Believing in Jesus
Christ and His miraculous birth does not require the so-called “blind leap of
faith.” In fact, there is as much evidence for the virgin birth of Christ as
any event of ancient history. Here are 5 compelling reasons for believing the Gospel story, that
Jesus Christ was supernaturally born of a virgin.
1. Documented by a physician and
world-class historian
2. Modern archaeology
affirms it
3. An agnostic
professor of mythology is convinced
4. Old Testament
prophets predicted it centuries in advance
5. The earliest
Christians believed it universally
1. Documented by a physician & world-class historian
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 Judea
and would have had the 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, noted Luke's attention to detail and in his book, Word
Studies in the Greek New Testament, he 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."
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.
Sir William Ramsay, who
spent years in Asia Minor following and examining Luke's account of Paul's
travels, wrote in The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the
New Testament, "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."
We have every reason to assume that Luke's carefulness to get his facts right extended to his account of the birth of Christ. Luke, in fact, gives the most
detailed account of the Nativity and mentions Mary 12 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.
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. Pointing to his attention to detail and accurate
reporting, Scott declared, "You could not fool Doctor Luke."
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 he taught
that the New Testament is 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."
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.
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.
Archaeology has,
indeed, affirmed the Biblical record, including Luke's account of the birth of Christ. As William F. Albright, the
renowned archaeologist and late professor of Semitic languages at John Hopkins
University, wrote, "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy
of innumerable details, and brought increased recognition to the Bible as a
source of history."
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?
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.
At the time, higher
criticism was being popularized in German seminaries. Certain theologians, such
as Rudolph Bultmann, 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!"
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!"
4. Predicted centuries in advance by OT prophets
Genesis 3:15 reads, I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring; he will bruise your
head, and you will 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 in The Holy Bible Containing the
Old and New Testaments with a Commentary and Critical Notes, "The seed
of the woman is to come by the woman, and her alone without the concurrence of
man."
According to this
prophecy, the "seed of the woman" will receive a temporary wound from
Satan—"you will bruise His heel"—but the "seed of woman"
shall inflict on Satan a final and mortal wound—"He will bruise
your head." This Messianic promise was fulfilled through the virgin birth
of Jesus and through His death and resurrection.
Isaiah 7:14 says, Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a
sign: 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 normally 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 Isaiah
7:14 is a Messianic prophecy referring to Jesus Christ 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 1:32).
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" (emphasis added).
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 and 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 in The New Evidence That
Demands a Verdict by 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."
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.
Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt is an author, historian, and Biblical scholar with a vision for Spiritual awakening in America and throughout the earth. His books are available from Amazon and you can read about his vision for America at www.eddiehyatt.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment