The gospels seemed to have been formed “backward.” The initial preaching of the apostles was Christ Crucified and Risen. This is clear from Acts 2:23, 32, 3:14, 10:37-41, and 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. The teaching of Jesus (didache) was added to the “passion” of Jesus (kerygma). The last (canonical) stage of the development was to include a prologue concerning the origins of Jesus – was he simply a man? Matthew and Luke include miraculous birth stories. John has a theological prologue announcing that Jesus is the Word who was with God from the beginning since he is God. Notice the development taking Mark as the earliest of the Gospels – there is no birth narrative and virtually nothing about his family history. The earlier one goes into the traditions of concerning Jesus, the less about the birth of Jesus we read.
One might extend this another step historically and include the infancy narratives that were created well after the end of the apostolic era. These apocryphal stories are much more fanciful and creative – and far less historically reliable. On the other hand, there are many more theological presentations of Jesus in the writings of the church fathers. In these, Jesus becomes the Christ of theology.
Why were the infancy narratives written in the first place? John Dominic Crossan thought the question should not be what Matthew and Luke tell us about the birth of Jesus, but “Why did they tell us anything at all?” What would motivate the gospel writer to include an explanation of the birth of Jesus? Raymond Brown suggested three reasons (Birth of the Messiah, 29).
The simplest explanation for the birth narratives is curiosity. Since Mark did not have many biographical details that people always seem to want to know about, the later gospels were interested in filling in that gap.
Apologetic. One possible motivation for Luke’s presentation of John the Baptist’s birth alongside Jesus’ birth is to show the superiority of Jesus over John, perhaps to answer non-Christian disciples of John (see Acts 19). There is an apologetic value of the birth narrative when presenting the Gospel to skeptical Jews as well, helping to explain how the Messiah (who as to be born in Judean Bethlehem) ended up being a native of Galilee. There is also the charge made by early Judaism that Jesus is of illegitimate birth, answered by both evangelists by the explanation of a virgin birth.
There are obvious theological motives as well. The genealogy in Matthew connects Jesus to David, Moses, Joseph, and the other great men in the history of Israel. Like Moses, he survives the slaughter of children by a pagan ruler, and like Moses, he goes to the mountain to dispense the Law (Matthew 5-7). There is a developing Christology in the four Gospels. Mark tells us that Jesus is already the Son of God at the baptism. In the next two gospels (Matthew and Luke are chronologically about the same time), Jesus is God from the moment of his conception, and in John, he is God from the very beginning. In fact, John tells us Jesus is equal with God from eternity since he is the creator (John 1:1).
I would add a fourth motivation for Matthew and Luke, including the birth narratives. More than Mark, these two gospels are interested in showing that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, beginning with his birth. Readers familiar with the Old Testament know that God has done a number of miracles to bring special individuals into the world – Isaac and Samuel are examples of children born to elderly or barren parents. Jesus is the ultimate “miracle child” since he was born from a virgin.
All of this highlights the uniqueness of Jesus at the very beginning of the story. What might be a few other motives for the writers of the gospels to include the story of Jesus’ birth? Or to think of it the other way, why did Mark and John omit the birth of Jesus?
Why do some people say that Jesus was 2 years old when the shepherds went to him instead of at His birth?
Because Herod ordered children under two-years old to be killed, based on when the wise men saw the star. It is possible it was only six months or a year after Jesus was born that the wise men arrived, but most people think it was more like two years for that reason.
Thanks, but I am still confused as to why the Bible indicates in Luke that Jesus was a new born baby When the Wise Men arrived. I guess some things are not supposed to be understood. I appreciate your response.
Both gospels use the birth stories as an into to their presentation of Jesus. Luke tells the story from Mary’s perspective, and focuses on the days right around the birth. Luke is interested in the poor throughout the gospel, so he highlights the announcement to the shepherd (the very poorest people). Luke also likes to have two stories, one featuring and man and a similar story featuring a woman, so he includes the presentation at the temple with Simeon and Anna.
Matthew tells the story from Joseph’s perspective, and includes the story of the wise men since that has Joseph being warned in a dream to go to Egypt. Matthew tends to compare Jesus and Moses, so Herod’s attack on the children is included to make a connection to Moses. In Matt 5 Jesus goes up a mountain to discuss the law, etc.
Hope that helps.
To me, it seems odd to wonder why the birth narrative was included. I would never have questioned this part of Matthew and Luke before reading this post. When I am reading a biography or narrative non-fiction, I appreciate the inclusion of as many details as possible. This brings a higher sense of validity to the text. I can imagine if I were a non-believer reading the account of Jesus a lack of details around such a miraculous (or unbelievable) birth would cause me to have questions about the accuracy of the account. I found it interesting when Strauss says that these birth narratives are sometimes left out of discussions because of the skepticism of the historicity (Strauss 500). The details in Luke especially give a strong historical account that would seem to dispel questions. I understand that the question of why Mark and John do not include the story might give skeptics a reason to think it could be a fictional account. However, we studied previously that each author had a specific goal for their writings. Strauss says that Matthew presents Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and Luke presents Him as the Savior for all people. He then says that Mark’s portrayal was as the suffering Son of God and John’s as the eternal Son of God (p 30). These 4 descriptions appear to answer the question of why the birth narrative is present in only Matthew and Luke. While each author is writing about Jesus, the truth they wanted to convey differed. As a result, they would naturally emphasize different elements of His life and ministry, including the details of the birth or lack thereof.
On one hand the birth narrative exemplifies Jesus’ holiness/godliness but on a another, it exemplifies his humanity. A possible motive for including the narrative of Jesus’ birth could be, not to show his supernatural roots, but show that Jesus was in fact born and raised just as any other child, with a family, brothers and sisters, etc. This can make Jesus a more relatable figure, as well as exemplifying God’s power and ability to create a perfect human from an imperfect human. Jesus’ humanity is a very important element in the Bible, he came to earth as a man, lived among the people and died as one of the people.
The Gospels including the birth narrative was important for many reasons. I’m sure many people of that day, as well as present day, were skeptical of the truth and facts behind who and what Jesus was. The birth narrative was important to people when it came to understanding who Jesus really was. I’m sure there was some confusion as to what Jesus was. Was he a spirit? Was he God himself? Was he just a man? And I think the birth narrative helps to shed light on some of those questions people may have had, revealing the truth, that Jesus was all three of those things, in one.
It seems as though the most obvious reason as to why the birth of Jesus was included was to show the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. This would explain why Jesus’ birth story and genealogy are included in the Scriptures, yet accounts of his childhood, teenage years, and young adulthood are left out. The birth stories of Jesus display the fulfillment of many prophecies, including that He would be born of a woman (Genesis 3:15), He would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), He would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), and that He would be a descendant of Abraham (Genesis 22:18), Isaac (Genesis 17:19), Jacob (Numbers 24:17), and King David (2 Samuel 7:12-13). Although the birth stories of Jesus don’t affect our salvation or daily lives, it would be rather strange if the Old Testament listed many prophecies about the birth of the Savior and then simply didn’t include their fulfillment. It could leave generations of Christians confused and curious if the prophets of the Old Testament were actually real or just full of nonsensical predictions of a virgin woman who somehow managed to give birth. This also explains why the Gospels nor the rest of the Scriptures give many specific details regarding Jesus’ birth. There are hints in the Scriptures that give a general time frame, such as Jesus being born during the reign of Herod the Great, and records of a very holy-looking supernova seen by Chinese astrologers in 5 or 4 B.C. (Strauss, 405). However, the passages don’t directly give precise dates and information simply because it is not relevant for the purpose of the text.
As stated in the post, there are many possible motivations for writing this account, but I tend to side with the 3rd and 4th motivations the most. Even at His birth Jesus was fulfilling prophecies from the Scriptures and proving that He was the promised Messiah. I had never considered the idea that it may have been to “prove the superiority of Jesus over John” (Phillip Long). However, it makes sense to me because even when John the Baptist was doing his ministry, he was constantly telling the people he was ministering to that he wasn’t the Messiah, but rather the one who was announcing the Messiah’s coming. Even the Gospel of Luke states in chapter 3 verse 15 that “the people were waiting expectantly and all of them were debating in their minds whether John might be the Messiah” (HCSB). The Bible does not just say some, but that ALL of them were considering this and if you look at what John stood for it is no wonder that they thought this. According to Strauss, John “deplored the Romans and longed for a return to the days of the kingdoms of David and Solomon” which was exactly what the people expected of the coming Messiah; the destruction of the Romans and a new kingdom like the ones of David and Solomon (486). I think that all four of the motivations are possible and true, but that two through four are likely the primary reasons.
There would be some skepticism about this Virginal Conception by none believers and even some believers I am certain. Even today it is a widely argued topic. Scholars argue that this birth story is just a fabrication, a Jewish interpretive procedure known as midrash. But I agree with Strauss’ point. (Strauss, 412). “Luke explicitly states his careful method of historical investigation immediately before presenting his birth narrative”.
I also agree with the theological motives of Jesus’ birth included in the Gospels. His birth is a necessary inclusion that speaks to fulfill many prophecies in the Old Testament. I am thankful that Matthew and Luke included these stories, and am not sure why Mark’s account does not. I can only assume that both Matthew and Luke, if using Mark’s Gospel, realized that it was far too important to leave out. The uniqueness of Jesus’ conception needed to be included, not only that, it more clearly illustrates his humanness, before going into the stories about his miraculous ministry demonstrating his divinity.
I have never heard anyone ever asking why the gospels include the birth of Jesus, nor have I heard any question pertaining to content in other passages. However, knowing that these questions are asked, it is important to understand some reasons why and I am so glad that this blog post was able to help me out. Through reading this post I understand that there exists a simple curiosity of the gospels, there is a need for utilizing apologetics, as well as existing theological motives through the gospels. It seems common for individuals to be curious about the gospel of the birth of Christ. Aside from the given reasons the authors wrote the gospels, there are a couple other reasons that come to mind when considering the birth of Christ. History holds evidence, and when history is recorded, people read to learn that history. The miracle of Christ’s birth is often questioned, or challenged, but this written history must be trusted.
I think when examining the purpose of the birth story of Christ it is important to also look at those four portraits that the different gospels paint of Jesus (Strauss, 2020). They all focus on different things in their accounts for a different purpose. For example, Mark and John both have a larger focus on the spirituality of Jesus and His divinity. Mark paints Jesus as the suffering Son of God. This does make me think it would have something about the birth of Jesus, since His birth was the beginning of His humility and suffering on earth, that a king, no the King would be born in a manger with animals all around, but that was not deemed important for that gospel record by Mark and by the Holy Spirit, so who are we to judge. John has a strong focus on the divinity of Christ as it portrays Christ primarily as the eternal Son who reveals the Father. Matthew and Luke on the other hand show Jesus as Messiah and the Savior for all people (Strauss, 2020). Luke also was a physician, which explains his interest in the humanity of Christ and physical events. They show that Jesus was not only God, but also fully human. Jesus birth is evidence that he was 100% human, which makes him relatable and also qualified to be able to pay our debt for us. I think the record of Jesus’ birth is not just important to answer curiosity, but also for that assurance of his humanity along with his divinity. As stated in the article it also proves to be an explanation for the Messiah’s dwelling in Galilee, it provides us with context and background of Jesus’ life, upbringing, and ministry. I also appreciate how it fulfills the Old Testament in such a clear way and points back to other stories in the Bible. It shows the intentionality of the Scriptures, how they all weave in together to tell us the story of redemption. It also is an encouragement to see God’s faithfulness to him and to us, to Mary and Joseph, to the Israelites. God always keeps his promises.
Reference:
Strauss, M. L. (2020). Four portraits, One Jesus: A Survey of Jesus and the Gospels. Zondervan Academic.
I think that as Jesus was known prolifically as a miracle worker, it was fitting to include his miracle of a birth and serves as a precursor to the rest of his life. I also think that in omitting his birth, readers miss out on the impact that Jesus entering the world had, and as mentioned the narrative of Jesus life beginning at his birth, fulfilling a prophecy is weakened. Including his birth story also portrays him from a more mortal approach and helps show his humanity better, as often his title the “Son of God” can make Jesus sound god-like. Ultimately though the inclusion of Jesus birth within the Gospels was intentional for the story that the writers of them individually wanted to tell. The gospels tackle issues through many different angles and are crafted intentionally which is why Luke and Mathew included the gospel while Mark and John neglect to include the birth story. In the case of John specifically, Christ is often viewed as a divine being, and the book doesn’t focus as heavily on Jesus appeal to the lowly people of the world, and his humanity in doing this.
Something that is really special about the birth narrative is that not only does it show Jesus’ holiness and godliness but it also shows that he was human as well. I think that a reason for including the birth of Jesus is to put emphasis on the fact that he didn’t necessarily have a supernatural family and that he grew up with a normal family. I think that by including this makes us feel like we can relate to Jesus more. I do find it interesting that people question why the Birth of Jesus was included I would have never thought to question that however, Strauss says that these birth narratives are sometimes left out of discussions because of the skepticism of the historicity (Strauss 500) I think that if every narrative in the Bible was left out of discussions we would have little to talk about in the Bible. I think another reason why they added the birth narrative of Jesus is that it’s a complete miracle that Jesus was born. I think it helps tell Jesus’ story as a whole and God’s plan from the start. Jesus wasn’t sent on earth fully grown to save everyone from their sins but he was born human and as I mentioned earlier makes Jesus relatable in that aspect. Overall I think that the reason why the birth narrative was included is to show Jesus’ holiness, and His Godliness, and to show that he is also human.
I think the stories were include as an apologetic for the uniqueness of Jesus. They prove His relationship with God and authority. I think the birth narratives are also included because they do mirror Old Testament motifs and are apart of the miracle design of God’s greater story (or in short – the birth narratives bring glory to God).
As to why Mark and John do not mention them, I have a few theories. First, working under the assumption that Mark wrote first and was most concerned with spreading the gospel one could argue he was not at all concerned with the birth narrative. He wanted to convey Jesus’s teaching, death, and resurrection none of which directly included His birth. Jesus, who kept silencing the demons proclaiming Him as the Son of God was probably not going around teaching about His miraculous birth. We have no evidence of it in scripture anyway. So, Mark wanting to simply relay what Jesus taught and did didn’t include the birth narrative (he might have not even known much about it). Assuming John wrote last, he might have not included it because there already were good records of it in Matthew and Luke. Granted this is all just speculation. What we do know is that the writing of these books was inspired by God, and so the information given was well selected.
When thinking about the Gospels, it makes sense to add the story of the birth of Jesus. The Gospels are about Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Jesus’ birth is a part of his story that should not be overlooked. His birth is just another demonstration of how special Jesus is. This article says that Jesus was the ultimate miracle child because he was born from a virgin (Long, 30). Jesus’ birth is not just another ordinary birth that is documented in the Bible. He had a miracle birth that set the trajectory for the rest of the Gospels. Without Jesus’ birth being documented in Matthew and Luke, the Gospels may not hold the same weight that they do. Without the story of Jesus’ miraculous birth, there would be no reason to believe that Jesus truly was born of a virgin. Thus, Jesus would not be viewed as being different from any other person in the Bible. However, we know from his birth story that Jesus was indeed born of a virgin which adds more weight to the miracles that he later performs throughout the Gospels. The story of Jesus’ birth is unlike any other birth throughout history, which could contribute to why the Gospels included it.