Why the Virgin Birth?

Why is it so important that Jesus was born of a virgin? Why couldn't Joseph be his biological father?

There have been many theological reasons put forth. But here's one that you might not know.

"Is this man Coniah a despised, broken idol--a vessel in which is no pleasure? Why are they cast out, he and his descendants, and cast into a land which they do not know? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD! Thus says the LORD: 'Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days; for none of his descendants shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah.'" (Jeremiah 22:28-30, NKJV)

What does this have to do with the virgin birth? Read further.

"The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham: Abraham begot Isaac... Jesse begot David the king. David the king begot Solomon... Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers... Jeconiah begot Shealtiel... Matthan begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:1-16, NKJV)

Why the genealogies? When genealogies are in the Bible, there is a reason. Nothing in God's Word is there by accident, or mistake; nor is it superfluous. God's Word was written by men as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21). It's all intentional and purposeful. This genealogy in Matthew traces Jesus through his adoptive father, Joseph. We see that one of Joseph's ancestors is King David, through the line of Solomon and Jeconiah. How does this connect to the other passage I quoted earlier about Coniah? It connects because Jeconiah and Coniah are the same person! And we see a curse by God put upon Coniah declaring that none of his descendants would sit on the throne of David! But isn't the Messiah supposed to rule from David's throne?

Uh-oh. Now we have a problem. Jesus can't rule on David's throne if He is descended from Joseph. Either Jesus is not the Messiah, or He isn't a descendant of Joseph. The virgin birth solves this problem, because Jesus isn't a descendant of Joseph. But then how can he legally inherit the throne? Through adoption as Joseph's first son, with Joseph being a descendant of David through the royal line of Solomon. But according to Old Testament prophecy, the Messiah is supposed to be a biological descendant of David too. How is this solved? Keep reading.

"Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli... the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse... the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham... the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." (Luke 3:23-38)

Here's another genealogy showing Jesus also descending from Joseph, but in this genealogy, Joseph is a descendant of Heli. Now we've got another problem. The two genealogies don't match. Some would claim this is a contradiction. But not so. This is the genealogy of Jesus through His mother, Mary. Heli is Mary's father. Joseph is Heli's son-in-law. Just as it is the case today, so it was the case 2000 years ago that sons and daughters-in-law were often just referred to as sons and daughters. Besides that, it was common for genealogies to be traced through males only throughout many ancient societies. And besides that, Luke, the author here, being a physician by training (Colossians 4:14), would have most likely been interested in physical, or biological, ancestry. So in this case, the son-in-law Joseph is inserted into the genealogy in place of his wife, Mary, the daughter of Heli. Joseph, Jesus' adoptive father, is the son-in-law of Heli, Jesus' biological grandfather and father of Mary, Jesus' biological mother. Heli himself is a biological descendant of King David through Nathan, a different son. So Jesus is a biological descendant of David through Mary through Nathan, and a legal, adopted descendant and heir through Joseph through Solomon. Jesus is the Messiah. This is a beautiful fulfillment of prophecy.

So we see here one of the reasons that the virgin birth is important. If Jesus were a physical descendant of Joseph, he would not be eligible to sit on David's throne due to the curse of God placed upon the lineage of Jeconiah. But Jesus is not a physical descendant of Joseph. He is a physical descendant of Mary, and has a biological connection to David through her. He is an adopted son of Joseph and has legal claim to David's throne through him.

As an aside, we have seen the genealogies of Jesus in two of the four Gospels. Matthew's is through Joseph through adoption. Luke's is through Mary through birth. Do the other Gospels have genealogies? John does, although it is often overlooked. Mark also does, although not much time is spent on it. The Gospel of Matthew contains a theme portraying Jesus, the Messiah, as the King of Israel. So it makes sense that Matthew would include a legal genealogy showing inheritance through adoption through Joseph, a descendant of the royal Davidic line through Solomon. Matthew's genealogy also begins with Abraham, the first Hebrew and father of the Nation of Israel. The Gospel of Luke contains a theme portraying Jesus as the Son of Man. So it makes sense that Luke would include a biological genealogy showing physical lineage through Mary, a descendent of the physical Davidic line through Nathan. Luke's genealogy also begins with Adam, the first human and father of all humanity (Biblically speaking). The Gospel of John contains a theme portraying Jesus as the Son of God. John chapter 1 describes the Trinity, or triune Godhead, and the pre-existence of the Word, or God the Son (Jesus), with God the Father, before the creation of all things. This is an often overlooked "genealogy" if you will. The Gospel of Mark contains a theme portraying Jesus as the suffering Servant. Mark doesn't spend time on a genealogy, because genealogies for servants were of little importance in the ancient world. Despite that, Mark 1:1 does refer to Jesus as "the Son of God."

For the intellectually astute, I want to address three considerations here. First, I do not claim that any of this biologically proves the virgin birth. I really don't have any way to prove such a thing, as these people lived 2000 years ago, and there is no currently known scientific precedent for human virgin conception. Nor do I claim that any of this logically proves the virgin birth. Just because the virgin birth solves the problem of the curse on Jeconiah, the problem of the curse does not prove that Jesus was born of a virgin. Third, my explanation of the two genealogies does not prove an absence of contradiction. I have explained away what some claim is a contradiction. But having no proof that my explanation is accurate (Luke is not alive to explain that he substituted Joseph for Mary in his genealogy, nor are there other writings attributable to him that do so), those who would still claim that contradiction exists could assert that I have played intellectual gymnastics to explain it away. But I submit that my explanation is rational, and just as I have no proof for it, there is no proof against it. The Greek word used for "son" relating Jesus to Joseph in Luke's genealogy (Luke 3:23) is "huios." It does not specifically mean son-in-law, but it does not specifically mean not son-in-law.

I hope you enjoyed this, or at least found it interesting. If you want to know more about Jesus, or His role as Messiah, please check out my other writings. Thanks for reading!

Grace and peace to you.