Summary: Before Jesus was born of a virgin, there was one who worshipped.
LUKE 1:29 45
THE FIRST PERSON TO WORSHIP JESUS
“[Mary] was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.’
“And Mary said to the angel, ‘How will this be, since I am a virgin?’
“And the angel answered her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.’ And Mary said, ‘Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.’ And the angel departed from her.
“In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.’”
We are witnessing a revival of ancient pagan attitudes toward new-born children. To the Roman mind, life did not really begin until the father of the child accepted the child as his own. In judicial language, the child was not a “person” until accepted by the father. A nurse would bring the newborn child to the father and attempt to lay the infant on the father’s lap. If the father received the child, the little one would be allowed to live. If the father spread his legs so as to allow the child to fall to the floor, the child was not accepted. Children were disposable.
Today, whether an unborn infant lives or dies is exclusively a mother’s choice. The woman who chooses life for her unborn child will fight to carry the child to term. However, if she believes the child to be an unbearable inconvenience, she will argue for her “right” to have an abortionist slaughter the child in utero. Today, physicians in Great Britain are calling for a debate on euthanasia for disabled infants, not unlike the “compassion” of the Nazi regime who employed the notorious “T4 Medical Killing” program to rid the nation of the burden of providing care for “useless eaters.”
Were it not shocking enough that physicians—healers who subscribe to the Hippocratic oath—should call for the murder of disabled infants, the Church of England likewise now advocates that sick newborn babies be neglected and allowed to die! In a concession to social sensibilities, the bishops’ argument is cloaked as compassion—it is based solely upon economic considerations, both for society and for the families. It is shocking that supposed men of God blatantly deny scriptural teaching, but in a communion that no longer honours Scripture, perhaps we should not be surprised.
The trend toward murdering our own children is evident even in our own nation. As an example, consider a report from the Alberta Provincial Health Ethics Network. That report, published in 2001, says, in part: “Although the Canadian homicide rate in general has declined to its lowest level in 30 years, there has been significant increase in filicides … that coincide with the positive publicity for justifying filicides… Between 1994 and 1998, the number of children under the age of 12 murdered by their parents increased by 45% to 7.1% of all homicides in Canada (compared to 4.9% for 1974-1983). This sharp increase followed a decreasing trend from 1974 through 1993.
“…This epidemic of filicide appears to be uniquely Canadian. While filicides rose contrary to the general drop in Canadian Homicides, the American filicide rate dropped along with other forms of homicide. As a result, the most recent figures report that 80% of children murdered in Canada were killed by their own parents.”