"The Virginal Conception of Christ"
Luke 1:26-38
Introduction: Larry King, the CNN talk show host, was once asked who he would most want to interview if he could choose anyone from all of history. He said, "Jesus Christ." The questioner said, "And what would you like to ask Him?" King replied, "I would like to ask Him if He was indeed virgin-born. The answer to that question would define history for me." -- from Just Thinking, RZIM, Winter 1998
Dr. Ian Paisley writes: IN MANY QUARTERS, ecclesiastical as well as secular, belief in the Virgin Birth of our Lord Jesus Christ is scouted as unworthy of twentieth-century intelligence. Biologically, it is vehemently asserted, such a birth is impossible. Science with pontifical authority has pronounced against it. Who dares to challenge the "all knowing" of such an eminent authority?
The fact of the Virgin Birth having been declared against, the evidence and proof which established the fact must now be discredited. Let it be carefully noted that this finding against the Virgin Birth was not the result of a fresh examination of the evidence but rather the arbitrary act of science falsely so called. Having destroyed, in their opinion, the supernatural birth, these "know-alls" must of necessity demolish the evidence which supported that birth. All sorts of ingenious methods have been brought into play to destroy the records-- from the mistranslation of words to the pen-knifing of whole passages of the Bible. Historical evidence is flouted without respect for any known rule of evidence. Unfounded assertions are put forward as sound conclusions and the whole basis of traditional Christian belief is subjected to the methods of a reckless infidelity.
This assault on the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is, however, but one phase of a great battle to evacuate the supernatural from Christianity and to reduce it to the plane of natural religion. These naturalists in religion are out to destroy supernatural Christianity.
They go through the Bible and tell us there is no supernatural revelation there;
They go through the Birth of Christ and tell us there is no supernatural incarnation there;
They go through the Person of Christ and tell us there is no supernatural deity there...
They go through the Works of Christ an tell us there are no supernatural miracles there;
They go through the Words of Christ and tell us there is no supernatural wisdom there;
They go through the Death of Christ and tell us there is no supernatural atonement there;
They go through the Blood of Christ and tell us there is no supernatural cleansing there; and
They go through the Tomb of Christ and tell us there is no supernatural resurrection there.
Having jettisoned the supernatural from the Gospel Ship they have reduced her to an old hulk of man's manufacturing, a mere plaything for the storms of unbelief and the reefs of infidelity.
Well may Moses say: "For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges. For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter: Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps." --Deuteronomy 32:31-33.
I. The Confusion about the Virginal Conception
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (Mary being conceived free from original sin) is not to be confused with her virginal conception of her son Jesus. This misunderstanding of the term immaculate conception is frequently met in the mass media. Catholics believe that Mary was not the product of a virginal conception herself but was the daughter of a human father and mother, traditionally known by the names of Saint Joachim and Saint Anne. The Immaculate Conception, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, was the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the womb of her mother, Saint Anne, free from original sin by virtue of the foreseen merits of her son Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was conceived by normal biological means, but God acted upon her soul (keeping her "immaculate") at the time of her conception.
The Immaculate Conception is commonly mistaken to be the conception of the Child Jesus in her own womb and the Virgin Birth of Jesus. These are covered by the Doctrine of Incarnation, while the Immaculate Conception deals with the conception of Mary herself, not that of her son.
Although the belief that Mary was sinless and conceived immaculately has been widely held since Antiquity, the doctrine was not dogmatically defined until 1854, by Pope Pius IX. Wikipedia.org
Not only do Catholics teach that Mary was free from original sin but they also teach that she was free from personal sin as well. What is wrong with the teaching referred to as the Immaculate Conception?
a. Her status
To believe that Mary was free from original as well as personal sin is to place her on a par with Christ himself, a status that is not supported anywhere by Scripture. It is a doctrine that has been manufactured by men and has led millions to pray to and worship Mary. Mariology is just another form of idolatry and is a spurious doctrine that should be rejected. The only object worthy of worship in the entire universe is God alone.
b. Her statements
Earlier in chapter one in verses 46-56 we have what is commonly referred to as the "Magnificat" or Mary's song where she glorifies God for what she has just heard from her cousin Elizabeth, and in verse 47 we read the following; "...and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior..." The section is translated rightly, "The God who is my Savior." This poor young girl never dreamed of and "immaculate conception or immaculate life," and never claimed them for herself and indicates that God is "her Savior."
c. Her spouse
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. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 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. 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
II. The Criticism of the Virginal Conception
a. The idea of a virgin birth is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
Really? Where have you been for the past 38 years? Ever since in vitro fertilization and embryonic transfer came on the scene in 1978 (not to mention artificial insemination), it is quite possible for a woman who has never experienced sexual intercourse to give birth.
Of course, the Bible makes it clear that it was Almighty God, not some high-paid gynecologist, who worked the details of Jesus' Divine-Human conception, i.e. "And the angel answered and said unto [Mary], The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." -- Luke 1:35, KJV.
Sound miraculous? Of course. But these days, who would deny that miracles occur? And such a 'small' one for the God who created the entire universe!
b. The idea of a virgin birth is MYTHOLOGICALLY DERIVED.
Author Patrick Campbell (The Mythical Jesus) and Episcopal Bishop J.S. Spong are two of a number of individuals who have suggested that "...the virgin birth account is a...clearly recognized mythological element in our faith tradition whose purpose was not to describe a literal event but to capture the transcendent dimensions of God in the Earthbound words and concepts of first-century human beings."
Both men, however, overlook a simple fact: No respectable Jew would have ever condescended to buy into a Greek/Babylonian mythological base for an account dealing with the birth of his/her Messiah.
c. The idea of a virgin birth is HISTORICALLY UNSUPPORTED
The Apostles' Creed, written in the 4th century; the Nicene Creed, adopted at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.; the Athanasian Creed, written about 450 A.D.; the Chalcedon Definition, adopted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D.; and the Small Catechism of Martin Luther of 1529 A.D. are only a few of the historic creeds that recognize the veracity of the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Only in more modern times have Bible critics begun to try to cast doubt on a doctrinal truth that the Church has long since historically endorsed.
d. The idea of a virgin birth is BIBLICALLY UNCONVINCING
Some critics cite the fact that the Apostle Paul is silent on the subject of the Virgin Birth, and the fact that Mary's virginity is never mentioned in the Gospel According to John, as evidence that Jesus was never born of a virgin.
But the argument from silence, always a rather weak tactic in making a case, is particularly weak here due to the fact that both Paul and John were alive and quite familiar with the Gospel accounts written by Matthew and Dr. Luke (a physician!)--and yet never either questioned or refuted it.
e. The idea of a virgin birth is STATISTICALLY UNWARRANTED
If you really want to put truth up for a vote (and who does?), let's get all of the statistics out in the open. While it is true that one very famous poll taken in 1965 (and still being frequently cited today) of 7,441 Protestant clergy showed that many mainline denominational ministers were not convinced of the truthfulness of the Virgin Birth, a more recent Harris poll of a randomly selected group of 1,011 adults found that 91% of U.S. Christians do believe in the Virgin Birth. All of which goes to show that when it comes to determining spiritual truth, our authority ought to be the Bible (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:25), not men--including clergy! Christiananswers.net
CHRISTMAS SURVEY
What do people believe about the birth of Christ? Newsweek Magazine conducted a poll asking some questions about Christ and His birth.* Here are some of the results:
67% - believe that the entire story of Christmas is historically accurate
24% - believe the story of Christmas is a theological invention
SOURCE: Brian Mavis, SermonCentral.com. Citation: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6653824/site/newsweek/
* For this NEWSWEEK Poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates interviewed by telephone 1,009 adults, aged 18 and older on Dec. 2 and Dec. 3. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
III. The Character of the Virginal Conception
a. The Scriptural Narrative
730 years prior to the birth of Christ the prophet Isaiah revealed the coming of a "virgin born" Savior. Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin (almah) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
A Virgin unspotted the prophets foretold,
Should bring forth a Saviour which now we behold.
To be our Redeemer from death, hell and sin
Which Adam's transgression had wrapped us up in.
This verse has become the principal battleground of the whole controversy regarding the Virgin Birth. The first line of assault of the critics is upon the Hebrew word "almah," here translated "virgin". It is urged that the proper Hebrew word for virgin is "bethulah," and that if a virgin was what the prophet wished to signify he would have used that word. "Almah," it is contended, simply means "a young woman of marriageable age." The Holy Spirit used the word "almah" seven times in the Old Testament. In each of the six other times it always means "virgin." In his "Prophets and Promise" Professor Willis Beecher says:
"There is no trace of its use to denote any other than a Virgin."
Professor James Orr states in his great book, "The Virgin Birth of Christ":
"The objection from the meaning of 'almah' was, as we learn from Justin Martyr, Origen and other fathers, one urged by the Jews against the Christian interpretation of the passage from earliest times. But it may fairly be replied now, as it was then, that if the word does not necessarily bear this meaning of 'virgin,' it may and usually does bear it. In fact, in all the six places in which, besides this passage, the word occurs in the Old Testament, it may be contended that this is the meaning."
Four hundred years ago Martin Luther issued a challenge:
"If a Jew or Christian can prove to me that in any passage of Scripture 'almah' means 'a married woman' I will give him one hundred florins, although God alone knows where I will find them."
Luther's challenge still stands impregnable today.
It also needs to be noted that it was preceded by the article "the" and should read, "the virgin" shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." The definite article has an individualizing and specializing force and so the virgin here is from God's point of view the virgin, in contradistinction to all other virgins.
The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language about the third century B. C. This version was called the "Sep-tu-a-gint" Version. According to tradition this translation was made by about seventy divines (Hebrew Scholars) hence it has been designated as the LXX, the Roman numerals for seventy. Without doubt, those who made this translation were eminent Hebrew scholars and better equipped to translate the Hebrew than any modern Hebraist, as Hebrew was still a spoken language in their day. In the "Sep-tu-a-gint" "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 is translated by the Greek word "parthenos" virgin.
Dr. Alfred Edersheim, whose "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah" presents a higher order of scholarship than any other "Life" of Christ extant, states:
"The fact that the seventy who were the most eminent Hebrew scholars in the world translated the word 'virgin' is sufficient evidence that in this connection the word could have no other meaning." Christian Foundations
EVANS ON THE VIRGIN BIRTH
Dr. William Evans, who pastored College Church from 1906-1909, was an unusually accomplished man. He had the entire King James Version of the Bible memorized as well as the New Testament of the American Standard Version. Dr. Evans also authored over fifty books. His son, Louis, became one of the best-known preachers in America and for many years pastored the eminent First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood.
When Dr. William Evans retired, he moved to Hollywood to be near his son, and when Louis was away he would substitute for him. One unforgettable Sunday Dr. William, as he was affectionately called, spoke on the virgin birth. All were amazed when he raised his Bible and tore out the pages that narrate the birth of the Lord. As the tattered scraps floated down toward the congregation, he shouted, "If we can't believe in the virgin birth, let's tear it out of the Bible!" And then as he drove home his point, he tore out the resurrection chapters, then the miracle narratives, then anything conveying the supernatural. The floor was littered with mutilated pages. Finally, with immense drama he held up the only remaining portion and said, "And this is all we have left -- the Sermon on the Mount. And that has no authority for me if a divine Christ didn't preach it."
(From a sermon by Jason Jones, The Virgin Birth, 12/14/2009)
b. The Supernatural Nature
Those who deny the Virgin Birth of Christ must also deny the pre-existence of Christ and those who deny the pre-existence of Christ must further deny the co-equality of Christ in the Godhead. By maintaining that the birth of Christ was by natural generation the origin of Christ is fixed. His conception and birth mark the date of His origin. He had a beginning like all other creatures. His eternity therefore must be rejected. Such is the logical outcome of the denial of the supernatural birth.
Apostasy in this vital doctrine leads to total apostasy in all vital doctrines!
To deny the Virgin Birth is to reduce Christ to the level of an ordinary individual. In doing so His pre-existence and hence, His place in the Godhead, are repudiated. He cannot, therefore, by this reasoning, be the Son of God. If He is not, as the Father from the heavens twice declared Him to be, the Son of God, then the God of Truth is a liar, heaven in reality is hell and the whole revelation one colossal sham.
There is, in fact, no middle ground logically between denial of the Virgin Birth and open infidelity. Those who maintain that the Virgin Birth is not essential only display their own abysmal ignorance.
SKEPTICISM ABOUT THE VIRGIN BIRTH
A group of Bible scholars have unanimously agreed that Jesus had a human father, but they are uncertain who it was. Thus, according to these scholars, Jesus was not born of a virgin, was not conceived by the Holy Spirit, was and is not literally the Son of God, but is in the same category with other great religious leaders who were conceived and born in the usual manner. The article states that the birth narratives found in Matthew and Luke are fictitious. The church fabricated the story about the virgin birth of Jesus in order to give Him more status, according to these scholars.
The seminar admits there is some uncertainty concerning who the father of Jesus was. Some say Joseph, some say Mary was raped, but none are willing to accept the biblical narrative at face value. The biblical account of Mary's miraculous conception by the power of the Holy Spirit is dismissed by these scholars as a theological statement having no historical validity.
A poll of 7,441 Protestant clergy showed a wide variation in belief. The following ministers do NOT believe in the virgin birth: American Lutherans 19%, American Baptists 34%, Episcopalians 44%, Presbyterians 49%, Methodists 60%, Millard Erickson says, "Next to the resurrection, the most debated and controversial event of Jesus' life is the virgin birth."
(From a sermon by Jason Jones, The Virgin Birth, 12/14/2009)
If, on the other hand, it can be established that our Lord Jesus Christ was the eternal son of God incarnate in the flesh, the possibility of any other birth but Virgin Birth is finally ruled out.
Only by a Virgin Birth could He, Who forever was, be manifested in time.
An ordinary birth results in the generation of a new person, but the extraordinary birth of Christ resulted in the incarnation of an old person, even the Ancient of Days. No new person resulted at the birth of Christ, but through that Birth the Second Person of the Trinity, by taking into union with Himself an impeccable human nature, was manifested in the flesh.
The Incarnation was a miracle in itself, and presupposes another miracle for its accomplishment, the miracle of the Virgin Birth.
Writing to Timothy, Paul views--
Christ's Incarnation-- "God was manifest in the flesh"
Christ's Vindication-- "Justified in the Spirit"
Christ's Manifestation-- "Seen of Angels"
Christ's Revelation-- "Preached unto the Gentiles"
Christ's Reconciliation-- "Believed on in the world"
Christ's Glorification-- "Received up into glory," and exclaims,
"Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness." -- 1 Timothy 3:16.
c. The Saving News
Friend, the Virgin birth of Jesus is the "good news" for He is Immanuel "God with us." If the Biblical account of the birth of Jesus is not to be trusted then God's plan for the salvation of the human race is the greatest lie ever told. We needed a Savior who could be both just and justifier. We needed a Savior who would be both human and divine; human so that His blood could be offered up on the mercy seat and divine so that His blood could satisfy a holy and just God.
What sacred fountain yonder springs
Up from the throne of God,
And all new covenant blessings brings?
'Tis Jesus' precious blood.
What mighty sum paid all my debt
When I a bondman stood,
And has my soul at freedom set?
'This Jesus' precious blood.
What stream is that which sweeps away
My sins just like a flood,
Nor lets one guilty blemish stay?
'This Jesus' precious blood.
What voice is that which speaks for me
In heaven's high court for good,
And from the curse has made me free?
'This Jesus' precious blood.
What theme, my soul, shall best employ
Thy harp before thy God,
And made all heaven to ring with joy?
'This Jesus' precious blood.
Conclusion: One well-known Christian author, James Montgomery Boice, eloquently documents amazing things Jesus' virgin birth, sinless life and sacrificial death accomplished for mankind as an amazing sign of His love.
Jesus endured a human birth to give us a new spiritual birth.
He occupied a stable that we might occupy a mansion.
He had an earthly mother so that we might have a heavenly Father.
He became subject so that we might be free.
He left his glory to give us glory.
He was poor that we might be rich.
He was welcomed by shepherds at His birth so we through our new birth can one
day be welcomed by angels.
He was hunted by Herod that we might be delivered from the grasp of Satan.
That is the great paradox of the Christmas story. It is that which makes it irresistibly attractive. It is the reversal of roles at God's cost for our benefit.
(Source: James Montgomery Boice. "The Christ of Christmas" (Chicago: Moody, 1983) p. 59. From a sermon by Allen Calkins, Your Savior is Born: AS PROMISED, 12/13/2009)
DO YOU BELIEVE?
Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent)
Not only do 91 percent of [American] Christians say they believe in the Virgin Birth, but so do an astonishing 47 percent of U.S. non-Christians.
SOURCE: Nicholas D. Kristof, "Believe It, or Not," N.Y. Times (8-15-03)
