Q. Unlike the birth stories of Matthew and Luke, John simply says that “the Word became flesh,” with no hint of how that happened. Why does John not even mention the virgin birth?
A. The Prologue to John’s Gospel (John 1:1-18) is my favorite Christmas story, despite the absence of all the standard “Christmasy” elements––the announcement, the dream, the trip to Bethlehem, the crowded inn, the swaddling clothes, the manger, the angels, the shepherds, the wise men, or, as you note, any mention of the virgin birth or even of Joseph and Mary and the baby Jesus!
If Matthew presents Jesus’ birth primarily from Joseph’s perspective, and Luke from Mary’s (Matthew 1–2 and Luke 1–2, respectively), John focuses the camera lens directly on God’s viewpoint: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:1, 14). In a lifetime of reflection, we will never be able to exhaust the mystery and the marvel of those words (despite my including this passage in a course entitled “Ten Chapters All Catholics Should Know Like the Back of Their Hand,” which no one ever will!).
Curiously, John seems to avoid any hint of how “the Word became flesh.” Or does he? Your question invites us to a close reading of the verses immediately preceding verse 14: “11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (ESVCE).
If what follows gets a little technical, it will be worth our wading into the translational details of verses 12-13. (Trust me on this.) To begin, the Greek word order of verse 12 reads as follows: “But to as many as received him, he gave to them the right to become children of God, to the ones believing in the name of him [=his name].” Notice that the last word in that verse is ‘him’ (Grk. autou), referring, of course, to the Word, who is Jesus.
Second, whereas the Greek manuscripts from which our English Bibles are translated read “who were born” at the beginning of verse 13 (referring to those who believe in his name and are thus “children of God”), a number of ancient witnesses (including Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Ambrose, and Augustine) and many modern scholars (I am aware of at least 10) read those words not as a plural but as a singular––“who was born,” referring to the ‘him’ at the end of verse 12. (If these last two paragraphs require rereading before proceeding, it will be worth your doing so. Trust me again on this.)
Third, interpreters are agreed that the three phrases “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man” in verse 13 all refer to natural procreation. ‘Blood’ (Grk. bloods; only here in the entire New Testament) hints at procreation as the mixing of bloods in conception; ‘the will of the flesh’ views procreation as the product of sexual impulse (cf. Wisdom 7:1-2); and ‘the will of man’ regards procreation as the result of a parental desire for children. In the case of those who believe and are thereby children of God (reading v. 13 as “who were born”), the point is obvious: The natural processes by which we enter the world do not make us children of God, partakers of God’s life. New birth is an achievement of the Holy Spirit (John 3:3-8; cf. CCC §526).
Alternatively, verses 12-13 might be read as follows: “But to as many as received him, he gave to them the right to become children of God, to the ones believing in the name of him who was born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
On this latter reading, attested strongly among the Fathers and other early and more recent interpreters, St. John might not be explicit about it, but his allusion to the virgin birth is nothing short of breathtaking! Unlike any other human birth on record, Jesus’ conception and incarnation did not entail the mixing of bloods in conception, or the sexual impulse of intercourse, or even the parental desire for children. It was wholly and solely an achievement of divine initiative (“but of God”) and the fiat of a receptive young virgin of Nazareth! (Did I say breathtaking?)
(For those of technical bent who wish a resolution of the two possible readings, a case can be made for the Catholic ‘both-and.’ The ones who are supernaturally begotten [by faith] are such on the basis of the One who was supernaturally begotten. The exegetical details are a discussion for another time and place.)
This question was answered by Dr. Vern Steiner, president of the Emmaus Institute for Biblical Studies. For more information, visit www.emmausinstitute.net.
Write to Ask the Register using our online form, or write to 3700 Sheridan Blvd., Suite 10, Lincoln NE 68506-6100. All questions are subject to editing. Editors decide which questions to publish. Personal questions cannot be answered. People with such questions are urged to take them to their nearest Catholic priest.
