Seven Reasons Why I Believe in

THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST

By

Ian Paisley

IN MANY QUARTERS, ecclesiastical as well as secular, belief in the Virgin Birth of our Lord Jesus Christ is scouted as unworthy of twentieth-century intelligence. Biologically, it is vehemently asserted, such a birth is impossible.

Science with pontifical authority has pronounced against it. Who dares to challenge the "all knowing" of such an eminent authority?

The fact of the Virgin Birth having been declared against, the evidence and proof which established the fact must now be discredited. Let it be carefully noted that this finding against the Virgin Birth was not the result of a fresh examination of the evidence but rather the arbitrary act of science falsely so called. Having destroyed, in their opinion, the supernatural birth, these "know-alls" must of necessity demolish the evidence which supported that birth. All sorts of ingenious methods have been brought into play to destroy the records-- from the mistranslation of words to the pen-knifing of whole passages of the Bible. Historical evidence is flouted without respect for any known rule of evidence. Unfounded assertions are put forward as sound conclusions and the whole basis of traditional Christian belief is subjected to the methods of a reckless infidelity.

This assault on the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is, however, but one phase of a great battle to evacuate the supernatural from Christianity and to reduce it to the plane of natural religion. These naturalists in religion are out to destroy supernatural Christianity. They go through the Bible and tell us there is no supernatural revelation there; they go through the Birth of Christ and tell us there is no supernatural incarnation there; they go through the Person of Christ and tell us there is no supernatural deity there... they go through the Works of Christ an tell us there are no supernatural miracles there; they go through the Words of Christ and tell us there is no supernatural wisdom there; they go through the Death of Christ and tell us there is no supernatural atonement there; they go through the Blood of Christ and tell us there is no supernatural cleansing there; and they go through the Tomb of Christ and tell us there is no supernatural resurrection there.

Having jettisoned the supernatural from the Gospel Ship they have reduced her to an old hulk of man's manufacturing, a mere plaything for the storms of unbelief and the reefs of infidelity.

Well may Moses say: "For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges. For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter: Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps." --Deuteronomy 32:31-33.

As a fundamentalist I believe in a supernatural Christianity which presents a supernatural Christ Who had a supernatural Birth, Who lived a supernatural Life, Who died a supernatural Death, Who rose in a supernatural Resurrection, and Who is coming again in a supernatural Manner.

Rejection, then, of the Virgin Birth is an attack on the supernaturalness of Christ. Of Christ's wondrous birth, human incredulity questions, "How shall this be?" Divine inspiration answers, "With God all things are possible."

When human impotence bows to that answer of divine omnipotence the Miracle of the Virgin Birth can be whole-heartedly accepted. He who questions the Virgin Birth challenges the almightiness of God. To discredit the Virgin Birth is not only to strike at the nature of Christ but at the very power of God.

WHAT IS IMPLIED BY REJECTION OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH

Before coming to my reasons for accepting the Virgin Birth let me point out briefly what the alternative is to my position.

No truly honest mind could possibly accept this alternative and continue to plead for Christianity... The alternative involved in the rejection of the Virgin Birth discountenances for all time that glib articulation of the shallow-minded

"Oh, the Virgin Birth is not essential."

To reject the Virgin Birth is to impute the stain of unchastity to Mary. Before her marriage Mary was found with child. If this was not by an act of God then Mary must have been unchaste. To reject the Virgin Birth is to affirm that Mary was an adultress. Under the Jewish law an espoused woman's vows to her future husband were as binding as the actual marriage vows. As an espoused woman, if Mary was pregnant by any other act than the act of the Holy Spirit, than she was an adultress. Perish the thought that our Glorious Saviour came into being by an act of adultery. Yet this is what is involved in rejecting the Virgin Birth. What honest person could say that the Virgin Birth is not essential?

To reject the Virgin Birth is to imply that our Lord was a nameless bastard.

Joseph never claimed to be his father, but finding Mary pregnant was "minded to put her away privily."

Matthew 1:19-- "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily."

Who, then, was the father of Jesus? The only logical answer to this, when the Virgin Birth is rejected, is an immoral coward who covered over his crime with the cloak of anonymity.

To reject the Virgin Birth is to imply that our Lord Jesus Christ was an imposter and liar. He claimed to be the only begotten Son of God. How could He be that, when in reality He was, according to these blaspheming modernists, the bastard child of a fallen woman? Such are some of the implications involved in denying the Virgin Birth.

"But," you ask, "do these modernist preachers fully realise these implications?" Alas, they certainly do, and not only so, but they go so far as to speculate on the very act of immorality which they maintain brought about the birth of Jesus Christ.

Here is a statement by Nels F. S. Ferre, an American theologian:

"Mary, we remember, was found pregnant before her engagement to mild Joseph. Nazareth was hard by a Roman garrison where the soldiers were German mercenaries. Jesus is also reported throughout a continuous part of the history of art, it is claimed, to have been blonde. This is supposedly unnatural for the Mediterranean countries where this same tradition started and was continued. Hence Jesus must have been the child of a German soldier! After all, the claim develops, such is the experience of many girls near military camps. His great genius, spiritual agony and serene victory would thus be accounted for, as far as the unusual conditions go which gave Him the chance to respond in an exceptional manner in the fulness of time. Such an interpretation has been made of His life, and who can deny that such a conjecture could be true?"

Having sworn at ordination to preach the Christian gospel such men as Ferre have the brazen effrontery each time they enter the pulpit to attempt to destroy the tenets they are under oath to proclaim. They are perjurers of the worst kind. No language would be strong enough to describe their base villainy. No wonder Dr. Joseph Parker, the illustrious first pastor of the City Temple warned:

"Beware of such men, they are clever liars, swindlers who look too innocent to be quite guiltless, hirelings who hunger for self. Nay the black indictment does not end there. They are killers of men, bandits who thrust weapons into souls and slay the young, the unsuspecting and the frank. The man in the pulpit who insults the Bible on which he lives, and wriggles out of the professions by which he climbed to the pulpit he dishonours, I charge with worst crimes than those which blackened Barabbas or damned Iscariot."

Having briefly discussed the awful alternative to belief in this doctrine, I now come to positive arguments which unquestionably establish the truth of this cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith.

FIRST REASON: I BELIEVE IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH BECAUSE THE

SUPERNATURAL PREDICTIONS OF CHRIST ANTICIPATED HIS

SUPERNATURAL BIRTH

Across the impassable "fixed gulf"

Luke 16:26-- "And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence."

the words of Abraham came echoing into the doomed soul of the tormented Dives, "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." --Luke 16:29. But the ruined soul shrieked out, "And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent" --Luke 16:30.

Abraham's reply is a final indictment of the damned soul's unbelief: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" --Luke 16:31. Then came silence, the silence of eternity.

How true, for when God speaks and is unheeded there follows silence, the silence of eternity. No wonder the stricken and rejected Saul wailed, "God is departed from me, and answereth me no more" --1 Samuel 28:15.

No other miracle, not even the miracle of resurrection, can blast the unbelief which rejects the miracle of revelation. "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." Let us indeed hear them on this vital subject of the Virgin Birth.

Genesis 3:15

Turning to the first book of Moses, the book of Genesis at the third chapter and at the fifteenth verse, I listen to the words which the Lord God spoke to the devil after the seduction of Eve and the fall of Adam.

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

In passing, let me say that Satan has always fought hardest against these Scriptures specifically directed to himself. The wounds of the sword of the Spirit still afflict his Satanic mind. Take, for example, the Scriptures which our Lord quoted in His temptation. They all came from the Book of Deuteronomy.

Now no book has been more attacked and discredited than Deuteronomy. It has been the target for the Satanic fury of the so-called "Higher Critics" and the principal subject of their destructive crucible...

The reference here is to the woman's seed, not to the seed of the man. This is unique because the common reference is always to the seed of the man-- "the seed of Abraham" (Isaiah 41:8), not the seed of Sarah, "the seed of David" (Romans 1:3), not the seed of Bathsheba, and so on.

Something extraordinary is referred to, for only a unique seed, a special seed, a supernatural seed, could accomplish that unique, special and supernatural triumph "the bruising of the serpent's head." Every effect must have an adequate cause and no son by ordinary generation of Adam's ruined race could accomplish the effect here spoken of. The adequate cause is found in the woman's seed, a Virgin-born Saviour.

Jeremiah 31:22

"How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man."

Since natural generation commenced with the begetting of Cain, a woman in pregnancy always compassed the child and often that child was a man-child.

Here a new thing is mentioned, the result of a creating act of God, not the result of any acts of man. A woman bears a child without any relationship to man, God alone taking the responsibility. This text as reference to the passage can verify stands before prophetic Scriptures which tell of the ushering in of the gospel dispensation. Also another Scripture which had its fulfillment in the birth of Christ occurs in this chapter, Jeremiah 31:15: "Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not."

The new thing done by God in the woman compassing a man is none other than the Virgin Birth. Notice how the Scriptures refer to it as a "creation," --

"the LORD hath created a new thing".

.

A Virgin unspotted the prophets foretold,

Should bring forth a Saviour which now we behold.

To be our Redeemer from death, hell and sin

Which Adam's transgression had wrapped us up in.

Isaiah 7:14

"Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

This verse has become the principal battleground of the whole controversy regarding the Virgin Birth. The first line of assault of the critics is upon the Hebrew word "almah," here translated "virgin". It is urged that the proper Hebrew word for virgin is "bethulah," and that if a virgin was what the prophet wished to signify he would have used that word. "Almah," it is contended, simply means "a young woman of marriageable age."

Now the Lord, upon whose instruction the prophet spoke, foreknew that proud men would come and seek to undermine the force of this prophetic Scripture.

In order that the saints, to whom the faith was delivered, might have an answer to such an argument, the Holy Spirit used the word "almah" seven times in the Old Testament, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word might be established. The word "almah" occurs in the following Old Testament verses:--Genesis 24:43-- "Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink."

Exodus 2:8-- "And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the child's mother."

Psalm 68:25-- "The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the damsels playing with timbrels."

Proverbs 30:19-- "The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid."

Song of Solomon 1:3-- "Because of the savour of Thy good ointments Thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love Thee."

Song of Solomon 6:8-- "There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number."

Isaiah 7:14-- "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

Seven in Scripture is the number of perfection, so the Holy Spirit has given us a perfect guide to the meaning of "almah". Professor J. Gresham Machen in his scholarly work "The Virgin Birth of Christ" comments:

"As a matter of fact there is no place among the seven occurrences of 'almah'

in the Old Testament where the word is clearly used of a woman who was not a virgin."

In his "Prophets and Promise" Professor Willis Beecher says:

"There is no trace of its use to denote any other than a Virgin."

Professor James Orr states in his great book, "The Virgin Birth of Christ":

"The objection from the meaning of 'almah' was, as we learn from Justin Martyr, Origen and other fathers, one urged by the Jews against the Christian interpretation of the passage from earliest times. But it may fairly be replied now, as it was then, that if the word does not necessarily bear this meaning of

'virgin,' it may and usually does bear it. In fact, in all the six places in which, besides this passage, the word occurs in the Old Testament, it may be contended that this is the meaning."

Four hundred years ago Martin Luther issued a challenge:

"If a Jew or Christian can prove to me that in any passage of Scripture 'almah'

means 'a married woman' I will give him one hundred florins, although God alone knows where I will find them."

Luther's challenge still stands impregnable today.

In Isaiah 7:14 the definite article is prefixed to "almah", the literal reading being "the virgin". The definite article has an individualising and specialising force and so the virgin here is from God's point of view the virgin, in contradistinction to all other virgins. This virgin then spoken of by God could be none other than Mary to whom the angel said, "Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." Luke 1:28.

The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language about the third century B. C. This version was called the Septuagint Version. According to tradition this translation was made by about seventy divines hence it has been designated as the LXX, the Roman numerals for seventy. Without doubt, those who made this translation were eminent Hebrew scholars and better equipped to translate the Hebrew than any modern Hebraist, as Hebrew was still a spoken language in their day. In the LXX "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 is translated by the Greek word "parthenos" virgin.

Dr. Edersheim, whose "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah" presents a higher order of scholarship than any other "Life" of Christ extant, states:

"The fact that the seventy who were the most eminent Hebrew scholars in the world translated the word 'virgin' is sufficient evidence that in this connection the word could have no other meaning."

The second line of assault of the critics is regarding the significance of the prophecy to King Ahaz. The prophecy, it is argued, is addressed to King Ahaz and of what particular benefit as a sign could this prophecy be if it referred to the birth of Christ which did not occur until many hundreds of years after the death of the king? The sign, it is asserted, must take place during the life of the king.

Conflicting theories have been brought forward by the critics as explanations of the sign to Ahaz. Some say that the virgin is the prophet's wife, who, in the beginning of the next chapter, bore a son called Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. If this were so, why use such a designation for the prophet's wife as "almah"?

Again, some say that the child here referred to is Hezekiah the king's son.

Hezekiah however, was born before Ahaz ascended the throne, so such an interpretation makes the prophecy meaningless.

Yet another theory rejects all actual identification of the mother or the child and says the prophet referred to any young woman who at that particular time was conceiving a male child. If this were so, then the language of the prophet declaring a special sign is extravagant and senseless. These theories which seek to explain this birth as an ordinary birth are, to say the least, unconvincing. They bear too much the marks of man's manufacturing. They are only brought forward by prejudiced minds closed to the supernatural.

If we look closely at the prophecy we shall find that the premise of their whole argument is false, for the prophecy was not addressed to Ahaz as they so vehemently assert. In verse twelve Ahaz refused to ask a sign in the depth or in the height above as God commanded him. As Ahaz closed his ear to the commandment of God, God then calls for a hearing from the whole house of David, "And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?" --Isaiah 7:13. The prophet ceases to address Ahaz particularly, and his words are now general to the whole house of David.

Ahaz was to ask a sign in the depth, or in the height above but the sign which the Lord Himself gave, not to Ahaz, but to the whole house of David and hence to all Israel was a sign upon the earth. The prophecy foretold an incarnation Immanuel, God with us, by a supernatural medium, the Virgin Birth.

When the historical light of the New Testament falls on this prophetic passage the meaning is quite clear. In the temple Simeon took the Babe (Christ) in his arms and blessed God (Luke 2:28) he then blessed Joseph and Mary, (verse 34) and finally addressed certain words to Mary (verses 34 and 35). It is to be noted that he particularly addressed Mary, for his words had no application to Joseph. "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against." Here we have the sign again.

The mother and the sign go together and the sign is twofold, a virgin birth and an incarnation.

It is also interesting to note that the Greek word "semeion", used here for "sign" is the same word which occurs in the LXX translation of Isaiah 7:14.

Today the words of Simeon are fulfilled in our ears when "the sign," the Virgin Birth, is spoken against. All these prophetic Scriptures implicitly foretold the Virgin Birth and I wholeheartedly accept their testimony.

SECOND REASON: I BELIEVE IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST

BECAUSE THE SUPERNATURAL RECORDS OF CHRIST AFFIRM HIS

SUPERNATURAL BIRTH

By the supernatural records, I, of course, mean the New Testament records.

There are other records which I do not accept. These testify themselves to their own spurious nature and they have been rightly excluded from the canon.

Matthew and Luke each record the fact of the Virgin Birth. Their records are independent of each other which is an extra guarantee of their worth. The efforts of the critics to show them to be contradictory is in vain. They are, in fact, complementary. Professor James Orr says:

"The critics speak of the discrepancies of the narratives. Much more remarkable, it seems to me, are their agreements and the subtle harmonies that pervade them. The agreements, if we study them carefully, prove to be far more numerous than may at first strike us. Here, e.g., is a list of twelve points, which lie really on the surface of the narratives, yet give very nearly the gist of the whole story.

(1) Jesus was born in the last days of Herod.

Matthew 2:1-- "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king..."

Matthew 2:13-- "Arise, and take the young Child and His mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him."

(2) He was conceived by the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 1:18-- "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise... she was found with Child of the Holy Ghost."

Matthew 1:20-- "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."

Luke 1:35-- "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."

(3) His mother was a virgin.

Matthew 1:18-- "When as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together..."

Matthew 1:20-- " Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."

Matthew 1:23-- "Behold, a virgin shall be with Child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call His Name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Luke 1:27-- " To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary."

Luke 1:34-- "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"

(4) She was betrothed to Joseph.

Matthew 1:18-- "When as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph..."

Luke 1:27-- "To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph..."

Luke 2:5-- "To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with Child."

(5) Joseph was of the house and lineage of David.

Matthew 1:16-- "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, Who is called Christ."

Matthew 1:20-- "Joseph, thou son of David..."

Luke 1:27-- "to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David..."

Luke 2:4-- "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David)."

(6) Jesus was born at Bethlehem.

Matthew 2:1-- "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king..."

Luke 2:4,6-- "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, whichis called Bethlehem..

And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered."

(7) By divine direction He was called Jesus.

Matthew 1:21-- "And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His Name JESUS..."

Luke 1:31-- "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, and shalt call His Name JESUS."

(8) He was declared to be a Saviour.

Matthew 1:21-- "He shall save His people from their sins."

Luke 2:11-- "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the LORD."

(9) Joseph knew beforehand of Mary's condition and its cause.

Matthew 1:18-20-- "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 example, 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."

Luke 2:5-- "To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with Child."

(10) Nevertheless he took Mary to wife, and assumed full parental responsibility for her child-- was from the first in loco parentis to Jesus.

Matthew 1:20-- "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..."

Matthew 1:24-25-- "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 firstborn Son: and he called His Name JESUS."

Luke 2:5-- "To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with Child."

(11) The annunciation and birth were attended by revelations and visions.

Matthew 1:20-- "the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream...", etc.

Luke 1:27-28-- "And the angel came in unto her, and said...", etc.

(12) After the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary dwelt in Nazareth."

Matthew 2:23-- "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."

Luke 2:39-- "And when they had performed all things according to the Law of the LORD, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."

Matthew's narrative is told throughout from the standpoint of Joseph; Luke's from that of Mary. The language of both narratives is so unmistakable, so unequivocal and so conclusive that to accept these Gospels one must accept the Virgin Birth. There can be no halfway position here, only one of two things can happen-- either the Virgin Birth must be absolutely accepted or the Gospels totally rejected. No man has a right to quote as authoritative any portion of Matthew or Luke who rejects the testimony of these evangelists to the Virgin Birth.

The so-called modernists who reject the Virgin Birth because they allege that Matthew and Luke are the only two writers who mention it are keen exponents of the "Sermon on the Mount." The total inconsistency of their reasoning is demonstrated when we consider that only Matthew and Luke record "The Sermon on the Mount." If they were logical they would reject "The Sermon on the Mount" for the same reason as they reject "The Virgin Birth." Principle for the modernists, however, must always be sacrificed for prejudice.

In an effort to take attention away from these plain statements of the evangelists, the critics lay great emphasis on the genealogies which they stress refer to Joseph and not to Mary. "It is beyond dispute," Lobstein the critic audaciously states, "that in the mind of both genealogists Jesus is the son of Joseph." Such a statement is typical of the wild assertions of the critics.

Nothing could be more widely disputed. As a matter of fact, it is beyond dispute that neither Matthew nor Luke wrote of Christ as the son of Joseph.

Matthew changes his whole style in verse sixteen of the first chapter, and states not as Lobstein would have it, "And Jacob begat Joseph and Joseph begat Jesus," but "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, Who is called Christ." --Matthew 1:16. Luke, on the other hand, carefully inserts a qualifying clause "as was supposed". "And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." --Luke 3:23. It is therefore evident that Matthew and Luke recognised no contradiction between the genealogies and these implicit testimonies to the fact that Joseph was not the father of Jesus.

It ought to be pointed out also that, even if these genealogies refer solely to Joseph, it only makes sure that the legal and regal standing of Jesus is established, for under Jewish law "he that brings up and not he that begets is called the father or parent" and the adopted shares the legal standing of the foster male parent.

There is, however, evidence that Mary herself was of Davidic descent and was the daughter of Heli mentioned in Luke 3:23. Now, under Jewish law "the family of the mother is not called a family" hence there is no mention of Mary's name. Mary and Joseph were then nearly related and so even Matthew's genealogy while a genealogy of Joseph is also in reality a genealogy of Mary.

Hence Christ was legally, regally and maternally "of the seed of David".

Our Lord Jesus Christ was quite aware from His earliest days that Joseph was not his father, for at the age of twelve He rebuked His mother for making that assertion. When after three days Joseph and Mary found the boy Jesus in the temple, Mary said to Him, "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us?

behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." --Luke 2:48. The answer of Christ was a clear repudiation that Joseph was His father. "Wist ye not that I must be about My Father's business?" --Luke 2:49. He was not the son of Joseph; He was the Son of God.

Another argument frequently paraded by the opponents of this doctrine is the alleged silence of the rest of the New Testament. What the critics do not stress is the fact that no New Testament writer denies the supernatural birth but that all New Testament Christology is in complete harmony with the narratives of Matthew and Luke. Mark, we are told, knew nothing about the Virgin Birth. Is it not striking that his first sentence is a complete repudiation of any assertion that Jesus was the son of Joseph. He states plainly that Jesus Christ is "the Son of God." --Mark 1:1.

In Matthew the townsfolk of Nazareth sneered at Christ and said, "Is not this the carpenter's Son?" --Matthew 13:55. Matthew's genealogy, however, completely answers that insinuation. I do not think that it is a mere coincidence that Mark reported another, though similar, sneer of the natives of Nazareth. "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?" --Mark 6:3. Having no genealogy Mark records the sneer that does not impute fatherhood to Joseph.

"Mark," says one writer, "does not tolerate the paternity of Joseph even in the mouth of the Nazarenes."

The testimony of John to the full Deity in the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ of necessity implies the Virgin Birth. John commences:"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made" --John 1:1-3, and then he makes that tremendous assertion. "The Word was made flesh." --John 1:14. But how? Certainly not by natural generation, for further on John asserts that Jesus said "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." --John 3:6.

It would be blasphemous to suppose that John believed that Jesus by nature was unable to "enter into the Kingdom of God" but like ourselves required to be "born again."

Mark 9:47-- "And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the Kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."

John 3:5-- "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10-- "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God."

John 3:3-- "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God."

John 3:7-- "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

1 Peter 1:23-- "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of Incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

Jesus was born " according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3) but not " of the flesh." -

-John 3:6. We have also the confirming testimony of history, which records that John's keen personal antagonism was against the arch-heretic Cerinthus the Gnostic teacher who taught among other things that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary.

Then what of Paul? The critics allege that the silence of Paul proves he knew nothing of the Virgin Birth. It should be pointed out, however, that even if Paul is silent on the matter the critic's conclusion "therefore he knew nothing about it" is not valid. Silence and contradiction are two vastly different things. But, is Paul silent? "God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." -Romans 8:3. "Was made in the likeness of men." --Philippians 2:7. Surely there is a clear distinction between these assertions of Paul about Christ's birth and a mere natural birth. To Paul, Christ is God's own Son and not in any sense the son of a man. In His incarnation He is one of us, but not of us. He is to be distinguished from all the rest of mankind hence the expressions, "likeness of sinful flesh" and"likeness of men."

"God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the Law." --Galatians 4:4. Here again the sonship is in reference to God the Father and not man, but the woman is the vehicle of the birth. In verses 22-31 of this chapter, Paul discusses the births of Ishmael and Isaac. When Paul describes the birth of Christ in verse five, however, he employs a different Greek word. Here, and in Romans 1:3 and Philippians 2:7, he uses a more general term which means

"becoming". John says, "The Word became flesh" and Paul says "God sent His Son, [literally] become of a woman."

Why did Paul not use the same word of Christ's birth as he used of the births of Isaac and Ishmael if he believed Christ was born of natural generation?

Why this careful distinction?

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God, (Which He had promised afore by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures,) concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." -

-Romans 1:1-4.

Again in this passage the Divine Sonship is emphasised. He is "God's Son" verse three, and the "Son of God" verse four. Paul knew nothing of any other sonship. He was never to Paul the Son of any man let alone the son of Joseph. Paul also refers here to the prophetic Scriptures. To pretend that he, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, was ignorant of Isaiah 7:14 the great Virgin Birth prophecy, would be absurd.

Isaiah 7:14-- "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call His Name Immanuel."

In verses three and four, there will be found a likeness to Luke's narrative of the Virgin Birth. Professor James Orr comments:

"The contrast indicated is commonly taken to be between Christ's human and His higher or divine nature; but it seems to be more in keeping with the context to interpret it of origin. 'Of the seed of David, according to the flesh'--on the side of fleshly origin;'Son of God, with (or 'in') power, according to the Spirit of holiness' on the side of higher spiritual origin. The words are then almost an echo of Luke's-- "Give unto Him the throne of His father David'--

'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee.'-- 'Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.'-- 'therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.'"

Luke 1:32-- "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."

Luke 1:35-- "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."

It is evident from a candid consideration of the above that Paul is certainly no witness to be called upon to disprove the Virgin Birth. He stands not with the opponents but rather with exponents of the doctrine. Professor Orr ably sums up the supernatural record thus:

"The only two narratives we have of the birth of Jesus tell us that He was born of a Virgin.

The Gospels containing these narratives are genuine documents of the Apostolic age.

The texts of these narratives have come down to us in their integrity.

The two narratives of the Virgin Birth are independent.

The narratives, nevertheless, are not contradictory, but are complementary and corroborative of each other.

There are the strongest reasons for believing that Matthew's narrative comes from the circle of Joseph, and Luke's from the circle of Mary.

The Gospel of Mark, which embraces only the public ministry of Jesus, does not contradict the other narratives.

The Gospel of John does not contradict the other narratives, but presupposes them.

John unquestionably knew the earlier Gospels, and is traditionally identified with opposition to the earliest known impugner of the Virgin Birth, Cerinthus.

Paul does not contradict the Virgin Birth. On the contrary, Luke, a chief witness of the Virgin Birth, was the companion of Paul, and Paul's language seems to presuppose some knowledge of the fact.

The doctrine of Paul and John-- as of the New Testament generally-- implies a miracle in the origin of Christ.

The Gospels containing the narratives of Christ's birth were, so far as known, received without question by the Church from their first appearance"

It was a true remark of Dr. Dale's that particular texts are not the whole or most impressive proofs which the Scripture can supply on any great doctrine.

Particular texts he likened to salt-crystals which appear on the seashore when the tide has receded. "These are not," he remarked, "the strongest, though they may be the most apparent, proofs that the sea is salt; the salt is present in solution in every bucket of seawater."

So the testimony to the Virgin Birth is in solution on every page of the New Testament. Every book, every chapter, every verse, yes every word which is spoken of Christ or by Christ is spoken on the assumption that He is Virgin born.

To destroy the supernatural birth one must first destroy the whole supernatural record. Therefore let me testify again that I believe in the Virgin Birth because the supernatural records affirm the supernatural birth.

THIRD REASON: I BELIEVE IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST BECAUSE

THE SUPERNATURAL INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD DEMANDS

HIS SUPERNATURAL BIRTH

Those who deny the Virgin Birth of Christ must also deny the pre-existence of Christ and those who deny the pre-existence of Christ must further deny the co-equality of Christ in the Godhead. By maintaining that the birth of Christ was by natural generation the origin of Christ is fixed. His conception and birth mark the date of His origin. He had a beginning like all other creatures. His eternity therefore must be rejected. Such is the logical outcome of the denial of the supernatural birth.

Apostasy in this vital doctrine leads to total apostasy in all vital doctrines.

To deny the Virgin Birth is to reduce Christ to the level of an ordinary individual. In doing so His pre-existence and hence, His place in the Godhead, are repudiated. He cannot, therefore, by this reasoning, be the Son of God. If He is not, as the Father from the heavens twice declared Him to be, the Son of God, then the God of Truth is a liar, heaven in reality is hell and the whole revelation one colossal sham.

There is, in fact, no middle ground logically between denial of the Virgin Birth and the pestiferous bogs of open infidelity. Those who maintain that the Virgin Birth is not essential only display their own abysmal ignorance.

If, on the other hand, it can be established that our Lord Jesus Christ was the eternal son of God incarnate in the flesh, the possibility of any other birth but Virgin Birth is finally ruled out.

Only by a Virgin Birth could He, Who forever was, be manifested in time.

An ordinary birth results in the generation of a new person, but the extraordinary birth of Christ resulted in the incarnation of an old person, even the Ancient of Days. No new person resulted at the birth of Christ, but through that Birth the Second Person of the Trinity, by taking into union with Himself an impeccable human nature, was manifested in the flesh.

The Incarnation was a miracle in itself, and presupposes another miracle for its accomplishment, the miracle of the Virgin Birth.

Writing to Timothy, Paul views--

Christ's Incarnation-- "God was manifest in the flesh"

Christ's Vindication-- "Justified in the Spirit"

Christ's Manifestation-- "Seen of Angels"

Christ's Revelation-- "Preached unto the Gentiles"

Christ's Reconciliation-- "Believed on in the world"

Christ's Glorification-- "Received up into glory,"

and exclaims, "Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness." --1

Timothy 3:16.

It is surely a great mystery, for it is clothed in the miraculous.

Those who declare that this great mystery all originated in an ordinary birth only reveal their own total misconception of the vastness of God's redemptive purpose. The law that every effect must have an adequate cause rules out the possibility that Christ's birth could be a birth by ordinary generation. Such an effect as the supernatural incarnation demands for its adequate cause the supernatural generation. To tamper with the miraculous in the birth of Christ always leads to a diminishing of the supernatural in Christ all through His life and work. Prof. Gresham Machen says:

"Certain it is that men who reject the virgin birth scarcely ever hold to a really Christian view of Christ. Conceivably, indeed, a man might reject this miracle and yet accept other miracles that the New Testament contains; conceivably a man might hold Jesus to be a supernatural Person and yet reject the Gospel story about the manner of His entrance into this world. But it would perhaps be difficult to find a single New Testament student of any prominence who holds to such a view today. In the overwhelming majority of cases those who reject the virgin birth reject the whole supernatural view of Christ. They often profess belief in the 'incarnation'; but the word is apt to mean to them almost the exact opposite of what the New Testament means when it says that 'the Word became flesh.' To those modern men the incarnation means that God and man are one; to the New Testament it means rather that they are not one, but that the eternal Son of God became man, assumed our nature, by a stupendous miracle, to redeem us from sin. Seldom does any real belief in the incarnation go along with a rejection of the miracle of the virgin birth."

Now the testimony that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God and as such is God the Son, stands impregnable.

1. The testimony of the Father-- "This is My Beloved Son."

Matthew 3:17-- "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is My Beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased."

Matthew 17:5-- "Behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a Voice out of the cloud, which said, This is My Beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him."

2. The testimony of Christ Himself-- "Because I said, I am the Son of God."

John 10:36-- "Say ye of Him, Whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

3. The testimony of the Spirit of God-- "This is the Son of God."

John 1:32-34-- "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him. And I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God."

4. The testimony of Gabriel-- "That Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Luke 1:35-- "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."

5. The testimony of John the Baptist-- "This is the Son of God."

John 1:34-- "Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God."

6. The testimony of Nathaniel-- "Thou art the Son of God."

John 1:49-- "Nathanael answered and saith unto Him, Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the King of Israel."

7. The testimony of the devils-- "Jesus, Thou Son of God."

Matthew 8:29-- "And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with Thee, Jesus, Thou Son of God? art Thou come hither to torment us before the time?"

8. The testimony of the Apostles-- "Of a truth Thou art the Son of God."

Matthew 14:33-- "Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped Him, saying, Of a truth Thou art the Son of God."

9. The testimony of Peter-- "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Matthew 16:16-- "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

10. The testimony of those who crucified Christ-- "Truly this was the Son of God."

Matthew 27:54-- "Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God."

11. The testimony of the Word of God-- "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God."

John 20:31-- "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have Life through His Name."

12. The testimony of the believer-- "Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Acts 8:37-- "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.

And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

It cannot be questioned that the term "Son of God" conveyed to those who heard it that Christ was God. For example, when Christ Himself used the expression we read: "Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.

Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from My Father; for which of those works do ye stone Me? The Jews answered Him, saying, For a good work we stone Thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God." --John 10:31-33.

This twelve-fold testimony to the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is significant. Twelve in Scripture is the number of governmental perfection. This was manifested in Patriarchal government, twelve patriarchs from Seth to Noah and his family and twelve from Shem to Jacob; in National government in the Twelve Tribes of Israel; in Apostolic Government in the Twelve Apostles, and in Celestial Government in the City of God, which is characterised by twelve, having twelve foundations and twelve gates.

Twelve is the product of three and four. Three is the divine number, three persons in the Trinity, and four is the earthly number, the four regions of the earth, north, south, east and west. In the number twelve we have both combined, so in the twelvefold testimony we have all in heaven combined with all under the heaven, testifying to the fact that Jesus is the eternal Son of God.

Such a testimony refutes any assertion that He was the son of a man and demands the Virgin Birth as the only possible medium of His incarnation.

FOURTH REASON: [OMITTED]

FIFTH REASON: I BELIEVE IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH BECAUSE THE

SUPERNATURAL BLOOD OF CHRIST NECESSITATES HIS

SUPERNATURAL BIRTH

The whole emphasis of the Bible is on Redemption by the shedding of the Saviour's blood. From the shedding of blood in Eden's garden for the clothing of our fallen first parents, to the great throng of the Apocalypse who sing of the Blood of the Lamb, the Bible is a book of blood. The crimson from Immanuel's veins tinges every verse, every chapter and every book. With the indelible writing of God in the crimson letters of the blood of redemption, God's eternal law stands written across the whole volume. "Without shedding of blood is no remission." --Hebrews 9:22.

Where, however, among the sons of men can blood be found rich enough to pay the tremendous debt of sin, precious enough to satisfy divine justice, strong enough to cancel sin's appalling guilt, pure enough to usher in the reign of righteousness, overcoming enough to crush the devil and divine enough to redeem the elect of God?

God has made of one blood, we read, all the nations of the earth. By God's creation men's blood is one in composition. By sin's ruination, [sinful] men's blood is one in pollution. Through the veins of [sinning] humanity flows a poisoned bloodstream The life of the flesh is in the blood. The life of [sinning]

man is totally depraved, therefore his blood is but human depravity in solution.

Such blood calls for judgment rather than appeasement. its shedding can only bring God's wrath and not God's mercy.

Although this is true, yet wonder of wonders amongst the race of sinners and in the house of David, a house as much cursed with sin as that of any other human family, there has been opened up a fountain for sin and for all uncleanness.

.

What sacred fountain yonder springs

Up from the throne of God,

And all new covenant blessings brings?

'Tis Jesus' precious blood.

What mighty sum paid all my debt

When I a bondman stood,

And has my soul at freedom set?

'This Jesus' precious blood.

What stream is that which sweeps away

My sins just like a flood,

Nor lets one guilty blemish stay?

'This Jesus' precious blood.

What voice is that which speaks for me

In heaven's high court for good,

And from the curse has made me free?

'This Jesus' precious blood.

What theme, my soul, shall best employ

Thy harp before thy God,

And made all heaven to ring with joy?

'This Jesus' precious blood.

Commenting on 1 John 1:7, Bishop Westcott says, "Jesus His Son, the union in the one Person is clearly marked by the contrast 'Jesus' 'His Son.' Here the human name Jesus brings out the possibility of the communication of Christ's blood, and the divine name brings out the all-sufficing efficacy."

The blood of the Lord Jesus Christ has all the essentials necessary for the accomplishment of the great work of reconciliation. His Blood is innocent Blood as opposed to guilty blood. "I have betrayed innocent blood." --Matthew 27:4.

His Blood is precious Blood as opposed to corruptible blood. "With the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." --1

Peter 1:19.

His Blood is incorruptible Blood as opposed to corruptible blood. "Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things... But with the precious blood of Christ." --1

Peter 1:18-19.

His Blood is divine Blood as opposed to human blood. "The church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood." --Acts 20:28.

His Blood is supernatural Blood as opposed to natural blood. "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His Own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." --Hebrews 9:12.

His Blood is voluntarily-shed Blood as opposed to accidentally spilled blood. "No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of My Father." --John 10:18. "For this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." --Matthew 26:28.

His Blood is cleansing Blood as opposed to congealed blood. "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth [keeps on cleansing] us from all sin." --1 John 1:7.

His Blood is living Blood as opposed to lost blood. "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that Great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant." --Hebrews 13:20.

His Blood is peace-speaking Blood as opposed to enmity-arousing blood. "The blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel." -

-Hebrews 12:24.

His Blood is justifying Blood as opposed to the blood of judgment. "Being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." --Romans 5:9.

Christ's Blood could only have these great attributes if He was Virgin-born...

The supernatural blood necessitates the supernatural birth.

It is an established physiological fact that the mother's blood is neither the source nor supply of the blood in the unborn infant's veins. It is the contribution of the male which leads to the development of the blood. Without that vital contribution no blood could be produced because the female of herself does not produce the elements essential for the production of this new blood. Gray's Anatomy, a recognised medical authority, states: "The fetal and maternal blood currents do not intermingle, being separated from each other by the delicate walls of the villi."

Woman was so constructed that in the production of her child none of her blood would enter the veins of her offspring. This brings us back to Genesis and there we read: "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man." --Genesis 2:21-22. The word used in verse 22 for the making of the woman is literally "builded." God builded, or constructed, woman and she was constructed in such a manner that when she was producing a child, that child's blood would be a new creation and not formed by the mother's bloodstream. Why did God so build, or construct, the woman? Simply because He was anticipating the Virgin Birth and making ready the woman for the great incarnation of God in human flesh.

Satan used the woman as the instrument to ruin the race, but God who is always ahead of the devil, forestalled him and had already constructed the woman so that she would be the instrument to produce the Redeemer of the race. If the woman had not been constructed in this manner and the production of blood in the unborn infant not so ordered, than Christ's blood would have been common with the whole race and valueless to redeem. The Virgin Birth of Christ, which took place with no male contribution which would originate the infant's blood in the usual way, but by a supernatural act of God thus originating supernatural blood, is absolutely essential to the work of redemption. By such a birth and by such a birth alone could blood be produced-- precious, incorruptible, supernatural and divine, to redeem the fallen sons of Adam's accursed race.

As I view the almighty wisdom of God in the production of such blood the words of the angelic announcement of the Virgin Birth come with fresh authority to my heart. "For with God nothing shall be impossible." --Luke 1:37.

Dr. De Haan of the Radio Bible Class, in his great message "The Chemistry of the Blood" commenting on this tremendous truth, states:

"Not only is this a scientific fact, but it is plainly taught in Scripture that Jesus partook of human flesh without Adam's blood. In Hebrews 2:14 we read: 'Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same.' You will notice that the 'children', that is, the human children, are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then, speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He Himself likewise 'took part of the same.' The word 'took part' as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from 'partakers' as applied to the children. In the margin of my Bible, I read that the word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.' The Greek word for partakers in 'koynoncho' and means 'to share fully,' so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. When we read that Jesus 'took part of the same' the word is 'metecho' which means 'to take part but not all.' The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception."

I therefore believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ because His supernatural Blood necessitates His supernatural birth.

SIXTH REASON: I BELIEVE IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH BECAUSE THE

SUPERNATURAL RESURRECTION OF CHRIST COMPLEMENTS HIS

SUPERNATURAL BIRTH

In Romans 1:4 we read that our Lord Jesus Christ was "declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." He was not made the Son of God by the resurrection but the resurrection was a stupendous affirmation of what He already was. It was a declaration concerning His Person unparalleled in all history. Through it He was manifested as the Conqueror of Death, the Master of Satan and the Victor of the Tomb. The empty tomb with eloquence unequaled and logic unanswerable declares Him to be the Eternal son of the living God. If He had been merely the son of a man His body would long since have turned to dust but because He was the Son of God even Hid dead body was not mutilated by the fingers of corruption. God His Father would not suffer His flesh to see corruption.

Acts 2:31-- "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that His soul was not left in hell, neither His flesh did see corruption."

Now the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ is the best attested fact of history and has rightly been called the Gibraltar of all the Christian evidences.

Its truth has been impregnably established. This supernatural exit from the world of the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e., the resurrection, demands the supernatural entrance into the world of Christ, i.e., the Virgin Birth. The resurrection is the complement of the Virgin Birth and its logical outcome.

Christ's miraculous birth could only be complemented by Christ's miraculous resurrection and His resurrection could only be complemented by His Virgin Birth. Both are absolutely necessary and the one without the other is unthinkable.

Professor Warfield states:

"It is appropriate that this miraculous life should be set between the great marvels of the virgin birth and the resurrection and ascension These can appear strange only when the intervening life is looked upon as that of a merely human being, endowed, no doubt, not only with unusual qualities, but also with the unusual favour of God, yet after all nothing more than human and therefore presumably entering the world like other human beings, and at the end paying the universal debt of human nature. From the standpoint of the evangelical writers, and of the entirety of primitive Christianity, which looked upon Jesus not as a merely human being but as God Himself come into the world on a mission of mercy that involved the humiliation of a human life and death, it would be this assumed community with common humanity in mode of entrance into and exit from the earthly life which would seem strange and incredible. The entrance of the Lord of Glory into the world could not but be supernatural; His exit from the world after the work which He had undertaken had been performed, could not fail to bear the stamp of triumph. There is no reason for doubting the trust-worthiness of the narratives at these points, beyond the anti-supernaturalistic instinct which strives consciously to naturalize the whole evangelical narrative."

The New Testament's comments on two prophetic psalms link beautifully together the birth and the resurrection of our Lord. Hebrews 10:5-- "Wherefore when He cometh into the world, He saith, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared Me." Here we have the Divine Preparation of our Lord's Body which is nothing else than the Virgin Birth. Acts 2:27,31-- "Because Thou wilt not leave My soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption... He [David] seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that His soul was not left in hell, neither His flesh did see corruption." Here we have the Divine Preservation of the Lord's Body which is nothing else than the resurrection.

These two Scriptures also reveal the care of the Father for the body of our Lord. In our day the attack is spearheaded against this precious and holy temple in which our Lord has eternally taken up habitation. Those who impugn the Virgin Birth are seeking to make that holy and precious body an unholy and polluted piece of flesh. On the other hand the great battle of the day concerning Christ's reconciling work centres around His bodily resurrection, which the critics maintain did not take place. They are prepared to accept any doctrine of rising again but the New Testament doctrine of a Risen Christ Who declared: "Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself: handle Me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have." --Luke 24:39.

The object of their attacks in both cases is the supernaturally prepared and supernaturally preserved body of the Saviour.

The dynamic power of Christianity for almost two thousand years affirms the reality of the resurrection of Christ and by so doing establishes the only adequate complement of that resurrection, the Virgin Birth.

SEVENTH REASON: I BELIEVE IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH BECAUSE THE

SUPERNATURAL COMING AGAIN OF CHRIST WILL VINDICATE HIS

SUPERNATURAL BIRTH

The personal, visible and glorious coming again of the Lord Jesus Christ is the Blessed Hope of the Christian Church. This great hope that our Lord and Saviour is to return again is established by a fivefold testimony. Such a testimony cannot be broken.

1. The Return of Christ is Divinely Revealed

The New Testament Scriptures abound with references to this doctrine. It has been ascertained that in the two hundred and sixty chapters of the New Testament, there are no less than three hundred and eighteen references to it. No other subject is more fully expanded.

The testimony of Christ alone is sufficient to establish beyond question this most important truth. "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." -John 14:3. No words could be more convincing. He is gone and He is coming again.

2. The Return of Christ is Prophetically Declared

The Old Testament prophets whose predictions of Christ's first advent came so wonderfully true, also spoke of His second advent. The testimony of the prophetic Scriptures is conclusive that the King is coming back again. These prophetic Scriptures have been confirmed by many miraculous fulfillments and stand impregnable. Without doubt, as the references to Christ's first coming were all proved true so their references to Christ's second coming will also be gloriously vindicated. The first of the great line of Old Testament prophets, Enoch, proclaimed this truth. "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." --Jude 1:14-15.

With Peter we can say, "We have also a more sure Word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts." --2 Peter 1:19.

3. The return of Christ is Angelically Affirmed

When our Lord ascended to heaven the apostles were given a wonderful affirmation of this glorious truth. In Acts chapter one, verses ten and eleven we read, "Acts 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." Here is angelical affirmation of Christ's second advent. Just as a heavenly messenger affirmed to Mary His first coming, so heavenly messengers affirm His second coming.

Who would dare to challenge such a testimony or suggest that Luke's record is a fabrication?

4. The Return of the Lord is Apostolically Confirmed

The Apostles in their writings confirm the doctrine. Peter speaks of "appearing and revelation" of our Lord Jesus Christ. "That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ... Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ." --1 Peter 1:7,13. Paul says, "For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." --1 Thessalonians 4:16-17.

James exhorts to patience, "Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." --James 5:8. John declares, "Behold, He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him. Even so, Amen." --Revelation 1:7. In fact, every writer of the New Testament plainly confirms that "Unto them that look for Him [Christ] shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation." --Hebrews 9:28.

5. The Return of Christ is Believingly Anticipated

The fact that Christ is to return has been the source of inspiration of the true Church of Christ in all ages. If the Lord's second coming were the mere fiction of fallible man and not the mighty fact of the infallible revelation, how can the purifying inspiration of this doctrine be accounted for? When the Church really looked for Christ she really laboured for Christ. History invariably records that when the Church lost sight of this glorious truth she became corrupted, decadent and unworthy of her Lord, but when she was captivated with the thought that her Lord was coming for her, then the fires of evangelism burned within her bosom and she made her greatest advancements. Who can deny that modern evangelical foreign missions owe their origin and impetus to the recognition of the fact that"the coming of the Lord draweth nigh"?

.

Lo! He cometh! countless trumpets

Blow to raise the sleeping dead;

'Midst ten thousand saints and angels

See their great exalted Head.

Hallelujah!

Let the welcome summons spread!

Sow console our waiting spirit,

Hasten, Lord, the general doom!

And to dwell in heavenly mansions

Take Thy longing exiles home;

All creation

Travails, groans, and bids Thee come.

The Supernatural second coming of Christ will vindicate finally His supernatural Birth. That He is not a son of any man, but the Virgin born incarnate Son of God, could have no greater vindication than this stupendous event. "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." --Philippians 2:10-11. Perish the thought that the One Who is coming in the clouds, attended with angels and accompanied by all the glory of the eternal Father, is the mere product of fallen humanity. Who could seriously accept such a proposition? The birth by which

.

"Being's source begins to be,

And God Himself is born!"

must be supernatural.

No wonder those who deny His miraculous birth, also eventually discard His miraculous life, His miraculous birth, His miraculous resurrection and then finally His miraculous coming again.

The golden symmetry of the glorious gospel of the blessed God which presents the Christ of supernatural Life, supernatural Death, supernatural Resurrection and supernatural Return would be irreparably violated if that Christ was not supernaturally born.

Those of us who, however, have had a saving experience of the supernatural Christ know assuredly that He who receives us into His Kingdom by a miraculous birth was Himself, for our salvation, miraculously born and He who makes us sons of God is Himself the Son of God.

.

I do not know how Bethlehem's Babe

Could in the Godhead be;

I only know the manger Child

Has brought God's life to me.

The Virgin Birth will always remain a mystery, but its fact is eternally demonstrated in the Person it produced.

To reject the virgin-born Christ is to reject the only real Christ in favour of a christ of men's own vain imagination.

This humanitarian christ, a non-entity by birth, is powerless to save sinners.

To accept and preach him is to be a participator in the"strong delusion" and to believe "a lie."

2 Thessalonians 2:11-- "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

Such a christ is "another Jesus" which Paul warned against.

2 Corinthians 11:4 "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him."

To this false christ I owe no loyalty and give no allegiance.

The Christ to Whom I have sworn fealty is "my Lord and my God."

John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God."

Dearest of all the names above,

My Jesus, and my God,

Who can resist Thy heavenly love,

Or trifle with Thy blood?

'Tis by the merits of Thy death

The Father smiles again;

'Tis by Thine interceding breath

The Spirit dwells with men.

Till God in human flesh I see,

My thoughts no comfort find;

The Holy, Just, and Sacred Three

Are terrors to my mind.

But if Emmanuel's face appear,

My hope, my joy begins;

His name forbids my slavish fear,

His grace removes my sins.

While Jews on their own law rely,

And Greeks of wisdom boast,

I love the incarnate mystery,

And there I fix my trust.

Table of Contents

Start