Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Isa 7:14).Have you ever asked yourself "Why"? Why did God plan to have His Son born of a virgin? I mean, He could have had Him born by Joseph and Mary. He could have had Jesus simply appear on the scene. He could have done other things. Why a virgin birth?
Consider this. Remember that the goal of Jesus's Incarnation was to provide a sacrifice suitable to save us from our sin. Consider also that the requirement of such a sacrifice would first be that it comes from a sinless man. If Jesus had sin, He would have had to sacrifice for Himself (Heb 7:26-27). The first characteristic, then, had to be that the sacrifice had to be sinless -- "without blemish".
Well, if Jesus had merely appeared on the scene like some angels had at various times, He certainly could have been sinless. So why not that? Well, remember that the sacrifice had to come from a sinless man. Other sacrifices had been "tried" (so to speak). Goats, sheep, even vegetable products. They were temporary and insufficient. The problem with other sacrifices is that they only pointed to the solution. The solution to sin is singular: death. And the one doing the dying is supposed to be the one doing the sinning. Animals and plants are out. And so is any non-human ... including an angelic or divine being. The sacrifice, in order to be effective for humans, had to be human.
Okay, okay, so He had to be human. But why not just make a natural-born human (say, through Joseph and Mary) be sinless? Well, there are a couple of problems there. First, according to Paul, "sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin" (Rom 5:12). If you are in the line of Adam, you are in the line of sin. The sin nature, then, is inherited from the father. And while Jesus's mother was Mary (making Him human), His father was the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:23). This meant that Jesus did not have the sin nature (as in Eph 2:3 -- "by nature children of wrath") and He was human.
I said, however, that there were a couple of problems with a natural-born human birth. Besides requiring a lack of a sin nature, there was one more requirement for this sacrifice for it to serve its intended purpose. Remember, the purpose of Jesus's Incarnation -- His birth, life, death, and resurrection -- was to provide a sacrifice suitable to save us from our sin. Note the plural in that statement. It was not to provide a sacrifice suitable to save one. It was to save us -- plural. Now, perhaps you don't yet see the problem. You see, if one person sins and a sinless man offers to pay for that sin on his own, you have payment ... for one person. The payment of one man would only cover one man. But God's aim was to cover many. Thus, this sacrifice must be God and Man. It would have to be human in its nature to match the sinners who were being saved. But it would have to be divine in its nature in order to cover more than one sinner. Thus, Christ had to be born of a virgin (without human father) in order to 1) be human Himself, 2) avoid the sin nature that humans carry, and 3) be God in the flesh for the sacrifice to reach far enough.
The Virgin Birth is one of those things these days. Was Jesus actually God? Well, that's just a tough one. Satan? Not so popular. Maybe he doesn't exist at all. The inerrancy of the Bible? Not really likely. The Virgin Birth? Well, since we haven't seen it lately and since science doesn't support it, that, too, is probably a myth. But, look, that doesn't mean we don't believe. We believe well enough. It's just that this sort of thing -- God-Man, virgin births, demonic enemies, that sort of thing -- well, it just doesn't fly in today's scientific world. So if it's not necessary, why make it a stumblingblock? And the answer, as you see, is that it is necessary. It is, indeed, vital. Jesus had to be born of a virgin (over against those who deny the Virgin Birth), had to be human (over against those who deny His humanity), and had to be God (over against those who deny His deity), or none of it matters at all. These are essential -- part of the essence of Christianity. As is the inerrancy of Scripture, the existence of Satan, and all that other "myth" stuff so many seem to be willing to dismiss these days.
So this Christmas as you're enjoying Nativity displays or reading Christmas cards with Mary and Joseph and the Babe on their cover or you're just thinking about the story as written, remember that it was no trivial thing that Jesus was born of a virgin. Remember the care God put into arranging it all. Remember the gift He gave of both God and Man, His own precious Son, in order to save us from our sin. Our sin is no small matter. His was no small gift.
18 comments:
Jesus had to be born of a virgin (over against those who deny the Virgin Birth), had to be human (over against those who deny His humanity), and had to be God (over against those who deny His deity), or none of it matters at all.
Why?
Why couldn't God (who IS God, after all), be born of a human father and mother and still not have a sin nature? Was that beyond God's ability?
I don't disagree with you that Mary was a virgin, that Jesus was both God and human, I just don't see why you think it HAD to be that way.
Don't you think that God, if God was so inclined, could have redeemed the world through a a kangaroo? Or an advanced case of pneumonia?
Why do you think God is limited in this way and on what basis do you say it MUST be that way or "none of it would matter..."?
Just curious. I won't respond with a follow up comment - I have no time - I am just curious.
Why? Apparently you didn't read the post because I explained it all. But, of course, the primary reason is the singular reason that you reject out of hand -- justice. Redeemed through a kangaroo? If you're asking about the power of God, feel free to chase that rabbit trail (or kangaroo trail in this case). The problem of sin is a problem of justice. Our salvation had to both provide for our salvation and satisfy justice. Pneumonia isn't the answer. But justice isn't a problem for you, if I recall. God can be fully gracious and merciful without any obligation to be just, so the cross was more of a symbol than a just act of a merciful God.
And then I see this from STR. Come on! Tell me they're not stealing from my blog! Okay, maybe not. But I'm not the only one saying this stuff.
So, Dan T, if you wonder why the Virgin Birth is necessary (even after Stan answered that very question in his post), I must ask, why is it unnecessary? If the Virgin Birth wasn't necessary, why bother? I mean, He put Mary and Joseph through a LOT of problems with it. I'm sure Jesus wasn't looked upon favorably as a bastard son by His community. If it wasn't necessary, or the best way to do it, wouldn't have God chosen a different way? The fact that it happened the way it did kind of says it was necessary, but you go ahead and question God.
I have just a minute and I think you're missing the point of my question so I'll re-state it:
So, God could not be born of a prostitute, say, and STILL been a just God, that is the answer?
But WHY?
Are you suggesting that there is something magical about a virgin birth that allows for justice to happen that could not happen without a virgin birth?
Put another way: HOW does a virgin birth of God resolve (or help to resolve) the "sin problem..."?
David...
The fact that it happened the way it did kind of says it was necessary, but you go ahead and question God.
I'm not questioning God, David. In case you missed it, my question was directed to Stan. GOD has not told me that it HAD to be a virgin birth or none of it would matter, Stan told me that. So, I'm asking Stan.
Let me try this question another way...
You appear to be suggesting that God HAD to be born of a virgin woman because to have had a God-spawned birth through a married woman who'd had previously had sex with her husband would "taint" the resulting offspring, making THAT God-child less than perfect, is that what you're getting at?
If so, HOW does using a woman who'd previously had sex with her husband make the God-baby "tainted" or less than perfect for a blood sacrifice?
Is it the contact with a woman who'd already had sexual contact with her husband, that process somehow makes the baby less holy? If so, why? (Also, if so, what does that say about your views of sexuality, that it's somehow "dirty," even in the context of marriage?)
Or is just too much contact with humanity - a baby born from a 14 year old (or however old Mary was) virgin a contact that is less "tainted" with humanity?
If that's the case, then why not have a miraculous birth via a five year old virgin, who'd presumably be even less-tainted?
OR, as in my original query, why not have the God-child be spawn via a kangaroo mother, resulting in a sentient, holy, ENTIRELY untainted by humanity Kangaroo God Child? Wouldn't that remove ALL taint of being touched by a human?
What I'm not getting is this seemingly whimsical insistance upon the Christ-child HAVING to be born of a virgin girl in order to accomplish God's goal, presumably of a "perfect human/God blood sacrifice" in order to accomplish God's need for punishment for humanity's sin before God could, in grace, redeem us.
Does the Bible say (in your mind) anywhere that there was no other way but via a virgin girl birth?
As to the ridiculous suggestion that "justice isn't a problem for me," of course it is. But we're not saved by God's justice. We're saved by God's grace, right?
Had to be human.
Had to be God.
Had to be sinless.
Kangaroos are not human.
Husband/wife babies are not God.
According to the Bible, the sin nature is passed on through the father.
But you're right. God was just messing around. It didn't have to be as it happened. He could have made it normal, unmiraculous, acceptable to the masses. He didn't have to do what He did. He was just ... showing off.
He planned the virgin birth. He executed the virgin birth. In your mind, a kangaroo birth would have been just as good. Or the birth of a normal fahter/mother child. In my mind God did what had to be done because it had to be done. In your mind He was being capricious.
Your call.
(And, no, justice is not an issue for you. We've had that discussion before. You may choose to lie and deny it or you may have even forgotten or you may have changed your mind, but you made it quite clear before that the death of Christ was not substitutionary or penal and that justice was not in view. You made it clear that God can simply choose to ignore sin without meeting the demands of justice.)
Okay, so...
Had to be human.
Had to be God.
Had to be sinless.
Why? Who says?
And, despite your hostility in my direction and misunderstandings of my actual positions, I hope you and yours had a blessed Christmas day, my brother.
Dan Trabue: "Just curious. I won't respond with a follow up comment - I have no time - I am just curious."
So much for that one, eh?
Dan Trabue: "Why? Who says?"
Explained all that (with Scriptures included) in the post.
Understand that "hostility in my direction" would be your perception. It would be fed by your repeated follow up comments (read "arguments") with what I offered coupled with your apparent refusal to read what was written and your apparently ongoing "Stan is wrong on the Internet ... again!" position.
Your position on the subject of the Virgin Birth, apparently, would be "Yes, it happened, but it didn't have to. God did it without any real need or necessity."
I've made no follow up comments, I've just reposted my unanswered question in various forms trying to get an answer to the original question I was asking.
(Well, I DID answer a question of David's and I DID bid you a Merry Christmas, but that was the extent of my follow up comments. I'm just trying to get a handle on the WHY of your position which you state MUST be.)
So, it MUST be - says you - a MAN sacrifice because other sacrifices were offered (animal sacrifices), but they were not sufficient. However, a GOD-Animal sacrifice had not been made, so that would be different presumably than just an animal sacrifice, so I'm not sure that your "evidence" answers my question.
As to WHY a virgin mother, your answer in your post appears to be because a "natural born" human would be tainted with human sin nature, IS THAT YOUR POINT?
You seem to be suggesting a woman-God offspring would NOT be tainted with a sin nature, but a God-inspired woman-man offspring WOULD be, IS THAT RIGHT?
If I'm understanding that part aright, then WHY would the one (God-woman) offspring not be tainted but a God-inspired man-woman offspring be tainted? Are you saying that because God was involved with the woman-God spawning, it removed the taint of human nature in a way that God would be incapable of in a man-woman spawning?
I'm just not getting where or why you think it must be that one way.
It sounds a bit like you're saying, "This is the way it happened, therefore, it must be the ONLY way it COULD POSSIBLY have happened..." but I don't see the logical validity of that opinion. It happened that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but it didn't HAVE to be that one way - God could have chosen another city, right? Jesus was born of the line of David, but it didn't HAVE to be that way, right? It could have been another family line, couldn't it?
Am I not explaining my question well enough? I'm just not sure where you get the authority to say it HAD to be this way and this way only or else it all would have been for nothing and I'm trying to understand how you come to that conclusion, and do so authoritatively.
Says me. Yeah, that's it. That whole "biblical references" thing is my idea. I made it up. Pulled it out of a hat. It was my idea to get the references put into Hebrews about us having a high priest who can relate to our weaknesses, who experienced our temptations, who learned obedience through what He suffered. Clever, too, eh what? You'll not even notice that I snuck in several other verses to your Bible about the sin nature, the line of sin from Adam, all that clever "made up" stuff. No, no, I get it. If Stan says it, it's "hunch", "opinion", certainly not reality. And if God did it, it certainly wasn't from any sort of necessity or anything. I mean, why not have a kangaroo that could save us all? And why bother with a sacrifice at all?
I have to say, your God is a wasteful being who should never have been put in charge because, seriously, in this day and age, who really buys into that whole "virgin birth" thing. I mean, look, God, if Dan had been in charge he would have used something much less troublesome since it wasn't in the least necessary. You know, like a savior born of a kangaroo.
Yes, you're explaining your questions fine. I answered them in the post. Scripture. Not good enough. Fine. But asked and answered. So stop. Go find a blog whose author doesn't make you feel the need to argue with everything he says, even if you agree.
Stan...
Go find a blog whose author doesn't make you feel the need to argue with everything he says, even if you agree.
I'm not arguing. Since when is asking questions for clarification, "arguing..."?
Now, to be sure, I ask questions for I think good reasons...
1. Just to try to clarify your meaning, so I am not misunderstanding you. Thank you for clarifying that I understood you correctly.
2. Because I see what appears to be a hole in your argument and I wonder if you have a way of closing the hole with a reasonable explanation, or conversely, if you will back up and say, "maybe I spoke too strongly..." (neither of which appear to happen much here, for whatever reason).
And so, I repeat the as yet answered question:
If I'm understanding that part aright, then WHY would the one (God-woman) offspring not be tainted but a God-inspired man-woman offspring be tainted?
Are you saying that because God was involved with the woman-God spawning, it removed the taint of human nature in a way that God would be incapable of in a man-woman spawning?
IF SO, HOW? WHY?
What SPECIFICALLY makes you think that God is wholly incapable of arranging a human/God blood sacrifice without using a virgin?
What SPECIFIC evidence is there for that opinion?
3. I also ask because I hope it may help you to see that you appear to be speaking more of a voodoo-like religion involving magic blood and potions and spells and rituals, rather than a religion of reason and grace and love.
Post or not, I just make the points because your comments raise these questions for at least me and I thought you would be open to addressing some apparent holes in your reasoning.
I don't know, but all those questioned seemed to be answered in the post. He did start with the assumption that the reader have an understanding of sin nature, being passed from the father. He assumed the reader understood that sin requires a punishment. He explained that the animal sacrifice of the past was not sufficient to pay for sin (which only covered it which is why is was a constant task per person) where as Christ was a once and for all payment. He explained all of this using Scripture. But no, Dan refuses to be bothered with reading a full post, and apparently doesn't agree with Scripture that the sin nature is passed from the father, as indicated by Adam. Because of Adam, we all die, because of Christ, we can love. How is this a hard concept.
Let's see if I can answer your questions simply by referring to what I've already answered.
Dan Trabue: "If I'm understanding that part aright, then WHY would the one (God-woman) offspring not be tainted but a God-inspired man-woman offspring be tainted?"
Stan: "According to the Bible, the sin nature is passed on through the father."
Dan Trabue: "What SPECIFICALLY makes you think that God is wholly incapable of arranging a human/God blood sacrifice without using a virgin?"
Stan: "He planned the virgin birth. He executed the virgin birth."
Dan Trabue: "What SPECIFIC evidence is there for that opinion?"
Stan: "Scripture."
Dan Trabue: "you appear to be speaking more of a voodoo-like religion"
Stan: "your God is a wasteful being who should never have been put in charge because, seriously, in this day and age, who really buys into that whole 'virgin birth' thing. I mean, look, God, if Dan had been in charge he would have used something much less troublesome since it wasn't in the least necessary. You know, like a savior born of a kangaroo. ... (And, no, justice is not an issue for you. We've had that discussion before. You may choose to lie and deny it or you may have even forgotten or you may have changed your mind, but you made it quite clear before that the death of Christ was not substitutionary or penal and that justice was not in view. You made it clear that God can simply choose to ignore sin without meeting the demands of justice.)"
Amazing. Answered all of them by cutting and pasting what I've already said. I appear to be reading what you ask and what I say. You don't appear to be doing the same. This is why people who have these conversations with you wonder why you keep complaining "No one is answering my questions!" when your questions are repeatedly answered without you acknowledging the answers.
Just in case it isn't clear to you what you're missing...
Dan Trabue: "What SPECIFICALLY makes you think that God is wholly incapable of arranging a human/God blood sacrifice without using a virgin?"
Stan: "He planned the virgin birth. He executed the virgin birth."
That answer does not go with the question asked. God "planned" (in your way of thinking - if I'm not mistaken) the Holocaust. It does not follow that the Holocaust "HAD" to happen or "none of it would matter..."
That something happens in the Bible is not evidence that it was necessary for God's will to happen or for salvation to happen.
But if you aren't seeing the hole in your reasoning still, I'll just let it go. It really was mostly just curiosity on my part. Well, that, and I think all of this points to a problem with your style of exegesis/eisegesis: You seem to think "If I think it, it must be and nothing else is possible..." and do so with no evidence at all to support it other than your opinion.
Just beware of that, as a suggestion.
Merry Christmas.
Dan Trabue: "That something happens in the Bible is not evidence that it was necessary for God's will to happen or for salvation to happen."
Thank you, Dan, for the perfectly circular stupidity. The post explained why it was necessary (and the post didn't say it was necessary because it happened). I gave the Scriptures. I gave the reasoning. I repeated it multiple times. And now you're circling the drain with "It does not follow that the Holocaust 'HAD' to happen or 'none of it would matter...'"
And I have a hole in my logic?
How is this a hard concept for you? If the sin nature is passed through the father, then Jesus would have to born not from a human father. The necessity of a virgin birth is to eschew obvuscation. If it can be doubted that Jesus was conceived by God, then His deity is in doubt. Stan explained that Jesus needed to be God because the sacrifice of a mere man, even sinless, is only capable of paying for one life. If Jesus wasn't born of God, Christianity is a farce and we are to be most pitied, in the words of Paul.
Dan asked: "What SPECIFICALLY makes you think that God is wholly incapable of arranging a human/God blood sacrifice without using a virgin?"
Perhaps I missed it despite repeated searches (always a possibility), but I don't believe Stan ever tried to make the case that God is in any way incapable of doing anything, much less altering the plan that was played out in Scripture.
Post a Comment