Matthew appears to be intent on providing credibility to the birth of Jesus Christ. He approaches this task by relating events associated with Christ’s birth to a variety of OT statements that he interprets as prophetic fulfillment.  It is felt by NT scholars that Matthew was writing primarily to the Jewish community and therefore was preoccupied with trying to convince them of the validity of the Christ event. Matthew therefore tried to relate as much as possible to OT scripture as it was the OT that was and still is foundational to the Jewish religious system.  Luke doesn’t use OT statements to substantiate his account of the birth but then it is felt that Luke, being a disciple of Paul, is writing primarily to the Gentile community.  It is interesting to note that Paul does not mention the birth at all in his writings.  Though Matthew and Luke take different approaches in recording the history of the birth of Christ, they are in total agreement that Christ was born.  They are not in disagreement on any particular point relative to the birth. They do differ as to the data they include in their reporting of this event.  This is not unusual for writers of historical events.

       Historical writers gather information from a variety of sources and set out to write their histories.  The four Gospels are historical documents.   Neither Matthew nor Luke were eyewitnesses to the birth.  They would have had to obtain their information from others. Matthew was an apostle and could have obtained this information directly from Christ.  Both Matthew and Luke would have had contact with the other Disciples of Christ along with family members including His mother. Since Luke begins his narrative by explaining that he had carefully investigated everything he was about to write, it would appear that he was a person of high integrity who would not write nonsense.  Therefore there is no reason to doubt Luke’s history.  Matthew, and possibly Luke, would have had the ability to talk to Mary, who obviously was an eyewitness of the birth.  Since Luke writes about the shepherds being present at the birth, it is possible that he actually talked to some of them.   

       These writers were not living in a vacuum. Matthew, being one of the twelve, had day-to-day contact with Christ for three and one-half years.  Matthew absorbed a lot of information during that time. Luke, being a disciple of Paul, would have had many conversations with Paul and his associates.  Each writer approached his recording of the birth differently.  Rather than this raising questions about the validity of what they wrote, their different accounts provide attestation to there being no collusion on their part.    

       Some may still question Matthew’s use of OT events as prophetic of the Bethlehem event. In their original context these OT statements appear to be unrelated to the birth of Christ.  It is only in retrospect that these OT statements appear to be types or shadows of the Bethlehem event. Are they also prophetic as Matthew indicates?  To be prophetic they would have to be predictive of the Bethlehem event and not just serve as a type or shadow.  A type or shadow isn’t predictive in and of itself.   Many OT events can be viewed as shadows or types of events in the life of Christ.  When we read of these OT events in their OT context, however, they appear to be prophetic of events that took place in OT history and don’t appear to have any obvious prophetic relevance to Christ.

       When we dig a little deeper, however, we often fine prophetic statements that do pertain to the time of Christ incorporated into the more limited prophetic context of what actually occurred during the time the prophet wrote. 

 

      When we read Jeremiah 29 through 31 there is no doubt that the prophet is dealing with the Babylonian captivity of Judah and predicting their return from captivity within 70 years.  The passage about women weeping for their children is part of Jeremiah’s critique of Judah’s captivity.  What is interesting, however, is that melted into Jeremiah’s overview of Judah’s captivity and predicted release from captivity are prophetic statements about Judah and Israel being brought back from captivity and David becoming their King. In this same prophetic context, Jeremiah speaks of the time coming when God would make a New Covenant with both Judah and Israel. 

       Jeremiah 30:3&9: The days are coming,' declares the LORD, `when I will bring my people Israel and Judah back from captivity and restore them to the land I gave their forefathers to possess,' says the LORD."   Verse 9: “they will serve the LORD their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them.”

  

      Jeremiah 31: 31-33:  "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, "declares the LORD.” This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. and with the house of

       The Northern Kingdom of Israel had been taken into captivity by the Assyrians many years before the Babylonian captivity of Judah and David had died hundreds of years earlier.  What is Jeremiah talking about? 

       We know from other passages of scripture that it was Christ who filled David’s shoes as King over Israel and through His death and resurrection established a New Covenant with Israel and Judah and through them with the Gentiles as well.  When the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would give birth to Jesus, he also said He would be given the throne of David and reign over the house of Jacob (Judah & Israel) forever.

       Luke 1:31-33: You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

       It is therefore apparent that Jeremiah, while dealing with a situation current to his time, is also dealing with events far removed from his time.  While Matthew may be using what Jeremiah said about women weeping as a shadow of what took place in Bethlehem, it must be noted that there is Messianic content to what Jeremiah said and therefore prophetic relevance to Christ. 

 

      When we read OT passages of scripture showing ancient Israel killing lambs in celebration of the Passover, there is no reason to believe that those Israelites saw in the Passover the coming of Christ as a lamb slain for the sins of the world.  Yet NT scripture shows the Passover foreshadowing the crucifixion of Christ and therefore prophetic of that event.  It is apparent that some OT events were programmed to take place as part of the overall purpose of God establishing a trail of historical events pointing to the one great event of Christ coming into the world to be our Savior.  In that respect these shadows become prophetic as well. 

 

     In addition to OT events foreshadowing the Christ event, we see obvious OT prophetic statements that relate to Christ.    

 

     Isaiah 9:6-7: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.

       This statement appears in the middle of a context of statements that have no relation to this apparent prophecy about Christ.  This is a common occurrence in the OT.   Yet it should be obvious this statement of Isaiah’s pertains to Jesus Christ.  This again indicates that God intended OT events and writings to foreshadow and predict the Christ event as such foreshadowing’s and prophesies are found throughout the OT literature.

       In view of the documentation provided by Matthew and Luke relative to the birth of Christ and the attestation to the existence of Christ throughout the NT narrative and secular history of the first century, it is obvious that Christ was born.  While even non-Christians look upon the birth of Christ as an established historical fact, the virgin birth is often questioned, even among those who profess Christianity.  To be born of a virgin was an extraordinary event.  What is the evidence for this extraordinary event?

 THE VIRGIN BIRTH:

     

       What is the evidence for the virgin birth of Jesus Christ?  Virgin births are reported in other religious systems outside of Christianity. In looking at such claims I have not found evidence to support their validity.  What about the evidence for the Christian claim?   Why should we believe  Christ was born of a virgin?  Matthew makes this statement:

 

       Matthew 1:18-23:  “This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."  All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:  "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" -which means, "God with us

       Matthew doesn’t name the prophet he is quoting.  Scholars attribute this statement to Isaiah as recorded in Isaiah, chapter seven.  Let’s take a look at the context of this chapter.  Ahaz was king of Judah.  King Rezin of Aram and Pekah, king of Israel, were in alliance and came up to fight against Ahaz and Judah.  The Lord, through Isaiah, told Ahaz that this alliance would not succeed against Ahaz and Judah.  It’s recorded that the Lord then gave a sign to Ahaz to show him that the alliance would not succeed.

 

      Isaiah 7:14-16: “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.  He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste

       The Hebrew word translated virgin in verse 14 is almah, which means a young girl of marriageable age.  The Hebrew word for virgin in a moral sense is bethulah. (See Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament and Bullinger’s Companion Bible). It appears Matthew was quoting from the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) where the Hebrew word almah was translated into the Greek word parthenos.  This Greek word has a broader meaning than almah and can be translated virgin, marriageable maiden or young married women. Context will determine the meaning (See Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon).  Some who challenge the idea of the virgin birth claim since almah is not the common Hebrew word for virgin, Isaiah was not speaking of a virgin in a moral sense but was instead referring to a young woman that may or may not have been a virgin.   It is therefore concluded that Matthew is inappropriately using the quote from Isaiah to substantiate the virgin birth of Christ.                               

       This argument is superfluous, however, as there is nothing in the meaning of almah that prohibits an almah from also being a bethulah (virgin).  The Hebrew scripture itself bares this out.  In the account in Genesis 24 where a wife is being chosen for Isaac, both Hebrew words are used to describe a virgin.   Verse 16: “The girl was very beautiful, a virgin; (bethulah) no man had ever lain with her. She went down to the spring, filled her jar and came up again.”  Verse 43:  See, I am standing beside this spring; if a maiden (almah) comes out to draw water and I say to her, "Please let me drink a little water from your jar, "etc. This entire passage is dealing with choosing a virgin to be a wife for Isaac.  The passage clearly shows that virgin and maiden can be used interchangeably.  The translators of the Hebrew OT into the Greek (Septuagint) knew this and therefore had no problem using the Greek parthenos which includes the meaning of virgin     

       The name “Immanuel” in the Hebrew means “God is with us” or God with us.”  The sign given to Ahaz is of a son being born to a young woman of marriageable age and being given the name Immanuel.  This name would signify to Ahaz and Judah that God would be with them in their battle against the alliance. The scriptures do not identify this woman nor is it clear whether she was a virgin at the time she became pregnant.  It is apparent she became pregnant in the usual manner as we see in the following passage:       

       Isaiah 8:1-8:  The LORD said to me, "Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary pen: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. And I will call in Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberekiah as reliable witnesses for me."  Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. Before the boy knows how to say `My father' or `My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria." The LORD spoke to me again: "Because this people has rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah and rejoices over Rezin and the son of Remaliah,  therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty floodwaters of the River -- the king of Assyria with all his pomp. It will overflow all its channels, run over all its banks and sweep on into Judah, swirling over it, passing through it and reaching up to the neck. Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land, O Immanuel !"

       This passage, which is still talking about the alliance being destroyed and Judah being spared, appears to indicate that the son who was born came about as a result of relations between Isaiah and a prophetess.  The son is given another name but the name Immanuel may also apply to him.

       The question here is not whether virgin means virgin but whether there is a legitimate link between Isaiah’s prophecy of this event and the birth of Christ. We again see Matthew taking an apparent historical fulfillment out of its original context and saying it is fulfilled in Christ.  There is nothing in this account of a young women or virgin giving birth that suggests a fulfillment of an event 700 years later.  The sign given to Ahaz was directed to Ahaz. Even the naming of the child Immanuel appears to relate to the events at hand as indicated in Isaiah 8:1-8.  The context of Isaiah 7:14-16, clearly shows that the son spoken of is a boy that would be living at that time and behaving in a certain way relative to the two kings being laid waste.  If this prophecy of Isaiah was in some way duel in nature, it can only be recognized as such in retrospect.  There is nothing in the immediate OT context that would suggest a type/antitype fulfillment.

       So what are we to make of this matter?  As stated in part one of this series, the Greek for fulfilled means, “to make full, to fill, to fill up.”  Matthew may simply be saying that the birth of Christ reflects a greater fulfillment of something that occurred on a much smaller scale in the past.  Matthew does not say Isaiah was prophesying the birth of Christ but only that the birth was a filling up or making full of a prophecy that appears to pertain to events that occurred in Isaiah’s time.

       Luke also speaks of the virgin birth but says nothing about prophecy being fulfilled.  Luke doesn’t mention the account in Isaiah.   The Greek word translated virgin is parthenos in Luke’s account.  Luke is apparently using the Septuagint.  By context it should be apparent Luke is talking about a woman who has not had relations with a man as Mary says flat out that she is a virgin.

       Luke 1:26-35:  “In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you." Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." "How will this be," Mary asked the angel,"since I am a virgin?"   The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

       The death and resurrection of Christ are recounted in all four Gospels and discussed in various ways in much of the NT narrative.  The birth of Christ is discussed only in Matthew and Luke.  Some believe that because Paul, whose letters are thought to pre-date the Gospels, makes no mention of a virgin birth, the virgin birth is suspect.  On the other hand, we have Luke, a disciple of Paul, taking what appears to be a very scholarly approach in the writing of his Gospel and the Acts.  It is very unlikely Luke would write about a virgin birth without having thoroughly investigated its validity.  Luke records Mary saying she was a virgin.  We have Matthew record that Joseph found Mary to be pregnant prior to them having sex. 

       Matthew was one of the twelve. He had access to a lot of information. He had contact with Mary.  He obviously had a lot of contact with Christ.  Matthew would have had the facts relative to the birth.  For Matthew or Luke to have written about an extraordinary event such as the virgin birth of Jesus Christ without good evidence appears unlikely.  As stated above, Luke takes a very scholarly investigative approach.  He clearly said at the beginning of his Gospel that he “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” Luke appears to be a trustworthy reporter.       

  THE CRUCIFIXION:

        The crucifixion of Jesus Christ should not be in doubt.  It is recorded in all four gospels and spoken of throughout the NT narrative.  Both secular historians Josephus and Tacitus allude to it.  The only question that could remain is whether Christ actually died.  Since there is no detail of the crucifixion found in secular records, our only source of information is the Gospel accounts and what is written in the letters.

       It is recorded that Christ, in anticipation of what was to befall Him, began to sweat actual drops of blood while praying in the Garden of Gethsemane.  There is a medical condition known as hematidrosis where under extreme anxiety, there can be a release of chemicals that break down the capillaries in the sweat glands.  The result is a small amount of bleeding in these glands resulting in the sweat being tingled with blood.  This would also result in the skin becoming very fragile and sensitive.

       It’s recorded that Christ was flogged.  Roman floggings were known to be brutal.  They consisted of thirty-nine lashes but frequently were more. The soldier would use a whip of braided leather thongs with metal balls woven into them. When the whip would strike the flesh, these balls would cause deep bruises or contusions which would break open with additional blows.  The whip also had pieces of bone imbedded in the leather that would cut deep into the flesh.  Many would die from this kind of beating before they could be crucified.

       In crucifixion, the Romans used ropes or spikes to secure a person to a cross.  Archaeology has established the use of spikes. These spikes were five to seven inches long and tapered to a sharp point.  They were driven through the wrists and feet.  Once a person is hosted up to a vertical position he dies a slow death by asphyxiation.  The stresses on the muscles and diaphragm put the chest into the inhaled position. In order to exhale, the individual must push up on his feet so the tension on the muscles would be eased for a moment.  In doing so, the nails would tear through the feet, eventually locking up against the tarsal bones.  After managing to exhale, the person would then be able to relax and take another breath in.  Again he would have to push himself up to exhale. This would continue until complete exhaustion would take over and the victim would no longer be able to push himself up to breath.   In the case of Christ, a soldier also thrust a spear into his side to insure death.  There is no way that Christ would have survived this type of execution and live to tell about it as some have theorized.  I therefore will not waste space discussing these kinds of theories. 

 

      Besides the NT record of Christ’s death, the Roman historian Tacitus, writing in 115AD about the Christian movement, speaks of Christus (Christ) suffering the extreme penalty during the reign of Pontius Pilate. A passage found in the Jewish Talmud speaks of Yeshu being hanged on the eve of the Passover.  In view of such non-Christian corroborating narrative from outside the scriptural record, along with the scriptural record itself, it should be apparent the death of Jesus Christ by crucifixion is a historical reality.

 THE RESURRECTION

       The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the foundation of the entire Christian theological system. The Biblical scriptures provide the only historical account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Scriptural research indicates the gospels were written within 30 to 40 years after the ascension of Christ.   It is recognized by most Biblical scholars that Apostle Paul wrote the earliest scriptural material and his writings precede the Gospels by a number of years.  Therefore Paul’s discussion of the resurrection in his letter to the Corinthian Church is noteworthy. 

       I Corinthians 15: 3-7:  “For what I have received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that He was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that He appeared to Peter, and then to the twelve.  After that, He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of them are still living, though some have fallen asleep.  Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all He appeared to me also, as one abnormally born.”

 

      Paul, in what is believed to be a very early letter, speaks of the resurrection and subsequent appearances of Christ.  He writes that others handed down this information to him. He relates that Christ appeared to over five hundred of the brothers at the same time. This is a very early written attestation to the resurrection.