The Apostle John in the concluding portion of his Gospel record wrote (John 20. 31), These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is ‘the Christ, the son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name”.
So it is important that we should understand the purpose of God in him, and to do that we must be able to answer the question, “Whose son is he?”
The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ. It is a conditional gift only to those who actively seek for glory, honor and immortality. It depends upon a belief of the Gospel, and the sonship of Christ is a vital part of that Gospel.
The birth of the Lord Jesus Christ has been the subject of controversy for centuries. No real agreement exists between students of the Bible over the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Christ, as it is known, and this has been largely because God’s purpose in him has been misunderstood. As we consider the evidence concerning this subject, we believe that that purpose will become more apparent. A proper treatment of our subject will require a full investigation of all the scriptures quoted, and to this end it is suggested that the matters presented should be carefully compared with their related references as a proof of their authority.
We should always aim at presenting a positive case when dealing with Scriptural matters, so to start with we want to show from both prophecy and history that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God. And to be fair to those who have other ideas as to whose son he is, we will also examine the belief that he is the son of Joseph.
Prophecy
We are all familiar with the first promise of a redeemer, the seed of the woman (Gen. 3. 15). There can be no doubt that this refers to the Lord Jesus Christ who “died unto sin once” (“thou shalt bruise his heel”), and whose resurrection from the dead bruised the serpent’s head (or the power of sin which leads to death).
Compare this passage with Gal. 4. 4-5: “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.” This promised redeemer was to be of the human race; but notice the expressions, “seed of the woman” and “made of a woman”. All Jewish inheritance laws relate from father to son and, except for rare occasions, the woman had no part in the line of descent. Yet scripture speaks here of the promised seed as a son of the race through a woman. He was to be a member of the human race through his mother rather than his Father.
Consider the symbology of the sacrificial lamb as an acknowledgement that death was the just due of sinners and a confession of unworthiness in the sight of God. Abraham recognized the significance of the act, and even more so he realized the implication in the lamb of God’s providing. God had sworn to Abraham an eternal inheritance in the land promised to him (Gen. 13. 14-17) and, ‘to ratify the covenant, they enacted a scene that required Abraham to slay certain animals as commanded by God (Gen. 15. 8-21). Abraham fulfilled his part of the covenant, but there is no record of God performing the same act, as it was customary to do. So when we turn to Gen. 22. 7-8 where Abraham is called upon to offer up his only son (the promised seed), the words of verse 8 have greater meaning, “My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering”. And John 1. 27 completes the scene, “Behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”.
Who but the Son of God could be represented as a stone “cut out of the mountain without hands”, as prophesied by Dan. 2. 44. There is undoubtedly a reference here to the exclusion of human agency in the words “without hands”. Earth or stone are recognized as symbols of mortality. The Children of Israel were commanded to make their altars of earth or unhewn stone, i.e. not fashioned by man’s hands (Exod. 20. 24-25).
Altars as used in Old Testament times were structures upon which sacrifices were offered and had a direct application to Christ, who is spoken of as our altar (Heb. 13. 10). He comes not of the will of the flesh, but of God (John 1. 13), yet he was mortal, of the earth, earthy; and as the stone power that smashed the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan. 2. 45) was cut out of the mountain without hands (i.e., without human agency), so the altar of God’s providing had to be of earth or unhewn stone; he must be the Son of God.
2 Sam. 7. 1 2-1 9 contains a prophecy guaranteeing the future continuance of the throne of King David through a son who was to be also the Son of God (v. 14). This son was not Solomon, who began to reign while David still lived. The prophecy required that David should be dead before this son would be “set up” (v. 12). That the words of this prophecy cannot apply to Solomon is amplified in v. 16, . . . that king was to be established “forever”. Solomon was not, nor was the kingdom. But the most conclusive argument is the fact that centuries after the death of both David and Solomon the promise is spoken of as a future event (Jer. 23. 5-6; 33. 15-21; Is. 9. 7; Luke 1. 69-70). This passage is quoted by Paul and applied to Christ (Heb. 1. 5) and in Acts 2. 30, 34 Peter says this promise relates to Christ, and David himself recognized it. Who will deny that this is a far-sighted prophecy of the Messiah, future king of Israel? David acknowledged it as such (v. 19).
Is.7. 14 is the prophecy of Messiah the seed of the woman, the Son of God and son of man, Immanuel—God with us. This prophecy was to be of vital significance to the whole nation of Israel, not only to king Ahaz. The prophecy is not addressed to Ahaz, but to the House of David (v. 13). There are two words in the Hebrew which have been rendered “virgin” in the English. In this case the word is “almah”, which can also be rendered “young woman”. A rather weak case has been built around this translation, suggesting that the promise here is that a young woman should bear a son, not necessarily referring to Jesus at all.
It must be pointed out that in the original Hebrew there is a definite article before this word “almah”, which makes it “the almah” —not merely a virgin or young woman, but a particular virgin. Mary recognised her honoured position as “the virgin” of Is & 7. 14, when she said (Luke 1. 38), “Behold the handmaid of the Lord”. This word “almah” is also used in other places when there can be no doubt a chaste virgin is intended (Gen. 24. 43). It would be no sign or wonder to Ahaz, or to the House of David, for a young woman to conceive . . . this was to be something out of the ordinary, “A virgin shall conceive . . .” The prophecy continues in Is. 9. 6-7. Jesus was a manifestation of his Father and he inherited His Father’s name.
History
Both Matthew and Luke give a comprehensive genealogy of Jesus, tracing his ancestry back to David (King of Israel), to Abraham (progenitor of the nation of Israel), and to Adam (first of God’s creation, and therefore a son of God).
Mat. 1. 18-23 tells us that Mary was “found with child of the Holy Spirit”. The miraculous power of God caused that she should conceive a child without a natural father (“cut out of the mountain without hands”). Joseph knew this child was not his and, being a just man, i.e., desirous of obeying the law, he wished to do what was right, without shaming her in public. This is the fulfillment of Gen. 3. 15, “the seed of the woman”; of 2 Sam. 7. 12-14, the promise to King David that his son would be also the Son of God; and of Is. 7. 14, “the virgin shall conceive”.
Luke 1. 30-35 records historical evidence of the highest order. Yet there are those who deny these statements as being authentic. We are told to “search the scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life”. Therefore we ought to be certain before we discard any portion of the Word of God. There is no greater insult to a person’s integrity than to disbelieve him, and there is nothing more dishonoring to God than to disbelieve His Word, which the Scriptures tell us He has magnified above His Name. Dare we challenge God’s authority?
And these are not isolated references. The Bible is full of such statements, linking them all together and proving the divine authority and authenticity of the scriptures.
Do you recall the words of Jesus when Peter confessed, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God?” Jesus said it was a perfect answer! (Mat. 16. 13-17). Jesus also asked the Pharisees a difficult question (Mat. 22. 41-46). The Pharisees were experts so far as a knowledge of the Old Testament was concerned. They knew the prophecies of Messiah the son of David, but they did not believe that Jesus was he, and they challenged his authority. V. 44 in this reference is a quotation from Ps. 110. 1. It is also quoted in Acts 2. 34-35. Jesus asked them, “What think ye of Christ, whose son is he?” They rightly answered, “David’s”. Jesus replied, “How then does David call him Lord?” They could not answer without confessing that he was also Son of God.
Jesus the Christ is son of David and also David’s Lord, because he is of higher birth than David. Ps. 89.27 speaks of him as “higher than the kings of the earth”. “Higher than the angels” says the writer to the Hebrews, “as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they” (Heb. 1. 4). By whatever means the angels obtained their name, the scriptures do not tell us, but they did not obtain it by inheritance. Only the Son could do this.
There can be no doubt that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, by a miraculous birth of the Virgin Mary as recorded in scripture. A mere son of man could not be described in the language of these divinely authorized words.
Whose Son is He?
Could Jesus have been the son of Joseph?
Quite apart from the weight of evidence that he is the son of the Virgin Mary and therefore the Son of God, it is doubtful that the Jews themselves believed him to be the son of Joseph, even though they refused to believe that he was the Son of God. Some of the circumstances surrounding his birth were known to the Jews and they considered him to be the illegitimate son of Mary. They thought of Joseph as somewhat of a simpleton who had taken pity on Mary. On one occasion when Jesus remonstrated with them because of their unbelief they inferred that he was unworthy to castigate them. They could trace their ancestry back to Abraham, and said that God was their Father, and by way of rebuke to him they said, “We be not born of fornication” (John 8. 41), inferring that he was.
Now the genealogical records of Matthew and Luke are generally rejected by the Josephites, on the authority of a text known as the Ebionite Text, which in its own day was considered to be a corrupt manuscript. It excludes whole books of the Bible, including all the writings of the Apostle Paul and many others. This text is not accepted by Bible students as authoritative, nor do the Josephites themselves accept it, only in as far as it supports their theory. Nevertheless, to reject Matthew’s and Luke’s records also involves the alteration of Is. 7 and other prophetic writings, as well as rejecting altogether many others. It involves challenging the statements of the disciples and apostles of Christ, and rejecting New Testament Books. It is in fact a denial of the authority and inspiration of the scriptures and is, to say the least, blasphemous.
So we turn our attention to the genealogy of our Lord (Mat. 1. 1-2). Note the words “begat”. Each man named here was the father of the succeeding son (or in some cases (the grandfather). But in every case the descent is actual and direct. A blood relationship exists. So in vv. 15-16, Joseph is a direct descendant of David and Abraham; he is the son of Jacob and the husband of Mary, “of whom was born Jesus”.
It is said that these words “of whom” apply to Joseph, as though the words following “Joseph”-“the husband of Mary” were in brackets. Our English grammar allows this, but this book is not an English book! It is a Greek book so far as the language is concerned, and therefore we must be guided by their grammar and not ours. In the Greek the original words “of whom” are in the feminine gender, i.e. they make the person of whom they speak a woman. They cannot therefore apply to Joseph, and must apply to Mary.
Luke’s genealogical record (Luke 3. 23) is not the same record as that of Matthew. Luke is generally accepted as recording Mary’s ancestry, whilst Matthew’s record is that of Joseph. According to Luke, Jesus was supposed by those who saw him to be the son of Joseph the husband of Mary. vv. 23-38 trace the line back to David through Nathan, then back to Abraham and finally to Adam. So both Joseph and Mary are related to David, through whom the seed royal was to descend.
Notice in these verses the use of “italics” for the words “the son”. Each of those here named descended or was accounted to descend from the parent named, but no proof of blood relationship exists. In the Book of Ruth, her first born son was accounted a son of Naomi, (though he did not in fact descend from her at all. Ruth’s first husband, who died without issue, was a son of Naomi, and it is a principle of Jewish law that if one died childless then a kinsman (or near relative) was required to marry the widow and raise up seed in the name of the dead, so that his name did not perish in Israel. Ruth’s firstborn son was given the name of Ruth’s first husband, though the child was not in fact related to him. As a result he was known as a son of Naomi. Luke’s record makes provision for this principle.
As the female is not counted in genealogical reckoning, Joseph being son-in-law of Heli is counted as his son. This is even more definitely accepted when a man has no sons; his sons-in-law are then counted to him as sons, so that the children of that marriage are counted as sons of their maternal grandfather.
Now there is another very good reason why Joseph is not the father of Jesus. Not only is he not the father, but if it were even possible that he is, then there is no chance of Jesus ever reigning as king over Israel. Joseph is uniquely excluded from being a king or of ever being father to a king. He is a direct descendant of Jechonias or Coniah (Mat. 1. 11), whose denunciation by God was so strong that his descendants to the last generation of his sons for ever were cut off from the throne. (Jer. 22. 24, 30). (By reference to Chron. and Kings we can readily see that this Coniah is the same personage as Jechonias of Matthew’s record. Jechonias did have sons (1 Chron. 3. 15-16) and Matthew I. 12 agrees with this reference; Salathiel or Shealtiel was his son, and Zorababel his grandson in turn.)
Joseph had a legal title to the throne of Judah. The Lord Jesus Christ inherited that title from him, but, not being a literal son of Joseph, he did not partake of the curse on Jechonias. Mary was also of the House of David, and through her is established the flesh relationship with David and Abraham. Acts 2. 30 speaks of Christ as “the seed of David according to the flesh”. At the time of his birth, Joseph and Mary went up to Bethlehem to be registered because they were of the House and Lineage of David.
The subject of the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ is vital to our salvation. It is one we cannot afford to be passive about, and we cannot agree to differ. “This is life eternal”, said John, “to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” The plain testimony of scripture is this: Jesus Christ is the seed of Abraham, and of David, the seed of the woman, and the Son of God.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One