Jesus-The Word Became Flesh
(John 1:1-14)
Statement of the Problem
The question to be considered in this article, stated simply, is: Does the Bible teach that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin without the agency of a human father? I shall attempt to prove that the question should be answered affirmatively in spite of the fact that there are many who say it should be answered negatively. That our Lord did not have a human father is, as McPherson says, a
. . . basic doctrine that has always been believed by the Christian people, from the apostles down to the present, but that is denied today by a certain class of scholars, some of whom call themselves scientists and religious [liberalists], and are teachers in educational institutions and preachers, here and there, in Christian pulpits. (11)
Of course, no pulpit is truly a Christian one if it denies the virgin birth of our Lord.
Importance of the Problem
If Jesus of Nazareth was the son of Joseph and therefore not the Son of God, then He was an imposter. If He was an imposter, then man does not have a Savior and is yet in his sins. If Jesus was begotten by the Holy Spirit and was born of the virgin Mary, then He is the Son of God and is worthy of the adoration and obedience of every soul on Earth. If He was not the Son of God, then He was a liar, for He claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 16:15-17; 26:63-64; 27:43; Mark 14:61-62; Luke 22:70). By implication He denied that Joseph was truly His father (Luke 2:40-51). The idea, entertained by some, that belief in or rejection of the virgin birth of Jesus is a matter of indifference is absurd on the very face of it.
Various Explanations
The following are possibilities as to just who was the father of Jesus: (1) Joseph, (2) God (Matthew 1:20), or (3) someone other than these two.
Modernists affirm that Joseph was His father (cf. Palmer 4-16). In fact, from about the third century (Macartney 11), enemies of Christianity have attacked the virgin birth. Formerly, almost all of the attacks came from those who made no profession of following Christ, but now some of the strongest opposition comes from some who at least claim to be followers of Christ (6-7).
Macartney well stated the case when he said:
Many declare that the credibility and significance of Christianity are in no way affected by the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, and some go so far as to say that the doctrine is a stumbling block to faith, and puts a barrier between Jesus and the race, and that the narrative of the Virgin Birth in the Gospels arose in much the same way as the old legends and myths about the supernaturel births of famous personages of the pagan world. (12)
The Bible plainly teaches that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin without a human father but was begotten by the Holy Spirit.
There are those who claim that the doctrine of the virgin birth is an unimportant one—that it has no connection with the other doctrines of Christianity. Since the record of the virgin birth is found in the Scriptures, such a position is absurd to Bible believers. It is not man’s prerogative to add to or take from the word (Revelation 22:18-19). Further. its importance is seen in the zeal with which modernists attack the doctrine. “Men do not as a rule fight strenuously about points which they think of no importance. They concentrate their attacks on points which they feel to have strategic values” (Orr 17-18). They have fought the virgin birth because it is vital to Christianity.
Biblical Teaching on the Problem
Palmer, a modernist, says of Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-36, “These are the only passages in the New Testament in which the virgin birth is asserted or so much as hinted at. On the other hand, many passages assert or imply the opposite view” (5-6). That Mr. Palmer was wrong will be made clear as we proceed with the study. Let us now consider a number of passages of Scripture. Lack of space will prevent our considering very many of these passages.
1. Genesis 3:15. In pronouncing the curse upon the serpent, God said, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed.” The “seed of the woman” referred to is Christ. This we learn from the writing of Paul (Galatians 3:16-19). There was to be great enmity between Satan and the “seed of the woman.” Further, the “seed of the woman” was to “bruise” the head of the Serpent. This means that Satan was to be destroyed (cast into the lake of fire, cf. 1 John 3:8; Hebrews 2:14). The Bible plainly teaches that Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil. This passage, almost in the very beginning of the Bible, would lead us to expect a virgin birth—a woman to conceive and bring forth a child without the agency of a human father.
2. Matthew 1:18-25. This passage tells us that Joseph was espoused to a virgin named Mary. But before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Of course, Joseph, at this stage, could draw only one conclusion: viz., that Mary had been guilty of fornication. So he decided not to proceed with the marriage. However, being a just man, he did not wish to make a public example of her so he decided to put her away privately. While he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream. The angel then told Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife “for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” The angel went on to explain that Mary would soon give birth to a son and that the son’s name would be called Jesus because He was to save His people from their sins. Matthew went on to explain that all of this was to come to pass so that what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled. That prophecy predicted the Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14).
Isaiah predicted that Virgin Birth of our Lord and Matthew makes it clear that the prediction came to pass. Matthew’s record plainly teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. He was not mere man, but was God-man—”God with us” (Immanuel).
3. Luke 1:26-38. This account tells us that the angel Gabriel was sent from God to the city of Nazareth to a virgin, named Mary, who was espoused to a man named Joseph. Mary was disturbed but Gabriel told her not to fear for she had found favor with God. The angel further told her that she would conceive and bring forth a son, that she would call His name Jesus, and that God would give unto Him the throne of David. Mary was confused by this and asked, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” In reply, Gabriel told her that such would be accomplished by the agency of the Holy Spirit. These words of Gabriel should be noted, “Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).
Luke described Mary as a virgin. Mary herself knew that she had not known a man and wondered how a birth could be accomplished without a man. The angel Gabriel knew that the birth was to be accomplished without the agency of a man and explained that it would be accomplished through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Thus Luke plainly teaches that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Virgin.
Objections Considered and Refuted
1. Objection: There are only two passages in the New Testament in which the virgin birth is asserted or so much as hinted at. —The Virgin Birth is recorded in only two of the Gospels, Matthew 1:18-25, and Luke 1:26-38.
That this objection has no weight is seen from the fact that a number of passages have been presented in this chapter. I believe that those passages plainly teach the pre-existence and virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
But even if there were only one passage which taught that Jesus was born of a virgin, that one passage would be sufficient to settle the question. The word of God never contradicts itself so if one passage teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin, we may be sure that no other passage denies that He was so born. Further, the foolishness of this objection is seen from the following facts. (1) the turning of water into wine is recorded only in John 2:1-11; (2) the first cleansing of the temple is recorded only in John 2:13-25; (3) Jesus’ conversation with the woman by the well was recorded only in John 4:4-42; (4) The healing of the centurion’s son was recorded only in John 4:46-54; (5) the raising of the widow’s son at Nain was recorded only in Luke 7:11-17. Such passages could be greatly multiplied, but these already given are sufficient to show that many deeds and sayings of Christ are recorded by only one or two of the Gospel writers. The Bible needs to say a thing only once for it to be accepted by those who truly believe the Bible to be the word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
Actually, every passage which teaches that Jesus was the Son of God by implication necessarily teaches that Jesus was not the son of Joseph but was born of a virgin (cf. Matthew 16:18; 3:17; 26:53; Mark 1:1; 14:61; Luke 9:35; John 1:1-14; Romans 1:1-5; 8:1-5).
2. Objection: People who lived at the same time Jesus did believed He was the Son of Joseph.
There are a number of passages which contain accounts of Jesus being called the son of Joseph (Luke 4:22; John 1:45; 6:42).
One of these passages is found in John 1:45. This passage contains the account of Philip’s saying to Nathanael, “We have found him . . . Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” Here Philip simply employs a way of referring to Jesus by which He could be identified. Jesus was the legal son of Joseph. (This was the reason for Joseph being included in our Lord’s genealogy.) So Philip rightly referred to Jesus as the son of Joseph. It must be remembered that John had just referred to Jesus as “the only begotten Son” of God (John 1:18).
Another such passage is found in Luke 4:22. In this passage is the account of some unbelieving people of Nazareth saying, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” These people were hard-headed and unwilling to admit the truth about even the miracles which Jesus performed. And, so, they were unwilling to examine the evidence and admit the truth concerning His sonship. It is not surprising that they did not know of, or admit, His virgin birth—if indeed the question here posed by these people of Nazareth does show that they held such a view of the matter.
Still another such passage is found in John 6:42. Once more this is a passage which contains the account of unbelieving Jews calling Jesus the son of Joseph. Likely, they knew little, if any, of the actual facts of the matter and, judging from their reaction to other matters, likely would not have been receptive if the evidence had been presented.
Let it be noted that in the New Testament record, the people who said that Jesus was the son of Joseph were two groups of unbelievers and one new convert, who might very well have been referring to His legal relationship to Joseph.
This objection should be rejected as not having sufficient ground.
Luke himself, in writing Luke, twice referred to Joseph and Mary as the “parents” of Jesus (Luke 2:27, 41). Both of these are recorded in Luke after the annunciation (Luke 1:26-38) to Mary that she would bear a child which was to be begotten by the Holy Spirit and not by man. After having made this fact clear, Luke could rightly expect all of his readers to look upon Joseph as nothing else than the legal father of Jesus.
It was in the legal sense that Mary referred to Joseph as the father of Jesus (Luke 2:48). Mary knew that Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus (Luke 1:26-28). Joseph also knew that he was not the natural father of Jesus (Matthew 1:18-25. Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the Son of God while the Jews believed that He was only a man—born of a woman with a human father )Luke 22:70; cf. John 19:7). If Joseph, or even some other man, were truly the father of Jesus, why did not Mary stop the crucifixion of her son by stepping out before the Jewish Sanhedrin or the Roman court and naming the human father of Jesus? This would have forced Jesus to recant from His claim of being the Son of God. If Jesus were not truly the Son of God, then she let Jesus die to save her own reputation. It is inconceivable that a mother would do such. Harry Rimmer gives an excellent statement in this connection: “The only explanation of the silence of Mary is that Jesus died for a fact clearly stated. He was the Son of God. Joseph or no other man had any remote connection with the birth of the man Jesus. It was an incarnation, if the proofs of psychology can be accepted” (123).
The statements of Mary and Luke referring to Joseph as a parent or father of Jesus are not evidence against the virgin birth.
Further, it should be noted that Jesus Himself disclaimed Joseph as His father. In reply to Mary’s statement, “. . . thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing,” Jesus said unto them, “How is it that Ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my father’s business?” (Luke 2:48-49). It is clear that Jesus knew He was the Son of God—not the son of Joseph (except in a legal sense).
3. Objection: In all of the writings of Paul, there is nothing concerning the virgin birth; it is therefore not a part of the gospel. In the epistles written by Paul, there are literally scores of references to Jesus as being the Son of God. Not once does Paul refer to Joseph, the husband of Mary. In refuting this particular objection Rimmer suggests a good procedure. He suggests that we read in any of the epistles by Paul, “substituting the name of Joseph as the father of Jesus wherever Paul names God as his progenitor. Such a technique for instance, would make chaos of the Roman epistle” (100).
Rimmer then suggests that Paul would begin his dedication to the Romans as follows: “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of JOSEPH, concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh: and declared to be the Son of JOSEPH with power, . . ” (100).
Other good passages on which to try this procedure are: Romans 8:28; 8:31 and Philippians 2:9-11.
4. Objection: The genealogies of Jesus as recorded in Matthew and Luke do not agree with one another and one of them clearly says Joseph is the father of Jesus.
Two genealogies (cf. Matthew 1:17; Luke 3:23-38) have been, and remain, the occasion of some difficulty. But this one important fact stands out above all questions which might be raised: the two genealogies do not teach that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus! The two genealogies are not exactly the same (because Matthew traces through Joseph and Luke traces through Mary) but lack of space forbids our making an effort at dealing with the details of these two records. Macartney sums up the problem in a concise way when he says:
All that we need to show now is, that the very men who put these tables in their gospels, Matthew and Luke, are the men who tell of the supernatural birth of Christ, and yet are conscious of no contradiction between those narratives which say Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, and the tables which seem to trace his descent through Joseph. More than that, not only are they conscious of no contradiction, but they are careful in writing these tables not to say Joseph was the father of Jesus. Matthew employs a periphrasis saying, ‘And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom—the feminine pronoun—was born Jesus who is called Christ,’ whereas Luke says, ‘Jesus began to be thirty years of age, being as was supposed the son of Joseph which was the son of Heli.’ (20)
However let us not grant that Luke, as well as Matthew, traces through Joseph. Let me point out the following: (1) Luke would not be likely to give a genealogy tracing Jesus through Joseph after plainly saying that Jesus was only the supposed (physical) son of Joseph; (2) besides, Luke himself had already gone to considerable length to prove that Joseph was not the father of Jesus (Luke 1:26-28); (3) Luke had already proved that Jesus was the physical son of Mary—not Joseph; (4) Matthew, in contrast to Luke, establishes the fact that Joseph was the legal father of Jesus by giving Joseph’s genealogy as “the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus” (Matthew 1:17-25). Lenski well stated the case when he said,
The difference in the wording of the two evangelists is so marked as alone to settle the question. If Luke were presenting Joseph’s genealogy, it would according to his own statement be the genealogy only of the supposed father of Jesus, and of what value would such a genealogy be? No man could find a reference to the legal relationship of Joseph to Jesus in hos enomizeto. (219)
Much space has been given and many words have been written in efforts to “reconcile” the two genealogies. In explaining why there is no good reason to even attempt such, Carroll says, “Matthew gives our Lord’s legal descent through Joseph. Luke gives his real descent through Mary. As both Joseph and Mary were descendents of Abraham and David, they will in part coincide and in part diverge. The extent of the coincidence or the divergence is immaterial” (78).
It can be seen that the objection at hand contains no evidence against the virgin birth.
5. Objection: I cannot understand it—it calls for a biological miracle and I can accept only what I can demonstrate in a laboratory.
But how can any man account for his own existence as a living intelligent human being capable of making wise choices, producing offspring, etc. separate and apart from some miracle or miracles? Is man not forced to accept either the one miracle of creation by Almighty God or the millions of “miracles” which would be required if some theory such as evolution were true? Man—a living, intelligent being—is here. From where did he get his life? From where did he get his intelligence? How did the very first human being come into existence? By the creative power of God! Thus, the objection at hand is rather absurd in the face of such questions, which demand the answer that “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
Conclusion
One cannot reject the virgin birth and accept the Christ of the New Testament. One cannot reject the virgin birth and accept the Bible as the infallible, inspired word of God (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21). But, God be praised, He was born of a virgin. The Word (John 1:1) did become flesh (John 1:14; 1 John 1:1-3) and dwelt among men so that He, being God-man (Immanuel, God-with us), might be the sacrifice for sins (Romans 8:1-4) and offer man eternal salvation. May all men everywhere praise His matchless name and obey Him from the heart (Romans 6:17-18; 1 Peter 1:22-23; Hebrews 5:8-9; John 14:15, 21).
The Bible plainly teaches that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin; i.e., without a human father. The Biblical record makes clear that the profound, unique, and perfect character of Jesus demands something more than mere humanity.
Unto him that sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb, be the blessing and the honor, and the glory, and the dominion, for ever and ever. (Revelation 5:12b)
Works Cited
Carroll, B. H. “The Four Gospels.” An Interpretation of the English Bible. Nashville: Broadman, 1913.
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel. Columbus: Warburg, 1946.
Macartney, C. E. Twelve Great Questions about Christ.
McPherson, W. The Modern Mind and the Virgin Birth. New York: Yonkers, 1924.
Orr, James. The Virgin Birth. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1907.
Palmer, Frederick. The Virgin Birth. New York: Macmillian, 1924.
Rimmer, Harry. The Magnificence of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953.