AN INQUIRY INTO THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE

Yet when we comeYet when we come to the Apostolic Scriptures and the Christology they teach, just the opposite is the case. Almost unanimously do they present a Christology that begins “from above.” Surely this is most obvious with Yachanan (John), whose Prologue to his Gospel describes the pre-existent Logos (Word) becoming flesh. He does not diminish the humanity of Yahushua in this, but rather makes clear that his starting point is “from above,” not “from below.” His Prologue begins describing the Word as already existing in the beginning, as having a relationship with Elohim while at the same time being Elohim (1:1). And the concluding verse of the Prologue (1:18) makes the same assertion: “The only one, himself Elohim, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made Elohim known.”²

The Epistle to the Hebrews follows the same pattern. There the author affirms the complete humanity of Yahushua: “Since the children have flesh and blood, He too shared in their humanity” (Hebrews 2:14). He “tasted death” (2:9) and was made perfect through suffering (2:10). Even more, He was subjected to the same temptations as we are (4:15) and therefore sympathizes with our weakness (5:8). But this is not where the author to the Hebrews begins his treatise. He begins with the statement that when Yahweh spoke through the Messiah, He did so through His Son (1:2) who is the heir of all things and the Creator of all things (1:2). The Son is the effulgence of the Father’s esteem and the express image of His being (1:3). And the author of Hebrews goes on to exclaim that as far as the highest beings in creation are concerned, the Son is infinitely superior. What messenger (messenger) was ever address by Yahweh as “Son?” And even more to the point, what messenger ever received the title Elohim (1:8)?

Shaul (Paul) follows the same pattern of a Christology that begins “from above.” In one of his earliest epistles, that written to the Galatians, he wrote: “But when the fullness of the time came, Eohim sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Torah….” In 2 Corinthians 8:9, Shaul does not describe Yahushua as moving from poverty to riches via the resurrection, but just the opposite: “For you know the grace of our Master Yahushua Messiah, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor….” And this same incarnational history, “from esteem to death to esteem again,” gleaned from Yahushua’s own words in Yachanan 17, marks the structure of the confessional hymn that Shaul incorporates into his epistle to the Philippians (2:5–11).

We might expect the Synoptic Gospels, in which we have the record of Yahushua’s birth and earthly life, to surely begin “from below” in their portrayal of the Messiah, but in fact they do not. Mark begins his Gospel: “The beginning of the gospel of Yahushua Messiah, the Son of Elohim.”³ Moreover, Mark immediately quotes from Malachi 3:1 and applies it to Yahushua. In the original context of Malachi’s prophecy, the words apply to “the Master” (הָאָדוֹן, haAdon) who “will suddenly come to His own Temple.”

Mark’s story of the Messiah also begins “from above.” But what of Mattithyahu (Matthew) and Luke? Do they follow this same motif, of beginning “from above” in their descriptions of the Messiah? Yes, they do, but in a special way: by incorporating the story of the virgin conception.⁴ Mattithyahu speaks of Miriam (Mary), betrothed to Yoseph (Joseph), being pregnant “before they had come together” (Mattithyahu 1:18). When Yoseph was made aware of Miriam’s pregnancy, he reacted as any pious man would—he determined to severe the betrothal contract, but to do so in a discrete manner in order to save Miriam public embarrassment. But then an heavenly messenger also appears to Yoseph, alerting him to the fact that “the child who has been conceived in her is of the Ruakh ha Qodesh (Holy Spirit)” (1:20). Mattithyahu goes on to relate that Yoseph took Miriam as his wife but “kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son” (1:25), the obvious meaning of which is that he had no sexual relations with her until after the birth of Yahushua. The words “until she gave birth to a son” likewise imply quite clearly that Yoseph and Miriam did have normal marital relations afterwards. Mattithyahu also relates an important fact regarding the naming of Yahushua: “and he (Yoseph) called His name Yahushua” (1:25). Yoseph’s naming Yahushua was an act of adoption, thus conferring upon Yahushua all the rights of legitimate sonship.⁵

Mattithyahu also connects the notice of the virgin conception to the words of Yeshayahu (Isaiah) 7:14, “Behold, a virgin (הָעַלְמָה, ha‘almah) will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel” (see Mattithyahu 1:23). The Hebrew word ‘almah does not necessitate the meaning “virgin” but has a wider sense of “a young, unmarried woman.” ‘Almah could, of course, include a virgin, as noted by the fact that Ribqah (Rebecca), Yitshaq's (Isaac) wife, is called an ‘almah (Genesis 24:43). Yet in reality the norm must have been that young, unmarried women in Yisra'el were virgins, for if they were not, severe consequences could result (see Deuteronomy 22:13ff). Surely the Lxx translators took ‘almah to mean “virgin,” for they translated it with parthenos which strongly implies virginity. It is interesting to note that every Greek version of the Tanakh translates ‘almah in Yeshayahu 7:14 with parthenos until the translation of Aquila (c. 130 CE) who changed parthenos to neanis, “young woman.” It is clear that Aquila’s translation was driven by a concern to deprive Beievers of a “proof text” in regard to the virgin conception of Yahushua, and this in itself proves that parthenos was widely understood to mean “virgin”.⁶ But regardless of the difficulties that the interpretation of Yeshayahu 7:14 presents,⁷ there is no question about Mattithyahu’s use of this text in his re-telling of the birth of Yahushua. Mattithyahu clearly understood the ‘almah of Yeshayahu to be a virgin, and that the prophecy looked forward to the conception and birth of Yahushua.

Luke’s account is essentially parallel to Mattithyahu’s except that more attention is given to the interchange between Miriam and the messenger, and the esteem of her Son is made more explicit: “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and Yahweh Elohim will give Him the throne of His father Dawid” (Luke 1:32). Yet a question arises as to Miriam’s response when told that she would conceive and bear a son. She responds: “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” The issue revolves around why Miriam would have thought that the conception would occur before she was finally married to Yoseph. As a betrothed woman, why did she not presume that the messenger’s promise would have been fulfilled after her legitimate marriage to her betrothed? To postulate that she had taken some kind of vow of perpetual virginity makes no sense - why then would she have entered into a betrothal with Yoseph? Nor does the text give any indication that the messenger’s notice affected the conception immediately. He simply says, “you will conceive….” Is it possible that Miriam’s response betrays her sudden state of bewilderment at the messenger’s appearance and the bombshell character of his message? We know that in other cases, people who were confronted by an messenger had difficulty comprehending the event. Zekaryah is said to have been “troubled” and gripped with fear (Luke 1:12). Yachanan (Revelation 22:9) mistakenly offers worship to his heavenly visitor. Kepha (Peter), on the Mount of Transfiguration, blurts out that three shelters should be built, when if he had thought more clearly, he probably would not have made that suggestion (Luke 9:33). So it is reasonable to think that Miriam, startled by the appearance of the messenger, must have thought it strange to be talking about children when she was not yet married.

Despite the questions that the birth narratives of Mattithyahu and Luke raise, one thing is unequivocal: they both present the conception of Yahushua as a miracle of creation performed by the Ruakh haQodesh upon Miriam. As such, the Gospel accounts of Yahushua’s life conform to the descriptions found in the Epistles, which present a Christology that begins “from above.” We actually should expect this to be the case since the Apostolic Scriptures were written after the resurrection of Yahushua. None of His disciples would have questioned His true humanity. They had walked with Him, eaten meals with Him, and shared the common aspects of life with Him. The questioning of His humanity awaited the rise of Gnosticism and its effect upon various segments of the emerging Church. Rather, what became amply clear to the Apostles following the resurrection of the Messiah was the full reality of His divine nature. As such, the descriptions found of Yahushua in the Apostolic Scriptures naturally begin “from above” and move to a Christology “from below.”

Secondly, it is well known and received that the Gospel stories relating the birth of Yahushua are found in those sections of the Apostolic Scriptures that evidence a strong Yahudi milieu, and that the earliest followers of Yahushua were themselves Yahudim with a strong connection to their Yahudi history and theology. Happily, in our day, the almost unanimous voice of Scriptural scholarship admits this without reservation. To postulate, then, that the birth narratives incorporate a piece from the most degrading aspects of polytheistic mythologies is likewise to presume that the Yahudaism out of which the Gospels were written had not only accepted such pagan notions but had done so in such a way as to make them normative. But this suggestion is preposterous since it runs contrary to everything we know of the early Yahudaisms.

Since the facts militate against any suggestion that early Yahudaisms had so easily incorporated pagan ideas of a virgin conception into their theologies, some have suggested that the idea of a virgin conception was actually latent in early Yahudi beliefs, based upon the birth stories of important figures (such as Yitshaq, Shemuel, and Shimshon), or the Father/Son language of texts such as 2 Shemuel 7 and Psalm 2. Support for this view is often sought from the writings of Philo, a hellenistic Yahudi philosopher roughly contemporary with Yahushua. With regard to the stories in the Tanakh in which barren women are given the ability to conceive, surely these demonstrate Yahweh’s ability to give children through miraculous means. But, for instance, in the case of Yitshaq, the paternity of Abraham is clearly stated (Genesis 25:19). And in the birth narratives of Shemuel and Shimshon, there is no indication whatsoever that the conception of either was apart from the means of normal procreation. Regarding the Father/Son texts of 2 Shemuel 7 and Psalm 2, these pertain not directly to a physical birth but to the coronation of a sovereign, utilizing well-known Ancient Near Eastern motifs describing the relationship of a Great Sovereign to his Vassal. And the same may be said of those texts which describe Yahweh as the Father of Yisra'el (for example, Exodus 4:22; Hosea 11:1). This metaphoric language describes the covenant relationship between Yahweh and His chosen people, for in this covenant Yahweh is viewed as the Great Sovereign and Yisra'el as His Vassal.

Secondly, we should not be surprised to find in our world the counterfeit of the real. Did not the magicians of Egypt, through their demonic arts, counterfeit the first signs given by Mosheh and Aharon to Pharaoh (Exodus 7–8)? Is not the deception of astrology based upon the very luminaries Yahweh created to reveal His own esteem? Are not all false religions manufactured in such a way so as to deceive by mimicking what only Yahweh Himself can do and provide? It should not surprise us, then, that the enemy would do all in his power to confound mankind by inducing the writers of pagan myths to lampoon the miracle of the incarnation in the most degrading fashion. But when the Gospel accounts are compared to those counterfeit fabrications, it is clear to any one of faith what is real and what is not; what is holy and what is profane.

THE VIRGIN CONCEPTION AND YAHUSHUA AS THE DAWIDIC MESSIAH
One of the arguments often raised against the Gospels’ record of the virgin conception is the question of Yahushua’s legitimate claim to Dawidic lineage. Since the Messiah is clearly prophesied to be from the house of Dawid,²⁶ anyone making a claim to be the Messiah would therefore need to be from that line. The virgin conception, some have maintained, makes it impossible for Yahushua to claim Dawidic lineage since such lineage came through one’s father. There are, however, a number of important answers to this line of reasoning.

It is possible that all of the descriptions apply to Miriam in this text: (1) virgin, (2) engaged to Yoseph, (3) of the descendants of Dawid, (4) named Miriam. But the fact that the term “virgin” is repeated in the final clause would strongly suggest that “of the descendants of Dawid” describes Yoseph, not Miriam. For if the phrase were descriptive of Miriam, then it would be more nature for the final clause to read “and her name was Miriam.” The addition of “virgin” is necessary since the former clause related to Yoseph. Thus, the argument that tribal lineage could be traced through the woman, true as it may be, most likely does not apply in the case of Yahushua.

Indeed, it is clearly the purpose of Mattithyahu to trace the lineage of Yahushua through Yoseph, for he begins with Yahushua as the “son of Dawid” and ends with Yoseph the husband of Miriam. The fact that Mattithyahu emphasizes three periods of 14 generations (1:17) may also signal his intent to show that Yahushua was in the line of Dawid, since 14 is the numerical equivalent of Dawid’s name.²⁹

This accords with the words of Luke 3:23, “When He began His ministry, Yahushua Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Yoseph….” The English word “supposed” gives the sense of something perceived but not true, and the Greek word nomizo which it translates can have this meaning. But the word can also describe what is generally held to be true or customary. We could just as well translate the phrase “he was, as commonly held, the son of Yoseph,”34 meaning that Yoseph was recognized by his community as the legal father of Yahushua. Thus, from a legal status, Yahushua was the rightful heir of Yoseph. And it is therefore in no way contrary to the message of the virgin conception that Miriam and Yoseph are called His parents.³⁵

Such a legal arrangement is by no means foreign to the Torah. In the laws of the Lewite, the children fathered by a deceased husband’s brother are reckoned as bona fide heirs of the deceased even though they did come from him through procreation. Likewise, the adoption of Ephrayim and Menashsheh by Ya'acob, through which they were granted the status of sons rather than grandsons and given their share in Ya'acob’s inheritance, illustrates the point that through legal declaration, a person may be granted all the rights and privileges of sonship even without direct physical generation from the father.

But there is an additional aspect of Yahushua’s relationship to Yoseph that we must mention. For though Yahushua was legally the adoptive son of Yoseph, He was so in a unique way. In normal adoptions, the child is actually the offspring of a human father and thus the “birth father” is distinguished from the “adoptive father.” Not so in the case of Yahushua. The only human father that could lay legal claim to Him as a father was Yoseph. And it would therefore be equally true that from an historical viewpoint, it could have only been through Yoseph that Yahushua could be reckoned as in the line of Dawid. Like Sovereign Dawid himself, who was granted the promise of an eternal dynasty not through lineage but by Yahweh’s sovereign choosing and appointment, so Yahushua was chosen and sent to be the fulfillment of that promise.

In fact, though the Gospels record that Yahushua was often called the “son of Dawid,”³⁶ they offer not one instance in which His detractors contest His Dawidic lineage. Surely those who wanted to disprove the claims of His Messiahship could have easily done so if His Dawidic lineage was openly suspect. That they did not, even at His final trial, fits the general tenor of the Gospels, namely, that Yahushua’s Dawidic connection was accepted within the Yahudi community of His day, even by those who were opposed to Him.³⁷

First, while it is evident that Shaul nowhere mentions the virgin conception directly, he clearly proffers a Messialogy that accords with the Gospel accounts, one in which the pre-existence of Yahushua is well affirmed. He writes in Galatians 4:4 that “Elohim sent forth His Son,” and in Philippians 2:6–11 he incorporates a confessional hymn that explicitly sets forth the eternal pre-existence of the Messiah before His appearance as a babe in Beth Lehem. In 2Corinthians 8:9 Paul portrays Messiah as “rich” yet becoming poor for the sake of those He would save. Surely the pre-existence of the Messiah and the virgin conception are two realities cut from the same theological cloth.

Secondly, Shaul’s epistles generally contain very little historical information about the life of Yahushua. He admits to having seen the Messiah (1 Corinthians 9:1) and receiving his apostolic office directly from Him (Galatians 1:12). The closest he comes to recounting an historical event of Yahushua’s life, however, is when he very briefly retells the story of His final Pesach. Yet even this, he says, was a truth handed on to him by others (1 Corinthians 11:23–24). He regularly speaks of Yahushua’s death and resurrection, sometimes adding His ascension and intercession (Romans 8:34), but he always focuses on the salvation accomplished by these momentous events rather than giving narrative descriptions. He never describes even one of Yahushua’s miracles, nor does he mention the wilderness temptation or the transfiguration, nor any of the other significant events we recorded about Yahushua in the Gospels. But then why would we expect him to? The very disciples of the Master, themselves eyewitnesses to these events, were still alive in Shaul’s day and were themselves engaged in recording Yahushua’s life and teachings. It would have been presumptuous for Shaul to think that he needed to supplement the writings of Mattithyahu or Yachanan when he had no first-hand knowledge of the events himself. Moreover, capable writers such as Mark and Luke, Shaul’s own associates, were busy collecting the testimony of the disciples and compiling them into the inspired texts we know as their Gospels. Rather than seeming odd, Shaul’s silence regarding the birth of Yahushua and the virgin conception is perfectly in line with the general character of his epistles. Demanding that Shaul speak of the virgin conception is to require of him something he never intended to do. He doubtlessly left this to others he deemed more qualified for the task.³⁸

We may well speculate that it was not until after the final events of Yahushua’s life; after Miriam’s soul was pierced by standing at the execution stake of her son; after the unspeakable joy in the victory of His resurrection and outpouring of the Ruakh haQodesh at Shavuot of that year, that Miriam realized it was time to speak. Now that the claims of Yahushua had been vindicated, rather than being fodder for wagging tongues the truth of the virgin conception of Yahushua would be understood in light of the corroborating events. Perhaps Miriam first confided in her closest friends, requiring some time for the story to find its way to the ears of the Apostles and other leaders of The Way. But when the story was finally told, there is no indication that it aroused any opposition from those who were already disciples of the Master.

Finally, an argument based upon the silence of Shaul really tells us nothing. While arguments from silence may at times help to solidify more substantive arguments, taken by itself it is very weak indeed. There is no reason to think that Shaul’s silence on the matter in anyway contradicts or controverts the clear message of the Gospels regarding the virgin conception.

Secondly, the virgin conception, as noted in the opening of this article, emphasizes a Christology that begins “from above.” Far from explaining the mystery of the incarnation, however, the virgin conception introduces and confirms its inexplicable nature. It does so by signaling that the “Man Messiah Yahushua” (1 Timothy 5:2) did not have His beginning in the womb of Miriam. That which was formed in her by the creative power of the Ruakh was none other than the eternal Son of Elohim. Yeshayahu’s promise of a “sign” is therefore powerfully fulfilled in the historical fact of the virgin conception, and regardless of the difficulties that Yeshayahu 7:14 presents to the modern exegete,⁴⁰ in Mattithyahu’s mind it foretold the stupendous miracle that would mark Yahushua as uniquely different than anyone else born within earth’s history.

This is precisely Mark’s point when he records the words of the messenger to Miriam (Lk 1:35):

Thus, the miraculous conception was to signal that the Child would be at once human and the “Son of Elohim,” that He is El with us (Immanuel, Yeshayahu 7:14), Miraculous One who Counsels (pele’ yo’eitz), El who is Victor (El gibor), Owner of Eternity (avi-yad), Prince of Peace (sar shalom) (Yeshayahu 9:6[5]).