1. Selective Bibliography
2. Introduction
3. Jesus as Born in Bethlehem
4. Jesus from the Line of David
   4.1. Jesus' Davidic Descent in Matthew and Luke
   4.2. Davidic Descent as a Qualification for Being the Messiah
5. Jesus as Born of a Virgin
   5.1. Matthew and Luke
      5.1.1. Luke 1:35
      5.1.2. Matt 1:20
   5.2. The Use of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew and the Discontinuity of Jesus' Virginal Birth With Jewish Expectation
   5.3. The Pre-Existence of the Messiah
      5.3.1. 1 Enoch 48:6-7
      5.3.2. 1 Enoch 62:7-9
   5.4. The Son of God
6. Jesus as One Who Will Save his People from their Sins

1. Selective Bibliography

G. Benson, "Virgin Birth, Virgin Conception," ExT 98 (1987) 139-40; G. Bostock, Divine Birth, Human Conception," ExT 98 (1987) 331-33; id., "Virgin Birth or Human Conception," ExT 97 (1986) 260-63; G.H. Box, The Virgin Birth of Jesus (London: Pitman, 1916); R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1977); J. Carmignac, "The Meaning of Parthenos in Luke 1:24: A Reply to C.H. Dodd," BT 28 (3, 1977) 324-30; C. Cranfield, "Some Reflections on the Subject of the Virgin Birth," SJT 41 (1988) 177-89; C.H. Dodd, "New Testament Translation Problems I," BibTrans 27 (1976) 301-11; A. Feuillet, Jesus and His Mother according to the Lukan Infancy Narratives, 1984); R.T. France, "Scripture, Tradition and History in the Infancy Narratives of Matthew," in Gospel Perspectives , 2: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, eds. R.T. France and D. Wenham ,201-37; H. Hendrickx, The Infancy Narratives, 1984; J. Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ, 1930); J. McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament, 1975.

2. Introduction

Information on Jesus' birth comes to us principally from material unique to Matthew or Luke. The Matthean and Lukan birth narratives are literarily independent: Matthew's account is told from Joseph's perspective, whereas Luke's account is from that of Mary. It should be noted that it is the majority position among Jesus researchers that neither account of Jesus' birth is historically reliable. In particular, that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary is dismissed as unhistorical, being the result of the influence of the Hellenistic ideas of the miraculous birth of a hero. The same objection was made by Tryphon to Justin Martyr in the second century, long before the modern period (see below). The fact that there are no other references to it in the New Testament leads many scholars to conclude that the idea of Jesus' virginal conception is later Christological reflection; the aim was to portray Jesus as a divine man. But such a position is an extreme attempt to eliminate the idea of the virgin birth from the gospels and is methodologically excluded on the assumption of the authority of scripture (see the much earlier refutations of such an idea by Tertullian, Apology 15, 21; Origen, Contra Celsum 1.37). The authors of Matthew and Luke probably had access to a Palestinian Jewish source or sources in which these traditions about Jesus' birth were found. It seems that it was a relatively esoteric tradition, which would account for the fact that Jesus' virginal birth is not mentioned in other New Testament texts.
 

3. Jesus as Born in Bethlehem

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, called the city of David (Matt 2:1-6; Luke 2:1-20). Since he went there to be registered, Joseph was probably a permanent resident of Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-5). Matthew makes it explicit that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem is in literal fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy found in Micah 5:2: "But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel." Targum Jonathan likewise interprets this text as predicting the birth of the Davidic Messiah in Bethlehem: "And you Bethlehem-Ephrathah who are too little to be counted among the thousands of the house of Judah, from you in my name shall come forth the anointed one [Messiah] who is to be ruler in Israel and whose name has been called from eternity, from the days of old." Surprisingly, Micah 5:2 is not interpreted messianically in extant second-Temple Jewish texts, which may be simply an accident of history.

    Because he grew up in Nazareth in Galilee, Jesus' qualifications to be the Messiah were questioned; apparently some not only expected Jesus to have been born in Bethlehem but to have grown up there also. This text confirms the popular belief that the Davidic Messiah would be born in Bethlehem; no doubt Micah 5:2 stood behind this expectation..

Question

Why is it significant that Jesus was born in Bethlehem?

 

Source

Church of the Nativity The Church of the Nativity was built on the site in Bethlehem traditionally thought to be the place where Jesus was born, in a cave on the eastern edge of the city. The emperor Constantine built the church in 326, and it was rebuilt by the emperor Justinian about two centuries later.

4.  Jesus from the Line of David

4.1. Jesus' Davidic Descent in Matthew and Luke

4.1.1. In both Matthew and Luke there is a stress on the Davidic descent of Jesus through Joseph (Matt 1:20; Luke 1:27; see Luke 2:4). There are two genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-37), which differ markedly. Why the two genealogies differ so radically after David has puzzled interpreters from the beginning. A common explanation is that Matthew gives Joseph's genealogy, whereas Luke gives Mary's; it is postulated that the reason that Joseph is listed as Jesus' father in Luke is because legally Joseph took over Mary's father's inheritance, since Mary had no brother. But this is no more than a hypothesis.

4.1.2. In Luke 1:32-33 the angel Gabriel tells Mary that Jesus will rule over the house of his father David forever, and his kingdom will never end. If Luke means that Jesus is a descendent of David through Mary, this supports the explanation that the genealogies differ because Luke gives Mary's genealogy.

Quirinius Luke dates Jesus' birth to the time when Caesar Augustus had decreed that the whole world be registered (apographesthai), which (Publius Sulpicius) Quirinius carried out when he "was governor of Syria" (hêgemoneuontos tês Surias) (Luke 2:1-2; see Luke 3:1). Based on Luke 1:5, by implication, Herod the Great was still alive. The historical problem is that there is no other evidence apart from Luke's statement of such a census; in fact, it is difficult to integrate what Luke says about Quirinius with what is known about his career from other sources. Josephus records that in 6 Quirinius was sent by Caesar Augustus to serve as the legatus of Syria (Josephus' term dikaiodotês is the Greek equivalent of the Latin legatus); part of his task was to undertake an assessment (timêtês) of the property of the population of Judea after the deposition of Archaleus, the son of Herod the Great. (Coponius was also sent to function to rule over Judea, functioning a procurator or praefectus under the authority of Quirnius.) (Ant. 17.355; 18.1-2). That this assessment extended beyond Judea is proven by an inscription in which Aemilius Secundus records that he took a census in Apamea (in Syria) on the orders of Quirninius (CIL III 6687). It was this assessment of property for the purpose of taxation that led Judas the Galilean to lead a popular rebellion against Rome (Ant. 18.1-2; Acts 5:37). It has been suggested that Luke wrongly retrojected this assessement of property in 6/7 into the time when Herod the Great was still alive and the time of Jesus' birth. (Herod the Great died in 4 BCE.) This was the reason that Joseph and Mary had to travel to Bethlehem. This conclusion, however, is not necessary. In fact, prima facie, it seems unlikely that Luke would make such a chronological blunder.    Two viable explanations for this apparent chronological difficulty have been offered. First, it is possible that Luke's statement in that Luke 2:2 should be translated as "This registration occurred before Quirinius was in charge of Syria." The word prôtê ("first") can sometime be used in the sense of protera, the comparative of prôtê, meaning "former" or "prior" (see Acts 1:1; John 1:15, 30; 15:18). In this case, the phrase hêgemoneuontos tês Surias ("Quirinius was in charge") would be a genitive of comparison. If this is what he intended, all that Luke is saying is that a registration was conducted by the decree of Augustus before the better known assessment of property undertaken by Quirinius in 6/7. Grammatically, this is possible, but not probable, since it is most natural to take the participle as a genitive absolute: "when Quirinius was in charge of Syria." Second, an attempt have been made to find a previous appointment of Quirinius as legatus that would enable him to oversee the registration mentioned in Luke 2:2. Quirinius was consul in 12 BCE and led military campaign against the Homanadenses of Asia Minor near Galatia (Tacitus, Ann. 3.48). The partially preserved inscription known as the lapis tiburtinus refers to a certain legatus (the name has not been preserved): "pro-praetorial legatus of Divus Augustus, he received again Syria and Phoenicia" ([legatus pro praetore] divi Augusti iterum Syriam et Pho[enicen optinuit]) (CIL XIV, 3613). Ramsay argues that this inscription probably refers to Quirinius, which may mean that Quirinius was twice legatus of Syria (Was Christ Born in Bethlehem?). (This assumes that the Latin word iterum ["again"] modifies the verb optinuit "received," which is a possible interpretation.) It is Ramsey's hypothesis that Quirinius received a imperium maius (greater jurisdiction) during the time of the Homanadensian campaign, so that at the time he exercised power along with the actual legatus of Syria, S. Sentius Saturninus (9-6 BCE). It was during this time that, as legatus, Quirinius received orders to undertake the registration. This possibility finds support in the strange reference in Tertullian that Jesus' birth took place under the legate Saturninus (Adv. Marc. 4.19.10). At the time of the birth of Jesus, both Quirinius and Saturninus were legati of Syria. Although it would have been unusual, the Romans undertook a registration of the population while Herod the Great was still king as opposed to after his death. This registration is otherwise unknown: Luke alone, among ancient authors, testifies to this official event. (Based on papyrus evidence alone, it has been determined that the Romans took a registration of the province of Egypt every fourteen years [OxyP 2.254, 255, 256].)

4.2. Davidic Descent as a Qualification for Being the Messiah

Jesus' Davidic descent qualifies him in part to be the expected eschatological king from David's line, the Davidic Messiah. Various passages in the Old Testament, often set in the context of Israel's disobedience and (possible) exile, speak of a time in the future when God would perform a decisive and irreversible saving act for Israel. In many of these Old Testament passages this act is associated with a single individual, a king from the line of David; he would be the instrument through which God would bring about this salvation.

    The hope of a Davidic Messiah persists into the second-Temple period. In some second-Temple texts, an eschatological hope is expressed without reference to the appearance of an eschatological Davidic king (see Tobit 13, 14; Sir. 35.11; 48.10; Jub. 1.15-18, 22-25; 23.14-31; 50.5; T. Moses 1.18; 5/7-10; 1 Enoch 1-5; 83-90; 93.1-10 / 91.11-17). Scholars have interpreted this as implying that in some historical periods, at least, Jews believed that the coming of the eschaton was independent of this ideal Davidic king. (How they could ignore such obvious references to this Davidic king in the prophets is not clear.) However one explains the absence of a messianic hope in some texts, in many other texts from the second-Temple period, the biblical hope of the apearance of an eschatological Davidic king is very much alive.

Source

Cave Four at Qumran Cave four at Qumran was discovered in 1953, and contained the largest number of text of all the caves, the remains of more than 800 manuscripts. Unfortunately, many of the texts were in very poor condition. This is because many of them were originally deposited on the floor of the cave, and not in protective clay jars.

    It is interesting to note that Eusebius relates that the emperors Vespasian (H.E. 3.12), Domitian (H.E. 3.19-20), and Trajan (H.E. 32.3-4) persecuted those of Davidic descent in an effort to curtail Messianic activity among Jews. What can be inferred from this is that the idea of the Messiah being of Davidic descent was so widespread that even the Romans knew of it.

Question

Why is it significant that Jesus was born of Davidic descent?

 

5. Jesus as Born of a Virgin

5.1. Matthew and Luke

Jesus is commonly known as the son of Joseph (see Matt 13:55 "the carpenter's son"; Luke 4:22 "Is this not the son of Joseph?"; John 1:45 "Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth"; John 6:42 "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph?"). Similarly, Joseph and Mary are referred to as Jesus' parents (goneis) (Luke 2:27, 41, 43). Once Mary is quoted as saying to Jesus, "Your father and I have been anxiously looking for you." (Luke 2:48). Nevertheless, it is clear that according to the Matthean and Luke birth narratives, Joseph was not Jesus' biological father. Although Matthew and Luke speak about Jesus as from the line of David in accordance with Old Testament messianic predictions and second-Temple expectation, Jesus is of Davidic descent only through his mother, Mary and/or by means of being adopted by Joseph. This is because in both sources it is also clear that the birth is virginal: Mary conceives by the Holy Spirit.

5.1.1. Luke 1:35

In Luke's account, the angel explains that "holy spirit will come upon you" (pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se) (This is lingusitically parallel to the eschatological promise in Isa 32:15 "Until the spirit comes upon us from on high"). In synthetic parallelism, it is also said that "The power of the Most High will overshadow you" (dunamis hupsistou epikiasei soi) (This reminiscent of Exod 40:35: "Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud had overshadowed it, and the glory of Yahweh filled the tabernacle"). The use of the "holy spirit" without the article and its situation in synthetic parallelism with "the power of the Most High" implies that holy spirit is thought of as the power of God. Based on the common messianic interpretation of 2 Sam 7:14, the first reference to Mary’s child as “son of the Most High” would be understood to be a synonym for the Davidic Messiah; this is reinforced by the fact that immediately afterwards, it is said that Mary’s son would be given the kingdom of his father David. But the reference to Mary’s son as son of God in Luke 1:35 has a different basis. The reason that Mary's son is holy and called son of God is because of his divine origin, which implies that for Jesus to be son of God means more than just being the Davidic Messiah.

5.1.2. Matt 1:20

5.2. The Use of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew and the Discontinuity of Jesus' Virginal Birth With Jewish Expectation

The tradition preserved in Matt 1:22-23 connects Jesus' virgin birth with Isa 7:14; the gospel writer sees this passage as a Messianic prediction. Unlike the Old Testament's prediction of the Messiah's Davidic origin and his birth in Bethlehem, however, this is not so obvious to the impartial interpreter; it is what we can call a hidden prophecy or a pesher-type interpretation.

Isa 7:10 Again Yahweh spoke to Ahaz, 11 "Ask Yahweh your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights."  12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask; I will not put Yahweh to the test." 13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men?  Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 Yahweh will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah--he will bring the king of Assyria."

Matthew 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:  23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" (Isa 7:14)—which means, "God with us."

In Isa 7:14 Isaiah says to Ahaz that God would give him a sign: the virgin (LXX: ho parthenos; MT: ha-'almah) will give birth to a son, and will call his name Emmanuel; before that child knows the difference between right and wrong the two kings that Ahaz fears—king Rezin of Aram (Damascus) and king Pekah, son of Remaliah, of Israel (Samaria)—will no longer be a threat to him (see 2 Kgs 16:1-10). The author of Matthew finds a further meaning for this passage: it is predictive of the virgin birth of Jesus, who is born of a "virgin" (parthenos) and is named appropriately Emmanuel, "God with us." In other words, he interprets Isa 7:14 in pesher fashion, finding a second, eschatological meaning for this text. Matthew or the tradition that he is using is handling the Old Testament in the way that the Qumran exegetes (and no doubt other Jews) did: new fulfillments of Old Testament prophecies that have already been fulfilled are uncovered. In fact, if he were citing the Hebrew text, the author's interpretation would not be as possible, since the Hebrew 'almah means "young woman" but not necessarily "virgin," as the Greek term parthenos does. (The Hebrew word for virgin is bethulah, which is usually translated as parthenos in the LXX. But see Gen 24:43 where 'almah is also translated as parthenos.) But this sort interpretation of the Old Testament occurs throughout the Matthean birth narrative. Now this way of interpreting the Old Testament may be odd to us, but it was not in first-century Palestine. (See, for example, the interpretation of Ezek 44:15 in the Qumran text known as Damascus Document [CD  3.18-4.4].)

Tryphon objects that the interpretation of Isa 7:14 as referring to the virgin birth of the Messiah is invalid. He claims that this is a Greek influence on the christology of the early church. Justin reports that Tryphon said, "The Scripture has not, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and so on, as you quoted. But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah [son of Ahaz], and it is proved that it was fulfilled in him, according to the terms of this prophecy. Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather [should] say that this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ, [it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks" (Justin, Dial. Tryph. 67).

    One does not find the idea that the Messiah would be born of a virgin through the power of God (or the Holy Spirit), and by virtue of this action be the son of God, in the surviving second-Temple Jewish literature. The idea of the Messiah's virginal origin is discontinuous with Jewish messianic expectation; it appears to be unique to the New Testament. According to the rabbi Tryphon, the interlocutor of Justin Martyr, the Messiah will be "a man born of man" (anthrôpos ex anthrôpôn genêsetai) (Dial. Tryph. 68); Trypho probably represents the dominant Jewish view about the origin and nature of the Messiah. (Philo of Alexandria, however, does make reference to the belief prevalent in his day that women can be impregnated by spirits and gods [Cher. 43-52]; see also Aeschylus Suppl. 17-19; Plutarch, Ser. Num. Pun. 4; Mor. 9.114-19. But such a view is expressed in relation to the birth of the Messiah.) Most scholars account for its emergence as resulting from the influence of the Hellenistic idea of the "divine man" (theios anêr) on early christological reflection. The divine man is a man with divinely-given supernatural abilities. Interestingly, Cranfield has argued that because the expectation that the Messiah would be born of a virgin is not part of Jewish expectation, there must be some basis in history for the emergence of this belief ("Some reflections of the Subject of the Virgin Birth," SJT 41 (1988) 177-89).

Matthew interprets the fact that Joseph took Jesus and Mary from Egypt to Nazareth in Galilee to be a fulfilment of scripture: "This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: 'He shall be called a Nazarene' (Nazôraios)" (2:23). It is not clear which scriptural passages the author has in mind. It is probable, however, that he sees Jesus' adopted hometown, Nazareth, as significant because it sounds like the Hebrew word netzer, which is what the Davidic Messiah is called in Isa 11:1: "Then a shoot (chôter) will spring from the stump of Jesse, and a branch (netzer) from his roots will bear fruit." It is appropriate that the netzer should be from Nazaret. (Only a reader with some familiarity with Hebrew would appreciate this assonance.) Since the author applies Isa 7:14 to Jesus in a pesher-type of interpretation, it is conceivable that he would interpret Isa 11:1 in a similar manner.

5.3.  Pre-Existence

There is one strand of second-Temple expectation that is at least compatible with the idea of the virginal birth of the eschatological Davidic king (Messiah). In this regard, one should look at John 7:25-27: there were those who apparently believed that the origins of the Messiah would be unknown, and, since they knew where Jesus was from, they rejected him as the Messiah. The notion that the Messiah's origins are unknown seems to be a reflection of the view of the pre-existence of the Messiah who appears suddenly in human history from the presence of God; this is perhaps based on a messianic interpretation of "one like a son of man" in Dan 7:13-14, and is evidenced in the Similitudes of 1 Enoch (48:1-7; 62:7-10) (which may or may not be post-Christian) (see below) as well as the post-Christian texts of 4 Ezra 7:28; 13:1-58 (see 13:32) and 2 Baruch 29:3-4. This understanding of the Messiah is the closest to that of a Messiah of virginal birth: how the pre-existent Messiah enters human history is not stated explicitly, but conceivably it could be through being born of a virgin.

5.3.1. 1 Enoch 48:6-7

By virtue of being conceived by the Holy Spirit, Jesus is to be called the son of God: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, so the holy one to be born will be called the son of God" (Luke 1:35). The term "son of God" is used in second-Temple sources as a synonym for the Davidic Messiah, a practice that originated in the messianic interpretation of Old Testament texts by Jews of the second-Temple period (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7) (see Son of God). A question that must be raised concerns the significance of the angel's calling Jesus son of God by virtue of his virgin birth. Is Jesus the son of God because he is to be the Davidic Messiah or is he the son of God because he is conceived by the Holy Spirit? If the latter, then how Jesus differs from other humans being so that he can be called the "son of God" requires explanation.

6. Jesus as One Who Will Save his People from their Sins

Question

What does Jesus' name indicate about what he is destined to do?

 

BACK TO INDEX PAGE