Some want a ‘Christianity’ without the Virgin Birth. They tell us that the Virgin Birth story should be interpreted symbolically rather than literally. They tell us that people are entitled to believe different things. What are we to make of this kind of talk? Matthew’s account begins with a very simple statement: “This is how the birth of Jesus Christ cane about! (1:18). According to Matthew, “this is the way it happened”. When God’s Word tells us that this is what happened, what right do we have to suggest that it might have happened ion some other way? We must be careful not to argue with God. we should not question Him, echoing the words of the serpent - “Did God say?” (Genesis 3:11). There are several indications that the fact is to be believed. (a) Joseph “had no union with her until she gave birth to a son” (Matthew 1:25). Why are we told this? Is it not to emphasize. even more strongly, the miracle of God: “what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20)? (b) Mary asked, “How shall this be … since I am a virgin?” (Luke 1:34). She knew this was most unusual, and she needed an explanation. She accepted the divine explanation: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you” (Luke 1:35). (c) “Nothing is impossible with God” (Luke 1:37). Why would God’s Word lay such emphasis on this point if there was nothing miraculous about Christ’s birth? Our answer must surely be that here we are in the realm of miracle, and not simply the realm of nature. It may sound fairly plausible to say, “people are entitled to believe different things”. We must surely challenge this “liberty of opinion” where it conflicts with the principle expressed by Mary: “let it be to me according to Your Word” (Luke 1:38).
