Historical Evidences for
the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ
(1) Documented by a Physician and World-Class Historian.
(2) Affirmed by Modern Archaeology.
(3) An Agnostic Professor of Mythology is Convinced.
(4) Predicted Centuries
in Advance by Old Testament Prophets.
(5) Believed Universally
by the Earliest Christians.
Evidence # 1
Documented by a Physician & World-Class
Historian
The virgin birth of Jesus Christ was
documented by a physician and world class historian who interviewed
eyewitnesses, probably including Mary herself, for his account of this
world-changing event. Luke gives the most detailed account of the Nativity and
mentions Mary twelve times, more than any other Biblical writer. In addition to
the birth of Christ, he also gives special, detailed attention to the birth of
John the Baptist and many see his gynecological interests to be a result of his
training as a physician.
At the beginning of his Gospel, Luke
indicates that he has made a thorough investigation of the things about which
he is writing, which included his utilization of eyewitness accounts. He spent
extended periods of time with Paul in Jerusalem and Judaea and would have had
opportunity to interview those who were closest to the event, including Mary herself.
There is no reliable information on
how long Mary lived, but some traditions say she lived as much as 24 years or
longer after the resurrection. The detail Luke presents does indicate that he
has derived his information from a primary source, either Mary herself or someone
to whom Mary had relayed the intimate details of the event.
The well-known Greek
scholar, Kenneth S. Wuest, noting Luke’s attention to detail, said, “If Mary was still alive, he, a doctor
of medicine, investigated the story of the virgin birth by hearing it from
Mary's own lips” (Wuest, 52-54).
The accuracy
of Luke as a historian was confirmed by the famous historian, A.N. Sherwin-White, who carefully examined his references
in Luke/Acts to 32 countries, 54 cities, and nine islands, finding not a single
mistake (Geisler, 47). Sir William Ramsay, who spent years in Asia Minor
following and examining Luke’s account of Paul’s travels, wrote, “You may press
the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the
keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment” (Ramsay, 89).
Challenging the claims of critics
that the story of the virgin birth was based on a hoax, the noted Greek
scholar, Professor John A. Scott, reminded the naysayers of Luke’s reputation as a historian and that he had based his account on primary sources. He then
declared, “You could not fool Doctor Luke" (Wuest, 52-54).
Evidence #2
Affirmed by Modern Archaeology
Luke’s status as a world-class
historian, accurate in even the smallest details, has been brought to light by
modern archaeology. For example, Sir William Ramsay, considered one of the
greatest archaeologists of all time, originally thought he would scientifically
discredit Luke’s accounts by visiting and examining the places mentioned in his
Gospel and Acts.
Ramsay was a student of the skeptical,
German higher criticism of the 19th century and taught that the New Testament was an
unreliable religious treatise written in the mid-second century by individuals
far removed from the events described. But after years of retracing Luke’s
account of Paul’s travels and doing archaeological digs along the way, Ramsay
completely reversed his view of the Bible and first century history.
Ramsay became convinced that Acts was
written in the first century by the traditional author and he acquired a very
high regard for Luke as a historian. He wrote, “Luke is a historian of the first rank;
not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true
historic sense; in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest
of historians” (Ramsay, 81, 222.)
In 1896, Ramsay began publishing
his discoveries in a book entitled St.
Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen. The book caused a furor of dismay
among the skeptics of the world, for its affirmation of the Biblical record was
totally unexpected. Over the next 20 years he published other volumes showing
how he discovered Luke to be accurate in the tiniest details of his account. The
evidence was so overwhelming that many atheists gave up their atheism and embraced
Christianity.
William F. Albright,
archaeologist and late Professor of Semitic Languages at John Hopkins
University, is considered by many to be the greatest of archaeologists. Like
Ramsay, he began as an agnostic and skeptic concerning the Bible as a reliable
book of history. But, like Ramsay, his views were also completely changed by doing
the hard work of an archaeologist in the field.
Albright discovered
that not only was Luke reliable, but that the entire Bible was a reliable
source of history. He wrote, “Discovery after discovery has established the
accuracy of innumerable details, and brought increased recognition to the Bible
as a source of history” (McDowell, 61).
At one time it was thought
that Luke had completely missed the boat concerning the events he portrayed
surrounding the birth of Christ (Luke 2:1-5). Critics argued that there was no
census and that everyone did not have to return to their ancestral home. They
also pointed out that Josephus had dated the governorship of Quirinius of
Syria, whom Luke mentions, as beginning in a.d.
6, too late for the birth of Christ.
In every case, however,
archaeological discoveries proved the critics to be wrong. In the case of
Quirinius it was found that he had actually served two separate terms as
governor, the first beginning around 7 b.c.,
which fits perfectly with the time of Christ’s birth. F. F. Bruce, one of the most
respected of New Testament scholars, noted that where Luke has been suspected
of inaccuracy by modern critics, archaeology has again and again proved Luke to
be right and the critics wrong.
The evidence begs the question that if Luke was this careful
to get his facts right about names, places, events and dates, can we not be
confident that he was just as careful to get his facts right concerning the
more important things about which he reported, such as the virgin birth of
Jesus Christ?
Evidence #3
An Agnostic Professor
of Mythology is Convinced
C. S. Lewis was the
agnostic Professor of Renaissance Literature at Oxford University, a prolific
author and a recognized expert of mythological texts. He too had bought into
the idea that the Bible was not a book of reliable history, and that the New
Testament was filled with all sorts of mythical stories created by individuals
far removed from the events described.
But through the
influence of his childhood and friends who challenged his atheism, Lewis began
to read the Bible. He was astounded at what he encountered in the Gospels for
it was obviously a different genre from the ancient mythologies with which he
was so familiar. His surprised response was, “This is not myth!” Lewis went on
to become a dedicated follower of Christ and perhaps the most significant
Christian apologist of the 20th century.
It was at the time when
higher criticism was being popularized in German seminaries and certain
theologians, such as Rudolph Bultman, were claiming that the New Testament
accounts of the virgin birth of Jesus, His miracles, and His resurrection were
myths created by His followers.
Lewis challenged these
theologians, saying, “I would like to know how many myths these people have
read!” He went on to explain that he had been a long-time professor and critic
of mythological literature and knew how a myth sounded and felt. “And the
gospel story,” he said, “is not myth!”
Evidence # 4
Predicted Centuries in Advance by OT Prophets
Genesis
3:15.
I will put enmity between you and the
woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head and you
shall bruise His heel.
These
words were spoken by God to the serpent after the fall of our first parents.
The “seed of the woman” in this passage is an allusion to a future descendant
of Eve who will defeat the serpent and reverse the curse brought on by his
deception.
The
Bible normally speaks of the seed of men but in this case it is the “seed of
the woman.” This is a prophecy that clearly anticipates the future virgin birth
of Christ--a birth in which the
seed of a man is not involved. The beloved Methodist theologian, Adam Clarke,
wrote; “The seed of the woman is to come by the woman, and her alone without
the concurrence of man” (Clarke, vol. 1, 53).
According
to this prophecy, the “seed of the woman” will receive a temporary wound from
Satan—you shall bruise His heel—but the “seed of woman” shall inflict on
Satan a final and mortal wound—He shall bruise your head. This Messianic
promise was fulfilled through the virgin birth of Jesus and through His death
and resurrection.
Isaiah
7:14. Therefore,
the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold the virgin shall conceive and
bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
The Hebrew
word translated “virgin” in this passage is almah
and refers to a young woman of marriageable age, but would include the idea of
virginity since that was expected of a young Jewish woman being married for the
first time.
That
“virgin” is an accurate English translation is confirmed by the Septuagint,
which uses the Greek word parthinos
to translate almah. Parthinos specifically means a young
woman who has never had sex with a man. Parthinos
is the word used by both Matthew and Luke in their description of Mary,
affirming that she was a young woman who had never had sex with a man when Jesus
was born.
Further
evidence that this Son born of a virgin is a Messianic prophecy referring to
Jesus is indicated by Isaiah’s statement that he shall be called Immanuel, which means “God with us.” This
is a clear statement concerning the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ, and
reminds us of the words of Gabriel to Mary that the Son she will bear will be great and will be called the Son of
the Highest (Luke 1:31-32).
Evidence # 5
Believed Universally by the Earliest
Christians
That the virgin birth was universally
believed by the earliest Christians is verified by the “Apostle’s Creed,” an
early confession of faith that dates from the second century and was used
throughout the church. By including the virgin birth in their creedal statement,
these early believers made clear that they considered it an essential doctrine
of the Faith. The Creed reads in part:
I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth;
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary.
This belief in the virgin birth was confirmed by the Nicene Creed of a.d. 325 and has continued to be the
belief of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Christians.
Note the words of the 18th century hymn, “Hark the Herald Angels
Sing,” written by Charles Wesley, an Oxford graduate, Anglican minister, and
with his brother John, the leader of the great Methodist revival. Because of
the references to the virgin birth, this hymn became a popular carol sung at
Christmas.
Christ by highest
heav’n adored,
Christ the everlasting
Lord!
Late in time behold Him
come,
Offspring of a Virgin’s
womb!
Veiled in flesh the
Godhead see,
Hail the incarnate
Deity!
Pleased as man with man
to dwell,
Jesus, our Emanuel.
Hark the herald angels
sing,
Glory to the newborn
king!
Conclusion
With such overwhelming
evidence for the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, it raises the question as to why
there remains so much skepticism about this event and other miracles recorded
in the New Testament. This question was answered by the Yale archaeologist and
professor, Millard Burrows, who said, “The excessive skepticism of many liberal
theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from
an enormous predisposition against the supernatural” (McDowell, 62).
In other
words, the barrier to faith is not an intellectual one, but a heart that is
committed to unbelief. Believing in Christ does not require a so-called “blind
leap of faith.” Any honest seeker who will lay aside their biased
presuppositions and consider the historical evidence will also experience the
affirming witness of the Holy Spirit in their heart and will know that Jesus
was truly born of a virgin. And if that part of the story is true, then we can
have confidence that the rest of the story is true as well.
Works Cited
Geisler, Norman. Baker Encyclopedia of
Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.
McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
1999.
Ramsey, Sir William M. The Bearing of Recent
Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. Hodder &
Stoughton, 1915.
Wuest, Kenneth S. Word Studies in The Greek New Testament.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
Clarke, Adam. The Holy
Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments with a Commentary and Critical
Notes. 3 Vols. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1824.
Excellent article. I am sending it on to some skeptics I know. Thanks Eddie
ReplyDeleteThanks Darrell!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteArticulation of Truth at its finest! Thank you, Dr. Hyatt! So encouraging to my born again spirit!!
ReplyDeleteArticulation of Truth at its finest! Thank you, Dr. Hyatt! So encouraging to my born again spirit!!
ReplyDelete