Virgin birth in gospels

**Jeffinator** · May 9th 2010, 04:12 AM

Why isn't the virgin birth mentioned in all the gospels? Seems pretty important for something to just leave out.

**Laish** · May 9th 2010, 05:12 AM

Interesting question I never thought about it my self . I would not want to say much without doing some research .Where I would look first is that maybe each Gospel had a target audience or was written from a particular prospective, an that the virgin birth (although important ) would not have any meaning for a particular Gospel audience.
Just a thought
Your brother in Christ
Bill

***markedward*** · May 9th 2010, 06:03 PM

It's left out of a couple of gospels (Mark and John) for the same reason that all of the gospels contain a few unique looks at the life of Jesus.

Only the gospel of John records the resurrection of Lazarus, and the issue of "doubting" Thomas. These seem "pretty important", but we don't find them in the other gospels. The reason is simply that those details were not contextually relevant to the overarching theme of each gospel, and to the audience that was receiving it at that time in the Church's history (when the gospels were not yet gathered together).

***Firefighter*** · May 9th 2010, 07:13 PM

I don't get it...

Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Conceived of the Holy Spirit means that there was no earthly father... hence a virgin birth.

**David Taylor** · May 10th 2010, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by Jeffinator

Why isn't the virgin birth mentioned in all the gospels? Seems pretty important for something to just leave out.

Here it is in the Gospel of Matthew....not sure how you missed it there.

(virgin parts highlighted in blue)

Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

Luke 1:26 "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. "

So the virgin birth is mentioned in the gospels...quite prominently in the Nativity Narration.

As for the other two gospels of Mark and John; they both begin at the point in time when Jesus is already a grown adult, and beginning His ministry. Neither of them re-tell the nativity story; therefore no 'virgin' birth mention needed.

**Jeffinator** · May 10th 2010, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by David Taylor

Here it is in the Gospel of Matthew....not sure how you missed it there.

(virgin parts highlighted in blue)

Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

Luke 1:26 "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. "

So the virgin birth is mentioned in the gospels...quite prominently in the Nativity Narration.

As for the other two gospels of Mark and John; they both begin at the point in time when Jesus is already a grown adult, and beginning His ministry. Neither of them re-tell the nativity story; therefore no 'virgin' birth mention needed.

My point was why it wasnt mentioned in Mark and John. Each Gospel is their own perspective and I was wondering why they would leave such an important detail like the virgin birth out.

***Athanasius*** · May 10th 2010, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by Jeffinator

My point was why it wasnt mentioned in Mark and John. Each Gospel is their own perspective and I was wondering why they would leave such an important detail like the virgin birth out.

As was said above, because the virgin birth wouldn't have suited the purposes of Mark and John in reaching their audience.

**Calypsis4** · May 10th 2010, 10:29 PM

So the virgin birth is mentioned in the gospels...quite prominently in the Nativity Narration.

As for the other two gospels of Mark and John; they both begin at the point in time when Jesus is already a grown adult, and beginning His ministry. Neither of them re-tell the nativity story; therefore no 'virgin' birth mention needed.

I agree. But why the Holy Spirit chose to reveal it this way is anyone's guess. I only know that He can't be second guessed. There are eternal reasons that are above all of us.

**BroRog** · May 11th 2010, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by Jeffinator

Why isn't the virgin birth mentioned in all the gospels? Seems pretty important for something to just leave out.

With regard to John's gospel, I think it's conceivable that John assumed most people had access to the other Gospels when he set out to write his. John was writing to second generation believers, who became believers after their parents did. His project was to layout the reasons why someone, especially someone not alive at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry, should believe that Jesus is the Messiah. In addition, almost half of his gospel lays the foundation for Apostolic authority, which seemed to be in question at the time.

**genealogist** · May 11th 2010, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by Jeffinator

My point was why it wasnt mentioned in Mark and John. Each Gospel is their own perspective and I was wondering why they would leave such an important detail like the virgin birth out.

Looks like you need the genealogist to answer this one.

The Virgin birth is mentioned in Matthew and Luke because those are the only two gospels that have genealogies in them. The virgin birth would be mentioned in connection with them (explained shortly). The genealogy in Matthew is Jesus' legal, royal lineage thru Joseph. The genealogy of Luke is Jesus' genealogy thru Mary. Skeptics claim that the two contradict because Luke's genealogy says that Joseph is the son of Heli (whereas he is son of Jacob in Matthew). But the verse in Luke that says:

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli

Is effectively saying this (to clarify it more):

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, [Jesus] being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, [but in fact Jesus] was the son of Heli

The "which" is referring to Jesus, not Joseph because the mention of Joseph is parenthetical implying that he was not in that genealogy. Grandsons were also considered sons (and Mary's name was simply skipped).

Now, why the mention of the virgin birth associated with genealogies?

Back in Jeremiah 22:30 a curse was pronounced on (Je)Coniah. No Messiah could have this now breached lineage recorded in Matthew, but one who has legals ties to this line from another line (i.e. from Nathan, the son of David in Luke) could repair this breach, which although cursed was still the rightful lineage, at least to be repaired. This is why you hear of "branch" prophecies concerning Jesus all over the OT. This speaks of another genealogical lineage also from the house of David.

Anyone who denies the virgin birth unwittingly places this curse on Jesus, and thus severely limits the power and purity of the supposed Messiah.

***markedward*** · May 11th 2010, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by genealogist

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli

Is effectively saying this (to clarify it more):

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, [Jesus] being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, [but in fact Jesus] was the son of Heli

The "which" is referring to Jesus, not Joseph because the mention of Joseph is parenthetical implying that he was not in that genealogy. Grandsons were also considered sons (and Mary's name was simply skipped).

This is a major amount of speculation...

**genealogist** · May 11th 2010, 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by markedward

This is a major amount of speculation...

To which if we ascribe the word "which" to Joseph is equally speculative.

***Ryan R*** · May 11th 2010, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by genealogist

To which if we ascribe the word "which" to Joseph is equally speculative.

Hey, I've got a question for you about yoru opinion on how the OT and NT genealogies line up... if I start another thread in this forum on that will you meet me there?

**David Taylor** · May 12th 2010, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Jeffinator

My point was why it wasnt mentioned in Mark and John. Each Gospel is their own perspective and I was wondering why they would leave such an important detail like the virgin birth out.

The didn't leave out an importaint detail like the virgin birth.

They (Mark and John) chose to focus on the adulthood of Jesus; and not discuss his nativity, because Luke and Matthew were covering that.

Why did Luke alone choose to discuss and event as important as what happened at Pentecost? Surely Peter or John or James or Jude could have also discussed it in their epistles also....but they talked about other things.

Nothing problematic at all about 2 of the gospel writers not mentioning the virgin birth or the nativity story. They had Isaiah, Micah, Matthew, and Luke duing a very fine and sufficient job of handling it!

**David Taylor** · May 12th 2010, 06:45 PM

BTW....John did mention the birth of Jesus indirectly and in summary.

He did mention his birth in the gospel of John, when speaking to Pilate....and earlier showed that he came from God in Heaven, which tells us his birth even from John's account was special and unusually, even though John omitted the details.

John 8:42 "I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. "
John 3:31 "He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all."
John 8:23 "And Jesus said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world."
John 18:37 "Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."

He indirectly mentioned in in his 1st John Epistle.

I John 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, [that] which we have heard, [that] which we have seen with our eyes, [that] which we have looked upon, and [that] our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and [that] we have seen it, and [that] bear witness, and [that] shew unto you that eternal life, [that] which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us,) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."

I John showing the Jesus Christ came from the Father, not joseph his adoptive earthly father. An indirect reference to virgin birth.

And John directly mentioned Jesus' birth in his Revelation writings.

Revelation 12:1 "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. "

This birth could only be speaking of Jesus. John wasn't as detailed as Matthew and Luke; but John was far from silent on Jesus birth and His unique origination.