Dr Paul Allen

English: The Earth was corrupt before God and filled with violence, as in Genesis 6:5: "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."; “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” ( Genesis 6:5-6 ) These two verses, describing the incurable wickedness of the antediluvian world which finally brought on the global Flood , contain the first two of over a thousand occurrences of the word “heart” in the Bible . Note the contrast: man’s heart was evil; God’s heart was grieved. Both the Hebrew and Greek languages treated the heart as the center of a person’s being, the seat of all feelings and thoughts, and we do the same in English. The writers knew that the heart was a physi

Annunciation (The Holy_Doors) from Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Even though the fact of Jesus’ virgin birth is clearly and concisely stated in Scripture, the unconverted mind of sinful humanity, as with all essential doctrines of the Christian faith , resists embracing the truth of His unique birth. First of all, ancient mythologies and world religions counterfeited Christ ’s virgin birth with a proliferation of bizarre stories and inaccurate parallels. These stories undercut and minimized the uniqueness and profound impact of our Lord’s birth. Several accounts illustrate the point.  The Romans claimed that Zeus impregnated Semele without contact and produced Dionysus, lord of the earth.  Babylonian religion asserted that a sunbeam in the priestess Semiramis conceived Tammuz, the Sumerian fertility god ( Ezek. 8:14).  Buddha’s mother allegedly saw a large white elephant enter her belly when she conceived the deified Indian philos

Sandro Botticelli's Annunciation, painted from 1489-1490, is an example of Quattrocento art. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Matthew needs only one verse (1:18) to announce the fact of Christ ’s virgin birth . Such a concise statement, though it doesn’t all by itself prove the point, strongly suggests that the notion of our Lord and Savior’s virgin birth was not simply a man-made story. A human author, writing strictly on his own initiative, would characteristically tend to describe such a momentous and amazing event in an expansive, detailed, and elaborate manner. But not the apostle Matthew. He does relate additional circumstances surrounding the virgin birth, but the basic fact is stated in one simple sentence: “After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit .” Matthew devotes the previous seventeen verses to Jesus’ human genealogy but just this part of one verse to His divine genealogy. As the Son of God ,

c. 1437-1446 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Luke 1:26 –38 “The angel answered her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God ” (v. 35). Metaphysical naturalism made inroads into Western universities during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and even seminaries and schools of divinity were not immune. Many godly professors stood their ground against those who denied the supernatural , but others succumbed to the prevailing mood of the day, denying the possibility of miracles and even the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus . Belief in the virgin birth became particularly embarrassing, and much work was done trying to prove that there was nothing supernatural about Christ’s birth. Enemies of Christianity continue to attack Jesus’ virgin birth, or, more accurately, His virginal conception . Clearly, however, anyone who tries to make the case that the New Testament

Mary Writing the Magnificat (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) The tradition of Mary’s conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit apart from sexual intercourse, explicitly mentioned in the NT only in the birth stories of Matthew and Luke.  In Matt. 1:18–25 it appears as the fulfillment of Isa. 7:14, which indicates that a virgin (Gk. parthenos, used in the LXX to translate the Heb. ‘almah , a young woman of marriageable age) would conceive and bear a son. In Luke 1:26 –38, this miraculous conception (1:34, 37) is associated with the application of the title Son of God to Jesus (1:32, 35). Neither Matthew nor Luke displays much interest in how or why this miracle happened. With regard to “how,” Matthew and Luke are both content to say that it is the work of the Spirit (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35), who, after all, created life out of nothingness at the genesis (the word translated “birth” by the NRSV in Matt. 1:18) of the world (Gen. 1:1; cf. 2:7). As for “why,” Matthew and Luke seem to thin

English: Picture of Mary Immaculate in Orthodox Church in Perlez, Vojvodina (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Hail Mary, full of grace, blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus . Holy Mary, mother of God , pray for us sinners, now and in the hour of our death. Amen. These excerpts from the Rosary are an important dimension of the devotional life of millions of adherents of Roman Catholicism. The first section is taken virtually from Scripture itself, reflecting Elizabeth’s words to Mary on the occasion of Mary’s visit to her during their pregnancies (see article on pp. 8ff.). The second is an appeal to Mary’s intercession for sinners both in the present and at the time of death. In the Rosary, Mary is addressed as the “mother of God.” This title has its roots in the creedal formulations of the ancient church wherein Mary is called Theotokos or “mother of God” (more technically the “bearer of God”). The intent of this formulation was not so much designed t

Mary Writing the Magnificat (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Matthew 1:22–25 “This took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name ‘ Immanuel ’” (vv. 22–23). Liberals have long scrutinized Matthew 1:22–23 and the passage it quotes, Isaiah 7:14, leading them to deny the virgin birth. They say that since Isaiah uses almah, a Hebrew term literally translated as “maiden,” he is not affirming the virgin birth. This argument has no merit, for almah almost always refers to a young woman who is also a virgin. Also, the Septuagint , an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament , understands that Isaiah is talking about a virgin as it renders almah with parthenos, the normal Greek word for “virgin.” We wholeheartedly affirm the virgin birth of Jesus based on today’s passage and Luke 1:26–38. But let us note that Matthew may not be reading Isaiah as has been often supposed. When we look at the wor

Mary Writing the Magnificat (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) With December 25 fast approaching, the secular media are sure to turn their interest once again to the virgin birth. Every Christmas , weekly news magazines and various editorialists engage in a collective gasp that so many Americans could believe such an unscientific, supernatural doctrine. For some, the belief that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin is nothing less than evidence of intellectual dimness. One writer for the New York Times put the lament plainly: "The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time." Does belief in the virgin birth make Christians "less intellectual?" Are we saddled with an untenable doctrine? Can a true Christian deny the virgin birth, or is the doctrine an essential component of the Gospel revealed to us in Scripture? The doctrine of the virgin birth was among the first to be questioned and then rejected

Image via Wikipedia With December 25 fast approaching, the secular media are sure to turn their interest once again to the virgin birth. Every Christmas, weekly news magazines and various editorialists engage in a collective gasp that so many could believe such an unscientific, supernatural doctrine. For some, the belief that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin is nothing less than evidence of intellectual dimness. One writer put the lament plainly: “The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time.” Does belief in the virgin birth make Christians “less intellectual?” Are we saddled with an untenable doctrine? Can a true Christian deny the virgin birth, or is the doctrine an essential component of the Gospel revealed to us in Scripture? The doctrine of the virgin birth was among the first to be questioned and then rejected after the rise of historical criticism and the undermining of biblical authority that