through Christ, 254-270; A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 176. Paul Lobstein, Incarnation of our Lord, 217 ? ?That which is unknown to the teachings of St. Peter and St. Paul, St. John and St. James and our Lord himself and is absent from the earliest and the latest gospels cannot be so essential as many people have supposed.? This argument from silence is sufficiently met by the considerations that Mark passes over thirty years of our Lord?s life in silence, that John presupposes the narratives of Matthew and of Luke, that Paul does not deal with the story of Jesus? life. The facts were known at first only to Mary and to Joseph; their very nature involved reticence until Jesus was demonstrated to be ?the Son of God with power...by the resurrection from the dead? ( <450104>Romans 1:4). In the meantime, the natural development of Jesus and his refusal to set up an earthly kingdom may have made the miraculous events of thirty years ago seem to Mary like a wonderful dream. Gradually the marvelous tale of the mother of the Lord found its way into the gospel tradition and creeds of the church, and into the inmost hearts of Christians of all countries. See F. L. Anderson, in Baptist Review and Expositor, 1904:25- 44, and Machen, on the N. T. Account of the Birth of Jesus, in Princeton Theol. Rev., Oct. 1905, and Jan. 1906.
Cooke, on The Virgin Birth of our Lord, in Methodist Rev., Nov. 1904:849-857 ? ?If there is a moral taint in the human race, if in the very blood and constitution of humanity there is an ineradicable tendency to sin, then it is utterly inconceivable that any one born by natural means in the race should escape the taint of that race. And, finally, if the virgin birth is not historical, then a difficulty greater than any that destructive criticism has yet evolved from documents, interpolations, psychological improbabilities and unconscious contradictions confronts the reason and upsets all the long results of scientific observation. That a sinful and deliberately sinning and unmarried pair should have given life to the purest human being that ever lived or whom the human race has ever dreamed and that he, knowing and forgiving the sins of others, never knew the shame of his own origin.? See also Gore, Dissertations, 1-68, on the Virgin Birth of our Lord, J. Armitage Robinson, Some Thoughts on the Incarnation, 42, both of whom show that without assuming the reality of the virgin birth we cannot account for the origin of the narratives of Matthew and of Luke, nor for the acceptance of the virgin birth by the early Christians. Per contra, see Hoben, in Am. Jour. Theol., 1902:473- 506, 709-752. For both sides of the controversy, see Symposium by Bacon, Zenos, Rhees and Warfield, in Am. Jour. Theol., Jan. 1906:1-30; and especially Orr, Virgin Birth of Christ.
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?