The Illegitimacy of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew

Robert J. Miller
(January 22, 2008 Bookend Seminar)

T wo of the gospels in the New Testament, Matthew and Luke, start with the story of
Jesus’ birth, a subject on which the rest of the New Testament is silent. Matthew
and Luke both contain a scene in which an angel announces the birth of Jesus to one of his
parents; in Matthew the announcement is made to Joseph, in Luke to Mary. The concern of
this essay is the scene in Matthew, but we need to be familiar with both scenes to follow the
discussion. The two scenes are quite different and each one needs to be understood in its
particularity. Please note the italicized Greek words, as these will be crucial to the argument
in this essay.
Th e B irt h A n n ou n cem en t t o Mary
( L u ke 1:26-35 NRS )
The angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town in Galilee called
Nazareth, to a girl (parthenos) betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house
of David. The girl’s name was Mary. He entered and said to her, “Greetings,
favored one! The Lord be with you.”
But she was deeply disturbed by these words, and wondered what this
greeting could mean.
The angel said to her, “Don’t be afraid, Mary. You see, you have found
favor with God. Listen to me: you will conceive in your womb and give birth
to a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called son
of the Most High. And the Lord God will give him the throne of David, his
father. He will rule over the house of Jacob forever; and his dominion will
have no end.”
Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I’m still a virgin?”

24 | Juniata Voices
 [literally: “since I do not know a man”]
The angel replied, “A holy spirit will hover over you, and the power of
the Most High will cast its shadow on you. This is why the child to be born
will be holy, and be called son of God.”

Th e B irt h A n n ou n cem en t t o Jos eph

( Mat t h ew 1:18-25)

The origin of Jesus the Anointed is as follows: While his mother Mary
was betrothed to Joseph, but before she moved into his house, she was found
to be pregnant by a holy spirit. Although her husband Joseph was a righteous
man, he did not want to expose her publicly; so, he planned to break off their
betrothal quietly.
While he was thinking about these things, an angel surprised him in a
dream with these words: “Joseph, son of David, don’t hesitate to take Mary as
your wife, since she is pregnant by (ek) a holy spirit. She will give birth to a
son and you will name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their
sins.” All this happened in order to fulfill the prediction of the Lord through
the prophet:
Look, a “virgin” [parthenos] will conceive a child
and she will give birth to a son,
and they will name him Emmanuel
(which means “God is with us”).
Joseph got up and did what the angel told him: he took Mary as his wife.
He did not sleep with her until she had given birth to a son. Joseph named
him Jesus.

Christianity has always understood Matthew’s infancy narrative to involve a virgin

birth. After all, Matthew proclaims that Jesus’ birth fulfilled the prophecy that a virgin would
conceive and give birth to a son. Moreover, Matthew’s report of an angel’s revelation to
Joseph inevitably reminds us of Luke’s scene of Gabriel’s revelation to Mary, which plainly
affirms that she will conceive while still a virgin. Since the infancy narratives in Matthew
and Luke, though different, are usually blended together in the Christian imagination, it is
only natural for us to assume that the annunciations in Matthew and Luke are, in effect,
different scenes from the same story and that they therefore mean the same thing.
But Matthew did not know Luke’s account, nor did Matthew’s original readers. For
the sake of argument then, let’s pretend that all traces of Luke’s gospel have been lost and the
only Christmas story we have is Matthew’s. (The other two canonical gospels, Mark and
John, do not have stories of Jesus’ birth and show no traces of the belief that he was born to

25 | Juniata Voices
a virgin.) What happens if we read Matthew on his own terms, without presupposing
Luke’s narrative?
If we do that, it is not at all apparent that Matthew is talking about a virgin birth.
Until a few years ago I understood Matthew to say that Jesus had no human father, but in
the course of doing research for my book Born Divine I gained two insights that led me to
question this apparently obvious interpretation. 1 First, I discovered that the Greek word
parthenos, traditionally translated as “virgin,” did not mean what we do when we describe
someone as a virgin. (More on this later.) Clearly that insight is important, because
Matthew’s use of the word parthenos in his quotation of the prophecy is a crucial element of
the traditional consensus that he proclaims the virgin birth. The second insight occurred as I
worked through ancient Greek and Roman stories about miraculous births, tales that verified
what I previously suspected: that the motif of a child fathered by a god but born to a human
mother was fairly common in the pagan world and served as an explanation for the
extraordinary qualities of seemingly superhuman heroes. Since the gospel writer Luke was a
Gentile, accounting for Jesus’ conception in this way would hardly be incongruous since
stories of gods begetting sons with human women were part of his cultural world. But for
Matthew, whose religious sensitivities were acutely Jewish, the very idea of a virgin birth, i.e.,
of God fathering a child, would have seemed theologically dangerous because of its strong
associations with pagan mythology. Besides, the thought of God involving himself sexually
with a woman would have been highly disturbing, if not utterly blasphemous, to the Jewish
imagination. (Luke, who believes that God was the sole cause of Mary’s pregnancy, is
nevertheless cautious to describe God’s role in a totally non-physical way. In Luke 1:35 the
angel explains to Mary, “The holy spirit will hover over you and the power of the Most High
will cast its shadow over you.”)
Jews were well aware that God occasionally arranged miraculous conceptions. The
Old Testament has six stories about infertile women who were enabled to conceive by divine
intervention: Rebecca, Leah, Rachel, the mother of Samson, Hannah, and especially Sarah.2
But each of those miraculous conceptions involved intercourse with men. Miracles in the
Hebrew Bible often involve human agents whose roles in no way diminish God’s power.
Abraham’s fathering of Isaac was just as much a miracle as Moses’ parting of the Sea of
Reeds. No matter what a prophet or patriarch might do, a sea cannot be parted nor can an

26 | Juniata Voices
infertile woman conceive unless God intervenes. So while Matthew had no problem
believing that God was responsible for Jesus’ conception, the notion that it had occurred
without a human father was so overlaid with pagan concepts of divinity that Matthew would
almost certainly have had serious theological reservations about it.
I am persuaded that Matthew did not intend to describe a virgin birth. I recognize
that this goes against a deeply ingrained Christian tradition and therefore will seem counter-
intuitive to many. I am also acutely aware that very few biblical scholars have taken this
position. My proposal therefore bears a heavy burden of proof. In this essay I will
summarize the arguments for my view and explain my objections to the traditional
interpretation. I hope that my hypothesis makes better sense of the evidence than does the
current consensus.

MATTHEW IS NOT LUKE

There is nearly unanimous consensus among biblical scholars that Matthew and Luke
were unaware of each other’s gospel. Therefore, the agreement between them about the
circumstances of Jesus’ conception seems at first glance to support the traditional
interpretation. For while they concur on very little in their stories about the birth of Jesus,
both report that Mary became pregnant while she was betrothed and that Joseph was not the
father. It’s unlikely that Matthew and Luke would have independently created scenarios in
which Mary became pregnant without Joseph’s involvement. It’s doubly unlikely that both
evangelists would have then coincidentally placed this occurrence during Mary’s betrothal to
Joseph. We can safely conclude, therefore, that this information came to Matthew and Luke
from an earlier tradition. (That does not guarantee, of course, that this narrative detail is
historically accurate; it means only that neither Matthew nor Luke invented it.) Luke
certainly thinks that Jesus was born to a virgin (see Luke 1:34). Since Matthew agrees with
Luke that Mary’s pregnancy began during her betrothal and that Joseph was not involved in
the conception, interpreters of Matthew have assumed that he also agrees with Luke in
understanding those circumstances to imply a virginal conception.
However, the assumption that Matthew and Luke both knew a tradition about a
virgin birth is just that: an assumption. It is a reasonable assumption, but not a necessary
one. What Matthew and Luke actually share—and therefore took from tradition—is that

27 | Juniata Voices
Mary conceived while she was betrothed to Joseph. It might be that both evangelists
construed that scenario to indicate a virgin birth, but it might also be that Luke understands
it that way and Matthew some other way. Which of these two possibilities is more likely
remains to be seen.

BEHOLD A VIRGIN SHALL CONCEIVE

The greatest difficulty for the argument that Matthew does not believe in the virgin
birth is posed by his quotation of Isaiah 7:14:
All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the
prophet: “Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name
him Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.” (Matt 1:22-23, NRSV)

It is well known that Matthew’s quotation differs from Isaiah’s original in a key
particular: Isaiah speaks of a “young woman” (Hebrew: ‫ עלמה‬almah) while Matthew refers to
a “virgin” (Greek: παρθενος, parthenos). Matthew uses parthenos because that is the word
he found in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint. From the way
Matthew handles quotations from the Old Testament in his gospel, scholars can tell that,
although he writes in Greek, he can read Hebrew and make his own translations from it
when he chooses. His choice of the Septuagint wording in Matthew 1:23 therefore seems to
indicate that he means to tell a story about a virgin birth. At least this is how Christian
tradition has understood the Isaiah text. But the issue is not what Isaiah 7:14 has meant to
Christians over the centuries; we need to know what it meant to Matthew and his original
audience. Here it is especially important to remind ourselves of that distinction.
It will help if we put the shoe on the other foot. Instead of asking what Matthew
1:23 could intend other than the virgin birth, let’s ask this: Does the verse by itself make us
think that Jesus was virgin born? In other words, if we read this verse without assuming
that we already know what it means, would we conclude that it described a virgin birth?
Perhaps; but only if two conditions were met. 1) The word “virgin” in Matthew would have
to mean what we mean by it today. 2) “The virgin will conceive” would have to mean that
she would conceive and still remain a virgin. Neither of these conditions holds up under
scrutiny.
Scholars all but universally assume that when Matthew says, “the parthenos will
28 | Juniata Voices
conceive,” he means, “the virgin will conceive.” A survey of Greek literature, however,
shows that parthenos does not by itself denote what we mean today by “virgin.” Rather, it
means a sexually mature young woman who has not yet had her first child. In the
Septuagint it often means simply “young woman.” In those few passages in which it refers
to virgins, that meaning must be inferred from the context. In those rare passages that draw
attention to the woman’s virginity, parthenos is qualified with an added phrase: “a parthenos
who has not known a man” (using the familiar biblical euphemism “know” to refer to sexual
intercourse). After Luke introduces Mary as a parthenos (Luke 1:27), he makes sure his
audience knows that this parthenos is a virgin by letting them overhear Mary’s strange
question to the angel who tells her she will have a son: “How can this be since I have not
known a man?” (Luke 1:34). Coming from a betrothed woman looking forward to starting a
family with her husband, the question is utterly illogical. Its only purpose is to inform
Luke’s audience that Mary is not yet sexually active (as betrothed people often were) and that
she will conceive before sleeping with her husband. Two passages in the Septuagint prove
that a woman who was not a virgin could be called a parthenos. In Genesis 34:3 the term
refers to a rape victim after she has been violated and in Joel 1:8 it refers to a young widow:
“Lament like a parthenos dressed in sackcloth for the husband of her youth.” The Greek
literary data (scriptural and otherwise) show that a woman stops being a parthenos after
having a baby, not after having intercourse. Thus in his Letter to the Smyrneans (13:1),
Ignatius of Antioch, a second-century Christian bishop, used the term to refer to widows
who have no children.
In short, parthenos can mean “virgin,” but only if the context demands it. This is
perfectly illustrated by Matthew’s only other use of parthenos: in the parable of The Ten
Bridesmaids (Matt 25:1-13). Five of the women in the parable are foolish and five are wise;
all are called parthenoi (the plural of parthenos), but the parable clearly has nothing to do
with virginity. In Matthew 1:23, then, is parthenos used in its general sense (young
woman) or in its restrictive sense (virgin)? The word can legitimately be used in either way,
but we should assume it is used in its general sense unless the passage indicates that
Matthew intends otherwise.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we suppose that in 1:23 Matthew understood
parthenos in the special meaning of “virgin” the meaning of “the virgin will conceive” is still

29 | Juniata Voices
not clear. The “will” in “will conceive” produces ambiguity. Does Matthew mean that Mary
will remain a virgin after the conception, i.e., that she will conceive without sexual
intercourse?
The normal sense of “the virgin will conceive” connotes nothing miraculous.
Someone who is now a virgin will conceive, but by then she will no longer be a virgin. We
effortlessly understand such similar statements as “that bachelor will get married” and “that
applicant will be hired.” In expressions like these, the “will” marks the event after which the
description of the person can no longer apply. Well then, is Matthew using “the virgin will
conceive” in this normal sense or is he describing a miracle? As before, the words by
themselves can have either meaning, and so our decision about what Matthew means has to
be made on other grounds.
What all this shows is that nothing in Isaiah 7:14 would have required Matthew to
understand it as the prediction of a virgin birth. He could so interpret the text, but only if he
read that meaning into it by both 1) taking parthenos in a specialized sense, and 2)
construing “will conceive” to point to a miracle. In short, Matthew could find a virgin birth
in this prophecy only if that was what he was looking for.
But if Matthew did not quote Isaiah 7:14 to signal a miraculous virgin birth, why did
he include it? After all, the statement “a young woman will conceive and give birth to a son”
is fulfilled every time a boy is born to a young mother. Since in their normal sense these
words do not point to anything special about the birth of Jesus, something else in Isaiah
7:14 must have caught Matthew’s attention and fired his imagination, something else that
highlighted for him how God was at work in the life of Jesus. I propose that the real reason
for Matthew’s use of the Isaiah text is revealed by the context in which he introduces the
prophecy. First, observe that it comes immediately after the explanation of Jesus’ name in
1:21, and then notice the precise symmetry between 1:21 and the quotation of the prophecy
in 1:23:
She will give birth to a son
and you will name him Jesus,
for he will save his people from their sins. (1:21)

She will give birth to a son

and they will name him Emmanuel,
which means “God is with us.” (1:23)

30 | Juniata Voices
The verbatim similarities in the first two clauses of each verse – the Greek words are identical
except for the “you” and the “they” – show that Matthew wrote 1:21 to mirror the words of
Isaiah in 1:23 and then added explanations of the meanings of “Jesus” and “Emmanuel” to
ensure that his Greek-speaking audience would understand the symbolism of these Semitic
names. Matthew’s primary interest in Isaiah 7:14 was not the word parthenos, but the rich
symbolism of the name, Emmanuel. For Isaiah, the birth and unexpected survival of the
child Immanuel in the house of David would be a sign that God was protecting his people
and keeping faith with his promises. For Matthew, the birth of Jesus and his unlikely
adoption by Joseph into the lineage of David was likewise a sign that God’s plan to save Israel
was about to be fulfilled.

CONCEIVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT

It might seem to refute my argument that Matthew says Mary was pregnant “by
(Greek: ek) the holy spirit” (Matt 1:18 and 1:20). Doesn’t that indicate a virgin birth? It
could appear so, because in descriptions of conception or pregnancy, the preposition ek
(which literally means “out of”) is a common way in Greek of denoting the natural father, as
in “A was begotten by (ek) B.” Matthew’s use of ek signals that God, through his holy
spirit, is responsible for the conception of Jesus.
But Matthew’s proclamation that Mary is pregnant “by the holy spirit” does not
necessarily claim that Jesus has no human father. It is true that ek is a grammatically correct
way to point to the man responsible for a pregnancy, but that is not the only way the
expression functions in the Greek language. Moreover, there are good reasons to think that
Matthew is not using this phrase to exclude a biological father for Jesus. Here we need to go
slowly and examine several texts in detail. This may seem like a great deal of fuss over a two-
letter word, but understanding the precise nuance of the ek is crucial to discerning the
meaning of Matthew 1:18-25.
Four considerations lead to the conclusion that Matthew’s use of “begotten by the
holy spirit” does not imply a virginal conception.
1. The Gospel and First Letter of John repeatedly assert that Christians are “begotten
by (ek) the spirit” or “begotten by (ek) God.” Obviously, neither usage of ek connotes the

31 | Juniata Voices
absence of biological fathers.
To those who believed in the light, it gave the right to become children of
God.
They were not born from sexual union, not from physical desire, and not from
male willfulness; they were begotten by (ek) God. (John 1:12–13)

Everyone who does justice is begotten by (ek) God. (1 John 2:29)

Love is from God, and everyone who loves was begotten by (ek) God. (1 John
4:7)

No one begotten by (ek) God sins; instead, the one begotten by (ek) God
watches over him. (1 John 5:18)

2. The Hebrew Bible refers to kings as sons of God. One passage goes so far as to
have God tell the newly-crowned king, “Today I have begotten you” (Psalm 2:6-7).
Obviously, such passages do not imply that those to whom they refer are virgin born.
Several other passages name God as the direct cause of specific pregnancies, when it is clear
that the women have had intercourse with their husbands.
Adam had intercourse with his wife and she conceived and gave birth to Cain,
saying, “I have made a man with the help of Yahweh.” (Genesis 4:1)

Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. He had intercourse with her,
Yahweh made her conceive, and she gave birth to a son. (Ruth 4:13)

When Yahweh saw that Leah was unloved, he opened her womb. . . and Leah
conceived and gave birth to a son. (Genesis 29:31–32)

Then God remembered Rachel. He heard her prayer and opened her womb.
She conceived and gave birth to a son. (Genesis 30:22–23)

This Jewish way of thinking about God’s role in human conception is further evident
in the New Testament when Paul describes Isaac as “begotten according to the spirit” and
distinguishes him from Abraham’s other biological son, Ishmael, who was “begotten
according to the flesh” (Galatians 4:29).
Such texts show us that Jews (including Jewish Christians like John and Paul) could
speak of people as begotten by God or begotten by the spirit without imagining that they
were born to virgin mothers. And Matthew is the most thoroughly Jewish author in the
New Testament. It is clear that in his Jewish world the concept of divine begetting had
32 | Juniata Voices
nothing to do with the physical circumstances of conception. Being begotten by God was
never understood to exclude being begotten by a human male. In light of this, there is no
reason for thinking that Matthew’s description of the unborn Jesus as begotten by the holy
spirit (Matt 1:18, 20) implies that he had no human father. If in these verses Matthew is
referring to a virgin birth, he is using the language of divine begetting to mean something
very different from what it means in every other passage in the Bible.
3. The annunciation scene in the second-century Infancy Gospel of James contains a
fascinating bit of dialogue relevant to our topic. The angel tells Mary that she will conceive
“by (ek) the word of God.” Mary is puzzled and asks, “Am I going to conceive by the Lord,
the living God, the way every woman does who gives birth?” (Infancy James 11:5-6). Mary
believes what the angel says, but asks whether she will conceive the way all women do. The
angel then explains that she will conceive without a man.
Suddenly an angel stood in front of Mary and said, "Don't be afraid, Mary.
You see, you've found favor in the sight of the Master of all. You will conceive
by (ek) his word."
But as she listened, Mary was puzzled and said, "Am I going to conceive by
the Lord, the living God, the way every woman does who gives birth?"
And the angel replied, "No, Mary. The power of God will cast its shadow
on you. And so the child to be born will be called holy, son of the Most High.
You will name him Jesus because he will save his people from their sins."
(Infancy Gospel of James 11:5-8)

The Infancy Gospel of James was written in a non-Jewish setting long after
Matthew’s gospel. Yet the author was aware that the expression “to conceive by the word of
God” was ambiguous enough, even to his Gentile audience who believed in Jesus’ virgin
birth, that he needed to narrow its meaning. He has Mary ask her question so that he can
have the angel clear up the ambiguity. In short, he knew that the phrase “to conceive by the
word of God” did not by itself exclude a human biological father.
4. One more biblical passage is directly relevant to understanding what Matthew
means when he writes that Mary was pregnant by the holy spirit. That passage is found in
Genesis 38, toward the end of the story of Tamar, one of the four women whom Matthew
somewhat incongruously inserts into his genealogy of Jesus (Matt 1:3). Tamar, in order to
obtain the marital rights denied her by Judah, her father-in-law, became pregnant by
disguising herself as a prostitute and luring him into incestuous intercourse. When her

33 | Juniata Voices
pregnancy is discovered, Tamar is accused of being “pregnant by (ek) fornication” (Gen
38:24 Septuagint). Having no idea that he is the father of her child, Judah orders that she be
put to death. When Tamar successfully defends herself by proving that she is “pregnant by
(ek)” Judah, he declares, “Tamar is on the side of justice, but I am not” (Gen 38:25-26).
Here we see two uses for the preposition ek, the second one to identify the man who
participated in the conception, the first one to characterize its moral/spiritual quality.
We can be sure that Matthew knew Tamar’s story because he mentions her in the
genealogy immediately preceding the annunciation to Joseph. Indeed, the suspicion that
Mary is “pregnant by fornication” is exactly what readers are intended to imagine is weighing
on Joseph’s mind. What else was he supposed to think? The revelation from the angel
directly addresses his anxiety: Mary’s pregnancy is not “ek fornication,” as Joseph fears, but
“ek the holy spirit.” Neither ek-phrase is meant to exclude male sexual complicity; rather,
both phrases describe what kind of conception this is: sinful or holy. The angel tells Joseph,
in effect, that regardless of how Mary became pregnant, her condition is now sacred. God
has stepped in, has put this pregnancy under his protection, and plans to use it to serve his
will. Joseph, a man of justice (Matt 1:19), is instructed to do justice (i.e., make things right)3
for the woman and her child, for God has chosen this child to be Israel’s savior.
Along with Tamar, three other women appear in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus: Rahab
the prostitute, Ruth the seductress, and Bathsheba the rape victim (Matt 1:5, 6).
Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac of Jacob, Jacob of Judah and his
brothers, and Judah and Tam ar were the parents of Perez and Zerah. Perez
was the father of Hezron, Hezron of Aram, Aram of Amminadab, Amminadab
of Nahshon, Nahshon of Salmon, and Salmon and Rah ab were the parents of
Boaz. Boaz and Ru t h were the parents of Obed. Obed was the father of Jesse,
and Jesse of David the king. David and Uriah’s wife [B at h s h eba] were the
parents of Solomon .
...........
Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary , who was the mother
of Jesus. (Matthew 1:2-6, 16)
Since women were rarely included in ancient genealogies, it is clear that Matthew was
making a point by adding them. But why these specific women? All four of them were

34 | Juniata Voices
marked by sexual scandal or shame – hardly the kind of women one expects to be
highlighted in the lineage of the Messiah.
Then, as soon as the genealogy is finished, Matthew begins his nativity story by
describing a situation fraught with the potential for scandal and shame: Mary is pregnant,
but not by Joseph, her betrothed. The significance of the women in the preceding genealogy
now becomes apparent.
Mention of the four women is designed to lead Matthew’s reader to expect
another, final story of a woman who becomes a social misfit in some way; is
wronged or thwarted; who is party to a sexual act that places her in great
danger; and whose story has an outcome that repairs the social fabric and
ensures the birth of a child who is legitimate or legitimated.4

On the other hand, if Matthew means that Mary’s pregnancy was the result of a
virginal conception, it is difficult to discern what connection he saw between Mary and the
women in the genealogy. Their stories feature no divine interventions and no miracles. If
Matthew had wanted to prepare readers for a miraculous birth, he could have mentioned
Sarah, mother of Isaac, and Rachel, mother of Joseph – both of whom reportedly conceived
through miracles – instead of Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba.

VIRGIN BIRTH OR DIVINE FAVOR?

If we read Matthew’s infancy narrative against its own Jewish background and not in
the light of assumptions we might bring from Luke or the later Christian tradition, we find
good reasons to conclude that Matthew was not talking about a virgin birth. First, nothing
in the normal sense of Isaiah’s prophecy points to such an event. The context in which
Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 indicates that his interest is focused on the symbolism of
Emmanuel’s name, not on the circumstances of his conception. Second, in Jewish contexts
generally, and in biblical usage specifically, the language of divine begetting never suggests a
virgin birth. Conception “by the holy spirit” indicates not the absence of a human father,
but rather God’s favor or blessing upon a normal human conception. Third, the women
Matthew mentions in his genealogy of Jesus prepare us for sexual irregularity and a woman
whose plight is set right, but clearly not for a miraculous virgin birth.
All this adds up to a strong case that Matthew did not have a virgin birth in mind
when he wrote his gospel. The traditional view that his account describes a virgin birth has
35 | Juniata Voices
no real basis in the text of his gospel, but derives largely from subsequent assumptions that
he and Luke were telling the same story. But Luke’s report that Jesus was born in the
manner of pagan sons of God, the offspring of a human mother and a divine father, would
have been repugnant to a pious Jew like Matthew. If we read Matthew 1:18-25 on its own
Jewish terms, we have no reason to take it as a story about a virgin birth. Rather, Matthew’s
account of Jesus’ conception was meant to show that even though his birth involved
circumstances that might have been viewed by outsiders as less than honorable, it was
nonetheless an act of God vital to the unfolding epic of the people of Israel.

NOTES
1
Robert J. Miller, Born Divine (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 2003).
2
Rebecca (Genesis 24:20-21), Leah (Genesis 29:31-32), Rachel (Genesis 30:22-23), mother
of Samson (Judges 13:2-24), Hannah (1 Samuel 1:1-20), Sarah (Genesis 18:1-15, 20:1-7)
3
In biblical terms, a “just” man (dikaios in Greek, often translated as “righteous”) is not only
one who observes the Law. He is a righter of wrongs. In biblical language, to do justice is to
intervene on behalf of the oppressed and the vulnerable and make things right for them, as
God did in freeing the Israelites from their slavery in Egypt.
4
Jane Schaberg, The Illegitimacy of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), p. 33.

36 | Juniata Voices