|
Why is the virgin birth so important?
From https://www.gotquestions.org/virgin-birth.html
The doctrine of the virgin birth teaches that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. That is, when Mary conceived Jesus, she had never had sexual intercourse. Jesus' birth, therefore, was truly miraculous. The virgin birth of Jesus is a crucially important doctrine and one that the Bible plainly teaches in Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:27, 34.
Let's look at how Scripture describes the virgin birth. The angel Gabriel visited the Virgin Mary to bring her the news that she would be the mother of the Messiah. Mary asked, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" (Luke 1:34, ESV). Gabriel's reply indicates the miraculous nature of the conception: "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 1:35). The angel pointed not to any human act but to the Holy Spirit and the power of God as the agency of Jesus' birth. Jesus would properly be called the Son of God.
Gabriel later repeated the news to Joseph, betrothed to be married to Mary: "What is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 1:20). Joseph needed this information because "before they came together, [Mary] was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 1:18). Accepting God's word on the matter, Joseph proceeded to take Mary as his wife, but she remained a virgin until after Jesus was born: "He did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son" (Matthew 1:25).
The Gospel writers are judicious in their wording to maintain the doctrine of the virgin birth. In his genealogy of Jesus, Luke mentioned that Jesus was "the son (as was supposed) of Joseph" (Luke 3:23, ESV). In Matthew's genealogy, he carefully avoided calling Joseph the father of Jesus; rather, he spoke of "Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah" (Matthew 1:16).
The virgin birth of Jesus Christ was predicted in the Old Testament: "The Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14, quoted in Matthew 1:22). There is also a possible allusion to the virgin birth in Genesis 3:15, which says that the "seed" of "the woman" would destroy the serpent.
The Bible teaches the preexistence of the eternal Son of God. In Isaiah 9:6, the child who is "born" is also the son who is "given." In like manner, Galatians 4:4 teaches the preexistence and virgin birth of Christ: "God sent His Son, born of a woman." The virgin birth is important because that was the means by which "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14). The incarnation is when the eternal Son of God took on human flesh; without losing any of His divine nature, He added a human nature. That miraculous, history-changing event took place in the Virgin Mary's womb.
In the virgin birth, the immaterial (the Spirit) and the material (Mary's womb) were both involved. Just as, at creation, "the earth was formless and empty" and dark (Genesis 1:2), Mary's womb was an empty, barren place. And just as, at creation, "the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters" (Genesis 1:2), the Spirit of God came upon Mary (Luke 1:35). Only God can make something out of nothing; only God could perform the miracles of creation, the incarnation, and the virgin birth.
The virgin birth is important in that it preserves the truth that Jesus is fully God and fully man at the same time. He received his physical body from Mary. But His eternal, holy nature was His from all eternity past (see John 6:69).
Is "virgin" or "young woman" the correct translation of Isaiah 7:14?
https://www.gotquestions.org/virgin-or-young-woman.html
Isaiah 7:14 states, "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." Quoting Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23 reads, "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel - which means, 'God with us.'" Christians point to this "virgin birth" as evidence of Messianic prophecy fulfilled by Jesus. Is this a valid example of fulfilled prophecy? Is Isaiah 7:14 predicting the virgin birth of Jesus? Is "virgin" even the proper translation of the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14?
The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is "almah," and its inherent meaning is "young woman." "Almah" can mean "virgin," as young, unmarried women in ancient Hebrew culture were assumed to be virgins. Again, though, the word does not necessarily imply virginity. "Almah" occurs seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3, 6:8; Isaiah 7:14). None of these instances demands the meaning "virgin," but neither do they deny the possible meaning of "virgin." There is no conclusive argument for "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 being either "young woman" or "virgin." However, it is interesting to note that in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, "parthenos," not the more generic Greek word for "young woman." The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a "virgin birth," translated "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin," not "young woman." This gives evidence that "virgin" is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.
Dan McClellan, who claims to be a "scholar of the Bible and religion," published a video in which he, subtly, endeavors to overthrow faith in the virgin birth of Jesus. There is no reason to accept as true the teaching of scholars simply because they claim to be scholars. (There are scholars on both sides of every issue.) Unfortunately, some scholars simply don't know what they are talking about. They don't have the truth, or are just seeking to perpetuate a lie, and once that is determined they should be seen as having no credibility. Let's now review what Mr. McClellan said:
"The virgin birth is a tradition that seems to have developed decades after Jesus' death, and primarily because of a poor translation from the Hebrew bible. [Hey everybody, I'm Dan McClellan, I'm a scholar of the Bible and religion.]"
Designating the "virgin birth" as a tradition, and one that did not come about for decades, gives the impression that McClellan is endeavoring to lead his audience in the direction of skepticism, if not unbelief. The virgin birth is one of the bases or foundations for the Christian religion. It began at Jesus' birth. It was an important truth at the time to establish who Jesus was. That it was in prophecy is an indication that it was not intended to be a secret - to be revealed decades after His birth.
Is there proof that Jesus was born of a virgin? Evidence is what convinces the mind that something is true. Once one determines that the evidence constitutes proof, if a person is honest, and wants truth, he accepts it and it becomes part of his belief system.
Evidence means different things to different people. Some think to prove something one must present eyewitnesses - credible people who were present at the time and can therefore say with certainty what they saw. Well, the virgin birth is not something that can be proven using that definition. When there is conception, almost without exception only two people on earth are present. In this case, it was just Mary, and even then she was not aware of anything's happening to her. I suppose that after she began to "show" she could have been examined, which would have proved she had not been with a man. But we have no record that such an examination was made. We do, however, have a rather detailed testimony of the occurrence and of the response and outcome from both Mary and her husband to be, Joseph. But does this record constitute proof? Certainly it is evidence, but proof takes place in the mind; and for the biblical text to constitute proof in someone's mind, producing belief, they would need to believe that the Bible is inspired of God and is true. People cannot be expected to accept the Bible as truth from God without some good reason - some evidence that is persuasive. Therefore, evidence to accomplish this is needed. But again, not all understand what kind of evidence is required to change a rational person's mind. Fortunately, there are several different kinds of evidence that attest to the truth of the words of the Bible.
"The earliest writing we have about Jesus are the writings of Paul and the gospel of Mark...say absolutely nothing at all about any virgin birth. Paul is really only concerned with the resurrection of Jesus and Mark's story begins with his ministry and his baptism."
What Mr. McClellan has asserted here simply is not true. First, the fact that Mark said nothing about the virgin birth does not necessitate the conclusion McClellan insinuates. It is not uncommon for one or more of the Gospels not to include something that is stated in another Gospel. If they were all the same there would need to be only one. Second, Paul did say something about the virgin birth. Galatians 4:4 states that "God sent His Son, born of a woman." That Paul did not say more is only an indication that there was no need to go into detail, since the happening is detailed in two of the Gospel accounts.
"It is not until afterwards that people began to ask questions about where Jesus came from that we then get the development of the traditions that we find in Luke, which talk about Jesus' ancestry and then attribute miraculous events to his birth to suggest that his mission was assigned, and he was set apart for it at his very birth."
People have always asked questions and gossiped about all sorts of things. The question as to where Jesus came from is one that can easily be answered. Thus, true Bible scholars, or simply anyone who has done even a cursory study of the New Testament, should know the answer. The virgin birth was a miracle, Jesus was given a mission, and He was set apart for it at His birth. People's ignorance, at any point in time, has no bearing on these facts.
"And then in John, we move it back even further to the beginning of creation. But in Mathew and Luke we have these references to a virgin birth. And while a lot of people think this was stolen from other pagan ideologies there are not really any other traditions that are close enough to suggest any type of genetic link."
We move what back? The beginning of the tradition? With all the evidence that the virgin birth is factual, it is insulting our intelligence when a self-ascribed Bible scholar suggests it is merely a tradition.
"The most likely source of this tradition is Mathew's appropriation of the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7:14. Now, in Isaiah 7:14, we have not a prophecy but a sign where Isaiah says "a young woman (almah) has conceived and will bring forth a son, and the idea is that this son will deliver Israel, and this is probably King Hezekiah. But when that is translated into Greek many centuries later it is no longer relevant if it is talking about a woman that got pregnant way back when Isaiah was alive. And so, the tense of the verb is changed - it is no longer a young woman has conceived, it is now a parthenos - a virgin will conceive in the future and will bring forth a son. Suddenly, it is a prophecy, and this is what Matthew picks up on and this is where the tradition likely develops that Jesus’ mother was a virgin - something that developed decades after Jesus' death after Paul had already written his epistles and lived and died, and even after the gospel of Mark."
Clearly, this self-ascribed Bible scholar is suggesting that the whole virgin birth story is nothing but tradition. He asserts that it is based on a passage that was misinterpreted.
First, it is evident that the "scholar" does not believe the Bible is inspired. If he did, he would not question the truth taught in the Gospels of Mathew and Mark and in the writings of Paul.
Second, let's look at Isaiah 7:14, which is asserted to be the source of misunderstanding that resulted in the "tradition" that Jesus was born of a virgin.
Isaiah 7:13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Mr. McClellan, in his effort to discredit the Bible, to include the virgin birth, focuses on the part of the text that says, "a young woman has conceived and will bring forth a son." He insists that because of the tense ("has conceived"), this occurred in the past - that it is something that happened then and afterwards was no longer relevant. He says it is "talking about a woman that got pregnant way back when Isaiah was alive." To substantiate his assertion, he suggests that the Hebrew word "almah" simply means "young woman" and therefore not "virgin." However, the Hebrew word "almah" can mean virgin, and the context indicates that this would be future - not present, as the self-proclaimed scholar asserts. He even alleges that since this was a "sign," it was not even a prophecy. The "sign" was without a doubt prophecy of the virgin birth, which would be a sign that Israel would be delivered and redeemed. It was understood that the "young woman" (as originally written) would be a virgin because a young woman was expected to be a virgin in that time. But to assure that this was the case (understanding), the name that Isaiah gave the child who would be born, "Immanuel," which means "God is with us,"1 indicates that this son would be God. This brings to question, "How could Jesus be God if both his parents were mere mortals?" The fact that almost all later translations, by real scholars, render "almah" as "virgin," adds credence to the implication in the text that "young woman" would at the time be understood to be a virgin. There is no doubt that Isaiah prophesied of the virgin birth of Jesus.
Conclusion:
People become Bible scholars for various reasons. Some have good reasons, but, sadly, some do so because they do not believe in God and seek to cause people to disbelieve the Bible and therefore join them in not believing in God. Men who seek to hide truth should be seen for what they are and should be exposed and avoided. Indeed, numerous self-proclaimed scholars of the Bible laboriously and tirelessly endeavor to teach that Jesus was not what He claimed. But there is far too much evidence that the Bible is inspired of God and is true for us to be appreciative of their efforts. Notice the following, which these so-called scholars wish had never been written:
In the Antiquities, Josephus wrote:[https://www.themoorings.org/Jesus/virgin_birth/evidence.html]
"There was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:3:3)."
Considering the fact that we have written history, which likely was based on the eyewitness testimony of older contemporaries, from a Jewish Pharisee (Jesus' worst enemies), who was a well-known and respected historian, that Jesus performed thousands of miracles and rose from the dead, why would a Bible scholar endeavor to teach that the virgin birth of Jesus was due to a misunderstanding of prophecy, resulting in the fabrication of a myth and turning it into a tradition? If Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead, something for which there is solid evidence, why is it difficult for anyone who believes these things to accept that He was born of a virgin?
1There are many "names" given to Jesus in the Old and New Testaments, and Immanuel is one of them. Isaiah elsewhere prophesied of the Messiah, "He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus was never called by any of those "names" by the people He met in Galilee or Judea, but they are accurate descriptions of who He is and what He does. The angel said that Jesus "will be called the Son of the Most High" (Luke 1:32) and "the Son of God" (verse 35), but neither of those was His given name.
The prophet Jeremiah writes of "a King who will reign wisely" (Jeremiah 23:5), and he gives us the name of the coming Messiah: "And this is the name by which he will be called: 'The LORD is our righteousness'" (Jeremiah 23:6, ESV). Jesus was never called "The Lord Our Righteousness" as a name, but we can call Him that! He brings the righteousness of God to us. He is God in the flesh, and the One who makes us righteous (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21).
To say that Jesus would be called "Immanuel" means Jesus is God, that He dwelt among us in His incarnation, and that He is always with us. Jesus was God in the flesh. Jesus was God making His dwelling among us (John 1:1, 14). God keeps His promises. The Virgin Mary bore a son. Two thousand years ago, in Bethlehem, we see that baby born lowered into the hay for a resting place. That baby, as incredible as it seems, is God. That baby is God with us. Jesus, as our Immanuel, is omnipotence, omniscience, perfection, and the love that never fails.
No, Joseph did not name Jesus "Immanuel," but Jesus' nature makes Him truly Immanuel, "God with us." Isaiah told us to watch for Immanuel, the virgin-born Son of God. He will save us; He will reconcile people to God and restore creation to its original beauty. We know Him as Jesus, but we can also call Him "God with us," because that's exactly who He is. Got Questions?
|
