Truth Magazine

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Why was Jesus born of a virgin?

Reply: Skepticism and denial of the virgin birth of Jesus not only exist among the non-religious, but they also prevail within the religious circle. Modernism and infidelity have both infiltrated the pulpits of some religious bodies. Many people believe that Jesus was the greatest man who ever lived, even the greatest moralist and teacher, but they deny that He was born of a virgin, thus rejecting His deity.

According to the natural laws of procreation, conception occurs when the sperm of a man unites with the egg of a woman. This, however, was not the case with Jesus. He was born of a virgin. It was prophesied that He would be (Isa. 7:14), and the narratives of Matthew and Luke assert it (Matt. 1:18-23; Lk. 1:26-35). The virgin birth of Jesus was a supernatural event, a miracle, which those of us who believe that the Bible is the word of God accept by faith.

Why was Jesus born of a virgin? The pre-existence of our Lord necessitated a miraculous conception. The preexistence of Jesus is affirmed in John 1:1,2: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. ” The “Word” here is Logos (Gr.) and refers to Christ who is the Logos. This term (Logos) which applies only to Christ in this passage, also appears in 1 John 1:1 and in Revelation 19:13. Although logos may at times refer to speech (utterance of words), or to the divine mind of God (see Heb. 4:12), its use in the above passage applies to the person of Christ. In John 1:1,2, the word is used with reference to Christ in connection with His pre-existence with His Father. Other New Testament passages testify to the pre-existence of our Lord (2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15, 16; Eph. 1:4,10). While Jesus lived on earth, He affirmed that He was before Abraham (Jn. 8:58). He had lived eternally in union with His Father before His birth upon this earth.

When we entered this world by the natural laws of procreation, we became persons; we were newly created. But Jesus was already a person before His birth. This was true only of Jesus, but not true of us. The natural union of a man and woman cannot bring into the world a person who has existed before (even though some believe and teach the doctrine of reincarnation–rebirth in new bodies). Joseph and Mary could not bring the pre-existent Son of God into the world. His entering into the world had to be by divine intervention. The miraculous conception and virgin birth of Jesus was exactly how it was done. He became man to reveal Himself to man. Men could see God the Father in Him. In His discourse to the Jews, Jesus said, “If God were your father, ye would love me: for I came forth and am come from God; for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me” (Jn. 8:42). John declared of Him he came forth from God, and goeth to God” (Jn. 13:3).

The virgin birth of Jesus was unique. There was never anything like it before, nor has it been since. It explains how Jesus came to earth from God. The subsequent life, teaching and miracles of Jesus all attest to the fact that indeed He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and was born of a virgin.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, p. 549
September 20, 1984

By Tom Roberts

We live in a time when modern technology has provided us with the ability to do things quickly. We hear of instant coffee, tea, TV dinners, microwave ovens that cook in seconds, radios and televisions that turn on “instantly,” without waiting for the unit to warm up, computers that rapidly supply answers to difficult questions and many more such like. Consequently, Americans have become used to the concept that almost anything can be done quickly and effortlessly. Miracle drugs provide instant cures to many diseases and pills (white, red, blue, yellow or speckled) are available to relieve tension, slow down or speed up our lives. All of this reminds one of the postcard which contained the prayer, “0 Lord, please give me patience. And do it now.”

We need to be reminded that not everything can be accomplished in an instant. There are some things that require attention, other things that need to be savored and yet others that demand time and patience to accomplish a worthwhile goal. If we expect everything to be over and done in a “twinkling of an eye,” we will miss many a good thing while not really giving other things the attention they deserve.

Knowledge of the Bible is not an instant accomplishment. Have you seen a copy of the popular painting which shows an old, white-haired man sitting with his lamp and an open Bible? For that man, time stopped and he was completely absorbed in reading his Bible. Not many of us do that any more. While the apostles, through the baptism of the Holy Spirit, had instant knowledge (miraculous) of God’s will, none of us have that gift today. There is no substitute for reading the Scriptures, for taking a passage apart word by word, phrase by phrase, until we absorb the meaning that God gave it. How sad it is to teach a class of young people only to see them unable to read, with most of them skipping over words that are unfamiliar to them. When is the last time you took the time to look up a word when its meaning was unknown to you?

Robert Turner relates that a woman rushed up to him once and said, “I would give anything to have your knowledge of the Bible.” While I don’t remember his reply verbatim, he indicated that he simply did not believe the woman. Why? Because knowledge of the Bible is available to all Oust as it was to him) for the taking. Too many people are just not willing to take the time and effort to dig for the knowledge. If that woman (or anyone else) was really interested in learning, they can learn. Paul said, “Whereby, when ye read, ye- can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4). Not only can you know as much Bible as any living preacher today, you can know as much about it as Paul! But not instantly; not without study.

There are some things in life that must be savored to be appreciated. A good meal should not be gulped. Instead of nourishment and enjoyment, it will give you indigestion. So it is with many spiritual things. Our worship should not be pushed and shoved into a time frame that permits no deviation. So many miss visiting with the saints after worship because they must be first in line at the cafeteria. A sermon must not be too long (if one can determine just exactly how long one must be), a prayer should be short, the songs must not take up too much time, etc. We have become so clock-conscious that worship must be constricted and put into a corset of time lest it foul up our Sunday afternoon football (with instant replay). Consider instead, how uplifting it would be if our worship was set free from rigid adherence to the clock. (I realize that we must be practical in these matters or chaos would result.) Might we not just relax and sing one more song for the joy of the Lord’s Day? Might we not appreciate the Lord’s supper a little better? Is it possible the sermon might be understood a little clearer? Some things are worth extra effort or time.

Converting the lost requires a great deal. And many people are just not willing to make the sacrifice. To reach out to those that need the gospel means that we must turn off the TV, leave our family and spend time studying with those who do not know what we know. At times the ignorance of those outside of Christ is appalling; they don’t know the books of the Bible, the plan of salvation or how to worship God. In fact, the things they do know are often wrong. There is not a man or woman living that can spend five minutes with such people and impart to them what they need to know. The tragic thing about the situation is that most Christians are not any more willing to take the time to teach than the sinner is to take the time to learn. Stalemate.

Folks, let us not be guilty of putting the Lord on a stop watch. If we are truly to “put the kingdom of God first” (Mt. 6:33), other things will have to be farther down the list. If you can appreciate the differences between homemade yeast rolls (which have to be kneaded, allowed to rise, kneaded again, etc.) and pop-open rolls from the refrigerator case, you can understand what this lesson is all about. Some things are not better because they are quicker. Probably some people have not read this far in this article because they were too busy. If you did, you can understand the principle and be blessed by it.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, pp. 545, 569
September 20, 1984

By Paul K. Williams

On my recent trip to America I heard several favorable comments concerning brother Mike Willis’ editorial, “A Plea For More Tolerance” which appeared in the March I Guardian of Truth. A few I talked to indicated that this indicated a change in policy and attitude on the part of brother Willis.

Editors get their fair (and unfair) share of criticism. In this case, I would like to give evidence that the attitude of brother Willis on this subject (continuous cleansing of the blood of Christ) has been brotherly throughout. He has been practicing what he preached in that editorial.

In late October 19811 submitted an article entitled, “Who Can Discern His Errors?” I later reminded Mike about the article and in a letter dated May 27, 1982 we began a correspondence on the subject. At that time, he did not want to print my article without a lengthy rebuttal, and I merely wanted the article to contribute to the current discussion without entering into a debate. But throughout our correspondence, Mike repeatedly showed that he was not in any way regarding me as a false teacher.

Here are some quotes from his letters: “I certainly do not consider you an enemy of righteousness, although I disagree

with you on this passage. What I think is that both of us need to give very careful attention to this verse (Psa. 19:12) that we might use it correctly in our discussions with the grace-unity brethren” (27 May 1982). In the article of rebuttal he wrote: “Do not misunderstand me I am not charging brother Williams with accepting any of the tenets of the grace-unity movement.” On 3 August 1982 he wrote: “I appreciate your amicable disposition in our correspondence. I hope that I am being equally kind and gentle in replying.” (He was, by the way.) Finally on 28 October 1982 he wrote: “Brother Williams, I have pressed you on the matter of how you should act toward those who are guilty of sins of ignorance. I am fully aware that you and I act the same way toward them. I am charging that these are the necessary conclusions from your argument and not that they are your conduct. I know that you will repudiate the conclusion.” And finally, “I look forward to hearing from you again and pray that the Lord will continue to bless you and your work.”

The tolerance that Mike pled for in March 1984 is the tolerance which he has been practicing. It is the tolerance which I believe all Christians should be practicing. In this spirit brethren can discuss subjects of difference and the result will only be good.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, p. 532
September 6, 1984

By Ronny Milliner

What does fornication, murder, lying, abortion, adultery, instrumental music in worship to God, and church supported orphan homes have in common? There might be a number of things you might be able to think of, but one thing that these things have in common is an abuse of Matthew 12:1-8.

Individuals who believe that they can engage in the above practices have often used this passage of Scripture as a “proof text.” We want to examine their abuse and see exactly what is found in this passage.

Abuses By Modern False Teachers

Those who are familiar with situation ethics are probably aware of this passage being used to justify everything from murder to lying to fornication and more. Joseph Fletcher, author of Situation Ethics, wrote, “The plain fact is that love is an imperious law unto itself. It will not share its authority with any other laws, either natural or supernatural. Love is even capable of desecrating the Holy of Holies, the very tabernacle of the altar, if human hunger cries for help . . . . The periscope Matt. 12:1-8 . . . left no doubt about Jesus’ willingness to follow the radical decisions of love. He puts his stamp of approval on the translegality of David’s . . . act” (p. 85). Of course, Fletcher’s application is that anything could be permissible, depending on the situation in which one found himself.

An author associated with the Christian Church used this passage to ridicule our idea of the silence of the Scriptures. He wrote, “But this theory of . . . ‘law of prohibitive silence’ contradicts Jesus here, since God had not expressly stated anywhere that any others than priests could eat that bread and live, much less live and be justified by Jesus’ (sic). This is a case where not the letter but the real spirit behind the letter was observed in careful conformity to God’s intention and will” (Harold Fowler, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 610). If this argument be so, then there would be nothing wrong with playing instruments in worship to God. Plus, anything else that was not specifically prohibited would be permissible.

In an article entitled “The Exception-Making God,” brother Michael Hall writes, “The hunger of David and his men, the need of Jesus and His 12-member staff, the need of the physically maimed who sought to be healed on the Sabbath (Luke 13:11-17), etc., are all examples of human need that necessitated an exception to some rule . . . . God is flexible about His rules because he does care about men. That’s why the Bible is not a legal document, but a book of principles . . . everything is not as cut and dry as you might think!” (Ensign, January 1978, pp. 14,13). So the conclusion could be made that due to the physical needs of orphans, that we can set aside any rule that might be found in the Bible dealing with the matter in order to meet the needs of the orphans. In other words, the situation sets aside any law of God.

The Allegations Against The Disciples

The Pharisees accused the Lord’s disciples of breaking the Sabbath law. The violation as viewed by these Jews was in the act of the disciples’ plucking the heads of grain. The Pharisees would have called this action harvesting, thus work.

But were the disciples really breaking God’s law or were they just violating one of the many traditions of the Jewish fathers? The Law of Moses certainly prohibited harvesting on the Sabbath (Ex. 34:21). But that same law made a distinction between harvesting with a sickle and the simple plucking of a few heads of grain by hand (Deut. 23:25).

Actually, the Pharisees seem to have had the same problem that our Baptist friends have concerning the word “work.” When the Law commanded no “work” on the Sabbath, was all work or just some types of work forbidden? A study of the passages on the following chart shows that not all “work” was forbidden.

THE SABBATH COMMANDMENT

NOT PERMITTED	PERMITTED
1. Plowing and harvesting (Ex. 34; 21).	1. Holy convocation – worship to God (Lev. 23:3; Ezek. 46:3; Lk. 4:16-30.
2. Gathering sticks (Num. 15:32-36).	2. Afflict God’s punishment (Num. 15:32-36).
3. Kindling a home fire (Ex. 35:3).	3. Circumcision (Jn. 7:22-23).
4. Baking and boiling (Ex. 16:23).	4. Work of the Temple (Num. 28:9-10; Lev. 24:8; Mt. 12:5).
5. Treading, hauling and trading (Neh. 13:15-18).	5. Good works (Mt. 12:9-14).
WORKS OF PROFIT	WORKS OF GOD

Thus, the disciples had only violated the Pharisees’ interpretation of the Law, not the Law itself. The Pharisees should “not have condemned the guiltless” (Mt. 12:7).

The Arguments Of Jesus

In answering the charge of the Pharisees, Jesus uses five arguments. His first argument is the case of David eating the shewbread. The Pharisees would not have wanted to condemn their great king David. Jesus, in appealing to this situation, does not justify or condemn David. He simply appeals to these Jews on their own ground. R.C. Foster, in his Studies in the Life of Christ, comments, “it is the ‘argumentum ad hominem’ – the argument based upon that which the opponent accepts. The Jews did not criticize David for eating the shewbread under such trying circumstances, why critize the disciples when they were but breaking the Pharisees interpretation of the Sabbath law?” (p. 457).

Jesus’ second argument concerned the work of the priests in the Temple. They had a number of duties in the Temple. For example, they were to double the daily sacrifices on the Sabbath. Would the Pharisees’ condemn the priests as violating the Law? Jesus adds, “But I tell you, there is something greater than the temple here!” (Mt. 12:6, Williams Translation). The priests worked in the service of the Temple, but the apostles worked in the greater service of Christ.

Argument number three was based on Hosea 6:6, “For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” Actually this statement is a Hebraism called “the limited negative,” and could be translated, “I desire not only sacrifice but also mercy.” God was not saying He had no desire for sacrifices, for it was He who had commanded sacrifices. But He also commands mercy. The work of Jesus, and so the work of His apostles, was the work of mercy.

The fourth argument is found in Mark’s gospel of this account. Mark 2:27 reads, “And He said to them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” The Sabbath was not made to be a burden on man. It was designed to give man a time to get away from his physical labors. He would thus have time to reflect on things spiritual and engage in the works of God. The Pharisees did not have the proper understanding of the Sabbath.

Finally Jesus shows this question is a matter of authority and that He “is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mt. 12:8). J.W. McGarvey summarized this last argument when he wrote, “As Lord of the day Jesus had right to interpret it and to apply it, and to substitute the Lord’s day for it. In asserting his Lordship over it, Jesus takes the question outside the range of argument and brings it within the range of authority” (The Fourfold Gospel, p. 213).

Conclusion

If this view that the human need takes precedence over any law of God is correct, then there would be no need to suffer for Christ. Every martyr that died for His Lord died needlessly if this view is so. Another consequence of this doctrine is that the will of man would be above the will of God. What God stated could only be applied by the will and situation of man. Every one would have their own interpretation in their situation making the law of God meaningless.

Disobeying even so-called “ceremonial law” carried grave consequences. Ask Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1-2). Instead of teaching a setting aside of divine law, Jesus taught that even the least commandment must be obeyed (Mt. 5:17-20; 23:23). We leave these modem thinkers with this question: Would Jesus have been justified in obeying the Devil by turning stones into bread, because of the “human need” for food (Mt. 4:1-4)? We think not.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, pp. 527-528
September 6, 1984