Was Jesus Really Born of a Virgin?
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
-Matthew 1:18-25, ESV
I recently noted that Rob Bell was rightly shunned by the broader church because of his failure to uphold core doctrines of the faith, including the virgin birth of Jesus. In our day, some will outright deny this doctrine while others will simply try to avoid it, sometimes by changing the wording of Christmas carols. In this season, I like many people enjoy listening to Christmas carols partly because of the wonderful truths they convey so beautifully. I also enjoy the tenor voice of Josh Groban. But I do not enjoy his replacement of “the virgin sings her lullaby” with “his mother sings here lullaby” in “What Child is This?”. I don’t know whether he is a Christian or not, but if he is, this substitution is very concerning because it constitutes a denial (intended or unintended) of a core doctrine of the faith. But is this really a core doctrine of the Christian faith? It certainly seems like a secondary doctrine, yet the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Chalcedon Definition all refer to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary. Along with the Athanasian Creed, these declarations from the earliest days of the Church have been considered the minimum beliefs that one must confess in order to be considered a Christian. While there is some controversy over the Apostles’ Creed saying Jesus “descended into hell” and referring to the “holy catholic church”, these can be resolved by a better translation of “hell” as Hades or Sheol (the more generic place of the dead rather than the place of damnation) and by understanding that “catholic” in this sense refers to the universal church and not the Catholic Church as a denomination.[1] With that considered, these creeds succinctly state what Scripture clearly teaches, so to deny any of the truths these creeds convey is considered heresy by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christians alike. To deny the virgin birth of Jesus is therefore heresy, which we will see by looking at what Scripture clearly teaches about it. We will then see why this doctrine is so important.
The Doctrine Defined
Before diving into the doctrine of the virgin birth, we need to define what we mean—and what we don’t mean—when we say Jesus was born of a virgin. Here is how Robert Shaw describes it in his Eighteenth-Century exposition on the Westminster Confession:
The human nature of Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and was formed of her substance. The body of Christ was not created out of nothing, neither did it descend from heaven, but was formed, by the agency of the Holy Spirit, of the substance of the Virgin; hence Mary is called the mother of Jesus, and he is called “the fruit of her womb,” and “the seed of the woman.”
-Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition Of The Westminster Confession Of Faith, chapter VII, paragraph 2.3none
This is to say that Jesus Christ, being divine in every respect, took on true humanity by being conceived through the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit within the womb of a virgin named Mary. This conception was the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit and did not involve any man. Mary then carried Him to term and gave birth to Him in the normal way of all humanity yet maintained her virginity until after He was born. As Shaw points out, this was an actual conception—albeit miraculous—and not Jesus merely descending and then manifesting out of nothing in Mary’s womb. The Holy Spirit did this work of conception in such a way that Jesus was truly Mary’s son biologically and thus an actual Jewish descendent of Abraham, Judah, and David (Romans 9:5). Yet the Holy Spirit also did this work in such a way that the original sin imputed to every person as a descendant of Adam (Romans 5:12-14) was not inherited by Christ. In this way, as John Frame pointed out, it may be more accurate to call this doctrine the virgin conception rather than the virgin birth since it was the conception that was miraculous while the birth itself was quite normal.[2] However, I will continue to refer to it as the virgin birth in keeping with the more common terminology and avoiding confusion with the heretical doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (which we will address next time).
Scriptural Evidence
Now that we have defined the doctrine of the virgin birth, we must determine if Scripture clearly teaches it. As Christians we must believe what Scripture clearly teaches. The Bible is either trustworthy or it is not, so if we deny anything in the Bible we deny the trustworthiness of the entire Bible. If Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin, then it would be heresy to deny it regardless of whether it impacts any other doctrine.[3] What does Scripture clearly teach on this subject? Let’s begin by looking at the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew. The story of Jesus’s birth in Luke begins like this: “In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary” (Luke 1:26-27). A few verses later, Mary verifies that she was still a virgin (Luke 1:34 ESV, NASB, NIV) who had not “been intimate with a man” (NET)—literally “had not known a man” (KJV, NKJV). From this it is very clear that according to Luke’s well-researched record, Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. Matthew records that while Mary and Joseph were betrothed but before they were married, she was pregnant “from the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18). Matthew then makes clear that Mary remained a virgin until after Jesus was born (Matthew 1:24-25). Both passages also make explicitly refer to this as a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”. There is therefore no ambiguity in Scripture about the virgin birth of Jesus.
But is it really that simple? Some say it isn’t, going back to the original Hebrew and Greek to question whether “virgin” really means “virgin”. They point out that the Hebrew term in Isaiah 7:14 simply means a young woman generally and therefore not necessarily a virgin. While this is true, it completely ignores the fact that the term implies virginity even though it doesn’t specify it. Those who say this also conveniently overlook the fact that the Greek term used in Matthew and Luke does mean “virgin” in the literal sense. We can also consider the virgin birth implied by Jesus referring to Himself as “begotten” in John 3:16 and by the use of “seed of the woman” in Genesis 3:15.[4] The only interpretation that makes sense is literal virginity.[5] Therefore, Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin, so to deny the virgin birth is heresy.
Scripture vs. Science?
If the virgin birth is so clearly taught in Scripture, why do some people deny it? In large part this is because of the impact of scientism and naturalism on the church. In the minds of many, science takes precedence over Scripture. So whenever they seem to contradict each other, these people try to get around what Scripture says rather than laboring to find an explanation that removes the apparent contradiction by staying true to the text of Scripture and the valid observations of science. After all, if Scripture is the standard of all truth—which it is—then all true scientific observations must necessarily align with Scripture. Any “scientific” conclusion that contradicts what is clearly taught in Scripture must be false and therefore must be discarded—it’s not real science. Science is about finding the truth, so when the truth contradicts scientific observations, it drives the true scientist to re-evaluate those observations. If those scientific observations can be validated honestly, we Christians must re-evaluate our assumptions and interpretations of what Scripture says. After all, Scripture must be true but our interpretations can be flawed. As we saw with the Fall, we can have an overly simplistic view of events recorded in Scripture. This can make accounts of things like Creation, the great flood, and the exodus seem to contradict science when it is really only our simplistic assumptions that contradict science. When we compare what Scripture actually says to what genuine scientific observation reveals, we find that they line up without any contradiction. This is the mission of organizations like Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries who are devoted to maintaining the supremacy of Scripture without neglecting legitimate science. You can be a Christian and a scientist. After all, most branches of science were founded by Christians.
Good scientists also understand its limitations, mainly that true science does not speak to (and cannot prove or disprove) the supernatural. The virgin birth clearly falls outside of the natural realm and therefore outside of the purview of science, meaning there is no conflict between the two. So why do people reject it because of science? What we often term as “science” is really the religious view of naturalism that says only the natural is true, thus rejecting the supernatural therefore the possibility of miracles. Christians who are effectively naturalists thus deny miracles like the virgin birth because they are “scientifically impossible” and therefore have to find a way for Scripture to fit into science. So just as with the “cultural cop-out”, they perform linguistic gymnastics in order to make the biblical narrative conform to “the science” or reject it outright. The Sadducees made a similar error (Acts 23:8) and were thus sharply rebuked by Jesus (Matthew 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27, Luke 20:27-38), so we would be wise to avoid it. We need to take God at His Word—and His Word says clearly that Jesus was born of a virgin, so we cannot deny it or perform literary gymnastics to get around it.
The Importance of the Virgin Birth
Aside from the fact that the virgin birth is clearly taught in Scripture, what impact does it have on the other core doctrines of Christianity? This doctrine is actually central to our salvation, in large part because it is central to the doctrine of the hypostatic union (the true and undiminished divinity and humanity of Jesus).[6] Salvation requires that Jesus be both divine and human. His divinity is required because only the infinite God could possibly bear the weight of His full wrath for all of sins of even one person who has infinitely offended the infinitely-worthy God (Romans 3:21-26).[7] Jesus also had to be truly human in order to live a perfect life in our place and then die in our place to atone for our sins (Hebrews 2:10-18, 4:15-16). That means He had to be an actual human person born in the way all humans are. He had to have human descent because Scripture describes Him as the physical descendant of Eve (Genesis 3:15), Abraham (Genesis 12:7, Galatians 3:16), Judah (Genesis 49:10, Hebrews 7:14), and David (2 Samuel 7:8-16), but not of Aaron (Hebrews 7:11-13). All of that required Him to be born of a human mother with that lineage.
But since all humans who have ever been born are stained by sin (Romans 3:9-23), Jesus had to be born in such a way that He would not inherit that sin. While the Holy Spirit hypothetically could have prevented the transfer of original sin to Jesus even if He was conceived in the natural way just as it would have been hypothetically possible for Jesus to manifest as a man without being born at all—for nothing is impossible with God (Luke 1:37)—that would have both made His true divinity and sinlessness impossible to verify and violated the aforementioned Scriptures. Since God will not violate His own nature or Word, the Holy Spirit could not have accomplished the conception of Jesus by purely natural means just as Jesus could not have simply manifested as human without being born. For any who might say that this would limit God’s omnipotence, I give the same answer as I would give to the question “can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?”. God cannot do anything that would contradict His nature, otherwise He would cease to be God.[8] To create that infinite rock would be inconsistent with His nature, so He cannot make it—not despite His omnipotence but because of it. In the same way the Holy Spirit could bring about the incarnation of Jesus Christ neither through normal conception nor through manifestation apart from conception.
Jesus had to be born as all people are yet in a way that demonstrates His divinity, eternal preexistence, and sinlessness.[9] It had to be miraculous—the greatest of all miraculous births in Scripture—as a sign that He was establishing a new humanity as the Second Adam and that salvation must come from God, being impossible by any human effort.[10] It had to display that Jesus, being both divine and human, was the only one who could ever be our Great High Priest and mediator.[11] This is only possible if the eternally-existing Word of God, the second person of the Trinity, took on humanity by being conceived by the work of the Holy Spirit in the womb of a virgin and therefore without a human father. Thus, the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is absolutely essential to our very salvation. Our only hope is that in the words of the Nicene Creed, Jesus Christ “for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures”.
The glorious and vital doctrine of the incarnation must include the glorious and vital doctrine of the virgin birth. This Advent season is all about celebrating the incarnation of Jesus Christ, so we must also celebrate the fact that He was born of a virgin. So sing the right words to carols like “What Child is This?” and do not twist them to avoid the controversy over this doctrine. In this unique time of year, even in place where we are forbidden to speak the Gospel we can sing it in the form of Christmas carols, so make sure those carols reflect the truth of the Incarnation and gloriously display the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ by acknowledging the virgin birth.
What child is this, who, laid to rest, on Mary’s lap is sleeping? Whom angels greet with anthems sweet, while shepherds watch are keeping? This, this is Christ the King, whom shepherds guard and angels sing: haste, haste to bring him laud, the babe, the son of Mary.
Why lies he in such mean estate, where ox and ass are feeding? Good Christian, fear; for sinners here the silent Word is pleading. Nails, spear, shall pierce him through; the cross be borne for me, for you: hail, hail the Word made flesh, the babe, the son of Mary.
So bring him incense, gold, and myrrh; come, peasant, king, to own him the King of kings salvation brings, let loving hearts enthrone him. Raise, raise the song on high, the virgin sings her lullaby, joy, joy for Christ is born, the babe, the son of Mary.
-William C. Dix, “What Child Is This”, ca. 1865
NOTES:
[1] John Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing: 2013: chapters 38 and 46; Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan: 1994: 586-594; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Translated from the First French Edition of 1541 by Robert White, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2014: 249-252, 259-260.
[2] John Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing: 2013: chapter 37.
[3] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan: 1994: 532.
[4] John Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing: 2013: chapter 37; Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson: 1999: 287-306: Jonathan D. Sarfati, The Gensis Account: A Theological, Historical, and Scientific Commentary on Genesis 1-11, Powder Springs, GA: Creation Ministries International: 2021: 364; See also J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ.
[5] Jonathan D. Sarfati, The Gensis Account: A Theological, Historical, and Scientific Commentary on Genesis 1-11, Powder Springs, GA: Creation Ministries International: 2021: 363-366.
[6] John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing: 2013: chapter 37; Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2021: 24; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Translated from the First French Edition of 1541 by Robert White, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2014: 241-244; Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan: 1994: 529.
[7] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan: 1994: 553.
[8] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan: 1994: 216; John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue ed., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Biblical Truth, Wheaton, IL: Crossway: 2017: chapter 3; Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2021: 68.
[9] John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue ed., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Biblical Truth, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017: chapter 4.
[10] John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing: 2013: chapter 37; T.J.. Crawford, The Mysteries of Christianity: Revealed Truths Expounded and Defended, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2016 (orig. 1874): 168-169.
[11] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Translated from the First French Edition of 1541 by Robert White, Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust: 2014: 237-238.
