Toward a Rejection of the Virgin Birth

This work is marked CC0 1.0.

Does the Bible teach the virgin birth? An examination and new reading of Matthew and Luke’s gospels.

Introduction

In Christian thought, there are generally two positions taken on the issue of the virgin birth. Traditionally, the virgin birth has been taken as a historical event, which is just to say that Mary was impregnated by God before she ever had any sexual relations with a man. For the sake of simplicity, let’s call this position the historical interpretation. The second position is to mythologize the virgin birth narrative. Rather than understanding the virgin birth as a historical event, it can be understood as a mythical narrative that, while entirely meaningful, did not take place in history. I’ll refer to this second position as the mythological interpretation. In this post, I will seek to explore both of these positions, and then offer a way of reading the scriptures that moves away from the virgin birth altogether.

The Historical Interpretation

Many, perhaps most, Christians believe that a man named Jesus of Nazareth was born to a virgin woman named Mary in the first century CE. They believe Jesus had no earthly father. Instead, God himself (via his spirit) impregnated Mary. They believe this based on passages found in both Matthew and Luke’s gospels. (These passages will be exposited below.) Crucially, for these Christians, all of this is material history.

Stepping aside from the scriptural arguments for the time being, I want to here level a conceptual criticism. Namely, I do not believe the historical interpretation makes any conceptual sense. Those Christians who maintain the historical interpretation of the virgin birth believe that Jesus was a real human being. Granted, they generally also believe he was really God, too. Regardless, Jesus was a biological human being. He developed in the womb of Mary, nursed on her breasts, learned how to walk and talk, went through puberty, experienced hunger, etc. He was a genuine human being. As a genuine human being, Jesus would have had genuine human DNA. We humans derive our individually unique DNA from both of our parents. Most of us have 23 pairs of chromosomes, inheriting 23 individual chromosomes from each of our parents. Some people with certain conditions have more or less chromosomes, but they still inherit all of their chromosomes from both parents. Further, males inherit the necessary Y-chromosome from their father. So, the question that needs to be asked is the following: What would we see if we looked at a sample of Jesus’ DNA? Would Jesus have had only 23 chromosomes that were all from his mother, Mary? How, exactly, would that work? Or would he have had 23 chromosomes from God, his alleged biological father, as well? What would it mean for God to have chromosomes? If we were to recover a sample of organic material from Jesus, would we be able to glean insights into the DNA of God? Does God even have DNA?

These questions may seem a bit silly at first pass, but I’d argue they’re critically important. If the historical interpretation is right, then there have to be answers to these conceptual questions. One can’t merely assert that the virgin birth of Jesus was a historical event without also offering an explanation as to how that would work as a material reality. I suppose someone could shrug their shoulders and chalk it up as a mystery, but I’d argue that such a response should be deeply unsatisfying to anyone genuinely interested in the nature of Jesus.

The Mythological Interpretation

For many Christians who can’t or won’t accept the historical interpretation, they resort to a mythological interpretation. Rather than understanding the narratives of the virgin birth as historical accounts, they understand it as a later theological development. For some who hold this view, the virgin birth was a way for later Christian to explain Jesus’ divine origins: He was divine precisely because his biological father was none other than God himself.

There are also arguments to be made that the virgin birth was a pious belief that came about as a result of Jesus’ unknown origins. While his mother was known, there’s reason to believe that Jesus’ father wasn’t.¹ If Mary had sexual relations outside of marriage and, thus, Jesus’ father was unknown while his adoptive father (i.e., Joseph) was, then perhaps later Christians developed the pious belief that Mary was impregnated directly by God while she was still a virgin. After all, we know that beliefs about the divine origins of Jesus developed over time, prompting a later justification for an explanation of his divine origins. Further, we also know that other pious beliefs about Mary developed over time. For example, there are the Marian dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church (e.g., the immaculate conception).

Regardless of the various explanations as to why the myth of the virgin birth developed, what’s distinctive about the mythological interpretation is that the virgin birth was not a historical event. Jesus was conceived as every other human being throughout history was conceived. Now, just because the virgin birth is a later myth that developed within early Christian communities doesn’t mean it’s untrue or is theologically useless. Undoubtedly, the virgin birth narratives allude to the narrative of the creation of Adam found in Genesis. Adam, like Jesus, was a direct son of God (Luke 3:38). Adam’s mother, however, was Earth. God made Adam from the clay of the Earth, which at the time was undefiled (i.e., virgin).² Jesus’ mother was Mary, a woman who was also undefiled. As noted above, Roman Catholics take her undefiled nature even further with their beliefs in her immaculate conception and perpetual virginity. The parallel makes sense when one considers the early Christian teaching that Jesus is the second/final Adam (1 Cor 15:45).

Rejection

With an overview of the two interpretive perspectives in hand, I will now lay out the motivation for a third view. I will say at the outset that I do not believe the gospels seek to provide a reliable historical narrative. That is, the literary genre of the gospels is not historical narrative. Rather, they are works of theology. Thus, to read the virgin birth narratives found in Matthew and Luke’s gospels at face value and take them as historical narratives would be a mistake. As I detailed above, such a move at a minimum creates all sorts of conceptual problems. It’s akin to the young earth creationist’s approach to the first two chapters of Genesis. Reading those chapters of Genesis as historical narrative creates all sorts of conceptual problems as well. The Old Testament scholar John H. Walton offers compelling reasons to believe that those early chapters of Genesis should be read as functional rather than material. In essence, the created order is being couched in theological terms and being given a functional meaning. I see no reason why the virgin birth narratives can’t be read in a similar manner.

Overall, Christians who embrace a mythological interpretation of the virgin birth narratives accept that the authors of Matthew and Luke’s gospels intend to convey a narrative about a virgin birth. For many who hold this view, the primary or immediate meaning or purpose of the virgin birth narratives are historical. In essence, there is a concession made by Christians who maintain a mythological interpretation of the narratives to the Christians who maintain a historical interpretation that the early Christians did in fact believe Jesus was born of a virgin. Some who maintain a mythological interpretation may not differ, instead believing that the primary or immediate meaning or purpose of the virgin birth narratives are actually mythological, but they do concede that Matthew and Luke are indeed speaking about a virgin birth, just not one that took place in history.

The third approach I will be detailing for the rest of this post will be that Matthew and Luke’s gospels do not offer virgin birth narratives at all. I will examine the narratives that have traditionally been interpreted as concerning a virgin birth in those gospels, and I will seek to show how neither need to be read as detailing either a historical or a metaphorical narrative about a virgin birth.

Matthew’s Gospel

Matthew’s gospel begins with a genealogy of Joseph, Mary’s husband. This would be a curious start if Joseph was in fact not Jesus’ biological father. Many Christians today follow in the footsteps of the traditional interpretation of Joseph being Jesus’ adoptive father. After all, if God is Jesus’ biological father, then Joseph must be his adoptive one. On this view, the genealogy of Joseph establishes Jesus’ connection to the Davidic line via adoption, not genetics.

It seems strange to me that the Messiah would merely have to be adopted into the line of David in order to be in it. That effectively means that anyone could have been the Messiah, Jewish or otherwise. Certainly, this was not the messianic expectation within Jewish thought. 2 Sam 7:12 describes the Messiah as coming from the body of David, which is obviously not the case if Jesus is merely the adoptive son of Joseph. However, while the Messiah’s adoption as the son of David wasn’t expected, his adoption as the son of God was. (I will address this in the following section on Luke’s gospel.)

The gospel goes on to tell us that Mary was betrothed to Joseph but was found to be pregnant “through the Holy Spirit” before they “came together” (v 18). Traditionally, “before they came together” has been interpreted as “before Joseph and Mary had sexual relations/consummated their marriage.” There isn’t any reason to believe that’s a superior interpretation to “before Joseph and Mary came together in marriage.” Put another way, before they became one flesh in marriage (Gen 2:24). That doesn’t preclude the possibility of Joseph having had sexual relations with Mary. It would have been considered inappropriate culturally (and perhaps legally), however, and that’s what prompts what comes next: “Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and was unwilling to disgrace her publicly, he resolved to divorce her quietly” (v 19). Having impregnated her prior to marriage, Joseph was willing to dismiss her quietly so as not to draw disgrace to either her or himself.³

Next, an angel appears to Joseph in a dream and informs him of what we, the reader, have already been told: The child conceived in the womb of Mary is from the Holy Spirit (v 20). Traditionally, conception “through/from the Holy Spirit” in verses 18 and 20 has been understood as indicating God as the biological father of the child. Let’s take each verse in turn:

• “…she [Mary] was found to be with child through [ek] the Holy Spirit” (v 18). The Greek term translated as through is ek, and it means “from out of, from,” and particularly pertains to origins in this context. A similar usage can be found in John 1:13. There, John’s gospel clearly lays out a non-biological, spiritual use of the term with regard to origins. All who receive Christ become the children of God; they are “born of [ek] God.” The question that needs to be asked, then, is whether the context in Matthew’s gospel demands a biological understanding as opposed to a spiritual one.
• “…for the one conceived [gennaō] in her is from [ek] the Holy Spirit [pneumatos estin hagiou]” (v 20). The same Greek term ek is used in this verse. There is another term of interest here, though, and that’s gennaō. It straightforwardly means “to beget.” So, the child that has been begotten/conceived in the womb of Mary was from “the Holy Spirit.” Most English translations of Matthew’s gospel render pneumatos estin hagiou as “the Holy Spirit.” The literal translation would be something like “a spirit [that is] holy” or “a holy spirit.” I want to make clear that the mere absence of a definite article in the Greek does not indicate that the Holy Spirit is not being discussed. However, the absence of a definite article does mean there’s the possibility that something other than the Holy Spirit is being discussed.

As can hopefully be ascertained, a straightforward biological reading of the virgin birth narrative in Matthew’s gospel is not self evident. Here is what I believe is evident: The baby conceived in the womb of Mary has its origins from God (be it the Holy Spirit or a holy spiritual presence). It is not at all evident that the biological conception of the baby (i.e., the mechanism of conception) is derived from God. To be clear, there were Roman notions of gods impregnating women here on earth, but that was not at all a Jewish idea. Further, biblical scholars such as John Crossan have interpreted the virgin birth narratives, taken as the vehicle for establishing Jesus as the son of God, as a way of challenging Augustus, the Emperor at the time of Jesus’ birth.⁴ Augustus had the title of divi filius, meaning “son of god.” As such, Jesus’ title would have been a direct challenge. He, unlike Augustus, was the real son of God.

Now that it is clear that a mechanistic reading of verses 18 and 20 is unnecessary, let’s turn to verses 22 and 23:

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin/young woman/maiden [parthenos] will be with child  and will give birth to a son,  and they will call him Immanuel” (which means, “God with us”).

Matthew’s gospel is here quoting Isa 7:14. Matthew is quoting Isaiah from the Septuagint, hence his use of parthenos, translated as “virgin.” The original Hebrew term used in Isaiah is almah, which simply means “young woman” or “maiden.” Parthenos does not strictly refer to a virgin, though. While it can, it can also simply, much like almah, refer to an unmarried young woman or maiden. Consider, for example, the story of Dinah in the Hebrew scriptures (Gen 34). According to the story, she was raped by a man named Shechem (v 2) and is, thus, no longer a virgin. In the Septuagint, however, she is still referred to as a parthenos (vv 3-4). From this example, it is evident that parthenos does not always refer strictly to a virgin.

The question, then, is whether the context in Matthew’s gospel demands a strict virgin understanding. For that, let’s consider verse 24 and 25:

When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and embraced Mary as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Recall from verse 18 that Mary was betrothed to Joseph, not married. In Jewish thought, to betroth is “to contract an actual though incomplete marriage.”⁵ Michael Satlow, professor of religious studies and Judaic studies at Brown University, writes the following concerning betrothal:

Nevertheless, a kind of inchoate marriage developed in ancient West Asia that resembles the modern kiddushin – it creates a legal marriage but precedes cohabitation. Men and women (or often boys and girls) could “marry,” well in advance of their cohabitation. The purpose of this legal institution is unclear; perhaps it was meant to formalize bonds between families. In any event, this legal institution seems to appear in the Bible under the verb ארש (in the Mishnah this is changed to ארס)…⁶

Satlow goes on to cite Deu 20:7, noting that “a man who ‘betroths’ a wife but has not yet ’taken’ her is given the option of recusing himself from battle,” which points “to a two stage (‘betrothing’ and ’taking’) marital process.”⁷ Next, he observes, as many others have, that Deu 22:23-29 establishes differences in punishments between a man who rapes a betrothed woman and a man who rapes a non-betrothed woman. He concludes with the following:

In these passages, as well perhaps as Hos. 2:21-22 (“וְאֵרַשְׂתִּיךְ לִי לְעוֹלָם…,” traditionally recited while wrapping the tefillin around the fingers,) the verb ארש denotes an inchoate marriage, in which a legal tie exists but prior to the couple living together.⁸

All of this is to say that while Mary and Joseph were united in a legally binding union, they had not yet come together as one flesh in marriage. Hence why the angel who spoke to Joseph commanded him to embrace Mary as his wife (because they were not yet man and wife, legally speaking). Joseph had no union with her until after the birth of Jesus, meaning they did not officially come together in marriage (i.e., cohabitate and consummate) until some time after the birth of Jesus.

In summary, the reading of Matthew 1:18-25 that I’m proposing here is as follows:

• Verses 18-19: Joseph and Mary are betrothed, but Mary is discovered to be pregnant “through the Holy Spirit.” We are informed as to what “through the Holy Spirit” means in verse 20. Based on the previously provided genealogy of Joseph (vv 1-17), it is obvious that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus. Thus, we can conclude that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations while betrothed and prior to their official union in marriage. Hence why Joseph seeks to quietly dismiss Mary rather than have either her or himself publicly disgraced.
• Verses 20-21: An angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that the child, though illicitly conceived, was conceived “from the Holy Spirit.” This simply means that the child has his origins in God and has a special divine purpose: “He will save his people from their sins.” Joseph need not concern himself with dismissing Mary as God has effectively sanctioned the conception of the child.
• Verses 22-23: Matthew connects all of this with Isaiah 7:14, interpreted as a messianic prophecy. It is there that we read a young woman will be found with child, and the child will be called Immanuel or “God with us.” There has never been a Jewish messianic expectation of a virgin woman conceiving a child.
• Verses 24-25: Joseph, based on his encounter with the angel in his dream, embraces Mary as his wife. They do not unite in marriage until after the birth of the child.

Luke’s Gospel

The case against the virgin birth is stronger in Luke’s gospel, in my opinion. Luke begins with an account of the conception of John the Baptist. Elizabeth, a relative of Mary, is said to be barren and, thus, is not capable of having a child. The angel Gabriel, however, appears to Elizabeth’s husband, Zechariah, and informs him that “your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John” (1:13). Readers who are familiar with the story of Abraham and Sarah in Genesis will recall the similarities between the two. In Genesis 21:1-7, Sarah, an old, barren woman, gives birth to Abraham’s son, Isaac. I’ll come out and say it directly: Neither “miraculous” birth (i.e., Elizabeth with John or Sarah with Isaac) has traditionally been thought of as involving anything other than a human father. It is generally thought, and the text gives no reason to think otherwise, that Abraham impregnated Sarah. Likewise, it is generally thought, and the text gives no reason to think otherwise, that Zechariah impregnated Elizabeth. Of course, God was involved in both births, but neither are instances of God mechanically conceiving a child in the womb of a woman.

Further along, the same angel appears to Mary. Like in Matthew’s gospel, Mary is described as a parthenos. Again, this term does not strictly refer to a virgin but can refer to an unmarried young woman or maiden. Luke, like Matthew, also describes Mary as being betrothed to Joseph (1:27). The angel tells her that the Lord is with her and that she “will conceive and give birth to a son” (vv 29-31). Of interest is the following from the angel: “The Lord God will give him [the child, Jesus] the throne of his father David…” (v 32). Recall the previous discussion about the Jewish expectation of a Messiah from the body of David. This, of course, reaffirms that expectation: David is (in an ancestral sense) the father of Jesus. Like Matthew, Luke also provides the genealogy of Joseph, indicating that he is Jesus’ biological father (3:23-38).

After getting the news of her coming son, Mary asks the angel how it could come about “since I am a virgin” (v 34). Interestingly, the term translated as “virgin” here is not parthenos. Instead, Luke uses a similar expression to the one found in Mat 1:25. Translated literally, Mary asks, “How will this be, since I do not know a man?” The indication is that Mary has not had sex with a man. The angel continues:

The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God. Look, even Elizabeth your relative has conceived a son in her old age, and she who was called barren is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail” (vv 35-37).

Traditionally, the angel has been taken to mean that God will be the one to impregnate Mary. That is, she asks how she could conceive a child without “knowing” a man, and the angel tells her that the Holy Spirit (Luke, too, does not include a definite article)/the power of the most High will come upon her. The issue is that there’s no indication that the angel is describing the mechanics of the conception. In fact, the angel directly relates what he’s saying to the case of Elizabeth who, again, is not understood to have been impregnated by God. Why, then, should we assume that Mary will be impregnated by God and not by the man she’s betrothed to, Joseph? Luke, unlike Matthew, does not indicate that there’s any apprehension on Joseph’s part. Why? Because he’s the father of the child. He, like Zechariah, is the father of the child that God has given him.

Mary and Joseph name Jesus, which is “the name the angel had given him before he was conceived” (2:21). Further, “when the time of purification according to the Law of Moses was complete, his [Jesus’] parents brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord” (v 22). Mary and Joseph are unquestionably the parents of Jesus just as Elizabeth and Zechariah are unquestionably the parents of John. This language is repeatedly used of Mary and Joseph:

• And when the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what was customary under the Law… (v 27).
• The child’s father and mother were amazed at what was spoken about him (v 33).
• When Jesus’ parents had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth (v 39).
• Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover (v 41).
• Etc.

It should be clear to any reader that Mary and Joseph were Jesus’ parents, and Joseph is Jesus’ father. Mary having the Holy Spirit “come upon her” (1:35) is no different than Simeon having the Holy Spirit “upon him” (2:25). Or even the grace of God being “upon” Jesus ( 2:40). Many scholars have made the connection between the language of Mary having the power of the Most High “overshadow” (episkiazó) her and the cloud overshadowing the tabernacle in Exo 34:35. In the Septuagint, the very same Greek term is used. The purpose of the language, then, is to indicate the presence of the Lord in the conceiving of the child.

Now, most Christians will say that Joseph is indeed the father of Jesus and is thus a parent. However, they think he is Jesus’ adoptive father, not his biological father. Other than the problem of Joseph’s genealogy and the Jewish expectation for the Messiah’s lineage that I previously mentioned in my exposition of Matthew’s gospel, there’s another wrinkle here. I mentioned before that while the Messiah’s adoption as the son of David wasn’t expected, his adoption as the son of God was. 2 Sam 7:14 sets the expectation for the Messiah to be considered a son of God. The adoptive nature of this relationship is established in Ps 2:7 and reiterated in Heb 1:5. Interestingly, though, Luke’s gospel also potentially reiterates the adoptive nature of Jesus’ relationship to the Father. An alternate reading found in the manuscript tradition has Luke 3:22 as: “And a voice came from heaven: ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you.’” Most prominent in my mind is Bart Ehrman’s extensive argumentation for this reading being original.⁹ In fact, Ehrman has even argued that the first two chapters of Luke’s gospel are not original but later additions.¹⁰Regardless, the point that I’m trying to make here is that the Jewish expectation was that the Messiah would be the physical son of David and the adoptive son of God, not the other way around.

To sum up what has been said about Luke’s gospel, I have argued that the conception of Jesus ought to be read in a similar manner to the conception of John: God was involved in both conceptions, but a human father was also involved in the mechanical conception of the children. The Holy Spirit’s presence in overshadowing Mary should not be taken as some sort of mode for mechanical conception. Rather, it should be taken as God’s presence in the conception of the Messiah. The rest of the text clearly assumes Joseph and Mary as Jesus’ parents, and there’s no reason to think only one of them was a biological parent.

Conclusion

I want to conclude this post with the following: While I believe there is some merit to what I have said above, I am not suggesting that the provided interpretations are the best way of reading the virgin birth narratives. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the above interpretations, but I don’t necessarily find them to be the most compelling. At the end of the day, I rest my hat on a mythological interpretation, understanding the authors of Matthew and Luke’s gospels to be describing a virgin birth that should not be read as historical narrative.