A (0:00)

Amid the rising darkness in the world, many people are searching for truth. But where will they turn for answers? Ligonier Ministries seeks to supply the global church with trusted Bible teaching, equipping Christians to fight the good fight of faith and to proclaim the truth boldly. Will you support this discipleship outreach with a Year End donation as we prayerfully strive for revival, renewal and reformation? Give today@ligonier.org support.

B (0:32)

When Joseph found out that Mary was going to have a baby, he was shocked.

A (0:37)

Joseph came to the same conclusion that you and I would come to if a woman came to us and told us that she was pregnant, he did not make any assumptions that this thing was caused through a virgin conception.

B (0:58)

Joseph loved Mary, so he planned to quietly put an end to their engagement to protect her from the inevitable shame and rejection that she would experience in their Jewish community. But an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph and pronounced the good news of the coming Messiah. Today, on this Christmas Eve edition of Renewing youg Mind, we continue RC Sproul series exploring God's plan for the Messiah through all of Scripture. And if you'd like to own this series, we'll unlock Lifetime Digital Access when you give a Year End donation in support of this daily discipleship podcast@renewingyourmind.org or when you use the link in the podcast show notes well, here's Dr. Sproul with a message titled A Virgin Shall Conceive.

A (1:50)

I doubt if there's anything more controversial about the New Testament record of the birth of Jesus than the claim of the New Testament writers that Jesus was born of a virgin. It's become almost a test case of orthodoxy, whether one affirms or denies the historical reality of the virgin birth of Jesus. I'm surprised. I don't know how many people I've met in my lifetime who say to me that they believe in the deity of Christ, they believe in the resurrection of Christ, they believe in the atonement of Christ, but they just can't get past the biblical affirmation of the virgin birth of Christ. And they have trouble with that one. And of course, 19th century liberal theology involved a wholesale rejection of all of those aspects of the biblical literature that would smack in any way of the supernatural. And criticisms were leveled, particularly at the New Testament concept of the virgin birth because it was deemed to be scientifically impossible and too similar in its orientation to ancient myths of gods and goddesses who had these strange births and so on. Now part of the discussion on that debate has focused on Matthew's claim to the virgin birth of Christ as Matthew points to a specific Old Testament prophecy which he says is fulfilled in the virgin birth of Christ. Let's look now for a moment at that controversial text of Matthew's gospel that we find in the first chapter of Matthew. Beginning at verse 18, Matthew writes these. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as after his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit, and she will bring forth a son. And you shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. So all this was done that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet saying, behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which is translated, God with us. Now we notice here in this text that Matthew cites the reference from the Old Testament prophet Isaiah that predicts or foretells the birth of a child to a virgin. We find that promise in the seventh chapter of the book of Isaiah. Isaiah, chapter seven, beginning at verse 13, reads as. Then he said, hear now, O house of David. Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Curds and honey he shall eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her and kings. Now there are several controversies that focus on this text. The first question is, to whom does Isaiah specifically refer when he announces the word of God that a virgin would conceive and bear a child? Some scholars believe that this reference was to a child that would be born to Isaiah himself and to his wife, or to somebody else who would be born later, but basically within that same general time span, at this time of crisis in Old Testament history. And some would argue if that is the case, then Matthew would be improper. And in his statement that this text was fulfilled much later on in history with the birth of Jesus from his mother, the Virgin Mary. Now, the arguments get very complicated and lengthy about the immediate reference to this virgin who will conceive and bear this child of which Isaiah speaks. But if I can cut the Gordian knot here for a moment, let me suggest to you a couple of alternatives. One is that Isaiah's text, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, had specific reference to one birth and one birth only, namely the future birth of Jesus of Nazareth, exactly as Matthew indicates. The other alternative, which is something that we have to grant as a possibility, is that there are other cases in the Old Testament where prophecies have a primary and secondary fulfillment, where they will have sort of a down payment of a fulfillment, a first fruits, as it were, of fulfillment in the near future, but its consummate fulfillment follows centuries and centuries later. That is not something that doesn't happen ever in Old Testament prophecy. So it's quite possible that this reference in Isaiah did have reference to somebody that would be born in the next 40 years and in a consummate sense to the future Redeemer who was born of a virgin. Now, the second part of the controversy is perhaps even more significant. And this controversy is called by a somewhat technical name. It's called the Alma A L M A batula B E T H U L A controversy. We have a controversy for everything in theology and biblical interpretation. But this controversy again goes back to the 19th century attack on the trustworthiness of Scripture with specific reference to those areas of Scripture that announce supernatural or miraculous events. What this controversy focuses on is some of the specifics found in the Hebrew language. In Hebrew, the term bethulah means specifically virgin one who is clinically free of any history of sexual intercourse. It is the specific technical term for virgin. The term Alma, as 19th century liberals were fond of claiming, can be interpreted by the phrase young woman and as such does not carry the necessary implication or the baggage of a virgin birth. But all that it means is that the promise is given that someday, either in the near future or later on in the future, a young woman would bear a child. And if that's the case, then there is no need to draw the conclusion of a supernatural birth concerning the birth of Jesus. Well, there are a couple of things I want to say in response to that. The first is this. Though it is true that the Hebrew term alma can mean and is used to refer to generally to a young woman, the phrase young woman doesn't quite capture the thrust of this word in Hebrew. In the English language, if we say that a girl is a young woman, that says nothing about the state of her virginity. All it does is tell us something, relatively speaking, about her age, namely that she's young and of course, her gender, that she's a woman. And particularly in today's culture, just because a woman is young does not carry the implication that she's a virgin. It may have in the Victorian age or other periods of history, but not today. But the point that Hebrew scholars have been making in this century about this word alma is that young woman is just too broad a translation, and perhaps a better English term would be a word that falls basically somewhere between the phrase young woman and the term virgin. And it's the word maiden. And this is a very tightly nuanced thing here. In classical English, particularly in Elizabethan English, the term maiden did not have the same force technically as the term maiden virgin. But neither did it have the same vague ambiguity in terms of one's sexual experience as does the phrase young woman. Historically, when a girl was described as a maiden, it strongly suggested virginity, even though it was not the technical term for virgin. And so more recent scholars have argued that the Hebrew word here doesn't necessarily mean virgin, but certainly implies that state of sexual innocence. Now, in some respects, this whole controversy over the specific references of the Hebrew words is a tempest in a teapot. Because when we look at Matthew's treatment of it, as well as Luke's description of the advent of Christ, there is no question that the text of the New Testament is claiming far more about the birth of Jesus than that he was born to a young woman. There clearly is the claim that the birth of Christ was a birth that took place miraculously, supernaturally, by means of a virgin birth. Let's look again at the context of Matthew's description. In Matthew's Gospel, the announcement that is made regarding the birth of Jesus says this. But the birth of Jesus was as follows. After his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph before they came together. Now, from a literary analysis, there's no question about what that phrase means. That means that before Joseph and Mary, though they were betrothed but not yet married, before they came together means before they were united sexually. So prior to that event, she was found of child. Now, that's not where it stops, but let us stop there for just a second. The first assertion is before they had sexual intercourse, Mary was discovered to be pregnant. Now, what was the inference that Joseph drew from that Joseph came to the same conclusion that you and I would come to if a woman came to us and told us that she was pregnant? He did not make any assumptions that this thing was caused through a virgin conception. He would automatically assume that she must have slept with somebody else. He knew that she hadn't slept with him. So there had to be some kind of sexual liaison somewhere, or else she wouldn't be pregnant. This is a causal argument because if there's anything that we hold to be a law of nature is that women don't become pregnant without being impregnated by a man, except for some extremely unusual things in modern medical technology. But historically, the assumption was usually a safe bet that if a woman was pregnant, that meant that she had had sexual intercourse. And that's the assumption Joseph made. And he didn't want to embarrass her. He wanted to put her away privately. But there are a couple of things here that we need to notice in the context. The first is that when Matthew announces that Mary was found with child, the sentence doesn't end there. She was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Now, so far we haven't had any citations from Isaiah, no references to Alma or Betholah, no even use of the word virgin. But before the term virgin even appears here in the text, the concept of it is already established because we're told two things already about her pregnancy. One was before she came together with Joseph, and two, that it was of the Holy Spirit. Now, somebody in their wild imaginations and distorted theology may read this to mean, well, this doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit generated the baby within her womb, but that she had had premarital or extramarital intercourse with another man that was permitted or sanctioned by the Holy Spirit. And that's all that means to say, that it was of the Holy Spirit? Well, that. Of course, that comes perilously close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit. But in any case, let's continue with the context. While Joseph was thinking about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary, your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. Again, the pronouncement is made that this is not what he feared, but that it was of God, and that it was God, the Holy Spirit, who brought that to pass. And then to buttress that, we're told that this was done so that it might be fulfilled what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet with respect to the citation from Isaiah 7 of the Virgin. Now, if there's still any ambiguity there, that ambiguity is removed in Luke's Gospel when in the first chapter of Luke we have the record of the angel Gabriel's announcement of the birth of Christ to Mary where we read now, in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph. The virgin's name was Mary. And the angel greets her, and so on. And Mary was troubled. And the angel said to her in verse 30 of chapter one, do not be afraid Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a son and shall call his name Jesus. Then in verse 34, Mary said to the angel, how can this be since I know not a man? Now she's saying, how is that possible? Not only have I not come together with Joseph, I haven't come together with anybody. They're using the term to know in the biblical sense of to have sexual intercourse with a man. Then the angel answered and said to her, the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the highest will overshadow you. Therefore that holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. And then finally in verse 37, for with God nothing will be impossible. So we see the context of the teaching screams the affirmation of virgin birth because it is regarded by Mary, it is regarded by Joseph as a blatant impossibility. Which impossibility is made possible by the creative generating power of God, the Holy Spirit. Then the same language that is used in the book of Genesis that describes creation, where the Holy Spirit hovers over the water and brings forth life. So it is that language that is described here by the angel when he says the Holy Spirit will come upon you and overshadow you so that the thing that is born in you will be called holy. So from the Old Testament to the New Testament, there is agreement that Christ's birth would come to pass miraculously and supernaturally through the creative power of God.