September 2024

Welcome to the September 2024 edition of The Eclectic Web Journal.

Well, there’s been a lot going on politically; you’ve probably been bombarded with messages and commercials for candidates, so we didn’t want to dwell on that too much this Fall. But we did want to encourage one of our parties to do better branding with their platform by promoting ideas that people on both sides can get behind.

If that weren’t controversial enough, we feature another article about Calvinism and we will also discuss church structure and offices.

A bit more on the lighter side, I had fun writing an article about rock remakes and covers. And we have an “Eclectic Flashback” to one of my favorite articles about the deity of Christ and the age of the earth.

Our “The Eclectic Kasper” Facebook page numbers have dropped over the Summer, but I think that was just Facebook deactivating bot accounts. So we’re making another run at getting “likes” and we would love to get to 300 likes by the end of the year. Please give our Facebook page a “like,” and feel free to provide your questions, comments, and insights on any of our posts.

Thanks for reading and keeping up with us, and stay eclectic!

BIBLE STUDY: Is There Pagan Literature In the Bible? Part 2: Deuteronomy and Proverbs

We started this study in the March 2024 edition of The Eclectic Web Journal. In that article, we pointed out how Moses, the author and editor of Genesis, wrote his creation account in Genesis 1-2 in a way that was a direct refutation of pagan myths. The ancient near east swirled with versions of cosmology, or how the world came to be, and there are Egyptian, Babylonian, and Sumerian versions of these stories. Moses wrote Genesis 1-2 to repudiate those other myths, and to instead demonstrate the supremacy of Yahweh, the God of Israel. And more than those contemporaneous pagan myths, Moses’ inspired version also demonstrates the dignity that human beings have as image-bearers of God. Then, in Genesis 6-9, Moses set the record straight on the flood myths that also floated around the ancient near east.

But there are other examples where Bible authors use formats of pagan literature and even incorporate pagan literature into Scripture, thus sanctifying them as part of the inspired and inerrant Word of God.

An interesting example of this is an ancient format of the Suzerainty-Vassal treaty used in Exodus 20-24, in Deuteronomy, and seemingly also in Joshua 24. A powerful ruler, or a “suzerain,” would enter an agreement with a smaller nation that would be a vassal or servant nation. The suzerain would promise to protect the smaller people group in exchange for their loyalty, and usually at the expense of heavy taxation. Scholars have recovered all or parts of fifty-seven Suzerainty-Vassal treaties from the ancient near east between many different nations (John H. Walton actually describes and lists these in his Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context [1989], pages 95-107).

The basic elements of ancient Suzerainty-Vassal treaties are similar. Most start with a preamble, introducing the nations and leaders involved with the treaty. Then there is a historical prologue, detailing the history of the relationship between the parties, usually placing emphasis on the supremacy and power of the suzerain ruler. This prologue was often followed by a list of stipulations or conditions, which were basically the terms of the treaty. Among other things, the suzerain demanded the vassal’s total loyalty and obedience to his stipulations. These treaties also had a section about the publication of the treaty, describing where the treaty document would be stored and when or how often it would be recited in public. Treaties often appealed to divine witnesses, or the specific gods who would be called on to witness the making of the treaty; this was kind of like a notary public today. Those divine witnesses would also, then, be called on to enforce a penalty for any breach of the treaty by either side. Then there was a section of blessings and curses, or a list of the favorable things that would happen to the vassal if the treaty was kept and terrible things that would happen if the vassal broke it.

This format basically explains the structure of Deuteronomy, which was not really appreciated until we became aware of these kinds of treaties when they were found in excavations in the 1920s. There is a preamble in Deut 1:1-4 followed by a historical prologue in 1:5 – 4:43. Most of the rest of the book consists of general stipulations (4:44 – 11:32) and specific stipulations (12:1 – 26:15). There is a section of blessings and curses (Deut 27-28), a statement of witnesses (30:19 and 31:28), and information about the publication, preservation, and public reading of treaty (Deut 31:9-13, 26).

The theological effect of Moses crafting Deuteronomy in this format may be that it reminded the Israelites that Yahweh God stands in the role of the suzerain and Israel voluntary takes the place of His vassal. Understanding Deuteronomy in these terms helps us appreciate and understand its structure and purpose. And, to the point of our series, the Biblical authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit, did not mind using a “secular” format like a Suzerainty-Vassal treaty to promote faithfulness and loyalty to God.

We fast-forward about a half-millennium from Deuteronomy to the book of Proverbs to find another example of the influence of pagan literature in the Bible. But this example is a bit different: Genesis 1 refuted pagan cosmology, and Genesis 6-9 set the record straight on ancient flood myths. As argued above, Deuteronomy utilized a Suzerainty-Vassal treaty format to communicate the notion of covenant and faithfulness to the Israelites. In contrast, Proverbs actually includes pagan literature that was read, approved, and integrated into the version of Proverbs that has survived down to the present.

Many scholars accept that Proverbs 22:17 – 24:22 was adapted from a work called The Instruction of Amenemope, a 1200 BCE Egyptian wisdom document (this is discussed in Walton’s aforementioned, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context, 174, 192-197). The editor of Proverbs, perhaps someone from Hezekiah’s time (cf. 25:1) seemed to incorporate many ideas, phrases, and vocabulary from that Egyptian work into this section of Proverbs. But before that inspired editor did this, he took out any hint of polytheism and he indicated that the purpose of these sayings is so that “your trust may be in the Lord” (22:19). The Instruction of Amenemope begins with a prologue and then has thirty chapters, or sections, of wisdom and teaching. This is probably reflected in what is said in Proverbs 22:20: “Have I not written thirty sayings for you, sayings of counsel and knowledge” (NIV). Many of the statements in this section are common to other ancient literature, and there is debate as to the extent of the borrowing here, but it does seem that the author/ editor of Proverbs 22:17 – 24:22 was familiar with Amenemope (see also the discussion in Roland E. Murphy, Proverbs [1998], 290-294).

Solomon’s writings, especially Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, are more international in scope relative, for instance, to David’s Psalms, which tended to focus more on Israel, the worship of God, and obedience to the Law. The more international nature of Proverbs is highlighted with the inclusion of this short Egyptian work. Given the international renown of Solomon and the international scope of Proverbs, and editor adapted and incorporated Amenemope into Proverbs, and that decision was blessed, or really spearheaded, by the Holy Spirit.

Whether you call it literary borrowing or all-out plagiarism, this practice wasn’t considered as problematic in ancient times as it is today. I don’t really know what kind of copyright laws there were back then, but if there were any, they would certainly be very difficult to enforce, especially internationally. As in the case of a musical melody or an artistic technique, such borrowing could be considered a compliment. Of course, our writing today should be well-documented and proper attribution should be given when borrowing from or citing another author. That, however, didn’t seem to be as important back then.

Remember, too, that the last two chapters of Proverbs also have material from two sources other than Solomon. These are individuals that we don’t know anything about, specifically, Agur son of Jakeh (30:1) and King Lemuel (31:1). In light of these chapters from unknown, non-Jewish authors, integrating content from Egyptian wisdom literature would not really be that odd.

Also, if you are a good evangelical, then you may be tempted to leap to the defense of Proverbs; that is, you may suggest that Solomon wrote this section of Proverbs first and then the Egyptian dude stole it from Solomon. However, there are two problems with that view. First is the reality that The Instruction of Amenemope is almost clearly dated to two or three centuries before Solomon’s reign. The other issue is that it would seem weird for an Egyptian author or editor to take just these chapters out of Proverbs but leave the rest of it behind. This is a great section, but there are many other great truths in Proverbs that would not have been left on the cutting room floor.

It is great that we rush in to defend inerrancy and inspiration. But I do not believe that these doctrines are compromised at all by Moses structuring Deuteronomy in the style of a pagan suzerainty-vassal treaty, or by inspired editors integrating thoughts from Amenemope, Agur, and King Lemuel into Proverbs.

So again, borrowing from pagan forms and sources does not undermine God’s sovereignty nor does it threaten the inspiration of the Bible. In fact, it demonstrates that God doesn’t mind using a variety of means to communicate truth, including foreign literature and a well-known treaty format.

This reminds us that the Bible is a fascinatingly complicated and wonderful book and that God integrated wisdom into it that He had shared previously with other cultures. However, the original foreign writing or a pagan literary format is not inspired, but the content and form of these things are inspired when they appeared in their final form in the canon of Scripture, such as, again, when scholars in Hezekiah’s day edited and organized many of Solomon’s sayings from two centuries previous. Integrating foreign ideas and literature does not at all affect the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture, but rather, at least to me, it makes the Bible that much more interesting!

CHURCH: An Argument for Multiple Elders, Part 1

Ecclesiology, or the study of the doctrines and structure of the church, is one of the lesser explored sets of doctrines in Scripture, especially among Protestants. At the church I serve at currently, I have had the liberty to study ecclesiology more thoroughly to appreciate what Scripture says about church purpose and structure.

The structure of the church refers to the roles and offices of the church, the connection of one church to another, as in associations and denominations, and then how a church or a collection of churches is governed. The differences between most denominations are based in part on the structure of a church, who runs the church, and what level of autonomy, or self-rule, a church has.

What is clear from the NT is that the tall hierarchy evident in the biggest Christian denominations is nowhere to be found in the NT. Multiple levels of officers, roles, priests, and bishops is more a symptom of man’s thirst for power than the result of good exegesis.

The little bit about church structure that is revealed in the NT demonstrates that churches are supposed to be non-hierarchical, and flatter. That is, there shouldn’t be multiple layers of offices and leadership structure between a lay-person and a pastor or overseer.

I grew up and served in churches that had a leadership board, as well as paid staff or professional ministers. Often, the leadership board was compromised of deacons, and the staff was comprised of elders or pastors, such as a teaching elder, a youth pastor, a senior pastor, or an associate pastor. In smaller churches, and often in Baptist or non-denominational situations, there was a deacon board, and a sole pastor or elder that was seen as the “head” of the church. This person is often perceived to be like a CEO, and, unfortunately, many senior pastors that I have worked under acted like CEOs.

While information about church structure in the NT is scant, is there enough to give us a different model than one which portrays a senior pastor as the CEO or president of a local church? I think there is, and the key is that churches are to have multiple deacons and multiple elders. We will explore the evidence for this in this article and in Part 2 in the next edition.

It is important to remember that the office of pastor is only mentioned once in the NT, and that is in Eph 4:11, and linked with teaching. The word for pastor here is actually “shepherd” (poimen), which is used 18 times in the NT, but only here of this office. Feeding, leading, and protection are implicit to this role. But the NT clearly prefers the title “elder” for those who spiritually lead the church.

The Greek word for “elder,” presbuteros, occurs 66 times in the NT, both of civic officials as well as church leaders, as we will discuss below. Before we do, however, the fact that “pastor” only occurs once while “elders” occurs many times calls into question modern evangelicalism’s obsession with their Teaching Pastor, whether a Chuck Swindoll, Joel Osteen, Andy Stanley, or John MacArthur. Our wrong understanding of the functions and offices of pastors and elders have created many cults of personality in the American church today.

The concept of “elders” as used in the Old or New Testament was naturally understood to be a plurality, as opposed to a single monarch, pharaoh, or king. The word “elders” occurs in the plural in the NASB 196 times as opposed to 10 times in the singular. The few times it does appear in the singular, it usually refers to a specific elder or a hypothetical elder (as in 1 Tim 5:19; 1 Pet 5:1; 2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:1). The Bible mentions “elders of Israel” or “of the Jews” (see Ex 3:16; 4:29; Lev 9:1; Ezra 5:5; 6:7; Ezek 8:1, 11; 14:1; 20:1; Acts 25:15), “elders of the congregation” (Lev 4:15; Judges 21:16), “elders of the people,” as in a single nation or group of people (Ex 19:7; Num 11:16, 24; Ruth 4:9; 1 Sam 15:30; 1 Kings 20:8; Matt 21:23; 26:3, 47; 27:1; Luke 22:66; Acts 4:8), the “elders” of a single city (Deut 19:12; 21:3, 4, 6, 19, 20; 22:15, 17, 18; 25:8; Josh 20:4; Judges 8:14, 16; Ruth 4:2; 1 Sam 11:3; 16:4; 1 Kings 21:8, 11; Ezra 10:14; Lam 1:19; Ezek 27:9; Acts 4:5), and the “elders” of a single tribe (1 Sam 30:26; 2 Sam 19:11). Of course, then, the NT naturally applies this language to speak of multiple elders at a local church (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 22; 16:4; 20:17; Jas 5:14). I know that this is a lot of verses, but the point is that there were often multiple elders overseeing a nation, city, or some other entity.

Again, while the evidence is scant, it is still clear that these early churches didn’t have a single or head pastor, elder, or teacher, but there were multiple individuals leading a local church. It was set up this way to avoid the power imbalance that can take place when a church invests too much authority in a “senior pastor” or a “teaching elder.”

Note these examples where the Biblical author speaks of a “church” (singular) having multiple “elders” (plural). Acts 14:23, for instance, notes, “When they had appointed elders for them in every church . . . .”; that is, “every church” had multiple elders appointed to them. The single church in Jerusalem had multiple apostles and elders; Acts 15:4 says, “When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church (feminine singular) and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them.” These apostles and elders of the Jerusalem church are mentioned again in 15:22 and 16:4. So, the single church at Jerusalem had multiple elders helping to manage it, as well as several apostles and multiple deacons (Acts 6:1-6). To distort these verses and suggest that they portray only one elder at each church is exegetically implausible.

There are other examples in the NT. Acts 20:17 refers to the church in Ephesus, and mentions its “elders”; again, singular church, plural elders. The phrase in Titus 1:5 is like the one in Acts 14:23 above, “elders according to a city” or elders in every city. In this case, the Greek is clear that there were to be multiple elders assigned to the congregation in every city (singular). A similar phrase is used of a situation of a local church in James 5:14: “Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.” The letter to the Philippians was written to a single church at Philippi, which had multiple deacons and “overseers” or elders (1:1). First Peter 5:5 instructs “younger men” to “be subject to your elders.” This implies that every young man who heard this letter had multiple elders; however, this example is not as exegetically conclusive as the above examples.

In the end, the NT often demonstrates that there are multiple elders in different cities and churches. This is consistent with how the office of elder or overseer was seen in the Old Testament or in civic contexts in the New Testament. This is the consistent pattern, and a consistent and clear pattern must be considered to be close to a mandate for the structure of churches today. Furthermore, the NT never demands that each church should only have one elder. Additionally, there are no examples in the NT of a church that has only one elder.

This is clear evidence that there should be multiple elders at a single church. Those elders could be staff members, as in vocational ministers, or they could be a pastor and several lay-elders. The bigger point, however, is that there should be several godly individuals, again, perhaps a combination of professional pastors and lay elders, who are making major decisions for the church; we should avoid a CEO mentality in the local church and even in denominations (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4).

There is more to say about this, and we will follow up in a future article.

POLITICS: An Easy Plan for the GOP

I am a big fan of making a political platform easy and memorable. Of course, you could read the entire GOP platform here, but I have low expectations that many will read and digest this before the November election.

The parallel problem is that during the remainder of this campaign, there will be a lot of name-calling, mud-slinging, but not much content and information shared about policies.

In an era of political name-calling and personal attacks, it is incredibly important to focus on content and to craft a significant and memorable platform.

I offered such a platform several years ago when we were writing the old web journal. (That web journal, The Eclectic Kasper, is still under reconstruction; we’ll let you know when those old editions are ready to be viewed again!). In September 2014, I presented the “PLAIN” Plan, a clear and concise plan that Americans of any gender, class, race, and creed can get behind. The word “plain” was supposed to remind politicians that political platforms should be relatively easy to remember, and it was an acronym for values that are foundational for conservatism:

Personal and state freedoms

Lower taxes

American energy independence

Inexpensive government

National security

My “Plain” Plan didn’t really take off, to the surprise of absolutely nobody. No candidates, local or national, and no radio shows or TV networks picked it up. There’s still time to do so, but I doubt it will ever get any traction.

So, I’m taking another shot at it. Here in this auspicious web journal, I would like to present an easy and memorable plan called “GOP, A To E.” We can use the first five letters of the alphabet to set out a plan that people can remember and get behind, and this will help conservative candidates to clarify their message in a muddled election cycle.

The letters A to E in this instance stand for five elements that Republicans can encourage voters to rally behind:

America First

Border Security

Crime Management

Decreased Government

Economic Prosperity

These are fairly self-explanatory, but I’ll expand on them anyway:

“America First” means that we need to help our own citizens, like our veterans, our homeless, and our children who still experience food insecurity. It also means that we build up our military, but that we don’t spread them around the world fighting other nations’ wars and protecting other nations’ interests. And above all, America First means that we don’t send our own money around the world to regimes that hate us and to fund wars that are futile. We use this money to pay down our debt, work on our own roads and bridges, and help our own citizens. That is neither selfish and jingoistic to attend to our own needs at home, and for those of you who are sensitive to Judeo-Christian teachings, meeting the needs within your own walls has some Biblical backing (Galatians 6:10).

In a way, “Border Security” and “Crime Management” go well together; they are equally straightforward, and both essentially deal with the same thing. The first deals with the rampant breaking of our sovereign laws at our borders, and the latter deals with rampant criminality in our major cities. A liberal and lenient view of criminals and illegal immigrants does not seem to be helping us. And, by the way, it is not wrong to refer to them as criminals and illegal immigrants because this is a status that they chose for themselves. Breaking the law is a choice, and there are well-defined consequences for it that we must enforce as a society. It is not dehumanizing to call someone a criminal or an illegal immigrant or a murderer; we are not denying their humanity, but we are acknowledging that of their free choice they broke our laws. Again, for any Bible nerds out there, try these verses about justice or what happens when justice is not carried out expediently: Proverbs 8:14-15; 20:8; 21:3; 21:15; 28:5; 29:4; Ecclesiastes 8:11; 9:3.

“Decreased Government” means we reduce regulations, minimize bureaucratic redundancies, make agencies smaller, more streamlined, and incentivize them to become more efficient. Therefore these agencies will require less money and less federal taxes. We need to bring merit back to the federal government, such that we fire many of our government officials who aren’t doing much of anything and we reward those who are doing a good job. A streamlined and more efficient government will lower taxes, and funds that we save can be redirected to lowering the national debt. Again, there are several great Bible verses about bloated, unjust, and ineffective government, including Prov 13:23 and Micah 3:1-12.

As a quick update to this point, in a speech on September 5, Donald Trump proposed creating a “Government Efficiency Commission,” and perhaps having Elon Musk involved with this. It sounds like a contradiction to create a federal agency to minimize federal agencies; yes, there is irony here, and also potential danger. However, it is critical now to have a group that only works on making the government smaller and more efficient, and I am thrilled to see Trump talking about this.

And finally, we come to “Economic prosperity.” This has many aspects including encouraging job creation, helping people find employment, wooing companies and manufacturing back to America, and leveraging natural resources for energy that is right under our feet. By the way, we don’t need to raise the minimum wage, which isn’t and was never supposed to be a living wage. We should encourage workers to work their way up the company or corporate ladder through education, experience, and by leveraging wisdom and integrity (Prov 10:9; 11:3; Isaiah 33:15).

So there it is, the “GOP A To E” Plan: America First, Border Security, Crime Management, Decreased Government, and Economic Prosperity.

I hope conservatives and republicans decide to be the more mature ones in the group, and that we avoid name-calling and ridiculous personal attacks. Instead, we should promote good ideas and content. If we focus on these priorities, I think that voters will respect this attention to content, and I believe that they will reward GOP candidates in the ballot box in November.

THE AGE OF THE EARTH: Water Into Wine, or, Making Age When You’re Out of Time

This is an “Eclectic Flashback” to an article from March 2015 edition of The Eclectic Kasper. We present it here again, with minor modifications, because at our church we recently covered this episode in John 2. While studying John 2, I found my mind drifting back to this article and the tremendous implications of this passage regarding the power and competency of Jesus Christ. Enjoy!

This debate about the age of the earth doesn’t even pit creationists against evolutionists.

Rather, on one side is a relatively small group of people referred to as young earth creationists. They affirm a more literal chronology in the first several chapters of Genesis and believe that the earth is a few thousand years old, between six and twenty thousand. On the other side is a variety of people from different camps who reject this chronology, including day age theorists, theistic evolutionists, as well as atheistic evolutionists. This camp believes that the world is billions of years old. Those in the old earth group who also believe in God assert that God used evolutionary processes to create animals, plants, and people.

Young earth creationists argue that God created the earth in six literal days as portrayed clearly in Genesis 1. But part of the brilliance of this process is that He created everything with the appearance of age, or, as some like to say, with “functional maturity.” The Lord didn’t just create seeds, but fully-developed trees and shrubs; not just eggs, but mature birds; not babies, but fully-grown people.

And those two original people were created with the appearance of age. That is, though they were only a few hours old, they could think, reason, talk, walk, and apparently reproduce like people who had been alive for twenty or thirty years. When they were actually only hours old, they looked like they were twenty-years-old or so, and they had many of the properties and attributes of someone who had already lived for several decades.

In previous articles we discussed why we don’t believe that this makes God deceptive. We similarly create things with the appearance of age like furniture, or replica swords, or a set-piece for a stage play. The main reason why creating the world with the appearance of age doesn’t make God deceptive is that He revealed very clearly how and in what time frame He created everything in Genesis 1, and He noted again later that this period of creation took six days (Exod 20:11 and 31:17). In fact, it would make Him a liar if He claimed that He created in six days, when it actually took billions of years.

This has profound implications on many scientific aspects of the creation vs. evolution debate. I believe that rocks can be radiocarbon-dated to seem like they are millions of years old even though they are actually only thousands of years old. God is so brilliant that He can create something that already has all the properties and attributes of age, even though it was actually just a few days old. Again, this is like how we create set pieces for a stage play, or a costume that may appear to look tattered and battle-tested even though it is new and had never been in a battle.

Or to put it more simply, God doesn’t need time to create age.

A fascinating event early in Jesus’ ministry demonstrates that Jesus also doesn’t need time to create something that is fundamentally defined by its age.

John’s gospel begins with clear affirmations of Christ’s deity. John 2:1-12 then describes what may be Jesus’ first miracle in His public career. He and His family are invited to a wedding in Cana of Galilee. The wine runs out and Jesus’ mother Mary urges Jesus to step in and help. Jesus does, and converts several pots full of water into actual wine.

Some people in the fundamentalistic churches that I grew up in tried to convince us that the alcohol content of wine back in the first century was far less than alcohol today. While there may be truth to that, there are also plenty of passages that clearly indicate the potency of alcohol (Gen 9:21; 49:12; Prov 20:1; Isa 5:11; 28:7; Eph 5:18). Jesus did not turn water into mere grape juice, and to assume so does a disservice to this episode on many levels.

That said, alcohol needs time to become alcohol. The fermentation process takes months and years, and apparently, the longer you wait the better and more mature it tastes.

Thus, to turn water into genuine wine, Jesus had to change the water into a substance that possessed the properties and attributes of age – years’ worth of age – even though He accomplished this in a matter of minutes or seconds. He, too, didn’t need time to create age.

John is clearly linking Jesus’ ministry with Genesis 1-2. John 1:1 echoes Genesis 1:1 except that it explicitly states Jesus’ role as co-creator and affirms that He is fundamentally divine like God the Father. Both John 2 and Genesis 1-2 feature a union of a man and a woman. In Genesis 1, God speaks and His will comes to pass; in John 2, Jesus also causes a miracle to occur with a simple series of commands (vv. 7-8). There may be a tie-in with the six waterpots in John 2:6 and the fact that God created the world in six days. At the end of Genesis 1, God declares that His creation was “very good” (v. 31). After Jesus’ miracle in John 2, the headwaiter or the master of the banquet declares with surprise that this is “good” wine (John 2:10). Thus, it is not unexpected that Jesus’ act of turning water into wine with the properties of age mirrors God’s “good” act of creating the entire world with the all of the properties of age.

We can rely on radiocarbon dating or measuring the thickness of glaciers to try to deduce the age of the earth. But those tools may fool us, especially when we recognize what Genesis 1-2 clearly indicates, that God created and formed nature with the properties of age and maturity. Scientific dating methods are not nearly as reliable as God’s Word, which gives us clear indications of the relatively young age of the earth despite its antique attributes. God made the world recently, but He made it with functional maturity graciously.

MUSIC: Interesting Rock Remakes and Covers, Part 1 (Probably)

I have developed a bit of a fascination with song remakes and covers. I love seeing how one artist can reinterpret a well-known song of another artist and what new perspectives someone can take on that original song.

Of course, remakes and covers are not the same thing, and we will mainly be focusing on covers here. From what I understand – and there are many definitions floating around out there – a remake is when one band or artist performs another band or artist’s song in a similar style to the original. Also, the remake is often released relatively near the original release, somewhat capitalizing on the success of the original song. A cover, however, is performing an original song in your own style and with your own interpretation. And, of course, there are also remixes, but I probably won’t focus too much on that. I am fascinated how one artist will take the lyrics and melody of another band and reinterpret and use it in a slightly, or, as with this first example, in a completely different way.

For instance, “Everybody Wants to Rule the World” is a song by New Wave band Tears for Fears in 1985, but remade by Lorde in 2013 for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. I am a huge 80’s music dork and am a big fan of New Wave bands. This song is for me one of the most 80s-ish songs out there, capturing the synthesized angst of the decade. The lyrics are somewhat dark, hinting at the dangers of governmental overreach or politically-ambitious personalities, but the otherwise upbeat tone somewhat masks this darker message. Lorde, on the other hand, spotlights the ominous lyrics with a much darker tone while still preserving most of the original melody and lyrics. These two versions of “Everybody Wants to Rule the World” exemplify the notion of a cover by taking the most basic elements of a song and changing them drastically and almost unrecognizably. One can appreciate why Lorde’s version would be so perfect for a dystopian franchise like The Hunger Games, while still preserving the nostalgia of the original words. I love both songs on their own merits, because of what each brings to the cultural table, not just because they share the same lyrics and melodies.

Some songs are just so good and provide such universal resonance that it keeps getting passed from band to band down through the decades and in several different media. “I’m a Believer” is one such song. I was actually surprised to find out a few years ago that this was written by Neil Diamond, but, of course, popularized by the Monkees in 1966. Neil Diamond wrote several songs for the Monkees that became big hits. “I’m a Believer” was covered by Smash Mouth in 2001 and used in the first Shrek movie. While Smash Mouth’s rendition wasn’t radically different from the Monkees’ version, it took a very popular song and added a bit of a fun and zany zing to it.

There are so many interesting examples of covers. “You Keep Me Hangin’ On” is a song by the Supremes from 1966, but covered by Kim Wilde in 1986. These songs have similar lyrics and tempo, but both songs wonderfully epitomize the rock style from their respective decades. The song “Ticket to Ride” was released by the Beatles in 1965, but covered in 1969 by the Carpenters. One of the interesting things about this cover is that it is considerably slower; a lively and well-known song is turned into a contemplative and even sad song. In fact, this latter rendition of the song seems to match the tone of the lyrics better than the original; but in earnest, both versions are great takes on the same theme.

Some groups, like the Beatles, get their songs covered often, and the internet has several places that list the different versions of Beatles songs that have been covered by many artists over the years. In addition to “Ticket to Ride” mentioned above, I like “In My Life,” released in 1965 by the Beatles, but covered by Bonnie Tyler in 2002. In fact, her 2002 project “Heart Strings” is an album of covers, including of U2 and Richard Marx, and I’m sure that we’ll refer back to Bonnie Tyler’s covers in subsequent articles. For that matter, I’ll go ahead here and mention how much I like her version of “Making Love Out of Nothing at All,” originally by Air Supply in 1983, but covered by Bonny Tyler in 1995 with minor modification to the lyrics.

In 1983, the reggae-rock band (I know that’s a weird genre, but it fits) UB40 came out with a song called “Red, Red Wine.” The reception was lukewarm in that year, but it was re-released in 1988, and did much better then, climbing to the number one spot on a few U.S. music charts. It was played frequently during a time filled with one-hit wonders. How shocked I was then, just a few years ago, while listening to a recently-purchased CD “Neil Diamond All Time Greatest Hits,” to hear him break out into “Red, Red Wine”! I had no idea that there was even an original version of UB40’s hit. Neil Diamond’s song is, not surprisingly, sans reggae, and it is also a bit sadder and more contemplative. At the end he slows down, and really emphasizes that last critical and clever line: “Red, red wine/ Stay close to me/ Don’t let me be alone/ It’s tearing apart/ My blue, blue heart.” This is yet another example of how the original song and the cover are both fun to listen to for what the songs share and for what both of them bring to the musical table.

Honestly, I have had a lot of fun doing this article, and since there seems to be an infinite amount of cover songs, there will probably be many more of these articles to come.

But before I close this one down, I want issue a challenge to the music world: In addition to rock artists covering other rock artists of yore, I would like to see modern artists covering famous opera arias or even doing a song based on and inspired by a musical or a jazz song. An example of this is Gwen Stefani’s 2004 song “Rich Girl,” which is based on “If I Were a Rich Man” from Fiddler on the Roof. I’m not saying that I’m in love with Stefani’s version of it, but it does seem to work, and I at least like the part of the song before rapper Eve comes in (in fact, if I ever stumble across this song, I usually only listen to the first half). Perhaps there have been many more examples of this and we just don’t know it. But it would be great to see more modern artists cover songs from Mozart or Verdi or Gershwin, or even revive songs from the Big Band era, songs originally by or performed by Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald, or Frank Sinatra.

So, what are your favorite remakes and covers? Leave us a post on our Facebook page and tell us what you think!

CULTURE/ SOCIETY: Current Thoughts On the Abortion Issue

Two years ago, on June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court made a 6 to 3 decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case to overturn previous rulings on the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. That decision returned greater responsibility to the states to legislate and regulate abortion laws for themselves, but it also thrust the abortion issue back into public discourse.

In light of that, it seemed good to make a few comments about the abortion debate. We have covered this issue before in an article “A Clear Biblical Case for the Beginning of Life” from the July 2014 edition, “Objections To The Biblical Position” from the September 2014 edition, and an article by Luke Kasper called “Is An Unborn Baby Human?” from the July 2018 edition. (We are still cleaning up these old editions, but at least you can scroll down, find the article, and read the contents).

We have probably mentioned a few of the following points previously, but my contention is that these are essential points about this debate that we don’t hear often enough, or even at all. So, here they are, in no particular or systematic order.

The Role of Choice. One of the more important mischaracterizations of the pro-life position is the lie that it wants to deny choice. If anything, the pro-life position spotlights the dignity of choice; that is, it acknowledges that choice always involves human will, responsibility, and consequence. Pro-lifers do not deny two people the choice to engage in activity that creates another life. Rather, we give those individuals the dignity of enjoying (or suffering from) the consequences of a choice that had already been made.

Life is a result of a choice; but to then murder another human being who has been given life as a result of a choice you have already made is immoral by any standard. The “pro-choice” position actually denies individuals the dignity of choice by propagating the fallacy that people can have choices without consequences. Furthermore, the “pro-choice” position denies the choice of millions of babies to live, let alone, to be able to make choices of their own. So it is actually the pro-life position that champions the dignity of human will, responsibility and choice, and it is the pro-choice stance that rejects it.

Embracing Responsibility. In line with the previous point, the pro-life position encourages people to appreciate the consequences of their choices and take responsibility for their actions. We are all sinners, and we all make mistakes, but there are still consequences for those mistakes. God is rich in mercy and forgiveness, and the Christian community should be that way also. However, forgiveness and mercy don’t eliminate consequences.

Regarding responsibility and morality, we need to recognize that unplanned pregnancies do indeed happen, but we then need to determine what is always the most moral option. On one hand, we can slightly curtail someone’s freedoms, but remember that these are the freedoms of the ones who willingly engaged in an act that they knew could have a variety of consequences. On the other hand, we could take a human life. The pro-life position simply asks people to accept some inconvenience as a result of their own action, and then encourages those individuals to raise that child or even give her or him up for adoption. The pro-choice position, however, justifies ending the life of someone who had not made a choice. Better to curtail someone’s freedoms to be responsible for choices they already made, as the pro-life position does, than to deny someone the right to live, as does the pro-choice position.

Even in the heartbreaking instances of rape, I think that this morality still holds up. When a terrible act like rape is committed upon an innocent young woman, the man involved should pay severely for his crime. However, the baby can still be carried to full term, and then adopted by a family who could take care of the child. As horrible as rape is, that does not morally justify killing the human life created by this crime.

The Beginning of Life. It is important to remember that life begins at conception. This is not just a scientific reality, but a clear Biblical assertion. In Psalm 139:13, the author recognizes that God began to form him (not just a fetus) from the earliest moments of gestation: “You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.” He recognizes full personhood from the earliest moments of a fetus’ development. The Hebrew word “to weave,” is sakach, and, biologically, this “weaving” begins immediately after fertilization, as those very first cells begin to grow into more a more complex organism (see also Job 10:9-11, Psalms 119:73, 139:15, Isaiah 44:2 and 49:5). So, life and identity begin at conception and during the earliest moments of gestation.

And there are other instances where identity, personhood, and destiny are ascribed to individuals while they are still in the womb (Genesis 25:22-23; 38:27-30; Job 31:15; Isa 49:5; Jer 1:5; Hos 12:3; Luke 1:41-44; 2:21). In the Old Testament, there are even legal rights accorded to individuals inside the womb (Exodus 21:22-25). Therefore, the command “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13, repeated in Deut 5:17, Matt 18:19 and Rom 13:9) applies as much to a fetus at the beginning of the gestation period as it does to any other individual.

Championing states’ rights. It is also important to remember that the Dobbs v. Jackson decision in June 2022 was a decision less about abortion and more about states’ rights. We discussed this in our article “Lunges at Freedom from SCOTUS” from the July 2023 edition. Preserving the rights of states to make laws for themselves is a valuable mechanism that prevents the federal government from assuming too much power. Similarly, it is helpful to recall that the U.S. Constitution is a document that grants certain specific powers to the federal government, but then allows other decisions to be made at the state level. Dobbs restored the right of states to make decisions on the abortion issue for themselves.

This issue is framed so poorly, however, by those who turn abortion into an idol. Eric Cortellessa, writing in Time magazine, describes the Dobbs decision as “ending a constitutional right to an abortion” (Eric Cortellessa, “If He Wins,” Time, May 27, 2024, p. 34). But where in the world does the US Constitution even distantly suggest that people have a right to an abortion? The beauty of Dobbs is that it prohibited the federal government from passing all-encompassing legislation on abortion that would be imposed on all people in all states, and instead, allowed states to make decisions on issues not detailed explicitly in the Constitution. For conservatives, this was a double win, a win for states’ rights and a win for life.

We will continue updating you about this issue, but I think that we have covered the moral, theological and legal basics of the abortion issue in this article. If you have any questions, rebuttals, or clarifications, feel free to post those on our Facebook page, and we’ll handle it in a future edition.

CALVIN’S CORNER: Irrefutable Premises Of Salvation

If you’re new to this series, you can see our other articles, like our first one “Introduction to Calvinism” from the March 2022 edition, “Misconceptions of Calvinism” from the August 2022 edition, and “The Challenge of Choice” from the December 2022 edition.

You’ve probably heard of Calvinism and Arminianism before, and words like “election” and “predestination.” But maybe you’ve never really understood what those words mean and why they could be so offensive to people.

Unfortunately, when people discuss Calvinism and Arminianism, they often get on theological wild-goose chases regarding human will, responding to God, the freedom to choose, and other issues. These can be interesting in a friendly academic debate, but these topics tend to cloud the fundamental issues at stake in this debate.

The ideas that have come to be known as Calvinism really come down to two issues, and I want to discuss those two issues in this article. We can talk all day long about human will, and altar calls, and the five points of Calvinism and all the rest. But once we see how thoroughly Biblical these two issues are, then that helps us orient all of the other issues in this debate.

The first issue is really an anthropological issue, that is, something that the Bible asserts consistently about humanity. Again, this theological reality often gets overshadowed by humanistic sentiments about God, or a phrase like “human free will.” It’s not just that we don’t understand the sovereignty of God, but that we don’t understand the limits of the unredeemed and even the redeemed human will.

It comes down to this: Because of fallenness, the human will is dead; it has no merit, ability, or capability to earn or respond positively to divine grace on its own. This goes back to the disobedience of our first parents in the garden; they and their progeny, which is all of humanity, were cursed because of their defiance toward God (Gen 3:17-19; Rom 5:12-14; 1 Cor 15:21-22).

This inability to save ourselves is expressed in many different ways. The Bible says that we are “dead in our trespasses” (Eph 2:1, 5; Col 2:13), and that we possess no capacity nor willingness to pursue God on our own (Psalm 53:1-3; Rom 3:10-12). We are “children of wrath” (Eph 2:3; see Rom 5:9) and “enemies” of God (Rom 5:10; see also Col 1:21). Our grandest deeds of righteousness are like a “filthy garment” before the Lord (Isa 64:6; Zech 3:3). He is unimaginably holy and people are inescapably helpless morally (Ezra 9:15; Isa 6:5; Luke 5:8). Our human will is incredibly restricted either by options, or morality, or reality, or consequences (Isa 59:3; Jer 9:3; Rom 3:12; 7:24).

The helplessness, depravity, and utter inability of man leads us to a second Biblical premise: God must initiate salvation by regenerating the human will so that we could respond to His grace by faith.

Consider the term to be “born again” (John 3:3; 1 Peter 1:3, 23). You do not will yourself to be born the first time, but rather, your birth is the result of the will and actions of someone else. Similarly, we are born again by God’s will, or as 1 Peter 1:3 says, “according to His great mercy [He] has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” Grace is described as a “gift” (John 4:10; Rom 3:24; 5:15-16; Eph 2:8-9), that is, it was something done for us, not by us. Grace from God and the ability to be saved is a non-meritorious provision, and not wages that we deserve because we wanted to be saved.

Another way of seeing this is to appreciate the term “prevenient grace,” which means that grace necessarily precedes human will, response, effort, or decision (1 John 4:19; 2 Tim 1:9). That grace of God that is exercised prior to our response of faith is seen in the notion of regeneration (Titus 3:5), or in 1 John 4:19 which notes simply, “We love, because He first loved us.” That is, our capacity to love God and other believers was activated as a result of or “because” it was preceded “first” by His love for us (see 1 John 4:9-10; also Rom 5:6, 8).

With those two fundamental ideas in mind, it is important to reinforce that this still does not mean that people are without excuse in terms of their approach to God. God is Creator, and humanity is still accountable to Him. The inability of people to earn or even want salvation on their own doesn’t excuse unbelievers (Psalm 19:1-2; Rom 1:20; see also Job 12:7-9). Once our will is regenerated and we trust in Christ, then we also have a responsibility to act in accordance with that grace that has been given to us (Rom 6:1-7).

Also, the inability for people to save themselves is not an excuse to not evangelize, but rather, it is the reason to evangelize. We must share the message of the grace and mercy of Christ, His death and resurrection. The Holy Spirit works through the testimony of the saints and is critical to the process of missions and evangelism (John 15:27; Acts 1:8; Romans 1:16; 10:14; Col 1:23).

I discussed these basic issues at our church recently. Unfortunately, even going into the topic this clearly and Biblically, we had two people that left and have not come back. However, I had one other individual who noted that once we establish these two inescapable Biblical premises, then you almost have no choice (ironically!), but to lean toward Calvinism. I think that this is a fair and honest assessment of realities that the Bible presents clearly.

But again, let’s remember that none of this is about Calvin or Luther or Augustine or Arminius. Rather, this is about what God’s Word says, and how it describes the human condition. The testimony is clear and consistent; people are dead in our trespasses and sins, and we need God to intervene with His mercy and grace to regenerate us. Having done so, we can respond by faith to the offer of eternal life through Jesus 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, 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. 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.