The Virgin Birth
By J. Prescott Johnson, Ph.D.
Northwestern University
Professor Emeritus of Philosophy
Monmouth College, Monmouth IL.
Preface
If Jesus was a prophet and no more, there is no difficulty; no one would defend the Virgin Birth on these terms. The question becomes an issue only when Jesus is believed to be more than a man. The Gospel of Luke affirms that very belief:
And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest, and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end (Luke 1:31-33).
Chapter 1
The Virgin Birth and the New Testament outside the 1st & 3rd Gospels[1]
- Paul
Outside the First and Third Gospels there is no direct reference to the Virgin Birth in the New Testament (Matt. 1:18-25, Luke l:34f). The study of the subject is mainly a study in silence. For that reason it is both difficult and complicated.
Several passages from St. Paul have been quoted in support of the view that he knew the tradition of the Virgin Birth.
The first passage is Galatians 4:4, which reads: “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth hia Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. It is improbable that there is here any reference to the Virgin Birth. The phrase “born of a woman” is used to refer to any ordinary human birth (Job 14:1 Matt:11:11).
Romans 1:3f. reads: “. . . his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” The argument is made that here the thought of the Virgin Birth is implicit (James Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ, pp. 119ff.)
The passage does not even refer to the Virgin Birth. The passage states an antithesis. it refers to the Son from two standpoints, that of the body and that of the Spirit. It is difficult, if not impossible, to think that the antithesis would have been stated this way if the Apostle had been thinking of the Virgin Birth. “Born of the seed of David” contains no reference to this doctrine. It is not mentioned until the following clause, and there it is predicated, not in the Virgin Birth, but in the Resurrection. It is probable that St. Paul never heard of the Virgin Birth.
- Q
Q (Quella, “source”) is the symbol used to denote the documentary source, upon which the first and third Evangelists drew, in addition to St. Mark’s Gospel.
As regards the Virgin Birth, it is certain that Q did not contain the tradition.
3 Mark
On a certain Sabbath day, Jesus taught in the Temple. Those who heard Him were astonished. They remarked: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary . . .” (Mark 6:3).
The only parent mentioned is the mother. There is no mention of the father, Joseph. This omission of the father is contrary to Jewish custom. Thus the question is raised as to the significance of the omission. However, the important point is that the discussion here is only that of the process of ordinary human birth. There is no reference to Virgin Birth.
However we explain the phrase, we cannot interpret it as implying a knowledge of the Virgin Birth on the part of the people of Nazareth. There is a note of perplexity in the question. Had they knowledge of the Virgin Berth, they would not have asked such a querulous question.
There is the question concerning Mark’s knowledge of the Virgin Birth: Dis Mark have knowlege of the doctrine? Several passages have been cited in support of the contention that Mark had no knowledge of the doctrine. Among these is Mark 3:21. Mary and the brother of Jesus entered a house where there was a crowd. When Jesus was informed that they are without seeking Him, He said “Who is my mother or my brethren?” He then continues: “Behold, my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and my mother,”
It is necessary to consider Mark’s narrative in the light of Mark 3:21, a passage that is omitted in Matt. and Luke. There, we are told that the friends of Jesus (o_ πα_ α_oτ_, probably His kinsmen) went out to lay hold on Him, in the belief that He was mad. This fact explains the incident of Mark 3:31-35, where Jesus explains the identity of His brethren and mother. The question now arises: did Mary share in the fears and intentions of the crowd, that her Son was mad.
Mark 6:4 records Jesus’words that a prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. The phrase “among his own kin” points in the same direction as Mark 3:21, 31-35, where Jesus’ friends are concerned that Jesus may be mad, and where Jesus explains that His true kin are those who do the will of God. Another incident is recorded in Mark 12:35-37 (Matt. 22:41-46; Luke 20:41-44), where Jesus raises the question, how the Messiah can be at once David’s Son and David’s Lord. Here Jesus assumes the reality of His human parentage on which His Davidic descent relies. The is no other reference to anything else.
Thus, these passages raise more than the question whether Mark knew of the Virgin Birth. They raise the question of the knowledge of Jesus, and indeed the whole question of the historical character of the Miraculous Conception.
What this implies is that, if Jesus knew nothing of the Virgin Birth, but believed Himself to be the son of Joseph, then the conception of the Virgin Birth becomes extremely problematic.
Further, the silence of Mark about the Virgin Birth raise the serious question, why should he remain silent about the Virgin Birth if he knew about it and believed in in it? He is not silent about certain other events in Jesus’ life. In short, Mark appears to have had no knowledge of the Virgin Birth.
4
Acts
There is no reference to the Virgin Birth in The Acts. Christ is described as a man approved by God (2:22), as one who was anointed by God and His Holy Spirit, who went about doing good (10:38). He is the Holy One and the Just (3:4), the Prince of life (3:15), whom God made both Lord and Christ (2:26). He is exalted to the right hand of God, to be a Prince and Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins (5:31).
5
Hebrews
The book of Hebrews is significant because of the developed character of the doctrine of the Person of Christ, and because the writer (probably a woman, Priscilla), while not an eyewitness (2:3), had a vivid knowledge of many events in the early life of Jesus. As regards the Virgin Birth, the epistle is completely silent. The reference to the descent of Jesus from the tribe of Judah (7:14) is quite bare. The statements concerning the sinlessness of Christ (4:15, 7:26), and the lofty characterization of the Son as “the effulgence” of God’s glory and “the very impress of his substance” (1:3) are made without a word as to the method of the Incarnation. Thus, it appears that the writer’s thought is nowhere influenced by the Virgin Birth. Especially is this the case in such passages as 2:14 (“Forasmuch then as the children are partakers (κεκoιvώvηκεv) in flesh and blood, he himself likewise took part (μετέςεχεv) of the same,” and 2:17 “… it behoved him to be made like unto his brethern.”
The Fourth gospel is silent regarding the Virgin Birth, the only question being whether there is not a passing reference to the doctrine in John 1:13, which reads: “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, bot of God.” The case is unique, for the doctrine of the Virgin Birth was, without question, well known by John. Around c. 110 A.D. the Epistles of Ignatius contain several references to the doctrine (Eph. Xviii. 2; x1x.1; Magn. 11; Tr. ix). The difficulty is increased by the freedom that the Evangelist treats the Synoptics. On the one hand, their contents are assumed; and on the other hand, he corrects them when he thinks it necessary to do so.
The view that the Fourth Gospel simply rejects the Virgin Birth cannot be justified. THe silence of John means, not that he rejects the view, bUt only that he gives it no place in his doctrinal system.
Chapter 2
The Virgin Birth and the Third Gospel
This chapter is a discussion of the question whether the Virgin Birth is an original element in the Third Gospel, the Gospel of Luke. There is a further question: Did Luke teach the Virgin Birth? But, first we must consider the first question: whether the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is an original element in the gospel of Luke.
Chapter 1
The first task is to examine the passages in Luke’s Gospel that are said to be irreconcilable with the view that Luke wrote in the belief of the validity of the Virgin Birth.
(1) Luke 3:22, according to the “Western Text”
Luke 3:22 reads “… Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.” However, there is another reading, called the “Western Reading,” that reads: υ__ς μoυ ε_ σ_ _γ_ σ_μερov γεγ_vvκά σε, “Thou art my Son: Today I have begotten Thee.” If the “Western Reading” is accepted, there is a strong presupposition against the view that Luke’s Gospel originally contained the Virgin Birth.
(2) The Lukan Genealogy and Luke 3:23
The Lukan genealogy is artificially constructed; it is an arrangement of names in multiples of seven. The list contains seventy-seven names. Luke may have constructed the list.
Luke 3:23 contains the expression as was supposed: “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph …”.
The expression as was supposed has to be analyzed as to its meaning and import. At first, it appears that Luke believed in the wholly human birth of Jesus. At a later time, he became acquainted with a person, whom he regarded as reliable, and came to the belief that the birth involved the miraculous conception.
(3) The Narratives of Luke 2
We are now to examine the narratives of Luke 2 and ask Under what presuppositions where they shaped. The incidents that call for special notice are the Purifying, the meeting with Simeon in the Temple, and the visit of Jesus to Jerusalem at the age of twelve.
The story of the Purifying is found in Luke 2:22-24. It reads: “And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord:) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”
Turning to the account of the Purifying, we are met with the question: What is the meaning of the phrase, “their purification (2:22)? The pronoun their, does not refer to the mother and child. According to the Levitical Law, it was only the mother who was made unclean bt a birth (cf. Lev. 12). The purification refers only to the mother.
In the two remaining stories, that of the meeting with Simeon, and that of the visit of Jesus to Jerusalem, there is a common element that provokes reflection in the surprise of Joseph and Mary. In reference to the prophesy of Simeon concerning Jesus, it is said that they “were marveling at the things that were said” (Luke 2:33). Here the question makes its appearance. Why should Mary have wondered if she had already received the announcement of the Virgin Birth and had seen the announcement fulfilled. Would Luke have thought any prophecy called for wonder after such facts as these?
The same difficulty arises in the story of the visit to the Temple. After Luke has recorded the pregnant words of Jesus, “How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? Ane they understood not the saying which he spake unto them” (Luke 2:49). To say that they did not understand his words is an astonishing thing for a writer who believes the Virgin Birth. On the other hand it is a perfectly natural remark, if we can presume the Evangelist to have written in the absence of such a belief.
(4) The References to Joseph and Mary in Luke 2
These passages are as follows: 2:27, “the parents”; 2:41 and 43, “his parents”; 2:33, “his father and mother”; and 2:33, “his father and mother” and 2:48, “thy father and I. The point to be considered is whether we can suppose Luke to have known the Virgin Birth at the time he used these expressions.
Here Luke only speaks of Jesus’ human parents, as if he had bo knowledge of the Virgin Birth. This is due to the fact that at this time he did not know of the Virgin Birth. The knowledge of the miraculous birth would come at a later time.
Chapter 2
“Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing that I know not a man? And the Angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:34, 35).
At this point, there two important questions that must be addressed.
(a) The interpretation of Luke 1:34f.
Is the assumption that Luke 1:34 f. implies the Virgin Birth tenable? What is the true interpretation of the passage? (b) What is the purport of the angelic announcement in Luke 1:30-33? Some interpreters of the passage have held the view that it is a strange declaration that she, Mary, is to have a son before she is married. Is there any suggestion of a virgin birth?
The interpretation of this verse depends upon the meaning of the word know, γιvώσκω (ginoskw). The meaning of the term is not, as some think, that Mary meant merely that she had no casual acquaintance with a man. But that is not what she meant. She probably had such acquaintance with some men. Upon the announcement that she was to bear a son, she knew her self-purity, and also new that to bear a son involved sexuality. That is the reason she raised the question, “How shall this be, seeing that I know not a man (Like 1:34). Thus, the word know is certainly used by Mary in the sexual connotation. That is why she was startled by the use of the term. Her question was not a strange question. This interpretation supports the view that the birth was a virgin birth.
(b) The purport of the Angelic announcement in Luke 1:30-33.
The message reads as follows: ‘And the angel said unto her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with God. And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: ane the Lord God shall give him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”
This prophesy moves strictly within Jewish limits. The Son-ship bears a purely Messianic character. The title υ__ς Ύψίστoυ expresses a close relation between Jesus and Jehovah, but not the Divine Son-ship in the Trinity. Nothing is either said or implied in this announcement of a miraculous birth.
There is some disagreement among scholars whether or not the conception of the child occurred while or after the Angel’s announcement of the birth. There is nothing to support an immediate conception during the angelic announcement. On the contrary, the accepted view is that the conception occurred some time after the announcement.
In the Greek we have he future tense of συλλ_ψ_ “thou shalt conceive.” Those who view the Virgin Birth as occurring during the angelic announcement believe that the Hebrew original of the Greek δμλλήψ_, “would be a participle, and the exact rendering would be “Behold thou art conceiving now.” It is true that the active participle is mainly descriptive of something present. But it is also true that the participle does not indicate time. Its import in this respect must be taken from the connection in which it stands. And that connection indicates past time. The serious objection to this view arises from Luke 2:21, where he says that the name Jesus thus was called by the angel “before he was conceived in the womb: “And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named by the angel before he was conceived in the womb” (Luke 2:21).
(c) Reasons for regarding Luke 1:34f. As a Later Interpretation.
It is now necessary to consider the arguments that can be advanced in favour of regarding Luke 1:34f as an interpolation. There are many scholars who believe the passage to be an insertion. What is important to do is to consider the passage in itself and in relation to its context. We then have a double series of arguments converging on one conclusion.
(1) The first point to be considered is that verse 36 follows naturally after verse 33. Verses 30-33 speak of the announcement to Mary to the effect that she is to give birth to a son who is destined to become the Messiah. He will be called “the son of the Most High”, and to him the Lord God will give “the throne of his father David”. The two passages forma fitting sequel. They add the assurance that “now word of God shall be void of power.
(2) Mary’s question in Luke 1:34, “How shall this be, seeing that I know not a man”? implies the immediate conception, although there is no such announcement in the angel’s words. There is thus a complete difference of point of view in the two passages. Mary could not have asked this question at the tome of the angelic announcement. It was the last question she could have thought of to ask. It was put into her mouth by one (Luke) who already knew of the Virgin Birth, and wished to introduce that doctrine into a context in which originally it did not appear.
Chapter 3
Luke and The Virgin Birth
We have seen that Luke did not know of the Virgin Birth at the time when he first wrote his Gospel. The question then is, Did Luke teach the Virgin Birth?
There are two lines of agreement that merge in this direction. The first argument is textual; the second is linguistic and textual. They are complementary each to the other. Their agreement is sufficient to establish a result for which a very high degree of probability can justly be claimed.
Chapter 4
The Place of the Virgin Birth in the Third Gospel
We have seen that Luke first wrote his gospel without any knowledge of the Virgin Birth. At that time he regarded Jesus as the son of Joseph and Mary. Later he received the tradition of the Virgin Birth. At what time and from what source the story reached him we are unable to say. In any case the probability is that the tradition was imparted to him from some one who claimed to posses a fuller and better account, and whose claim the Evangelist respected and admitted. Probably the story appealed to him as a fitting explanation of the unique personality of Jesus. It was a tradition rich in doctrinal possibilities; it provoked reflection, and it answered questions.
It was easy for Luke to insert the new material in the existing document. He had only to insert the words we have now in Luke 1:34 f. into the address of the angel, and to add in the pening words of the Genealogy the phrase “as was supposed”, to obtain a narrative in which truths found sufficient statement.
There are certain consequences that follow the view herein stated. (1) We can claim Luke as a witness to the tradition of the Virgin Birth. (2) Luke’s witness marks a very early stage in the spread of Virgin Birth tradition. (3) The fact yust mentioned helps to date the first appearance of the Virgin Birth tradition; its date is bound up with the question of the date of the Third Gospel. (4) There is an earlier narrative of the birth of Jesus that new nothing of the Virgin Birth. (5) We know nothing as of the origin of the Virgin Birth tradition as implied in Luke 1:34 f.
Chapter 5
The Virgin Birth and the First Gospel
More than other Synoptic Gospels Matthew is an “official” document of the Christian Church. There is the question as to how far the Gospel bears witness to the Virgin Birth, and what the character of the witness is.
1
The Characteristics of the Genealogy
(1) The purpose is to show the Davidic descent of Jesus by tracing the royal line of David the King.
(2) The structure is artificial.
(3) The verb _γέvvησεv (beget) is used in a legal, not physical, sense.
(4) The references to women are unique and are due to an apologetic purpose. It traces the descent no farther back that to Abraham; it is fundamentally Jewish. Its purpose is to rebut Jewish slanders regarding the birth of Jesus, ie., that he was not born out born out of the direct line, that he was born irregularly.
These characteristics features of the Genealogy show that from the first it was compiled with the Virgin Birth presupposed.
Regarding the document Dialogue of Timothy and Aquilla, even if it had ended with the statement “and Joseph begat Jesus,” it would not prove that Joseph was the actual father of Jesus. The Sin. Syr., which has been called the true text of Matt. 1:16.ff., reads “And Jacob begat Joseph. Joseph, to whom was espoused Mary a virgin, begat Jesus, who is called Christ. In this text Joseph is not called the husband of Mary. Even if the reading, “Joseph begat Jesus” be correct, it need not imply the natural generation of Jesus.
2
The Genuineness of Matt. 1, 2.
Scholars agree that the First Gospel contained these chapters. In style, in vocabulary, and in mode of treatment, they are of a piece with the rest of the book.
The literary style of the Gospel is not so marked as that of Luke, but it nevertheless has a distinct character of its own. Compared with Mark, it is “more prosaic and colorless”, but it is “more calm and balanced” (Milligan: The New Testament Documents, Their Origin and Early History, p. 148).
Professor Burkhart described it as follows:
I wish I could think of some other word than “formality” by which to name the chief characteristic if the First Evangelist’s literary style. Formality suggests rigidity, generally with a certain measure of incapacity, and these are not among his defects. On the contrary, Matthew has great literary skill, as well as dignity. Everything that he says is put in with admirable clearness and lucidity; what he writes down he has first understood himself. If there is an exception to be noted he notes it (GHT., p. 186).
This same style is manifest throughout the Evangelist’s Gospel. This means that these chapters are original in his Gospel, that they are not a later insertion.
3
The Unity of Matt. 1, 2.
It has been said that the passage 1:18-25 of Matthew is an interpolation; and that originally the First Gospel knew nothing of the Virgin Birth. It is necessary to consider these views.
- The Genealogy
The question at hand is whether Matt. 1:1-17 is a genuine part of the Gospel.
The case in favor of this view is overwhelmingly strong. Its weight lies in the fact that the peculiar characteristics of the Genealogy are the same characteristics of the rest of the Gospel.
This is manifest in the strong interest taken in the Davidic Sonship. “The Gospel according to Matthew may be called The Book of Jesus Christ, the Son of David . . . The special aim of Matthew, in one word, is to represent our Lord as the legitimate Heir of the royal House of David” (Burkitt, Evang. Da-Memph., ii, p. 250).
The structure of the Genealogy is articicial. This is characteristic of Matthew’s writings.
It is the unique characteristic to use the term, γεvvάω.
The apologetic motive manifest in the Genealogy is also characteristic of the Gospel.
The nature of the Genealogy leaves little room for the linguistic test. “Yet even here we have we have the characteristic λεγόμεvoς in vs. 16, and the objective way that the writer speaks of “the Christ” in v. 17 is quite in the manner of Mt. xi. 2″ (Burkitt, op, cit, p. 250).
These considerations justify the view that Matt. 1:1-17 comes from the Evangelist’s pen.
The Passage Matt. 1:18-25.
This passage is extremely important; it leads us to the heart of the whole question, for here in the angelic message to Joseph, the Virgin Birth is asserted unmistakably. The genealogy comes from the hand of Matthew, leaving no question that Matt. 1:18-22 is a genuine part of the Gospel. It contradicts the erroneous view, held by some, that Matt. 1:18-25 is not a genuine part of the Gospel.
Copyright © by J. Prescott Johnson
[1]The Greek term for virgin is παρθέvoς (parthhenos) . It means young woman of marriageable age. ,It neither implies nor prohibits the act of sexual intercourse. The term does not imply the subject at all.