Until very recently, this would have seemed a really stupid thing to ask as we should all know the answer.   Throughout the history of mankind, for some 6,000 years, there is no record of this question needing to be answered because male and female genders were clearly understood.

On the website zfacts.com, we read: “The woke position currently amounts to this: women should not talk about themselves as an identity group. That group is apparently now politically incorrect and undeserving of a name, especially undeserving of its old and well-respected name.”  It goes on to say that “woke ideology (but not woke individuals) should be erased. Claiming to be woke — alert to injustice — is just a cover for authoritarian excess.”

However, it seems that this is an ongoing issue and one outcome is the confusion concerning the use of gender-neutral toilets.

Wikipedia writes under the heading of “transgender” the following:

“Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth.   Some transgender people who desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another identify as transsexual.  Transgender, often shortened as trans, is also an umbrella term; in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may also include people who are non-binary or genderqueer.”

And then comes along the “trans” lobby and a nominee for the US Supreme Court who said she couldn’t define what a woman is.

Quoting from thefederalist.com, we read the following:

“Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Joe Biden in large part because of her sex, said she couldn’t define what a woman is on Tuesday during her confirmation hearings.

“Jackson was chosen to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer in fulfillment of Biden’s identity politics pledge to install a black woman on the Supreme Court. Despite those reasons for her nomination, Jackson stumbled through giving a definition of ‘woman’ when Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked the straightforward question. ‘Can you provide a definition for the word “woman”?’ Blackburn asked during the hearing. ‘No, I can’t,’ Jackson said after confirming the question.

“The progressive judge claimed she was unable to provide a definition because ‘I’m not a biologist.’ ‘The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?’ Blackburn pressed. ‘Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there’s a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law and I decide,’ Jackson said.

“As Blackburn noted in her response, the fact that Jackson couldn’t give ‘a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about.”

It is worth repeating that exchange to show how common sense is so under threat from the woke brigade and the liberal left.

And it doesn’t stop there.

Kirrin Medcalf, head of trans inclusion at the controversial LGBT lobby group, made the following comments during an employment tribunal hearing when he was asked, “Do you define women as anyone, including men who say they are women?”  Medcalf replied, “Bodies are not inherently male or female. They are just their bodies.”

It appears that we can read from the comments of some “luminaries” that there is no longer a definition of what a woman is, and that bodies are not inherently male or female.

In our 2018 booklet, “God’s Teachings on Sexual Relationships,” we covered much information including all of the wrong sexual practices that the world now, in general, seems to approve of in direct opposition to what the great Creator God instituted when man was formed some 6,000 years ago.   On page 111 of this booklet, we write as follows under the headline “God Created Male and Female”:

“The Bible is very clear on this matter. We previously discussed in this booklet that God created human beings as man and woman (Genesis 1:27–28; 5:2; Matthew 19:4–6)—two genders with no other variation—and told them to be fruitful and multiply. That cannot happen with a number of wrong sexual practices that exist today.”

God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), but Satan the devil is.   We read in John 8:44:

“You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.”

Wherever there are problems, and the world is full of them, it can be guaranteed that our adversary, Satan the devil, will be in the mix somewhere.

In the Washington Examiner on 22^nd March 2022, the headline read: “It’s not just Jackson: Even scientists and ‘philosophers of biology’ can’t define what a woman is, says USA Today.”

As Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson cannot define what a woman is nor, apparently, can “scientists and ‘philosophers of biology’”, let us educate them all on this matter.

Wikipedia (amongst others) gives the following information:

“A woman is an adult female human. Prior to adulthood, a female human is referred to as a girl (a female child or adolescent). The plural women is sometimes used in certain phrases such as ‘women’s rights’ to denote female humans regardless of age.

“Typically, women have two X chromosomes and are capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause. Female anatomy is distinguished from male anatomy by the female reproductive system, which includes the ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, vagina and vulva. The adult female pelvis is wider, the hips broader, and the breasts larger than that of adult males. Women have significantly less facial and other body hair, have a higher body fat composition, and are on average shorter and less muscular than men.”

In spite of what man might be trying to engineer, only women can conceive and give birth to children.

In the first book of the Bible, the book of Genesis, we read in Genesis 1:26-28: “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’  So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’”

We appreciate that there is so much antagonism towards the Word of God today where the numbers of believers in an all-powerful Creator God seem to reduce by the year, but that, in no way, negates the Truth that it contains. Had God not made male and female, the only two genders that there are, none of us would be here today.

Trends, styles, crazes, fashions and fads will come and go but the Word of God, the Holy Bible, is constant in its instructions and guidance.   It defines who we are, what we are, and what we can look forward to in the soon-coming Kingdom of God.   When we take notice of the Bible, we reap the rewards of its unending urging, direction and answers.

In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy: “…from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.   All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Taking note of what the Almighty says is of far more importance and infinitely wiser than listening to the thoughts and musings of fallible men and women who come up with their own theories, philosophies and considerations.

God says that He created a man and a woman, and they were to multiply on the face of the earth, and they have done and are doing that.

And that has been achieved with just two genders, male and female.

God has designed male and female as both equal and different.   Both have different roles in life.   We read in Titus 2:3-5: “…the older women likewise [are to] be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.”

Of course, that doesn’t go down well with the “women’s lib” movement, but it is taken from the Word of God which is written for the good of mankind, and there are many other Scriptures which attest further to the roles of men, women and children.

In short, a woman marries a man, bears children where possible, nurtures and protects her family, is a homemaker and a support for her husband.   He, in return, has the responsibility to provide for his family in the best way possible.  There are biological and emotional differences, and they complement each other as God ordained it so.

Proverbs 31:10-31, which is a wonderful description of a virtuous woman, would be a good starting point for anyone to read, particularly those who can’t define what a woman is and those who ridiculously state that “bodies are not inherently male or female.”  However, that would probably be a leap too far to ask strident, God-defying people to look at, or review anything other than their own perceived wisdom.

That’s a shame because they could learn much from the Word of God!

Lead Writer: Brian Gale (United Kingdom)

The literal act of littering is not directly and expressly addressed in the Bible, but neither are such areas as smoking, vaccinations and other matters. But there are many principles that show that we can learn from God’s Word even if a specific area cannot be found in Scripture.

 We will find out in this Q&A that littering is something that we must take seriously. There may be those who see this question and think that it is so obvious that it need not be addressed in the Church of God. But it does because we can all fall short in this area even though it may be considered a little thing.  After all, Christ said: “He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much” (Luke 16:10).  As a spin-off to littering, we will also address neatness and tidiness.

Life is made up of many small things, and we do need to take those small things seriously.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines litter as: “trash, wastepaper, or garbage lying scattered about; an untidy accumulation of objects.”

Let us bring to mind how big a problem this can be.  It was reported in July 2019 that the “Glastonbury (music) Festival has been left with a sea of litter left to be cleaned up – just hours after Sir David Attenborough appeared on the Pyramid stage to praise the festival’s anti-plastic campaign. But some were left asking about Glastonbury’s ‘Plastic free’ mantra as photos showed the devastating mess left in the wake of the world’s most famous festival.

“Around 1,300 volunteers are taking on the gargantuan task, using bin bags from recycled plastic to hand sort debris left on the ground and across the festival site’s 15,000 bins.  The clean-up of the festival takes an estimated six-weeks to complete.”

Mr Armstrong, the late human leader of the now defunct Worldwide Church of God, used to comment on the yearly Rose Parade in Pasadena as one of the most beautiful things this world was able to offer, but also bemoaned the terrible amount of trash and litter being left behind after the event, saying that in this world, even the most beautiful things are being polluted and defiled.

There was a series of programmes on British television in 2021 about the workings of Chatsworth House showing all that goes on behind the scenes as well as the facilities that are available. The Church held the annual Feast of Tabernacles at this site for 10 years between 1999-2009 in what is a truly millennial setting.  However, one day that it was opened to the public during different lockdowns during 2020, an area was designated for use by those wishing to have a picnic.   The amount of waste left was staggering with many staff taking hours just to clean up the area.

We read on the website trashhero.org the following: “Litter is what we call trash when it ends up outside a bin or landfill.  Litter is bad for animals and people. Plastic waste suffocates, disables and kills thousands of animals each year. Litter is dirty and spoils our environment.

“Turtles, seals, birds and dolphins often mistake plastic waste for food. Plastic bags floating in the water can look like jellyfish, for example. After animals eat plastic, their intestines get blocked and their normal food can’t be digested properly. If they eat too much plastic, their stomachs always feel full, so they don’t eat anything else. Eventually they can starve to death. Plastic also contains lots of nasty chemicals that can poison animals and cause internal injuries.

“Animals often get entangled in plastic bags. This means they can suffocate, starve or drown. It also makes it easier for predators to catch them. Plastic bags constrict an animal’s movement which means they can get exhausted, or sometimes develop an infection from wounds caused by material wrapped around them. Plastic packaging can sink to the ocean floor, get wrapped around and smother coral reefs. Inland, plastic blocks drains, allowing mosquitoes to breed and spread dengue fever. Litter makes the beach look dirty. Sharp objects like broken glass can cut your feet. Because of this, there may be fewer visitors and local people will have less income from tourism.”

We should be able to see that litter is a real problem which so many seem to treat with disdain or contempt.

In an article by the Los Angeles Times, dated April 14, 2022, the following was stated:

“The Los Angeles City Council passed two motions… to address illegal dumping on the streets and in vacant lots of trash and junk like appliances, furniture, tires and other waste… ‘We live in a very trashy city,’ [Councilmember Kevin] de León said… ‘In terms of a large metropolitan city, we are the trashiest largest city in America.’ The city controller’s office reported last year that illegal dumping of trash, debris and hazardous items in public areas increased 450% between 2016 and 2020.”

Let us review a few Scriptures which reflect the Way of God.

In Genesis 2:15, right at beginning of civilization, we read: “Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.”

In bibleref.com, we read: “One of the most important lessons which jumps out from this verse is that immediately after he was created, the first man had a God-given purpose. God placed him into the paradise of the garden of Eden with a job to do. God had created a world which included work needing to be done; He created man with a mission to do that work. Logically, God didn’t need to structure the world in this way. He could have created a world that was fully self-sustaining. He could have made human beings to simply live in luxury and enjoy all of God’s creation without ever having to contribute anything. That, however, was not God’s design. Even before [human] sin entered the world, human beings were meant to work, to help to accomplish God’s purpose. That is built into us.”

We should note what the angels say to God about those who pollute and destroy the environment: “We give You thanks, O LORD God Almighty… Your wrath has come, And the time… that you… should destroy those who destroy the earth” (Revelation 11:17-18).

Likewise, today we are not to dismiss looking after our gardens, if we have one.  To keep it neat, tidy and functional is the way that we are expected to deal with this.

In Matthew 7:12, we read about how we should treat others: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”  Those who leave litter on someone else’s grounds would probably not appreciate others littering their own place. Therefore, we should treat other people’s property with the respect that we would ourselves expect to receive.

There is a graphic example in Mark 6:38-44 with Jesus and the loaves and fishes as we read: ^“But He said to them, ‘How many loaves do you have? Go and see.’  And when they found out they said, ‘Five, and two fish.’ Then He commanded them to make them all sit down in groups on the green grass.   So they sat down in ranks, in hundreds and in fifties.   And when He had taken the five loaves and the two fish, He looked up to heaven, blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to His disciples to set before them; and the two fish He divided among them all.   So they all ate and were filled.   And they took up twelve baskets full of fragments and of the fish.  Now those who had eaten the loaves were about five thousand men.”

They didn’t leave all the fragments for others to clear up as would probably happen today, but they cleared up after the event. Of course, Christ made clear that He wanted the fragments to be gathered up “so that nothing is lost” (John 6:12). In addition, picking up food from the ground might not have been very hygienic.   Perhaps showing the magnitude of the miracle that 5,000 men plus women and children had been fed with five loaves and two fish was astonishing only to be compounded even further by the amount of fragments that had been left.   It also showed that littering was not the way it should be and they would have left the area in the same way that they had found it. It is a good principle not to leave a place dirtier than how we found it.

We see the aspect of service that is not in evidence when serving others is not shown.  In Galatians 5:13 we read: “For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.”   Loving and serving others is not manifested by selfishly leaving a pile of litter for others to dispose of.

Looking after the interests of others is clearly shown in Philippians 2:3-4: “Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better [higher] than himself.  Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.”

Do we as the people of God engage in littering of any kind?   Have we ever carelessly discarded a food wrapper or an empty drink can?  If there are no bins for depositing such rubbish, then we are obliged to take these home or to another place where they may be disposed of in the right way.  Have we ever thrown a discarded item out of our car window?

Have we ever engaged in some form of fly-tipping which is the illegal dumping of liquid or solid waste on land or in water?  The waste is usually dumped to avoid disposal costs and such a mess  that is created by such selfishness, has to be dealt with by others.

Do we always pick up after our dog once it has done its “business” on the front yard of somebody else’s property? After all, it isn’t exactly the most enjoyable chore we’ll ever engage in. It can be tempting to skip this task, but doing so may even be illegal in many places.

Part of rebellious mankind’s modus operandi is that man thinks that he can do exactly as he pleases without regard to planet Earth or any of his fellow human beings.   It is an attitude that is ugly and uncaring, and we must ensure that we don’t slip into doing the same thing, perhaps even thoughtlessly.

The above examples are a part of being neat and tidy.   Are our homes untidy, maybe even scruffy?   Of course, for some who have illness or disability problems, this can be a difficult area to keep control of.   We know that where there is dirt and litter, vermin can be attracted to such areas, and so it is vital that we eliminate any possibility of this happening in our own homes.   And home is where we spend the majority of our time, and so, why shouldn’t it be a delightful place to dwell?

A good question to ask is, are we always prepared for any visitors to enter our home or do we have to specifically prepare well in advance?   For those who are always clean, neat and tidy and keep their home that way, there is no such concern for any unexpected visit. Of course, we understand that there might be and oftentimes are valid exceptions, but we are speaking in general terms.

One website wrote about “Messy Home, Messy Life, Messy Saint” and observed: “And, your yard. What do you announce to the neighborhood about yourself if there is trash all around? Hoses wind around like green spaghetti. The flower pots still have desiccated geraniums in them that were killed last fall by freezing weather. Clean it up, and throw away the stupid stuff which you once thought you might use. And, if much of the junk is your kids’ stuff, make them help you. If your kids are too mean spirited to clean up their own trash, you are not raising them– they are raising YOU.”   Very straightforward advice but true to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Let us think about heaven, God’s abode.   Of course, it is spiritual and not physical, and we really can only wonder about the spiritual realm but would the One who created the universe and everything we see, be dirty, untidy and uncaring about presentation?   We should all know the answer to that question and, as we are to be growing in grace and knowledge to become more like God, we would surely want to follow Him in all His ways.

God would surely disapprove of anyone leaving His creation in an untidy mess with trash and general litter marring the beauty that is our planet and it makes unnecessary work for others to do when we should be doing this ourselves.  Anything that reduces or inhibits the proper enjoyment and full use of our God-given environment will not be met with God’s approval. Leaving rubbish for others to clear up is selfish and unthinking.

What sort of message does it send out to the young people growing up today when their parents and family just throw rubbish anywhere they want?   And when they take little or no interest in keeping their home, clean, tidy and litter-free?

It is interesting that the Singapore project has produced amazing results showing that attacking the littering problem can be very advantageous.  We read the following in an article by the BBC::

“Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, there were campaigns that urged Singaporeans to keep toilets, factories and bus stops clean. The 1976 Use Your Hands campaign had students, parents, teachers, principals and civil servants cleaning up schools at the weekend. There were also numerous tree planting initiatives. The aim wasn’t just to make the city more pleasant. A cleaner city, Lee Kuan Yew reasoned, would create a stronger economy. ‘These standards will keep morale high, sickness rate low, and so create the necessary social conditions for higher economic growth in industry and in tourism. This will contribute to the public good, and in the end to everyone’s personal benefit,’ he said.

“On all of these counts, Singapore has done well. Life expectancy has grown from 66 to 83 (which is third best globally). In 1967, tourist arrivals were a little over 200,000 compared to a just shy of 10 million for the first three quarters of 2018. Inward foreign direct investment ballooned from US$93m in 1970 to US$39bn in 2010. It’s now the fifth largest recipient of, foreign direct investment receiving $66bn in 2017.”

Doing the right thing will always produce good results, as we see in the above example.   For anyone visiting Singapore, they will see a litter-free environment as littering is very heavily punished.  People have been “trained” not to litter and to keep things neat and tidy, and it is a joy to see this actually working, which is in great contrast to the many nations of the world who have little or no control on such matters.

There is no specific command in the Bible not to litter but if there was, it would probably be ignored by most people like all of the other Commandments of God are.  We shouldn’t litter because it is not the Way of God, nor is it helpful to man as we have seen.   Let us be the best example we can be to all people and do that which is pleasing in His sight.

If you have read this and feel that you have not been guilty or are totally on top of this matter, then congratulations to you.   Most will surely be able to identify with being slack in this area at times, and if that is so, then maybe this presentation may be just the nudge that you need!

Let us make ourselves a committee of one to ensure that we are not part of this problem and that we always set the best possible example!

Lead Writer: Brian Gale (United Kingdom)

Following our two-part series, entitled: “Was Jesus Really Born in Jerusalem?”, we will in this Q&A answer the question as to whether Mary was a virgin.   We had touched upon this question in our last Q&A, under “(1) Mary was a virgin,’ but we will address this issue here in more detail.

For example, one writer penned the following:

“The virginity of Mary, as Matthew claims, depends on an incorrect reading of a prophetic text (Isaiah 7:14). The original Hebrew reads ‘a young woman shall conceive’, but Matthew has chosen an inexact Greek translation which renders it ‘a virgin shall conceive’. At this point, Matthew agrees with Luke; yet he is the only one amongst all the other biblical writers who knows anything of Mary’s alleged virginity.”

Wikipedia has this to say on the matter:

“Isaiah 7:14 is a verse in the seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah in which the prophet Isaiah, addressing king Ahaz of Judah, promises that God will destroy the king’s enemies before a child born to an almah (young woman) is weaned.  Scholars agree that the word ‘almah’ has nothing to do with virginity, but the 2nd century BCE Greek Septuagint translated it as ‘parthenos’, meaning virgin, thereby allowing the author of the gospel of Matthew to use the verse as a prediction of the virgin birth of Jesus.”

They then claim that a literal translation would read as follows: “…therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: the maiden is with child and she will bear a son, and will call his name Immanuel.”

They go on to say: “A sign, in this context, means a special event which confirms the prophet’s words. Ahaz’s sign is to be the birth of a son to an almah, who will name him Immanuel, ‘God is with us’; the significance of the sign is not the identity of the child or his mother (scholars agree that ‘almah’ refers to a woman of childbearing age and has nothing to do with virginity) but the meaning of his name (‘God is with us’) and the role it plays in identifying the length of time before God will destroy the Ephraimite-Syrian coalition (before the child learns right from wrong).”

As we will see, Wikipedia and others questioning the virgin birth are wrong for a multitude of reasons. At this point, we just want to point out that the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 was not even meant foremost for the time of Isaiah, but for a future time, and ultimately, for the very end time. The Child to be born would have the name “Immanuel”—clearly a description of Jesus Christ and not of an ordinary person. In addition, we read in verse 18 that the destruction of Israel through the Assyrians would come to pass “in that day”—a reference to the very end time and the very last days.

We also need to point out that when the Hebrew uses the word which some say means young woman, rather than virgin, this objection fails for the additional reason that the young woman of childbearing age was in fact assumed to be a virgin.  If it were otherwise and if the young woman was no longer a virgin, then Scriptures would clearly state this.

It is the case that most translations use the phrase “virgin.” The Bible Gateway list of different translations shows that there are 40 who do so.  However, there are a number of translations that use the phrase “young woman” , for example,  Amplified Bible Classic Edition (AMPC), Common English Bible (CEB), Complete Jewish Bible (CJB), Easy to Read Version (ERV), Good News Bible Translation (GNT), New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE), New English Translation (NET), New International Version (NSV), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and The Voice Translation.

Wikipedia further observes: “When the Revised Standard Version translators rendered ‘almah’ as ‘young woman’ in 1952 it immediately became a center of controversy for conservative Christians, who believed that this passage predicted the virgin birth of Jesus.  The RSV quickly replaced the KJV in many churches across America, but fundamentalist American Christians argued that nowhere in the Old Testament was an almah anything other than a young unmarried girl, and one pastor publicly burned a copy of the RSV.  Isaiah 7:14 became a litmus test of orthodoxy among conservatives, but most modern Bible translations use ‘young woman’.

“On his blog, New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman has argued that the original meaning of the word parthenos in the Septuagint (i.e., the Hebrew Bible translated by Hellenistic Jews in Koine Greek) is ‘young woman’, not ‘virgin’, but the word changed meaning over the centuries; thus the authors of Matthew and Luke believed instead that Isaiah had predicted a virgin birth for the coming Messiah, using the common understanding of the term in their time.”

It is interesting that many German translations use the word “virgin” or “young woman,” but remark in either case that the words are interchangeable, for the obvious reason as explained above; that a young woman was supposed to be a virgin. Compare revidierte Lutherbibel 2017; neue Lutherbibel 2009; Elberfelder Bibel; Hoffnung für Alle; Schlachterbibel; Menge Bibel; and many others.

The Schlachterbibel includes the following annotation:

“The Hebrew word describes an unmarried woman and means indeed ‘virgin.’… That is why the birth of Isaiah’s own son could not be the total fulfillment of this prophecy.”

Similarly the Ryrie Study Bible:

“The Hebrew word that is here translated ‘virgin’ is found elsewhere in the O.T. in Gen. 24:43; Exod. 2:8: Psalm 68:25; Prov. 30:19; Song of Sol. 1:3;6:8, and in these instances refers only to a chaste maiden who is unmarried.”

But surely it is quite simple when other Scriptures are read.  For example, let us review Matthew 1:20 which reads: “But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”

Note that Joseph, when he discovered that Mary was pregnant, was willing to leave her (Matthew 1:19), because being her betrothed husband and knowing that they did not have any sexual relationship together, he assumed that Mary must have committed fornication or adultery with someone else.

Denying the virgin birth, as some theologians do, must lead to the inevitable conclusion that he had a human father i.e. Joseph or someone else.   If that was the case, Jesus could not possibly be the Son of God whom the Father sent to the earth, and Scripture would be unreliable.   Anyone who rejects the virgin birth must also by extension, reject the veracity of the Word of God.

It is interesting that many did not believe in the virgin birth at the time of Jesus, accusing Him of having been born in fornication (John 8:41).

Looking at different translations of Matthew 1:25, we read:

“… and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS”  (NKJV).

“… but he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus” (NIV).

“But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus” (New Living Translation).

“And he did not know her sexually until she delivered her firstborn son, and she called his name Yeshua” (Aramaic Bible in Plain English).

Therefore, if Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until after the birth of Jesus, Mary would have been a virgin.

Luke 1:26-35 is a revealing passage of Scripture where the subheading is “Christ’s Birth Announced to Mary”:

“Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,  to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.  And having come in, the angel said to her, ‘Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!’ But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. Then the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.’ Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I do not know a man?’ And the angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.’”

In verse 34, Mary said “How can this be, since I do not know a man?,” clearly indicating that she was a virgin. In addition, Luke identifies her clearly as a virgin in verse 27: “…the virgin’s name was Mary.”

We know that the Catholic Church believes that Mary was a virgin all her life and denies that she had other children.  This is another error as we point out in our Q&A entitled “The international press recently reported that Catholics, Orthodox and many Protestants believe that Mary was a virgin throughout her life. It is claimed that those called ‘Jesus’ brothers’ in the Bible were in fact His cousins (Zenit, May 15, 2003).  Is this also your understanding? Please see https://www.eternalgod.org/q-a-3799/ In addition, please read our free booklets, “Jesus Christ—a Great Mystery” and “Do You Know the Jesus of the Bible?” 

We know that the meaning of words can change over a period of time; e.g. “wicked” used to mean “morally wrong,” but today has been used by many as meaning “great” or ‘wonderful.”   Whether the term used for Mary is virgin or young woman, we can certainly see that she was a virgin until after the birth of Jesus. Later on, she would have several other children with Joseph.

It is, once again, an example of the Bible interpreting the Bible, which is the divine Word of God and infallible in its original writing.

Lead Writers: Brian Gale (United Kingdom) and Norbert Link