The birth of Jesus was as follows. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph took her as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son. And it came to pass that while they were in Bethlehem, the days were completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son, and she wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger (Mtt 1:18-25, Lke 2:1-7). Thus was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet saying,

A True Story

The story of Christ's birth is told in the early pages of Matthew and Luke. This story is still believed by millions of people around the world. It has been told in every generation throughout the Christian age.

Some professing Christians, however, have always rejected the story as factual, because they do not believe in anything supernatural. One of the main differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were the religious leaders of Jesus's day, was that the Pharisees believed in the supernatural, but the Sadducees did not (Acts 23:8). So today, among the religious leaders, there are those who do not believe in miraculous or supernatural things. They consider the story of the virgin birth of Jesus to be a myth or legend, rather than a true and factual account of a real event.

The supernatural is woven inextricably into the whole Bible story. Creation, the first temptation, the flood, the blessing of Abraham, the exodus from Egypt --the supernatural and miraculous pervades it all. The story of Christ Jesus, his virgin birth, his signs and wonders, his resurrection from the dead, his ascension into heaven, his sending the Holy Spirit --all must be rejected if the supernatural and miraculous is rejected. Taking the supernatural element out of the story of the Bible, is like taking the thread out of a garment. You are left with a handful of buttons.

Christ's Birth a Sign

Belief in the miraculous events recorded in the Bible, in particular the virgin birth of Jesus, is essential to a belief in Jesus as the unique (only begotten) Son of God (Jhn 3:16).

The virgin birth was to be a "sign" from God (Isa 7:14). A birth in the ordinary course of nature is not a sign. As wonderful as it may be, human procreation occurs every minute of every day. If Jesus's birth were an ordinary natural event, how would it be a sign of anything? On the other hand, if the mother had conceived being a virgin, and was still a virgin when she gave birth, then that would indeed be a sign. Matthew is clear that Joseph kept Mary a virgin until she gave birth to Jesus (Mtt 1:24-25). If Matthew's account is not factual, but only a myth, then the birth of Jesus was not a sign, and Jesus was not unique as a son of God.

Not a Myth or Legend

The gospel nativity bears no resemblance to a myth. Were it written that Mary picked a pumpkin and found the baby Jesus inside, then we might have reason to think we are dealing with a myth. The account, however, is straight forward and contains none of the trappings of myth, fable, or legend. The point that makes the story extraordinary, is the statement that Mary was a virgin when she conceived, and was still a virgin when she gave birth. There are, in addition, appearances of angels, and the mysterious star that guided the Magi. These, however, are presented as straight facts and real events. They are certainly not presented in a way that imitates the stories of the Greek and Roman gods or even unscriptural Jewish fables.

Myths, fables, and legends, are written not to embody great truths, but to make a hero out of one who, in real life, falls short of the ideal. The legendary Robin Hood and our own Ned Kelly, for example, are larger than life and truth. If faith in Jesus requires myth or legend to bolster it, then it is a vain faith, because the real Jesus, stripped of the legend and myth, would fall short of what is believed about him.

Peter testifies, "We did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eye witnesses of his majesty..." --a clear, evidential refutation of the assertion that the story of Christ is a myth (2Pe 1:16).

Jesus as Joseph's Son

The scriptures report some as saying that Jesus was Joseph's son. For example, Philip did (Jhn 1:45). Even Mary once said to Jesus, "Your father and I have been worried and looking for you" (Lke 2:48). Passages like these show that there was no attempt at myth building. In ordinary life, many fathers and sons are so related legally, morally, and socially, but not biologically. They are properly called fathers and sons. Jesus's relationship to Joseph is treated in this ordinary way.

Of course the birth records would be expected to show some indication of the non-biological relationship. Notice how the genealogies of Jesus studiously avoid calling Jesus the son of Joseph... "Jesus supposedly the son of Joseph" (Lke 3:23)... "Joseph the husband of Mary by whom was born Jesus" (Mtt 1:16). This is not an indication of myth building by Matthew and Luke, but contrawise an indication of their attention to factual detail in representing accurately the birth record of Jesus.

We see, then, that in ordinary statements Jesus is properly spoken of as the son of Joseph, but in legal statements he is not acknowledged as the biological son of Joseph, nor is Joseph said to have begotten Jesus. Furthermore, in theological statements, Jesus is said to be "the Son of God" (eg Jhn 3:16, Jhn 20:30-31). We see, then, that the Bible exhibits appropriate language in each context, leaving no indication of a developing mythology about the birth of Jesus.

Silence of the Epistles

Some worry that the rest of the New Testament is silent on the virgin birth. Silence does not amount to invalidation. Paul acknowledges the writings of both Matthew and Luke as scripture, because he quotes passages from them as such (1Tm 5:18, Mtt 10:10, Lke 10:7). Why then should we think that Paul would not accept the accounts of Jesus's birth, in the writings of Matthew and Luke, also as scripture, and therefore just as true as any other scripture?

It is not entirely correct that the New Testament authors, apart from Matthew and Luke, are silent about the virgin birth. Whenever they use the term "the Son of God", which all of them do except James, they imply agreement with the reason that Gabriel gave for calling Jesus "the Son of God". Mary pointed out to the angel that she was a virgin, that she had not known a man carnally. The angel, in tacit acceptance of Mary's claim, replied, "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" (Lke 1:34-35). This promise by Gabriel forms the theological basis for calling Jesus "the Son of God" and loads that title with the implication of divine conception and virgin birth.

The assertion that the New Testament is largely "silent on the virgin birth" is therefore mistaken, since repeated use of the title "the Son of God" acknowledges that Christ was conceived and born of a virgin by the power of God.

Home | Topics | List | Next