The virgin birth of Jesus of Nazareth is one of the more contentious miracles for skeptics to accept, and admittedly can be one of the more difficult ones to grasp, even for believers. This post will explore the path of how I have arrived in making sense of Jesus’s virgin birth.
I believe Mary was a virgin until after Jesus’ birth, when Joseph finally had sex with her as his wife. In light of what cannot have occurred based on the text (i.e. sex), I think God created the necessary components within her to conceive the fully human, fully divine Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth.
Making Sense of Jesus’ Virgin Birth
The New Testament is full of miracles. Time and again, we see Jesus and the apostles healing the sick, delivering people from demonic influences, and even raising people from the dead. But, there is only one virgin birth. Making sense of Jesus’ virgin birth is not exactly easy, but I think it can be done. The narrative begins in Matthew 1:18-25:
‘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.’
That’s a pretty long passage to tell us that Joseph wasn’t the father. But, it does reveal the critical conundrum. The author of the gospel of Matthew left no ambiguity in his writing: Mary was a virgin who conceived, and Joseph did not have sex with her until after the birth.
Virgin Birth Prophecy
In the above passage, the author of Matthew includes text from Isaiah 7:14, claiming that the birth of Jesus fulfilled that prophecy. So, we must examine the original passage. Modern Bible scholars are divided over the translation of the word “virgin”.
In the Hebrew text, Isaiah 7:14 says that the alma עלמה will conceive. A contemporary word study reveals that the confusion. The term alma is mainly used to describe a maiden/young woman, and less commonly used to describe a virgin. Further muddying the translation, there is a separate term betulah בתולה, which is an exact and specific translation for the word virgin.
Additionally, there seems to be a growing movement of internet skeptics who label God a pervert for sleeping with a teenage Mary to get her pregnant. To me, this is an odd take, tacitly acknowledging the existence of the Father while also denying what the scriptures claim.
While I could not trace the exact origin of this belief, I suspect that it stems from LDS members who have abandoned their faith. There are many historical statements by LDS leaders that align with this idea that God impregnated Mary in the uh, traditional way.
The LDS church has officially stated that it holds no firm position on the matter of how Jesus was conceived. But, even the refutation cited above acknowledges the existence of teachers spreading the idea of a traditional (i.e. sexual) conception.
The Septuagint: Parthenos
With this trouble in mind, could the traditional interpretation be mistaken? What if it doesn’t actually say the “virgin” will conceive? And, if so, was Mary not a virgin when she gave birth? These are troubling questions, to be sure.
But, after wrestling with the issue, I don’t think the evidence supports this conclusion. While modern translators give weight to the term “maiden” for Isaiah 7:14, the translators of the Septuagint did not agree; they chose the Greek word parthenos.
The OT uses the word almah only seven times: Gen 24:43; Ex 2:8; Prov 30:19; Ps 68:26; Songs 1:3 and 6:8; plus, of course, Isaiah 7:14. Out of these only Genesis 24:43 and Isaiah 7:14 seemed clear enough to the Septuagint translators that they rendered it by parthenos, which, of course, definitely means virgin.
It is possible that these ancient translators made a mistake. But, it was not a widespread one. They only translated alma as parthenos twice; everywhere else they used the ambiguous term neanis which means young woman/girl.
And, it is worth noting that this simply cannot be Christian bias. The Septuagint’s usage of parthenos dates from the third century B.C., negating any possibility of Christian or church influence on the word choice. Christ was not yet born.
To be fair, I did find a Jewish rebuttal of the parthenos interpretation. The author notes that all of the original Septuagint texts; only copies remain. Thus, they infer, we cannot know how it was originally translated. The implication being that the church later influenced the text.
But, this flies in the face of how textual criticism is done. It is an enormous claim to say that all of the extant LXX (Septuagint) manuscripts have been modified. Where is the evidence? And, if so, why was the translation of Theodotion (c. 150 CE) not likewise modified? It was heavily used by the early church, so why wouldn’t they have changed the language to an explicit parthenos instead of the more ambiguous neanis?
Now, one of the things that I truly enjoy when exploring these issues is when I discover that I am not alone. I stand on the shoulders of much wiser men and women throughout history who have grappled and come to terms with them. In fact, this issue of word choice in the Septuagint translation was noted before 200 CE by Iranaeus.
As Deep as Sheol or as High as Heaven
So, why did the Septuagint translators choose parthenos, which explicitly means virgin? I believe the historical context makes the original choice clearer. The kingdom of Judah (the southern kingdom), led by Ahaz (one of its more wicked kings), was facing an existential threat from two neighboring kingdoms. God’s response flows from chapters 7-9; I encourage you to read it in full.
‘Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz: “Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.”’ But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.” And he said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria!”’ Isaiah 7:10-17
The Lord offered Ahaz a miracle. He essentially told him to ask for anything, as high as heaven or as deep as She’ol (the place of the dead in the Hebrew scriptures). We’re talking about a BIG DEAL kind of miracle. Yet, Ahaz refused to test the Lord God.
In response, God volunteers one, Himself. And the sign which would prove it? The sign to confirm a miracle that would be as high as heaven or as deep as She’ol? God would make a person (either a young woman or a virgin) pregnant. Many blessings would follow the birth.
Ask yourself: Does the scope of this miracle better align with a “maiden” or a “virgin” birth?
I accept that there alma עלמה is not typically associated with virginity in the scriptures. In fact, there is one occurrence of alma עלמה that heavily implies sex between a man and an alma (Proverbs 30:19).
But, in making sense of Jesus’ virgin birth, I have to acknowledge that the statement made by God to Ahaz in Isaiah 7 is fairly exceptional. As such, I believe the early Jewish translators chose well in using parthenos (virgin).
So, to reiterate:
- God said that the conception would be a grand miracle.
- Jewish translators chose the unambiguous Greek word for “virgin” in this specific passage.
- This translation of virgin birth predates Jesus by centuries.
- There is absolutely no evidence of linguistic alterations of the Septuagint by Christians.
Was Isaiah 7:14 About Jesus
Seeing that alma עלמה has strong evidence to support the “virgin” translation, we must now consider the following question: Was Isaiah 7:14 about Jesus? It may surprise you, but there are scholars who believe the prophecy is not about Jesus, but speaks of a child born in the time of King Ahaz.
That certainly seems a consensus among Rabbinic thought leaders. Christianity largely holds the position that this passage contains a dual prophecy–partially fulfilled at the time, and later fulfilled in full through Jesus.
Before we assess the specific target of the prophecy, we must examine the prophecy itself. What does it actually say about this child? Almost all scholars agree that the titles in Isaiah 9:6-7 apply to the child foretold in chapter 7.
‘For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.’
In light of that, I believe it is safe to say that the textual evidence supports this prophecy being about the birth of someone who, no matter when he would be born, would be widely known. Interestingly, there have been others who claimed to be the Messiah. Jewish thought leaders even support the idea that others were (or at least could have been) the messiah.
That said, there has been no consensus on the identity of the Messiah. Each claimant for the title failed (some quite spectacularly) according to the Jewish faith. So, it makes sense that the messianic scriptures are perhaps a less compelling element of the faith for contemporary Jews.
I believe this to be a consequence of their ongoing rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. Why spend time examining passages that seem to point toward him? To be fair, I understand the urge. Many Christians avoid passages of scripture that tell us things we don’t like to hear.
How did Mary Get Pregnant?
From careful reading of the Biblical texts, it is extremely unlikely that Mary was impregnated through the act of intercourse. There is simply no indication that she lied about having had sex. So, how did Mary get pregnant?
Luke’s narrative describes her conception in 1:31-37, and it is very similar to Matthew’s account:
‘And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy— the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.” ‘
The text in Luke is perhaps even clearer than in Matthew. Mary responds that she is a virgin. The angel asserts that the power of God will make her conceive a son. He then adds a note about Elizabeth, which I find particularly interesting for the sake of this investigation.
Elizabeth was past her child-bearing years. The angel includes this information because it can be verified to give credibility to his previous claim that Mary would conceive. And, it also addresses the elephant in the room. Why would a God who can make an old woman conceive be any less able to make a virgin conceive?
Luke acknowledges the seeming impossibility of a virgin birth, yet holds to his explicit claim that it happened exactly that way for Mary. Nothing is impossible with God.
Fully Human, Fully divine
So, how exactly did this pregnancy happen, then? How did Mary become pregnant with Jesus? Given the constraints of what we can conclude didn’t happen based on the text (i.e. sex), I think only one avenue remains open.
I have to conclude that God created the necessary components within Mary, enabling her to conceive. I admit, there remains a great deal of mystery within this conclusion. The quintessential nature of miracles is that we don’t understand how they work. Their inexplicability makes them miraculous.
But, I do have some fascinating ideas for consideration. Perhaps God simply created a spermatozoa to fertilize Mary’s egg. This is a very approachable solution for creating a “fully human, fully divine” baby Jesus; it works within the rules we already understand.
However, we should acknowledge that the primary facet of the relationship between God and Mary is that of the Creator to creation, and not masculine to feminine. Romans 5 teaches us that Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation–a new, better Adam.
Genesis 2:7 tells us that God created Adam without a sperm and egg. So, as odd as it might seem, it does follow that God would not need those components to conceive the person of Jesus within Mary.
Regardless of the how, the conclusion remains. The evidence in scripture supports the conclusion that Mary was a virgin at his birth. I hope that this has helped you in making sense of Jesus’ virgin birth.
Are there other areas that you struggle with on this issue? Are there other things that I should look at in interpreting these passages? I look forward to hearing from you in the comments!
Leave a Reply