41 耶稣为童女所生——耶稣基督的出生是神蹟 VirginBirth - Jesus Christ was born by miracle

《简明神学》Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs，巴刻（J. I. Packer）著/張麟至译，更新传道会，2007年。

https://yibaniba.blogspot.com/2020/01/blog-post_98.html

http://www.geocities.ws/gary_bee_za/packer/virginbirth.htm

41 耶稣为童女所生——耶稣基督的出生是神蹟

Virgin Birth - Jesus Christ was born by miracle

这一切的事成就，是要应验主籍先知所说的话，说：[必有童女怀孕生子，人要称他的名为以马内利。]（以马内利翻出来就是：[神与我们同在]。）（太1:22-23）

马太福音1：18-25节和路加福音1:26-56节及4-7节这两段和谐互补，却又明显是彼此独立的故事，合起来为耶稣的降生乃是神迹性受孕的结果作了见证。马利亚未与任何人发生过性关系，乃是靠着圣灵创造的作为而怀孕（太1:20；路1:35）。

直到十九世纪自由神学向神迹挑战以前，大多数的基督徒都毫无怀疑地接受[耶稣为童女所生]一事。之后，这件事就变为有关基督教的超自然主义，和耶稣的神性之辩论的焦点了。自由主义既然要除去信仰的超自然性，并要将耶稣解释为不过是一位独特敬虔、又有洞见的教师而已，就以一种无比必要、且不合理性之怀疑主义的精神，围攻[耶稣为童女所生]的真理。

事实上，[耶稣为童女所生]此点与新约圣经其余有关耶稣的信息，是彼此调和的。祂自己行神迹，也从死亡中神迹似地复活起来，所以，断定祂神迹性地进入这个世界，也不应造成什么新问题。祂以复活和升天超然地离开这个世界，所以，祂超然的来临是完全合宜的。强调耶稣道成肉身的尊贵与荣耀（约1:1-9；17:5；林后8:9；腓2:5-11；西1:15-17；来1：1-3；约一1:1），使得祂这种进入肉身生活的模式，要比任何其他的模式更为自然。这种模式亦宣扬了祂将来所要完成的荣耀使命（太1:21-23；路1:31-35）。

值得注意的是，马太和路加对神救赎的目的的成全，比把童女怀孕当做一种身体上的奇迹、或当做一种辩道的武器、或当做基督神人二性论的指标，来得有趣多了。

我们固然不能肯定，有神性的人除了籍童女所生之外，是否就没有别的方法进入这个世界，但耶稣神迹性的出生的的确指明了祂的神性，同时也指明了，运行在我们新生时那种创造大能的实在（约1:13）。还有，我们固然不能肯定，除了籍童女所生之外，神一定不能创造无罪之人性，但耶稣的人性是无罪的，而祂出生的情景，也叫我们留意到马利亚所牵涉的神迹，罪人（路1:47）竟生出了一位不[在亚当里]如祂的人，所以祂也不像她一样需要一位救主，尤有进者，耶稣命定要籍着祂那无暇的人性所维持无罪的一生，来为人的罪成为完全的牺牲，如此耶稣才能成为祂母亲和教会其余之人的救主。

VIRGIN BIRTH

JESUS CHRIST WAS BORN BY MIRACLE

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 1:22-23

Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-56; 2:4-7, two harmonious and complementary but obviously independent stories, unite in witnessing to Jesus’ birth as the consequence of a miraculous conception. Mary became pregnant by the Holy Spirit’s creative action without any sexual relationship (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35).

Most Christians accepted the Virgin Birth without hesitation until liberal theology challenged miracles in the nineteenth century. Then it became a pivotal point in the debate about Christian supernaturalism and the divinity of Jesus. Liberalism, seeking to desupernaturalize the faith and reinterpret Jesus as no more than a uniquely godly and insightful teacher, surrounded the Virgin Birth with a spirit of needless and unreasonable skepticism.

In reality, the Virgin Birth meshes harmoniously with the rest of the New Testament message about Jesus. He himself worked miracles and rose miraculously from the dead, so no new problem is involved in affirming that he entered the world miraculously. He left the world supernaturally, by resurrection and ascension, so a supernatural way of arriving was entirely fitting. The stress laid on Jesus’ preincarnate dignity and glory (John 1:1-9; 17:5; 2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:1-3; 1 John 1:1) made a mode of entry into incarnate life that involved proclamation of the glorious role he was coming to fulfill (Matt. 1:21-23; Luke 1:31-35) more natural than any alternative.

It is noteworthy that Matthew and Luke show themselves much more interested in the fulfillment of God’s redemptive purpose than in the virginal conception as a physical wonder or an apologetic weapon or a pointer to two-nature christology.

While we cannot affirm that a divine person could not have entered this world any other way than by virgin birth, Jesus’ miraculous birth does in fact point to his deity and also to the reality of the creative power that operates in our new birth (John 1:13). Also, while we cannot affirm that God could not have produced sinless humanity apart from virgin birth, Jesus’ humanity was sinless, and the circumstances of his birth call attention to the miracle that was involved when Mary, a sinner (Luke 1:47), gave birth to one who was not “in Adam” as she was, nor therefore needed a Savior as she did. Rather, Jesus was destined through the maintained sinlessness of his unflawed human nature to become the perfect sacrifice for human sins, and so the Savior of his mother and of the rest of the church with her.

耶穌為童女所生   The Virgin Birth

作者: 史鮑爾 (R.C. Sproul) 譯者: 姚錦榮

摘自《神學入門》《Essential Truths of the Christian Faith》P77 ,更新傳道會出版http://www.crmnj.org/

耶穌為童女所生的教義，指出耶穌的出生是神跡性受孕的結果：童女馬利亞靠著聖靈的能力，無需為人父者，懷了一嬰孩。基督這神跡性的誕生，正證明了祂擁有與眾不同的本質。祂由女子所生，這說明了祂具有人性，是我們中間的一份子，但又和我們不完全相同，我們是帶著原罪出生，但基督沒有原罪。

耶穌為童女所生一事也和基督的神性有關。雖然神也可以循別的方法進入世界，但這神跡卻顯明了基督的神性。天使迦百列向馬利亞的宣告，顯明了這一點，當天使告訴馬利亞，她將要生子時，馬利亞十分困惑地對天使說：「我沒有出嫁，怎麽有這事呢？」（路1：34)

迦百列對馬利亞的回答，使我們對童女生子一事有了更確切的理解：「聖靈要臨到你身上，至高者的能力要蔭庇你，因此所要生的聖者必稱為神的兒子」（路1：35)，接著，天使又說：「因為出於神的話，沒有一句不帶能力的。」（路1：37)

現代科學化的人工受孕，是非神跡式的一種受孕方式。一般來說，除了人工受孕外，一個胎兒的成形，只要透過正常普通的肉體關系就會發生，這是很平常的事。如果一位女子未與男子發生性交而受孕，這不但違反了生物現象，而且顯然違反了自然定律。

馬利亞的孩子不是單由馬利亞而生的，孩子的「父親」是聖靈。路加福音說到，聖靈臨到馬利亞身上，祂的能力蔭庇她，這正回應了聖靈在創世時借著運行而成就的工作，也說明了這個嬰孩的出生是特別的，祂的父親是神自己。

通常不相信耶穌為童女所生的人，也不會相信耶穌是真神的兒子，因此之故，耶穌為童女所生可視為一個分水嶺的教義，將正統信仰的基督徒與不信耶穌覆活與救贖的人，分離開來。

總結

1．聖經清楚且毫不含糊地教導童女生子的教義。

2．耶穌從女子所生的事實顯明耶穌的人性，和耶穌是新的亞當和第二個亞當。

3．耶穌並非從具人性的父親所生，這顯明了祂擁有神兒子的神性本質。

4．不相信耶穌為童女所生的人，通常也不會相信聖經中超自然或神跡性的成分。

思考經文：

賽7：10-16；太1：23；羅1：3-4：林前15：45：-49；加4：4

The Virgin Birth

The doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus holds that Jesus' birth was the result of a miraculous conception whereby the Virgin Mary conceived a baby in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit, without a human father. Christ's miraculous birth tells us much about his nature. That He was born of woman demonstrates that He was indeed human and became one of us. Christ's humanity, however, was not precisely the same as our own. We are born with original sin, Christ was not.

The Virgin Birth also relates to the deity of Christ. While it is certainly possible for Deity to enter the world in a manner other than a virgin birth, the miracle of his birth points to Christ's divinity. The announcement of the angel Gabriel to Mary underscores this point. When he told Mary she would have a son, Mary was perplexed: "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" (Luke 1:34).

Gabriel's answer to Mary is of decisive significance for our understanding of the Virgin Birth: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). Moments later the angel added, "For with God nothing will be impossible" (Luke 1:37).

Aside from artificial insemination, which is a modern, non-miraculous variation on conception, nothing is more regular or commonplace in nature than the normal causal relationship for the conception of a baby. For a woman to become pregnant who has not had sexual intercourse with a man is not only biologically extraordinary, it is clearly against the laws of nature.

But Mary's child was not generated by Mary, herself. The "father" of the baby is the Holy Spirit. The language of the Spirit's coming upon Mary and "overshadowing" her echoes the descriptive account of the Holy Spirit's work in the original creation of the world. It reveals that this baby will be a special creation with His father being God Himself.

Those who do not believe in the Virgin Birth usually do not believe that Jesus is the true Son of God. Thus, the Virgin Birth is a watershed doctrine, separating orthodox Christians from those who do not believe in the Resurrection and Atonement.

1.         The Bible plainly and unambiguously teaches the Virgin Birth.

2.         The birth of Jesus from a woman points to His humanity and His appearance as the new or second Adam.

3.         That Jesus was born apart from human fatherhood points to His divine nature as the Son of God.

4.         The denial of the Virgin Birth is usually linked to the denial of the supernatural or miraculous elements of Scripture.

基督徒必須相信童女生子嗎？MustChristians Believe in the Virgin Birth?

作者: Albert Mohler    翻譯: Maria Marta

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/must-christians-believe-virgin-birth/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106695469993489516884/posts/iFwYP3UqGoz

12月25日轉瞬而至，世俗媒體肯定再一次將興趣轉到童女生子這議題上。每年聖誕節，各地新聞周刊和各種主編都會異口同聲地哀嘆：太多美國人相信這種不科學、超自然的教義。對一些人而言，相信耶穌基督是童女所生，無異於證實自己的理智模糊不清。《紐約時報》的一位作家坦白地慨嘆：「童女生子的信仰反映了隨著時間的推移，美國基督教變得更智力低下和更加神秘的狀況。」

相信童女生子導致基督徒「智力低下」嗎？ 我們承擔著一項站不住腳的教義嗎？ 一個真基督徒可以否認童女生子，又或者這項教義是聖經啟示給我們的福音的一個重要構成部分嗎？

在歷史批判出現，和隨後不可避免的聖經權威被削弱之後,   童女生子是首批被質疑，後又遭拒絕的教義之一。批評者聲稱，既然這項教義「只」在四本福音書中的兩本裡教導，那麼它必定是選擇性的。他們論證,  使徒保羅在他的使徒行傳裡的講道中沒有提及童女生子，因此他一定不相信它。除此之外，批評家們還論證這項教義正是這樣的超自然。現代異教徒，如已退休的聖公會主教謝爾比朋（John Shelby Spong）論證這項教義只不過是早期教會聲稱基督的神性的證據。比朋告訴我們，童女生子是「神話的開頭」與復活的「神話的結局」相呼應而已。但願比朋之說是一個神話。

現在，甚至一些修正主義福音派學者（revisionist evangelicals）也聲稱，相信童女生子是不必要的。他們論證，神跡具有永恒的意義，但這一項教義的歷史真相是不重要的。

成為基督徒,  必須相信童女生子嗎？可以想像，有人可能來到基督的面前，相信基督是救主，但還沒有了解基督是童女所生的聖經教導。一個新信徒還未清楚認識基督信仰的整體架構而已。但真正的問題是：一個曾经知道聖經教導的基督徒，可以拒絕童女生子嗎？答案必然是否定的。 

馬太福音告訴我們，馬利亞和約瑟「還沒有成親」，馬利亞「就從聖靈懷了孕」（太一18）。馬太福音對此的解釋是，以賽亞的應許得著應驗：「必有童女懷孕生子，他的名要叫以馬內利」,   翻譯出來是「神與我們同在」的意思（太一23，賽九6-7）。

路加福音甚至提供更具體的細節，顯示一位到訪的天使向馬利亞解釋, 她雖然是童女，但將懷有神聖的兒子：「聖靈要臨到你，至高者的能力要覆庇你，因此那將要出生的聖者，必稱為　神的兒子。」（路一35）

那怕只有一段聖經段落教導童女生子，亦足以讓所有基督徒有相信的義務。我們沒有權利以聖經中童女生子的重覆次數來衡量聖經教導的真實性。我們不能聲稱相信聖經是上帝的聖言，一轉過身，就懷疑它的教導。

埃裏克（Millard Erickson）的說明非常精辟「盡管聖經斷言童女生子的事實,   但我們若不堅持這一事實,   我們便妥協了聖經的權威，原則上我們沒有理由為何要堅持其他的教導。因此，拒絕童女生子所產生的影響遠遠超出教義本身的範圍。」

的確影響深遠。倘若耶穌不是童女所生，誰是祂的父親？沒有答案會讓福音完整無缺。童女生子解釋基督如何成為即神又人，祂如何是無罪的，和整個救贖之工是上帝恩慈的行動。倘若耶穌不是童女所生，祂就有一個人類父親。倘若耶穌不是童女所生，聖經便在教導謊言。

福音派神學家兼院長卡爾（Carl F. H. Henry）论证,   童女生子是「絕對必要的，道成肉身的歷史迹象不僅類比道成肉身的神性和人性，而且也顯明上帝拯救工作的本質、目的, 和意義。」  說得好，信得穩固。

國家新聞雜志和報紙最世俗的編輯可能發現，美國基督徒當中的智力遲鈍的證據，就是相信童女生子。但童女生子是教會的信仰，建立在上帝完美的聖言之上，被古往今來的真教會珍愛。那些否認童女生子的人承認其他教義只是憑一時的興致，因為他們已經放棄聖經的權威。他們削弱了基督的本性,   廢棄了道成肉身的信仰。

基督徒務必面對一個事實，即否認童女生子就是否認耶穌是基督。為我們的罪受死的救主不是別人，正是聖靈感孕,  由童貞女所生的嬰孩。童女生子不是因為聖經教義而得以站立，它是聖經關於基督的位格和工作的啟示缺不能削減的一部分。福音站立或跌倒,  全憑這教義。

我們務必要知道：所有找到救恩的人都是藉著耶穌基督贖罪的工作得救。少於這真理就不是基督信仰，不管它自我宣稱什麼。一個基督徒不會否認童女生子。

本譯文所引用的經文均出自聖經新譯本。

本文原刊于Tabletalk雜誌。 

Must Christians Believe in the Virgin Birth?

FROM Albert Mohler 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 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 inevitably followed. Critics claimed that since the doctrine is taught in “only” two of the four Gospels, it must be optional. The apostle Paul, they argued, did not mention it in his sermons in Acts, so he must not have believed it. Besides, the critics argued, the doctrine is just so supernatural. Modern heretics like retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong argue the doctrine was just evidence of the early church’s over-claiming of Christ’s deity. It is, Spong tells us, the “entrance myth” to go with the resurrection, the “exit myth.” If only Spong were a myth.

Now, even some revisionist evangelicals claim that belief in the virgin birth is unnecessary. The meaning of the miracle is enduring, they argue, but the historical truth of the doctrine is not important.

Must one believe in the virgin birth to be a Christian? It is conceivable that someone might come to Christ and trust Christ as Savior without yet learning the Bible teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. A new believer is not yet aware of the full structure of Christian truth. The real question is this: Can a Christian, once aware of the Bible’s teaching, reject the virgin birth? The answer must be no.

Matthew tells us that before Mary and Joseph “came together,” Mary “was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 1:18). This, Matthew explains, fulfilled what Isaiah promised: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name ‘Immanuel,’ which translated means ‘God with Us’” (Matt. 1:23, Isaiah 9:6-7).

Luke provides even greater detail, revealing Mary was visited by an angel who explained that she, though a virgin, would bear the divine child: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy child shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).

Even if the virgin birth was taught by only one biblical passage, that would be sufficient to obligate all Christians to the belief. We have no right to weigh the truthfulness of biblical teachings by their repetition in Scripture. We cannot claim to believe the Bible is the Word of God and then turn around and cast suspicion on its teaching.

Millard Erickson states this well: “If we do not hold to the virgin birth despite the fact that the Bible asserts it, then we have compromised the authority of the Bible and there is in principle no reason why we should hold to its other teachings. Thus, rejecting the virgin birth has implications reaching far beyond the doctrine itself.”

Implications, indeed. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, who was His father? There is no answer that will leave the Gospel intact. The virgin birth explains how Christ could be both God and man, how He was without sin, and that the entire work of salvation is God’s gracious act. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, He had a human father. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, the Bible teaches a lie.

Carl F. H. Henry, the dean of evangelical theologians, argues that the virgin birth is the “essential, historical indication of the Incarnation, bearing not only an analogy to the divine and human natures of the Incarnate, but also bringing out the nature, purpose, and bearing of this work of God to salvation.” Well said, and well believed.

The secularist editors of the nation’s news magazines and newspapers may find belief in the virgin birth to be evidence of intellectual backwardness among American Christians. But this is the faith of the church, established in God’s perfect Word, and cherished by the true church throughout the ages. Those who deny the virgin birth affirm other doctrines only by force of whim, for they have already surrendered the authority of Scripture. They have undermined Christ’s nature and nullified the incarnation.

Christians must face the fact that a denial of the virgin birth is a denial of Jesus as the Christ. The Savior who died for our sins was none other than the baby who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin. The virgin birth does not stand alone as a biblical doctrine, it is an irreducible part of the biblical revelation about the person and work of Jesus Christ. With it, the Gospel stands or falls.

This much we know: All those who find salvation will be saved by the atoning work of Jesus the Christ, the virgin-born Savior. Anything less than this is just not Christianity, whatever it may call itself. A Christian will not deny the virgin birth.

This post was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.