Virgin Birth? Really?
Isaiah 7:10-16
People often feel a need to tell me why they don’t come to
church. The most frequent excuse is that they just can’t manage Sunday
mornings. The second most frequent is that they don’t believe in the virgin
birth. Personally I have no more difficulty believing in the virgin birth than
in believing that Jesus walked on water but for some reason it is a stumbling
block to many people who live around here.
The gospel of Mark, the earliest of the four, doesn’t even
mention Jesus’ birth – that’s not important to Mark who jumps straight into
Jesus’ ministry. Luke and Matthew, which were both written later, give us
extensive birth narratives designed to demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ,
the Messiah. There are many prophecies in the Old Testament that they were keen
should be seen to be applied to Jesus. That’s why Luke has Joseph and Mary
trudging to Bethlehem for an
imagined census – because Jesus is clearly from Nazareth
but the Messiah must be in the line of David and from Bethlehem .
In this morning’s reading from Matthew, a prophecy which may
have been intended just for King Ahaz who reigned in the 8th century
BCE is used to show that Jesus must be the
Messiah because he was born of a virgin. We heard it in the first reading. The
Hebrew uses a word which can mean virgin but also just means young woman. Another,
more specific, word for virgin was not used. Young woman makes more sense in
the context of Ahaz who is being told that the two countries he is currently afraid
of will soon no longer exist. So we could paraphrase the prophecy as “That
young pregnant woman will have a son and before he’s old enough to know the
difference between right and wrong he’ll be eating the rich milk of grazing
cows.”
Some scholars think that the writer of Matthew made a mistake
based on a poor translation. When the Hebrew scriptures were first translated
into Greek, “young woman” was rendered as parthenos
- “the virgin”. So when Matthew was scanning the scriptures looking for
prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, he stumbled on this one and incorporated it
into his story. However, this idea has been dispute for nineteen centuries. In the
second century Irenaeus argued that the Greek translators knew exactly what
they were doing when they chose to use the word parthenos - the technical
term for virgin, rather than choosing a more general word.
After nineteen centuries this isn’t an argument that will be
resolved anytime soon. So you can decide for yourself – a true prophecy about a
miraculous virgin birth or a misunderstanding based on a poor translation.
Translations aside, there were good reasons for declaring
Jesus’ birth to be a miracle. The early church was operating within the Roman
Empire where every important leader was declared to have had some
kind of miraculous birth. According
to the historian Suetonius, the birth of Caesar Augustus was divine. His mother
Atia fell asleep in the Temple of Apollo and Apollo impregnated her - making
Augustus a divine son of God. So, Caesar Augustus was called the Son of God,
Lord of Lords, Prince of Peace, Savior of the world. Sound familiar?[1]
In this cultural
climate, the early church may have felt that Jesus needed to be elevated from
just a Palestinian peasant who happened to be God to a clearly august person
who happened to be a peasant. According to Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan,
if Jesus was going to compete with Caesar, he was going to need an
"upgrade" - and virgin birth was the most convenient route. So the
church developed stories about his birth and tied them in to ancient texts
which were immortalized in the stories of Luke and Matthew, and as a result we
celebrate the ox and the ass and the drummer boy – all myths that we have more
recently attached to Jesus’ birth.
Early theologians
grappling with the question of what Jesus was all about, found the virgin birth very important, because
if Jesus was conceived through the
overshadowing of the Holy Spirit then he was truly God and human – both/and.
This became extremely important in the debates of the first few centuries as the
church sought to understand how Jesus’ life, death and resurrection brought
salvation. If we throw out the virgin birth then we are left with a serious
question, how did God get into Jesus? Was he the Son of God when he was born,
and if so how? or did God adopt him later – perhaps at his baptism? Or maybe he
wasn’t God, anymore than you and I are God.
These were not
just academic arguments but issues of life and death because Christianity was
the first religion to be based on faith rather than ritual. If we define faith
as the ideas we believe then it’s really important that we get it right. If
Jesus is not God as well as human than how can he have a unique mediating role
between God and human? The idea of God incarnating, becoming flesh, in Jesus is
foundational to our understanding. If God didn’t get into Jesus at the time of
conception, when did he? When did God incarnate?
Thus for the
early church it became very important to believe that, as both Matthew and Luke
testify, Jesus was born of a virgin. Which is why we have it in our creeds.
They were written to resolve the major issues of the day, and one of those was
whether Jesus was both fully God and fully human. The virgin birth takes care
of that.
Does it really
matter? Is it important for us today to believe that Mary was a virgin? I don’t
think so. It doesn’t make any difference to the presence of God in our lives. It
doesn’t make any difference to our co-creating the reign of God through the
power of the Holy Spirit. So if you have been crossing your fingers behind your
back every time we say the Nicene Creed and mention the virgin birth, you can
relax.
But I do think
it’s important that we study scripture and grapple with these questions. Because
it is as we use our God given minds to question and to debate, then the Holy
Spirit fills and inspires them. To decide that you don’t believe in the virgin
birth or in any other theological idea without exploring what it means and why
Christians have thought it important is just the same as accepting everything
on blind faith. We are formed into mature Christians as we allow the Holy
Spirit to transform our minds as well as our hearts.
Before I close, I
want to raise a very important question. What does it do for us if we imagine
Mary to have been a sweet gentle naïve virgin who just allowed God to have his
way with her, and always said yes?
I think it does
us a serious disservice. We have very few models of women in holy scriptures
and most of them are only quickly mentioned. If the one archetype of femininity
that we have is portrayed as a submissive rose petal, then it allows us to
perpetuate the idea that women should be submissive to men and submissive to
their lot in life and submissive to crap, because it is obviously God’s will.
There is another
way of looking at virginity as metaphor. We can see the virgin as one who is
complete in herself, who retains her own authority and does not give her power
or herself away unless and until she chooses. This virgin is an equal with the
men in her life and fights for the things that she and her loved ones need to
survive and flourish.
So, let us
replace those mental images of a timid virgin wrapped in blue and smiling
sweetly with the picture of a feisty young woman who had the guts to argue with
an angel, who agreed to be the mother of God with all the grief that that would
surely bring and who was deeply loved by her fiancé, Joseph; so deeply loved
that he risked social disgrace and, trusting in a dream, went ahead and married
her. Mary was no shrinking violet but a powerful young woman and a force to be
reckoned with.
Was she
physically a virgin? Was Jesus God? Did God incarnate?
Luke says later,
“Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart.” Let us follow her
example and ponder in our hearts the true meaning of Jesus’ birth even in these
last few busy days before Christmas.
3 Comments:
This is a very thought provoking. Is there a similar analysis about the evolution in the interpretation of Jesus' resurrection. Inquiring minds wish to know. Thanks.
By Hope-Full, at 12:45 PM
This is a very thought provoking. Is there a similar analysis about the evolution in the interpretation of Jesus' resurrection. Inquiring minds wish to know. Thanks.
By Hope-Full, at 12:45 PM
To some extent; Mark's gospel does not include a resurrection. Matthew and Luke both have quite different takes on it. Some argue that the post-resurrection stories were later myths.
By Caroline Hall, at 10:38 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home