Historical Evidence For The Virgin Birth

The miraculous conception of Jesus rarely gets an apologetic defense, no doubt because it lies in the shadow of the resurrection. Additionally, this event has less data to work with and so introducing it in evangelistic settings is viewed as unwise. The virgin birth, as it is often called, is however supported by strong historical evidence.

Jesus' Biographies

Since our study will mainly focus on the early chapters of Matthew and Luke, it’s worth reminding ourselves that the canonical Gospels belong to the genre of Greco Roman biography which Michael Licona describes as “a literary portrait of the main character.”¹

A growing majority of critical scholars today recognize Matthew and Luke as belonging to the genre of ancient biography due to their shared characteristics with other biographical works from antiquity:

1. The Gospels are written in continuous narrative prose, where stories, anecdotes, and speeches are combined to form a cohesive narrative.

2. The focus of the work is on a single main character, and his life is not always narrated chronologically.

3. The author provides little to no details for psychological analysis of the main character.

4. Typically ancient biographies contain between 10,000 and 25,000 words. Texts of this length fit comfortably on a scroll and could be read in a single sitting.

5. Finally and most importantly for our purposes, a brief account of the main character’s ancestry is given before catapulting forward to the inauguration of his public life.

This feature is puzzling to modern readers. We are very interested in the early childhood of prominent historical and political figures precisely because we view their formative years and upbringing as influential in their adult lives and careers. The ancients, however, were completely uninterested in the lives of their characters prior to their entrance into public life.

For example, Plutarch’s Life of Julius Caesar offers virtually no information about the emperor’s birth or upbringing. It starts with a brief discussion of his ancestry and the political climate of the day before leaping forward to his first public controversy involving the Roman dictator Sulla when he was approaching 20 years of age. Matthew and Luke are no different. These authors spend little time detailing Jesus' conception, birth, and early childhood.

A Distinctly Jewish Origin Story

The Evangelists’ accounts of Jesus’ birth and early childhood are recorded in Luke 1:5-2:52, and Matthew 1:18-2:23. Focusing on Luke specifically, we see that he includes the birth itself, prophecies made about Jesus’ destiny, and childhood anecdotes that anticipate key features of his adult life. Though Luke’s infancy narrative contains several key elements of Greco-Roman biography, he is attempting to produce a distinctly Jewish historiography with repeated Old Testament allusions and quotations.

Another uniquely Jewish element is the inclusion of canticles, the likes of which we observe in the Old Testament songs of Moses, Deborah, Miriam, and David. These hymns are not opposed to the historical narrative but serve to comment on the significance of events. In Luke, The Magnificat, Zechariah’s Prophecy, and Simeon’s Song, all testify to the fulfilment of Messianic hope. 

Furthermore, Luke synchronizes his infancy narrative with broader history by referencing Herod the King, Pontius Pilate, Emperor Augustus, and the priests Annas and Caiaphas, and by doing so, he is demonstrating a commitment to writing some sort of history. 

Read in light of Luke’s historiographical prologue it is reasonable to assume that the author researched this part of his Gospel by interviewing individuals who could reliably testify about Jesus’ birth and early childhood.

 The Genealogies As Oral History

Since the Evangelists’ infancy narratives are technically family history, they would undoubtedly have sought out sources from within the family of Jesus. For Luke, there would surely be no better witness than Mary herself, who after all was “treasuring up all these things in her heart and meditating on them” (Luke 2:19), and even years later still “kept all these things in her heart” (Luke 2:51). In the early chapters of Luke, Mary is the common denominator at every key stage of Jesus’ conception, birth, and childhood:

1. Mary would obviously know whether or not she had been intimate with a man.

2. She was alone when Gabriel appeared to her, which means she is the only possible source for the angelic visit (Luke 1:26–28). 

3. Mary spent 3 months with her cousin Elizabeth during her pregnancy (Luke 1:56), placing her in a great position to understand the circumstances surrounding John the Baptist’s conception and birth. 

4. She was present when Simeon (Luke 2:28–35) and Anna (Luke 2:36–38) blessed Jesus in the Temple.

5. The horrifying discovery that their company had left Jerusalem without the young Jesus would have left a lasting impression on Mary (Luke 2:43-46).

   
   

If Luke had direct contact with Jesus’ family, this would make the Marian origins of the infancy narrative all the more likely. On Paul’s final visit to Jerusalem, Luke himself tells us that he accompanied Paul and met with James the brother of Jesus (Acts 21:18). This visit alone would give him ample time to interview James and perhaps other members of Jesus’ family. 

The historian Julius Africanus, who had access to Palestinian Christian traditions, writes in his Letter To Aristides circa 220 AD that Jesus’ family members included a genealogy in their evangelistic preaching: “The relatives of our Lord according to the flesh maintained; and they, on account of their connection with the family of David, compiled both these accounts [Luke and Matthew], and on this very account proceeded to set forth the genealogy derived from them as faithfully as possible, both as to the sequence and as to the truth.” On its own, Julius’ claim does not mean much, but it gives us reason to reexamine the genealogies in the Gospels.

Matthew & Luke's Genealogies Compared

While the traditional line of descent is preserved, some alteration is evident in both genealogies. Matthew’s list appears particularly short, with only 42 generations between Abraham and Christ.

Matthew 1:1–16

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah and his brothers, Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz by Rahab, Obed by Ruth, Jesse, David the king, Solomon by the wife of Uriah, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amos, Josiah, Jechoniah and his brothers at the time of the deportation to Babylon, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

While the word ἐγέννησεν (egenēsen) translated “begot” or “fathered” can refer to siring a child physically, it can also be used more generally to speak of an ancestral connection. 

Furthermore, some generations are clearly omitted, such as the 400-year period between Perez and Amminadab that only has two links in the chain. Others appear to have been struck from the record deliberately for their disobedience to God, such as the generations between Joram (Jehoram) and Uzziah (Azariah). 

Rhyne Putman explains: “Unlike modern genealogies that strive for completeness, Matthew’s genealogy was never intended to be an exhaustive list of Jesus’ relatives... he is more interested in showing Jesus’ legal or royal pedigree than providing a genetic history.”²

Far from arbitrary, Matthew is crafting a gematria-based text by listing Jesus’ ancestors in three sets of 14, and the author himself draws attention to it in Matthew 1:17. By assigning numerical values to Hebrew letters, we can appreciate Matthew’s message: Jesus is the long awaited Davidic King.

This gets interesting when we observe that Luke’s genealogy also has a numerical pattern, with 77 generations from Adam to Christ, but the author appears to be unaware of this pattern. It is as if he is simply recording an oral report he has received. This cuts against the claim that he fabricated the story of Jesus’ birth and lineage to align with Old Testament texts. Richard Bauckham observes that Luke’s genealogy “looks very much like just such a genealogy as the relatives of Jesus would have used.”³

In conclusion, there is strong evidence that Luke's genealogy originated with Jesus' family.

The Presentation Of The Infant Jesus

After Jesus’ birth, Luke describes Joseph and Mary carrying out two rituals in accordance with the Law: purifying the woman after labor and presenting the firstborn son in the Temple. Some critics allege that the author confused these Jewish customs, and this is used as evidence that Mary (who would not make these errors) could not be the source behind the infancy narrative. Here are the most common objections:

1) The author appears to mistake the sacrifice of two birds for the presentation of the firstborn, and he does not mention the payment of five silver shekels.

The apparent confusion of these two distinct customs is dealt with by recognizing a deliberate chiastic pattern in the text. The references to purification at the beginning and end of the passage frame the presentation of the child to the Lord, which is thereby highlighted as the most important part. When it comes to the redemption price, Luke actually does refer to it in Luke 2:27 with the words: “brought in the child Jesus to perform for him what was customary under the law.” The custom spoken of in verse 27 could only refer to the payment of shekels — there is no other custom.

2) The author appears to think that the firstborn son had to be presented in the Jerusalem Temple, when in fact this ritual could be carried out anywhere.

Numbers 18:15-16 catalogues offerings people are to bring to the Tabernacle (later the Temple) which will belong to Aaron and his priestly descendants. The people are to “offer to the LORD” all firstborn creatures, though when it comes to human beings, these “you shall redeem.” The phrase “offer to the LORD” occurs 43 times in the Old Testament, and it invariably refers to the offering of sacrifices in the Tabernacle or the Temple. 

If this wasn’t clear enough, Nehemiah 10:35-36 records the peoples’ pledge to keep the commandment of Numbers 18: “we obligate ourselves … to bring to the house of our God, to the priests who minister in the house of our God.” This is a great example of halakha outside the Torah, where the Law is interpreted by Jews, and this interpretation agrees with Luke. Bauckham explains that “it is undoubtedly priestly halakha, a better guide to the way the Temple authorities in the time of Jesus would have interpreted the Law than anything we might find in the rabbis.”⁴      

Finally, Luke shows considerable knowledge of Temple practices not derived from the Old Testament in places like  Acts 3:1-2 and Acts 21:23-24. Luke demonstrates that he knew what he was talking about.

3) Luke’s account creates timeline issues, implying that the purification of the mother and the presentation of the firstborn occurred at the same time.

It is unlikely that those who lived outside Jerusalem made the journey to present the child in the Temple, only to depart and return again 10 days later for the purification of the mother. No mother would want to leave her newborn baby behind, and no father would let his wife and child travel to Jerusalem alone. 

It is therefore reasonable to assume that many families planned a single trip to Jerusalem and delayed the presentation of the son to coincide with the purification of the mother. The rule that the child must be one month old could well have been intended only as a minimum age requirement.

4) The author refers to “their purification” while in fact it is only the mother who is purified.

Luke quotes from Leviticus 12 where nothing is said of the purity of the father, and so the author is likely using a common expression that takes into account the communicable nature of impurity where contact with an unclean person involved uncleanness. The Torah describes the purification of the mother in two stages: for the first seven days she has the status of a menstruating woman, and for the next 33 days her level of purity decreases and she is unable to enter the Temple. 

The two famous Jewish houses of Hillel and Shammai differed on the potential for the woman to spread this second degree of impurity to others. If the stricter view of Shammai is correct, Joseph could have been defiled during the 33 day period, and Mary’s purification would thus result in the same cleansing for Joseph. We cannot be absolutely sure of Luke’s intention, but given his overall reliability he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Was Mary Violated?

A unique accusation in the modern era is that God somehow violated Mary by causing her to become pregnant. Gabriel’s announcement that “the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” is reinterpreted as  a non consensual sexual assault. This interpretation is not, however, derived from Luke and Matthew’s accounts or the surrounding context. It is the result of reading modern sensibilities back into the text.

God’s own Law, specifically the commands given in Deuteronomy 22:25-29, prohibits this kind of abuse. Rape carried the maximum penalty of death and was compared to physically attacking and killing your neighbor. God’s Law is not arbitrary, it is a reflection of his perfect, unchanging character. Far from an abuser, God is the defender of the abused (Psalm 9:9). 

Furthermore, the Gospel accounts are clearly non-sexual in contrast to pagan myths such as the conception of Perseus, where Zeus “transformed himself into a shower of gold” to impregnate a woman (Library 2.4.1). Finally, Mary gave explicit consent when Gabriel appeared to her with the words: “I am the Lord’s servant … may it happen to me as you have said.” (Luke 1:38).

Far from reluctant, Mary’s use of the phrase “may it happen to me” (γένοιτό μοι) indicates her willingness to serve God. Mary understood the potential negative consequences; she could be ostracized, rejected by her betrothed, and even tried for adultery. Yet she modeled perfect obedience.

The Virgin Shall Conceive

Matthew’s birth narrative is not only filled with Old Testament allusions but also numerous explicit quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures. He introduces these Old Testament texts with formulas such as “to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet” (Matthew 1:22) and his repeated use of the word plēróō (“fulfill”) indicates that God’s prophetic word finds its goal in Christ. 

Many critics, even from the time of Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, 66-67), have accused  Matthew of inventing Jesus’ miraculous conception to align with Isaiah 7:14, which the author quotes directly in Matthew 1:23. In this case, however, the ambiguity of the Isaiah text works in Matthew’s favor. 

In the 1st century, there was no Jewish expectation that a virgin would conceive and give birth to the Messiah based either on Isaiah 7:14’s original context or subsequent commentaries. In addition to its relative obscurity, this prophecy was delivered to one of Judah’s worst kings, Ahaz, making it an attractive proof text. Adding to our case, it is telling that the much longer and more detailed account in Luke does not quote this prophecy at all. 

This is even more significant given the fact that Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives are entirely independent of one another. The data we have is far more consistent with a recent, cataclysmic event that motivated the early Christians to interpret it through the lens of prophecy rather than the other way around.

When we take a closer look at Isaiah 7:14, we find the Hebrew term almah, which can be translated as “virgin,” “young woman,” or “young maiden.” The author had the more technical term betulah at his disposal if he wanted to stress this woman’s virginity, but speculation about his choice of words is unnecessary. 

Most all ʿălāmōt were virgins, and Isaiah is merely trying to communicate that she is of marriageable age. The Greek Septuagint (LXX) had become the dominant text of the Old Testament Scriptures centuries before the Gospels were composed, and it uses the term parthenos which clearly speaks of a woman who has never had sex. 

Although he doesn’t exclusively use the LXX when quoting the Old Testament, Matthew almost certainly does in this instance. Regardless of who this “virgin” or “young woman” is, it is clear that she was sexually inexperienced at the time the prophecy was delivered. In the original context, king Ahaz was gripped with fear knowing that the kings of Aram and Israel were plotting against Jerusalem, and he was tempted to seek the help of the king of Assyria. 

Isaiah delivers the simple message that the thing Ahaz fears will not happen if he trusts God and stands firm in his faith. The birth of a son will serve as a sign of God’s faithfulness and providence, and before this child is old enough to know right from wrong, the kings that Ahaz fear will no longer be a threat. When we consider Matthew’s appropriation of this text, the question is not if this prophecy applies to Jesus, but how. 

Isaiah 7:14 could certainly have been a predictive prophecy like Micah 5:2 which has a single, future fulfillment (the view of Origen and Justin Martyr). But it is more likely that Matthew has a typological fulfillment in mind, which Rhyne Putman defines as “the way God uses repeated patterns of types throughout Scripture to express layers of meaning or significance.”⁵ 

These patterns intensify and culminate in Jesus who is the second Adam, a more perfect lawgiver than Moses, and the eternal king of Israel who sits on David’s throne. Matthew saw an incomplete pattern in Isaiah that Christ more perfectly fulfills:

1. Ahaz was threatened by Aram and Israel, but 1 century Judea was occupied by the more formidable Roman Empire. 

2. Isaiah’s sign would be for one generation of Jews, but Jesus’ sign would be for all peoples and for all time. 

3. Ahaz had to face kings of foreign nations, but Christ came to face sin, death, and the devil. 

4. The son in Isaiah is Immanuel, a reminder of God’s presence. Jesus is literally God-Incarnate, literally God with us.

5. If the prophecy had an immediate, 8 century BC fulfillment (such as the birth of Isaiah’s own son in Isaiah 8:3-4), this child’s conception and birth was achieved by natural means. Jesus was conceived by supernatural means.

The Flight Out Of Egypt

As the new and better Moses, Jesus reenacts the Exodus. This recapitulation is seen not only in his baptism, but also in his journey to and from Egypt to avoid Herod’s murderous plot. In Matthew 2:13-15, the author records a dire warning issued by the angel of the Lord. The angel’s instruction to flee to Egypt makes perfect sense given the fact that the country had become a haven for Jews by the 1 century AD. Phlio claims that “Jews who inhabited Alexandria and the rest of the country… were not less than a million of men” (Against Flaccus 6.42).

In response to the angelic warning, Joseph fled with Mary and the young Jesus to Egypt and hid there until Herod’s death. Matthew explains that this took place “so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled: Out of Egypt I called my Son.” The quotation is from Hosea 11:1 where the prophet looks back to God’s providential care in bringing Israel out of Egypt. It should go without saying that the author of Matthew, an educated Jew with advanced knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, understood Hosea 11’s original context. As he does all throughout his Gospel, Matthew is identifying patterns from Israel’s history that Christ relives and brings to a better conclusion. In contrast to Israel who repeatedly fell into disobedience and idolatry after the Exodus, Jesus goes on to live a sinless life before God.

Herod’s order to have all infant boys in the town killed is widely disputed, but given that the population of 1 century Bethlehem was only 300 - 1000, there were likely just a few dozen males under the age of two. It is plausible that such an event flew under the radar.

Josephus wrote extensively on Herod the Great’s reign, and although he does not mention the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem, he does record several comparable incidents.

In his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus explains that Herod was known to “slew the most intimate of his friends” if he perceived them to be a threat (15.8). He had Judea’s previous ruling dynasty (the Hasmonean family) eradicated even though his own wife and her two sons were among the targets. His most frivolous display of brutality is recorded in Josephus’ Jewish War where we read of an order to have a number of Jewish nobles killed upon Herod’s own death to ensure there would be national mourning (1.33.6). An order to have all infants killed in Bethlehem in response to rumors of a newborn “king of the Jews” fits well with Herod’s reputation as an unhinged, paranoid tyrant.

Quirinius' Census

In Luke 2:1-5 we read of a census ordered by Caesar that required Joseph to travel back to his ancestral hometown of Bethlehem. The author adds the detail that this took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. Skeptics attempting to discredit Luke as a historian point to this passage more than any other. It is argued that if the author erred on a fact as basic as Jesus’ approximate birth year (placing it almost a decade too late), then his entire Gospel should be viewed with suspicion.

First, the census itself is questioned:

• There is no other ancient record that speaks of an empire-wide census under Augustus. 

• A census would not require someone like Joseph to travel back to his ancestral home. 

• Palestine was not an official Roman province at the time of Herod the Great which means it would not be subject to Roman censuses. 

Second, Luke’s account clashes with another ancient historian.:

• Josephus mentions no census under Herod the Great but he does speak of Quirinius’ census. He places it in 6 AD, a decade after Herod the Great had died. 

• Quirinius was never governor during the lifetime of Herod the Great. 

• Josephus speaks of this census as something new and unprecedented.

We’ll tackle this question by studying the three men at the heart of this passage.

Augustus: The Emperor

Caesar Augustus was an effective administrator and his own writings bear witness to the fact that he ordered at least three censuses during his reign (Res Gestae Divi Augusti, §8). These censuses covered Italy and took place in 28 BC, 8 BC, and 14 AD. 

Papyri evidence from Roman Egypt confirms that censuses were carried out in different provinces as well, such as the registration return Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 255 dated to 14 AD which confirms that the family in question is residing where they ought to be. When additional papyri were discovered and plotted chronologically, these “tax returns” appear at regular 14-year intervals starting in Augustus’ reign. This proves that censuses occurred regularly under Augustus and that they were not only carried out in Italy. 

Furthermore, it is important to appreciate that a census, especially one that covered multiple provinces, was an enormous undertaking and it could not be completed overnight. It had to be carried out in phases, the first of which was cataloging all people and property in a given area. It is at least possible that Luke describes this first phase in his nativity story. Subsequent phases, where taxes were calculated and collected, could take years to get to. Josephus could be describing this phase of the same census in his Antiquities of the Jews (18.1).

Herod The Great: The Client King

As a client king, Herod the Great did everything in his power to endear himself to the Emperor, such as naming cities after Augustus and constructing the Augusteum in his honor. His general posture was to appease the Emperor, and the need to do so intensified greatly when the two had a falling out circa 8 BC. 

An Arabian noble and emissary to Rome named Syllaeus complained to Augustus when Herod had an Arab accused of treachery executed. The Emperor agreed with Syllaeus that Herod’s actions were uncalled for. He responded by removing Herod’s name from official communications and stripping him of his status as a friend and ally of Rome (philos kai symmachos). In his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus writes: “Augustus was very angry at Herod, and wrote to him that he should not thenceforth reckon him among his friends.” Although the two were later reconciled after Herod sent diplomats to Rome, the Empire resolved to keep a close eye on him. 

Given that Herod was placed on the back foot, it is not at all hard to believe that he would agree to conduct the same kinds of censuses other Roman clients were required to do. Adding legitimacy to the somewhat unusual requirement that families return to their ancestral homes, Rhyne Putman explains: “Censuses also tended to adapt to the needs of the region. When Egypt came under Roman occupation, it already had an efficient system of assessment and taxation that the Romans adopted.” He adds: “It is not hard to imagine a distinct process in Israel where men were required to report to the ancestral homes associated with their tribe, especially if someone like Joseph had ancestral property in Bethlehem.”⁶

Quirinius: The Governor

Now let’s look at the most controversial portion of the passage. In Luke 2:2, we read of the “first registration” under Quirinius which occurs right before Jesus is born. Josephus also records this census, but he places it in 6 AD when Jesus would have been a teenager. Josephus associates this event with the deposition of Archelaus at the command of Augustus and he explains that it led to a Jewish uprising (Antiquities of the Jews 18.1). This creates serious timeline issues that need to be addressed. 

For a start, we must recognize that Luke begins his nativity account with, “In the days of King Herod of Judea.” This is an explicit chronological marker — the author clearly places the birth of Jesus during the reign of Herod the Great. Any reading of Luke 2:2 that places Jesus’ birth a decade later in 6 AD when Quirinius came to power would require us to accept that Luke contradicts himself almost immediately. Later, Luke explicitly states that Jesus was in his 30s when he launched his public ministry (Luke 3:23). This proves that Luke understood Jesus’ birth to have occurred before Herod died in 4 BC. Furthermore, Luke knows about the infamous census of 6 AD. He refers to it in Acts 5:37, and links it to Judas the Galilean just like Josephus does. 

Given that Luke demonstrates his awareness of Herod’s reign, Jesus’ age, and Quirinius’ census that sparked a revolt, we are obligated to read Luke 2:2 charitably and explore alternative explanations. 

Option 1: Luke And Josephus Describe Two Phases Of The Same Census

We briefly touched on this argument earlier, but it must be admitted that a year or two is one thing, but it is rather unlikely that a single census in one region would take a decade to complete. Given that censuses were carried out in 14 year intervals, it would almost be time for a brand new census if the process took this long.

Option 2: prōtē Should Be Translated “Before” Instead Of “First.”

This translation is favored by heavyweights like N.T Wright, and if he is correct, the tension is resolved entirely.  Luke would merely be saying that Jesus’ birth occurred before the famous 6 AD census. Like the first proposed solution however, this argument is not widely accepted.

Option 3:  Quirinius Was Not Officially Governor At The Time Of The First Census

Let’s take a step back and recognize that Quirinius did not suddenly spring into existence in 6 AD. He was a distinguished military commander and even held the consulship in 12 BC. At the time of Jesus’ birth, Gaius Sentius Saturninus was the governor of Syria while Quirinius had military and administrative control of neighboring Cilicia. 

Cilicia (especially the western part known as “Cilicia Trachea”) was in some periods administratively attached to Syria. If Gaius Sentius Saturninus was governor of Syria, and Quirinius led military operations in Cilicia, he could well have been operating under Saturninus’ ultimate command or delegated authority.

Add to this that the basic lexical meaning of hēgemoneuontos is “to govern” or “to lead.” This point is crucial. The term does not necessarily denote rank or a specific office, though it can. Luke himself refers to Pilate as hēgemoneuontos (“governor”) in Luke 3:1, though his formal title was that of prefect (praefectus). 

This opens the door to the possibility that Quirinius could have enforced an earlier census under Saturninus, since the Greek phrase translated “when Quirinius was governing Syria” does not require that he be the formal legate, only the enforcer of the census. Some explanations are more plausible than others, but again, Luke deserves the benefit of the doubt given his knowledge of all these historical facts.

Conclusion

There is strong historical evidence that the sources behind Matthew and Luke’s nativity accounts are eyewitnesses. The way in which these Evangelists composed the early chapters of their Gospels is inconsistent with a desperate drive to ram Old Testament prophecies into Jesus’ origin story. 

Most of the historical challenges raised, such as Matthew’s use of Hosea, the discrepancies in the genealogies, and the timing of Quirinius’ census can be dealt with if you’re willing to dig below the surface.

The belief that Jesus was miraculously conceived appears early in the church’s evangelistic message, and this doctrine quickly became central to the core of Christian confession as observed in the Apostle’s Creed.

The virgin birth challenges us. It forces us to ask not only what happened in history, but what kind of world we live in. As John the Evangelist wrote: the Word became flesh and dwelled (literally tabernacled) among us.

Jesus Christ is the Living Word, God-Incarnate, heaven’s highest love come down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IHnYL3xlw4

---

1 Michael Licona, Jesus, Contradicted: Why The Gospels Tell The Same Story Differently

2 Rhyne Putman, Conceived By the Holy Spirit

3 Richard Bauckham, The Christian World Around The New Testament

4 Richard Bauckham, The Christian World Around The New Testament

5 Rhyne Putman, Conceived By the Holy Spirit

6 Rhyne Putman, Conceived By the Holy Spirit