BIBLE STUDY BOOKLET

1). An Inadequate Gynaecology ?

Did the virgin birth story come from a period when people believed that the female made no contribution to the birth other than acting as the "ground' in which the male seed germinated? For instance in Psalm 139:13-15 we read:

Was the virgin birth invented to explain how Jesus could take on the form of man while yet being fully divine? If this is true, and the assumption is there in the texts that Jesus took nothing physical or spiritual from Mary, the fact that it is now known that the female makes an equal genetic contribution to the male in the make-up of the child would completely undermine the story of the virgin birth.

In response to this, we must insist that it is not at all clear that this is what the Scripture suggests. As we might expect, Scripture is silent on Mary's genetic contribution to Jesus, but the fact that Jesus was truly human is very important both for the atonement and for his subsequent risen ministry of intercession. His humanity, and hence his solidarity with the human race, could only be demonstrated by normal human birth. A direct creation, as of Adam, would not do. My own view is that the generation of a man who was fully human could only be achieved if Mary made a genetic contribution.

On the other hand, it must be stressed that the virgin conception is not to be understood as a sexual union between a God and a woman, as in pagan mythology. It is possible, and in these days of surrogate mothers not too difficult to imagine, that there was a direct implantation into Mary's womb, whereby both the male and female contributions to Jesus' genetic make-up came from the Holy Spirit. Alternatively, maybe all Jesus' chromosomes came from Mary. The virgin birth is a miracle, whichever way we look at it, and none of these speculations in amateur genetics represents any less of a miracle than any of the others.

2). Are All Miracles Suspect ?

Are not all miracle stories, coming as they do from a pre-scientific age, to be treated with suspicion? Is it true that what is important is the message they are meant to portray rather than their historicity ?

As a general principle, it seems that accounts of miracles should be treated with suspicion, otherwise there could be no progress in understanding the phenomena that make up our experience of the world - any unexplained or unanalysed phenomenon could be classified as a miracle: end of investigation! Nor could we distinguish the true from the counterfeit unless each alleged miracle were subjected to scrutiny with a prudent suspension of judgement. However, healthy scepticism may be overridden if the grounds for so doing are sufficient, and we believe there are grounds for doing so in this case.

Finally, it is essential that the Christian faith should have a genuine historical basis. Why else should we believe it? As the Scripture states in 2 Peter 1: 16:

3). A Preference for Celibacy ?

Was the story of the virgin birth invented by a religion that had a preference for sexual abstinence? If this is so, may we not therefore discount it?

The above notion is a common misunderstanding. The high regard for celibacy grew up in the early church as part of the ascetic principle, which had its roots in a mistaken understanding of the Scriptural teaching on "the flesh", not to mention contamination from the mystery religions then rife in the Hellenistic world. Scriptural warnings against a concentration on earthly pleasures at the expense of heavenly service were distorted into a hatred, at least for those seeking a place amongst the spiritual elite, of all bodily pleasures and natural enjoyment. Where celibacy is encouraged in the New Testament (eg. Matthew 19:12 & 1 Corinthians 7) it is as a temporary expedient because of the urgency or danger of the times.

Jewish society, however, had a high regard for childbearing and sexual union generally. It is to be remembered that barren women, for example Sarah, Hannah and Elizabeth, considered themselves afflicted and disgraced. Their miraculous conceptions, required to take away their disgrace and issuing in each case in a male child of promise, are collectively a prefigurement of Mary's conception which issued in the child in whom all the promises are fulfilled.

Also, Rabbis, not to mention members of the Jewish Priesthood, were expected to marry and raise families. In addition, we have the testimony of the Song of Solomon.

The testimony of Scripture is that Jesus was born into a pious Jewish family. The character of Matthew's Gospel, at least, is Jewish. Hence, we may expect notions antithetical to traditional Jewish feeling to have little place there.

Finally, the Scripture itself knows nothing of Mary's "perpetual virginity". The sexual abstinence between herself and Joseph was, according to Matthew 1:25, only until Mary had brought forth her firstborn son. The natural interpretation of Jesus' having brothers and sisters, as we read in Mark 6:3, is that this abstinence was only temporary.