18 - THE VIRGIN BIRTH
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14
INTRODUCTION At the beginning of this century, liberal theologians were denying the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. They were greatly influenced by the humanistic attitude to Christianity that manifested itself in an anti-supernatural approach to the Scriptures. Other doctrines were denied, such as the verbal inspiration of Scriptures, the substitutionary atonement, the physical resurrection, and the bodily return of Jesus Christ at the end of this age. These important doctrines came to be called "the fundamentals of the faith."
Some theologians denied some of the fundamentals, but accepted others. Of the fundamentals, the inerrancy of Scripture and the virgin birth were usually the first doctrines to be denied. Liberal theologians, because of their aversion to the supernatural, tried to maintain that belief in the virgin birth was not really necessary. In our day, artificial insemination creates the possibility of a woman experiencing birth without knowing a man in a sexual way. However, this is not true of virgin birth in the biblical sense, which involved a virgin giving birth to a child without the seed of a man. The virgin birth is the supernatural method that was used for the birth of Jesus Christ. The virgin birth of Christ is not an independent doctrine which we can receive or reject without affecting our Christianity. It is one of the foundation stones of Christianity; our faith will crumble if it is removed. This doctrine is tied to biblical inerrancy, Christ’s sinless character, the atonement, and other key doctrines of the Bible. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, he would be unable to save himself, because he would not be a sinless Savior. If we cannot accept the virgin birth of Christ, very little credibility remains in the Bible. Therefore, we must understand the virgin birth if we are going to understand our faith. THE VIRGIN BIRTH IN PROPHECY
Several biblical authors believed and wrote of the virgin birth of Christ. If we choose to deny this doctrine, we would raise the issue of the honesty or credibility of some of the most prominent Bible writers. This is true in both the Old and New Testament. Some of these authors spoke prophetically of the virgin birth while others wrote after the fact.
Moses. When Moses quoted the words of God in Genesis 3:15, he became the first biblical writer to mention the coming of Christ. Referring to him as "the seed of the woman" might have been an allusion to a virgin birth. After Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, God immediately judged their sin. Even in judgment, however, God demonstrated himself as a merciful God. He told the serpent, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Genesis 3:15). The introduction of a theological subject in Scripture is often an embryonic statement, sometimes called the Law of First Reference. The doctrine is there in "seed" form. When God introduced the prospect of salvation to Adam and Eve and the whole race, the implication of the virgin birth was alluded to in the reference to "her seed." If the coming Messiah was to have a normal physical birth, the "seed" would have come from a man. This reference in the beginning of Scripture to a woman’s "seed" implied that the coming Redeemer would not have a human father. God would be the father of his only begotten Son and a virgin would give birth to "her seed."
Isaiah. Probably the best known Old Testament verse referring to the virgin birth is found in Isaiah. God had instructed Isaiah to allow King Ahaz to ask God to perform a miracle. Ahaz, apparently apathetic to God and the divine message, refused to ask God for a sign. The Lord chose to give a sign to the king who had rejected it. "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). Some have commented this was an unfair sign because it was impossible for Ahaz to witness the virgin birth that occurred many years after his death. It must be remembered, however, that Ahaz had already rejected the sign before it was identified.
Some also argue that Isaiah did not mean a "virgin" but rather a "young maid" when he wrote this verse. Actually, the Hebrew word almah was translated either way. But the context suggests Isaiah was talking about a virgin. A non-virgin having a child would not be an extraordinary event but would be expected. The introduction of a miraculous sign implies the use of "virgin" rather than "young woman." A virgin and a young woman ready for marriage today are not always the same thing as it usually was in Old Testament times. Under Mosaic law, a young woman could be stoned if she was found pregnant out of wedlock. Birth control methods and therapeutic abortions were not available to cover up one’s promiscuity in Bible times. Even if Isaiah was referring to a young woman ready for marriage, it is reasonable to assume she had not known a man. When the Septuagint, the Greek language version of the Old Testament, was translated, a Greek word was used that could mean only "virgin." Until recent times, it was generally assumed by translators that Isaiah here referred to a woman who had not known a man. Not only is there a cultural and traditional reason for accepting the translation of the word "virgin," there is a biblical mandate. When Matthew wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he cited this verse to demonstrate that Christ’s birth was fulfilling Bible prophecy. In doing so, he followed the Septuagint translation and used the Greek word parthenos, which could only be translated "virgin." If he had so desired, he could have used another Greek word to identify a young woman, but this is not the word chosen by the Holy Spirit. Matthew noted, "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" (Matthew 1:22-23). THE VIRGIN BIRTH IN HISTORY Three New Testament writers wrote historically of the virgin birth.
Matthew. Just as the virgin birth was implied at the beginning of the Old Testament, so it is fully revealed at the beginning of the New Testament. Matthew clearly believed Mary was a virgin until the birth of Christ. He cited Isaiah 7:14, identifying the birth of Christ as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Matthew 1:22-23). On two occasions in the first chapter, Matthew identifies the Holy Spirit as the source of Mary’s son (Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:20). In listing the genealogical data concerning Christ, Joseph is listed as the husband of Mary but not the father of Jesus. Even though this is an argument from silence, its omission is not accidental. Matthew records that Joseph married Mary knowing her condition. Then he clearly states, "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son; and called his name Jesus" (Matthew 1:25). Even in announcing the birth of Jesus, it was the birth of "her son" (v. 25), not "his son" or even "their son." In Matthew’s account of the birth of Christ, there are at least seven direct or indirect statements suggesting Jesus was born of a virgin. Since Matthew was one of the original twelve apostles, it is reasonable to assume that the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ was one of the original parts of "the apostles’ doctrine" taught to the members of the Jerusalem church (Acts 2:42).
Luke. Matthew’s Gospel was written by a Jew primarily to a Jewish audience. The only other Gospel writer to emphasize the virgin birth of Christ was a Gentile writing primarily to a Gentile audience. It is particularly significant that Luke, a medical doctor, should be among the men that the Holy Spirit chose to comment on the doctrine of the virgin birth. Luke twice calls Mary a virgin. He tells of an angel sent by God "to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary" (Luke 1:27). When she learned she was to become a mother, "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (Luke 1:34). Later, Luke listed the family tree of Mary, not JosEph Here he identified Jesus as "being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph" (Luke 3:23).
Luke also teaches the virgin birth by his careful phrases. He calls Jesus "the Son of the Highest" (Luke 1:32) and "the Son of God" (Luke 1:35), but never clearly identifies him as the son of Joseph
Luke was both a medical doctor and a historian concerned with accuracy, "to write unto thee in order ... That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed" (Luke 1:3-4). The virgin birth was not simply a rumor but rather an event investigated by a historian who was also a physician, after which the account was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Paul. The third New Testament writer to support the doctrine of the virgin birth was the apostle Paul. Writing to the churches in the province of Galatia, he said, "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law" (Galatians 4:4). The readers of Galatians were concerned with Old Testament law, so they would have been careful to list the genealogies from father to son. But Paul recognized the uniqueness of this birth. Jesus was "made of a woman," meaning more than a simple acknowledgment that Jesus had a mother. It suggests that Jesus had only a mother, a reasonable assumption when we realize that both Paul and Luke were closely related in the ministry and both accepted the virgin birth. THE VIRGIN BIRTH IN THEOLOGY At stake in the controversy surrounding the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ are a number of other doctrines. If Jesus had a human father, he would have inherited a sin nature. In that case he would be unable to save himself, let alone be the sinless substitute for the sins of the world. With human parents, it would be impossible for him to be the Son of God.
FOUR STATEMENTS OF CHRIST’S SINLESSNESS Scripture Truth 2 Corinthians 5:2 Christ knew no sin Hebrews 4:15 Christ was without sin 1 Peter 2:22 Christ did no sin 1 John 3:5 In Christ is no sin
Sinless character of Christ. If Jesus had a human father, he would have inherited the sin nature of Adam, the head of the human race. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12). It would only have taken one sin to make Jesus a sinner. Jesus was a man without a sin nature because he had a father without a sin nature. Jesus is the only begotten Son of the heavenly Father and was born of a virgin, being conceived by the Holy Spirit, hence he became flesh.
Jesus argued his divine origin with the Jewish leaders. He told them he came from the heavenly Father (John 8:38). The Jews answered Jesus that their father was Abraham (John 8:39), to which he replied that they should be doing Abraham’s works. Then in retaliation, the Jews made the innuendo, "we be not born of fornication" (John 8:41), implying that Jesus was born out of wedlock. From this, we gather that news of Mary’s pregnancy before the wedding to Joseph was public knowledge. This gives added historical credibility to the virgin birth.
Word of salvation. When Paul referred to the virgin birth of Christ, he also identified a purpose in his coming, "to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Galatians 4:5). God required a lamb "without blemish" as a sacrifice for sin (Exodus 12:5). Jesus was unblemished in that he did not have a sin nature, and unspotted in that he lived a sinless life. Because of this, Paul can say, “For he [God] hath made him [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin" (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Son of God. A man can only be the son of his father. This universal principle also applies to the Son of God. Jesus is called "the Son of the Highest" (Luke 1:32) and "the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). This could only have been true if Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to her son. Again our salvation is dependent upon that. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
Inerrancy. A key battle among theologians today is over the question of inerrancy. If the doctrine of the virgin birth is false, then we have no confidence in the accuracy of anything else in Scripture. The following chart illustrates what books we would question in our Bible if we denied the virgin birth. THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND INERRANCY
Virgin Birth Taught Author Writings
1. Genesis 3:15 Moses Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, Deuteronomy 2:1-37. Isaiah 7:14 Isaiah Isaiah 3:1-26. Matthew 1:1-25 Matthew Matthew 4:1-25. Luke 1:3 Luke Luke, Acts, (Hebrews?)
5. Galatians 4:4 Paul Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, *22 or 23 of the 66 books of Colossians, the Bible are unreliable if the 1 Thessalonians, virgin birth is unreliable. 2 Thessalonians,
1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, (Hebrews?)
Supernatural power of God. When Mary was confronted with the announcement that she would give birth to the Son of God, she asked, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (Luke 1:34). She learned the answer to her question when the angel observed, "For with God nothing shall be impossible" (Luke 1:37). If the truth were known, the real reason some theologians deny the virgin birth of Christ is their unwillingness to recognize a supernatural God.
CONCLUSION When we study the virgin birth of Christ, we are primarily concerned with Jesus. There was another person involved in this miraculous event-Mary. When Mary was presented with the opportunity to serve God in this way, she responded, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word" (Luke 1:38). She responded in yielding her life to God despite the obvious problems it created. Her closest friends and relatives would assume she had been morally impure. Under the law, her fiance could have had her put away for her unfaithfulness. Her dreams of marriage and "living happily ever after" could have been shattered, yet she yielded her life to God. The lesson of the virgin birth stands as a challenge to us today. Later in life, Mary had not changed her attitude. When faced with the problem of no wine at the wedding in Cana, she turned to the servants and said, "Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it" (John 2:5). Mary’s attitude of yieldedness brought blessing to the human race in the birth of Jesus Christ. Her continued yieldedness brought blessing to those at the feast. If she could give us advice today, it would be the same exhortation as Paul, "Present your bodies a living sacrifice ... unto God" (Romans 12:1).
DAILY READINGS Monday: Luke 1:26-38 Tuesday: Luke 1:39-56 Wednesday: Luke 2:1-20 Thursday: Matthew 1:1-25 Friday: Isaiah 7:1-16 Saturday: Genesis 3:1-19 Sunday: Galatians 3:25 - Galatians 4:7