“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her, desired to put her away secretly. But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins.’ Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, ‘BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD, AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,’ which translated means, ‘God with us.’ And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son’ and he called His name Jesus.”
It is Luke, the physician and historian, who gives us the details. The gospels of Mark and John are silent on the birth of Christ and the events surrounding it; not because the writers didn’t know the facts, necessarily, but because their aim in writing was different from either Luke’s or Matthew’s.
We can be very grateful to Luke for his meticulous compilation of facts and then documenting them for us. It is from his gospel that we get the great stories. The angelic visit to Zacharias, prophesying the birth of his son, who we know as John the Baptist. And the visit to Mary is there for us also. Then Joseph’s inner struggle and the reassuring vision he received in the night, and Mary’s visit to Elizabeth. Then John’s birth, and finally the touching and telling story of the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem.
All this and more, is under the surface and between the lines of Matthew’s brief documentation of just the facts.
No dialogue, no delving into the angst of Joseph or the doubt of Zacharias or the wonder of Mary or the rejoicing of Elizabeth.
Just the facts. But what important facts he gave; becoming increasingly important to God’s church in the world during these last days when so many are straying from the faith and following after unsound doctrine.
As I said, all these other events that were handed down from the pen of Luke are taking place, so to speak, in this period of time eluded to by Matthew, between Mary’s betrothal to Joseph and the birth of Jesus.
But the strength of Matthew’s narrative from the beginning of this passage of our study to the end, is the clear and undeniable declaration and establishment of Mary’s virginity.
“…before they came together…” “…that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit…” Then there is the application of the quotation from Isaiah, revealing that his words from so long ago were for this moment in time and they were about to be made manifest.
Finally, “...and took her as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son…”
The only other clear reference we have to this fact is in Luke 1:34, where Mary responds to the angel’s announcement with the question, ‘how can this be’, and the source of her consternation is stated very clearly from her own lips; ‘…since I am a virgin?’
Now the angel goes on to explain, and to explain about Elizabeth’s pregnancy which is also miraculous due to the age of Elizabeth and Zacharias.
But the most profound answer to Mary’s question, and therefore the most profound and certain response to us today, should we ask with consternation how it could be that a virgin would give birth to a Son, is found in Luke 1:37, when the angel closes his address with this powerful declaration:
“For nothing will be impossible with God”
And I would submit for your meditation, that this is the fact that so many have forgotten or simply refused to believe, and the rejection of this fundamental truth is the source of all unbelief and rejection of God’s inerrant, infallible, indelible, eternal, all-sufficient word. “For nothing will be impossible with God”!
LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY AND GRAPE NUTS
Before we go on to discuss the fact of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ and its indispensability to the plan of salvation, I’d like to try to impress upon your thinking, the absolute necessity of putting forth a defense of this doctrine by awakening you, if you need awakening, to the assault the Christian faith is under, not from the unchurched world, but from those who label themselves theologians, and call themselves ‘Christians’, and yet teach demonic doctrines.
They call themselves ‘Liberal Christians’. By liberal, they apparently mean they are so open-minded and free thinking that they can come up with their own brand of Christianity, and are not accountable to believe anything in the Bible that they choose not to believe. If it makes them uncomfortable, they explain it away, as though they have some authority in themselves to contradict the scriptures.
If it is beyond their own scope of experience and they don’t understand how it could happen, then of course, it must not have really happened at all, so they just discount it as though it cannot be true if they cannot detect it with their fleshly senses.
I wanted to be sure I fully understood this designation, ‘liberal’, so I looked it up. Here is what I found:
“Liberal: Free from restraint. Unchecked. Licentious. Not narrow or contracted in mind. Broadminded. Not bound by orthodox tenet or established forms in political or religious philosophy; independent in opinion.” – Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
And apparently in this case, that means, independent from any kind of authority, even the only authority that is available to us to teach about God; the scriptures.
I already know what “Christian” means, so I found a website titled, ‘Liberal Christians’, and went to their discussion concerning the virgin birth. This is what their opening paragraph stated:
Religious liberals tend to approach passages in the Bible differently than do conservatives. Liberals do not view the Bible as inerrant; rather they consider the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) to be written by creative authors, often promoting the specific beliefs of their branch of the Christian movement. Liberals study verses in the light of non-Biblical Jewish and Christian writings, the culture of the time, the beliefs of surrounding Pagan societies, the evolving beliefs of the various Jesus movements, etc. Most liberals do not believe in the doctrine of the virgin birth. This is not a recent development, as evidenced by the 1823 quote by Thomas Jefferson: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - (Liberal Christians website)
Now I don’t want to spend a great deal of time going over what these so called ‘liberal Christians’ believe. Actually, I get the impression they define themselves more by what they disbelieve than by what they believe.
But I will spend some effort to list a few of the things they cite for why they do not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, so you can see that what marks them is not a faithful stand on a conviction of truth, but their penchant for tossing out anything that would constrain them and make them accountable to an authority above themselves.
Reasons for not believing in the virgin birth:
1. Paul does not mention the virgin birth in his writings. In their thinking this means he was unaware of it.
2. The virgin birth may have been copied from a Roman fable.
3. The virgin birth may have been copied from another religion.
4. The virgin birth story was inspired by the Hebrew Scriptures. By this, they mean that in the Old Testament we read of unusual births, eg., Ishmael, Isaac, Samson and Samuel. They contend that Matthew and Luke borrowed from this trend to make the birth of Jesus look unusual and even miraculous, to give Him a higher status in people’s thinking. I guess Luke being a gentile has nothing to do with where he got his information…
5. The virgin birth ‘story’ was an honest mistake. Somehow, the Greek translators put the passage from Isaiah into Matthew’s account to show that Hebrew prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus’ life. But not necessarily this one.
Well, from here they just move on to the absurd. The writers of the Gospel of Q were silent on the virgin birth. That’s a so-called gospel that was written very early on, but never made it in the bible and no copies have survived.
Since it didn’t survive, I don’t know how they know the virgin birth wasn’t mentioned, but, hey, if they start making sense at this point it would scare me.
By the way, in the gathering of this information I noticed that instead of referring to dates as A.D., which means Anno Domini, which means ‘year of our Lord’, or B.C., which means Before Christ, they use the modern godless terms of CE and BCE, which mean ‘Common Era’ and ‘Before Common Era’. So I take it that ‘liberal’ also means being willing to deny that God is the Author and Ruler of history in order to avoid offending the idol worshippers of the world.
Finally, and it’s not really finally because they said more, but I’m ready to move on if you are so, the last of their reasons for rejecting Bible doctrine concerning the virgin birth that I will list is; The writer of the Gospel of Thomas is silent on it.
The Gospel of Thomas? Need I say more here?
It seems to me they are so open-minded, everything just fell out…
“Liberal Christians”. Is there a contradiction in this? If ‘liberal’ means rejecting the fundamental doctrines of the virgin birth, the miracles of Christ, the existence of a personal devil, the final judgment, Hell, and so on, then call themselves what they may, although I don’t see how denial of truth makes one liberal; but how can they be Christians? Have you ever seen ‘Grape Nuts’ cereal? Well in case you haven’t, just let me assure you, it’s not really grapes, and it’s not really nuts!
THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND SALVATION
I very seldom quote statistics, and as I have said in the past, the reason for this is that stats can be slanted and twisted.
But I found some in my research that I want to share with you here, because even if these are not entirely accurate; that is, even if the percentages are really much smaller, it should still be alarming to the ear of one who has faith in God and the inerrancy of His Word.
George Barna reported in 2001 that only 28% of Episcopalians, 33% of Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists, 45% of Adventists, and 55% of Baptists surveyed believe that Christ was sinless. He reported that 46% of Hispanics, 43% of whites, and 38% of blacks agree with the idea that ’when He lived on earth, Jesus Christ was human and committed sins, like other people. Barna, George. "Religious Beliefs Vary Widely By Denomination." Barna Research Group. 25 June 2001.
51% of Baptists, 60% of mainline Protestants, and 68% of Catholics, believe that the devil is non-existent. Barna, George. "Beliefs: Trinity, Satan." Barna Research 2001
In 1970, Christianity Today published a survey which found that the virgin birth of Christ is denied by 60 percent of Methodists, 49 percent of Presbyterians, 44 percent of Episcopalians, 34 percent of American Baptists, and 19 percent of American Lutherans. Christianity Today. 11 September 1970
Can there be any wonder why the church today is so weak and ineffective? I have to agree completely with John MacArthur, who said, “If the liberal church is not even ready to accept the deity of Jesus Christ and His virgin birth, it seems rather obvious that the world wouldn’t be beating a path to embrace this truth either.” BIRTH OF THE KING – The Virgin Birth
But these statistics and other evidences of apostasy in the church today can also serve to confirm what we have already said and hold to be true; that the true church of Jesus Christ is not the building or the organization, but the people. And in these final days, tares are definitely mixed with the wheat.
And in every denomination of the Christian religion, no matter how fundamentalist a denomination may be in their declarations of faith, there are many who will not see Heaven.
How can I say this with conviction? Because Jesus said: “Everyone therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 10:32,33
And denial of the virgin birth of Christ is denial of His deity, and denial of His ability to save, and denial of His resurrection and His second coming.
Let’s track the digression.
First of all, let me say that there are good arguments surrounding Mary’s honesty and faithfulness and Joseph’s righteousness that support Mary’s claims to virginity and his determination to keep her that way until the baby was born.
There are also debates about the Greek word translated ‘virgin’, as to whether it can also be translated ‘young woman’. I won’t go into that, because it just doesn’t make sense to say that Joseph “…kept her a young woman until she gave birth to a Son…” It also makes no sense that Mary would ask the angel how it could be that she could conceive, since she was a young woman. So we’ll just let the fools argue that one; it’s a waste of time.
Let’s just follow the path of logic and see how denial of the virgin birth of Jesus negates the very plan of salvation.
First, Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit and not any man confirms His deity. If He was the product of sexual union between a human man and woman, then He was only human.
In fact, in this particular case, if He was not conceived supernaturally, then He was the product of infidelity on Mary’s part, or at the very best, pre-marital sex with Joseph, since they were betrothed but not legally joined yet.
The Pharisees were probably alluding to their belief that Jesus was a product of infidelity in John 8:41 when they said “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father even God”.
Jesus went on to tell them their father was the devil, but that’s another story.
Next, if Jesus was not born of a virgin, there would be no type or symbol of the spiritual birth that comes to the believer and joins him to God.
John wrote in the first chapter of his gospel:
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:12,13
The Holy Spirit was active in the Creation, and also in the creation of the church, as we see in the second chapter of Acts.
He is also the agent of the new creation in man, when, as Paul wrote in II Corinthians 5:17 he makes the man a new creation in Christ.
Jesus is the supreme type of this, being conceived in the flesh by the Spirit, and not by the flesh.
If He was born of a man and a woman, then He was only man. But being born of a woman and the Holy Spirit, then He was fully man, and fully God.
Following the path further; if He was only man, then He was in the same lost condition as the rest of us, because He would have inherited the sin nature. In that case, His claims to deity would be false, making Him a lunatic or a liar.
If that was the case, then He could pay for the sins of no one, but only suffer the penalty of sin for Himself, the penalty being death and eternal separation from God.
If that was true, then He could not have risen from the dead, and if He did not rise, then He certainly isn’t coming back.
So what are we doing here?
A VIRGIN BORE A SON
But it is true. A virgin was visited by an angel who told her what was to come. She submitted herself to God’s hand and was supernaturally conceived, and in the fulness of time His Son was born, Gal 4:4 and Isaiah’s prophesy was fulfilled; God was with us. Immanuel means ‘God with us’. Jesus means ‘salvation’. Names that only mean anything at all, because He is what His names call Him. God with us. Salvation.
It’s really that simple. It really comes down to this; we believe that the Scriptures, Old Testament and New, are God-breathed and profitable to us for knowing about God and maturing us spiritually and equipping us for service, or we call God a liar and sever ourselves from Him completely and eternally.
Men, in their audacious insolence, presume to approach God’s Holy Word with their minds of flesh and edit to the content of their sin-racked hearts, and say ‘Now with these revisions this book of religious instruction is acceptable’.
And it is not with the finished product of their apostasy, but with the very first step away from belief in His Word as given to us, that they doom themselves.
Not only themselves, but all who are deceived by them, for whom they will give an account.
Why do we believe in the virgin birth of Jesus? Because the Bible says it is true.
Because being virgin-born, confirms to us that Jesus was sent from the Father to seek and to save that which was lost. Because as the anointed One, He in His sinlessness faithfully completed the task given Him, and purchased redemption for you and for me. Because being without guilt, death could not keep Him in its power, and He came back from the dead in His glorified body on the third day, just as He said He would. Because being the victorious, risen Christ who ascended into Heaven before reliable witnesses, we know we can believe and await anxiously His promised return to receive us to Himself, that where He is, there we may be also.
Because we can now know that because He lives, we too shall live.
And the firm foundation for all our belief and expectation of eternal bliss, is that a virgin was found to be with child, and in the fulness of time gave birth to a Son, and they named Him, Jesus.
THE BIG QUESTION
Ravi Zacharias, in "Questions I Would Like to Ask God," writes:
“I have often referenced the quote by the talk show host Larry King, in his response to a particular question: "If you could select any one person across all of history to interview, who would it be?" Mr. King’s answer was that he would like to interview Jesus Christ. When the questioner followed with, "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."
Ravi Zacharias then writes that when he requested permission through a common friend to quote Larry King, King sent word saying, "And tell him I was not being facetious."
Christians, it is not by dumbing-down the scriptures that we will reach people for Christ. It will not be done by denying by our words or our silence, doctrines that come difficult to the mind of flesh. It will not be done by excusing the miracles of biblical record as myth or the imagination of creative writers. If we are going to reach people for Christ, who are only reached and saved by the Holy Spirit of God, then we must present to them in the clearest and most straightforward manner, that which the Holy Spirit uses ~ the inerrant, infallible, indelible, eternal, all-sufficient, Word of God.
We have to know it, we have to believe it, and we have to tell it. And friends, hear me when I say, if you don’t really believe it, then even when you tell it you won’t sound convincing; and if you aren’t living it, then they will know you don’t believe it.
Folks in our day are looking for love in all the wrong places. And some of their questions may sound silly, and their speculations may sound foolish, but they aren’t being facetious. They want and need to hear the truth, and they want and need to hear it from people who know what they’re talking about and are willing to expound it unabashedly.
Some weeks back in our evening Bible study we took time to listen to a taped sermon by Alistair Begg titled, “The Fusing of Two Horizons”. I don’t know if you caught this statement, because he made it at the end, it was quick, he was finishing, and it went by fast.
But I have heard it several times now, and it convicts my heart every time.
He was exhorting his hearers to get out of their shells and tell people about Jesus, and he said, “They’re more willing to listen than we are to tell them”.
That is largely true, I’m afraid. He wasn’t quoting scripture, but I think he was right on. And it should break our hearts.
It’s Christmas. People over most of the world, in one fashion or another, are celebrating the holiday. Many of them are singing:
“Late in time behold Him come, Offspring of the virgin’s womb.
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; Hail the incarnate Deity,
Pleased as man with men to dwell, Jesus, our Emmanuel”. C. Wesley
And a great many of them do not understand or believe what they’re singing. If you have an opportunity, will you tell them? Will you look for an opportunity?
If the virgin birth is not true, then there is salvation for none, ever, anywhere. But it is true, and we must stake our claim on this alone; because the Bible says so.
The very availability of Heaven for mankind begins with this; a virgin bore a Son, and they named Him, Jesus.
‘BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD, AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,’ (Isa. 7:14)
