Did Jesus Have a Miraculous Birth?

Shocking early Christian secrets revealed! In this eye-opening episode, Jimmy Akin dives deep into one of the most intriguing questions about Jesus: Did His birth involve miracles beyond his virginal conception? He uncovers astonishing first-century testimonies—like the Ascension of Isaiah (A.D. 67!)—describing a painless, supernatural birth where Jesus simply appeared. Jimmy examines Church teaching, ancient texts, Genesis, Revelation, and modern theology to show what’s required vs. what’s tradition. Mind-bending history and theology—don’t miss it!

 

TRANSCRIPT: 

Coming Up

Did Jesus Have a Miraculous Birth?

You might think that the question we are asking has an obvious answer, since Jesus was conceived without a human father.

That, of itself, makes his birth miraculous, doesn’t it?

It does, but we are actually asking something different: When Jesus was born, did the process of being born that he went through—the birth itself—presumably nine months after conception—involve a miracle?

Let’s get into it!

* * *

Howdy, folks!

We’re in our second year of the podcast now, and you can help me keep making this podcast for years to come—and get early access to new episodes—by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast

 

Introduction

The New Testament does not address the question of whether Jesus had a miraculous birth, but, as we will see, it has been discussed from surprisingly early times.

Basically, two types of miracles (and usually both) have been proposed in connection with Jesus’ birth:

First, that Mary did not experience labor pains.

And second, that Jesus did not pass through Mary’s birth canal.

Instead, he passed from her womb the way he passed through the walls of his sealed tomb.

On what basis have these miracles been proposed?

 

An Argument from Genesis

One reason for Mary being free from labor pains has been seen in Genesis 3:16, where God tells Eve—and, by extension, future women:

Genesis 3:16

I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.

The argument is that, since Mary was immaculately conceived, she was not under this curse and thus would not experience labor pains.

The argument has some weight, but the biblical text does not require that Eve would have experienced no pains at all.

God says that he will “Greatly Multiply” (or in Heb., Harbah Arbeh) her pains, which could suggest that there would have been pain even in an unfallen state.

Some theologians have proposed that an unfallen Adam and Eve would have experienced no pain, but this is a matter of theological speculation.

In his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott lists the view that they didn’t have pain as Sententia Communis or “Common Opinion.” Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 104.

That means it’s not even a matter of Church teaching; it’s just an opinion that many theologians have held.

Scripture itself does not say that Adam and Eve would not feel pain in the garden.

In fact, we don’t have any evidence that God added new parts to the human body after the Fall, so Adam and Eve should have had nociceptors or pain-detecting nerves in their bodies when they came into the world.

And we would expect these nerves to do the same thing for them that they do for us—to help them navigate their environment and alert them to possible injuries.

When it’s functioning the way it should, pain perception is actually a good thing because it helps us survive.

There are people who are born without the perception of pain.

They have what is called Congenital Insensitivity to Pain, and it is a very serious medical condition.

The people who have it have to be very, very careful. They can get sick or injured and not even notice it.

And it can shorten their lifespans because they can not even realize that they’re sick or injured until it’s too late to do anything about it.

Genesis 2:17

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

What Scripture does indicate entered the world for the first time upon the fall was human death, not any and all pain.

It’s also worth pointing out that Jesus was unfallen, but he definitely suffered.

In fact, he suffered to the point of death on a cross.

So it’s not at all clear that Jesus’ mother—Mary—would have been unable to feel pain.

 

An Argument from Revelation

At the other end of the Bible, in the first two verses of Revelation 12, John sees a great sign in heaven.

He writes:

Revelation 12:1-2, 5

And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.

She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron.

This symbol, in part, refers to the Virgin Mary, for the woman gives birth to “a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron”—that is, she gives birth to Jesus.

But she also has labor pains, because she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.

Consequently, some have proposed that the Virgin Mary did experience labor pains in giving birth to Jesus.

While this is a logical interpretation of the text, it also is not certain.

Revelation is a symbolic book, and it can compress realities together in a symbolic way.

We know that Mary experienced pain in connection with Jesus later in life.

Luke 2:34-35

And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.”

For example, in Luke 2:35, Simeon prophecies about Jesus’ ministry and tells Mary that a sword will pierce through her own soul also.

John 19:25

But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

And she definitely suffered in John 19:25, where John tells us that she stood by the cross of Jesus and watched her own Son die.

Given the prominent role of symbolism in Revelation, it could be that Mary’s post-birth sufferings as the mother of the Messiah are being depicted in Revelation 12 rather than literal labor pains.

Further, while the woman in Revelation 12 does point to the Virgin Mary, it also points to other things.

Revelation 17:9-10

This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings.

In Revelation, John uses symbols to refer to multiple realities—like when he writes that the seven heads of the beast are seven mountains and that they are also seven kings.

In the same way, the text of Revelation 12 indicates that the woman refers to Mary, but the symbolism there also indicates that she refers to other things, like the people of Israel.

The birth pains, therefore, might not apply to Mary but to one of the other things the woman refers to, such as the pains that Israel endured as part of its national experience when the Messiah appeared.

Y’know, think: Roman oppression.

 

A Physiological Argument

We’ve thus seen an interesting argument from Genesis that Mary would not have birth pains and an interesting argument from Revelation that she would have had them, but neither argument is conclusive.

One also can propose a physiological argument for an absence of birth pains: If Jesus didn’t pass through Mary’s birth canal then there would be no need for her to experience labor pains.

Labor pains are caused by the forceful contractions that are intended to push the child through the birth canal, so if Jesus didn’t go through the birth canal then there would be no need for contractions and thus no labor pains.

This argument also has weight, but it is also inconclusive.

It depends on the timing of when Jesus would have departed from the womb.

Labor begins when the child reaches a certain size and also emits certain biochemical signals to the mother that tell her body it’s time to give birth.

If Jesus left Mary’s womb early enough—before that happened—then there would have been no labor pains.

However, if he left her womb after he had reached the right size and sent the biochemical signals, Mary would have begun having contractions and thus labor pains.

So this argument isn’t conclusive either.

Whether Mary would have had labor pains would have depended on the precise timing of when Jesus left her womb.

 

Virginity In Partu

The physiological argument brings us to the second miracle that has been proposed in connection with Christ’s birth—that he left Mary’s womb without going through the birth canal.

So what is the evidence for that?

Church teaching holds that Mary was a perpetual virgin, meaning that she was a virgin before, during, and after Jesus’ birth.

The fact she was a virgin during Jesus’ birth is referred to as her virginity In Partu , which is a Latin phrase that means “In Bearing” or “In Giving Birth.”

So virginity in partu just means virginity in bearing or in giving birth.

Lumen Gentium 57

This union [of Jesus and Mary in God’s work of salvation] is manifest also at the birth of our Lord, who did not diminish His mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.

Thus the Second Vatican Council taught that “at the birth of our Lord,” Jesus “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.”

Historically, this has been understood as meaning that Jesus did not injure Mary’s hymen, or the membrane at the exit of the birth canal.

In biblical times, the presence of this membrane was regarded as proof of virginity (See Deuteronomy 22:13-17), though this is not a medically reliable test for reasons that we will not discuss since I’m trying to keep this a family show.

On the assumption that Jesus did not injure Mary’s membrane, would this show that he did not pass through her birth canal?

It could mean that, and that has certainly been the common historic understanding.

But God is omnipotent, and if he can miraculously take Jesus out of the womb altogether, he also could miraculously preserve Mary’s hymen through a vaginal birth.

So this argument is also inconclusive.

 

What Does Church Teaching Require?

What does the Church teach about Mary’s virginity in partu?

Does it require that Jesus miraculously Asported or Teleported out of Mary’s womb?

Or does Church teaching allow that he could have passed through the birth canal in a normal manner?

In his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, German theologian Ludwig Ott proposes that the view that “Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity” is defined as a matter of faith “on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.”

In other words, he argues that it is a dogma or something that has been infallibly defined as a matter of divine revelation by the Church’s ordinary and universal magisterium rather than by a decree of a pope or a council.

Claims that the ordinary and universal magisterium has infallibly defined something are easy to make but much harder to verify, so I’d want to see more work done to document Ott’s assessment.

However, he goes on to state:

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 205

The dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary’s physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained. In general, the Fathers and the Schoolmen conceived it as non-injury to the hymen, and accordingly taught that Mary gave birth in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and injury to the hymen, and consequently also without pains.

However, according to modern natural scientific knowledge, the purely physical side of virginity consists in the non-fulfilment of the sex act (“sex-act virginity”) and in the non-contact of the female egg by the male seed (“seed-act virginity”). Thus, injury to the hymen in birth does not destroy virginity, while, on the other hand, its rupture seems to belong to complete natural motherhood. It follows from this that from the concept of virginity alone the miraculous character of the process of birth cannot be inferred, if it cannot be, and must not be derived from other facts of revelation. Holy Writ attests Mary’s active role in the act of birth (Matt. 1:25; Luke 2:7: “She brought forth”) which does not seem to indicate a miraculous process.

But the Fathers, with few exceptions, vouch for the miraculous character of the birth. However, the question is whether in so doing they attest a truth of revelation or whether they wrongly interpret a truth of revelation, that is, Mary’s virginity, from an inadequate natural scientific point of view. It seems hardly possible to demonstrate that the dignity of the Son of God or the dignity of the Mother of God demands a miraculous birth.

And Ott is not some crazy modern liberal theologian. He wrote before Vatican II, his text got a pre-Vatican II imprimatur, and his book has been quite widely used in very conservative circles.

From Ott’s statement, one might conclude that, although Jesus was miraculously conceived, he didn’t experience a miraculous birth—either in terms of Mary not having labor pains or in terms of not passing through her birth canal.

On that view, those Fathers who advocated a miraculous birth simply made a mistaken inference based on how virginity was understood in their time. Mary would have remained a perpetual virgin even if Jesus had a totally normal birth.

However, before adopting that conclusion, we should be aware that this isn’t an idea that only arose in later centuries.

It’s early.

Amazingly early.

 

The Infancy Gospel of James

For example, a document known as the Infancy Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James attests to Christ’s miraculous birth.

The Infancy Gospel of James was probably written in the mid-second century, around c. A.D. 150.

It says that, when the holy family was on the way to Bethlehem, the following happened:

Infancy Gospel of James, 17

And they came into the middle of the road, and Mary said to [Joseph]: Take me down from off the ass, for that which is in me presses to come forth.

This would suggest that Mary experienced at least some discomfort, though not necessarily sharp labor pains.

After finding a place for Mary in a cave in Bethlehem and making sure she is taken care of, Joseph goes in search of a midwife.

Then Joseph brings the midwife back to the cave and the following occurs:

Infancy Gospel of James, 19

And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: “My soul has been magnified this day, because my eyes have seen strange things—because salvation has been brought forth to Israel.”

And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from his mother Mary.

This does not directly say that Jesus didn’t pass through Mary’s birth canal, but it suggests that, since the great light fades and the baby Jesus seems to appear without a normal birth.

We thus have a document from the mid-second century—around a hundred years after the Crucifixion—stating that Jesus had a miraculous birth.

That’s quite early, but we can go earlier still.

 

The Odes of Solomon

An earlier and more explicit reference to a miraculous birth is found in the Odes of Solomon, which is a collection of 42 early Christian hymns.

They were written sometime between A.D. 70 and A.D. 125—perhaps sixty years after the Crucifixion—and according to the Odes:

Odes of Solomon 19:7-10

The Virgin became a mother
With great mercies.

And she labored and bore the Son but without pain,
Because it did not occur without purpose.

And she did not seek a midwife,
Because he allowed her to give life.

She bore with desire as a strong man.
And she bore according to the manifestation;
And she possessed with great power.

The translation of this passage is difficult, and scholars have rendered portions of it differently.

For example, some have taken the statement that Mary bore Jesus “with desire as a strong man” to mean that she gave birth as a deliberate act of will and that the birth did not come upon her suddenly, with her playing a passive role experiencing the onset of labor.

However that may be, what is not in doubt is that the passage says that Mary “bore the Son without pain.”

We thus have what may well be a first-century testimony to a painless birth.

 

The Ascension of Isaiah

Earlier still is a definite first century document that records a miraculous birth called the Ascension of Isaiah. Based on the indications it contains, this work appears to have been composed in A.D. 67.

According to it, the birth of Jesus took place two months after Joseph received Mary into his home.

It states:

Ascension of Isaiah 11:7-14

It came to pass that when they were alone that Mary straight-way looked with her eyes and saw a small babe, and she was astonished.

And after she had been astonished, her womb was found as formerly before she had conceived. . . .

And the story regarding the infant was noised abroad in Bethlehem.

Some said: “The Virgin Mary hath borne a child, before she was married two months.”

And many said: “She has not borne a child, nor has a midwife gone up to her, nor have we heard the cries of labor pains.”

Here Jesus suddenly appears, without passing through the birth canal.

Mary’s womb is found as it was before, which presumably means that she was no longer large with child, though it also could mean that an examination of her birth canal’s membrane was carried out, which is something mentioned in the Infancy Gospel of James.

We also have an explicit statement that she did not experience labor pains. “nor have we heard the cries of labor pains.”

Other indications in this document suggest that its author appears not to be aware of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

This is not surprising since, by my estimate Luke was written only 8 years earlier, around A.D. 59, and Matthew was written even more recently, around A.D. 63, so these Gospels may not have reached the community where the Ascension of Isaiah was written.

In any event, the author is reporting traditions that were circulating independently of the Gospels about Jesus’ birth just 34 years after the Crucifixion, which is very early indeed.

 

Conclusion

So what are we to make of all this?

The late theologian-Cardinal Avery Dulles pointed out that there is flexibility in Church teaching regarding the precise way in which Jesus was born and in which Mary’s virginity in giving birth is to be understood:

Steven Greydanus, “The Nativity Story and Catholic Teaching”

The Church, Cardinal Dulles said, “has not committed itself to any particular physical theory” of virginity in partu, and therefore the possibility that Mary “could have suffered some pains in birth” may be “compatible with Catholic doctrine.” The cardinal also pointed out that further doctrinal development and magisterial teaching could clarify the question one way or the other.

However, before we use that flexibility to simply adopt the view of Jesus’ birth that is easiest from a modern perspective—that is to say, a non-miraculous interpretation of the birth—we need to bear in mind that we are already standing in the presence of a miracle—namely, Jesus’ virginal conception!

We also have amazingly early testimony regarding a miraculous birth.

While the details of the three early Church documents we just looked at differ, they all attest to something extraordinary happening at Jesus’ birth, and in A.D. 67 the Ascension of Isaiah refers both to a lack of birth pains and to Jesus not passing through the birth canal!

What precisely happened at Jesus’ birth is something that Scripture does not cover, and the Church has not closely defined it, so I will leave that matter to you.

* * *

If you like this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing

If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification so that you always get notified when I have a new video

We’re in our second year of the podcast now, and you can help me keep making this podcast for years into the future—and can get early access to new episodes—by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast

Thank you, and I’ll see you next time

God bless you always!