The Virgin Birth of Jesus

By Liaf

It never fails. Every year when Christmas comes upon us, there is another debate somewhere regarding the "Virgin Birth" of Christ. There are those out there who do not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus because they find that to be superstitious. They believe in the humanity of Jesus (and rightly so) but have difficulty in accepting the divine aspect of his conception. This is one of the many virgin myths, they believe, found throughout history. Besides, (so their argument goes), the meaning of the word "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 merely means a "young woman", not necessarily a virgin. They believe Matthew misquoted that passage of Scripture. So the meaty (no pun intended) crux of their argument against the virgin birth rests on bandying about the translation of that word "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14. They believe if they can prove it merely meant "young woman", that they proven their point of view that there was no virgin birth (as if the Bible rests a certain doctrine on one verse alone). For sure, I believe the Bible definitely teaches the virgin birth, but before I elaborate, let me say that I have no problem if the Hebrew word meant "young woman". For you see, as with most prophecy, there is double fulfillment. There was a young woman in Isaiah’s time that conceived in such a way, but by extension, it was foreshadowing of the conception of Christ. Those who see this passage of Scripture as having one fulfillment misunderstand the fact that prophecy oftentimes has more than one fulfillment. Or as we say in colloquial terms, "History repeats itself." For those of you who have been with us reading these messages (especially about Israel and end-times), we stressed time and time again about the dual nature of prophecy. Therefore, for the first prophecy regarding a young woman to conceive, it would have been quite proper to indicate a "young woman" and not necessarily a virgin. Later on, when it happened again for Christ, Matthew (being inspired by God) expanded the meaning of the word to mean just what it says.

The spiritual reasons for the Virgin Birth

Those who support the virgin birth oftentimes cite the necessity of such a birth in order to satisfy the requirements regarding the nature and work of Christ. In other words, Christ had to have a divine incarnation to satisfy the "man from above" requirement to be qualified Savior, otherwise he would be just any man with a birth the same way we were all born. If that were the case, I could claim the same authority as Christ and become a Messiah--- what’s to stop me if I claim God as my father? I agree with these points, and to elaborate a little more on the subject, I say he had to have a divine aspect to be all that Adam should have been had he eaten from the tree of life. God wanted Adam to take from the tree of life to produce spiritual sons of God. That tree represented--- no, I should say actually was --- access to the Spirit of God. That’s how God would have incarnated himself through Adam had he taken from that tree. Because of man’s fall, however, he was under the dominion of the Tempter. He was no more than a carnal being devoid of God’s Spirit and subject to death. He was really the first "abortion" so-to-speak and Adam was a miscarriage. No sons of God could come from Adam, that fleshy fallen creature. So God had to put his Spirit in another man. This one had to be conceived from above. That’s what Paul meant by Adam with his Earthly nature and by Christ with his heavenly nature. Earthly man could not work up by choice, even though God was there in that tree of life. God had to come down to man and through Christ produce spirit children of God. Now the son (any son) has the same nature and privileges of the father – for God begets God. However, God himself incarnated himself to make his "only begotten son" i.e. a man as God himself so that he would be the firstborn of many brethren who would later become as Him judging nations and angels. I bet you thought only God could do that? Only God can! Behold what manner of love, that we should become the sons of God! But it’s not us, per se, but Christ in us. If you fill a vessel with something else, it takes on the character of the filling (and in essence is that filling) yet it retains its form. I do not want to say that we become Christ himself and to give the impression that we lose our individuality as separate beings. We are one, yet many. Figure that one out. It’s like trying to explain Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All are God--- they are one, yet distinct.

The Virgin Birth proven by the Royal Lineage

OK--- so I expanded on the theology that most Christians who believe in the virgin birth teach. That’s the deep, mystical and whatever else argument for the virgin birth. Now let’s take a very practical and straightforward approach that even a ditz can understand.

God made a promise to King David that he would have an eternal throne. He promised David a descendent (and hence descendents) to continue that throne. David’s son, he was told, would build the temple of God. Much like the virgin birth prophecy, this promise regarding a son would be dual in nature. It was fulfilled immediately after King David through Solomon but later on that was understood to represent the future Messiah. Is every ditz with me so far? Therefore, for this to be true there must have been a royal lineage from father to son. That’s plain and simple enough. It would stand to reason that God would see this father-to-son lineage continue until Messiah. OK? Now, let’s turn to Matthew’s genealogy (Matthew chapter one). Read some of the names. Now go to Luke’s genealogy (in Luke chapter three). These names are different. This "contradiction" is another bone of contention of skeptics. They think that this is a contradiction. It is not. Matthew’s genealogy is Jesus’ father Joseph’s lineage straight back to King David through Solomon (the recognized royal lineage). Luke’s lineage is Jesus’ lineage through Mary. It too goes back to King David but through David’s son NATHAN (not Solomon). This is a human but not a (recognized) royal lineage. Well, let’s look at Matthew’s genealogy and note that there is a King Jeconias listed there. This king is the same king mentioned in Jeremiah 22:30. In Jeremiah he is called "Coniah". This king had a curse placed on him (and actually his father had a similar curse) claiming that NONE of his sons would reign any longer IN JUDAH (thus the indication was that this lineage would no longer rule and an alternate lineage would rule elsewhere). OK--- so let’s put this together for us dummies. That means that there was a royal lineage promised by God to go forever, and then God turns around and curses this same lineage. What gives? If Jesus was and is supposed to be king, he cannot have this blood lineage without the curse.

The answer to this contradiction is that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. This makes Joseph Jesus’ legal father and Jesus has every legal right to the recognized throne of David. But since Jesus does not have the blood lineage of this cursed line, the curse does not apply to him. Yet Jesus is the son of David through Mary’s lineage. Thus he is both David’s son and legal heir to the throne of David, albeit he is only a legal son of Solomon. Solomon was Jesus’ great, great….. great uncle. Does this make sense? In other words, Jesus’ blood lineage was through a lineage that was not cursed but his legal right as a king was through the rightful (and cursed) bloodline. Those who deny the virgin birth unwittingly place this curse on Jesus, and I do not believe God would approve of a cursed Messiah. For those of you who want things plain and simple, that is the whole argument for the virgin birth in a nutshell. You may log off now.

Other arguments

For the rest who want to debate this more, let’s take some scenarios. First of all, I doubt that any of you who deny the virgin birth believe in a literal return of Jesus Christ to rule and reign here on Earth. But if you did, he would not be qualified to rule and reign on this Earth since he would be barred by this curse from ruling in Judah. Let’s take a more liberal and/or abstract scenario. Many of you believe that the Kingdom of God is "in our hearts" and that Christ reigns from heaven forever and ever. In my opinion, that’s a way to keep Christ "out there" and not integrally relate him to creation the way it he was supposed to have been through Adam. But let’s play the devil’s advocate for a moment and assume that this is all there is to the Kingdom of God--- it’s in heaven "out there" while the Earth goes unchanged. Jesus said at his ascension that "all power" was given to him in heaven and on Earth except for the land of Judah. Is that what he said? No. That would be sort of silly, wouldn’t it? Why would you want to believe in a Messiah that reigns in our hearts and in heaven but if the need arose he could not rule in Judah? That must mean he hears prayers anywhere but in Judah, right? This seems to be a pretty ineffectual Messiah to me. Just the concept of limiting Jesus in any way (even if he did not need to reign in Judah in the literal sense) rings a sour note.

OK. Let’s say you do not believe in the Lordship of Christ at all. He is not coming back. He is not even reigning from heaven. He does not rule in our hearts except through his teachings perhaps. He was merely a good and wise man with sound morals and advice to follow. Since you may take this position, the Jeremiah 22:30 curse does not even bother you because you probably have trouble believing in the literal interpretation and inspiration of the Bible. After all, you may think, what’s in a curse of some gloomy prophet? It means nothing, and Jesus was like any other man born when a man and woman did you-know-what together. Therefore, all this about curses does not shake your position about denying the virgin birth. If you believe this, then I probably will not convince you. However, I do have an interesting thought for you. Jesus undoubtedly quoted Scripture and believed the Hebrew Scriptures. That does not state exactly what he believed about them other than the fact that he placed a lot of emphasis on them. This is straight historical fact. Likewise, Jeremiah 22:30 is a straightforward curse. Why would you want to even credit Jesus with being wise if he felt compelled to quote the same Scriptures that discredits his lineage? He would be dirt, and nothing else. Even if that were not a curse from God, he’d be an idiot to believe Scriptures that debased him. So that’s not being very wise. But you decide if you want to live with that contradiction or not. I’m just trying to keep you from looking like an idiot. It would be far more respectable (or I should say logical) to say, "Jesus had his good points, as many nuts or scumbags do, but he was nothing more than that." Then I’d do one more thing if I were you. Don’t waste your time trying to twist a nut’s life into something respectable. Do the intelligent thing and play golf on Sunday mornings instead.

The Alternate Lineage

Let me conclude that if the rightful lineage was cursed and nobody reigned in Judah from King Jeconias (Coniah) onward, then where is the promise of an eternal throne throughout all generations as promised? In Ezekiel 17, we have the parable of two eagles and a vine. God himself would lop off a branch from the high cedar tree and plant it. He would choose an alternate line to continue ruling and reigning. "But this is NOT the rightful lineage", retorts some forceful evangelist (notice I pick on evangelists a lot J --- I really do like their fervor at least). Before they "lay their hands" on me to shake some truth into me, hear me out. I agree--- at least in the legal sense. It was meant to go from David, to Solomon, all through his sons including Coniah to Jesus’ generation. However, GOD HIMSELF said in Ezekiel 17:22-23, "Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch [from the royal lineage through Solomon] of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent: In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell."

God promised an eternal throne to David though his sons in all generations. He did not say that a no curse would ever be placed on one of them. Likewise he did not say which of the sons. As long as it was a son of David. Remember this. God was the one who established the covenant with David. He has every right to fine-tune it whatever way he sees fit as long as he does not break the covenant. This is where my other messages about King Zedekiah’s daughters come into play. This is not the accepted legal lineage, but God said he would use it--- that’s enough for me. "If that’s the case, couldn’t God have simply chosen Nathan and call that the rightful lineage?" you may ask. I suppose so. Who will argue with God? However, there is nothing directly mentioned that Nathan was chosen as such. And the fact that Matthew’s genealogy felt compelled to go through Solomon (because God promised Solomon perpetual descendents and his mercy), the indication was that both God and man recognized the rightful lineage through Solomon’s sons, not Nathan’s descendents. However, to keep in tune with the "cursed Coniah" lineage as the rightful lineage, God also said in Ezekiel 21:27, "I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it [i.e., the throne would be overturned 3 times in the alternate lineage]: and it shall be no more[overturned] , until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him." In other words, God chose the alternate lineage to reign over the house of Israel (where the lost tribes were) as promised, but ultimately Messiah would reign again through the rightful lineage. This alternate lineage by the way was not a sudden whim of God. It was prophesied in the Zarah/Pharez story (Judah’s sons). There was to be a "breach" (the meaning of the name of Pharez) in this royal lineage but it would be repaired later with the reign of Messiah. If Messiah came from an alternate lineage (instead of the legal lineage), that breach would never be repaired.

"Why was there a curse at all?" you may ask. This only complicated matters. Agreed. However, the Jews could have set up a royal throne of David there in Judah (since those of the legal lineage were there) after the Babylonian captivity. Why did that not happen? God was not with them because of this curse--- I mean that God was not with them in the sense that His strength was not given to them to establish a royal dynasty in Judah again. God did not want it there until the ultimate reign of Messiah. The curse prevented the dynasty from being set up in Judah. As Ezekiel 17 (and other Scriptures) state, God wanted to transfer the throne to the house of Israel. Along that note, if we consider the lineage of Nathan or the lineage from Coniah onward, NONE of those had perpetual sons reigning in all generations. The Davidic throne requires (according to Psalm 84) that a son for ALL GENERATIONS would rule. The Babylonian captivity interrupted that reign if it were through Nathan or from Coniah onward. Keep in mind that the rightful lineage may have kings de jure, but not necessarily kings de facto that the covenant required for all generations. Therefore, regardless of what lineage we are talking about, God had to choose some lineage from David through Solomon to continually reign.

This message started with the defense of the virgin birth. It looked at it from the spiritual perspective, but then I approached this subject from the practical (yet overlooked) reality involving the royal lineage. Hopefully, I stated the reason clearly from the beginning, but later I debated some scenarios ("what if") from the perspective that the virgin birth was not true. Lastly, I stated there was more than the virgin birth and Jesus’ royal genealogy. There was an alternate lineage God chose (as prophesied) to continue the throne from Judah but then overturned to Israel. This throne will go back to the rightful King (Jesus) in the end. It is my hope that by reading this message that you understand the importance of these genealogies and the critical role they played in the determination of things. I would recommend reading my earlier message about the three overturns of the throne of David to get a more detailed understanding of this fascinating subject.

Back to Royalty and Genealogy Index

home