Category: Virgin Birth
Is the virgin conception an essential Christian confession?
Al Mohler wrote these lines the other day (from “Must We Believe in the Virgin Birth?”):
All those who find salvation will be saved by the atoning work of Jesus the Christ — the virgin-born Savior. Anything less than this is just not Christianity, whatever it may call itself. A true Christian will not deny the Virgin Birth.
John Byron took this as his cue to ask reader of his blog, “Must you believe in the virgin birth to be a Christian.” When I checked last it seemed that most people who commented said “no”, but there was caution from some that this doesn’t mean that the doctrine isn’t important, merely that our status as Christians is determined by “…what Jesus did, not what Mary didn’t do” as one person put it. Personally, I agree with those who say that affirming or denying the virgin conception/birth doesn’t make a Christian, but that is because I think it is a work of the Holy Spirit for one to become a Christian, not our current stance on doctrine. So in this sense I disagree with Mohler.
That being said, I don’t think that some people denying the virgin conception or struggling to affirm it demands that it be set aside as an orthodox confession. The virgin conception does protect against heresies like Adoptionism and Nestorianism. Sure, sure, there are passages in Scripture that can be used to support these errors (e.g. the baptism of Christ is important for adoptionistic Christology), but the catholic “Rule of Faith” seems to have filtered out these views over time leaving us with the orthodox Christology that many of us confess today.
I see a partial analogy with the Pledge of Allegiance. It is a national confession that citizens pledge allegiance to the flag of this country and the Republic for which it stands–”one nation, under God, indivisible…” Many individuals may say, “I’m atheist, so how can I affirm our nation stands “under God” and while reciting this “creed” they personally cannot affirm those words. This doesn’t prevent it from being a national creed though. This crude analogy may give some insight into how the virgin conception may be a “Christian confession” even if some or many Christians do not or cannot confess it. As my citizenship is determined by my birth into this country, and not my willingness to affirm every line of the Pledge of Allegiance, so someone’s citizenship in the Kingdom of God is determined by a “new birth” in the Spirit and not their adherence to every aspect of all creeds.
I have said more about this in a previous post titled “It’s not your creed. It’s the creed of the church.”
Personally, I submit myself to the church catholic on matters like the virgin conception even if I struggle to understand or believe it at times. I don’t think my personal beliefs change what the church should teach. Yet the church’s safeguarding of the story as the responsibility of the church is not (in my opinion) one and the same with the saving work of God. So I willingly recite along with the Apostle’s Creed that Jesus was “…conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary” and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed that Jesus was “…was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary…”, but I know God saves and God alone, not creeds.
Unlikely sources for the Matthean virgin conception.
There are two sources for the Matthean virgin conception concept that I find unlikely.
First, the idea that the Evangelist reasoned from the LXX of Isaiah 7.14 to the concept of the virgin conception seems odd. In Hebrew that text signifies nothing regarding a future Messiah conceived of a virgin. While the LXX wording fits better (ἡ παρθένος) the context still seems to demand much reworking by Matthew. In other words, I don’t find Isaiah 7.14 an apparent source for a virgin conception narrative. Rather, I think Matthew had the concept and he scanned through his knowledge of Torah for any evidence that Scripture foretold such an event. In other words, Isaiah 7.14 seems like it must be reworked to serve as a proof-text for a virgin conception more than it seems like an obvious prophecy that the Messiah would be born of a virgin.
Second, pagan deities being born of a virgin assumes a higher Christology than I find evident in Matthew’s Gospel. Matthew is more concerned with presenting Jesus as the Messiah (though we may say in proto-orthodox language as a Messiah within whom YHWH dwelt in a unique way) than as a “deity” in the pagan sense of the concept. So sure, there are examples of pagan gods being born of virgins. I’m not convinced this motivated the Jewish Evangelist.
Of course, this does not prove a virgin conception, but I don’t think these proposals are as sound as some argue as evidence against it.
Is the Gospel of John ambivalent about the virgin conception and Bethlehem traditions?
St. John
In the Gospel of John the main concern of the Evangelist (or the community that edited and completed the work) is that “you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (20.31). Throughout the Gospel he makes it most apparent that this is substantiated by Jesus’ peculiar relationship with God the Father as the Word of God who has come into the world. Jesus’ deeds verify this claim and that is why you should confess Jesus as Messiah.
In contrast to Matthew and Luke we find different responses to allegations regarding Jesus being a child born of fornication and not being born in Bethlehem.
In 7.42 some question whether Jesus could have been the Messiah since the Messiah had to have been born in Bethlehem. The Evangelist is ambivalent to whether this matters or not. He doesn’t clarify that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but neither is there any suggestion that he agreed with the accusation that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. Again, I think he has mentioned over and over again that Jesus comes from God. If this is true, does it matter how he got here?!
Likewise, in 8.41 while Jesus and his opponents debate fatherhood (Jesus says that they are not children of Abraham, but Satan in vv. 31-47) the opponents of Jesus state “We were not born of fornication.” This seems to be an attack on Jesus. Who is Jesus to doubt the validity of their relationship to Abraham since he is the result of sexually immorality?! Rather than a virgin conception narrative the Evangelist expects the reader to call the bluff of Jesus’ opponents. Why would they say that when they know very well he claims to have come from God the Father. Now this doesn’t mean that John denied Jesus’ virgin conception, but rather he seems unconcerned with the accusation because in his eyes Jesus’ relation to the Father is enough to rebuff such accusations.
Obviously, we cannot know for sure what John thought about the virgin conception tradition though his logos Christology and later date of composition make me think he was aware of it and affirmed it indirectly. Likewise, we cannot know what he thought of the tradition that Messiah had to come from Bethlehem or whether or not he thought Jesus did come from Bethlehem. What we do seem to know is that he felt that these matters were secondary to who he knew Jesus to be.
Why is there no virgin conception in the Gospel of Mark?
St. Mark
In the Gospel of Mark we do not find an Infancy Narrative like we do in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Why? I don’t know that we can find a definite answer, but this is a collection of possibilities. Some are not exclusive of the others.
(1) Mark didn’t know about the virgin conception. It may be that for one reason or another he was unaware of this story. It is hard to include something you don’t know!
(2) The virgin conception had not been ‘created’ before the composition of Mark’s Gospel. If Matthew was the originator of the story this would make sense. Mark cannot know what Matthew created. If Matthew did create it we must explain Luke’s knowledge of it. This would demand Luke’s knowledge of Matthew or a tradition derived from Matthew.
(3) Mark rejected the virgin conception. If he was aware of it he may have not affirmed it. This would put him at odds with Matthew and Luke, though maybe not John.
(4) Mark may have sought to avoid controversy regarding the birth of Jesus. It is apparent that some felt that Jesus was the result of Mary’s sexual immorality. This seemed hinted at by the Gospel of John 8.41 where Jesus’ opponents state, “We were not born of fornication.” Did they mean to insinuate that Jesus was? Whether this was true or not it could have been sufficient reason for Mark to avoid any discussion of Jesus’ birth or childhood lest it distract his audience, especially if he knew his audience was aware of these accusations.
(5) The virgin conception was irrelevant to the theme(s) of Mark’s Gospel. In Mark 1.1 we read “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” In 1.2 he moves straight into the proclamations of John the Baptist. Mark ends abruptly with a resurrection narrative. It could be that Mark’s main concern was the “ministry” of Jesus from the preaching of the Baptist to the resurrection. Somehow, for Mark, this is “the gospel” and Jesus’ birth is foreign to “the gospel”.
(6) The virgin conception is assumed. If the title ‘Son of God’ had obtained a high Christology by the time Mark wrote his Gospel then maybe calling Jesus Christ the ‘Son of God’ rather than the ‘son of Joseph’ was enough of an introduction. Of course, this depends on whether one thinks ‘Son of God’ was original with Mark’s Gospel in 1.1. The same could be said of John’s Gospel with its logos Christology. There may not have been any reason to discuss a virgin conception when you are claiming that God’s Word became flesh and tabernacled among humans (1.14).
(7) Matthean Priority is accurate. If Mark knew Matthew’s Gospel was in circulation and he was seeking to create a shorter, catechism of a Gospel then he may not have felt like rehearsing what was already declared in a longer, earlier Gospel. This could pair with possibility #3.
Did I miss any of the possible explanations?
Advent 2011: First Sunday
Fra Filippo Lippi, A Divided Annunciation
This Advent I have the wonderful opportunity of delivering one of the homilies. I will be preaching on the Third Sunday of Advent, December 11th. Pastor Ken Garrett and I will follow the four “fulfillment” type passages in Matthew 1-2: 1.18-24 (v. 23); 2.1-12 (v. 6); 2.13-15 (v. 15b); and 2.16-23 (v. 18). This will provide me with a blogging pattern as well.
I do not think that Isaiah 7.14 was originally about a virgin birth. In context, pagan armies threaten Judah. The prophet goes to King Ahaz and he tells him to ask God for a sign. Ahaz refuses. Isaiah tells Ahaz that God will determine the sign then. Isaiah says that a “young woman”(העלמה) will give birth to a son. By the time this particular young woman gives birth to a son the threat of the pagans will have come and gone. Ahaz will see this and remember that Israel’s God promised deliverance.
Of course, the LXX reads “παρθένος”, which means virgin, but this was not the explicit intent of the original Hebrew author.
What I find fascinating about Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7.14 is there was no need for Messiah to have been born of a virgin in any of the Judaisms with which I am familiar. If so, I am open to being corrected. So I don’t think Matthew felt obligated to make a connection similar to the “birth in Bethlehem” tradition which does seem popular.
For me this leaves two explanations. The first is offered by E.D. Freed in The Stories of Jesus’ Birth wherein “Chapter Two: Matthew’s Women in the Genealogy of Jesus” postulates that Matthew sought to include this tradition as a way to combat claims that Jesus had an illegitimate birth. This may be true and it makes sense of the data. The second is more apologetical in favor of orthodox Christianity: Jesus was actually born of a virgin and this sent Jewish-Christian exegetes scrambling to Torah for something that would foreshadow what Mary claimed to have happened inside of her. While more far fetched (i.e. a less ‘naturalistic’ explanation) that the previous solution, this is the one to which I hold because I confess the virgin birth of Jesus.
As Matthew shapes the story he makes sure his own wording aligns with the “deliverance” motif of Isaiah 7. This is seen in Joseph choosing the name ‘Jesus’ because “he will save his people from their sins”, followed by narratives regarding the harsh rule of Herod in the next chapter. Like the small child in Isaiah 7, so Jesus signifies the deliverance of Israel from pagan powers…though not like they may have expected.
Today, the First Sunday of Advent, we celebrate the coming of the child whose birth signified deliverance from evil. In Jesus we find salvation from the forces of oppression that war against humanity. Jesus’ birth through a virgin functions as a sign from God that a new era is being ushered into the world. God’s Kingdom advances on that of Herod, Caesar, and any other force that stands against the true God.
Blogging the Book of Isaiah: הָעַלְמָ֗ה = Virgin? (7.14)
Let me begin by stating up front that I do not think that the Prophet Isaiah intended anything like a virgin birth when he states “Behold, the young woman will be with child and bear a son…” in 7.14
(הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן). Neither do I think the first evangelist (Mt. 1.22-23) misused this passage when he wrote “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son…” (Ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν). The LXX translator already made the decision at one point to choose a more narrow semantic range for his interpretation of הָעַלְמָ֗ה as ἡ παρθένος. So the evangelist did have a text that provided him with Scriptural “support” for his interpretation of the story of the virgin birth.
As an aside this is something I find interesting. There does not seem to be any indication that the Jews of this era expected a virgin-born Messiah. At least none of which I am aware. I know some detractors from the story of the virgin birth note that there are stories of gods being born from virgins, but I don’t think the stand-alone Christology of the First Gospel is as emphatic about Jesus’ divine characteristics as it is his messianic qualifications. If this is so it would seem that there may have very well been an event that made the evangelist search the Scriptures for some evidence that this was foreseen by the prophets rather than the way it is often presented as the evangelist thought this passage from the Book of Isaiah said something about a virgin-born Messiah and/or deity so the evangelist had to construct a story about Jesus to make it appear as if he fulfilled this prophecy. The immediate context of Is. 7.14 does not demand a virgin-born anyone.
In the original narrative הָעַלְמָ֗ה may or may not have referred to a virgin. What is more important is that there is a certain woman in view who maybe would conceive a son for Ahaz or maybe from Isaiah (it is hard to tell: though 8.3 does have Isaiah fathering a son through a prophetess the child is named Maher-shalal-hash-baz or “swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” which seems to have a different tone than Emmanuel meaning “God with us”). In this context what is important is that the child’s birth signifies a clock is ticking toward judgment upon the kings of Israel and Aram.
The evangelist does note this context, as I wrote yesterday, and I think he applies the judgment of kings to the judgment of Herod. This still does not seem to be a sufficient cause for creating a virgin birth narrative. Rather, it seems to me that there was an event that was told as a virgin birth narrative in the early church that forced the evangelist back to the prophets and he made the connection between the LXX translation and Herod’s death as some sort of “fillfullment” (as Bryan E. Beyer wrote in his book Encountering the Book of Isaiah, p. 74).
It seems to me very straightforward that the young woman’s status as a virgin or not a virgin is a secondary issue lost to history. The Prophet foresaw an immediate sign tied into immediate events related specifically to Judah and their King, Ahaz. Nevertheless, I think this makes the use in Mt. 1.23 all that much more dramatic. Since the evangelist had no internal reason to see Is. 7.14 as applied to Messiah (even with the LXX translation, I do not see any good reason to read this as a messianic text in and of itself), it seems that there is good reason to suppose an external reason.
Now, I know virgin births do not happen. Also, I know resurrections do not happen. That does not mean a virgin birth and a resurrection did not happen! I do not have any problem with the doctrine of the virgin birth as I examine how the evangelist read this text and applied it. Rather, I think it serves as good reason for me to assume that something like a virgin birth occurred which led people to seek for a sign from Scripture that God had foretold such an awkward event!
See also: My post examining another connection between Is. 7.14 and Mt. 1.23 here.
Wednesdays with Wright: The Virgin Birth
N.T. Wright addresses the “modern” realization that virgin birth cannot happen and the deeper reasons for why so many reject the teaching:
“Let’s get rid of any idea that we now know that virgin births don’t happen because we know about modern genetic science. Actually, people two thousand years ago were not ignorant. As C. S. Lewis once tartly pointed out, the reason Joseph was worried about Mary’s pregnancy was not because he didn’t know where babies came from but because he did.
“It was fascinating, in a classic moment of misreporting a few days ago, that when the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out that Matthew doesn’t say how many Magi there were people thought he was a heretic, but when he said he really did believe in the virginal conception of Jesus nobody noticed.
“Actually, the strange story of Jesus’ being conceived without a human father is so peculiar, particularly within Judaism, and so obviously open to sneering accusations on the one hand and the charge that the Christians were simply aping the pagans on the other, that it would be very unlikely for someone to invent it so early in the Christian movement as Matthew and Luke. But there’s more to it than just that. The virginal conception speaks powerfully of new creation, something fresh happening within the old world, beyond the reach and dreams of the possibilities we currently know. And if we believe that the God we’re talking about is the creator of the world, who longs to rescue the world from its corruption and decay, then an act of real new creation, anticipating in fact the great moment of Easter itself, might just be what we should expect, however tremblingly, if and when this God decides to act to bring this new creation about. The ordinary means of procreation is one of the ways, deep down, in which we laugh in the face of death. Mary’s conception of Jesus has no need of that manoeuver. ‘In him was life, and the life was the light of all people.’ The real objection to the virginal conception is not primarily scientific. It is deeper than that. It is the notion that a new world really might be starting up within the midst of the old, leaving us with the stark choice of birth or death; leaving us, like the Magi, no longer at ease: leaving us, in other words, as Christmas people faced with the Herods of the world.”
From a sermon titled “Power to Become Children: Isaiah 52.7-10; John 1.1-18″. See the full transcript here.
