All For Christ - What is the World to Me?

Thursday after Trinity 11 

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. For me to write the same things to you is not tedious, but for you it is safe. Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation! For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead (Philippians 3:1-11). 

Rejoice in the Lord, not in the flesh. Paul gives the people who receive his letters this message again, and again. It is a message Jesus gave: For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?[1] We are to take up our cross and follow Jesus. He calls us to deny ourselves. And, He says that whoever desires to save his life, this life he lives here and now in the flesh, will lose it. He will lose real life. He will lose Jesus, who is the resurrection and the life, as he tries to hold on to the things of this world, which is in decay and passing away.

Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation. The people to whom Paul is referring here are sometimes called the circumcision party, or the Judaizers. They were the ones sowing dissension in the ranks; they were teaching false doctrine. They were teaching men to trust in their own works, literally in the cutting of their flesh in circumcision. They taught that you had to keep the Law and be circumcised to be a Christian, and that Paul was a false teacher. 

But Paul calls these men, these evil workers and the act they propagate, “the mutilation.” The circumcision they advocate is not the true circumcision. It is a kind of destruction. Not simply physically, by removing a bit of flesh from the body; It destroys Christians by removing faith in Christ: 

Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.[2]

It is a work of man designed to please God by keeping the Law. But the Law has been fulfilled by Christ. And the covenant sign of circumcision, which God gave to Abraham, is obsolete. It is a shadow of the true sign that marks you as one of God’s people: Baptism, the circumcision of Christ, which He performs on your heart. Paul says that we, those who have been baptized into Christ for the forgiveness of sins, are the true circumcision: 

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.[3]

We were dead in our trespasses. We were dead in the uncircumcision of our flesh. Jesus made us alive in Him. He has circumcised us with the true circumcision – the circumcision not made with hands, but with water and the Word, the circumcision of Christ – in our baptism. He has taken, as Paul writes to the Colossians, “…the hand-writing of requirements that was against us,” and nailed it to the cross. Jesus, who had no sin, became sin for us. Because we have been circumcised with the circumcision of Christ in our baptism, His death on the cross as the sacrifice for sin is also ours. We died in Jesus through our baptism. Through that same baptism, Jesus’ resurrection from the dead also belongs to us. We have risen from the dead already, in Him. And even though this body will die and be buried, we will not die. We are immortal. We are baptized into Christ. We have put on Christ. Our bodies will die and be buried, if Jesus should delay his coming, like a seed in the ground, but we will be with Christ. He is our body. And one day He will return to judge the living and the dead. And, in the twinkling of an eye, the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised, sprouting forth from the earth, only now incorruptible and utterly changed, with immortal bodies like Jesus’ immortal body. In that way, this corruptible will put on incorruption, and this mortal will put on immortality; Death will finally be swallowed up in victory, once and for all. Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Looking at our situation in that way, you can see how Paul is able to say that the things he formerly counted as gain – his fleshly circumcision, his blood connection to the nation of Israel, his zeal in working to please God and keep the Law – he now counts as loss, for the sake of Christ. These things are ultimately worthless. What Paul has gained by the grace of God through faith in Christ is priceless: the forgiveness of sins, life everlasting, membership in the true Israel of God, adoption as a son of Abraham by faith.

We have received the same gracious gifts. In comparison with such a treasure, what is a little suffering in this present age? In comparison to life with Christ in a remade world, one without sin and death, with a perfect, immortal body, living in perfect relationship to the Almighty Creator of the universe, what is it to endure a little scorn, a little ridicule, some persecution. These things are not pleasant, but they cannot separate us from the love of God in Christ.[4] Even death, our bitter enemy, need no longer be feared, though the devil and his angels do their best convince us otherwise. We have something more precious. We have eternal life in Christ. What is this world to me?

The world is sorely grieved

Whenever it is slighted

Or when its hollow fame

And honor have been blighted.

Christ, Thy reproach I bear

Long as it pleaseth Thee;

I'm honored by my Lord,-

What is the world to me![5]

The world with wanton pride 

Exalts it’s sinful pleasures 

And for them foolishly 

Gives up the heavenly treasures. 

Let others love the world 

With all its vanity; 

I love the Lord, my God – 

What is the world to me![6]

---

[1] Mark 8:36 

[2] Galatians 5:2-4 

[3] Colossians 2:11-12 

[4] Romans 8:38-39 

[5] Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America. The Lutheran Hymnal. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1941. Hymn 430, “What is the World to Me?” stanza 5. 

[6] ibid. TLH 430, stanza 6.

Pressing on Toward the Goal

Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you. Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind (Philippians 3:12-16).

A person could look at what Paul has written here and take it as an admonition to earn one’s justification by works. This passage must certainly be classified with those others that Peter had in mind when he said of Paul’s letters that Paul had written some things that were hard to understand.[1] Paul is not writing to the Philippians about earning their salvation, however. He is talking to them about sanctification.

Sanctification is the special work of the Holy Spirit, by which He brings men to penitent faith in Christ through the means of Word and Sacrament, and directs and empowers those believers to lead a godly life.[2] In baptism, we have put on Christ.[3] Our sins have been washed away by the washing of regeneration through water and the word.[4] We have been born again, from above.[5] This means that what Christ has promised us, the forgiveness of our sins and eternal life, is ours already. It belongs to us right now. We cannot, however, fully enjoy it. Kretzmann writes: Christ is his [the believer’s], in all the fullness of His grace and mercy, and he is an heir of salvation but it’s completion, it’s consummation is not yet in his possession. That perfection, when he shall put off all the weaknesses of the flesh… will be attained in heaven, when the actual blessings of salvation will be enjoyed without any outside interference.[6]

Paul writes of this outside interference elsewhere, most notably in his letter to the Romans: I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.[7] The outside interference with which we must now struggle will be done away with in heaven, in the eternal state after the resurrection, when believers in Christ, raised to life with glorified and imperishable bodies will live in the new creation, and serve Christ forever in righteousness, innocence, and blessedness.

This resurrection is our hope. It is what Christ has won for us by His death and resurrection. It is what He pledges to us when we eat His body and drink His blood as he tells us to do. Therefore, we should not let sin reign in our mortal bodies, that we should obey it in it’s lusts.[8] We should not gratify the desires of the flesh;[9] we should not use our freedom in Christ as a chance to sin, but to cultivate the fruits of the Spirit and to do good works.[10] It is important, however, that we pay attention to the order of things: first conversion, by the grace of God through faith in Christ, then good works, as we are sanctified, proceeding naturally out of our new nature as good fruit grows from a good tree.

So, Paul encourages us to strain towards our goal, the resurrection and the life everlasting. But we aren’t working toward this goal as though it is something uncertain. This straining is more of an eager anticipation of an outcome that is certain. It is our present possession, just as we are united to Christ in our baptism. Kretzmann writes: His [Paul’s] one thought is to reach the end, the fulfillment, the victory, and that as quickly as possible… with a strange of every fiber of his body, therefore, he looks forward, because his goal is a prize and a premium, a precious and beautiful gift, far above all human understanding.[11]

---

[1] 2 Peter 3:14-16

[2] Luther, Martin. 2005. Luthers Small Catechism with Explanation. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. Number 156, pp. 149-150: What is the special work of the Holy Spirit?

[3] Galatians 3:27

[4] Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5; Ephesians 5:25-28

[5] John 3:3-8

[6] Kretzmann, Paul E. 1922. Popular Commentary of the Bible: New Testament. Vol. 2. 2 vols. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.

[7] Romans 7:21-23

[8] Romans 6:12

[9] Galatians 5:16

[10] Galatians 5:22-23

[11] Kretzmann, Paul E. 1922. Popular Commentary of the Bible: New Testament. Vol. 2. 2 vols. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.

Addressing the Areopagus

Areopagus Sermon, by Rafael, 1515.

Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, “We will hear you again on this matter” (Acts 17:29-32).

Read Acts 17:16-34 here.

Paul demonstrates here what he means when he writes to the Corinthians that the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. Paul spends his time in Athens talking to the philosophers and thinkers, preaching the death and resurrection of Jesus. God works through His preached word. He wants all men to be savers and to come to the knowledge of the truth. So, He brings the means of grace to the people of Athens through Paul.

The Areopagus today.

The Athens in which Paul was preaching looks a lot like the society and culture in which we live today. We may not speak Greek or wear togas, but those types of things are only superficial. Paul looked around at Athens and saw a city filled with idolatry. We too are indeed very religious. We don’t worship statues of the gods of Olympus, but we are the same type of idolaters as the ancient Athenians nevertheless. We, like them, and like all of mankind since the Fall don’t fear, love, and trust in God above all things. We are curved inward on ourselves. We have made ourselves our god, the object of our worship. The Greeks carved images out of stone to represent their gods, but they all suspiciously had the characteristics of men. Those gods were proud, they were jealous, they were vain and capricious. They blessed you when you pleased them, and they punished you when you offended them, generally speaking. They understood quid pro quo.

Today, we may not have giant statues of Zeus in the center of our towns, but we don’t need them. We do just fine worshipping ourselves without the formal paganism. The worship of self is characterized by man feeling some vague need for redemption, and trying to assuage that feeling by some outward act or work. We spend our days sacrificing to the idol of self our time, our talent, and our treasure, to borrow the language of Christian stewardship. We don’t sacrifice animals to the gods, but we do sacrifice just about everything else to try and please the god of ourselves.

Paul’s preaching of the law, however, shows us what is really important. God, the true God, is not far from us. We are so curved inward on ourselves that we can’t see Him. And, as Paul said, “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” Some mocked Paul, when they earn him speak of the resurrection of the dead, just as they do today. Their sinful minds remain hostile to God; they cannot understand the spiritual things because they are stiff-necked, and always resist the working of the Holy Spirit.

But Christ comes to us in His Word and Sacraments. Through His word, He works repentance for our sins and faith in His promise of redemption in us. Through faith in Christ, He makes us sons of God and heirs of the promise. Through baptism, the washing of regeneration through water and the word, Christ clothes us with Himself and joins us to His death and resurrection. Let us be among those who, upon hearing the Gospel, wanted to hear more, who joined Paul, who believed, and who grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Paul Ministering in Corinth

Now the Lord spoke to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid, but speak, and do not keep silent; for I am with you, and no one will attack you to hurt you; for I have many people in this city” (Acts 18:9-10).

Paul preaches Christ in Thessalonica. His opponents gather a mob and set the city in an uproar. They attack the house of a man named Jason, where Paul was staying. At the end of the affair it is Jason, Paul, and the other brethren who are arrested and must post bond. Paul preaches Christ in Berea. The reception is a little better there; but when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was preached by Paul in Berea, they came there also and stirred up the crowds. Paul preaches Christ in Athens. He wasn’t physically attacked by an angry mob but, when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, some were converted, and some said they wanted to hear more. Paul departed from among them.

In Corinth, the scene appears set to play out as it did in the other places. Paul preaches Christ in Corinth. He was compelled by the Spirit to do so, Scripture says, and he 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.” This time, however, the risen Jesus tells Paul not to be afraid. He should keep speaking, “...for I am with you, and no one will attack or hurt you; for I have many people in this city.” And Paul does, for a year and a half. And the Jews bring Paul to the judgment seat of proconsul Gallio. They hope Gallio will assume Paul is advocating illegal religion and acting treasonously by telling people to pledge their allegiance to a king other than Caesar. They charge Paul with persuading men to worship God contrary to the law. Gallio wants no part of this religious dispute. He tells them to handle it amongst themselves and clears the court. Paul is saved; the one who takes the beating is Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue. The church steadily grows and becomes more firmly established through the bold proclamation of Christ crucified for our sins and risen from the dead; God the Holy Spirit, working as He wills, makes Christians in the face of ferocious opposition through His means of the external word of God.

Paul wasn’t surprised or disheartened when he was mocked, beaten, stoned, and imprisoned for preaching the Gospel. Scripture tells us he was compelled to preach by the Holy Spirit. He knew what the reaction would be. We also should know what the reaction of the pagan world will be to us as well. Jesus, the Word made flesh, came to His own and His own did not receive Him. Jesus taught His disciples that He was sending them out as sheep among wolves; that they would be delivered up to councils; that they would be scourged; that they would be brought before kings and governors for His sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. Jesus’ disciples, we included, will be hated by all for His name’s sake; but he who endures to the end will be saved.[1] The world hates us because it hated Jesus before us, and no student is above his master. They hate us because of the message we proclaim: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day; that by His atoning sacrifice, Jesus purchased and won me from all sin, from death, and from the power of the devil, not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood, and by His innocent suffering and death. This message is foolishness to those who are perishing. The carnal mind cannot understand spiritual things.

Being dead in our transgression, we must be made alive by the working of God, through water and the Word. Being dead we must be born from above by water and the spirit. And even though the world may mock us, reject us, and even react violently toward us, we continue to bring them the Gospel, the message of the cross. It isn’t through the elegant turning of a phrase that God makes Christians out of non-Christians, as we see from Paul’s example; Christians are made through the preaching of the Gospel. We must not be afraid to boldly proclaim that Gospel to those around us, according to our vocation. It is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.[2]

---

[1] Matthew 10:16-26

[2] Romans 1:16

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.

Personhood

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. http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/politics/rand-paul-abortion-democrats/ (accessed April 17, 2015).

Delp, Valorie. "Empryonic Stage of Fetal Development." Love To Know. http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Embryo_Fetal_Development. (accessed April 17, 2015).

"Luther at the Imperial Diet of Worms 1521." A Mighty Fortress is Our God: Martin Luther. March 3, 2003. http://www.luther.de/en/worms.html (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. http://bookofconcord.org/creeds.php (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).

More People Who Have Issues...

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed (1 Corinthians 15: 1-11).

Dr. Reza Aslan, The author of the New York Times best seller, "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" was the subject of a "straight from the horse's mouth" interview on Issues ETC the other day (you can listen to the interview HERE). What that means, is that the host, Rev. Todd Wilken, asks his guest probing questions so that they can clearly and concisely lay out their ideas for the listener. These interviews are often painful for the confessional listener, as Rev. Wilken often does not dispute the obvious points of contention with Christian theology in the guest's answers, but they do provide a valuable service. These types of interviews allow Christians to hear just what their detractors in the media and academia, in their own words and in no uncertain terms, think of them.

People see a book like "Zealot" on the shelf and think that it's something it's not. They see a picture of Jesus, a NYT bestseller sticker, and a PhD's name on the cover and think this is some new scholarship regarding Jesus, or the Bible, or Christian theology. What they get instead is 200 year old liberal theology that has one heck of an axe to grind against all of those things.

The Higher criticism method of biblical interpretation, also called Historical Criticism, was a development of liberal theologians over the past 200 years or so, and examines scriptural writings like witnesses in a court of law. It developed out of the the Tübingen School in Germany and can claim Friedrich Schleiermacher, the "father of liberal theology" as a foundation-layer. Scripture, using this method, must be “interrogated” and evaluated primarily according to human reason. Therefore, anything supernatural - such as Jesus rising from the dead - must be discounted, because the dead do not rise. Following this method, scripture is treated as any other human writings, subject to human failings. Higher criticism gives the individual interpreter, not Holy Scripture, ultimate authority and is incompatible with the “Sola Scriptura” principle of Lutheranism.

During the interview Dr. Aslan made three basic points: 1) the ancient mind did not have the same conception of history as the modern mind, 2) the Gospel writers (whoever they really were) intended to convey "truth", not "fact", and 3) the gospels were written long after the life and death of Jesus and are unreliable as historical documents.

That sounds quite scholarly and groundbreaking on the face of it, but it's really the same thing that the disciples of the Higher Criticism method off biblical interpretation have been saying for 200 years. Basically, they're trying to get people to believe that 1) the early Christians didn't care about the facts of the events they experienced, only their "beliefs", 2) they lied about what they wrote, and 3) the gospels weren't written by their purported authors, but developed as mythology written, not by individuals, but by communities of Christian believers well after the fact.

For example, Dr. Aslan claimed as undisputed fact the late date of the gospels. He stated during the interview that Mark's gospel was written in the 90's AD "for a fact". To the contrary, serious biblical scholars don't even consider a date later than the 70's AD for Mark. D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris in their work, "An Introduction to the New Testament", believe that the bulk of the evidence put Mark in the late 50's to middle 60's.

Mark, then is to be dated either in the late fifties or the middle sixties. While the latter is the majority view, we favor the late fifties. Indeed, we are required to date Mark before A.D. 60 if our assumptions about the ending of Acts and the priority of Mark are valid...Dating Mark in the fifties does go against the earliest traditions about Mark having been written after the death of Peter. But other traditions affirm that Mark wrote while Peter was still alive, so the early evidence is by no means unanimous on the subject (Carson, et. al., 1992).

And what of the gospels authorship? The gospel of Mark is anonymous, as are the others. The title was probably added later, certainly by the second century, to distinguish it from the others. Early church fathers such as Papias wrote that Mark was Peter's interpreter, and got the majority of his information from him.

Mark's connection with the second gospel is asserted or assumed by many early Christian writers. Perhaps the earliest (and certainly the most important) of the testimonies is that of Papias, who was bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia of Asia Minor until about A.D. 130. His statement about the second gospel is recorded in Eusebius's History of the Church (Historia Ecclesiastica), written in 325...Those who are skeptical of the reliability of Papias conclude that the author of the gospel is unknown. Yet, as we have seen, there is nothing in the New Testament that is inconsistent with Papias's claim that Mark wrote the second gospel. And since we have no indication that anyone in the early church contested Papias's claim, we see no reason not to accept it (Carson, et. al., 1992).

To the Higher Critics, however, none of this information matters. The testimony of the early church fathers doesn't matter. The actual historical context and content of the gospels doesn't matter. The actual words written on the page do not matter. None of these things matter because, to the Higher Critics, the gospel writers lied about what they wrote. Supernatural things are impossible and, therefore, discounted as mere mythological elements to express and explain the spiritual "truth" that the gospel writers were trying to convey. They did this, the author contends, because the Apostles had to invent a new interpretation of what the Jewish Messiah was so that they didn't look like fools. After all, their leader Jesus failed in his attempt to establish an independent kingdom of Israel, just like all the other zealots before him.

This is a far cry from the method of interpretation used by those who respect Holy Scripture as the revealed word of God. Using the Historical-Grammatical method of biblical interpretation an interpreter seeks the native, literal, or intended sense of the text, derives the meaning from the text and allows Scripture to interpret itself. In order to discern God’s intended meaning, the Scriptures must be read as historical, literary documents. This method of interpretation seeks the meaning of scripture in the text itself, not from some special revelation or extra-biblical source. The interpreter must also recognize that the Holy Scripture is the written word of God – not a primarily human witness to revelation, and thus not subject to human failings. In the historical –grammatical approach, the interpreter must always remember that scripture, like our Lord, has two natures – the human and the divine – and has them equally and fully.

The thing is, if supernatural things are impossible, if the gospel writers - for whatever purpose - lied, if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, I'm not really interested in what the gospels have to say, or who the "historical" Jesus is. St. Paul felt the same way:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).

We could argue with men like Dr. Reza Aslan all day, and none of it would make any difference because, as he admitted in the interview, Dr. Aslan is not a Christian and does not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate. That's fine. As Christians all we can do is be patient, endure evil, and correct our opponents with gentleness so that, as St. Paul writes to Timothy, "God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will" (2Timothy 2:24-26).

The Gospels, however, are not simply some collection of mystical writings which have no real relationship to history. They do not convey some vague spiritual "truth" at the expense of historical fact. They have been demonstrated, time and again to be reliable.

I am not a great theologian or biblical scholar, though I am interested in and do study such things with great eagerness (Incidentally, if you'd like to hear a world class apologist and theologian, Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, respond to Dr. Aslan's interview, you can listen HERE.). There have been many men, more eloquent and better educated than I, who have written to explain, from a scholarly point of view, why we can have confidence in the historical accuracy and overall reliability of both the Old and New Testaments. I could not begin to do those men justice by trying to encapsulate their ideas here. I trust what they say about the number of New Testament manuscripts available to compare for accuracy (over 5,000 to date). I believe their theories, based on scholarly research and evidence, that the Gospels were not written by "communities" of Christians who were trying to justify their faith in a failed zealot, but are reliable historical accounts of what Jesus did and said, as St. Luke claims in his own writings. I accept their evidence showing that, rather than developing over the period of 70 or more years after Jesus crucification, the belief in Jesus' resurrection was proclaimed from the beginning of Christianity, from the time his disciples found the empty tomb. If someone wants to hear the scholars speak on these, and other important issues, the volumes are widely, and inexpensively, available (I would recommend, "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel as a starting place for those who wish to introduce themselves into this kind of scholarship).

No, I am moved by the words of St. Paul quoted previously, "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins." In his letter to the Corinthians St. Paul talks about the things which he and his fellow believers had seen and heard. They claimed to be witnesses of the resurrected Christ. Paul wrote his letters while those who knew and interacted with Jesus were still alive, as he himself testifies. Certainly, if he had been making up the gospel of Christ crucified and risen from the dead as the atoning sacrifice for mankind's sin out of whole cloth, someone who knew the real truth would have opposed him. Someone would have pointed the finger at the fledgling group of Christians for changing their story. No one did. Paul, a die-hard opponent of Christianity bent on murdering it's adherents turned Apostle "untimely born", was opposed by the Jews for teaching contrary to the teachings of the the rabbis and Judaism by proclaiming Christ as Messiah, and atoning sacrifice for sin.

There is no logical explanation for the mass conversion of 3,000 people in Jerusalem on Pentecost if what they heard preached was false. There is no logical reason for the apostles who, with the exception of St. John, suffered martyrdom in some of the most horrible ways that could be devised by the depraved human mind, to keep on professing a lie at the cost of their lives, simply to save face. They were crucified, beheaded, shot with arrows, thrown to wild beasts in the arena, burned alive and used as torches along the road. These horrors were sanctioned by the governing authorities and could have been averted by a simple denial of what they confessed. The Apostles, and scores of martyrs after them, were compelled by the Spirit to listen to God rather than men. 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 (according to the legitimate meaning of the word). Christ is risen! He is risen indeed!

Works Cited

Carson, D. A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992. Print.

Engelbrecht, Edward, and Paul E. Deterding. The Lutheran Study Bible: English Standard Version. Saint Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 2009. Print.