BIBLE STUDY BOOKLET

Why is the virgin birth referred to so infrequently within the New Testament?

The idea underlying this question is that if the virgin birth is an important issue, why is there not more space devoted to it in Scripture? However, this comment presents something of an argument from silence and, in any case, the passages that do deal with the matter are substantial and independent.

A reason why the virgin birth stories were not prominent during the period covered by the Acts of the Apostles may be that the virgin conception, being unwitnessed, would not have been of much relevance in preaching to Jews, the dominant people in God's purposes during this period. As we read in Deuteronomy 17:6, the Jews would require two or three witnesses for a fact to be established. Also, as we have already noted, the testimony of women carried little weight in Jewish society, though this practice has Rabbinic rather than Scriptural authority.

Should we nonetheless deduce that the virgin birth stories are imaginative creations? Are they products of later reflection on the incarnation, inserted into the infancy narratives to answer questions of origins and status? Is this the reason they have left no trace in the Epistles?

I think we may concede the contention that the virgin birth narratives were written up as a product of later reflection. However, this does not imply that the stories were invented. All material depends on genuine testimony from Mary.

There does seem to be a tendency in the New Testament for the first consideration of early events to appear in late works (as usually dated). This corresponds to the order in which the events were understood by the early church and their significance in terms of Jesus' person recognised.

In the New Testament, the divine sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ is said to have been demonstrated by the following events, which were written down in the reverse order of their occurrence:

1. His resurrection: 'Declared with power to be the son of God, by his resurrection from the dead.' (Romans 1:4)


2. His transfiguration: 'This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!' (Mark 9:7)


3. His baptism: 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him 1 am well pleased. (Matthew 4:17)


4. His birth: 'So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.' (Luke 1:35)


5. His pre-existence before creation: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' (John 1: 1)

The datings of these passages are uncertain. We have followed the common view that Paul's Epistles were the first part of the New Testament to be written, with Mark the first Gospel and John the last. Hence the argument should not be pressed too far. In any case, there is nothing wrong with understanding coming with time.

Are the two major passages relating to the virgin birth mutually contradictory?

The two passages in Matthew and Luke seem to refer to two different events, namely, the appearance of an angel to Joseph and to Mary respectively. The two events are separated in time, the appearance to Joseph occurring after the conception and that to Mary before. Hence, we have no contradiction.

Why do the infancy narratives refer to different but connected events without referring to one another?

In particular, we might ask "Didn't Mary and Joseph talk to one another"? Why did Joseph need a special revelation to convince him of the origin of Mary's pregnancy - didn't Mary tell him about her experience? Why, then, when the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph did he not reprove him for not believing Mary's testimony, or at least mention the former appearances of Gabriel?

It is common practice in the New Testament for parallel accounts of the same or related events to give totally different flavours by giving only half the story. Another example is that of the parallel accounts of the conduct of the thieves crucified with Christ. In two accounts (Matthew's and Mark's) we get the impression that both thieves were antagonistic to Jesus to the very end, whereas in Luke there is a "good" thief. If we reject E.W. Bullinger's idea that there were four thieves (or two thieves and two robbers) we have to admit that two of the passages do not give us the whole story.

To answer this type of objection, it is sufficient to say that, throughout the New Testament, events are written up economically and selectively according to the message to be deduced. We are not presented with dispassionate eyewitness accounts, though the passages are truly based on the testimony of eyewitnesses.

In these specific infancy passages, we note that Matthew gives Joseph's account because he is interested in the legal Royal descent, whereas Luke gives Mary's account because he is interested in the humanity of Jesus. This accords with the understanding of Matthew's Gospel as describing the Lord as King and Luke's as portraying the Lord as perfect Man.

It has been suggested that Luke may have learned Mary's account because, being a doctor, she may have felt it easiest to confide in him. This is an interesting idea, but to my mind it smacks a little too much of the modem notion of the doctor's surgery being a substitute for the confessional. In any case, with Joseph presumed dead by the time of the crucifixion (else why did the Lord leave his mother's welfare in the hands of John ? - see John 19:26-27) even Joseph's account must have been reported through Mary.

Be this as it may, once we take account of ancient literary practice there is no real problem with the lack of cross-reference between the passages.

Several Gospel passages appear to take Jesus' normal family background for granted, without contradiction. Does this factor represent further evidence that the virgin birth narratives are alien to the context of the Gospels in which they appear? For instance, in Matthew 13:55 the people of Nazareth say:

While in Luke 4:22 they say:

And in John 6:42 it may well be they who have followed Jesus from Nazareth to Capernaum who say:

Even Philip seems to agree with this, for in John 1:45 we read:

However, Mark 6:3 is less clear, for it says:

This last passage may be taken either way. It may indicate consciousness that Joseph was not Jesus' natural father; that is, either that Jesus was considered illegitimate or with reference to the virgin birth. However, since the crowds are pointing out the ordinariness of Jesus' background, it is more likely that Joseph is not mentioned simply because he was no longer alive.

How do we explain these statements by those who knew Jesus' background well?

Firstly, these statements may represent the common opinion of the day rather than the truth of the matter. That is, it may have been commonly supposed (as Luke 3:23 suggests) that Jesus was Joseph's natural rather than legal son. Joseph, in naming Jesus, thereby acknowledged him as his son and became the legal father. As the Mishna says:

In any case, these passages simply illustrate the Lord's humble, obedient and unspectacular pre-ministry life. As we read in Luke 2:51:

In John 6:42, echoing the thought of Mark 6:3 quoted above, the Jews take the knowledge of Jesus' mother to exclude the possibility of heavenly origin.

Does this mean that the virgin birth failed to achieve its aim?

An imperfect mother for the Lord was felt to be a problem even in some Christian circles. For example, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the 'immaculate conception' seems to stem from the idea that birth from a mother stained with original sin would not be appropriate for the Son of God. Since I have occasionally heard people confuse the doctrine of immaculate conception with that of the virgin birth, it is as well to point out the difference. As we have seen, the doctrine of the virgin birth states that Jesus was conceived without the agency of a human father. The idea of the immaculate conception, however, is that Mary herself was conceived without original sin, though there is no Scriptural warrant for this notion, which, despite a long probation in folk piety, only became official Roman Catholic doctrine in 1854.

However, it is evidently a misunderstanding to think that Jesus' sinlessness depended on that of his mother. Romans 8:3, in the literal rendering of the King James Authorised Version, tells us that Christ was born "in the likeness of sinful flesh". As the note in The Companion Bible points out, this birth was neither "in the likeness of flesh" nor yet "in sinful flesh", for his flesh was real flesh yet he was sinless. The virgin birth must have achieved this sinless incarnation, though precisely how is another matter which we will now attempt to consider.

A certain understanding of Romans 5:12 suggests that original sin is passed down through the male line, carrying on from the man Adam.

This interpretation suggests that the method of sin entering the world was through Adam's seed rather than merely through his sin. Otherwise, why no mention of Eve, who also sinned? If this suggestion is correct, then the lack of a human father was what ensured that Jesus was free from Adam's sin. This would be a neat solution to our problem, but I suspect that the reason Romans 5: 12 only mentions Adam may rather be that Adam, as the husband, was the one held responsible for the entry of sin into the world.

In summary, though we have not solved this problem, I do not think we should be too worried by it. We have come up against an enigma rather than a contradiction. We will reconsider Mary's contribution to her son's constitution in a later section.

In his Prologue, John makes no mention of the virgin birth and states that supernatural birth has nothing to do with physical birth. For instance, in John 1: 13 :-

Does this make the virgin birth irrelevant?

I do not think that this objection is serious. Firstly, it may be said that John is concentrating on the Divine pre-existence of the Word made flesh, so excursions into the "hows" and "whens" of the Incarnation would have taken him off course. Secondly, the passage quoted is, in any case, referring to the believer, who, in the nature of events, has a natural birth as his means of entering the world, which John is contrasting with the second birth. Christ had no need of a second birth, on account of the means of his first birth. Consequently, the thoughts engendered by this objection stimulate rather than weaken our faith in the virgin birth.

Jesus' relatives do not believe in him. Is this consistent with an explicitly supernatural birth announcement to his parents? We read in John 7:5:

Also, by implication, we have the same story again in Luke 8:21.

Do such passages indicate that Jesus' family rejected, or even were ignorant of the very possibility of, his supernatural conception?

In response to such an objection, it may firstly be remarked that it is not explicitly stated that Jesus' mother did not believe in him. Her actions at the marriage at Cana, recorded in John 2:5, for instance, would suggest that she did. Moreover, his brothers' reaction is only inexplicable if we assume that his childhood was full of extraordinary events, as portrayed in the Apocryphal gospels. However, we have noted elsewhere that to external appearances Jesus' upbringing was a model of normality. Doubtless his goodness would have aroused some resentment, just as all who live godly lives can expect opposition.

Is the reference to a "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 really to a "young woman"? Has the prophesy been misunderstood and misapplied? Isaiah 7:14 reads:

This seems to be a perfectly straightforward passage. The person to whom this sign is given is Ahaz, king of Judah, Isaiah's 8^th-century contemporary, and the two kings are Pekah, king of Israel, and Rezin, king of Syria. Since the original reference was evidently to Ahaz's time and in the absence of any indication that the prophecy was conditional, the events prophesied must have happened within three or so years for the prophecy to have been fulfilled.

The Hebrew for "virgin" in this passage is almah, which may refer to any young woman of marriageable age, not bethulah the technical term for a virgin. It is the Septuagint that introduces (or makes explicit) the idea of a virgin into the passage by translating almah by the Greek parthenos (virgin). It must be remembered, however, that the usage of vocabulary is seldom uniform. For instance, the Septuagint of Genesis 34:3 appears to have Shechem refer to Dinah as a parthenos after he has violated her.

In the original context, the almah was most probably a prominent young lady alive at the time. She was not necessarily a bethulah.

However, even if she was a virgin prior to the conception, there would seem to be straightforward non-supernatural ways of interpreting this passage.

Are we reduced to admitting that the doctrine of the virgin birth arose out of a misapplication of a dubious translation in the Septuagint ? I do not think so. The verse in question may be viewed as being typical, that is, as truly referring to its own times while not yet being fulfilled completely until a time then well in the future. This typical understanding is to be compared and contrasted with the Pesher method of exegesis, practised at Qumran and illustrated in the Dead Sea Scrolls (for example, in the commentary on Habakkuk), in which contemporary events are read into Old Testament passages which are interpreted in the light of present experience or imminent expectations.

The epistles do not seem to mention or reflect on the virgin birth. While this is an argument from silence, it is true to say that in certain passages, where opportunity arises for a comment on this doctrine, none is forthcoming. Does this indicate that the writers of the Epistles were ignorant of the virgin birth? One such passage is Galatians 4:4:

This, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, would seem to suggest normality both with respect to the birth and to the events leading up to it. Another is Philippians 2:7, where Paul describes the Lord as 'being made in human likeness', but makes no reference to the virgin birth.

We have discussed elsewhere the possibility that Galatians 4:4 does indicate knowledge of something extraordinary by using the unusual term 'made' (Greek ginomai rather than gennao), as also do Philippians 2:7, John 1: 14 (the Word was made flesh) and Romans 1:3 (made of the seed of David).

Even if pertinent, however, these inferences are far from explicit. A clear exposition of the doctrine of the virgin birth in one of the Epistles would have been more helpful! However, it must be seen that its introduction into contexts such as those above would have been an irrelevance.

In Galatians 4:4 the congruity between Christ and those redeemed from under the law would have been broken by referring to him as "born of a virgin". Similarly, Philippians 2:7 is concentrating on the humiliation of Christ in a very small space, as an illustration of a moral exhortation (see verse 5), so any reference to the virgin birth would have been a diversion.