Christmas Eve, Monday, December 24, 2018
The assertion conceptus de Spiritu sancto must now be protected from an imminent misunderstanding.
It does not state that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Holy Spirit according to His human existence.
On the contrary, it states as emphatically as possible–and this is the miracle it asserts–that Jesus Christ had no father according to His human existence.
Because in this miracle the Holy Spirit takes the place of the male, this by no means implies that He does what the male does.
Because Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, it does not, therefore, mean–or can mean only in an improper sense–that He is begotten by the Holy Spirit.
The idea is completely excluded that anything like a marriage took place between the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.
The Holy Spirit by whom the Virgin becomes pregnant is really not a kind of divine spirit, and therefore not in any sense an apotheosized husband, but He is God Himself and therefore His miraculous act is to be understood as a spiritual and not a psycho-physical act, not in any way analogous to the effects of creaturely eros.
The positive fact which fills the space marked off by the natus ex virgine is God Himself, i.e., in the inconceivable act of creative omnipotence in which He imparts to human nature a capacity, a power for Himself, which it does not possess of itself and which it could not devise for itself; in the inconceivable act of reconciling love by which He justifies and sanctifies human nature in spite of its unrighteousness and unholiness to be a temple for His Word and so for His glory; in the inconceivable act of redeeming wisdom in which He completely assumes His creature in such a way that He imparts and bestows on it no less than His own existence.
Here, as so often, it is not true that such statements by early dogmaticians are the products of an idle and irrelevant scholastic cleverness.
Rather is it the case that in the statements an attempt is made as a spiritual understanding of the spiritual; and no one who at this particular point takes the trouble seriously to think himself into the task set him will deny that in the decisive issue this was the right line to take.
In conclusion, let us remember that it is particularly this positive factor in the miracle, expressed in the conceptus de Spiritu sancto, that belongs to the sign of the miracle of Christmas which the dogma aims at stressing.
Noetically, i.e., for us to whom this sign is given, who have to recognize it in and by this sign, the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God come in the flesh stands or falls with the with the truth of the conception de Spiritu sancto.
But it could not be said that ontically, in itself, the mystery of Christmas stands or falls with this dogma.
The man Jesus of Nazareth is not the true Son of God because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
On the contrary, because He is the true Son of God and because this is an inconceivable mystery intended to be acknowledged as such, therefore He is conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
And because He is thus conceived and born, He has to be recognized and acknowledged as the One He is and the mystery in which He is the One He is.
The mystery does not rest upon the miracle.
The miracle rests upon the mystery.
The miracle bears witness to the mystery, and the mystery is attested by the miracle.
from Karl Barth, “The Miracle of Christmas”, Church Dogmatics I.2, page 200-202