Dec
21
2009
Vital Virginity
The accounts of Jesus’ birth in Matthew (chapter 1) and Luke (chapters 1–2) are clear and unequivocal: Jesus’ birth was not ordinary. He was not an ordinary child and His conception did not come about in the ordinary way. His mother, Mary, was a virgin, having had no intercourse prior to conception. By the Holy Spirit, Mary’s womb became the cradle of the Son’s incarnation (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35). It’s no secret than in recent history, the doctrine of the virgin birth (or more precisely, the virginal conception) has been ridiculed as fairytale make-believe by many outside the church, and not a few voices inside the church.
For example, one pastor, who would probably say he’s not trying to ridicule the virgin birth, nevertheless casts suspicion on the traditional understanding when he writes:
We do know that (although the stories are not identical in other cultures) the notion of the virginal conception of a child is not unique to Christianity. It seems to me that maintaining a firm belief in the virginal conception would be VERY important if the literal truth of the entirety of Scripture were near the core of your beliefs. (Even though the mistranslation of Isaiah’s ‘young woman’ to Matthew’s ‘virgin’ is well known.)
These sentences are a good representation of the two arguments many use to poke holes in Gospels’ account of the virgin birth.
First, the prophecy about a virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14, it is argued, actually speaks of a young woman and not a virgin. (To be fair, some scholars make this argument about Isaiah’s prophecy and still believe in the virgin birth). Many have pointed out that the Hebrew word in Isaiah is almah and not the technical term for virgin, bethula. It is true that almah has a wider semantic range than bethula, but there are no clear references in the Old Testament where almah does not mean virgin. The word almah occurs nine times in the Old Testament and wherever the context makes its meaning clear, the word refers to a virgin. More importantly, the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures begun in the third century B.C.) translates almah with the Greek word parthenos (the same word used in Matthew 1:23 where Isaiah 7:14 is quoted), and everyone agrees that parthenos means “virgin.” The Jewish translators of the Septuagint would not have used a clear Greek word for virgin if they understood Isaiah 7:14 to refer to nothing more than a young woman.
Second, many have objected to the virgin birth because they see it as a fairly typical bit of pagan mythologizing. They argue, “Star Wars has a virgin birth. Mithraism had a virgin birth. Christianity has a virgin birth. Big deal. They are all just fables.” This is a popular argument and it sounds quite plausible as first glance, but there are a number of problems with it.
1. The assumption that there was a prototypical God-Man who had certain titles, did certain miracles, was born of a virgin, saved His people, and then got resurrected is not well-founded. In fact, no such prototypical “hero” existed before the rise of Christianity.
2. It would have been unthinkable for a Jewish sect (which is what Christianity was initially) to try to win new converts by adding pagan elements to their gospel story. I suppose a good Jew might make up a story to fit the Old Testament, but to mix in bits of paganism would have been anathema to most Jews.
3. The virgin birth parallels are not as strong as we might think. Consider three of the usual suspects, Alexander the Great, Dionysus, and Mithra. Alexander’s most reliable ancient biographer (several centuries after His death) makes no mention of a virgin birth. Besides, the story that began to circulate (after the rise of Christianity, it’s worth mentioning) is about an unusual conception, but not a virgin birth (Alexander’s parents were already married). Dionysus was born when a god (in this case Zeus) disguised himself as a human and impregnated a human princess. This is not a virgin birth and not like the Holy Spirit’s role we read about in the gospels. Mithra, a popular parallel was born of a rock, not a virgin. Moreover, the cult of Mithra in the Roman Empire dates to after the time of Christ so any dependence is Mithraism on Christianity and not the other way around.
To the Greek Warrior, the Greek God, and the cult of Mithra, we can add Buddha: His mother dreamed that Buddha entered her in the form of a white elephant. But this story doesn’t appear until five centuries after His death and she was already married. You get the drift. The so-called parallels always occur well after the life in question, well into the Christian era, and are not really stories of virginal conceptions anyway.
But Does it Matter?
But even for those who believe in the virgin birth, it is sometimes questioned whether the doctrine is really that important. For example, another pastor has argued, in what has become a very well-known passage, that the virgin birth may not be all that essential. “What if Jesus had an earthly father named Larry?” he asks. What if the virgin birth was thrown in to appeal to the followers of Mithra and Dionysian religious cults? What if the word for virgin referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse? He suggests that none of this would be catastrophic to the Christian faith. “What if that spring [the virgin birth] was seriously questioned? Could a person keep jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live?”
There are a lot of questions here, but the underlying one seems to be this: Is the virgin birth really that essential to Christianity? The answer, the pastor’s insinuation notwithstanding, is a resounding “Yes!”
First, the virgin birth is essential to Christianity because it has been essential to Christianity. That may sound like circular reasoning, but only if we care nothing about the history and catholicity of the church. Granted, the church can get things wrong, sometimes even for a long time. But if Christians, of all stripes in all places, have professed belief in the virgin birth for two millennia, maybe we should be slow to discount it as inconsequential. In His definitive study of the virgin birth, J. Gresham Machen concluded that “there can be no doubt that at the close of the second century the virgin birth of Christ was regarded as an absolutely essential part of the Christian belief by the Christian church in all parts of the known world.” Perhaps, then, we should not be so hasty in dismissing the doctrine as a take-it-or-leave-it element of the Christian faith.
Second, the gospel writers clearly believed that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. We don’t know precisely how the Christ child came to be in Mary’s womb, except that the conception was “from the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 1:20). But we do know that Mary understood the miraculous nature of this conception, having asked the angel “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” (Luke 1:34). The gospels present the virgin birth as “an orderly account” of actual history from eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4). If the virgin birth is false, the historical reliability of the gospels is seriously undermined.
Third—and this intersects with the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 14—the virgin birth demonstrates that Jesus was truly human and truly divine. How can the virgin birth be an inconsequential spring for our jumping when it establishes the very identity of our Lord and Savior? If Jesus had not been born of a human, we could not believe in His full humanity. But if His birth were like any other human birth—through the union of a human father and mother–we would question His full divinity. The virgin birth is necessary to secure both a real human nature and a completely divine nature.
Fourth, the virgin birth is essential because it means Jesus did not inherit the curse of depravity that clings to Adam’s race. Jesus was made like us in every way except for sin (Heb. 4:15; 7:26–27). Every human father begets a son or daughter with His sin nature. We may not understand completely how this works, but this is the way of the world after the fall. Sinners beget sinners (Psalm51:5). Always. So if Joseph was the real father of Jesus, or Mary had been sleeping around with Larry, Jesus is not spotless, not innocent, and not perfectly holy. And as result, we have no mediator, no imputation of Christ’s righteousness (because He has no righteousness to impute to us), and no salvation.
So, yeah, the virgin birth is essential to our faith.
9 Comments
Kevin –
I wonder if you saw Tony Jones’ blog this morning? Same topic.
http://blog.tonyj.net/2009/12/how-important-is-marys-virginity/
Good article Kevin, but I would nuance the last point a bit. This is how Pastor Jeff Meyers handled it:
some have suggested that the sin nature of humankind is passed on through the male line. Jesus’ virginal conception and birth was necessary in order to insure that his human nature not be derived from the male line, which transmits the sin nature. Since Jesus was to be born without a sin nature, he therefore had to be born without the agency of a man.
How do we evaluate this theory? Before criticizing it we should note that Jesus did not, in fact, possess a sin nature. This much is clear from Scripture, even in Luke 1:35: “the one to be born will be called Holy.” The question is: did the absence of the male factor insure his sinlessness?
The answer has got to be “no.” This whole approach is wrong. There is no biblical evidence to suggest that humanity’s sin nature is passed on through the male seed. This theory is based on a speculative misunderstanding of transmission of original sin. Women as well as men share in the sin nature communicated to us from Adam (Psalm 51:5, “In sin did my mother conceive me”). Mary had a sin nature and confessed her need for a savior (Luke 1:47, “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior”). Job 15:14 has implications for the woman as well as the man: “What is man, that he could be pure, or one born of woman, that he could be righteous?”
All the biblical and medical evidence confirms that both man and woman contribute toward the substance of the new offspring. The mere elimination of the male factor in his human conception would not, therefore, have insured Jesus’ sinlessness. Mary would have transmitted her sin nature to Jesus since Jesus partook of the substance of his mother had not the Holy Spirit prevented it. The preservation of Jesus’ human nature from sinful defilement owes to the Holy Spirit’s involvement in the conception, not necessarily to the virginal conception. The Holy Spirit preserved Jesus “at conception and through birth” from the contamination of sin that would have otherwise proceeded from Mary.
Just as you mentioned, it is possible to read almah in Isaiah as a young woman and hold parthenos as virgin in the Gospel accounts. (We would want to do this because I believe the original prophecy in Isa. 7 is completely meaningless to its original audience if King Ahaz has to wait centuries for his miraculous sign.) To do this, we would need to look at how the New Testament uses the Old Testament typologically. A famous test-case for this is Matt. 2:15, “… This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I called my Son.’” (A citation of Hosea 11:1) Matthew’s fulfillment formula, “This was to fullfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet” makes it pretty clear the author’s intent – the flight into Egypt and return after Herod’s death “fulfills” what Hosea said. In the context of Hosea 11:1, “my son” refers to Israel (the nation), so how is Matthew using this text?
There are a number of possibilities, including Matthew ripping this text out of its context, allegory, and typology. A typological interpretation would say that the two situations are analagous, and, in some way, God’s pattern of action is mirrored in the New Testament. So just as the almah (young woman) gave birth to a child called Immanuel as a sign indicating the deliverance of the nation of Israel from their enemies, the parthenos (virgin!) gave birth to a child (the Son of God!) called Immanuel (God Incarnate!) as a sign indicating the deliverance of the nation of Israel (now with more Gentiles!) from their enemies (sin!). I believe that Matthew is pointing to this analogous pattern of God’s action, and that in New Testament God has done something far beyond our imagination.
My weak attempt at explaining typology notwithstanding, check out Carson and Beale’s “Commentary on the New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament”: they give a full explanation of typology from an Evangelical standpoint. That means respecting the historicity of the original events and the original context (unlike allegory). They then go through every Old Testament allusion, citation, and quotation in the New Testament they could get their hands on and give a full exposition.
I do, on the other hand, find the grammatical evidence very weighty – the fact that the LXX translates almah as parthenos is significant. Furthermore, where Matthew’s Old Testament quotes overlap with the Synoptics, he quotes from the LXX, but where an OT quotation is unique to his Gospel Matthew’s translation does not match the LXX – perhaps indicating that he provided his own translation from the Hebrew. This would imply that Matthew has a command of both Greek and Hebrew, and if he writes parthenos it is intentional and not just copying from the LXX.
Either way, the reading in the Gospels are clear. Jesus was born of the Virgin just like our historic orthodox creeds say. I just wanted to provide some options here.
Finally, note that it is Jesus’ opponents in John 8:41 who suggest that Jesus was born of sexual immorality. Not the greatest pattern to follow.
[...] DeYoung: Vital Virginity By the way, as I find more substantive and meaningful content on the Christmas season I’ll [...]
Excellent blog Kevin. Very helpful engagement with questioning postures. Not so sure that ‘original sin’ through the male is sustainable.
The bottom line question for people of faith is, does Scripture teach it? If so we believe it. And does it matter? We can safely assume if it happened it matters, even if we are not able to fully understand it.
Thankyou for showing that Scripture teaches it. I would simply add that the literary trajectory of Luke also supports it. Elizabeth has a fairly miraculous conception – pregnant in her later years. Mary’s conception is more miraculous – a virgin conceives.
Does it matter? Donald Mcleod’s comment in The Person of Christ always bears repeating.
‘The virgin birth is posted on guard at the door of the mystery of Christmas; and none of us must think of hurrying past it. It stands on the threshold of the New Testament, blatantly supernatural, defying our rationalism, informing us that all that follows belongs to the same order as itself and that if we find it offensive there is no point in proceeding further.’
I confess the latent unbelief in questioning, or even worse, indifferent, trivialising postures from those who claim to be believers angers me. The ‘has God really said’ hermeneutic of doubt has a Serpent at its origins. It seemed sophisticated then and doubtless seems sophisticated now, but led then and will now to unbelief and spiritual ruin. I am appalled by how casually revealed truth such as the virgin birth can be dismissed as inconsequential or profaned by invented larrys. If I am trampolining I want all the springs intact. I don’t want to make my position precarious by foolishly removing lots of springs to see if it still works. With such a russian roulette mentality it will not be long before I remove one spring too many.
This is not a plea for jettisoning our critical faculties but for using them from the vantage of an hermeneutic of trust rather than suspicion.
Finally, I wonder how far the virgin birth serves as a prototype for ‘the new birth’. Each new birth of the Spirit is supernatural. It involves the Holy Spirit creating a ‘Holy Thing’ in a vessel which is unclean. Perhaps if the Virgin birth is an unnecessary spring so also is the new birth by the Spirit.
[...] Thomson Leave a Comment Categories: Uncategorized Kevin DeYoung has a very helpful blog on the importance of the virgin birth. Give it a visit if you [...]
[...] of the doctrine of the virgin birth. Read Keven DeYoung’s post (which I’m agree with) here and a follow up here. Read Tony Jones post (which is a good example of prevailing modern [...]
[...] Vital Virginity [...]
[...] Vital Virginity – Kevin DeYoung reflects on the importance of the Virigin birth. Excellent defense for the historic belief and biblical teaching of this miraculous event! [...]