Great, indeed, is this mystery. How could the infinite God enter the family of finite men and become truly "in the flesh"? Since He is the God of absolute holiness, He could not come "in sinful flesh," bearing all the inherent corruption from many generations of sinful ancestors. Even from the biological point of view, the accumulation of harmful genetic mutations that must inevitably have resided in the germ cells of any parents God could choose would preclude His being "made flesh" (John 1:14) by any natural process of human generation.
Yet, in order to really "come in the flesh" (1 John 4:2) and to be "found in fashion as a man" (Phil. 2:8), He must undergo the whole human experience, from conception and birth through childhood, youth, and manhood. He must come altogether "in the likeness of sinful flesh," and then be "tempted in all points like as we are" (Heb. 4:15), and yet remain "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26).
The Virgin Birth
The only way in which these two conflicting requirements could be met was by a miraculous conception and virgin birth. His human experience must begin, as for all men, with conception, but the embryonic form so generated could have no genetic connection with either mother or father, both of whose heredities were contaminated by both biological defects and inherent sin. The promised "seed of the woman" (Gen. 3:15) could only come by special creation; the "seed" is always of the man under normal conditions. Yet he must also be of the "seed of David" (Ps. 89:3-4), and therefore begin His human life through a mother descended from David's line.
Therefore, by special creative power, God prepared a perfect human body for the incarnation. "Wherefore, when He cometh into the world, He saith …a body hast Thou prepared Me" (Heb. 10:5). Since the body had been prepared by God himself, it was biologically perfect, though embryonic, and must appropriately be placed in the womb of a virgin for care prior to birth and in the home of godly and loving parents for care in infancy and childhood.
The perfect choice for this ministry was the virgin Mary and her future husband Joseph. Accordingly, the angel Gabriel was dispatched to inform Mary. "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). Skeptics have derided the doctrine of the miraculous conception as a biological absurdity, but Mary, who alone really knew the full truth about it, responded in joyous faith, "He that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name" (Luke 1:49).
The angel likewise assured Joseph: "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 1:20). He reminded Joseph also of the great prophecy which was now to be fulfilled, "Behold, the 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" (Matt. 1:23).
The passages describing the supernatural conception and birth of Christ (Matt. 1:18–2:23 and Luke 1:26–2:40) are among the most familiar in all the Bible, each year at Christmastime confronting even those who never read the Scriptures any other time. No part of God's revelation, except His record of His supernatural creation of the world and the body for the first man has been derided and rejected by unbelievers more vigorously than this record of His special creation of the body for the "second man, the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor. 15:47).
The doctrine of the virgin birth has, in recent times, become essentially a watershed for distinguishing modernism and fundamentalism or, more recently, between evangelicalism and neo-orthodoxy. To be more precise, of course, it is the miraculous conception which is the issue, since the birth itself was normal in every way. Mary, of course, remained a virgin until after the birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:25), but it was the supernatural creation of the body in her womb that constitutes the great miracle of the virgin birth.
Note also that the virgin birth of Christ is altogether unique. Some writers have tried to compare it to known instances of so-called "parthenogenesis" among rabbits or other animals (some have even claimed examples among human women), in which the egg cell from the mother is somehow fertilized by artificial insemination or other purely naturalistic (though abnormal) processes. Such comparisons are irrelevant, however, since the body prepared by God for His Son had no connection genetically with either mother or father. It was formed by God himself, just as was the body for the first Adam.
The objections that have been raised by unbelievers against the virgin birth are pointless and trivial and, more than anything else, reveal the spiritual shallowness of these who raise them.
These criticisms are listed and briefly answered below:
The virgin birth is a biological impossibility. It is an impossibility only if there is no God. It is indeed a mighty miracle of creation, as is uniquely appropriate for the entrance of the infinite God into the finite body of His creature, man.
The virgin birth is mentioned only by Matthew and Luke. The fact that neither Mark nor John discusses the birth of Christ, however, does not mean they did not believe He had been born! The primary message of the early Christians, of course, was Christ's death and resurrection, not the details of His birth. The writings of Matthew and Luke are quite reliable in every respect, were accepted as such by the early church, and the information they gave concerning the birth of Christ was all that was needed. Paul also mentioned the supernatural incarnation (Gal. 4:4), and the whole sense of the gospels and epistles is perfectly consistent with the virgin birth, even though specific reference to it was not often required.
The idea of virgin birth came from mythology. Nothing in any way comparable to the miraculous conception and virgin birth is found in any pagan myth or religion. Certain "incarnations" of gods in men or animals, of course, are found everywhere in polytheistic pantheism. Also, there are numerous "demi-gods," supposedly resulting from the cohabitation of gods and men. Such things as these have no similarity to the virgin birth of Christ and could never have given rise to the simple, matter-of-fact histories written, and undoubtedly checked out with Mary and Joseph, by Luke and Matthew. The mythical stories more likely themselves developed as a corruption of the primeval records in Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 6:1-4.
There are contradictions in the birth narratives. The only significant contradiction between Matthew and Luke is in the two genealogies given for Jesus (Matt. 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38), and this has nothing in itself to do with the virgin birth as such. As a matter of fact, the two genealogies supplement and confirm each other. Matthew's entire account is written from Joseph's point of view (evidently Matthew had learned these events either directly or indirectly from Joseph himself) and Luke's from that of Mary. Matthew, directly concerned with Jesus' right to the throne of David, thus gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, who was his legal (though not actual) father. Luke records Mary's genealogy, also from David, calling Joseph the "son" of Heli (who was actually the father of Mary rather than Joseph) in accord with Jewish custom, which permitted a man to recognize his daughter's husband as his own son. Heli, under the circumstances, aware of Joseph's devotion to Mary and willingness to compromise his own good name for her sake, had special reason to regard Joseph with parental love and gratitude. Furthermore, the two genealogies provide the solution to an apparent contradiction in Old Testament prophecies concerning the Davidic line. The succession of kings of Judah from the seed of David was apparently terminated with Coniah (Jer. 22:30), and yet he is listed in the legal genealogy leading to Joseph (Matt. 1:11-12). Still, God had made a sure promise that David's seed should forever occupy the throne of Israel (Jer. 33:17). Thus, the requirements of both legal succession and divine prophecy were met in the union of Mary and Joseph, and the two genealogies in effect point this out.
Thus, the supposed difficulties with the virgin birth are really not to the point. Although such objections are often hedged about with platitudes about the "incarnation," it is almost always true that those