 |
THE VIRGIN BIRTH |
|
|
THE VIRGIN BIRTH |
|
Scripture does not record any use of the Virgin Birth in the Apostles' preaching. Hence, Von Campenhausen is right to say "Jesus' virgin birth is anything but the starting point of the early Christian message". There are really only two passages for us to consider, namely Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38. I have displayed the relevant points from each passage side by side for comparison and contrast before picking up a few ideas for further discussion.
However, before proceeding any further, we must note the other passages that may have a bearing on our subject.
Firstly, two allusions are likely in the genealogies, namely in Matthew 1:16:
... Matthan the father of Jacob and Jacob, the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
And Luke 3:23:
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, son of Heli ...
In the first of these passages, "of whom" in the Greek is feminine, indicating Mary in contrast to Joseph and the other fathers in the genealogy. In the second passage, the insertion "so it was thought", indicates that Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph in the same way that Joseph was of Heli and so on. We do, of course, need to contend with the view that these genealogies have been amended in the light of the doctrine of the virgin birth from forms that assumed Jesus was the natural son of Joseph. However, since there is no textual evidence for this supposition, we may dismiss it unless we have other reasons for doubting the veracity of the principal narratives.
Another passage that has been thought to allude to the virgin birth is Galatians 4:4-5.
But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.
It seems to me very unlikely that Paul had the virgin birth in mind here, despite the fact that only Jesus' mother is mentioned, because he is seeking to point out what the Son of God had in common with mankind in general. Indeed it could be argued that this passage demonstrates the opposite, that Paul knew nothing of the virgin birth. This view is discussed in a later section.
Another set of possible allusions are Paul's references in Galatians 4:4, Romans 1:3 and Philippians 2:7 to Jesus as having been "born" (or "become into being" or "made") rather than "begotten" (Greek ginesthai rather than gennan). Unfortunately, it is doubtful whether a clear distinction in the use of the two Greek words can be maintained. For instance, Bauer's Lexicon ascribes the meaning 'to be born or begotten' to ginomai in Romans 1:3 and Galatians 4:4. These passages will be further considered later.
Finally, there is Mark 6:3 which prefers the appellation 'son of Mary', in contrast to the parallel passages Matthew 13:55 and Luke 4:22, which refer to Jesus as 'the son of the carpenter' and 'the son of Joseph', respectively. However, since the villagers in all three passages are pointing out the ordinariness of Jesus' family background, it is most unlikely that the Markan passage is referring to the Virgin Birth. Even the possible imputation of illegitimacy is unlikely, for in that case surely they could have pressed their case against him a little harder, as, for instance, in John 9:34 where the Pharisees abuse the man born blind, even though he was legitimate.
You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!' And they threw him out.
We now turn to a comparison of the two major passages, beginning with a side-by-side comparison.
Please address any comments on these documents to theotodman@lineone.net.
© Theo Todman August 2000.
Previous Chapter ...... Index ...... Next Chapter