Ministering in Corinth: Thursday after Trinity 2

And he [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks. When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was compelled byt he Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, "Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles"...Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. But Gallio took no notice of these things...Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he desired to cross to Achaia, the bretheren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him; and when he arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace; for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 18:4-6, 17, 24-28).

To read the entire passage, please click HERE.

Everywhere Paul goes, he preaches Christ. This is in keeping with his calling as an Apostle of Christ. This is what he has been called to do. All through the book of Acts Luke writes that, whenever he entered a town, Paul went to the Synagogue and reasoned with the people there on the Sabbath. Paul’s efforts were successful, not because he was a good lecturer, but because he was delivering to the people the Gospel, which is a means of grace. The Gospel is the good news that Jesus died on the cross and took the punishment for your sins in your place and, because of what he did, you are reconciled to God. Elsewhere Paul writes to the Romans, “So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” So, faith, rather than being something which you decide to do, is a gift given to you. Faith is kindled in you by the working of the Holy Spirit. The means He uses to kindle that faith, establish it, and make it grow, is the preaching of God’s Word.

Not everyone to whom Paul preached, however, welcomed his preaching. Not everyone was converted. Many of the people in many of the synagogues argued and fought with Paul. They sometimes threw him out of the town, beat him, tried to have him arrested and thrown into prison, and tried to kill him. They did all this because Paul explained to them from the Scriptures that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and that Jesus was the Christ. These evil things happened to Paul, they happened to people who listened to Paul and were converted, like Sosthenes, and they may happen to us as well.

Why did they react this way? Why were they not converted by the Holy Spirit? We are not told this in Holy Scripture, so we cannot guess. We know from Scripture that God wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. Jesus tells us this constantly. We also know from Scripture that not everyone will believe. This is a contradiction that we can’t figure out because Scripture doesn’t explain it any further. Where the Scriptures speak, we speak. Where the Scriptures are silent, we must remain silent. It is our part, as Christians, to repent of our sins and to thank God for the gift of faith he has given us. And, as Paul, Sosthenes, Pricilla, and Aquila did, we are to minister to those around us, in accordance with the vocation into which God has called us, trusting in God to bring the increase in accordance with His will.

Freedom of Worship?

"Freedom of Worship" by Norman Rockwell

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them. But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” So they took his advice, and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus (Acts 5:27-42).

The Daily Signal reported on April 30, 2015 that a Republican senator was up in arms over how the Obama Administration was misrepresenting American’s freedom of religion. Senator James Lankford (R-OK) was upset with the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to use the phrase “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion” on the test immigrants take to become naturalized US citizens (Harkness 2015).

Senator Lankford isn’t alone in his concern over what he perceives to be the redefining of the First Amendment. Christian leaders are becoming increasingly concerned that those who oppose them are attempting to redefine the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause from an individual protection to an institutional one. Statements such as those from Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz are cited as evidence.

In an interview with CBN News, Wasserman-Schultz said that “legitimate religious institutions” shouldn’t be forced to conduct same-sex marriages, but religious business owners should not be legally protected under the Free Exercise Clause for “turn[ing] people away based on who they are” (Howerton 2015).

“You shouldn’t be able to turn people away based on who they are. It’s important that no matter who you are, who you love, what the color of your skin is, what your national origin is, we’re a nation of laws. Yes, the marriage equality decision is settled. Love is love and now everyone in America enjoys the protection of the United States Constitution when it comes to who they choose to marry legally,” Wasserman Schultz said. “That doesn’t mean that churches and religious institutions have to conduct same sex marriages and it doesn’t mean that religious institutions aren’t able to practice their own values…But, in this country, we do not allow people to discriminate and that’s [sic] I think is where the important distinction needs to be drawn” (Howerton 2015).

In the past opponents of religion on the Left have attacked the institutional public exercise of religion, such as the erecting of nativity scenes placed on public property, by citing the “separation of church and state.” Now it appears that the tactics have changed. Some of the more smug enemies of religion, Christianity in particular, would cite Bible passages such as Matthew 6:6, “But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your father who sees in secret will reward you,” as did one Facebook friend, attempting to provoke an argument. Far from proving their point, however, this passage from the Sermon on the Mount Jesus was making the point to his disciples that, if the motivation for worshiping God is to be recognized as pious by men, then there is no benefit. Jesus calls us to hide our good works, not to flaunt them for recognition. Quite to the contrary, Christians are called to be faithful witnesses to the world and to “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). But, I digress…

What Wasserman-Schultz seems to be saying is, sure, the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod doesn’t have to perform same-sex marriages. They are a legitimate religious institution protected by the First Amendment. But you, the individual parishioner, you may not live out your faith in the public square. Consequently, if your conscience will not allow you to be the wedding cake baker for a same-sex wedding celebration, too bad. Evidentially the individual is only free to exercise their religion within the walls of their house of worship. 

The US Constitution does not limit the free exercise of religion to the inside of the church building for an hour on Sunday morning. Christians, along with their fellow citizens of other faiths, have the God-given and constitutionally protected right to live out their faith in the world, conducting themselves in public as their consciences dictate, subject only to infringement under special circumstances or where the State can demonstrate a compelling interest.

Much is made of the fact that there is a “separation of church and state” built into the U.S. Constitution. This is not exactly true, at least not in the way left-wing activists believe it to be. The phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, and this wall is certainly not one which was intended to bar individuals who practice a religious faith from entering the public square. The term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," written by Thomas Jefferson in a now famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text of President Jefferson’s letter reads, in part: 

"... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State” (Jefferson 1802). 

The Danbury Baptist Association wrote to Jefferson of their concerns regarding the lack of explicit protection of religious liberty in their own state constitution, and against a government establishment of religion (The Heritage Foundation n.d.). As a religious minority in Connecticut, the Danbury Baptists were concerned that a religious majority might establish a state religion at the cost of the liberties of religious minorities. Jefferson assured them that the U.S. Constitution would in no way permit such an establishment, and that “…religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions…” (Jefferson 1802). This separation of church and state, as understood by Thomas Jefferson at least, had nothing whatsoever to do with public expressions of religion. To Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists, separation of church and state had everything to do with the establishment of a national/state religious body, and avoiding the national/state oppression of religious minorities.

It wasn’t until 1947 that the Supreme Court, albeit nebulously, defined just how the “wall of separation” was to be built. As a result of Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)[1], state or local government can not: 1) set up a church, 2) pass laws that aid one religion, all religions, or favor one religion over another, 3) force a person to attend or stay away from church, or believe in any religion, 4) punish a person for holding or professing religious beliefs, 5) levy a tax, in any amount, to support any religious activities or institutions, 6) openly or secretly participate in the affairs of any religious organization, or vice-versa (Everson v. Board of Education 2015). 

Another test established by the Supreme Court, known as The Lemon Test, is based on the case Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 U.S. 602 (1971)[2]. The test consists of three parts: 1) whether the law or conduct has a secular purpose, 2) whether the law or conduct has as its primary or principle effect advancing or inhibiting religion, and 3) whether it fosters an excessive entanglement of government with religion (Lemon v. Kurtzman 2015). 

Additionally, the Court has ruled that public displays of religious symbols, such as the Christian nativity scene or the Jewish menorah, do not constitute a breach of the Establishment Clause when they are all displayed together, and along with secular holiday symbols, in celebration of the national holiday of Christmas[3]. A good example of this is the Christkindlemarkt (Christ child market) which is set up in Daley Plaza every year in Chicago. The clearly Christian event, complete with nativity scene, is set up each year without incident. Alongside the nativity scene each year is a large Jewish menorah. Any citizen or group who wishes to exercise their freedom of religious expression in this public space may do so, and the event is not in breach of the Establishment Clause. Should any religious or secular group be prohibited by government from exercising that freedom of expression at the Christkindlemarkt, it would then violate the Establishment Clause. 

To say that there is no place in American society for public displays of religion or religious symbols, strictly because they are by nature religious, is simply not justified by the U.S. Constitution, or by case law. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissenting opinion to the McCreary County, Kentucky, ET. Al. Petitioners v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky ET. Al. case, observed that the same week Congress submitted the Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for ratification by the States, it enacted legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate. Justice Scalia goes on to remind his fellow justices that, “The same Congress also reenacted the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, 1 Stat. 50, Article II of which provided: ‘Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged’” (Scalia 2005). 

And, it should not be overlooked that the First Amendment itself accords religion – and no other manner of belief – special constitutional protection. I am sure that our friends on the Left would not agree that these early actions of Congress are equally valid today, since they generally consider the U.S. Constitution to be a “living, breathing document”, meaning that its interpretation changes as American society changes, and that moral values simply evolve along with society and culture and are therefore not absolute. 

The views of American citizens, however, have not changed significantly where this issue of public expression of religion is concerned. Justice Scalia rightly points out that our Presidents continue to conclude their oath of office with the words, “So help me God.” The Congress opens each session with a prayer; those prayers are lead by official congressional chaplains. The Supreme Court opens its sessions with the prayer “God save the United States and this Honorable Court”. We have the phrase “In God We Trust” on our currency. When we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States we corporately acknowledge that we are one nation, under God. Justice Scalia finishes his thought thusly:

“As one of our Supreme Court opinions rightly observed, ‘We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.’ Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313 (1952), repeated with approval in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 675 (1984); Marsh, 463 U.S., at 792; Abington Township, supra, at 213” (Scalia 2005).

That is all well and good for the church as an institution, but what about individual people? Traditionally, without a “compelling interest,” the free exercise of religion by individuals could not be infringed, and the Supreme Court has ruled accordingly in the past.

In, Sherbert v. Verner (1963) the Court held that states must have a "compelling interest" to refuse to accommodate religiously motivated conduct (United States Supreme Court 1963). In this case Adele Sherbert was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, something forbidden by her Seventh-day Adventist faith. The Court ruled that the denial of Sherbert’s unemployment benefits was an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of her religion in a 7-2 decision. This decision resulted in what came to be known as the Sherbert Test. 

The Sherbert Test basically says that, if the government has burdened an individual’s free exercise of religion, it must have done so by confronting that person with a choice which pressures him/her to forego a religious practice by imposing a penalty or withholding a benefit etc. The State, however, may be justified in their infringement of the person’s free exercise if they can show 1) a compelling state interest that justifies the infringement, and 2) no other form of regulation can avoid the infringement and still achieve the State’s ends. The Sherbert Test has been limited and modified in recent years but is still applicable in federal statutes and certain other circumstances (Sherbert v. Verner 2015). 

Since the founding of the country, the Court has understood the free exercise of religion – like the other rights protected in the Bill of Rights – to apply to individuals. People, as individuals, do not simply have a “freedom of worship” in the cloister of their religious buildings or homes. Individuals have the right under the US Constitution to bring their religious beliefs with them into the public square as they live out their everyday lives. As Christians, however, we must be prepared to live according to our consciences even if our government ceases to protect that right, and be joyful to be counted worthy to suffer in the name of Jesus.

Works Cited

"Everson v. Board of Education." Wikipedia. January 30, 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education (accessed August 14, 2015).

Harkness, Kelsey. "US Immigration Exam Replaces 'Freedom of Religion' With 'Freedom of Worship'."

The Daily Signal. April 30, 2015. http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/30/republican-senator-questions-why-immigration-exam-calls-freedom-of-religion-freedom-of-worship/ (accessed August 14, 2015).

Howerton, Jason. "DNC Chair Says This 'Important Distinction' Needs to Be Drawn When It Comes to Religious Freedom." The Blaze. July 8, 2015. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/08/dnc-chair-says-this-important-distinction-needs-to-be-drawn-when-it-comes-to-religious-freedom/ (accessed August 14, 2015).

Jefferson, Thomas. "Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists." The Heritage Foundation. January 1, 1802. http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/jefferson-s-letter-to-the-danbury-baptists (accessed August 14, 2015).

"Lemon v. Kurtzman." Wikipedia. July 31, 2015. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_89 (accessed August 14, 2015).

Scalia, Justice Antonin. "MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY. (03-1693) 545 U.S. 844 (2005) ." Cornell University Law School. June 27, 2005. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1693.ZD.html (accessed August 14, 2015).

"Sherbert v. Verner." Wikipedia. August 6, 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbert_v._Verner (accessed August 14, 2015).

Supreme Court of the United States. "Everson v. Board of Education." Oyez. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1946/1946_52/ (accessed August 14, 2015).

The Heritage Foundation. "Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists." The Heritage Foundation. http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/jefferson-s-letter-to-the-danbury-baptists (accessed August 2015, 2015).

The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. "Lynch v. Donnelly." Oyez. August 9, 2015. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_1256#chicago (accessed August 14, 2015).

United States Supreme Court. "Sherbert v. Werner." FindLaw. June 17, 1963. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/374/398.html (accessed August 14, 2015).

End Notes

[1] Supreme Court of the United States. “Everson v. Board of Education.” Oyez. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1946/1946_52/ (accessed August 14, 2015).

[2] Supreme Court of the United States. “Lemon v. Kurtzman.” Oyez. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_89

[3] “The city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, annually erected a Christmas display located in the city's shopping district. The display included such objects as a Santa Claus house, a Christmas tree, a banner reading ‘Seasons Greetings,’ and a nativity scene. The creche had been included in the display for over 40 years. Daniel Donnelly objected to the display and took action against Dennis Lynch, the Mayor of Pawtucket…In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that notwithstanding the religious significance of the creche, the city had not violated the Establishment Clause. The Court found that the display, viewed in the context of the holiday season, was not a purposeful or surreptitious effort to advocate a particular religious message. The Court found that the display merely depicted the historical origins of the Holiday and had ‘legitimate secular purposes.’ The Court held that the symbols posed no danger of establishing a state church and that it was ‘far too late in the day to impose a crabbed reading of the [Establishment] Clause on the country’" (The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law 2015).

Losing Faith and Falling Away

This is kind of an addendum to “Three Examples of How Lutherans Deny Justification by Faith Alone: A Response, Part Two of Two.” Here are a couple other verses I thought were good examples of how 1) conversion is entirely God’s work, 2) faith comes to us a gift from God through the Word, and 3) that faith can be lost by a person’s rejection. - THL

The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter [whether it was necessary for Gentile believers to keep the Law of Moses]. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (Acts 15:6-11).

What do we learn from Peter’s address to the council? First, faith is created by means of the Gospel (v. 7). Second, the Holy Spirit is, “given by God,” working when and where He will, not according to the will of man (v. 8). Third, Peter says that God cleansed the hearts of the Gentile believers by faith, showing that faith is a gift from God (v. 9), rather than through works of the law (or by any other work, including “deciding” to believe by reason), which is impossible to achieve (v. 10). Fourth, this faith is given out of his unmerited good disposition toward those on whom he bestows this gift – i.e. out of his grace – and everyone who is saved, is being saved this way (v. 11). Whew!

And you [the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae], who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister (Colossians 1:21-23).

This one is pretty self-explanatory. Paul is writing to believers at Colossae. He tells these people, whom he counts as believers, that they have been reconciled in Christ’s body of flesh by his death, “…if indeed [they] continue in the faith…” He continues on, warning them not to shift from the hope of the gospel of which he was a minister, because if they shift from that hope, if they do not remain stable and steadfast in that hope, they will no longer be reconciled. They will go back to being alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds. They will no longer be able to be presented as holy and blameless and above reproach before Christ because they will have no faith. They will have fallen away. Faith in Christ must continue, just as it began – by hearing the Gospel[1].

[1] Engelbrecht, Rev. Edward A., ed. The Lutheran Study Bible. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2009. 

Timothy Joins Paul and Silas: A Comment on Acts 16:1-5

St. Paul, and his big knife.

Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem. So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily (Acts 16:1-5). 

Ok, so we just finished reading in Acts 15 about how the Jerusalem Council came to the conclusion that it was not necessary for Gentiles to obey the Mosaic Law and be circumcised to be Christians. What is the very next thing that we read about Paul? He circumcises Timothy, “because of the Jews who were in those places.” How is this different from what Paul describes Peter doing in Galatians, when he stops eating with the Gentiles because of the Judaizers[1]? And, why does Titus get a pass[2]? If I were Timothy, I might be a little perplexed – not to mention slightly upset – with Paul at this point. Perhaps this is the reason Paul is often depicted holding big knife… 

Evidently, the Jews whom Luke mentions in Acts 16 are different from the Judaizers Paul writes about in Galatians. Luther writes: 

When [Paul] encountered the stubborn Jews who insisted upon circumcision and the law, he took delight in teaching and doing the every opposite; he would not be coerced. But when he came to the weak and simple people he even practiced circumcision and let the law stand, until such time as he might strengthen them and deliver them from the law (Luther and Lehmann 1959)[3]. 

When a work, such as circumcision, is commanded by anyone to be performed as a requirement for salvation, it must be resisted, which was the case with Paul and Titus in Galatians 2. As a matter of Christian freedom, however, it (circumcision, or any other work) may be practiced in ways which are beneficial to the faith, as Paul does in this case, so as to facilitate his outreach to the Jewish community[4]. 

End Notes

[1] Galatians 2:11-14 

[2] Galatians 2:3 

[3] Luther, Martin, and Helmut T Lehmann. Luther's Works. Vol. 36. Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1959. 

[4] Engelbrecht, Rev. Edward A., ed. The Lutheran Study Bible. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2009.

St. Stephen - Martyr

When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul. While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep (Acts 7:54-60).

I never particularly understood why St. Stephen’s day was the day after Christmas. Superficially, it seems like there must have been some leftover saints and a need to celebrate their “days” by the end of the year, sort of like getting a last minute tax deductible expenditure in before the new year. I’m sure that’s not how this happened, and there is some perfectly logical explanation of why these saints are remembered on these particular days. I have, however, neither the time nor the inclination to do the research. I am still fat and lethargic with Christmas ham.

Directly after celebrating the Savior’s birth on December 25, we celebrate the martyrdom of St. Stephen (Dec. 26), St. John the Apostle (Dec. 27), and the slaughter of the Holy Innocents (Dec. 28). December 29 is the feast day of St. Thomas Beckett, who was assassinated on the steps of Canterbury Cathedral in 1170. Saint Anysia of Salonika, a martyr of the 4th century, is remembered on December 30. Anysia’s delightful story begins with her birth to a wealthy and pious Christian family in Salonika (modern day Thessaloniki). The legend of her martyrdom states that in 304 AD, a Roman soldier apprehended her as she was on her way to services. Discovering she was a Christian, he beat her, and intended to drag her to a pagan temple to sacrifice to Roman gods. When he tore off her veil (a reminder of her vow of chastity), she spit in his face, and he murdered her. Rounding out the year we have St. Sylvester on December 31. St. Sylvester was a pope whose claim to fame is being mentioned in the forged Donation of Constantine, according to which Pope Sylvester was offered the imperial Roman crown by a grateful, newly converted Emperor Constantine, which he refused. Sylvester is credited with lots of other actual good things, which you can read about here.

I like celebrating St. Stephen in such close proximity to the birth of Our Lord Jesus though. He reminds us what the point of Jesus’ birth was, and just how hostile an unbelieving world is to the message of the Gospel. When he is taken into custody and brought before the Sanhedrin, he wastes no time arguing with his captors, or pleading for mercy. St. Stephen, when given the opportunity to speak, preaches Law and Gospel, using the condensed story of God’s salvation history given in Holy Scripture. To the stiff-necked, unrepentant people about to murder him, St. Stephen preaches law:

“You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? The even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him – you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it” (Acts 7:51-53).

This sermon is reminiscent of St. Peter’s address to the crowd on Pentecost. Both men are addressing Jews who have received God’s Law, but are not believers in Christ. Why does St. Peter’s sermon turn out so much differently than St. Stephen’s? Was he a better preacher? Perhaps he was able to relate to the crowd better by meeting them where they were at and not speaking in terms of antiquated doctrine or outdated worship styles. Maybe he wore hipster glasses.

What the story of St. Stephen’s martyrdom illustrates when compared with St. Peter’s Pentecost sermon is the difference between repentance and faith, and sin and unbelief. It shows us that God is responsible for saving us though the gift of faith given through the means of his word, and we are responsible for our damnation by rejecting that gift and resisting the Holy Spirit. Faith comes to us as a gift, through the means of God’s word and sacraments. Unbelief comes from us. God’s Holy Spirit works when and where he will through those means. Man’s sinful mind is hostile to God. Perishing and being dead in transgression, the message of the cross is foolishness to men. Natural man does not, and cannot, submit to God’s Law.

This should take a lot of weight off of us Christians. It is not up to us to convert people. That is God’s job. He does that though the preached word, through the waters of Baptism, and in Christ’s body and blood given to us to eat and to drink in the Lord’s Supper. God will use his means of grace to accomplish his purposes. Therefore, we can be bold like St. Stephen and simply proclaim Law and Gospel, without worrying whether or not we have packaged it effectively.

We celebrate the Christ child’s birth looking forward to his death for our sin on the cross, and his glorious resurrection. Knowing this we can, with the same faith that St. Stephen had, preach repentance and the forgiveness of sins in the name of Jesus to a fallen, sinful, and hostile world, and God will, by the power of the Holy Spirit, save sinners.

Jesus at the Feast of Booths - II

Not until halfway through the Feast did Jesus go up to the temple courts and begin to teach. The Jews were amazed and asked, "How did this man get such learning without having studied?" (John 7:14-15).

It's difficult enough these days to get a job when you have all your ducks in a row. It's nearly impossible to do so without the proper credentials. For the vast majority of high school students that involves some sort of college education. College, of course, isn't right for everyone. Some people go to technical schools to receive practical hands-on training in their chosen field. Still others, such as policemen, may not be required to have a college education by their employer. They are sent to a police academy, where they are taught the skills and learn the information vital to a successful career of doughnut-eating and vindictive ticket-writing.

The thing these examples have in common is that, before one can begin a job, one is required to demonstrate proficiency. Imagine a "doctor" practicing without a medical degree, or a lawyer practicing without having passed the bar. Today we demonstrate our proficiency through some sort of license, degree, or certification. When the patient sees the diploma on the wall of their physicians office, they understand that it represents the many years of hard work, study, and practice (not to mention money) that the doctor spent learning and honing his craft. When the citizen sees the badge on the breast of the policeman, he can reasonably trust that the officer's job proficiency, as well as his authority, are derived from more than simply watching reruns of T.J. Hooker.

Jesus, however, had no credentials. He had no "degree", and this was a serious affront to "the Jews", the religious leaders made up of the scribes, the Pharisees, and the teachers of the Law. There may not have been a system of accredited seminaries in first century Judea like we have today in the United States, but there certainly was a system. Jesus, however, had not been a part of that system and for him to teach as he did was scandalous.

It wasn't, however, only that Jesus was teaching without being properly certified. When the Jews taught, they carefully cited previous teachers and scholars of the Law. They all sought to cite their teachings in order to show that they were correct (by two or three witnesses shall testimony be established, after all) and that they had credibility. Jesus taught, as Scripture says, as one who had authority. In other words, Jesus taught the people, not by showing what those rabbis who came before him said about the Law. He taught as the one who wrote and implemented the Law. This attitude was not lost on the people and the Jews. The Bible tells us that the people marveled and openly wondered what kind of statement Jesus was trying to make:

The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law...The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, “What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to impure spirits and they obey him,” (Mark 1:22, 27).

This also included the religious leaders:

Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you this authority?” Jesus replied, “I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John’s baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or of human origin?” They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn't you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin’—we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet.” So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.” Then he said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things (Matthew 21:23-27).

The Jews, however, really understood that Jesus was claiming deity for himself, and that's why they plotted to kill him. Jesus could, of course, teach in this way because he is the Messiah, the divine Son of God and second person of the Trinity. He is, as Scripture calls him, the author of life, the one through whom creation came into being, the one who was the very image of God the Father.

Jesus demonstrated this authority by what he did in addition to what he said and the manner in which he taught:

Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” Then the man got up and went home (Matthew 9:5-7).

He restored sight to the blind, opened the ears of the deaf, loosed the tongues of the dumb, raised the dead, and ultimately, rose from the dead himself. The Jews saw all these things but refused to see them for the signs they were. These things were the credentials, so to speak, that holy scripture said would accompany the Messiah. The Jews, however, demanded that Jesus "tell them plainly" who he claimed to be, and asked for a sign to prove his claims. Having ears, they did not hear; having eyes they did not see.

“ [Peter said] Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day (Acts 2:37-41).

So, with this picture of Jesus presented to us, we are in the same situation as the Jews to whom St. Peter preached. When we give in to our sinful nature, gratifying it's desires and falling into sin, we are just as guilty as those who sought to put Jesus to death. The devil, the world, and our own sinful nature mislead us into false belief, despair and other sin. When we, however, repent of our sin, God, who is faithful and just, forgives our sin and cleanses us from all unrighteousness. We can rest in the assurance of Jesus' authority as God to forgive our sin, and we can live with the sure and certain hope that, even though we may suffer many things on this earth - including physical death - Jesus will, on the Last Day, raise all the dead, and give eternal life to all believers in Christ. Until that time, we strive to live in accordance with the new nature we have received by the Spirit:

So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law (Galatians 5:16-18).