Recently, my wife and I welcomed our third child into the world. We are looking forward to getting her baptized as Christians have done since the time of the early Church. But… as I’ve become more familiar with the historical Christian faith largely through my conversion to Catholicism, I can understand the need to explain infant baptism to folks who are not Catholic. If you’d like to understand, read on.
Before explaining the importance of infant baptism, it’s necessary to touch on the importance of baptism overall. However, because I don’t want this post to be super long, I’ll simply refer you to some of the places in Scripture where the importance of baptism is strongly emphasized:
John 3:5 “Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’”
1 Peter 3:21 “Baptism… now saves you”
Titus 3:5 “he saved us… by the washing of regeneration…”
Rom. 6:3-4 “all of us who have been baptized…”
Mark 16:16 “He who believes and is baptized will be saved…”
Gal. 3:27 “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
1 Cor. 12:13 “…we were all baptized into one body…”
Rom. 6:3,4 “We were buried therefore with him by baptism…”
Matt. 28:18-20 “And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.’”
Obviously baptism does not replace Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, but rather is the means that God chose to transmit the grace to us from that sacrifice as a free gift and a sign of our entrance into God’s covenant family.
To help explain infant baptism and the process of discovering its importance, I’d like to share a quote from Scott Hahn’s conversion story as written in his book “Rome Sweet Home”:
Studying the covenant made one thing clear. For two thousand years, from the time of Abraham to the coming of Christ, God showed his people that he wanted their babies to be in covenant with him. The way to do it was simple: give them the sign of the covenant.
Of course, back in the Old Testament, the sign of entering God’s covenant was circumcision; whereas Christ changed it to baptism in the New Testament. But nowhere did I find Christ announcing that, from now on, babies were to be kept out of the covenant.
In fact, I found him saying practically the opposite: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 19:14).
I also found the apostles imitating him. For example, at Pentecost, when Peter finished his first sermon, he called everyone to embrace Christ by entering into the New Covenant: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children…” (Acts 2:38-39).
In other words, God still wanted children in covenant with him. And since the New Testament gave only baptism as the sign for entering the New Covenant, why should the babies of believers not be baptized? No wonder, as I discovered in my study, the Church practiced infant baptism from the beginning.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we have wonderful descriptions of the Sacrament of Baptism in paragraphs 1213-1284. For now I’ll share paragraphs 1250-1254 regarding infant baptism:
Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.
The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.
Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” The response is: “Faith!”
For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.
If your baptism into God’s covenant family happened when you were an infant thanks to the faith of your parents, remember Ephesians 2:8,9…
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God- not because of works, lest any man should boast.”
Even with the biblical principles laid out, many will still argue that the Bible does not specifically command infant baptism, and this is true, but honest Christians are still left with the evidence of tradition.
Now, we should pause for a moment and clarify the concept of tradition in reference to the way it supplements Scripture. For some people, the word “tradition” itself sends up red flags, often as a result of their loyalty to the ironic tradition of “Scripture alone” which has developed among modern groups as the means of determining doctrine while divorced from Church authority. Tradition can be dangerous because you’re consulting the wisdom of previous generations, not just your own experience, and Christianity can turn out to be different than what you assumed. Having said that, I would like to point out that Scripture itself speaks of the importance of tradition:
2 Timothy 2:2 “and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”
2 Thessalonians 2:15 “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
1 Corinthians 11:2 “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”
So if Scripture advocates tradition, we must accept tradition, but naturally we’re left asking “well, how do we know which traditions are faithfully preserved according to God’s will?” Well, that is where we consult the Church, which St. Paul referred to as the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
From “Radio Replies” by Fr. Leslie Rumble, Catholic Answers edition:
…Not all revealed truth was written down. The divine teaching has been preserved and handed down completely in the Catholic Church, both by that section written in the New Testament, and by that section of revealed truth that was not committed to writing but that is declared by the living voice of the Church. For example, which books of Scripture are canonical, the very inspiration of those books, the teachings on infant baptism, or on the matter and form of the sacraments, and many other things, are known to us by the traditional and living voice of the Church only. But as I have pointed out, Christ intended that, for he did not order anything to be written but established his Church and sent it to teach all nations what he had revealed, and its applications in practice.
It’s practically impossible to deny the authenticity of the practice of infant baptism after considering the traditions revealed in the writings of Church history:
In closing, I would like to share a few verses of Scripture that indicate the likely baptism of children and even infants among the first converts to the Christian faith:
Acts 16:15 “she was baptized, with her household”
Acts 16:33 “he was baptized at once, with all his family”
1 Cor. 1:16 “I did baptize also the household of Steph’anas”
For Bible-believing Christians who remain opposed to infant baptism, I will keep coming back to this question:
Does the Bible anywhere restrict baptism to adults?
P.S. I should mention that no one is suggesting that you should go half-drown your infant by dunking him or her underwater. Obviously it’s assumed that the tradition of pouring water over the head applies here:
Baptize as follows: after first explaining all these points, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if you have no running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot in cold, then in warm. But if you have neither, pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit… –The Didache, ca. A.D. 70, as quoted in “Four Witnesses” by Rod Bennett
I was recently listening to a Catholic apologist who suggested being able to share your testimony in 100 words or less. I thought that was a really cool idea.
1 Peter 3:15 says “Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence…”
So here’s my testimony in exactly 100 words:
I was raised by Christian parents to love Jesus and trust the Bible, and I still do. However, as an adult I needed to know exactly what I believe and why, and I ultimately wasn’t satisfied with a Christianity that’s determined by personal interpretation of Scripture. Study uncovered historical Christian beliefs and legitimate papal authority. I found that we received Scripture through the Church Jesus founded and promised to preserve. Scripture was intended to be understood as part of that Church’s overall teaching. Through logic and God’s grace, I’ve found the fullness of the Christian faith in the Catholic Church.
P.S. This testimony obviously presumes and excludes many things about my life and beliefs (for sake of brevity), so don’t hesitate to ask if you have any questions. Also feel free to share your own 100 word testimony in the comment section.
Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si has caused quite a stir inside the Church and outside as well, with a focus on the environment and other related subjects. Because I wanted to understand it properly and comment on it fairly, I decided to read the whole thing. In the process, many of my presuppositions were challenged, but overall I was very impressed by the pope’s knowledge and advice. He demonstrates how many subjects related to human life and stewardship of the earth are interconnected and interdependent. Pope Francis challenges Christians to remember the example of St. Francis of Assisi in the way we care for others and nature, and in the process we must back away from the consumerist culture and embrace the true joys of life. I really appreciated paragraphs 222 and 223 of Laudato Si:
“Christian spirituality proposes an alternative understanding of the quality of life, and encourages a prophetic and contemplative lifestyle, one capable of deep enjoyment free of the obsession with consumption. We need to take up an ancient lesson, found in different religious traditions and also in the Bible. It is the conviction that ‘less is more’. A constant flood of new consumer goods can baffle the heart and prevent us from cherishing each thing and each moment. To be serenely present to each reality, however small it may be, opens us to much greater horizons of understanding and personal fulfilment. Christian spirituality proposes a growth marked by moderation and the capacity to be happy with little. It is a return to that simplicity which allows us to stop and appreciate the small things, to be grateful for the opportunities which life affords us, to be spiritually detached from what we possess, and not to succumb to sadness for what we lack. This implies avoiding the dynamic of dominion and the mere accumulation of pleasures.
“Such sobriety, when lived freely and consciously, is liberating. It is not a lesser life or one lived with less intensity. On the contrary, it is a way of living life to the full. In reality, those who enjoy more and live better each moment are those who have given up dipping here and there, always on the look-out for what they do not have. They experience what it means to appreciate each person and each thing, learning familiarity with the simplest things and how to enjoy them. So they are able to shed unsatisfied needs, reducing their obsessiveness and weariness. Even living on little, they can live a lot, above all when they cultivate other pleasures and find satisfaction in fraternal encounters, in service, in developing their gifts, in music and art, in contact with nature, in prayer. Happiness means knowing how to limit some needs which only diminish us, and being open to the many different possibilities which life can offer.” –Papa Francesco
There is much that can be discussed regarding this encyclical, and I encourage everyone, especially Catholic Christians, to take the time to read it and allow yourselves to be challenged in a positive way. You can read or download Laudato Si here.
For a basic overview of Laudato Si, read this article.
As I write this, I’m in the final chapters of reading Frank Sheed’s 1947 book Theology and Sanity. With all of the books out there that I could be reading, I went out of my way to get a copy of this one… and I’m extremely glad that I did.
I got it thanks to Dr. Peter Kreeft’s recommendation that he made during his talk entitled “Seven Reasons to be Catholic” (available through Lighthouse Catholic Media). Kreeft is a Catholic philosopher who has written over 50 books. He’s a super smart guy. He said, “Frank Sheed’s Theology and Sanity is probably the best single work of Catholic apologetics in the 20th century. It contains, for instance, the clearest explanation of the Trinity that I’ve ever read. He writes with clarity, and power…” So yeah with a description like that I knew I needed to add it to the list. I made the mistake, however, of ordering a recent edition from Catholic Way Publishing which turned out to be rife with typos. Bummer. I’ve gone through my copy with a pencil making basic corrections as I read. Hopefully future editions from that publisher will have corrected the errors, but I recommend the reliable Ignatius Press edition.
Many of my fellow Christians are familiar with the excitement one gets from reading C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity for the first time. It’s the experience of seeing your own faith articulated in such a way that you want to share it with everyone. This book is like that, but for Catholics it not only explores the faith in a general way, it also dives into some extremely deep subjects with the sort of clarity that we laymen require. Sheed writes to the average person, making use of accumulated knowledge that has taken theologians centuries to carefully unpack.
As I tend to like orderly ways of doing things, I appreciate how Sheed starts with the necessary basics (such as the importance of theology and the proper mindset with which to approach it), and builds upon each subject as he progresses. We often struggle in understanding God simply because we haven’t been taught certain understandable truths about Him. Sheed explains how God transcends time and space, and how He is essential to the existence of everything. This book confidently tackles difficult questions about God that I would have assumed were best avoided. The Trinity is explained very carefully yet understandably. This alone is worth the price of the book, as it is very easy to stumble into heresy when not properly educated on the subject. The Trinity is an essential aspect of Christian beliefs that is not easy to explain, so make sure you’re getting it right. But Sheed goes further, explaining creation, angels, the fall of man, the story of salvation history, Jesus’ teachings and sacrifice, and His establishment of the Church and what that means for us. The more we understand these things, the better sense we can make of our existence. The better we understand real theology, the saner we are as human beings.
By the way, Sheed isn’t just relying on logic and tradition; he also bases his statements on Scripture and the writings of great men from Church history like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. He writes about life as part of the Body of Christ, and life after death; the end of the world, and what a life of grace looks like. Although this book was written decades ago, his insight into modern society may as well have been written yesterday. We see the hopelessness of atheism (nisi Dominus frustra: without God there is only frustration), and we see the slide toward sin (even among Christians) apart from well-established expectations, and we see the general unhappiness and spiritual sloth that develop apart from the Church.
What’s very satisfying about this book is how Sheed manages to tie these various subjects together in such a way that they build upon each other, so he can keep his explanations brief and flowing logically. It’s all basically intertwined, but it takes someone with an overall understanding to explain it properly.
Disclaimer: as easy as this book is to understand compared to many others like it, I still had to digest it in small doses (sometimes reading out loud while pacing with coffee) because it’s deep stuff. Our minds today are not conditioned to delve deeply… we lack the mental muscle so to speak. However, having said that, if you want to understand the Christian faith in a way that can weather storms, I highly recommend this book. Many people have their faith established in their hearts, but I encourage you to also have it established in your head. It’s worth your time.
“This book contains theology, not the great mass of it that theologians need, but the indispensable minimum that every man needs…” –Frank Sheed
Many non-Catholic Christians have a hard time with the idea of a crucifix. They say things like “Why are you portraying Jesus on the cross? We serve a risen Lord!” Does a remembrance of the crucifixion take away from the triumph of the resurrection? Some folks seem to think so. I think it might be good to offer an explanation of why there’s nothing wrong with displaying a crucifix.
It is a mistake to view a crucifix as a statement that Jesus is literally at this moment still on the cross. Catholics do not think they are “keeping Him on the cross” any more than they’re “keeping Him in the manger” at Christmas time. If you’re a Christian who does not like crucifixes, take a moment to really ask yourself why. You may find that your criteria would also demand empty manger scenes.
Catholics not only acknowledge Christ’s resurrection from the dead, we place special emphasis on celebrating the event. For Catholics, Easter is not only a day, it’s a season that lasts fifty days each year. We do indeed serve a risen Lord!
A crucifix helps us remember and explain Christ’s sacrifice in a way that everyone can appreciate. It can be seen by those who are illiterate, touched by those who are blind, noted at a glance by those who lack an attention span. A crucifix portrays the climactic moment of all world history, in high-definition 3D.
This isn’t to say that there’s anything wrong with displaying a bare cross. Catholics display those too. Personally, I prefer the crucifix. Here are some reasons why:
- The cross itself was a Roman torture device, which by itself carries a message that is less specific than a crucifix. We want to remember every day what Christ did for us on the cross. Paul said, “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2).
- The crucifix is basically the gospel message of God’s love for mankind, spoken without words. It’s like the older version of those signs that say “John 3:16” and it communicates the message of God’s love with impact. Sure the crucifix can be offensive or difficult to understand, but so is an all-powerful God allowing Himself to be placed in a humiliating situation, tortured, and killed because of His overwhelming love for you. Does this bother you? Good. You should be bothered.
- The crucifix is a powerful reminder that keeps our faith in focus, lest we as Christians slide into despair, ingratitude, or expectation of too much comfort in this life. If we are suffering, He empathizes with us. If we face death, He offers us courage and hope. He endured the worst of it, for us, so that we can also endure for love’s sake even unto death.
This may be the most important blog post I ever write. If you are a Christian, I wrote it for you. And it’s my sincere hope that my Evangelical friends and family might understand that my spiritual journey has been one of careful biblical study. My purpose here is to efficiently refute a common argument, thereby helping lead people toward a better understanding of John 6 and ultimately a more biblically-accurate Christian faith.
Communion, or the Lord’s Supper, is an important part of Christian beliefs. It is based on the Last Supper that Jesus shared with His disciples before His crucifixion. The average Christian is probably familiar with this verse:
“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’” -Luke 22:19
As followers of Christ, the command to “do this” is sufficient to convince us that it must be done, and so Christians everywhere agree that Communion in some form or another is important. But what is the reason why Jesus gave such a clear command?
Is there some deeper essential significance to this that we may not see?
This is where John chapter 6 comes in, where Jesus delivers His Bread of Life Discourse:
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” -John 6:51
“So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.’” –John 6:53,54
“‘For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.’” –John 6:55
“After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer walked with him. Jesus said to the Twelve, ‘Will you also go away?’ Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life…’” –John 6:66-68a
As Christians, what do we do with those verses? Well, for Christians who have a more liturgical approach to worship, and believe that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ during Communion, these verses can easily be taken literally.
However, there are many Christians today who prefer a sort of symbolic Communion. They are content with eating crackers and drinking grape juice simply “in remembrance”. They do not believe that they must eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood, regardless of His words. When asked about John 6:53-55 (“he who eats my flesh… has eternal life…for my flesh is food indeed”), these self-labeled “Bible-believers” often just say “well, I don’t believe He meant that.”
Those who have studied the chapter inevitably base a defense of symbolic Communion on verse 63, where Jesus said,
“It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.” –John 6:63
Basically, they say “See? You have to read the whole chapter in context! In verse 63 Jesus clears it up by explaining how His earlier words were symbolic, or figurative, like a sort of parable. His main purpose is to speak spiritually of Himself as the source of salvation, but not that He literally wants us to eat His flesh. To make it extra clear He even says that ‘the flesh is of no avail.’”
Here are six reasons why that common argument doesn’t actually work. Take your time.
- In the Bible do we ever see a parable begin with “truly truly” (or “amen amen” or “verily verily” depending on your translation)? Jesus says those words when He wants to be extremely clear. Verses 53-55 are obviously intended to cut through any attempt to dodge His literal meaning.
- When John wrote his Gospel, he had an opportunity to say “Jesus was speaking symbolically” here, but he did not say that.
- Note that in verse 66, which follows the “clarification” in verse 63, people still leave Jesus over this, and He makes no attempt to stop them to clear up a misunderstanding.
- Are we as Christians supposed to understand everything spiritual in a figurative way? Is the word “Spirit” in Scripture to be taken as “symbolic”? I hope not.
- Note the obvious difference between “my flesh” (v. 55) and “the flesh” (v. 63). “The flesh” can be seen as carnal thinking or sinful nature in the following verses:
- Would Jesus declare His own flesh to be “of no avail”? No way! Not if His death on the cross was going to be a sufficient sacrifice.
So, “the flesh” in verse 63 is not the same as Jesus’ flesh, which he says is indeed the food that gives us life. So what is the meaning behind verse 63? Well, it makes sense that the people listening would not understand without the Spirit opening their eyes to the life-giving truth. Peter admitted that he didn’t understand yet… but Peter and those who trusted Jesus stayed anyway. Many others chose not to believe, and went their own way.
Since verse 63 does not offer a symbolic escape hatch, we must take verses 53-55 literally.
“…he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life…”
The significance of this is monumental for anyone who wants to be part of a church that has sound doctrine. If your church has a merely symbolic Communion, do not let this subject rest on excuses or popular preference. Ensure that you are a part of the truly biblical, authentic Christian faith.
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” -1 Cor. 10:16,17
The importance of the Eucharist cannot be over-emphasized. Catholics know the Eucharist to be “the source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1324). Some of you may remember a post I did a while back giving a scriptural introduction to the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
I think it might also be good to share this helpful video on the subject:
P.S. For those of you who’ve wondered how I’ve been doing away from the blog, my actual pen-and-paper journaling has taken off and is quite enjoyable. Life as a serious Catholic has been richly rewarding and challenging. My prayer life and my family life have improved, and it has become my obsession to constantly learn more about the historic Christian faith and draw closer to Christ and the saints. It’s been good to hang out with other serious Catholics too. Catholics know how to have fun… but they also know how to be reverent. Teaching my kids to be reverent is a wonderful experience and more important than I realized before. There’s so much to share, if anyone is interested.
It was one of those glass-shattering moments for me when I really began to understand the significance of the wedding feast at Cana, as seen in John’s Gospel. It is the first recorded miracle performed by Jesus, when He turned water into wine, but Mary’s role in this event offers us an important lesson for our lives today.
Here’s the story:
On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” Now standing there were six stone water jars for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to them, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. He said to them, “Now draw some out, and take it to the chief steward.” So they took it. When the steward tasted the water that had become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward called the bridegroom and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now.” Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him. -John 2:1-11
Jesus referred to his mother as “woman”. This seems strange to us at first glance. We know that Jesus would not have broken the 4th commandment and disrespected His mother. His phrasing recalls the prophecy in Genesis 3:15. Satan had been in the garden of Eden in the form of something like a serpent or dragon, tempting Eve to sin. And God said to him,
…I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.” -Genesis 3:15
Jesus’ reference to Mary as “woman” is significant, as she is understood to be the new Eve… the woman who would have a role in redeeming mankind from sin, which makes sense, as the original Eve had a role in bringing mankind into sin.
But let’s return to Cana. Here is the main question that strikes me regarding Jesus’ miracle there:
Would Jesus have turned the water into wine for the wedding guests if Mary had not interceded on their behalf?
John indicates Jesus was unwilling, and Mary’s influence seemed to make all the difference. This helps to explain why Christians so often turn to Mary when there is a need. It’s not always clear if Jesus is willing, but either way it can be a good idea to hope His mother might intercede with Him on our behalf.
It’s also noteworthy that John says that Jesus “revealed his glory” through this miracle, which shows us how Mary’s intercession ultimately brings glory to God.
Part of my spiritual development has been a deeper realization of why various things were recorded in the Gospels… especially John’s Gospel, which was written around 60 years after the events. We’re not talking about some old guy writing down his memoirs for the heck of it, saying “Oh, yeah… and there was this one time…” These stories carry specific lessons for Christians. One lesson we can glean from the story of the wedding at Cana is this:
Mary is observant, and she has a feminine concern for people who need help. If she felt sympathy in her heart for the problem at the wedding, imagine how much she would be concerned for people who are in serious crisis.
How does this apply to us today?
Well, Mary’s concern and ability to intercede is in no way diminished. On the contrary, she’s actually in a greater position to help more people, especially those loyal to her Son:
A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars… Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her children, those who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus. -Rev. 12:1,17
There’s John referring to the “woman” again. But this time he’s given us a glimpse of her in a beautiful place of honor and power, as the mother of Christians.
John, as Christ’s loyal disciple, had a special understanding of Mary’s motherly role, as He was there with Mary at the foot of the cross and heard Jesus pronounce the words:
When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home. -John 19:26,27
As I strive to be loyal to Christ, I want Mary to know she is welcome in my home and I am happy to see God glorified through her intercession on behalf of us, her adopted children.
Scripture does not offer the whole picture of Mary’s significance, but we can definitely see enough to get us started in understanding her better.
It’s fairly common knowledge among Christians that we don’t know for sure who wrote the book of Hebrews in the Bible. The Church knows it to be inspired Scripture, despite the lack of certainty regarding its author.
Well, I’ve been reading an interesting book on Church history called Roots of the Faith, by Mike Aquilina, and he directed my attention to an interesting section in the writings of a Church historian named Eusebius, who lived in the late 200’s through the early 300’s. Since I happen to have Eusebius’ Church History on my shelf, I looked that particular section up for myself because it sounded intriguing.
Here, Eusebius is describing the writings of Clement of Alexandria, who was born circa 150, and Clement seemed to be quite confident in his knowledge of who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews:
“He says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name.”
–Eusebius, Church History, 6.14.2-3
So he’s saying that Paul wrote Hebrews, but left out his usual greeting for good reasons. The writing somewhat resembles Luke, because Luke translated it into the Greek.
“Farther on he says: ‘But now, as the blessed presbyter said, since the Lord being the apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, as sent to the Gentiles, on account of his modesty did not subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews, through respect for the Lord, and because being a herald and apostle of the Gentiles he wrote to the Hebrews out of his superabundance.’” (6.14.4)
So even though Paul’s primary mission was to the Gentiles, his “superabundance” overflowed to the Hebrews as well, and the Church has been blessed to this day with the Epistle to the Hebrews apparently as a result of Paul going above and beyond the call of duty (so to speak). I understand that there are other sources from the early Church which also offer insight into the subject of Hebrews’ authorship, but Eusebius is the one I came across and I just thought it was really interesting.
Unrelated to the authorship of Hebrews but included in the same chapter, Eusebius refers to Clement’s writings regarding Mark’s Gospel:
“As Peter had preached the Word publically at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it.”
–Eusebius, Church History, 6.14.6