The Secret of Christmas
by Shafer Parker
As many of you already know, Faith Beyond Belief exists to help ordinary people do apologetics in everyday conversations. We believe we have succeeded when our listeners become able to drop truth stones into peoples’ mental shoes that will irritate them enough that they finally take another look at the claims of Christ. But one part of the everyday conversations concept is rarely discussed, I mean times of planned Bible study when a group of people sit down to work through a passage from the Bible.
Call it adult Sunday school, a small group, or even a prison ministry; the thing is, when people willingly sit down to read and discuss a portion of Scripture you have an audience that is very open to anything you say. So why not choose to do apologetics by taking a linear look at whatever text is before you, with an eye to helping your hearers realize the logical inevitability of all that is laid out, as well as giving real-world applications. That’s doing apologetics at the highest level. And you don’t even need Greek or Hebrew. In North America any standard English translation will do—most of the time.
Because this is the Christmas season, let’s take Luke 1 for an example of what I’m talking about. In this chapter you find four vignettes, (1) Gabriel’s announcement to the elderly Zechariah that he and his equally advanced wife Elizabeth will have a son who will fulfill Biblical prophecies concerning a messianic forerunner, (2) Gabriel’s announcement to Mary that in her virginity she will nevertheless conceive and give birth to the long promised Messiah whom she is to name Jesus, (3) the meeting between Mary and her cousin Elizabeth, and (4) the birth of John the Baptist. What I want to teach works for every vignette in this chapter, but for this blog let’s focus on the third vignette (Luke 1:39-45), in which all this chapter’s narrative themes come together.
At the beginning of the third vignette, we read that Mary went immediately to see Elizabeth (See Luke 1:36-37 where Gabriel tells Mary about the miracle of her much older cousin’s pregnancy.) The key word in the first sentence of our story is “haste.” And that raises the primary question each of us should be asking when trying to interpret Scripture: why? Why would Mary be in such a hurry to see her cousin? The great danger in all Bible study is to jump to conclusions. So sometimes it is proper to raise the question, but then encourage your group to postpone giving an answer until the entire story is better understood. For instance, I would argue Mary did not run to Judea because she needed to see a miracle (Elizabeth’s pregnancy) in order to believe in a miracle (a virginal conception). Verse 38 makes it clear she believed the moment Gabriel explained it to her. No, she went to see Elizabeth so the two of them could rejoice together in their shared miracles. (More about that later)
What happened when Mary called a greeting at Elizabeth’s door is unusual, to say the least. First, the baby John (the Baptist) leaped in Elizabeth’s womb. Then, Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied (explained the meaning of her pre-born infant’s behaviour). Here is an excellent place to make the point that God is his own best interpreter.
“When people willingly sit down to read and discuss a portion of Scripture you have an audience that is very open to anything you say. So why not choose to do apologetics?”
By way of application, I find it interesting that in the New Testament a woman was the first person to be filled with the Spirit. This tells us something about God’s attitude toward the female half of the human race. In terms of equal value in His eyes and equal love in His heart, God makes no distinction between male and female. In fact, just as God acknowledges the fundamental value of females at the beginning of the New Testament, so the fundamental equality of the two sexes is first expressed in Gen. 1:27, the first chapter of the Bible. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
That the Christian faith has always placed a high emphasis on the fundamental spiritual equality of the sexes (Gal. 3:38) may seem ordinary to you, but if you are reading this passage with people unfamiliar with God’s word, the idea may come as news and perhaps a pleasant surprise to a new Bible reader. On the other hand, you may want to be ready to forestall the mistaken conclusion that God is indifferent to sex and gender differences. This may be the moment to note that these differences were created by God and continue to play an important role in all relationships, even in matters of faith.
In an echo of the angel Gabriel’s statement in 1:28-30, Elizabeth told Mary that in being singled out to become the mother of the Messiah, she was especially blessed by God; in fact, the most fortunate woman who ever lived! Elizabeth also mentioned the special blessing that rested upon Mary’s son. But perhaps of greater importance is how Elizabeth feels herself blessed that “the mother of my Lord” should pay her a visit (v.43). This is an extraordinary statement and we mustn’t allow familiarity to blind us to what is going on. The only way Elizabeth can mean that Mary is the mother of her Lord is because of the recently conceived baby in Mary’s womb. And the only way that tiny baby could be her Lord, is if he is (1) a descendant of David and (2) the prophesied Son of God (Luke 1:32)!
But there’s more. If you know your Old Testament, as Mary and Elizabeth did, or if you are familiar with the four gospels, as any Christian ought to be, you’ll hear an echo of Psalm 110:1—in which David speaks of the Messiah as “My Lord!” It is no exaggeration to say that by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth is aware that the long-promised Messiah has taken up temporary residence in Mary’s womb. Here’s how Jesus highlights the importance of Elizabeth’s expression, “My Lord,” in the gospel of Matthew.
Mat. 22:41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, 44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’? 45 If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” 46 And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.
The Pharisees hated it when Jesus asked them questions, because he had the knack of forcing them into a box. It wasn’t that the Pharisees couldn’t answer Jesus. They didn’t want to answer him lest they give him grounds for his claim to the Messiah. Still, the only possible answer to the question is what Paul says in Romans 1:1-4, that according to Scripture the Messiah would be both the son (descendant) of David and the son of God. Amazingly, when Elizabeth first called the baby in Mary’s womb “my Lord,” and when Jesus asked his question of the Pharisees, they were dealing with a text that was approximately a thousand years old already. Don’t ever lose a chance to remind your hearers that Biblical prophecy is truly unique. No other book in the world can explain the meaning of history the way the Bible does.
Rom. 1:1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Next, Elizabeth explains that she knows the significance of Mary’s pregnancy. How? Because the action of the baby in her womb—John’s leaping—is interpreted to her by the Holy Spirit as her infant’s joy at the approach of baby Jesus, who at this point in his development can be little more than a handful of cells, what modern doctors would call a human embryo. Mary had probably not been pregnant for more than three or four days, long before a fetal heartbeat could be detected, long before the baby could be said to react to pain stimulus, long before the baby could live outside the womb, and long before the baby had become, in any modern sense, an independent person.
Taken in reverse order these are the milestones the world has suggested in their efforts to justify abortion. The strongest abortion proponents have argued that a baby has no inherent right to life until it has achieved selfhood, what Princeton bio-ethicist Peter Singer defines as “the ability to understand you are ‘a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states.’” Pinker is on record as saying that until that happens—between 18 months and two years he thinks—an infant is of no more value than a pig, and can be just as easily killed.
“I find it interesting that in the New Testament a woman was the first person to be filled with the Spirit. This tells us something about God’s attitude toward the female half of the human race.”
Slightly less radical abortion proponents, and maybe it could be said people with slightly weaker stomachs than Peter Singer’s, have argued that abortion should be legal and not seen as taking human life if it occurs before viability, that is, before the time when the baby can survive outside its mother’s womb. The problem is that medical machinery and skill keeps advancing and the moment of viability keeps getting pushed further and further back, to a younger and younger age. Today the earliest moment at which an infant can survive with medical aid is thought to be around 24 weeks, or about the sixth month, but there is a growing sense in the medical field that the day is not far off when a fertilized zygote might be successfully developed in a completely artificial womb. What will abortion proponents say then?
A number of states have passed laws banning abortion from the time it is thought the fetus can feel pain, or around 19 or 20 weeks of gestation. This pushes the last possibility for an ethical abortion (in their view) back to about five months. Finally, some American states have even passed laws denying abortion after a doctor can detect a fetal heartbeat, which can take place as early as six to seven weeks after fertilization, or even before the mother knows she’s pregnant.
The thing to keep in mind is that in the Bible Jesus is being treated as a person, and even as the Lord of an adult woman (Elizabeth recognized him as “My Lord”) before any of these milestones had been reached. This tells us much, I think, about the Christian position on abortion. Biology tells us that a baby is physically human from the moment of conception. I find it fascinating that the Bible tells us (and not just in this passage) that a baby is spiritually also fully human from the earliest days of conception. Passages like this can be very useful in explaining the Christian position. We may not be able to convince unbelievers that abortion is wrong. But we should never hesitate to let passages like this be used to explain why we believe all abortion is the taking of human life—life that is fully human!
“I find it fascinating that the Bible tells us (and not just in this passage) that a baby is also spiritually human from the earliest days of conception”
This passage has much to say about infant spirituality. For instance, it serves as fulfilment of the prophecy the angel made to Zechariah back in 1:15 that his son John would “be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” John was probably unique in that way. But nevertheless, this passage tells us something about the spiritual capabilities of infants and children. If John was not quite everything a human being ought to be (He had doubts, see Mat. 11:2-3), we can be certain that he was never more than a human being can be. And yet John was filled with the Holy Spirit “from his mother’s womb.”
I take this to teach that we have no idea what little children are capable of spiritually! Ruth Bell Graham, Billy Graham’s wife, used to say that she was certain she had been born again before she was three, and I have had church members tell me credible stories of their conversions at ages four and five. So I think we can be certain that we usually sell children short. I fear that we infantilise our children when we ought to be expecting more. Consider the following From Prayer Meetings and Revival in the Church by Joel R. Beeke (Pastor and Theologian, Grand Rapids, Michigan).
During the Great Awakening in Scotland, prayer meetings often began with children, then spread to adults. For example, a schoolteacher in the parish of Baldernock allowed four students to meet on their own for prayer and psalm singing. According to The Parish of Baldernock, “In the course of two weeks, ten or twelve more [children] were awakened and under deep convictions. Some of these were not more than eight or nine years of age, and others twelve or thirteen. And so much were they engrossed with the one thing needful as to meet thrice a day—in the morning, at mid-day, and at night.” Adults then began holding prayer meetings two or more times a week. There were many conversions at both the adult and the children’s meetings.
The fervour soon spread to other parishes. The Parish of Kirkintillock reports: “In the month of April, 1742, about sixteen children in the town were observed to meet together in a barn for prayer. Mr. Burnside [their pastor] heard of it, had frequent meetings with them, and they continued to improve. And this being reported, many more were impressed. Soon after, about a hundred and twenty [children] were under a more than ordinary concern, and praying societies, as usual, were formed.”
Jonathan Edwards also encouraged children’s prayer. In answering objections some critics had raised to children’s prayer meetings, he wrote, “God, in this work, has shown a remarkable regard to little children; never was there such a glorious work amongst persons in their childhood, as has been of late in New England. He has been pleased, in a wonderful manner, to perfect praise out of the mouths of babes and sucklings; and many of them have more of that knowledge and wisdom that please him, and render their religious worship acceptable, than many of the great and learned men of the world. I have seen many happy effects of children’s religious meetings; and God has seemed often remarkably to own them in their meetings, and really descended from heaven to be amongst them. I have known several probable instances of children being converted at such meetings.”
It seems to me that this is right in line with the N.T. emphasis on children and youth. Jesus is himself the model; at age 12 he spent three days discussing theology with the rabbis and priests at the temple. And then we have those amazing examples of Jesus in Mat. 18 & 19 where he curses those who cause a little one to sin, and then tenderly lays his hands on the children and encourages those mothers who brought little children to him. God help us to see how even simple narratives, such as the one we’re considering from Luke 1, can open our eyes to modern failings and perhaps persuade us to refocus our children’s ministry on something more serious than fun and games and colouring books.
The heart of today’s message
In the last verse of our text (Lk. 1:45) Elizabeth pronounces a beatitude, a blessing, upon Mary because she “believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” In other words, blessed things were happening all around Mary (barren Elizabeth was about to become a mother, Mary was herself already pregnant, and to top it off, she had been told she was carrying the Messiah, the Son of God in her womb), all because God had decided the time was right to fulfil all the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.
This is the secret of Christmas; there is joy all around for those who recognize what God is doing and who enter into it whole-heartedly. Elizabeth was joyful because God had given her a son! And what a son! Mary was joyful because God had given her an even greater son! Zechariah rejoiced when he finally got his heart right and acknowledged what God was doing in his life (v.63-64). And after seeing the baby Jesus the shepherds “returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them” (2:20).
But now I need to point something out, lest you miss it. Those shepherds who were so full of joy hadn’t really done anything. All they did was listen to the angels, go and see the baby Jesus, understand, however dimly, that God was sending them a Saviour, and then rejoice in all that God was doing. Again, let me make an obvious point. None of these things happened because the shepherds did anything. Rather, God was doing a sovereign work on earth, and they were blessed because they believed. The same was true for Mary and Elizabeth. Faith didn’t make anything happen. Rather, faith allowed them to enter into the joy of what was happening.
This is the opposite of word-faith, or word of faith teaching. The events of the first Christmas had nothing to do with manipulating God by declaring things, or in any way using words to harness the forces of nature to do a human being’s bidding. In those days every Jewish woman in the world longed to be the mother of the Messiah. But no amount of wishing it, declaring it, or believing it would have made it so. The mother of the Messiah was God’s sovereign choice. The miracle in her womb was likewise a sovereign act of creation. Think about it. In her wildest dreams Mary could not have conceived the idea of a virgin birth. But when the angel announced it, she believed, and because she did, she was blessed.
According to some scholars, Luke 1:45 is first beatitude in the New Testament (similar to the last, spoken to Thomas in John 20:29, “Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believed.”) The goal of the New Birth is to remake our hearts so that we love God and long to obey him. The word-faith movement, on the other hand, isn’t so much about obeying God as it is about getting God to obey us. I think this will come clear when you see what Elizabeth did because she believed.
Elizabeth could speak so knowingly of Mary’s faith because her’s was a similar faith. Zechariah didn’t believe Gabriel when he was told that his elderly wife would have a son, but I think you could make a case that Elizabeth did. In fact, I think you could make a case that it was Elizabeth’s faith, not Zechariah’s, that led to her pregnancy in the first place.
I can just see it. Zechariah comes home from his temple duties and the first thing he has to explain is why he’s mute (most likely he wrote it on a tablet, see v. 63). Elizabeth soon gets the gist of what he’s saying and immediately starts pulling him toward the bedroom. He probably signed something that meant, “What are you doing?” Her response would have been, “God has promised us a son. I believe what he said. So let’s make a baby.” But note how important it is to keep the Biblical order intact. Elizabeth was obedient because she believed, and because she acted on her faith something wonderful happened. But her faith did not make her dead womb come alive. She had a son only because a sovereign God had decreed it should happen.
Shouldn’t this principle guide every aspect of our lives? God gives us promises in his word. We are blessed because we believe those promises. We obey because God’s promises encourage us to action. But we receive the blessing, not because we acted, but because a sovereign God has determined to bless us. Isn’t this the secret of Christmas? A sovereign God has determined to bless the world through His Son. And we enter into that blessing when we remember God’s promises never fail, even in the worst of times.