THE K I N G ’S B U S I N E S S
11
Canon Randolph, in his little book “The Virgin Birth of Our Lord,” quotes Professor Zahn of Erlangen as say ing: "This (the Virgin-Birth) has been an element of the Creed as far as we can trace it back; and if Ignatius can be taken as a witness, of a Baptismal Creed springing from early Apostolic times, certainly in that Creed the name of the Virgin Mary already had its place.............We may fur ther assert that during the first four centuries of the Church, no teacher and no religious community which can be considered with any appearance of right as an heir of original Christianity, had any other notion of the beginning of the (human) life of Jesus of Nazareth. . . . The theory of an original Christianity without the belief in Jesus the Son of God, born of the Virgin, is a fiction.” r •In the third place, the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth is Natural, B ight and Congruous Jesus was unique. As Bushnell demonstrated long ago “His character forbids His possible classification with men.” That such a life should be as different in its origin and its end as it was in its spirit and principle and manifes tation throughout is more natural, right and congruous than that it should have had a naturalistic ending and be ginning. It was a supernatural life. I believe it harmon izes best with this fact about it that it also began and ended supernaturally. In the fourth place, the-work that Christ came to do and the place which He came to fill in humanity called for this unique and miraculous origin. It is sometimes said that the Virgin Birth is not essential to the Deity of our Lord. That depends on our conception of His Deity and of the saving work tht He came to do. But He was the Sav iour that He was and is, not only because of His char acter but also because of the whole fact of His being, which included the supernatural uniqueness of His origin and personality. Dr. Du Bose sets this forth convincingly in his great book on “The Soteriology of the New Testament.” The Bible nowhere declares that knowledge of the Virgin Birth of Christ is essential to salvation and there is much preaching of the Gospel in the New Testament which makes no mention of it. But this is true also of other facts in the life of our Lord. The Virgin Birth is not essential in this respect, but it is essential to the fulness of the Gospel. It is a fact which is part of the Gospel record and which is part of the whole meaning and sig nificance of the Gospel. It is as essential an element in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke as the accounts of the Sermon on the Mount in those same Gospels. If they are trustworthy in their account of Jesus’ teaching they are equally trustworthy in their representation of the con victions of their writers with regard to the manner of Jesus’ birth. Lastly, I believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ because the Alternative View is Intolerable. If the story of the Virgin Birth is not true then Jesus was the child of Joseph and Mary prior to their marriage, or of Mary and some unknown father. There is no evidence in support of such a view, except on the basis of a presupposi tion against the miracle of a supernatural birth. The only records which tell us anything at all of Jesus’s birth and infancy tell us that He was born of the Virgin Mary. If the records are not to be accepted in this particular there is no reason for accepting any other statement which they make, except the reason of our own subjective disposition. In that case we make the history to suit ourselves. Even so it suits some of us best to believe that the whole wonder
ful life is most congruous and intelligible and true when ac cepted as supernatural from the first beginning to the last end. For many of ■'the same reasons, therefore, for believing in the Virgin Birth I believe also in the Resurrection. It is the natural and appropriate ending of such a life as Christ’s. As Godet says, “It is said: Such a fact would overthrow the laws of nature. But what if it were, on the contrary, the law of nature, when thoroughly understood, wjiich required this fact? Death is the wages of sin. If Jesus lived here be low as innocent and pure, if He lived in God and of God, as He Himself says in John 6:57, life must be the crown of this unique conqueror. No doubt He may have given Him self up voluntarily to death to fulfill the law which con demns sinful humanity; but might not this stroke of death, affeeting a nature perfectly sound, morally and physically, meet in its exceptional force capable of reacting victoriously against all the powers of dissolution? As necessarily as a life of sin ends in death, so necessarily does perfect holi ness end in life, and as sin ends in death, so necessarily does perfect holiness end in life, and consequently, (if there has been death), in the resurrection. Natural law, therefore, far from being contrary to this fact, is the thing which requires it.” In the second place, the gospel Evidence for the Resurrection is overwhelming. All four Evangelists assert that Jesus rose. Their testimony has been subjected to more severe examination than any other historic evidence on record and it stands unshaken. The only substantial case against it rests on the assumption that a miracle cannot happen and that no evidence can be supplied to prove a miracle. This assumption closes the case in advance. If we are not bound by such an assumption then the testimony of fered is convincing. In the third place, Paul affirms in the most unequivocal way his belief in the Resurrection. His writings are full of it. In many of his epistles he says nothing of the Cross but in almost every one he makes much of the Resurrec tion. Indeed he stakes everything on it. If Christ did not rise, he says, there is nothing to Christianity worth troubling about. Now Paul was no easy believer. He be gan with implacable hostility to Christianity. He took responsibility for open and merciless repression. And then he absolutely reversed his position, and he went over the world preaching the gospel of the Resurrction. What con vinced him, coitvinces me. In the fourth place, the Christian Sabbath offers its insti tutional witness. From the beginning it testified to the fact which had created the day and given it its significance. The Fourth of July is the strongest historic evidence we have of the Declaration of Independence. Such a tradition embodied in a continuing institutional observance unshaken through the centuries is the mos’t powerful witness we can conceive. What changed the Jewish Sabbath into the Christian for the Church? What but the fact which the Christian Sabbath commemorates and commemorated from the very beginning? Lastly, I believe in the Resurrection of Christ because it alone accounts for the resurrection of Christianity. When Jesus died Christianity died. Its leader and its life were gone. Then suddenly it rose. And it rose with far greater power than it possessed when Jesus was here. Here is a great effect to be accounted for. How can we account for it? The New Testament gives one adequate explanation. (Continued on Page 57)
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker