 |
||
 |
||
Jim's PERSPECTIVEJuly 30, 2014In full view of our rationalistic, secular, humanistic, and skeptical society, I believe in the Virgin Birth. And, yes, I am aware of the translation of Isaiah 7:14, “…and a young woman shall conceive and bear a son….” (RSV). I know that Justin Martyr, the great second century theologian/apologist stated that a “virgin” had nothing to do with the prophecy. I know, too, that in the minds of some modern revisionist scholars, Luke and Matthew, while attesting to the virgin birth of Jesus, did not specifically attribute direct testimony to either Joseph or Mary. I am not convinced of that, but it doesn’t really matter to me. That Paul didn’t mention the virgin birth in any of his epistles doesn’t matter to me either. I believe in the Virgin Birth because it comports—in my mind at least—with the gospel narratives (not to mention the conciliar creeds), and when I consider the alternatives, namely, the modernistic/rationalistic claims that it is not true, I feel that I have to point out a few obvious conclusions. If, say, just Luke’s account of Zechariah’s, Elizabeth’s, Mary’s, Joseph’s, or Simeon’s experiences and testimonies surrounding the events of Jesus’ birth are not true, then somebody is either grossly mistaken or just plain lying—either Luke or the Lukan community, or the Apostles, or those surrounding Mary, or Mary herself. Matthew’s account includes the pondering of Joseph, who thought to “put her away privily…” i.e. grant her a quiet divorce. This would indicate that she did, in fact, end up unexpectedly pregnant before they were married, and you can figure that everyone must have known. It seems highly unlikely to me that, given Luke’s documented statement in the gospel’s prologue that he attempted to find eye-witnesses or those with first-hand knowledge, if the story was inaccurate, no one would have come forward to posit a theory that her pregnancy might be accounted for by her involvement with someone other than the Holy Spirit. If a person with “first-hand knowledge” actually spoke authoritatively to a contrary account, then to exclude it from the record would be a glaring omission—actually a cover-up—on Luke’s part at the very least. In the gospel accounts of the adult Jesus’ ministry, there are hints, or allusions, on the part of some of the Pharisees that they insinuated he was born out of wedlock. This would be in keeping with human nature: people who intend to slur their opponents with insult and innuendo will use gossip handed down for generations. It was not uncommon—there were precedents in their day—for an over-wrought, desperate, unstable, girl who was pregnant from whatever kinds of circumstances that caused it to proclaim, “It’s a miracle! I’m carrying God’s baby….” Indeed, how would one tell one’s fiancé or one’s mother that she was “with child?” However, one doesn’t really get a sense of instability, or flightiness, or insincerity of any sort when reading the accounts concerning Mary. She is an uncommonly level-headed, intelligent, and perceptive young woman. Detailed information about her conversations with angels appearing in chapter 1 of Luke’s gospel would tend to carry some significant weight, and excluding it if they did occur would be unthinkable, while including it if they did not occur would be untenable. I think that the belief in the Virgin Birth has to be discussed in the larger context of miracle, and whether or not miracles even happen (BTW, C.S. Lewis’ book, Miracles, is, I believe, one of the best reads on the subject.). Modernistic claims that it is not true stem from a belief in Natural Law, which is to say, particularly in the context of pregnancy, that one would have be engaged in sexual relations in order for that to happen. Believers in Natural Law think that the only way a woman can become pregnant is through the involvement of a finite entity known as man. What seems to be objectionable to skeptical rational-minded folk is the repugnant idea of the possibility of pregnancy by any other means, especially non-material—spiritual—ones. In their understanding, if a woman is pregnant, that means she had sex with a man, period. Unless, of course, the story about the Immaculate Conception is true. If it is, then it is a miracle. But it is not the miracle-of-miracles. That would have to be the resurrection. A while back I was watching “The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud,” a four-hour series for PBS that was inspired by a course taught at Harvard University by Dr. Armand Nicholi, who also serves as the host of the television series and the moderator of a panel discussion that explored the fundamental, philosophical, and spiritual questions related to the existence and activity of God. The panel was made up of multi-racial men and women, believers and non-believers. Representing the atheistic point-of-view was Michael Shermer, the founder of Skeptic magazine. On the question of the resurrection, he asked, “As a scientist, aren’t you curious how God did it? Jump start the heart? Rebuild the cells? New DNA? How’d he do it?” I mean, Dr. Shermer was suggesting that what happened to Jesus, naturally speaking, essentially was a resuscitation. Granted, the larger issue and the theme of that segment was “miracles,” but still I was surprised that the Christians on the panel did not seem to pick up on his interpretation as Jesus’ rising from the dead as resuscitation and did not question it, miracle or not. My own understanding of the resurrection is that it was not at all a resuscitation; it is a totally different kind of life, a new existence with a new body that, apparently, does not have to respond to, or obey, the limitations of space and time as we do. Jesus’ resurrection appearances are such that even his closest friends don’t recognize him even when he is present with them; he is manifested to hundreds of people simultaneously; he moves through walls and locked doors; gravity and death seem to have no more claim over his risen form. I bring up the resurrection to make two points: One, the resurrection is the supreme example, in my opinion, of a super-natural law. Natural law is not canceled out; it is overcome by a higher law. This is the definition of a miracle: not the doing away—or even a suspension—of natural law; but, rather, the overcoming of a natural law with a higher law. The second point is that the resurrection vindicates and confirms everything that Jesus said, did, and taught. I find it beyond credible that people can accept and believe the resurrection, but cannot accept and believe Jesus’s divine means of birth. I also find it hard to believe that (according to some) there were knowing participants in a conspiracy to falsify the details of his birth, hide the “fact” of Jesus’s death, and, on the basis of “eye-witness testimony,” proclaim, for whatever reasons, that Jesus is alive. Even if the motive were to provide hope for the hopeless, it would still have been a lie, and a cruel one at that. It is either true, or it isn’t. The same goes for the Virgin Birth. The fourth century authors of the creeds that attempt to “dogma-fy” the Virgin Birth were caught up in rational arguments such as “Did Jesus have the very same (homoousios) nature as God, or did he have one that is “similar” (homoiousios) to God’s? Their thinking was that in order for a self-existent, perfect God to save, the nature of Jesus must be self-existent and perfect as well. I try to avoid the rationalistic and dogmatic aspects of these claims. I am more interested in the nature of the claims of first-hand and eye-witnesses. I do not accept that the early disciples and apostles lied about Jesus in order to validate either him or themselves. I do not believe that the Lukan community perpetuated a fabricated, or else mythical, story. I do not believe that countless people laid down their lives for a truth they proclaimed but did not believe. I do believe that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, and that he was raised from the dead, because it is the only plausible conclusion I can reach, given the written testimonials, given my own experience of the resurrected, living Lord, and, in my own thinking processes, the only one that actually makes any sense. - Jim Radford |
||
|
©2013 Jim Radford. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication prohibited.
|
