What does God think of us?- Broadcast on SABC2 on April 17, 2011

That old serpent

WHAT DOES GOD THINK OF US? This is the title of a series of programs presented by Theo Geyser on SABC2 and may I add, a very controversial series that misrepresents the God of the Bible in the most brazen way imaginable. Even the title is a misrepresentation of the real content of the series. Instead of telling viewers what God thinks of us Theo Geyser tells his viewers what they should think of God and his doctrines, in this case the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Last Sunday, April 17, he had an emerging conversation with Rowan Smith, retired Dean of Cape Town of the Anglican Church, and Ben du Toit of the Dutch Reformed Church, as well as several passersby whom he interviewed in the streets of Stellenbosch.

So, what should we think of God? Last Sunday’s topic of discussion was about Jesus Christ’s virgin birth. Was it a literal birth or just a metaphorical or mythical story the Great Author of the Bible conjured up to teach the poor scientifically illiterate creatures in the pre modern world how to cope with the complexities of life and how they should run their lives on their spiritual journey? Perhaps we should begin with Theo Geyser’s closing statement. It not only sums up the entire content of the program but solidifies his personal view of Christ’s virgin birth.

I’m standing in the parking lot. I spent the whole day here chatting to people. What I can understand of the virgin birth this is the best place to talk about it, because God comes to people. And when you find God, you find Him in the dust and amongst ordinary people.

What helps me personally in this debate is to hear Christians who think differently, who say: “Maybe its metaphorical, maybe poetic.” That can also help us. The fact that something is presented in a myth doesn’t mean there is no truth in it. In the lesson of Adam and Eve, whatever it is, there are principles that can help me in my life.

What I also heard is that there are more important things to talk about than only two verses in the Bible on which I should base and build my whole life. And perhaps that’s what God thinks about: What are the important things on which we build our lives?

What on earth is this man saying? Allow me to sum it up as follows.

Because it was God’s purpose to veil or shroud the virgin birth of his Son in a cloud of mystery, he deliberately and covertly included only two verses about the virgin birth in the Bible. The reason He did this was because He feared that mankind would interpret the virgin birth of his Son in a literal way only. That would be too condescending and a travesty of man’s freedom to interpret the Bible in any which way he pleases. In fact, by the inclusion of only two verses about the virgin birth in the Bible He was thinking to accommodate the post modern scholars, pastors and church clergy who, by virtue of ultra modern scientific evidence, no longer have a pre-modern mindset (flat earth worldview) like that of Jesus and his disciples. The two-versed virgin birth in Scripture presents them with a new found liberty which allows them to spread wings of metaphorical and poetic beauty so that they may fly soothingly into a dark mist of apostasy.

To prevent an only literal interpretation He — this God who is found in the dust of insecurities, double-talk, inconsistencies paradoxes and amongst ordinary people — included only two verses in his Word so that man may feel free to interpret it in a metaphorical and/or poetical way as well. That too can help us to speed up our downward spiral into apostasy. The million dollar question, of course, is why He didn’t have his prophets and disciples include hundreds or even thousands of verses on the virgin birth in the Bible? Why didn’t He? Well, maybe the following explanation will help you understand this little enigma a lot better. If God had included more than two verses about the virgin birth in the Bible no one, not even Theo Geyser, would have been able to question God’s track record of never ever telling lies. However, less than four or three makes Him vulnerable to criticism and the liability that He is quite capable of telling lies. Three or four verses could have been a better foundation on which to build our lives and our faith, but only two? . . . . Nah! no one can build his life and faith on only two verses because that alone cannot convince us that God never tells a lie.  The fact is, even if He had included more than two verses on the virgin birth in the Bible, man’s deceitful and desperately wicked heart would have caused him to give birth to some other brilliant reason for not believing in a literal virgin birth. So, what the heck, give them two verses only.

The main reason, however, why God included only two verses on the virgin birth in the Bible, is because it, together with the salvation of mankind, are not the most important things to talk about. Surely, they do not need a virgin birth and its inextricable connection to salvation when there are more important things to talk about, things like how we should build our lives.

The emergent brotherhood of two-versed virginity fame has the audacity to question the veracity of only two verses in the Bible but do not care a hoot to take only one word and embroil their whole argument against the virgin birth around it. In the opening scene of the program it was said that the Hebrew word “Almah,” which is used to describe Mary, means “young woman of marriageable age.”

Recently some Christians have started questioning this literal interpretation of the birth. According to them the textual tradition isn’t ironclad. The Hebrew word “ALMAH” is used to describe Mary which translated means young woman of marriageable age. The churches we spoke to are divided on the issue. There is no definitive answer coming from the Christian community. Why is it then that the virgin birth constitutes one of the cornerstones of Christianity and is repeated Sunday after Sunday in many Christian churches as part of the apostolic creed.

To understand their grossly distorted view and the discrepancies in their argument against a virgin birth we need to take into account the post modernists’ morally bankrupt view on the necessity for purity (virginity) before marriage. How can you expect them to have a biblical view on virginity before marriage when they have no qualms whatsoever about homosexuality? You see, the primitive pre-modern view with regard to marriage amongst God fearing Jews was that women should remain a virgin until she got married. If not, she was summarily stoned to death. Was this not the reason why Mary’s betrothed was willing to divorce her?

Barnes says:

Adultery has always been considered a crime of a very heinous nature. In Egypt, it was punished by cutting off the nose of the adulteress; in Persia, the nose and ears were cut off; in Judea, the punishment was death by stoning, Lev 20:10; Eze 16:38, Eze 16:40; Joh 8:5. This punishment was also inflicted where the person was not married, but betrothed, Deu 21:23-24. In this case, therefore, the regular punishment would have been death in this painful and ignominious manner. Yet Joseph was a religious man – mild and tender; and he was not willing to complain of her to the magistrate, and expose her to death, but sought to avoid the shame, and to put her away privately.

“The word “ALMAH” may very well refer to a young woman of marriageable age but what many so-called Christians fail to acknowledge is that the young marriageable women in the ancient Jewish, pre-modern, primitive, unscientific age were — unlike today’s post modern highly sophisticated and super scientifically superior age — expected to be chaste and pure before their marriage, or else they were stoned to death. Apart from this, the word in ancient Hebrew does not only mean a young woman of marriageable age but also refers to a young maiden who is a virgin. Once again, let’s listen to what Barnes says:

The etymology of the word requires us to suppose that it means one who is growing up to a marriageable state, or to the age of puberty. The word maiden, or virgin, expresses the correct idea. Hengstenberg contends, that it means one “in the unmarried state;” Gesenius, that it means simply the being of marriageable age, the age of puberty. The Hebrews usually employed the word בתולה  bethûlâh, to denote a pure virgin (a word which the Syriac translation uses here); but the word here evidently denotes one who was “then” unmarried; and though its primary idea is that of one who is growing up, or in a marriageable state, yet the whole connection requires us to understand it of one who was “not then married,” and who was, therefore, regarded and designated as a virgin. The Vulgate renders it ‘virgo.’ The Septuagint, η αρθένος  hē parthenos, “a virgin” – a word which they use as a translation of the Hebrew בתולה  bethûlâh in Exo 22:16-17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:28; Deu 32:25; Jdg 19:24; Jdg 21:12; and in thirty-three other places (see Trommius’ Concordance); of נערה  na‛ărâh, a girl, in Gen 24:14, Gen 24:16, Gen 24:55; Gen 34:3 (twice); 1Ki 1:2; and of עלמה  ‛almâh, only in Gen 24:43; and in Isa 7:14.

I’m sure if you asked Theo Geyser whether he believed that Jesus died for his sins on the cross he would immediately say: YES! of course. My next question would be: How does that tie in with your paradoxical view that a metaphorical and poetic view of the virgin birth is just as true and valid as a literal view of Christ’s virgin birth? A metaphorical and poetic view of his birth would inevitably lead to a metaphorical and poetic crucifixion and subsequently also a metaphorical and poetic death for the sins of the world. Imagine someone having to appear before God’s judgment seat saying: “I never believed in a literal virgin birth but I have always believed in a metaphorical and poetic view thereof. I guess that makes me a sinner whose sins have been paid for metaphorically and poetically on the cross. Therefore I am a full-blooded metaphorical and poetic saint which gives You (God) the boldness not to cast me into a metaphorical and poetic hell but to grant me entrance into the blissful glories of your metaphorical and poetic heaven. Guess what God is going to say to this metaphorically and poetically forgiven sinner?

How do these metaphorical and poetic phantasmagoria believers in a metaphorical and poetic virgin birth read their Bibles? Surely they must have read, if ever, in the Old Testament that the lamb slain at Passover had to be without blemish which clearly shows that the Lamb of God to whom the Passover lamb pointed in advance had to be blameless, sinless and without any stain or blemish of sin. Our post modern ultra scientifically educated scholars are forever reminding us that we should read Scripture in its proper context. Are they doing what they are preaching? You must be joking! If they had remained faithful to their own golden rule of proper context they would at least have noticed that the entire sacrificial system in Leviticus categorically states that the Lamb of God had to be sinless. There is no man born of the seed of a man and a woman who is without sin. We are all born in sin. We all enter this world tainted by sin. There is only one Person who could pay in full for our sins and that is a completely sinless and yet fully human Person – Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God who is God Himself and equal with his Father, and hence his virgin birth. Anyone who claims he/she is saved and a Christian and rejects a literal virgin birth is deceived and needs to repent of their evil disbelief/unbelief so that God may pardon and save them.

Instead of asking “What does God think of us” we should rather ask “What does God think of false followers of Christ and false apostles and teachers?” Listen to what Paul says:

Theo Geyser and his buddies at Invia in Stellenbosch, the Mosaïek Church in Fairlands, Johannesburg and on e-church may venture to find a virgin birth that satisfies and includes everyone’s whim, they will never find one. But then again, they have enough time to seek for one because in their spirituality the spiritual journey is more important than the destination. So heaven and hell can wait because they are endlessly seeking for a virgin birth that is not divisive but will bring everyone together in their glorious utopia which they call the Kingdom of God. May God have mercy on their pitiful souls.

Members of the Mosaïek Church in Fairlands, Johannesbburg, of the INVIA community in Stellenbosch and of the e-church website, how long are you going to follow these false apostles and teachers? They are not leading you to an euphoric Kingdom of God here and now; they are leading you straight to hell and I assure you it is NOT a metaphorical and poetic place; it is real and it  is indiscribably terrible and it is eternal. Don’t let Rob Bell and his buddies whose LOVE supposedly WINS tell you that everyone is going to heaven, even those who remain unrepentant unto death. Its a lie from the pit of hell itself.

Advertisement