The Evolution Of The Virgin Birth Tradition

What does the New Testament actually tell us that would support a literal interpretation of Matthew’s story of Jesus’ virgin birth? The short answer to that question is “nothing.”

What we do see when we look carefully at the first two Synoptic Gospels, Matthew and Mark, is the emergence of a virgin birth spiritual teaching tradition, not a record of an historic event.

All the ancient authors who wrote the documents that ended up in the Bible, had the daunting task of expressing spiritual insights through highly limiting human language. Still, they did reasonably well when Bible stories and events are interpreted from a metaphysical viewpoint, a perspective that gives the Bible's words universal practical importance.

Let us first look at the gospel of Mark, the first book of the New Testament to be written. It was probably written in the sixth decade of the Common Era (CE), in Rome. This was a few years before the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem then destroyed the Temple in 70 C.E.

The only mention of Mary, by name, is in the following verse:

Mark 6:3  “Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What’s this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Mark indicates nothing special about Mary and by referring to Jesus as “Mary’s son”, this verse suggests that Jesus’ paternity might have been in question. Other New Testament verses also suggest there was somewhat of a scandal relating to the legitimacy of Jesus’ birth. Consistent with this viewpoint, there is no mention of Jesus’ father (being either Joseph or God) anywhere in the Gospel of Mark.

Also, consider the following verses in Mark about when Jesus returned to his hometown, Nazareth, to heal and preach:

Mark 3:21 “And when His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, ‘he has lost His senses!’”

Mark 3:31-35  And His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him, and called Him. And the multitude was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, ‘Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You’

And answering them, He said, ‘Who are My mother and My brothers?’

And looking around about on those who were sitting around Him, He said, ‘Behold! My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.’”

There is no suggestion here that God selected Mary for any special role. She was simply Jesus’ mother who wanted to keep him from making a fool of himself. Did Mark simply overlook something so important? Of course he didn’t. The virgin birth tradition, meant to raise Mary's status in relation to Jesus, had not yet emerged in evolving Christian theology, so the writer of Mark had nothing to say about it.

The idea of a virgin birth was first presented in the Gospel of Matthew. It was not created to report history, but, rather to raise the importance of Jesus’ life to a spiritual level that matched the impact he had, had on those who knew him.

There were no words big enough, clear enough, for this Gospel writer to say what he wanted. He did the only thing he could. He made God directly responsible for creating His own Christ reflection on earth through Jesus. Jesus did not act like anyone from our world, so he was symbolically given a different—a heavenly, origin.

There are additional hints that this is Matthew’s intention. Consider the genealogy at the beginning of Mathew’s Gospel (Matthew 1:1-17). Mentioned in this genealogy are four women, other than Mary. They are Tamar, Rehab, Ruth, and the woman who had been the wife of Uriah (from other references, we know this was Bathsheba). (This genealogy is unique to Matthew and is considerably different from the genealogy presented by Luke. But then, they had different purposes for their separate gospels.)

Tamar had what would have been considered an incestuous relationship with her father-in-law, Judah (Genesis 38). Rehab was a prostitute (Joshua 6:22-25). Ruth seduced Boaz by getting him drunk and climbing into bed with him. (Book of Ruth, Chapters 2-4). Their marriage produced Obed, King David’s grandfather.

Bathsheba was married to Uriah when she had an adulterous relationship with King David (II Samuel 11-12) David transferred Uriah, a soldier, to the front lines of battle so that he might be killed, which he was. David then married Bathsheba and, ultimately, their son, Solomon, was David’s successor.

Such a genealogy places considerable human sin and degradation in Jesus’ lineage from Abraham to David to Mary’s husband, Joseph. Matthew may well have been suggesting that the highest spiritual understanding (the Christ) trumps all human motives, events, and traditions.

The final point in this discussion is the word, virgin, itself. The Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) used the word, "parthenos", in Isaiah 7:14 that can mean either a virgin or a young woman.

In other words it is ambiguous and Matthew had to decide which meaning he wanted to use. He used the word that supported the concept of a virgin birth because that is how he wanted to write his story.

The Hebrew version of the Old Testament (the Torah), however, uses the word, "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 which, in Hebrew, only means young woman and it is not at all ambiguous. The Hebrew word for virgin is a completely different word, "betulah". Since "almah" is used in the original Hebrew text, its meaning must be accepted as the intended meaning, which means Matthew's assertion of a virgin birth is an error. Matthew's Christian fervor apparently overruled his skill as an Old Testament scholar.

It is also true that when you read the verses of Isaiah 7 both preceding and following Isaiah 7:14, the whole reading is a complete story about a promise God made to King Ahaz, centuries before Jesus’ life. The birth of the child it mentions was to be a sign to King Ahaz that his kingdom would be protected from his neighboring warring enemies, at that time. Literally, the story in Isaiah 7 cannot be interpreted as having anything to do with Jesus.

It did, however, have to do with the idea that those who seek the guidance of God will always find ways to survive difficult times. This could well have been the spiritual understanding Matthew wanted to present by inserting Isaiah 7:14 into the literary virgin birth myth he created for Jesus.

When remarkable things happen in the world, human writers try to capture the meanings and spiritual impact of such events. The Bible is filled with these kinds of stories.  They are meant to create mental glimpses of spiritual understandings that are not always discernible through the physical senses alone.

The authors of the books of the Bible wrote metaphysically because there was no other way to express what they had to say. As readers of the Bible, the only way for us to better understand its contents is to seek and discern the same metaphysical intents of its many and mostly unknown ancient authors.

The virgin birth tradition was one way used by the writers of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke to elevate the meaning of Jesus’ life above that of ordinary human existence. It is the very thing we can do when we see the world from a spiritual perspective instead of a materialistic viewpoint. 

    Perhaps that is the message Matthew and Luke wanted to share. The higher the spiritual viewpoint we seek to follow (the Christ spirit) the better we can deal with the material events in our lives. They just used popular 1^st century metaphors to form and illustrate their stories.