The Virgin Birth in Primitive Christianity and Why It Matters

In his book, "Born of a Woman," John Shelby Spong proudly rejects the historical event and the literal interpretation of the Virgin Birth. Spong interprets the New Testament, especially the Nativity scenes in Matthew and Luke as Christian Midrash. He sees them as a type of reverse allegory. Rather than events and narratives in the Old Testament foreshadowing the events and revelation of the New Testament, Spong sees the events in the Nativity to be a reflection of the old. For example, the miraculous conception of John the Baptist mirrors that of Samson in Judge 13.

Spong suggests that Jesus was perhaps an illegitimate son, perhaps not of Josephs (if that was his name he surmises). One of the arguments he raises, and Spong is not alone here, regards the date of the writing of Matthew and Luke and how they appear to be the only writers in the New Testament to proclaim a virgin birth of Jesus Christ. He raises the point that according to modern scholarship, Mark was the first canonical Gospel written (it should be pointed out, however, that the early church believed Matthew to have been the first Gospel written in the New Testament), thus it reflects an earlier understanding of the theology of the church. And the Gospel of Mark makes no mention (directly at least) to the Virgin Birth. Thus, he suggests, when Matthew and Luke were written, several years later both relying on Mark, the issue of Jesus' origins and the scandal surrounding it was being raised. Therefore, the two authors offer their own (contradictory he would add) accounts of the origins of Jesus. And the only way to reconcile the Church's theology at that time, the Virgin Birth became a necessity.

Similarly, Spong suggests that the Virgin Birth is found nowhere in the New Testament apart from Matthew and Luke. Several of the other books in the NT were written before Matthew and Luke and yet they fail to explicitly mention the Virgin Birth. In Paul, Spong notes Galatians 4:4-5 and Romans 1:3-4 as the only times that the birth of Christ is mentioned. Outside of that, only the family members are mentioned (thus suggesting that they were blood related and conceived in very much the same way as Jesus, that is, naturally through intercourse).

But is this true? Was the Virgin Birth invented in order to defend the Deity of Christ? Was the concept of the Virgin Birth absent from a more primitive Christianity? What can we know from the books written prior to Matthew and Luke?

To begin, we must affirm that we are not obligated to answer wild heretical claims like this. To suggest that Jesus was actually an illegitimate child of Joseph or someone else (some have suggested that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier) is blasphemous at best. As Christians, we must affirm the work of the Holy Spirit as He breathed the Scripture. Matthew and Luke did not make up the narrative of the Nativity, but were moved by the Holy Spirit to tell it as it had happened.

Let us not forget the differing perspectives and purposes by which the New Testament writers (not just the Gospel writers) wrote. Some dealt with heresies like anitnomianism (like Jude), others dealt with legalism (like Galatians), some dealt with believers rejoining themselves to Judaism in order to escape persecution (like Hebrews), some were perhaps apologetic books written primarily to Jews (like Matthew), others seek to make an orderly and accurate account of historical events (like Luke-Acts), etc. John begins at the beginning by identifying Jesus (the Word/Logos) as the Creator and God Himself, who came down in flesh and "dwelt among us" (John 1:14) for a reason. John has no need to write of the Nativity (for one he was aware of at least one of the other Gospels) because he has his own theological purpose in writing (that is for the reader to believe that Jesus is the Son of God) and after writing about the Divine Logos, there is no need to describe the Nativity.

But are there hints of a virgin birth written prior to Matthew and Luke? We certainly can affirm such a thesis. For those who study Source Criticism, the point should be raised that though Matthew and Luke tell two different (not contradictory) parts of the Christmas story, the similarities are interesting; including the Virgin Birth. If Source Criticism is true, it is reasonable to conclude that a Virgin Birth narrative and theology had already been developed prior to the writings of Matthew and Luke.

Secondly, let us look at the two half-brothers of Jesus who contributed to the NT canon: James and Jude. James wrote perhaps the earliest book in the New Testament (others suggest Galatians). Spong goes out of his way to show how the NT reveals James simply as the brother of Jesus. Never does it mention half-brother or anything similar. Thus, he and others like him argue that the early church understood them to be actual brothers born of both Mary and Joseph.

But what did James and Jude have to say on the subject? James begins: "James, a servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ." Interestingly James never mentions his shared bloodline with Jesus. This does not call into question their shared biology in their mother, but James considers his submission to the Lordship of Christ more important than his relation to him. It would have been very tempting to put his right of authority based on his relation to Jesus, but James does not do that. Perhaps, even, James finally realized (after his own conversion) that he wasn't as closely related to Jesus as he thought he was (though we can only speculate here). In the end he affirms the gospel. James is a slave (the actual meaning there) of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. That is more important.

Jude, in similar fashion writes: "Jude a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James." Here, Jude (though written after Matthew and Luke, yet still relevant) notes his relation to James, but not to Christ. Rather, like James, Jude notes his full submission, as a slave, to Christ. Jude is willing to identify his authority to write with his relation to James, but not to his relation to Christ. Perhaps Jude too, after his conversion, realized that his relationship with Jesus was not primarily of bloodline (for they did not have the same earthly father), but of Lordship.

Thirdly, let us return to Galatians 4:4-5. It reads: "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons." Spong suggests that this argues against the Virgin Birth and its early date of writing only proves his argument. I would like to suggest otherwise.

We must return to Genesis 3:15 which affirms that the will come one from the "Woman's seed" that will crush the head of the serpent. What is interesting about this statement is that women do not carry the seed of reproduction. Men do. Many see this as an early prophecy of the Virgin Birth and I think that is a reasonable conclusion.

I believe that this interpretation of Genesis 3:15 helps us to understand Galatians 4:4-5 a little clearer. Paul is writing a basic creed regarding Christ in context of his attack against the Legalists (thus why he mentions the law). Paul notes here that when providential had willed it, Christ was born of the woman's seed, or as Paul put it, "born of a woman." No mention of Joseph or an earthly father as was common at this time (normally one would mention their father's lineage: son of John, son of Mark, son of Augusts, etc.), but rather mentions the woman. This must imply that, at the very least, that Jesus' human lineage and biology, was primarily linked (in the early Church and early theology) to Mary, not Joseph or another man.

But note what Paul says prior to this. When the "fullness of time had come," God sent His Son to be born of a woman. Isn't that interesting? Here we have both the Fatherhood of Jesus (God the Father) and the motherhood of Jesus (Mary). The NT is emphatic, and Jesus repeatedly affirms, that Jesus was God's Son. It was this claim to be God's Son that got Jesus killed (see Luke 22:69ff and John 19:6-7).

To be God's Son and Mary's child is the essence of the Virgin Birth.

One final thing should be noted here and that is the necessity of the Virgin Birth. Heretics like Spong are all too willing to reject the doctrine of the Incarnation simply because it is no longer relevant. I say, who cares? Is God subject to the winds of culture, thus is submissive to the corrupt waves of men, or does God expect all men, everywhere, to repent? God is not up for a vote. I don't care what the culture may think or say. Why should I put more faith in the corruption of man than in the holiness of God? God cannot lie and yet man swims in lies. Why believe in the fallenness of man instead of the purity of God?

The Virgin Birth is necessary because of what it says about the gospel. Is that not Paul's point in Galatians 4? Christ came to redeem us and so long as He was conceived through natural means, He would have been only a man needing to be saved. The doctrine of original sin would apply to Him as it would us. What we would have, then, is not a Savior, but a good guy that was unjustly killed. But if Christ only appeared suddenly without being incarnated, we would only have a God that cannot sympathize with us nor could He serve as a perfect propitiatory sacrifice for us.

What we need is a God-man. One who had both natures. The perfect bridge who, through His sacrificial death and victorious resurrection, reconciled God and man. One who can suffer the full wrath of God and can at the same time forgive man's sins. This cannot happen apart from the Virgin Birth.

So no matter how hard Spong and others might try, the Virgin Birth is not an accessory that can be discarded. Apart from it, the death and resurrection of Christ would make no sense and would not satisfy God's wrath. Without such satisfaction being made, we would remain in our sins. As Christians, we must not so easily discard the difficult parts of Scripture and Biblical theology. To do so dilutes the gospel and only plays into the hands of men who above all else need to be reconciled. The fervency in which many are so eager to attack the Incarnation should remind us of how much Christ and His substitutionary death is hated by sinners. If Christ died in my place, that means I am accountable to God. And when we love darkness rather than the light (cf. John 3) we will do all we can to pretend it isn't real.

"She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21). That is the beauty of the Virgin Birth.

John MacArthur and the Conversion of His Football Coach: 50 Years Later

This is an amazing video and was a great start to my day.

John MacArthur - Study Video from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

The Myth of Adolescence: Mark Driscoll Weighs In

Finally, people are starting to wake up to the myth of adolescence. As one who has worked with youth, it is time for churches, parents, schools, and youth themselves realize this. Let us not forget that many in the Bible in whom God used in mighty ways were young teenagers. God uses young people, if only we would grow up.

Benny Hinn Goes Primetime

Here is an interesting interview that Charismatic preacher Benny Hinn did on ABC. I am no fan of Hinn and found some of his answers very interesting.




For more:
Congress Investigates Hinn and Other Ministries Justin Peters: Exposing the Word of Faith Prosperity Gospel Teachers

9Marks: We Watch TBN So You Don't Have To!

Dembski on Todd Bentley

Luther: Right Doctrine and Righteous Living Go Hand-in-Hand - A Message the Church Needs to Recover

I am currently taking a class on Martin Luther and have been blessed in studying his life, teachings, and theology. Recently, I came across a few quotes worth considering:

"Bad doctrine is a thousand times more harmful than a bad life."

"Where doctrine is not right, it is impossible for life to be right and good: for life must be prepared by doctrine and must follow it."

These two quotes are taken from Documents From the History of Lutheranism: 1517-1750, edited by Eric Lund, pg. 216. This is classic Luther who stood between hundreds of years of Catholic theology which had corrupted the gospel. When Luther looked at the immorality of the Church during his day, what he saw wasn't just unrighteous living, but unrighteousness.

Luther understood that the answer to the Church's problems wasn't more morality, but an undiluted gospel. These words of Luther need to be heard and understood. Today, most Christians are callas regarding theology. We hate division and seek to get around debate. We all too often find issues of theology not worth our time. As Luther saw in his day and as we see in ours, our bad theology shows.

Due to our horrendous and lackadaisical attitude towards theology, the Church is corroding. Our divorce race is at its highest, most people refuse to wait before marriage to have sex, denominations are confused about what the Bible says about issues like homosexuality and the definition of marriage, we rationalize relativism, and we follow the trail of the culture. What we need is a revival. What we need is the sort of reformation that Luther launched; one not built on more morality, but on the gospel.

The Church has a responsibility an is to be the beacon of God. If people want to know who God is, what He expects, what went wrong, and where our hope lies, it will be found in the Church and the Church is built on the gospel of Jesus Christ. But how will people find God and know Him whenever the Light of the World and the Salt of the Earth is shaded by the debrey of postmodernity and laziness and has lost its flavor to laziness and relativism?

What we need is a return to right theology. What we need is to uncover, once again, the pure gospel as revealed in Scripture. That is where the power of the Spirit lies: the gospel. If we really want to change the world, it won't be through politicians and trying harder and doing better next time, it will be whenever Christians return to the cross and right doctrine and allow the Spirit to change us through the power of the cross and the empty tomb.

Bell and the Meaning of Evangelical

Pastor, author, and Emergent celerbtiy Rob Bell was recently interviewed regarding the meaning of Evangelical. The published interview is telling of the theology of Bell. Regarding what he means by "Evangelical," Bell said:

I take issue with the word to a certain degree, so I make a distinction between a capital E and a small e. I was in the Caribbean in 2004, watching the election returns with a group of friends, and when Fox News, in a state of delirious joy, announced that evangelicals had helped sway the election, I realized this word has really been hijacked. I find the word troubling, because it has come in America to mean politically to the right, almost, at times, anti-intellectual. For many, the word has nothing to do with a spiritual context.

Bell makes the connection between Evangelicalism and the religious right. Bell and others in the Emergent Church are reacting against the religious right. They accuse Christians of being too political. To remedy this abuse, Emergents themselves become too political, only on the other end of the spectrum.

Bell may have a point that the word "Evangelical" is too often connected with politics and mostly the Republican party. But what is most important in his answer is the absense of the gospel. Yes Evangelicals may oftentimes align themselves, wrongly, with the Republican party all too often, but Evangelicals are also known for what they believe about the Bible, about Christ, the resurrection, and salvation. Bell says nothing regarding the issue, and as we will see, he rarely mentions the gospel.

But if Bell draws a distinction between Evangelicals and evangelicals, it seems that he aligns himself on the more evangelical side. But what does he mean by the term? Though Bell has criticized Michael Paulson, who interviewed Bell, of not posting much of the interview he did, but was very selective in what he published. So what does Bell mean by the word evangelical? Outside of the distinction between political loyalty, what else does the word evangelical, in his assessment, entail? Bell answers:

I embrace the term evangelical, if by that we mean a belief that we together can actually work for change in the world, caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness, a hopeful outlook. That’s a beautiful sort of thing.

This is what he means by evangelical? I must say that I am disappointed . . . but not surprised. Here, it seems, is Bell 's understanding, not of just the word evangelical, but of the gospel. Enter the social gospel. Thanks to the postmodern bondage of the Emergent Church and its many leaders like Rob Bell, the Emergent Church has become nothing more than a postmodern version of Walter Rauschenbusch's Social Gospel where it is all social and no gospel.

By stripping the cross of God's justice, overemphasizing God's love at the cost of God's righteousness, and in their attempt to be embraced by the culture, Emergents are left with nothing but a social movement where the goal is to save the planet and help the poor. Environmentalism and serving the poor are great things and Christians should be committed to those causes, but to ignore or to even trample on the gospel is nothing short of apalling. Is this really the best Bell can do?

But Bell's last answer is perhaps most frightening. Bell was asked "I’m struck by the fact that I don’t hear a lot of explicitly religious language, or mentions of Jesus, from you." He answered:

I think we have enough religious people who are going around trying to convert people. My guard is up when somebody is trying to convert me to their thing. Are you talking to me because you actually are interested in this subject, because you care about me as a human, or am I one more possible conversion that will make you feel good about your religiosity? I don’t have any embarrassment about my religion, and it’s not that I’m too cool, but I would hope that the Jesus message would come through, hopefully through a full humanity.

And calling people to repent isn't caring about them as humans? The Great Commission is not for the purpose of putting spiritual notches on one's belt, but to bring glory to God. Paul makes this point in 1 Corinthians:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. -1 Corinthians 1:17

He goes on to add:

And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. -1 Corinthians 2:1-5

To Paul, calling on men to repent, fulfilling the Great Commission, planting churches, and reaching the lost world was not about feeling good about his religiosity, but about bring Christ glory by bringing what was lost to repentance; by making the fool wise and by changing the world, not through environmentalism but through reconciliation between fallen man and holy God.

In Luke 15, Jesus tells three parables that have one overarching theme: whenever one sinner repents, God, and the angels with him, rejoices. Repentance of the sinner is about the joy of God. Slaves of Christ seek the joy of their Master, not of themselves. To convert the lost for one's own personal pride runs contrary of the gospel. Sinners repent through the work of the Spirit, not through the wisdom of the wise, but through the foolishness of the cross. And it is all done for the glory of God.

What concerns me most about Bell, at the end of the day, isn't his approach to ministry, but his understanding of the gospel. It is one thing to be considered one of the coolest pastors that young people flock too, it is another thing to abuse such opportunities. Rob Bell undercuts the gospel in favor of a more user-friendly, inclusive, false-gospel. Bell may have the approval of the world, but he does not enjoy the approval of God.

So what is an Evangelical/evangelical? Not politics. Not the social gospel. Not a conversation. But the gospel: Jesus Christ, Him crucified and resurrected. A pure Church is known by that message. Everything else is a distraction that robs God of His glory and is unacceptable in His eyes.

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, -1 Corinthians 15:1-4

For More:
Boston Globe - Bell aims to restore true meaning of ‘evangelical’
Boston Globe - Rob Bell on faith, suffering, and Christians
Rob Bell Twitter - Ever done an interview and then read it and realized they left out most of what you said? Maddening.
Rob Bell Twitter - A bit of history: the word evangelical comes from the Roman Empire propaganda machine- it was an announcement proclaiming Caesar is Lord...
Out of Ur - Rob Bell Defines "Evangelical"
Jared Wilson - A Rant: Rob Bell and An Evangel-less Evangelicalism
The Emergent Gospel In 140 Characters or Less
Emerging Church Thesis Available Online
A Theological Critique of Rob Bell's "She" Video
"Jesus Wants To Save Christians"
"Velvet Elvis"
Jesus Wants to Save Christians
The Wrongs of the Rights: A Response to the 5 Rights Presented By Emergent Village - Charity
The Wrongs of the Rights: A Response to the 5 Rights Presented By Emergent Village - Conversation

The Ancient Emergent Church

Many in the Emerging/Emergent Church argue that they are trying to get back to the traditions of the ancient church. A number of the leaders have written books on the subject and some seem to referring to this idea in the phrase "ancient-future church." But how close is the Emerging Church to the actual ancient church?

This is the question raised by Nathan Busenitz at the Shepherd's Fellowship site. After reading Justin Martyr (who is perhaps my favorite early Church leader) he came across an interesting quote describing what the early church did at worship:

On the day called Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a given city or rural district. The memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then when the reader ceases, the president [pastor] in a discourse admonishes and urges the imitation of these good things. Next we all rise together and send up prayers.

When we cease from our prayer, bread is presented and wine and water. The president in the same manner sends up prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people sing out their assent, saying the 'Amen.' A distribution and participation of the elements for which thanks have been given is made to each person, and to those who are not present they are sent by the deacons.

Those who have means and are willing, each according to his own choice, gives what he wills, and what is collected is deposited with the president. He provides for the orphans and widows, those who are in need on account of sickness or some other cause, those who are in bonds, strangers who are sojourning, and in a word he becomes the protector of all who are in need.

But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.
For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration. (First Apology, 67)

From this quote, Busenitz points out 6 things that seem to contradict the Emergent experiment. He writes:

Per Justin's description, we get a pretty good idea of what took place in an ancient Christian church service. Notice at least seven important factors: (1) Scripture was read, from both the New Testament (“the memoirs of the apostles”) and the Old Testament (“the writings of the prophets”). (2) The pastor preached a message ("discourse"), exhorting the people to obey the things they had just heard from the Scripture. (3) The congregation prayed together. (4) The congregation participated in commemorating the Lord’s Supper. (5) In their preparation for Communion, the pastor prayed and the congregation sang songs of affirmation. (6) An offering was taken in order to meet the needs of fellow saints. (7) All of this took place on Sunday, the day on which Jesus rose from the dead.

So, how Emergent was the ancient church? Not very much, according to Justin's description, it would seem. But to the Emerging Church's credit, they aren't really interested in this part. It seems they care more about allegorical, and metaphorical interpretations of Scripture prevalent among the ancients (though Emergents are quickly moving towards a more mythical hermeneutic). They also prefer some of the more mystical experiences that are reported among the opening centuries of the Church.

So, are Emergents ancient? No. Let us not forget that many in the ancient church were killed for their faith because their message was opposed to the culture. Emergents, on the other hand, are embraced by the culture because Emergents have begun with culture rather than the gospel. The culture defines their theology, not Scripture nor the gospel. Emergents remain a postmodern phenomenon doomed to be outdated because it has limited itself to the winds of postmodernity. When it fades, so will the Emergent Church.

What we need is a transcendent gospel. To Emergents, there is no such thing. The ancients couldn't disagree more.

For More:

Nathan Busenitz - How Emergent Was the Ancient Church?

Emerging Church Thesis Available Online

Where to Begin?: 10 Emergent Must Reads

You Might Be an Emergent If . . .

I Am Justin Martyr