I’ve heard it said (probably most recently in this) that the virgin birth doesn’t really have a lot of theological or salvific significance. Obviously, it is true, and we should believe it, and it is an example of God wonderfully fulfilling his promises. But apart from that, there’s not a lot else we can say about it. Or so the argument goes.
I must confess to being uncomfortable with this. Admittedly there’s little comment on the significance of Mary being a virgin elsewhere in scripture. And we should reject those views on this that seem to lead to or are based on a negative view of sex. Likewise those views that tie Jesus’ pre-existence to this (as if the Logos provided in the human what had not been provided from male sperm!) as they undermine the full humanity of Christ.
But that said, I still have a problem with this. I’m uncomfortable with something God does not having theological significance. I’m uncomfortable with something about Christ’s incarnation not having any salvific significance. And it seems to me that the bible is really quite big on issues of who begat who, on who your father is, on male headship (not the same as but linked with begetting for sure) – so that for something ‘irregular’ (that’s one way of putting it!) to occur in this whole area and yet not be significant in some way seems very odd.
So, anyone got any thoughts or suggestions?
Pete,
I too I’m a bit uncomfortable about the downplaying of the theological significance of any biblical events…
My 2-pence worth of the VB’s significance:
It possibly has some links with the resurrection story
– new tomb for the Son of Man where he will be raised to life by the power of the Spirit (think too about the Nicodemus’ dialogue with Jesus incl the question “how can this be” which is somewhat repeated by Mary when she is told of the virgin birth (Luke 1:34)
– it has some links to the miraculous births of some of the OT greats (Isaac, Moses, Samson and Samuel).
There’s more on this, over at the BH website… Trust that you and yours are keeping well? When’s number 2 due?
K
Hi Kip,
Number 2 is due today! Thanks for asking.
Interesting resurrection & new birth links. Will have to go look it up over at BH.
Pete
Just a quick though. Surely the fact that it is a virgin birth says a lot about the fully God/fully man part of Jesus. That is the fact that it was a virgin birth identifies with the fully God part i.e. it occurs outside of what is naturally human. Yet the birth coming through a human relates to Christ’s fully human nature and that to be fully human he had to be born by human methods.
Hi Chris, thanks for your thoughts.
Yeah, maybe – I guess it might depend on how you interpret ‘Son of God’ in Luke 1:35 which somehow links Jesus’ holiness and sonship with the miraculous circumstances of his birth. ??????
I guess the thing to avoid in going down that sort of road (which I don’t think is what you’re saying anyway) is the concept of a divine ‘part’ of Jesus and a ‘human’ part. As if the Divine Son provides something that was lacking/ would’ve been provided had Jesus been conceived regularly. I know that’s not what you’re saying, but that’s why people get nervous about saying he was born of a virgin so that he could be divine as well as human. ???
Still thinking this all through. I just know I’m not happy with it being labelled as ‘cool/ interesting/ good example of promise-keeping and miracle-working power of God, but other than that it doesn’t really mean much else.’
I take it that in Luke it’s related to his having a true, but sinless, humanity. He inherits a true humanity from his mother, but a humanity healed by virtue of the Spirit’s operation. To be son of God, in the context of the Lukan genealogy implies being a new Adam (3:38). The Spirit overshadows Mary in the way he hovered over creation in the beginning. The virgin conception (n.b.! – this is the really significant thing) is a new creation; Christ by virtue of it is both new creation and new Adam.
A little more speculatively, I wonder if there’s something re. original sin, too. Given that it’s Adam’s sin (not Eve’s) that’s reckoned to us (and assuming male headship in marriage!), I wonder if there’s something covenantal going on with father passing on original sin as covenant head. Thus, Jesus not having a father means he doesn’t inherit original guilt, even though Mary was sinful.
Mind you, in Matthew’s account, part of the significance of the virgin conception seems to be explained by the child being called Immanuel, which seems to support Chris’s point.
Thanks Matthew,
I think there seems something instinctively right about the links with his sinless humanity, & therefore some kind of break in the chain of Adamic headship might be in view too. Though I take the points about Divinity & God with us.
Is perhaps one of the resultant questions therefore – what is the link between Christ’s sinless humanity and his Divinity?