Message Three: “…And Shall Call His Name Immanuel”

Celebrating the Coming of the Messiah – 2004 – “The Doctrine of the Virgin Birth”

TEXT: Isaiah 7:14 – Preaching: Pastor Stephen Magee – December 12^th, 19^th, and 24^th, 2004

Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign:

Behold, the virgin shall conceive

and bear a Son,

and shall call His name Immanuel….”

John 1:1-18 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was in the beginning with God. ³ All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. ⁴ In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. ⁵ And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. ⁶ There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. ⁷ This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. ⁸ He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. ⁹ That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. ¹⁰ He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. ¹¹ He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. ¹² But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: ¹³ who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. ¹⁴ And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. ¹⁵ John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.' " ¹⁶ And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. ¹⁷ For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. ¹⁸ No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

1. What are some of the objections to the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, and how do we answer these objections?

In Isaiah 7:14, the Old Testament prophet delivers a very mysterious and understated prophecy that would have to be fulfilled before the full wonder of it could be appreciated. The marvel of this passage is that God Himself would so work within the womb of a particular young woman, so that at just the right time, a Messiah would be given to us. This Messiah would not be the seed of a human father. He would be the seed of a woman and the Son of God. He would be Immanuel, which means Immanu – “with us,” El – “God.” God with us.

When that prophecy of Isaiah was recorded in Isaiah’s book, it was not recorded alone. Not only would Immanuel be conceived in the womb of a woman and be born of her (7:14), He also would be the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, and the Prince of Peace, who would reign on the throne of David forever and ever (9:6-7). He would further be the Rod that would come forth from the “stem of Jesse” David’s father, making Him simultaneously a descendant of King David, and yet somehow existing before David (11:1). He would also be the “Root of Jesse” that the Gentiles would one day seek (11:10). And, of course, He would be the Suffering Servant of the Lord (52:13-53:12) who would be “bruised for our iniquities,” and “stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.” He would bear “the sin of many.”

This is the Immanuel of tonight’s text, but some would suggest that He was not born of a virgin. Why do some reject the birth narratives of the Lord recorded in Matthew and Luke?

Some reject the virgin birth based on Isaiah 7:14. They contend that a right understanding of Isaiah 7:14 does not require the doctrine of the virgin birth. Their point misdirects our attention. Christians do not believe in the virgin birth because of Isaiah 7:14. We believe in the virgin birth because it is a doctrine that is so clearly taught in Matthew 1 and Luke 2. We would not even understand Isaiah 7:14 were it not for the truth that Matthew and Luke report to us.

Some reject the virgin birth because only Matthew and Luke mention it. This objection is only persuasive to those who have already dismissed the veracity of God. How many times does God have to say something before we agree with Him that it is true? Apparently two is not enough for some.

By the way, it is interesting that the New Testament reading that I chose for this evening is not from either Matthew or Luke. I chose the prologue to John’s gospel. John starts with an allusion to the opening words of the book of Genesis. “In the beginning,” John says, “was the Word.” This Word is the Son of God. John says that “the Word was with God” and that “the Word was God.” He also states that the Word “became flesh.” He is God of God and Light of Light. He is both God and with God. And, as a result of the incarnation prophesied in Isaiah 7:14, He is God with us.

Notice also the contrast that is made between the Word and the man that came before Him to bear witness to the Word. John the Baptist was a great man but He was not the Word. Who could the apostle be referring to in this astounding prologue except the One Immanuel who was born of the virgin?

The other gospel that does not give an account of the birth of Christ is the Gospel according to Mark. The best historical testimony tells us that Mark’s work was a record of Peter’s preaching. When Peter (and therefore Mark) told people the story of the Messiah, he apparently began with the public ministry of John the Baptist. Listen to the opening sentences of this great work.

Mark 1:1-11 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. ² As it is written in the Prophets: "Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You." ³ The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the LORD; Make His paths straight.' " ⁴ John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. ⁵ Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. ⁶ Now John was clothed with camel's hair and with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. ⁷ And he preached, saying, "There comes One after me who is mightier than I, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to stoop down and loose. ⁸ I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." ⁹ It came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. ¹⁰ And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove. ¹¹ Then a voice came from heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Mark’s gospel is the briefest account of the four gospels. Before the first chapter is over Jesus has cast out an unclean spirit (who incidentally identified Him as the “Holy One of God”). He has healed a woman sick with a fever, and then “healed many who were sick with various diseases.” At the end of Mark 4, His disciples are afraid because “even the wind and the sea obey Him.” Who is this Man who dies on the cross as a substitute for sinners? Who is this One who came to give His life as a ransom for many. Surely He is the Christ. Who is this worker of miracles who has the power of God in His voice? Surely He is the Immanuel of Isaiah 7:14.

Finally, some reject the virgin birth because they do not believe in miracles. Now we get to the real issue. The first two objections were not at all weighty. The real objection to the doctrine of the virgin birth comes from those who not only deny the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. They reject the entire theological and philosophical system of Christianity. They would prefer a Christian-lite, without the supernatural God who works miracles and who demands our obedience and allegiance.

At root, the historic controversy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ is part of a larger rejection of the miraculous and a rejection of the authority of God over man. It is a piece of a larger fight over the existence of a Sovereign Triune God presented to us in the Scriptures. The truth of the virgin birth is intimately united to a larger debate over the truth of the Bible and the truth of the Trinity.

Jesus Christ is the fully divine Son of God, just as the Holy Spirit is fully divine. Yet God is one. The word trinity does not appear in the Bible, yet as theologian Robert Reymond has said, “when we turn to the pages of the New Testament we find the doctrine of the Triune character of God everywhere assumed.” He goes on to cite 17 passages backing up this statement, and this is only a sample. Yet the same author (quoting Warfield) notes that while the Old Testament is clearly Trinitarian, it is like a room that is “richly furnished, but dimly lit.” Our passage from Isaiah is part of that rich furnishing, for the baby to be born would truly be “Immanuel,” the Son of a woman, but also the Son of God.

Reymond asks this question: How do we account for the fact that the Old Testament seems to be written “before” the revelation of the Trinity, while the New Testament seems to have been written “after” its revelation? The answer: (citing Warfield’s “Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity”) “the revelation itself was made not in word but in deed.” It was the actual appearing of the Son of God that brightened that richly furnished but dimly lit chamber. After the second person of the Godhead, Jesus Immanuel, ascended into heaven, and after the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, was sent in power from the Father and the Son, the Trinity was an obvious revealed reality to the church. That’s why the New Testament everywhere assumes the knowledge of it. Christ had come, and so had the Holy Spirit.

The point for us tonight is this: An attack on the virgin birth is an attack on the truth of the Trinity, for the virgin birth was the sign to us that the baby who was born was Immanuel – God with us.

2. Why does it matter?

If Jesus was not born of a virgin, then the Bible is false. If Jesus was not born of a virgin then Jesus had an unknown human father, and he was not the Son of God. That would mean that Jesus Himself was wrong about who He was. If Jesus was mistaken about who He was, and if He was not the Son of God, then He obviously could not be the divine Redeemer, and we are all still lost in our sin. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, then we have no Savior and we have no hope of eternal life.

But Jesus is the Immanuel of Isaiah 7:14, and His virgin birth was a great sign of God that He is the very Son of God, and the appointed Savior of God’s elect. Why do we need “God with us?” We need Immanuel for every moment of this life, and for a perfect assurance of the glorious life to come.

Do you believe in miracles? I don’t believe in everything that people claim to be miraculous, but I believe in this great miracle. I believe in Immanuel. I believe in Jesus.