Matthew 1
BolesMatthew 1:1-17
1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, “The book of the generation” signifies book of nativity, book of origin; it also means genealogy, pedigree, genealogical table; also the book upon the birth of Jesus; it is the record of his genealogy. The word “book” here is not to be understood as Matthew’s entire history, but only the particular table of the ancestry of Jesus. “Book of the generation” is frequently used in the Jewish writings: “This is the book of the generations of Adam” (Genesis 5:1); again, “These are the generations of Jacob” (Genesis 37:2);and again, “These are the generations of Aaron and Moses” (Numbers 3:1). These show that the phrase has direct reference to the descendants and not to the history that follows the expression. Some have thought that it may signify the entire history of Jesus as given by Matthew. It may not always be used of the pedigree, but the context shows how the expression is to be understood. Here it appears that it refers exclusively to the genealogy of “Jesus Christ.”
Jesus is another form of Joshua; it is the same name as Joshua, the former leader and deliverer of Israel; it means God is helper, deliverer, or savior; it is our Lord’s private and common name; it is interpreted also to mean “Jehovah is salvation.” Christ is the official name of our Lord; it is the Greek form of the Hebrew term Messiah; it signifies “anointed.” Messiah was used of kings, priests, and prophets; it is here used in that sense in which it becomes ffixed to Jesus as the name of our Lord. It denotes the promised Messiah or anointed one; sometimes it is translated with the article as “the Christ.” Under the law, kings, priests, and prophets were anointed. Jesus Christ is the Lord’s anointed and fills the threefold function of king, priest, and prophet. The law, psalms, and the prophets looked forward to the salvation in and through a personal Messiah; Matthew now declares Jesus Christ to be that one.
The son of David, the son of Abraham. “The son of David” and “the son of Abraham” both refer to our Lord. Son of David was a title frequently used of the Messiah; son of Abraham was too solemn a subject of prophecy and history to be omitted here. These phrases show the character of the gospel according to Matthew. Jesus was of the royal line of David, hence the son of David; his pedigree is to be traced through David the king. Matthew is supposed to have written especially for the Jews, and he placed the emphasis on the kingship of Jesus, hence he was “the son of David.” In like manner he is the son of Abraham; he came as the seed of Abraham his genealogy is traced from Abraham to Joseph and Mary. Being the son of David and the son of Abraham simply means that these two patriarchs are in the fleshly line of the genealogy of Jesus.
God had promised Abraham that he would bless the world through Abraham’s seed; this promise was repeated to David. Matthew, in giving the genealogy of Jesus, shows that this promise made to Abraham and repeated to David was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
2-5 Abraham begat Isaac.—In the genealogy of Jesus, Matthew starts with Abraham; only those who, among the ancestors of Christ, form a direct line are mentioned. Abraham is father of the Jewish race; everything began and ended with Father Abraham to the Jew. Matthew sees the source of the Jewish race in Abraham and begins to trace the line of descent from him. If one is not a descendant of Abraham, he is not to be dealt with as an heir of the rich blessings of Jehovah according to Jewish attitudes. Jesus is the end of the Old Testament genealogy reaching from Abraham down through David to Joseph and Mary; he is the head of the New Testament kingdom because he came through the royal line of David. He came through Isaac, not through Ishmael or Midian or any of the other sons of Abraham. Isaac was the son of promise.
Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren. —Jesus came of the tribe of Judah. (Hebrews 7:14.) Jacob had twelve sons, but the preeminence was given to Judah and the promise was made to Judah that through him the Messiah should come. The other sons of Jacob are not mentioned be cause Jesus was not the descendant through any other than the tribe of Judah. Matthew mentions a list of fourteen men from Abraham to David. This is the first step in the human ancestry of Jesus from Abraham. Tamar is mentioned in this connection because of the peculiar circumstances by which she became the mother or Judah’s son. (Genesis 38:12-26.) Rahab is also mentioned in this group of the genealogy because she was brought into the nation of Israel from a depraved and degraded life through her faith in Jehovah. (Joshua 2:8-11; Hebrews 11:31.) Ruth, the Moabitess and great grandmother of David, is brought into the genealogy because of her faith in Jehovah and her loyalty to him. The blood of all races flowed in the fleshly line of the genealogy of Jesus.
6-11 David begat Solomon.–Matthew names fourteen generations from Abraham to David. David stands out prominently in this line; it is “David the king”; there were other kings, but none so prominent and important as David. He attained to such dignity and prominence among the Jews as to be honored in this genealogy; the promise of the Messiah was repeated to David. Jehovah said that one should sit on his throne forever; Matthew shows that Jesus Christ is that one hence the importance of the genealogy of Jesus through David. Matthew traces this line of descent through Solomon.
Another woman is brought into the genealogy because she is a wife of David and the mother of Solomon. David had other wives and other children, but Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, became the wife of David, and so the genealogy of Jesus includes her. David had another son named Nathan; he was also a son of Bathsheba. (1 Chronicles 3:5.) Matthew traces the genealogy of Jesus from David through Solomon to Zerubbabel, fourteen generations or names; Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus from Zerubbabel to David through Nathan; this accounts for some of the differences between the genealogy as given by Matthew and that given by Luke. Matthew names the line of kings from David through Solomon to the captivity of the kingdom of Judah; these were the kings of Judah. The dynasty of the kingdom of Judah did not change one of David’s descendants occupied the throne until Judah was carried into Babylonian captivity.
Matthew omits three kings of Judah between Joram and Uzziah; they are Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. (2 Kings 8 24; 1 Chronicles 3:11; 2 Chronicles 22:1; 2 Chronicles 22:11; 2 Chronicles 24:27.) No reason is given for the omission of these names; some think that it was done to preserve symmetry by bringing the number of names in each list to fourteen. (See verse 17.) These names may have been selected for omission because they were immediate descendants of Ahab and Jezebel. Such omissions were common in giving long genealogical tables.
12 After the carrying away to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel.—Jechoniah was king of Judah at the time the kingdom of Judah was destroyed and the people carried away into captivity. Jeremiah had predicted Jechoniah’s captivity; he said: “Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah.” (Jeremiah 22:30; see also Jeremiah 36:30.) Some have pointed out a contradiction between Jeremiah and Matthew; no contradiction here, as Jeremiah and Matthew wrote by the same spirit. Jeremiah does not say Jechoniah should be literally childless, but he does say, “Write ye this man childless,” and then explains his statement by these words, “for no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah.” Jechoniah was to be childless only in the sense that he would have no son to succeed him on the throne. The author of Chronicles (1 Chronicles 3:17) records Jechoniah as having a son and names him Shealtiel. Matthew records Shealtiel as the son of Jechoniah. After the captivity of the kingdom of Judah, the family of David occupied a humble position, but after the exile, the preservation and restoration of the genealogies became a subject of national concern; this was especially true with respect to the priests.
13-15 Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel; and Zerubbabel begat Abiud.—In 1 Chronicles 3:19 Zerubbabel is represented as the son of Pedaiah, and not of Shealtiel, as Matthew here has it. Ezra and Nehemiah both agree with Matthew their statements occur in historical passages which are not so liable to corruption through mistakes of transcribers as were the genealogical tables like those in Chronicles. (See Ezra 3:2; Nehemiah 12:1.) Luke also follows the genealogy as given by Ezra and Nehemiah. (Luke 3:27.) In some way the account in Chronicles has been modifed in the hands of transcribers, and Pedaiah should be written as Shealtiel; for these two names represent the same person. The nine names from Abiud to Jacob (verse 15) are not elsewhere mentioned; they belonged to the period subsequent to the close of the Old Testament record.
16 Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary.—Matthew does not connect Joseph and Jesus as father and son. He departs from the usual phraseology of the genealogy and says, “Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” This signifies the peculiarity of the birth of Jesus. The name Jesus, or Joshua, was common among the Jews (Colossians 4:11; Acts 13:6);hence Matthew here explains which Jesus by saying, “Who is called Christ.” Matthew differs from Luke again here; Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli. (Luke 3:24.) A difficulty is seen here; some have assumed Heli to be the father of Mary and only the father-in-law of Joseph; the record does not say this, and the original does not permit such a translation.
[The difficulty here is that Matthew says Joseph was the son of Jacob, and Luke says he was the son of Heli. How do we know that Jacob and Heli were not the same? In these genealogies and histories of the Old Testament we find that the same person is often called by different names. Gideon was called “Jerubbaal”; Solomon was called “Jedidiah” (2 Samuel 12:25); Esther was named “Hadassah”; Peter was known as “Simon” and “Cephas.” Why may not this “Jacob” and “Heli” be names of the same person? The reason of different names was that there were so many different dialects, or languages, and a person had a different name in each dialect. It was “Saul” among the Jews; it was “Paul” among the Romans.
This is given as a possible case to show how little we know on these points. The above may not be the true explanation of the seeming difficulty, but it is a possible one.
One explanation given of it is that one writer follows the genealogy of Joseph; the other, that of Mary. Mary’s genealogy is attributed to Joseph, because when there was a daughter, but no son, in a family, she was to marry a near kinsman, and he was to come into the family of his wife and be enumerated as of that family, instead of the wife’s being enumerated in his family. Another explanation is that frequently one is called a “son” of a grandfather, or even a remote ancestor, and not always of his immediate father. We cannot with certainty tell what is the explanation. This is true: the apparent discrepancy gave no trouble to those living at that time, who doubtless understood the matter. We have accounts of various attacks on the Bible in the early age on different grounds, but none for this discrepancy.
There are some things which we will have to receive in faith without understanding them, and this is one of them. Let us say that we do not understand it, not that there is a contradiction.]
Scholars are loathe to leave the matter without a better explanation; it is not pleasant to leave so grave a difficulty unsolved; but the honest way is to admit that no solution entirely satisfactory appears, and that the data for one are manifestly inadequate. Fortunately, no important results are affected by these imperfections in the Jewish genealogical records. Both Matthew and Luke’s accounts are correct; we simply do not see how to harmonize them.
[ Matthew gives the number of generations from Abraham to Christ as fortytwo; Luke mentions fiftyfive; the same lines of descent are not followed in both cases, and neither of them is full in the sense that every generation in the descent is given. Sometimes two or three generations at a time are omitted for some reason. A grandson or a great-grandson, or even one of lower descent, is called a “son.” Jesus is called the “son of David.” It does not mean that he was the immediate son, but a descendant of David. Jesus calls Zacchaeus “a son of Abraham” (Luke 19:9); this means that he was a descendant of Abraham and an heir of the promise made to Abraham. These show that descendants were called “sons.” In giving the line of descent, neither Matthew nor Luke gives all the names of those in the line, and one gives more than the other. It is not known why this is done.]
17 All the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations.—Matthew’s arrangement of fourteen generations is an easy way of remembering the genealogy. The first group is from Abraham to David; the second is from David to the captivity; and the last is from the captivity to Jesus Christ. This is a technical way or method of summing up the generations. The names in the first group, from Abraham to David, were patriarchs, David being the first in the line who was both a patriarch and a king. (Acts 2:29.) The second list of names were all kings and successors of David, Jechoniah being the last king of Judah in the direct line of descent from David, although his brother Zedekiah reigned eleven years after he and the chief part of the royal family had been carried into captivity. (2 Kings 24:15-18.) The names of the third group were all heirs of David’s throne, but none of them reigned except Jesus, who now sits on David’s throne according to the promise. (Acts 2:29-35; Acts 15:15-17.) By actual count, Matthew gives fourteen names in the first group, the second group contains fourteen by omitting four names, and the third group contains only thirteen new names, but it is made to count fourteen by repeating the name of Jechoniah, which was the last name of the second division.
Matthew 1:18-25
- MARY AND JOSEPH
18 His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph.—Matthew, having traced the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham to Mary and Joseph, now begins his narrative at the period when Mary’s pregnancy had become a matter of certainty, which was about the time of her return from visiting Elisabeth. She “had been betrothed to Joseph”; the interval between betrothal and the consummation of marriage was sometimes considerable; the betrothed remained in the house of her father till the bridegroom came after her. (Dent. 20:7.) Matthew does not record the angel’s visit to Mary, neither does he record the account of her immediate departure out of Galilee into Judea, where she remained with Elisabeth about three months. (Luke 1:26-56.) Soon after her return from this visit into Galilee her pregnancy was discovered by relatives, and Joseph learned of it. Matthew is clear and definite in stating that “she was found with child” before “they came together”; this excludes Joseph from any connection with her state of pregnancy. It seems that Mary’s conception was not until after her betrothal; it took place between the time of her betrothal and the consummation of the marriage. We are not told who discovered that she was with child; we need not suppose that she published the fact, neither need we suppose that the Holy Spirit had made her pregnancy known to anyone. Mary’s situation was humiliating; her consciousness of her own integrity and virginity and her strong faith in God supported her under such trying circumstances; her reputation, her honor, and even her life were at stake. If the law of Moses be carried out under such conditions, she should be put to death.
Matthew states clearly that she was “found with child of the Holy Spirit.” Her friends and relatives did not know that she was with child by the Holy Spirit; probably they would not have believed her had she told them it was the Holy Spirit; it was a delicate situation for her, and the records are silent as to what Mary had to say about her condition, if she said anything. Luke is more explicit on this point; he says that the angel Gabriel said to Mary, “Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. . . . The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:31-35.) The Holy Spirit is that which produced the human existence of Christ, through whose action, which so appeared only in this, the only case of its kind, the origin of the embryo in the womb of Mary was casually produced in opposition to human generation, so that the latter is thereby excluded , Jesus was truly “the seed of the woman.”
“Jesus was as human as his mother Mary, and as divine as his father God.” This record testifies that Mary was a virgin; even after she is found to be with child, she is still a virgin. (Verse 23.)
19 Joseph her husband.—From the moment of her betrothal a woman was treated as if actually married; the betrothal could be dissolved only by regular divorce. When she became “engaged,” she was considered as if “married.” Breach of faithfulness was regarded as adultery and was punishable with death. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24.) Hence, Joseph is spoken of as “her husband.” Joseph was a righteous man; he was righteous according to the standard of the law under which he lived; he was placed in a dilemma. Being a righteous man, he must expose Mary and insist that the law be enforced, which meant she should be put to death; or he must give up his affection for her and abide by consequent circumstances. He was “not willing to make her a public example”; he decided upon hearing of her condition “to put her away privily.” Joseph did not wish or desire to make a public example of her; the word here in the Greek means to exhibit, display, point out; Joseph decided not to expose Mary to public shame. Being a righteous man, he was also a merciful man; he determined to put her away or divorce her privately and not assign any cause for the divorce, that her life might be saved. As the offense that she was supposed to have committed was against Joseph, he had a right to pass it by if he chose to do so.
Joseph was convinced that Mary had committed adultery, and he at once resolved to put her away, but he hesitated as to how he would dispose of the matter. The law required that he make a public example of her, but his righteousness and his mercy and his affection for Mary caused him to seek another course, and that was to “put her away privily.”
20 An angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream.— The angel that appeared to him in a vision while he was sleeping was “an angel of the Lord.” This expression has been used frequently in the Old Testament. (See Genesis 16:7; Genesis 16:9; Exodus 32:34; Exodus 33:14; Isaiah 63:9; Malachi 3:1.) It may have been the angel Gabriel, as this angel delivered the message relating to the birth of Jesus; Gabriel may also be designated as the “angel of the Lord.” (Daniel 8:16; Daniel 9:21.) The angel of the incarnation must be distinguished from later angelic apparitions. Joseph, the husband of Mary, like Joseph of the Old Testament, had a father named Jacob; again Joseph of the New Testament is like Joseph of the Old Testament in that he received his revelations in dreams. This particular form of revelation may have been chosen because of his simplicity and sincerity of heart. It may be that the statement of the angel to Joseph sin a dream confirmed what Mary had already related to Joseph; Joseph may have regarded her statement as incredible; so the angel would confirm Mary’s statement.
Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife.—Here Mary is called his “wife,” though they had not been married; this is similar to Joseph’s being called “her husband.” This emphasizes the fact that during the period of time between the espousal and the consummation of marriage both parties were considered as though they were actually married. The angel addressed Joseph in the dream as “thou son of David.” This would remind Joseph of the promised seed and the expectation of the Messiah to come through the lineage of David; it would also stamp the message on Joseph’s mind as the announcement of the birth of the Messiah. Since Mary was also of the lineage of David, she could be called “a daughter of David.” He is reminded that “Mary thy wife” was the subject of whom the angel was about to speak; this would call to his attention his affection for Mary, his betrothed wife. Joseph was in a state of undecided attitude as to the course he should follow the angel assures him that he should “take” “Mary thy wife,” for she was innocent of any crime. The explanation followed that “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” If Mary had related her experience and conversation with the angel Gabriel, this would be a confirmation of her statements, and clear her of any taint or guilt of adultery. Matthew records these incidents in such a way, both to Mary and to Joseph, that the child was of miraculous conception.
The promise of the Messiah, his mission, and his descent were revealed long before his appearance on earth; his conception, his birth, his name, and his work were equally from the Holy Spirit. We are to understand from the announcement of the angel to Mary and now from the statement of the angel to Joseph that the human nature of Jesus Christ was a real creation in the womb of the virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit.
21 She shall bring forth a son.—The angel decided the matter for Joseph; his perplexity was removed, and he was encouraged to consummate his marriage with Mary. Joseph is assured that Mary is with child by the Holy Spirit; he is to understand that the child has no earthly or fleshly father; he is also assured that the child should be a son; he is even instructed as to the name that he should give Mary’s son. “Thou shalt call his name Jesus.” This name means the same as Joshua, deliverer, savior. Both Mary and Joseph now have instructions from an angel with respect to the course they should follow.
Shall save his people from their sins.—This expresses briefly the mission of Jesus; the great task before him is to “save his people from their sins”; hence he is to be a Savior. He is to save “his people” from the bondage of sin; he is not to establish an earthly kingdom; not to deliver Israel from Roman bondage; he is not even to reestablish the old kingdom of Israel; he is to save the people from their sins. His name carries in itself no promise to save those who refuse to become his people; neither is he to save all men irrespective of character and of their relations to him; he is to be the Savior of his believing, penitent, obedient people. No one is encouraged to hope for forgiveness of sins without voluntary ceasing from sins. Jesus came to make atonement for the sins of man; he became a sin offering for the world. Joseph may not have understood the full import of this language.
Thus early in the history, in the midst of pedigrees, and the disturbances of thrones by the supposed temporal king of the Jews, we have so clear a statement of the spiritual mission of Jesus and the nature of the office of Christ. No indication is here given that he would save his people from the punishment of their sins, but it is the sin itself from which he will save his people. Jesus did not come as the Jews commonly supposed that he would, simply to save his people from the dominion of foreigners. Here is also indicated the fact that his people would constitute a “spiritual Israel.”
22, 23 The virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son.—This is a quotation from Isaiah. (Isaiah 7:14.) It was spoken probably seven hundred years before its fulfillment; the angel tells Joseph in this dream that the condition of Mary is the beginning of the fulfillment of his prophecy. Joseph believed the prophet Isaiah; he is now to believe this statement of the prophet is to be fulfilled and the longexpected Messiah is soon to appear. This is the first great prophecy which the birth of Jesus fulfilled; special emphasis is laid here upon the point of Mary’s virginity; she is to become a maiden-mother; this means a deviation from the regular course of nature, and such a deviation was involves special divine power; therefore “the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35.) By quoting this prophecy to Joseph the angel proves the fulfillment of it in Mary. “Virgin” as used here means that she had not known man; this fully agrees with Luke’s account (Luke 1:34), and is also in perfect agreement with the promise made to Eve when it was said, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise they head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Genesis 3:15.) Isaiah spoke these words to King Ahaz concerning a threatened invasion of his territory by the kings of Israel and Syria. (Isa. 7:10-16; 8:1-4.) A part of Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled within a few years after it was spoken; in fact, all except that a virgin should conceive and bring forth a son. When the people of Isaiah’s time saw the fulfillment of part of his prophecy, they should have looked forward with stronger confidence to the fulfillment of the remainder. If they had done this, they would have been ready to believe the account of the birth of Jesus.
They shall call his name Immanuel.—There are two spellings of this word, “Immanuel” and “Emmanuel”; it means “God with us,” or “God in the flesh.” God was with Israel in delivering his people from their enemies at the time of Isaiah, but in a special way he is to be with them in saving them from their sins. This name is only a description of the character and position of Jesus; he was not to be called by this name as he was by the name “Jesus” or “Christ.” In what sense is Jesus “God with us” or “Immanuel”? Jesus is called Immanuel, or “God with us,” in his incarnation he is God united to our nature; God with man; God in man; God with us. Jesus is the beginning of “God with us” in a very definite and peculiar way. God is with us in his word, in prayer, and our obedience to him; he comforts, instructs, blesses, and save us. God is with us in a peculiar way since Jesus was born of Mary.
24 Did as the angel of the Lord commanded him.—Verses twenty to twenty-three record the speech the angel made to Joseph in a dream; Joseph obeyed the command of the angel. He was conscientious in all that he did; he was conscientious in his intended course to put Mary away privately; the angel had now convinced him of his duty, and he is ready to take her as his wife; he is ready to obey the divine command; he now sees that Mary’s condition was not of her choice only, but was imposed by divine injunction; she had no other choice in being faithful to God than to accept conception by the Holy Spirit. Joseph now is convinced that she is faithful to Jehovah in becoming the mother of the Son of God; he must be as faithful to Jehovah in taking her now as his wife. Joseph did not delay, but “arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife.”
25 Knew her not till she had brought forth a son.—Joseph delayed not to take Mary home as his wife; he provided for her reputation and comfort in her present circumstances as far as was within his power; he had no conjugal intercourse with her “till she had brought forth a son.” The statement that Joseph knew not Mary (sexually) until she brought forth a son implies that he did know her after this. This explodes the assumption by the Roman Catholics that Mary always remained a virgin; such an assumption is inconsistent with what is here stated and is unsupported by any other passage of scripture; it never would have been advanced except to force it into accordance with a preconceived notion of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It will be noticed that the American Revised Version omits “her firstborn,” and gives instead just “a son,” but in Luke’s record the phrase, “her firstborn son,” is found in the American Revised Version. This implies that Mary had other children. Authorities differ as to whether Mary had other children. The following scriptures are relied upon to prove that she had other children:Matthew 13:55;Mark 6; Mark 3.
The virgin birth.—“The virgin birth” is the correct and only correct term to use with respect to the birth of Jesus as contained in Matthew and Luke. “Immaculate conception” is too confused to be of much value; “supernatural or miraculous birth” is not clear as to the process of the birth; “supernatural or miraculous conception” is equally unsatisfactory. The only statement or term that is sufficiently definite and clear is “virgin birth.” The accounts of the virgin birth as given by Matthew and Luke are given with inspired delicacy and reserve, yet with such definiteness and clearness as to leave no doubt as to the facts recorded. The genealogy of Jesus reveals him to be the son of David; the virgin birth reveals him as Son of God. The records as given by Matthew and Luke are either true or false; there is no middle ground. The accounts are true records of the facts, or they are purely a story of invention. Believers in the divinity of Jesus believe the accounts to be true;those who do not believe in the virgin birth do not believe the records given by inspiration. If the virgin birth is not true, then Jesus was born as ordinary children are born, and Jesus was just an ordinary man; so much depends on the virgin birth that to reject it is to reject the divinity of Jesus and therefore the power to save.
One objection urged against the virgin birth is that it is against the laws of nature. This objection has but little weight; how do we know that it was against the law of nature? True it did not follow the ordinary line of nature, but that does not prove that it was “against the laws of nature.” May it not have been the only way for divinity to become humanity? No event like this had ever occurred before this, and no event like it has occurred since; how do we know but that it was the natural way for divinity to become humanity? No one can answer this; therefore, no one can determine that the virgin birth was against the laws of nature.
Another objection to it is made in these words: One human parent does not guarantee against sinlessness. This objection, if it has any weight, admits only one human parent, but claims that this would not guarantee a perfect sinless character. It is claimed that Jesus could contract from one parent as well as from two parents. Sin is not inherited sinful nature is not inherited; sins are not transmitted from parent to child. God has repeatedly declared that sin is not inherited, neither is it transmitted from parent to child. (See Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; Ezekiel 18:2-4.) Jesus did not contract sin from Mary, hence the objection to the virgin birth on this point fails to have any force.
Another argument against the virgin birth is that the New Testament is silent on it except the records of Matthew and Luke. This is the famous argument “ex silentio.” It is true that Matthew and Luke are the only writers of the New Testament that give an account of the infancy of Jesus, but the accounts given by Matthew and Luke agree. Many events which are generally accepted are recorded by only one or two writers of the New Testament. A criminal could find one hundred to one who did not see him commit the crime; but the failure of many to see the crime committed does not prove the falsity of the one who did see it committed. This argument proves too much. However, there are other references to the virgin birth recorded in the New Testament. (See Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:4; Philippians 2:5-8.) Only one writer records this statement of Jesus: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” (Acts 20:35.) Luke only records this statement, and it is generally accepted; there are many other events and statements recorded by one or two writers of the New Testament; these are not rejected because every writer of the New Testament did not record them; neither should the virgin birth be rejected simply because two and only two writers record it.
Again the objectors to the virgin birth have contended that the whole story has been invented by the disciples of Jesus. Either it is true or it was invented; there is no other alternative; but did the disciples of Jesus invent this story? It was prophesied long before the disciples of Jesus lived. (See Isaiah 7:14.) If the account was invented, it was not invented by the disciples of Jesus; it was invented by the prophets long before the days of the disciples. This clears the disciples of any accusation of inventing the story; so this objection also falls.
Another objection to the virgin birth is that Joseph and Mary are called the parents of Jesus. It is cited that four times the record speaks of Joseph and Mary as his parents. (See Luke 2:27; Luke 2:33; Luke 2:41; Luke 2:43.) One time the record gives Mary as referring to Joseph as the father of Jesus. (Luke 2:48.) In reply to this, it is contended that Jesus corrected her for this error in Luke 2:49. However, if Jesus had called Mary and Joseph his parents, it would have showed (a) respect to Joseph as the husband of Mary, (b) proper respect to his mother, (c) and that Joseph was his legal parent.
It is further urged as an objection to the virgin birth that the early church did not accept it. This is an assertion; there is no proof that the early church did not accept the accounts as given by Matthew and Luke. The writings of Ignatius and Justin Martyr show that the church did accept the entire record as given by Matthew and Luke. Not until the eighteenth century was it denied, and then by Voltaire and Tom Paine. In the nineteenth century Strauss and Renan denied the virgin birth;others have followed their example.
Again it is urged that modern scholarship rejects the virgin birth. Some modern scholars may reject it, but all moderns do not reject it; Christian scholarship accepts it as it is recorded by Matthew and Luke. Suppose modern scholarship did reject it, what would that prove? Scholarship cannot save any one. The world by its wisdom does not know God, and cannot know him. (Matthew 11:25-27; 1 Corinthians 1:20-25.)
The reasons for accepting the virgin birth far outweigh any of the objections that may be urged against it. The record of it is a part of the New Testament; it has always been a part of it; not a single complete manuscript of the New Testament omits the account of the virgin birth. Some parts of the New Testament (Mark 16:12-20; John 8:1-11; Acts 8:37) have been disputed, but the records of Matthew and Luke on the virgin birth have not been disputed. We accept the testimony of Matthew and Luke on other things, why not on this? When Matthew says that the birth of Jesus was “on this wise” (Matthew 1:18), it seems that he means to record the facts of a birth that was different from other births in the genealogy. The date of Jesus’ birth, Herod’s reign, the public census and taxation, which are mentioned in connection with the virgin birth, are admitted. Why admit some of the facts of the account and not all of the facts?
The sinlessness of Jesus implies the virgin birth. If he had been born in the ordinary way, we would not expect him to be sinless; “that which is born of the flesh is flesh” (John 3:6); if an ordinary birth was that of Jesus, then he was subject to sin and death as others of the human race. He gave his life up for the sins of the world, not that he had to die. An absolutely holy human being in the midst of sinful humanity seems to have been impossible.
The deity of Jesus is involved in the virgin birth. A denial of it robs Jesus of his divinity. Luke declares that he should be called “the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35.) This marks him as a divine product; “Son of God,” and “the Son of the Highest” are titles of relationship to the Father in a unique way. If the virgin birth is denied, Jesus is reduced to the low level of an ordinary man.