IS THE VIRGIN BIRTH PART OF THE GOSPEL?

I will make it clear at the outset that I unequivocally believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. The basis of my faith is simple: the testimony of Scripture. I am especially impressed with the account of Dr. Luke, who apparently did not write the Gospel of Luke on the basis of direct revelation from God but from his own research. And so he wrote in his preface: “It seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus” (Lk. 1:3).

Those who have engaged in serious research could understand Luke’s “having followed all things closely for some time past” as something like writing a doctoral thesis. He referred to various documents about the gospel story that he had at hand, which probably included Mark (which does not mention the virgin birth), but he was not satisfied with any of them for what he had in mind: “an orderly account” for his Greek friend Theophilus. So he researched all the sources available and wrote his own account, which must have included interviews with older believers (he must have finally written about 85 A.D.), including Mary, the mother of Jesus.

That a physician, drawing upon the testimony of the woman involved, would write with such quiet assurance and great detail about his subject’s virgin birth is all the evidence I need. The doctor states his facts crisply, identifying the mother of Jesus as “a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph” and then repeats her status with “and the virgin’s name was Mary.” In after years Mary must have revealed to her physician friend her feelings at the time and how she responded to the angelic announcement that she was to be the mother of “the Son of the Most High,” for Luke records how the news troubled her and how she complained: “How can this be, since I have no husband?” She was told that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and impregnate her, that nothing was impossible for God, which probably left the young virgin as confused as ever. But she accepted it by faith: “Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word” (Lk. 1:38).

Then there is the testimony of Matthew, who makes it clear that while Mary was betrothed to Joseph “she was found to be with child before they came together” (Lk. 1:18). And the apostle saw the prophecy in Isaiah, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,” as fulfilled when Mary gave birth to Jesus.

There the testimony ends. Even though John writes of the preexistence of Christ and emphasizes his supernatural character, he makes no allusion to a virgin birth. And as factual and pointed as Mark is in his fast-moving, slide-like presentation of Jesus, he makes no reference to the virgin birth. These omissions puzzle me. We cannot conclude that these two apostles omitted the virgin birth because the other accounts had included it, for it is almost certain that each supposed that his account was the only record that his readers would have.

I see only two possible answers for the omissions: either they did not know about the virgin birth or they did not see it as all that important to the story they were telling.

Even more confounding is that the apostle Paul in all his writing makes no mention of the virgin birth, even though he now and again alludes to Christ’s birth into this world, such as Philip. 2:7: “He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men,” and Gal. 4:4: “When the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law.” We would expect him to write “born of a virgin” in such contexts, but there is nowhere the slightest allusion. Is it conceivable that the apostle did not know the story of the virgin birth, or is it more likely that while he knew about it he had no reason to refer to it? If it be the latter, we can only conclude that he did not see the fact of the virgin birth as crucial as do some Christians today, who make it “fundamental” to one’s faith, as if it were part of the gospel itself.

That is how I see the virgin birth, a fact of Scripture and thus a fact in history and in the story of our Lord, but not a fact of the gospel itself. The question we are raising helps us to distinguish between the Bible with its many important facts and the good news (gospel) of Jesus Christ.

It is obvious from Scripture that the kerugma, the message preached, did not include the virgin birth. Now and again scholars, such as Alexander Campbell and C. H. Dodd, have listed the facts that make up the gospel, which have their basis in the list given by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:3-5. The lists may vary slightly, but they never include the virgin birth, for they are drawn from the apostolic preaching in Acts. If the gospel is defined as the good news of what God has done in Christ, it would follow that the birth of Christ (or his entrance into history), would be good news, but it would not necessarily have to be a virgin birth to be good news. It is the fact of Christ that is the good news, not every fact about his earthly sojourn. It is a fact that he was a Jew, but his Jewishness is not part of the gospel.

To insist that one must believe in the virgin birth to be a Christian is to go too far. We can all agree with the apostle when he writes: “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9), but there is no such test of faith made of the virgin birth. One may believe and obey the gospel without believing in the virgin birth, which must have been the case with many of the early Christians.

With scriptural testimony in hand, as we have in the accounts of Matthew and Luke, we would suppose that one would have no problem in accepting the virgin birth, even if he is puzzled (as I am) that the evidence in Scripture is so limited. If, however, one takes a view of Scripture that allows for the influence of traditions, he could conclude, as some have, that Luke and Matthew drew upon a virgin birth tradition. This the writers might do, not only because it squared with some OT scriptures, but also because the story was consistent with the character of Christ, who must have entered into this world in a way different from other men.

It was the case with Buddha. Once he became great in the eyes of his disciples the story of his virgin birth was invented. A Christian could believe this about Christ, that his followers, seeing him as the Son of God, created the story of his birth, concluding that he must have been born in a different way. When accounts are written a full generation or more after the event it is easier for such traditions to be of influence.

While I do not have this view of Scripture, there are those who do who still believe that Jesus is the Lord of glory and the Son of the living God. They do not believe in the virgin birth but they do believe the gospel. There are those who believe the story of Adam and Eve to be myth, or “poetry” if you like, who still believe the Bible to be the work of the Holy Spirit. And so there are those who say it makes no difference how Jesus was born —for him to have been born just as we were might even enhance the story! —for it was what he was and is, the living Christ, that matters.

But this cannot be said of gospel facts. If one does not believe in the resurrection of Christ he cannot be a Christian. While we cannot make the exact manner of the resurrection a test for being a Christian, we can make the reality of the risen Christ a test, just as the Scriptures do. Thus the grand confession, Jesus is Lord, became the only creed of the early Christians.

Belief in the virgin birth may be more a matter of how one views the Bible, such as whether it is infallibly and inerrantly inspired, than a matter of one’s devotion to Jesus as Lord. Some of the greatest believers in the history of the church, who never had any problem in accepting Jesus as the Christ, have had their doubts about some parts of the Bible. Is Martin Luther to be dechristianized because of his rejection of the book of James? The early church was centuries in accepting as Scripture such books as Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John, and many Christians lived and died without having these apostolic writings as part of their faith. The earliest Christians, of course, never had any of what we call the New Testament, for they lived and died before it existed. But they all had Jesus Christ, and it is he, not a book, that made them Christians.

So, we are saying that Jesus Christ is the gospel or the good news, particularly his death, burial and resurrection from the dead, and not necessarily all the facts that might be gathered about his birth, life, and death. That it was the Romans who executed him and that he was crucified between two thieves may be vital facts, but they are not necessary to the good news, which is that he died for our sins. The Bible, all the Bible, is the holy Scriptures, but all of it is not the gospel. The gospel is the love story of what God has done for us in Jesus of Nazareth that was a reality long before there was ever a Bible, particularly the New Testament. It is better to say that the Bible reveals the gospel.

And can we not see that one might question something in the Bible, such as the virgin birth or the book of James or even several books as did the early Christians, and still not question the gospel? Most of us can appreciate Ps. 137, but I dare say that the last one of us has trouble in finding the truth of God in the last verse, which reads: “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” And we all find Ps. 139 deeply spiritual and meaningful, but we may have to admit that verses 19-22 could be just as well left out.

Well, I have made my point. One can be deeply moved by the good news of Jesus Christ without being particularly impressed with everything in the Bible. The church I belong to virtually ignores the book of Revelation, and all of us have our favorite portions of Scripture while finding some of the Bible meaningless. If for instance you get any hope for your soul at all in the three chapters that make up the book of Zephaniah, I would be surprised.

Once we see that there are things in the Bible upon which we might differ and still be united upon what is absolutely essential, the good news of Jesus Christ, surely we will be able to apply this to things that the Bible says nothing about. If there are things in the Bible that are no part of the gospel, then surely the things outside the Bible (where the Bible is silent) cannot be made part of the gospel, such as instrumental music and other such methods and accouterments of work, worship and organization. In our quest for a united church it is imperative that we discover what the gospel is.

Those who are inclined make the virgin birth part of the gospel and essential to being a Christian must realize that it is not the virgin birth that confirms the character of Jesus, but the other way around. It is the character of Jesus that gives credibility to the virgin birth. The miracle of Christ is not that he was born of a virgin but that he was born at all. The marvel is that the Son of God became flesh and dwelt among us full of grace and truth, by whatever manner of his birth.

As I said at the outset, I have no problem in believing in the virgin birth, but if I should somehow discover that the story is based on an understandable tradition, it would not affect my faith in Jesus Christ as Lord in the least. What is essential is the good news that God has made Christ “our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption,” and so I boast not in a book or in any doctrinal system but in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:30-31). —the Editor