Wayne Jackson wrote this article which appeared in the November 1974 edition of The Christian Courier which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson.
The doctrine of the virgin birth is vitally related to the true identity of Christ. Just who was Jesus of Nazareth? Was He "the fruit of an adulterous union of Mary with a certain soldier whose name was Pantheras" as the pagan philosopher Celsus charged? Was He the natural son of Joseph as German theologian Adolph Harnach suggested? Or was He in fact, precisely who He claimed to be, the divine son of God? In view of His claims, if He was not the Son of God, He was either a self-deceived lunatic or a vicious impostor. The doctrine of the virgin birth is, therefore, inseparably bound to both the claims and character of Jesus Christ. Though there are several portions of Scripture which might be studied with profit relative to this theme, this article will deal primarily with Matthew chapter one, summarizing that apostle's inspired arguments for the virgin birth of Jesus.
(1) Matthew commences his book by chronicling the legal genealogy of Jesus. In so doing he employs the verb "begat" (Greek gennao) no less than thirty nine times. From Abraham to Joseph, it is "begat" all the way until Jesus. He writes, "...and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (1:16) The term "begat" is conspicuously absent as a connective between Joseph and Jesus. This is a cautiously worded suggestion of the virgin birth.
(2) Additionally, the inspired writer stresses concerning Mary, "...of whom was born Jesus." the pronoun "whom" (hes) is singular number, feminine gender, thus excluding Joseph from any involvement in the Lord's birth.
(3) It is carefully stated that Mary's conception occurred while she and Joseph were but "betrothed." (1:18) This according to Jewish practice, embraced that interval of time (usually about twelve months for a virgin) between the formal agreement to marry and the moving of the bride into the groom's home, at which point sexual cohabitation commenced.
(4) Matthew specifically says that the conception was "before they came together." The Greek term sunerchomai is frequently used "of coming together in a sexual sense." (Arndt & Gingrich, Greek Lexicon, p. 795.) there had thus been no union.
(5) Mary was said to be "found" (heurethe) with child. This word indicates a discovery or detection. (Winer, Greek Grammar, p. 769.) Joseph was surprised to learn of Mary's pregnancy and this, of course, is an evidence of his lack of complicity.
(6) Matthew observes that Mary's conception was "of the Holy Spirit." Lenski pungently observed: "In this brief phrase Matthew records what is popularly called the virgin birth, and on this phrase hangs the entire paragraph, yea, all else that the New Testament reports concerning the Word made flesh." He says that Jesus either, "entered our race as Matthew here declares, or He did not. If He did not, if Jesus was an ordinary bastard, or Joseph's natural son by an act of forbidden cohabitation, then they who will may call Him their Savior, their lascivious fancy cannot raise Him from the mire into which they have cast Him." (Commentary on Matthew, p. 42.)
(7) It is further revealed that Joseph was "minded to put her away." The term "put away" is apolusai, literally to "loose away" or to divorce. (Arndt & Gingrich, p. 96.) Under Jewish law, betrothal could be voided only by divorce. Joseph, initially feeling that Mary had been unfaithful to him, was "minded" (boulomai: indicating a decision reached after prior deliberation) to divorce her. He knew he was not the father of her child. Thus is Harnack's foolish speculation refuted.
(8) There was also the independent testimony of an angel who declared to Mary that "that which is conceived is of the Holy Spirit." (Cf. Luke 1:35, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee...")
(9) Matthew contends that Mary miraculously conceived "that it might be fulfilled" as the Lord had spoken through Isaiah (7:14), "Behold, the virgin shall be with child..." Isaiah employed the Hebrew word almah. Much controversy has surrounded this word as a result of modernism's rejection of the virgin birth. But Edward J. Young has observed that almah "is never used of a married woman, either in the Bible or elsewhere." (The Banner, April 15, 1955.) Robert Dick Wilson, an incomparable scholar who mastered some forty five languages, thoroughly researched the word and declared: "Alma, so far as known, never meant 'young married woman' and secondly since the presumption in common law and usage was and is, that every alma is virgin and virtuous, until she is proved not to be, we have a right to assume that...the alma of Isaiah 7:14 and all other almas were virgin, until and unless it shall be proven that they were not...The language itself is not the difficulty. The great and only difficulty lies in disbelief in predictive prophecy and in the Almighty power of God; or in the desire to throw discredit upon the divine Sonship of Jesus." (Princeton Theological Review, 1926, p. 316.)
In his rendition of the passage, Matthew uses the Greek word parthenos. Now parthenos is "virgin" as the consultation of a Greek lexicon will reveal. The fact that parthenos in rare instances may refer to one who is technically a non-virgin, is no argument against the unquestionably normal usage of the word. For example, Dinah is called a parthenos even after she was raped. (Genesis 34:3, LXX) However, the Old Testament frequently uses former appellations in a figurative sense to denominate subsequent situations. Abigail is called Nabal's "wife" even after she married David (II Samuel 2:2) and Jerusalem is referred to as "the faithful city" while playing the "harlot." (Isaiah 1:21) Or it may be that Dinah is called a parthenos even after her violation to stress her non-consent in the horrible act.
Isaiah makes it clear that it would be as a virgin that Mary would conceive. There is no way that a virgin can conceive other than by a miracle. If a virgin marries (thus losing her virginity), conceives and bears a child, it certainly can in no way be called a "virgin birth." Isaiah must, therefore have had exclusive reference to Mary's virginal conception. This writer totally rejects the view which asserts that the use of almah in Isaiah 7:14 involved a double prophecy, i.e. a young woman of the prophet's own time, in addition to Mary. (See William Hendriksen's Commentary on Matthew, pp. 134-143.)
(10) The child's name was to be called "Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us." The use of "God" in a compound name does not in itself of course, demand the deity of the person so named. It is plain however, that Matthew's use of the name does involve the divine nature of Christ. The apostle was writing a gospel narrative primarily for the Jews. He did not therefore, need to give them the interpretation of Immanuel; but he did, and this was to stress the point that with the birth of Jesus, deity had come to earth! Christ could not have been a divine being in the flesh had He been the offspring of both a human father and mother. Thus, the very name "Immanuel," as used by the inspired writer, argues for the virgin birth.
(11) Finally, it is stated that Joseph took Mary as his wife but, "knew her not till she brought forth a son..." The verb "know" (ginosko) is used frequently in both sacred and profane literature as a euphemism for sexual relations. (Cf. Genesis 4:1, 17; Luke 1:34) Here the exact verb form is eginosken, in the imperfect tense, suggesting that Joseph "kept on refraining from sexual contact" with Mary until after the birth of Jesus (though not necessarily beyond that time. Cf. Matthew 12:55-56).
Those therefore, who reject the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, do not do so from want of Biblical evidence; such repudiation results from abject infidelity!
No comments:
Post a Comment