December 1927
T h e
K i n g ' s
B u s i n e s s
Is Belief In the Virgin Birth of Jesus Really Essential to the Christian Faith? There can be no question but that rejection of the Virgin ‘Birth, in the long run affects belief in His divinity and in the whole Christian creed, ,and this apart from the fact that it involves stigmatizing the fair name of Mary and making Jesus an illegitimate child. The right of infidels to make short work of His mirac ulous birth we do not question, because virgin births do not happen in human experience. (Neither do Christs happen.) When it comes to professed Christians elimi nating it, they fail to see that they are most illogical. They mean well. For the sake of doubters, they want to make the Christian creed easy to believe. But is it easy to believe even with that removed ? The natural mind cannot receive any of it' (1 Cor. 2:14). Furthermore, with the Virgin Birth gone you make belief for some all the harder, for if a man still tries to cling to the deity of Christ, sooner or later he will be up against the question, How did God become man? Just as great a miracle is neces sary, and a more unnatural one. Some of our critical preachers tell us that Mark and John and Paul do not mention the Virgin Birth, showing that they did not consider it fundamental. Why didn’t Mark record it? Mark professedly tells only of the pub lic ministry of Jesus. He touches nothing earlier than His baptism. Luke, however, aims to tell us “all things from the very first.” What of John? He shows from his first sentences that he was viewing Christ’s birth from heaven’s side, not earth. He tells us how the “Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Many scholars have pointed out that even John,, in 1 :13, is referring to the Virgin Birth, for it reads: “Believe on His Name, who was born not of blood,—but of God.” Then what of Paul ? He does not attempt to write the story of Christ. But here’s a strange thing: Why did the early church refer to Luke’s Gospel as Paul’s Gos pel ? Luke was Paul’s close companion and disciple. At the very time the “beloved physician” was traveling with Paul, he carried two manuscripts—notes on the life of Paul to be later put out as Acts of the Apostles, and his work on the life of Jesus. Early fathers tell us that it was Paul who chose Luke to write the Gospel story. Irenaeus says: “Luke put down in a book the Gospel preached by.Paul.” Tertullian says: “Luke’s digest was ascribed to Paul.” Remarkable facts! Luke is the one who gives most prominence to the Virgin Birth. Didn’t Paul believe in it? He implies it when he says, “God was manifest in the flesh.” As to how He was manifested Paul did not need to tell the early church in his letters. The Virgin Birth was given a prominent place in the ear liest creeds of the infant church. “ These Signs Shall Follow” “These signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall tay hands on the sick, and they shall recover” (Mark 16: 16-18).
Do these words mean that mirac ulous powers were to be the age-long heritage of true believers? It should be remembered that Christianity, at the time these words were written, was going forth alone in the hands of a few humble workmen to grapple with hoary systems which then held empire over the world. They were faced with a seemingly impossible task. What gave the Gospel its start ?, Heb. 2:3-4 declares that the Gospel “at the first began to be spoken by the Lord and was confirmed unto us by them that heard them; God also bearing witness with signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Ghost according to His own, will.” The first Gospel messenger evidently did take up rep tiles (Acts 28:1-6). Church history tells of a fatal poison prepared for John which he drank without harmful effect. They did heal the sick (Acts 3:1-9; 9:33-35; 14:8-11). They even raised the dead. We do not see, however, that these “signs” were to be understood of every believer and of all times alike. Mir acles were necessary until the Church had obtained its •footing and until the Gospel had been committed to a writ ten revelation. We must not, on the other hand, conclude that the power of miracles is altogether extinct. We cannot draw a line and say that miracles were possible only up to a certain date. God has wrought many a miracle in answer to the prayer of faith. However, we do not find miraculous “signs” every where in Bible history, but only at well-defined epochs. It was most natural that the advent of our Lord and the founding of His Church should be marked by an outburst of supernatural signs to convince men of the divine au thority of the mission of the apostles. Even in Paul’s day, healing was no longer universal (2 Tim. 4:20). Those who claim this passage in Mark’s Gospel as a commission to carry on a divine healing program in the church, should not separate the mention of healing from the other promises in the passage. We have never known a modern healer to take much interest in the portion refer ring to the taking up of serpents or the*drinking of deadly poison. Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that the apostles had power to raise the dead (Mt. 10:8), and if the powers given to them were to be continued, it is evi dent that no one has exercised this power since apostolic days. H I I I ■ The Strategical Point ^ ^‘Men ought always to pray, and not to faint.”' —Luke Dr. Andrew Murray says: “Prayer is the strategical point which Satan watches. If he can succeed in causing us to neglect prayer, he has won, for where communion between God and His people is broken, the true source of life and power is cut off; In how large a measure he has succeeded in causing the Church of Christ to neglect prayer, faithful, constant, prevailing prayer,! Prayerless- ness shows that we do not value communion with God.”
Made with FlippingBook Annual report