* Notes from a Bible study I did on the virgin birth.
The Virgin Birth of
Jesus
1.
Based on just two explicit biblical references:
Matthew 1.18-25 and Luke 1.26-38.
a.
Mark 6.3: “son of Mary”
“This is considered by some to be a reference to a tradition that Joseph
was not Jesus’s father; their view is fortified by the statement that the
townspeople took offense at Jesus.
Generally, when a man in those times was being identified, it was in
terms of who his father was.
A man
was identified in terms of who his mother was only if his paternity was
uncertain or unknown.”
b.
John 8.41: “We were not born of fornication…”
“The use of the emphatic pronoun
ἡμεῖς (hemeis) could be construed as an innuendo: ‘It is not we who are illegitimate.’”
c.
Mark does not mention a birth narrative.
“The tradition that Mark based his Gospel upon information supplied by
Peter suggests that Mark may have chosen to include only what the apostle had
personally observed.”
d.
John does not mentions a birth narrative. Starts out his Gospel with a
theologically oriented picture rather than purely historical view of Jesus’
birth.
e.
Paul mentions that the Son was “born of a woman”
(Galatians 4.4) but does not specifically address the virgin birth
f.
Beware of fallacious reasoning: arguments from
silence
2.
Creedal Statements
a.
The Apostle’s Creed (3-4 century)
“I believe in God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy
Spirit, born of the virgin Mary…”
b.
Nicene Creed
“…who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was
incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary…”
3.
There is no complex debate as to what Matthew
and Luke intend to teach. They
both are teaching that Jesus’ conception was the supernatural result of the
Holy Spirit’s power active upon Mary who was a virgin.
4.
Two dangers with the doctrine of the virgin
birth
a.
Trivialized as a “Christmas” doctrine
i. Pulled
out with the lights and Christmas tree; then put away again
ii. Suffers
neglect as a holiday ornament
b.
Rejection of the virgin birth of the Messiah
i. Not
simply by those who are skeptical or atheistic
ii. Redefinition
by those who want to retain the name “Christian”
1.
Early part of the 20th century:
Fundamentalism vs. Liberalism
a.
Self-confessed liberals rejected a literal
virgin birth so as to accommodate itself to “modern” thought forms
b.
Liberalism was a defensive posture suited to
deflect the charges of anti-intellectualism
c.
Harry Emerson Fosdick’s sermon in 1922 “Shall
the Fundamentalists Win?”
“… those first disciples adored
Jesus—as we do; when they thought about his coming they were sure that he came
specially from God—as we are; this adoration and conviction they associated
with God’s special influence and intention in his birth—as we do; but they
phrased it in terms of a biological miracle that our modern minds cannot use.”
2.
Closer to our time: Robert Funk (the creator of
the
Jesus Seminar) has written of a
need for a “New Reformation”—thesis #8 reads
:
“The virgin birth of Jesus is an insult to modern intelligence and should
be abandoned. In addition, it is a
pernicious doctrine that denigrates women.”
5.
Three broad areas of biblical teaching that
intersect with the doctrine of the virgin birth. Or, in other words, “why we cannot give up the doctrine!”
a.
The authority of Scripture
i. The
issue here is not interpretation.
The doctrine is not obscure.
Everyone understands the meaning of the words and concepts in Matthew
and Luke’s birth narratives
ii. “It
is perfectly clear that the New Testament teaches the virgin birth of Christ;
about that there can be no manner of doubt.
There is no serious question as to the
interpretation of the Bible at this point.
Everyone admits that the Bible
represents Jesus as having been conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the
virgin Mary.
The only question is
whether in making that representation the Bible is true or false.”
iii. Rejecting
the virgin birth of Jesus is to reject the authority of Scripture at this
point.
b.
Naturalism versus Supernaturalism
i. “It
is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of
modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the
New Testament world of spirits and miracles.
We may think we can manage it in our own lives, but to
expect others to do so is to make the Christian faith unintelligible and
unacceptable to the modern world.”
ii. Such
a view assumes naturalism.
But why
should we as Christians be naturalists?
iii. The
God of Christian theism is transcendent and sovereign—he created all things and
upholds all things. The angel
tells Mary: “For nothing will be impossible with God.” (Luke 1.37)
iv. To
affirm naturalism and deny all miraculous claims is simply to worship another
god—a false idol.
v. The
virgin birth affirms the miracle-working, transcendent power of our Creator.
c.
The doctrine of Christ and his work of
redemption
i. “In
the overwhelming majority of cases those who reject the virgin birth reject the
whole supernatural view of Christ.”
1.
Incarnation—God becoming man
2.
Substitutionary death on the cross
3.
Bodily resurrection from the dead
4.
Ascension to the right hand of God the Father
ii. Virgin
birth fixes for us the time of the incarnation
1.
“By means of Mary’s virginal conception, God the
Son, without ceasing to be what He is—the eternal Son and Word of God—took into
union with His divine nature in the one divine person of the Son our
human nature (not a
human person) and so came to be ‘with us’ as ‘Immanuel.’”
2.
Jesus was not a mere man born in the normal
manner who progressed or evolved into a god-like being.
3.
From the moment of conception he was fully God
and fully man.
4.
“The significance of this event should not be
minimized.
It indicates not merely
that Jesus was God’s Son through the Holy Spirit, but that Jesus was a unique
person who was the product of both the divine and the human in a manner unlike
any others before or since.”
iii. Virgin
birth impacts Jesus’ perfect purity
1.
The New Testament witness is that Jesus is
sinless (2 Corinthians 5.21; Hebrews 4.15)
2.
“Later theological reflection was also to see in
the virginal conception the explanation of how Jesus could be born with a human
nature not tainted with original sin.”
6.
Millard Erickson’s list of issues that show the
significance of the virgin birth
a.
A reminder that our salvation is supernatural.
b.
A reminder that God’s salvation is fully a gift
of grace.
c.
Evidence of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.
d.
Evidence of God’s power and sovereignty over
nature.
7.
How necessary is the doctrine of Christ’s
virginal conception?
a.
“Is belief in the virgin birth ‘necessary’?
It is possible to be saved without
believing it; saved people aren’t perfect people.
But to reject the virgin birth is to reject God’s Word, and
disobedience is always serious.
Further, disbelief in the virgin birth may lead to compromise in those
other areas of doctrine with which it is vitally connected.”
b.
“We noted earlier that the virgin birth is not
mentioned in the evangelistic sermons in the book of Acts.
It may well be, then, that it is not
one of the primary doctrines (i.e., indispensable to salvation).
It is a subsidiary or supporting
doctrine; it helps create or sustain belief in the indispensable doctrines, or
reinforces truths found in other doctrines… It is quite possible to be unaware
or ignorant of the virgin birth and yet be saved.”
8.
Conclusion
a.
“But perhaps most significantly of all, this
concept conveys the fact that Jesus is a miraculous gift to humanity, not
initially the product of any normal human activity or process.”
b.
“The eternal Son of God, He through whom the
universe was made, did not despise the virgin’s womb!
What a wonder is there!
It is not strange that it has always given offence to the
natural man.
But in that wonder we
find God’s redeeming love, and in that babe who lay in Mary’s womb we find our
Saviour who thus became man to die for our sins and bring us into peace.”
“To make an argument from silence (in Latin argumentum ex
silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of
statements in historical documents, rather than on presence. In the field of classical studies, it
often refers to the assertion that an author is ignorant of a subject, based on
the lack of references to it in the author's available writings.
