Barth on the Virgin Birth

In doing my read through of Barth's Church Dogmatics (CD), I certainly don't intend to do a section-by-section summary. (I can do one or the other, either write about Barth or read Barth.) Some--thankfully few--parts are boring, and I am hurrying through them at a responsible speed. However, his section on the virgin birth ("The Miracle of Christmas,"CD I.2, 172-202) is quite fascinating and worth sharing.

Barth affirms the virgin birth, which is quite a bold step for a German theologian. (In fact, he basically tells those who deny it to shut up.) No single miracle, not even the resurrection of Jesus, has caused as much uproar among modern theologians as the virgin birth. Some are simply squicked out by it ("No no-sex, please, we're moderns"), while other do have genuine theological problems with it. A readable and powerful presentation of the case against the virgin birth is given by Emil Brunner in his Dogmatics, vol. 2, 353ff. While one may not agree with his position, it is worthy of respect; one great advantage to it is that it immediately and completely terminates all Mariolatry. That's not such a bad trade-off.

Earlier, Barth likewise denounces Mariology and Mariolatry: "Mariology is an excrescence, i.e., a diseased construct of theological thought. Excrescences must be excised" (p. 139). Twisting a quote from a Roman Catholic source, he also states,

We can only confront Kiekamp's declaration with the equally definite Evangelical declaration that where Mary is "venerated," where this whole doctrine with its corresponding devotions is current, there the Church of Christ is not. (p. 143)

I was a little surprised at the harsh tone, but we must keep in mind that this was before Vatican II. Barth also states on the same page, "In the doctrine and worship of Mary there is disclosed the one heresy of the Roman Catholic Church which explains all the rest.. [the cooperation of humanity] in its own redemption on the basis of prevenient grace..." which made my Arminian ears burn. (Addressing this, however, will have to wait until a later time.)

Aside from the purpose of simply being faithful to Scripture and affirming what it affirms, we do have to ask, of what the theological value and purpose is the virgin birth? The old traditional belief is that Jesus had to be born of a virgin in order to be sinless as the sinful nature is passed on by the male in the procreative act. This is, of course, ludicrous as well as sexist, and there are enormous problems presented by pursuing such a line of thought. Women are just as sinful as men. The main purpose of the virgin birth, of course, is as a sign; that is how it is prophesied in Isaiah 7.14, which Matthew quotes, and Barth speaks of this in detail. It is important that we not confuse the sign with the thing signified. To paraphrase his conclusion, the Son of God was not sinless because he was born of a virgin, rather he was born of a virgin because he was the sinless Son of God.

Barth brings out a number of other valuable insights:

• The virgin birth (in Latin, ex Maria virgine) parallels creation (creatio ex nihilo). The new creation inaugurated in Jesus Christ presupposes the old and is both in continuity and discontinuity with it (186-187).
  
• In keeping with his agenda of denying all true natural knowledge of God, he sees the virgin birth as yet another indicator that knowledge of God comes only through his initiative and grace. By sending his ultimate revelation, Jesus Christ the Word, by miraculous means, he closes the possibility of another such revelation being generated by human beings through natural means (188).
• Although it should not be interpreted so as to judge all sexual relations as utterly sinful, the ex virgine precludes the possibility of divinizing eros or confusing agape with sex (192).

Again, summaries do not do adequate justice to Barth's brilliance. The insights given here can help us form a much richer doctrine of the virgin birth, and it is because of such insights and depth that I read him.