We are going to continue our time the book of Matthew this morning and look at chapter 1 verses 18-25. This passage describes Joseph’s dream and the explanation given to him by an angel, and where in Luke’s gospel we are told that it is Gabriel who appears to Mary, here in Matthew, Joseph’s angel remains unnamed. Matthew continues his focus on Joseph from the genealogical list that we saw in 1-17 and emphasizes even stronger than he did in verse 16 the virgin birth of Jesus by stressing multiple times the fact that Joseph, though the legal father of Jesus, was not Jesus’ is physical father.
Please follow along with me as I read verses 18-25.
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned ato send her away secretly. But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
Matthew wrote his account of the life and ministry of Jesus as both an apologetic tool as well as a sort of informational or training manual. He was not apologizing for anything but rather giving a defense of the truth of who Jesus is. Even throughout his gospel account there are many accusations made against the circumstances of Jesus’ birth.
We know that the Jews of the time accused Him of being an illegitimate child, if they were being a bit more kind they accused Him of being the offspring of a Roman soldier who forced himself on Mary, if they had less tender hearts they went all the way to accusing her of being a harlot. We see these accusations as early as the gospel accounts during the life of Jesus, and the only grew afterward as Christianity spread among the Jewish people. Matthew was writing to defend the truth of Jesus’ virgin birth against the onslaught of vicious attacks and slander that was coming from the Jewish religious leaders and those who were opposing Christianity.
This is not some random story that was put in by Matthew to bolster his narrative account to make Jesus seem more important. Virgin birth or miraculous birth stories are not nonexistent in ancient mythology. There are several stories of what might be considered miraculous birth or origin stories for many of the Greek and Roman gods and demigods as well as some that were created for human figures.
For example, Alexander the great, the Greek King that conquered the entire Mediterranean world all the way east to India, he was claimed to have had a miraculous birth. It was claimed that he was actually the son of Zeus rather than Philip of Macedon. The story goes that Zeus, who if you know anything about Greek mythology is a serious sexual deviant, seriously some really messed up stuff, turned himself into a snake and made his way to Olympias’ bed, that would be the mother of Alexander, where he impregnated her. That is actually one of the milder anecdotes compared to some of the mythological miraculous birth or origin stories that came from antiquity.
Some have argued that Matthew, like those who worshiped Alexander the great as a god, created a miraculous birth narrative to make Him divine. Whenever an individual was deified and worshiped in the ancient world, it was always many decades or even centuries later that these miraculous origin stories began in order to justify their divine status. Jesus however claimed his divine status from the beginning of his ministry and the disciples maintained it and proclaimed it immediately.
In chapter 22, Jesus asks the question of the Pharisees in verse 42, “what do you think about the Christ, whose son is he?” They recognize that the Messiah was going to be a son of David, and in correcting them to a fuller understanding of who was son the Messiah would be, Jesus points out that David recognizes the Messiah as God.
The question Jesus begins that interaction with is the one that Matthew sets out to answer here. He has already established his human genealogy. Recognizing the Royal line that descended through his legal father Joseph, then he makes clear Jesus’ divine origin by laying out the truth of his virgin birth.
In the mind of Matthew there is no wiggle room about this truth. You can believe him or not, you can accept or reject what Matthew wrote, but you cannot argue that this is what he believed to be true.
Let me show you from the text a couple of important points that are worth noting before we begin to flush out the importance of the virgin birth itself.
There are four statements of Joseph’s noninvolvement and the divine action in the conception of Jesus in this short passage. The first reference is in verse 18 where we read, “when his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.”
Then we see in verse 20, as the angel is confronting Joseph in this dream state, “the child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”
Matthew goes back to the Old Testament to apply from Isaiah 7:14 a prophecy to the birth of Jesus, “the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.”
Before we go on I need to point out a couple of quick things about this prophecy. As with any area of Scripture there is always going to be much debate among Christian theologians as well as work to defend certain aspects of the faith against accusations from outside of the church. This short reference to Isaiah has been the center of one of the greatest controversies. I do not have the time to go into great detail about everything, but it is important to have a basic understanding of the two major controversies that surround this passage.
The first is the term “virgin” as it is used in the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14. In Hebrew it is the word alma, which generally in the Old Testament is used of a young woman who is unmarried and the implication is that she is also a virgin though that is not a strictly necessary addendum to the definition. There has been a lot of ink spilled on whether or not the term specifically refers to a “virgin” or just a young unmarried woman. For the sake of time and not going to go into the whole argument but I can give you a very simple response that you can give to a believer on what this term is referring to. Though the Hebrew does not have a specific word for “virgin” Greek does, and that is the word that Matthew uses here. So, if Matthew was inspired by God and you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, then what we have here is inspired commentary and we can know that that was the implication of the prophet Isaiah when he wrote 7:14.
The second controversy is the application of this prophecy itself. Many people argue that this is not a prophecy concerning the Messiah but rather a sign that was to be for King Ahaz and that Matthew somehow reapplied this prophecy in an illegitimate way. There are numerous theories on how Matthew does employ this prophecy and I would be happy to go into detail about the various theories and explain my own thoughts, but there is not time in this sermon and so we will have to talk about it afterward. Again however, I believe it is important you know about the controversy around this verse.
So, moving on, the fourth reference to the virgin birth is in verse 25, where we see that Joseph, “kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son.”
So again, there are 4 references in just 7 verses to the virgin status of Mary at both the conception and delivery of Jesus as well as the divine nature of the conception itself.
Two more things that I wanted to point out before we get into the importance of the virgin birth itself on the rest of theology is the implications on what we know about both Joseph and Mary. Neither of these individuals are described in great detail here or in the rest of the Gospels. In the gospel of Luke, Mary does get a bit more face time as it were, but we do not know a great deal about either of Jesus’ earthly parents.
We do know that Joseph was a righteous man. We see that both in Matthew statement in verse 19 as well as in the way in which he was planning to deal with Mary’s pregnancy and the implications of his position as the father of Jesus.
In verse 19 we see that Joseph was planning on sending Mary away quietly. The Jewish custom of betrothal at the time would have seen Mary and Joseph as husband and wife at the point of the marriage contract being signed by their parents. The marriage itself would likely have been arranged by their parents and a bride price given at that time, paid either by Joseph himself or by his parents.
By Jewish law they were considered man and wife even though they had not consummated their marriage and would not until the actual marriage ceremony. Because they were considered man and wife, Joseph would have had to go through divorce proceedings with Mary which would normally have been very public and according to the Mosaic law should have ended in Mary’s stoning for infidelity. But because Joseph was a righteous man, the implication we can see in this he was also loving and caring even though his betrothed in his eyes had committed adultery, he wanted to not publicly shame her as much as possible.
We also see the righteousness of Joseph as he submits instantly to the command given to him by the angel of God. There is no argument or lack of faith. He was truly a committed Old Testament Saint. I am sure the dream that the angel came to him in was not a normal one. There would have been very specific things about that dream that made him acutely aware of the fact that he was not just hallucinating but was seeing a messenger from God.
We can also know that he was a righteous man because God did choose him to be the father of the Messiah. Could you imagine God choosing and unrighteous man for that role? It would be difficult enough for even the most self-controlled and righteous man to deal with a perfect son. You might think it would be great. I know there are a lot of times where I wish my children were perfect, but seriously, think about how those interactions would have gone. Joseph is trying to teach Jesus the commandments of God, and is getting corrected by his 10-year-old son. “Actually dad, that is not what this passage means.”
We also can see in this passage a couple of important things about Mary. Through the centuries, the Roman church has attached to Mary numerous attributes of Christ and promoted her to the Queen of Heaven. Again, I do not have time to go into all of the great details that led to this point, and if you are interested in understanding more about this topic I would be happy to talk to you more about it. But the Roman church has, through Mary, created one of the most destructive doctrines that has led more people into believing a false gospel than almost anything else that is a perversion of true Christianity. All of these doctrines come from lore and stories from outside of Scripture and are directly contrary to Scripture itself.
First, they claimed that she remained a virgin throughout her life. That Joseph, though he married her, never knew her physically. Two things can be pointed out from Scripture to counter this. First, we see in verses 18 and 25 that Joseph did know her physically. We see in verse 18 “before they came together she was found to be with child” the implication there being that they did come together, but she was found to be with child before they did. And then in verse 25 we read that Joseph “kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son.” If she remained a virgin perpetually why would Matthew think it necessary to add the “until.” More than that, there are multiple references to the brothers and sisters of Jesus who are assumed to be the children of Joseph. In Mark 6:3 and in Matthew 13:55-56 there are clear statements about brothers and sisters of Jesus by Mary. It is understood through church history that the James who wrote the book of James and was the leader of the church in Jerusalem for the first several decades was the brother of Jesus.
The next thing the Roman church claims is that Mary herself was without sin through her entire life. Again, nothing in Scripture implies this in any way, in fact she herself recognizes her need for a Savior. In Luke 1:46-56 we have what is known as “The Magnificat,” or Mary’s exaltation of God in choosing her as a mother of the Messiah. She begins in verses 46-47, “my soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.” If she is without sin as the Roman church claims, why would she need a Savior?
The Roman church goes farther than this in teaching that for Mary to be without sin she would also have to have been virgin born, which is what they refer to as the immaculate conception, that is not a reference to Jesus but to Mary. Again, a doctrine that has no basis in Scripture and as we will see, would make her out to be divine which in reality is what the Roman church is trying to do. They have gone farther than that even still, in naming her the co-redemptrix with Jesus. Stripping Jesus of his authority and position as the only way to eternal life. Anyone who would come to God for forgiveness and salvation must go through Mary first.
The Roman deification of Mary is a long and deeply saddening tale that begins in paganism and ends in an assault on the deity and work of Jesus, but that is going to have to be a discussion for another time if you want a fuller understanding of the topic. It is just something that you need to be aware of.
What that long introduction brought us to this morning is a look at the absolute importance of the virgin birth of Jesus in regards to how it affects every aspect of his person and his ministry. Without the virgin birth Jesus cannot be fully God, without the virgin birth Jesus cannot be without sin, and therefore without the virgin birth Jesus cannot be our Savior.
This is a topic of great importance to understand. I can say that about any area of theology and it would be true, but I believe that this is one that is a fulcrum, a linchpin topic that holds a great deal together. If you reject the virgin birth, even though it might seem something of a minor area of theology, tons of things to begin to unravel. I am sure you can think of a great many physical examples of something like that. The single stress point, a bolt, a ball hitch, a pin, that holds to big pieces of machinery together. If that stress point fails everything breaks apart. The virgin birth of Jesus is that kind of stress point.
Throughout the first 1700 years of the church, that point was overwhelmingly accepted among all Christians. The accounts in the New Testament of the virgin birth of Jesus were not challenged, in fact it is included in one of the earliest church creeds whose primary focus was hammering out the person of Jesus as both fully God and fully man. It was vigorously defended by all those recognized as Orthodox churchmen through the early years of the church until the fourth century where it was made a standard of orthodoxy.
As the Enlightenment and the anti-supernatural mentality began to become dominant within society, and eventually finding its ways and of the church, the virgin birth came under direct attack. Today, though a majority of people, even outside the church, accept the virgin birth narrative as true, in seminaries across the United States and Europe it is overwhelmingly being spoken against. A recent study of prominent Protestant mainline denomination clergy in the US showed a frightening trend.
Among Lutheran clergy almost 20% reject the virgin birth, among Baptists of different colors nearly 35%, Episcopalians is nearly 45%, among Presbyterians almost 50%, and among Methodists over 60% reject the virgin birth, and among Congregationalist like the UCC, almost 90% reject the virgin birth.
As we look at the person of Jesus and come to an understanding of His human and divine nature, we must understand the importance of the virgin birth and how it affects this doctrine. Theologian Wayne Grudem begins his explanation of the person of Christ on the virgin birth because of its necessity.
The virgin birth made possible the uniting of full deity and full humanity in one person. Without the virgin birth Jesus is not God. It was the means God use to send his son into the world as a man and the only way that he could have united humanity and deity in one person. The deity of Christ is defended by Matthew immediately in this passage as we look at verse 25 and that the title “Immanuel.” Like the word “Christ” the word “Immanuel” is more of a title than a name. It is a part of who Jesus is and that is why it is embedded in His name as we see there and verse 25. Immanuel, as Matthew translates for us means “God with us.”
Jesus is God dwelling among man, as a man. This fact is stated over and over again throughout the New Testament. John begins his gospel account with a clear statement of the deity of Jesus. He says in John 1:1, “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” He goes on in verse 14, “and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”
If Jesus had a human mother and father, His deity would had to have been united with his humanity at some point, meaning that for at least a time He would have existed as only fully human and therefore not fully God. He would have had to of been elevated to the level of deity and that is simply not how God works. The eternal son of God already existed as a divine person. In addition of a second personhood to the humanity of Jesus would necessitate the existence of a fourth person in the Godhead rather than preserving the three. That fourth person though a sinless human being, would be inferior to the other three persons by the finite nature of His humanity. If His origin, His birth was the same as the rest of humanities, then He would have not been fully God.
On the other hand, if He had been fully God and simply materialized on earth as a man, He would be fully disassociated from humanity. He would have been a separate kind of being whose origin was affiliated with the rest of mankind and He would not be fully human. He would be unable to be the perfect high priest, as we have been reading about in the book of Hebrews. He would have been unable to fully sympathize with our weaknesses and struggles and therefore would be unable to be the perfect intercessor that we need.
This leads into the second point that we need to understand which is that, without the virgin birth, Jesus would not be without sin. If he was not fully God, then He could not be without sin.
All human beings have inherited legal guilt and a corrupt moral nature from the sin of Adam. This is known as original sin, it is part of the curse that has affected all of humanity. The fact that Jesus did not have a human father means that the line of descent from Adam is partially interrupted. Jesus did not dissent from Adam in exactly the same way that every other human being has and therefore the legal guilt and moral corruption that belongs to the rest of mankind did not belong to Jesus.
In Luke 1:35 the angel Gabriel tells Mary that “the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the son of God.” He could not be considered holy or the son of God if he was tainted by sin. Because the Holy Spirit brought about the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary, he could be called holy. This does not mean that sin is passed only from the father, though the Roman church has use this as a basis to say that Mary was sinless and that she herself was virgin born, there is nothing in Scripture to imply that sin passes only from one parent, but rather we can understand Luke 1:35 to mean that somehow the Holy Spirit’s work in the conception of the human nature of Jesus kept that sin from being passed to him.
It was necessary for Jesus to be completely sinless in order for him to be the substitutionary sacrifice for our sin. The final point for this morning is that without the virgin birth Jesus cannot be our Savior.
We need to start this last point by looking at the importance of the name “Jesus.” The name “Jesus” is actually the Greek form of the Jewish name “Joshua” or Jehoshua which was a relatively common Hebrew name that has the basic meaning “Yahweh or Jehovah saves.” There were several other people in the Old Testament with this name. The most prominent of course being the Joshua who led the Israelites after Moses and in the conquest of the promised land.
But this Joshua would be distinct from all of the others because his name would have a far more intentional meaning. In verse 21 the angel tells Joseph “you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” This important phrase tells us two things, one
the purpose of Jesus’ coming to earth was to be the conduit of the grace of God to be poured out upon his people in salvation. Of course, the most important goal was to bring glory to God, but that was to be accomplished through the salvation of mankind.
Second, this was another reference to the deity of Christ. The name Jesus or Joshua means “Yahweh saves” and this is applied to Jesus pointing out that he is to be understood as Yahweh, he is the one who will save the people from their sins.
This is the point that Matthew, Mark and Luke make in the story of Jesus healing the paralytic who was lowered through the roof of the house where Jesus was teaching. After Jesus tells the paralytic that his sins are forgiven, Mark and Luke record that the Pharisees were thinking to themselves “who can forgive sins but God alone?” Jesus does not correct them in this question because they were correct, it is God alone who can forgive sins. That is why it is so important that Jesus then challenges them saying “which is easier, to say to the paralytic your sins forgiven or to say, get up, pick up your pallet and walk? But so you may know the son of God has authority on earth to forgive sins he said to the paralytic, I say to you get up pick up your pallet and go home.”
Now you ask, what is this to do with the virgin birth? Well first as we saw in the first point, without the virgin birth Jesus could not have been God and therefore would not have the right to forgive sins. Without the virgin birth Jesus would not be fully man which is also necessary for the forgiveness of sins. He had to be fully God and therefore able to live a sinless life, he had to be fully man and live a sinless life in order for him to be our sacrifice.
Hebrews 9:22 tells us that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” If he was fully God he would be unable to die on our behalf. If he was fully man he would not have the authority to forgive sins and he would not have the ability to have lived a sinless life.
The virgin birth is an absolute necessity because of the many aspects of doctrine that it touches. These were the first links in the chain connected to the virgin birth but there is so much more relying upon it. Whether or not we could discern any aspects of doctoral importance for this teaching, we should believe it first of all simply because Scripture affirms it. If you believe the Bible to be the word of God that it is clear you must affirm the virgin birth as taught clearly by both Matthew and Luke.
Not only does Scripture teach the virgin birth, but we can see without it Jesus could not be fully God, without the virgin birth Jesus could not have lived without sin, without the virgin birth, Jesus could not have been our Savior. If we are to understand the biblical teachings on the person of Jesus correctly, it is vital that we begin with an affirmation of this doctrine.
As we transition into our celebration of the Lord’s table I want you to be conscious of the amazing work of God in the miracle of Jesus’ conception. The Lord’s table is meant to be a celebration. It is a celebration of forgiveness that we have been granted by God through the sacrifice of Jesus. It is also a time to bring praises and worship to God for all that he is done in the process of salvation.
We thank God for the way in which he keeps His promises. As we have looked over the last couple of weeks at the genealogy of Jesus, we recognize the amazing ways in which he has ordered all of creation and keeps his sovereign control over history in order to fulfill his promises. We can celebrate the fulfillment of those promises in the coming of Jesus and celebrate the promises that are still yet to come as we look forward to his return.