ay ‘Why! I Believe ‘in 4 V7 he Virgin Birth | TOE ee esus s Christ = ER NR EM NC Cd = ’ - - - ‘ \ S j te WILLIAM EVANS : | 882423 | on rege ses ) copy 2 Cee a ee Outline Study of the Bible........... hd eae > Book Method of Bible Study..................... SE fe The Christian: His Creed and Conduct...... ‘at How to. Memorize..6.2)2235145 es Ay he, Epochs in the Life of Christ ae Sg ace 1.25 ‘The Shepherd. Psalm. 3...:.:.23.-35 eee .50 Why I am Not a Christian Scientist............ .20 The 'Pentateuch:).10- 3 3 a ee 1.50 The Gospels and the Acts................---------- 1.50. Romans and | and II Corinthians................ 1.50 The*Comine King 4-2 a ee eee 41.50 If money does not accompany order, goods will be sent C. O. D. unless otherwise specified. If books are to come by mail add 10% for postage. BIOLA BOOK ROOM Bible Institute, Los Angeles, Cal. Why I Believe in The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ by Rev. William Evans, Ph.D., D.D. THE BIOLA BOOK ROOM Bible Institute of Los Angeles 536-558 South Hope St. Los Angeles, California Copyright 1924 Bible Institute of Los Angeles Printed in United States of America Preface These addresses have been delivered at noon hours in some of the largest theatres in the leading cities of the United States. This accounts for their popular form. They are printed almost as they were delivered. The author tried to make the addresses brief, interesting, and as scholarly as would be con- sistent with the fact that it was a noon-hour audi- ence of busy business men and women who were the listeners. Each address had to be packed into about twenty minutes’ time. | Somewhat the same matter, but in a little different form, will be found in the author’s book, “Epochs in the Life of Christ.” WILLIAM EVANS. Contents INTRODUCTION | Brief history of the controversy. Position of opponents and defenders. The Text of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Tue ARGUMENTS AGAINST BELIEF IN THE VIRGIN BrrtH: STATED: ANSWERED. I. The supposed “silence” of the Scriptures. If belief in the Virgin Birth is vital why are Mark, John, Paul silent about it? II. Joseph and Mary said to be the parents of Jesus. 3 Claimed that they are so cailed without cor- rection in the New Testament. III. One human parent does not guarantee sinless- NESS. | | The absence of an earthly father- cannot issue in a sinless child. IV. Contrary to laws of Nature. God works only through natural law. Virgin Birth is a miracle, so impossible. V. The account is mythical and leyendary. The story copied from pagan annals. All heroes supernaturally born. VI. Scholarship against it. Is that a fact? If so, what would the fact mean? Claim is untrue. VII. Jtts a part of the Gospel narrative. Gospel story as a whole. No watertight com- partments. Introduction Opposition to belief in the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is not a recent thing. Already in the time of the Apostle John the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin was stoutly contested by many, among whom may be mentioned the famous Cerinthus. _And thrcughout the centuries since, there have been spasmodic outbursts of opposition to this doctrine. The present opposition, however, may perhaps, be traced, as to its beginning, to Germany, in 1892. A pastor there, named Schrempf, refused to any longer use the Apostles’ Creed when performing the rite of Baptism, because it contained reference to the Virgin Birth. This refusal, naturally, aroused considerable sentiment for and against the pastor. Finally Schrempf was deposed, but not until a great controversy had arisen which continues to the pre- sent hour. Then, too, the modern critical spirit, with its an- tagonism to the supernatural, its evolutionary teach- ings concerning biology and the processes of life, its attempt to bring the supernatural into the realm of the natural, so that much which heretofore has been attributed to divine action, is now purported to have taken place through natural means—this attitude of mind is responsible also for the present status of this doctrine. 8 THE VirGIN BirtH It becomes necessary, therefore, in view of these things, for the Christian who believes that the en- trance of Jesus Christ into this world was super- natural and that Jesus was born of a Virgin as the Scriptures so unequivocally assert, to consider anew his reasons for believing thus. He must be able to give a reason for the hope that is within him to every man that asketh him. More than personal reasons should be adduced for the consideration of this tenet of Christian faith and confession. Something more than the faith of the individual is at stake—the faith of the whole Christian Church is involved. For centuries the Christian Church has believed in this doctrine as one of the fundamental planks in her platform. Shall it remain such? Is it to be considered any longer a necessary article of the Christian’s creed? Is it binding on any man, ere he can rightfully call himself “Christian,” that he accept the doctrine of the Virgin Birth as fact? Can belief in this doc- trine be expunged from Christian Faith and Chris- . tianity remain unaffected in any vital part? Is be- lief in the Virgin Birth absolutely essential and vital to the religion that bears the name of Jesus Christ? POSITION OF OPPONENTS The opponents to the doctrine reply in the affirm- ative. They maintain that the foundations of our faith are not shaken by a refusal to believe in the oF JESUS CHRIST 9 supernatural birth of Christ; that there were con- versions in the Acts of the Apostles and in the early Church, when the doctrine of the Virgin Birth was unknown; that men believed in the sinlessness of Christ and His redemptive work even though they knew nothing of His supernatural birth. The atti- tude of the opponents to this doctrine is expressed by the following quotation: Soltau, in his book, “The Birth of Jesus Christ,” says: “Whoever makes further demands that an evangelical Chris- tian shall believe in the words ‘Conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,’ unwittingly constitutes himself a sharer in the sin against the Holy Spirit of the true gospel as transmitted to us by the apostles and their school in the apostolic age.” Soltau, then, makes belief in the Virgin Birth a sin against the Holy Ghost. Reginald T. Campbell, in “The New Theology,” says: “The credibility and significance of Christianity are in no way affected by the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, otherwise than that the belief tends to put a barrier between Jesus and ihe race and to make Him something that cannot properly be called human. Like many others, I used to take the position that acceptance or non-acceptance of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth was immaterial, because Christianity was quite independent of it; but later reflection has convinced me that, in point of fact, it operates as a 10 Tue Vircin BirtH hindrance to spiritual religion and a real living faith in Jesus. The simple and natural conclusion is that Jesus was the child of Joseph and Mary and had an uneventful childhood.” “Tt is a dangerous and fallacious dilemma that the idea of the God-Man stands or falls with the Virgin Birth.”—-Harnack. “Good Christian men may take opposite sides on this question without giving up that which is vital or cardinal to the faith. No doctrinal use is made of it (the doctrine of the Virgin Birth) in the New Testament.’’—Ropes. It is clear from these statements of representatives of the opponents to this doctrine that it is not only a matter of indifference whether we accept the doctrine of the Virgin Birth or not, but that it is a positive hindrance to spiritual religion and a real living faith in Jesus, and that it is virtually a sin against the Holy Ghost. Assertions like these force upon us the necessity of considering this doctrine of the Christian faith. PosITIONS OF ADHERENTS The adherents to the doctrine claim that it mat- ters much and affects Christianity and the Christian life greatly whether we believe in the Virgin Birth or not. They maintain that the life of Christ can- not be considered in a fragmentary manner, but as a whole. The Virgin Birth is but a fragment of the oF JESUS CHRIST 11 Christian story, and the denial of it is but an attempt to rule out the supernatural from the entire life of Jesus. It is not a question of one, but of all the miracles, that is at stake. If we begin by denying the supernatural character of Christ’s entrance into the world and then deny His Resurrection from the dead, it will not be long before His sinless and spot- less life will be challenged, for a sinless human being in history is as much a supernatural fact as a Virgin Birth or a Resurrection. It is maintained that the Virgin Birth cannot be denied and the other facts of Christ’s life stand valid and provide a firm basis for faith and hope. The life of Christ cannot be con- sidered piecemeal. The doctrine of the Virgin Birth is a foundation stone and it cannot be removed without pulling down some part of the building with it. THE RECORD OF THE EVANGELISTS, MAT- THEW AND LUKE—THE SCRIPTURAL DATA FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ... . Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public ex- ample, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of: David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being in- terpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: and he called his name JEesus.”— Matthew 1:16, 18-25. 14 THE Vircin BirtH “And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Naza- reth, to a virgin espoused to a man named Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever: and of his kingdom there shall be noend. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, 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. And, behold, thy cousin Elizabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible.”—Luke 1: 26-37. ’ oF JESUS CHRIST 15 Considerable space is devoted by Matthew and Luke to the birth of our Lord; both testify that Christianity was introduced into the world by a supernatural event. More space is given by these evangelists to the account of Christ’s birth than to many other events in our Lord’s life, the Transfig- uration, for example. Those who believe in the in- spiration of selection; that is to say, that only those events, sermons and miracles in the life of Christ are recorded which are absolutely necessary for His manifestation to the world as the divine Saviour and Lord—will be impressed with this fact. Therefore, the fact that the Evangelists give so much space to Christ’s birth gives that event an important place in the Christian system. It may or may not be true that these two are the only evangelists who record the Virgin Birth of our Lord, yet it should be remembered in this connection that they are the only two that deal with the infancy of Christ at all and that they testify that the mode of Christ’s entrance into the world was supernatural, and that a miracle attended the manner in which the only begotten Son of God came to sojourn with the sons of men. THOSE WHO MAINTAIN THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MATTHEW AND LUKE, IS SILENT WITH REGARD TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH Those who oppose the doctrine of the Virgin Birth say that if it were fundamental to the Christian sys- tem, such men as John and Paul, who have con- tributed so largely to the life and literature of the Christian Church, could hardly afford to be silent concerning it. The “silence” of these, and other New Testament writers, therefore, is used as an argument against belief in the Virgin Birth. But the argument from silence (ex silentro) even if true, can be made too much of. “The old claim of the criminal that whereas only two men saw him steal, and because he could bring one hundred that did not, hence he should be acquitted,” is now put forward as an argument against the truth of the Gospel narratives. We must remember, however, that silence does not necessarily imply ignorance, but on the contrary may be actual consent, particularly where there is no denial of the narratives which were already known to these writers. 18 THE VirGIn BirtH If we were to treat the life of Christ on the basis of the “argument from silence’ we should be com- pelled to eliminate many of the events and incidents in our Lord’s life. THE Lorp’s PRAYER Let us take the Lord’s Prayer as an example: “Do you use the Lord’s Prayer daily ?” “Yes,” you reply, “I do.” “May I ask why you use it?” “Because our Lord taught His disciples to pray after the manner of this prayer.” “Are you sure our Lord taught His disciples this Prayer? What reason have you for believing it?” Our Lord never taught His disciples this prayer. These words never fell from His lips—that is to say, if we are to follow the critic’s “argument from — silence” as applied to the Virgin Birth, for only Matthew and Luke, the same writers who record the Virgin Birth, record the Lord’s Prayer. | Such incidents as the Visit of the Wise Men and of the Shepherds to the Christ Child, the flight into Egypt of Joseph and Mary and the Holy Child, the slaughter of the innocents by Herod, the return to Nazareth, the abode at Capernaum, the visit of the Christ Child to the Temple, indeed, not one single incident in the life of Jesus until He was thirty years of age would be true according to “the argu- oF JEsuS CHRIST 19 ment from silence,’ for only Matthew and Luke record the incidents of our Lord’s life up to the time of His baptism. SERMON ON THE Mount The seriousness of rejecting the Gospel narratives of the Virgin Birth of our Lord because only Matthew and Luke record it and the rest of the New Testa- ment is supposed to be silent about it, would rob us of the Sermon on the Mount also. This would be a serious deprivation indeed. There are those who deny the inspiration and authority of every other part of the Bible but still maintain a faith in the Sermon on the Mount. Other parts of the Scrip- ture may need the defense of the theologian, but not the Sermon on the Mount. There are people who swear by every word that fell from the lips of Jesus as recorded in this wonderful Sermon. They may reject the parables, the miracles and the teachings of Jesus found in other parts of the Gospels but they hold tenaciously to the authority and binding power of the Sermon on the Mount. But according to the critic’s “argument from sil- ence,’ there never was any Sermon on the Mount; no such words ever fell from the lips of Jesus. The mottoes that adorn the walls of clubs, lodges, and var- ious kinds of societies—as for example, “Do unto others as ye would they should do unto you,” which is sometimes referred to as the “Golden Rule’— 20 THe Vircin Birta these are false and have no authority to control the actions of men, for, let us not forget, that it is Matthew and Luke only who record the Sermon on the Mount. Mark, Paul, John do not. The same argument, therefore, which would in- validate the integrity and trustworthiness of the Virgin Birth accounts of our Lord would also de- prive us of the Sermon on the Mount. Are we ready to part with this wonderful Sermon? Surely not, at least not by any such foolish reasoning as this. Yet this argument is advocated by the critics as an ~ example of modern thinking. Alas for the puerility of such thinking! Can you imagine bright young men and women sitting in our college and university class-rooms imbibing such foolishness as this? Yet “the argument from silence” is one of the strongest put forth by those who object to the Scriptural nar- rative of the Virgin Birth. We should not forget in this connection that while it may be true that only Matthew and Luke, specific- ally, record the Virgin Birth, nevertheless these two Evangelists DO record it. And so far as we know there is no valid reason why their testimony should not be accepted, even as it would be in any court of law today. No valid law of evidence would exclude their testimony. What some theologians need is a thorough course of study in the laws of evidence. They would not then be guilty of such imbecility as is manifested in their rejecting parts of the Scrip- OF JESUS CHRIST 21 ture, which do not meet with their approval, on no valid legal ground of evidence. They would be laughed out of any court today. SILENCE NOT FALSITY Even if it were true that Paul, Mark, John are “silent” (?) on the matter of the Virgin Birth of Jesus, does this invalidate the “speech” of Matthew and Luke? Away with such foolish reasoning. Be- cause Senator Fall refused to testify and determined to maintain an attitude of “silence” with reference to the senatorial investigation into the Tea Pot Dome Oil matter, does Fall’s silence invalidate the testimony given by others? Does his “silence” brand all those who did testify as liars and untrustworthy witnesses? Yet this is the kind of argument (?) put up by so-called modern scholarship. God pity “modern scholarship,” then, if this is a sample of :t. The Book of Esther does not mention God, by name, throughout the whole book. Are we to infer from this that there is no God, or that the writer did not believe in the existence of God? No; no one would argue thus foolishly; he would maintain that there is a reason why the divine name is omitted— and there is, and a sufficient reason at that. The Bible student knows that. No writer in the New Testament contradicts the story of the Virgin Birth as told by Matthew and Luke. Two writers in the New Testament distinctly 22 THe VirciIn BirtH and unequivocally assert it. It may be logically in- ferred from the New Testament writers who make reference to the origin and supernatural life and works of Christ. Why then should we give up our faith in the Virgin Birth? There is no sound, log- . ical reason why we should. Only prejudice, bias, a distinct aversion to the supernatural, a worship of intellect versus faith—only on such insufficient grounds can the Virgin Birth of Jesus be denied. But let us examine somewhat in detail the sup- posed “silence” of Mark, John, Paul. (1) The Stlence of Mark. i Suppose we were to assign to two men the writ- ing of the biography of the late President Harding. To one we assigned the task of writing the late President’s life up to the time he entered the White House and assumed the responsibilities of President. The task of the other is limited to the record of the late President’s life from the time he entered the White House until the date of his death. Both these writers have accomplished their tasks. We are now reviewing the two books. Shall we find fault with the second writer because in his volume he has no reference whatever to the parents, the birth, the childhood and the early years of the late President Harding? Shall we say that the events narrated in the volume of the first writer concerning the late President’s life are not true simply because the sec- ond writer is silent about them? Certainly not. oF JEsuS CHRIST tay We would not be so foolish. We say the purpose and viewpoint of each was different. Why, then, shall we find fault with Mark’s pur- pose because in his Gospel he does not record the events connected with the birth or early years of Jesus? The purpose of Mark’s Gospel should be a sufficient reason for his silence regarding the birth of Jesus. Mark’s intention is to give an account of the life of Christ “within the limits of the common apostolic testimony”—from the baptism of Christ to His ascension (Acts 1:22). For this reason Mark begins his Gospel with Jesus as a mature man, thirty years of age. No genealogy is given. for Mark presents Jesus as the “Servant of Je- hovah,” and we are not particularly interested in the pedigree of a servant. But does Mark’s silence imply that he was ignor- ant of the manner of Christ’s birth? Because he does not mention the birth of Christ in any wise does this mean that he did not know that Jesus was born at all? He surely must have known about the birth cf Christ, for the early Church met at his mother’s house, and Mary was among the number who met there. Again, it is worth while to note that Matthew, in citing the question of the people regarding Christ, asks, “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” while Mark, recording the same question, asks, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?” 24 THE VircIn BirtH Jesus—Son oF Gop Helegenfeldt says: “Mark does not tolerate the paternity of Joseph, even in the life of the Naza- renes.”” | Mark introduces his Gospel with the statement that Jesus is “the Son of God.” He links Jesus with Old Testament prophecy, and in particular with the prophecy of Isaiah: “The beginning of the gospel of the Son of God according as it is written in the prophecy of Isaiah.” (See R. V.) No man can un- derstand Mark’s Gospel who does not see that the whole Gospel is based on the idea of the “Servant of Jehovah” as described in Isaiah. Is it reason- able to suppose that one who must have pored over the prophecy of Isaiah as did Mark, due to the na- ture of his Gospel, would be ignorant of the state- ment in Isaiah regarding the Virgin Birth, such for example as Isaiah 7:14: ‘Therefore the Lord him- self shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall con- ceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Im- manuel,” and 9:6, 7: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonder- ful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice oF JEsuS CHRIST 25 henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this”? One cannot but wonder what Mark would have written in explanation of his opening statement that Jesus was “the Son of God” had he had time and had it conformed with his purpose so to dwell on the deity of Christ. It would certainly be interesting to know what he would have said about the manner in which God became man. (2) The Silence of John. We should not forget in considering the so-called silence of John that if the Virgin Birth be not true simply because John does not record it, then all that Matthew and Luke wrote regarding Jesus up until the time of His baptism was not true, for John makes no reference to the earthly life of Jesus prior to His baptism. We must remember the purpose of John’s Gos- pel even as we did that of Mark’s. John presents the divine and heavenly, not the human and earthly, descent of our Lord. Not Christ’s humanity, but His deity is the declared purpose of John, hence his Gospel begins (1:1) with the statement of Christ’s deity, and ends (20:28, considering c. 21 as an epi- logue) with an assertion of the same. The opening words of John’s Gospel are, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;” the closing words, “My Lord and My God!” 26 Tue Vircin Birtu PATRISTIC READING There is a reading set forth by some of the Church Fathers (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian) of John 1:13 which is interesting in this connection, and while it may not be accepted unqualifiedly, it is nevertheless suggestive and worthy of consideration. John 1:12 reads as follows: “But as many as re- ceived him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name,” then follows verse 13: “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” The Church Fathers referred to claim that some manuscripts read, “Who was born,” instead of “Which were born,” thus making the phrase refer to the supernatural birth of Jesus rather than of the children of God. The passage would then read, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Who was born, not” of bloods (male and female), nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” If this be true, then “natural generation by a human father is denied and excluded in the most categorical man- ners | Why may not both meanings be true? Why may not the supernatural birth of Christ be a type of the new birth of the children of God? Are not verses 12 and 13 part of the Prologue of John’s Gos- pel, and does not the Prologue deal with “The Word” OF JESUS CHRIST Lf, —“and the Word became flesh’? If the children of God are born again in a supernatural way why could not Jesus be born in the way Matthew and Luke say He was? Joun SUPPLEMENTARY It is agreed among theologians that John’s Gos- pel was supplementary to the other Gospels. John knew what Matthew and Luke had written regard- ing the Virgin Birth for he wrote his Gospel some thirty years after Matthew and Luke had written theirs. John was, therefore, thoroughly conversant with what had been written and what the Church believed. If what Matthew and Luke had written was wrong it was John’s duty to have contradicted it, and have so stated in his Gospel. But what were the facts? John does not contradict anything Matthew and Luke had written regarding Christ’s miraculous birth. John’s silence, therefore, under these circumstances is a confirmation of their narratives; silence, in this instance, being equiva- lent to consent. The bitterest enemy of the apostle John was Cer- inthus, the famous Gnostic, whose principal ob- jection to Christianity was the doctrine of Incarna- tion, which included the record of the Virgin Birth. Cerinthus taught that Jesus was the son of Mary by ordinary generation; that Joseph was the father of Jesus; that the Holy Spirit came on Jesus at His baptism and left Him at the Cross. In other words, 28 Tue VirciIn BirtH that Jesus was just an ordinary man when He came to the baptism and an ordinary man when He died on the Cross. This doctrine John very positively denies in his first epistle: “This is He that came by water and by blood, even Jesus Christ; not with water only but with the water and the blood:” (5:6). “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not (or annuleth, i. e. separateth between Jesus and the Christ) that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God” (4:23). It would seem reasonable to sup- pose that John, having this knowledge, would have corrected such a serious blunder as that which Mat- thew and Luke had made with regard to the earthly - origin of Jesus—had such been a blunder. The fact that Jchn does not correct the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, which was firmly believed by the early Church, is proof that he himself believed it. Tue MotTHER OF OUR LoRD Must not the long continued residence of the Mother of our Lord with John have had a very deep and significant effect upon the author of the fourth - Gospel? Is it to be wondered at that he who had sheltered the Virgin beneath his roof should be the one to say, “And the Word was made flesh” (John 1:14)? Is it any wonder that he who doubtless had had many talks with Mary regarding this matter was oF JESUS CHRIST 29 the one who so emphatically denounces the one doubting the Incarnation? “Every spirit that con- fesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not (or de- nieth) that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.” So John attacks those who would both undeify and unhumanify the God-Man. “Jesus Christ is not God masquerading for a time in human form; He is God. He is not man deified; He is God human- ified.” Further, did not John owe it to the mother of Jesus, who lived with him from the day of Christ’s crucifixion until her death, to protect her from this calumny, and to repudiate the story of the Virgin Birth, if it were false? The silence of John indi- cates his acceptance of the fact. That John was thoroughly conversant with the birth of Christ at Bethlehem is evident from the reference to that fact: “Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” (John 7:41, 42). The critics say it is evident from these verses that John knew nothing about the Virgin Birth. A close study of John’s. method of writing will reveal the fact that it is customary with the evangelist to use the objections of opponents (such as recorded in 30 THE VIRGIN BirTH these verses) as convincing arguments of the truth of the thing referred to. To record some objections is to reveal their futility and show how they work in just the opposite way from that intended by the © objectors. (3) Silence of Paul. We are not so sure that Paul was silent on the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, but even if he was, that would be no evidence that he was ignorant of it or disbelieved it. He does not mention Mary the mother of our Lord in any of his writings. Are we to understand by this silence that he did not believe in her existence? It is true that Paul refers to Christ as of “the seed of David,” but that is no argu- ment against the Virgin Birth, for Matthew (1:1) and Luke (1:32) refer to Him in like manner, and they most certainly were cognizant of the mirac- ulous birth of Christ, for they record it. Is not Luke Paul’s gospel? It is so admitted by all scholars. Luke was the companion of Paul. Is it likely that Luke would be cognizant of so im- portant a fact and the apostle Paul not know it? ADAM AND CHRIST To Paul, Christ was the second Adam, the sinless One. He must have known that no clean thing could come from an unclean thing. To him the second Adam was from heaven, from above. May it not have been Luke’s purpose, in tracing the oF JESUS CHRIST 31 genealogy of Christ to Adam, to show that He was the second Adam? as miraculously brought into the world as was Adam the first? Luke’s gospel is Paul’s gospel. Why may not Romans 5:12-21 and Luke 3:38 be one in aim and purpose? Logician as Paul was, he must have known that any ordinary mortal was subject to both sin and death and that Christ, being subject to neither, must therefore have not sprung from the first Adam alone, and in the same sense that other men have done. In Galatians 4:4, he refers to Christ as “being born of a woman.” May we not suppose that he had in mind Genesis 3:15, which refers to the com- ing Redeemer as “seed of the woman” and not of the man? It is true that Christ uses a similar ex- pression of John, “of all men born of women;” but the words translated “born” are not the same in both passages. Indeed Paul uses the word “born” three or four times in Galatians 4, but in speaking of Christ’s birth (4:4) he uses a different word than he does when speaking of Isaac and Ishmael (v. 23, 29). In that wonderful kenotic passage in Philippians 2:5-8, in which Paul is speaking of Christ exchang- ing “the form of God” for “the form of a servant,” he intimates, we think his knowledge of the super- natural birth of Jesus, by his use of the word “was made” (‘“‘became,” “becoming” so R. V. M., the word being practically the same as that used in 32 THe VirciIn BirtH Galatians 4:4 and meaning “becoming”’). The whole passage reads as follows: “Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, ex- isting in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made (becoming) in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, be- coming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.” RicH AND Poor In II Corinthians 8:9 the apostle declares that Christ “who, though he was rich, yet for our sakes became poor.” It may not be out of place to ask, When was Jesus Christ rich? Surely not during His earthly life, for He was born in the midst of poverty. The offering which His mother brought — to the temple was a pair of turtle doves—the of- fering of the poor. Jesus, Himself, said: “The foxes have holes, the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head.” Paul must be referring to the pre-mundane con- dition of Christ even as in Philippians 2:5-8. But could the apostle think of such a contrast without the thought of the supernatural taking place? We think not. In Romans 8:3 Paul speaks of Jesus as being made “in the likeness of sinful flesh,’ or “in the likeness of the flesh of sin.” This would seem to oF JESuS CHRIST 33 intimate that although Jesus partook of true human nature and was thus identified with us, He was yet not one of us. The human nature of Jesus was a perfectly sinless one even as Adam’s was before his fall. Romans 1:3, 4, reads as follows: “Concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord.” Let us couple with this Luke 1:31-35: “And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his king- dom there shall be no end. And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come unto thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee; wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.” PAUL AND LUKE AGREE A comparison of these two passages would seem to clearly teach that Paul was thoroughly conver- sant with what Luke had written regarding the 34 THe Vircin Birtu Virgin Birth and was in hearty agreement with it. In Luke, Mary is to bring forth a son; in Romans Jesus is born. In Luke Jesus is to have the throne of His father David; in Romans He is declared to be of the seed of David. In Luke His conception is referred to the Holy Spirit; in Romans reference is made to the Spirit of holiness. Luke speaks of the power of the Most High overshadowing Mary; Romans states that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God “with power.” Luke says, ‘“Where- fore that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God;”’ Romans states that Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God by the Spirit of holiness.” It is very difficult, there- fore, for the student of the Word of God to doubt that Paul was thoroughly conversant and in agreement with Luke’s account of the birth of - Christ. So far as we now recall, Paul makes no specific references to the “miracles of Jesus.” Are we to understand by Paul’s silence that he did not believe that there was anything supernatural and miraculous in the life and works of Jesus? INCARNATION MYSTERY Assuming that Paul is the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews—and there is much evidence for such a claim, much more for it than against it—it is of interest to note that, in speaking of the priesthood oF JEsus CHRIST 35 of Christ, he refers to Him as a priest “after the order of Aaron.” But that is not sufficient in the estimation of the apostle to account for the perfect priesthood of Christ; He is also “a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedec.” By interpretation Melchizedek means “King of righteousness, and then also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God.” Could Paul, think you, liken Christ’s priesthood to that of Melchizedek without thinking of the supernatural in connection with the entrance of Christ into the world? One would hardly think so. In 1 Timothy 3;16 we read: “And without con- troversy (that is to say it is admitted on all sides and without question) great is the mystery of god- liness.” Then the apostle goes on to describe just what this “mystery of godliness” is: “God was manifested in the flesh.” It is all the same whether you take the Authorized, or Revised reading: “He who was manifested in the flesh,” for the context shows that the reference is to the Incarnation. But what “mystery” could there be in the fact that Jesus, as the child of Joseph and Mary was born into the world? None; no more mystery than in connection with your birth or mine. But that “God should be manifested in flesh,’ that deity should assume humanity—well, that is “mystery.” Could Paul 36 THE VirGIn BirtH thus express himself, think you, and not have the supernatural birth of Jesus Christ in mind? We think not. Further, in speaking of Jesus’ coming into the world, he says: “He took not on him the nature of angels but of the seed of Abraham.” But you and I have no choice as to what nature we _ shall take on when we come into the world. With Jesus it was different. He had the choice. He chose the nature of man because angels cannot die and He came into the world to die (cf. Hebrews 2:14). Had Paul no thought of the Incarnation when he wrote these words? THe SupPPOsED SILENCE OF JESUS REGARDING His BirTH It is claimed by those who deny the Virgin Birth that Jesus Himself never referred to his origin in connection with the supernatural; indeed, some doubt whether Jesus ever made reference to his birth or origin at all. Let us see: | First, we would question, very seriously, the statement of the silence of Jesus on this subject. Let us recall a few of the sayings of Jesus and see . if it be true that He did not refer to his origin: CONSCIOUSNESS OF JESUS ‘‘And the Father that sent me, he hath borne wit- ness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form” (John 5:37). Had oF JEsuS CHRIST 37 they not seen Joseph and had they not heard his voice, think you? To what and to Whom then was Jesus here referring? In reply to His mother’s question in the temple: “Why hast thou thus dealt with us? Thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing,”’ Jesus signifi- cantly said: ‘How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be in my Father’s house (or “about my Father’s business,” R. V. M)” (Luke 2:49). It is said in the next verse, that “they understood not this saying.” It was strikingly signi- ficant. Joseph’s business was carpentry. Jesus was in the house of God and about the real business of His true Father. In answer to the cavillings of the Pharisees Jesus said, “I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye know not whence I come, or whither I go” (John 8:14). “Ye are from beneath; I am from above; ye are of this world; I am not of this world” (8:23). “Before Abraham was I am” (8:58). In Matthew 11:11, Jesus in speaking of John the Baptist, said that “of all men born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist.” But, if Jesus had been born of a woman in the same manner as John the Baptist, would He not be con- fessing to an inferiority to John? But the testimony of John is to the superiority of Jesus. Is there not here an intimation of a birth and origin different from that of John’s? It should not be overlooked, 38 THE VirGIN BirtTH as is stated in another place in this book, that while a similar expression is used of Jesus (Gal. 4:4— “born of a woman”) as is used of John (Matt. 11:11) yet the Greek words for born are different— that pertaining to John meaning a begetting; that to Jesus a “becoming.” Does the reverent searcher after the truth of God find no reference in these Scriptures to the origin of Jesus? And there are others that could be quoted did space permit. It is all well enough to say that Jesus never called on men to put faith in His Virgin Birth in order to be saved. That may be true; but let us not forget that He never called on men to put faith in His resurrection to be saved-either. Are we to argue against His resurrection then, likewise? WuHaT THE DiscipLES KNEW In the next place, it is purely gratuitous to say that Jesus never told the disciples about His Virgin Birth. How do we know He did not? Is not the critic here taking a dose of his own medicine? Are we then to argue from silence again? It is impos- sible for any one to say how extensive was the knowledge of His supernatural birth. Certainly Elizabeth knew of it. She may have told her hus- band. which is more than likely. Joseph, her be- trothed lover, evidently detected Mary’s delicate condition, hence his determination to put her away. What he detected, others may have seen. How do oF JESUS CHRIST 39 we know but what the sneer of the Jews in John 8: ‘*We were not born of fcrnication,’” was born of a somewhat common knowledge of the miraculous conception. Talmudic literature informs us_ that certain stories regarding the unlawful conception of Jesus were rife at that time. He is a very wise man—wise indeed beyond what is written—who can say how much or how little the disciples knew of the birth of Jesus. _Discteces’ LimirEp RECEPTION But, in the third place, supposing that Jesus had not told His disciples anything about His super- natural birth; would that be strange? See how they rejected his teachings about the Cross, and how they stumbled over the news of His announced death. Think you they would have received the news of a Virgin Birth any more graciously? Jesus waited His time to reveal things to His disciples. He gave them truth even as they were able to bear it: “I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” So when on the Mount of Trans- figuration, Jesus told the disciples “not to tell any man of the vision until the Son of Man had arisen from the dead.” It would take the resurrection to explain what they had seen on the Mount, even as it took what they had seen on the Mount to ex- plain the resurrection. 40 THE VircIn BirtH But the argument from silence, so far as Jesus is concerned, may work against the critics of the Virgin Birth, for Jesus, while referring to his mother, brothers and sisters, never once made refer- ence to Joseph as His father, indeed He does not refer to Joseph in any way. How about the sig- nificance of that “argument from silence”? If, as the critics say, we may argue against the Virgin Birth because of “silence” regarding it, why can we not equally argue against the paternity of Joseph from the “silence” of Jesus on the subject? It is a poor rule that does not work both ways. Let us not forget, however, that, according to the words of Jesus, the teaching of the Holy Spirit is equally authoritative with His own. “I have things to say unto you but ye cannot bear them now; how- beit, when the Holy Spirit is come, He will guide . you into all the truth. . . . He shall take of the things of mine and shew them unto you.” IT IS MAINTAINED THAT JOSEPH AND MARY ARE CALLED THE FATHER AND MOTHER AND THE PARENTS OF CHRIST This fact is urged in proof of the paternity of Joseph. Jesus is called “Joseph’s son;” “Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph;” “the son of Joseph whose father and mother we know.” In Luke 2 the following expressions are found: “the parents”’ (vie 2/7); “His: ‘father’ /and, his’ mother’) (vi; 33) “His parents” (v. 41); “His parents” (v. 43); “Thy father and I” (v. 48). Because of these references the opponents of the Virgin Birth main- tain that the Scriptures teach that Joseph was the father of Jesus and this without apparent con- tradiction. It is further maintained that Jesus is called “the seed of David.” He is of “the house of David;” “David’s seed;” “the loins of David;” “the son of David.” It is claimed that Joseph, not Mary, is in the Davidic line. Jesus, therefore, is of David’s seed through Joseph, not Mary. It is again maintained that the genealogies of Matthew and Luke clearly show that Jesus was descended through Joseph. This is said to be a fact admitted without controversy. This can hardly be true, however, inasmuch as it is one of the most controversial subjects of the hour. 42 THE Vircin BirtH Our reply to those who hold the above objections to the Virgin Birth is as follows: Fact ADMITTED 1. It is admitted that Joseph is called the father of Jesus and that both Joseph and Mary are referred to as His parents. It is pertinent, however, to ask in this connection, by whom are they thus called? It is by their neighbors, those who lived in Nazareth and Capernaum. But what else could they say and know? It certainly looked that way to them. Was not Jesus born under Joseph’s protecting care? Did not Joseph act as foster-father to the child Jesus? Was not Joseph’s paternal care thrown around the divine child? Was it not through Joseph that Jesus obtained His legal standing in the kingly line? We are not surprised, therefore, that Joseph was looked upon, even as Luke says, “he was supposed to be,” as the father of Jesus. Mary's SECRET The supernatural conception of Jesus was a secret; one which Mary did not parade. We are expressly told in the Gospels that Mary “hid all | these things in her heart.” If Joseph, her lover, intended to act towards her as he did by putting her away, how the cold unsympathetic world would have frowned upon her, when it, as Joseph, learned of her delicate condition. In words uttered later by OF JESUS CHRIST 43 her own Son, she would not “cast her pearls before swine,” nor would she “give that which is holy unto dogs.” Why should she reveal the sacred secret of her life to an unsympathetic world which surely would fail to understand? So the secret of Jesus’ conception remained with Joseph and Mary. There was possibly one exception to this, namely, Eliza- beth, for she refers to Mary, at the time of Mary’s visit to her, as “the mother of my Lord.” Eliza- beth may have told Zacharias, her husband, but be- yond this small circle the matter was a secret. That the Shepherds and Wise Men, Anna and Simeon in the Temple knew that this was a wondrous Child, the Saviour, the Christ, and the Lord, there is no question, but they did not, so far as the Bible record goes, know of the supernatural conception of Jesus. It is not surprising, therefore, if the neighbors and friends of Joseph and Mary looked upon Jesus as their natural child by marriage. We should not forget, however, that only once does Mary, the mother of our Lord, refer to Joseph as the father of Jesus, and that is during the visit to the temple when she found the missing Child. But in what other way could Mary speak of Joseph? Had not Joseph exercised all the paternal virtues? Had he not taken the place of father to Jesus? Was he not the husband of Mary? It is very likely, too, that Jesus called Joseph “father” just as many an adopted child calls its adopted father “father ;” 44 THE Vircin BrrtTx foster fathers, too, are called “father.” It should not be overlooked, however, that it is in this same connection that Luke (3:23) declares that Joseph was “supposed to be” the father of Jesus—he was not Jesus’ father in reality. It is erroneous to think, as has been sometimes stated, that Mary never anywhere expressed herself in a way to indicate her consciousness of the unique- ness of Jesus. One has but to refer to her words to Him and concerning Him at the marriage in Cana of Galilee, at which place Jesus turned the water into wine (John 2). There can be no doubt that Mary thought the time had come for her Son to vindicate Himself and to manifest forth His glory as the Only Begotten of the Father (2:11). Without straining the reply of Jesus to His mother, in the Temple, too far, we think it can be maintained that Jesus Himself bore testimony to His divine Fatherhood rather than to Joseph’s pater- nal relation; ‘““Wist ye not that I must be in my Father’s house,’ or “about the things of my Father?’ Was there not, think you, the intimation here of Jesus’ consciousness of the divine Father- hood? GENERAL TESTIMONY Nor should it be overlooked in this connection that while the people of Nazareth and Capernaum may have looked upon Joseph and Mary as the oF JEsuS CHRIST 45 parents of Jesus, it by no means follows that that was the general opinion. In Matthew 16, we have the record of Jesus gathering the disciples about Him and asking them whom the people said He was. The reply of the disciples is significant as bearing upon our subject, for they did not refer to Jesus as the son of Joseph. The reply of the dis- ciples was: “Some say thou art John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” Again, when Jesus asked the Pharisees, “What think ye of Christ; whose sonis he?” the reply was, “The son of David.” There is no reference in either of these two instances to Joseph’s paternal re- lationship to Jesus. Jesus’ BROTHERS AND SISTERS Mary, the mother of our Lord, had other children, all, with the exception of Jesus, by Joseph. Did she make any such claim for any of them? Did any of them make such claims for themselves as Mary made for Jesus or as Jesus made for Himself? James, the author of the Epistle bearing his name, and who was “the brother of our Lord,’ made no such claims for himself. Another remarkable thing is that although James knew of the Virgin Birth yet he never in the slightest degree intimated that it was not true. He should have done so especially since his mother, the Virgin Mary, was still living. He 46 THE VircIN BirtH should have saved his mother from the calumny that was heaped upon her by the enemies of the Christ and Christianity. But he did not. The inference is that he believed in the Virgin Birth. Had Jesus been the son of Joseph and Mary even as the other children why was He the only “sinless” one of the family? Surely none of the others were at all like Him. In point of fact had Jesus been the son of Joseph and Mary, both of whom were sinful, then, seeing Jesus was sinless, it would seem as though God HAD really broken the natural law and brought forth a sinless being from sinful parents. This, according to the scientific law of heredity, is an impossibility. INCARNATION INVOLVES VIRGIN BIRTH You claim to admit the Incarnation, but deny the © Virgin Birth. But can you do one without the other? If you admit, as you do when you ac- knowledge the Incarnation, that so unique and super- natural a person as Jesus was, can only have come into the world through an Incarnation, then why do you balk at the Virgin Birth? Admitting the super- natural in the one instance, why deny it in the other? “Because,” you say, “it is contrary to nature.” But is not the Incarnation contrary to nature? Is not the very existence of such a sinless, divine, super- natural Being as Jesus contrary to the scientific law of heredity as coming from two human parents? oF JESUS CHRIST 47 How many children, think you, have been born into the world since Cain the firstborn child of the race? Billions. Has there ever been one among them such a sinless, divine, supernatural, unique Being as Jesus was? Jos—EpH UNNOTICED It is rather striking in this connection to note how in the Gospel story Joseph is completely in the back- ground. When the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist was made, it was to Zacharias, his father, but in the case of Jesus’ birth the announce- ment was made to Mary, his mother. Who broke out into singing at the birth of John the Baptist? Was it not Zacharias, his father? Who burst forth into song at the conception of Jesus? Mary, his mother. To whom did Anna and Simeon in the temple direct their remarks regarding the Christ Child? To Mary, not Joseph. It is Mary, not Jo- seph, who speaks to her Son. Jesus, in referring to His family, omits reference to a father; “Who is my mother, and my brother, and my sister? He that doeth the will of God, the same is my mother, my sister, and my brother.” The fact that Paul refers to Jesus as being of the “seed of David according to the flesh,” is in no way in opposition to belief in the Virgin Birth of Jesus, for both Matthew and Luke, who record the Virgin Birth, speak of Jesus as thus related to and des- cended from David. The Evangelists no doubt 48 THE VirciIn BirtH have in mind the legal not the natural standing Jesus obtained through His adopted relationship to Joseph. Not JosEPH’s Son If Jesus had really been the natural son of Joseph He could not have been King, nor would He have any right to sit on the throne of David. Joseph is a descendant of Jeconiah. Listen to what is said of Jeconiah: “Thus saith Jehovah, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no more shall his seed prosper sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah” (Jeremiah 22:30); “Therefore thus saith Jehovah concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah; he shall have none to sit upon the throne of David” (Jeremiah 36:30). We see from these two passages that had Jesus been the natural son of Joseph he could not, because of the - curse pronounced upon Jeconiah or Jehoiakim (both names refer to the same person), ever sit on the throne of David. It should be said further in this connection that there are very good grounds for believing that Mary was of the house and lineage of David. Joseph and Mary may have been cousins. They seem to meet in Matthat or Matthan. We are told in the Gospel record that “Joseph went to Bethlehem to enroll himself with Mary.” Evidently she too was of the house of David. Nor should it be overlooked that at the time of the conception the angel said to OF JESUS CHRIST 49 Mary that the Child that should be born of her was to “sit on the throne of His father David” (Luke 1:32, 69). This was the belief of the Early Church, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and such scholars as Godet, Weiss, Edersheim and Andrews. Poor PrRoor In order to present any semblance of direct proof that Joseph was the father of Jesus, the opponents of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth have to refer to an old Sinaitic or Syriac Version, discovered some- what recently, in. which we find a reading of Matthew 1:16 as follows: “Jacob begat Joseph; Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, who is called the Christ.” This Syriac Version, however, in the opinion of the best scholars, has no authority. The reading of Mat- thew 1:16, as here cited, finds no support in the older Syriac Versions nor in the earlier Greek manu- scripts. The editors of the American Revised Ver- sion, with all the manuscript evidence they had at their command, did not even think this reference to Matthew 1:16 worthy of a note in the margin. Hastings Bible Dictionary, which is one of the standard critical works, rejects this reading. Yet this is the only direct evidence that opponents of the Virgin Birth have with which to maintain their claim that Joseph was the father of Jesus. 50 THE VirGciIn BirtH Two ALTERNATIVES There are but two alternatives to the denial of the Virgin Birth. One is that Joseph was the father of Jesus. This is the position held by most Jews, by Unitarians, and by some. professing Christian scholars. We have seen, however, that there is no conclusive or convincing proof that Joseph was the father of Jesus. The other alternative is that Jesus was born out of wedlock; that He was one of that unfortunate “bastard” class, such as were not admitted into “the congregation of the Lord.” Such a slander was current in the time of Jesus. Perhaps: others be- side Joseph had noticed Mary’s condition and so slander had been broadcasted. One wonders if the Jews of our Lord’s day did not have this in mind when they said to Him “We be not born of forni- cation.” Celsus, in the second century, made use of this immoral argument in denying the Virgin Birth. . It is also found in the Talmudic literature. It was reported among the Jews that Mary became preg- nant by a Roman military officer named Panthera (perhaps, as some one has well said, a distortion of the word “parthenos,” the Greek word for “virgin’”). This Roman officer is said to have seduced Mary, and so became the father of Jesus. It was with this sordid weapon that Voltaire opposed the Virgin Birth; so did Tolstoy in his work “The Four Gos- oF JESUS CHRIST 51 pels” in which he refers to “the disgraceful birth of Jesus.” Professor Haeckel of Germany in his book entitled “The Riddle of the Universe” shamelessly makes use of this immoral argument. Say what we will, this is the alternative to be- lief in the Virgin Birth. But can we believe that the whole beautiful fabric of the Christian religion, with its splendid moral achievements, with its won- derful spiritual characters, with its transforming power in the lives of individuals, of societies, of nations, of the world—can we believe that He whose Gospel has thus blessed the world came into the world through the mire of lawless lust and the sin of an unchaste, immoral debauchee? Are we to be- lieve that Jesus was the son of an unchaste mother? There may be doubt in the minds of some as to just what constitutes the sin against the Holy Ghost, but we may ask in this connection if such a slander as this on the birth of Jesus does not come quite near to constituting that sin? Reader, may we ask you a question: “Who is that sitting by your side?” You reply, “My mother and my father.” “How do you know that is your mother and your father ?” “Don’t you think I know my father and my mother ?” “We are not saying you do not, nor are we saying that that is not your father and mother. We are 52 THE VrrcIn BirtH asking you how you know. How can you prove it? Do not be indignant because we press the question and again ask you what proof you have that they are your mother and your father.” You say, “Don’t you think I know my father and mother ?” “Yes, we suppose you do, nevertheless we still ask you what are your grounds for believing they Ble fii In the last analysis you must say: “T believe it because my mother and father told me so.” ? So it comes to pass that you accept the fact of your parentage on the ground of thew testimony regarding it. What other proof have you? None. You may resemble your father; you may be the very picture of him, and that may have a bearing on the subject, but tell me, was any son more like his father than Jesus was like His Heavenly Father? A CHALLENGE Will the critic of the Virgin Birth tell us who was the father of Jesus? Who ever claimed to be His father? Joseph said he was not His father; Mary said Joseph was not His father; the angel Gabriel said Joseph was not His father; Luke said Joseph was not His father; Matthew said Joseph was not His father, and Jesus said Joseph was not His father. Will the critic please stand up and tell oF JESUS CHRIST 53 us who then was the father of Jesus? So far as we know, nobody but God, ever claimed the Fatherhood of Jesus, and we know that God said, “This is my Beloved Son.” Joseph was a just and righteous man; the Church throughout all these centuries has looked upon Mary the mother of our Lord as blessed among women; the angel Gabriel comes from the very presence of God, in truth; Jesus was without sin; and God is not a man that He should lie. Shall we not believe the testimony of these witnesses to the great fact? THOSE WHO MAINTAIN THAT HAVING BUT ONE HUMAN PARENT WOULD NOT GUAR- ANTEE SINLESSNESS; CONSEQUENTLY IT WOULD BE OF NO ADVANTAGE FOR CHRIST TO BE BORN AS THE GOSPEL RECORDS DECLARE HE WAS—WITHOUT A HUMAN FATHER It is held that Christ could contract a sinful nature from one parent as much as from two, and that be- ing born of the Virgin Mary could not in itself pro- duce a sinless being. There may be a sense in which this objection is valid. The Virgin Mary while unquestionably a pure, holy and sanctified maiden, God-fearing, chaste and holy in her life, was nevertheless a sinner even as every other child of Adam. It may be that one part of the Church has made too much of the Virgin Mary by ascribing to her divine worship; while the other part has erred by paying practically no attention to her. The Scriptures are authority for the statement made by the angel that the Virgin Mary was “blessed among women,” and “highly favored of God.” Nevertheless, not believing in what is known as the Immaculate Conception of the Vir- gin, we still hold that she was conceived and born in sin even as the rest of the human family. We must not forget, however, that Jesus was an absolutely sinless being. Jesus claimed this for 56 THE VircIn BirtH Himself: “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” John, the apostle, says: “He was manifested to take away our sin; and in Him is no sin.” Peter, in looking back over the life of his Master, declares that “In Him there was no guile.” Pilate, after the scrutiny of a lawyer, three times declared, “I find no fault in Him.” Judas said, “I have betrayed innocent blood.’’ Even demons were compelled to keep silence when they testified as to Jesus being “The holy One of God.” The perfection of Christ’s character and life is conceded on every hand. The most microscopic and searching criticism of the ages has not been able to detect a flaw, much less a sin, in that spot- less life. Jesus stands today, after all the scrutiny of the centuries, the sinless One. Foster, the critic, describes Jesus as “The best we know.” Schmidt, - the rationalist, declares that “Jesus is inexplicable psychologically, causally, or by evolutionary de- velopment; that something derived creatively from God is necessary to explain the consciousness of Jesus.” It has been well said that “the moral character of every product leads up to and on to the producer.” The “product” here is the spotless and_ sinless character of Jesus Christ. The question is: “How was this character produced? Who was the pro- ducer?” It was Dr. Alexander who, in depicting the spot- oF JESUS CHRIST 57 lessness of Jesus’ life, wrote as follows: ‘When One who walks the waves of life, never wets His footsteps nor His hair with one drop of its bitter spray; when One who preached the Sermon on the Mount, practically asserts, ‘I have lived it—the Beatitudes are my own picture;’ when He who had a higher ideal of duty than ever floated above the soul of saint or sage, tells the ages, ‘I will show you those splendid Alpine ranges and stand above them on a loftier peak;’ when He abides the scrutiny of the indifferent, of enemies, of friends, of Himself; when He can find no subject for confession, no place for pardon in all the retrospect of that crowded life—then we are in the presence of a unique pro- duct in the human family. It is a product so unique it may well have a unique productive cause. We may be more led to believe that no sinister bar of heredity is drawn across that white escutcheon. We listen with reverence at last when we are told that the Holy Ghost was the creative cause of His human existence, and that the altar of a Virgin womb was touched with fire from heaven.” SINLESSNESS SUPERNATURAL In view of the sinlessness of Jesus we are forced to ask, “How could a sinless being come from a sin- ful parent?” If, as the critics say, Jesus could con- tract sin from one parent as well as from two, how did it come to pass that Jesus did not contract sin 58 THE VirGIN BirtH from his mother, that an absolutely sinless being came froma sinful parent? Is not this a miracle? Jesus said to Nicodemus: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; marvel not that I say unto thee, Ye must be born again.” The holiest saint living must, of necessity, have been born again ere he could enter into the Kingdom of God. Was there ever a time when Jesus was not in the Kingdom of God? Was there a time in His life when He needed to be born again in order to enter into that Kingdom? Is not the very argument of the critic of this doctrine proof of the supernatural in connection with the birth of Jesus? , The sinlessness of Jesus is not attributable to the absence of an earthly father, but to the presence of the Holy Spirit in connection with His conception. The conception of Jesus was due to a specific act — of the Holy Spirit. Let us recall the quotation in ~ Luke 1:35: “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow | thee; wherefore also the holy thing (or that which is to be born shall be called holy) which is begotten of thee shall be called the Son of God.” The conception of Jesus, therefore, was holy and untainted. As Calvin says, not because “man had no part in the conception, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit, so that His generation was as pure and holy as it would have been before Adam’s fall.” THOSE WHO MAINTAIN THAT THE VIRGIN BIRTH IS CONTRARY TO THE LAWS OF NATURE The case may be stated thus: Marriage is honor- able in God’s sight; it is a holy estate. God has ordained that the normal, natural manner for the bringing of children into the world shall be through marriage. This means, divinely appointed for the propagation of the race, is both natural and suf- ficient. It should, therefore, be a satisfactory ex- planation of the birth of Jesus. There is no neces- sity to impose an unnecessary task upon one’s faith by asking him to believe that Jesus was born in violation of this divinely constituted law. It is maintained, of course, that ‘miracles do not happen;”’ that God never violates a natural law. Matthew Arnold said, “I do not believe in the Virgin Birth for that would imply a miracle, and miracles do not happen.” The so-called “modern mind” rejects the supernatural and miraculous. It must of necessity, therefore, reject the Virgin Birth of Christ inasmuch as it was, according to their way of thinking, “contrary to natural law,” that is to say it was miraculous. 60 THE Vircin BirtH NEED oF PROOF There are a number of things to be said in reply to this objection to the supernatural birth of our Lord: In the first place, the burden of proof should lie with the objector. For eighteen centuries the Christian Church has believed the story of the Virgin Birth; the overwhelming majority of Christians to- day believe it; the Bible records it. It should take very strong evidence, therefore, to overthrow it. That evidence is not yet forthcoming. Further, can we say, even scientifically, that miracles are impossible? Huxley said: “The mys- teries of the Church are child’s play compared with the mysteries of nature. Virgin procreations are ordinary phenomena for the naturalist.” G. J. Romanes, the eminent scientist, said: ‘Even if a Virgin did ever conceive and bare a son, and even if such a fact in the human species has been unique, it would not betoken any breach of physiological continuity.” Nor should we forget that even in scientific circles such a thing as partheno-genesis, or virgin birth in nature, is accepted as fact. There is no at- tempt here, of course, to use partheno-genesis in nature as an argument in favor of the Virgin Birth of Jesus. It is sufficient to say that a virgin birth in nature is not considered contrary to nature, even oF JESUS CHRIST 61 though it may be above it. From the scientific standpoint, therefore, a virgin birth in nature, while it may be transcendant, is not contradictory. ARROGANT PRESUMPTION But may we not ask if it is not somewhat pre- sumptious for anyone to say what God would or would not, could or could not do under certain given circumstances? What right have we to confine or restrict God in the manner of His working? Could He not just as easily create Jesus in the womb of the Virgin as He could create Adam out of dust? Why should it be incredible that God should bring Jesus into the world according to the accounts in the Gospels any more than by the ordinary evo- lutionary processes from the protoplasm? We speak of the difficulties of the Incarnation, but how do we know but what that was the easiest and most natural way in which God could become man? The supernatural in connection with the In- carnation is not incredible; it is inevitable. If we admit the Incarnation at all, why should we hesitate at the manner of the Virgin Birth? The greater includes the lesser, and the Incarnation should car- ry with it belief in the possibility of the Virgin Birth. Perhaps it is for this reason that John is supposed to have been practically silent with ref- erence to the specific mention of the Virgin Birth even though history tells us he constantly debated 62 THE VircIn BirtTH with Cerinthus affirming the supernatural birth of our Lord. But to the apostle John the lesser was included in the greater. When the Incarnation— which was the main point at issue in his debates— was conceded, it was a comparatively easy matter to accept the Virgin Birth. If we admit the supernatural resurrection, at the close of our Lord’s life; if we admit His sinless- ness, characteristic of His whole life and as much a miracle in the moral realm as the resurrection is in the physical realm, why should we hesitate to be- lieve in the Virgin Birth through which Jesus came into human life, simply because it is supernatural? We admit the supernatural end of Jesus’ life, the supernatural middle of it, why refrain from the ac- ceptance of the supernatural beginning of it? A UnIgue EvENT It would seem reasonable to suppose that such a unique event as God becoming manifest in human form would be introduced with supernatural phenomena. “Once in the end of the age hath Christ appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Why should it be thought incredible that so marvelous an event as that which took place but “once” in the history of mankind should be ac- companied by miraculous features? The world has had many new beginnings. Each beginning was in- troduced by something of a specific and particular oF JESUS CHRIST 63 nature. With Jesus, Christianity had its beginning. Why should we not expect something supernatural, therefore, in connection with the beginning of the Christian religion? It is true that mention is made of angels in con- nection with Christ’s birth. But is that strange? Do we not believe in angels? Did not Jesus say: “Think ye not that I could beseech the Father and He would send me twelve legions of angels?’ Sup- pose heavenly voices were heard upon the earth, is that something unbelievable? Is not science today, in connection with psychical and_ spiritistic re- searches, telling us of communications with the un- seen world? Would it be strange that at the com- ing of Jesus into the world the curtain which di- vides this world from that unseen world would be lifted for a brief while and heavenly beings be seen and heard by men? Was not the coming of Jesus a unique event? Jesus was no ordinary man and His birth was not an ordinary birth. If it were announced that the President of the United States were to visit your city on a certain day, what would happen? Would not the ordinary avocations of life be suspended for that day? Would not the city be decorated with bunting and flags? Would not the stars and stripes be waving in the breezes? Would not the fraternal organizations and different societies form in pro- cessions? Would not the bands play? Would not 64 THE VirGIN BirtH the reception committee be at the depot to greet the President? Certainly. There would be extraordi- nary preparations. Why, then, should this not be so with the King of Kings when he came into the world? UnusuaL EXPRESSIONS The unusual expressions used to describe Christ’s entrance into the world indicate the supernatural. For example, Jesus’ words to Nicodemus were: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh. Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the king- dom of heaven.” Are we to understand from this that Jesus. being naturally born of Joseph and Mary, was flesh and was, therefore, at any time outside of the kingdom of heaven and needed to be born again before he could enter it? In Romans 5:12 we are told that “As by one man sin entered into the world and death through sin and so death is passed upon all men for that all have sinned.” Are we to understand then that Jesus, be- ing the natural child of Joseph and Mary, was sub- ject to death—not only physical death, but that more serious “death’’ which is here referred to and which is the equivalent of “condemnation,” “judg- ment” and separation from God? John, in speaking of the Word, says, “He was in the world.” There is nothing wonderful about the statement that Jesus, the natural child of Joseph and Mary, was in the world; nothing more wonder- oF JEsuS CHRIST 65 ful than that you and I are in the world. But that He who made the world should be in it and yet not recognized by it—that is the wonder. Paul, referring to our Lord’s renunciation, says, “Who, although He was rich, yet for our sakes He became poor.” When was Jesus rich? Surely not during His life on the earth, for He was in poverty and in need during His thirty-three years on the -earth. When, then, was He “rich” saving when He was in heaven? Further, the apostle says, “Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh.” Whether you use the word “God” or “He” was manifest in the flesh, the context shows that “God” is to be understood. It would be no “mystery” that Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph and Mary, should be manifest in the flesh, but that God should —well, that is mystery. In Romans 1:3, 4 Jesus is “declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead.” If by the supernatural resurrection Jesus was defined as the Son of God, why could He not by the supernatural Virgin Birth also? John tells us that “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (1:1). In 1:14 it is said, “The Word became flesh.” How could God the Word become incar- nate in human form unless by a biological miracle? 66 THE Vircin BirtH Matthew 1:18 reads: “Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise.” Why the words “on this wise” if the birth of Jesus was not different from those narrated in the preceding verses? | In Luke 3:23 we are told that Joseph was “sup- posed to be the father of Jesus.” Why the words “supposed to be,” if he was really the father of Jesus? In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul refers to Jesus as the “second Man.’ Who was the first man? Adam, supernaturally created by God. Jesus is the second Adam, the Man from Heaven. Is there not a clear intimation here that the origin of both the first and second Man was supernatural? | In Luke 1, after announcing the conception of Jesus Christ the angel Gabriel said to Mary, “For _ no word of God shall be void of power.” Why should the angel say that if Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary: No particular, specific, supernatural intervention of God is required in the natural birth of any of our children. Surely the angel expressed the supernatural i in connection with the birth of Jesus. Of course, if all one needs is a_ naturalistic, humanitarian Christ, then there is no need for a miraculous birth, nor is there indeed any need for supernatural intervention in any part of His lites at its beginning, the middle or end. oF JESUS CHRIST 67 DENIAL OF THE SUPERNATURAL It should be clearly seen that the denial of the Virgin Birth is not a question of the denial of one but of all the miracles. Those who deny the super- natural element in the Bible always deny the Virgin Birth. Logically they should deny the “sinlessness” and “resurrection” of Jesus, for these two things are no more supernatural than is the Virgin Birth. It is easy for those who deny the Virgin Birth to follow it by a denial of the resurrection of Jesus, and this is too often done. The whole matter resolves itself into the question of the attitude of the modern mind towards the supernatural and miraculous. Dr. Orr quotes Pro- fessor Keftan, the great German critic, as saying: “You claim to be applying historical methods, In reality your procedure does not have its basis in method at all. What lies behind it is the so-called modern view of the world which embraces everything in an unbroken, natural connection. This being sup- posed, the New Testament has been clipped down to suit, at whatever expense to the history, not as it is or was, but as it ought to be according to the broad supposition of our modern view of the world. The believing community will never adopt this mode of treatment; it will feel it to be apostasy from the faith; and this feeling which it has is thoroughly justified in the facts. The denial of the super- natural is not only admitted, it is openly flaunted 68 THE Vircin BirtH and displayed. All this is settled beforehand. There can be no miracle; there can be no _ super- natural. It is settled before the investigation be- gins. Is this fair? Isn’t this intellectual dishonesty ? If we are too polite to call this manner of reasoning ‘intellectual dishonesty’ we must call it ‘intellectual inconsistency,’ denying, as it does, the power of the Divine to enter into human life and history in a supernatural way.” To dismiss a priors the Evangelists’ account of Christ’s birth because it contains the element of the supernatural, is to set oneself up as a judge of what God can and ought or cannot and ought not to do. It seems to us as though this attitude of mind is a species of self-worship; it is a setting up of one- self as a judge of what God could or could not, would or would not do under certain given and ex- traordinary circumstances. It is to make a God of oneself. This is idolatry. It is certainly clear that the Evangelists consider | in their genealogical tables that no laws of heredity are sufficient to account for the generation of Jesus Christ; to them, at least, His birth was outside of the ordinary; it was as though by a “creative act God broke through the chain of human generation and brought into the world a supernatural being.” Why might there not be in the case of the last Adam, as in the case of the first, “no violation of a natural law, but only a unique revelation of its possibilities” ? THE MYTHICAL OR LEGENDARY THEORY OF THE BIRTH OF CHRIST According to this theory the disciples were what may be known as hero worshippers. The more they came to know Christ and the farther away they were from Him the more wonderful He became to them. The impressions already made on them were deepened as the years went by. Gradually, yet in- creasingly, He seemed to them more and more won- derful and supernatural. It was customary among the heathen nations surrounding the Jews that when any one of their number, because of something wonderful or seemingly supernatural in his life or teaching, became an object of worship, one who was revered and deified, to attribute the wonderful and supernatural in the life of their hero to some mira- culous element in connection with his birth, hence arose the current beliefs of the people concerning their gods, many of whom were believed to have been of divine origin by the intervention of the gods with some human mother. Some such views, we are told, were held by the Persians, Greeks, Romans, and the Buddhists. _ Those who hold the legendary or mythical theory of the birth of Christ say that some such experience characterized the thinking of the New Testament writers. Increasingly they became impressed with 70 THE VirciIn BirtH the supernatural deeds which Jesus wrought and the divine nature of His teaching. After years this be- came an obsession, and in accordance with the practice or custom of nations surrounding them, they attributed the wondrousness of Christ’s life to something supernatural in connection with His birth. A MobeErRNIstT’s VIEW In a pamphlet issued some time ago by a very prominent preacher, the story of the Virgin Birth as found in Matthew and Luke is denied. We find the following, which is a good description of the position of those who hold the mythical theory: “To believe in virgin birth as an explanation of a divine personality is one of the familiar ways in which the ancient world was accustomed to account for un- | usual superiority . . . that is to say, when a personality rose so high that men adored him, the ancient world attributed his superiority to some special divine influence in his generation, and they commonly phrased their feeling in terms of mira- culous birth.” In this way large groups of people in evangelical churches came to think of Jesus as coming specially from God, “but they phrased it in terms of a biological miracle which our modern minds cannot use.” This, in brief, is the position of those who hold to the legendary or mythical theory of the Virgin oF JEsuS CHRIST 71 Birth. Accordingly the account of the Virgin Birth of Christ as related in Matthew and Luke is mythi- cal, pagan, heathenish, and not Christian. This is the way the critics state the matter: “Buddha, Zoroaster and others were claimed by their followers to have been virgin born, and every great religious leader is said by his followers to have had a supernatural birth.” This is simply not a true statement of fact. No pagan writers claim virgin birth for their heroes. The critics should not make such false statements; they add nothing to their credit for either veracity or intelligence. A point of importance in this connection is the statement by Maeterlinck to the effect that even though no pagan writer ever claimed virgin birth for his god or hero, nevertheless “the miraculous birth of Christ had been anticipated by Huf-Ke, who lived 3468 years before Jesus.” So it seems evident from this statement there were people that long ago who were familiar with “the old myth of a child born of a virgin.” Therefore the disciples did not borrow the story from prevailing pagan legends. CHRISTIAN DocTRINE STILL TRUE Because other religions have stories of the super- natural births of their gods and heroes, does that in itself invalidate the claims of the Christian religion with reference to the Virgin Birth of Christ? We think not. Other religions have their sacred books. 72 Tue VirGIn BrrtH Does that neutralize the claims, worth and truth of the Bible? No. One of the main arguments for “the existence of God” is what is known as “the universal argument’”’—that there is in all men every- where some consciousness and knowledge of God. Does that universal fact make void the existence of God? Certainly not. Because the pagan nations of the earth have their religions, does that invalidate the truth of the Christian religion? Assuredly not. Why then should the fact that pagan religions at- tributed the greatness of their gods to something supernatural at their birth be used as an argument against the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth? Let us not be misled by the claim of those who deny the Virgin Birth that their position towards the doctrine is new and “modern.” It is neither; it is antique. Tertullian (A. D. 200) in writing on — this very subject says: ‘“‘God’s own Son was born —but not so born as to make him ashamed of the name of Son, or of His paternal origin. It was not his lot to have as His father, by incest with a sister, or by violation of a daughter, or another’s wife, a god in shape of a serpent for his vile end, trans- forming himself into the gold of Dunaus. These are your divinities upon whom these base deeds of Jupiter were done” (Quoted from Orr). These words show that not only were pagan legends known and filthy but also that they were not to i compared with Christ’s Virgin Birth. oF JESUS CHRIST 73 In reply to this theory there are some things that should be clearly stated. In the first place, it is well to note that there are over a dozen “mythical” or “legendary” theories and no two of them agree. It would, therefore, seem almost unnecessary for us to spend any time in seek- ing to deny a theory held in such contradiction by its own devotees. LEGENDARY THEORY CONTRADICTORY There is also a wide difference of opinion as to the source or origin of this legendary theory; some writers claim it to be of purely Jewish origin, while others are very positive in their assertion that it grew in Gentile soil. Harnack, for example, says: “The belief that Jesus was born of a Virgin sprung from Isaiah Jian Se it» also “contradicts. ‘the’ earliest Christian tradition, which is free from heathenish myths.” Dr. Bacon, of Yale, says: “The basal fact from every standpoint of these chapters of Matthew and Luke is that they are Hebrew to the core. This is simply fatal to all comparisons with heathen mythology.” It could hardly be expected that such a legend or myth could grow on Gentile soil for it concerned a hated and despised Jew. Furthermore, as we have already intimated, the Virgin Birth narratives are 74 Tue Vircin Birth absolutely Jewish in their cast of thought, setting and language. Others, like Soltau, say, “It is clear that belief in the Virgin Birth of Jesus would not have originated in Palestine .... It could not have taken its rise in Jewish circles .... The Virgin Birth was cer- tainly not inferred from the words of the prophet in Isaiah 7 :14.” Cheyne says: “The Virgin Birth finds its ex- planation in Babylonian influence.” It is maintained that such a legend could not have grown on Jewish soil for the Jews were not a myth- ical people. It is important to eriembe in- this connection that the Jews were monotheistic and not polytheistic, believing in one God and not in many gods. God was of “too pure eyes to behold evil,” therefore it — would be abhorrent to the Jewish mind to sanction any such relationship as is indicated by pagan leg- ends of the supernatural birth of their heroes. The incident in Genesis 6 concerning “the sons of God” who were said to have taken into marriage relation- ship “the daughters of men” is frowned upon, con- demned and punished according to Scriptural record. THE FALSE AND THE TRUE But, secondly, supposing there were such super- natural births in paganism, that would not invalidate the Virgin Birth of Jesus. In the letter to the oF JESUS CHRIST 75 Church at Smyrna in Revelation 2, reference is made to a mock death, burial and resurrection of the god Dionysius. This service of the mock death, burial and resurrection of the pagan god was ob- served annually. The priest who officiated at this service received a crown. This is clearly referred to in this letter to the Church at Smyrna. It is inter- esting to note in this connection that the address of the speaker, the Lord Jesus, to the Church at Smyrna takes into consideration this episode in the pagan religious feast held annually in that city for Jesus said: “These things saith the first and the last, who was (became) dead, and lived again:” It is as though, in referring to the mock death, burial and resurrection of Dionysius, Jesus said, “I am He that really became dead, was really buried, and really rose again, no mock god am I.” We are referring to this matter in order to ask a question: “Why may not such pagan customs have been prophetic foregleams of the actual death, bur- ial and resurrection of Jesus. But such prophetic foregleams—if such they were—did not make void those real facts in the life of Christ Jesus, who actually died, was actually buried, and actually rose again even as the Scriptures declare. Supposing there are accounts in heathen mythology of super- natural births, why should such invalidate the truth as set forth in Matthew and Luke regarding the birth of Jesus? 76 Tue Vircin BirtH We should not forget in this connection that Satan is a counterfeiter. Anti-Christ means not only against Christ, but in the place of Christ. May it not be that Satan, foreseeing the incarnation, had the denial of the Virgin Birth in mind centuries be- fore, and was preparing the way for its denial? Is there not, think you, an intimation in proof of the Virgin Birth in even these stories? Do they not, after all, show that men must and will seek divine origin as proof of superhuman greatness? LEGENDS TAKE TIME TO GROW Third: It takes a long time for myths or legends to grow, develop and come to a head. Reference has been made to the supernatural birth of Buddha. It should not be forgotten, however, that it took cen- turies for this legend to grow. It is doubtful if any reference to a supernatural birth of Buddha can be found in Buddhistic writings for at least two or three centuries after his death. Certainly Matthew and Luke could not have had any such incident in mind, for they knew nothing of Buddha, nor could they have known anything concerning him. There- fore they did not borrow their ideas of the Virgin Birth of Jesus from the supposedly supernatural origin of Buddha, The same might be said with re- gard to the reports of the supposedly miraculous births of Confucius, Zoroaster, Lao Tzae and others. oF Jesus CHRIST 77 With Jesus, however, it was very different even from the standpoint of time. Jesus was great, and acknowledged to be such, even before He was born. The angel Gabriel announced such greatness and said that He would be a King sitting upon the throne of His Father David. The Shepherds and the Wise Men bowed in worship and obedience before Him as King. Anna and Simeon in the temple saw in the Child Jesus the Lord’s Christ, and they worshipped. During the lifetime of our Lord and in the very city and surrounding country in which He was born and brought up, among His neighbors and friends, and those who knew Him best, His superhuman great- ness was acknowledged. The world did not have to wait centuries before it acclaimed the greatness and superhumanness of Christ. The Gospels of both Matthew and Luke were written before the destruction of Jerusalem 70 A. D. and both record the supernatural birth of Christ. Lobstein, the critic, admits that Paul did know of The Virgin Birth, but that it had no interest for him. Paul’s last writings were finished in 68 A. D. It seems conclusive to many scholars that John also was thoroughly acquainted with the supernatural birth of Jesus. It is said that Burney in his Aramaic Gospel puts the date of John’s Gospel in 85 A.D. Thus, from the time of Christ’s birth, yea even before it, His greatness was recognized. We recall in this connection the words of John the Baptist 78 THE VirRGIN BirtH when, in pointing to Jesus, he said: “I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?” in Matthew 3:14, and in John 1:26, 27,29 and 36, “I baptize in water: in the midst of you standeth one whom ye know not, even he that cometh after me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to un- loose.” . . . “On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world!” .... “And he looked upon Jesus as he walked, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God!” Did not Elizabeth refer to Jesus, the unborn Child when she addressed Mary as “the mother of my Lord”? What further proof need we of the fact that the greatness of Jesus was ac- knowledged during His lifetime? PREDICTIONS REGARDING JESUS Another point of great importance for us to re- member is that none of the writers of the New Testament teach that Jesus began at Bethlehem. To — them He is the pre-existent Christ. The Jews in the centuries before Jesus came knew all about Him. The prophetic descriptions and delineations of their coming Messiah were minutely portrayed in the Old Testament Scriptures. In Genesis 3:15 we read, “and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel:” This verse teaches that the coming Redeemer is to oF JESUS CHRIST 79 be human, He is to be born of a woman (cf. Gal. 4:4). Genesis 12 declares that He is to be of the seed of Abraham. Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. The Scripture is careful to state that the Messiah and Redeemer shall come through Isaac: “In Isaac shall thy seed be called” (Genesis 17). Isaac, also, had two sons, Jacob and Esau, but in chapter 20 we are told that the Messiah is to come through the line of Jacob and not Esau (Gen- esis 25). Jacob was the father of twelve sons, con- stituting the twelve tribes of Judah, but Genesis 49:10 tells us that Christ is to be born of the tribe of Judah, “For the scepter shall not depart from puidanyi.ss .'. until Shiloh come.” Judah was a tribe (or State) in Palestine. The Scripture again narrows the prophecy, and in Micah 5:2 declares the city in the tribe of Judah in which the Redeemer is to be born: “But thou Bethlehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.” Yes, but Bethlehem is a large city with thousands of inhabitants. Again note, please, the minute accuracy of the prophecy, for Isaiah 7:14 says, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a (the) virgin shall con- ceive (is with child, and beareth) and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (God is with us.”’) 80 THE VircIn BirtH Had we time, we could show how the Old Testa- ment Scriptures predict His betrayal by one who took bread with Him; the price of His betrayal, thirty pieces of silver; the fact that He was to die between two thieves, for He was numbered with the transgressors; and also that He was to be buried in the grave of a rich man, for He “made His grave with the rich.” It is clear from these brief sug- gestive Scriptures that Jesus did not begin at Beth- lehem. ; EXAMINING Isa1aH 7:14 It may be profitable in this connection to examine the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. It is stated by the critics that the doctrine of the Virgin Birth grew out of a mistaken application of this prophecy. It is stated that the disciples believed Jesus to be the Messiah because of His wondrous and unique life and that the story of the Virgin Birth was in- vented to account for the superhuman element in the life of Jesus. In looking around for material to enforce this claim, Matthew lighted upon this pro- phecy of Isaiah, of which he makes a free use by re- ferring it to Christ as he does of the prophecy in connection with the flight into Egypt, the residence in Nazareth, and Rachel weeping for her children. We are told that the religious faith of the disciples was on the lookout for Old Testament intimations, and this prophecy in Isaiah agreed with their no- tions, therefore they applied it to Christ. oF JESUS CHRIST 81 We are told that the disciples, remembering the miraculous birth of pagan gods, brooded over the idea that the mother of the Messiah was to be a virgin, and that when they found this reference in Isaiah to a virgin birth they at once applied that to the Messiah. Harnack says: “One must cherish serious doubt as to whether the idea of the Virgin Birth would have ever made its appearance on Jew- ish soil had it not been for Isaiah 7 :14.” It is a mistake to think that the ideas regarding Jesus, His person and work began with the Gospel and Epistles written after His death, or even with His own appearance and ministry on the earth. For centuries before He came into the world Scriptures had been read, pondered and taught in the syna- gogues and temple. “No young girl in Judea with womanhood dawning upon her but what breathed the prayer that she might be the mother of our Lord, and thus be most highly blessed among women, that from her should come the deliverer of Israel. Even from Eve’s time, who said, ‘I have gotten the man from the Lord,’ may such a longing be said to date. The life and career of Christ could easily be written from the Psalms and Prophets.” It has been reasonably questioned by some con- servative scholars whether Isaiah 7:14 was ever looked upon by the Jews as being Messianic, and hence it cannot be proven that Matthew quoted it because current opinion associated it with tha Mes- 82 THE VirGin BirtH siah. Would not the story of the Virgin Birth, in- timated in prophecy, be a stumbling block to the Jews? Matthew’s apologetic would so indicate. Matthew’s treatment of the Virgin Birth of our Lord is polemic and in a sense apologetic. Joseph’s part in the narrative is emphasized to show the Jews that Joseph gave Mary and the Child his pro- tecting care and vindication, and thus not only vin- dicated the miraculous conception but protected Mary from slander and calumny. CLOSER VIEW OF PROPHECY A close study of the prophecy in Isaiah, which begins with 7:14 and is really not finished until 9:7 shows that the prophecy does really refer to Christ. Whether the Jews ever looked upon this prophecy as Messianic or not is not to the point just now, for there are other prophecies, the 53rd of Isaiah for example, which we know is Messianic, but which the Jews would or do not, by any means, admit to refer to Christ. The context of this prophecy is instructive. Let us examine it. The prophecy, as we know, was made to king Ahaz, who was being sorely oppressed by the hostile armies of Syria and Israel which threatened to destroy his kingdom. The prophet Isaiah is sent to warn Ahaz against alliance with the king of Assyria whose help he has sought, and to assure him of the perpetuity of the throne of David, oF Jesus Curist 83 which the invasion of these kings threatened with destruction. The fulfillment of this prophecy is to be in the nature of a sign. Something supernatural is to occur. Of course, there may be a sense in which the promise was partly fulfilled in the birth of Isaiah’s son, but Isaiah’s son was not named ‘‘Won- derful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6—a part of the prophecy beginning at 7:14). It was not of Isaiah’s son that the prophet said: “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this” (Isaiah 9:7). That this prophecy (9:6) refers to Christ is evident from Matthew 4:14, 15: “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, The land of Zabulon, and the land of Neph- thalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles” (cf. Isaiah 9:1, 2). It is characteristic of Scripture that it is so full that it does not exhaust itself in its application to the people to whom it was immediately written (cf. Romans 4:23, 24; 15:4). This is sometimes called “the law of double reference.” The destruction of Jerusalem was a fulfillment, but not the complete fulfillment, of the Second Advent of our Lord. In like manner, the son of Ahaz or Isaiah was a fulfill- 84 THE VirGIN BirtTH ment, but not the complete fulfillment, of this pro- phecy. The prophet looks beyond the present and assures Ahaz that in a miraculous way God will raise up a King for David’s throne, whose name shall be “Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The ever- lasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” This pro- phecy Matthew and Luke rightly connect with Christ, who is the heir to David’s throne and whose name is Immanuel (Matthew 1:23, cf. Luke 1:32, 69). It might be well to note in this connection the pre- sent tenses of this prophecy, for they may help us to see its prophetic significance. The prophet speaks of the conception and birth as actually taking place at the moment of speaking. The passage reads: “The (or better, one) virgin is with child and bear- eth a son.” The Hebrew original there would be a participle, and the exact rendering would be, “Be- hold, thou art conceiving now.” An immediate con- ception is meant (cf. v. 39, “and with haste;” the reference to Elizabeth that “she also hath conceived” indicates that conception had taken place with Mary at the time of the announcement by the angel, and this was before Joseph’s marriage to Mary). The reference that ““No word of God shall be impossible” or “void of power’’ would be senseless in this con- nection unless something supernatural and different from a natural conception were meant. Surely there would be nothing that called for any miraculous oF JESUS CHRIST 85 display of God’s power in Isaiah’s wife bearing him a son, or in Mary’s conceiving a son as Joseph’s wife. The fulfillment of this prophecy certainly im- plied a sign, something supernatural which did not take place in the birth of Isaiah’s or Ahaz’s son. MEANING OF “VIRGIN” Further, there has been considerable controversy over the word translated “virgin” (almah). The opponents to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth main- tain that this word simply means a young woman of marriageable age, not necessarily a virgin; that an- other word (bethulah) is used for a real virgin. It is a remarkable fact, however, that this word beth- ulah, which the critics claim is used only of a real virgin, is actually used in Joel 1:8 of a bride weep- ing for her husband, while the word almah, which it is claimed does not mean an actual virgin, is used in this and six other places (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:26; Proverbs 13:19; Song of Solo- mon 1:3; 6:8) and never once in any other sense than as an unmarried maiden. Luther said: “Ifa Jew or Christian can prove to me that in any other passage of scripture “‘almah’ means ‘a married woman,’ I will give him one hundred florins, al- though God alone knows where I may find them.” Dr. Willis Beecher said, ‘““There is no trace of the use of this word to denote any other than a virgin.” 86 Tue Vircin BirtH PAGAN HEROES AND CHRIST CONTRASTED Another important fact which is worthy of con- sideration in this regard is that the lives of the pagan heroes, whose births are likened to that of Christ, were not in any wise characterized by supernatural words, claims or actions. The life of Jesus Christ, however, was filled with the supernatural. He cleansed the leper; He stilled the storm; He fed the hungry multitudes miraculously; He walked on the water; and He raised the dead. Did any of these pagan heroes perform any such wonderful works? No, they did not. There was nothing of a super- natural nature in their words or works that called for a supernatural birth. The life of Jesus, how- ever, was so unique and different that it might well demand a miraculous entrance into the world. Nor did any great pagan teacher make divine claims such as Christ made, nor assume the prerogatives of deity. The birth and life of Jesus, therefore, are consistent. The supernatural life requires the mir- aculous birth. The birth explains the life. Fifth: Do pagan legends really record Virgin births? Will the critic please point to one single in- stance in pagan records of a virgin birth like unto that of our Lord? Is it not time to ask those who deny the Virgin Birth of our Lord and liken His en- trance into the world to that of some pagan gods, either to produce evidence or forever hold their peace? oF JESUS CHRIST 87 No PAGAN VIRGIN BIRTHS It may be interesting to examine some of the so- called virgin births of pagan gods. Take the Buddha story, for example. The mother of Buddha, who was a married woman, is said to have had a vision in her sleep. She dreamed she saw a white elephant with six tusks. This elephant forcibly entered her side. Ten months later her child, Buddha, was born. The pagan god Zeus, unabashed, tells us that he had improper, forced relations with a maiden and in order to accomplish this relationship he transformed himself into a serpent. The emperors Augustus and Alexander are said to have been supernaturally born. Let us listen to the story. Alexander was very anxious that the world should know him not as the ordinary son of Philip but as one supernaturally born. He claimed that he was begotten by a serpent cohabiting with his mother. The story of Augustus is very similar. It is said that while his mother was asleep in the temple of Apollo she was visited by a god in the form of a serpent, and that ten months after her son, Augustus, was born. Is it not disgraceful and shameful for so-called Christian men to make any comparison between the pure, sweet Virgin Birth of Christ and these pagan stories of lustful gods forcing innocent victims, sub- jecting them to their passion and lust? Again we say, it may be difficult to define just exactly what 88 Tue Vircin BirtH constitutes “The sin against the Holy Ghost,” and it may be that of attributing the power of Christ to Satan instead of the Holy Spirit, to a large extent constitutes that sin. When, however, one reads such stories as these just narrated he cannot but feel that such comparisons come very close to committing the sin against the Holy Ghost. Furthermore, so far as we know there is not a single pagan writer who ever claimed a virgin birth for his hero. These writers may claim that their heroes were born of the gods. We have seen in what manner. But the records nowhere show or > claim virgin births. Dr. Orr draws attention to a volume entitled “The Message of Buddha’ written by Subharda Bhikkhu and edited by I. E. Ellam, General Secretary of the Buddhist Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Our attention is drawn to the fact that this writer makes no claim for the virgin birth of Buddha. Had there been any such tradition in any, of the ancient writ- ings surely this author would have known of it and would not have omitted reference to it. We close this section with a challenge: Let those who deny the Virgin Birth of our Lord by asserting that pagan heroes were similarly born, produce their proof or else as honest sincere seekers after truth, forever cease to refer to the Virgin Birth as a myth or legend. THOSE WHO MAINTAIN THAT THE SCHOLARSHIP OF THE DAY IS AGAINST THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH This would not prove anything even if it were true. Scholarship cannot save the world. The world by its wisdom knows not God. On one occasion Jesus said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes” (Matthew 11:25 R. V.). Unregenerated and unsanctified scholarship has no place or authority in the realm of Scripture interpretation. Sir Oliver Lodge has been criticized by a noted professor in connection with his lectures throughout this country on “Spiritism.” The pro- fessor claims that the world’s most noted scientist is not an authority in the matter on which he speaks pertaining to “Spiritism.” He is said to be dabbling in matters that are “outside of his sphere.” “Spirit- ism’”’ belongs to the realm of the “psychologist”, not to that of the “physicist.” Sir Oliver Lodge is a “physicist” and therefore has no authority to speak of matters pertaining to “psychology.” The eminent physicist is politely asked to step aside and let the psychologist speak. He alone knows. Exit Sir Oliver. 90 THE Vircin BirtH EDISON AND Forp The newspapers, a little while ago, made mention of “What Edison thinks about the Bible,” and again, later, “What Ford thinks about God.” Well, with all due respect to these eminent gentlemen, we may well ask: What does Edison know about “Religion,” or Ford about “God”? Edison can make a “Vic- trola” and Ford can produce an auto, but neither of these gentlemen have any right whatever to speak authoritatively about God or religion, for neither of them are Christians so far as we know; indeed they make no profession of being such. How can men “dead in trespasses and sins,’ and unrenewed by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit of God speak of matters pertaining to the Spirit? Only those who are spiritually-minded can understand the Bible: “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them for they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). CHANGING SCHOLARSHIP Furthermore, scholarship is constantly changing its findings and conclusions. Listen to this: The head of the department of philosophy in a leading university of the East, said to a friend of mine, who repeated it to me: “Religion, so far as the facts are concerned, is not so much an evolution as a degen- eration. I believe the time has come when the’ oF JESUS CHRIST 91 theory of evolution no longer adequately explains the facts of religion. . . . All great scientists practically agree that there has been no evolution in the body or intellect of man in historic time; on the contrary there has been both physical and mental ar- rest rather in man in historic time. . . . The only possible line of evolution is social evolution, such as takes place in sociological and domestic con- ditions and relations.” This is a great confession for a scholar to make. And it shows quite a marked change in position towards evolution from that accepted and taught a few years ago. Probably none will be found to disagree with this kind of evolution. | But it is not true that the scholarship of the world is against the acceptance of the doctrine of the Vir- gin Birth. Dr. Orr lines up the following scholars as believing in this doctrine: Tholuck, Lange, Luth- ardt, Delitzsch, Rothe, Dorner, Mortensen, Osterzee, Godet. Were Bishops Lightfoot and Wescott scholars? Are Dr. Sanday of Oxford and Dr. Sweet of Cambridge not among the finest Greek scholars in the world today? How about Principal Fairbairn of Warfield, Oxford? Is he not a scholar and thinker? Are not Sir William Ramsay of Aber- deen, Bishop Gore, Canon Ottley, Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, and Margoliouth, scholars of the first order? Was not Dr. Orr himself one of the best scholars of the day? In view of these facts, then, it is untrue to 92 THE VirGIN BirtTH say that the scholarship of the day is against the acceptance of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. The contrary is true. The Wise Men of the East have been followed by the wise men of the West; brainy men have come to the manger to worship the King. FAITH AND MYSTERY We should not forget that in the realm of Chris- tian truth, faith, rather than knowledge, is the ve- hicle for the reception of that truth. We are not claiming that faith is contrary to reason or intellect, but it is ofttimes above it. The Christian is called upon again and again to apprehend things he may not be able to comprehend. | 5] The word “mystery” in the Bible is of particular interest in this connection. It is an important word in the New Testament and one which the Christian should understand. A “mystery,” in the New Testa- ment sense, is something which has been hidden for ages but now made known and revealed. Yet that definition is incomplete. Three other words are needed to clear it up, for the strange thing about the New Testament mystery is that although it is revealed it is yet hidden and concealed. The three words needed to explain mystery are—‘to His saints.” It can readily be seen, therefore, that the mystery may be objectively revealed and yet sub- jectively concealed; it may be outward and yet not inward. Just as each morning you have a two-fold oF JESuS CHRIST 93 revelation and revealing: there is the unveiling of the sun and the unveiling of your eyes which all through the night have been shut. Without the opening of your eyes the unveiling of the sun is nothing. So is it with regard to the mys- tery of God in relation to the saints and the world. The Christian has a subjective illumination by the indwelling Holy Spirit which enables him to under- stand the objective revelation in the Word of God. This is a dispensation of mystery. It is an age of faith and not of signs. All the facts of Christ’s life are received by faith. The world never saw Jesus after the crucifixion. The disciples did not see Him after He ascended. He went behind the veil, and be- hind that veil all the great facts of our redemption are going on. There hangs that thick veil; no man can penetrate it, no human mind is skillful enough, brilliant enough, keen enough to see beyond or through it. All that transpires behind it is mystery. But God has sent His Holy Spirit from behind that veil to reveal what is transpiring behind it to those who are illumined by His Spirit. Only such illum- ined ones can understand these things. It is the eye of faith that sees them. The revelation is “to His saints.” ; Some day the world will see with the eye, for Jesus will come from behind that veil, and then woe be to those who have walked only by sight. The world may laugh now at what is calls “blind faith;” 94 THE VirGIn BirtH it may pity the Christian for believing in the Word of God and taking with simple faith things the in- tellect may not always be able to comprehend, but “he laughs best who laughs last.” Some day “the mystery of God will be finished” and He will come from behind that veil. How sad then will be the lot of those who have not let His Spirit reveal to them His will by faith. Then will be an age not of faith but of signs. Then the eye shall see, the ear hear, the hand feel; but, alas, who, except those that be of faith, shall be able to abide that day? If it is a matter then of believing the simple, naked Word of God and letting the Spirit reveal the mysteries rather than believing and receiving only what mere intellectualism can grasp, then I choose faith. Call it blind faith if you will, but I choose it until He comes from behind that veil. NEED OF CONSISTENCY Even “scholarship” accepts many things “by faith.” Does Science refuse to believe in the law of gravitation simply because it cannot understand it? Does it refuse to use electricity because it is not able to explain what electricity is? Do scholars and scientists refuse to “sleep” simply because they can- not explain the mystery of sleep? Our span of life is said to be seventy years. Twenty-three of them are spent in sleep. Yet “sleep” is a “mystery;” no scientist can explain it. oF JEsuS CHRIST 95 Why should the Christian be looked upon as be- ing “unscientific” and “unscholarly” because he be- lieves an event in the spiritual realm which he cannot explain, any more than the scientist who believes in gravitation and electricity even though he is not able to explain either of them. “Consistency is a jewel.” any a" See 4f ts a tee Lats ‘ cays rhs ' SPRAY ae ae 4 ine are td thal vie aT wait ‘genta ee Ge ae pa fet THE VIRGIN BIRTH IS A PART OF THE GOS8- PEL NARRATIVE AND IS TO BE RE- CEIVED EQUALLY WITH OTHER PARTS OF THE EVANGELICAL STORY The critics of the Virgin Birth may say we have only two accounts of the Virgin Birth in the New Testament. This is true so far as specific mention is concerned. But let us not forget that there are two accounts. We are dealing now not with the silence, but with the speech of the Scriptures regarding the supernatural birth of Jesus the Christ. We have four Gospel records, two of which record the Virgin Birth. For certain legitimate reasons the other two do not specifically or by name refer to it. We should not forget, however, in this connection, that if we dispense with the accounts of Matthew and Luke we have no record whatever of the first thirty years of the life of Jesus—no record of any event in that wonderful life until His baptism at the Jordan. We have no basis for dating our letters A. D. if we eliminate the accounts of Matthew and Luke. VircIN BirtH Atways BELIEVED These two records of the supernatural birth of Jesus Christ have always been a part of the evan- gelical narrative. There is not a recognized author- itative complete manuscript of the Gospels which 98 THE Vircin Birt ~ does not contain these accounts of the Virgin Birth. We have such manuscripts which omit the story of the “Woman taken in adultery” (John 9), also the last few verses (9-17) of the Gospel of Mark. You will find both these paragraphs in the American Re- vised Version with a marginal note attached. There is, however, no instance of the omission of the re- cord of Christ’s birth from any unmutilated manu- script of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. All the Versions of the Scriptures, in whatever language they may have been written or printed, contain the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. For eighteen hundred years the Christian Church has accepted these narratives at their face value. In the second century belief in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ was considered a test of orthodoxy. Such scholars of the early Church as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and Clement, although men of strong minds and differing in some other points of doctrine, were of one mind with regard to the acceptance of the Virgin Birth. Must Accept BIBLE AS A WHOLE So we have two trustworthy, independent and de- pendable witnesses to the Virgin Birth of Jesus. We accept as historical and true to fact other instances narrated by these two Evangelists, such as the date of Herod’s reign, and the census under Quirinius.’ Sir William Ramsay, the famous British scholar, OF JESUS CHRIST 99 vouches for the accuracy of these historical and po- litical facts. Why then should we hesitate to accept what Matthew and Luke have to say about the super- natural birth of Jesus? If these two inspired ac- counts are not trustworthy, then no part of the Gos- pel or even the New Testament is worthy of our trust. Even Strauss, the noted skeptic, said, “The New Testament must be accepted as a whole, mir- acles and all, or else the whole is mythical.” It was Augustine, the great Church Father, who in speaking of the Virgin Birth, said, “In contending for this truth we are contending for our all.””’ The Gospel records are not like a ship with air-tight compart- ments such as characterize the make-up of our modern war-ships. You may shoot a hole in one compartment, but the ship remains afloat; a shell may pierce another compartment, but the ship still remains afloat. There are many compartments, and each is air-tight and separate. The Bible is not like that. The trustworthiness of the Sacred Record rises or falls as a whole. What grounds have we, for example, for not ac- cepting the record of Christ’s birth as given us by Luke? Was Luke an incompetent, dishonest his- torian? Was he a liar and a forger? Sir William Ramsay declares that “Luke was a historian of the very highest order.” Luke was a physician, a scholar, and a scientist. Luke knew all about births, for he had brought many children into the world, 100 THE VirGIN BirTH and we may depend upon it that he did not quickly accept the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus. He doubtless talked with Mary herself, with James the brother of our Lord, and with others concerning the matter. The care with which he gathered his material is indicated in the opening verses of his Gospel, (1:1-4) which read as follows: ‘“Foras- much as many have taken in hand to draw up a nar- rative concerning those matters which have been ful- filled (fully established) among us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first (that is, from original sources, or, as the Greek word may inti- mate, even by inspiration from above), to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things (or words) wherein thou hast been instructed (or which thou wast taught by word of mouth).” After this careful research, Luke pusitively de- clares that the mother of Jesus was a virgin when Jesus was born and that Joseph was not the father of Jesus (cf. 3:23) but that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary. We have every right to assume the honesty and good faith of Matthew and Luke in their record of ° the Virgin Birth. oF JESUS CHRIST 101 Wuy NARRATIVES ARE DENIED Why then, may we ask, do the critics deny the genuineness and trustworthiness of these narratives? Some assert that the narratives are contradictory. A careful reading of them does not bear out this statement. Dr. Orr ‘mentions twelve points of agreement between the two records, which are some- what as follows: (1) That Jesus was born in the days of Herod; (2) that He was conceived of the Holy Spirit; (3) that He was born of the Virgin Mary; (4) that she was engaged to Joseph; (5) that Joseph was of the line of David; (6) of the city of Bethlehem; (7) that the child’s name should be Jesus; (8) that He was to be the Saviour of His people; (9) that Joseph knew beforehand of Mary’s condition and its cause; (10) that knowing her condition he finally took her to be his wife, and as- sumed paternal responsibilities for her child; (11) that visions and supernatural revelations accom- panied the announcement of the conception of Jesus; (12) that Joseph and Mary with the young child went to reside in Nazareth. Certainly both the Evangelists are agreed in the main facts of the story. , Perhaps it is fair to say that the assumptions of science are responsible for the rejection of these narratives by some. It is a presupposition in mod- ern biological study that nothing of the nature of miracle can take place. The supernatural is ruled 102 THE VirGIN BirtH out of all modern scientific thinking. The Virgin Birth chapters are filled with matters miraculous and supernatural. For this reason, therefore, the modern mind would reject them. But after all, you may ask what does science, biology, and the modern mind know of life? What do they know of life’s source? Nothing. Even evolution deals only with the development of life. Biology cannot tell us how life begins. It cannot tell us how the bones of a child are formed in the womb of a mother. Science cannot create life; it cannot even give scent to a flower. Why, then, should the man of science be proud and put himself up as a iudge of the Scriptures? Two books have been written by critics, one on the Gospel of Matthew and its Explanation, and the other on the Gospel of Luke and its Explanation. The volume on Matthew begins with chapter three, chapters one and two being omitted. The volume on Luke begins with chapter three, chapters one and two, containing the story of the Virgin, are omitted. No explanation is offered for the omis- sion, no reason is given. These critics have simply, on their own initiative, and without reasonable cause, omitted them. It has been well said that the rejection of the Vir- gin Birth is “a mutilation of the Scripture without any warrant,” a contradiction to the continuous’ testimony of the Christian Church, a weakening of oF JESUS CHRIST 103 the doctrine of the incarnation and a practical sur- render into the hand of those who hold the non- miraculous, purely humanitarian view of Christ— and all on insufficient grounds.” (Orr). CuTTING UP THE BIBLE The serious result of denying the supernatural in the Bible is readily seen when one remembers that almost the entire story of the life of Jesus is con- nected with the supernatural and the miraculous. Indeed, it is difficult to think of any phase of Jesus’ life apart from the miraculous. The four Gospel records which present us with the narrative and pic- ture of His wonderful life are certainly filled with the miraculous. For instance, there are eighty-nine chapters in the four Gospels. Were we to eliminate the miracles in the life of Jesus and all the super- natural events connected with them, we should have to eliminate fifty-two chapters of the eighty-nine, which would be equivalent to almost seven hundred verses. If we were then to eliminate from the Gos- pel records the discourses of Jesus which are built upon the supernatural—such for example as the sermon following the Feeding of the Five Thousand, which is recorded in each of the four Gospels; the Christological discourse following the healing of the man at the Pool of Bethesda, recorded in the 5th of John; the discourse leading up to and following the healing of the blind man in the eighth and ninth 104 THE VircIn Birtr chapters of John; the sermon on Jesus as the resur- rection and the life, which follows. the raising of Lazarus from the dead, and others we might men- tion—we would have but a few pages of the four Gospels left to us. The critic might say, “Yes, I admit that there is very little left, but that little con- tains ‘the principles of the life of Jesus’ ” It may be in order to ask to what “principles” the critic re- fers and where are those principles incorporated? If the reply of the critic is that the principles are to be found in the few pages one holds in his hand, it is quite pertinent to ask what more authority or dependability is to be found in the record contained in such few pages any more than can be found in the many pages which have been discarded as untrust- worthy and untrue because containing the super- natural? The result of this method of treating the records of the life of Jesus is unquestionably to leave us without a Saviour, Redeemer, Teacher or Example. ~ PHOTOMOUNT PAMPHLET BINDER . PAT. NO, 877188 _ Manufactured by GAYLORD BROS. Inc. Syracuse, N. Y. Stockton, Calif. Date Due PRINTED|IN U.S.A, BS2423 .1.E92 ¢.2 Why I believe in the virgin birth of Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Library AMM 1 1012 00013 2557