is the liturgist with his hymns and liturgical settings. There is no scriptural documentation as in Matthew to demonstrate the authenticity of the claim that Jesus is born of a virgin. The angel Gabriel appeared in Nazareth “to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David” (Luke 1.26–27). There is the same link that Joseph is the father of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy as in Matthew’s, but he has placed the genealogy after the baptism of Jesus rather than prior to his birth as in Matthew. But this link conflicts with the references in the conception and birth accounts that state that Mary was a virgin and refer to Joseph only as a surrogate father. Why list genealogies at all and why trace them through Joseph, since he was not the father of Jesus? Luke suggests that Mary was of the tribe of Levi (1.36) and not of Judah, the tribe from which David was descended. The key, as we have noted, is that a link must be forged with David, since the Messiah was to descend from that great king.
Two Supernatural Births in Luke
Luke even outdoes Matthew in his zeal for the miraculous, for he tells of two supernatural births, prefacing the birth of Jesus of a virgin with the birth of John to the aged couple, Zechariah and Elizabeth. Elizabeth, as Sarah of old, is beyond the age for child bearing; yet she who was barren conceives in her womb and bears a son who becomes the forerunner and announcer of the Messiah. A second unusual, if not supernatural birth, that of Samuel, may also be in the background, especially since there are clear points of reference between Hannah’s prayer in First Samuel 2.1–10 and Mary’s “Magnificat” in Luke 1.46–55. Again it is probable that this author has taken motifs from scripture and formulated a story to enhance the marvel of the event of salvation.
Mary Plays the Leading Role in Luke
Luke’s narrative also differs from Matthew’s account by focusing attention upon Mary, the mother of Jesus, rather than upon Joseph. The revelation of the impending birth of this child is given by the angel Gabriel to Mary, not to Joseph. Mary formulates the great hymn we entitle “The Magnificat,” although some Old Latin texts attribute this to Elizabeth. Joseph is more of a prop in the narrative of the birth at Bethlehem, a kind of onlooker rather than an active participant, since it is Mary who does the wrapping of the child and also keeps and ponders in her heart all that is told them by the shepherds. Simeon addresses his prophecy concerning the future of the child to Mary and she is a leading actor in the account of the second visit to the temple when the boy Jesus is twelve years of age. This is in character with the tendency of this author to emphasize the role of women throughout his gospel narrative in contrast to Matthew and the other evangelists. Elizabeth, Anna the prophetess, and especially Mary are all in the forefront, whereas the male characters only play supporting roles or even fade into the background.
The Problem with a Virgin Conception and Birth
How did the idea of a virgin conception and birth originate? Is it true in a literal sense? Or was it created by the early Christians to defend their beloved Jesus from slander and to give to him a more than proper birth certificate? The question of virgin conception and birth is a live issue from a scientific point of view, since conception and birth within the human family without insemination by a male is to this time impossible. There must always be appended this qualification to such a statement, since we must acknowledge that there is much that we do not know and perhaps can never know in spite of the great progress of scientific investigation. For the present we must acknowledge from a scientific point of view that virgin conception and birth is an improbability, if not even an impossibility. There is no problem from a religious point of view for those who interpret the scripture literally, for Luke the Evangelist says through the angel Gabriel, “with God nothing will be impossible” (Luke 1.37). How are these two points of view to be reconciled? How can the sophisticate of the twenty-first century hold to both conclusions that are in fact contradictory?
Virgin conception and birth is not a real option for a twenty-first century scientist. Conception and birth in the human family normally results from the joining of the male sperm with the female ovum in the womb of the mother, although there are some differentiation from the norm in our twenty-first century laboratories. But the point remains that the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary either was the result of a union with an unknown male or with Joseph. The alternative is to accept the conclusion of the religious believer that God intervened directly in this one birth and that the conception of Jesus was the result of Mary’s impregnation by the Holy Spirit. If the latter is our conclusion, then the question rises, Does God ever act in that way? Is it consistent with the nature of God whom we know through scripture and through faith to violate the laws of nature that govern the universe that he has made? If the universe is the result of his creative act and if the universe is governed by laws or principles that are expressions of God’s will, how is it possible for God who is true and trustworthy in all that he does to violate from time to time in a capricious and inconstant way his own principles or laws? Is it ever safe to maintain even in defense of his divine majesty that the end justifies the means?
The Integrity of God
My mind and heart affirm the integrity of God. God is faithful, God is trustworthy, God is true. This is the cornerstone of my life to affirm with the Apostle Paul, “Let God be true though every man be false” (Romans 3.4). The view that “all things are possible to God” grows out of our human weakness and not out of our strength. Our strength, the only strength for us, is God’s strength in us. The image of God that is sealed upon our hearts must be freed from every idol, from every human desire and endeavor to find security in that which is not God.
My own point of view is an integration and an expression of all the knowledge that has come to me from science and from religion. Jesus is born of woman as every human and in the same way that every human is conceived and born. Even our confession that “he was conceived by the Holy Spirit” does not distinguish him from our conception and birth. If God is Creator, as we affirm in another article of our faith, than each one of us is conceived and born of the Holy Spirit. Our conception and birth is not simply or merely the result of a natural process of procreation. Each one of us is the handiwork of God who in a unique creative act has brought me and every human into being. God is never aloof or far removed from the universe that he has made. He is not a part of it, but is above and beyond it. But at the same time he is intimately involved in every new life that comes into existence, whether plant or animal or human, because he is always and ever the Creator God. He creates moment by moment in the same dynamic and wise way that he has always created and always will create. There has never been an interruption of his creative work nor a violation of the process that he instituted from the very beginning of time. God is God and it is for us to let him be God, rather than to fashion and shape a creature God in the image of man.
The Pauline View
How then, if Jesus was conceived and born in the same and natural way as we are, can he be distinguished from us to be our Savior and Lord? He is one with us in conception and birth, in life, in nature, in his humanity, but he is called and set apart by the Creator and Redeemer God for his unique role as Savior. The Apostle Paul states the reality in this way, “the gospel concerning his son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 1.3–4). There is no reliance upon miraculous conception and birth, no dependence upon a divine human, but only the qualification that he was descended from David according to the flesh. The distinction is in his calling and in his resurrection, a unique creative act of God, a creative act that is not all that different from the rebirth that we see in nature and in the human family constantly. This is what sets Jesus apart, for God has acted through this one man to reconcile the entire creation and especially the entire human family to himself.
What then is the meaning of the “virgin conception and birth theology” that we find in the opening chapters of the gospels of Matthew and Luke? Did they intend their words to be read literally? Did they intend to set up criteria to measure the faith or faithfulness of the members of the community? Is the confession or the
