The Virgin Birth

The Meaning of the Gospel Accounts

by OTTO A. PIPER

The Bans of the Dogma

The classical creeds of Christianity and the confessions of faith of the
overwhelming majority of Protestant churches profess the Virgin Birth
of Jesus. But the dogma has fallen on evil days. While in the past gen-
eration it was the subject of passionate and fierce polemics, it is com-
pletely disregarded by most modern theologians or subjected to an
apologetic treatment in which it is so strangely reinterpreted that little
is left of its original meaning. Thomas Boslooper's recent study,1 careful
and methodical as it is, is symptomatic of this development.
At first sight it is difficult to understand the modern theologian's
indifference or perplexity. Ever since the days of Ignatius of Antioch,
belief in the Virgin Birth has been considered an integral part of the
Christian message.2 It is true that direct reference to the Virgin Birth
in the New Testament is confined to Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke
1:26-38. Apologetic attempts to find further evidence in other New
Testament books, as in John 1:13 or Galatians 4:4, rest upon a tenuous
textual basis or are derived from questionable exegesis. John and Paul
guard an indubitable silence with reference to the Virgin Birth. This
fact should not be overrated, however, since both of them speak fre-
quently of the pre-existence of Jesus and both are aware of the problem
inherent in the Incarnation. That their reticence may not be interpreted
as disproving the Virgin Birth is obvious from the fact that second-
century writers, who depended heavily on these two authors, taught at
the same time the Virgin Birth. Even if the early kerygma did not
mention this event—but our knowledge of the kerygma is fragmentary
because we are almost exclusively dependent on the Pauline references—
the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists were certainly familiar with a form
of the kerygma or a primitive creed that proclaimed Jesus5 origin from
1. Boslooper, The Virgin Birth (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962).
2. For example, Ign. ad Magn. XI; Eph. VII,2; XVI11,2—XIX, 1; XX; Trail. IX, 1-2;
Philad. VIII,2b; IX,2; Smyrn. I; Aristides, Apol. XV,i).
132 Interpretation

Mary the Virgin. Little does it matter that there were small groups in
the ancient church who denied the Virgin Birth, especially "Ebionite"
Jewish Christians3 and gnostics like Carpocrates or the author of the
apocryphal Gospel of Philip. It is obvious that in these instances the
disregard or denial did not rest upon historical doubts or evidences to
the contrary but rather on theological grounds.

The Meaning of the Records

The history of the dogma shows two interesting facts: the biblical
records were interpreted in a number of different ways and with various
emphases; and once the Virgin Birth had become a dogma, its further
development proceeded on lines of purely theological reasoning rather
than on a deepened exegesis of the New Testament records. Ignatius—
who, in the age of the Apostolic Fathers, is the first unambiguous advo-
cate of the necessity to believe in the Virgin Birth—places it on a level
with the Passion and the Resurrection.4 This does not mean, as Boslooper
surmises, that Ignatius had shifted the emphasis of faith from the Incar-
nation to the Atonement. Rather, the bishop of Antioch holds that the
divine plan of redemption implies the Virgin Birth no less than the
Passion and Resurrection and that, like his Lord, the believer, too, is
by the grace of God to pass through these stages.
In Origen, however, a new emphasis comes to light. Although in the
eyes of the Alexandrian father the Virgin Birth has but limited signifi-
cance for Christology, we derive, from the way in which the heavenly
Christ was enabled to obtain a human body, an insight into the genesis
of true life. This view is broadly in agreement with Ignatius. But
Origen adds another feature. Since it is as a heavenly man that Jesus
redeems us, it was through the Virgin Birth that Mary was privileged
to be the mother of a divine being. The Virgin Birth becomes thus the
cradle of Mariolatry. Another trend of thought, indicative of the gradual
predominance of Hellenistic mentality in the church of the second
century, combines the Virgin Birth with the pre-existence of Christ. This
tendency is most conspicuous in the case of Tatian and of Valentinian
Gnosticism. While in the writings of John and Paul the pre-existence of
Christ is practically a substitute of the Virgin Birth, it serves in those
fathers as evidence of the pre-existence. Jesus is a heavenly man with
3. Justin Martyr, Dial. 48; Origin, in Matth. XVI, 10 ff.
4. Eph. XIX, 1.
 The Virgin Birth 133

heavenlyfleshwho manages to accept earthly existence by passing through

the womb of Mary. The Orthodox Churches followed this trend to the
extent that in Christology they ascribed pre-eminence to the pre-existence
of Christ, whereas the significance of the Virgin Birth was found in
conferring highest dignity to Mary. How marvelous that a human
being should be deemed worthy to become the mother of the Son of God !
While in its exegesis of the Gospel records of the Virgin Birth the
eastern church emphasized Mary's state as theotokos, the interpretation
in the West was determined by its prevailing interest in the sinfulness
of man. Theological speculation is called upon to supplement the biblical
text. Under Augustine's influence, sexual desire is considered the most
powerful manifestation of sin. Hence Mary's virginal motherhood places
her high above all women. This tendency reached its climax when, as
an implication of the Virgin Birth, the Immaculate Conception of Mary
was proclaimed as dogma in 1863. However, since the Roman Catholic
Church in spite of this emphasis did not overlook Mary's role as the
mother of God, it is not astounding that in our days the Virgin Birth
serves also to a number of theologians as the basis on which to establish
a new dogma of Mary as co-redemptrix with Christ.
In the churches of the Reformation, opposition against Mariolatry
resulted in an increasing devaluation of the significance the Virgin Birth
had for Mary. On the other hand, the Christological dogma as pro-
claimed by the creeds was never controversial in the Reformation age,
and no need was felt to restate it on a biblical basis. The story of the
Virgin Birth served merely to explain the perfection or sinlessness of
Jesus. It was not surprising that after this demotion Schleiermacher
and the majority of modern Protestant theologians should reject the
historicity of the records and deny or question their spiritual value. The
time has come, however, to reinterpret the Gospel records of the Virgin
Birth. Let us ask, first of all, why the story has been recorded by Mat-
thew and Luke. In modern Protestantism the Virgin Birth has been
treated in a purely theoretical way as a tenet of theological doctrine.
But none of the Gospels was composed primarily to present a doctrine
of the person of Christ. All of them, including John, are anxious to
describe factual events, namely, the divinely wrought redemption of
mankind and the role played therein by Jesus. While theological con-
clusions may be drawn from these facts (for example, for Christology),
the Gospel records cannot be used as proof texts for a purely speculative
134 Interpretation

Christology, whether the result is a divine or a purely human Christ.

Yet this is the common procedure in modern Protestant theology. Rather
than attempting to interpret the Gospel texts in themselves, scholars
frequently attempt to make them agree with a speculative picture of
Christ. Moreover, the exegesis of the records was vitiated by an atom­
istic treatment of the Gospels. The records in Matthew and Luke were
regarded as composed of so many independent, self-contained, and self-
explanatory units. Yet even if, prior to the written Gospels, the oral
tradition had consisted merely of disconnected sayings and stories con­
cerned with Jesus, the Evangelists certainly were not mere collectors of
information concerning the things the primitive church believed in.
The agreements in their outlines indicate that they were guided by an
authoritative "Gospel" pattern and that they intended to arrange their
material in such a manner that the inner connection and purpose of the
literary units would come to light. Again, while the preliterary meaning
of the material must remain a matter of mere conjecture, the place
which the records occupy in the history of the primitive church is clearly
determined by the theological outlook and the literary activity of each
of the Evangelists. Each of them presents the Gospel story in his own
perspective. It would be a methodological error if, in the interest of a
Gospel harmony, the stories in Matthew and Luke were treated as
though the two Evangelists wrote from the same angle, or as though one
wanted to supplement the other's narrative.
In Matthew the narrative is closely connected with the preceding
genealogy of Jesus, indicating thereby that through the Virgin Birth
the promise given to Abraham has been fulfilled. This fact is underlined
when the angel addresses Joseph as the Son of David (Matt, ι :2o), and
its true meaning is brought to light by the announcement that Jesus is
to save "his people" from their sins. By thus providing a Messiah for
his people, God is shown to act in a unique way. This is not a temporary
"coming" only. The Virgin Birth is not described as an occurrence
whose significance is confined to the few people mentioned in this con­
nection in the Gospels. Rather, the event will constitute God's perma­
nent presence with his people (Matt. 1:23). The conclusion of the
narrative refers again to the genealogy. Although the child will be born
of the Holy Spirit (vs. 20) and Joseph did not have sexual intercourse
with Mary prior to the birth of Jesus (vs. 25), Mary becomes never­
theless his wife (vss. 20,24) and he, her husband (vs. 19). Joseph recog-
 The Virgin Birth 135

nizes Jesus as his son. Thus historically and legally Jesus will have his
place in the family of Abraham and David.
While Joseph is said to have received knowledge concerning Mary's
pregnancy in a dream, the subsequent story of the visit of the Magi is
intended to provide evidence that his dream came from God and was
no delusion. Both the miraculous guidance enjoyed by those visitors and
the fierce yet futile rage of Herod underscore the historical and providen-
tial significance of the birth of Jesus. Unlike the Protevangel of James
and other apocryphal Gospels of the Infancy, Matthew uses the story of
the Virgin Birth as introduction to the Gospel itself, intimating thereby
that in his view the Gospel story will not be fully understood unless seen
in the perspective of the Virgin Birth. That further specific references
to this event should be lacking in Matthew's Gospel is not surprising.
The "omission" is in keeping with his pragmatic manner of Writing.
We must not allow the literary procedure of Matthew, however, to
conceal the ideological character of the Gospel story. While a master
of theological reflection the Evangelist presents the fruits of his thinking
rather than the principles of his reasoning. Yet no pericope in his Gospel
has its relevance in itself. Rather, the mere fact that something has been
mentioned in an earlier chapter implies that it is of special significance
for the things to be told subsequently.
In the composition of Luke's Gospel, the narrative of the Virgin Birth
occupies an entirely different place. It appears within a sequence of
stories in which the births of the Baptist and of Jesus are described as
intertwined events. John is chronologically and providentially the fore-
runner of Jesus. To a degree not found in Matthew, Luke accentuates
the significance of the baptism of Jesus and of the role of the Baptist.
The ministry of Jesus is thereby characterized as the miraculous outcome
of divine Providence. But whereas, according to Matthew, the realiza-
tion of God's saving plan is rooted in the very substance of Jewish history,
the latter serves in Luke as a mere illustration of a Heilsgeschiehte of
universal dimensions. The historical facts are not important in them-
selves, but they have a spiritual meaning.
Thus the angel announces the birth of Jesus to the shepherds as an
event by which the whole of mankind will be blessed. The "whole
people" (Luke 2:10) is not Israel (as in Matt. 1:21); rather, in the
light of Luke 2:14 it must be understood as the "new people" that God
is to form out of the human race. Connected with this aim of the
136 Interpretation

Evangelist is the genealogy of Jesus. Luke records it after the baptism

of Jesus, and he traces the lineage from Jesus backward to Adam. The
significance lies in emphasizing the true humanity of Jesus, notwith-
standing the fact that this is the work of God's Spirit. No special impor-
tance is attached to David and the Patriarchs, as in Matthew. In Jesus'
ministry the baptism is not the first step only, as in Matthew, but rather
the arche (Acts 1:1), that is, the event from which all the subsequent
ones will receive their specific nature. This perspective explains the
difference in the role of Joseph. Whereas in Matthew he occupies a
place of authority, in Luke he is mentioned only as being the man to
whom Mary was betrothed. The divine message comes to Mary only,
and Joseph is simply assumed to acquiesce in the Virgin Birth. Since the
miracle evidences itself as the work of the Spirit it demands unrestricted
acceptance. Its significance is not enhanced by the extraordinary cir-
cumstances, as in Matthew, but lies in its divine purpose, instead.
Although the shepherds find but a babe wrapped in swaddling cloth
and lying in a manger, they are to worship him as Savior because the
divine message has come to them through the angels, notwithstanding
the fact that they are unaware of his miraculous conception. Above all,
it is Mary's acceptance of God's plan which has set an example to all
subsequent believers.
The way in which Luke interprets the Virgin Birth determines his
whole presentation of the Gospel story. This fact is not obvious from
the beginning, but his purpose unfolds itself to the reader, step by step,
in the actual events. In retrospect it can be seen that the events—far
from following each other in a haphazard way—have an intrinsic
teleology because they serve God's purpose. It is but natural that Luke
should point out the basic difference between "Gospel time" and "church
time" which, as H. Conzelmann rightly insists,5 is essential to the Lukan
narrative. But Conzelmann is mistaken when he interprets Acts as
nothing but the chronological continuation of the Gospel story. The
Gospels are the unrepeatable source and origin of all Christian history.
Thus, while the Lukan work more than any other Gospel brings to
light the continual pattern of holy history, it equally stresses the un-
expected operations of the Holy Spirit and the novelty of their results.
This combination of holy history and divinely wrought novelty explains
5. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961).
 The Virgin Birth 137
the recurrent pattern of events, both in the Gospel and in Acts, which
the opening two chapters of Luke develop in thematic manner.

Denial of the Virgin Birth

The fact that from a literary point of view the Virgin Birth has its
appropriate place in the composition of Matthew and Luke has not
prevented attacks on the dogma and denials of the historical reliability of
the Gospel records. The two assaults go usually hand in hand. The
critics who assail the New Testament narratives are, as a rule, not so
much in search of a reliable text as they are anxious to destroy the
dogma. Attempts to undermine the Gospel stories of the Virgin Birth
have been made on four different grounds: by means of textual criti-
cism, by pointing out literary incongruities, and by raising both historical
doubts and theological arguments. Textual criticism does not go very
far. The only textual basis for a denial of the Virgin Birth could be
found in the Sinaitic Syriac, which in Matthew 1:16 reads, "Joseph to
whom Mary the Virgin was betrothed, begat Jesus called the Christ,"
and in other related variants in Matthew 1:21 and 25. The very fact
that in this instance Mary the Virgin ( !) should be mentioned in an
un-Jewish fashion in the genealogy of Jesus is sufficient to prove the
secondary character of this variant.
The Nestle text of the Lukan narrative which follows the ancient
Egyptian uncials, reads: ". . . to be taxed with Mary betrothed to him";
but the Sinaitic Syriac and Itala adopt the variant "Mary his wife," while
the Byzantine Family and Theta present the conflated reading: "Mary
his betrothed wife." The usage "Mary his wife" is familiar to Matthew,
and the Syriac may have preserved the original reading in this instance.
Unless that variant had been found in a number of other manuscripts
it would be difficult to explain the conflated reading of the Textus
Receptus. The Egyptian variant seems to have its origin in theological
scruples, and it was probably meant to obviate the idea of a natural
origin of Jesus, which would imply a denial of Mary's being the mother
of God. The same explanation holds good for the variant readings
which the Byzantine text adopts in Luke 2:33 and 41. For theological
reasons the designations "father" and "parent" which the Egyptian text
applied to Joseph must have appeared objectionable to later genera-
tions, and the Byzantine family substituted "Joseph" in their place. But
in view of Matthean usage, the original terminology was not meant to
ι38 Interpretation

deny the Virgin Birth. It expressed the legal position of Joseph and the
way in which people thought of his relationship to Jesus.
Another set of attacks against the Virgin Birth is based upon literary
criticism. In various ways scholars have tried to discredit the value and
reliability of the infancy stories in Matthew and particularly in Luke,
or at least the narratives of the Virgin Birth. Some have pointed to the
lack of homogeneity in the first two chapters of both Matthew and Luke,
but this is a phenomenon characteristic of all the Gospels in all their
parts. Throughout, the Gospels bear the marks of being gathered from
an oral tradition in which but few units had a definite position with
reference to the whole. (Suspicion of their authenticity would be
considerably increased, of course, if the Gospels resembled a modern
historical novel with a clearly elaborated plot or a psychological
development. )
Others, like Harnack and Lobstein, have turned their assaults against
the "legendary character" of the Virgin Birth, and in this respect Luke
in particular has come under fire. But is the only explanation for the
presence of the Virgin Birth stories the Evangelists' uncritical fondness
for the miraculous? Or are there specific features in the event which
prompted not only Luke but also his informants to consider it an essential
element of the Christian message? Form criticism contends that the
primitive church fabricated the story of the Virgin Birth, like many
other pericopes found in the Gospels. Yet the very fact that Matthew
and Luke, who obviously worked independently of each other and in
different sections of the church, not only tell the story of the Virgin
Birth but also locate it in Bethlehem (although for the rest they described
the event from entirely different angles) should make a critic hesitate to
talk glibly of literary fictions.
More serious are the attacks which historical scholarship has directed
against the Gospel records of the birth of Jesus. Attention is drawn,
for example, to the apparent incongruity that exists between the gene­
alogies of Jesus and the account of the Virgin Birth. Did not the
genealogies presuppose Joseph as the physical father of Jesus, and thus
rule out the idea of a Virgin Birth? But even if it were granted that
these genealogies had their origin in Palestinian Jewish circles close to
the later Ebionite sect, and thus were concerned with the place Jesus
occupied in Jewish history, they were obviously not compiled for bio­
graphical purposes. They have a legal and theological function and
 The Virgin Birth 139

are meant to vindicate the messianic rights of Jesus. Their validity

depends therefore on legal succession, not on physical descendency. In
both genealogies, Joseph is considered as belonging to the main line of
the Davidic family, although there was apparently no agreement
on the specific links through which the continuity was maintained.
The theological character of Luke's genealogy is particularly obvious.
Since all men are descendants of Adam, the list as inserted at this point
of the narrative would be pointless but for the fact that—far from
characterizing Jesus as one of the many descendants of the protoplast—
it introduced him as the second Adam.
Others have contended that the story of the Virgin Birth originated
in the application of the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus. Why this
would have been done by people who did not believe in the Virgin Birth
remains enigmatic, however. This passage was not considered messianic
in Judaism. Moreover, only the Greek text of the Septuagint speaks of
a virgin (parthenos), whereas the Hebrew term designates a young
female person irrespective of her being married or in a virginal state.
It would therefore be necessary to postulate Hellenistic origin of the
story. But then one would expect a story in which, as in other Hellenistic
legends, a divine being acted as father, whereas in both Matthew and
Luke no procreator is mentioned. The Holy Spirit is introduced in
Matthew ι :2ο and Luke 1:35 as the divine power at whose behest the
miracle takes place in Mary's womb. The church has never wavered
in holding this view. It is therefore surprising that, since the days of
Strauss, scholars should have tried in various ways to explain the story
of the Virgin Birth as a parallel to pagan myths. In all the instances
adduced, agreements on minor points are found side by side with
disagreements as to the essentials. If a "natural" explanation is wanted
at all, C. G. Jung's hypothesis of mythical archetypes would provide a
more satisfactory explanation of these agreements than that of actual
borrowing.
Surveying the various attacks against the Virgin Birth, it is logical to
conclude that, far from being an alien element in Matthew and Luke,
it forms actually an integral part of these Gospels and determines their
whole view of the ministry of Jesus. These Gospels clearly had their
place within the primitive church. We must admit, nevertheless, that
for apologetic purposes little has been gained thus far by all our rebut­
tals. For the textual, literary, and historical criticisms of the records of
140 Interpretation

the Virgin Birth had never more than subsidiary significance for its
denial; they were only meant to buttress theological objections. That
was the case already with Trypho and Celsus, whose strict monotheism
was offended by the idea of a Son of God. Similarly, the Jewish Chris-
tians whom Justin mentions as not believing in the Virgin Birth were
not prompted by historical doubts. Rather, the event appeared to them
to be incompatible with their idea of a Jewish Messiah. Similarly,
modern Protestant critics who object to the belief in the Virgin Birth
do so because it seems to imply a "theological materialism" over against
the "spiritual" view of faith. Others fear lest through the Virgin Birth
Jesus should be robbed of his true humanity. Finally, there are those
who deny a priori that "nature miracles" can happen.

Demythologizing the Virgin Birth

Those who deny the possibility of the Virgin Birth have to prove why
the primitive church regarded it as an actual event. Merely referring to
the superstitions and the credulity of the Hellenistic age would be dodg-
ing the problem. The Gospel records show clearly that Jesus' contem-
poraries were fully able to distinguish between the regular course of
events, on the one hand, and miracles, on the other. Furthermore, the
Gospels were written as testimonies to actual occurrences which in the
writers' minds had redemptive significance. To say that the primitive
church invented stories as answers to its problems is an explanation that
hardly deserves to be taken seriously. By such inventions the early
Christians not only would have fooled themselves but they would also
have attempted to deceive others by ascribing saving value to fictitious
stories. There can be no doubt but that the authors of the First and
Third Gospels were confident that they had good reason for trusting in
the reliability of the tradition which they recorded.
The only persons, however, who—according to the records—had been
actual witnesses of the Virgin Birth, were Joseph and Mary. Beyond
their testimony there was no actual evidence of the event. We have no
way of ascertaining, however, to whom they divulged what was obviously
kept as their secret during the lifetime of Jesus; nor do we know how
well the persons to whom they confided were able themselves to under-
stand and to report what they had heard. Hence, from the historian's
point of view we can only say that there are good reasons for believing
in the truthfulness of the birth narratives of Jesus, and that these reasons
 The Virgin Birth 141

are weightier than those supporting the denial of their historicity. But
the historian is not able directly to prove the historicity of the Virgin
Birth. In consequence, it would seem that the Virgin Birth had to be
judged as one of the events in the life of Jesus which one might or might
not believe and which therefore could not be reckoned among those
saving events upon which our faith rests.
In view of this uncertainty, some theologians have reached the con-
clusion that the story of the Virgin Birth was not meant to be a historical
report but a symbol of the sinlessness, moral perfection, or spiritual
superiority of Jesus. While there would be nothing objectionable in
making such use of the stories, it is obvious, nevertheless, that neither
Matthew nor Luke intended the record to be understood in that way.
The whole tenor of their reports is messianological and eschatological
rather than Christological. According to Matthew 1:21, the birth of
Jesus will bring about the chosen people's redemption from its sins; and
in a similar way the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) hails the birth of
Jesus as that manifestation of God's power by which he will fulfill all
the promises given to Abraham and his seed. In turn, the unbroken
faith of Jesus is described in the Gospels as the result of his triumph
over temptations rather than as the manifestation of a sinlessness that
cannot be tempted.
Equally off the point is the reasoning of those who, while denying
the historicity of the Virgin Birth, are nevertheless prepared to keep
the story as a Christian "myth" describing the marvelous nature of the
Christian faith or the divine significance of the work of the man Jesus
of Nazareth. Deprived of its historicity the story of the Virgin Birth
would be a myth and, like any myth, it would be but the expression of
a human ideal or aspiration. More plausible, at first sight, is the
suggestion that the story signifies Jesus' awareness of his being the Son
of God. But what is there in the miraculous circumstances of the birth
of Jesus that would imply that the child was the Son of God rather
than a man destined for a special task for which he had been assigned
by God?

Virgin Birth and Holy History

The apparent uncertainty connected with the records of the Virgin
Birth can be overcome, however, without doing violence to the text or
to established scholarly methods. Will not the historian test the relia-
142 Interpretation

bility of a document by inquiring whether effects of an alleged event

can be found when its historicity cannot be apprehended directly? Many
wrong avenues to the interpretation of the Virgin Birth would have been
avoided had the event been viewed in its context rather than as an
isolated fact that supposedly had its meaning in itself. Although the
school of form criticism is greatly mistaken in declaring the larger por-
tion of the Gospels to be the fictitious product of the primitive church,
its emphasis upon the Sitz im Leben rightly points to the fact that the
Evangelists regarded the Gospel narratives as throwing light upon the
spiritual life of the church. The interpretation of the Virgin Birth has
suffered from the fact that, in the theology of the church, the event has
been treated as an isolated and unique event which had to serve as
evidence for a theological statement. With the rise of the rationalistic
criticism of the miracles, the story was bound to come under especially
heavy fire, because it was interpreted as a "nature miracle" which could
not be understood as a benefit that God had imparted to certain people
and because its origin had apparently nothing to do with the faith of
the people concerned. Yet in Matthew and Luke the event opens the
Gospel, which is the revelation of the final phase of God's redemptive
will. We can therefore assume that in the Virgin Birth an essential
aspect of the Gospel is not only at work but also is revealed to God's
people. While in its particular occurrence the event is absolutely new
and singular, the divine will at work in it—like everything in the Gospel
—goes on forever, once it has made its appearance. The first mani-
festation discloses both its direction and its strength. Thus the Virgin
Birth is not just a "physiological monstrosity," and it is completely mis-
understood by those apologists who, in order to make the miracle
believable, point to other instances of biological parthenogenesis. For
if it were this analogy which mattered, the birth of Jesus would lack
spiritual significance.
Seen in the light of the whole Gospel story, the records of the Virgin
Birth in Matthew and Luke reveal God's ability to enter into human
life and history notwithstanding his absolute transcendence. Already
in the Old Testament, God manifests himself as Lord of history. But
he does so in an indirect manner only, by moving the minds of chosen
agents and by endowing them with power to influence the course of
history. In the theophanies it is actually his angel who appears, as later
generations made clear. But the Gospel proclaims that God himself is
 The Virgin Birth 143
with us and that what was but preparation and promise under the Old
Covenant has become actual reality. The miracle of the Virgin Birth
intimates that this change, far from being a matter of course, is the most
incredible thing.
Nevertheless, under the influence of idealistic thoughts, modern
Protestant theology takes it for granted that God should enter in direct
relation with man and that man should be directly confronted with
God's redemptive will. Over against such views the New Testament
breathes the air of reverence and awe caused by the realization that
God as the Creator of this world transcends all things in it in every
respect. For the New Testament writers there is nothing in the nature
of man or the universe that would enable us to have such an encounter
with God himself. If it takes place at all, such an event has nothing in
common with the regular course of history.
The fact that John and Paul refer to the pre-existence of Christ as the
basis of his earthly ministry (rather than to the Virgin Birth) does not
render Jesus' coming more "natural." That the Logos should have
become flesh is, according to John, the very gospel which the church
proclaims (John 1:14-17; I John 1:2-3)—that is to say, it is a divine
message in which God announces that he has caused a radical change
for better to occur in human history. The statement made by Paul in
Romans 1:1-5 is to the same effect. Paul also speaks of the gospel as the
divine mysterion (Rom. 16:25-26; compare I Cor. 2:7) that had been
revealed to the church as an event contrary to all rational thinking,
scientific anticipations, and prophetic hopes. The apostolic writers point
out that the Redeemer is a heavenly being who, in compliance with
God's will, consented to becoming a man. While they leave in the dark
the circumstances in which he entered into this world, they are over-
whelmed by the fact, nevertheless. The story of the Virgin Birth char-
acterizes the divine nature of Jesus' ministry indirectly by disclosing the
mode of the Incarnation, whereas John and Paul make theological
statements which point to the Incarnation as an incomprehensible yet
undeniable fact.
The composition of Matthew and Luke makes manifest that in their
eyes the Virgin Birth, far from being an isolated event, illumined the
whole ministry of Jesus. In this event they discovered the patterns not
only of Jesus' own life but also of God's saving work. It is by conde-
scending to the level of human activity that God brings his saving
144 Interpretation

purpose to its conclusion. In Matthew the child that by the will of God
is to be born occupies his place in the genealogical list as God's Anointed
One, the Messiah (Matt, ι : 16), who by God's will is to save his people
from their sins (Matt. 1:21) and thus he is Emmanuel, "God with us"
(Matt. 1:23). In Luke, the angel proclaims to Mary that her child will
be called "Son of the Highest" (Luke 1:32) ; he will be holy and be
called "Son of God" (Luke 1:35). Jesus' birth is announced to the
shepherds as that of the Savior {sôtër), who is Christ the Lord (Luke
2:11). The language used both in the Matthean and Lukan tradition
does not point to a human being with extraordinary gifts but rather to
the presence of God's redemptive will and power in a human being
formed by God for that purpose.
Yet by bringing to the earth the Son of God, the Virgin Birth extends
its significance beyond the historical ministry of Jesus for, unlike the
prophets of old, Jesus is not a mere messenger of God. His very presence
and activity is revelation and realization of God's saving purpose. This
theme is particularly conspicuous in Luke, who in Acts describes the
post-Resurrection work of Jesus. The history of the church is human
history, yet one in which divine ends are accomplished. The fact is not
quite so obvious in Matthew. Yet he, too, wants to show that the
church is the effective continuation of Jesus' ministry. It is "his" church
(Matt. 16:18); that is to say, he is the head and convener of the
new people of God. Similarly, both Evangelists describe Jesus as the
giver of life or of regeneration. Life, as he imparts it, is not a magic
energy; rather, it is through historical contact with him that heavenly
life is engendered in people. While seemingly the miracle of the new
birth is not as conspicuous as the Virgin Birth, the difference lies merely
in the shortsightedness of our spiritual vista. For the "new life" is not
the result of a mental process only. Christ imparts new life to us and
thus gives us the power to transform this world and other people in
accordance with God's plans.
Just as in the Virgin Birth the divine feat would not have succeeded
except for the assent given to it by Mary and Joseph in acts of faith, so
it is with the new birth. Divine and human activity do not lie on
the same level, for it is God who takes the initiative. Apart from it no
miracle would happen. But in order to become a historical event, the
divine purpose needs human beings who are prepared in a representative
way to offer themselves to God as instruments. By means of faith, man
 The Virgin Birth 145
is enabled to become God's fellow worker. Matthew illustrates this
requirement by placing Joseph into the foreground. As the representa-
tive of the Davidic line, he is willing to acquiesce in Mary's fate, no
matter how deeply his male pride may be humbled thereby. Similarly,
in Luke it is Mary as the "handmaiden of the Lord" who expresses her
readiness to be instrumental in God's redemptive work. With the
revelation of this requirement the concept of faith is radically modified
in the New Testament. From trust in God's ability and power to do
what is good for his people, faith is now transformed into man's willing-
ness to do and to accept whatever is God's will. Yet this human element
in faith, indispensable as it is, would remain without effect but for
the fact that it was a response to and acceptance of God's initiative.
The Lukan story illustrates this change with special clarity by pointing
out that all the conversions recorded in Acts presuppose the free opera-
tion of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the people concerned. Paul later
expresses the same idea by rejecting justification by works and by
insisting on the redemptive power of faith.
By making the birth of Jesus the starting point of God's good news,
Matthew and Luke indicate that the Virgin Birth is an eschatological
occurrence; that is to say, it is not just the rising of the curtain or the
first of a series of historical events in the life of Jesus; it is the originating
impulse by means of which all subsequent events in holy history have
been rendered possible and are directed toward the goal which God has
assigned to man. Unlike the modem critics who focus their attention one-
sidedly upon the miraculous mode of the birth of Jesus, the Evangelists
concentrate their interest upon the fact that God himself has provided
a Savior to mankind. In its Gospel setting, the story of the Virgin Birth
indicates that so great is the interest God takes in the salvation of man-
kind that, through the work of the Holy Spirit, a "man of holiness" is
born within a sinful mankind (Luke 1:35). Or, in the language of
Matthew, the Jewish people, which—on account of its hopeless predica-
ment—was prompted to engage in desperate endeavors of liberation, is
offered by God a helper who will relieve it from all its burdens (Matt.
1:21). The Virgin Birth is therefore no end in itself; it is the first stage
of the consummation of God's saving activity. In turn, it is the escha-
tological significance of the Virgin Birth which explains the composition
of the Gospels. The objective of the whole evangelical story is to tell
the realization of the divine announcement that was implied in the
146 Interpretation

birth of Jesus. The Evangelists are anxious to show how God so guided
the life and ministry of Jesus that through his activities the divine plan
could be realized.
Pointing out the eschatological significance of the Virgin Birth is not
an attempt to "demythologize" what happened to Mary. There can be
no doubt but that in the Evangelists' minds the event which took place
in Bethlehem was the result of a divine interference and thus a miracle.
But viewing the event in its eschatological background will enable us to
interpret the miracle in the light of the purpose for which God per-
formed it. Understood as a temporary suspension of the order of nature,
a miracle is bound to give offense. It can only appear incredible, because
modern scientific thinking is built upon the axiom of an unchanging,
uniform, and universal order of nature. But this axiom implies a vexing
antinomy. When applied to a religious view of life and this world, this
axiom would demand either that this world is good and perfect as it is
and needs no substantial change, or else that it is utterly devoid of mean-
ing, because its evils are ineradicable. In that case the only escape left
to man is a mental attitude like Stoicism or non-Christian Existentialism,
by which the individual determines to endure the evils of life without
complaint.
The biblical view of God, while recognizing the universal reign of
order in nature, differs, nevertheless, from those attitudes in pointing
out that this world has a ideological structure. It moves towards the
goal set to it by God. In spite of its universal order, this world is not
only a changeable world, as is most clearly indicated by biological
evolution, but it also aims at a definite goal—its own redemption. This
goal could not be reached, however, if this world were left to itself, for
the prevailing conditions are beyond man's control. Through the Virgin
Birth, God gives evidence that he himself takes the initiative in the
redemption of mankind. In its novelty the Virgin Birth reveals that
this is not only a plastic world, but also one in which redemption follows
a recurrent and divinely set pattern.
In Jewish apocalyptic, whose motivating force is hope, the radical
change of the structure of this world and the abolition of all evils is
expressed in a manner which makes the better future look like the result
of an arbitrary activity of God or the fulfillment of man's wishful
dreams. But through the Virgin Birth the picture is completely changed.
The future bliss is now seen as the very objective that God had in mind
 The Virgin Birth 147
in making this world; and by sending a Savior who is true man, God
discloses that man has been assigned a central place in the actualization
of God's purpose. Hence the Virgin Birth is not an isolated and incred-
ible "nature miracle." Rather, it is the event through which God reveals
to mankind the pattern of those redemptive acts by which salvation
becomes a historical reality. This fact is most conspicuous in the way
the New Testament describes the genesis of faith and the origin and
life of the church.
Faith as an act by which the individual enters into fellowship with
God does not originate in man's nature. What moves a person to believe
in the gospel is not the state of mind in which he finds himself, but
rather the power of spiritual truth implied in the gospel. When this is
proclaimed to a man, his heart is made to realize that, in Jesus, one
greater than men confronts him. Similarly, the origin of the church is
described in Acts as a divinely wrought miracle, as the work of the Holy
Spirit whom Jesus has sent down upon his disciples. While it is the
church's task through the centuries to preserve the revealed truth, people
do not believe because the church has the depositum fidei but, rather,
because the Spirit of God moves them to accept it.
Finally, although a divine miracle, the Virgin Birth takes place in
history. Not only was Jesus born of a Jewish woman, but his ministry
took place within that nation which in the past had been the special object
of God's care and education. Likewise, both faith and the church origi-
nate in the historical life of mankind, although they are not its outcome.
Just as, through his mother, Jesus was a Jew of Palestine and, through
Joseph, was received into the clan of David, so faith is an attitude of
the self; notwithstanding its spiritual origin, this faith will bear the
marks of the individual's personality and of his place in the culture and
the social setup of his environment. Similarly, it is a well-known fact
that in the more than nineteen hundred years of its existence the church
has been organically integrated in the history of the nations, apart from
which its doctrine and organization cannot be understood.
Of course, it is possible to describe the life of faith in purely psycho-
logical terms or to explain the activities of the church in a sociological
and historical way. But faith which lacks an ontological basis in God's
saving work is a purely subjective experience; seen in such a perspective
the church would serve merely the gregarious instinct of the "believers,"
while their craving for redemption from the conditions of this world
148 Interpretation

would remain unfulfilled. That faith should be found in mankind and

that there should exist in history a church which feels responsible for the
proclamation of the gospel and the impartation of God's saving gifts—
these are miracles rooted in the Virgin Birth and no less stupendous than
the origin of the gospel history.
Considered as an isolated event, the Virgin Birth is not necessary for
the faith. The facts that it was recorded in two of the New Testament
books only and that it did not form part of the early kerygma are
evidence that people could believe in Jesus as their Savior without
being aware of that event, or without being able to perceive the signifi-
cance it has for the faith. In turn, however, it is only through the
Virgin Birth as a decisive act of holy history that we are enabled to
understand the way in which God brings about the consummation of
his redemptive plan, that is, through the non-recurrent event of the
ministry of Jesus rather than through a series of incarnations as, for
example, in Buddhism.
By perceiving the Virgin Birth in this perspective we do not completely
overcome the uncertainties of the historical records. But fortunately our
belief in the reliability and authority of the Scripture does not in the
first place rest upon the results of scholarly investigation—although it
has no reason for being afraid of it. Rather, faith presupposes the self-
authentication of Scripture in our spiritual awareness. We are not able
to penetrate into the depth of God's mind, and hence we cannot contend
that the Virgin Birth is the only way in which the believer's spiritual
renewal and the supranatural operation of the church can be explained.
But from the nature of our spiritual transformation we can confidently
conclude that the Virgin Birth is the only circumstance known to us that
provides a reasonable and satisfactory explanation of these phenomena.
No person will go to hell merely for doubting the Virgin Birth. But
unless he has comprehended the Virgin Birth as the miraculous basis
of his salvation he will either underrate the completeness and radicality
with which the transformation of his predicament has taken place in
faith or he will ascribe to a human potentiality what is possible only
as the work of God in us.