 |
| The Nativity, Scrovegni Chapel by Giotto. (Wikipedia) |
Pray & Read:
Luke 1:34-38
Key Truth: Luke
wrote Luke 1:34-38 to teach believers that the Virgin Birth happened without the agency of a
man, was free of the corruption of sin, established Christ’s Davidic ancestry,
his identity as the Last Adam and the last heir to David’s throne.
Key Application: Today I
want to show you what God’s Word says about the Virgin Birth.
Sermon Points:
WHAT THE VIRGIN BIRTH
WAS (Luke 1:34-38)
1. Jesus’
conception had no man involved (Luke 1:35a)
2. Jesus’
conception had no corruption involved (Luke 1:35b)
3. Jesus’
conception overcame the impossible (Luke 1:36-38)
Exposition:
1.
JESUS’ CONCEPTION HAD NO MAN
INVOLVED (Luke 1:35a).
a.
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest
will overshadow you;”
b. “Holy Spirit will overshadow you” v.
35: Jewish term to describe the presence of God. Reference to prayer shawl over
couple who get married. Greek: “come upon” used in LXX in Isaiah 32:15 HS come
upon land to make it fertile; Exodus 40:35 ref to Shekinah presence
overshadowing tabernacle in cloud (Num 10:34); Ruth’s desire for Boaz to spread
his garment over her (Ruth 3:9); Transfiguration (Luke 9:34).
i. Exodus 40:35: 35 Moses could not enter
the Tent of Meeting because the cloud had settled upon it, and the glory of the
LORD filled the tabernacle. Numbers 10:34: 34 The cloud of
the LORD was over them by day when they set out from the camp. Ruth 3:9:
9 "Who are you?" he asked. "I am your servant
Ruth," she said. "Spread the corner of your garment over me, since
you are a kinsman-redeemer." Luke 9:34: 34While he was
speaking, a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and they were afraid as they
entered the cloud.
c. Validity
of Virgin Birth is often assailed, usually along three lines:
i. Textual— it is alleged that NT references
to virgin birth were not in original text and added later to somehow elevate
the birth and person of Christ. Not supported by a scrap of evidence, neither
in the texts we have nor in later transmissions of texts. In no place on the
virgin birth can an editorial addition be substantiated.
ii. Historical – It is denied that early church
believed in it, even if Matthew and Luke teach it. While no other NT writers mention it, neither MK nor Paul had reasons
to mention it. The considerable differences between Matthew and Luke
suggest that the belief in virgin birth went back to a period before either of
the two were written. How far back in the early church did belief in virgin
birth go? Luke wrote from Mary’s
viewpoint. Mary believed it b/c she
experienced it!
iii. Philosophical and scientific
– It is contrary to
laws of nature and impossible. A person’s attitude toward scientific
possibility of virgin birth will depend on general assumptions of revelation,
miracles, and the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. If we believe in the
deity of Christ and the miracles in Scripture, then we can agree that two of
our gospels teach the virgin birth.
d. A 1959 Christianity Today editorial
reads, “Many theologians, like Schleiermacher, have thought that they could
accept a supernatural work of God without the Virgin Birth. Many others have
tended to agree with Brunner that it is an unnecessary and inquisitive
biological intrusion. Many would argue that they can confess the true deity and
incarnation of Christ without it. Evangelicals often leave the impression that
it is a kind of embarrassment which they are prepared to accept because it is
in Scripture but which they do not find to be particularly significant or
meaningful.”[1]
e. Besides an attack on the inerrancy
of Scripture, which is serious enough, denials of the Virgin Birth are
dangerous for many other areas. “Denial of the Virgin Birth almost invariably
accompanies, or is accompanied by, a more basic theological defection in which
the divine initiative, the inadequacy of man, the reality of original sin, the
miraculous nature of regeneration, the primacy of the Word of God, and the
importance of the faith which it brings are either abandoned in whole or part
or drastically reinterpreted. . . . In itself the abandonment of the Scriptural
testimony may seem to many to be of little account. But quite apart from the
serious impugning of the written Word, it is a conditioning and resultant sign
of more widespread abandonment of evangelical doctrine. For the Virgin Birth
itself carries by implication the sum and substance of the gospel.”[2]
f.
The unique feature of Jesus’ conception was
that it was supernatural, not of human generation. There is no magic here or
fantasy or mere legend. This is fact. Mary did not conceive by way of a man
(Matthew 1:18, 25). Mary conceived by way of the Holy Spirit who fathered
Jesus’ humanity (Matt 1:20; Luke 1:35). Jesus’ prenatal development within Mary
and birth were natural processes (Luke 1:57; 2:7), but his conception was
radically different. The Holy Spirit produced of Mary’s substance a complete
human nature, consisting of body, soul, and spirit (Matt 26:12, 38; 27:50).
Thus God the Holy Spirit was the father of Jesus’ human nature.
g.
Jesus’
personhood did not begin at conception, for Jesus’ person and divine nature
existed from eternity (Micah 5:2; Gal. 4:4; John 1:1; 8:42). Jesus did not
acquire another personhood so that he was a combination of two persons, one
divine and one human. Rather, he acquired at conception a human nature, so that
they were united in Him, one Person, the nature of God and the nature of man.
This acquisition made him the God-Man. This is why the angel says in 1:35 that
which was conceived in Mary’s womb was “that Holy One/thing.” The gender is
neuter, indicating that Mary gave Jesus only his human nature, not his
personhood and his divine nature.
h. Mary bore a human male child who was
already the Second Person of the Trinity. She was not the mother of God.
i.
APPLICATION:
“Just
as Our Lord came into human history from outside, so He must come into me from
outside. Have I allowed my personal human life to become a
"Bethlehem" for the Son of God? I cannot enter into the realm of the
Kingdom of God unless I am born from above by a birth totally unlike natural
birth. "Ye must be born again." This is not a command, it is a
foundation fact. The characteristic of the new birth is that I yield myself so
completely to God that Christ is formed in me. Immediately Christ is formed in
me, His nature begins to work through me.[3]
j.
Have you done that? Have you yielded yourself to Christ? If you
have, then FEAR NOT! If you haven’t, then you should have great
fear for your eternal destiny. Right now is a good time to give your life to Christ.
2.
JESUS’ CONCEPTION HAD NO CORRUPTION
INVOLVED (LUKE 1:35b).
a. “that
Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.”
b.
A sinner cannot pay the sin debt for another.
He has his own sin debt which he cannot pay himself. Jesus’ conception
preserved his sinlessness, qualifying him to make atonement for the sins of the
whole world (Heb 2:9; 7:26-27).
c.
Jesus’
unique conception prevented his receiving from a human parent the inherent
corruption of sin (1:35) and from the father the imputed, federal guilt of
Adam’s initial sin (Rom 5:12-19; Gen 5:3; 1 Cor 15:22).
d.
Being
absolutely sinless (1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5), Jesus was able to pay for us our
terrible debt burden of sin (Rom 5:8; 1 Peter 2:24; Heb 9:26; 1 John 2:2).
e.
ILLUSTRATION: “No, the point is that though the Son
of Mary as such stands in solidarity with sinners, his real birth is directly
from God, so that unlike all others he is not himself a sinner, but has come to
bear their sin in God's own work of salvation. A man born in the normal way
could have been one with sinners, but he could not have been the sinless
sin-bearer. The sinless sin-bearer comes into the world in such a way that he
is also one with man, yet there is a decisive break with the old humanity as
well as continuity with it. He is not sinful man accomplishing in a more worthy
representative his own salvation. He is the second man, the Lord from heaven,
the Son of Man who is also the Son of God incarnate for us men and for our
salvation.”[4]
3.
JESUS’ CONCEPTION OVERCAME THE
IMPOSSIBLE (Luke 1:36-38)
a.
Luke 1:37 – Nothing is impossible with God: What is harder? For an old woman to
give birth? Or for a virgin to give birth? Elizabeth is too old to give birth.
Mary, just entering her teens, betrothed yet not wed, is too young. God takes
the impossible and the unlikely and uses them extraordinarily. (Matt. 19:26).
Mary’s miracle is intended to be greater and to surpass Elizabeth’s, because
Jesus is greater than John. Note the similarity to Sarah, too impossibly old to
bear a child (Gen 18:13-14). Mary has more faith that God will birth a child
through a virgin than Sarah did through an old woman (Gen 18:12-15).
b.
APPLICATION: The Virgin Birth is an historical
fact and is a non-negotiable in our faith. Jesus’ conception was without the
agency of a man (Luke 1:35a), and was free of sins corruption (Luke 1:35b), but
he was a fully human descendant and heir of David (Luke 1:27, 32-33) and the
Last Adam (Luke 1:31) yet without the imputed, federal guilt of Adam’s initial
sin (Rom 5:12-19; Gen 5:3; 1 Cor 15:22).
c.
Luke 1:38 – I am the Lord’s servant
– Notice what Mary
did not say. She did NOT say: “How shall I explain this to Joseph?” Not: “How will this affect my reputation?”
Not: “You mean I’ll be pregnant and unmarried?”
No – May gave a humble answer. Mary expresses her humility in the OT
terms of submission (Hannah- Hannah uses this same phrase (1 Sam 1:11, 18; Abigail
submitted to David - 25:41; 2 Sam 9:6, 11; 2 Kings 4:2; David- 2 Sam 7:25). Being
the servant of God is significant. The first servant was Abraham “my servant”
who is an example of belief to whom Luke refers much in his gospel and Acts,
then Moses “my servant”, but Moses did not enter the land because of unbelief.
d.
APPLICATION: Humility and willingness are the
qualifiers for being used by God, not education, talent, or gifts. John Maxwell: “Your gifts and talents can
take you where your character cannot keep you.”
e.
Note
that in contrast to Bathsheba the adulteress from whom David bore Solomon the
greatest king of Israel, this humble servant Mary would bear the son and Lord
of David, the greatest King of all.
f.
David’s
firstborn son from Bathsheba died as punishment for the bloodguilt of David’s
murder of the loyal Uriah, but the firstborn, virgin-born Son of David would
die to remove the punishment for the bloodguilt of an entirely disloyal world.
g.
So – did Jesus have Mary’s DNA, her
genetic data? The
short answer is yes, he did. There are two reasons. The more important one is
Scriptural. One is scientific. He had to in order to fulfill Genesis 3:15: “And
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring (seed)
and her Offspring (seed); He will bruise and tread your head underfoot, and you
will lie in wait and bruise His heel.” Paul explains in Galatians 3:16, “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed.
He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And
to your seed,’ that is, Christ.” Galatians 4:4 “But when the proper time
had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born subject to the
regulations of the Law.”
h.
The
second reason is simply speculative science, because God is sovereign and can
do whatever he wants. We do know from the field of medicine the natural
processes involved in fertilization cause the father’s mitochondrial DNA never
to be passed on to his children. Mitochondrial DNA is passed only through
the female from one generation to the next. Mitochondria the body to
aerobically respire and without mitochondria, human tissue would be unable to
sustain its metabolic pathway – without the mother’s mitochondria, the new
person’s tissue would produce so much heat that it would boil.[5]
Unless the Lord overruled this process then, Jesus carried
Holy-Spirit-overshadowed, human mitochondrial DNA – what the theologians call human nature – from his mother.
i.
APPLICATION: FEAR NOT! Because Christ’s conception
was free from the corruption of sin, you can be confident in your salvation and
eternal security.
Invitation:
[1] Christianity
Today editorial, December 13, 2007, reprinted from December 7, 1959, http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2007/decemberweb-only/150-42.0.html.
[2] Christianity
Today editorial,
December 13, 2007, reprinted from December 7, 1959, http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2007/decemberweb-only/150-42.0.html.
[3] Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, December 25.
[4] Christianity
Today editorial,
December 13, 2007, reprinted from December 7, 1959, http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2007/decemberweb-only/150-42.0.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment