Is it a serious issue that the virgin birth is only mentioned explicitly in two of the four Gospels? This article considers why this great miracle is not mentioned by Mark and John, or for that matter by the apostle Paul.

Source: Clarion, 1995. 4 pages.

The Importance of the Virgin Birth

The Absence of the Virgin Birth🔗

The virgin birth is a great miracle. It is questionable whether we can speak of lesser and greater in connection with miracles. Is the healing of Malchus' ear less of a miracle than the stilling of the storm? We do not know what powers would be needed to re-attach a severed ear. Neither do we know how the Lord Jesus was able to command the wind and the sea so that they were quiet in an instant. Since we do not know what is involved in performing miracles, we cannot really compare them to determine which would be the greatest. Therefore, we cannot really say about the virgin birth that it is the greatest miracle, for how can we fathom one, let alone compare several?

We can say, however, that among all God's miracles the virgin birth is the greatest miracle as far as importance is concerned. The healing of Malchus' ear prevented an ugly scar and saved Malchus from a loss of hearing. The stilling of the storm saved disciples from a situation that looked life threatening. Both miracles show something of the character of Jesus' saving work. But the virgin birth marks the way in which our Saviour came into this world. Our salvation is dependent on this miracle.

It is, therefore, surprising that the story of the virgin birth is only told in two gospels, Matthew and Luke. The other two gospels, Mark and John, do not mention it. Neither do Acts or any of the New Testament epistles pay specific attention to it. There are only two clear witnesses, recorded by Matthew and Luke.

Is it a serious matter that the virgin birth is not mentioned explicitly in the other gospels or in the rest of the New Testament? Calvin does not seem to think so. In his commentary on the gospels he simply combines the gospels. First he deals with Luke's record of the virgin birth, then with Matthew's. When he weaves Mark's beginning into the life story of Christ he seems not to be aware of a serious omission in this gospel.1

Our age has said farewell to this innocence. R. Bultmann quite rudely calls the virgin birth a legend which sprang up in Hellenistic Christianity. This legend was unknown to Paul. Mark and John have a different view on the origin of Jesus than do the other evangelists.2 Behind the approach of Bultmann and others is the denial that the New Testament, as the Word of God, is a unity. They see it as a collection of books in which different authors present their views concerning Jesus. None of these views have been revealed; instead, they are all the result of human contemplation on the story of Jesus. We have a fundamental disagreement with this approach. Both Luke and Matthew present their record as a statement of fact, not as the interpretation of Hellenistic Christians.

It will not do for us, however, to simply go back to Calvin and accept without question the fact that the virgin birth is only referred to in two of the four gospels. Once raised, the problem why this miracle is not mentioned by other authors must be addressed. If their silence does not imply that they were ignorant or possibly even rejected this, then why did they not refer to it?3

Mark and John🔗

It is not really surprising that Mark does not speak of the virgin birth, for he does not say anything at all about Jesus' life before John the Baptist pointed Him out to the people. It was obviously Mark's intention to describe Jesus' life from the moment He came forward to begin his public ministry. This would agree with the early tradition that Mark recorded the apostle Peter's witness concerning Jesus Christ.4 The virgin birth does not belong to the events Peter had firsthand knowledge of.

For understanding John's gospel, the purpose as it is described in the end must be considered:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30, 31; see also John 21:24, 25). In accordance with this purpose, John introduces Jesus as the Son of God (John 1:1-18) and continues to speak about the things he and the other eye-witnesses had heard and seen of Jesus Christ. Moreover, his gospel gives the impression that John consciously tries to avoid duplicating what has already been said in other gospels. Within his own purpose John had no reason to speak of the virgin birth.

When considering the gospels of Mark and John, we should not overlook the fact that they do not contradict the virgin birth. These gospels do not speak of a human father of Jesus. 5 In fact, what they say is quite consistent with the virgin birth. Mark introduces Jesus as the Son of God (Mark 1:1) and John records that Jesus taught that God is His Father (John 5). Both gospels indicate that Jesus is more than an extraordinary man.

The Silence of Paul🔗

It will surprise no one that no indication of the virgin birth can be found in the epistles of James, Jude, John and Peter. Not only are these epistles very brief, they do not really deal with Jesus Christ's earthly life. Neither could a reference to the virgin birth be expected in Hebrews and Revelation, because of their particular goal.

The situation is rather different for Paul, however. Thirteen of his epistles are still extant, and among these are quite substantial writings. Could we not expect Paul to deal with the virgin birth, or at least to refer to it? Some have found an indication of the virgin birth in Galatians 4:4:

When the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law…

However, it is difficult to see how this text could be used in this discussion. Paul does not say more than that Jesus Christ was born of a woman. He did not even state that the woman was a virgin. Neither does this text give any indication whether he thought that Jesus had a human father. His statement neither denies nor affirms the virgin birth. The only thing Paul wanted to stress is that Christ, by being born from a woman, was born under the law. For this reason, Jesus could redeem sinners who are born under the law. 6

The question remains why Paul did not write about the virgin birth. Two general answers have been given.

  • The first, points to the fact that Paul focused on the saving work of Jesus Christ. In connection with Christ's salvation work Paul needed to emphasize the importance of Christ's death and resurrection. The period of Christ's public ministry is hardly mentioned, even though it must have been known to Paul.7

  • The second answer reminds us that Paul mentions facts from Christ's life only when there is a specific occasion to speak of these. The institution of the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11) would never have been mentioned if this sacrament had not been abused in Corinth. And had Paul not been forced to mention witnesses of Christ's resurrection (1 Corinthians 15), would we have concluded that Paul did not know of the resurrection? Paul says here that facts such as the resurrection belonged to the "first things" he taught to the churches. Gresham Machen, the able defender of the virgin birth, even turns Paul's silence to his advantage. The fact that the virgin birth is not mentioned in his letters could mean that this was so universally accepted within the churches that no defense was needed.8

These are valid observations, and yet they do not satisfy. It is true that Paul's epistles hardly quote any words spoken by Jesus during His earthly ministry and they do not describe the things He did during His three years of public ministry. The virgin birth, however, cannot be equated with Christ's works or words, for it indicates His origin. When Paul pays special attention to the end of Christ's earthly life, why could he not give equal attention to the beginning of Christ's life? His coming into the world was crucial in His salvation work. Actually, Paul does speak on several occasions about His coming into the world, for example, in Romans 1:3 and Galatians 4:4. Yet, not even once does he mention the virgin birth. Christ's birth, surely, deserved the attention of the congregations as much as His death.

The Place of the Virgin Birth🔗

This brings us back to the gospels. Can we possibly find in the records of the virgin birth the reason why Paul saw no reason to mention it? We need another look at the gospel of Luke. The announcement of the virgin birth begins with the angel saying to Mary:

You will conceive in your womb and bear a son.

Three statements are added, one of which is that Mary's Son will be called the Son of the Most High. Mary does not respond to much of what the angel says. Instead, she comes back to the first words of the angel. She asks how in her present situation she can conceive a son? The angel answers that no man will be involved. He says The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the holy child to be born will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). Mark the word "therefore." How can this child of Mary truly be called the Son of God? Because no man was involved in his conception but God brought Him to life through His Holy Spirit.

The virgin birth, then, is not the main issue but only the means. It is the miraculous way in which God brought His Son into this world. The virgin birth is a great miracle but, like all God's miracles, it does not want to draw attention to itself. It is similar to the healing of Malchus' ear or the stilling of the storm. These events do not focus on the healing or the quieting work but on what Christ achieved by means of his miraculous power. He healed even his enemy and righted an injustice. He is able to protect his disciples from the greatest dangers. In the same manner, the virgin birth is subservient to the astonishing result that the Son of God becomes a man. Now we can understand why there was no need for Paul to mention the virgin birth. For all its miraculous character, far surpassing everything we think is possible, the virgin birth is in the final analysis merely God's way of bringing his Son into the world. It is the means for the central fact of God's salvation work – bringing his Son into the world for our salvation. And Paul certainly emphasizes the coming of God's Son.

The absence of the virgin birth in Paul's epistles should not lead us to consider this a legend made up by Hellenistic believers. It has to be maintained as a fact, but in its subordinate place. Paul's silence is a reminder for us not to focus on the virgin Mary but on the Son of God who, by way of his birth from the virgin, became our Saviour.

Endnotes🔗

  1. ^ Calvin's remark when he first introduces Mark's record may serve as a proof that he did not see any problem in Mark's not having the birth story: "Though what we have hitherto taken out of Matthew and Luke is a part of the Gospel, yet it is not without reason that Mark makes the beginning of the Gospel to be the preaching of John the Baptist" Com­mentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists (repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984) vol. 1, 1873. Calvin is not an exception. J.A. Bengel, an important exegete of the 18th Century, notes on Mark 1:1: "The specific goal of this evan­gelist is, as he himself professes it in the title, to describe the beginning, history, reasons, progress and end of the gospel about Jesus Christ the Son of God," see Gnomon Novi Testament! (8. ed. P. Steudel; Stuttgartiae: Steinkopf, 1891) 173.
  2. ^ R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951) vol. 1, 131; the same opinion can be found in W.G. Kummel, Theology (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973) 124 (on Luke and Matthew); 165 (on Paul) and 271 (John). Their view has exercized influence in several directions. It underlies J.N.D. Kelly's explanation of this section of the Creed, Early Christian Creeds (3. ed.; New York: Longman, 1983) 11f. and the denial by H. Berkhof in his Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 292f.
  3. ^ There is no reason to deal specifically with the book of Acts. This is the sequel to the gospel of Luke (see Acts 1:1) and it records later history. The occasional speeches sum­marized in this book are not intended to be complete.
  4. ^ This information of Papias has been pre­served by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical Histories 111, XXXIX, 15.
  5. ^ We need not deal with John 6:41: "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know." This statement was made by opposing Jews who obviously did not know of the virgin birth. John records their statement without indicating his own views. See also D. Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1981) 370.
  6. ^ See e.g. the commentary of H. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Church of Galatia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953) 155f.
  7. ^ Y. Feenstra, Geboren uit de maagd (Kampen: Kok, 1959) 15.
  8. ^ J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (2. ed.; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985)262ff.

Add new comment

(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.