Eamon Younis: The Virginal Conception of Our Lord in Matthew 1:18-25

By David J. MacLeod

Dave MacLeod is a faculty member at Emmaus Bible College and the Associate Editor of The Emmaus Journal.

Introduction

The Apostles’ Creed, not written by the Apostles, but accurately reflecting their teaching, says, “I believe in God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.” [1] The Christian message centers in the person of Christ, and the purpose of this article is to consider Matthew’s account of the beginning of our Lord’s life on earth.

We should note as we begin that no new person came into existence at the conception of Jesus—in this, Jesus’ birth differs from all others. Rather, an eternal, pre-existent person, the second person of the Triune God, chose to come down into our human race and be born one of us. An eternal person in His own right, God the Son took something new to Himself—humanity, flesh and blood, our human life and nature—because He loved us enough to come and die for us on the cross. So, this was not an ordinary baby, begotten by a man and a woman to produce a new person; rather, the Spirit of God introduced into the body of Mary a Divine Person, who through the virginal conception added to Himself all that is essential to humanity. [2]

In the words of Milton,

That glorious form, that light unsufferable,
And that far-beaming blaze of Majesty,
Wherewith he wont at Heav’ns high Councel-Table,
To sit the midst of Trinal Unity,
He laid aside; and here with us to be,
Forsook the Courts of everlasting Day,
And chose with us a darksome House of mortal Clay. [3]

In Matthew, the first book of our New Testament, there is a significant parallel with Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament. In Genesis 1:1–2 the Spirit of God hovers in creative activity over the earth. Then in Genesis 5:1 we find the statement, “This is the book of the generations (LXX = γένεσις (genesis), “lineage”) of Adam,” followed by a genealogical list of all his progeny.

By Matthew’s time the standard title for the Greek translation of the first book of the Bible was Γένεσις (genesis) meaning “origin,” or “beginning.” So, when his readers read Matthew 1:1, “the book of the genealogy (γένεσις) of Jesus Christ” they would anticipate that “some sort of ‘new genesis,’ a genesis of Jesus Christ would follow.” There can be no doubt that Matthew saw in the story of Jesus “a counterpart to the story of Genesis.” [4]

In verse 18, as in Genesis 1 we again see the Holy Spirit in His creative role as agent in the conception of Jesus. And we again have the word γένεσις, but here it is translated, “birth.” Verses 18–25 are a “detailed narrative account of Jesus’ ‘genesis.’” [5] In His birth God begins a new creation. [6] A “second man,” the “last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45, 47) appears on the world’s stage to save people from the terrible conditions that resulted from the failure and sin of the first Adam.

The two New Testament accounts of the birth of Jesus are independent and quite different in detail—the account in Luke is written from the perspective of Mary, and the account here in Matthew is written from the perspective of Joseph. While they are written from different standpoints they are not contradictory; rather, they are compatible [7] and “mutually complementary.” [8] They both agree that Jesus’ birth was a miracle. Matthew twice says that Mary’s conception was “of the Holy Spirit” (1:18, 20). Luke gives more detail. He writes, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God” (1:35). While the other gospels do not explicitly teach the virginal conception of Jesus, they are in harmony with it.

Mark begins his gospel by referring to Jesus as “the Son of God” (1:1), and later he refers to Him as “son of Mary” (6:3). The expression “son of Mary” is remarkable testimony to the fact that Jesus was Mary’s son, not Joseph’s. A Jew was named after his mother only when his father was not known. [9] John, too, agrees. He quotes Jesus as saying, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world” (8:23; cf. 1:1, 14). [10] The Apostle Paul, [11] too, is in agreement with the supernatural origin of Christ. He describes His preexistent state (Phil. 2:6), describes His birth in an unusual way (“revealed in the flesh,” 1 Tim. 3:16), and uses the suggestive phrase, “born of a woman” (Gal. 4:4). [12]

In 20 bc Herod the Great built a temple of white marble in honor of Caesar Augustus, and the area later became known as Caesarea Philippi. Herod placed a bust of Caesar in the temple next to a bust of the god Pan. The Jews were filled with indignation that a ruler of the Jews should build a temple to honor this mere man who dared to exalt himself to the status of a god. It is striking that in that very place Jesus and His disciples found themselves one day, and surely they talked of this blasphemous sanctuary. There, near that shrine where men worshipped one of their fellow-men as God, Peter made his great confession, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). The one type of worship (that of a man who made himself a god), firmly entrenched at the time, has long since passed away, whereas the worship of Christ (the Son of God who assumed human nature), beginning with that inconspicuous company of disciples, has grown to worldwide proportions. [13]

The Objections to the Virginal Conception of Jesus

The Biological Objection

Many criticisms have been raised against the virginal conception, and they arise from the antisupernaturalistic worldview that says miracles cannot happen. The virginal conception is a miracle, and is therefore “completely impossible.” [14] Various reasons are offered, but the basic cause is this presupposition that the supernatural cannot happen in history. [15] The biological objection to the virgin birth is the naturalistic one, viz., that children cannot be conceived without two human parents. Father and mother (sperm and ovum) are both needed for the conception of a child. When Malcolm Muggeridge, the well-known English writer and editor, was considering the claims of Christ he concluded, “Christ’s mother, Mary, conceived him out of wedlock.” [16]

We tend to view the people of the first century as gullible and ignorant. That is not the case. Both Joseph and Mary knew how babies were made. Mary asked, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” (Luke 1:34). Joseph was not a fool. His fiancée was pregnant, and he sought to break the engagement! The angel confronted both Mary and Joseph. To Mary he said, “Nothing will be impossible with God” (Luke 1:37). The moment we accept the fact that Almighty God created this universe and holds it together, there should be no difficulty accepting the idea of a virginal conception. “If we accept the inspiration and authority of the Word of God, we must be prepared to face the contravention of the natural, or the supernatural.” [17]

In response to the objection that no human being was ever made without a human father and mother, we can point to the Genesis account of the creation of Adam and Eve. Which is the greater miracle: the creation of Adam and Eve, or the virginal conception of Jesus? [18]

The Mythological Objection

One of the most common assertions of modern scholars is that the miraculous birth of Christ was borrowed from the pagan world that was awash in stories of gods, heroes, and monarchs who were virgin born. They say that the early Christians invented a similar story to dramatize the origins of their lord.19 Upon closer investigation, however, it turns out that paganism does not have any accounts of virgin births.

To cite one example: A number of scholars have argued that the story of the virginal conception was taken from Buddhism. [20] Buddha’s mother, legend says, was sleeping on a couch when a superb white elephant, holding in his trunk a white lotus flower, entered her mansion. He bowed down to her couch three times, struck her side and seemed to enter her womb. No claim is made in the legend for the mother’s virginity nor for conception by a divine being. In short, there is no analogy to Matthew or Luke. [21]

To cite another: It has been argued that the narrative of Jesus’ birth had its origin in the ancient story of Krishna. [22] The divine Vishnu himself descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son, Krishna. Again no claim is made for the virginity of the mother, or the historicity [23] of the event. Furthermore, this is but one of many incarnations (avatārs) of Vishnu—he also came as a fish, a boar, a man-lion, and a dwarf. He also came as Rama and Buddha. [24]

To cite yet another: Alexander the Great was depicted as divinely born, but historians know that this was political propaganda designed to have him recognized as the legitimate king in Egypt.

The most frequently repeated analogies are the births of Perseus and Hercules, who were the sons of Zeus and human mothers. Yet these accounts differ markedly from the New Testament. They involve a sexual encounter between a god and a human mother. Most times the woman has no possible claim to virginity, and, if she was a virgin before the encounter, she was not afterward. In the case of Perseus, Zeus lusted after his mother. To demonstrate the difference we need only examine the asexual nature of the Gospel accounts. As soon as we ask, “Did Yahweh lust after Mary?” or “How did the Holy Spirit impregnate Mary?” the offensiveness of our questions shows the difference between the Gospels and paganism. [25] In the New Testament the Holy Spirit performs a creative—not sexual—act in the womb of Mary that leaves her a virgin [26] even after conception. The eternal God caused Mary “to be with child not by intercourse but by power.” [27]

As Gresham Machen long ago observed, the virginal conception stories appear in the most Jewish portion of the whole New Testament, and the Palestinian Judaism of the first century was passionately opposed to pagan influences. [28] How could such pagan ideas find a place in the sacred and lovely narrative of the birth of Mary’s son? [29]

The “Scriptural” Objection

Others who doubt the biblical account of the virginal conception argue that before there was a legend, Joseph was the natural father of Jesus. [30] Dismissing the birth narratives as myth, they point to more “historical” passages of Scripture that speak of Joseph as “your father” (Luke 2:48) and Jesus as “the son of Joseph” (Luke 3:23) and “the carpenter’s son” (Matt. 13:55). [31] Two observations are in order: First, the infancy narratives can be easily harmonized with references to Joseph as Jesus’ father if we bear in mind that Joseph was Jesus’ father in the purely legal sense. He bowed to the miracle of God, obeyed the angelic command, and took Mary as his lawful wife, legitimizing and admitting Jesus to the house of David in a legal sense. Second, the account of Matthew is harmonious and instructive if the reader takes it simply and believingly. [32]

The Account of the Virginal Conception of Jesus

The Dilemma of Joseph: His Discovery of Mary’s Condition, vv. 18-19

Matthew’s account of the birth begins, “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows” (Τοῦ δὲ [33] ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν, tou de Iēsou Christou hē genesis houtōs ēn). The word “birth” (γένεσις) is, as I’ve mentioned, the same as the word “genealogy” or “lineage” in verse 1. The genealogical record now reaches its goal with the “genesis” of Jesus.

Sometime in the reigns of Caesar Augustus and Herod the Great two Jewish men (Heli [Luke 3:23] and Jacob [Matt. 1:16]) contracted a marriage between their children, a young carpenter (or carpenter in training) [34] of the Davidic line, and a devout young girl, also of David’s family. [35] The betrothal or engagement took place at a very early age (twelve to twelve and a half years). [36] Then about a year would pass before the young woman passed from her parents’ house to her husband’s house. [37]

During the year of engagement—even though the marriage was not sexually consummated—the girl was considered a “wife” (cf. Deut. 20:7; 28:30; Judg. 14:15; 15:1; 2 Sam. 3:14). If her fiancé died she would be a widow, [38] if she had sex with another man she could be punished for adultery (Deut. 22:23–24), and if the engagement was broken a certificate of divorce had to be written. [39]

Sometime during their engagement Joseph discovered that Mary was pregnant. The marriage itself had not taken place, and sexual relations had not begun (“before they came together”), so Joseph knew that he was not the father. Before telling his readers of Joseph’s reaction, Matthew steps in to tell his readers that the pregnancy was due to the activity [40] of the Holy Spirit. [41]

The reverent wording of Matthew should be noted. There is no hint here of the pagan notion of a god having sexual relations with a woman. Instead Matthew says that the Holy Spirit miraculously brought about the conception. [42]

Did Mary tell Joseph of the visit of Gabriel, recorded in Luke 1:26–38, during which the angel told her of the Lord God’s intention to bring about a miraculous conception in her womb? Verse 20 (Matt. 1) assumes that she did not. Instead, Joseph became aware of her pregnancy when it became unmistakable. [43]

Can anyone doubt that a great struggle went on in the heart of Joseph as he considered this terrible turn of events? Matthew says he was being pulled in two directions. On the one hand, he was “a righteous man” (δίκαιος, dikaios), i.e., he had a strong sense of obedience to the Law of Moses, and that Law said very clear things about sexual unfaithfulness (cf. Deut. 22:23–27). [44] He now thought Mary to be unfaithful, and there is evidence that Jewish tradition dictated that she was no longer eligible for marriage. [45] To marry her would be to tacitly admit that he, too, was guilty of violating the Law. According to Jewish tradition he could ask for a public trial before the authorities, expose her sin, and be granted a divorce.

On the other hand, however, it is obvious that he loved this girl. He did not want to publicly embarrass and humiliate her. So he decided on a second course of action. He decided “to put her away secretly” (λάθρᾳ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν, lathra apolysai autēn). He would write up a bill of divorce himself and get two or three witnesses to privately sign it without recourse to a public trial. Such a move would leave Joseph’s righteousness and compassion intact. [46]

The Revelation from Heaven: The Supernatural Conception of the Child, vv. 20-21

The text suggests that Joseph had reached his decision but was hesitating before carrying it out. [47] During a fitful time of restless sleep, as he tossed and turned—disturbed by the distasteful action he must take, “an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream.” [48] The angel addressed Joseph as “Joseph, son of David” ( ᾿Ιωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυίδ, Iosēph huios Dauid). The expression “son of David” is a title of dignity and ties this verse to the opening words of the chapter, “Jesus Christ, the Son of David.” Everywhere else in Matthew the title is used of Jesus and emphasizes His connection to the royal line.

The angel said, “Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife.” The verb “take” (παραλαβεῖν, paralabein) has the sense, “take her home,” i.e., turn their engagement into a marriage. [49] What the readers were told in verse 18 is now revealed to Joseph, “that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” The verb “conceived” (γεννηθὲν, gennēthen) is passive. This underlines the passive roles of both Joseph and Mary. In short, God is the initiator in the whole process. [50]

Before going on to verse 21 it is important to notice an important principle of the Christian life: God is sovereign—He is in charge, and He is free to change our plans. [51] Joseph and Mary planned to marry, and a pregnancy interfered. Joseph planned to divorce his fiancée, and a message from the Lord interfered. Often, as believers, we have to make hard decisions, and we do not know which way to turn. We are in the dark, but we have to act. As a devout Jew, Joseph knew that God was a loving God who did not want to destroy his life. So he acted with the light he had, trusting God to guide him, and He did. “Light arises in the darkness for the upright” (Ps. 112:4).

Mary was going to “bear a son,” and Joseph was commanded [52] to name [53] the baby “Jesus.” The naming of a male child would take place at the baby’s circumcision eight days after his birth (cf. Luke 2:21). In our day names are mere labels, but in biblical times names pointed to the actual character and destiny of the individual. [54]

Some Indian tribes in Mexico have a concept of “face,” and “saving face.” When a child is newly born, they say it has “no face,” i.e., the face, they believe, is something that develops out of the child’s life and experience. As a result, an Indian does not like to “lose face” for he has spent his entire life developing it. [55] This is similar to the biblical concept of a “name.” Like the Indian concept of “face” the “name” of many biblical characters developed out of their experience and accomplishments.

It has been said, “As a man is named, so is he.” [56] A name can be a one-word summary of what he has done and of what he is. In the secular world these are often not names given at birth, but titles bestowed later on in virtue of their deeds. So the impact of Alexander on the world is summed up in his title, “Alexander the Great.” The relationship of King William to England is summed up in the title, “William the Conqueror.” An English king by the name of Ethelred goes down in history as “Ethelred the Unready,” and Mary as “Bloody Mary,” titles which sum up the character of each. A Jewish freedom-fighter, Judas Maccabeus, was known as “the Hammer” of his enemies. The function of John in history is summed up in the title, “the Baptizer,” and the politics and character of Simon are contained in the name “Simon the Zealot.” [57]

All of this is especially true of Jesus. Jesus is the Greek form ( ᾿Ιησοῦς, Iēsous) of the Jewish name Joshua (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ [yᵉhôs̆uaʿ] or יְשׁוּעַ [yᵉs̆ûaʿ). [58] In the Gospels it is the commonest name of our Lord. In them He is called by that simple name almost six hundred times. [59] It is a name that underlines His real humanity. It is a holy and sacred name to us, but in New Testament times it was one of the commonest of names. [60] It is the name by which He was discussed among the people, and it is the name by which He was addressed.

Of the seventy-two translators of the LXX, three had the name Jesus. At least five high priests had the name. In the works of Josephus the historian there appear about twenty people with the name Jesus. One of the books of the Apocrypha (Ecclesiasticus) was written by a man named Jesus, the son of Sirach. In the New Testament we read of a friend of Paul named Jesus Justus (Col. 4:11), and the sorcerer of Paphos is called Bar-Jesus (Acts 13:6). In some manuscripts of Matthew 27:17 the notorious prisoner of the Romans is given as a first name, Jesus. Pilate asks the mob, “Whom do you want me to release for you—Jesus Bar-Abbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” [61] So many others had the name [62] that people frequently added descriptive phrases, e.g., “Jesus, from Nazareth” (Matt. 21:11; cf. Matt. 26:71; 27:37; Mark 10:47; John 19:19).

The Hebrew name Joshua was a sentence name, and in its longer form it meant, “Yahweh is salvation,” and in its shorter form it means, “Yahweh saves.” It was the kind of name given to a child by devout believers in the God of Israel. But in this case the name was chosen not by the parents, but by God Himself. Every time that Mary and Joseph called His name (“Joshua!” or “Jesus!”) the gospel was proclaimed, “Yahweh is salvation,” “Yahweh saves.”

Great stress is placed upon the name Jesus in Matthew’s account. It is a name with rich Old Testament associations. Joshua (the Hebrew translation of Jesus) was the successor of Moses who led Israel into the Promised Land (Josh. 1–12). Another Joshua, a high priest and a contemporary of Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:2; 3:2–9; Neh. 7:7), reestablished the temple sacrifices in the land. [63] This name identifies Mary’s son as the One who brings in Yahweh’s promised eschatological salvation.

The Jews of Jesus’ day waited for such a deliverer—a new “Joshua” who would redeem Israel from Roman tyranny. [64] The great question for Matthew is “Who will inherit the kingdom?” [65] The genealogy in Matthew 1:1–16 with its references to Abraham and David might have suggested that Jesus was such a nationalistic, political leader. [66] In fact, the angel’s message to Mary in Luke 1:32–33 indicates that Jesus will one day rule over Israel as their king. But the angel says nothing of that to Joseph. Instead, he anticipates the teaching of Jesus who will say in Matthew 20:28 that “He will give His life a ransom for many.” [67]

Before the kingdom is inaugurated in the end-time, this Joshua—Jesus, the son of Mary, must focus on what really matters, viz., salvation from sins.68 The problem of Israel was not essentially Roman domination. It was their estrangement from God by their sins. This is true in every age. The problem of America at the beginning of the twenty-first century is not the racial problem, nor weak educational programs, nor dysfunctional families, nor nuclear stockpiles, nor sexual confusion—although all these are symptoms of the problem. The problem is sin. This is the basic (if not immediate) cause of all these other calamities. Our Western culture is simply another of man’s social experiments in independence from God. The problem of mankind is that it has not bowed to the great doctrine of original sin—a doctrine slain by human contempt, but documented in every newspaper, newsmagazine, and television news program that we see. [69]

This Joshua, this Jesus, the virgin’s son, shall confront the greatest problem of mankind, its sins. The angel says that Jesus will save “His people from their sins.” To Joseph that would mean the people of Israel. As the Gospel of Matthew develops, however, we learn that “His people” include not only the believing remnant of Israel but believing Gentiles as well (cf. 3:9; 8:11). How Jesus will save His people, the angel does not say, but it becomes clear later in the book. He saves them by offering Himself as “a ransom for many” (20:28). It is at His crucifixion that he sheds His blood “for the forgiveness of sins” (26:28). [70]

We should note that the angel says “He,” i.e., Jesus, “will save His people.” The personal pronoun “He” (αὐτός, autos) is emphatic. The Bible is clear that “salvation is from the Lord” (Jonah 2:9), i.e., it is God who saves. Yet here it is Jesus who saves. In this Gospel we learn that Jesus is entirely human; yet He is “thrillingly divine.” He is a human Jew; He is also divine Lord—“Immanuel,” the “God with us” who saves. [71]

Before moving on to verse 22 it would be well to reflect further on the name “Jesus.” And here I am going to follow the remarks of the great London preacher, Charles Spurgeon (1834–92). [72] First, suggests the great preacher, let us remember that it is a name divinely given and explained. It is a superbly appropriate name, for God the Father chose it. It is true to His person and to His office as Savior, and when we use the name in our prayers to the Father we have the assurance of His attentively listening.

Second, He was called “Jesus” by men. Although appointed by God, it was accepted by men. Both Joseph and Mary united in calling the child this appointed name. And ever after those who are instructed by God the Spirit call Him Jesus recognizing that Christ is the only source of salvation in this world.

Third, it is the name typically worn by the Old Testament captain of the Lord’s host. [73] Above I mentioned Joshua, the son of Nun, who led the people into the land of Canaan, slaying Amalek, overcoming Jericho, and routing the Canaanites. It was a common name, as we noted earlier, because the Jewish people looked for saviors, but found none until Jesus came. Now the name is reserved for Him alone. [74]

Fourth, the name Jesus identifies Him with His people. He would not be Jesus (“Yahweh is salvation”) if He had no people to save. And all of His elect people cannot get along without His salvation. The first link with Christ is not our goodness, but our sins; not our merit, but our misery; not our righteousness, but His grace. Do you want saving? It is Jesus who will save you from your sins.

Fifth, it is the name Jesus that indicates His chief work. It is striking that people write of Christ who know nothing of His main work. To have known John Milton, but not as a poet, is not to have known the essence of the man. To have known Albert Einstein, but not as a scientist, is not to have known his greatest accomplishments. There are those who say they know Christ the teacher, but not as Savior. They do not know the Jesus of the Bible at all.

Sixth, the name Jesus is completely justified by the facts. The name was given to Him before He was born. Was it justified? Listen to a Christian on a deathbed sing His praises. Listen to a former drug addict, or alcoholic, or self-centered middle-class American who has been saved tell his or her story. Jesus saves people from their sins. As Spurgeon says, “Earth knows it, hell howls at it, and heaven chants it.… Time has seen it, and eternity shall reveal it.” Mr. Spurgeon told of passing through a cemetery and noting a gravestone that read: “Sacred to the Memory of Methuselah Coney.” Methuselah of Old Testament times (Gen. 5:26–27) lived to 969 years of age. No doubt the parents of Methuselah Coney had grand designs for their boy, but the little fellow’s life contradicted it. “Sacred to the Memory of Methuselah Coney, Who Died Aged 6 Months.” Unlike little Methuselah Coney, Jesus’ name is completely justified by the facts.

Finally, the name Jesus is Christ’s personal name forever. It is the name His mother and father gave Him. It is the name above His cross—“Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews” (John 19:19). It is the name of the resurrected one proclaimed on the day of Pentecost, “This Jesus God raised up again” (Acts 2:32). It is the evangelist’s theme—“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved” (Acts 16:31). At the very end of the Bible He promises, “Yes, I am coming quickly,” and the apostle answers, “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus” (Rev. 22:20).

This is why the name of Jesus is so important. And that is why Paul, in his great passage on the humiliation of Christ, exults, “Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow…” (Phil. 2:9–10). It was Bernard of Clairvaux (ad 1090–1153) who said that the name of Jesus was honey in the mouth, a melody in the ear, and joy in the heart. [75] One of our great hymns puts it this way:

Jesus! the name that charms our fears,
That bids our sorrows cease;
’Tis music in the sinner’s ears,
’Tis life, and health, and peace. [76]

The Fulfillment of Scripture: Isaiah’s Prophecy of the Virgin’s Son, vv. 22-23

The angel [77] then tells Joseph that Mary’s conception and pregnancy are in exact accord with, indeed are in direct fulfillment [78] of God’s sovereign purposes. He quotes Scripture [79] to show that God has a plan [80] and these events are in fulfillment of that plan. The Scripture he quotes is from the great sweep of the “Book of Immanuel” in Isaiah chapters 7–12.

In the Old Testament context (Isa. 7:1) Syria and Israel form an alliance to overthrow wicked Ahaz, the Davidic king of Judea. Through the prophet Isaiah, Ahaz is offered deliverance, but the king rejects the message of the Lord. As a result the land will experience conditions of unparalleled loss and devastation at the hands of its enemies (Isa. 6:10–13), and the house of David will lose its throne.

Yet the Davidic dynasty is given a great “sign” (7:14). [81] A child will be born to a virgin. [82] His birth will come after the coming of the terrible time of divine wrath (7:18–22) and will be a “future confirmation” [83] of the truthfulness of Isaiah’s prophecy of coming ruin. He, unlike Ahaz, will be a man of “disciplined maturity” [84] and will restore the Davidic family to power and rule over the new order. Yet because of Ahaz’ faithless decision, the virgin’s child [85] will “inherit a defunct dynasty and a pauperized, overrun and captive land.” [86]

In Isaiah 7:14 the prophet sees that the child is about to be born. In chapter 9:5–6 He is born, and He is the great prince of the four names— “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” Then, in chapter 11 (vv. 1–5, 10), Isaiah sees this great Davidic king reigning in glory. [87]

This Messianic child is to be called, “Immanuel” (עִמָּנוּ ל, ʿimmānû ʾēl [LXX, ᾿Εμμανουήλ, emmanouēl]), which means “God is with us”—a wonderful reassuring promise to the nation. The angel tells Joseph that the Immanuel prophecy is fulfilled [88] in the baby in Mary’s womb. She is the virgin [89] of whom Isaiah wrote, and her son is the theme of the oracle.

Jesus alone has the credentials to fulfill this prophecy. Three things link the history in Matthew with the prophecy of Isaiah and verify Jesus’ credentials: First, He alone is virgin born—this is a truly unique event in history. Second, He alone has the divine-human ancestry and nature. He is David’s son, and He is “Immanuel,” i.e., He is unequivocally divine. Third, He alone will have the righteous character and worldwide rule prophesied for Immanuel. [90] Although born to a lowly virgin of Israel, He will be the “Mighty God” and “the government will rest on His shoulders,” and He will sit on the throne of His father David, and rule over Israel forever (cf. Isa. 9:6–7; Luke 1:31–33).

Of all these elements, of course, the greatest stress is laid upon His deity, or upon the name “Immanuel.” “He is ‘with us’ by virtue of the virgin birth, but let one never forget that He is ‘God with us.’” [91]

In the Old Testament, God is supremely “The-Above-Us-God,” although He occasionally visited earth as the Angel of the Lord (cf. Gen. 16:7, 13; 22:15–18; 31:11, 13; 32:24, 28). In Islam, God is always “The-Above-Us-God.” However, the glory of the Gospel message is that the great “God-Above-Us” came down and became one of us. In Islam God sends—angels, prophets, and books—but He is too holy to come. For God to touch the earth is, in Islam, called shirk, and anyone who claims that God has a Son or became a human being or anything like a human being commits shirk, makes God gross, blasphemes God’s glory. The God of the Bible is precisely so great that He can come down. His love is so immense that He wants to come down, and He has proven that love by the fact that He has come down to our earth. He has allowed Himself to be shirked by men, condemned and nailed to a tree. The greatness of the Gospel is that God not only sends, He comes. He literally “be-littled” Himself or “poured Himself out” (Phil. 2:6) and became a human being. The pulse of the Gospel is that great condescension, that great stoop we call Christmas, or in theology, the incarnation—it is God’s own “self-shirking.” [92]

“God with us,” says Thomas Torrance, “means that God is for us; God is on our side; that He has come among us to shoulder our burden, and to rescue us from disaster and doom and to reinstate us as sons of the heavenly Father.” [93]

The Obedience of Joseph: He Marries the Virgin and Names Her Son, vv. 24-25

Joseph awoke from His sleep and did as the angel commanded Him. The message from heaven had erased all his doubts, and he was no longer afraid to take Mary as his wife. In accordance with Jewish custom, he most likely proceeded with the formal marriage ceremony and took Mary home as his wife.

Matthew wants to be very clear about Jesus’ virginal conception, however. He tells his readers that Joseph “kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son.” He says literally, “He was not in the habit of knowing her until she gave birth to a Son.”

Matthew’s Gospel does not support the later doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. [94] The Greek verb stresses continuous inaction [95] on Joseph’s part during Mary’s pregnancy. The “until” clause (ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν, heōs hou eteken huion) implies that following Jesus’ birth, Joseph and Mary enjoyed normal sexual relations. [96] That Joseph and Mary had a normal marriage after Jesus was born is further indicated by the mention of His brothers and sisters later in the Gospel (13:55–56). [97]

We should emphasize that Mary’s physical relations with Joseph and her natural motherhood of subsequent children were not considered sinful or degrading by Matthew. [98] After the birth of Jesus, Mary lost her virginity, but she kept her virtue, and she gained intimacy with her husband and the wonderful gift of children. “Shouldn’t the holy family be a real family?” Bruner asks. “Mary is not degraded by her relations to Joseph.” Rather, she is degraded and the institution of marriage is degraded “if the principal mother in history is left physically isolated from her husband.” Mary’s full marriage may seem to make her less godlike to some, but it actually dignifies her by recognizing her to be a real woman rather than a plastic saint, and therefore a model mother.

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is wrong for three reasons: First, it is wrong Scripturally—the Bible simply does not support the doctrine. In fact, it contradicts it. Second, it is wrong morally. The dignity of sexual relations as a means of the mutual expression of tenderness and love is undermined by the veneration of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Third, it is wrong doctrinally. Because of this doctrine Mary is almost deified. Titles such as mediatrix and co-redemptrix make her semidivine and place her dangerously close to the Godhead. Invoking her as mediator threatens the sole mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5). In some Catholic piety Mary is viewed as tender, compassionate, and approachable, while Jesus is viewed as harsh, remote, and unapproachable. This is totally foreign to the New Testament witness which pictures our Lord as human and available. [99]

Matthew concludes his account of the virginal conception by informing us that the baby was eventually born and Joseph named Him, Jesus. The naming would have taken place eight days after the birth when the child was circumcised (Luke 2:21). By adopting Jesus, Joseph formally legalized His connection to the Davidic line.

The Importance of the Virginal Conception of Jesus

The virginal conception of our Lord Jesus Christ, announced to Joseph and Mary, has always been viewed as an important teaching of the Christian church. It is found in the early creeds of the church and most Protestant confessions of faith, and it has been defended by the greatest teachers of the church. We proclaim it, too, because it happened, because it is Scriptural, and because it exalts Christ and His work. [100] I would suggest that this supernatural event is important for a number of reasons.

The Necessity of the Virginal Conception [101]

The Reign of a Davidic King Depends Upon It

As noted above, Matthew’s great question is, “Who will inherit the kingdom of King David?” and his answer is, “Jesus and His people will inherit that kingdom.” [102] Matthew 1 is designed to announce who Jesus is. [103] The title of the Gospel in 1:1 and the genealogy in verses 2–17 with emphasis upon Jesus’ two significant ancestors, Abraham, the father of the Jewish people, and David, their greatest king, proclaim that Jesus is the promised Messiah, the goal of Israel’s history. When Joseph, of the line of David, adopted Jesus, he made Him the legal son of David. [104]

It is not always recognized that this legal right is directly related to the doctrine of the virginal conception. [105] The genealogy in Matthew 1, which traces Joseph’s ancestry back through Solomon to David, has a problem in verses 11 and 12, and the problem is Jeconiah. [106] In Jeremiah 22:30 a terrible curse was pronounced upon Jeconiah (“Coniah”)—“For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David.” Jeconiah’s successors could pass on the legal right to the throne of David, but they were physically barred from assuming the throne. [107] So the vacant title was passed on down from Jeconiah to Joseph. Joseph could pass on the legal right to the throne, but no physical son of his could occupy that throne.

The problem would have been insoluble had it not been for the wisdom of God. The solution lay in the genealogy of Mary, recorded in Luke 3 (vv. 23–38), which goes back through Nathan to David. Through Mary Jesus is physically an heir of David, and through Joseph He receives the legal right to the throne (while sidestepping the physical curse upon that line). “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!” (Rom. 11:33). Because of His miraculous conception our Lord receives title to the throne of David in the Kingdom of God. Dying without a son (cf. Isa. 53:8), He carried that title to the right hand of God.

It is most interesting to note that since the destruction of Jerusalem in ad 70 it has been impossible to reconstruct the Davidic genealogy. The only reliable genealogies we have are those in Matthew and Luke, and they point incontrovertibly to Jesus of Nazareth as the virgin’s son—the divinely promised King of the Jews.

The Incarnation of the “Mighty God” Depends Upon It

The Nicene Creed (ad 381), one of the four ancient creeds [108] accepted by all orthodox Christians, says that we believe in “one Lord Jesus Christ…God of God…who, for us men [i.e., human beings], and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man (i.e., made human].” [109] This is a good summary of the theology of our passage. The early church believed in the preexistence of Christ [110] —He was the eternal Son of God who, for our salvation, came to earth as a man, without ceasing to be God.

There have been scholars who have argued that the virginal conception was not necessary for the incarnation to take place. God could just as easily have accomplished the miracle through an ordinary conception and birth. [111] Yet, as James Orr long ago observed, “We are poor judges of what may or may not be involved in so transcendent a fact as the Incarnation; and if, according to the evidence we have, this was actually the way in which God brought His Son into the world, it would be wiser for us to assume that there is a doctrinal connection [i.e., between the virginal conception and the Incarnation], whether we can see it or not, than hastily to conclude that the Virgin Birth is of indifference to faith.” [112]

The virginal conception does not stand by itself in Matthew 1 as a simple marvel. It is the foundation of something, and that foundation is the significance of the person of Christ. He is “conceived…of the Holy Spirit” (vv. 18, 20), and He saves “His people from their sins.” This child is the incarnate God, and the Savior of mankind. The simple truth is that the incarnation of the Son of God is in the nature of the case a miracle. Matthew links one miracle— “Immanuel… God with us,” to the other, “conceived of the Holy Spirit.” So should we. [113] “He came from God, all the apostles believed,” said James Denney, in a sense in which no other came: does it not follow that He came in a way in which no other came?” [114]

The Humanity of the Virgin’s Son Depends Upon It

Through the miracle of the virginal conception Jesus is not only God incarnate, He is truly and fully man. [115] From His mother He received a true human nature. [116] We must not think of Jesus as a kind of hetero-human, i.e., a human being of a different kind. We must not fall prey to the heresy of the early Docetists who taught that, during His earthly sojourn, our Lord had only a phantom body. No, He was truly and completely human. Although we confess that He is the Son of God, and Light of Light, we also draw Him deeply into the flesh and rest our hope on the heavenly messenger who is Christ our Brother, the man with the crown of thorns. With Pilate we say, “Ecce homo” (John 19:5), “Behold the Man.” [117]

Professor F. D. Bruner, one the abler commentators on Matthew, has said, “In the New Testament, Jesus is the Spirit’s point.” Jesus says that the Holy Spirit “will bear witness of me” (John 15:26), and “will glorify me, …[and] will take what is mine and declare it to you” (John 16:14). The Spirit, he says, has two major “lectures,” viz., a lecture on the true deity of Christ, and a lecture on His true humanity. Bruner also says that “one of the most neglected doctrines of all has been the doctrine of the true humanity of Jesus Christ.” Yes, the Holy Spirit shows us that “Jesus is Lord” (i.e., God), yet this same Holy Spirit also insists, “that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (1 John 4:2). [118]

The Sinlessness of the Divine Savior Depends Upon It

The Apostles of Jesus, those who knew Him best, declared Him to be free of sin. He “committed no sin,” says Peter (1 Pet. 2:22). “In Him there is no sin,” says John (1 John 3:5). He “knew no sin,” says Paul (2 Cor. 5:21), repeating their testimony. This in itself is a miracle. As A. B. Bruce observed long ago, “A sinless man is as much a miracle in the moral world as a Virgin Birth is a miracle in the physical world.” [119] In the thinking of the Apostles, bathed as it was by the Old Testament, Christ’s sinlessness was linked to His work. Just as unblemished lambs were sacrificed for sin in Old Testament times, so Christ was morally pure. Peter says we were redeemed “with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:19).

It is most significant, therefore, that we again note the juxtaposition of two phrases in Matthew 1. Jesus was “conceived of the Holy Spirit” and “He will save His people from their sins.” In 1 Peter 1:19 sinlessness is linked to Christ’s death for sins. In Matthew 1:18–21 Christ’s work as Savior from sins is linked to the virginal conception (“conceived of the Holy Spirit”). To the biblical authors, “Crib and cross are both of the same wood.” [120] The virgin birth and the sinless sacrifice of Christ on the cross are connected. [121]

Yet modern writers will nevertheless quarrel with Scripture. A virgin birth, they argue, does not guarantee sinlessness.122 We must remember that in an ordinary conception a husband and wife come together and form a new person. And they hand on to that new person, seminally, original sin.123 But Jesus Christ is not that kind of new person. He is a divine person who, through the miracle of the virginal conception, assumed a second nature, a human nature. Yet it is the divine nature, not the human, which is the base of His person. And that divine nature is sinless.124 But what of His human nature? In that original sin seems to be handed on seminally, the absence of a human father insured that He would have a sinless human nature. [125]

Furthermore, because of His divine paternity through the agency of the Holy Spirit, Christ is born sinless, even though His mother was a sinner (Luke 1:35). [126] To paraphrase the great John Gill, Jesus took flesh of a sinful woman,127 though the flesh He took of her was not sinful. [128]

You and I are directly connected to Adam through our fathers. Jesus had no human father and was not part of the Adamic curse. [129] Adam was chosen by God to be the responsible head of the race. He sinned, and he handed down original sin through his seed to all his progeny. Since He had no human father, the Lord Jesus has escaped this curse. He marks the genesis of a new race. He is “the second man” and the “last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45–47). In Him the human race has a new head and a new beginning. [130]

The Refutation of an Illegitimate Birth Depends Upon It

For those who accept the historicity of the Gospel accounts, the choice is not between a virgin conception and an ordinary conception. The choice is that of a virginal conception and an illegitimate one. [131] It is clear from our text that Joseph knew that he was not the father of the child. The cryptic reference to Jesus as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3) by the Jews suggests that they knew Joseph wasn’t the father and may have been a taunt at Jesus’ questionable parentage. The taunt is much clearer in John 8:41 where the Jews angrily hiss, “We were not born of fornication.”

The slander became more open in the second and third centuries as pagans and Jews reported that Jesus’ birth was illegitimate. [132] The Jews parodied the virgin birth by making a play on the Greek word for virgin, parthenos. Switching the “r” and the “n” in the word, they claimed that Jesus was the offspring of Mary and a Roman soldier named Panthera (or Pandira), a claim that has absolutely no historical evidence in its support. [133] The early Christians refuted these charges [134] by pointing to the record in Matthew and Luke that Jesus’ conception was not illegitimate—it was supernatural. “Mary’s son” was “conceived of the Holy Spirit.”

The Truthfulness of the Holy Scriptures Depends Upon It

It is striking that one of the New Testament’s two accounts of the virginal conception appears on the very first page of the New Testament. The other appears in Luke 1. In the prologue of Luke, the evangelist claims that he “investigated everything carefully” that Theophilus “might know the exact truth” about the things he had been taught (Luke 1:1–4). Luke then proceeds to relate the accounts of the unusual birth of John the Baptist and the virginal conception of Jesus. What if the first page of the New Testament is wrong? What if Luke is wrong about the very first thing he “investigated…carefully?” What confidence could the reader put in the rest of the stories of Luke and Matthew? It is easy to see that the account of the virginal conception is directly related to the trustworthiness of the Holy Scriptures. [135]

The Significance of the Virginal Conception

It is a Sign of the Supernatural Character of Jesus and the Gospel [136]

For two centuries rationalism has tried to de-fang Christianity of its supernaturalness. Yet here at the threshold the New Testament—blatantly supernatural, defying our rationalism—is this incredible story. Jesus’ story begins and ends the same way, with a miracle. His life is different than the rest of human life in its origin and its goal. [137] It informs the reader that all that follows belongs to the same order as itself. If we find this offensive there is no point in reading further. If our faith staggers at the virginal conception, what is it going to make of the feeding of the five thousand, the stilling of the waves, the raising of Lazarus, the transfiguration, and the resurrection? “The virgin birth is God’s gracious declaration, at the very outset of the gospel,” says Donald MacLeod, “that the act of faith is a legitimate sacrificium intellectus.” [138] It tells us of a real event that took place in space and time in history. Yet it must be understood spiritually, not intellectually.

It is a Sign of the Union of the Divine and Human Natures in One Person

This unique, once-for-all, never-to-be-repeated event in history points to the importance of the one who is born. The birth expresses a great mystery, the reality of the hypostatic union—the union of two natures (true God and true humanity) in one person. [139]

It is a Sign of the Initiative of God in the Work of Christ

The conception of Jesus was an act of pure grace. It was not in any sense a product of human activity. The initiative was sovereignly in God’s hands. [140] Notice again our text. The word “fulfilled” is in the passive and implies God’s activity, and not man’s. [141] Mary is passive. She is simply told what is going to happen. Joseph is passive. He is asleep when he finds out about the virginal conception. [142] In all His saving acts, God takes the initiative. We are saved from our sins by a God who has graciously taken the initiative.

It is a Sign of a New Beginning for Humanity

In Luke’s Gospel (3:38) as well as in Paul (Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:45, 47) Jesus is brought into direct comparison with Adam. In the genealogy of Luke 3 Adam is different from all the others. He had no human father but was created directly from the hand of God. So it is with Jesus. He, too, came directly from God, and He, too, marks a new beginning. With Jesus there is a new “genesis,” a new creative beginning in humanity. [143]

It has been said that every conversion to faith in Christ is a kind of “virgin birth.” And those who have had the change made in their lives through the new birth have little trouble believing in the miracle of the virginal conception of Jesus. There was a remarkable illustration of this during the Wesleyan revival in eighteenth century England. There was a miner from a hard-drinking area who was wonderfully converted to Christ. His mocking fellow miners asked him if he really believed that Jesus had turned water into wine. He answered, “I don’t know if Jesus really changed water into wine; but I know that in my house he changed beer into furniture.” The miner’s personal miracle disposed him to believe in the biblical one. [144]

Conclusion: The Lessons of the Virginal Conception of Jesus

Practical Lesson # 1: God’s Ways are Not Our Ways

Right at the beginning of Matthew’s Gospel we learn that God’s ways are not our ways. Joseph was a “righteous” man (v. 19), and he found what was happening to him offensive. He found that when God enters one’s life it may be initially embarrassing and require some hard decisions. “From the instant that Jesus appeared on the world scene, even at His conception, He caused righteous people to rethink what was righteous.” [145]

Practical Lesson # 2: To Be Righteous as a Believer is to Obey God’s Word

We have seen that this story emphasizes the divine initiative. Yet divine grace does not cancel human responsibility—it enables it. It does not render believers comatose—it makes them obedient. Joseph is a remarkable person. He never says a word in the New Testament. He has been called, “Quiet Joseph,” yet he does a number of very important things in the opening months of Jesus’ life. His hallmark is obedience—prompt, simple, and unspectacular. He is a “righteous” man, and righteousness is a major theme in Matthew. In Joseph Matthew gives us a picture of what a righteous person is. To be righteous as a believer is simply to obey the Word of God. [146]

Doctrinal Lesson # 1: The Holy Spirit Has Brought Jesus Christ Into Human Flesh

Jesus was “conceived of the Holy Spirit” (vv. 18, 20). We learn at the very beginning of the story of Christ that it is the work of the Holy Spirit to bring the Son of God into human life. Here, in Matthew, we first learn the story of the incarnation—the account of Christ being brought to this earth through the miracle of the virginal conception. [147] He is born as “Jesus” and is called, “Immanuel.” The one name stresses His office—He came to save us. The other stresses His essence—He is God, the believer’s comfort and consolation in suffering and trial. [148] And this glorious One was brought to this earth through the office of the Holy Spirit.

Doctrinal Lesson # 2: Only the Holy Spirit Can Bring Jesus Christ Into Human Lives

The same Holy Spirit who planted Jesus in Mary’s womb also brings Jesus to birth in persons. Jesus will tell Nicodemus in John 3 that he must be born again, and the source of that new life is the Holy Spirit (John 3:3–5). When Jesus Christ is received into one’s life (John 1:12), that is the genesis (“the beginning”) of a new life for them. As we close let me again remind you of the name, “Immanuel—God with us.” Is that personally true for you? Phillips Brooks was right when he wrote the beautiful Christmas carol,

O little town of Bethlehem,
How still we see thee lie!
Above thy deep and dreamless sleep
The silent stars go by;

Yet in thy dark streets shineth
The everlasting Light;
The hopes and fears of all the years
Are met in thee tonight!

The great preacher also emphasized the need for a personal response. Is it true that God is with us? Is He with me? Has Jesus saved me from my sins? Listen to the last stanza of the hymn and make these words your own prayer:

O holy Child of Bethlehem
Descend to us, we pray;
Cast out our sin, and enter in—
Be born in us today!
We hear the Christmas angels
The great glad tidings tell—
Oh, come to us, abide with us,
Our Lord Immanuel! [149]

Notes

The present text of the Apostles’ Creed dates no earlier than the close of the fifth century. An earlier form (the Roman Creed) in Greek goes back to ad 341, and in Latin to 390. Another form (Old Italian) goes back to ad 350. All of its facts and doctrines are in entire agreement with the New Testament. Cf. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols., vol. 1: The History of Creeds (New York: Harper, 1877), 19–21. idem., vol. 2: The Greek and Latin Creeds, 44–51.
Kenneth S. Kantzer, “The Miracle of Christmas,” Christianity Today (Dec. 14, 1984): 14-15.
John Milton, “On the Morning of Christ’s Nativity” (lines 8–14), in The Student’s Milton, ed. Frank Allen Patterson (rev. ed., New York: F. S. Crofts, 1939), 4.
W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), 1:151.
Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 1:198.
Bacon argued for a “recession of the Epiphany” in which the early church, for apologetic purposes (viz., resistance to Adoptionism, Docetism, and other Gnosticizing heresies) predicated of Christ such things as an early Messianic awareness, a virginal conception, and preexistence. Assertions about Christ’s greatness, Bacon theorized, developed in stages to meet various attacks upon the faith. (1) At first it was believed that He became Son of God at the resurrection [Rom. 1:1–4]. (2) Then it was asserted that He became Son at His baptism [Mark 1:11]. (3) Matthew and Luke added a third stage in the recession of the Epiphany by adding the story of the virginal conception of Jesus. (4) Finally, John added another stage by asserting the preexistence of Christ [John 1:1, 14]. Brown, in his defense of a “backwards development of NT Christology,” adopted a similar view but attempted to make it more orthodox by asserting that the church’s harmonizing of various Christologies (resurrection Christology, baptismal Christology, conception Christology, preexistent Christology) was due to its appreciation of a reality that was already there. Bruner, building on Brown, offered a more Evangelical presentation of “the Christological moment”—i.e., the moment of the revelation of who Jesus is. While he accepted our Lord’s virginal conception and preexistence, he argued that there is a “backward Christology” in the New Testament because the disciples’ understanding of Jesus’ person took time to deepen and mature. Carson discusses the thesis but is skeptical because of its origins. Its earliest proponents rejected Christ’s virginal conception, believing them to be the inventions of the early church. Cf. Benjamin W. Bacon, Studies in Matthew (New York: Henry Holt, 1930), 145–50; Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City: Doubleday, 1977), 26–32, 134–35 (esp. p. 134, n. 6), 140–41, 181; Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, 2 vols., vol. 1: The Christbook (Waco: Word, 1987), 31–32; D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols., ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:73.
J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (New York: Harper & Row, 1930; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967), 188–209.
Carson, “Matthew,” 71. Longenecker notes a number of features in common: (1) The principal characters are Jesus, Mary, and Joseph; (2) Jesus’ birth occurred during the reign of Herod the Great; (3) Mary was betrothed to Joseph; (4) Joseph was of Davidic descent; (5) Jesus was born in Bethlehem; (6) Jesus was given His name by heavenly direction; (7) Jesus [as Joseph’s adopted son] was also of Davidic descent; and (8) the family finally settled in Nazareth. Cf. Richard N. Longenecker, “Whose Child Is This?” Christianity Today (Dec. 17, 1990): 25-27. Cf. also: Floyd V. Filson, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, HNTC (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 55–56.
Ethelbert Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, trans. Richard and Clara Winston (New York: Knopp, 1970), 16. Cf. also: S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “The Genesis of Jesus,” BS 122 (Oct., 1965): 331-32. This essay of Johnson’s was originally one of his lectures in a Dallas Seminary course, “The Theology of Matthew and Mark.” That lecture (as well as many of the others from that course) made its way into print as the aforementioned article in Bibliotheca Sacra. I mention this in that both the lecture (which I attended) and the article (which I read) have exerted a significant influence upon the structure and content of my own article on the birth of Christ.
Several ancient manuscripts, chiefly Latin, give a singular reading in John 1:13 (“who was born [ἐγεννήθη] not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”) and interpret the verse as a reference to the virginal conception of Jesus. Although there is some significant patristic support (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine) as well as modern support (Zahn, Blass, Loisy, Seeburg, Boismard, etc.), the overwhelming consensus of the Greek manuscripts favors the plural (ἐγεννήθησαν, “were born”) and a reference to the regeneration of believers. Cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), 196–97. For a brief, but spirited, defense of the singular reading, cf. Thomas F. Torrance, “The Doctrine of the Virgin Birth,” SBET 12 (Spring, 1994): 10-12. Barrett concluded that, while the reading which makes an explicit reference to the birth of Jesus should be rejected, “it remains probable that John was alluding to Jesus’ birth, and declaring that the birth of Christians, being bloodless and rooted in God’s will alone, followed the pattern of the birth of Christ himself.” Cranfield agreed. Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (2d. ed., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 164; C. E. B. Cranfield, “Some Reflection on the Subject of the Virgin Birth,” SJTh 41 (1988): 179-80.
Opponents of the virginal conception will frequently point to Paul’s silence on the subject for support. This is striking, for those who are liberal in theology tend to dismiss Paul’s contribution on other subjects, viz., the deity of Christ, salvation by grace, the submission of wives to husbands, the sinfulness of homosexual acts, etc.
Torrance notes that the normal word for human birth in the New Testament (γεννάω) is not used of Adam, nor of Christ. Here, in Gal. 4:4, Paul uses γίνομαι. Cf. Torrance, “The Doctrine of the Virgin Birth,” 12–13. He also draws attention to the parallel between Adam and Paul in Romans 5. “The first Adam was not born of human parentage, not humanly generated.… Paul never says that Jesus was generated, only that he came into existence like Adam.” Bruce rejects any allusion to the virginal conception, asserting that γεννάω and γίνομαι are synonyms in contexts like this. He also notes that “born of a woman” was a common expression for human birth (Job 14:1; 15:14; 25:4). It should be noted, however, that Job uses γεννάω and not γίνομαι, and it could be argued that the birth of Jesus gave this expression (“born of a woman”) a new significance for the believing community. Cf. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 195. It is startling that Bruce, who believed in the unity of Scripture and the faith, could suggest that Paul might not have known of Jesus’ virginal conception. Cf. also the discussion of David Wenham, “The Story of Jesus Known to Paul,” in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ, eds. Joel B. Green and Max Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 298–301.
Cf. George Adam Smith, The Historical Geography of the Holy Land (9th ed., London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1902), 474–78. Philip the tetrarch later established the city there, and it was called Caesarea Philippi (“Philip’s Caesarea”) to distinguish it from Herod’s Caesarea on the sea coast.
Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. John Marsh (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 291, n. 1; 292.
Catholic scholar, John McHugh, is surely correct when he says that while an atheist can with logical consistency assert that a virginal conception is impossible, it is not possible for any one who believes in a Creator God to assert this with logical consistency. Yet many do! Cf. The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (Garden City: Doubleday, 1975), 322.
Malcolm Muggeridge, Jesus Rediscovered (Garden City: Doubleday, 1969), 19. Muggeridge later came to accept the biblical account. “To a twentieth-century mind the notion of a virgin birth is intrinsically and preposterously inconceivable. If a woman claims—such claims are made from time to time—to have become pregnant without sexual intercourse, no one believes her. Yet for countless centuries millions upon millions of people never doubted that Mary had begotten Jesus without the participation of a husband or lover. Nor was such a belief limited to the simple and unlettered; the most profound and most erudite minds, the greatest artist and craftsmen, found no difficulty in accepting the Virgin Birth as an incontestable fact—for instance, Pascal, who in the versatility of his gifts and the originality of his insights was regarded as the Aristotle of his time. From a contemporary point of view, this is the more surprising in that little effort would seem to have been made to achieve consistency or credibility in the account in the Gospels of Jesus’ birth. Thus, the genealogical table purporting to establish Jesus’ descent from King David in accordance with Messianic prophecy is traced through Joseph, with whom, if the Virgin Birth really happened, he had no blood relationship. Are we, then, to suppose that our forebears who believed implicitly in the Virgin Birth were gullible fools, whereas we, who would no more believe in such notions than we would that the world is flat, have put aside childish things and become mature? Is our skepticism one more manifestation of our having—in Bonhoeffer’s unhappy phrase—come of age? It would be difficult to support such a proposition in the light of the almost inconceivable credulity of today’s brain-washed public, who so readily believe absurdities in advertisements and in statistical prognostications before which an African witch doctor would recoil in derision. With Pascal it was the other way round; while accepting, with the same certainty as he did the coming of the seasons, the New Testament account of Jesus’ birth, he had already seen through and scornfully rejected the pretensions of science. Now, three centuries later, his intuition has been amply fulfilled. The dogmatism of science has become a new orthodoxy, disseminated by the Media and a State educational system with a thoroughness and subtlety far exceeding anything of the kind achieved by the Inquisition; to the point that to believe today in a miraculous happening like the Virgin Birth is to appear a kind of imbecile, whereas to disbelieve in an unproven and unprovable scientific proposition like the Theory of Evolution, and still more to question some quasi-scientific shibboleth like the Population Explosion, is to stand condemned as an obscuratist, an enemy of progress and enlightenment.” Cf. Jesus: The Man Who Lives (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), 19–20.
Johnson, “The Genesis of Jesus,” 333.
Johnson, “The Genesis of Jesus,” 333. There are actually four different ways for God to make a human being: (1) Through natural conception, which is the normal method. (2) He may do so without either a father or mother as in the case of Adam. (3) He may do so without the involvement of woman, as in the case of Eve. (4) He may do so without the contribution of a human father, as in the case of the Lord Jesus. Cf. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “The Messiah’s Birth (1),” BBB (1987): 3.
Cf. the illuminating discussion in Thomas Boslooper, The Virgin Birth (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 135–86. Boslooper argues that all such claims are misleading. He further asserts that those who repeat the claims in our day invariably use only secondary sources.
Siddhartha Gautama was born about 563 bc, the son of a Kshatriya chieftain Suddhodana and his wife Māyā, daughter of the king of the neighboring Koliya clan. The oldest accounts of Buddha’s ancestry presuppose nothing abnormal about his life. Pre-Christian Buddhism knows nothing of the virginity of his mother. Over the centuries a tradition of his unusual birth did develop in connection with the concept “avatar,” according to which Indian tradition described a whole series of incarnations. Buddhist literature reflects a rapidly growing tradition of Buddha’s previous incarnations. In earlier Pāli texts there were six, then (in the Buddhavamsa) twenty-four, and finally (in the Lalita Vistara) more than a hundred. The dating of these texts is a complex problem. Some have sought to date the earliest Pāli texts before the fourth century bc, but a fourth century ad compilation is just as possible. Cf. Boslooper, The Virgin Birth, 136–48.
One must admit that there are stories of supernatural births in the pagan world, yet “the Christian story of the virgin birth is as different from pagan ‘analogies’ as monotheism is from polytheism, as different as Biblical ideas of the relationship between God and man are from the mythological activities of gods in human affairs, and as different as the polygamous and incestuous pagan society was from the Christian teaching on morals and marriage.” Cf. Boslooper, The Virgin Birth, 186.
This was first suggested by Charles Dupuis in 1796. Cf. Boslooper, The Virgin Birth, 135, 148–49.
A National Public Radio broadcast in the Fall of 1998 referred to the Krishna story as myth. I was listening one morning when an irate Hindu lady called to say that she believed that the story of Krishna was a fact!
Cf. R. C. Zaehner, Hinduism (New York: Oxford, 1962), 91.
Robert H. Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 64–65.
Terminology can be very misleading. Oxford Old Testament scholar, T. K. Cheyne (1841–1915), argued that the Gospel account of the Virgin Birth was derived from the Tammuz cult in N. Arabia. Istar, who was loved by Tammuz, was called a “virgin,” but she is described as a goddess who indulged in various sexual affairs but did not marry. In other words, the word “virgin” only means she wasn’t married. This is not, of course, what Matthew and Luke mean. After an extensive investigation of the subject, Sweet concluded, “I am convinced that [pre-Christian] heathenism knows nothing of virgin births. Supernatural births it has without number, but never from a virgin in the New Testament sense and never without physical generation, except in a few isolated instances of magical births on the part of women who had not the slightest claim to be called virgin.” Christ’s birth was unique in three particulars: (1) His conception was in order to incarnation—heathen wonder-births were the result of incarnation. (2) The story in Matthew and Luke combines a miraculous birth with a pure spiritual monotheism. Christ’s birth was due to the creative agency of the unseen God—without the usual human mediation. (3) His mother was at the time of His conception and remained until after His birth a virgin. Cf. Louis Matthews Sweet, The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ (London: Cassell, 1907), 102–92 (esp. pp. 184-88).
Timothy George, “Why We Believe in the Virgin Birth,” Christianity Today (Dec. 12, 1994): 19.
While a Virgin Birth story analogous to Christianity cannot be found in paganism, it must be conceded that the pagan world has many stories of supernatural births. Evangelical scholar, Philip E. Hughes, long ago asked why such stories appeared in history. His answer was that the fountainhead of all such stories is the protevangelium of Genesis 3:15. He wrote, “And the water at the source is crystal pure, for it is of divine origin. But the Adversary has seen to it that from the living stream of the main channel numberless branches have been diverted, soon to be blocked off and left to stagnate and putrefy, befouled by the stercorous imaginations of man’s heart. And yet scholars of the present day dare to point to these vile cesspools of paganism as the spring and source of the pure and sacred account of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.” Cf. “The Son of the Highest,” EvQ 14 (1942): 254-55. One might note that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 (8th cent. bc) antedates many if not most of these later legendary births.
J. Gresham Machen, What is Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), 69.
Boslooper writes, “the historical matter of fact…[was] Jesus’ paternity by Joseph” (The Virgin Birth, 131, cf. 19–23, 227–37. “Both Roman Catholics and Protestants have been wrong in insisting on the literal historicity of the narratives. The virgin birth is ‘myth’ in the highest and best sense of the word” [p. 21]). Meyer long ago wrote that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke “owe their origin to the view that Joseph’s paternal relation was real, and that their original purpose bore that Joseph was the actual, and not merely the putative, father of Jesus.” Cf. H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospel of Matthew, trans. Peter Christie (6th ed., New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884; reprint ed., Winona Lake: Alpha, 1979), 44, n. 8. This is certainly the perspective of liberal commentators like William Barclay who says, “Our church does not compel us to accept [the Virgin Birth] in the literal and the physical sense” (The Gospel of Matthew, 2 vols. [rev. ed., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975], 1:20). Cf. also: A. R. C. Leaney, “Mary and the Virgin Birth,” in The Christ of the Synoptic Gospels (London, 1973); T. Walker, Is Not This the Son of Joseph? (James Clarke, 1937), 24–25. For these references to Leaney and Walker I am indebted to John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), 51, n. 63.
This view was somewhat encouraged by a footnote on Matt. 1:16 in early editions of the RSV. It cited the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript which read: “Jacob begot Joseph; Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, begot Jesus who is called the Christ.” A cause of some controversy, the note was soon deleted. There is no evidence that this reading ever existed in a Greek manuscript of the first Gospel. Cf. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2–7. Brown defends the reading. The “translator,” he writes, “(presumably a Semite translating into a Semite language) did not deny the virginal conception but accepted a legal paternity as a real paternity.” Cf. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, 139.
Johnson, “The Genesis of Jesus,” 333.
According to Morris the δέ is continuitive, merely linking this paragraph with the one preceding. Carson, however, says it is mildly adversative. The previous generations have been listed, but the birth of Jesus is in a class of its own. Cf. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 26, n. 28; Carson, “Matthew,” 81, n. 18.
Jewish boys were taught the Law by their fathers from three years of age. Fathers were also responsible for teaching their sons a trade. The rabbis said, “He who does not teach his son a useful trade is bringing him up to be a thief.” Cf. Ralph Gower, The New Manners and Customs of Bible Times (Chicago: Moody, 1987), 79.
For an illustration of marriage customs, cf. The Book of Tobit (7:8–15) in the Old Testament Apocrypha.
The Talmud says, “near the period of their puberty.” Cf. Yebamoth 62b in The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nashim, 4 vols., ed. I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1936), 1:419.
Kethuboth 5.2, in Mishnayoth, 7 vols., ed. Philip Blackman, vol. 3: Order Nashim (Gateshead: Judaica, 1983), 148–49. Also in Mishnayoth, cf. Nedarim 10.5 (p. 262), and in The Babylonian Talmud, cf. Kethuboth 57b in Seder Nashim, 2:338–41.
Yevamoth 4.10, and 6.4 in Mishnayoth 3:49, 59; Kethuboth 1.2, in Mishnayoth, 3:125–26.
In Mishnayoth, cf. Kethuboth 1.2 (3:125–26), Yevamoth 2.6 (3:32), Gittin 6.2 (3:421–22).
Some would argue that Matthew does not refer here to the Holy Spirit as a person but more in an Old Testament sense as the creative power of God (cf. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 1:200, 208). The Trinitarian formula in Matt. 28:19 suggests, however, that Matthew had grasped the idea that the Spirit was a distinct person in the Godhead. That His creative power was at work we do not doubt, but that it was the Third Person of the Trinity at work, I do not doubt, either. That “Holy Spirit” (πνεύματος ἁγίου, pneumatos hagiou) lacks the article is not uncommon in the Gospels (cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 81, n. 18).
Luke speaks of the Holy Spirit coming “upon” (ἐπί, epi) Mary, but Matthew is more reserved—more Jewish. Cf. Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 27, n. 32.
Carson, “Matthew,” 74; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1993), 17.
The passive “was found” (εὑρέθη, heurethē, v. 18) here has the sense, “proved to be,” or “turned out to be” with no finder being necessarily implied. Cf. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 1:200.
For the interpretation adopted here, cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 75; Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 18; Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 27–28; David Hill, “A Note on Matthew 1:19, ” ET 76 (1964–65): 133-34. Two other views have been advanced by scholars: (1) Δίκαιος should be understood as “mercy,” i.e., because Joseph was a merciful man he did not want to expose Mary to public shame [so: Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew, trans. David E. Green (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 30–31]. This is not the normal sense of δίκαιος. (2) Δίκαιος should be understood as “upright” and “reverent.” According to this view, Mary told Joseph about her virginal conception, and he believed her. Full of reverence for God and feeling unworthy to marry such a singularly favored woman, he decided to withdraw from his engagement [McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament, 167]. In light of the angel’s instruction [vv. 20–21], however, it is unlikely that Mary had told Joseph of her condition.
According to the Mishnah, the unfaithful woman is “forbidden” to both the husband; and the adulterer. (Sotah 5.1 in Mishnayoth 3:354. Sotah 4.1 [p. 351] makes it clear that the instruction included betrothed women.). Cf. Angelo Tosato, “Joseph, Being a Just Man (Matt. 1:19),” CBQ 41 (1979): 547-51.
Carson, “Matthew,” 75.
This is suggested by the two aorists (ἐβουλήθη [eboulēthē, “desired”] and ἐνθυμηθέντος [enthymēthentos, “considered”]) in vv. 19 and 20. Cf. Johnson, “The Genesis of Jesus,” 335, n. 10.
Matthew, as an inspired apostle, is free to inform his readers not only about objective events, but about subjective experiences. He will inform us about a secret meeting between Herod and the magi (2:7), the magi’s dream (2:12), the temptation of Jesus (4:1–11), the thoughts of a Pharisee (9:3), the feelings of Herod (14:9), the fear of Peter (14:30), the hunger of Jesus (21:18), the perceptions of the Pharisees (21:45–46), and the feelings and convictions of Jesus (9:36; 12:15; 13:58; 14:14). Davies and Allison seem put off by Matthew’s “stance as an omniscient narrator.” Cf. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 1:205–6. It is not Matthew who was omniscient but the Spirit who guided him (cf. 2 Pet. 1:21).
Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 1:208.
Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 19.
Cf. James F. Conway, “God is Free to Change your Plans,” His (Dec., 1973), 5–7.
Carson notes that the future indicative καλέσεις (kaleseis, “you will call”) is imperatival in force. Cf. “Matthew,” 75.
The phrasing of the command is strange to English ears and would have been to Greek ears, for that matter. The angel says literally, “You will call His name Jesus.” The awkward phrasing, “to call someone’s name X” is Semitic in form. In patriarchal times either the mother (Gen. 4:25) or the father (Gen. 4:26; 5:3) could name the child. In Luke (1:31) Mary is told to name the baby, while in Matthew (1:21) Joseph is told to name Him. Cf. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, 130.
TDNT, s.v. “ὄνομα,” by H. Bietenhard, 5:254.
As told by John Dale, missionary to Mexico, to S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. Cf. “The Child Who Is a Father: Isaiah 9:1–7, ” (Cassette tape, Dallas: Believer’s Chapel, 1968).
Bietenhard, “ὄνομα,” 524.
Cf. the discussion of William Barclay, Jesus As They Saw Him (London: SCM, 1962; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 9–11.
Cf. TDNT, s.v. “ ᾿Ιησοῦς,” by W. Foerster, 3:284. In pre-exilic Hebrew the name is spelled יְהוֹשֻׁעֲ, while in post-exilic Hebrew it is spelled יְשׁוּעֲ.
Barclay, Jesus As They Saw Him, 9–10. Barclay notes that the expression Jesus Christ occurs only four times in the Gospels (Matt. 1:1; Mark 1:1; John 1:17; 17:3), and the expression Lord Jesus only twice (Luke 24:3; Mark 16:19), and both of these are in texts where there is some doubt of authenticity.
Barclay, Jesus As They Saw Him, 10–11; Foerster, “ ᾿Ιησοῦς,” 285–87.
The NEB accepts the reading as genuine, as did Moffatt. Cf. James Moffatt, The New Testament: A New Translation (rev. ed., London: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.), 48. The United Bible Societies’ committee concluded that this reading was genuine, but due to the slender external support for ᾿Ιησουν, it was enclosed in brackets and given a “C” rating. Cf. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 67–68.
Foerster “ ᾿Ιησοῦς,” 285) mentions that a number of ossuaries (bone boxes) with the name “Jesus” on them have been found in the vicinity of Jerusalem. They may be dated at the beginning of the 2d cent. ad at the very latest.
As Carson notes, these two Joshuas are types of Jesus Christ (cf. Heb. 3–4; Zech. 6:11–13), but Matthew makes nothing of the connection. Cf. “Matthew,” 76.
An expression of Israel’s longing for deliverance that dates from the first century bc is found in Psalms of Solomon 17:1–51. Cf. R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2 vols., vol. 2: Pseudepigrapha (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 647–51.
Krister Stendahl, “Matthew,” in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, eds. Matthew Black and H. H. Rowley (London: Nelson, 1962), 770.
Cf. Johnson, “The Genesis of Jesus,” 336.
Cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 76.
The phrase “from their sins” “underlies the religious and moral—as opposed to political—character of the messianic deliverance” (Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 1:210).
Cf. Johnson, “The Genesis of Jesus,” 336.
Davies and Allison have lost their way when they say, “Perhaps…Jesus saved his people from their sins in a variety of ways” (The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 210). Likewise, Bruner falls into a kind of confused legalism when he says that “following Jesus’ teaching…saves people from real sins just as effectively as believing Jesus’ death and resurrection saves people from deep sin.” Cf. Bruner, The Christbook, 28.
Bruner, The Christbook, 26.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Treasury of the Bible, 8 vols. (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 5:1–6.
As noted above, Matthew makes no use of the Joshua typology.
With the second century ad, the name יְשׁוּעֲ or ᾿Ιησοῦς disappeared from Jewry as a proper name. Three facts suggest that the Jews consciously avoided using it: (1) ᾿Ιησοῦς is no longer used in the Greek sphere of Jewry. (2) The Rabbis returned to the older and longer form of the name, i.e., they now used יְהוֹשֻׁעֲ instead of יְשׁוּעֲ. (3) In the Talmud the transliterated form ישׁוּ (from the Greek ᾿Ιησοῦς) is used only of Jesus of Nazareth. Cf. Foerster, “ ᾿Ιησοῦς” 286–87.
Quoted in Johnson, “The Genesis of Jesus,” 337.
Charles Wesley, “O for a Thousand Tongues,” in The Hymnal for Worship & Celebration (Waco: Word, 1986), # 76.
There is some debate over the identity of the speaker in vv. 22–23. There are two views: (1) The speaker is Matthew. In his role as teacher he offers this aside to his readers to convey the significance of the angel’s message [so: Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 20; Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 1:211]. (2) The speaker is the angel [so: Stendahl, “Matthew,” 771; Carson, “Matthew,” 76–77; J. C. Fenton, “Matthew and the Divinity of Jesus: Three Questions Concerning Matthew 1:20–23, ” Studia Biblica 1978, ed. E. A. Livingstone 2 (Sheffield: JSNT Press, 1980), 79–80]. Two arguments favor the second view. First, the normal force of the perfect (γέγονεν, gegonen), “all this has taken place,” suggests the perspective of one speaking at the time of the visitation rather than a later commentary on an already completed event. Second, the particular fulfillment formula used here (τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῆ, touto de holon gegonen hina plērōthē) is used in Matthew only two other times (21:4; 26:56), and in the latter of these uses it is most natural to see it as part of the speaker’s (i.e., Jesus’) speech and not as a Matthean aside. The second view has been rejected by some for two reasons. First, it is argued that γέγονεν is an aoristic use of the perfect, which would favor Matthew’s later perspective (cf. GNTG.F 343 [p. 177]). However, this classification of the perfect is disputed. Second, it is asserted that nowhere else in Scripture does an angel quote Scripture in this fashion (Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, 144, n. 31). In response it should be noted that the virginal conception makes this a unique passage, and an angel—albeit an evil one—does quote Scripture just three chapters later (4:6–7).
Brown expresses the skepticism of much modern scholarship when he writes, “This conception of prophecy as prediction of the distant future has disappeared from most serious scholarship today, and it is widely recognized that the NT ‘fulfillment’ of the OT involved much that the OT writers did not foresee at all.” He then concedes, “One must not assume that the modern analysis…was the view shared by Jesus or his contemporaries.” Cf. The Birth of the Messiah, 146, n. 39.
For discussion of Matthew’s use of the Old Testament, cf. the commentaries by Carson, Davies and Allison, and Hagner. For specialized studies, consult Robert Horton Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 89–91, 127–28, 226–27; Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew (2d ed., Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 97–99. I especially recommend the works of Carson and Gundry.
Carson (“Matthew,” 81, n. 22) argues that the ἵνα in v. 22 expresses purpose. “The very idea of fulfillment presupposes an overarching plan.” He is responding to Moule, who says the ἵνα here merely expresses result. Cf. C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (2d ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 142.
There have been many interpretations of Isaiah 7:14, but the one accepted here is the traditional Messianic interpretation with modifications suggested by Carson, Motyer, and Jensen. Cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 79–80; J. A. Motyer, “Context and Content in the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, ” TynB 21 (1970): 118-25; Joseph Jensen, “The Age of Immanuel,” CBQ 41 (1979): 220-39.
The Hebrew text says הָעַלְמָה (“the virgin”) suggesting that a definite woman is in view. The Hebrew word עֲלְמָה (àalmāh) is used seven or nine times in the Old Testament (Gen. 24:43; Exod. 2:8; Prov. 30:19; Song of Sol. 1:3; 6:8; Isa. 7:14; Ps. 68:26 [1 Chron. 15:20 and the heading of Ps. 46 are uncertain]) and is the only Hebrew word which without qualification means a mature young woman of marriageable age, but unmarried and presumably a virgin. In Song of Sol. 6:8 the word stands in contrast with queens and concubines, and in Prov. 30:19 “the way of a man with an עִלְמָה” contrasts the infatuation of youthful love with the infatuation of an adulterous woman (v. 20). Some have suggested that the word בְּתוּלָה (bᵉtûlāh) would more accurately suggest a virgin, but this term sometimes requires a qualification such as “neither had man known her” so that it cannot merit serious consideration as a quasi-technical term for virgo intacta (Motyer, “Context and Content in the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, ” 125; Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, 227). The literature on Isaiah 7:14 is extensive, but the writer recommends, in addition to the articles and books cited in the footnotes of this article, the following studies: R. Dick Wilson, “The Meaning of ‘Alma (AV “Virgin”) in Isaiah 7:14, ” PTR 24 (1926): 308-16; Edward J. Young, Studies in Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 143–98; Edward E. Hindson, “Isaiah’s Immanuel,” Grace Journal 10 (Fall, 1969): 3-15; Robert L. Reymond, “Who is the עלמה of Isaiah 7:14?” Presbyterion 15 (Spring, 1989): 1-15.
As Motyer notes, Old Testament “signs” can have either the sense of a “present persuader” or of a “future confirmation.” In the former sense a sign is designed to promote some action or reaction in the immediate present. In the latter sense, it is designed to follow a series of events to confirm them as acts of God. The sign in Isaiah 7:14, he suggests, is in the latter category (“future confirmation”). Cf. “Context and Content in the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, ” 120.
It has been argued that Isaiah 7:15 favors the interpretation which identifies the “child” of v. 14 as a contemporary of Ahaz rather than as Christ. Those who adopt the Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 have advanced at least three explanations of v. 15: (1) In vv. 15–16 there is a divinely intended shift from Immanuel to Shearjashub, Isaiah’s son, who appears in the pericope in v. 3 [so: Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, 227]. (2) In vv. 15–16 the far-future period of Immanuel’s infancy becomes the measure of time for near-future events [so: Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, NICOT 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 1:291]. (3) In vv. 15–16 the prophet describes not the age of discretion or age of accountability of a young child, but the period of suffering during which Immanuel passes his youth and comes to a disciplined maturity. The text should not be translated in a temporal sense (“by the time he knows”), but in a final sense (“so that he may know”). Immanuel will eat the bread of affliction (“curds and honey” = nomad fare, the kind of food available in a devastated land) in order to learn (unlike Ahaz!) the lesson of obedience. Verses 16–25 point to Immanuel’s coming only after the destruction described in 6:9–13 [so: Jensen, “The Age of Immanuel,” 228–31].
According to the interpretation adopted here the birth of Isaiah’s son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, is a separate sign from the birth of Immanuel, and it is wrong to confuse them. The birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz is a sign to demonstrate in the near future that the prophetic word spoken by Isaiah was true. Cf. Jensen, “The Age of Immanuel,” 236–38.
Motyer, “Context and Content in the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, ” 125.
Cf. Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah, 2 vols., trans. James Martin (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 1:218. On the threefold outline (Messiah about to be born [7:14], Messiah born [9:5], and Messiah reigning [11:1–5, 10]), cf. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, 227.
Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah 7:14 is very close to the LXX and Hebrew texts. The Hebrew says, “and she will call (וְקָרָאת) His name Immanuel;” the LXX has a command, “You shall call (καλέσεις) His name Immanuel;” but Matthew has, “They shall call (καλέσουσιν) His name Immanuel.” The ones whom Jesus saves (1:21) are the ones who will gladly call Him, “God with us.” Cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 81.
It is significant that when Jewish scholars translated Isaiah into Greek (LXX, c. 200 bc) they used ἡ παρθένος (hē parthenos), meaning “the virgin,” for הָעַלְמָה. This, as well as the OT. usage for עַלְמָה demonstrates that Matthew performed no exegetical slight of hand in translating Isaiah 7:14 with the word παρθένος or “virgin” (Motyer, “Context and Content in the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, ” 125). Incidentally, in the modern Hebrew of present-day Israel a “Miss” is an almah. Cf. Meyer Marcus, “Letters to the Editor,” Christianity Today (Feb. 12, 1965): 29.
Motyer, “Context and Content in the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, ” 125.
Johnson, “The Genesis of Jesus,” 338. Matthew’s interpretation of the title “Immanuel” (Μεθ̓ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός, meth hēmōn ho theos) is understood in two ways by scholars: (1) Μεθ̓̓ ἡμῶν is predicative and functions as an adverb. This gives the translation, “God is with us,” and suggests that in Jesus God the Father is present to bring salvation to His people [so: Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, 150, n. 52; Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 1:217; Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 256–58]. (2) Μεθ̓ ἡμῶν is attributive and functions as an adjective. This gives the translation, “God with us,” and suggests that Jesus is God and He is with us. Grammatically either view is possible, for in both Hebrew and Greek the copula may be omitted. A number of factors favor the second view: First, Isaiah 7–12 is a closely integrated unit (“Book of Immanuel”), and 7:14 should be interpreted in light of 9:6, i.e., the virgin’s son is a Messianic figure whose titles include “Immanuel” and “Mighty God.” Second, Matthew almost always uses μετά + gen. in the sense of “in the company of” and seldom in the sense of attitude, i.e., “favor.” Third, the presence of Jesus with His disciples is a constant theme in Matthew (10:40; 18:20; 23:8–10; 25:31–46; 28:20), and it is never suggested that the Father is with the disciples, for He is in heaven (cf. 23:8–9). Matt. 1:23 is the first OT quotation in the Gospel, and it should be taken with the last words of Jesus in the Gospel (28:20) as an inclusio. The μεθ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός of 1:23 is paired with ἐγὼ μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν εἰμι (ego meth hymon eimi, “I am with you”) of 28:20, with the ἐγώ at the end of Matthew matching and explaining the ὁ θεός at the beginning. Cf. Fenton, “Matthew and the Divinity of Jesus,” 80–81.
I am here following Bruner, The Christbook, 30–31.
T. F. Torrance, When Christ Comes and Comes Again (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 41.
When Roman Catholics and Evangelicals speak of the “Virgin Birth” they mean different things. Roman Catholics relate the term to “the threefold virginity of Mary: (1) the virginal conception of Jesus without a human father, (2) the virginal birth of Jesus without rupturing the hymen of Mary, and (3) the perpetual virginity of Mary, with neither marital relations nor further children after the birth of Jesus. Evangelicals, however, use the expression “Virgin Birth” only of the virginal conception of Jesus, since only that aspect of the doctrine has any basis in Scripture. Speculations about Mary’s intact hymen or her “perpetual virginity” are extra-biblical and, in fact, contra-biblical (Matt. 1:25; Mark 3:31–32; Mark 6:3; Matt. 13:55–56; John 7:3–5; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19). Cf. Richard N. Longenecker, “Just What Is a ‘Virgin Birth?’” Christianity Today (Dec. 17, 1990): 27.
The imperfect (ἐγίνωσκεν, eginōsken) suggests continuous action in time past. The addition of οὐκ (ouk) changes this to continuous inaction. Cf. Bruner, The Christbook, 37.
Catholic scholars labor to avoid the plain sense of the text. McHugh (The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament, 204) argues that the aorist tense (ἔγνω) would have more clearly indicated that the marriage was consummated after the birth. He ignores Matthew’s use of ἕως οὗ (“until”) which, with the imperfect, stresses a continuing state of celibacy only until the birth. Knox translates, “and he had not known her when she bore a son” as if the verb were a pluperfect and the ἕως οὗ were a ὅτε (“The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” in The Holy Bible, trans. Ronald A. Knox [New York: Sheed & Ward, 1954], 1). This, says Johnson, “is an enlightening illustration of the effect of dogma upon translation” (“The Genesis of Jesus,” 338).
It is worth noting that major Protestant “fathers” such as Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Cf. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, 55 vols., ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 45: The Christian in Society, part 2 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1962), 211–12, and vol. 54: Table Talk (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967), 341; John Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 3 vols., trans. A. W. Morrison (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 1:70; The Geneva Bible: The Annotated New Testament, with notes of Theodore Beza (3d ed., 1602, London: Robert Barker, 1607 printing; reprint ed., New York: Pilgrim, 1989), 2; John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament (London: Charles H. Kelly, 1754), 18.
I am here following Bruner, The Christbook, 38–39.
As Bruner notes, Mary, “like John the Baptist, wishes to decrease that Jesus may increase” (The Christbook, 38–39).
Cf. A. N. S. Lane, “The Rationale and Significance of the Virgin Birth,” VoxEv 10 (1977): 61.
Scholars who believe in the incarnation have taken one of three positions on the necessity of the virginal conception of Jesus: (1) The virginal conception is a legend and unnecessary [so: Emil Brunner, The Mediator, trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1947), 322–27; Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man, trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe (2d ed., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 142–43, 149]. (2) The virginal conception actually took place and it points as a sign to the importance of the person and work of Christ, but it was not absolutely essential [so: Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 1.2, trans. G. T. Thomson and Harold Knight (Edinburgh; T. & T. Clark, 1956), 178–79, 181–84, 187, 189, 202; Lane, “The Rationale and Significance of the Virgin Birth,” 61]. (3) The virginal conception was absolutely essential in that this is what our all-wise God determined to do [so: James Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ (New York: Scribner’s, 1907), 182–83, 188; Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield, “The Supernatural Birth of Jesus,” in Biblical and Theological Studies, ed., Samuel G. Craig (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1952), 165–68; Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ, 395].
Stendahl, “Matthew,” 770.
Cf. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 1:219.
All that was required was that the mother’s husband be of the Davidic line and acknowledge the child as his own. Cf. Baba Bathra 8.6, in Mishnayoth, vol. 4: Order Nezikin, 211.
I am here following Johnson, “The Genesis of Jesus,” 340–41. This argument in favor of the virginal conception goes back as far as Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.21.9, in ANF, 1:453–54. Cf. Hans von Campenhausen, The Virgin Birth in the Theology of the Ancient Church, trans. Frank Clarke (London: SCM, 1964), 26.
The same man is called by three names in Scripture: Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:15; Jer. 27:20), Coniah (Jer. 22:30) and Jeconiah (Matt. 1:11–12).
“If the law demanded that Jesus should be heir of Joseph, the prophet demanded that He should not be son of Joseph.” Cf. William Kelly, Lectures on the Gospel of Matthew (2d ed., London: Morrish, 1896; reprint ed., Sunbury, PA: Believers Bookshelf, 1971), 30.
These are the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Creed of Chalcedon (ad 451), and the Athanasian Creed (c. ad 500). Cf. Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 2:45–71.
Cf. Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 2:58–59.
Pannenberg (Jesus-God and Man, 143) argues that the virgin birth and preexistence of Christ stand in “irreconcilable contradiction” to one another. This view is not a new one, being known to Orr (The Virgin Birth of Christ, 208–11). Orr wrote, “The Apostolic doctrine of the preexistence of the Son does not exclude, but, if you assume that this preexistent Being was actually born as a man, positively requires us to postulate a miraculous birth. That seems to me as self-evident a proposition as the mind of man can frame.” Pannenberg would, no doubt, say that it was not self-evident to him, but Orr has authoritative Scripture on his side.
Cf. Lane, “The Rationale and Significance of the Virgin Birth,” 48–64 (esp. pp. 51, 61). Although he believes the biblical account of the virginal conception, Lane concludes there is “no clear ground for seeing it as an absolute necessity.” “His preexistence and His divinity would have been supernatural even if His humanity had had a purely natural origin.” Likewise, Bruner asserts, “God is capable of having himself brought to birth in human history through the normal channels of marital intercourse. The virgin birth is not necessary for God or for us but it is a beautiful doctrine, enshrining the important evangelical truth that God comes to human life without the initiatives of human nature” (The Christbook, 30). I would respond that the doctrine is necessary because it is true, not simply because it is beautiful. “Who are we,” asks Aldwinckle, “to say that God could have acted redemptively only in this way?” (Russell F. Aldwinckle, More Than Man [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976], 196). That is a totally irrelevant question. “How did God act redemptively?” is really the issue. What God did is self-evidently the best way to have done something! Who are we to offer alternative courses of action to our all-wise God? Modern scholars who pontificate on how God could have done things differently are like unruly puppies—badly in need of house-training—yapping at their master.
Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ, 182–83, 188.
As Alexander Balmain Bruce put it, “The connection is so close that few who earnestly believe in the absolute worth of Christ’s Person will be disposed to deny the truth of the Evangelical narratives relating to the manner of His entrance into, and exit from, the world.” Cf. The Miraculous Element in the Gospels (New York: George H. Doran, 1886), 352.
James Denney, Studies in Theology (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1895; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 64.
Lane (“The Rationale and Significance of the Virgin Birth,” 50–51) notes that the Incarnation and the virginal conception are distinct doctrines. The virginal conception concerns the origin of the humanity of Christ, while the Incarnation concerns the deity of Christ. The virginal conception means that He had no human father, while the Incarnation means that Jesus is the eternal Son of God become flesh. Lane’s distinctions are precisely true, but he is seriously confused when he adds that “God is His Father at the level of His eternal existence as God, not at the biological level.” His problem is that he fails to see that the title “Son of God” is invested in Scripture “with a highly complex, multivalent set of associations” (C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977], 31). The title is used in at least three ways in the New Testament: (1) Eternal or Essential Sonship, i.e., Christ in His divine nature has always been the Son of God and, as such, was “sent” into the world [John 3:16; Rom. 8:3–4; Gal. 4:4; 1 John 4:9–10]. (2) Messianic Sonship, i.e., Christ as the human Son of David was appointed to the Messianic office of “Son” at His resurrection [Rom. 1:4; Heb. 1:4–5; cf. 2 Sam. 7:14]. (3) Incarnational Sonship, i.e., the origin of Christ’s human nature is ascribed to the direct, supernatural paternity of God [Luke 1:35]. As inconvenient as this may be for our theological systems, we must bow to New Testament usage. These distinctions, incidentally, were noted long ago by Vos and Kelly. Cf. Geerhardus Vos, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 141–70; William Kelly, An Exposition of the Gospel of Mark (London: Hammond, 1934), 184. The various motifs of New Testament Christology (the preexistence of the Son of God, the sending of the Son, the virginal conception of Jesus, the appointment of the Son of David as God’s “Son”) are perfectly compatible. Modern attempts to posit a plethora of incompatible Christologies in the New Testament are born of skepticism and unbelief and end up in a denial of Christ’s deity, preexistence, virginal conception, sinlessness, and unique Saviorhood. Even worse are attempts to prove that such Christologies are late developments and have no basis in history at all. Cf. Bacon, Studies in Matthew, 148–50.
Brunner asks, “Is a man who is born without a human father a ‘true man?’” (Emil Brunner, Dogmatics, 3 vols., vol. 2: The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, trans. Olive Wyon [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1952], 355). He confuses sex and nature. A human father is not essential to humanity as the case of Adam shows. Jesus received a true human nature from Mary. Cf. Johnson, “The Genesis of Jesus,” 339–40.
Cf. G. C. Berkouwer, The Person of Christ, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 195–235 (esp. pp. 195-99, 233–34); Johnson, “The Genesis of Jesus,” 335.
Bruner, The Christbook, 23.
A. B. Bruce, Apologetics: or, Christianity Defensively Stated (8th ed., New York: Scribner’s, 1905), 410.
Helmut Thielicke, Christ and the Meaning of Life, trans. John W. Doberstein (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 23.
Warfield noted that much modern Christianity is “autosoteric” (i.e., salvation by oneself), “and he who feels entirely competent to save himself finds a natural difficulty in believing that God must intervene to save him.” New Testament Christianity, however, is “heterosoteric” (i.e., salvation by another), and those who believe the New Testament understand that the virginal conception of Christ is part of the essential content of the Christian system. Warfield argues that NT Christianity rests on three pillars, viz., the supernatural, the incarnation, and redemption. He argues that the virginal conception is an expression of its supernaturalism, the safeguard of its doctrine of incarnation, and the condition of its doctrine of redemption. In regard to the third pillar (i.e., redemption), Warfield wrote, “If the Son of God came into the world…specifically in order to save sinners, it was imperatively necessary that He should become incarnate after a fashion which would leave Him standing, so far as His own responsibility is concerned, outside that fatal entail of sin in which the whole natural race of Adam is involved. And that is as much as to say that the redemptive work of the Son of God depends upon His supernatural birth.” Cf. “The Supernatural Birth of Jesus,” 157–68.
Cf. H. R. Mackintosh, The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ (2d ed., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913), 531–32. I should note that Mackintosh did believe in the virgin birth.
To be rejected, of course, is Augustine’s view that Jesus was born sinless because the virgin had not been tainted by the sin of sexual intercourse. The view that sexual relations within marriage are sinful is contrary to Scripture (Heb. 13:4). Cf. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence 1.27, in NPNF, First Series, 5:275.
Cf. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1889; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.), 2:269, 288.
Cf. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (4th ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 336; Barth, Church Dogmatics 1.2 (p. 194); idem., Credo, trans. J. Strathearn McNab (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1936), 71. Barth’s view is not quite the same as the position advocated by Berkhof. Berkhof sees the male excluded to avoid handing on original sin seminally. Barth sees the male excluded in that the male is the stronger and more dominant sex and he must be set aside as a sign that all of this takes place because of the divine initiative. The view adopted in this article is that of Berkhof. It is admittedly deductive, but is based on the following observations: (1) Adam is the head of the race and His first sin [not Eve’s] and its resultant guilt is imputed or charged to his posterity [Rom. 5:12–19]. (2) Similarly, original sin, i.e., the inherited corrupt nature, is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation [cf. Psalm 51:5; Eph. 2:3]. (3) There is a divinely ordained male headship over and responsibility for the family [1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22–24]. Persons are described in Scripture as the “seed” of a man, not of a woman [cf. Heb. 7:10]. It is through the “seed” that a family line is carried on [cf. Deut. 25:5–10], and, apparently, it is through the seed that original sin is passed on, as well. (4) In that the person of Christ is not the result of natural generation, the link with Adam through Joseph, His adoptive father, is broken. (5) As noted in the above discussion, the sinlessness of Christ seems to be linked to His miraculous birth [Luke 1:35]. As Berkhof noted, “It would be inconceivable that God should cause Christ to be born in such an extraordinary manner, if it did not serve some purpose.” Buswell rejects the interpretation offered by Berkhof and offers another. He notes that those who are born by ordinary generation (with a human father and mother) are personally represented by Adam in the original sin which took place at the beginning of human history. We must remember, says Buswell, that Christ is an eternal, preexistent person—He is Adam’s creator. As such the Person of Christ was not derived from, nor represented by, Adam. His Person is none other than the eternal, sinless, Son of God. Buswell’s point is that sinfulness inheres in a person, not a nature. In that the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ is in no way derived from, or represented by, Adam, He is sinless. Cf. J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 1962), 2:44, 57 (cf. 1:299–303). Buswell’s explanation is good so far as it goes and is, in fact, incorporated by Berkhof in his own view. Yet Buswell does not explain how the flesh of Christ was protected from inherited sin. Sin inheres in the flesh (“our body of sin,” Rom. 6:6), yet Christ’s flesh was sinless. Berkhof’s view, on the other hand, does explain how the human flesh of Christ was sinless—it was not fathered by a sinful human male and is therefore sinless. Buswell (1:303) attempts to skirt the issue by denying that a human nature is a substantive entity, but only a complex of attributes—in Christ’s case a perfectly sinless complex of attributes. Hodge long ago rejected this view and asserted that “by nature…is meant substance.” “Attributes,” he argued, “imply a substance of which they are manifestations.” “A non-ens cannot act.… Of nothing, nothing can be predicated.… Attributes cannot exist distinct and separate from substance.… [Christ] was a true man—…not the complex of properties without the substance of humanity, but a true and real man.” “In the Hypostatic Union “humanity and divinity, …two distinct natures or substances…[are] combined in the constitution of His person.” Hodge goes on to point out that this is the faith of the Church universal. He cites the Creed of Chalcedon to the effect that Christ as to His humanity is consubstantial with us, and as to His deity, consubstantial with the Father. This being so, we would ask, “How was our Lord preserved from original sin in the substance of His human nature?” I would agree that Buswell is certainly correct that the divine Person of Christ is not derived from Adam and is sinless. But I would also agree with Berkhof’s thesis that the substance of Christ’s human nature was preserved from sin because of the miracle of the virginal conception. Cf. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (New York: Scribner, 1872; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 2:387–88.
To be rejected is the view of Shedd that the human nature of Christ participated in Adam’s sin but was justified and sanctified before it was assumed into union with the Logos. Christ’s human nature was justified proleptically, he argued, on the ground of an atonement yet to be made. Buswell rightly rejects this “fantastic notion” on the ground that it would mean that “Christ our Redeemer was a sinner saved by grace!” It is much better to assume with Luke (1:35) that through the ministrations of the Holy Spirit the human nature was preserved from original sin. Shedd was a staunch defender of both Christ’s sinlessness and impeccability, but his explanation of why Christ’s human nature was sinless is defective. Cf. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:59, n. 1; 2:330–49; Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 1:303.
Henry Morris denies that the human body of Christ grew from Mary’s egg. If this were so, he argues, Jesus would be born from a sin-carrying embryo. He goes on to assert that our Lord’s body was a special creation deriving no chromosomes or genes from His mother. Instead, the body of Jesus, i.e., a fertilized human egg, was formed directly by God and placed in the virgin’s womb (Henry M. Morris, “When God Became Man,” Acts & Facts—Impact [Dec., 1993], 1–2; idem., Creation and the Virgin Birth [booklet, El Cajon: Institute of Creation Research, n.d.]). Morris’ view sounds very similar to the heresy of Valentinus, a 2d century Gnostic, who theorized that from conception to birth our Lord passed through the body of His mother “like water through a pipe,” deriving no part of His humanity from her. This view has generally been rejected by the Christian Church since the time of Irenaeus. Cf. Against Heresies 1.7.2, in ANF, 1:325. Let me hasten to say that Dr. Morris is a devout evangelical Christian and not a Gnostic heretic! Unlike Valentinus, a Docetist who attributed to Jesus a pneumatic body, Morris strongly affirms that our Lord had a real human nature and a genuine human body. His speculation has nevertheless led him to propound a theory with two serious problems, problems of which he is aware, but ultimately fails to solve: (1) His theory cuts Jesus off from the David line and the right to occupy David’s throne [cf. Luke 1:31–33]. (2) It cuts Him off from our humanity, while the NT traces His lineage back to Adam [Luke 3:38]. If Morris is correct, then Jesus, although human, did not partake of our humanity [Heb. 2:14].
John Gill, Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, 2 vols. (1795; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 1:555. In Romans 8:3 the Apostle says that God sent His Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” This carefully worded phrase was intended, says Stott, to combat false views of the incarnation. “The Son came neither ‘in the likeness of flesh,’ only seeming to be human, as the Docetists taught, for His humanity was real (1 John 4:2; 2 John 7); nor ‘in sinful flesh,’ assuming a fallen nature, for His humanity was sinless (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 7:26), but ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh,’ because His humanity was both real and sinless simultaneously.” Cf. John Stott, Romans: God’s Good News for the World (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994), 219.
“If Christ had been generated by man, He would have been a human person included in the covenant of works, and as such would have shared the common guilt of mankind” (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 336). However the virginal conception is understood, we must, at the end of the day, acknowledge that Jesus somehow does not partake of Mary’s sinful nature. The Bible says nothing of an immaculate conception of the virgin. The explanation of Berkhof is certainly pointing in the right direction. Modern writers are evidently uncomfortable with it (cf. Lane, “The Rationale and Significance of the Virgin Birth,” 54–56; Aldwinckle, More Than Man, 196), but as Warfield noted, contemporary writers scout such doctrines as “race-sin and atonement.” (“The Supernatural Birth of Christ,” 166).
Lewis wrote, “By His virgin birth Christ, the last Adam, enters the world guiltless of the sin of the first Adam. This is the key to Joseph’s exclusion. God has constituted the first man, Adam, as the head of the race and the representative of all others. All men are involved in the primal rebellion of the Fall, in the guilt that follows from it as well as the depravity (sinfulness) that flows from it (Rom. 5:12; cf. Heb. 7:10; Ps. 51:5). Like all others, any child of Joseph and Mary would have been involved in the guilt of that first, racial, transgression. That is why help from the outside is necessary. Christ the last Adam must be such as can begin and be a new beginning for humanity. He is born of Mary so that His humanity can be true; He is born of God so that His humanity might be new. He is connected with the race (‘Behold, you will conceive in your womb,’ Luke 1:31 RSV), but He is unconnected with the racial sin (‘What is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit,’ Matt. 1:20; ‘therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God,’ Luke 1:35, RSV). It is an understanding of guilt that is decisive for our understanding of the Virgin Birth.” Cf. Peter Lewis, The Glory of Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1997), 155.
Cf. the discussions in Johnson, “The Genesis of Jesus,” 340; Longenecker, “Whose Child is This?” 27, 28; L. Nelson Bell, “A Physician Looks at the Virgin Birth,” in Howard A. Hanke, The Validity of the Virgin Birth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963), 107; Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, 15–18; Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 67.
Cf. Origen, Against Celsus 1.28, 32 in ANF, 4:408, 410; Tertullian, The Shows 30 in ANF, 3:91.
Cf. Sanhedrin 67a in The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Neziḳin, 4 vols. ed., I. Epstein (London: Soncino: 1935), 3:456–57; Shabbath 104b in The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Mo‘ed, 4 vols. (1938), 1:504; Yevamoth 4.13 in Mishnayoth, Order Nashim, 3:51.
Modern Christians must refute them, too, but the slander is being made today not by pagans and Jews but by leaders within the visible Christian church. Cf. Robinson, The Human Face of God, 57–63; Jane Schaberg, The Illegitimacy of Jesus: A Feminist Theological Interpretation of the Infancy Narratives (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 194–99 and passim; John Shelby Spong, Born of a Woman (San Francisco: Harper, 1992), 13–14, 41, 128–29, 185, 168–72. It cannot be without significance that those who abandon one element of orthodoxy, soon abandon others. A. B. Bruce once observed, “It has to be remembered that faith is ever in a state of unstable equilibrium while the supernatural is dealt with eclectically; admitted in the moral and spiritual sphere, denied in the physical. With belief in the Virgin Birth is apt to go belief in the Virgin life, as not less than the other a part of that veil that must be taken away that the true Jesus may be seen as He was—a morally defective man, better than most, but not perfectly good.” Cf. Apologetics, 409–10.
Johnson, “The Genesis of Jesus,” 339.
Donald MacLeod, The Person of Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 37.
Barth, Church Dogmatics 1.2 (p. 182).
MacLeod, The Person of Christ, 37. Barth (Church Dogmatics 1.2 [p. 177]) wrote, “The dogma of the Virgin birth is thus the confession of the boundless hiddenness of the vere Deus vere homo [“truly God, truly man”] and of the boundless amazement of awe and thankfulness called forth in us by this vere Deus vere homo. It eliminates the last surviving possibility of understanding the vere Deus vere homo intellectually, as an idea or an arbitrary interpretation in the sense of docetic or ebionite Christology. It leaves only the spiritual understanding of the vere Deus vere homo, i.e., the understanding in which God’s own work is seen in God’s own light.”
Torrance, “The Doctrine of the Virgin Birth,” 15–16.
Torrance, “The Doctrine of the Virgin Birth,” 19.
Cf. Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, 1:211.
Cf. Bruner, The Christbook, 36.
Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ, 201, 225.
Bruner, The Christbook, 29–30. When we come to see Christ as He is, wrote Gresham Machen, to view Him “in the light of God and against the dark background of sin…as the satisfaction of man’s deepest need, as the One who alone can lead into all glory and all truth”—we shall come, “despite all, to the stupendous conviction that the New Testament is true, that God walked here upon the earth, that the eternal Son, because He loved us, came into this world to die for our sins upon the cross. When you have arrived at that conviction you will turn with very different eyes to the story of the virgin and her child. Wonders will no longer repel you.” Cf. The Virgin Birth of Christ, 381.
Bruner, The Christbook, 21.
I am here closely following Bruner, The Christbook, 36.
Bruner, The Christbook, 22–23.
Johnson, “The Genesis of Jesus,” 338.
Phillips Brooks, “O Little Town of Bethlehem,” in The Hymnal for Worship & Celebration, # 141.

Eamon Younis

Monday, 8 April 2019

The Virginal Conception of Our Lord in Matthew 1:18-25

No comments:

Post a Comment