The Virgin Birth of our Lord:

Its Vital Importance and Defense

By Pastor Terry L. Reese, Center Church of Garrett

This Christmas I am offering some thoughts on the historic and seminal Christian dogma of the virgin birth of Christ. Some of the relevant issues that I wish to address are as follows:

 

1) Can the Virgin Birth be legitimately defended from Scripture?

2) Does it really even matter, theologically?
3) Can a man be recognized as an actual brother in the Lord—and yet deny the substance and truth of this doctrine? Can such a man hope to be saved from the wrath that is surely to come (Matt. 3:7)?  

 

This matter became a watershed debate in the modernist era betwixt orthodox Bible-believing conservatives and classical old-fashioned liberals, who, because of the bias derived from their pantheistic divine-immanence theories, were philosophically unable to receive the idea of the miraculous. It has often been observed with no small degree of justice that the God who somehow managed to work the seemingly greater miracle of creation ex nihlo should surely have had no great difficulty in also pulling-off such a seemingly lesser thing a thing (relatively speaking) as a virgin birth.

Luke 1:37: "For nothing will be impossible with God."

The virgin birth is both clearly and explicitly taught within both Testaments and by a variety of writers. If a man cannot confess it, it is simply a matter of faithlessness and unbelief in the veracity of the Bible. That even the faithless Muslim infidels are able to accept this general concept and explanation for Christ’s appearance in the world stands as a sad indictment of those mainline “Christian” clergymen who, by way of contrast, are unable or unwilling to do so. Failure to affirm the virgin birth flatly places one outside the sphere of any form of legitimate or recognizable Christianity, and stands as clear and solid testimony as to an individual’s unregenerate and unsaved character.

The nature of the Virgin Birth, or, if one prefers, Virgin Conception, and its results, are aptly described by the angel Gabriel:

 Luke 1:34-35: Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

The very first Messianic prophecy within the Bible, the Protevangelium of Gen. 3:15, alludes to the conflict between Satan and the Seed of the Woman—and thus, subtly points towards the Virgin Birth. This promise becomes dramatically explicit within the prophecy of Isaiah:

Isa. 7:14: "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.  

Liberals, such as the translators of the left-leaning RSV (who render virgin as “a young woman”) and its successor, the NRSV (favored by the mainline denominations as the translation of choice), have claimed that bethulah, as opposed to almah, would have constituted a better word-choice had the prophet Isaiah intended the meaning “virgin.” However, in opposition to this viewpoint, are the following considerations:

1. Bethulah does not always refer to a virgin (Esth. 2:17, Ezek. 23:3, Joel 1:8), and thus, would not have been a more precise term to use than almah.
2. Almah, while it may not be a precisely technical term meaning “virgin,” is a word used in reference to young, marriageable women, who, it would be anticipated, would be characterized by their virginity, amongst other things. There is no place in the Scriptures where the term can be applied to a young woman who is not a virgin. We are mindful here of the bold challenge that the venerable Dr. Martin Luther issued centuries ago:

"If a Jew or Christian can prove to me that in any passage of Scripture 'almah' means 'a married woman' I will give him one hundred florins, although God alone knows where I will find them."

Dr. Luther kept his money!

 

3. The translators of the LXX—ancient Jewish men for whom biblical Hebrew was a living language, and who probably forgot more Hebrew than today’s liberal translators and critics will ever even learn—chose to render the term parthenos in Greek, which always means “virgin.”
4. The sign unto the House of David was to be a compelling one (Isa. 7:11 "Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make {it} deep as Sheol or high as heaven."). What is miraculous about the RSV’s wimpy “a young woman shall conceive”? This is mere biology, not a sign miracle.
5. If Isa. 7:14 does not refer to a virgin, then there is no consistency of usage linking the Testaments. Matthew 1:23 explicitly refers to mother of Isa. 7:14 as a Virgin (parthenos). The RSV diminishes the full force of fulfilled prophecy.

The Virgin Birth is, of course, explicitly expounded by Matthew:

Matt. 1:18-23: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."

 

Likewise, the Synoptic Genealogies make certain that the point of supernatural origin is emphasized:

Matt. 1:16: Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.

Luke 3:23: When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli…

Plainly, if Jesus was not virginally conceived, then the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is flatly overthrown.

 

Through the device of the Virgin Birth, we also see a variety of biblical imperatives satisfactorily dealt with:

 

1. A solution is found to dilemma of how the Messianic line of David could continue, while bypassing the accursed Jehoiachin and his issue (Jer. 22:30).
2. How better to explain the singular phenomenon of a sinless man? (2 Cor. 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1 Pet. 2:22, 1 John 3:5). This would seem to be the inference of Luke 1:35 and the idea alluded to in 1 Cor. 15:22, He was not “in Adam” with regard to having a sin nature like other men. As to whether or not God could have brought an untainted man, free from the effects of original sin, into the world through some other means, we might observe that such a hypothetical inquiry into such sublime and mysterious matters is a dangerous occupation at best. Further, in that this is THE manner in which God, in His infinite perfections, chose to execute His sovereign will, then this must surely have been the best—and therefore, only—available alternative.
3. How else does one explain the entrance of pre-existent Deity (John 1:1, Phil. 2:6) into this world in the form of genuine humanity as one Person? It would seem that other alternatives would either impugn upon His Deity (the true motives of most who would deny the doctrine) or else result in a Nestorian-style (i.e., two-Person) Christ.

In the end, it is clear that those who deny the Virgin Birth—even now, as back in the days of His humility—seek to dishonor the Person of our Lord. Note the apparent suggestion of illegitimacy in the “Samaritan” accusation of John 8:41b & 8:48-49:

John 8:41b: They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God."

John 8:48-49: The Jews answered and said to Him, "Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?" Jesus answered, "I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me.

And what did our Lord and Savior teach, with regard to the precise fate of those who would dare impugn upon the precious truth of His full Deity?

John 8:24: “Therefore, I said to you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.”