Virgin birth – a miracle or misinterpretation? The doctrine of the Virgin birth is another controversial doctrine that developed much later after Jesus’ resurrection. It is also one of the doctrines, after the doctrine of Trinity, that is usually attacked by sceptics and Atheists.
Why? Because what Christianity is clamming is the fact that Mary, Jesus’ mother, has been miraculously impregnated by the Holy Spirit and gave birth to Jesus’ while being a virgin. Catholicism is taking this even further by clamming Mary stayed perpetual virgin, even after having Jesus’ siblings.
The virgin birth doctrine is an important doctrine for Christianity so that Jesus can be portrayed as fully God and fully human. Therefore, without the virgin birth or miraculous conception, the idea of Jesus being God falls apart. Interestingly, this was not discussed by Jesus with His disciples, this was not part of early Christianity and even for a long time, this doctrine had its followers and sceptics within Christianity. Now, however, this has become part of the foundation of Christianity to the point that you have to believe in that doctrine to be called a Christian.
How has it changed so much from not being discussed to not being important to now being essential to religion? Of course, I had to investigate this closer, as I was questioning the foundations of Christianity.
Where did the doctrine originate from?
First, we see in the Gospel of Matthew, that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy from the book of Isaiah and we read:
“So, all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” Matthew 1: 22-23
Therefore, reading this we assume that there was a prophecy in the Hebrew Bible spoken by the prophet Isaiah that this will be a prophecy about the Messiah. However, when we look at this prophecy in the book of Isaiah, we see few contradictions to what the Gospel of Matthew states. We have to read the whole chapter in context rather than isolated verse to have a better understanding. The prophet Isaiah prophesied that:
“Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings. The Lord will bring the king of Assyria upon you and your people and your father’s house—days that have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah.” ” Isaiah 7:14 – 17
The first difference we see when we look at the Hebrew Bible and the translation:
“Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with a child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel. By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be feeding on curds and honey. For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned. The Lord will cause to come upon you and your people and your ancestral house such days as never have come since Ephraim turned away from Judah – that selfsame king of Assyria.” Isaiah 7: 14 – 17
Here we have more context to the story and the translation used is not “virgin” but “the young woman”. The word for the virgin used in the Hebrew Bible that was later translated into Greek was “almah” – which means “young woman” or “maiden”. In Hebrew there is a specific word for a virgin, which is “betulah”, which has been used over 50 times in the Bible, however when Isaiah prophesied about this conception, he used the word “almah”, which is more used when describing a young woman.
This has been translated in Greek as “virgin”, even though, the word does not specifically say it means exclusively virgin, but a young woman. Of course, in the 1st century Israel, every young woman that followed the Law of God would have been a virgin, therefore this was not a debate if Mary was a virgin or not, however the prophecy was not actually about the Messiah. What Christianity specifically claimed is that Mary conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit and gave birth to Jesus without any physical contact with a man, however this was taken out of context and this specific verse was not about the Messiah.
Another point is the context around that verse. We see that the child will “eat curd and honey” and before the child will be able to choose between the good and bad, the land will be forsaken. Is this what happened during the times of Jesus? Further we see this prophecy being fulfilled:
“Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, “Call his name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz; for before the child shall have knowledge to cry ‘My father’ and ‘My mother,’ the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be taken away before the king of Assyria.” Isaiah 8: 3-4
The child was supposed to be a sign for the prophet Isaiah during his time and therefore this was not a future prophecy about the Messiah but about a sign to King Ahaz during a political crisis. This sign was fulfilled shortly after during the reign of King Ahaz in the land of Assyria.
Why therefore was this linked to the prophecy about the Messiah? Why it was so important that Mary would not have any physical contact with a man but the conception would have been miraculous?
First of all, this is tied to “original sin” doctrine, that Christianity is based on. It was important that Jesus would have been born without a sin, because it was believed that original sin, that is inherited from Adam and Eve, is passed down through human reproduction. Without original sin, Jesus would have no inclination to sin, therefore he would have been perfect from the start, something no human can achieve as everyone is conceived in conventional way.
Second of all, since it is believed that Jesus was God, therefore he couldn’t have normal conception. The emphasis was very strongly put on the miracle and since it was a miracle, outside of the original sin, outside of human reproduction way – therefore Jesus was God incarnated into a human form. This idea of a miracle and how gods were created is taking us back to the pagan practices.
In ancient Greco-Roman times, gods always had to be born through miraculous or unusual conceptions, often involving a god and a mortal. These figures are usually called demigods—part divine, part human. This idea was very strongly influenced by those pagan practices. Interestingly, the virgin birth is only mentioned in two out of four gospels: the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. Both gospels also put emphasis on completely different aspects. For Matthew it was important to highlight that the prophecy from the book of Isaiah has been fulfilled, whereas for Luke it was important to present the miraculous aspect of Jesus’ conception.
Another important aspect for Matthew was to present that Jesus came from the line of David through Joseph, which would be fulfilment of the Messiah coming from the Davidic line.
“And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.” Matthew 1: 16-17
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” Matthew 1: 18-21
As you can see, Joseph is coming from the line of David, not Mary, therefore it would have to be Joseph’s seed for Jesus to be coming from the line of David, no through adoption of Joseph. The seed was always important to God and it’s the seed that carries the line, not the womb, which we see in the book of Genesis:
“And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;” Genesis 3: 15
” In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.” Genesis 22:18
For Jesus to fulfil the prophecy and come from the line of David, it would have to be Joseph’s seed and therefore Mary would have to be impregnated by Joseph in a natural way, not the Holy Spirit. How Luke presented the conception and the line of David, was focusing on the miracle and the line of Mary and therefore bypassing the prophecy to fulfil the line of David, which then caused Jews to reject Jesus as their Messiah.
“Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” Luke 1: 26-28
“Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.” Luke 1: 34-35
However, in the Gospel of John, Matthew and Luke, Jesus is presented as the son of Joseph as opposed to the son of Mary – highlighting the importance to come from the line of the father.
“Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph,” Luke 3: 23
“Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” John 1:45
“Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” John 6:42
The two gospels of Luke and Matthew were at odds when it came to that matter and also with regards to the lineage of Jesus and the gospel of Mark and John did not mention this aspect at all. We also don’t see this being mentioned or highlighted in the letters of the Apostle Paul, James, Peter or John but out of 27 books, only two mention this in two different ways. Why therefore this has become such a strong doctrine, especially for the Catholic church who now claims Mary to be a perpetual virgin? How does the church account for the siblings of Jesus?
“Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?” Matthew 13: 55
Here we see that not only Jesus was widely known as the son of Joseph but also having brothers and sisters. The belief of virgin birth developed gradually and became formalized as Christianity started to form its doctrines during various Councils. Firstly affirmed in early creeds like the Apostles’ Creed between the 2nd and 4th century, and then further reinforced at major church councils such as the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Again, it was important that Mary’s conception and the virgin birth was non-sexual and unique, emphasizing divine intervention rather than god-human mating.
This was to highlight Jesus’ divine nature and Jesus being God. However, the belief wasn’t universally accepted at first. One of the major debates involved Helvidius, who argued that Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus, whereas Jerome insisted on Mary’s perpetual virginity. There were no texts to support the fact that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus. In the early 4th century, Jerome argued that the brothers of Jesus were cousins or relatives, not biological siblings and therefore many people believed that Jesus never had biological siblings.
At the Second Council of Constantinople, Mary was officially described as “ever-virgin”. Perpetual virginity portrayed Mary as uniquely pure and set apart, chosen by God. This was also very important for the church, that promoted celibacy and Mary became the ultimate model.
In current times, the doctrine grew to the point that you have to believe in the virgin birth doctrine to be called a Christian. Many people in Christianity are not able to explain this but accept that it was a miracle. Many people also don’t question it or don’t check its roots, as questioning a miracle would mean questioning God. This has been emphasized in Christianity as a basis of Jesus’ origin and Jesus being God. This gives Jesus a second place in the Trinity doctrine and the one who escapes “original sin” doctrine. Both doctrines that I explored in my previous chapters.
What is also important to mention that in Early Christianity, before Rome put its hands on Christianity and the scripture, Holy Spirit was viewed as feminine, not masculine. In the Apocrypha texts of the Gospel of Philip from 2nd and 3rd century, Philip wrote:
“Some say, ‘Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.’ They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman?” The Gospel of Philip.
We also see in the Gospel of the Beloved Companion from the 1st century, that Jesus was referred to as Joseph’s son, rather than Mary’s son. Moreover, in that gospel, the Holy Spirit was also viewed as feminine, therefore the idea of conception through the Holy Spirit would have been wrong.
Why could the idea of virgin birth be dangerous?
This doctrine puts an emphasis on the wrong aspects of Jesus’ mission. It takes away from Jesus’ teachings, where the focus should be on. This doctrine has been over exaggerated and with this, Mary has been exalted to the level of God in the Catholic church, with the recent sermon of Pope Leo XIV. This idea not only fits into the pagan model of miraculous conception, but also groups of three deities (triads), that were important in Babylonian times, which I explained in my previous chapter on Trinity. It’s as if Roman Empire fit Christianity into their pagan model, rather than fitted themselves into Christianity and completely unknown to them model. They hijacked the Bible and changed it to fit into their own traditions and with this, completely missing the point of Jesus’ teachings.
I personally reject this doctrine as I believe Jesus to be coming from the line of David and therefore being Joseph’s seed. In both Gospels it is mentioned that Jesus was coming from the line of Joseph and Jesus was known to be the son of Joseph, therefore I view this doctrine as an attempt to put a coat of Christianity into pagan practices and traditions. Jesus didn’t have to have a miraculous conception to be sent from God. It is also important to remember what early Christians believed in before Rome took over and as we can see, it wasn’t actually what we now accept and believe in. And as they say, all roads lead to Rome…
By Dagmara Z.