Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Virgin Birth

Transcript

The Virgin Birth · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome everyone to Reformed Thinking.
0:02
This is one of our deep dives where we get into some really
0:05
interesting source materials that one of you, one of our
0:07
listeners, has sent over to us. And today we're looking at a
0:10
topic. That's what's right at the core
0:12
of Christian belief, isn't it? And it's certainly generated a
0:14
lot of discussion, even controversy through the ages.
0:18
The virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
0:20
We've got a stack of articles and analysis here, notes that
0:23
you provided, and our goal for this deep dive is pretty
0:26
straightforward. We want to carefully impact
0:28
these sources together. Look at the biblical accounts
0:30
they bring up the historical background, the evidence, they
0:33
talk about arguments for and against it, and you know, the
0:37
theological meaning it holds, all based directly on what
0:40
you've given us. That's right.
0:41
And as these materials make very clear, this particular aspect of
0:45
Jesus life, maybe only the resurrection gets more
0:48
discussion. It's been a real focal point
0:50
sometimes for debate both inside and, you know, outside the
0:54
church community. The sources specifically point
0:56
out how big a deal it became back in the late 19th, early
1:00
20th centuries. It sort of turned into this
1:02
critical dividing line between theological fundamentalists and
1:07
the modernists of the day. Yeah, the sources framed it
1:09
almost like a test case, right? For people with a worldview that
1:12
really accepts the supernatural, you know, God acting directly in
1:16
the world, the virgin birth was seen as, well, strong evidence.
1:19
But for others, maybe those leaning more towards seeing God
1:22
working mainly through, say, natural laws, it was a real
1:25
sticking point. Sometimes he even talked about
1:27
more like a biological puzzle than a spiritual truth.
1:30
Precisely. And you know, another useful
1:33
thing these sources do is help us clarify the language a bit.
1:35
We often say virgin birth, but the materials suggest that
1:39
actually virginal conception, or perhaps miraculous conception,
1:43
might be more accurate terms. The key point, as highlighted in
1:46
these texts you sent, isn't so much about the the physical act
1:49
of birth being strange, it's that Jesus's conception in
1:52
Mary's womb happened without any sexual union.
1:54
Mary was a virgin when conception occurred, and
1:57
remained so until Jesus was born through a well, a normal human
2:01
delivery. Right.
2:02
The source is really underlined that this conception was totally
2:05
supernatural. It was brought about just by the
2:07
Holy Spirit's influence. It wasn't, you know, like some
2:10
of those old Pagan myths about a God than a human woman
2:13
physically getting together. And again, the birth itself, the
2:16
sources say while it came from that miraculous conception, it's
2:20
presented as a typical human birth.
2:23
The sources make a point here mentioning this view diffles
2:26
maybe from some traditional Catholic ideas that might talk
2:29
about Jesus passing through Mary's body without physically
2:32
affecting her virginity during the birth.
2:34
The focus in this material is clearly on the conception as the
2:37
miracle. Agreed.
2:39
So as we go through this material you've sent us, our aim
2:41
is really to help you see the different sides presented, the
2:44
biblical foundation, the history behind it, the objections people
2:47
raise and its theological significance.
2:50
So you can get a handle on how these ideas are discussed and
2:53
LinkedIn the texts. OK, then let's dive in.
2:55
Where do these sources say we should look first for the the
2:59
main biblical support for the virgin birth?
3:01
The material is pretty clear on this.
3:04
It argues that the primary biblical grounding for this
3:06
doctrine comes down to two specific explicit accounts in
3:11
the New Testament. You find them in the Gospel of
3:13
Matthew chapter 1 verses 18 to 25, and then also in Lukes
3:18
Gospel chapter 1 verses 26 through 38.
3:21
Now the sources do acknowledge that OK, maybe some other
3:24
passages could be read as hinting at it or assuming it
3:27
happened. And Matthew of course connects
3:28
his story to that prophecy in Isaiah 7.14.
3:31
But really, these two spots in Matthew and Luke are presented
3:34
as the main explicit scriptural witness.
3:37
OK. And what about the idea that
3:39
maybe these civic bits about the virgin conception were, you
3:42
know, added later? Maybe they weren't originally
3:44
part of Matthew and Luke? Do the sources get into that the
3:47
integrity of the text? Yes, they do address that, and
3:49
they argue against that possibility.
3:52
The sources contend that passages like Matthew 1.2021 or
3:56
Luke 1.34, they seem to be completely integral parts of
4:01
those birth narratives. They don't look like later
4:03
editions slipped in. The materials even mentioned
4:06
Raymond Brown, who is a well known biblical scholar.
4:08
He pointed out the continuity and style and theme between
4:11
these Infancy sections and the rest of Matthew and Luke's
4:14
Gospels, which suggests you know they were part of the original
4:17
writing. So the argument in the sources
4:19
is these accounts belong there. They were part of the original
4:22
gospels. Now somebody really interesting
4:23
they raised is how the accounts in Matthew and Luke, even though
4:26
they agree on the miracle itself, seem pretty independent
4:29
of each other. Yes, and that's presented as a
4:32
very significant point in the argument.
4:34
Within these sources you can see Matthew and Luke are clearly
4:37
independent when you look at the details around Jesus birth and
4:40
early life. Luke for instance, he tells us
4:42
about Zechariah and Elizabeth, the trip for the census, the
4:46
shepherd's coming to the Manger. Matthew, on the other hand,
4:48
focuses on the Magi King Herod's reaction, the family fleeing to
4:53
Egypt. Those details are quite
4:55
different. It shows they weren't just
4:56
copying each other. Right, completely different
4:58
surrounding stories. Exactly.
5:01
But what the sources find compelling is that even with all
5:04
these differences in the surrounding details, both
5:06
gospels independently record that Mary was a virgin at the
5:10
time Jesus was conceived. This agreement on that one
5:14
specific, very unusual point, even though they came at the
5:16
story from different angles, probably using different sources
5:19
of information, it leads the writers here to suggest that
5:22
both Matthew and Luke were likely tapping into an even
5:25
earlier shared tradition or story that already included the
5:28
virginal conception. And the thinking is an earlier
5:32
tradition closer to the events generally has a stronger claim
5:35
to being historically accurate. And there's another layer.
5:38
The sources highlight the very Jewish character of these birth
5:42
stories, Matthew and Luke. The flavor is distinctly Jewish,
5:45
and they argue this Jewish context strongly suggests the
5:47
tradition about the virgin birth popped up quite early in
5:50
Christian history, while the movement was still heavily under
5:53
Jewish influence. This makes it less probable, the
5:56
sources argue that the whole idea was borrowed from Pagan
5:58
myths floating around the Roman world, which is an alternative
6:01
explanation some critics offer. OK, that makes sense.
6:03
So if they didn't come from Pagan myths, according to these
6:07
sources, where did the tradition start?
6:09
What origin point do these materials suggest?
6:12
The sources go right at that question of origin, like we just
6:14
touched on. They firmly reject the idea it
6:17
was borrowed or adapted from Pagan myths.
6:19
They stress again that any parallels people point to are
6:22
superficial. Really.
6:23
The source material actually describes those Pagan myths as,
6:26
and I'm quoting roughly here, stories about fornication
6:29
between divine and human beings, which they see as radically
6:34
different from the biblical accounts.
6:35
They talk about a yawn and chasm between those kinds of myths.
6:39
Polytheistic promiscuity they call it, and the High Monotheism
6:43
of the Bible story conception by the Holy Spirit.
6:46
That cultural and theological gap, they argue, just makes it
6:49
highly unlikely that early Jewish Christians, with their
6:51
strong monotheistic beliefs and moral standards, would have ever
6:54
bought into or adopted ideas like that.
6:56
So they're setting the biblical account apart, saying it's
6:59
fundamentally different in its nature and where it came from
7:02
compared to those Pagan stories. If not from there, then where
7:07
did the sources think the human starting point for this
7:10
tradition might be? Well, the sources discussed the
7:13
possibility that the story originated with the people who
7:16
were right there, Joseph and Mary.
7:18
They do acknowledge the objection, you know that Joseph
7:21
probably died before Jesus public ministry, so maybe he
7:23
couldn't have spread the story widely later.
7:25
But the sources counter that by suggesting Joseph could have
7:28
told close friends or family who then passed it on in the early
7:32
church and Mary's role as a source, that's seen as very
7:35
plausible. The sources point to Acts 1.14,
7:38
where Mary is present with the disciples after the
7:40
resurrection. This suggests she was there, a
7:42
potential living witness who could have shared her unique
7:45
experience with the early believers.
7:47
That seems logical if anyone knew the details she would have.
7:50
What about other family members? Do the sources mention them?
7:52
Yes, they do. The sources also bring up other
7:55
family members, especially Jesus's brothers, like James.
7:58
James, as you know, became a major leader in the Jerusalem
8:01
church. And the argument presented in
8:03
the sources is that having Jesus's own relatives in such
8:06
prominent positions in the very earliest church would have kind
8:09
of acted as a check against just making up wild stories about
8:12
Jesus's origins. If the story wasn't true, they'd
8:15
be risking their own credibility and the church's reputation by
8:19
promoting something so extraordinary that could easily
8:21
be challenged by others who knew the family.
8:23
So the materials draw a pretty strong conclusion from this line
8:26
of thought. They state it's actually
8:28
difficult to explain how the idea arose, if not from fact,
8:32
because the other explanations, like Pagan myths or maybe a much
8:35
later invention, seem less likely to them based on the
8:38
context. They figure a tradition starting
8:40
within Jesus's immediate family, probably from Mary or maybe
8:43
through Joseph, is the most likely explanation for how this
8:46
belief began, suggesting it came from a real event.
8:49
That's a compelling line of reasoning presented in the
8:52
sources that the most plausible origin for such a unique claim
8:55
points back to the family, implying it had a basis in
8:58
reality. Now, besides these direct
9:01
accounts to the sources finding the other hints, maybe less
9:04
direct clues elsewhere suggesting Jesus's unique origin
9:06
or even his legitimacy might have been, you know, questioned
9:09
early on. Yes, the sources definitely look
9:11
into this. They argue there are signs both
9:13
inside the New Testament and from outside sources that
9:16
questions or maybe rumors about Jesus's father were circulating
9:19
relatively early. And this, they argue, fits the
9:22
scenario of a virgin conception, which would naturally raise
9:25
questions in a world where that wasn't the expected way things
9:28
happened. One key piece of external
9:30
evidence that the sources bring up is from Celsus.
9:33
He was a Greek philosopher writing against Christianity
9:36
around, say, one 77180 AD pretty early.
9:40
The sources note that Celsus attacked Christianity by
9:42
claiming Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, but was actually the
9:46
illegitimate son of Mary and a Roman soldier supposedly named
9:49
Panthera. Now the sources argue that the
9:51
very fact this specific scandalous accusation existed,
9:55
coming from an opponent who they think was likely drawing on
9:57
Jewish anti Christian sources, actually shows that the claim of
10:00
virgin birth was already known and being made by Christians at
10:03
this early date. Celsus felt the need to counter
10:06
it with his own explanation. So the attack itself becomes a
10:08
kind of backhanded evidence that the belief was already out
10:12
there, and significant enough for opponents to try to
10:15
discredit it with a specific story.
10:17
That's the way the sources interpret it, yes.
10:20
And then within the New Testament, the sources point to
10:22
a couple of passages they think might contain subtle hints or
10:24
allusions to questions about Jesus.
10:26
Legitimacy 1 is in Mark's Gospel chapter 6, verse 3, when Jesus
10:31
is back in his hometown, Nazareth, and the people are
10:33
offended, they identify him as Mary's son.
10:37
The sources point out that culturally, men were almost
10:40
always identified by their, you know, son of Joseph.
10:44
So being called just Mary's son, especially in a context where
10:48
people are kind of dismissive, isn't this Mary's son, brother
10:51
of James? Could, they argue, be a subtle
10:53
nod towards some uncertainty or unusual circumstance about his
10:57
father, consistent with a virgin conception that maybe he wasn't
11:00
widely understood or accepted there?
11:02
They're careful though, saying it's not definitive proof by
11:04
itself, just a possible indicator.
11:06
Another passage they mention is John 8.41.
11:09
Jesus is in this tense argument with some Jewish leaders, and
11:12
they declare we are not illegitimate children.
11:15
The sources note the Greek uses an emphatic pronoun for we,
11:18
suggesting the phrasing could be heard as an insinuation it's not
11:20
us who are illegitimate, maybe implying that Jesus was being
11:25
subtly accused of exactly that. And Matthew's own account, the
11:28
sources suggest, might even be a direct answer to these kinds of
11:32
rumors or questions circulating at the time.
11:34
Yes, the sources strongly suggest that possibility.
11:38
Matthew starts his birth narrative by saying Mary was
11:40
found pregnant after she was pledged to Joseph, betrothed,
11:44
but before they actually started living together as husband and
11:46
wife. Now in that Jewish culture,
11:49
patrol was serious, almost like marriage but without
11:52
cohabitation or intimacy yet. So a pregnancy at that stage
11:56
before they lived together would have been scandalous.
11:58
It would automatically make people wonder about
12:00
illegitimacy. Jesus being, you might say, born
12:04
embarrassingly early relative to when they started living
12:07
together, would fuel gossip. So the sources propose that
12:09
Matthew includes his detailed story about the Angel visiting
12:12
Joseph, explaining the conception by the Holy Spirit
12:14
specifically to address this potentially awkward situation.
12:18
He's affirming Mary's innocence and the divine source of the
12:20
pregnancy, directly countering any whispers of illegitimacy.
12:24
So the conclusion the sources draw from all this biblical
12:27
evidence, the explicit accounts, the signs of independent
12:30
traditions going back early, maybe to the family, and these
12:33
hints of early questions about paternity, is that even if you
12:36
could technically argue illegitimacy might explain some
12:39
of the questions, the overall biblical picture makes it
12:41
abundantly clear Joseph was not Jesus's biological father.
12:45
OK. So the sources layout a strong
12:47
case for the biblical foundation rooted in Matthew and Louf,
12:50
supported by evidence suggesting an early family tradition, and
12:53
consistent with hints that Jesus's origins were indeed
12:56
questioned early on. Now let's move beyond the Bible
12:59
itself. What do these materials say
13:01
about belief in the virgin birth in the the very early Christian
13:04
Church? Is there historical evidence
13:06
outside the New Testament manuscripts?
13:08
Yes, the sources argue pretty strongly that there's a
13:11
consistent tradition affirming the virgin birth in the early
13:14
church, and they see this as well.
13:16
Basically what you'd expect if the biblical stories were
13:18
reporting real events. A key piece of historical
13:22
evidence they focus on is the Apostles Creed.
13:25
The sources point out that this foundational statement of
13:27
Christian belief includes the line that Jesus was born of the
13:31
Virgin Mary. What makes this particularly
13:33
significant, according to the sources, is that this phrase
13:36
isn't just in later versions. It traces back to a very old
13:40
Roman baptismal creed or confession.
13:43
This Roman creed was apparently in use by the middle of the 2nd
13:46
century. That's quite early, and its use
13:48
spread fairly quickly to churches in North Africa gall
13:51
Asia Minor. Having the virgin birth included
13:53
in such an early, widely used summary of core beliefs suggests
13:57
it wasn't some late addition or fringe idea.
13:59
It seems to have been part of standard Orthodox Christian
14:01
teaching from very early on. So it wasn't something tacked on
14:04
centuries later. It was considered central enough
14:07
to be one of the earliest, most basic statements of faith used
14:10
when people were baptized. That's the argument the sources
14:13
make, Yeah. It speaks to how accepted the
14:16
doctrine was. Another really crucial early
14:19
witless cited in the materials is Ignatius of Antioch.
14:22
Ignatius was a major Bishop, and he wrote several letters while
14:26
he was being taken to Rome for martyrdom.
14:28
This happened no later than 117 AD.
14:31
That date is incredibly early, putting him right in the
14:33
generation immediately after the apostles.
14:36
Right. He was right, even before all
14:37
the New Testament books were likely gathered together and
14:40
widely seen as a single collection or Canon.
14:42
Precisely. And the sources highlight that
14:44
in his letters, Ignatius lists the virginity of Mary as one of
14:47
the fundamental facts about Christ.
14:49
He called them mysteries to be shouted about right alongside
14:52
Jesus's suffering and resurrection.
14:55
The sources stress why this testimony from Ignatius is so
14:57
valuable. First, Ignatius was arguing
15:00
against doshitism, that heresy, claiming Jesus only appeared to
15:03
be human. Now to counter that just saying
15:06
Jesus was born of a woman would have made the point about his
15:09
humanity. But Ignatius specifically says
15:12
born of a virgin, indicating this was his actual
15:14
understanding of how Jesus's human life began.
15:17
Second, being a leading Bishop in a major center like Antioch,
15:21
his views likely represented widespread belief, not just his
15:24
personal opinion. And 3rd, that very early date by
15:27
117 AD is key. The sources bring in J Gresham
15:31
Mason, a theologian and scholar who observed that Ignatius
15:34
treated the virgin birth quote not as a novelty, but all
15:36
together as a matter of course. That phrase suggests that by the
15:39
time Ignatius was writing, the belief was already assumed taken
15:42
for granted, which implies it must have been common in
15:45
Christian circles well before the end of the 1st century.
15:47
That's a strong point. Someone writing that early just
15:50
treats it as a given, not something new.
15:52
He needs to defend to fellow believers.
15:55
It definitely supports the claim that the belief is ancient now.
15:58
The sources are also fair and pointing out that there were
16:00
early denials of the virgin birth too.
16:03
OK. And who were these early
16:04
deniers, according to the sources?
16:06
Well, the sources list denials coming from a few different
16:08
groups, groups we already mentioned, Celsus, the Pagan
16:10
critic. They also mentioned denials from
16:13
some Jewish sources hostile to Christianity.
16:16
And then, within circles that claimed some connection to
16:18
Christianity, the sources name figures linked with groups that
16:22
the wider early church considered heretical, people
16:25
like Cerinthus, Kirpocrates, and the Ibianites.
16:28
These groups often held other views about Jesus that differed
16:31
significantly from what became mainstream Christian doctrine.
16:35
But here's a really crucial observation.
16:37
The sources highlight, and I think it's worth quoting
16:38
directly, no one who is otherwise orthodox denied the
16:43
virgin birth. That statement really jumps out.
16:46
It suggests that in the early church, disagreeing with the
16:49
virgin birth wasn't just an isolated opinion, it
16:51
consistently showed up alongside other beliefs the main body of
16:55
the church saw as outside the bounds of authentic Christian
16:57
teaching. Yes, the sources see that
17:00
connection is very telling. They cite Matron's conclusion
17:03
again here. He suggested that these early
17:05
denials were probably rooted more in his words, philosophical
17:09
or dogmatic prepossession, much more probably than upon genuine
17:12
historical tradition. UN quote.
17:15
What he meant was those who denied it likely do so not
17:17
because they had different historical facts about Jesus's
17:20
birth, but because the idea didn't fit their existing
17:22
philosophical ideas or their other theological views about
17:25
reality or who Christ was. So the sources conclude that
17:29
this mix, the clear biblical testimony, the strong early
17:32
widespread historical affirmation by orthodox figures
17:35
like Ignatius and in Core creeds, plus the observation
17:38
that denials were mostly linked to broader theological
17:41
divergences, builds a solid case for the historicity of the
17:44
virgin birth. While acknowledging historical
17:46
evidence always has some interpretation, they present
17:49
this overall picture as giving sufficient grounds for believing
17:52
the biblical story. OK, so we've seen the biblical
17:55
case from the sources based on Matthew and Luke pointing to an
17:58
early family tradition fitting with hints of early questions,
18:02
and the historical case showing early acceptance in creed's and
18:06
by key leaders with denials mostly on the fringes of
18:09
orthodoxy. With that groundwork laid out,
18:12
let's pivot to the challenges. The materials you sent spent a
18:15
good bit of time looking at objections raised against the
18:17
virgin birth. Let's walk through those and see
18:19
how the sources respond. Right.
18:21
The materials basically group these into 5 main objections
18:24
that tend to come up. The first one they tackle is
18:26
this idea of unexpected ignorance.
18:29
Unexpected ignorance. OK, what's the argument there
18:31
exactly? Well, the objection kind of goes
18:33
like this. If the virgin birth really
18:36
happened, and Mary knew about it and Joseph knew about it,
18:39
wouldn't Jesus's immediate family, especially his mother
18:43
and brothers, always grasp who he was?
18:45
Wouldn't knowing his unique origin stop them from getting
18:48
confused or worried about him during his ministry?
18:50
People sometimes point to Mark 3.21 and 31, where Jesus's
18:54
family shows up apparently thinking he's beside himself,
18:56
you know, out of his mind. Critics ask, how could Mary,
18:59
knowing the story of his birth, react like that?
19:02
And tied into this is the relative quietness about the
19:04
virgin birth in big chunks of the New Testament.
19:06
Why, the objection goes, is it only explicitly laid out in the
19:09
opening chapters of Matthew and Luke?
19:11
Why doesn't Mark, often seen as the earliest gospel, mention it?
19:15
Why is John's highly theological gospel silent on this specific
19:18
miracle? Why don't we hear about it from
19:20
Paul in all his letters or in the sermons recorded in Acts?
19:24
This limited mention strikes some as odd, maybe suggesting it
19:26
wasn't that widely known or important early on.
19:29
That seems like a reasonable question.
19:30
Someone reading through the New Testament might ask.
19:32
How do the sources push back on this idea of unexpected
19:36
ignorance in the silence elsewhere?
19:38
The sources offer several responses regarding that Mark 3
19:41
passage. First, they point out it's not
19:43
entirely certain from the Greek that it was Mary and the
19:46
brothers thinking he was beside himself.
19:47
In verse 21, the phrase could refer to other relatives or
19:50
people from his town. They also argue that even if
19:53
Mary was sometimes confused or concerned by Jesus's actions or
19:57
ministry, like in Luke 2 where she treasured these things in
20:00
her heart after finding Him in the temple, feeling bewildered
20:03
doesn't automatically mean she doubted His unique origin.
20:06
Her ideas about what the Messiah would do might have been
20:09
different from His actual ministry, leading to confusion
20:12
without her denying the facts of His conception.
20:15
They also suggest there isn't a necessary link between verse 21
20:18
and verse 31 in Mark's story. They might be separate
20:21
incidents. As for Jesus's brothers not
20:24
believing mentioned in John 7.5, the sources suggest their
20:27
initial skepticism doesn't prove they never knew the story of his
20:30
birth. It's possible, they argue, that
20:32
even knowing the facts, they found it hard to accept their
20:34
own brother as the Messiah, especially before the
20:37
resurrection. Maybe they only fully grasped or
20:39
accepted the version birth story later, perhaps after
20:42
encountering the risen Christ, which their later leadership
20:45
role suggests they did, then addressing The Silence and other
20:48
New Testament books. The sources explain it by
20:50
looking at the specific purpose and audience of each book.
20:53
Mark's gospel, they argue, is really focused on Jesus's public
20:57
actions, what he did. Mark had to select material.
21:00
A detailed birth story wasn't his main goal.
21:02
If Mark's gospel is based on Peter's preaching, that might
21:05
also limit it to what Peter focused on.
21:06
Jesus's public life, death, resurrection.
21:09
So Mark not including it doesn't mean he didn't know it or that
21:12
the tradition wasn't there. They even bring up Mark 6.3
21:15
again, Mary's son, maybe suggesting Mark use that odd
21:18
phrasing as a subtle hint for readers who already knew
21:20
something about the story. Without needing the full details
21:23
found in Matthew or Luke for John's gospel, the sources
21:26
highlight it's very theological aim.
21:28
John's opening is theological, not a historical birth
21:31
narrative. He quickly moves to Jesus's
21:33
public ministry. His goal isn't a full biography,
21:36
but demonstrating Jesus's divine identity through specific signs
21:39
and teachings. The silence in Acts in the
21:41
apostle sermons is explained by context.
21:44
These sermons were often given to hostile crowds or people
21:46
totally new to the faith. The core message was Jesus's
21:49
death and resurrection for salvation.
21:51
Bringing up something potentially controversial and
21:53
hard to explain quickly, like the virgin birth, might have
21:56
been seen, the sources suggest, as an unnecessary obstacle
22:00
distracting from the main point. And finally, Paul's letters.
22:03
They're theological, but also often written to solve specific
22:06
problems in churches. The sources suggest the virgin
22:09
birth probably just wasn't a point of debate or confusion in
22:11
the specific situations Paul was writing into, so we didn't need
22:14
to bring it up. So the sources wrap up their
22:16
response to this first objection by saying they find nothing in
22:20
the silence to militate against it.
22:23
They feel the omissions can be reasonably explained by the
22:25
different goals and situations of the various New Testament
22:27
writings. That's a detailed way of
22:29
explaining why silence in some texts doesn't necessarily mean
22:33
the belief wasn't there or wasn't known.
22:35
What's the second major objection the sources bring up?
22:37
The second one deals with the idea that the virgin birth might
22:40
somehow compromise Jesus's full humanity.
22:43
The worry is sort of theological, maybe biological.
22:47
If Jesus only had one human parent, if he lacked a human
22:49
biological father, could he really be fully, completely
22:52
human? The lack of a male contribution
22:55
in his conception is viewed by this objection as potentially
22:57
making him something less than truly human.
22:59
OK. And how did the sources counter
23:02
that specific worry about Jesus's full humanity?
23:05
The sources argue that this objection mixes up the essence
23:08
of what it means to be human with the specific way humanity
23:11
is usually passed on. They use the example of Adam and
23:15
Eve. Adam and Eve, they point out,
23:17
are presented as fully human, yet they had no human parents at
23:20
all. If being fully human required
23:23
having both a human mother and father, then Adam and Eve
23:26
wouldn't count, which goes against the biblical story.
23:29
The sources also try to clarify what they understand the virgin
23:32
conception involved biologically.
23:34
Based on the text, they argue that not having a male parent
23:37
doesn't mean there wasn't a necessary male component for
23:40
human life. While they don't get into modern
23:42
genetics, the point drawn from the source materials that a male
23:45
component was contributed. They describe it as something
23:48
specially created by God's action and united with Mary's
23:51
ovum. It wasn't just Mary replicating
23:53
herself, it was a divine intervention that brought
23:55
together everything needed for complete human being with both
23:58
male and female biological aspects, just with one
24:01
originating miraculously instead of through normal reproduction.
24:04
So the source is presented as a miracle that resulted in a fully
24:08
human person. They're saying humanity isn't
24:11
defined by how you're conceived, but by the nature you possess,
24:15
and that God miraculously supplied all the necessary
24:17
biological elements. That's the gist of their
24:19
argument, yes. Now the third objection the
24:21
sources deal with is the one about parallels in other
24:24
religions. Right, we touched on that
24:26
briefly when talking about where the tradition came from.
24:28
Exactly. This objection argues that the
24:30
biblical stories of Jesus's conception are basically just
24:34
Hebrew versions of common Pagan myths.
24:37
You know stories about God's getting human women pregnant.
24:41
Sometimes the idea is stretched to say that maybe Judaism itself
24:44
had borrowed these ideas from Pagan neighbors.
24:47
And then they influence the New Testament writers.
24:49
And the sources reply is that these supposed parallels are
24:52
weak or superficial. They argue that pretty strongly.
24:55
They repeat that those Pagan myths are mostly stories about
24:59
fornication between divine and human beings, which they see is
25:02
completely different in character from the biblical
25:04
accounts. They use that phrase again,
25:07
about the yawning chasm between polytheistic promiscuity and
25:11
Pagan myths and the lofty monotheism and the description
25:14
of the Holy Spirit's work in the Bible.
25:16
The similarity, they insist, is really only skin deep, just the
25:19
idea of a God involved in a birth.
25:22
But the way it's described is fundamentally different.
25:25
The sources doubt very much that early Jewish Christians, with
25:27
their strict monotheism and moral code, would have ever
25:30
adopted or accepted such Pagan ideas.
25:32
They also state clearly that there is no substantive evidence
25:35
that Judaism espoused a belief in a virgin birth either before
25:39
or separate from Christianity. They suggest the theory that it
25:42
came via Judaism from paganism relies more on an assumption
25:45
that miraculous births must have Pagan roots, rather than on
25:49
actual evidence from Jewish tradition itself.
25:51
OK, so they maintain the biblical account is unique in
25:54
its theological context and how it describes the event distinct
25:58
from Pagan myths. What's the 4th objection they
26:00
cover? The 4th is more theological.
26:03
It argues there's an incompatibility, or at least a
26:05
tension between the virgin birth and the doctrine of Christ's pre
26:08
existence. The argument is, if Christ the
26:12
divine Word existed eternally before his life on earth, how
26:16
can he also have a starting point in time through a virgin
26:19
conception? Some see these ideas as mutually
26:22
exclusive. If he pre existed eternally, he
26:25
wasn't conceived in time. If he was conceived in time, did
26:28
he truly pre exist in the way the doctrine claims?
26:31
The sources mention Wolfhart Panenberg, a modern theologian,
26:34
as someone who articulated this difficulty and argued against
26:37
the virgin birth partly for this reason.
26:39
How do the sources suggest holding both beliefs together
26:42
pre existence and virgin conception within a standard
26:44
Christian framework? The sources explained that in
26:47
the traditional Orthodox view, Christ is understood to have two
26:50
natures, fully divine and fully human, united in one person.
26:55
The doctrine of pre existence, they argue, applies specifically
26:57
to his divine nature as the eternal Word, the second person
27:01
of the Trinity. He existed before creation.
27:04
The virgin birth, on the other hand, relates to the beginning
27:06
of his human nature. It marks the specific moment in
27:09
time when the pre existent divine Word assumed humanity,
27:12
taking on a full human nature and entering the world as the
27:15
man Jesus through that miraculous conception and
27:18
subsequent normal birth. So the sources argue there's no
27:21
conflict if you believe in a real incarnation, the divine
27:23
Word truly becoming human, that he can right at the start of
27:26
Jesus's earthly life. They see the pre existence of
27:29
the divine Son and the virgin conception of the human Jesus as
27:32
complementary parts of the mystery of the incarnation, not
27:34
contradictory ideas. One tells us who he was
27:37
eternally as God, the other tells us how he became fully
27:40
human in time. OK so pre existence is about his
27:44
eternal divine identity and his virgin birth is about the unique
27:48
start of his full human nature at a specific time, bringing the
27:51
two natures together in one person.
27:54
That's the way the sources frame it to resolve the apparent
27:56
tension. The 5th and final objection
27:59
covered in the materials is the conflict with natural law.
28:02
This sounds like the basic scientific or philosophical
28:05
challenge. It often is, yes, and the
28:07
sources acknowledge this objection often underlies some
28:10
of the others. The argument?
28:11
Simple natural law says human babies come from sexual
28:14
reproduction involving both a male and a female.
28:17
A virgin birth clearly violates this known biological process.
28:21
This objection usually comes from a worldview that's
28:23
skeptical of or outright rejects miracles or any supernatural
28:27
event that seems to override the normal laws of nature.
28:31
Right. If you start by assuming nature
28:32
is a closed system governed only by its own internal laws, then a
28:36
virgin birth just isn't possible.
28:38
How do the sources respond to that?
28:40
The sources tackle this by highlighting the fundamental
28:42
difference in world views involved.
28:44
On one side you have a naturalistic view.
28:46
Assuming the universe is a closed box, only natural forces
28:49
operate. Everything follows natural laws.
28:52
From that viewpoint, a miracle, something breaking those laws is
28:55
impossible by definition. But on the other side, the
28:59
sources present what they term an open universe, or a
29:01
supernaturalistic worldview. This view accepts natural laws,
29:05
but also allows for a reality beyond that closed system, a
29:09
reality including a God who created nature and isn't bound
29:12
by its rules. In this open universe, a
29:15
supernatural being can intervene and, if desired, temporarily
29:19
suspend or work outside the normal functioning of natural
29:21
laws. So from the perspective of an
29:23
open universe, the sources argue, the question about the
29:26
virgin birth isn't is it possible like it is in a closed
29:29
system, but rather is there good historical evidence that it
29:31
actually happened? If God exists and can act in the
29:34
world, then a miracle isn't impossible, just unusual.
29:37
The sources wrapped this up by repeating their view that the
29:39
historical evidence discussed earlier the Bible accounts the
29:43
early church belief is sufficient to support belief in
29:46
the biblical testimony. They argue that unless you have
29:49
a prior philosophical objection to the very possibility of
29:52
miracles based on a closed sister view, the historical
29:55
evidence itself points towards concluding it did happen.
29:58
So they acknowledge the objection from natural law, but
30:01
say it really comes down to your starting assumptions about
30:03
reality itself. And for those open to divine
30:05
action, they argue, the historical evidence is
30:08
persuasive. OK, that gives us a clear
30:11
overview from these sources, the biblical case, the historical
30:15
support, and how they handle the main objections.
30:18
Let's move now to the final big section in the material the
30:22
theological meaning or significance of the virgin
30:24
birth. Why, according to these texts,
30:27
does this doctrine matter for Christian belief?
30:30
The sources spend quite a bit of time on this yeah.
30:32
They note that while its historicity is debated outside
30:34
the church, its theological meaning is sometimes discussed
30:37
even among those who accept it happened.
30:39
Their first point about a significance is pretty
30:41
fundamental. It matters simply because we are
30:44
told that it occurred in Scripture, specifically Matthew
30:47
1 and Luke 1, which they hold as authoritative.
30:50
They argue that rejecting this teaching, even if you debate how
30:53
theologically necessary it is for other doctrines, amounts to
30:56
a tacit repudiation of the authority of the Bible.
30:59
And that, they suggest, has knock on effects for accepting
31:01
other difficult teachings. So for the writers of this.
31:04
Material accepting the virgin birth starts with accepting the
31:07
Bible's authority, but they also get into whether it's strictly
31:09
needed for other key doctrines like the incarnation or Jesus
31:13
being sinless. Right.
31:14
And their view there is maybe it been nuanced.
31:16
Yes. This is where the sources offer
31:18
a particular theological take. They argue that the virgin birth
31:22
was not necessary ontologically, meaning in terms of its
31:26
essential being for Jesus to be truly God and truly man, or for
31:30
the incarnation itself to happen.
31:32
Their reasoning is that God being God, could theoretically
31:35
have accomplished the incarnation in other ways, maybe
31:37
with two human parents, maybe even like Adam with O human
31:40
parents. The sources suggest that
31:41
insisting the virgin birth was the only possible way for the
31:44
incarnation might risk falling into certain theological errors.
31:47
Drawing some parallels, perhaps 2 aspects of Apollinarianism and
31:51
old heresy that denied Jesus had a fully human mind or spirit,
31:54
suggesting the divine Word replaced those human parts.
31:57
The sources argue that the virgin birth was the miraculous
31:59
means God used to bring about a normal human being with a full
32:02
human nature without a human father, but the actual joining
32:06
of the divine and human natures. The incarnation itself could
32:09
conceptually have happened differently.
32:12
And the virgin birth doesn't automatically guarantee the
32:14
incarnation either. They're presented as related but
32:17
distinct events. And what about the link people
32:20
sometimes make between the virgin birth and Jesus being
32:24
sinless? The sources also argue that
32:26
Jesus's sinlessness was not dependent on the virginal
32:29
conception. They pushed back on ideas that
32:31
original sin is passed down only through the Father, or that it's
32:35
somehow inherent in the act of sexual reproduction itself.
32:38
They don't see clear scriptural support for those specific
32:41
mechanisms. While Paul connects sin entering
32:43
the world through Adam, the sources note Eve was also
32:46
involved First Timothy 2.14, suggesting sin isn't exclusively
32:50
tied to the male lion or procreation itself.
32:53
Instead, the sources attribute Jesus's freedom from inherited
32:56
sinfulness and personal sin to the unique, powerful and
32:59
sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit on Mary at the moment of
33:02
conception. They point to Luke 1.35.
33:05
The Holy Spirit will come on you.
33:07
This divine action, they argue, is what prevented original sin
33:10
or depravity from being passed from Mary to Jesus.
33:13
Then they pose a kind of rhetorical question to challenge
33:15
the idea that the virgin birth was required for sinlessness.
33:18
If the Spirit's action was enough to prevent sin coming
33:21
through Mary, could he not have prevented it from being passed
33:23
on by Joseph as well, if Joseph had been the biological father?
33:26
So, based on their interpretation, the sources
33:28
conclude that while the virgin birth is biblical and happened,
33:32
it wasn't the necessary cause of either the incarnation or
33:35
Jesus's sinlessness. Those depended more directly on
33:38
Christ's divine nature and the Spirit's sanctifying work.
33:41
That's a really interesting distinction the sources are
33:43
drawing. So if it's not strictly
33:46
necessary for those core doctrines, in their view,
33:48
besides upholding biblical authority, what other
33:51
theological value does the virgin birth have according to
33:54
these materials? The sources describe the virgin
33:56
birth as what they call a subsidiary or supporting
33:59
doctrine. It's probably not.
34:02
They suggest a primary doctrine, meaning absolutely essential for
34:06
someone to be saved. They note it doesn't usually
34:08
show up in the basic gospel sermons and acts, and
34:10
historically people have come to faith without even knowing about
34:13
it. But as a subsidiary doctrine,
34:15
its value is that it helps create or sustain belief in the
34:19
indispensable doctrines or reinforces truths found in other
34:22
doctrines. A bit like the resurrection.
34:24
They see it working on several levels.
34:26
It's a historical event, it's a doctrine about Christ, and it
34:29
also acts as evidence supporting other core beliefs.
34:32
The sources then outline several specific theological truths or
34:35
values that the virgin birth points towards or reinforces.
34:39
First, they argue, it's a strong indicator that our salvation is
34:41
fundamentally supernatural. The virgin birth really
34:44
highlights that humanity is completely unable to start the
34:47
process of salvation or produce the Savior ourselves.
34:50
It underlines biblical teachings like John 3.5 to 6 that
34:53
salvation requires birth of the Spirit, not just of the flesh,
34:57
and John 1.13 that believers are born not of natural descent, nor
35:01
of human decision, but born of God.
35:04
This event, where humans couldn't even bring the Redeemer
35:07
into the world naturally, powerfully shows that salvation
35:09
comes entirely from God's action, not human effort.
35:13
It's evidence of the Holy Spirit's unique, necessary work
35:15
in doing what humans can't. Second, the sources see the
35:18
virgin birth as a check on human pride.
35:21
Mary, even though she was chosen, couldn't conceive this
35:23
child by her own will or ability.
35:25
It took the direct action of the Holy Spirit.
35:28
This event highlights that while salvation involves humanity,
35:30
it's totally of God. It brings to mind that idea in
35:33
2nd Corinthians 4.7 about having treasure in jars of clay so that
35:37
the surpassing ability is seen to be from God, not from us.
35:41
3rd, it underlines that God's salvation is entirely a gift of
35:43
grace. Mary, the source's note, isn't
35:46
depicted as having some special quality that earned her this
35:48
role. Her selection and the miracle
35:50
itself, which was completely God's doing and beyond her
35:53
natural capacity, points to salvation being an undeserved
35:56
gift. It comes from God's choice and
35:58
grace, not because of anything we do or qualify for. 4th The
36:03
virgin birth functions as evidence of the uniqueness of
36:05
Jesus the Savior. The miraculous way his earthly
36:08
life began sets him apart right from the start.
36:11
It signals that Jesus wasn't just another person, but a
36:13
highly unusual human singled out by God in particular ways.
36:17
It points towards his unique identity and role as the
36:19
one-of-a-kind Savior sent by God.
36:21
And 5th. The sources argue it gives
36:23
compelling evidence of God's capacity and sovereignty over
36:26
nature. While the Bible mentions other
36:28
unusual births, Isaac, Samuel, John the Baptist born to
36:31
previously barren women, the virgin birth is presented as a
36:34
miracle on a different level, unprecedented.
36:36
It demonstrates God's tremendous capacity, his ability to alter
36:40
and supersede the path of nature when he has a purpose.
36:43
The sources connect the seemingly impossible natural
36:46
event to God's ability to achieve the seemingly impossible
36:48
spiritual goal of giving new birth to sinners.
36:51
They quote Jesus in Matthew 19.2, E 6 here.
36:54
With man this is impossible, but with God all things are
36:57
possible. The virgin birth becomes a
36:59
striking illustration of God's ability to do what's humanly
37:02
impossible, both in the physical realm and the spiritual.
37:06
That's a really thorough look at the theological meaning
37:08
presented in the sources. So according to this material,
37:11
the virgin birth matters first because the Bible says it
37:13
happened. And while maybe not strictly
37:16
essential for the incarnation or sinlessness themselves, it
37:19
strongly supports core Christian truths about God initiating
37:22
salvation, his grace, Jesus's unique identity, and God's
37:26
sovereign action over creation. Well, we've certainly covered a
37:29
lot of ground in this deep dive looking through the source
37:31
material you sent us on the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
37:34
We've we've looked at the biblical basis mainly in Matthew
37:36
and Luke, review the historical evidence from the early church
37:39
creeds writers like Ignatius. We examine the main objections
37:41
people raise and the responses offered in these texts, and
37:44
finally we unpack the theological meaning the sources
37:47
connect to this event. Indeed, the sources built a case
37:51
that the Virgin Birth, even though it's often debated, has
37:53
solid support from the biblical accounts and early historical
37:57
tradition. And, they argue its
37:59
significance, while maybe not being absolutely essential for
38:03
every other doctrine in a technical sense, is still very
38:06
substantial in the truth. It highlights truth about God's
38:09
action in redemption, the unique person of Christ, and the very
38:13
nature of salvation being entirely from God.
38:17
So as you think about all this and the sources we've discussed,
38:20
here's maybe one final thought to consider.
38:21
Something that builds on the material.
38:23
If the virgin birth as these sources presented points so
38:27
clearly to God's complete initiative in providing
38:29
salvation, something totally beyond human ability or
38:32
contribution, what might that suggest about how we view any
38:35
contribution we think we bring to our own standing before God?
38:39
Something to Mull over. Thank you again for sharing
38:42
these sources and allowing us to do this deep dive.
38:44
This has been Reformed thinking.