It’s January 3…we’re easing into the New Year. Tomorrow I’ll write a formal introduction to Isaiah as we begin our Reading Plan in the Prophets, which we’ll start on Monday.

In the meantime, how about one more look at the Nativity story? Traditionally, Jesus’ birth is considered to be covered in Matthew 1 and 2 and Luke 1 and 2. We also have the warfare version in Revelation 12. Mark’s Gospel doesn’t do the Nativity – it cuts right to the chase:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’ ” (Mark 1.1 – 3, ESV)

But what about John’s Gospel? It certainly gives a clear picture of the incarnation:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1.1 – 3, 14, ESV)

How did the Word become flesh? That question is clearly answered in Matthew and Luke:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1.18, ESV)

And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. (Luke 1.35, ESV)

Is the question also answered in John? Brian Simmons, author of The Passion Translation, believes that it is, in John 1.13:

He was not born by the joining of human parents or from natural means, or by a man’s desire, but he was born of God. (John 1.13, TPT)

He clarifies in a footnote:

13 Or “born out from God.” This verse could be considered John’s version of the virgin birth of Christ.

He goes on to explain:

However, the vast majority of translations and expositors see here not Christ’s virgin birth, but the new birth of those who became “children of God” in v. 12.

For example,

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1.12, 13, ESV)

Brian Simmons’ note affirms:

Both [concepts – the new birth and the virgin birth ] are clearly presented in the Scriptures.

But since the subject of all of John 1.1 – 14 is Jesus, it’s not unreasonable to link verse 13 to verse 14, instead of verse 12. If we changed “who were” in verse 13 to “he was,” even in a standard translation like ESV, we’d have:

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.

He was born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And so the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1.12 – 14, ESV, the bold is changing “who were” to “he was” and adding “so” to verse 14)

Something to think about…