|
CHAPTER
IV
DEBATE ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE
VIRGIN
BIRTH OF CHRIST
A. Debate Based on the Descriptions of the Virgin Birth
1.
Description of the virgin birth
absent in Mark's Gospel
One
of the arguments that is often broached to discredit the virgin birth of
Christ is the silence of Mark on the virgin birth. Doubt has been cast on
the virgin birth because Mark's record, which is known to be the earliest
of the four Gospels says nothing about it.98
The
Gospel of Mark described Jesus as the lowly Servant who "came not to
be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for
many" (MK. 10:45). When one considers the theme of this Gospel, he
can understand just why Mark did not introduce his account with the
history of His birth. No one cares about the history of a servant. He or
she is usually of such lowly surroundings and humble heritage that few are
really interested in his or her biography. The opening of the Gospel of
Mark is therefore in full accord with the general trend of the Gospel.
Though
there is no direct reference of Virgin birth in Mark's Gospel, there is a
hint that the author did know about it. That is found in Mk. 6:3.
In the parallel passage Matthew reports that the people of Nazareth
asked, "Is not this the son of the Carpenter ?" (Matt. 13:55);
and Luke has, "Is not this the son of Joseph?" (Luke; 4:22).
However, the report in Mark reads "Is not this the Carpenter,
the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and
are not his sisters here with us?" (MK. 6:3). Commenting this verse,
Erickson says:
It is as if Mark is taking pains to avoid
referring to Jesus as the son of Joseph. Unlike Matthew's and Luke's
readers, who had been made aware of the virgin birth in the opening
chapter of each of those Gospels, Mark's readers would have no way of
knowing about it. So he chose his word very carefully in order not to give
the wrong impression. The crucial point for us is that Mark's account
gives no basis whatsoever for concluding that Joseph was the father of
Jesus."99
Moreover,
Mark does not give any account of the birth and infancy of Jesus.
Since he has not written about the same it is impossible to attach
much importance to his silence on the virgin birth. If some one says that
virgin birth is a myth because it is not described by Mark, then doubt
might be cast upon the fact that Jesus was born at all, for Mark does not
mention it.100
 [Back
to Top]
2.
Description of the virgin birth
absent in John's Gospel
Liberals
attack the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ by arguing that John's
Gospel contains no reference to the virgin birth. There is no birth
narrative and no specific statement about the manner of the birth of
Jesus.101
The
silence of John may be thought especially strange in view of the large
place given to pre - existence and incarnation in this Gospel. However,
with the exception of the prologue, the material is regulated by the fact
that the author is giving a witness to Christ based on personal
observation. Hence the Gospel begins with the ministry of John the Baptist
and the contact he and his disciples had with Jesus.102
In
this Gospel, John is presenting Christ as the Son of God, God in the form
of a man. When one considers the theme of this Gospel, he can understand
just why John does not introduce his account with the history of His
birth. Concerning this Tschudy rightly comments:
There could never be a story of the birth of
God since He is the Great "I Am. " He always Is, the self -
existent one. John's work also opens appropriately because it immediately
carries us back "In the beginning" Where Christ is God."103
There
is indeed a possibility that the Gospel of John contains a reference to
the virgin birth of Christ. Though the textual testimony is poor, a
reading exists for John 1:13 makes the passage refers to Christ rather
than believers. Irenaeus, Tertullian and Augustine preferred the reading
HOS HOUK ........... EGENNETHE (who was born).104
Harnack endorsed his reading.105
If this reading is valid, it would be a direct reference to Jesus'
supernatural origin. But accepting the text as it stands, surely it is
fair inference that if those who believe are spiritually not "of
flesh's will", Jesus, the eternal son was physically not so born.
[Back
to Top]
3.
Description of the virgin birth
absent in Paul's writings
Some
reject the doctrine of the virgin birth by maintaining that Paul did not
teach the virgin birth of Christ. Paul did not give any direct references
to the virgin birth of Christ in his epistles.
One
should never forget that Paul's letters were all occasional letters. None
of them was intended to give a complete statement of the Christian faith.
Each was written because there was some special reason for a letter to a
certain Church. In most cases this reason was that the congregation was
threatened by some heresy of false doctrine, and it is natural that in
such a case the apostle mentioned only those matters that were relevant to
the situation. He did not go into detail on issues concerning the person
of Christ, for they were evidently not matters of dispute in the churches
or for the individuals to whom he wrote.106 Luke the historian,
who gives an elaborate account of the birth of Christ, affirms that the
things he set out to write were "fully believed among us" (Luke
1:1). There was no need of dwelling on something that had been so widely
accepted.
There
is one place where Paul's language would sound strange unless he believed
in the virgin birth. Gal. 4:4 is that passage. It states "But, when
the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his son, made of a
woman, made under the law". The expression
"made of a woman" exclude the male from the birth of
Christ. Christ is the "seed of the woman" of Gen. 3:15. The
humanity of Christ was derived entirely from Mary, His mother. He had no
human father.
[Back
to Top]
B.
Debate Based on Biology
With
some the chief problem of the virgin birth is its violation of natural
biological processes. But the production of the test tube children is a
definite answer to these critics. Now artificial methods have been devised
to produce children in test tubes without any direct sexual intercourse.
The embryo of a woman formed by the union of the male sperm and female egg
outside the womb, is placed inside the womb of a woman. This embryo grows
into a child. In this process, the man and woman do not have direct sexual
intercourse, but the requirement of the male and female union is met
outside the body. But virgin Mary conceived the son of God without any
contact with a man or artificial insemination.
To
day, some of the Christian scientists are trying to give biological
interpretation of the virgin birth of Christ and finally they end up with
great doctrinal errors. Edward L. Kessel, an Emeritus professor of
Biology, of University of San Francisco brought these proposals for
biological interpretation of the virgin birth.
(1) The biological deduction from scripture that Jesus was conceived as
a female is based on the scientific knowledge that virgin - conceived
offspring are chromosomal females. (2) Therefore the Scriptural
reversal to have occurred. (3) Having used the natural biological
process of parthenogenesis to give Jesus chromosomal femaleness, God again
used a natural biological mechanism to add the complementary sexual
quality of maleness. This time God used the biological process of sex
reversal which is fully supported by the known facts of genetics that have
been described. (4) But in expanding the sexual identification of
Jesus to include maleness, God did not stripe away
femaleness. Chromosomal femaleness was not involved in sex
reversal; every cell continued to have its identification of woman-kind. (5)
Thus the female embryo Jesus of the virgin conception of Incarnation
became the two-sexed Infant of the virgin birth who was the androgynous
Christ, bearing both the chromosomal identification of a woman and the
phenotypic anatomy of a man. (6) If this proposal is correct, the
inequity of the sexes taught under the Old Covenant has been transcended
and no one can longer argue effectively against the ordination of women in
the Church on the grounds that Christ was a man. Christ was also a woman.107
Like
this, several are trying to give scientific explanations and in their
process of doing so, they come up with non-biblical conclusions. They
denied the Biblical teaching of the person of Christ and they are the
advocates of feminism.
Gen.
3:15 states that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent's. It is a
well-known biological fact that the seed lies with the male. If this
portion of the scripture were ever to be literally fulfilled, He had to
come by the way of Virgin birth.108
The
Bible is not unaware of this biological objection. The word of God asserts
its solution in the power of God. Gabriel, in answering Mary's question
regarding the manner of her son's birth, senses her perplexity and
replies, "for nothing shall be impossible with God" (Luke.
1:37). God is able to do that which appears impossible to men, that which
is contrary to natural processes. To say that this miracle is impossible
is to deny the existence of God or else to deny that He can control His
creation.
[Back
to Top]
C.
Direct Questions in the Doctrine of the Virgin
Birth of Christ
Answered
1.
Did Christ teach His virgin
birth?
During
His earthly life, Jesus Christ did not personally claim to be virgin -
born. Before His crucifixion, Jesus did not teach His virgin birth. But a
careful study of Luke 24 points that during His post resurrection period,
Jesus taught His virgin birth to His disciples.
When
Jesus appeared to the two people on the Emmaus road (Luke 24:13-32), and
to the frightened group (Luke 24:44-49), He had explained and interpreted
the Old Testament scriptures to them. In relation to the two on the Emmaus
road, it states that "having begun from Moses and from all the
prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things
concerning Himself (Luke. 24:27). To the frightened group Jesus said,
"These are the word which I spoke to you while I was yet with you,
that all that is written concerning me in the law of Moses and prophets
and Psalms must be fulfilled" (Luke. 24:44). Then Jesus opened their
understanding to understand the Scriptures (Luke. 24:45).
What
were the Scriptures that He used? The only one that Jesus had was the Old
Testament. If He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things
concerning Himself, He undoubtedly pointed out the prophecies pertaining
to every phase of His life, ministry, death and resurrection. In this
occasion, He definitely had explained and taught His virgin birth.
[Back
to Top]
2.
Did Apostles preach on the virgin
birth of Christ?
The
virgin birth was not a part of the earliest Christian messages. The
Apostles did not preach on the virgin birth. This is neither stated nor
implied outside the descriptions in the Luke's and Matthew's Gospels.
Griffith Thomas rightly states the reason:
There was no need of it. Attention was rightly
concentrated on the resurrection of Jesus and the divine claim involved in
that. In other words, it was the unique personality rather than the mode
of His earthly appearance that formed the Gospel... There was no need of
the virgin birth for evangelistic purposes, but only for the intellectual
instruction of Christian people.109
[Back
to Top]
3.
Did the doctrine of the virgin
birth of Christ preclude
His full humanity ?
Several
scholars have raised the question of whether Jesus was fully human if he
had only one human parent.110 But this confuses the essence of
humanity with the process which transfers it from one generation to
another. Adam and Eve did not have a human father or mother, yet were
fully human, and in the case of Adam, there was no prior human from whom
his human nature could in any sense have been taken.
[Back
to Top]
D.
Doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Christ Proved
1.
Doctrine proved from grammar
The
verb EGENNESEN (begat) is used 38 times in Matthew 1.2-16, but there is a
change in the inflected form in its use in verse 16 - "and Jacob
begat (EGENNESEN) Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born (EGENNETHE)
Jesus, who is called Christ." The word EGENNESEN is the aorist active
indicative and EGENNETHE is the
aorist passive
indicative of
the root verb
GENNAO. In vs.16, there is a deliberate change form active voice to
the passive in describing the birth of Jesus. EGENNETHE in the phrase
"of whom was born Jesus" is passive and it emphasises that in
contrast to all the preceding men who sired their sons, Joseph did not
begat Jesus. This usage stresses that Jesus was born of Mary without any
participation by Joseph.111 This is a strong biblical proof for
the virgin birth of Christ.
In
Matt. 1:16, the relative pronoun HES (of whom) is feminine singular and
its antecedent is Mary. This usage clearly indicates that Jesus was born
of Mary alone and not of Mary and Joseph. This is one of the strongest
evidences for the virgin birth of Christ.112
Joseph
was represented as the guardian but not the father of Jesus Christ. Some
"supposed" that Joseph was the father of Jesus Christ. Luke 3:23
states: "and Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years
old; being as was supposed son of Joseph"; "As was
supposed" is the translation of OS ENOMIZETO. The verb is ENOMIZETO
the imperfect passive indicative of NOMIZO which means to think or
consider.113 This verb is used 15 times in the New Testament114
and has the meaning of supposition rather than actuality (Matt. 5:17;
10:34; 20:10; Luke 2:44; 3:23; Acts. 7:25; 8:20; 14:19; 16:13, 27; 21:29;
17:29; I Cor. 7:26,36; I Tim. 6:5). The Lord Jesus has neither a father on
earth nor a mother in heaven.
[Back
to Top]
2.
Doctrine proved from the life
of Jesus
a.
Sinlessness of Jesus. Bible
is very definite about the sinlessness of Jesus Christ. Paul states that
Jesus "knew not sin" (2 Cor. 5:21); Peter writes that he
"did no sin" (I Pet. 2:22). Author of Hebrews states that Jesus
is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners..." (Heb.
7:26); and John affirms that "in him sin is not". (I John. 3:5).
The testimony to the sinlessness of Christ is evident as Christ claimed
for Himself; "unrighteousness is not in him". (John. 7:18). Even
Jesus Christ challenged the Pharisees, who were trying to find fault in
Him, "which of you convinces me of sin? (John 8:46). They could not
find any kind of sin in His life.
If
Jesus Christ had been born by ordinary generation He would have been a
sinner; It is not because procreation is sinful, nor because sin is passed
along in the human race by the processes of generation, but because all
those who are born of ordinary generation are personally represented in
Adam in the original sin which took place at the fountain head of the race
(Rom. 5:12).115 Sinlessness
of Jesus clearly points that He was not born by ordinary generation, but
by special generation - the virgin birth. His birth is a miraculous birth.
Jesus was born as a result of the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary. The power
of the Highest overshadowed her (Luke 1:35). Thus Jesus became the “seed
of the woman.” Therefore, Jesus did not receive any sinful nature from
Joseph nor Mary.
b.
Claims of Jesus. Jesus
went to Jerusalem with His parents at the feast of Passover. On their
return journey, they found that Jesus was missing from their company. They
went back to the temple of Jerusalem, searching Him. When they found Him
in the temple Jesus asked His mother, "why is it that ye have sought
me? did ye not know that I ought to be occupied in my Father's
business?" (Luke. 2:49). If Joseph had been His real father Jesus'
words would have been false. Joseph was only a carpenter. Traditionally,
he was not entitled to teach in the temple nor did he do so at anytime.
This leads to the invariable conclusion that He was neither born of
Joseph, nor was Joseph His father.
c.
Uniqueness of the life of Jesus. The
unique nature of the life of Jesus Christ is a proof for His virgin birth.
Jesus had a unique life, death, resurrection, and ascension. He had given
unique promises to His disciples. Moreover, He is the unique king and
saviour of the mankind. If one by God's Spirit sense that He is unique -
unique in history, and unique in His redemption will he not reason that it
is credible that He be unique in His origin? Henry Morris rightly states
that the unique nature of Jesus' life demands the virgin birth:
It is altogether fitting that the one who
performed many miracles during His life, who offered Himself on the cross
as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of men, and who then rose bodily from
the dead in vindication of all His claims, should have begun such a unique
life by a unique entrance into that life.116
[Back
to Top]
3.
Doctrine proved
from the annunciation of the
angles
Angel
Gabriel announced the birth of John the Baptist to Zachariah, the father
of the child to be born (Luke. 1:15-19). But it was to Mary that the birth
of Jesus was announced and not to Joseph. It is a strong evidence to prove
that Jesus had no physical father to whom the birth could be announced.
[Back
to Top]
4.
Doctrine proved from the confirmation
of God
If
a woman conceived without a conjugal husband in the Old Testament times,
the woman as well as the man responsible for the conception would be taken
out and stoned to death (Deut. 22:23,24). Though Mary was espoused to
Joseph, she was found with a child even before they came together. Joseph
decided to put her away secretly. Then God sent His angel to Joseph and
informed him of the mystery. If her conception had been the result of her
incestuous lust, God would not have accepted it. But God confirmed it and
asked Joseph to receive her.
If
Mary's conception was illegal and accepted by God, it would have been
contrary to the nature of God and his divine righteousness. If God asked
Joseph to accept the illegal conception, it would mean that God had taken
the side of unrighteousness. But God is righteous and hates
unrighteousness.
This
undoubtedly proves that Christ was born of a virgin through the
intervention of the supernatural power. Matt. 1:20 and Luke 1:34,35 affirm
this truth. God's declaration, "this is my beloved Son, in whom I
have found my delight," (Matt. 3:17), is an additional testimony to
the fact that the birth of Christ was not illegal.
[Back
to Top]
END
NOTES
98W. Graham Scroggie, A Guide to the Gospels, (New
Jersey:
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1962),
p.515.
99Erickson, pp. 750-51.
100W.E.Best, Studies in the Person and Work of Jesus
Christ, (Houstone: W.E. Best Book Ministry Trust, n.d.), p.39.
101Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p.369.
102Machen, The Virgin Birth, p.255.
103Earl H.Tschudy, The Virgin Birth of Our Lord,
(New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, n.d.) p.73.
104Kurt Aland et al., eds. The Greek New Testament
(New York: United Bible Societies, 1975), p. 321.
105Everett F. Harrison, A Short Life of Christ,
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975), p.44.
106Erickson, p.751.
107Edward L. Kessel, "A proposed Biological
Interpretation of the Virgin Birth." Journal of the American
Scientific Affiliation, September 1983, p.135.
108Tschudy, p.22.
109Griffith Thomas, pp. 129-30.
110R.E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily
Resurrection of Jesus, ( New Jersey: Paramus, 1973),pp.56-61.
111Enns, p.223.
112Charles C. Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible,
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1978), p.1445.
113Sa kae Kubo, A
Reader's Greek - English Lexicon of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids:
Regency Reference Library, 1975), p.55.
114Ibid.
115James Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the
Christian Religion, 2 Vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,
1974), 2:44.
116Henry M. Morris, The Bible Has the Answer, (New
Jersey: The Craig Press, 1971), p.38.
[Back
to Top]
|
