Basic HTML Version
THE
VIRGIN BIRTH
Fact or Myth?
by
John Ross Schroeder
Liberal theologians have long denied the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection story
and other tenets of traditional doctrine. Of more recent date
the virgin birth has been attacked with particular vehemence in Britain.
S
OME
five years ago
Angela Tilby wrote in
the London
Times:
"Of all the articles of the
Christian faith , none is more
widely disbelieved than the virgin
birth. The idea that God the Son
took flesh from a human mother
and was born as a man without
the aid of a human father strikes
many modern Christians as
absurd and incredible."
Much more recentiy a prominent
bishop commented that "we have
no right to insist on the literal truth
of the story about the virgin birth
of Jesus"
(The Times,
November
27, 1984).
I t's easy enough for traditional–
ists to assign blame to two or three
outspoken theologians. But what
the theologians really represent is a
surfacing of deeply felt, usually
unexpressed, doubts in the hearts
of the clergy. lncreasingly the so–
called poetic nature of the nativity
stories is stressed in the media. A
strict interpretation of the Bible
text is summarily dismissed.
Perhaps a little historical per–
spective on this problem will clarify
the controversy.
Brief Modern Hlstory
Adolf Harnack was a German lib–
June 1985
eral sebolar. In 1892 he remarked
to bis students that he did not
believe the virgin birth. In bis view
Jesus of Nazareth was no more
than a very capable teacher. Har–
nack touched off a heated contro–
versy that has ebbed and flowed
ever since.
Then Emil Brunner wrote a book
about Jesus Christ in 1927 in
which he questioned the virgin
birth.
After World War 11 Rudolf
Bultmann began hís now famous
approach of "demythologizing"
the Bible. To him New Testament
myth had to be separated from
New Testament fact. Miracles
were indeed statements of faith–
but not factual stories.
Students training for the priest–
hood and ministry have read the
published works of these theolo–
gians as a regular part of their
educational routine. Many have
absorbed such teachings, however
unconscíously. They have become
unsure. They do not understand
who or what J esus Christ really
was and is. Their disbelief now
extends to the virgin birth.
Thinking men and women are
now examining the New Testament
documents for themselves. They
have no option but to test what they
hear, as d id the Bereans, who
searched "the scriptures daily,
whether those things were so"
(Acts 17:11).
Can one honestly believe the vir–
gin birth? Two accounts of J esus'
birth appear in the gospels-one by
Luke and the other by Matthew.
Space only allows for an analysis of
Luke's version.
Luke as Gospel Writer
Luke was a physician who con–
ducted himself like the professional
he was. H is gospel was written for a
prominent Roman official. He
chose his sources carefull y. He
talked to eyewitnesses. He recorded
truth.
lt
is unthinkable that Luke would
produce a careless assemblage of
half-truths. Notice Luke's prologue:
"Inasmuch as many have under tak–
en to compile a narrative of the
things which have been accom–
plished among us, just as they were
delivered to us by those who from
the beginning were eyewitnesses and
ministers of the word, it seemed
good to me also, having followed all
things closely for sorne time past, to
write an orderly account for you,
most excellent Tbeophilus,
that you
may know
the truth
concerning the
things of what you have been
informed" (Luke 1: 1-4, Revised
Standard Version throughout re–
mainder of article) .
Luke's sober intention was to
19