Friday, April 24, 2015

Personhood - Part 2

Margaret Sanger
Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy (Proverbs 31:8).

When dealing with the issue of personhood in light of abortion, we can’t ignore the question of babies in the womb with clear signs of mental or physical deformity detected before birth. Abortion in these cases is also disturbing, but may be necessary in the long run to insure the continued upward progression of our race. The more we discourage reproduction, by abortion or sterilization, by persons having genetic defects or undesirable genetic traits, the cleaner and more refined our gene pool will become. Over time, we won’t have to deal with the downsides associated with disability and low intelligence, particularly the cost associated with the care of disabled and moronic people. Besides, have you ever seen a retarded person? That is certainly no kind of life. How cruel we are to force those poor wretches to endure the hell that is their existence. 

Sorry, I must have buttoned my SS tunic up too tightly and cut off the circulation to my brain…there, that’s much better. 

Eugenics and genetic engineering is despicable, as it is in direct opposition to our Christian morality, as well as the founding principles of our society. As Americans, we have rightly spent considerable time, talent, and treasure to push this idea to its rightful place along the fringes of civilization. At the height of the eugenics movement at the turn of the 20th century, many notable figures thought the idea of engineering an ideal citizen was the way of the future. Among them were George Bernard Shaw[1], Woodrow Wilson[2], Teddy Roosevelt[3], and of course, Margaret Sanger. Ms. Sanger was a proponent of what is called “negative eugenics” - what I falsely advocated above – and her activism culminated in an organization called the American Birth Control League, which is today Planned Parenthood. 

The entire mission of Ms. Sanger, and the other birth control and abortion rights pioneers of the 1920’s, was based on the idea of negative eugenics, which is nothing more than discouraging reproduction by persons having “genetic defects” or “undesirable genetic traits”. Writing in the Birth Control Review, Ernst Rudin summarized well the goal of the abortion and birth control advocates of the day in his article, “Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need” – We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock (Rudin 1933)[4]. What was considered bad stock? For starters, the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, and the poverty-stricken. In an article written for the “Birth Control Review,” Ms. Sanger wrote[5]:

As an advocate of birth control I wish … to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation.... On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective (Sanger, The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda 2003).
In a 1939 letter discussing the Negro Project, explaining how to make in-roads with the black community in order to provide positive information to blacks regarding birth control and sterilization she wrote:

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members (Sanger, Letter from Margaret Sanger to Dr. C. J. Gamble 1939).”
To be clear, Ms. Sanger was not advocating forced sterilization of all blacks or, as some disingenuous pro-life advocates maintain, genocide, but rather a propaganda campaign using black doctors, ministers, and other community leaders to convince those of bad stock to voluntarily sterilize, abort, and use birth control. I shudder to think, however, how people would react if some conservative political icon from days past was discovered to have come up with anything called “The Negro Project”, let alone to have advocated targeting the black community in America with contraception, sterilization, and abortion to eliminate their bad stock. I am cynical to be sure, but here is where it pays off to be a progressive. 

It is one thing to advocate that people make responsible decisions and plan as best they can to have children so that they can afford them and provide for them. It is quite another to advocate the monstrosity of negative eugenics. Who decides what is detrimental and what is beneficial? We might not have a problem agreeing that hemophilia could be classified as detrimental to the person and/or society as a whole. A study of gay brothers, however, has led some scientists to believe that several genes might effect sexual orientation (Tanner 2014)[6]. What happens when someone decides that homosexuality is an undesirable genetic trait to be eradicated? Or brown eyes? Or insert trait you want to see eradicated here? We don’t have to guess, we need only to look at the Nazis. 

In 2001 doctors in Britain aborted a 28 week old fetus because testing indicated that the baby would have a cleft lip and palate (Abortion Review 2011)[7]. One could hardly argue that this child would have a low quality of life, especially in the UK, with their wonderful health care system. Nevertheless, because of its undesirable genetic characteristics, the pregnancy was terminated. Left unchecked civilization runs the risk of sliding back into “eugenics gone wild” – the classification of individuals and their families, people such as the poor, the mentally ill, the blind, homosexuals and even entire racial or ethnic groups as degenerate. This is a place I do not wish to go, and an ideology against which I will fight vigorously. 

The modern reproductive rights establishment has its roots, through Margaret Sanger and others, in the 20th century eugenics movement. This is evidenced, not only by history, and the writings of Sanger herself, but also in the issue of terminating pregnancy solely for the reason that the child suffers from mental or physical deformity.

Are the vast majority of pro-choice people fascists, or Fabian socialists? Certainly not. I do believe, however, if confronted with the similarity of Sanger’s “negative eugenics” and the thought process that gave birth to the Holocaust, they would, being reasonable, certainly reconsider their view of the subject. I am certain that many people have probably not even made this connection, as it is downplayed and denied by the activists, and those of us who point it out are generally demonized for the sin of using Margaret Sanger's own material to illustrate what she believed. 

The severely handicapped, the infirm, the helpless, and the aged are all persons in the sight of God with life given by Him and to be ended only by Him (Concordia Publishing House 1991)[8].

Works Cited

Abortion Review. "UK: 'Cleft palate' cleric back in the news." Abortin Review. March 23, 2011. (accessed April 21, 2015).

Baker, Stuart E. Bernard Shaw's Remarkable Religion: A Faith That Fits the Facts. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2002.

Concordia Publishing House. Luther's Small Catechism. Translated by Concordia Publishing House. Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1991.

Kaelber, Lutz. "New Jersey." Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States. 2009. (accessed April 21, 2015).

Roosevelt, Theodore. "T. Roosevelt letter to C. Davenport about "degenerates reproducing"." DNA Learning Center. January 3, 1913. (accessed April 21, 2015).

Rudin, Ernst. "Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need." Birth Control Review, 1933: 111.

Sanger, Margaret. "Letter from Margaret Sanger to Dr. C. J. Gamble." Genius. December 10, 1939. (accessed April 19, 2015).

"The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." The Public Writings and Speeches of Margaret Sanger. 2003. (accessed April 21, 2015).

Tanner, Lindsey. "New Study Suggests Genetic Link for Male Homosexuality." The Huffington Post. November 11, 2014. (accessed April 19, 2015).

End Notes

[1] Shaw was a proponent of Socialism and Eugenics all his life. Shaw used satire to mock proponents of eugenics who went to inhumane extremes as has been done in this work, and quotes are often taken out of their satirical context to paint him as a monster. His stance on the idea that the impure and defective should be bread out of the human race, however, was the point he was illustrating by his satire. Shaw’s statements on eugenics were consistent throughout his life: he maintained, first, that better breeding was essential and, second, that only the Life Force could be trusted to select the pairs (Baker 2002).

[2] New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson signed a sterilization law in 1911. By 1913, however it was the first such statute in the nation to be declared unconstitutional. In Smith v. Board of Examiners the New Jersey Supreme Court found that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment (Kaelber 2009).

[3] “You say that these people are not themselves responsible, that it is ‘society’ that is responsible. I agree with you if you mean, as I suppose you do, that society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind. It is really extraordinary that our people refuse to apply to human beings such elementary knowledge as every successful farmer is obliged to apply to his own stock breeding. Any group of farmers who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum” (Roosevelt 1913).

[4] “Eugenic Sterilization is an Urgent Need,” Birth Control Review, April 1933, page 102.

[5] “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda,” October 1921, page 5.

[6] “New Study Suggests Genetic Link for Male Homosexuality,” Huffington Post, November 17, 2014.

[7] The glamorous cleric [Joanna Jepson] first came to public attention when she spoke out against a late abortion that had been carried out in 2001 - the termination of a 28-week-old fetus with a cleft palate. Doctors are permitted to carry out abortions beyond the 24-week legal limit if they believe a baby’s disability is serious enough, but Joanna argued that a cleft palate was a minor physical flaw, not a severe abnormality (Abortion Review 2011).

[8] Luther’s Small Catechism with Explanation, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1991, p. 78.

Friday, April 17, 2015


For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. How precious to me are your thoughts, God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand—when I awake, I am still with you (Psalm 139: 13-18).

I recently had a conversation with a friend regarding a woman’s right to choose which, for those who may not know, is the euphemism for abortion in American politics. My friend made two points which have become standard in the argument of those on the left who advocate for unrestricted access to abortion. He told me that, regardless of the validity of my argument, I have no right to tell any woman how to manage her body; those decisions are between her and her doctor. He also said, after hearing my views on the subject, that it was simply my opinion and he respected it, but my opinion is no more certain or valid than the one of a person who supports “a woman’s right to choose.”

This argument is not uncommon. Anyone who follows the news regularly has certainly seen Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul sparring with Democrat National Committee Chairperson Debbie Wasserman-Schultz over this very issue. Reporters asked Senator Paul, who is pro-life, whether or not he supported making exceptions to his anti-abortion stance for cases where the mother 1) had been raped, 2) had been the victim of incest, or 3) was in danger of death if she carried the baby to term. Senator Paul did something that most pro-life Republicans are too spineless to do. He told the media to ask Debbie Wasserman-Schultz if she was ok with aborting a seven pound baby that was just about to be born. “Ask Debbie when she’s willing to protect life,” Senator Paul replied. “When you get an answer from Debbie, come back to me” (Bradner 2015).
In an emailed statement Debbie did respond:

Here's an answer. I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul (Bradner 2015).

Of course, what Debbie is actually saying in her response, is that, yes, she is ok with aborting a seven pound baby that’s just ready to be born. So, if a woman and her doctor decide to abort the woman’s baby 10 seconds before it’s delivered, Debbie is fine with that because it’s a woman’s right to choose. Evidentially, the baby is not a person and has no rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Senator Paul, however, in his statement gets to the real point of the entire debate. When are you willing to protect life? Unlike the “right” to abortion discovered by the Supreme Court in the penumbra of the U.S. Constitution, the duty of the government to protect the life and property of its citizens is explicitly enumerated. It is actually the duty of the government to protect the civil rights of its citizens. When we stop setting up straw man arguments about rape babies and coat hanger abortions we begin to see what the real issue is in the debate regarding “reproductive rights.” When does life begin?

If that thing inside a woman is not a human being, from a legal standpoint, it doesn’t matter what you do with it. Abort it, carry it to term, what is the difference? The People, through their elected representatives should be free to make any law they like if this is the case. If, however, that thing is a human being, it has civil rights given to it by God and protected by the U.S. Constitution. There is no third option.

The post-modern mind does not deal in terms of absolutes, however. There is no black and white, Right vs. Wrong or, God forbid, Good vs. Evil. There is only opinion, experience, and emotion. No one person can say that any other person’s opinion, based on their personal experience and guided by their emotions, is wrong. To do so would be intolerant and unloving…unless, of course, you are dealing with a conservative Christian. Those people are just racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes.

My objections to abortion begin in my gut. Before any religious, moral, or ethical questions are taken into account, the practice is disturbing. It is disturbing to me because it is, like a lot of other disturbing things are - destructive. Forget about when the baby becomes a human being for just a moment. You cannot deny that abortion destroys something, and that “something” is alive, and is meant by God, or nature, or evolution to, at the very least, become like me and you. To destroy that "thing" is, right off the bat, distasteful to me.

It isn't like a tumor that is destructive to the body and is removed. Destroying the tumor, in that case would be a constructive act. Also, that tumor isn’t going to grow up and eventually want me to send it to college. Being what it is, the idea of abortion is also contrary to how I have prepared myself for my own life in this world. I have spent my young adulthood getting myself ready to do constructive things. Being a teacher builds up society by passing knowledge along to another generation. Music, among other things, enriches the cultural landscape. Even being a policeman is constructive, in that we enforce the laws that give defined borders to our society, and help keep it from breaking down. I guess what I’m trying to say is, I’m predisposed to revulsion of things destructive, and abortion is, to me, the ultimate destructiveness – destroying life before it even has a chance. War, killing, even capital punishment, are all distasteful, though can sometimes be justified. I have a difficult time with the destruction of what my conscience tells me is life, using what seems to me to be selfish or false justifications. Anyway, that is where my opposition to abortion begins.

Most importantly, however, God’s Word calls what is created in the womb life.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5).

Moses wrote in Leviticus 17:11, "For the life of a creature is in the blood..." Taken literally, that would mean that a fetus isn't "alive" until about 21 days after conception, when it develops a rudimentary cardiovascular system and, for all intents and purposes, its own blood supply (Delp n.d.). If this is the case, something like the morning after pill cannot be objected to from the standpoint that it is destroying life, though it is still distasteful to me. However, to paraphrase Martin Luther, it is never safe act against your conscience[1]. Right now, my own personal Jiminy Cricket is still screaming the words to Psalm 139 in my head:

"Your [God's] eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:16).

So, for the time being, I will err on the side of safety - life begins at conception. 

To maintain, as is suggested by some in the abortion rights movement, that a baby’s personhood is contingent upon whether or not the mother wishes to have a baby, is absurd and threatens the rights of all Americans. The fact that one’s personhood is not contingent upon how one is viewed by another should be self-explanatory.

A woman who walks into an abortion clinic to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is exercising her right to privacy in making decisions about her reproductive health with her doctor. However, if that same woman is attacked while on her way to the clinic, is robbed and beaten and miscarries as a result, the attacker can – and most likely will – be charged with homicide of an unborn child. Surely, even to the obtuse progressive mind, this must cause some cognitive dissonance.

In the two scenarios given above, there is no difference in either the baby’s status before death, or its ultimate end; only the means of arriving at that end – the termination of the pregnancy – is different. In one case the state allows for the “termination” without restriction, or sanction against the mother or doctor simply because she wishes for the pregnancy to end. In the other, the state prosecutes in order seek justice for the unlawful killing of one human being by another – the definition of homicide. If people can fall in and out of the category of “person,” then no one’s rights are guaranteed. That means that there is some arbitrary, man-made standard of what constitutes personhood. If that is the case, that also means that whatever group happens to be in authority at any given time can redefine what it means to be a person to fit their goals.

Peter Singer, attempting to take the words of the Athanasian Creed and twist them to aid his anti-Christian argument, cites the early Christian fathers by calling a person a being with a rational substance[2]. In an MSNBC interview Dr. Singer said the following:

It’s never been the meaning of a person that it was simply biologically a living member of the species Homo sapiens. If you look at the origin of the term it comes from a Latin persona, meaning a mask worn by actors in a play; and then it became a role, and it was used in early Christian theology, actually, in the doctrine of the Trinity. Three persons in one, right? So, God the Father, the Holy Ghost, and then Jesus, right? So obviously you don’t have to be human to be a person, in that sense. And the early Christian theologians thought that a person is a being with a rational substance. So the idea of rationality, in some way, comes into it [personhood]. And I would say, therefore, that the best sense of a person is a being with some awareness, some rational awareness of who they are existing beyond simply the physical organism (Singer 2011).

When the host pointed out to Dr. Singer that this definition would likely exclude four month-old-babies from being people, he agreed.

Well, possibly. I don’t think it’s problematic to say that a four-month-old baby is not actually a person; I think that’s simply true. Now, that doesn’t determine what the law ought to be. You might say that the law should say from birth on, everybody counts legally as if they were a person…that’s distinct from the question of which beings are persons (Singer 2011).

I just don’t understand where he gets that “ought” from. Sure you might say that. Others, however, might say that the law should say you only count legally as a person from age five years and up, or that you cease to be a person when you are no longer a productive member of society…or if you are a Jew…or a homosexual…or who knows? They might say this unless, of course, there is some objective standard. Either people have rights, or they don’t. Either personhood exists, or it doesn’t. Either an unborn baby is a person, or it isn’t; how we answer these questions will determine what kind of society we will have.

Abortion takes the life of another person. Being sinful human beings we do not like the mirror of God’s Law being held to our faces to show us our sin. We are self-centered and seek to justify our selfish actions any way we can that does not involve acknowledging our sin, and repenting of that sin. We will even try to talk ourselves out of what we know – that the living but unborn are persons in the sight of God from the time of conception. Thanks be to God Almighty, who by the death of His Son Jesus, our crucified and risen Lord and Savior, has overcome sin and death, and graciously offers us all forgiveness for all our sins through faith in Him.

Works Cited

Bradner, Eric. "Rand Paul: Grill Dems about abortion, too." CNN. April 9, 2015. (accessed April 17, 2015).

Delp, Valorie. "Empryonic Stage of Fetal Development." Love To Know. (accessed April 17, 2015).

"Luther at the Imperial Diet of Worms 1521." A Mighty Fortress is Our God: Martin Luther. March 3, 2003. (accessed April 17, 2015).

Singer, Dr. Peter, interview by Chris Hayes. The Battle Over Women's Bodies (November 6, 2011).

"The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Lutheran Church." The Three Ecumenical or Universal Creeds. September 2008. (accessed April 17, 2015).

[1] Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen (Luther's Conscience Quote 2003).

[2] Excerpt from the Athanasian Creed regarding Christ: Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ: One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ (BOC: Ecumenical Creeds 2008).

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Because I Live...

Because I live, you also will live (John 14:19).

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most important aspect of Christianity. This fundamental of the Christian faith is what distinguishes Christians and Christianity from every other religion on the planet. The resurrection of Christ is so important and comforting because it confirms four important things: 1) Christ is the Son of God, 2) What He taught is true, 3) God the Father accepted Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for the reconciliation of the world, and 4) all those who believe in Christ will rise to eternal life. This is how John begins his resurrection account:

Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb. Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples went back to their homes (John 20: 1-10).

What a dark Sunday morning it must have been indeed, when Mary Magdalene and the other women went to Jesus’ tomb. After having declared the work of redemption finished, Jesus gave up his spirit and died on the cross. Being the great Sabbath day, however, the Jews did not want to leave Jesus’ body, and those of the other condemned men, on the cross[1]. Jesus lifeless corpse was removed from the cross expediently, after the Roman soldiers were assured of his death by a spear thrust into his side[2]. Joseph of Aramathea, a secret disciple of Jesus, asked Pilate for the body and his request was granted. Joseph of Aramathea placed Jesus’ body in his own tomb, one that was brand new and had never held any other remains. Nicodemeus, the member of the Sanhedrin (the Jewish governing council which had delivered Jesus to Pilate) who had come to Jesus to talk theology by night, and who had called him a teacher sent from God, provided the customary myrrhs and aloes used according to Jewish burial customs[3]. They were, however, in a bit of a hurry.

It was not only the Sabbath, but the great Sabbath. The setting of the sun signaled the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath connected to the Passover, called the day of Preparation. They had to hurry and get Jesus’ body into the tomb, and at least prepare his body enough so that they, or someone else, could come and finish the job after the Sabbath was over. Handling a dead body on the Sabbath would make them ceremonially unclean, and thus unable to participate. And so, Jesus’ body reposed for that Sabbath in a newly hewn tomb, donated by a rich man, waiting to be embalmed by some of Jesus’ loved ones using the spices provided by – at the very least – a man among the Pharisees who was sympathetic to this poor, misguided rabbi, who had gotten into temple politics over his head.

Enter Mary Magdalene and the other women. The task of properly preparing Jesus for burial fell to them. Now, don’t misunderstand what I am about to say. We live in an enlightened and progressive society, and our views of women and their role in family life and society have changed considerably since the time of Christ. That being said, however, we have to understand the significance of Mary Magdalene making the discovery that Jesus’ body was not in the tomb where he was left on Friday afternoon.

By all social conventions of the time, Mary Magdalene’s testimony – or the testimony of any woman for that matter – was, if not meaningless, most certainly less valid than testimony given by a man. Women had weaker legal status in ancient Israel than men (Packer & Tenney, 1980). Women were recognized as little more than servants and certainly could not testify in legal proceedings and the like. According to Jewish tradition as recorded in the Talmud, a valid witness must be an adult free man, not a woman or a slave, and not be related to any of the other witnesses or judges. The witness must be an honest person who can be trusted not to lie (Testimony in Jewish Law, 2012).

Women were lowly; women were despised. They were considered weak and inferior by Jew and Roman alike. Ancient Israel was a patriarchal society; the father or oldest male in the family made the decisions concerning the family, and the women had little to say. A woman, it could be said, was worth only half as much monitarily as a man[4]. A young woman did not think of a career outside her home. Girls were raised to get married and have children. If a woman was childless, she was thought to be cursed (Packer & Tenney, 1980)[5]. It is my guess that Mary Magdalene would have been considered all the more despised and lowly, as she had formerly been demon-possessed and had been healed by Jesus. Many writers conjecture that Mary Magdalene was the adulteress mentioned in Luke 7:36-50, though there is no evidence for that (and I do not subscribe to that idea).

Why would God allow a “foolish” woman, whose testimony would not be considered valid by the conventions of the day, to discover the greatest miracle in human history, the foundation of the Christian faith, the thing that was the culmination of thousands of years of prophecy in Holy Scripture? Would God not want someone “reliable” to be the first person to find Jesus’ empty tomb and make a report to the disciples? St. Paul provides us with some insight into this:

But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God (1 Corinthians 1:27-29).

I am not saying that women are inferior to men, or that they are foolish, or that they are weak, or that they are inherently low and to be despised. That is not what Scripture teaches about women anyway, but that is a discussion for another day. By setting things up so that Mary Magdalene made this incredible discovery, God was mocking the unbelieving world and its governing authorities, which did subscribe to such nonsense.

God was taking what the world held to be of no account – this lowly woman – and using her, elevating her, to “bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.” God used Mary Magdalene to bring Peter and John to the empty tomb, and thus, in a manner of speaking, to their true and living faith. They did not yet understand the significance of the empty tomb – that it was the sign of the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises, not to mention Jesus’ own declarations that he must rise from the dead – but they would, by God’s working. They would all come to understand, by the living faith created in them by God’s Holy Spirit, that because Jesus lives and is no longer in the grave, they too – along with all who believe in Christ – were forgiven, absolved of the guilt of their sin, and would live.

There would be more evidence of Jesus’ resurrection later. Jesus would appear to Mary Magdalene physically, as well as to his disciples. But initially, God used the foolishness of this world to shame the world’s wise. There is evidence of Christ’s resurrection, and St. Paul supplies us with a good summary:

He was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that He appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all He appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born (1 Cor 15:4-8).

The world has generally looked at the followers of Jesus with some kind of mixture of pity and amusement because it counts the message of the cross as foolishness. There is no logic to support this fundamental pillar of the Christian faith, though there is evidence. Then again, that’s why the term faith is used. Martin Luther wrote, “I know that I cannot, by my own reason or strength, believe in Jesus Christ or come to Him” (Luther, 1986) Luther understood that the gift of faith in Christ comes from God by the power of His Holy Spirit, through his means of Word and Sacrament.

There is no logical explanation for the mass conversion of 3,000 people in Jerusalem on Pentecost if what they heard preached was false[6]. There is no logical reason for the apostles who, save John, suffered martyrdom in some of the most horrible ways imaginable, to keep on professing a lie at the cost of their lives, simply to save face. There is, however, an illogical reason, at least by the standards of mankind, for what they did. The Holy Spirit had created faith in them; though it could not be proven by logic or reason, what they – and we – profess is true. Christ is risen! He is risen indeed! Surely these men would not willingly subject themselves to torture and death for something they knew to be false. The author of Hebrews writes:

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see (Hebrews 11:1).

As Christians we have faith in Jesus, who said, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.” We have faith – we can be sure and certain – that because Jesus lives, we also will live. What wonderful news! How could we not help but live the new life that we have been given to God’s glory?

Works Cited

Luther, D. M. (1986). Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.

Packer, J. I., & Tenney, M. C. (Eds.). (1980). Illustrated Manners and Customs of the Bible. Nashville, Tennessee, USA: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Testimony in Jewish Law. (2012, March 30). Retrieved March 30, 2012, from Wikipedia:

End Notes

[1] John 19:33
[2] John 19:34
[3] John 3: 1-21; 19:39-42
[4] Leviticus 27:1-8
[5] Genesis 30:1-2, 22; 1 Samuel 1:1-8
[6] Acts 2:14-41