"If you don't believe in the virgin birth, you aren't Christian," one man shouts across the aisle. Yet other verses with more evidence and weight are not considered 'staples' of the faith. This question is not to determine how the virgin birth came about or an argument against the virgin birth, but more about the purpose of the virgin birth narrative. A common doctrine is that the virgin birth is necessary for a trinity to absolve us of sin, but where is this taught? Is this really the case? While barely skimmed over by Matthew and Luke as passing phrases and no other writer seems to even be aware of it, it seems to be one of the pinnacles of faith that has built itself into a requirement of Christianity.
The argument in question is fairly straight forward; is the virgin birth required for Jesus to be the perfect lamb? To answer this question, we need to lay out the groundwork of definitions based on biblical understanding rather than our modern eisegesis of terminology.
Definitions matter
What is temptation?
According to James, temptation is when someone is enticed by their own evil desires.
But each one is tempted when he is dragged away and enticed by his own desire. - James 1:14 TLV
What is sin?
Sin is transgression of the law of G-d, and rebellion against G-d as we see in 1 John 3:4, Deuteronomy 9:7, and Joshua 1:18. James also elaborates on how sin happens from temptation;
Then when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is full grown, it brings forth death - James 1:13-15 TLV
What is “original sin”?
We have a desire to sin, and its difficult to overcome it - it is the natural animal soul given to man that gives him the desire to do self-serving things (Genesis 8:21). According to many theologians who subscribe to the concept of original sin, it can be defined as, “the moral corruption we possess as a consequence of Adam's sin”.
The Virgin Birth Questions
Keep in mind, the question we are asking is, "Is the virgin birth required for Jesus to be the perfect lamb?"
"Sin is passed down, therefore Christ had to be born of a virgin to avoid it."
The concept that we live in a world of sin is the consequence of sin, not the inheritance of sin. For example, if I get into a car accident and injure another driver while running a red light, that driver inherits the consequence of my sin but he does not become a transgressor of the law prohibiting running a red light. If we assume that "original sin" is the idea that you inherit actual sin, and not just a sinful nature, then both the woman and the man are capable of passing down sin and we have many theological issues.
What time-frame of sin is inherited? Do we only inherit our parent's sin while in the womb? After birth? Before conception? In any case, this is an issue because this also implies Mary passed down any sin she had to Jesus.
Who's sins do we inherit? Do we inherit all generations? Keep in mind, we all have a singular "Adam and Eve" which we all come from, so are we guilty of all sins of every generation that has ever existed?
If we assume sin itself can be passed down and we are guilty of every law, then it also means we are guilty of being unbelievers, guilty of rejecting The Almighty (G-d forbid!). In these instances, if original sin means we inherit the actual sin itself, then even Jesus was guilty through Mary. Some say Mary was also sinless and had a miraculous birth, but even if this were true, why is it that man passes down Adam's sin? If man can pass down Adam's sin then surely Mary's mother and her mother and her mother (and so on) would all need to be perfectly sinless as well. And another might say, "Mary didn't sin so nothing was passed on", but that only proves the point that sin is not inherited but rather it is created when the person chooses to do evil.
The First Dilemma: G-d does not have evil desires
We must remember to use exegesis (to seek out) rather than eisegesis (to insert an idea) to understand scriptures. So what does scripture say?
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all the same ways we are —yet did not sin. - Hebrews 4:15
Let's use the definition scripture provides to understand this verse more clearly.
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been enticed by his own evil desires in all the same ways we are —yet did not transgress of the law of G-d. - Hebrews 4:15
If you are tied to the idea of a messiah figure without any internal struggles, then this will be a much harder pill to swallow, however, Christ was tempted in every way we are tempted and to say anything less actually dilutes a key point of the gospel. Christ needed to be fully human and have a fully human experience without any retraction of humanity.
Some might say, "Sure, but it was Satan who tempted him, but he wasn't actually tempted by his own evil desires." But you cannot be tempted by desires that aren't yours. For example, someone who is a devout vegan and hates meat is not going to be tempted to eat a platter of pork. But someone who has previously enjoyed eating pork every day and misses some of the food combinations involving pork will have the temptation when the smell and opportunity to eat bacon presents itself. The gospels go out of their way to distinctly claim he was tempted more than once. To say that Jesus was tempted but he didn't have a desire misses the entire point the writer of Hebrews is making! It would also mean that temptation means one thing when applied to every person in the universe, but it means something entirely different when talking about Jesus and the writers of the gospels didn't think that needed to be clarified which is an irrational approach. Jesus was tempted in the same way we are, and that he is able to sympathize with our weakness because of it. If he wasn't really tempted or tempted in a different way, then how is it possible the writer of Hebrews claims it was in the same way and he can sympathize with our weakness?
The Second Dilemma: G-d cannot be tempted/enticed by evil desires
G-d does not tempt nor can he be tempted yet Jesus was tempted. Coming from a trinitarian view, one might say, “Ah, this is because he was fully man and fully G-d”, if this is the case, then why was it necessary for him to be born of a virgin? If the rules of humanity no longer apply to him simply because "he's fully G-d" and able to toggle whatever he wants on/off at will, then why was it necessary to be born of a virgin? If he wasn't born of a virgin, would it mean that he, being fully G-d, was now impossibly hopeless to sin!? If all humans are tempted, and Christ is tempted, then what gain does he have by being born of a virgin? Even in Isaiah where the prophecy of the virgin is typically quoted, it says “it is a sign” not “this is so that he can be exempt from sin”. If we subscribe to the idea of a trinity, then we must ask what part of him was ‘fully G-d’ that omitted him from the human experience? Because all of scripture demonstrates a fully human even down to the temptation experience. To say anything less, removes Christ from the accomplishments and the struggles he overcame.
The Third Dilemma: The sign from G-d in Isaiah
In Isaiah 7; Aram, Ephraim, and Remaliah’s sons have plotted to destroy Judah & its wicked king and divide the land amongst themselves, G-d says he will not let it happen. When the people demanded a sign that G-d will do this, Isaiah said “G-d will give you a sign, a virgin will conceive and give birth to a son”. The sign is not to omit him from having sin as mentioned above. We find no mention of Jesus' virgin birth being a requirement in prophecy or the gospels for his status of 'lamb without blemish', only that it is a sign that G-d will fulfill His promise.
Many theologians who believe Isaiah is also speaking of the Messiah's virgin birth say, “Those who deny the virgin birth of Jesus like to point out that the Hebrew word translated virgin (almah) can also be translated as “young woman.” The idea is that Isaiah was simply saying that a “young woman” would give birth, not a virgin. While the near fulfillment may have reference to a young woman giving birth, the far or ultimate fulfillment clearly points to a woman miraculously conceiving.”
In both instances, both are a sign for something not related to avoiding “original sin”. And you still have to wrestle with the concept that G-d would have once had to struggle with sin, and also not know how to refuse evil or choose good from birth.
Continuing in Isaiah 7, it says, "before the child knows how to refuse evil and choose good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings." (Isaiah 7:15-16). But if this is about the messiah, then how can we say he was born without an evil inclination, without the natural animal soul that every man possesses from birth? How can we say that Christ knew all things from the moment of conception? It is an impossibility.
So what makes Christ unique?
Then when temptation has been conceived, it gives birth to sin: and sin, when it is fully grown, brings death." - James 1:15
While we are all enticed by our own evil desires (conception of temptation), and we allow our desires to become actualized as transgression of the law of G-d (birth of sin); only Christ was able to withstand the the enticement of his own evil desires and never give birth to sin (avoid birthing what was conceived). And we, through repentance, can kill off the birth of sin to prevent it from fully maturing into our own deaths.
Conclusion
We cannot say that the doctrine of virgin birth is a requirement for salvation, nor can we say that the virgin birth is necessary in order to be the 'lamb without blemish'. While you may agree or disagree with the virgin birth or hold to a more metaphorical concept of it, it is a great topic of discussion with lots of opinions and theories on all four sides of the debate table, but at the end of the day - it is not as crucial of an element as many make it out to be.
One of the greatest accomplishments of Christ was his devotion to G-d, even through all suffering and temptations, he did not go to the left or right of any command. A truly righteous messiah who had real struggles and overcame all of them, not succumbing to his own desires, but only doing what he knew was right.
Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done. - Luke 22:42
Comments