I do not propose to discuss this question from a biological or a medical standpoint, fascinating beyond description though such a study would be. The times are too stern for trifling with a subject which is one of the essential foundations of Christianity. It is therefore as a Christian physician, a humble follower of Luke, that I would seek to set forth certain points in due order so as to prove the certainty of those things wherein we have been instructed. I do not seek to adduce any a priori argument as to the desirability, or indeed the necessity, of the virgin birth if we are to have a Saviour of the world. I only adduce Scripture evidence that bears on the fact of the virgin birth.
The Historian of the Event
I would first of all call your attention to the suitability of Luke the physician in being the historian of this event. We do not get the account from the pen of a woman, though none can doubt that the record in Luke is that given by the Virgin herself. We do not get it from the pen of an ordinary evangelist—nor, remarkable to say, do we get it from the pen of a Jew, who might be thought to have some bias for or against, in the matter. We get it from a Gentile, a beloved physician. All will understand the propriety of the choice.
We are not, therefore, surprised at the marvellous beauty, reticence and, at the same time, accuracy of the description, telling us every small detail that we need to know, and advancing nothing that does not concern us, thereby contrasting so favorably with all the pseudo-gospels.
Details only in Two Gospels
The details of the virgin birth are only given us in Matthew and Luke, not in Mark or John. The reason is obvious. In the New Testament we have not so much four Gospels as one four-sided Gospel of Christ. Look at one side, that of Matthew, and you have a King with His birth and genealogy. Look at another side, that of Luke, and you have a Man with His parentage and lineage. On another side, that of Mark, you have a Servant; but who would care about a servant’s birth or origin? Mark is therefore silent as to these. On the fourth side—that given in John—we get the Son of God, whose existence is co-equal with the Father through all eternity. There is therefore no detail of birth or genealogy.
It is thus left to Matthew and Luke, the historians of the King and of the Man, to give us in the one Gospel a kingly descent and in the other the ascent to Adam.
The account given in Matthew may be called the exoteric or outside narrative. It is Joseph’s story, and his genealogy corresponds to the genius of that Gospel. Luke’s may be called the esoteric or inside story of Mary herself, and the genealogy corresponding with it is that of Mary and not that of Joseph, in accordance with the genius of Luke’s Gospel.
The Genealogies Examined
First of all, then, let us look at the genealogies. There is one in Matthew and another in Luke. In Matthew it begins with Abraham to trace the kingly line of the Jews, and carries the genealogy through the kings down to Joseph. But Joseph and all his blood line fall under the curse of Jechoniah (Jechonias, Mt. 1:12, Jehoiachin, or Coniah) mentioned in Jeremiah 22:24-30. There we read God’s decree: “Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah” (Jer. 22:30). This seems to effectively and permanently cut off the royal line of Judah and neutralize the Lord’s promise to David: “Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel” (1 Ki. 9:5).
The virgin birth seems the only solution. If the Messiah could trace His legal line through Joseph and the royal line of David (Mt. 1) but have His physical line through Mary (who was of the family of David but whose line sidesteps Jechoniah) He could fulfill the Lord’s promise to David and avoid the curse on Jechoniah. But one question remained. Could Messiah inherit through a woman?
With regard to Luke, we must understand that no genealogy was allowed among the Jews to end with the female. There was no such thing as a woman’s genealogy. If the line did end with a daughter, her husband’s name was always inserted in place of her own, and the husband was described as her father’s son. This is the case with Joseph. We read (Lk. 3:23) of Jesus, “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.” By this is meant that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, though called the son.
The Genealogy of Mary
There can be no reasonable doubt that Luke’s listing is Mary’s genealogy. Now Christ was only heir physically through Mary, and therefore her genealogy must be inserted in Scripture if He were not the Son of Joseph; otherwise He would not be heir to the throne of David at all. There are many who would say that Christ only inherited the throne through Joseph. Such is not the case. If Mary had never married at all, Christ was the heir to David’s throne through His mother, Mary, as I shall show later. This is the first point, relating to the respective genealogies.
My second point relates to Matthew 1:16, “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary.” It never says that Heli begat Joseph. The word “begat” is not in Mary’s genealogy at all, only in Joseph’s. Jacob begat Joseph, and it does not go on to say that Joseph begat Christ, but there follows this remarkable sentence, which to my mind it would have been impossible to have written had there been no virgin birth: “…the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” Such a roundabout way of describing the birth of Christ is absolutely without meaning or sense unless Christ were virgin born.
The Virgin Birth Predicted
If this is compared with Genesis 3:15, it will be found to be a fulfillment of that wonderful scripture. It is a little startling to find, in the first book in the Word of God, the virgin birth predicted: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.” Her seed! Such a thought as a woman’s seed, as stated here, is not found elsewhere. Over a hundred times or more, when we read of the seed and seeds, of Abraham’s seed, and so forth, it is always the seed of the man. But the seed of the woman is a unique concept, and, can only be interpreted as a foreshadowing of the virgin birth. If our Lord had not been born of a virgin, it would be Adam who would be addressed, and his seed that would be referred to (see Mt. 1:18).
My next proof is in Matthew 1:23: “A virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth—or bear—a son.” But in Luke, when the account tells us of the birth of the Baptist, it runs, “Thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son.” The word “thee” is left out in Matthew because Mary did not bear the son to Joseph, whereas Elisabeth did bear a son to Zacharias. That single word thee, omitted in the one case and inserted in the other, is worthy of our attention.
Next we have, in Matthew 1:23, “Behold, a virgin” Now, it is true and most interesting that the Hebrew word in the Old Testament, almah, does not necessarily mean “virgin,” but the translators of the Septuagint took it to denote a virgin; for they translated it parthenos, which is “virgin.” The fact of the word almah not necessarily meaning a virgin bears out the strong contention of Harnack and other scholars that a virgin birth was never predicted of the Messiah, and that it was never believed by the Jews that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. It was, therefore, not a belief fostered by Jewish credulity. At the same time, almah usually means a virgin, and Luther offered a hundred thalers for a single instance of its application to a married woman, “though,” he adds, “God only knows where I can find the money.”
If the idea of a virgin birth did not originate among the Jews, still less did it originate among the Gentiles. Weber says it formed no part of the current Messianic expectation. It is all the more remarkable, therefore, that the Scripture should be quoted by Matthew as perfectly fulfilled in the birth of our Lord.
The Virgin Birth and the Throne
I now come to some evidence which I think will startle many readers. In Matthew 2:2 we read, “Where is He that is born King of the Jews?” Now, no woman could inherit. The throne of David might descend to Mary, but Mary could not inherit it according to ordinary law; it would pass to the next male-of-kin. Therefore in any case, it seems our Lord could not be the inheritor of the throne of David, neither through Joseph, for He was not born of Joseph, nor through Mary, because a woman could not inherit it. But for one remarkable circumstance it would be impossible for Him to be King of the Jews. In fact, the virgin birth in itself would appear to bar Him from the throne.
In the writers of the Bible, the compilers of this library of sixty-six books, we have, as it were, some fifty performers, and yet one may trace the Master Mind behind them all, making them all combine in one harmonious whole. To find a solution as to why Christ could sit on the throne of David we must go back to Numbers 27. That is the only solution of this problem.
The Case of the Five Women
Moses, as you know, had to settle thousands of disputes among the Israelites during his forty year’s trial with them in the wilderness. But of all the legal questions and quibbles that were brought to him only one is recorded for our instruction. That is given in the book of Numbers. It is a remarkable fact that here when five women came before Moses their names are given: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. These five women—their father Zelophehad being a rich man who had died—ask why his name should be taken away because he had no son, as was the custom; up to that time woman could not inherit. In ordinary cases Moses could answer the questions put to him, but in this instance he felt the point of such supreme importance that he took it to God. God answered him as follows (v. 8): “And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son”—as in the case of Heli, the father of Mary—“then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.” That law was there made for the first time, and it it had not been made, Mary could not have inherited. So that Christ’s position, His inheritance of the throne of David, depends on an ancient legal decision in the Pentateuch.
But that is not all, as we find on turning to Numbers 36. These irrepressible daughters come up a second time. On this occasion the question is, “The decision is all very well so long as we remain single, but what happens if we marry?” It would confuse all the tribes of Israel if women could bring their inheritance to men of another tribe. Moses, answer was (v. 6): “This is the thing which the Lord doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry.” Therefore Mary was obliged to marry in the tribe of Judah if the inheritance was to be maintained. I submit that the references I have given in Genesis 3 and in Numbers 27, as connected with the birth of our Lord, must fill the reverent mind with awe, as it finds itself in the very presence of God, as the real Author of the Inspired Word.
Written by A. T. Schofield