I was wrestling with the Gospel reading for this coming Sunday, John 1:43-51, Where Jesus calls Phillip and Nathaniel. These are some of my notes:

Right after Jesus called Andrew and Andrew collected his brother, Simon (Peter), Jesus calls Phillip, and Phillip goes and finds Nathaniel.

With the parallel accounts of the calling of Andrew and Simon and the calling of Phillip and Nathaniel, it is impossible to avoid comparisons.

For instance, Andrew tells his brother, Simon, ‘we have found the Messiah’. Pretty simple. Simon has no lines.  He is brought to Jesus and Jesus renames him ‘Peter’.

On the other hand, Andrew finds Nathaniel and tells him, in an extended, theologically sophisticated way that,

‘We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.’

The ‘we’ probably includes Andrew and Peter who are are from Phillip’s home town, since John  prefaces this conversation between Phillip and Nathan with the information that Phillip, Andrew and Peter were all from the same fishing village of Bethsaida. The ‘we’ could also include Nathaniel and judging by his response to Phillip’s invitation, I would say that it does. Nathaniel was seeking Messiah too.

The way in which Phillip introduces Jesus into the conversation would indicate something about Nathaniel. This is not just a simple fisherman like Peter. Nathaniel is a student of scripture.

Not only does Phillip refer to prophecy, He also mentions Jesus home town (a Galilean town not too far from Bethsaida) and that Jesus is the son of Joseph. This might indicate that Nathaniel was already aware of Jesus, son of Joseph, of Nazareth. Be that as it may, it is obvious that Nathaniel was a man who wrestled with scripture and the promises of God.

‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth?’

Nathaniel says what he thinks; he is about as subtle and nuanced as a hammer. Nazareth was kind of a frontier town – think the HBO show, Deadwood – and the people there had the reputation of being crude, country bumpkins.

‘Come and see’ – another reference to seeing.  You’ve always got to keep on your toes with St. John. This subject of seeing and sight and vision itself in John’s Gospel is too rich to cover in this little post. Suffice it to say that when someone says ‘come and see’ in reference to coming to see Jesus, it might mean a bit more than just meeting the guy and shaking His hand. This can also be read with a deeper meaning: ‘come, that you might see.’

Jesus sees Nathaniel coming.  ‘Look, a true Israelite in whom there is no deceit’. ‘True Israelite’ is probably a reference to Nathaniel being not only a good Jew, but also a student of Torah.

‘…In whom there is no deceit’ — This could refer to a guileless nature or to a certain lack of subtlety. The comment about Nazareth would indicate the later — Nathaniel’s words and opinions are unvarnished. Since Jesus knew the interchange between Philip and Nathan, Jesus observation may have been a funny way of responding to Nathans insult of Jesus’ home town.

Also, Jesus may be saying that this is an Israelite indeed, a true son even of his father, Israel.

Jacob, whom God renamed Israel, was a man characterized by deceit (his name literally means, ‘heal-grabber’). He also wrestled with God, quite literally. I wouldn’t make these connections except for Jesus’ commentary on Jacob’s dream later in the passage. This saying of Jesus could also be a sort of pun; Jesus probably said it in Aramaic and it could have been heard something like, ‘Behold, a son of Israel in whom there is no Jacob.’

‘How do you know me?’ This question from Nathan betrays that Jesus’ comment hit the mark.

‘Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.’

This is the part where I struggle.

First, upon meeting him Jesus knows about Phillip calling Nathaniel. Along with Jesus’ accurate description of Nathaniel’s character, this would be a bit unsettling, I’m sure.

‘When you were under the fig tree’ — This is an expression found in rabbinic literature referring to the study of Torah, so it could be that. In fact, I think it probably is something like this, since fig trees were used as a place for Torah study and even symbolized Torah study:

He who tends the fig tree will eat its fruit”, compares Torah study to a fig tree (Medrash Bamidbar Rabba 12:9). The Medrash asks, why is Torah compared to a fig tree? Because other trees, such as grape vines and date trees, are harvested all at one time. However, a fig tree is harvested over time because its fruit do not ripen all at once. Just as a fig tree is harvested over time, so too Torah is not studied in one or two years, but is studied over time. (http://www.yiaberdeen.com)

Also fig trees symbolize the peace and safety of the Messianic kingdom (Micah 4:4, Zechariah 3:10).

In the Syriac Dictionary, there is a story that Nathaniel’s Mother hid him under a fig tree when Herod slaughtered the innocents in that region in a quest to eliminate the baby Jesus. If that story were true, the reasons for Nathaniel’s outburst of doxology would be obvious, but we don’t find this in the text. Interesting to note, however.

He could have also been located under a fig tree when Phillip came to him, but this would be a bit of a red herring if it were the case and John wouldn’t waste the ink. John always writes things with a purpose — that you may believe (John 20:30), so the fig tree is a critical component to the retelling of events and important whether we understand it fully or not. The definite article ‘the’ in ‘the fig tree’ would probably point, as strange as it seems, to the rabbinic expression for study of scripture rather than an actual fig tree.

Also the construction of the Greek here is telling. Nathanial asks, ‘From where do you know me?’ Jesus answers, ‘… from under the fig tree’.

Nathaniel’s response is dramatic:

‘Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.’

Wow! Even Jesus seems pleasantly surprised by Nathaniel’s response. Like Peter’s confession, Nathan doesn’t speak this but by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus says,

“You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that.” He then added, “Very truly I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

Nathaniel will see greater things for sure. This is certainly pointing to the signs that Nathaniel (possibly St. Bartholomew in the other Gospels) will witness as Jesus’ Disciple.

Then Jesus references Jacob’s dream (Genesis 28:10-17) and puts Himself at the center. For Jews, the Fig Tree also symbolizes the Tree of Life in the Garden. It is also a ladder of sorts (Zacchaeus, the diminutive tax collector, even used it to see Jesus in Luke 19:1-10). Rabbi’s talk about climbing it to pray and the value, rather, of staying below its branches for that purpose.

A fig tree is a great tree for climbing (no one should dispute), especially since you sometimes get a reward of fruit for your effort. So, Jesus bringing up a dream about a ladder with angels ascending and descending (on the Ladder or on Jacob is debated. The Hebrew allows for either. Jewish Midrash apparently points to it being on Jacob). What I’m saying is that the Fig Tree and studying underneath it makes for a great backdrop for Jesus cryptic comments. On top of that, Jesus is always talking about heavenly realities in John’s Gospel and the people interacting with Him are always thinking in earthly terms (see John 5:39).

Nathaniel was ‘under the fig tree’ studying Torah. The fig tree, according to these connections would symbolize Jacob’s Ladder and, consequently, Jesus himself.  The story of Jacob’s dream about the  ladder, the Sulam symbolized the giving of Torah, among other things. Jesus, in so many words, is telling Nathaniel that he is Torah. Jesus is Torah in the flesh and the fulfillment of Torah.  Nathaniel would eventually see this greater revelation.

______________________________

Endnote: The title Jesus applies to himself, Son of Man, is also a very important title and deserves a treatment. I’m not going to give it here. Perhaps in a later post.

Here is one of my favorite poems.  As an experiment, I would suggest reading this aloud to yourself. Doing it may surprise you, especially if you just, ‘never got poetry.’

My favorite is the eighth stanza; reminds me of Dr. Rosenbladt’s house.

The Wise Men
By G.K. Chesterton

Step softly, under snow or rain,
To find the place where men can pray;
The way is all so very plain
That we may lose the way.

Oh, we have learnt to peer and pore
On tortured puzzles from our youth,
We know all labyrinthine lore,
We are the three wise men of yore,
And we know all things but the truth.

We have gone round and round the hill
And lost the wood among the trees,
And learnt long names for every ill,
And served the mad gods, naming still
The furies the Eumenides.

The gods of violence took the veil
Of vision and philosophy,
The Serpent that brought all men bale,
He bites his own accursed tail,
And calls himself Eternity.

Go humbly…it has hailed and snowed…
With voices low and lanterns lit;
So very simple is the road,
That we may stray from it.

The world grows terrible and white,
And blinding white the breaking day;
We walk bewildered in the light,
For something is too large for sight,
And something much too plain to say.

The Child that was ere worlds begun
(…We need but walk a little way,
We need but see a latch undone…)
The Child that played with moon and sun
Is playing with a little hay.

The house from which the heavens are fed,
The old strange house that is our own,
Where trick of words are never said,
And Mercy is as plain as bread,
And Honour is as hard as stone.

Go humbly, humble are the skies,
And low and large and fierce the Star;
So very near the Manger lies
That we may travel far.

Hark! Laughter like a lion wakes
To roar to the resounding plain.
And the whole heaven shouts and shakes,
For God Himself is born again,
And we are little children walking
Through the snow and rain.

_________________

G. K. Chesterton, “The Wise Men,” in G. K. Chesterton Collected Works Volume X Collected Poetry Part 1 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), 186-187.

This is just a snippet from the Gospel of John. Maybe I’m the only one, but I always use to read this passage, (John 15:14) as Jesus laying down the law in an ironical sense,

‘You are my friends if you do what I command you.’

Thing is, no one obeys His commands; certainly not ‘Love one another as I have loved you.’ (John 15:12)

The whole passage (John 15) is about our connection to Jesus and it is easy to read it in a moral way and miss the power of it. If our abiding in Jesus is something that depends on a command we follow or something we do like ‘abiding’, whatever that is, we’re all lost.

The only way to read it, in my view, is to start with the command to abide (John 15:4). This command participates in the ‘Gospel Imperative’, the command to believe, that brings with it a new heart and mind to do the believing.  This is the union with Christ to which we have been called.

Jesus is the Vine; the source of all that is life. Every person on the planet (and all of creation for that matter) is connected to Him in the Incarnation, not just those who place their trust in Him.

By taking on humanity, God the Son is connected to every man and inextricably connected to His own creation of which He is First Born (Colossians 1:15-20). So, to be cut off from Christ the vine and thrown into the fire does not have to be some punishment doled out to disobedient Christians; this fate is for those who die rejecting the love of Christ.

Those who are not clean* in contrast to those who are clean by the word  spoken to them (John 15:3) are those who have not received Jesus by the preaching of the Gospel. They will not bear fruit if they continue in their unbelief because they will not be abiding in Jesus’ love, the source of any fruit; these are the metaphorical branches that ultimately get chopped.

Our connection to Jesus through faith will cause us to bare much fruit. It is an axiom of who Jesus is. Apart from Him, we can do nothing (John 15:5).  When we manage to follow his teaching to love one another, to whatever degree that happens, the source of that love is Jesus, and that love comes through our connection to Him.

And we abide in His love as He abides in the love of His Father (John 15:10).  First of all, the direction of this love is downward (I John 4:10), from Father to Son. Jesus abides in his Father’s love and identifies this unique love that His Father has for him, love that exists within the Godhead, as the same love that Jesus has for us.

This fatherly relationship that He has with us through faith changes our relationship to His command to love, regardless of our ability or lack thereof to perfectly obey that command. Jesus isn’t changing the nature of the Law, but elevating us by fiat to the status of ‘friends’ in spite of our present ‘Romans 7′ state (see Romans 7:21-25). We are no longer slaves (Galatians 4:1-7).

To get to the point quickly, I’ll paraphrase the passage in question, John 15: 14-15,

When you follow My teaching to love one another as I have loved you, you aren’t following it as a slave would follow the command of his master. You are friends. If you were just slaves,  I wouldn’t be telling you everything that I’m doing, and why, and the reasons to follow My teaching. I don’t call you slaves and I don’t treat you like slaves. Everything I get from my Father, I give to you.

This is a much happier word than, ‘you are my friends if you keep my command, but since you don’t… you aren’t.’  Definitely does a better job of making my joy complete (John 15:11).

There is a way out if you read this passage as Jesus laying down the law (the Gospel way of Jesus being a perfect friend in your place). Very legitimate theologically, but I think I was really doing the text a disservice when I handled it that way.

__________

*And ‘clean’ brings up the image of washing — a reference to Baptism perhaps. Some have said the whole of the Gospel of John is infused with a commentary on the nature of the sacraments.

Here’s a man who was orphaned by age 14.

Was born just before the end of the 30 years war and bore the scars of it on his psyche all his life.

Lived in a land ruined by war and plague.

Was highly trained, but had difficulty finding work.

Was not able to establish himself until later in life and was familiar with hope differed.

Lost his wife and all but one child.

Was persecuted for his faith.

And wrote some of the most beautiful Lutheran poetry and hymns that we have today.

Here’s a sampling of the quintessential Lutheran hymn writer, Paul Gerhard, Lutheran Pastor and Theologian.

Link to the words of the hymn, All My Heart This Night Rejoices.

If you want to follow along, they sing verses 1, 4, 10 and 5 in that order.

1. All my heart this night rejoices,
As I hear,
Far and near,
Sweetest angel voices;
“Christ is born,” their choirs are singing,
Till the air
Everywhere
Now with joy is ringing.

4. Hark! a voice from yonder manger,
Soft and sweet,
Doth entreat,
“Flee from woe and danger;
Brethren come, from all doth grieve you
You are freed,
All you need
I will surely give you.”

10. Thee, dear Lord, with heed I’ll cherish,
Live to Thee,
And with Thee
Dying, shall not perish;
But shall dwell with Thee forever,
Far on high
In the joy
That can alter never.

5. Come then, let us hasten yonder;
Here let all,
Great and small,
Kneel in awe and wonder.
Love Him who with love is yearning;
Hail the Star
That from far
Bright with hope is burning!

And a short, very well done German documentary on Pastor Gerhardt:

Read about him here. A link to a short biography.
Great post on I Stand Beside Your Manger-bed.

We don’t carry it yet, but I wanted to recommend a movie to you. With Epiphany right around the corner, The Star of Bethlehem came to mind. Perhaps you’ve seen it already.

A couple of years ago, my Pastor showed this movie in Bible Study. I wasn’t expecting much and what I saw really bowled me over.

The movie is a documentary written and presented by an amateur astronomer/attorney, Frederick A. Larson, and produced by Stephen McEveety, who also produced The Passion of the Christ.

What these two put together constitutes some pretty compelling evidence, not only for the existence of the Star of Bethlehem, but the circumstances portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew (Mat. 2:1-12) concerning the wise men from the east who came to see Jesus… and a few other important things. I refuse to put in a spoiler! I expect the movie will bowl you over too.

Mr. Larson really did his homework, but don’t take my word for it; I’m no expert on this subject. Read the Credits section of the website. You’ve got a bunch of NASA guys on there saying this is a compelling and well researched case. I did hop on my computer and try to duplicate Mr. Larson’s observations with some success. Had a little trouble learning the tools, but when I got the coordinates somewhat right, there it all was.

At New Reformation Press, we believe that Scripture thrives under cross-examination. There is some great software, (open source and free that you can get for all three platforms) to duplicate what Mr. Larson does in the presentation. It’s called Stellarium. Check it out if you are interested. If I recall correctly, he uses Stary Night which you can get used for less than $100, but if you can do it well for free and you are not a pro, try Stellarium. They use it on projectors at Planetariums all over the place. If any of you guys have suggestions on this, I would love it.

I have been involved in a number of conversations recently concerning infant Baptism. This kind of thing is a never ending cycle on the internet and instead of rehashing everything on several different forums, I thought it might be helpful to put down in writing a defense of infant Baptism addressing several points that proponents of adult believer’s baptism bring up.

The two things that I hear most often are:

1. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward work or action. Its main purpose is as a testimony.

2. Infants can’t have faith and/or repent, therefore they cannot be baptized.

Many refutations of these two points often fail, not because they are not true, but because they resort to a kind of theological shorthand that leaves out several important distinctions and foundational assumptions and results in the two sides talking past each other.

Proponents of believers-only baptism usually argue from the Book of Acts and the Gospels, taking their cues from how they see baptism being used in the Scriptures.

This is correct insofar as it goes. However, in the view of those who champion infant baptism, it does not go far enough.

The Lutherans and other paedobaptists (those who baptize their infants) go further. They look to see what the scriptures say baptism is and does. This is a huge difference. Think about it for a moment.

Our believers-only baptism friends rightly point out that the majority of people people baptized in the Bible have believed and repented before they were baptized. (We would say that the believing centurion and the Philippian jailer probably had children that were baptized with the household.) This is then set in stone as it were, and considered to be the final word on the subject.

The Lutheran way is to ask “What is baptism and what does it do?” and consequently “Given what the scriptures say, how is it properly used and on whom is it used?”

Let’s take a quick tour of the pertinent passages and what they say.

Acts 22:16 where Paul in recounting his conversion quotes Ananias as saying ‘Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’  I never hear this scripture quoted.

Romans 6:3-5 Baptism into Christ’s death and burial with Him. Unites us to His death and resurrection.

Colossians 2:11-12 Putting off of the sinful nature by the circumcision done by Christ through baptism.

Ephesian 5:26 What else is a “washing with water through word” but baptism?

1 Peter 3:21 Baptism now saves us… Cut it any way you like, but baptism somehow saves.

Because this is what the scriptures say baptism is, then how then is it properly used?

Matthew 28:18-29 Make disciples by baptizing and teaching. (We baptize our infants into teaching and teach adults into baptism.)

See the various instances in the Book of Acts. Note especially the Philippian Jailer (Acts 16:33) whose whole household was baptized.

This is what baptism is and what it does. The crux of the paedobaptist arguments lie primarily in the substance of baptism as scripture defines it, and only secondarily in the examples of its application we see in the Book of Acts. That is why we so often are talking past each other.

So then if baptism joins us to Christ, what about our children, how do we bring them to Jesus? Is it proper to do so?

Mark 10:13-16 Jesus rebukes the disciples who were preventing parents from bringing their infants to Him.

Baptism is the way we bring our children to Him. The New Testament says nothing about infant dedication. Neither does the early Church.

The Scriptures never speak of baptism as a testimony to others. The Ethiopian eunuch and the Philippian jailer and his household were in situations in which there weren’t many witnesses to testify. The scriptures also never speak of baptism as an outward sign of an inward work.

It seems a bit ironic to us that groups that assign to baptism a symbolic or signatory value often become hyper-literal concerning the mode of baptism. So baptism is for them an outward sign of an inward work, and a testimony to others about your relationship with the Lord, but unless you are entirely immersed in the water the baptism is not valid. If the water does nothing, then why is it important to immerse rather than sprinkle?

The second objection we often hear is “Infants can’t have faith and/or repent, therefore they cannot be baptized.”

This second objection makes ‘understanding’ as we define it the one necessary work on our part to be saved. If they are unable to comprehend then the Lord is incapable of granting that infant (or mentally handicapped adult for that matter) the gift of faith.

Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us that faith is a gift given by the Lord. We are loathe to say that the Lord cannot do something; especially when it comes to granting someone saving faith. You end up with a situation in which God is unable to communicate with some part of His creation.

Psalm 22 :9-10 This passage shows that God does indeed grant the gift of faith to infants despite the objections that babies cannot ‘make a decision’ or ‘understand.’

In the book of Jonah, God commands a fish and a vine to do his bidding. In Genesis 9:5 there is that strange passage where the Lord says he will demand an accounting for our lifeblood from every animal that kills a human. So God will hold animals morally accountable for killing humans. There seem to be a lot of things going on behind the scenes between God and His creation that we are not privy to. If He can communicate with fish and vines and hold animals accountable for killing us, I think He is capable of granting the gift of faith to my children through the appointed means of baptism. It is His action towards us.

When someone is baptized, it is not the Pastor that buries someone into the death of Christ and raises them to new life in Christ, but God Himself makes the baptism efficacious. I brought my children to the baptismal font so that they could be buried in Christ’s death and raised to new life in Him. I am confident that God is faithful to His word.

So here, briefly, I have summed up a couple of quick points that I hope will shed some light on why those of us who baptize our children believe that it is scriptural and right. For those interested in a deeper discussion, you can click on the links below for further resources.

Scriptural Baptism by Uuraas Saarnivaara – A very thorough treatment of the subject.

Did My Baptism Count? – Luther on the subject of re-baptism.

The Baptism of Your Child – A great resource for families who are going to baptize their baby. Well put together and informative.

This post is sort of long, but worth the read for anyone interested in the history of the Reformation.

To set the scene, this is right after ‘The Recess of Augsburg’ was published …

‘…an imperial edict of November 19, 1530, declaring that the Emperor and Estates had resolved to remain in the ancient communion [The Roman Church], that the Protestants must therefore renounce their errors before the fifteenth of the following April, that the Emperor would use his influence with the Pope for the calling of the general council to which the final settlement of the religious difficulties was referred, and that in the mean time the bishops should be restored to their former jurisdictions and no further innovations allowed.’ (Smith, 271)

The Turks (the imperialistic Ottoman Empire, the dominant power in the Islamic world at the time) were at the gates of Vienna and the Emperor needed a strong and united Germany (and Europe) to handle the political threat.

Luther was disgusted.

You are now standing in the Wittenberg Chapel on Christmas Day as Luther preaches on Luke 2:1-14.

You have heard today the story from the Gospel of St. Luke of how it came to pass that our Lord Christ was born and then also the message of the angel, who announced who the boy was who was born.  Now we shall go on and take up the message of the angel.  So for today you have heard only that the child was born and that he is the Lord and Savior.  Thus we spoke of the story, how it unfolded, and who the persons in it were.  This article is so high that even today it is believed by only a few.  Nevertheless, God has preserved it even through those who have not believed it.  For at all times in the monasteries and universities there have been disputations and lectures which dealt with the fact that Christ the Lord, born of Mary, is true man and God.  But it went no further than saying and hearing it.  But this belief is held by the devil too and the Turks and all the godless among Christians, and is the kind of belief which everybody believes that it is true but would not die for it, as Eck and many others show today.  If they had as much from Christ and the teaching of the gospel as from the devil, they would also think as much of Christ. The Turk too admits that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, that Mary was an immaculate virgin, and that Christ was more than a man; but the Word of God, as it is given in the gospel, he denies, and yet I fear that the Turk believes more of this article than does the pope.  Therefore it is a high article to believe that this infant, born of Mary, is true God; for nobody’s reason can ever accept the fact that he who created heaven and earth and is adored by angels was born of a virgin.  That is the article.  Nobody believes it except he who also knows this faith, namely, that this child is the Lord and Savior.

But for whom was he born and whose Lord and Savior is he?  The angels declare that he was born Lord and Savior.  The Turks, the pope, and the scholars say the same thing, but only to the extent that it brings in money and honor.  But that anyone could say, “to you is born,” as the angel says, this is the faith which we must preach about.  But we cannot preach about it as we would like to do.  Indeed, who could ever grasp [the full meaning of] these words of the evangelist: “a Savior, who is the Lord,” and, “to you”!  I know well enough how to talk about it and what to believe about it, just as others do.  So there are many who have this belief and do it, just as others do.  So there are many who have this belief and do not doubt this first belief that Christ is the Lord, the Savior, and the virgin’s Son.  This I too have never doubted.  But if these words are planted no higher than my thoughts, then they have no firm roots.  We are certain that this was proclaimed by the angel, but the firm faith does not follow.  For the reason does not understand both sides of this faith, first that Christ is a man, but also the Savior and Lord or King.  This needs to be revealed from heaven.  One who really has the first faith also has the other.

Who, then, are those to whom this joyful news is to be proclaimed?  Those who are faint-hearted and feel the burden of their sins, like the shepherds, to whom the angels proclaim the message, letting the great lords in Jerusalem, who do not accept it, go on sleeping.  Beyond the first faith there must be the second faith, that Christ is not only the virgin’s Son, but also the Lord of angels and the Savior of men.  The words anyone can understand, antisacramentarians, fanatics, sectarians, and Turks; but they do not proceed from the heart they come only from hearing and go no farther than hearing.  This is not faith, however, but only a memory of what has been heard, that one knows that he has heard it.  Nobody ventures upon it, so as to stake goods, life, and honor upon it.  And yet we must preach it for the sake of those who are in the multitude to whom the angel preached.

This is our theology, which we preach in order that we may understand what the angel wants.  Mary bore the child, took it to her breast and nursed it, and the Father in heaven has his Son, lying in the manger and the mother’s lap.  Why did God do all this?  Why does Mary guard the child as a mother should?  And reason answers:  in order that we may make an idol of her, that honor may be paid to the mother.  Mary becomes all this without her knowledge and consent, and all the songs and glory and honor are addressed to the mother.  And yet the text does not sound forth the honor of the mother, for the angel says, “I bring to you good news of great joy; for to you is born this day the Savior” [Luke 2:10-11].  I am to accept the child and his birth and forget the mother, as far as this is possible, although her part cannot be forgotten, for where there is a birth there must also be a mother.  Nevertheless, we dare not put our faith in the mother but only in the fact that the child was born.  And the angel desired that we should see nothing but the child which is born, just as the angels themselves, as though they were blind, saw nothing but the child born of the virgin, and desired that all created things should be as nothing compared with this child, that we should see nothing, be it harps, gold, goods, honor, power, and the like which we would prefer before their message.  For if I received even the costliest and the best in the world, it still does not have the name of Savior.  And if the Turk were ten times stronger than he is, he could not for one moment save me from my infirmity, to say nothing of the peril of death, and even less from the smallest sin or from death itself.  In my sin, my death, I must take leave of all created things.  No, sun, moon, stars, all creatures, physicians, emperors, kings, wise men and potentates cannot help me.  When I die I shall see nothing but black darkness, and yet that light, “To you is born this day the Savior” [Luke 2:11], remains in my eyes and fills all heaven and earth.  The Savior will help me when all have forsaken me.  And when the heavens and the stars and all creatures stare at me with horrible mien, I see nothing in heaven and earth but this child.  So great should that light which declares that he is my Savior become in my eyes that I can say:  Mary, you did not bear this child for yourself alone.  The child is not yours; you did not bring him forth for yourself, but for me, even though you are his mother, even though you held him in your arms and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and picked him up and laid him down.  But I have a greater honor than your honor as his mother.  For your honor pertains to your motherhood of the body of the child, but my honor is this, that you have my treasure, so that I know none, neither men nor angels, who can help me except this child whom you, O Mary, hold in your arms.  If a man could put out of his mind all that he is and has except this child, and if for him everything—money, goods, power, or honor—fades into darkness and he despises everything on earth compared with this child, so that heaven with its stars and earth with all its power and all its treasures becomes nothing to him, that man would have the true gain and fruit of this message of the angel.  And for us the time must come when suddenly all will be darkness and we shall know nothing but this message of the angel:  “I bring to you good news of great joy; for to you is born this day the Savior” [Luke 2:10-11].

This, then, is the faith we preach, of which the Turks and the pope and all the sectarians know nothing.  The fanatics do, it is true, snatch to themselves the words of the angels, but how earnest they are is plain to see.  For they receive the Word only as a piece of paper, as the cup and corporal receive the body and blood of Christ.  The paper does no more than contain something and pass it on to others, but yet it remains paper.  Thus you copy something from one paper on another paper; from my tongue the Word sounds in your ear, but it does not go to the heart.  So they receive this greatest of treasures to their great harm and still think they are Christians, just as though the paper were to say: I certainly have in me the written words, “to you is born this day the Savior”; therefore I shall be saved.  But then the fire comes and burns up the paper.

Therefore this is the chief article, which separates us from all the heathen, that you, O man, may not only learn that Christ, born of the virgin, is the Lord and Savior, but also accept the fact that he is your Lord and Savior, that you may be able to boast in your hear:  I hear the Word that sounds from heaven and says:  This child who is born of the virgin is not only his mother’s son.  I have more than the mother’s estate; he is more mine than Mary’s, for he was born for me, for the angel said, “To you” is born the Savior.  Then ought you to say, Amen, I thank thee, dear Lord.

But then reason says:  Who knows?  I believe that Christ, born of the virgin, is the Lord and Savior and he may perhaps help Peter and Paul, but for me, a sinner, he was not born.  But even if you believed that much, it would still not be enough, unless there were added to it the faith that he was born for you.  For he was not born merely in order that I should honor the mother, that she should be praised because he was born of the virgin mother.  This honor belongs to none except her and it is not to be despised, for the angel said, “Blessed are you among women!” [Luke 1:28].  But it must not be too highly esteemed lest one deny what is written here:  “To you is born this day the Savior.”  He was not merely concerned to be born of a virgin; it was infinitely more than that.  It was this, as she herself sings in the Magnificat:  “He has helped his servant Israel” [Luke 1:54]; not that he was born of me and my virginity but born for you and for your benefit, not only for my honor.

Take yourself in hand, examine yourself and see whether you are a Christian!  If you can sing:  The Son, who is proclaimed to be a Lord and Savior, is my Savior; and if you can confirm the message of the angel and say yes to it and believe it in your heart, then your heart will be filled with such assurance and joy and confidence, and you will not worry much about even the costliest and best that this world has to offer.  For when I can speak to the virgin from the bottom of my heart and say: O Mary, noble, tender virgin, you have borne a child; this I want more than robes and guldens, yea, more than my body and life; then you are closer to the treasure than everything else in heaven and earth, as Ps. 73 [:25] says, “There is nothing upon earth that I desire besides thee.”  You see how a person rejoices when he receives a robe or ten guldens.  But how many are there who shout and jump for joy when they hear the message of the angel:  “To you is born this day the Savior?”  Indeed, the majority look upon it as a sermon that must be preached, and when they have heard it, consider it a trifling thing, and go away just as they were before.  This shows that we have neither the first nor the second faith.  We do not believe that the virgin mother bore a son and that he is the Lord and Savior unless, added to this, I believe the second thing, namely, that he is my Savior and Lord.  When I can say:  This I accept as my own, because the angel meant it for me, then, if I believe it in my heart, I shall not fail to love the mother Mary, and even more then child, and especially the Father.  For, if it is true that the child was born of the virgin and is mine, then I have no angry God and I must know the feel that there is nothing but laughter and joy in the heart of the Father and no sadness in my heart.  For, if what the angel says is true, that he is our Lord and Savior, what can sin do against us?  “If God is for us, who is against us?” [Rom. 8:31].  Greater words than these I cannot speak, nor all the angels and even the Holy Spirit, as is sufficiently testified by the beautiful and devout songs that have been made about it.  I do not trust myself to express it.  I most gladly hear you sing and speak of it, but as long as no joy is there, so long is faith still weak or even nonexistent, and you still do not believe the angel.

You can see what our papists and Junkers, who have chosen innumerable saviors, have felt about this faith.  Indeed, the papists still want to retain the mass, the invocation of saints, and their invented works by which we are to be saved.  This is as much as to say, I do not believe in the Savior and Lord whom Mary bore; and yet they sing the words of the angel, hold their triple masses [at Christmas] and play their organs.  They speak the words with their tongues but their heart has another savior.  And the same is true in the monasteries:  if you want to be saved, remember to keep the rule and regulations of Francis and you will have a gracious God!  And at the Diet of Augsburg they decided to stick to this.  In the name of all of the devils, let them stick there!  It has been said sufficiently that this Savior lies in the manger.  But if there is any other thing that saves me, then I rightly call it my savior.  If the sun, moon, and stars save, I can call them saviors.  If St. Bartholomew or St Anthony or a pilgrimage to St. James or good works save, then they surely are my savior.  If St. Francis, then he is my savior.  But then what is left of the honor of the child who was born this day, whom the angel calls Lord and Savior, and who wants to keep his name, which is Savior and Christ the Lord.  If I set up any savior except this child, no matter who or what it is or is called, then he is not the Savior.  But the text says that he is the Savior.  And if this is true—and it is the truth—then let everything else go.

One who hears the message of the angel and believes it will be filled with fear, like the shepherds.  True, it is too high for me to believe that I should come into this treasure without any merit on my part.  And yet, so it must be.  In the papacy this message was not preached in the pulpit, and I am afraid that it will disappear again.  It was the other message that the devil initiated and has allowed to remain in the papacy.  All their hymns are to this effect.  Among the Turks the devil has completely wiped it out.  Therefore, remember it, sing it, and learn it, while there is still time!  I fear that the time will come when we shall not be allowed to hear, believe, and sing this message in public, and the time has already come when it is no longer understood; though Satan does not allow it to be spoken with the mouth, as the papists do.  But when it comes to declaring that he is born for you and to singing:

In dulci jubilo
Now sing with hearts aglow!
Our delight and pleasure
Lies in praesepio
Like sunshine is our treasure
Matris in gremio
Alpha est et O!

—this he is unwilling to allow.

What we have said, then, has been about that second faith, which is not only to believe in Mary’s Son, but rather that he who lies in the virgin’s lap is our Savior, that you accept this and give thanks to God, who so loved you that he gave you a Savior who is yours.  And for a sign he sent the angel from heaven to proclaim him, in order that nothing else should be preached except that this child is the Savior and far better than heaven and earth.  Him, therefore, we should acknowledge and accept; confess him as our Savior in every need, call upon him, and never doubt that he will save us from all misfortune.  Amen.

_____________________

Bibliography

Bainton, Roland H. 1948. Martin Luther’s Christmas Book. Minneapolis: Augsburg.

Lenker, John Nicholas, D.D.. 1908. Luther’s Christmas Sermons. Minneapolis: The Luther Press.

Smith, Preserved, 1911. The Life and Letters of Martin Luther. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin company.

Vox Day writes about the under reported persecution of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

On this Christmas Eve, one of the great unreported stories throughout what we used to call Christendom is the persecution of Christians around the world. In Egypt, the “Arab Spring” is going so swimmingly that Copts are already fleeing Egypt and, for those Christians that remain, Midnight Mass has to be held in the daylight for security reasons. In Iraq, midnight services have been canceled entirely for fear of bloodshed, part of the remorseless de-Christianizing that has been going on, quite shamefully, under an American imperium.
- Mark Steyn, Silent Night, December 24, 2011

The secular War on Christmas throughout the West presently serves as a lightweight bookend for the religious War on Christians throughout Northern Africa and the Middle East. In the West, the persecution is still petty, tentative, and small-minded, elsewhere, it is purposeful, murderous and systematic. One cannot equate the banning of Merry Christmas wishes by elected politicians to the banning of Christians from holding elected office, or pretend that atheists co-opting public parks in order to promote nasty anti-holiday messages is the equivalent of violent attacks on Christian church celebrants.

But if the actions are different, the motivations stem from the same source, which is the desire to eliminate Christianity from the world. This is not a new desire; it was already hundreds of years old when the Emperor Diocletian issued the first of his four “Edicts against the Christians” in the year 303. Like the Western anti-Christians, Diocletian did not initially intend for there to be any bloodshed, but hoped that political and legal pressure would be sufficient to cause Christians to apostatize, but his hopes were dashed by the stalwart faith of the empire’s Christians. His fourth Edict, therefore, demanded summary execution of all men, women, and children who were unwilling to offer sacrifice to any of the pagan gods.

Secular culture is no more intrinsically tolerant than Diocletian. Those who consciously adhere to “secular values” understand that they are fundamentally different than, and inherently opposed to, Christian values. While far too many Christians and non-Christians alike believe that it is still possible to arrange society in such a manner that secular values are given primacy in the public while still respecting Christian values in private, both ancient and recent history indicate otherwise. This is particularly true in any society with an activist government that uses fiscal policy and administrative law as tools for social engineering.

Many of the accomplishments of Christendom are being unwound, often by the unworthy heirs of Christendom itself. The increasingly secular British people bitterly complain about the continental subjugation of their once-independent isle even as they simultaneously continue to support the societal secularization that made that subjugation possible. Slaves are being bought and sold in numbers that have not been seen since William Wilberforce led the evangelical charge against the slave trade. As the concepts of individual rights and human liberty arose under Christendom, it is both logically and empirically apparent that they will decline in tandem with the decline of Christianity across the West.

You can read the rest here. As we embark on a new year, remember our persecuted brothers and sisters in your prayers.

A flash mob proclaims Christ in the cathedrals of commerce.

Also for your edification, Issues Etc. has created a special on line radio station the will play sacred music  on Christmas eve and Christmas day.

NRP wishes that all of our readers and customers have a merry Christmas and a great new year,

When you’re bummed out, don’t give in to the cat-calls of the devil. Follow Dr. Luther’s prescription:

“Although I know this, I am of a different mind ten times in the course of a day. But I resist the devil, and often it is with a fart that I chase him away. When he tempts me with silly sins I say, ‘Devil, yesterday I broke wind too. Have you written it down on your list?’  …Thus I remind myself of the forgiveness of sin and of Christ and I remind Satan of the abomination of the pope. This abomination is so great that I am of good cheer and rejoice, and I confess that the abomination of the papacy after the time of Christ is a great consolation to me. Consequently those who say that one should not rebuke the pope are dreadful scolds. Go right ahead and inveigh against the pope, especially if the devil disturbs you about justification. He often troubles me with trivialities. I don’t notice this when I’m depressed, but when I feel better I recognize it easily.”

– taken from The Wit of Martin Luther by Eric W. Gritsch