves as offerings to God rather than as implements of sin (Rom 12:1).
Specifically we are not to present our bodies as “tools” or “instruments” of unrighteousness for sin. The word hoplon, means “weapon, tool, instrument;” the foot soldier of a Greek or Roman army had little more than basic armor and a weapon, and thus was referred to as a “hoplite.” The hoplite typically had one weapon, a sword or a spear, and he affirmed his allegiance by how he employed that spear or sword. Similarly, the believer affirms their allegiance with wickedness and sin on one hand or with righteousness and God on the other hand, based on how we use the “parts” or “members” of our bodies.
Paul ends this section succinctly in v. 14 by posing a vision for his audience; he challenges them that they should not be ruled by sin and reminds them that they are under grace not Law during this age.
The first instance of the conjunction gar, “for” or “since,” explains the command in v. 13 to present one’s body to God as a tool for righteousness rather than to sin as an implement for unrighteousness. A reason given in v. 14 is that sin is not supposed to reign over the believer. The word kurieuo means “to have power over” or “to rule over.” The verb is only used seven times in the NT, four of which are in Romans (Luke 22:25; Rom 6:9, 14; 7:1; 14:9; 2 Cor 1:24; 1 Tim 6:15).
Also, the grammar of the word is significant; the verb is in the future tense: sin will not reign in you. In this case, the future tense functions as a present imperative. Sometimes when a parent forcefully commands a child, they do not just say you should not do something, or do not do something, but you will not do something. Similarly, the force of the future tense is to demand that the recipients not allow sin to reign in their lives now, or at any time henceforth.
The second phrase features the second use of the conjunction gar, again, “for” or “since,” indicating that the second phrase elaborates on the reason for the first phrase. Believers should not allow sin to reign over them because they are not under law, but grace. To allow sin to reign over them when they are no longer bound by sin and its power and authority is like paying taxes to a country in which you formerly lived, but do not live there any longer. The transition of the believer from the authority of law to the authority of the grace of God through the ministry of Christ is one of the themes of Paul’s letter to the Romans.
What is perhaps most interesting here is that these verses are commands; again, notice the “do not” which occurs in both v. 12 and v. 13, and also the command “present yourselves to God . . .” in v. 13. Just because we are Christians, that doesn’t mean we will automatically follow Christ and deny our sin nature. Again, the grammar of v. 12 dictates that Paul demands that we stop allowing sin to reign in our lives now that we are Christians. This doesn’t automatically happen when we become Christians, but is something that we need to train ourselves to do.
It is noteworthy that we are still “under” something. Both law and grace are gracious acts of God and both also come with expectations; that is, expectations are not exclusive to law and mercy is not exclusive to grace. It just may be that divine expectations are emphasized more during the age of law whereas the compassion and liberty God bestows is emphasized more during the age of grace. Nonetheless, there is still expectations and commandments during the age of grace that we are under. But if we are going to be under something, isn’t it better to be under grace?
And if you are a believer, who has trusted in Christ’s sacrificial death and literal resurrection for your eternal salvation, then you should live in that grace that you are now under. You were saved not just so that you don’t have to go to Hell and be condemned for your sin, but you were also saved to be a dedicated follower of Jesus Christ. Better to be governed by the grace of that reality than to continue to labor under the dominance of the flesh and sin.
MODERN SPIRITUALITY: The Deification of Humanity, or, Are You “I Am”?
This article is originally from the July 2016 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, and presented here with minor modifications.
I recently saw a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode called “Journey’s End” (1994). Wesley Crusher returns from Starfleet Academy to visit those on the Enterprise, but unbeknownst to his friends, he is struggling to find his identity. He has a conversation with an individual who serves as a mentor in this episode, named Lakanta. In an Indian village on another planet, Lakanta asks Wesley, “What do you think is sacred to us here?” Wesley replies, “Maybe the necklace you’re wearing? The designs on the walls?” Lakanta continues, “Everything is sacred to us – the buildings, the food, the sky, the dirt beneath your feet – and you. Whether you believe in your spirit or not, we believe in it. You are a sacred person here, Wesley.”
This seems to be one of the more prominent messages of our society: People are like god, or we are god, or we are becoming god, and we are inherently sacred and holy.
I saw the point even more explicitly in a new age periodical called Aquarius. The paragraph-long heading of an article called “You Are ‘I Am’” stated the issue in this way:
“Perhaps the most profound philosophical feature of the past 2,500 years – in Western culture – has been ‘Duality’ – that is, the Otherness of God, the separation of God and human, and the basic ‘sinfulness’ of humanity. As the Age of Aquarius dawns, we are discovering that duality does not accurately portray the collective reality of consciousness. Science, philosophy, and religion are acknowledging the Unity of Consciousness, and the divine nature of the human being. Humanity is becoming more aware of what it shares rather than what differences exist. We are awakening to the power of collective consciousness, unity with all life (and non-life) and the sacred honor that belongs to every living being” (May 2016, page 5).
There are clearly segments of our society that want to deify humanity. Previously in this study of the proliferation of paganism in our culture, we have investigated the tendency of paganism – or neo-paganism – to veer toward interconnection and also to attempt the humanization of God (you can other articles in that series here). Part of the neo-pagan agenda, though, is not merely diminishing God, but also exalting man, and in some cases, lifting human beings to the level of deity. We mentioned this in the article on interconnectedness, but it is worth elaborating on this point.
New age and neo-pagan literature and media strive to make human beings seem innately sacred or divine, such as in the Star Trek episode mentioned above. In a previous article we noted how in Alanis Morissette’s popular 1998 song “Thank U,” she exhorts her listener, “How ‘bout remembering your divinity.” One author in a new-age magazine suggests that “Deep within our genetic makeup is an inherently moral energy that continually seeks to express itself” (Sri Ram Kaa and Kira Raa, “Claiming Divine Choice: The Springboard of Freewill,” Oracle 20/20, April 2010, p. 25).
Professional new-age guru Gerald O’Donnell says the following about mankind: “You were born, naked, with all the necessary and sufficient equipment within your spiritual make-up to far surpass and overcome the sub-gods and dark energies that have been trying to keep your real Divinity down. . . . Man is the only being amongst all created beings who carries within his created-self the ability to become fully the Eternal and Infinite Power and Divinity” (from his article “Back to Oneness”). He later states, “You were never really born, and you will never really die. . . . Birth and Death are illusions. You are, were, and will always be eternal being, eternal one, no matter what you experience, think, or do.”
This error-filled anthropology can lead to a cosmic sense of entitlement: “The most powerful statement that you can make is the words I AM. These simple words, spoken consciously, activate the truth. These words make the statement to the Universe, of you owning your unique divine place within the oneness, and consciously claiming your place. . . . It starts a wave of reaction throughout the Universe, activating your energetic signature outward” (Christine Day, Pleiadian Initiations of Light: A Guide to Energetically Awaken You to the Pleiadian Prophecies for Healing and Resurrection, p. 94).
Key to new-agism’s understanding of humanity is a sense that we are innately divine but have been contaminated by negative elements outside of us, rather than the sin nature within us. Looking ahead to the 2012 apocalypse that never happened, one author says:
“Since this apocalypse [on December 21, 2012] . . . would be both a spiritual and physical experience, I would want to be my best in both realms. Since I would be passing over I particularly like to be at my best spirituality, I would like to be clean and fresh and totally myself without any negative energies contaminating who I really am. I believe that I was created clean with a set of talents and capabilities and since I am the guest of this banquet, I would like to show what I have accomplished with the gifts I was given” (Charles Skillas, “Are You Ready?” Oracle 20/20, June 2012, p. 10).
The new age anthropology regarding the innate goodness of humans is important: if I am inherently good, I can know and interpret truth properly through my experiences: “But I think there would always have been a little voice at the back of my head saying, ‘How do you know any of this is true?’ Well, I know it’s true because I experienced it myself. And so I can state to you with absolute confidence and certainty that I believe that we as souls are made quite literally from the energy of unconditional love” (Robert Schwartz, “Your Soul’s Plan,” Oracle 20/20, June 2012, p. 25). In this way, modern society can root truth in our own allegedly infallible and divine perceptions and opinions rather than admit our inability to discern truth and our need to rely on Scriptures from the past.
Christian Scriptures provides a clear response to the notion that humanity can be deified and elevated to the status of God. The sinfulness and depravity of man is clearly and unambiguously articulated in the Bible. While many of God’s attributes are communicable to man, there is a fundamental (ontological) separation between man and God that cannot be bridged (Num 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Psalm 56:11). And though human beings were created in God’s image, people sinned willfully and deliberately (Gen 3:1-7) and thereby plunged creation into a state of condemnation, accursedness and chaos (Gen 3:12-24; Rom 8:20-22). The inheritance of sin and death is passed to all human beings, who are fundamentally guilty and sinful and who consequently commit acts of transgression (Jer 17:9; Rom 3:9-20; 5:12, 17-19).
Furthermore, people are easily deluded (Jer 4:22; 10:8, 14; 23:26; 49:16; Ps 4:2; Obad 1:3; Col 2:4; 1 Thess 2:11; 2 Tim 4:3-4), and cannot apprehend truth without divine grace and illumination. Thus, anyone’s claims to the infallibility of their personal experience is highly suspect. In fact, as we stated in that article on interconnectedness, the lie of human-deification and ascendancy to a greater level of existence is usually associated in Scripture with some kind of satanic deception (Gen 3:5; Is 14:14; Ezek 28:2, 6, 9; 2 Thess 2:3-4; Rev 13:5-6, 12, 15; 14:9; 19:20).
So, what about you? Are you “I AM”? Not even close! And yet, we have the opportunity to have a relationship with the one true God and the only “I AM.” We do this first by defying popular new age lies that we were created perfect and that sin is merely cultural. Rather, we recognize our inherent sinfulness and our subsequent multiple acts of sin. We then admit and confess our need for someone to save us from our sin and from the eternal punishment that a completely holy God must enforce. We trust alone in Jesus Christ, His perfect life, His sacrificial death to turn away the just wrath of God, and Jesus’ bodily resurrection from the dead. By trusting in Christ we receive forgiveness of sins, new purpose and direction in this life, and the hope of eternal life with God. We can thus abandon the phantasm that we can become God and recognize the joy that can only come through knowing and serving the one true God through Christ.
The Eclectic Web Journal is written by Matt Kasper and edited by Martha Kasper. Matt is a graduate of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and Dallas Theological Seminary, and is currently completing 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. Those articles are also arranged topically in our “Eclectic Archive,” which you can access here.
Also, 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.