Well here it is guys. Be gentle with me.
Sermon 11th December
When my minister asked me to do another sermon I said ok. Then she told me it was on the Virgin Birth. Oh good an easy one I thought as my heart sank. An apologetic defense on the virgin birth and why we should believe it is the title of today’s sermon.
For many atheists this seems to be easy pickings as due their presupposition of materialism a virgin birth is completely ruled out without much thought. Miracles are impossible so therefore the Virgin birth is. This is a stance taken by the Famous Philosopher David Hume who states that since a miracle by definition is break from the norm of all previous observed experience then there is a high probability that it is not a miracle at all and in fact never happened. This statement alone is misleading as this is the exact definition of a miracle in the first place- as something that breaks away from the normal laws of nature due to divine intervention. So Hume’s real problem is that he does not believe in God. But we will come back to that.
Let us look at some other objections to the virgin birth.
1) The fact that it is only mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew and Luke and nowhere else.
Why is the virgin birth not mentioned in either Mark or John? It is certainly hinted at in both but not explicitly mentioned. We have to consider here first what audience the Gospels were written for. Matthew was written specifically for a Jewish audience hence the large referrals to many Old Testament Prophecies – the virgin birth being one of these. Luke specifically states his reasons.
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. LUKE 1 1:4
He has carefully investigated everything from the beginning and so that includes the virgin birth narrative.
Other things worth mentioning here are that large parts of the New Testament were written to people who were already aware of the Gospel. Most of Paul’s letters for instant were written as problem solving correspondence and not a biography of Jesus. In the culture of the day there was also a high context assumption already in place whereas today we work in a low context where everything has to be explained repeatedly. A key matter was the fact that the virgin birth was not the most important issue that called people to faith. It was the crucifixion and the resurrection that was vitally important to get across. The virgin birth became a more essential part of the doctrine later.
2) The virgin birth story was rejected by certain Christian Groups.
Disbelief in the virgin birth was first recorded by Justin Martyr in the 2nd Century. This meant that is was not traceable back to the early church and their beliefs. What should also be noted is that these “Christian” groups also displayed more heretical beliefs such as denying the conception itself and stated that Jesus just appeared. So in essence these were cultic beliefs rather than orthodox.
3) The Virgin Birth was copied from pagan beliefs.
This is another favourite one that Atheists like to use especially comparing other areas of Jesus’s life to other pagan deities. The most popular one is Mithras. For a more comprehensive look at how the copycat theory of Jesus is refuted – I would recommend “The case for the Real Jesus” by Lee Strobel. Here were just going to look at the virgin births.
Lets us take a look at some popular comparisons.
1) Adonis
This was a popular Greek Deity who had some similarities to Jesus including a supposed virgin birth. The story goes that Adonis parents were Aphrodite and Theias the king of Assyria, Aphrodite’s father. Adonis was therefore born out of incest. Theias was tricked into this and when he found out transformed Aphrodite into a tree. When she was struck with an arrow, the tree split open to reveal Adonis. This has no similarity to the Gospel story.
2) Hercules
Another famous Greek myth – Hercules was the son of Zeus and he disguised himself as King Amphityro to visit the King’s wife on three separate nights. I think it is safe to say that the King’s wife virginity was completely lost. From this Hercules certainly was not virgin born.
3) Attis
Another Mithra type myth where there were multiple similarities with Jesus – however any pre-Christian records of him only talk about him being killed with a spear. All other similarities were copied from Christianity later.
4) Mithras.
Mithras was a Persian deity that was adopted by the Romans. All similarities to Jesus post-dated Christianity. As for the virgin birth element Mithra was born from a rock. Jesus was born in a cave perhaps but there the tenuous link ends.
There are many more references to pagan deities that have similarities to Jesus’s life but only a superficial level of research will reveal that most of these are unfounded, different or in fact copied Christianity itself. It is very dishonest of sceptics or atheists to use this as an argument against Christianity although it has been made popular in certain mediums, including the entertainment program QI.
We have gone through some objections to the virgin birth but the main one is that it is not possible according to all knowledge of science. How can a baby be conceived without the union of a man and a woman. Ironically we can turn to science to see how it is now becoming more possible for women to conceive without man. Artificial insemination with a needle through the stomach allow a woman to conceive and still technically be classed as a virgin. This is a technique that is widely used in livestock breeding and has now been adapted for humans, usually in IVF treatment or people experiencing some form of fertility issues. Who’s to say that with the advancement of science that a technique that does not involve sperm at all can be perfected? Although morally and ethically questionable, the advancements in cloning science might make the whole tradition process of conceiving a child obsolete. Quite a scary thought. At least God’s methods are more ethically sound.
That was some of the objections to the virgin birth story but is there any real evidence that it actually took place? Well it was something that was hinted right as early as Genesis. Let’s look at the scripture from Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
This is of course a reference to Jesus and the woman has been associated with Mary. What is significant about this passage is that it is an unusual statement in a document written in a patriarchal culture. All references of descendants or offspring are normally referred through the father’s line. It should in reality read “And I will put enmity between you and the man and between your offspring and his…”
The fact that it uses “woman” instead hints at the fact that it is not the father’s lineage that is important – but the woman’s and that there is something special about the offspring and the fact that the man is not mentioned. A conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the “man” is not the father.
Looking forward to Jeremiah 22 God is punishing the King of Judah for his disobedience as this scripture denotes (vs28-30)
This is what the LORD says:
“Record this man as if childless,
a man who will not prosper in his lifetime,
for none of his offspring will prosper,
none will sit on the throne of David
or rule anymore in Judah.”
Now this is quite serious as it looks as if God is blocking sabotaging another prophecy from coming into play from Isaiah 11
A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him
How will the future King of Israel come from David if the line from King Jehoiachin onwards has been destroyed? A virgin birth through the line of Mary will certainly side step that curse and also the patriarchal line through Joseph. Mary herself has been shown to be a descendant of David in Luke’s Gospel. So because of the virgin birth Jesus does not fall under this curse and therefore is still the rightful King of the Jews.
Looking at Isaiah itself in more detail we have multiple references to the possible birth of Jesus. However some critics suggest that Isaiah was talking about the son of a prophetess or his own son – however a lot of prophecy in the bible can be applied to a present event and a future event like large parts of Revelations. Also when you take all the quotes in Isaiah as a whole you can see that they talk about a divine figure
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. [7:14]
Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land, 0 Immanuel! [8:8b]
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. [9:6]
A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him—the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD—and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash round his waist. [11:1-5]
Matthew and Luke themselves saw that Isaiah 7:14 was a reference to Jesus and the Nativity narrative was a fulfilment of that prophecy.
This leads us on the main evidence for the virgin birth story –the Gospel accounts themselves. Let us look at these in full.
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us." Matt 1:18-23
In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you. Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus."… "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." Luke 1:26-35
Now critics do argue that they could have tailored the story to fit in with prophecy, also to cover up the question of Jesus’ illegitimate birth but then you then have to look at the accumulative evidence of the reliability of the Gospels themselves. Luke as a historian for instance, has been repeatedly supported by biblical archaeology even down to such hot disputed matters such as whether Quirinius was Governor at the time of the birth. There is an abundance of evidence for the reliability of the Gospels through Literary criticism and scholarship. For more information on this I recommend reading “Evidence that Demands A Verdict” by Josh McDowell and “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel.
There are some scholars who question the validity of the Hebrew word “alma” - the word used to denote a virgin in the Old Testament. Some translations of it believe it means a young woman. Now true Mary was a young woman, perhaps only just in her teens but interestingly the Greek translation in the New Testament uses the word “parthenos” which specifically means virgin. So the early translators of the OT prophecies certainly believed it to mean “virgin”. Also what has to be considered is that in the Jewish society of the day - a young unmarried women was expected to be a virgin else she would be unsuitable as a bride and women were stoned for such dishonour. Joseph initial reaction to the conception stated as much as he wanted to divorce Mary privately as to not bring any harm to her.
Matthew and Luke may be the only Gospels that explicitly talk about the virgin birth but there are hints of it in John. For instance John in chapter 2 tells the story of the first miracle that Jesus performed at the wedding at Cana. He was prompted by Mary to perform the miracle of changing the water into wine. If this was his first miracle, how did Mary know that Jesus could do something like this unless she had prior knowledge of his supernatural ability? Knowledge that could have originated in the circumstances of his birth.
John 8:41 has the critics of Jesus questioning the legitimacy of Jesus’s birth as an insult.
“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[c] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”
“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”
As you can see rumours had gotten around that Jesus’s birth is not all what it should be. The line “We are not illegitimate children” was an insult thrown back to Jesus because of the circumstances of his birth. So there was definitely something that was not the norm about how Jesus was born.
Paul in his letters makes virtually no explicit mention of the virgin birth because as mentioned before his letters were more as a problem solving correspondence. But what was interesting were these verses in Galatians 41-5
What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces[a] of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.
The phrase “Born of woman” crops up again. Again an usual statement to make in a patriarchal society. Another reference back to Genesis 3:15 perhaps? A son with no earthly father? In fact several times throughout the New Testament Mary is referred to as just “woman”.
In John 2:4
4 “Woman,[a] why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”
Jesus calls his mother “Woman” at the wedding of Cana. The footnotes state that this is not a term of disrespect. Also at the cross in John 19:25-27
Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
Are these all references back to that verse in Genesis where a man of woman born with no earthly father will come to defeat Satan?
What is also interesting about the whole story in Matthew in Luke is that if the Gospel writers were going to fabricate everything then the story of the virgin birth would probably have been omitted as the purity of a young girl before marriage was key and the implications this story would have raised would be more damaging to the message than if it was not mentioned. Unless of course it was true and they were reporting what was actually happened. The latter seems to be the case as this seems to be a pattern throughout the Gospels of the reporting of potentially embarrassing incidents and unusual events that raises too many questions – such as the denial of Peter, the panic of the disciples and their ignorance of what was staring them in the face and the fact that the women found the empty tomb first to name a few.
After all that has been said and done, however, what it really comes down to is whether or not you believe in God. If you believe in a God that can create an entire universe from nothing then the simple matter of a Virgin Birth is well within his means. It is interesting to note that although some people do not have a problem with a deity creating all that exists, they still stumble at a miracle that seems almost insignificant in power and scope in comparison. Maybe because the virgin birth reaches us on a more human level that we find it difficult to accept. But what we do need to accept is that God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
God came down to us. He met us where we were. He humbled himself to an almost infinite degree because he loved us.
Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross! Phillipians 2:6-8
The virgin birth was the start of this. God made himself manifest in human form as a man of Nazareth –sinless, untainted by the fall through the unnatural circumstances of his birth thereby meeting the price that had to be paid and becoming a blood sacrifice for all mankind.
God is a God of Miracles, from the creation of the Universe to the parting of the Red sea. God is the author of all the laws of science – therefore he can transcend his own laws. From Creation’s birth, our plan of salvation was laid down in stone. God himself would come to our planet in the form of a human being. The circumstances that were arranged were meticulous, the detail precise – right down to the nature of his entry into our world. All through the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of our Lord – the miraculous and spectacular has been his signature. If the one and only true God came to our planet and invaded our lives, would we expect anything less?
All of this from start to glorious finish was done because God loves us and it is desperately sad that there are still some people out there that don’t even know him. At Christmas time it is even more important to tell the real story of Jesus with all its trimmings and unbelievable elements because at the end of the day it is totally unbelievable what God did for us through his unlimited grace and mercy.
And all I can say is thank God he did.
Sources
http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/edito ... 1205W2.htm
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte ... rticle=811
http://www.tektonics.org/uz/virginbirth.html
“Evidence that Demands a Verdict” – Josh McDowell
“The case for the real Jesus” – Lee Strobel
“The Case for Christ” – Lee StrobelThe CofE has been regressing for centuries now, bro.
