There has been quite a conversation about the virgin birth on my post comparing the virgin birth of Laozi and I thought it was time to take it to a new post. I would like to address some of the major concerns people have.
1) Isaiah uses the word almah which means young woman and not virgin and therefore Matthew is making a mistake using the translation virgin. What must be realized is that there is room for interpretation for any Hebrew word and virgin is well within the range of possibility of meaning for almah. It is not like having a word for truck and then saying it also means accordian. Young women would be expected to be virgins. Certainly the translators of the Septuagint thought parthenos (virgin) was an appropriate translation of almah. Something also to keep in mind is that if Isaiah spoke of a young woman, then Matthew would not feel constrained to say that Jesus was born of virgin unless there was some tradition that Jesus was actually conceived that way. There was not a strong Jewish expectation of a virgin born messiah that the writers had to somehow force into the story.
2) The rest of the New Testament knows nothing of the virgin birth. That is an argument from silence. This must be understood in the context of the New Testament’s general silence on the details of the life of Jesus. It is an exageration to claim that Paul speaks nothing of the historical Jesus but it is not his area of emphasis, nor is it for the rest of the writers of the New Testament. If we use this method of interpretation, we could also say that Jesus’ mother was not Mary, that Jesus never was in Galilee, that he never cleansed the temple and was never betrayed by Judas. Paul’s silence on the virgin birth simply means it was not central to his theology and that it was not applicable to the situations he was writing about.
3) Matthew and Luke do not actually speak of a virgin birth. It is true that miraculous births, especially those of barren women are common in the Bible. But notice how many times Mary is called a virgin in Luke 1 (vv. 27, 34). It has been pointed out that the Holy Spirit comes upon people for numerous reasons in the Bible and that this does not require a virgin birth. But how else do we explain what the Holy Spirit is doing in v. 35? There is no suggestion that Mary is barren and in fact the only obstacle presented is that she is a virgin. Why else would she need the Holy Spirit’s help? Matthew 1 is even clearer. Joseph is concerned as his betrothed is pregnant and he is not the father. Joseph is prepared to divorce Mary. The facts we have in Matthew are that the child is not Joseph’s and yet Mary is righteous and chosen by God. How do we reconcile this? The angel reveals in v. 20 that the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit. That is a virgin birth (more properly a virgin conception)! The only other possible explanation is that the Holy Spirit led Mary to an alternate lover while she was engaged to Joseph. That hardly fits the context or the general portrayal of Mary (muchless the Spirit!).
I have no problem with people struggling with the virgin birth. I understand that it is difficult to imagine. But what is very clear is that Matthew and Luke strongly believed that Jesus was conceived while Mary was still a virgin.
If you are interested in this topic, the conversation continues at:
http://1peter315.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/who-is-the-father-of-jesus-christ/
and
http://1peter315.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/laozi-jesus-and-the-virgin-birth/
23 responses so far ↓
T Crosthwaite // September 6, 2009 at 10:34 pm |
Permit me to offer in summary fashion the biblical context for the view that the NT speaks only of God’s anointed as a normal man conceived in the normal way.
From the outset Moses foresaw God’s anointed as a normal man: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren.” Acts quotes this text twice. (Deut 18:15, Acts 3:22, 7:37)
John the Baptist, whose birth is described in a parallel account to that of Jesus in Lk 1, also saw God’s anointed as a normal man conceived in the normal way. John’s disciples were among the first group who identified Jesus as the person Moses spoke about, and they believed he was the son of Joseph: “We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote — Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” (Jn 1:35-49)
Jesus never said anything about his birth and no one was aware of a virgin birth claim while he was alive. Had there been a whiff of such a claim, Jesus’ opponents would have surely thrown the claim in his face. They did not.
In Acts and the apostles’ letters there is not one instance of the apostles ever mentioning the alleged virgin birth. (However, there are many statements in the NT that sit oddly with the trinitarian, virgin-born “Jesus Christ” of church doctrine.)
Supposedly the virgin birth is recorded in two of the gospels written some considerable time after the Jesus’ death. For the present I simply assert that interpretations given to the few texts quoted in support of the virgin birth story run into problems at every turn.
With the passing of Jesus’ original followers, the proselytising journeys of Paul, and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, custody of the NT writings soon fell into the hands of the Greeks (the peoples in the eastern, Greek half of the Roman Empire). This transition of custody was as swift as the change from Jews who dominate the NT to those of pagan origin that dominate the post-NT period.
Interestingly, both Paul and John point to corruption of the message in that part of the Empire already occurring in their time.
It is a fact of history that church doctrine derives from the interpretation of the Bible by Church Fathers who early on were predominantly of Greek culture.
I think the question about virgin birth centres on whether we read the NT through the eyes of its writers or through the eyes of the early Greek interpreters of the NT.
The NT gives a vivid example of the difference between Jewish and Greek concepts of divinity. (Acts 14:11-12, compare Mt 9:6-8)
It is worth looking at the nature of the great theological controversies of the early centuries and what they say about its proponents. Some of us have wondered what the matters that so engaged the adversaries of that period have to do with the Sermon on the Mount, the story of the Good Samaritan, or the declaration that ‘Greater love hath no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.’
Stephen Bedard // September 11, 2009 at 9:51 pm |
You have a lot to say but I will only respond briefly. Does the Bible speak of a human or a divine messiah? I would say that is not a question that the Old Testament writers really worried about. There certainly was a lot of human characteristics related to the messiah, such as being a prophet as you mention. But Jesus also identifies himself with the Son of Man from Daniel 7, which seems to be some sort of divine figure.
Acts and Paul do not speak of the virgin birth, but they do not speak of much from Jesus’ earthly life. It should not surprise us that they are silent about the virgin birth when they are silent about just about every event as well. One thing we should consider, what does John (in John 1) or Paul’s teaching of the pre-existence of Jesus have to say about the virgin birth?
You say that the virgin birth was a later Greek addition. What is interesting is that Matthew may be the clearest teaching that we have on the virgin birth and yet it is one of the most Jewish books of the New Testament.
Leslie Kelly // September 12, 2009 at 10:37 am |
There you go again Stephen, presupposing the very matter which is under contention. It is the classic modus operandi of a conditioned thinking.
You have been referred to Jerome (On Illustrious Men) who assures us that whenever Matthew quoted OT Scripture, he invariably quoted from the HEBREW and not the LXX.
You have not answered the question if it was a virgin birth that Luke was recording in his Gospel, then why his deafening silence on the subject in Acts which he also wrote as Paul’s scribe???
My apology for making a lengthy VB post on your other blog. Nevertheless I stand by the content of what I said.
I think you understand that have absolutely no quarrel with the Bible. I simply make the same accusation of Christendom that Jesus made of the Temple Establishment – they are “blind guides” who got God’s message terribly wrong.
Les Kelly, Tasmania.
Stephen Bedard // September 12, 2009 at 11:27 am |
Whether or not Jerome thought Matthew quoted the Hebrew OT (he was likely following the tradition that Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew), what matters is what Matthew actually did and he likely used the LXX as well as the MT.
As for Luke, he was silent on the virgin birth in Acts for the same reason he was silent on every other area of Jesus’ earthly ministry and life, it was not the purpose of Acts. Acts was written to record the spread of the early church, not to repeat the life of Jesus as already recorded.
Les Kelly // September 14, 2009 at 12:22 am |
Stephen you say:
Whether or not Jerome thought Matthew quoted the Hebrew OT (he was likely following the tradition that Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew), what matters is what Matthew actually did and he likely used the LXX as well as the MT.
LesK comments:
Words such as “he was likely following the tradition” don’t impart a great sense of precision or persuasion. After spending many years of following the trails of Roman Catholic “traditions” the word begins to take on the meaning of “bereft of historical evidence.”
Quoting Jerome “Of Illustrious Men”:
“Matthew, also called Levi, apostle afore times publican composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was after wards translated into Greek, though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew.”
Jerome does not mince his words and is very specific indeed.
He said that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew for the sake of the Jews.
It is UNKNOWN who translated it into Greek.
Edward Gibbon in his monumental work “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” makes similar comments and also levels accusations of lack of either diligence or integrity against the early Church Fathers in allowing copies of Matthew’s gospel in Hebrew to be lost.
So Stephen, do you have substantial historical evidence to argue that Mathew “likely used the LXX as well as the MT” or are you expressing some forlorn hope???
All justifications for use of “virgin” in Matt 1:23 (and Isa 7:14) ultimately rest upon the LXX.
Why would Matthew writing a gospel of very Jewish disposition use the LXX, which was known to be an unreliable translation made in EGYPT some 500 years after Isaiah’s death.???
Jerome SPECIFICALLY excludes the LXX as a reference work by Matthew.
Note also that three 2nd century translators Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion undertook new translations of the OT from Hebrew into Greek specifically to rectify commonly known LXX mistranslations and to displace its use in the synagogues which was unpopular.
(see Encyclopaedia Britannica “Septuagint”).
So much for any perceived LXX integrity.
StephenB continues:
As for Luke, he was silent on the virgin birth in Acts for the same reason he was silent on every other area of Jesus’ earthly ministry and life, it was not the purpose of Acts. Acts was written to record the spread of the early church, not to repeat the life of Jesus as already recorded.
LesK responds:
Stephen, the WHOLE REASON for the disciples bringing the NT into existence was to demonstrate on the basis of OT criteria that Jesus of Nazareth whom the Temple religious Establishment had judicially murdered was in fact God’s anointed delegate to the world. To this end the disciples produced a magnificent DOCUMENTED account in which they neither shilly shallied nor minced their words. The NT has no problems standing on its own feet.
Today, the doctrine of Virgin Birth is the one fundamental doctrine that UNITES all the disparate sects and denominations of Christendom. It is their one fundamental doctrine on which they are united that sets Jesus of Nazareth APART from humanity. And you suggest that the disciples just forgot to mention it – even in passing???
The doctrine of Virgin Birth CAN NOT be dismissed offhandedly as just an “other area of Jesus’ earthly ministry and life ” which the NT just happened to overlook.
Any attempt to do imparts a sense of evasiveness.
Within institutional Christendom today, to either deny or doubt the doctrine of Virgin Birth can – and still does, – give reason to be excommunicated or disfelowshiped from Christian churches. I personally have a handfull of friends who have been so dealt with here in Australia.
You have previously acknowledged that either we profess Luke chapter 1 was recording a virgin birth for Jesus, or the alternative is that Mary had a relationship with another man.
I suggest that Luke was making delicate comment on a subject that in another person’s mouth could have been an indelicate subject. (Let he who has an ear to hear take note.) Matthew and Luke recorded that Jesus’ physical father was a man other than the man whom Mary married. The churches have simply failed to understand what it was that the disciples recorded.
With the death and departure of Jesus from Palestine, the disciples in their passion to spread his Gospel had every reason to pull out every stop they could. They approached their task of evangelism with gusto. by which they articulated the doctrine of crucifixion / resurrection most cogently. The disciples in teaching the principle of crucifixion / resurrection gave the world the pivital psychology of mankind’s reconciliation with God.
The disciples didn’t associate virgin birth with Jesus of Nazareth for the one very good reason – it had NOTHING to do with their Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth.
Not only is Virgin Birth the Achilles Heel of doctrinal Christendom, it also has profound ramifications for the Koran too – but I’ll leave that alone here.
As Jesus promised the world, “The Truth shall make you free.”
Subsequent to Paul’s evangelism through Asia Minor and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the infant church was dispersed and the Hebrew oriented Scriptures fell under the control of people with pagan Greek perceptions.
These people of Greek intellectual perception proceeded to clothe the Jewish oriented Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth in cloth made of invisible pagan thread.
Les Kelly, Tasmania.
= = = = = = = = = =
Les Kelly // September 14, 2009 at 12:56 am |
This clothing of the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth with “invisible” pagan thread is truly the pinnacle of satanic subtlety.
Les Kelly, Tasmania.
Stephen Bedard // September 24, 2009 at 9:03 am |
If you are interested in this topic, the conversation continues at:
http://1peter315.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/who-is-the-father-of-jesus-christ/
and
http://1peter315.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/laozi-jesus-and-the-virgin-birth/
Stephen Bedard // September 24, 2009 at 10:23 am |
The issue is not Jerome’s view of the OT but Matthew’s. If you look at scholarship on Matthew, it seems that Matthew uses a mixed text that includes his own translation of the Hebrew. And when Matthew quotes from Mark (which he does frequently), it is the LXX which is included. As for the LXX, it was highly respected and frequently used within Judaism. It was the adoption of the LXX by the Christian church which led the Jews to abandon the LXX. What is interesting is that the LXX is found at Qumran and even some of the Hebrew texts follow the LXX rather than the traditional Masoretic text.
Stephen Bedard // September 24, 2009 at 2:29 pm |
Regarding the disciples just forgetting to mention the virgin birth as a suggestion that they did not know it or did not believe it, there is a problem with your reasoning. Read through Paul’s letters. Find a reference to Mary, or to his miracles, or to his parables or to his home town. Paul is silent on most biographical points of Jesus’ history. To use your reasoning, Paul did not believe in any of these things.
Les Kelly // September 28, 2009 at 3:23 am |
StephenB on Sept 29th said:
“Regarding the disciples just forgetting to mention the virgin birth as a suggestion that they did not know it or did not believe it, there is a problem with your reasoning. Read through Paul’s letters. Find a reference to Mary, or to his miracles, or to his parables or to his home town. Paul is silent on most biographical points of Jesus’ history. To use your reasoning, Paul did not believe in any of these things.”
LesK replies:
Come on Stephen, Now you are indulging in sophistry.
Neither did Paul record how often Jesus scratched himself, or whether the moon was really made of green cheese. But that isn’t the basis to draw conclusions upon.
However I repeat my previous point –
The doctrine of Virgin Birth is the one substantial fundamental doctrine that UNITES all the disparate sects and denominations of Christendom. It is their one fundamental doctrine on which they are totally united that sets Jesus of Nazareth APART from humanity. The doctrine of Virgin Birth can’t be dismissed offhandedly as “another area of Jesus’ earthly ministry and life ” which the NT evangelists just happened to overlook.
Within institutional Christendom today, to either deny or doubt the doctrine of Virgin Birth can – and still does, – give reason to be excommunicated or disfelowshiped from Christian churches. I have a have a handfull of personal friends who have been so dealt with here in Australia.
Stephen, Does your church permit denial of the doctrine of virgin birth and still allow one to practice within its ministry???
Indeed not many churches are so liberal.
If the doctrine of virgin birth is a myth, then some very profound ramifications surely follow for both the Churches and the Koran.
The disciples in their passion to spread the Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth had every reason to pull out every stop they could. If the doctrine of virgin birth was as integral to their theology as it is to the churches’ theology today, then surely they would have mentioned it. They articulated the doctrine of crucifixion / resurrection most cogently and demonstrated how it is the pivitol psychology in mankind’s reconciliation with God. On the other hand, Holy Trinity and Virgin Birth just don’t get a mention in the disciples’ evangelism.
On the other hand it is absolutely demonstrable that the earliest recorded documents we have explicitly speaking of Jesus being born of a virgin are the letters of Ignatius of Antioch circa 110AD. And his letters read like a Greek melodrama.
On reflection some of my previous posts may seem a bit strong. Never was anything meant to be personal – it simply indicates the intensity of my feelings in telling it as I see it.
Finally Stephen, Are you running one or two threads on the subject of “virgin birth???
Les Kelly Tasmania.
= = = = = = = = = =
stock // September 28, 2009 at 5:56 am |
S.B.
Are you REALLY interested in what the bible says, are you more concerned with confirming your own beliefs?
Stephen Bedard // September 28, 2009 at 9:00 am |
Stock:
Yes I am very interested in what the Bible has to say. Whether or not you believe in the virgin birth, it is difficult to argue against the fact that Matthew and Luke believed in it and recorded it.
Les:
Surely you are not comparing Jesus scratching himself or the moon made of green cheese with Jesus’ miracles and parables! Whether or not you want to admit it or not, Paul is not that interested in Jesus’ earthly life. He shares enough to let us know that he is aware but it rarely appears in his writings and major events are missing.
As for the virgin birth being the decisive belief in Christianity, I would disagree. I rarely preach on the virgin birth. It is important but the deity of Christ, the atoning price on the cross and the resurrection are all much more important than the virgin birth.
Les Kelly // September 30, 2009 at 8:17 am |
StephenB, Re your last comment:
“As for the virgin birth being the decisive belief in Christianity, I would disagree. I rarely preach on the virgin birth. It is important but the deity of Christ, the atoning price on the cross and the resurrection are all much more important than the virgin birth.”
You rarely preach on the virgin birth??? Really???
Would you mind giving a clear answer to the following:
Does your church allow a person to continue in its ministry if they reach a point where they can no longer profess belief that Jesus of Nazareth was truly born of virgin birth / conception???
What are the ramifications for Christian doctrines if Jesus was born of a normal mother / father conception???
I make a comment:
In 1962 a doctoral theologian from a leading ministry college here in Australia answered me by letter:
“Theologically the doctrine of Virgin Birth is an absolute necessity for the following reasons ….
…. (5) Then by his claims in these fields he (Jesus) could only be a wanton deceiver or a deluded person, ie a either a moral or mental weakling. ….”
Naturally his supposition that Matthew and Luke recorded virgin birth (like yours) also underpinned other presuppositions – such as incarnation, trinity, God would not be satisfied with a mere human as a sacrifice etc etc etc.
Les Kelly. Tasmania.
Stephen Bedard // September 30, 2009 at 8:52 am |
If someone came to me and said that they no longer believed in the virgin birth, I would want to dig deeper. I would want to know if they thought that Jesus was simply a human teacher. I would also want to know how they would fit John and Paul’s teaching of the pre-existence of Christ into a traditional conception.
Les Kelly // September 30, 2009 at 9:12 am |
Stephen if you not wish to give a clear and unequivocal answer to my question then Okay.
But I ask:
Does your church allow a person to continue in its ministry if they reach a point where they can no longer profess belief that Jesus of Nazareth was truly born of virgin birth / conception???
I’m not trying to be smart – My files are full of ministers who like some of my friends were excommunicated for their disbelief.
And yes I can understand that intense counselling would precede excommunication.
I reaffirm my point that the doctrine of virgin birth in Trinitarian churches is the fundamental doctrine that underpins all others relating to Jesus of Nazareth’s divinity.
Les Kelly, Tasmania.
Stephen Bedard // September 30, 2009 at 9:22 am |
I am not trying to avoid the question. First of all, this has never happened, so we have not discussed it. Excommunication would not be an option for us as people are free to attend, whatever their beliefs. Regarding their involvement in ministry, I might not let them preach (especially on the non-virgin birth!) but there are other options. My response was how I really would react. I would be more interested in who they thought Jesus was rather than how he was conceived.
I do think you are wrong when you say that the virgin birth underpins the divinity of Jesus. A virgin birth does not require the divinity of the child. Laozi is believed to have been born of a virgin but is not believed to be divine. My belief of the divinity of Jesus does not rely on the virgin birth, nor do I often bring up the virgin birth in discussing the divinity. I start with John, Philippians, Colossians and Hebrews. Once we see that the divinity of Christ is taught in a variety of traditions within the New Testament, the teaching of the virgin birth by Matthew and Luke receives new meaning.
Les Kelly // September 30, 2009 at 9:25 am |
I don’t wish to labor this point , I simply make it as a consequence that you earlier inferred that Paul and the other disciples didn’t mention virgin birth as it was only another aspect of Jesus’ early life which they didn’t see fit to recount.
The disciples obviously didn’t associate virgin birth with Jesus’ crucifixion which they articulated very cogently. The theology of the disciples was pure and simple and can be summed up in the parable of the prodigal son.
Les Kelly. Tasmania.
Stephen Bedard // September 30, 2009 at 12:20 pm |
I agree that they did not associate the virgin birth with the crucifixion, at least in their writings. I like the picture of the prodigal son as a summary of Christian belief, but I do think it is a bit more complex than that. I do appreciate your thoughts and have enjoyed our conversation.
stock // October 6, 2009 at 5:48 am |
S B. You are confirming your own beliefs
Stephen Bedard // October 6, 2009 at 8:24 am |
I have been willing to make changes in my beliefs in the past. At this point, no one has offered any evidence as to why I should change in my beliefs about the virgin birth.
stock // October 7, 2009 at 2:34 am |
SB. Changing your beliefs does not alter the facts
stock // October 10, 2009 at 4:52 am |
SB Ahem! hello?
Stephen Bedard // October 10, 2009 at 7:12 am |
Hello. Do you have a question? Changing beliefs does not alter facts but changing beliefs can bring one more in line with the facts. My aim is to continually move in that direction.