I’ve been having an ongoing email debate with one of my good Jewish friends who I worked with at the Jewish Community Center in New York for two years during my undergraduate work. He has been kicking around the idea of Christianity, but still has many doubts. He is brilliant and went to Jewish grade school and continued to study with his rebbe throughout high school. We have gone back and forth for the past few emails discussing the significance of the virgin birth.
The virgin birth has been one of the fundamentals of Christianity since the Apostle’s Creed (circa 2nd century CE). This is important to Christianity because of the doctrinal implications of Christ being born of a man, i.e. that original sin would be passed to him from the father. Not only this, but we are told in the NT that Christ was born of a virgin, therefore if we claim to believe the Bible then we must believe what it says, even if we can’t understand it.
These are some of the reasons that I told my friend concerning why I believe in the virgin birth. His replies were both witty and thought provoking. He replied with a few excellent points:
—Only two NT authors refer to the virgin birth. Paul, the greatest theologian in the NT, does not make any mention of it. This is significant not only because Paul is where the doctrine of original sin is most developed, but also because Paul is the earliest of the NT writers. If the virgin birth was that important, then wouldn’t he have at least made mention of it somewhere?
—Mark is the earliest Gospel writer and makes no mention of the virgin birth. This means that it was not until Matthew and Luke were written that the virgin birth became an important enough Christian doctrine to actually include in the corpus of inspired writings.
—After Matthew and Luke write about the virgin birth, there is no mention of it in the rest of Scripture. No other NT author thought it important enough to include in his work. Not even John, who is completely preoccupied with proving the divinity of Christ, uses the virgin birth, which is something that he could have cashed in on and made his argument much stronger by using.
—So if the virgin birth only shows up in Christian Scripture some 40-50 years after Christ dies after Paul had already written a majority of his works where me makes no mention of the virgin birth, and if no other NT author deems it important enough to include in his work, then why does Christianity make such a big deal about it? Why does it make something “essential” to being a Christian when no one can even prove that 7 out of the 9 authors of the NT (depending on your view of that pastorals, 2 Peter, and Revelation) believed that it was true? It can at least be proven that 7 out of 9 NT authors did not see it as something central to their belief systems…and 2 of those 7 actually set out to write a narrative about the life of Christ!!
How would you answer those objections? Any help would be much appreciated.
18 October 2007 at 10.09 pm
I have a clarification for you, did you affirm that the Virgin Birth was significant for Christian theology based on the doctrine of original sin and that sin being passed on through the father or are simply saying that was one of the reasons given in the Patristics around the time of the Apostle’s Creed? I am just curious because I wouldn’t take you as a guy who would view the Virgin Birth as being theologically necessary.
I don’t think that the virgin birth is necessary for Christ to be born without a sinful human nature. I have certainly heard that argued before but not recently. So I would agree with your friend on that one.
I think Scripturally, he also has a good point as far as emphasizing the doctrine as a necessity is concerned. It does seem that the NT didn’t put too much emphasis on it. BUT I think what you say about Scripture is also valid. Denying the virgin birth altogether probably betrays some other underlying bigger issue with Scripture and possibly an anti-supernaturalism, which could be problematic. I think there is a huge difference between emphasizing a reality and acknowledging that a reality exists. Does that make sense?
18 October 2007 at 10.43 pm
Was just hearing a lecture about this at church. Technically speaking, why would eliminating the male half of the reproduction system eliminate the sin nature? This cannot be a scientific device, since it would imply either that one gender is not inherently sinful and the other one is (which falls apart at the chromosomal level, since all people are partly male and partly female), or that the sin nature resides specifically in sperm. If “sin nature” is passed on genetically, then Jesus should not have escaped it by being born of “only” a woman. In which case, perhaps it is a rhetorical device instead, to emphasize Jesus’ humanity and non-humanity at the same time? The idea is that he had a mother like the rest of us, but he did not have a father like the rest of us – and father, as we know, carries a lot more weight in concept than it does as strict biological description (i.e. use of the term in the OT, or, for that matter, in the first half of Matthew chapter 1). Could this be to show that he did not have the same history as us, rather than to say that he did not have an XY contributor to his makeup? After all, many cultures outside Judaism had virgin birth stories for their demigod heroes, and such a concept is more fitting outside Judaism than in it. Were Matthew and Luke trying to give us a historical piece of info, or a rhetorical piece of info? (cf. Genesis 1-2)
One other note: are we bound to read Paul as calling for original sin? In my reading, Judaism bases your sinfulness on actions, rather than essential being. Can we just as validly read it that Jesus was non-sinful, not because he avoided a human father, but because he didn’t sin? Does Paul so irrefutably teach that we are, by nature, condemned from birth, or is that Augustine?
I see this as semi-similar to the questions in Genesis: that a literal reading is traditional, but a different reading is plausible, and may fit the pieces better, if we’re willing to take a stab at reorganizing the system of thought we’ve built on it.
19 October 2007 at 7.16 am
Art,
You and your friend are asking great questions. Next week, our small group will finish going through Driscoll’s “Vintage Jesus” series. Last week was the “Why did Jesus’ Mom have to be a virgin?” While the whole discussion evolved around Biblical support and the difficulties around supporting such an idea, we had an extremely difficult time answer “Why does it matter?”
1. (I’m thinking of Romans 5) While Paul makes it clear that Adam sinned and therefore sinned to all men (for all have sinned), I don’t think that means that having a daddy makes someone sinful. I really struggled with this idea for a while. If Scientists were able to put two eggs together and form human life, would she be sinless? FYI, it’s more than possible in other species. I grew up hearing that argument, but I don’t think it stands up to questioning.
2. The virgin birth and the divinity of Christ are two completely different things. They are mutually exclusive. One does not imply the other. Ask a JW.
3. I can understand a Jew’s perspective on the Virgin birth. Is. 7 and 9 are not made clear to reference the Messiah until Matt 1 and Luke 1. Matthew and Luke are both very insistent on the virginity of Mary until Jesus’ birth.
4. Gen. 3:15 implies (hints at) the virgin birth.
5. I still can’t answer what difference it makes. I can only assume that in Is. 7 God is trying to communicate that you can’t miss the Messiah. He’s going to be obvious. His mom will be a virgin.
So, I wouldn’t get too hung up on the virgin birth. I think it is important because that is what the Bible (NT clearly) teaches. I wouldn’t drive it as a conversion factor.
19 October 2007 at 10.27 am
Jared:“did you affirm that the Virgin Birth was significant for Christian theology based on the doctrine of original sin and that sin being passed on through the father or are simply saying that was one of the reasons given in the Patristics around the time of the Apostle’s Creed?”
Definitely the latter. My friend was the one who brought up the virgin birth because he had questions about it. It wasn’t even going to be something that I was going to talk about.
Jen: I don’t think that genetics have much to do with it. Reformed theology understands sin as passing through the male because of the “federal headship” of Adam. On original sin, there are many parts of the psalter and of Qoheleth that speak of the concept of original sin which Paul more fully develops. I don’t really think original sin is a question in Paul, especially in Romans 5.12-21.
Chad: Thanks for those comments. I’m not trying to get hung up on the virgin birth…I wouldn’t have even brought it up but my friend is the one who started asking about it. I just want to make sure that I’m giving him either good answers or at least good comments to think about. Hopefully our conversation will move onto something else soon!!
19 October 2007 at 2.33 pm
you site works on the iPhone
19 October 2007 at 10.42 pm
Jared: I re-read your comment and have to say that this was a great line:
“I think there is a huge difference between emphasizing a reality and acknowledging that a reality exists.”
That makes perfect sense and is exactly what I was thinking. Couldn’t have said it better.
16 January 2008 at 12.44 pm
The readers of this post need to do some serious reading on historical theology to see the importance of rejecting the Virgin Birth (see the liberal controviersies of the early 1900’s) It isn’t suprising to me that this is being down-played as being significant/vital, for the trajectory of begiinning of this century seems to mirror that of the beginning of the last. I am hard pressed to think of a great theologian of the past who does not view the virgin birth as being essential and vital to our faith. It seems it has been “emphasized” in every age by God’s people, and I trust that will continue in spite of what it said above. By the way, the issue is “virgin conception”.
Would I make this a major point in sharing the gospel? NO, but I would in discipleship. Question: How many times does God have to teach something in the Bible for it to be important? Art correctly points out above that the passing of the sin nature is not a matter of genetics, but of headship. Does Paul say anything at all that would make it seem that he would reject the virgin birth? If you read his material throught the lens that he accepted it, then it makes Phil. 2, Col. 1, Rom. 5 and many other passages make sense. Before we say a teaching dosen’t seem to be vital, we MUST check all the implications of that teaching, which in this case are profound, which are pointed out in Machems masterpiece “The Virgin Birth”.
31 January 2008 at 11.41 am
The way I see it is that for Jesus to have both a Human and a Divine nature makes the virgin birth necessary. As the Creed says “He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary”. Jesus takes his Human nature from Mary and his Divine nature is the result of his being conceived by the Spirit rather than by the normal means.