The Virgin Birth: Important or essential?
After reading Millard Erickson's chapter on the "The Virgin Birth," I found myself questioning some long held beliefs. Let me begin by stating my view. First, the virgin birth did happen. It is a part of the canon of Scripture and I hold to the authority of Scripture; therefore, the virginal conception of Mary did take place. Second, I hold to the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ. Without his full humanity (since this post will be, in part, addressing the humanity of Jesus), the incarnation and the atonement would have been incomplete as well as ineffective for us. I state these things so that I will not be deemed a heretic.
With that being said, the rest of the post will hash out Erickson's understanding of the virginal conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary. Here are the key points of Erickson's section on the theological meaning of the virgin birth:
1. Jesus did not have to have any parents because God had set the precedent of creating man from the ground, as was the case in Adam. Therefore, it would not have been impossible for Him to do the same thing in Jesus' case.
2. Jesus could have been the child of two parents. He argues that insisting that Christ could not have had a human male parent would smack of Apollinarianism, which is simply put the belief that Jesus had a human body, but a divine soul. (Here, I think Erickson has not made a strong enough case for himself because this interpretation could lead to adoptionism)
3. God's part in the virginal conception was to provide the necessary male component, which was both at the same time fully human and fully divine.
4. The fully human and fully divine natures do not depend on the virgin birth.
5. Erickson, then, moves on to answer questions about original sin. He states the virgin birth was not necessary to protect Jesus from a sin nature. There are to logical conclusions that occur if our sin nature is caused by conception.
A. The father is the source of depravity.
B. Depravity is directly related to sexual intercourse.
6. It is, in fact, the power of the Holy Spirit that protected Jesus from acquiring a sin nature (Luke 1:35).
7. The virgin birth is not a first-level doctrine due to the surprising omission of it in the evangelistic sermons in Acts.
8. It is possible, therefore, to be ignorant of the virgin birth and still be saved.
On the positive side, Erickson lists four reasons that the virgin birth is an important teaching.
1. It reminds us that our salvation is supernatural. It was initiated by God; therefore, there was a complete lack of human effort in producing our Savior.
2. Consequently, it reminds us that salvation is fully a gift of grace from God.
3. It is evidence of the uniqueness of Jesus as Savior.
4. It is another evidence of God's power and sovereingty over nature.
With that being said, the rest of the post will hash out Erickson's understanding of the virginal conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary. Here are the key points of Erickson's section on the theological meaning of the virgin birth:
1. Jesus did not have to have any parents because God had set the precedent of creating man from the ground, as was the case in Adam. Therefore, it would not have been impossible for Him to do the same thing in Jesus' case.
2. Jesus could have been the child of two parents. He argues that insisting that Christ could not have had a human male parent would smack of Apollinarianism, which is simply put the belief that Jesus had a human body, but a divine soul. (Here, I think Erickson has not made a strong enough case for himself because this interpretation could lead to adoptionism)
3. God's part in the virginal conception was to provide the necessary male component, which was both at the same time fully human and fully divine.
4. The fully human and fully divine natures do not depend on the virgin birth.
5. Erickson, then, moves on to answer questions about original sin. He states the virgin birth was not necessary to protect Jesus from a sin nature. There are to logical conclusions that occur if our sin nature is caused by conception.
A. The father is the source of depravity.
B. Depravity is directly related to sexual intercourse.
6. It is, in fact, the power of the Holy Spirit that protected Jesus from acquiring a sin nature (Luke 1:35).
7. The virgin birth is not a first-level doctrine due to the surprising omission of it in the evangelistic sermons in Acts.
8. It is possible, therefore, to be ignorant of the virgin birth and still be saved.
On the positive side, Erickson lists four reasons that the virgin birth is an important teaching.
1. It reminds us that our salvation is supernatural. It was initiated by God; therefore, there was a complete lack of human effort in producing our Savior.
2. Consequently, it reminds us that salvation is fully a gift of grace from God.
3. It is evidence of the uniqueness of Jesus as Savior.
4. It is another evidence of God's power and sovereingty over nature.
posted by Michael D. Estes at 6:35 PM
10 Comments:
Michael,
I would disagree with some of those statements by Erickson. I'm not sure why one would want to venture into the territory of the virgin birth not being necessary. Logic seems to preclude that if it were not necessary, then why do it? The fact is that God chose to send his Son to earth through Mary's womb so that Jesus could identify with us and have a 100% human experience. The fact that Mary was made pregnant through the Holy Spirit, and not Joseph, demonstrates that there is some type of "sin seed" passed down through mankind. It is not a sin "DNA" that comes from our body. There is not a "sin gene." However, I do think that the passing down of the sin seed has something to do with male headship and leadership. When Eve sinned first, and then gave the apple to Adam to eat, who did the Lord look for? He looked for Adam as the head of the marriage. With every decision a couple makes, the inherent responsibility of that decision rests on the husband's shoulders.
I need to clarify myself. I do feel that sin is passed down spiritually, not physically. As humans, we have both bodies and souls. Therefore, I do not think there is a sin gene, but there is something going on soul to soul.
Charlie,
First, was Eve really the first sinner? I would say no. While she through her action sinned (i.e. taking and eating), Adam sinned first by his inaction. He stood right beside Eve and did nothing to protect her from falling. He had the ability, at that moment to make the right decision and tell Eve and the serpent, "NO!" But, he failed through a complete lack of action.
I think this is the only way to see the fall and understand how both man and woman acquire a sin nature, Eve through her action and Adam through his inaction.
Second, the question then becomes how is original sin passed down from generation to generation? Obviously, our sin nature is linked directly to Adam by Paul in Romans 5. I would make the argument that we have a sin nature because we participated in Adam's sin (Erickson, 648-655). I would also agree with Augustine that we receive the imputation of Adam's sin just as now we receive the imputation of Christ's righteousness. It is as Grudem would put it: we have an "inherited guilt" and "inherited corruption." As if all of humanity was present in some way at the fall. We are all partakers in the first sin.
hey guys,
I've definitely got a few things to say about this topic, but I want to make sure that we're ready for some deep theological discussion. I say this just to point out that in disagreeing with something that one of you guys write, I am not attacking anyone personally. I've started to write a response, and I don't want it to be taken in the wrong way.
On the same hand, I'm gonna be honest and come out and say that I'm a lot less settled on many of the issues that we're going to end up discussing than you guys may be. So if I question a position, it doesn't necessarily mean that I hold the opposite opinion.
I have just a couple of observations to make on this issue.
First, concerning the absence of the virgin birth in the sermons of Acts. Upon a brief, cursory survey of the book, I've noticed that the sinless life of Jesus Christ is not mentioned. Correct me if I'm mistaken on this issue, but I argue quite streneously that the sinless life of our Lord is a "top-shelf" doctrine. Therefore, the absence of a particular feature of Christ in early Christian sermons as we have them recorded does not necessarily imply that the preacher did not consider it to be essential.
Secondly, I believe that the role of Jesus Christ as Mediator can shed much light on this issue. 1 Tim. 2:5 reads, "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus..." The Virgin Birth allows the God-Man to be formed, thus creating an individual who is both fully God and fully man, thus having the unique quality of being able to reconcile both parties to another.
To address Erickson's proposition that God could have simply created Jesus directly from the earth as he did with Adam, I think that the Virgin Birth is intentionally avoiding this method because of the unique mission of Christ: To be tempted in every way as we are, yet be without sin. Jesus was a child who would have been tempted to hit his brothers, disobey his parents, draw on the wall with crayons, etc. However, he was able to face these early temptations and still not sin. I'm not sure if I want a High Priest who is able to sympathize with all of my temptations, except those that are specific to children. I'm sure a rebuttal to this will be that God could have simply just have created Jesus as an infant in the same way that He created Adam to allow for the full scope of life experience, but I think that this objection misses the point. God had to start somewhere with Adam, but worked within the framework of the creation order He had established for the birth process of Jesus Christ.
Though I have just addressed His humanity, I think that a primary issue at stake in the Virgin Birth debate that must be considered is His divinity. The Virgin Birth is beautiful because it gives Jesus Christ claim to divinity. If one argues that the Virgin Birth is unnecessary to Christ possessing a divine nature, then, as Michael poignantly observed, this will lead one almost inevitably to some form of adoptionism. In the Virgin Birth, God makes the person/identity of Jesus Christ explicit: Jesus Christ is the true Son of God in flesh.
I agree with Drew.
Also, I'm not comfortable with saying that Eve did not sin. I feel the reason that Adam is called the first who sinned is because of his place as the head of the relationship, which is why God called for Adam after the Fall, and not Eve.
This distinction relates back to a Complimentarian view on Biblical manhood and womanhood and the differing roles they possess.
Charlie,
Let me state again that I believe that Adam and Eve both sinnned. My assertion is that Adam sinned first through his inaction; then, Eve sinned through her action. I will not argue that Eve didn't sin.
Drew,
While there is not an explicit reference to Jesus' sinless life, it is certainly implied in terms like the Righteous One or even in references to the lamb or sheep. (Remember that this was a culture that understood the sacrifical system. They knew the Mosaic laws, found in Leviticus, that called for unblemished sacrifices. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that Jesus's sinlessness would have implied in some of the Acts' sermons.)
Drew makes the most excellent point that the Virgin Birth allows for Christ to have the "full" human experience. This is exactly why Erickson would not dispense with the doctrine. I think this might be one of the key as to why the Virgin Birth occurred. I do not think, however, that the Virgin Birth functioned in a way as to protect Jesus from a sin nature. To say this would necessarily attribute divinity of some kind to Mary (of course, then we'd all be Roman Catholics), or force upon man (I mean this in terms of gender) the full onus of the sin nature. The Virgin Birth actually functioned in a relational way.
"the Virgin Birth allows for Christ to have the "full" human experience. This is exactly why Erickson would not dispense with the doctrine."
Do you mean this to state that if this were not true, then Erickson actually would reject the historicity of the virgin birth?
Drew,
It was a poor choice of words. That was really only one of the reasons why he wouldn't dispense of it. The fact that it is recorded in the Scriptures is enough for Erickson. He affirms the virgin birth because the Gospels of Matthew and Luke record the event.
Millard Erickson's reasoning is very good, though not necessarilly watertight. I would want to consider some of those arguments carefully.
Our salvation does not depend on our believing in the Virgin Birth or even the orthodoxy of our Christology.
Nevertheless, I think we should shun any who denied the Virgin Birth.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Post a Comment
<< Home