"If GOD became man THEN what would He be like?" Or "Did Jesus possess the attributes of GOD? To begin to answer this question we must first answer another question, namely, why would GOD become man? We will use an ant illustration. Imagine you are watching a farmer plow a field. You notice an ant hill will be plowed under by the farmer on his next time around. Because you are an ant lover, you run to the ant hill to warn them. First you shout to them the impending danger, but they continue with their work. You then try sign language and finally resort to everything you can think of, but nothing works. Why? Because you are not communicating with them. What is the best way to communicate with them? Only by becoming an ant can you communicate with them so they will understand.
Now, if GOD wanted to communicate with us, what would be the best way? We see that in order for Him to communicate with us, He could best do so by becoming a man and thus, reach us directly.
We can begin to answer our primary question now. If GOD did become man, who or what would He be like? He would possess the attributes of GOD, He would have an unusual entrance into this world, He would perform feats of the supernatural, He would be sinless; a lasting and universal impression would be left by Him and many more things. It is my feeling that GOD came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ, and in Jesus we see manifest the attributes of GOD and the characteristics that would accompany a GOD-man.
This section will encompass the philosophical argument, "If...then." I first read of this applied to Christ in Bernard Ramm's Book, Protestant Christian Evidences, Chapter 6, "The Verification of Christianity by the Supernatural Character of its Founder."
The following is an outline designed to aid you in effectively using this material.
IF GOD BECAME MAN, THEN WE WOULD EXPECT HIM TO:
Testimony Concerning the Virgin Birth
The main body of testimony concerning the virgin birth occurs in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Thus, a study of their reliability and their agreement is very important in considering the miraculous birth of Jesus.
THE CONCEPT
The concept of the virgin birth of Jesus must concur with the prescribed mode of entrance granted the Messiah in the Old Testament.
The first prophecy concerning Christ's coming is in Genesis 3:15. In this verse GOD says that the seed of woman shall crush the head of the serpent. Thus, the Deliverer would come of the woman's seed, not of man's seed as is biologically accepted.
A clearer prophecy occurs in Isaiah 7:14 which states that "...a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel" (KJV). This is very specific in that the reference is to a virgin. This, most logically, refers to the woman in Genesis 3:15.
Henry Morris writes: "Although its exact meaning has been debated, its usage is always consistent with the meaning 'virgin,' and in some cases this is the only possible meaning. The scholars who translated the Old Testament into the Greek Septuagint version used the standard Greek word for 'virgin' in translating Isaiah 7:14. So did Matthew when he quoted this prophecy (Matt. 1:23) as being fulfilled in the virgin birth of Christ."
Also, in Isaiah 7:14, the birth is said to be a "sign" from the "LORD Himself." This is certainly unique in that this could be no ordinary birth. Thus, we can see that the doctrine of the virgin birth presented in the Gospel is in accord with earlier Scripture teachings.
RELIABILITY
The reliability of the Gospel accounts should also be based on their historical accuracy.
This historicity of the Gospel accounts is attested to by the time at which each writer places the events of Jesus' birth and the events themselves. There are alleged discrepancies in Luke's account of the birth dealing with the census ordered by Quirinius. It was at first believed that Quirinius was governor only in 8 AD. Thus, this would have put him and his census after the birth of Christ and also Herod's death. However, some now believe that Quirinius served two terms of office, the first of these being 10-7 BC, which would put his first census at the time, roughly, of Christ's birth shortly before Herod's death in 4 BC.
AGREEMENT IN TESTIMONIES
For something to be true, those who are bearing witness of it must agree in their testimonies. In regard to the accounts in Matthew and Luke, Orr states that although they are told from different points of view and originate from different sources, they agree on one central fact, "that Jesus, conceived by the Holy Ghost, was born of Mary, a Virgin betrothed to Joseph, with his full knowledge of the cause..."
Agreement versus discrepancy of the narratives
"The critics speak of the discrepancies of the narratives. Much more remarkable, it seems to me, are their agreements, and the subtle harmonies that pervade them. The agreements, if we study them carefully, prove to be far more numerous than may at first strike us. Here, e.g., is a list of 12 points, which lie really on the surface of the narratives, yet give very clearly the gist of the whole story.
One apparent discrepancy in the accounts involves the family lineage of Jesus. There are two genealogies of Christ given in the Bible. Upon examination they appear to contradict. However, the one listed in Matthew is that of Joseph and the one in Luke is that of Mary. Since Joseph was descended from Jechonias, Jesus could not rightly claim the throne (see Jeremiah 22:30; Coniah, Jechonias, II Kings 24, and Jechonias in Matthew 1:11 are the same person). However, the lineage of Mary does not include Jechonias, and since Joseph did not father Jesus, He had claim to the throne as "the seed" of the woman, Mary (Luke 3:23).
The Witness of Mark, John and Paul:
An argument often used by critics is that there is no reference in the New Testament to the virgin birth except in Matthew and Luke. Therefore, it is often concluded that the doctrine was not vital to the message of the New Testament church.
William Childs Robinson, the emeritus professor of historical theology at Columbia Theological Seminary, points out that "what is explicit in Matthew and Luke is implicit in Paul and John."
Robert Gromacki writes that "it is not tenable to argue from silence to disbelief or from silence to an ignorance of the doctrine. The apostles did not record everything that they taught or knew (cf. John 20:30). In fact, the so-called silence argument of the liberal can boomerang on him. Since Paul did not mention any human father for the person Jesus, does that mean that he believed that Jesus had no human father? Most regard silence as assent. If Paul and the others did not believe in the virgin birth, should they not have corrected the earlier birth narratives? The argument of silence can be used both ways. Actually, no confession or denial should ever be based upon the argument from silence."
It can also be argued that "...while it is true that it appears at the beginning of both the first and third Gospels, it is absent from that of St. Mark, or, as it is commonly put, St. Mark 'knows nothing about it,' though his was the first to be written and was used by the other two. St. Mark's Gospel, we have it on good authority, was his account of what he had heard St. Peter preach. He was his 'interpreter.' It represents what St. Peter found useful or necessary in preaching in public, just as St. Paul preached on the Areopagus at Athens, or at Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome.
"Now, for obvious reasons, the question of our LORD's birth would not have been a subject to be discussed on such occasions, especially so long as His Mother was still alive, and was, possible, personally known to those listening. The main appeal was to be teaching that Christ gave, the signs that He had wrought, and, above all, as we see from the place it occupies, the events of His Passion."
It is possible that the fourth writer infers a miraculous birth to Jesus by his use of the word "begotten" in John 3:16.
As John R. Rice states: "Jesus repeatedly referred to Himself as GOD's 'only begotten Son." Now the word 'begat' is a word of human genealogies, a term referring to the male part in procreating or generating a child. It refers to the physical birth. Jesus insisted that He was not begotten of Joseph but was begotten of GOD. The same word, monogenes, is used six times in the New Testament about Jesus as the only-begotten of GOD, and twice Jesus Himself used it about Himself! Note that Jesus does not claim to be simply one who is begotten of GOD. Rather, He claims to be the only one ever born who was so begotten. He is the only begotten Son of GOD. No one else was ever born of a virgin. In a spiritual sense, it may be said that Christians are 'begotten...again unto a lively hope' (I Peter 1:3), but in the sense in which Jesus was begotten of GOD, no one else ever was. Clearly Jesus was claiming the He was physically begotten of GOD and not by any human father."
The apostle John's genealogy is essentially "in the beginning," and therefore doesn't deal with the virgin birth. "In the beginning was the Word...and the Word became flesh" (John 1:1,14).
Likewise in regard to Paul: "St. Paul knew St. Luke quite well. He was his companion for a long time in his travels, and was with him at Rome, and St. Luke is our chief authority for the story of our LORD's birth. St. Paul must have known it, and it is quite natural that, knowing it, he should have spoken of our LORD as he does when he says: 'GOD sent forth His Son born of a woman.' " Clement F. Rogers
Historical Evidence Surrounding the Virgin Birth Other Than the Gospel Accounts
TIME
An important consideration concerning the Gospel accounts is the time they were written. Due to the early dating of the Gospel writings, no adequate time was left for the growth of a myth surrounding the birth of Christ. Thus, we should see evidence of the teaching of the virgin birth in the early church. In relation to this are two questions:
How did the concept of a virgin birth arise so soon if it was not based on fact?
If the Gospels were not historical, how were they accepted so universally at such an early date?
In regard to the early church belief in the virgin birth, Gresham Machen writes:
"Even...if there were not a word about the subject in the New Testament, the second-century testimony would show that the belief in the virgin birth must have arisen, to say the least, well before the first century was over."
In the very early days of the church, there was a group called the Ebionites. They objected to the church's use of the passage in Isaiah concerning the virgin bearing a son (Isaiah 7:14). They said that the verse should be translated "a young woman." The important pont is that the church believed in the virgin birth.
To this thought James Orr writes:
"...Apart from the Ebionites...and a few Gnostic sects, no body of Christians in early times is known to have existed who did not accept as part of their faith the birth of Jesus from the Virgin Mary; while...we have the amplest evidence that this belief was part of the general faith of the Church."
In Speaking of the early church, Aristides says, "Everything that we know of the dogmatics of the early part of the second century agrees with the belief that at that period the virginity of Mary was a part of the fomulated Christian belief."
WITNESS OF EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
Very important in the history of the early church's belief in the virgin birth is the testimony of its early fathers. In 110 AD, Ignatius wrote in his Epistle to the Ephesians, "For our GOD Jesus Christ was...conceived in the womb of Mary...by the Holy Ghost."
"Now the virginity of Mary, and He who was born of her...are the mysteries most spoken of throughout the world, yet done in secret by GOD." Ignatius received his information from his teacher, John the apostle.
"We have further evidence," writes Clement F. Rogers, "which shows that the belief of Christians in the Virgin Birth was attacked by those outside. Cerinthus, for example, was the contemporary and opponent of St. John. It was said that the Evangelist, meeting him in the public baths, cried out, 'Let us flee lest the bath fall in while Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is here." He [Cerinthus' taught, Irenaeus tells us, that our LORD was born of Joseph and Mary like other men."
Another of the post-apostolic writers, Aristides in 125 AD, speaks of the virgin birth: "He is Himself Son of GOD on high, who was manifested of the Holy Spirit, came down from heaven, and being born of a Hebrew virgin took on His flesh from the virgin...He it is who was according to the flesh born of the race of Hebrews, by the GOD-bearing virgin Miriam."
Justin Martyr in 150 gives ample evidence to the concept of Jesus' miraculous birth. "...Our Teacher Jesus Christ, who is the first-begotten of GOD the Father, was not born as a result of sexual relations...the power of GOD descending upon the virgin overshadowed her, and caused her, while still a virgin, to conceive...For, by GOD's power He was conceived by a virgin...in accordance with the will of GOD, Jesus Christ, His Son, has been born of the Virgin Mary." (Apology 1:21-33; Dialogue with Trypho the Jew)
"The first great Latin-speaking Christian was the converted lawyer Tertullian. He tells us that not only there was in his days (ca AD 200) a definite Christian creed on which all churches agree, but he also tells us, its technical name was a tessera. Now things only get technical names when they have been established for some time. He quotes this creed four times. It includes the words 'ex virgine Maria' (of the Virgin Mary)."
THE EARLY JEWISH WITNESS
As should be expected, there are negative arguments concerning the virgin birth also. These were brought forth by the Jews. Our purpose here is to show that in the very early days of the church there was outside controversy concerning the birth of Jesus, and that for this controversy to have originated, the church must have been teaching Christ's miraculous birth.
Ethelbert Stauffer says that,
"In a genealogical table dating from before AD 70 Jesus is listed as 'the bastard of a wedded wife.' Evidently the Evangelist Matthew was familiar with such lists and was warring against them. Later rabbis bluntly called Jesus the son of an adulteress. They also claimed to know precisely the 'unknown father's name: "Panthera.' In old rabbinical texts we find frequent mention of Jesus ben Panthera, and the eclectic Platonist Celsus around 160 details all sorts of gossipy anecdotes about Mary and the legionary Panthera."
In the Toldoth Jeschu, the Jewish history of Christ, it is taught that Jesus is of "illegitimate origin, through the union of his mother with a soldier named Panthera."
Hugh Schonfield, the Jewish skeptic, relates: "R. Shimeon ben Azzai said: 'I found a genealogical scroll in Jerusalem, and therein was written, 'so-and-so, bastard son of an adulteress.' "
R. Shimeon lived at the end of the first and beginning of the second century AD. According to Schonfield, this document must have been in existence at the time of the capture of Jerusalem in 70 AD. In the older Jewish records, Jesus' name is represented by "so and so."
Schonfield then goes on to say that "there would be no object in making it unless the Christian original (genealogy) made some claim that the birth of Jesus was not normal."
Due to the reference of R. Shimeon, Schonfield says that the charge against Jesus "that he was the bastard son of an adulteress, goes back to an early date."
Origen in his Contra Celsum states: "Let us return, however, to the words put into the mouth of the Jew, where the mother of Jesus is described as having been turned out by the carpenter who was betrothed to her, as she had been convicted of adultery and had a child by a certain soldier named Panthera. Let us consider whether those who fabricated the myth that the virgin and Panthera committed adultery and that the carpenter turned her out, were not blind when they concocted all this to get rid of the miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit. For on account of its highly miraculous character they could have falsified the story in other ways without, as it were, unintentionally admitting that Jesus was not born of an ordinary marriage. It was inevitable that those who did not accept the miraculous birth of Jesus would have invented some lie. But the fact that they did not do this convincingly, but kept as part of the story that the virgin did not conceive Jesus by Joseph, makes the lie obvious to people who can see through fictitious stories and show them up. Is it reasonable that a man who ventured to do such great things for mankind in order that, so far as in the universe, should have had, not a miraculous birth, but a birth more illegitimate and disgraceful than any?...It is therefore probably that this soul, which lived a more useful life on earth than many men (to avoid appearing to beg the question by saying 'all' men), needed a body which was not only distinguished among human bodies, but was also superior to all others."
Even in the Gospels this controversy is brought out, in Mark 6:3: " 'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?' And they took offense at Him"
"This account," writes Ethelbert Stauffer, "which appears only in Mark does full justice to the situation. The Jews had strict rules governing name-giving. A Jew was named after his father (Jochanan ben Sakkai, for example) even if his father had died before his birth. He was named after his mother only when the father was unknown."
THE KORAN
In the Koran we find Jesus referred to regularly as Isa ibn Maryam - Jesus, the son of Mary. Stauffer writes, "Abdullah al-Baidawi, the classical commentator on the Koran, remarks with full understanding of the Semitic practice in nomenclature: The name of the mother is borne when the father is unknown. But this name and explanation are here intended in a thoroughly positive sense. In Islam Jesus is regarded as the Son of the Virgin Mary who was begotten by the creative Word of GOD."
"In the Logia we learn that Jesus was berated for being a 'glutton and drunkard.' There must have been some grounds for this charge. For it fits in with all that we know about the attitude of Jesus and about his Pharisaical groups' reaction to it. Now, among Palestinian Jews this particular insult would be flung at a person born of an illegitimate connection who betrayed by his mode of life and his religious conduct the stain of his birth. This was the sense in which the Pharisees and their followers employed the phrase against Jesus. Their meaning was: 'he is a bastard.' "
As a result of the early Jewish aversions to the illegitimacy of Christ (before AD 70), they are acknowledging the fact that there was doubt as to His parentage. The very early Christian church, at most forty years after his death, must have been teaching some doctrine about His birth, i.e., the virgin birth.
We find reference to Jesus' birth in the Koran (Mary v.20). When it was announced to Mary that she would bear a son, she replied, "How can this be, for I am a virgin and no mortal has ever touched me." The account goes on to say that "it is easy for Me (the LORD)." He then "breathed on her His Spirit."
Summation by Various Writers
On the basis of the available evidence, it is important to see what some of the world's authors say about it.
W. H. Griffith Thomas writes: "The chief support for the doctrine is the necessity of accounting for the uniqueness of the life of Jesus."
Henry Morris states: "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."
"If He is truly our Savior, He must be far more than a mere man, though also He is truly the Son of man. To die for our sins, He must Himself be free from any sin of His own. To be sinless in practice, He must first be sinless in nature. He could not have inherited a human nature, bound under the Curse and the bondage of sin as it must have been a miraculous birth. The 'seed of the woman' was implanted in the virgin's womb when, as the angel said: 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of GOD' " (Luke 1:35).
"Not only is the Virgin Birth true because it is clearly taught in the Bible, but also because it is the only type of birth consistent with the character and mission of Jesus Christ and with GOD's great plan of salvation for a lost world."
"To say that such a miracle is impossible is to deny the existence of GOD or else to deny that He can control His creation."
In summing up the evidence of Jesus' birth, J. Gresham Machen states: "Thus there is good ground, we think, to hold that the reason why the Christian Church came to believe in the birth of Jesus without a human father was simply that He was as a matter of fact so born."
Clement Rogers concludes that: "All the evidence there is goes to prove the miraculous birth of Christ."
Home | Site Index | Bible Index |
Kingdom Dynamics | Truth in Action | Links |