Basic HTML Version
320
called “the Son of God.” The most important element in connection with the birth of Jesus was
the supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit, for it was only through this that the virgin birth
became possible. The Bible refers to this particular feature in Matt. 1:18-20; Luke 1:34,35; Heb.
10:5. The work of the Holy Spirit in connection with the conception of Jesus was twofold: (1) He
was the efficient cause of what was conceived in the womb of Mary, and thus excluded the
activity of man as an efficient factor. This was entirely in harmony with the fact that the person
who was born was not a human person, but the person of the Son of God, who as such was not
included in the covenant of works and was in Himself free from the guilt of sin. (2) He sanctified
the human nature of Christ in its very inception, and thus kept it free from the pollution of sin.
We cannot say exactly how the Holy Spirit accomplished this sanctifying work, because it is not
yet sufficiently understood just how the pollution of sin ordinarily passes from parent to child. It
should be noted, however, that the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit was not limited to
the conception of Jesus, but was continued throughout His life, John 3:34; Heb. 9:14.
It was only through this supernatural conception of Christ that He could be born of a virgin. The
doctrine of the virgin birth is based on the following passages of Scripture: Isa. 7:14; Matt.
1:18,20; Luke 1:34,35, and is also favored by Gal. 4:4. This doctrine was confessed in the Church
from the earliest times. We meet with it already in the original forms of the Apostolic
Confession, and further in all the great Confessions of the Roman Catholic and Protestant
Churches. Its present denial is not due to the lack of Scriptural evidence for it, nor to any want
of ecclesiastical sanction, but to the current general aversion to the supernatural. The passages
of Scripture on which the doctrine is based are simply ruled out of court on critical grounds
which are far from convincing; and that in spite of the fact that the integrity of the narratives is
proved to be beyond dispute; and it is gratuitously assumed that the silence of the other New
Testament writers respecting the virgin birth proves that they were not acquainted with the
supposed fact of the miraculous birth. All kinds of ingenious attempts are made to explain how
the story of the virgin birth arose and gained currency. Some seek it in Hebrew, and others in
Gentile, traditions. We cannot enter upon a discussion of the problem here, and therefore
merely refer to such works as Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ; Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ;
Sweet, The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ; Cooke, Did Paul Know the Virgin Birth? Knowling,
The Virgin Birth.
The question is sometimes asked, whether the virgin birth is a matter of doctrinal importance.
Brunner declares that he is not interested in the subject at all. He rejects the doctrine of the
miraculous birth of Christ and holds that it was purely natural, but is not sufficiently interested
to defend his view at length. Moreover, he says: “The doctrine of the virgin birth would have
been given up long ago were it not for the fact that it seemed as though dogmatic interests
were concerned in its retention.”[The Mediator, p. 324.] Barth recognizes the miracle of the