[I believe] in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit; Born of the Virgin Mary. The Apostles’ Creed.
Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). Matthew 1:23
Mary was a virgin when she was pregnant with Jesus (Matt. 1:18, 25; Lk. 1:27, 34) and he was conceived through the special work of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20; Lk. 1:35).
How could Mary have a child if she did not yet have a husband and the sexual intimacy that comes with marriage? The biblical response is that God caused the pregnancy and that nothing is impossible with God (Lk. 1:37). This simple phrase nicely summarizes the crux of the debate about the credibility of the virginal conception. A person’s belief or unbelief in the virginal conception rests chiefly on whether they believe in God and his ability to create life in whatever manner he chooses. Accordingly, people often reject the virginal conception because of presuppositions that doubt or limit God’s activity in the world…
If rather than holding skeptical presuppositions one is open to the biblical testimony, then there are strong reasons for accepting the miracle as true…
First, the virginal conception fits easily with the biblical doctrine of God’s omnipotence, which says God is all-powerful. If one rejects the virginal conception at the outset due to doubts about God’s power, this rejection is based on theological or philosophical presuppositions rather than anything concrete coming from textual evidence.
Second, Jesus’ virginal conception is integral to his identity as God’s Son, and Jesus’ divine sonship is in turn fundamental to the entire NT message and the birth of the church. These facts commend the truthfulness of the miracle, for it is hard to explain belief in Jesus’ divinity and the origin of the church apart from the virginal conception.
Third, though it is true that outside Matthew and Luke the NT does not explicitly address Jesus’ miraculous conception, no one has posited an adequate explanation for the origin of the concept, outside the event itself. There are no antecedents in Jewish history that would have led Matthew or Luke to create the concept. In fact just the opposite is true—Jewish theology emphasized the oneness of God (e.g., Deut. 6:4; Isa. 45:21; Hos. 13:4). Any idea of God having a co-equal son would have been seen as blasphemous, and in fact this caused Jesus trouble in his ministry (e.g., John 5:18).
Fourth, the lack of emphasis on the virginal conception elsewhere in the NT is not evidence against its truthfulness. One should not forget that oral traditions about Jesus’ origins were in circulation before the NT was written. Most scholars accept that Luke inherited oral material and used it in his writings, so teachings about Jesus’ birth likely were in circulation prior to Luke’s writing. The absence of details about Jesus’ birth and origins elsewhere in the NT corresponds with the general absence of material about the life of Jesus prior to his ministry activity. The adult life of Christ commands most of the attention of his followers, so this was the focus of the Gospels and other NT writings. Neither Mark nor John narrate anything of Jesus’ birth or childhood. Mark’s omission of infancy material is somewhat surprising, but we may explain his omission simply as a literary choice to start with John the Baptist’s activity; plus the omission fits with the overall brevity of his Gospel. John’s omission of infancy material is less surprising, for he wished to present the highest imaginable Christology at the start of his Gospel: the identity of Christ as the preexistent Word. Thus his emphasis at the start of his Gospel was on Jesus’ preexistence, not the details of his human birth…
New Testament passages that tie Jesus to Joseph (e.g., John 1:45) do not deny his virginal conception but are instead natural expressions of Joseph’s responsibility for the household in which Jesus grew up. In fact, Mark may show evidence suggesting he assumed Jesus’ virginal conception when he referred to Jesus as “the Son of Mary” rather than Joseph (Mark 6:3). Such a designation would be uncommon in a patriarchal society. Paul’s mention in Galatians 4:4 of God’s sending forth his Son at the right time may also allude to Jesus’ miraculous origin, especially since Paul elsewhere seemed to describe Jesus as having left heaven to take on flesh (Phil. 2:6–11). If Jesus left heaven to become a man, his conception cannot have been by the ordinary means…
In sum, the discussion on the historicity of the virginal conception boils down to worldview choices. What one thinks is possible in terms of God’s action in the world impacts whether one accepts or rejects the virginal conception. The text clearly presents the virginal conception as lying at the root of the earthly generation of Jesus. Marshall (1978, 76) aptly said that belief in the virgin birth is not unreasonable, if one can accept the reality of the incarnation. This keen observation does not prove historicity, but it does make the point that what one thinks God is able to do impacts how one assesses the debate.1Source. Jeremy Howard et. al., The Holman Apologetic Commentary on the Bible (Holman, 2013), pp. pp 338-341.
—————-
Finally, I will just highlight one significance of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ:
“the good news about the virginal conception of Jesus reshapes the way we answer life’s biggest questions. The question “Who am I?” is a question about what it means to be human. Although Jesus certainly did not come into the world the same way ordinary human beings do, he put what true, created humanity was meant to be on display for us. He revealed what it meant to grow in wisdom, in stature, and in favor with God and others. He showed us what our own redeemed humanity could look like without the corruption of sin and death. And he showed us the life that lies ahead of us in his eternal kingdom…The nativity stories of the NT show us that nothing in this world is outside of the control of God. The natural processes of human reproduction, the affairs of kings and emperors, and individual lives are guided by his caring and providential hand…
The nativity stories are set in a world where men and women lived with hope and expectation that God would finally break this cycle of suffering and injustice. Even as an infant, Jesus faced great danger from those who opposed his rule as king. The question “What’s the solution?” asks what hope we have in this fallen world. The nativity stories are clear: Christ did not come into this world to offer us political salvation. He entered a virgin womb to reveal God’s kingdom to us and to reverse the curse for us. Through his suffering on our behalf, Christ has taken the penalty of our sin for us and become the head of a new human race that exists for his glory.”2R.R. Putman, Conceived by the Holy Spirit: The Virgin Birth in Scripture and Theology (B&H Academic, 2024), p. 342-343.
Related Posts
Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. Christmas Fulfilment of Isaiah’s Prophecy
The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. Origins and Theological Significance