THE VIRGIN BIRTH WAS A SIGN
(Message by Tanny Keng)
1. The Birth Of Jesus
a) Mary was betrothed to Joseph. Before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. Joseph took her as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to her firstborn son.
b) This fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet, "The Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold! A virgin will be with child and will bear a son, and she shall call his name “God with us”" (Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 2:1-7, Isaiah 7:14).
2. The Virgin Birth Was A Sign
a) The virgin birth was to be a "sign" from God (Isaiah 7:14). A birth in the ordinary course of nature is not a sign. As wonderful as it may be, human procreation occurs every minute of every day. If Jesus's birth were an ordinary natural event, how would it be a sign of anything? On the other hand, if the mother had conceived being a virgin, and was still a virgin when she gave birth, then that would indeed be a sign. Matthew is clear that Joseph kept Mary a virgin until she gave birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:24-25). Nothing less than that fact makes the birth of Jesus a sign, and Jesus the unique son of God in whom we should believe (John 3:16).
i) The Word “Virgin”
@1. In some translations the word "almah" in Hebrew is rendered "maiden" or "young woman" rather than "virgin" (Isaiah 7:14). It is hardly a sign that a young woman conceives in the normal way. However, the inspired translation (Matthew 1:23) has the Greek word for "virgin" — the Holy Spirit settles the matter.
ii) Jesus as Joseph’s Son
@1. The scriptures report some as saying that Jesus was Joseph's son. For example, Philip did (John 1:45). Even Mary once said to Jesus, "Your father and I have been worried and looking for you" (Luke 2:48). In ordinary life, many fathers and sons are so related legally, morally, and socially, but not biologically. They are properly called fathers and sons. Jesus's relationship to Joseph is treated in this ordinary way.
@2. Of course the birth records would be expected to show some indication of the non-biological relationship. Notice how the genealogies of Jesus studiously avoid calling Jesus the son of Joseph... "Jesus supposedly the son of Joseph" (Luke 3:23)... "Joseph the husband of Mary by whom was born Jesus" (Matthew 1:16). This is not an indication of myth building by Matthew and Luke, but contra wise an indication of their attention to factual detail in representing accurately the birth record of Jesus.
@3. We see, then, that in ordinary statements Jesus is properly spoken of as the son of Joseph, but in legal statements he is not acknowledged as the biological son of Joseph, nor is Joseph said to have begotten Jesus. Furthermore, in theological statements, Jesus is said to be "the Son of God" (e.g. John 3:16, John 20:30-31). We see, then, that the Bible exhibits appropriate language in each context, leaving no indication of a developing mythology about the birth of Jesus.
iii) Silence of the Epistles
@1. Some worry that the rest of the New Testament is “silent” on the virgin birth. Silence does not amount to invalidation. Paul acknowledges the writings of both Matthew and Luke as scripture, because he quotes passages from them as such (1 Timothy 5:18, Matthew 10:10, Luke 10:7). Why then should we think that Paul would not accept the accounts of Jesus's birth, in the writings of Matthew and Luke, also as scripture, and therefore just as true as any other scripture?
@2. But is the rest of the New Testament really silent about the virgin birth? Whenever it uses the term "the Son of God", it implies agreement with the reason that Gabriel gave for calling Jesus "the Son of God". Mary pointed out to the angel that she was a virgin, that she had not known a man carnally. The angel, in tacit acceptance of Mary's claim, replied, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:34-35). This promise by Gabriel forms the theological basis for calling Jesus "the Son of God" and loads that title with the implication of divine conception and virgin birth.
@3. The assertion that the New Testament is largely "silent on the virgin birth" is therefore mistaken, since repeated use of the title "the Son of God" acknowledges that Christ was conceived and born of a virgin by the power of God.
The End ...
1. The Birth Of Jesus a) Mary was betrothed to Joseph. Before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. Joseph took her as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to her firstborn son.
b) This fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet, "The Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold! A virgin will be with child and will bear a son, and she shall call his name “God with us”" (Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 2:1-7, Isaiah 7:14).
2. The Virgin Birth Was A Sign
a) The virgin birth was to be a "sign" from God (Isaiah 7:14). A birth in the ordinary course of nature is not a sign. As wonderful as it may be, human procreation occurs every minute of every day. If Jesus's birth were an ordinary natural event, how would it be a sign of anything? On the other hand, if the mother had conceived being a virgin, and was still a virgin when she gave birth, then that would indeed be a sign. Matthew is clear that Joseph kept Mary a virgin until she gave birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:24-25). Nothing less than that fact makes the birth of Jesus a sign, and Jesus the unique son of God in whom we should believe (John 3:16).
i) The Word “Virgin”
@1. In some translations the word "almah" in Hebrew is rendered "maiden" or "young woman" rather than "virgin" (Isaiah 7:14). It is hardly a sign that a young woman conceives in the normal way. However, the inspired translation (Matthew 1:23) has the Greek word for "virgin" — the Holy Spirit settles the matter.
ii) Jesus as Joseph’s Son
@1. The scriptures report some as saying that Jesus was Joseph's son. For example, Philip did (John 1:45). Even Mary once said to Jesus, "Your father and I have been worried and looking for you" (Luke 2:48). In ordinary life, many fathers and sons are so related legally, morally, and socially, but not biologically. They are properly called fathers and sons. Jesus's relationship to Joseph is treated in this ordinary way.
@2. Of course the birth records would be expected to show some indication of the non-biological relationship. Notice how the genealogies of Jesus studiously avoid calling Jesus the son of Joseph... "Jesus supposedly the son of Joseph" (Luke 3:23)... "Joseph the husband of Mary by whom was born Jesus" (Matthew 1:16). This is not an indication of myth building by Matthew and Luke, but contra wise an indication of their attention to factual detail in representing accurately the birth record of Jesus.
@3. We see, then, that in ordinary statements Jesus is properly spoken of as the son of Joseph, but in legal statements he is not acknowledged as the biological son of Joseph, nor is Joseph said to have begotten Jesus. Furthermore, in theological statements, Jesus is said to be "the Son of God" (e.g. John 3:16, John 20:30-31). We see, then, that the Bible exhibits appropriate language in each context, leaving no indication of a developing mythology about the birth of Jesus.
iii) Silence of the Epistles
@1. Some worry that the rest of the New Testament is “silent” on the virgin birth. Silence does not amount to invalidation. Paul acknowledges the writings of both Matthew and Luke as scripture, because he quotes passages from them as such (1 Timothy 5:18, Matthew 10:10, Luke 10:7). Why then should we think that Paul would not accept the accounts of Jesus's birth, in the writings of Matthew and Luke, also as scripture, and therefore just as true as any other scripture?
@2. But is the rest of the New Testament really silent about the virgin birth? Whenever it uses the term "the Son of God", it implies agreement with the reason that Gabriel gave for calling Jesus "the Son of God". Mary pointed out to the angel that she was a virgin, that she had not known a man carnally. The angel, in tacit acceptance of Mary's claim, replied, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:34-35). This promise by Gabriel forms the theological basis for calling Jesus "the Son of God" and loads that title with the implication of divine conception and virgin birth.
@3. The assertion that the New Testament is largely "silent on the virgin birth" is therefore mistaken, since repeated use of the title "the Son of God" acknowledges that Christ was conceived and born of a virgin by the power of God.
Comments
Post a Comment