What People Believe About the Virgin Birth and Why?
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
What do Americans believe concerning the virgin birth of Jesus? The information presented in answer to this question came from the Pew Research Center and was featured on The O’Reilly Factor for the program that aired on December 16, 2014. In case anyone wonders what the Pew Research Center is, it is, according to Wikipedia, the third largest think tank in America. The children of Joseph N. and Mary Anderson Pew set up seven charitable trusts from 1948 to 1979. The patriarch of the family was the founder of Sun Oil Company. In 2004 the Research Organization was set up as a non-partisan group, and they frequently publish polls on a variety of topics, including politics. In the past ten years, they have gained respect for the quality of their work, and they are frequently quoted.
Pew Research took a poll from December 3-7, asking 1,507 Americans certain questions relating to “Christmas.” Some of the results are listed below:
Percentage of United States adults saying they believe:
Jesus was born of a virgin 73%
Baby Jesus was laid in a manger 81%
The three wise men 75%
That sounds like excellent news that, despite how the Bible and Christianity have both been assaulted in a variety of ways, the vast majority of people still believe in the virgin birth. The news may sound better than it is, however, as the discussion unfolded afterward. It is important to know not only what people believe but why.
O’Reilly added one more statistic: “65% of Americans believe the gospel version of Jesus’ birth, a higher percentage than those who believe in global warming.” Then he introduced his two guests. The “believer” was Joshua Dubois, who recently wrote The President’s Devotional. Leading the opposition to belief in the virgin birth was Julien Musolino, a professor of Psychology at Rutgers University. His book will be released shortly and is titled, The Soul Fallacy: What Science Shows We Gain from Letting Go of Our Soul Beliefs. It would be helpful if someone would write a reply to that work as speedily as possible.
O’Reilly began the discussion by asking Musolino if he thought it was foolish or foolhardy to believe in the virgin birth. He did not consider it foolish (perhaps not wanting to alienate 73% of the population), but he did say that he had not seen “much evidence that this actually happened.” Well, how hard had he looked for evidence?
Did he consider, for instance, that the virgin birth was recorded in the book of Isaiah not long before 700 B.C.? Is Musolino aware that Isaiah was translated into the Greek language (along with the other books of the Old Testament) about 275-250 B.C. (the Septuagint)? Not only can the prophecy not apply to anyone else, Matthew confirmed that it was written of Jesus when he wrote about Jesus’ life about A.D. 62. Furthermore, Jesus’ virgin birth was believed to be true because of the miracles, signs, and wonders done by the apostles (John 20:30-31). This is a considerable amount of evidence; so what’s the evidence against it?
Someone sometime floated a rumor (probably the Jews) that Jesus’ father was a Roman soldier. Anyone can offer a hypothesis, but where is the corroborating evidence? Is there an admission made by such a soldier? Are there any birth or tax records? What testimony was there for such a claim in the first century? Anyone can invent an alternate explanation at any time. The question would be, “What is the compelling proof that anything occurred any differently than what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John recorded? All four of them believed that Jesus was the Son of God, whether they recorded His birth or not.
“It’s a Matter of faith.”
Of course, O’Reilly did not say any of these things because, despite having co-authored Killing Jesus in 2013, he knows little theology. (In fact, that book has at least two errors in it.) He responded to a man who is probably an atheist by saying, “It’s a matter of faith.” What exactly is that supposed to mean? It sounds like O’Reilly is saying, “We don’t have any proof for the virgin birth; we just believe it because it sounds good. In other words, we accept it on the basis of our subjective feelings about it—not on the basis of any objective evidence.” Unfortunately, Dubois seems to hold the same view.
When O’Reilly asked him if he believed in the virgin birth, he answered, “I do. I also believe in global warming. And I believe in evolution. But I believe that God sent His Son to earth. And I know that may sound strange to some folks.” At least he didn’t throw in the tooth fairy. His comments are worthless.
Global Warming
We know that the evidence at East Anglia University falsified the data they collected to try to support the global warming theory. This happened within the past five years. We do not have convincing evidence of anything but that weather patterns oftentimes go in cycles. In 1974 Time ran a very serious article about global cooling. Obviously, today’s thinking is different, but is it any more warranted than the previous line of thought? What would happen if we had a year like 1936 again? According to Wikipedia,
The 1936 North American heat wave was the most severe heat wave in the modern history of North America. It took place in the middle of the Great Depression and Dust Bowl of the 1930s, and caused catastrophic human suffering and an enormous economic toll….
The 1936 heat wave followed one of the coldest winters on record…..
The heat wave started in late June, when temperatures across the US exceeded 100 °F….
July was the peak month, in which temperatures reached all-time record levels—many of which still stand as of 2012.
Residents of Peoria, Illinois still talked about how many days were over 100 degrees that year more than five decades later. Many slept outside at night in the open air for relief. But what if this happened today? Various politicians and Hollywood types would be absolutely beside themselves, and like Chicken Little, they would be assuring everyone that doom was certain. There would be movies and television shows devoted to the subject, panels would be convened, and a trillion dollars would probably be set aside (for someone to make a lot of money on). The next year might be normal even if nothing was done.
Evolution
This battle has been fought a million times. Nothing has changed. After 150 years, evolution remains a theory with no sufficient amount of data to establish it as true. In fact, a tremendous amount of evidence says it is not true. Whether or not someone chooses to go with evolution is not the point here, however; the fact is that you cannot believe in evolution and the Bible, as Mr. Dubois says he does. In order to do so, one has to arbitrarily decide that most of Genesis contains allegories. Adam and Eve cannot be real people because they would have evolved. So throw out Genesis 1-3, which includes the Creation, the institution of marriage, and the introduction of sin into the world.
Evolutionists do not believe in sin; hence, they have no need of a Savior, which does away with the need for Jesus and the virgin birth that explains how He got here. Dubois is a mass of contradictions. One of his main problems is that the New Testament treats Adam as a literal human being—not an allegory. In fact, nothing in Genesis even suggests that Adam is a figurative being. Jesus cites Genesis 2:18-24 as God’s pattern for marriage which remains valid (Matt. 19:3-9). Paul cited Adam as the one who let sin into the world (Rom. 5). In short, only liberal theologians try to make Genesis an allegory because they think they will look more “scientific” if they accept evolution. What they look is compromising.
The Virgin Birth
Finally, Dubois lists something that he believes in that is based on reliable testimony, but he does not cite any. If people do not have any evidence—or sufficient evidence—for what they believe, then who cares? Plenty of people believe in Sasquatch, The Big Pumpkin, and UFOs. The question is: “On what evidence are these beliefs grounded?” As mentioned earlier, the virgin birth was prophesied of and fulfilled. It is not a matter of wishful thinking.
Easier and Healthy
O’Reilly again directed a question (eventually) at the Rutgers’ representative:
Now, professor, people choose to believe. I mean, it’s a choice, a conscious choice…. But it’s easier to believe in a benevolent God, the baby Jesus, than it is in some kind of theory about global warming. It’s just easier, is it not?”
Musolino answered, “I suppose you’re right. It probably is easier.” Of course there was much more that he might have said, but O’Reilly cut him off. He might have stated the obvious: “Should we believe things because they are appealing and easy to believe, or should we believe them because they are true?” No matter which side one is on (God or evolution), this is the only pertinent question. It does not matter what the majority thinks or desires; what is the truth?
O’Reilly went right on rambling: “I believe it’s a healthy choice to believe in the baby Jesus.” But who cares what he thinks? Suppose someone in Iraq says, “I think it’s a healthy choice to believe that Muhammad is God’s prophet”; are we all going to jump on board with that one?
Worse Yet
Just when the viewer thinks that things could not get worse, O’Reilly qualifies his “healthy choice” comment by adding, “I don’t care whether you believe that He’s God or not.” What? Does he not realize that Jesus being the Son of God is the reason He was born of a virgin? He was begotten by the Holy Spirit and thus has one fully Divine parent, along with Mary, His mother, being His fully human parent. Everything depends on the Deity of Jesus. Apparently, O’Reilly thinks it is better to believe in the events surrounding the birth of Jesus than it is to believe in Jesus as the Son of God!
He continues: “I read a book that’s basically non-religious. It basically says, ‘This is what happened.’” The wise men story is confirmed, according to O’Reilly, by “Chinese and Persian history. Fascinating.” He thinks it’s a good thing for people to celebrate Christmas and to admire the man Jesus. Would it be equally good to celebrate and admire Buddha?
Organized Religion
The final substantial comment of this segment was made by Dubois:
…a lot of folks out there…may not agree with every aspect of organized religion, but they believe in the person of Jesus Christ, and that’s a good thing; that’s a hopeful thing for the church.
What he means by “organized religion” is anybody’s guess. He may be referring to the various religious denominations, with their frequent conflicting creeds. According to Wikipedia, organized religion or institutional religion is typically characterized by “an official doctrine (or dogma), a hierarchical or bureaucratic leadership structure, and a codification of rules and practices.” Hmm. Jesus designed an official doctrine for the church (Acts 2:42). In His church there is a hierarchical leadership—at least, within the church (1 Tim. 3:1-12)—but not between churches. The only codification of rules and practices are those found in the New Testament. So, perhaps Dubois is referring to denominational bodies.
Next, however, one wonders what he means by people believing in the person of Jesus Christ. What do they believe about Him, for example? Do they merely believe that He existed? Many historical references prove that fact. But what do they believe about Jesus? Do they think He was only a prophet but not the Son of God, as Muslims do? Or do they think He is just a man and not the Son of God at all, as was taught in Jesus Christ Superstar?
Do people view Him as One Who only preached love and forgiveness, or do they also see Him as One Who taught obedience to the will of God (Matt. 7:21-23)? Do they see Him as saving just about everyone, or do they know He said that the majority of people are on the road to destruction (Matt. 7:13-14)? Do they picture Jesus as approving our materialistic and often superficial society, or do they pay heed to a man’s “life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses” (Luke 12:15)? Do they rejoice in making Jesus a sinner like themselves (as in Miranda Lambert’s song that boasts about Jesus drinking wine), or do they pay attention to Him when He said, “Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming” (Matt. 24:42)?
The problem with many people is that they do not know what the Scriptures teach about Jesus because they have not taken the time to read the New Testament. They may also be confused because of the existence of denominationalism and all those “organized religions.” Choosing to bypass all of those for Jesus Himself, they probably are unaware that He said, “…on this rock I will build My church…” (Matt. 16:18) or that the church and the kingdom are the same (Matt. 16:19).
The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Head of the church and that He is the Savior of the body (Eph. 1:22-23). Jesus purchased the church He promised to build with His own blood (Acts 20:28). But how many people think in Biblical terms? Chances are they mainly know what the popular culture believes.
The Task
Brethren must find ways to get the truth before people. We do not have a nationally syndicated radio or television show. Many of those who have talk shows are either Catholic or atheist—except for Glenn Beck who is a Mormon. Thus the knowledge that they bring to the public forum on religious matters is not usually accurate, as this segment of The O’Reilly Factor demonstrates. It would be interesting to find a knowledgeable student of the Word who possessed a great sense of humor and a logical mind who could gain a national audience. In such a forum he might persuade millions of people to evaluate events in light of the Scriptures and lead them toward the truth.
Of course, that probably will not happen. Imagine someone trying to pitch such a show to a national network. Plan B calls for Christians individually to know the Bible and to seek out others who need to know it—perhaps even want to know it. We ought to devote ourselves to becoming more effective in this task.
We ought to pray for wisdom and solutions so that we might cut into the preponderance of ignorance that even people who believe in Jesus or think the Scriptures are inspired by God possess. Even if they get it right, they may not know why they are right—but they need to.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1).