“Luke 1:26-27 (KJV) And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.”

Pro. James Orr stated, “It is well known that last 10 or 20 years have been marked by a determined assault upon the truth of the virgin birth of Christ. In the year 1892, a great controversy broke out in Germany, owing to the refusal of a pastor named Schrempf to use the Apostles’ Creed in baptism because of disbelief in this and other articles. Schrempf was disposed, and an agitation commenced against the doctrine of the virgin birth which has grown in volumes ever since.”¹

So we have a controversy. The liberal theologians stand opposed to the Virgin Birth (VB) whereas the Bible Believers maintain the doctrine. It is interesting that among the first group, they not only deny the virgin birth, but also, in most cases, His deity, resurrection, and any aspect of His supernatural character. And the lines of division couldn’t be any clearer.

Another way the VB is minimized is by using mythology. Ok, Jesus was virgin-born. So what? Mythological gods have done that, too. Horus, Mithra, even Caesar Augustus are then dragged across the stage as proof! There is a multitude of stories as to how Mithra was born but none even come close to Jesus’ virginal birth. One account has Mithra born as an adult. Another account has him “born from the rock” without a woman, let alone a virgin even present! Then there’s Horus. In Egyptian mythology, Horus’ mother, Isis, was already married for some time before his conception. In fact, the best Egyptian accounts don’t claim a virgin birth for Horus at all! And Caesar Augustus? “According to the Roman historian Suetonius, Augustus’ mother had already been married for years before a snake suddenly showed up while she was sleeping. As a result of this incident, Augustus was born 10 months later. In this story, there is no virginal conception. Augustus even had an older sister!”²

In this article, I’ll approach the subject from three different angles, looking at the word for virgin, the context of Is. 7:14, and the absolute necessity of the VB.

First, let’s look at the word “virgin.” In the OT the word alma (virgin) appears seven times and the meaning is always of “a young, unmarried woman.” However, the young, unmarried woman was not the average American young, unmarried woman of today where virginity is rare. In the OT a young, unmarried woman was considered a virgin. There is another word in the OT that some say is a better word for virgin, that is, betulah. Jewish biblical scholar Harry M. Orlinsky states, “Although the term btwlh (betulah) basically means ‘maiden,’ it is often used in contexts whose intent is to specify virginity…”

However, there is a better way and simpler way to prove the virginity of the Messiah’s mother. First of all, in Isaiah 7, Isaiah tells King Ahaz to ask for a sign, one with enormous impact (7:11), which he refuses to do (v.12). He was an idolatrous hypocrite whose answer infuriated the prophet. So Isaiah, through the Lord, readdresses Ahaz, not just as King but as the representative of the House of David, and in so doing the prophecy speaks to all the house of David and is extended well beyond the life of Ahaz. But it’s the significance of the sign. What would be more incredible? A young woman giving birth, which happens every day, or a virgin giving birth? Obviously a virgin birth! And to whom is she giving birth? A child whose name will be “God with us” (Immanuel)! Furthermore, this child is mentioned again in Is. 9:6 - “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Sounds like a description of “God with us!” Suffice it to say, such a miraculous event tends more to a miraculous VB as opposed to a common occurrence among young women.

Secondly, and more importantly, we have the mother of Jesus making her own claim of being a virgin. In fact, Mary is the greatest defender of the VB! Gabriel greets her saying in Luke 1:30-31 “…Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.” Mary’s response to this is (v.34) “Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” In this context, there’s only one possible explanation for her statement. She was a virgin!

Thirdly, we have Matthew’s account. Matthew 1:23 says, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” Did Mathew mean virgin or young woman? The answer to that is in the statement in Lk.1:34 (as noted above) and the statements about Joseph. Matthew 1:18 says “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Note Mary was with child “before they came together.” Matthew 1:25 says “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” Not only was she a virgin but remained a virgin until after the birth of Christ!

This takes us to the final point, the necessity of the virgin birth. When the genealogies of Jesus are examined, we find two lines of descent. One line is through Solomon and is Matthew’s account. The other is through another one of David’s sons, Nathan, and this is found in Luke’s account.

Focusing on Matthews's account, there is a problem. Matthew 1:11 states “And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon…” The problem is with Jechonias (or Coniah, or Jehoiachin). The prophet Jeremiah tells us, “Is this man Coniah (Jeconias) a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?...30 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.” (22:28-30). Joseph’s descent from David fulfills the legal right to the throne but, biologically, none of this line was ever going to sit on the throne of David as a King because of this curse. If Jesus had been born in the normal way, he would never have been able to sit on David’s throne, which Messiah must do. However, Mary’s descent is from a different son of David, Nathan. This line doesn’t have a curse. So Joseph descended from King David and he was the legal father of Jesus. Jesus was Joseph's adopted son and therefore Jesus inherited the rights to the throne of David. Jesus is the legal heir of David. Mary was not descended from Jehoiachin and was, therefore, not under the curse. She was the mother of Jesus who descended from King David and through her, Jesus is the biological Son of David.”

Notwithstanding, there is another aspect often overlooked in this debate. If Jesus had not been born of a virgin, He would have inherited Adam’s sinful nature. Romans 5:12 says “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” So for this fact alone, Jesus had to be virgin-born.

So which Jesus? The one born like any common man, with the Adamic sin nature, and under a genealogical curse? Or, one born miraculously, referred to as “God with us,” free from sin and free to sit on the throne of David upon His return? Your choice!

¹ The Fundamentals, Vol. 1, edited by R.A.Torrey, and others