FREE ESSAY ON THE BIRTH OF JESUS

THE BIRTH OF JESUS

"The Birth of Jesus"
2. Why did Mary go"with haste"to visit Elizabeth? 
At that time I believe that Mary had just been engaged but not married to Joseph yet. The
time frame was really close to the appearance of the angel to Mary and Joseph. Mary was
already pregnant at the time. Probably Mary went to see Elizabeth to talk about her
situation. But in a deeper sense the meeting with Elizabeth was to encourage Mary's
faith, she was given the sign that her kinswoman, Elizabeth, was also the object of God's
grace in the gift of a miraculously conceived son (Layman 28).
3. What is Mary asking for with her question in Luke 1:34?
Mary's complete question was: "How will this be, since I am a virgin?"Her question
implies two things. The first a simple how, she is asking how could she have had a child
when she knows no man before. 
The second implication of her question was deeper and contains more complication. 
The announcement made to her could well have had frightful social consequences. In Jewish
custom of that day, an engagement was as binding as a marriage. To be God's servant, Mary
had to expose herself to Josephs misunderstanding, to the possible loss of her reputation
and the curse of being a sinful woman and to possible death by stoning (Balmer, 29).
If she is marrying Joseph, wouldn't having a child sometime in the future be a very
normal expectation?
The problem was that the angel said that she would have a child, and at that time she was
not married to Joseph yet. This would lead to misunderstandings by the society that she
was unfaithful. What happened to her is something that cannot be explained in human
understanding. And no one would believe her.
Mary however surrendered to God. In Luke 1:38 she said "I am the Lord's servant". This
statement was a full surrender to God's will even though there can be many
misunderstandings and even possible persecution.
The women in Matthew's genealogy were: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth. 
Each of these women either had kept the covenant or had entered into the covenant by an
act of faith. Their names remind us also that the covenant is a covenant of grace.
They're not moral saints but forgiven sinners (Balmer 171).
Furthermore the angel made obvious reverence to the gracious act of the gift of a son to
Sarah; this was not only to encourage Mary's faith but to indicate that her child was to
be the final fulfillment of the promise God made to Abraham, that by him "all the
families of the earth will be blessed"(Gen 12:3). Jesus is the culmination of all that
God has been doing since the days of Abraham (Layman).
Borg-Wright discussion
N.T. Wright says: "One can be justified by faith with no knowledge of it." 
"The God of the bible is not a normally absent God who sometimes intervenes. This God is
always present and active, often surprisingly so." Likewise if one believes that the
bible is true, then the story of the birth is true (Wright).
Wright's argument develops in three stages: 
o What matters is the powerful, mysterious presence of the God of Israel, the creator
God, bringing the story of creation to its height by new creation from the womb of the
old.
o There is no pre-Christian Jewish tradition suggesting that the messiah would be born of
a virgin. So why would Matthew and Luke invent the theory and take a risk of having many
arguments.
o If the evangelist believed them to be true, when and by whom were they invented? Why
two different but compatible stories were in circulation
While Marcus Borg started by saying: "They are not history remembered but 
rather metaphorical narratives using ancient religious imagery to express central truths
about Jesus' significance. 
Borg was arguing by analyzing contradictions in the bible. His arguments were:
1. In Matthews, Jesus' origins came from King David to Solomon while in Luke it came from
King David to the prophet Nathan.
2. In Luke, Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem to participate in a census when Jesus
was born. In Matthew The whole family actually live in Bethlehem. 
3. The two different worshippers, shepherds versus the wise men.
Many more came after that. Borg's assumption is that the birth stories affirm the 
Lordship of Christ. But all these stories are merely metaphorical to distinguish Jesus
from the rest of the humanity. 
Personally I found both writers to be extremely persuasive and conceptual with their
argument. Wright is trying to make people see in a way of questioning why would Matthew
and Luke make up such a 'ridiculous' concept if it were not true at all. And if these
were not true at all how could the two stories support each other. On the other hand Borg
is arguing by elaborating Matthew and Luke's "historical and data errors". 
However I favor Wright's ideas. I cannot say that Borg's argument is weak. Both arguments
are well supported and have clear concepts and logics. But in my opinion as one believes
the bible, one would also believe that what it says is true. I am not someone who
believes totally in the inerrancy of the bible; I believe that God inspires the bible.
But if the virgin birth is untrue, how could God who inspires the bible let such a
misguided and irresponsible concept to be part of the bible. If the virgin birth is a
metaphorical story just to emphasize Jesus' difference than normal humans, then we might
as well call it a myth. 
Personally I believe in the bible as a whole package. Some people call it a "blind
faith". I think why should I struggle so many human logics with human and biological
understanding to explain spiritual happenings. 
For this argument I raise a question, if this would mark him off the rest of us, then how
different would Adam be? Adam was created out of nothing from dust, and we are Adams
descendants, so it can imply that we're not as human as we thought we are. If someone
believes in the creation of Adam and Eve by God's hands, then it should be fairly easy in
accepting the virgin birth concept. As I quote: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope
for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1) 
I am not trying to hit anyone with the verse, I respect logical arguments and questions
against biblical incidents and I do not close myself to the possible truth of those
arguments. This is what I believe but only God knows the truth. 
Therefore personally I believe the virgin birth is very important to some extend of my
own understanding and thoughts. But I cannot say that it is the only truth that can be.
This case can be a never-ending quest for truth until God himself reveals it to us. And I
am excited to learn more and more about this thing through studies like this.
Bibliography:
1. Balmer H. Kelly, Editor. The Layman's Bible Commentary. John Knox Press, Atlanta,
Georgia.
2. Barclay, William. The Gospel of Matthew. Westminster Press, Philadelphia.
3. Borg/Wright, The Meaning of Jesus.