Luke 1:27

To a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

To a virgin betrothed ... Among the Jews of that period the betrothal took place a year before the couple lived together; but in every other respect it WAS the marriage ceremony. The bride's infidelity during the betrothal period was a capital offense (Deuteronomy 22:23f).

The house of David ... Commentators have sometimes troubled themselves over the applications of these words, whether to Joseph or to Mary; but they surely apply to both. That Mary was also of the house of David, as a comparison with Luke 1:69 shows, Luke would fully prove by the genealogy which he introduced a little later (Luke 3:23f).

The virgin's name was Mary ... This is the same as Miriam and was a common name for daughters in those times, and ever since.

CONCERNING THE VIRGIN BIRTH

The Old Testament foretold the virgin birth. The first prophecy of the Messiah ever given (Genesis 3:15) identified him as "the seed of woman"; and that never meant, nor could it ever have meant, anything other than the virgin birth of Christ. It was prophesied again in Isaiah 7:14, a prophetic word which an apostle declared a prediction of the virgin birth (Matthew 1:23).

The Old Testament identified the coming redeemer as Immanuel (meaning "God with us"), Mighty God, Everlasting Father, etc. (Isaiah 9:6; 1:14f); and this identification was continued in the New Testament where Jesus Christ is referred to no less than ten times as "God." How could God have become a man if not by means of a virgin birth? The pre-existence of Christ "before the world was" (John 17:5) made it an impossibility for him to have entered earth life as a result of the normal processes of procreation in which the union of two mortals, male and female, is utterly incapable of producing a life which had already existed. A denial of the virgin birth is a denial of the deity of Jesus Christ.

All four of the Gospel writers evidence their belief that Christ was born of a virgin. Matthew spelled it out categorically, presenting it from the viewpoint of Joseph. Mark did not mention it, but in his report of the gossip at Nazareth selected the words "Is not this the carpenter?" rather than the other form of it, "Is not this the carpenter's son?" as it is in Matthew (Mark 6:3; Matthew 13:55). Of course, the gossip existed in both forms; but Matthew, who had recorded the virgin birth, selected one form of it; and Mark, who had not recorded the virgin birth, was careful to choose the other form in order to avoid any implication against the virgin birth. From this we are certain that Mark knew of the doctrine and that he believed it. Extensive New Testament reference to Jesus as "Son of God" cannot be understood otherwise than in the sense of the unique sonship of Jesus Christ, every such reference being equivalent to denial that Jesus was begotten by any mortal father. Therefore, the fact of the virgin birth is affirmed in every reference. "Only begotten," as used by John (John 1:18; 3:18), carries the same message of confirmation from the Gospel of John.

Regarding the allegation that Paul "knew nothing of the virgin birth!" - such an error can derive only from ignorance of what that great apostle said: Christ was "of the seed of David" and also "Son of God" (Romans 1:3,4); "Christ existed in the form of God ... emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:5-7); "God sent forth his Son, made of woman" (Galatians 4:4).[21] Versions or translations rendering this passage "born of a woman" are in error. As Clarke said, "Being made of a woman was according to the promise of Genesis 3:15: (meaning) produced by the power of God in the womb of the virgin Mary without the intervention of man."[22] "He taketh hold of the seed of Abraham" (Hebrews 2:16) has the reading in the Greek New Testament, "He taketh on him the seed of Abraham." This makes the birth of Jesus to have been an act willed by himself while existing at a time prior to his entering our earth life. This cannot be anything except a recognition of the fact of the virgin birth. The Hebrew reference is here considered as Pauline. The fact that Paul did not make any references to this doctrine is incapable of casting any doubt regarding his true acceptance of it; because, in his preaching to the Gentiles, he stressed the far greater miracle of the resurrection. Significantly, Luke himself, in Acts, made no reference to the virgin birth in that volume; and if, for any reason, the Gospel of Luke had been lost, the critics would still have been shouting to high heaven that "Luke knew nothing of it?' We are thankful to God that Paul made a more than sufficient reference to this vital doctrine to justify the conclusion that he fully received it.

Actually, the virgin birth is no greater miracle than raising the dead, walking on the sea, or changing water into wine. It even pales in significance when compared to the resurrection of Christ. Therefore, unbelief of the virgin birth is really a refusal to believe in Christ at all.

[21] Nestle's Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959).

[22] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Carlton-Porter, 1829), Vol. VI, p. 402.