His virgin birth
His virgin birth
We continue to study the virgin birth of Jesus. We consider some objections to the virgin birth.
In some translations the word "almah" in Hebrew is rendered "maiden" or "young woman" rather than "virgin" (Isa 7:14). However, the inspired translation (Mtt 1:23) has the Greek word for "virgin" —the Holy Spirit settles the matter.
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). 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.
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?
But is the rest of the New Testament really silent about the virgin birth? Whenever it uses the term "the Son of God", it implies 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.