Introduction:
The doctrine of the virgin birth does not so much show us Mary’s absence of a relationship to a man—although it does do that. This doctrine centrally points to her Son’s relationship to God. Jesus was born the normal way, but He was not conceived the normal way. This tells us something of His identity as the holy Son of the Most High God.
The Text:
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Is. 7:14).
Summary of the Text:
The text before us has a double meaning. King Ahaz, despite his resistance to it, was being given a word of reassurance by the prophet Isaiah. He was worried about an alliance between the Syrians and the northern kingdom of Israel. Isaiah tries to reassure him, and tells him that he can ask for any sign he pleases (vv. 10-11). Ahaz refuses to do so in a display of faux humility (v. 12), and so Isaiah gives him a unilateral, unasked-for sign.
The rising power of Assyria was a real problem. In 738, the king Tiglath-pileser started to move against Syria and Israel. Judah wanted to stay out of it, and so Syria and Israel tried to depose Ahaz in order to force Judah to join their coalition. That is what Ahaz was worried about. The sign being given to Ahaz was not the sign of a remarkable conception, but rather the sign of a remarkable fall of the nations he was so worried about, within a very short time frame. A woman would conceive, but before her child had grown to the age of ethical discretion, knowing to refuse evil and choose the good, the kings that Ahaz was so worried about would both be gone. Before that child got to the age of being able to eat solid food, this northern challenge to Ahaz would be removed. The woman is unnamed, but she was clearly known to both Isaiah and Ahaz—it could have been one of their respective wives, or some other woman known to them.
Young Woman or Virgin:
The word used here for young woman is almah, which can mean young woman or virgin. The word does not require virginity, but it does allow for it. Now this creates a very interesting translation and hermeneutical issue for us. The Hebrew word is more general, and it refers to two women—one a virgin and the other not. The Greek word that is used to cite this passage in Matt. 1:23 is parthenos and this is a word that has only one meaning, virgin. It also means that as far as Matthew is concerned, the sign of the first woman, the one given as reassurance to Ahaz, has dropped out of the picture. Parthenos does not refer to her, but it does refer to Mary.
Matthew is saying that Isaiah was talking about Mary. The language of fulfillment here is very strong. Mary has turned up pregnant, and Joseph knows that he was not the father. He is contemplating divorce (Matt. 1:20), but an angel reassures him. Mary is pregnant, but still a virgin, and all of this was done in order to fulfill what Isaiah had said. Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled, accomplished, completed, filled, finished in the conception of Jesus, which is quite a different thing than the conception of Jesus being projected onto a verse in the Old Testament that looks like it might be talking about something in the ball park.
Additional support for this approach, rejecting the idea that Matthew’s reading is simply special pleading, is the fact that the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, rendered this as parthenos also. Before the Christian doctrine of a virgin birth resulted in God-with-us, there was a Jewish doctrine of a virgin birth resulting in God-with-us.
But Why?
It might be easy to assume that God was just performing random marvels so that everybody would know that Jesus was remarkable. Well, the point was to reinforce and demonstrate His remarkable identity, but it wasn’t just a random act of power.
“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).
This is what Mary is told about how she will conceive. The Holy Ghost will come upon her. The power of the Most High will overshadow or cover her, with the result that the holy one born of her would be called Son of God. Jesus was born this way so that He could be a human being who was truly holy.
A Sinless Christ:
We know from Scripture that Christ was sinless. He not only withstood the devil in the temptation in the wilderness, but He also remained sinless throughout the course of His entire life.
“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21). “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth” (1 Pet. 2:22). “Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?” (John 8:46).
A virgin birth was necessary to produce a genuine human being who was at the same time not entailed in Adam’s sin. This apparently means that our covenantal participation in Adam’s rebellion is passed down through the human father. Men are the problem, as has been suspected from time to time. Not through any human ancestors who happened to be male, because Jesus had a grandfather on Mary’s side. Covenantal responsibility for sin is passed on through the human father.
This is the problem that Roman Catholics are trying (unnecessarily) to solve with their doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This doctrine refers to Mary’s conception, not the conception of Jesus, and is trying to keep Jesus from being tainted with Mary’s sin. So their doctrine says that a miracle was performed so that Mary was born without original sin, thus making her a fit vessel to bear Jesus. But that is not how sin is passed down. We are not sinners because we were borne by a sinful mother. We are sinners because we were begotten by a sinful father.
A Savior Without Blemish:
We have been saved because we have a Savior. But we need more than someone willing to be a Savior—we need someone qualified to be a Savior. That qualification has to be absolute purity. We are redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:19).
Looking forward to the sermon tomorrow! I was just talking about this with friends last night. So, forgive the clinicalness of this question, but is it safe to say that Jesus, from a zygote on, had Mary’s DNA and had a family resemblance?
Clint, yes. Mary was His true mother, not a surrogate.
Clint, I think that we can safely assume that. I also think that it is safe to assume that at least half of Jesus’ genome is from Mary; in other words, that God didn’t just implant a single-celled embryo into Mary’s womb, but actually miraculously fertilized one of her own reproductive cells. However, I think there are two possible miraculous means by which the Holy Ghost might have effected conception in the blessed virgin’s womb. First, he could have miraculously duplicated Mary’s genome and transformed the redundant X chromosome into a Y, OR simply created a suitable Y chromosome ex… Read more »
Don’t forget that there was a point in history where the other half of the DNA was “miracle gene” as well
Will you explain the comma between virgin and Mary? I’ve always wondered why it’s printed that way in the creed in our bulletin, since I’ve never seen it that way anyplace else.
Valerie: It’s an appositive, like saying, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
Sorry, only example I could think of off the bat.
Valerie, the Virgin Mary could be taken as a title that is descriptive of her whole life — referring to the perpetual virginity of Mary, which we deny. But the Virgin, Mary simply means that she was a virgin at the time Jesus was conceived.
Excellent post. But I say again, since Jesus did not have an earthly father, and His real father was not revealed until His baptism, why paedobaptism, which is all about earthly fathers and guardians, and their faith? Baptism is an acknowledgement that, at least in spiritual things, the child now answers directly to God and the Church, serving as a guardian rather than being under guardians. This is why the Covenant sign moved from the womb to the tomb, from salvation to resurrection. The breaking waters are no longer the ones in the maternity ward.
I guess I misunderstood Val’s question. =p
Baptism is an acknowledgement that, at least in spiritual things, the child now answers directly to God and the Church.” So, before baptism, to whom does the child answer in spiritual things? The answer must be “to no one.” The parents may be unbelievers. And believing parents can have no certifiable insight regarding the child’s true spiritual state, which in all our cases is known only to God. Therefore, children themselves have no known personal relation to God (owing to their immature mental state), on the Baptist view. The truth, however, is that all of us are directly answerable to… Read more »
This is a very good blog post, rich with truth and insight. You’ve nailed exactly why the virgin birth and conception by the Spirit was essential and also where ultimate responsibility for sin lies. Many blame Eve for the fall, but we see Paul blame Adam who, although he was not the first to eat the fruit, was the one held responsible. “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5:19) It’s hard to see how so… Read more »
Making it lower case usually takes care of that, but I guess that’s lost when it’s in title. The appositive just seems a little odd to me, but I guess it works.