One of the most widely disputed tenets of Christian doctrine is the virgin birth -- or more precisely, the virginal conception of Jesus Christ. I'm utterly flabbergasted as to why. There are many fuzzy and grey areas in the Bible. But the Gospels make it very clear that this was the nature of Christ's conception:The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end." Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. Luke 1:30-35
And more briefly:
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. Matthew 1:18
Now a while back, Kim of Connexions explained why this doctrine should be re-evaluated. These doubts would be appropriate in an analysis that regarded the gospels are merely ancient texts with no inherent veracity. For example, the absence of this doctrine from the two other gospels might suggest that Luke and Matthew added this narrative element in order to increase credibility for their thriving religion business.
But as Christians, we accept the supernatural as real. God and those whom he fills with his Spirit work miracles routinely. The virginal conception of Christ within Mary is just one more in a long history of God doing pretty amazing stuff, like splitting the Red Sea and feeding the 5,000 and creating Star Trek. So my response to Kim was simplistic, but I think correct.
Yet many Christians deny the virgin birth. That makes me wonder if this doctrine is one of opinion or core belief. I'm not really sure. It could raise all sorts of problems with the Incarnation. What do you think?
Is belief in the virgin birth critical to Christian doctrine?
14 comments:
John,
As you have pointed out, scripture repeatedly refers to the Virgin Birth:
1)The OT predicted his virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14. I know, I know, your seminary profs have told you that 'almah' means woman and not virgin. But go look up Song of Solomon 6:8. The word "virgins" (which, by the way, means virgins) is the same word Isaiah used to describe Emmanuel's mother.
2)Matthew & Luke accept the VB as part of God's great plan. As Josh McDowell has pointed out, we would expect a supernatural Messiah to enter the world in an unusual way.
3)As for Paul's silence about the VB, he may not have been so silent, after all. In numerous instances, he carefully uses the verb "ginomai" to describe the birth of Jesus--which means to "become," "come into existence" or "appear"--implying a supernatural genesis. Most striking is his juxtaposition of "ginomai" and "gennao" in Gal. 4. He writes that Jesus "came into being" of a woman (v. 4), while Isaac & Ishamael were born (gennao in v. 23).
4) The early church fathers vigorously promoted the doctrine of the VB, including Ignatius, Justin Martyr & Iranaeus. The earliest form of the Apostles' Creed, written around 150-200 AD, flatly states that Jesus was "truly born of the Virgin Mary." Why would the earliest church fathers include that if it weren't essential to Christian belief?
Sorry for the long post...but that's some purty fancy exegesis for a Texan, donchya think?
The virgin birth is critical to all other Christian beliefs. I not saying that if you disagree with it that you're going to hell or anything. But logically, how can you believe in Jesus as Savior if he was just a man born of Mary and Joseph?
Yes it's critical! If one can't believe that His birth was a miracle, how can one believe that the Ressurection occured (physically occured, that is!)
Of course, those who deny one, usually deny the other as well...
Betty
so john, are you a NASB fan? I saw that it was the translation you used. Just curious. I'm a nerd about this stuff.
Ever seen the movie the Life of Brian?
He was also born of a virgin ;)
But on a serious note:
How do we work out the Catholic position of the necessity of Mary remaining a Virgin after Jesus' birth to the Protestant position of Mary going on to have other children (James)?
Jason -- yes. The NASB is my first choice, when I have one.
Stephen -- we don't. There's no Biblical basis for assuming that Mary remained a virgin for life. As much as that image may be consoling to AD&D players, it's just not true.
No.
Really it is that simple. THe birth narratives are not crucial at all. The crucial part of the Christian story is the Easter cycle and Pentecost. AFter all Paul, Mark and John show no interest whatsoever in Jesus' birth. Paul shows little interest in recapping the stories of Jesus' lfe. Cross, resurrection, Spirit-empowering. Those are the basics.
"Why would the earliest church fathers include that if it weren't essential to Christian belief?"
The simple answer to this does not lie with whether Jesus was actually born of a virgin... that was not what they were defending- the real issue for them was defending that Jesus was BOTH human and divine. They were in a heated battle with the gnostics who wanted to make Jesus ONLY divine/spirit and not really human.
But to answer the original question- YES I feel that it is essential. I don't think it makes or breaks one being a Christian if they don't believe it, since Matthew and Luke both feel that it's important enough to include, but John and Mark seem to think the baptism of Jesus is the "real birth" that counts.
When we are baptised we affirm that we believe in the virgin birth, when we say the apostle's creed we affirm the virgin birth. Obviously our tradition has held that doctrine as important.
These supernatural aspects of our faith are stumbling blocks for some, but for me they are part of the unique "story" out of which we live.
shalom all,
j.
Hi John,
I have never really thought my view out to a conclusion on Virgin Birth. I do not see it as necessary for incarnation but I do not doubt that God could do it if God so chooses.
I realise that Matthew and Luke make use of this tradition but I am not sure how much this is about emphasising the significance of the Jesus whose story they tell or how much is rooted in history.
I have always seen the infancy stories as partially creative. And yet maybe the Virgin Birth is a real sign rather than a piece of Midrash to explain that Christ is fully human and fully Divine.
Anyway, I am still uncertain on this one and frankly it does not figure greatly in my preaching. AS for permanent virginity of Mary, I agree with John. It lacks scriptural basis and I suspect that it has been a mistaken doctrine which is not unconnected with a negative view of sexual relations
Oh, I was really interested in Mark Winter's point re early church. I has wondered how soon, it entered the proclamation of faith. It is certainly an argument for the Virgin Birth
John
I believe exactly like the Apostle's Creed that I repeated in the UMC all my life. Christ was "...conceived by the Holy Spirit, born unto the Virgin Mary.... IMHO, it is an essential and fundamental belief of the Christian faith.
Greg hit the nail right on the head. It may not be required for getting into heaven, but I can't imagine a putting my faith in a common man.
As for the Roman Catholic doctrine that Mary remained a virgin after Christ's birth or in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, I think are both unBiblical and not true. But, if Catholics want to believe that, I don't reckon it hurts anything.
"The simple answer to this does not lie with whether Jesus was actually born of a virgin... that was not what they were defending..."
Yes, they were--IN ADDITION to defending the doctrine that Jesus was human as well as divine.
I'm aware of the Docetist heresy and the early defense of Jesus' full humanity, including verses from I John...BUT...the early church fathers ALSO vigorously defended the basic doctrine of the Virgin Birth. For instance, Justin Martyr wrote in the mid-2nd century AD, "The Lord Jesus Christ our instructor, who was the first born of God the Father, was not born through sexual relations . . . God's power came upon the virgin, lighting upon her while she was still a virgin, causing her to conceive . . . By the will of God, his Son, Jesus Christ was born of the virgin Mary."
He reminded the Jews that God could accomplish the impossible, and that Christ's virginal conception would be no more difficult for God than the creation of Eve from Adam's rib.
Justin's words are assuredly centered on the miraculous element of the virgin birth of Christ and not just his humanity.
I agree the early church apologists endorsed the humanity of Jesus...but they were not unconcerned about the supernatural conception of Christ and strongly defended it against pagan attack.
Absolutely critical to Christian doctrine. I'm with the Nicene and Apostles' creeds on this one.
I don't see how Jesus can be the Christ without this miracle. There has to be something distinctive about Jesus to set him apart from all the rest. To have been baptized and tempted is no more than any one of us has endured. To be conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, well now, that's somethin'!!!
It's part of the story so YES.
It's in the Creed. It's part of our faith.
To take it away is to erode the basis of what we believe.
I think it's disputed in part because of the RC Marian theology which elevates Mary to a role that many Protestants are uncomfortable with.
Post a Comment