Virgin Birth

Both Matthew and Luke make reference to the virgin birth, which was alluded to in Isaiah 700 years earlier. There is considerable objection to the Virgin Birth, with many skeptics considering it a myth borrowed from other pagan religions. While it is true that accounts of miraculous births occur within other pagan religions of that time, it would have been very offensive to Jewish sensibilities to have aligned their religion with those so opposed to their own. Furthermore, other accounts focus on a sexual act between a "god" taking human or animal form, and a human woman as opposed to the more subtle overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Virgin Birth cannot be easily explained as a story inspired by pagan legend.

Skeptics also object to the notion that the Virgin Birth was predicted in the book of Isaiah. We all know the passage Matthew listed... "Look! the virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel, which means 'God with us'". When we read this in Isaiah, it was one of those prophecies that had a near future and distant future fulfillment. In the near future, it referred to a child that would be born to Isaiah and his wife as a sign to King Ahaz. But this was not fulfilled in it's entirety, as this child was not named Immanuel but rather Maher-shalal-hash-baz. And for a prophet to be legitimate, his prophecies had to be fulfilled explicitly. So a future fulfillment was expected, though I have read that the Jews did not consider this to be a Messianic prophecy. They expected their messiah to be human and would not have looked for Messianic meaning in any prophecy that hinted at the miraculous. The word used for "virgin" has come under fire because the word "almah" can be translated "young maiden" or "virgin" as opposed to the word "betulah" which has the strict interpretation of "virgin". However, the cultural usage of the word "almah" always referred to a virgin because in that era, a young maiden WAS a virgin, or was at least assumed so. If she was not, she was to be stoned to death. Therefore, the two words were synonymous in the context of that society. And it may have been a strategic choice for Isaiah to use "almah", since it offered more flexibility in interpretation than did "betulah". This was important because of the dual-fulfillment. The near future fulfillment did not refer to a virgin birth or to the Messiah, whereas the distant future fulfillment did. So the word could apply to both situations given the flexibility of interpretation.

Is it important that Jesus' birth was miraculous? Yes. A man born of two human parents would have been fully human and in full possession of a sin nature, which is contrary to the Christian doctrine of a sinless God-man...fully human AND fully divine. And had Joseph been the biological father, Jesus could not have been the Messiah because of a curse placed on King Jeconiah, (another name for Jehoiachin), that none from his lineage would ever sit on the throne of David (Jer. ). Joseph was of that line, based on the genealogy in Matthew, and any of his direct descendants would have been automatically disqualified. So Jesus was uniquely qualified as a legal descendant of David through his adopted father yet not of the cursed blood line by virtue of his only human blood relative, Mary.

Do we have proof of the Virgin birth? Other than the gospel records, there is no way to substantiate the claim. This is where faith comes in. However, it is clear that the people involved believed it. Mary's response, as well as Joseph's and even Elizabeth's dictate extremely unusual circumstances. After hearing that she would become pregnant by the Holy Spirit of God, she runs to tell her family. This would not be normal behavior for a young girl in an out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Jesus Himself, never refers to Joseph as his father, though he does make reference to his mother and siblings. He was taunted in Matthew chapter 12 with subtle references to His illegitimacy, indicating that Mary's pre-marital pregnancy must have been common knowledge. Under such circumstances, it would have been lawful for Joseph to divorce her (or worse), yet he does not. Given the intolerance for such behavior, particularly among women at that time, there is no reasonable explanation for his NOT doing so. Intervention by a message from God resolves the in-congruency.

Tomorrow's reading: Matt. 2:1-3:17; Luke 2:41-3:22; Mark 1:1-11