Thousands Of Homeless Babies Rescued By George Frideric Handel And His Messiah

George Frideric Handel

A wealthy shipbuilder, Thomas Coram, retired early in an upscale district in London. He stayed fit by vigorous walks, but had no idea that something he found on these walks would change his life. Babies... he found dead and dying babies left on the streets. They were called foundlings.

Foundlings were babies born to unmarried women. These women where in a horrible situation since there were no homes to take their babies and no jobs for an unmarried woman with a child at her breast. It was starvation for both mother and child. So in the early morning hours these heartbroken mothers took their babies to the upscale areas of London to leave them on the doorsteps of well-off families who they hoped would have pity on their innocent infants. The babies who survived were usually taken to workhouses where the death rate for foundlings was over 90%.

Thomas was appalled and committed his remaining years to rescuing foundlings. There were homes for orphans, but foundlings were considered a different class because of how they were born. Orphan homes, like the famed homes of George Mueller, would not take in a foundling. Before George Mueller would receive a child into his homes evidence had to be provided that the child was born to parents who were married when the child was conceived. Adoption was not a legal option on either side of the Atlantic at the time.

Mr. Coram faced great difficulty getting permission to open a foundling's home (called a Foundling's Hospital). But permission was not enough. There were thousands of foundlings born each year... where would the money come from to feed, house, and cloth these children? Where would he get enough wet-nurses and other caregivers for the babies?

Enter George Frideric Handel, the Kapellmeister to the future King George of Great Britain. George Handel became a life-long supporter of the efforts of Thomas Coram to rescue foundlings. He was a beloved friend of the children, a governor of the Foundling's Hospital, and opened the doors for Thomas Coram to British aristocracy which led to the founding and survival of this great endeavor to rescue children. There is a permanent exhibit in the Foundling Museum in London dedicated to George Handel.

Thousands of children were rescued! Hundreds of babies were placed into the care of the home by heartbroken mothers. In the first few years, after the age for entrance to the Home was raised from 2 months to 12 months, the home received 15,000 babies!

George Handel annually performed the Messiah at the Foundling's Home and donated all the income to the home. He was the chief fundraiser for the chapel, built so the children could learn of this great Messiah's love for them. He bequeathed a full copy of the Messiah to the home which can be seen today in the museum along with the organ he presented to the home.

His music legacy in the home was great. One of the most popular choirs of the day was a choir filled with blind children from the home. Many of the foundlings made successful careers as musicians playing in orchestras and bands throughout Britain.

This Christmas don't forget the foundlings and orphans. Give to a Children's Home. If you don't know of one you are welcome to give to the home sponsored by our Church. It is Amazing Grace Children's Home (Formerly Rivers Of Mercy). Every cent given to the home goes directly to the home, we take nothing out for administrative costs. If you want to be placed on our mailing list simply send me your e-mail at blawrencejones@hotmail.com. Make your checks payable to Santa Fe Baptist Church with children's home in the memo of your check. The mailing address is:

Santa Fe Baptist Church

12902 6^th Street

Santa Fe, Texas 77510

The Ultimate Source

John 3:3 “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

The word translated “again” has been said to mean: “from above.” It does mean that, but not just in the sense of direction (up), it can also mean “from the top” Mark 15:38, or “from the beginning” Acts 26:5. It can be used to mark the beginning of a process, Luke 1:3. As used here the word literally means: “extension from a source that is above.” BDAG This word was also used for the repetition of a process starting at the source or, in some cases, the beginning.

Nicodemus understood the word, when used with born, to mean a repetition of the process of being “begotten” all over again. So he asked Jesus if a man can “enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?” But Nicodemus was thinking of the wrong source: a mother. Jesus was speaking of the ultimate source of life: God. Isaiah 44:2,24; 49:5; Jeremiah 1:5 teach that God is the ultimate source of all births. And this is the source that Jesus referred to in this passage. The Apostle John spoke of this in 1:13; 1 John 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18. Nicodemus should have understood this. 3:10

Jesus told Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, that God must qualify him for the kingdom of God or he would not get in… and this qualification involved God making his life all over again. This was jolting to Nicodemus. But Jesus also used the pronoun “anyone” translated “a man” in v.3. He was not just making a qualification that applied only to Nicodemus. It was a qualification for any person who would enter His kingdom. It doesn't matter who a person has been born to, or in what religious ceremonies someone has participated, Jesus requires everyone to be born again. To continue this thought please read Jesus' Kingdom Immigration Policy. You can read all related posts Here.

Birth Begins At Conception

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

We have no better English word to translate this Greek word than born… but it still is not a full translation. Let me explain. Bible writers used the same basic word for conception and the birth itself. We use the word birth or born for the process of a child exiting the birth canal. But in the Bible the word born can include the act of conception and all that results from it. This usage includes everything involved in bringing a baby into the world.

Here are a couple of examples:

• Matthew 1:18 “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Note the explanation of the “birth” of Jesus takes in the context and conception of His bodily existence before Mary delivered Him. In the Bible way of thinking the exit of the child from the mother's body was not the beginning of the child, it was the result of the context of the being of the child, just like every other experience of the child will be the effect or result of the context of its life, which began as a relationship between the child's parents. There is also a sense in which the Jewish context of birth includes the child's ancestors as well.
• 1 John 5:1 “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.” The word translated “born” includes a completed paternal action (begat and begotten) which happened at conception.

The notion that the Bible teaches anything but human life beginning in the context of conception would have been foreign to the writers of the New Testament. I think someone espousing that notion would have had to explain it to the Biblical authors first, because it would be so alien to them, then the proponent of that position would have been met with bewildered faces wondering how anyone could be so incomplete in their thinking. For them it would be the same as someone thinking a child has no parentage or context of being, as if the child had been individually created. Birth and, therefore, life begins in the context of conception.

I have addressed this in the context of Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus in two posts: Jesus Opened The Gates To Let The Trash Blow In and Jesus' Kingdom Immigration Policy. 

Bastardy In Old Testament Law And Some Modern Implications

I received a question recently about bastardy in the Old Testament, specifically about Deuteronomy 23:2. In this post I've briefly addressed the subject and carried it through to some of its modern implications.

The term "bastard" carries a different meaning in the context of Old Testament covenant law than it does in our culture. The Hebrew word is almost identical to the Aramaic term for incest, and primarily means a child born from an incestuous relationship. Prohibited incestuous relationships are listed in Leviticus 18:6-18.

The penalty for the participants of incest was to be "cut off" from the people, which is banishment. Leviticus 18:29 But there was nothing mentioned in chapter 18 about the standing of a child produced by incest, or the child's access to the "congregation". It seems Deuteronomy 23:2 closed this potential loophole by joining the descendants of an incestuous relationship to the banishment of the parents.

The law addressed, prohibited, and penalized all other relationships which could potentially lead to childbirth outside of marriage. Briefly:

• Premarital intercourse where both persons are known. Penalty: marriage without the possibility of divorce. Deuteronomy 22:28-29
• Premarital intercourse where the male participant is not revealed. Penalty: death for the female. Deuteronomy 22:20-21
• Adultery. Penalty: death for both parties. Deuteronomy 22:22
• Rape. Penalty: the female must declare immediately, or potentially face being executed later. Deuteronomy 22:20-22 If the woman was married at the time then the rapist must be executed. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 If the woman was unmarried the man must pay a fine to the girl's father, and then marry her without the possibility of divorce. Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Basically, under Old Testament law, there were to be no children born out of wedlock. If a girl was pregnant without a husband her only choices under law were: to reveal a non-incestuous father of her child and be forced to marry him, or reveal an incestuous father of her child and be banished with him, or be stoned to death.

There's no provision for adoption in Old Testament law. If a baby was born to an unmarried girl in Israel, and she refused to admit to authorities who the father was, then the child could be considered the product of incest by an unknown family member, and both mother and child would be banished. The child could also be considered the product of a premarital relationship which could result in the execution of mother and child.

I expect there were a lot of pregnant daughters quietly taken to neighboring countries by their fathers or mothers to be left there permanently. Once a girl lost the evidence of her virginity she risked being executed if she married a Jew, so girls risked death by execution if they returned. Deuteronomy 22:20-21

Joseph was going to quietly divorce Mary, the mother of Jesus, when he found out she was pregnant. She would have lived in banishment. But God intervened. Matthew 1:18-20 Joseph could have lawfully had her executed.

The rise of children born without declared fathers in a culture based on laws like these was evidence that obedience to the law was failing in every aspect. This is where the modern concept and laws of bastardy enter the picture. There was no legal provision for or acknowledgment of these children born in Old Testament based cultures. Adoption had no legal basis. Even orphans were not adoptable. They basically became wards of the nearest kin. In a failing Old Testament culture a destitute unwed mother's only choices were, generally, to starve to death with her child, let the child die, or find a home for the child.

This legal predicament in “Christian” nations who used this law as a model for their laws, led to children dying in the womb, outhouses, streets, and doorways of the rich while society willfully ignored the horror. Biographies on Thomas Coram and his efforts to rescue foundlings give a good background to these legal and cultural problems.
  

We Christians are historically well known for vocally opposing abortion and infanticide, but then we are also often notoriously known for doing nothing for the children and mothers who chose not to abort. I know... I know there are many of my colleagues in ministry who preach long and hard against abortion, but don't personally donate a dime to take care of un-aborted, needy children. And, sadly, many churches and God-fearing Christians don't regularly give to ministries that provide for these kids.

Sex outside of marriage is wrong, abortion is wrong, but Christians who oppose abortion without doing anything for un-aborted, at risk children are hypocritically negligent, and... oddly, they end up contributing to the cultural pressures on unwed mothers to abort by their failure to act on behalf of the un-aborted. Also, failure to oppose the prejudice against adoption, and the rising legal difficulty and costs of adoption, adds to the plight of unwed mothers, and further promotes abortion. Christians must... we must... change the way we think, and become proactive on multiple fronts for the sake of the children.

I'm glad, as a Christian, I am not under Old Testament covenant law, and I rejoice that there are men and women, like the Rivas family, who provide a home for children in need no matter what their situation. I rejoice that I am a member of a Grace based church. Grace... Mercy... these are the practical tenets of New Testament Christianity. Let's rescue the mothers and their children. John 8:3-11