Difficult Sayings Archives
First available on January 4, 2007 The Virgin Birth, does it matter? (Isaiah 7:14 / Matthew 1:23)
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall
conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14)
This Christmas week sees the annual nativity-bashing season upon us once
again. In London, Madame Tussauds displayed a nativity scene with David and
Victoria Beckham, a.k.a. Posh and Becks - the former Spice girl and famous
footballer, which was described as "tasteless" and verging on blasphemous by
some. After it was physically attacked by a member of the public the display
was withdrawn. Theological attack came in the form of an article in the
Sunday Telegraph (19 December 2004) by the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes
critiquing Matthew's version of the nativity as myth, fable and flawed.
Finally, Time Magazine (20 December 2004) ran its cover story on
"Secrets of The Nativity" and explored the various viewpoints surrounding
Jesus' birth. It included scholarly suggestions that the virgin birth was a
Graeco-Roman inspired divine-human liaison, or indeed a rape by a Roman
soldier, or that Matthew was working on a Greek mistranslation of Isaiah and
that the whole virgin birth is an interpretative mistake. So what are we to
think and does it matter?
The Catholic Church unlike the rest of Christendom believes in the perpetual
virginity of Mary and reinterprets Jesus' brothers (technically half-brothers,
I suppose) as cousins whilst Eastern Orthodoxy sees them as step-brothers from
Joseph's unrecorded prior marriage. Until recent more liberal times the
Protestant Church has always believed in the virgin conception of Christ, for
all births are miracles of life, it was the conception that was by divine
agent.
Did Jesus' sinless life require a virgin birth? Would a normal conception have
caused him to inherit original sin (but that's another topic!). Of course, a
normal conception would have made Jesus fully man and not divine at all. So
some kind of implantation of the God-man was necessary without the vulgarity
of Greek and Roman myths and their gods sleeping with humankind procreating
heroes and demigods, such as Mars, the Roman God of war, fathering the twins
Romulus and Remus by the Vestal Virgin Silvia; or the evil Nephilim of
Genesis 6:2 and their lusting after the daughters of men.
Even the Koran (Sura 21:91) confirms Mary's virginity but does not make
the leap that this confirms Jesus' deity, merely a direct creation perhaps,
like Adam.
Liberals and sceptics have noticed that in other religions a virgin birth
legend is not unique. Buddha was supposed to have been born of the virgin Maya
after a Spirit descended upon her; the Egyptian deity Horus was born of the
virgin Isis and as an infant was reputedly visited by three kings, not
dissimilar from Matthew's unnumbered Magi.
There is, however, a biblical pattern so we need not resort to pagan
similarities. Ishmael, Isaac, Moses, Samson and Samuel, all had significant
births or infancies vouchsafed by angelic announcements or miraculous
interventions. For Jesus to be the second Adam an element of divine
intervention in his creation would seem appropriate.
Justin Martyr, an early church writer of the 2nd Century, makes extensive use
of the virgin birth in his discussions with Trypho the Jew and in his first
Apology.F1 He sees it as
essential ammunition in his argument from the fulfilment of prophecy. This is
not unlike Matthew's own understanding of the importance of the virgin birth,
seeing it as an essential area in the fulfilment of Old Testament scripture
(Isaiah 7:14 with Matthew 1:23), which Christ came to do (Matthew 5:17; 11:13). Thus, given Matthew's and Justin
Martyr's interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, to deny the virgin birth would be to deny this
scripture had been fulfilled or ever had that intended meaning.
A further doctrinal importance of the virgin birth was in the area of the
mystery of God's will and His intervention in the history of mankind.
Ignatius, writing at the turn of the 1st Century, stresses Mary's virginity as
something "hidden from the prince of this world", "a mystery brought to pass
in the deep silence of God".F2
It all seems a part of his argument concerning the unfolding of God's plan to
destroy death and sin. Although Christ's death is the necessary mediating
sacrifice, which atones for our sin, Ignatius sees the virgin birth as an
essential part in God's chosen method for removing sin by His sinless Son.
At first sight, the New Testament evidence for the virgin birth
(parthenogenesis) seems scant, substantiated only by brief accounts in
the gospels of Matthew and Luke. However, the argument from silence can be
applied here, as by the very fact that later writers such as John and Paul do
not contest the virgin birth they, by implication, agree with it. The evidence
from the epistles is sparser still, though again its silence complies with the
evidence of Matthew and Luke. The virgin birth played little or no part in the
early church discussion about the nature of Christ and this could account for
its absence from New Testament doctrinal thought, it was simply not thought a
doctrinal matter, only an historical fact.
We encounter the first explicit evidence for the virgin birth on the first
page of the New Testament. Matthew 1:18-20 is the specific narrative and verses 22-23, the Old Testament prediction. Each of these
verses, even taken on their own, would imply some kind of miraculous, or
scandalous, birth. In verse 18 we have, "she was found with child of the Holy
Spirit", this is confirmed by the angel in verse 20, "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy
Spirit". On their own these phrases imply a supernatural birth of some type,
for example that of a barren mother – an almost commonplace Old Testament
miracle. But when coupled with the fact that all this happened, "before they
came together", it certainly is a polite way of asserting that no human
intercourse had yet taken place, thus placing the birth in the unique category
of virgin births. This is reaffirmed in verse 25 when it is stated that they refrained from "knowing
each other" until after the birth of Jesus.
We are given additional insight into this situation by Matthew's account of
Joseph's reaction (which doesn't appear in Luke) to Mary's pregnancy. In verse 19 he clearly intends to divorce Mary, privately,
before the customary two witnesses, even though he would have been justified
in bringing a public case against her for her apparent adultery (cf., Deuteronomy 22:13-21, 24:1). Betrothal was considered as
binding as marriage and unfaithfulness during it was therefore equivalent to
adultery. Seeing this as a real possibility being considered by Joseph, God
intervenes by sending an angel to reassure him concerning the nature of the
forthcoming virgin birth.
Matthew, being interested in the prophetic climax of the Old Testament in the
advent of Jesus as Messiah, sees in the virgin birth narrative the final
fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy to Ahaz (Isaiah 7:14). In using the Septuagint Greek translation of
the Old Testament he confirms that the Hebrew ‘almâh could/should be
interpreted, like parthenos, as "virgin". Arguments against this usage
of the word ‘almâh are irrelevant to our discussion, as the Jewish
Septuagint translators and Matthew clearly accepted it. (However, the
alternate word for virgin in Hebrew was once used of a married woman in Joel 1:8, whilst although ‘almâh might be used of a
young woman, it does not seem to be used of a married woman, and its first
occurrence in Genesis 24:16 specifically refers to a young woman whom no
one had "known" – see further my Hebrew Word Study on
‘almâh). Even if it were accepted as an unusual or incorrect
understanding of the word, Matthew's use of the prophecy could instead be seen
as typological, like much of his Old Testament usage.F3
There could be additional allusion to the virgin birth in Matthew 1:16 where it is said, "And Jacob begot Joseph the
husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born". This breaks with the traditional
formula and rather than saying, "Jacob begot Joseph, and Joseph begot Jesus by
Mary", introduces Joseph as merely the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was
born. The relative pronoun "of whom" in Greek is explicitly feminine and
genitive, referring only to Mary, not to both of them. It is possible that
Matthew had all this in mind as he was writing Jesus' genealogy. The reference
to Ahaz in 1:9, and his son, already makes the reader think of Isaiah 7:14. Also, the four womenF4 mentioned in the genealogy apart from Mary were
all renowned for the unusual or irregular circumstances surrounding their
unions. Thus the genealogy itself provides a background, if not evidence, for
the actual story of the virgin birth that follows it. Furthermore the very use
of a genealogy implies an attempt at historical rather than just prophetical
proof and Luke tried to be more historical still in his gospel.
Turning to Luke's account of Jesus' birth, we find confirmation of Matthew's
account. In Luke 1:27 Mary is introduced as a virgin and in verses 34-35 she is told that the Holy Spirit will come upon
her in order for her to conceive the child, since she was only betrothed and
not yet married and thus not in a position to "know" a man. According to early
versions of Luke 2:5, there is mention of Mary being only betrothed and
yet already with child, later versions say "wife", but this could also be used
to describe a betrothed woman.F5
Later, in Luke 3:23, at the beginning of the Lucan genealogy, we are
told that Jesus began his ministry, "being (as was supposed) the son of
Joseph". The parenthetical "supposed" implies that people thought Jesus to be
the son of Joseph, though others presumably knew different. This remark would
have been unnecessary unless Luke were trying to enforce his earlier reference
to the virgin birth by it.
In examining the separate narratives of Matthew and Luke it is worthwhile
reflecting on the amount of agreement between the two of them, despite their
differences in detail and language. In other words, they agree, but are not
copies of each other or of an independent source. Both of the virgin birth
narratives are integral parts of the gospel narratives surrounding them and
therefore cannot be later additions. The language in each case is typical of
the respective authors, unmistakeably Jewish-Palestinian in style and content,
and therefore not ground for any interpolation theories. Neither is there
reason to suggest these narratives arose out of pagan myths, since in the then
known Graeco-Jewish world there were few concerning virgin births and the
reading of Graeco-Roman myths would have been discouraged within Judaism.
Mark's gospel does not mention the virgin birth, but then we would not have
expected to find it there. His gospel launches straight into the miraculous
ministry of Jesus without mention of his early years. To argue against the
virgin birth from his silence would be as nonsensical as denying other events
mentioned in Matthew and Luke, yet omitted from Mark. In the pre-ministry
years of Jesus a typical Harmony of the gospels mentions 17 separate events
which are covered by Matthew and Luke but not by Mark (nor John and Paul), and
during his Galilean ministry a further 4, yet there is no heated debate over
their historicity. It is the very supernatural nature of the virgin birth that
critics cannot accept and it is this that leads them to cast aspersions as to
the reliability of the evidence of just two gospel narratives. There is,
however, a possibility that the strange circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth
are alluded to in Mark 6:3, where the Jews exclaim he is the son of Mary,
rather than calling him son of Joseph. Jewish tradition elsewhere refers to
men by their fathers, even if their father was dead, thus we could have here
an insinuation concerning his birth, and similarly Mark may then have been
acquainted with the virgin birth tradition.
Again, in John's gospel, there is no direct mention of the virgin birth, but
then his gospel makes only theological reflections concerning Jesus' nature
and origins (cf., his Prologue), and like Mark then propels us directly into
the time of his ministry. Some commentators, however, see an accusatory aside
in John 8:41 as to the nature of Jesus' birth, where, the Jews
respond to Jesus' remarks with the defiant statement that "we were not born of
fornication". It is said that this may be a veiled insult concerning the
nature of Jesus' own birth, as in Mark 6:3, above. If so, this may mean that John was
similarly aware of rumours concerning Jesus' birth.
Thus, there is evidence enough with at least two of the four gospels that the
virgin birth was taken as fact not fable by early believers. Did they not also
have the testimony of Mary herself who would have refuted any myths made by
Matthew? The virgin birth is significant but being somewhat hidden from us we
can certainly defend it but as St Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 it is the other end of Jesus' life
that gives us life, not just the crucifixion but specifically faith in the
resurrection. But if the same God can raise someone from the dead can he not
also bring about a virgin birth?
FOOTNOTES:
F1:
Justin Martyr, First Apology, chap.21,31,33; Dial.w.Trypho,
chap.43,66,71,77-78
F2:
Ignatius: Ephesians, 19.1
F3:
e.g., Matthew sees typological fulfilment in 2:15 with Hosea 11:1; 2:17-18
with Jeremiah 31:15
F4:
Tamar (Genesis 38), Rahab (Joshua 2), Ruth (Ruth 1-4), The wife of Uriah i.e.,
Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12)
F5:
Deuteronomy 22:24 with 22:23, describes a “betrothed virgin” as a
“neighbour's wife”
Copyright Statement:
'Difficult Sayings' Copyright 2002-2009 © Jonathan Went. 'Difficult Sayings' articles may be reproduced in whole under the following provisions: 1) A proper credit must be given to the author at the end of each story, along with a link to http://www.studylight.org/col/ds/ 2) 'Difficult Sayings' content may not be arranged or "mirrored" as a competitive online service. |
Enter the Archives
Printer friendly version
Send to a Friend
Discuss this column
HOME
TOP