1. THE SCRIPTURES DISTINCTLY TEACH THAT HE HAD A HUMAN PARENTAGE:
THAT HE WAS BORN OF A WOMAN--THE VIRGIN MARY.
Matt. 1:18--"Mary ... was found with child of the Holy Ghost."
2-11--"The young child with Mary his mother." 12:47 --"Behold, thy
mother and thy brethren." 13:55--"Is not his mother called Mary?"
John 1:14--"The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." 2:1--"The
mother of Jesus was there." Acts 13:23--"Of this man's seed hath God
... raised ... ..Jesus." Rom.1:3--"Of the seed of David according
to the flesh." Gal. 4:4--"Made of a woman."
In thus being born of a woman Jesus Christ submitted to the conditions
of a human life and a human body; became humanity's son by a human
birth. Of the "seed of the woman," of the "seed of Abraham," and
of line and lineage of David, Jesus Christ is undeniably human.
We must not lose sight of the fact that there was something
supernatural surrounding the birth of the Christ. Matt. 1:18--"On
this wise," and Luke 1:35--"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." "On this wise" indicates that this birth was different
from those recorded before it. Luke 1:35 is explicit about the
matter. To assail the virgin birth is to assail the Virgin's life.
He was of "the seed of the woman," not of the man. (See Luke 1:34--"How
shall this be, seeing I know not a man?") No laws of heredity are
sufficient to account for His generation. By a creative act God
broke through the chain of human generation and brought into the
world a supernatural being.
The narrative of the virgin birth need not stagger us. The abundance
of historical evidence in its favor should lead to its acceptance.
All the manuscripts in all the ancient versions contain the record
of it. All the traditions of the early church recognize it. Mention
of it is made in the earliest of all the creeds: the Apostles'
Creed. If the doctrine of the virgin birth is rejected it must be
on purely subjective grounds. If one denies the possibility of
the supernatural in the experience of human life, it is, of course,
easy for him to deny this doctrine. To one who believes that
Jesus was human only it would seem comparatively easy to deny the
supernatural birth on purely subjective grounds. The preconceptions
of thinkers to a great degree determine their views. It would
seem that such a wonderful life as that lived by Christ, having as
it did such a wonderful finish in the resurrection and ascension,
might, indeed should, have a wonderful and extraordinary entrance
into the world. The fact that the virgin birth is attested by the
Scriptures, by tradition, by creeds, and that it is in perfect
harmony with all the other facts of that wonderful life should
be sufficient attestation of its truth. [Footnote: _"The Virgin
Birth,"_ by James Orr, D.D., deals fully and most ably with this
subject.]
It has been thought strange that if, as is claimed, the virgin
birth is so essential to the right understanding of the Christian
religion, that Mark, John, and Paul should say nothing about it.
But does such silence really exist? John says "the Word became
flesh"; while Paul speaks of "God manifest in the flesh." Says L.
F. Anderson: "This argument from silence is sufficiently met by
the considerations that Mark passes over thirty years of our Lord's
life in silence; that John presupposes the narratives of Matthew
and Luke; that Paul does not deal with the story of Jesus' life.
The facts were known at first only to Mary and Joseph; their very
nature involved reticence until Jesus was demonstrated to be the
Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead; meantime
the natural development of Jesus and His refusal to set up an
earthly kingdom have made the miraculous events of thirty years
ago seem to Mary like a wonderful dream; so only gradually the
marvelous tale of the mother of the Lord found its way into the
Gospel tradition and the creeds of the church, and into the innermost
hearts of the Christians of all countries."
2. HE GREW IN WISDOM AND STATURE AS OTHER HUMAN BEINGS DO. HE WAS
SUBJECT TO THE ORDINARY LAWS OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN BODY AND SOUL.
Luke 2:40, 52, 46--"And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit,
filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. And Jesus
increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.
And....they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the
doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions."
Just to what extent His sinless nature influenced His growth we may
not be able to say. It seems clear, however, from the Scriptures,
that we are to attribute Jesus' growth and advancement to the
training He received in a godly home; to the instruction given at
the synagogue and the temple; from His own personal study of the
Scriptures, and from His fellowship and communion with His Father.
Both the human and divine element entered into His training and
development, which were as real in the experience of Jesus as in
that of any other human being. We are told that "Jesus grew, and
increased in wisdom and stature." He "increased," i.e., He kept
advancing; He "grew," and the reflective form of the verb would
seem to indicate that His growth was due to His own efforts. From
all this it seems clear that Jesus received His training along the
lines of ordinary human progress--instruction, study, thought.
Nor should the fact that Christ possessed divine attributes, such
as omniscience and omnipotence, militate against a perfectly human
development. Could He not have possessed them and yet not have
used them? Self-emptying is not self-extinction. Is it incredible
to think that, although possessing these divine attributes, He
should have held them in subjection in order that the Holy Spirit
might have His part to play in that truly human, and yet divine,
life?