Luke 1:26,27 - Thoughts on a virgin birth

1:26

Now we come to the birth of Jesus being foretold. It happened in the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy. The same angel, Gabriel, that spoke to Zechariah was sent to Mary who lived in Nazareth. Gabriel and Michael are the only angels in the Bible who are named. They both appear in Daniel (Dan 8:16; 9:21; 10:13,21; 12:1). Gabriel appears here in Luke, and Michael in Revelation (Rev 12:7).

1:27

We now come to the virgin birth. It is commonplace among atheists and sceptics to consider the virgin birth as just totally made up. This is not too surprising a reaction. More concerning is that a lot of Christians consider the virgin birth to be something of an optional extra or even an embarrassment.  I firmly believe in the virgin birth, above all because the Bible says that this is what happened (Matt 1:18,19; Luke 1:34,35). The objection that virgin births don’t happen is one of the weakest arguments there is against it. The Bible tells us that the Son of God was born of a virgin. Now if God is the creator of all things and the sustainer of all things, if He is the Lord Almighty, then a virgin birth should be well within His capabilities!

However, there is one point the sceptics make that does, on the face of it, seem to carry more weight.This is that the New Testament makes very little of the virgin birth. Only two of the gospels record it, and there is virtually no mention of it in the rest of the New Testament. This paucity of mention of the virgin birth supposedly gives credence to the view that it arose as a myth. I have been thinking about this argument and consider it to be totally false.

So let’s think about it a little. There are two key events in the New Testament that go completely against all human experience. One is the virgin birth, the other is the resurrection. The New Testament does indeed say little about the virgin birth, on the other hand the resurrection is absolutely central to everything the New Testament says, it is at the heart of the gospel. Why this difference?

Well consider this. Can I “prove” the virgin birth? No. The only grounds I have for supporting the virgin birth is that the Bible says this is what happened. I can argue that it is perfectly reasonable and consistent with the divinity of Jesus Christ. In fact I believe that a virgin birth is the only way that Jesus could have come into the world. But all these are just arguments, they are not proof as such. In the same way the early church could not prove the virgin birth. If it happened today then I suppose some DNA test might prove something, but it would be very interesting to see what God’s DNA is!

Now think about the resurrection. Yes I can still argue that it makes sense and is reasonable and consistent with everything else the New Testament says, and is indeed essential and the only way things could happen. But there is something else I can do, I can offer loads of evidences. Back in the first century the early church could offer even stronger evidence. The tomb was empty, neither the Jews nor the Roman authorities could produce a body or point to a non-empty tomb. Many people were direct witnesses to the risen Christ, and these witnesses could be questioned. Ie they could offer demonstrable evidence that the resurrection occurred, something they could not do with the virgin birth.

And that is why the New Testament is full of stuff about the resurrection, but says little about the virgin birth. Both are true, both are vital, but only one of them had evidence that could be presented to the world.

Getting back to the text, we read that Mary was betrothed to a man called Joseph, who was of the house of David. Betrothal was a legally binding state, much stronger than our nearest equivalent, engagement. Luke has carefully researched matters, and a key fact is that Joseph is a descendent of David. It is important that the human lineage of Jesus includes David.