Ver. 20. The Angel of the Lord that appeared to
him in a vision when sleeping, was the angel of the Lord in the
peculiar and historical sense of that term—the Angel of the
Lord, Gen. 16:7, 9, and in other passages; or the Angel of the
presence, Ex. 32:34; 33:14; Isa. 63:9; or the Angel of the
covenant, Mal. 3:1. The angel Gabriel (hero of God),
who, according to Luke 1, delivered the messages relating to the
birth of Christ, was probably only a more definite manifestation of
the Angel of the Lord (Dan. 8:16; 9:21). The angel of Christ’s
incarnation must, in this case, be carefully distinguished from later
angelic apparitions. (See the author’s Leben
Jesu, ii. B. 1, 41.)
In a dream.—It is worthy of remark that the
Joseph of the New Testament, like the Joseph of the Old Testament,
uniformly received his revelations in dreams. This particular form of
revelation may have been chosen, 1. because his spiritual life was
imperfectly developed; 2. because of his spiritual sincerity and
simplicity of heart.
Mary thy wife.—Among the Jews the betrothed
bore the title of wife.
Of the Holy Ghost.—Both the descent of Jesus
and His mission were revealed long before His actual appearance on
earth. His birth, His name, and His work were equally from the Holy
Ghost.
Vers. 22 and 23. On the Messianic application of Isa.
7:14, consult the commentaries. It must, however, be observed that
the Evangelist Matthew uses the expression, “was fulfilled,”
ἐπληρώθη, in reference not merely
to the fulfilling of conscious verbal predictions, but also to that
of typical prophecies. In the passage before us the reference is
probably to a typical prophecy. The virgin (עַלְמָה)
presented to Ahaz as a sign, was a type of the holy Virgin for the
following reasons: 1) her future pregnancy and her giving birth to a
son were announced even before her marriage had actually taken place;
2) the highest and strongest kind of faith was called into exercise
in connection with this child, by which it obtained the name of
Immanuel, and became the sign of approaching deliverance in a season
of peculiar trial; 3) the name Immanuel was verified in the God-Man;
4) all these circumstances served to render the birth of this child
peculiarly sacred, and to connect it with the future of Israel; thus
strikingly prefiguring the advent of the holy child, the Hope of
Israel.
Vers. 24 and 25. Joseph believed in consequence of the Divine
intimation he had received in a dream, and forthwith married Mary,
with all the Jewish marriage ceremonies, from a regard to her
reputation. But he did not consummate the marriage till Mary had
given birth to her first-born. From the expression, first-born,
5:25, it must not, however, be inferred that Mary subsequently bore
other children. An only child was also designated first-born. The
term merely implied that this was the child which had opened the womb
(Gen. 27:19, 32; Ex. 13:2). That Jesus had no actual brother
according to the flesh, will appear on closer consideration of the
real extraction of the so-called brothers of the Lord. They were the
sons of Alphæus, Joseph’s brother, and of Mary, the wife of
Alphæus, the sister-in-law (not the sister) of the mother of the
Lord. (See the author’s dissertation in his “History of
the Apost. Age,” i. p. 189; and his article, Jacobus,
der Bruder des Herrn, in Herzog’s “Real-Encycl.”)
The expression, “brethren (brothers) of the Lord,” has been taken
in its literal sense by the Antidicomarianites in the ancient Church,
and by many modern Protestant theologians; while the Roman Catholic
Church, since the times of the Collyridians, of Epiphanius, Ambrose,
etc., has gone to the opposite extreme of maintaining that Joseph and
Mary never lived together on terms of husband and wife. (Meyer, in
his Commentary, hastily ascribes the same view to Olshausen, Lange,
von Berlepsch. Our text indicates the opposite.)†
Docrtrinal and Ethical
1. If it may be said of Abraham, that his faith brought
[Germ.: hineingeglaubt] the word of
the Lord as a word of promise into the world, it may, in the same
way, be said of Mary, that her faith brought the incarnation of the
Word into the world. And as the faith of Abraham was the connecting
link by which the Divine blessing attached itself to his seed
according to the promise, so Mary, by her strong and living faith,
conceived, through the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Saviour of the
world. The faith of Abraham established a connection between physical
birth and spiritual regeneration; but, in the inspired faith of Mary,
birth and regeneration have become actually one,—nay, the birth of
Christ was regeneration not merely in a passive, but also in an
active sense. It was creative regeneration—sinlessness, which
became the efficient cause of the regeneration of men; sinlessness
redeeming from sin. Those who hold that Christ derived from Mary our
sinful nature, which became transformed into sinlessness by His
unswerving holiness till death, argue as if regeneration were the
goal of Christianity, whereas it is its commencement. In this respect
they, as well as the Baptists, come very far short of Abraham’s
faith. Abraham had not merely, like Melchisedec, faith as an
individual, but also as the head of a family; and this faith
comprehended his house and his posterity. He believed in the
sanctification of nature, in the consecration of birth, and in the
spiritual exaltation of natural descent by reception into the
household of God. In Mary, the divine inspiration of faith went along
with her conception as virgin mother; and hence, in her Son, the
eternal Logos was united to human nature. (For a discussion on the
miraculous birth, see Lange’s Leben
Jesu, vol. ii. p. 66.)
2. The unutterably tragical situation of the Virgin,
misunderstood and deserted by her betrothed, presents a striking type
of the future history of her Son, when denied and abandoned by men,
even his disciples. Similarly, however, her vindication by the angel
of the Lord prefigures Christ’s glorification. Mary forsaken by her
husband was a type of Christ’s loneliness in Gethsemane and on the
cross.
3. The expression, “an angel of the Lord,” is
subsequently explained by the introduction of the definite
article—the angel of the Lord—connecting it with the whole
Christology of the Old Testament.
4. In the same way, the announcement of the angel of the
Lord is connected with the Bible doctrine of the Trinity; and that of
the name Jesus with the doctrine of redemption.
5. The relation between dreams and other forms of divine
revelation, is to be gathered from the doc trine of visions, and of
their different forms.
6. In the passage which refers to the fulfilment of the
prediction, contained in Isa. 7:14, we must properly appreciate the
spirit of Old Testament prophecy generally, the New Testament
explanation of its various statements, and, lastly, the difference
between typical and verbal prophecy.
In
examining the passage, “and he knew her not,” etc., we must
make a vast difference between the question whether Joseph and Mary
lived together on terms of conjugal intercourse, and the inquiry
whether Mary had afterwards other sons.
The mystery
of Christ’s incarnation is to be adored, not pried into. If we know
not the way of the Spirit in the formation of common persons, nor
how the bones are formed in the womb of any one that is
with child (Eccles. 11:5), much less do we know how the blessed
Jesus was formed in the womb of the blessed virgin. When David
admires how he himself was made in secret, and curiously
wrought (Ps. 139:13–16), perhaps he speaks in the spirit of
Christ’s incarnation. Some circumstances attending the birth of
Christ we find here which are not in Luke, though it is more largely
recorded here. Here we have,
I. Mary’s espousal to Joseph. Mary, the mother of our
Lord, was espoused to Joseph, not completely married, but
contracted; a purpose of marriage solemnly declared in words de
futuro—that regarding the future, and a promise of it made if
God permit. We read of a man who has betrothed a wife and has not
taken her, Deu. 20:7. Christ was born of a virgin, but a
betrothed virgin, 1. To put respect upon the marriage state, and to
recommend it as honourable among all, against that doctrine of
devils which forbids to marry, and places perfection in the
single state. Who more highly favoured than Mary was in her
espousals? 2. To save the credit of the blessed virgin, which
otherwise would have been exposed. It was fit that her conception
should be protected by a marriage, and so justified in the eye of the
world. One of the ancients says, It was better it should be asked, Is
not this the son of a carpenter? than, Is not this the son
of a harlot? 3. That the blessed virgin might have one to be the
guide of her youth, the companion of her solitude and travels, a
partner in her cares, and a help meet for her. Some think that Joseph
was now a widower, and that those who are called the brethren of
Christ (ch. 13:55), were Joseph’s children by a former wife.
This is the conjecture of many of the ancients. Joseph was a just
man, she a virtuous woman. Those who are believers
should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers: but let those
who are religious choose to marry with those who are so, as they
expect the comfort of the relation, and God’s blessing upon them in
it. We may also learn, from this example, that it is good to enter
into the married state with deliberation, and not hastily—to
preface the nuptials with a contract. It is better to take
time to consider before than to find time to repent after.
II. Her pregnancy of the promised seed; before they
came together, she was found with child, which really was
of the Holy Ghost. The marriage was deferred so long after the
contract that she appeared to be with child before the time
came for the solemnizing of the marriage, though she was contracted
before she conceived. Probably, it was after her return from her
cousin Elizabeth, with whom she continued three months (Lu.
1:56), that she was perceived by Joseph to be with child, and did not
herself deny it. Note, Those in whom Christ is formed will show it:
it will be found to be a work of God which he will own. Now we
may well imagine, what a perplexity this might justly occasion to the
blessed virgin. She herself knew the divine original of this
conception; but how could she prove it? She would be dealt with as
a harlot. Note, After great and high advancements, lest we should
be puffed up with them, we must expect something or other to humble
us, some reproach, as a thorn in the flesh, nay, as a sword
in the bones. Never was any daughter of Eve so dignified as the
Virgin Mary was, and yet in danger of falling under the imputation of
one of the worse crimes; yet we do not find that she tormented
herself about it; but, being conscious of her own innocence, she kept
her mind calm and easy, and committed her cause to him that
judgeth righteously. Note, those who take care to keep a good
conscience may cheerfully trust God with the keeping of their good
names, and have reason to hope that he will clear up, not only their
integrity, but their honour, as the sun at noon day.
III. Joseph’s perplexity, and his care what to do in
this case. We may well imagine what a great trouble and
disappointment it was to him to find one he had such an opinion of,
and value for, come under the suspicion of such a heinous crime. Is
this Mary? He began to think, “How may we be deceived in those
we think best of! How may we be disappointed in what we expect most
from!” He is loth to believe so ill a thing of one whom he believed
to be so good a woman; and yet the matter, as it is too bad to be
excused, is also too plain to be denied. What a struggle does this
occasion in his breast between that jealousy which is the rage of
man, and is cruel as the grave, on the one hand, and that affection
which he has for Mary on the other!
Observe, 1. The extremity which he studied to avoid. He
was not willing to make her a public example. He might have
done so; for, by the law, a betrothed virgin, if she played
the harlot, was to be stoned to death, Deu. 22:23, 24. But he was
not willing to take the advantage of the law against her; if she
be guilty, yet it is not known, nor shall it be known from him. How
different was the spirit which Joseph displayed from that of Judah,
who in a similar case hastily passed that severe sentence, Bring
her forth and let her be burnt! Gen. 38:24. How good it is to
think on things, as Joseph did here! Were there more of
deliberation in our censures and judgments, there would be more of
mercy and moderation in them. Bringing her to punishment is here
called making her a public example; which shows what is the
end to be aimed at in punishment—the giving of warning to others:
it is in terrorem—that all about may hear and fear. Smite the
scorner, and the simple will beware.
Some persons of a rigorous temper would blame Joseph for
his clemency: but it is here spoken of to his praise; because he
was a just man, therefore he was not willing to expose her. He
was a religious, good man; and therefore inclined to be
merciful as God is, and to forgive as one that was forgiven.
In the case of the betrothed damsel, if she were defiled in the
field, the law charitably supposed that she cried out (Deu.
22:26), and she was not to be punished. Some charitable construction
or other Joseph will put upon this matter; and herein he is a just
man, tender of the good name of one who never before had done
anything to blemish it. Note, It becomes us, in many cases, to be
gentle towards those that come under suspicion of having offended, to
hope the best concerning them, and make the best of that which at
first appears bad, in hopes that it may prove better. Summum just
summa injuria—The rigour of the law is (sometimes) the
height of injustice. That court of conscience which moderates the
rigour of the law we call a court of equity. Those who are
found faulty were perhaps overtaken in the fault, and are
therefore to be restored with the spirit of meekness; and
threatening, even when just, must be moderated.
2. The expedient he found out for avoiding this
extremity. He was minded to put her away privily, that is, to
give a bill of divorce into her hand before two witnesses, and so to
hush up the matter among themselves. Being a just man, that
is, a strict observer of the law, he would not proceed to marry her,
but resolved to put her away; and yet, in tenderness for her,
determined to do it as privately as possible. Note, The necessary
censures of those who have offended ought to be managed without
noise. The words of the wise are heard in quiet. Christ
himself shall not strive nor cry. Christian love and Christian
prudence will hide a multitude of sins, and great ones, as far
as may be done without having fellowship with them.
IV. Joseph’s discharge from this perplexity by an
express sent from heaven, v. 20, 21. While he thought on these
things and knew not what to determine, God graciously directed
him what to do, and made him easy. Note, Those who would have
direction from God must think on things themselves, and
consult with themselves. It is the thoughtful, not the
unthinking, whom God will guide. When he was at a loss, and
had carried the matter as far as he could in his own thoughts, then
God came in with advice. Note, God’s time to come in with
instruction to his people is when they are nonplussed and at a
stand. God’s comforts most delight the soul in the multitude
of its perplexed thoughts. The message was sent to Joseph by
an angel of the Lord, probably the same angel that brought
Mary the tidings of the conception—the angel Gabriel. Now the
intercourse with heaven, by angels, with which the patriarchs had
been dignified, but which had been long disused, begins to be
revived; for, when the First-begotten is to be brought into
the world, the angels are ordered to attend his motions. How far
God may now, in an invisible way, make use of the ministration of
angels, for extricating his people out of their straits, we cannot
say; but this we are sure of, they are all ministering spirits
for their good. This angel appeared to Joseph in a dream when
he was asleep, as God sometimes spoke unto the fathers. When we are
most quiet and composed we are in the best frame to receive the
notices of the divine will. The Spirit moves on the calm waters. This
dream, no doubt, carried its own evidence along with it that it was
of God, and not the production of a vain fancy. Now,
1. Joseph is here directed to proceed in his
intended marriage. The angel calls him, Joseph, thou son of David;
he puts him in mind of his relation to David, that he might be
prepared to receive this surprising intelligence of his relation to
the Messiah, who, every one knew, was to be a descendant from David.
Sometimes, when great honours devolve upon those who have small
estates, they care not for accepting them, but are willing to drop
them; it was therefore requisite to put this poor carpenter in mind
of his high birth: “Value thyself. Joseph, thou art that son of
David through whom the line of the Messiah is to be drawn.” We
may thus say to every true believer, “Fear not, thou son of
Abraham, thou child of God; forget not the dignity of thy birth, thy
new birth.” Fear not to take Mary for thy wife; so it may be
read. Joseph, suspecting she was with child by whoredom, was afraid
of taking her, lest he should bring upon himself either guilt
or reproach. No, saith God, Fear not; the matter is not so.
Perhaps Mary had told him that she was with child by the Holy Ghost,
and he might have heard what Elizabeth said to her (Lu. 1:43), when
she called her the mother of her Lord; and, if so, he was
afraid of presumption in marrying one so much above him. But, from
whatever cause his fears arose, they were all silenced with this
word, Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife. Note, It is a
great mercy to be delivered from our fears, and to have our doubts
resolved, so as to proceed in our affairs with satisfaction.
2. He is here informed concerning that holy
thing with which his espoused wife was now pregnant. That which
is conceived in her is of a divine original. He is so far from being
in danger of sharing in an impurity by marrying her, that he will
thereby share in the highest dignity he is capable of. Two things he
is told,
(1.) That she had conceived by the power of the Holy
Ghost; not by the power of nature. The Holy Spirit, who produced
the world, now produced the Saviour of the world, and prepared him
a body, as was promised him, when he said, Lo, I come,
Heb. 10:5. Hence he is said to be made of a woman (Gal. 4:4),
and yet to be that second Adam that is the Lord from
heaven, 1 Co. 15:47. He is the Son of God, and yet so far
partakes of the substance of his mother as to be called the fruit
of her womb, Lu. 1:42. It was requisite that his conception
should be otherwise than by ordinary generation, that so, so
though he partook of the human nature, yet he might escape the
corruption and pollution of it, and not be conceived and
shapen in iniquity. Histories tell us of some who vainly
pretended to have conceived by a divine power, as the mother of
Alexander; but none ever really did so, except the mother of our
Lord. His name in this, as in other things, is Wonderful. We
do not read that the virgin Mary did herself proclaim the honour done
to her; but she hid it in her heart, and therefore God sent an angel
to attest it. Those who seek not their own glory shall have the
honour that comes from God; it is reserved for the humble.
(2.) That she should bring forth the Saviour of the
world (v. 21). She shall bring forth a Son; what he shall
be is intimated,
[1.] In the name that should be given to her Son: Thou
shalt call his name Jesus, a Saviour. Jesus is the same name with
Joshua, the termination only being changed, for the sake of
conforming it to the Greek. Joshua is called Jesus (Acts 7:45;
Heb. 4:8), from the Seventy. There were two of that name under the
Old Testament, who were both illustrious types of Christ, Joshua who
was Israel’s captain at their first settlement in Canaan, and
Joshua who was their high priest at their second settlement after the
captivity, Zec. 6:11, 12. Christ is our Joshua; both the Captain
of our salvation, and the High Priest of our profession,
and, in both, our Saviour—a Joshua who comes in the stead of Moses,
and does that for us which the law could not do, in that it was
weak. Joshua had been called Hosea, but Moses prefixed the
first syllable of the name Jehovah, and so made it Jehoshua
(Num. 13:16), to intimate that the Messiah, who was to bear that
name, should be Jehovah; he is therefore able to save to
the uttermost, neither is there salvation in any other.
[2.] In the reason of
that name: For he shall save his people from their sins;
not the nation of the Jews only (he came to his own,
and they received him not),
but all who were given him by the Father’s choice,
and all who had given themselves to him by their own.
He is a king who protects
his subjects, and, as the judges of Israel of old, works
salvation for them. Note, those
whom Christ saves he saves from their sins;
from the guilt of sin by the merit of his death,
from the dominion of sin by the Spirit of his grace.
In saving them from sin, he saves them from wrath and the curse, and
all misery here and hereafter. Christ came to save his people, not in
their sins, but from
their sins; to purchase for them, not a liberty to sin,
but a liberty from sins, to redeem them from all iniquity
(Tit. 2:14); and so to redeem them from among men
(Rev. 14:4) to himself, who is separate from sinners.
So that those who leave their sins, and give up themselves to Christ
as his people, are
interested in the Saviour, and the great salvation which he has
wrought out, Rom.
11:26.
V. The fulfilling of the scripture in all this. This
evangelist, writing among the Jews, more frequently observes this
than any other of the evangelists. Here the Old Testament prophecies
had their accomplishment in our Lord Jesus, by which it appears that
this was he that should come, and we are to look for no other; for
this was he to whom all the prophets bore witness. Now the
scripture that was fulfilled in the birth of Christ was that promise
of a sign which God gave to king Ahaz (Isa. 7:14), Behold a virgin
shall conceive; where the prophet, encouraging the people of God
to hope for the promised deliverance from Sennacherib’s invasion,
directs them to look forward to the Messiah, who was to come of the
people of the Jews, and the house of David; whence it was easy to
infer, that though that people and that house were afflicted, yet
neither the one nor the other could be abandoned to ruin, so long as
God had such an honour, such a blessing, in reserve for them. The
deliverances which God wrought for the Old-Testament church were
types and figures of the great salvation by Christ; and, if God will
do the greater, he will not fail to do the less.
The prophecy here quoted is justly ushered in with a
Behold, which commands both attention and admiration; for we
have here the mystery of godliness, which is, without controversy,
great, that God was manifested in the flesh.
1. The sign given is
that the Messiah shall be born of a virgin. A virgin shall
conceive, and, by her, he shall
be manifested in the flesh.
The word Almah
signifies a virgin in
the strictest sense, such as Mary professes herself to be (Lu. 1:34),
I know not a man; nor had it
been any such wonderful sign as it was intended for, if it had been
otherwise. It was intimated from the beginning that the Messiah
should be born of a virgin, when it was said that he should be the
seed of the woman; so
the seed of the woman as not to be the seed of any man. Christ was
born of a virgin not only because his birth was to be supernatural,
and altogether extraordinary, but because it was to be spotless,
and pure, and without any stain of sin. Christ would be born, not of
an empress or queen,
for he appeared not in outward pomp or splendour, but of a virgin, to
teach us spiritual purity, to die to all the delights of sense, and
so to keep ourselves unspotted
from the world and the flesh that we may be presented chaste
virgins to Christ.
2. The truth proved by
this sign is, that he is the Son of God, and the Mediator between God
and man: for they shall call his name Immanuel;
that is, he shall be Immanuel;
and when it is said, He shall be called,
it is meant, he shall be, the Lord our righteousness.
Immanuel signifies God
with us; a mysterious name, but
very precious; God incarnate
among us, and so God reconcilable
to us, at peace with us, and taking us into covenant and communion
with himself. The people of the Jews had God with them,
in types and shadows, dwelling between the cherubim; but never so as
when the Word was made flesh—that
was the blessed Shechinah.
What a happy step is hereby taken toward the settling of a peace and
correspondence between God and man, that the two natures are thus
brought together in the person of the Mediator! by this he became an
unexceptionable referee, a days-man, fit to lay his hand
upon them both, since he
partakes of the nature of both. Behold, in this, the deepest mystery,
and the richest mercy, that ever was. By the light of nature,
we see God as a God above us;
by the light of the law,
we see him as a God against us;
but by the light of the gospel, we see him as Immanuel,
God with us, in our
own nature, and (which is more) in our interest. Herein the Redeemer
commended his love.
With Christ’s name, Immanuel,
we may compare the name given to the gospel church (Eze. 48:35).
Jehovah Shammah—The Lord is there;
the Lord of hosts is with us.
Nor is it improper to say that the prophecy which
foretold that he should be called Immanuel was fulfilled, in
the design and intention of it, when he was called Jesus; for
if he had not been Immanuel—God with us, he could not have
been Jesus—a Saviour; and herein consists the salvation he
wrought out, in the bringing of God and man together; this was
what he designed, to bring God to be with us, which is
our great happiness, and to bring us to be with God,
which is our great duty.
VI. Joseph’s obedience to the divine precept (v. 24).
Being raised from sleep by the impression which the dream made
upon him, he did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him,
though it was contrary to his former sentiments and intentions; he
took unto him his wife; he did it speedily, without delay, and
cheerfully, without dispute; he was not disobedient to the heavenly
vision. Extraordinary direction like this we are not now to expect;
but God has still ways of making known his mind in doubtful cases, by
hints of providence, debates of conscience, and advice of faithful
friends; by each of these, applying the general rules of the written
word, we should, therefore, in all the steps of our life,
particularly the great turns of it, such as this of Joseph’s, take
direction from God, and we shall find it safe and comfortable to do
as he bids us.
VII. The accomplishment of the divine promise (v. 25).
She brought forth her first-born son. The circumstances of it
are more largely related, Lu. 2:1, etc. Note, That which is conceived
of the Holy Ghost never proves abortive, but will
certainly be brought forth in its season. What is of the
will of the flesh, and of the will of man, often
miscarries; but, if Christ be formed in the soul, God himself
has begun the good work which he will perform; what is conceived
in grace will no doubt be brought forth in glory.
It is here further observed, 1. That Joseph, though he
solemnized the marriage with Mary, his espoused wife, kept at a
distance from her while she was with child of this Holy thing; he
knew her not till she had brought him forth. Much has been
said concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary: Jerome was very
angry with Helvidius for denying it. It is certain that it cannot be
proved from scripture. Dr. Whitby inclines to think that when
it is said, Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her
first-born, it is intimated that, afterwards, the reason ceasing,
he lived with her, according to the law, Ex. 21:10. 2. That Christ
was the first-born; and so he might be called though his
mother had not any other children after him, according to the
language of scripture. Nor is it without a mystery that Christ is
called her first-born, for he is the first-born of every
creature, that is, the Heir of all things; and he is the
first-born among many brethren, that in all things he may have
the pre-eminence. 3. That Joseph called his name Jesus,
according to the direction given him. God having appointed him
to be the Saviour, which was intimated in his giving him the name
Jesus, we must accept of him to be our Saviour, and, in
concurrence with that appointment, we must call him Jesus, our
Saviour.
The
conception of this baby is declared to be ‘from the Holy Spirit’
and therefore without human father. The genealogy of Jesus concludes
with a reference to, ‘Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born
Jesus who is called Christ’ (1:16), thus detaching Joseph from any
direct biological relationship to the baby.
The virgin birth generally carries little theological
weight in our thinking, but is in fact crucial to everything else
that is true of Christ. If the deity and work of Christ is being
undermined by a theologian or church leader, they usually begin with
an attack on the historicity of the virgin birth. We who believe
otherwise often fail to respond adequately at this point, because we
consider it to be not as essential as other details in the life of
Christ. The reality is, to destroy the virgin birth of Christ, is to
destroy his ability to accomplish what he came to do. It is argued
that the gospels of Mark and John make no reference to the virgin
birth and that Paul never alludes to it in his writings, and
therefore it is not a serious issue. The exclusion of any fact from
some of the New Testament writings does not in any way invalidate its
positive inclusion in other writings, and what must be recognised are
the unambiguous statements of Matthew and Luke, confirmed by Matthew
in his quotation of Isaiah 7:14, ‘The virgin will be with child and
will give birth to a son’ (1:23).
Why is the virgin birth of Christ essential to his
function? To say, ‘Jesus Christ was born to die,’ is not just to
state the obvious! The nature of the death he was born to die was not
physical alone, but spiritual. The death he was born to die was the
same death Adam experienced in the Garden of Eden, when he was
forbidden to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil on the
grounds that, ‘… in the day you eat thereof, you shall die’
(Gen. 2:17). Together with Eve, Adam ate of the tree, but did they
die that day, as God had forewarned? The answer is that he did, for
God does not threaten in vain. But the death he died was spiritual
and not physical. Physically he lived for many more years, but the
day he acted in independence of God he became, ‘separated from the
life of God’ (Eph. 4:18), which is the nature of spiritual death.
Physical death was not the immediate consequence of sin, though it is
an inevitable result due to the decay and perishing process
instigated by the entry of sin into the world, but the ‘wages of
sin’ (Rom. 6:23) paid in the Garden of Eden is spiritual death.
This sentence was not only imposed on Adam and Eve but became the
state of all their descendants, for the Apostle Paul states, ‘In
Adam all die’ (1 Cor. 15:22). This is the condition into which we
are already born. The Scripture never declares that any person will
die for their sin, for the reality is, it is too late—they
are already dead. The ‘wages of sin’ were paid in the Garden of
Eden, and every human being since then is born in the state of death
(see Eph. 2:1). Paul’s statement is in the present tense, ‘The
wages of sin is death’. It is already part of our
experience. The option open to us is not to die for our sin,
since we are already dead, but to die in our sin. We may
continue in our state of alienation from God and live beyond the
grave with its eternal consequences. The issue the gospel presents to
us involves the choice of either remaining for ever in the state of
death into which we were born, or of coming alive, by receiving the
life Adam forfeited in the Garden of Eden—the life of God.
There is only one prerequisite for death—and that is
life. This is true spiritually as it is physically. To die one has
first to be alive! If Jesus Christ was born to die the death Adam
died in the Garden of Eden, then the one prerequisite to qualify him
to die was life! Only two men have been qualified to die for sin—Adam
and Christ—for only two men have themselves been fully alive—Adam
and Christ. Hence Christ is described by Paul as the ‘second man’,
when he writes, ‘The first man was of the dust of the earth, the
second man from heaven’ (1 Cor. 15:47). Christ is ‘the second
man’ in contrast to Adam, ‘the first man’. Earlier Paul made
the same contrast when stating, ‘so it is written: “The first man
Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit’
(1 Cor. 15:45). As the ‘second man’ and the ‘last Adam’,
Christ was not born as a result of procreation, but of creation—he
was the second human being in the sense of being the second original.
It is this that enabled him to accomplish as our substitute for our
sin, what Adam did in his own right for his own sin—to die. Take
away the virgin birth and regard the conception of Christ as normal
procreation, and we have robbed Christ of his ability to deal with
our sin, for we have robbed him of the ability to die the death
required as penalty for sin. Paul has in mind more than the physical
death of Christ as atonement for sin, when he wrote, ‘God made him
who had no sin to be sin for us.…’ (2 Cor. 5:21). He was
made to be sin! He would cry from the cross, ‘My God, My God, why
have you forsaken me’ (Matt. 27:46), experiencing for our sin the
separation Adam endured for his own sin the day he ate of the
tree—and died.
