chastity, virginity. Then, there are a number of passages that reveal the presence of a

miracle, although in themselves and taken separately they may not be considered of

sufficient weight to prove the point. Let us note them.

(1) The Genealogy of Matt. 1:, and its one departure from the normal.--In this

genealogy the word gennao "begat" "was born" occurs some forty times, and follows the

course of nature as in any other genealogy--"Abraham begat Isaac" right on through the

succeeding generations until the birth of Joseph, "Jacob begat Joseph". At this point

however a noteworthy departure is made from the ordinary method of notification,

because a noteworthy departure from the normal had now to be recorded. Had the Lord

Jesus Christ come into this world as every other child has come into this world, the

genealogy would have continued "Jacob begat Joseph, and Joseph begat Jesus, Who is

called Christ", and the Christ of God would have been a man, a holy man, a blessed man,

a glorious man, but a man and no more. His name would still have been "Jesus", but His

name could not also have been Emmanuel, "God with us".

The last line of this genealogy makes a definite break in the natural sequence, "Jacob

begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom (feminine) was born (gennao) Jesus, Who is

called Christ".

The "begetting" ends with the birth of Joseph. Man then stands aside, and for the

first time the Mother stands associated with gennao alone and independent of the man.

Earlier in this genealogy the names of several mothers are recorded, but they never stand

alone, the word gennao always being attached to the father who is named, as for example

"Booz begat Obed of Ruth" (Matt. 1: 5). Here therefore is evidence that the birth of

Christ was miraculous.

(2) The natural perturbation of Joseph (Matt. 1: 18, 19).--Although Mary was

espoused to Joseph, they had not actually come together as man and wife, consequently

when it was discovered that she was with child, Joseph as a righteous man under the law,

had no option but to divorce his wife--although being a kindly man he intended to do it

privately.  All this is perfectly natural, and were it on record that Joseph re-acted

differently our suspicions would be justified.

As the words stand in the A.V. of Matt. 1: 18, however, they do not make sense. If

Joseph had discovered that Mary "was with child of the Holy Ghost" his questionings

would have been answered before they arose. The note in "The Companion Bible" is

worth recording*.

(3) The natural perturbation of Mary (Luke 1: 27-37).--In this record Mary is not

only called a virgin, but acts as one. She was "troubled" at the salutation of the angel,

and expostulated with the angel in reply to the announcement that she should have a son.

"How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"