04 - Lecture 04
LECTURE IV The Birth-Narratives and the Remaining Literature of the New Testament-Alleged Silence of the New Testament
I come now to deal with an objection to the credibility of the narratives of the Virgin Birth which perhaps weighs more with many minds than any I have yet touched—I mean the alleged silence of the rest of the New Testament with regard to this mystery of our Lord’s earthly origin. Why, it is asked, if the miraculous birth is a fact pertaining to the essence of the Gospel, do we never hear any more about it ? Matthew and Luke themselves are silent about it after the first chapters; the other Gospels, Mark’s and John’s, are devoid of all trace of it; there is no whisper of it in the Book of Acts; Paul and Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Book of Revelation, all are silent about it. More even than this—I am stating the case at present for the opponent—there are many things in the Gospels and Epistles which look in an opposite direction. Jesus is freely spoken of as the son of Joseph; the genealogies manifestly go on this assumption; the Davidic descent depends on Joseph’s parentage, etc. It was necessary, Paul and the other Apostles tell us, that Jesus should die; necessary that He should rise again; but there is no hint that it was necessary that He should be born as the Gospels say He was.
This, one must confess, is a formidable indictment —to look at. It may, perhaps, not appear quite so formidable when we take it to pieces, and reduce it to its proper dimensions. It may even be found that there are elements in it which, properly regarded, turn round into a confirmation of our view.
One important question I should like the objector to face at the outset is: What are we entitled to expect in the way of mention of this event by the sacred writers % Without discussing the opinions of others, let me briefly state how the case presents itself to my own mind.
Supposing, then, the fact to be true, exactly as related, how far, or how quickly, would the knowledge of it be likely to travel ? Who knew of it to begin with ? Here, let me say, I am not sure that we are right in assuming that nothing was known in the circles immediately about Jesus of at least some of the wonders connected with His birth. Joseph and Mary, of course, alone knew the facts fully and intimately. They alone could give authentic and complete narratives regarding them such as we possess. But we cannot quite stop here. There was at least one other who knew of the facts in some degree—I mean Mary’s kinswoman, Elisabeth, the mother of the Baptist. You remember that, shortly after the angel’s announcement to herself, Mary paid Elisabeth a visit in the hill-country of Judaea, when that holy woman was herself six months on the way to motherhood—mark how all the dates in this narrative are woman’s dates!—and that Elisabeth, in an access of inspiration—" filled with the Holy Ghost," the text says—greeted Mary as the blessed among women, and mother of her Lord. 1 She went on: " Blessed is she that believed; for there shall be a fulfilment of the things which have been spoken to her of the Lord." Mary, moved by a like inspiration, responded in the hymn we call the Magnificat. Here, then, we have one person who certainly did know that Mary was, by divine power, to be the mother of the Christ; and we cannot doubt that, during the three months that these holy women abode together, the closest confidences would be exchanged between them. Whether Zacharias was admitted to any share in these confidences we cannot tell. But we must widen the circle a little further. The shepherds who visited the new-born Saviour naturally knew nothing of the secret of His miraculous birth. But they had at any rate the knowledge that the child born was " Christ the Lord," and that extraordinary signs _________________________________________________________________________
1. Luke 1:43. attended the birth. They knew it as a birth miraculous in its accompaniments, if not in its origin; and, filled with wonder, they did not refrain from spreading abroad the things they had heard and seen, or from glorifying and praising God on account of them. 1 Further still, there was the holy circle in Jerusalem who heard from the lips of Simeon and Anna at the presentation in the Temple how the babe born was " the Lord’s Christ," " set for the falling and rising up of many in Israel." 2 These also knew, and would not conceal the fact, that a birth in some sense supernatural had taken place.
What may we infer from these facts ? Not, indeed, that Joseph and Mary divulged to the world their personal experiences-—we are expressly told of Mary that she did not3—but that, nevertheless, it was known in the circle most intimately associated with the holy family, and by some outside of it, that this birth had not been an ordinary one, and that divine wonders had attended it. It is unlikely that this tradition would ever wholly fail in the innermost circles of those about Jesus, and later events would from time to time revive it.
There is another fact which should here, I think, be taken into account. It is quite certain that, in the city of Nazareth, to which Joseph and Mary returned, the mystery of Christ’s birth would not be publicly talked about by them. The people of Nazareth did not know _________________________________________________________________________________
1. Luke 2:20.
2. Ibid., Luke 2:25-38.
3. Ibid., Luke 2:19, Luke 2:31.
—I don’t suppose it ever entered their minds to think of — Jesus as other than the naturally born son of Joseph and Mary. It is hardly possible, however, accepting the facts as told by Matthew and Luke, that one thing can have escaped their notice earlier, viz.: that Mary was about to become a mother when her marriage with Joseph had not yet taken place. The fact which perplexed and staggered Joseph could hardly be unobserved by others. Jesus was actually born away from Nazareth, and in wedlock, but there would be those who, after their return, would remember the old malicious talk; and we are perhaps not unjustified in seeing in this the real germ of those later Jewish slanders and Talmudic fables which it is usual to trace to the Gospel narratives—narratives which, when they came, doubtless gave the slander a more definite shape, and would be interpreted as a cover for a dishonourable birth. 1 " We be not born in fornication," was perhaps a taunt that rose only too readily to Jewish lips. 2 If so, Mary meekly bore the misconstruction as her cross—part of the pain of the sword which should pierce through her soul also. 3.
Joseph and Mary would not talk of their peculiar experiences in Nazareth. Would they be talked about to the other children in the house—the brothers and sisters of Jesus, or however else we define the relation- _____________________________________________________________ 1 Zahn supposes Matthew’s narrative to be written in an apologetic interest in view of these slanders.
2 John 8:41.
3. Luke 2:35. ship? We may say, I think: Assuredly not. A more difficult question is: Did Jesus Himself know of this miracle of His origin, or did He ever hear it from Mary’s lips? That He did in some way—natural or supernatural—know the essential fact, I am persuaded. It seems to me to furnish the key to certain of His utterances. 1 But, if He did, we have no knowledge of the when, or where, or how, of His becoming acquainted with it. This only we can safely say: such a mystery would form no part of His public preaching, or of His private Communications to His disciples, or to any, at a time when even His Messiahship was not openly disclosed. After the resurrection it was different. Joseph was dead; Mary had been committed to the care of the disciple John. There was no longer the same occasion for secrecy. But it would be rash to assume that, even then, Mary would feel at liberty to speak publicly of the things that lay so near to her heart; and it may be regarded as certain that, while she lived, others, even if they knew the facts, would be very reticent about them. Yet the circle around her may well have been aware that there was a mystery surrounding the birth of their Lord, though they had not the precise knowledge of its nature.
How, then, did the facts ever become known ? This brings me back to the point I ended with in last lecture. I there indicated that, in my judgment, both Mary and ________________________________________________________ 1 E. g., John 8:14, John 8:23, etc.
Joseph must have felt that this knowledge was a sacred trust which they dare not keep wholly to themselves— that it was due to Jesus, to Mary herself, and to the world, in some suitable way to make it known—that an obligation, therefore, rested on them to provide in their lifetimes for the secure and authentic transmission of this knowledge. I likewise endeavoured to show from the narratives themselves that this is no mere conjecture: that the thing was actually done. How it was done we can never certainly know. A favourite theory is, that Mary’s confidant is to be sought for in that group of holy women that companied with Jesus, and ministered to Him; possibly in Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward. 1 Without, however, disputing that Joanna, or some other of this circle, may have been Luke’s informant, I would suggest that the form of the records points to an origin much nearer the beginning. Both Joseph and Mary, if I am right in the view I have taken, must have felt this to be an obligation pressing on them from a very early period. J oseph might die— did die: Mary had no security for a prolonged life. Where, in these circumstances, shall we look so naturally for the origin of these records as just in that holy circle in Jerusalem in which the spirit of prophecy had anew manifested itself, and which, as we saw, was already in possession of some knowledge of these things —the circle to which Zacharias and Elisabeth and ____________________________________________________________________ 1 Luke 8:2-3. Sanday, Ramsay, Gore, etc., favour this idea.
Simeon and Anna the prophetess belonged? The narrative of Luke, in particular, in its primitive and Hebraic character, its intimate knowledge of the facts about Zacharias and the birth of the Baptist, its hymns, points to this circle as its source, through whatever hands or tongues the information was subsequently transmitted.
I have indicated that I find a strong corroboration of the views here put forth in the unanimity with which these Gospels, when they appeared, were accepted by the Church. How account for the apparently unchallenged reception of these narratives, unless there existed a preparation for them in something already known, in an expectancy which awaited their appearance—we cannot suppose that nobody knew that Matthew was writing a Gospel, or that Luke, whose inquiries had been so diligent, was writing a Gospel—based on the tradition of something mysterious in the birth of Jesus, in a knowledge which the churches that received them possessed, that the narratives rested on adequate authority, and conveyed authentic testimony?
We are now prepared to deal with the case as it presents itself from the side of the objector, and here, before considering the argument from silence, I would glance at the facts which are supposed to contradict the testimony of the chapters in our Gospels on the Virgin Birth.
Some of the statements made under this head are sufficiently reckless. Take, e. g., the following from Soltau on the birthplace of Jesus: " Several passages in the Acts of the Apostles also," says this writer—six are named—" now mention Nazareth as the place where Christ was born." 1 Of course there are no such passages. The sole proof is that Jesus is spoken of in the places cited—for instance, in the healing of the lame man in Acts 3:6—as " Jesus of Nazareth." There is not a word of His being " born " there. The same writer informs us: " We learn from Matthew that Bethlehem was the real native place of Joseph and Mary." 2 I showed before that we learn from Matthew nothing of the kind: that Matthew says nothing whatever of Joseph and Mary’s native place. 3 It will be felt that a case that needs to be bolstered up by such assertions has not much substance.
1 pass, however, to instances that are of more importance.
1. A first fact on which stress is laid is, that J oseph and Mary are sometimes spoken of in the Gospels as the father and mother of Jesus. It is desirable to observe with some care the exact range of this evidence. Outside the birth-narratives, there are only four instances —one in Matthew, one in Luke, and two in John 4:1-54.
_____________________________________________________ 1. Geburtsgeschichte, p. 10 (E. T., p. 18).
2 p. 30 (E. T.).
3 See above, p. 34.
4 Matthew 13:55; Luke 4:22; John 1:45; John 6:42 (on Mark, see below, p. 106).
What these tell us is, that the people of Nazareth, Bethsaida, Capernaum — we may suppose of other places — spoke of Jesus as " the carpenter’s son," " Joseph’s son," " Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph," " the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know." They could not do otherwise, unless they had, what it is certain they had not, a knowledge of the actual mystery of the Lord’s birth. But now note this other fact. The only other place in the Gospels besides these four where language of this kind is used—the only place where it is not used by outsiders—is in Luke’s own narrative of the Infancy. Luke, who has just narrated the birth from the Virgin, himself uses this phraseology, and even puts it into the mouth of Mary. Three times he employs the expression, " the parents " or " His parents," in speaking of Joseph and Mary, and once he makes Mary say, at the finding of Jesus in the Temple, " Thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." 1 Here is the clearest proof that the Evangelist did not regard this form of speech as in the least conflicting with the fact of the supernatural birth. How, indeed, could it? Joseph, acting on the monition of the angel, had taken Mary to be his wife. By that act, he had assumed full paternal responsibilities for Mary’s child. Jesus was born into Joseph’s house, grew up as one of his family, stood to him in every outward respect in the relation of son: in the household doubtless called _______________________________________________________________ 1. Luke 2:27, Luke 2:41, Luke 2:43, Luke 2:49. him " father." Say, if you will, that the relation was only a " putative " one: still no other name was appropriate to describe it. To neighbours and townsfolk Jesus was simply " Joseph’s son."
2. Next, the genealogies are brought in as witnesses that the relation of Joseph to Jesus was really a natural one. " It is beyond dispute," says Lobstein, " that in the mind of both genealogists Jesus is the son of Joseph." 1 That can hardly be " beyond dispute " which is, in point of fact, widely disputed. I for one do dispute it. For (1) here again we are confronted by the fact that the Evangelists, who knew the meaning of plain terms, saw no contradiction between these genealogies and their own narratives of the Virgin Birth; indeed, Matthew introduces his genealogy for the very purpose of showing that Jesus had the legal rights of a son of Joseph. And (2) it is not the case that the genealogies have the meaning put upon them. It is not the genealogies as we have them in our Gospels, but the genealogies in their supposed original form—what the critics take to be their original form—which affirm the paternity of Joseph. The Evangelists are very careful in the language they use. Matthew has a periphrasis expressly to avoid this idea: " Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." 2 Luke carefully inserts the clause, " as was supposed "—" being the son, as was supposed, of ____________________________________________________________ 1 Virgin Birth, p. 46.
2. Matthew 1:16.
Joseph"1—a clause found in all the texts. The case would be a little altered, though not seriously, if the reading in the recently discovered Sinaitic Syriac Version of Matthew 1:16 could be accepted: "Jacob begat Joseph: Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, who is called the Christ." This reading has been eagerly seized on by certain critics; but, in the opinion of the best textual scholars, it has no claim to be regarded as original. 2 Partially resembling readings are found in certain Latin codices, and in one or two late (12th or 14th cent.) Greek MSS.,3 but even these all fail in the vital point: " J oseph begat Jesus." The reading is not found in any early Greek MS.; it is not supported in the essential point by the other Syriac versions; 4 the texts of the Latin versions are in great confusion. Above all, the reading itself is contradictory, for in the same breath in which it affirms that " Joseph begat Jesus," it names Mary " the Virgin "; and it stands in connection with the narrative of the Virgin Birth in the succeeding verses. The leading textual critics, therefore, as I say, reject it; 5 the R. V., which _________________________________________________________________
1 Luke 3:23.
2 Cf. the discussions in Burkitt (see below); Gore, Dissertations, pp. 192$.; Wilkinson, Hibbert Journal, Jan., 1903, etc.
3 The "Ferrar" group. See specially Kenyon, Textual Criticism, pp. I12ff., 131.
4. Cf. Bartlet on Matthew in Hastings’ Bible Diet., Ill, p. 203; but specially Burkitt, Evang. da Mepharreshe% pp. 263-4. Burkitt, as said before, regards the genealogy as the Evangelist’s own composition (p. 260).
5. Cf. Gore, p. 299. had all the material, except this one codex, before it, does not so much as refer to the variants. Setting this reading aside, the ground vanishes for saying that the genealogies affirm a natural paternity of Joseph. It appears to me very probable that the genealogies were originally genealogies of Joseph, not of Jesus; Luke’s, perhaps, a genealogy of Heli; 1 and that the clauses connecting the tables with Jesus are the work of the Evangelists themselves. It is certain, in any case, as shown already, that the genealogies, if found by the Evangelists, were recast by them into their present form. 2.
3. This leads me to another point of real interest— the question of Christ’s Davidic descent. Everywhere in the New Testament it is recognised that Jesus was " of the house of David," " of the seed of David/’ " of David’s loins," " the son of David." 3 This fact, as Meyer,4 Dalman,5 and others have shown, stands fast quite apart from the genealogies; was, indeed, the fact which gave occasion for the genealogies. But just here, it is alleged, we have a conclusive proof of the real paternity of Joseph, since it is always through Joseph, not through Mary, that the Davidic descent is traced." Eear not, Joseph, thou son of David," we read in Matthew 1:20. " Betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David," says Luke in Luke 1:27.
__________________________________________________
1 Cf. Godet.
2 See above, p. 72.
3 Romans 1:3; etc.; Matthew 9:27; Matthew 12:23; Matthew 21:9; etc.
4 Com. on Matt., I, p. 61.
5 Die Worte Jesu, I, pp. 202/7. The reply that may at once be given to this is, that the inference cannot be a correct one, since it is the very Evangelists who lay this stress on Jesus being " of the house and lineage of David " 1 who narrate for us in the same context the Virgin Birth. It is directly as part of the narrative of the Virgin Birth that these statements occur. If the Davidic descent was only through Joseph, then " son of David " to the Evangelists could mean no more than that the relationship to Joseph conveyed to Jesus the legal claim to David’s throne—not that He was naturally Joseph’s son. But this now raises another question: Is it so certain that Jesus derived His connection with David only through His relationship to Joseph \ I seriously doubt it. I confess I have never been able to read these birth-narratives without feeling that there runs through them all the tacit implication of Mary’s Davidic descent, equally with Joseph’s. This is specially the case in Luke’s Gospel, which, as I showed, is, in these opening chapters, peculiarly Mary’s Gospel. No doubt in Luke’s Gospel also stress is laid on the fact that Joseph was of the line of David (2:4). But it is not to Joseph, but to Mary, that, in the very act of announcing the miraculous conception, the angel says: " The Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David." 2 It is difficult also, I think, not to read this signification into the statement about Joseph going up to Bethle- ________________________________________________________
1 Luke 2:4-5.
2 Ibid., Luke 1:32; cf. ver. 69. hem, " to enrol himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him," " because he was of the house and lineage of David." 1 That Mary was of Davidic descent was, as I mentioned formerly, the consistent tradition of the Church of the second century, as attested to us by the fathers of the time—Justin, Irenoeus, Tertullian, and others. 2 The view is one which leading writers have largely favoured. 3 If accepted, it bears out the suggestion previously made that Luke’s genealogy, while in form a genealogy of Joseph, is in reality the line of descent through Mary, to whom Joseph was nearly related.
I now proceed to the direct consideration of the argument on which so much is built from the alleged silence of the remaining New Testament books. It may, on closer inspection, be found that the argument is not nearly so convincing as it appears at first sight. That there is no direct mention of the Virgin Birth may be at once admitted. But mere silence, if it can be satisfactorily accounted for, does not. carry us far in proving either lack of knowledge or denial; and indirect indications may often be shown to be present, where direct ______________________________________________________________
1 Luke 2:4-5.
2 See the evidence in Meyer, Com. on Matt., I, p. 61 (Meyer himself rejects Mary’s Davidic descent). Cf. Knowling, The Virgin Birth, pp. 32, 33.
3 Thus, e. g., Lange, Godet, Ebrard, B. Weiss, Edersheim, Andrews, etc. testimony is wanting. But let us see what the facts are.
1. I begin with the Gospel of Mark. Here, it is said, is absolute silence: obvious ignorance of the Virgin Birth. For, if Mark had known of so remarkable an occurrence, is it conceivable that he would not have recorded it? Mark, therefore, is claimed as a witness against us.
One curious circumstance in connection with this Gospel may be noted in passing. It was the singular contention of the older Tubingen critics—of Baur, Hilgenfeld, and others of the school, but also of a scholar like Bleek—that Mark did know of the Virgin Birth, and a point was even made of the fact in proof that his Gospel was later than, and presupposed, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. It will be remembered that in Matthew’s Gospel the people of Nazareth are represented as saying: " Is not this the carpenter’s son ?"1 In Mark this saying appears in the simpler form: " Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary ?" 2 Which of these forms is the original ? Most critics will say the former. How then, these older scholars argued, do you account for Matthew’s form, " the carpenter’s son," getting toned down into this milder utterance, " the carpenter, the son of Mary " ? Can it be from any motive except the desire to avoid the impression that Jesus was really the son of Joseph—a precaution the more neces- ___________________________________________________________ 1 Matthew 13:33.
2 Mark 6:4. sary that Mark’s Gospel does not contain an account of the birth ? " Mark," says Hilgenfeld, " does not tolerate the paternity of J oseph, even in the mouth of the Nazarenes." 1 The argument is an ingenious illustration of how readily facts can be turned about to suit the exigencies of hypotheses.
Apart from such precarious reasonings, however, the general answer to the objection from the silence of Mark seems to be very simple. Before we can fairly urge an objection of this kind, we must ask: What is the scope and design of the Gospel in question? Did this scope include the narrative of the birth of Christ ? Now in the case of Mark plainly it did not. Mark had a definite object in his Gospel — viz.: to narrate the events of Christ’s ministry within the limits of the common Apostolic testimony, which, as we know, began with the baptism of John, in Christ’s thirtieth year, and ended with the ascension. 2 He therefore gives no account of Christ’s birth at all. How then can his Gospel be held to contradict the testimony of the other Gospels, which do give circumstantial information on this subject. 3.
How much or how little Mark knew of the mysterious ________________________________________________________ 1 Cf. Meyer on Mark 6:4.
2 Cf. Acts 1:22. Mark assuredly knew that Jesus was born, though he does not mention it.
3 Dr. Swete says: " Much has been made of the silence of St. Mark, but the argument ex silentro was never more conspicuously misplaced; it is puerile to demand of a record which professes to begin with the ministry of the Baptist, that it shall mention an event which preceded the Baptist’s birth" (Apostles’ Creed, p. 48). events connected with the birth of Christ, we cannot, of course, definitely tell. He was the son of that Mary of Jerusalem in whose house the Church met in early days for worship. 1 There he must often have met the mother of Jesus and others of her company; and it seems to me more probable than not that he would know something of the facts which the other Evangelists record. At least from his silence we are not entitled to infer the contrary. His Gospel opens with the words: " The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." But why or how the Son of God ? Who will say what explanation he would have given of this title, had he been asked to do it ? Or will venture to affirm that his answer would have been different from that which the other Gospels afford ?
2. I turn in the next place to John. Here the same remark has to be made to begin with, that John’s Gospel can be no contradiction of Matthew’s and Luke’s, for the plain reason that John does not narrate the earthly origin of Jesus at all, but contents himself with the divine descent. " The Word became flesh," 2 he tells us: but how he does not say. His words assuredly do not exclude—as some have strangely imagined—an exceptional mode of birth; rather the assertion of so transcendent a fact creates a presumption in favour of the truth of what is narrated in the other Gospels. It would be as reasonable to argue that John meant to deny that ________________________________________________________________
1 Acts 12:12.
2 John 1:14.
Jesus was born at all, as that he meant to deny that His birth was such as the Gospels describe.
There is a good deal more than this, however, to be said about John. The case stands here quite differently from what it did with Mark, where it was possible to doubt whether the Evangelist knew anything of Christ’s supernatural origin. No doubt of this kind is possible about John. John had unquestionably the Gospels of Matthew and Luke in his hands; he wrote, as we shall see, at a time when the Virgin Birth was already a general article of belief in the Church; it is generally understood that one part of his design, at least, was to supplement the other Gospels with material from his own recollections. What then is John’s relation to the narratives of the birth of Christ in these earlier Gospels? He knew them. Does he repudiate them? Or contradict them ? Or correct them ? If he does not— and who will be bold enough to affirm that he does ?— what remains but to believe that he accepted and endorsed them? Remember that Mary had been placed under John’s guardianship by Jesus Himself, and probably lived in his house till she died. 1 Remember also that these stories, if not true, could only be interpreted in a way which implied a slur on Mary’s good name. Is it conceivable that, if he knew them to be false, the Evangelist would have met them with no word of indignant denial ?
_______________________________________________________________ 1. John 19:26-27.
There is another fact to be mentioned in this connection. One of the best-attested traditions of the early Church about John—it comes to us through Irenseus, on the authority of Polycarp, John’s own disciple 1—is that he was in keenest personal antagonism to the Gnostic teacher, Cerinthus, his contemporary at Ephesus. We know very well about the errors of Cerinthus. He taught that the earthly Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary by ordinary generation, and that the heavenly Christ descended on Him at the Baptism, but subsequently deserted Him. He is the earliest known impugner of the Virgin Birth. The story of John fleeing from the bath-house because he perceived Cerinthus within, may be legendary, but the abhorrence of the tenets of Cerinthus which it enshrines is doubtless historical. Is it to be supposed, then, that John and the arch-heretic were at one on the very point in which Cerinthus came into sharpest conflict with the belief of his time ? Does John’s Gospel contain any clue to his knowledge of the wonderful facts of Christ’s birth? !Not directly, perhaps, but indirectly, I should say—yes. Let me refet to only one doctrinal point, with which an interesting textual question is connected. John has often been accused of idealising Jesus. But this is a one-sided view. The Jesus of John is no unreal, super-earthly, transcendental being—no Gnostic aeon, or spectral ab- _________________________________________________ 1 Iren. 3:4. Cf. Gore, Dissertations, pp. 49-51. straction—but true man in every sense of the word. The supreme heresy to John was the denial that Jesus had " come in the flesh." 1 To him the declaration, " the Word became flesh " was weighted with tremendous emphasis. Jesus " came in the flesh "—had a true human beginning—but how? Recall that saying of Jesus to Nicodemus—" That which is born of the flesh is flesh: that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." 2 Man in his" natural condition, that is—as born simply of the flesh— cannot enter the kingdom of God. Did John then suppose that Jesus was ever by nature excluded from the kingdom, or needed a spiritual regeneration in order to enter it ? If not, by what constitution of Person did He obtain that exemption? If even of believers it is said that they " were born, not of blood [Gr. " bloods "— male and female?], nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,"3 what is to be said of Him who never needed to be born anew, but came into the world holy from the first—" the only begotten of the Father"?4 This brings me to the textual question I spoke of. There is a curious reading of this verse, John 1:13; found in some of the Fathers, which, changing the " which were " into " who was," applies the whole passage to Christ —" Who was born, not of bloods," etc. I do not think of accepting as correct this ____________________________________________________
1 1 John 4:2-3.
2 Ibid., H1:6.
3 Ibid., 1:13.
4 What precisely is the connotation even of this expression— "only begotten of the Father"? reading, which, however, is defended by the late Prof. Blass,1 and, with slight modification, is looked favourably on by Zahn; but I agree at least with these scholars that the reading is on the track of a right idea. It is the mode of Christ’s birth which is in view, and which furnishes the type of the (spiritual) new birth of believers. As Paul in Ephesians 1:19-20 takes God’s mighty power in raising Christ from the dead as the type of the quickening of believers—" According to the working of the strength of His might which He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead "; 2 so John here takes as a pattern the divine begetting of Christ in His conception by the Holy Ghost. This is a doctrinal point, but take now one or two that are historical. We saw that one objection to the narratives of the Virgin Birth is that, in the after history, Mary shows no consciousness of the divine greatness of her Son. But this at least is not true of the Gospel of John. There, as the incident of the marriage of Cana plainly shows, Mary regarded Jesus from the beginning as endowed with supernatural powers. 3 It is the irony of this mode of criticism that the only Gospel which shows clearly this consciousness on the part of Mary should be one challenged for ignorance of the Virgin Birth! Another point on which objection has been taken is, that none of the Gospels, outside the birth-narratives, _____________________________________________________ 1 Philology of the Gospels, pp. 234, etc.
3 Cf. John 2:3, John 2:5. show a knowledge of the birth at Bethlehem. Is that true of John ? In John 7:41-42, John represents the multitude as saying: " What, doth the Christ come out of Galilee ? Hath not the Scripture said that the Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was ? " The opponents of the Virgin Birth—Schmiedel,1 Soltau,2 Usener,3 and others— turn this round into a proof that John did not believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, seeing that he did not correct the misapprehensions of the multitude—Soltau even sees in it a polemic against that idea. Usener, on his part, thinks that the text " reveals the hidden path by which Bethlehem had found its way into the Gospel tradition." This, however, is a missing of the point. It might as well be argued—indeed Soltau does argue it —that John did not believe that Jesus was of the seed of David. We may take it that John accepted the prophecy that Christ should come out of Bethlehem, just as he did the fact of the Davidic descent, and we know that it was an axiom with him that " the Scripture cannot be broken." 4 He must therefore have believed that Bethlehem was Christ’s birthplace, as the other Gospels attest. Prof. Bacon correctly says: " The author presupposes the birth in Bethlehem." 5.
___________________________________________________ 1 Ency. Bib., article "Mary," III, p. 2959.
2 Op. cit., p. 19 (E. T.).
3 Ency. Bib., article " Nativity," III, p. 3347.
5 Article "Genealogy," Hastings’ Dict. of Bible, II, p. 138. From Mark and John I pass to a weightier count of the indictment in the alleged silence of Paul on this mystery of our faith. That Paul, in his numerous writings, shows no trace of acquaintance with the Virgin Birth is held to be a powerful evidence against the reality of the fact. I shall ask you to consider how far this silence of Paul extends, and whether there are not counter-indications of the Apostle’s belief in the Lord’s supernatural origin.
It is first to be observed that, even were Paul’s silence as great as is alleged, it would not justify the conclusion which the objectors draw from it. It is to be remembered that Paul is not in the habit of alluding to, or recalling, the incidents in Christ’s life—incidents which must have been perfectly familiar to him from the common preaching. 1 His whole interest in the Epistles centres in the great facts of Christ’s death and resurrection. It is granted that Paul nowhere expressly mentions the Virgin Birth, but there is nothing strange in the fact. The Incarnation for Paul rested on its own broad evidence in the Person and work of Christ, and was attested by the great public fact of the resurrection. On that, therefore, he uniformly builds, and not on a fact of so essentially private a nature (the Gospels had not yet publicly divulged it) as the birth from Mary.
___________________________________________________
1. Cf. 1 Corinthians 11:23 ff.) Acts 13:23 ff., etc. It might as well be argued that Paul did not believe in the existence of Mary, since he never once mentions her. Did Paul, therefore, know nothing of this mysterious fact of Christ’s origin ? It is not essential to my position even to assume that he did know of it, though, as I shall show immediately, there is a strong presumption that he did. There is certainly not a word in any of his Epistles which excludes such knowledge—not even the mention of Jesus as " of the seed of David," 1 which some bring forward, for precisely the same language is used by the Evangelists who record the Virgin Birth. In estimating the probability of Paul’s knowledge, who have to take into account the fact that, during a large part of his journeyings, he had Luke—the author of the Third Gospel—as his travelling companion; and we may be very sure that everything that Luke knew on this subject of the birth of Christ, Paul knew likewise. I do not mean that Luke’s Gospel was already written; though from such a passage as 1 Timothy 5:18; where Paul quotes as Scriptural the two sayings: " Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn," and " The labourer is worthy of his hire"—the latter found only in Luke 10:7—I might argue that it was at least published before Paul’s death. 2 But it does seem certain to me that Luke, while he was with Paul, was already engaged in those researches which’ yielded him the material for his Gospel (cf. ch. 1:1-4), and I should be extremely surprised if these ____________________________________________________
1 Romans 1:3.
2 I myself see no difficulty in this supposition. (See above, p. 63.) did not include the chief facts recorded in his first chapters. 1. But look now at Paul’s own Epistles. If, as Paul affirmed, Jesus, the Son of God, was " of the seed of David, according to the flesh," He must have been humanly born. How did Paul conceive of that birth ? You remember how strongly in Pom. v. he affirms the solidarity of the whole race with Adam, and how emphatically he declares: " Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all have sinned." . . . " Through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners; " 2 and how he sets forth Jesus, in contrast with Adam, as the new Head of the race, the Righteous One, through whom all this evil condition was to be reversed. Now Paul’s was a logical mind. How did he explain to himself this appearance of a Sinless One —a Redeemer—in the midst of a sinful humanity? How did he account for this exemption of Christ from the common lot of sin and death ? Could he do it, consistently with his own principles, on the view that Christ’s was a birth simply in the ordinary course of nature—that a miracle of some kind was not involved in it?
If we look to the Epistles for an answer to this question, I do not think we are wholly disappointed. Christ’s entrance into our world, in Paul’s view, was no ordinary ___________________________________________________ 1. Cf. below, pp. 119-121.
2. Romans 5:12, Romans 5:19. act. He was " the second man from heaven," 1 who took our nature upon Him by voluntary condescension,2 and I have been much struck by observing that there is hardly an allusion to Christ’s entrance into our humanity in the Epistles (I do not think there is any) which is not marked by some significant peculiarity of expression. I do not say that the peculiarities are such as would of themselves prove the Virgin Birth; but I think it may be affirmed that they are such that the Virgin Birth, assuming a knowledge of it on Paul’s part, would furnish a simple and natural key to them.
Let me give a few illustrations of my meaning.
Leaving over Romans 1:3-4, for the present, take two other passages relating to Christ’s earthly origin, and note the periphrastic character of the language employed. In Romans 8:3; we read: " God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh [" flesh of sin "], and as an offering for sin, condemned sin in the flesh " ; and in Php 2:7 : " He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made [R. V. Marg. " becoming "] in the likeness of men." Is this, I ask, how one is accustomed to speak of a natural birth ? God " sends " His Son " in the likeness of flesh of sin " ; Christ " empties " Himself, " taking the form of a servant/’ is made or " becomes " " in the likeness of men." The Son of . God voluntarily enters our nature, yet there is suggested a distinction. He is one of us, yet not of us. He ______________________________________________ 1 1 Corinthians 15:47.
2 Cf. 2 Corinthians 8:9; Php 2:5-8. is distinguished from us (" in the likeness"), specially in the point of sin. He is, in Luke’s phrase, " that holy thing that shall be born," 1 because a higher Power is concerned in His origin. Or take the well-known passage, Galatians 4:4, " God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law," and mark the peculiarity of the expressions. It is not simply that Paul uses the phrase, " born of a woman." We are told, even by Bishop Lightfoot, that this has no special meaning, since the phrase was a usual one to denote simply human birth; and we are referred in illustration to Matthew 11:11 (= Luke 6:28), where Jesus says, " Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist." I should like to point out, however, that the word for " born " in this passage in Matthew is not that used by Paul, and that Paul’s phrase is not, so far as I know, exactly paralleled anywhere. This introduces us to an interesting comparison. The Greek word used in Matthew is the word properly denoting " born " The same word is used in the two cases where the phrase occurs in the Septuagint—Job 14:1; Job 15:14. But in Paul, here and elsewhere, we have the employment, in application to Christ, of a more characteristic term— " becoming " Thus in Romans 1:3, " was born [lit. " became "] of the seed of David," and in Php 2:7, " being made [R. V. Marg. " becoming "] in ________________________________________________________________________
1. Luke 1:35. the likeness of men." So in this passage in Galatians 4:4. It reads: "God sent forth His Son, born [lit. "become"] of a woman," etc. It may be thought that this is simply a case of Paul’s peculiar usage; that it was his habit to use this, and not the more ordinary Greek term. Put Paul knew the ordinary Greek term very well. In this very chapter in Galatians he uses its verb no fewer than three times in reference to Ishmael and Isaac (Galatians 4:23-24, Galatians 4:29). But when he speaks of Jesus, he employs the more general term, more appropriate to one of whom John likewise says—" The Word became flesh." 1 In such a connection, it may be felt that the expression, " born of a woman," derives a new significance.
I now go back to Romans 1:3-4, and ask your attention to one or two points of interest in connection with these verses. Prof. Pfleiderer had a curious theory about this passage which he has since abandoned. He actually thought he saw in these words of Paul about Jesus " being born 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 of. the dead," the origin of Luke’s narrative of the Virgin Birth. 2 The idea is, of course, untenable, yet there is a gleam of insight in it. I confess it is difficult for me to read this passage in Romans, and rid my mind of the impression that there is a relation between it and what _________________________________________________________________
1Jn. 1:14.
2 See his Urchristenthum, 1st Ed., pp. 420-1. we find in Luke 1:35. 1 Look at the words in the Gospel. The angel announces to Mary that she shall conceive in her womb, and bring forth a son, and that " the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David" (Luke 1:31-32). Then, when Mary inquires how this shall be (Luke 1:34), the answer is given: " The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee; wherefore also that which is to be born shall be called holy, the Son of God " —or, " the holy thing which is to be born shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). In the Greek, however, and always throughout these chapters, except in Luke 2:26-27, the words rendered " the Holy Ghost" are simply " Holy Spirit"—the article is wanting. Turn now to Romans. Here Paul announces, first, that Jesus was born " of the seed of David according to the flesh "; then that He was declared (not " constituted," but " defined ") by the resurrection " to be the Son of God, with [or " in "] power, according to the Spirit of holiness." The last is a peculiar expression. It also is, literally, " Spirit of holiness," without the article. The contrast indicated is commonly taken to be between Christ’s human and His higher or divine nature; but it seems to me more in keeping with the context to interpret it of origin. " Of the seed of David, according to the flesh "—on the side of fleshly origin; " Son of God, ___________________________________________________________ 1 The narrative at the basis of the Gospel may have been known to Paul through Luke. (See above, p. 115.) with [or " in "] power, according to the Spirit of holiness " on the side of higher spiritual origin. The words are then almost an echo of Luke’s—" Give unto Him the throne of His father David "—" Holy Spirit shall come upon thee"—"Power of the Most High shall overshadow thee "—" Wherefore also that which is to be born shall be called ... the Son of God " (or, " the holy thing which is to be born," etc.). 1. To allude to only one other passage, it is a fair exegetical question, I think, whether, in the light of its context (" For Adam was first formed, then Eve," etc.), the phrase in 1 Timothy 2:15, " Saved through the child-bearing," should not be taken, with Ellicott and others, as an allusion to the promise in Genesis 3:15; and its fulfilment in the birth of the Saviour.
I hope I have said enough to show that Paul is not a witness that can be relied on to disprove the Virgin Birth. 2. In the remaining books of the New Testament, the only passage I need advert to is the description in Bev.
_________________________________________________________ 1. The suggested parallels may be exhibited as follows: xii. of the woman with child, " arrayed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars " 1—but the discussion of this passage I postpone till we come to the theories which derive the idea of the Virgin Birth from heathen mythology. 2 It is the newer theorists themselves who bring this Apocalyptic description into connection with the Virgin Birth, supposing both to be of Babylonian origin. Suffice it to say at present that, if there is any relation, and I am disposed to believe that there is, it is the Apocalyptic picture which is dependent on the story in the Gospels, not the other way. 3 In that case it is an additional attestation of the Gospel narratives.
_________________________________________________________ 1 Revelation 12:1-6.
2 See below, p. 180.
3 Cf. Gore, Dissertations, p. 9.