This is an update to the full article here - http://circumcisedheart.info/The%20Genealogy%20of%20Yeshua.pdf
Appendix: More on the Virgin Birth – addressing some counter arguments
Appendix: More on the Virgin Birth – addressing some counter arguments
After further discussion
on the Virgin Birth I would like to add a few further clarifying points:
The ‘Old Roman Creed’ states:“I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and
earth:
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary:
Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, dead, and buried …”
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary:
Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, dead, and buried …”
Some have argued that because this creed that accepts the Virgin Birth doctrine was a very early document it is likely to be an authentic explanation of what the first disciples believed.
However, most scholars date the “Old Roman Creed’ to no earlier than 140 CE.
By this time the ‘church’ had totally severed ties with its Jewish roots (this really started around 70 CE, but was fairly well done and dusted by 135 CE), and was really now a Hellenistic institution.
So this creed is really a creed of the Hellenists (and even some Gnostics), that is a creed of those who also argue for the Trinity, etc.
Some might argue that Ignatius of Antioch’s (who did live and
write before 10 CE) statement that: “For our God Jesus Christ was conceived by Mary
according to God’s plan, of the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit; who was born and was baptized that by his
passion He might cleanse water.” is an argument for the Virgin
Birth, though it could be interpreted in other ways.
Worse though Ignatius of Antioch also apparently wrote:
“Take care to do all things in
harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the
presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons,
who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was
with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest
— Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1
And “There is one Physician who is possessed both
of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life
in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, even
Jesus Christ our Lord.” —Letter to the Ephesians, ch. 7, (shorter
version, Roberts-Donaldson translation).
He (apparently) argued for the deity of Yeshua and many other Hellenstic doctrines.
What is more likely though is that the Ignatian epistles, beginning with that to the Romans, were pseudepigraphically composed in the early 3rd century (this was actually a very common approach as Bart Ehrman’s details in some depth in books like his ‘Lost Christianities’). This was the argument presented by biblical scholar, Professor William P. Killen (1886)[1].
He (apparently) argued for the deity of Yeshua and many other Hellenstic doctrines.
What is more likely though is that the Ignatian epistles, beginning with that to the Romans, were pseudepigraphically composed in the early 3rd century (this was actually a very common approach as Bart Ehrman’s details in some depth in books like his ‘Lost Christianities’). This was the argument presented by biblical scholar, Professor William P. Killen (1886)[1].
So the Old Roman Creed is more an argument against the Virgin
Birth than for it, because if the Virgin Birth is SO important that it was
stated in a very brief creedal formula, then why is it NOT stated likewise in
the NT?
The absence of explicit Virgin Birth teachings in the NT (outside of Matthew, and possibly Luke) sharply conflicts with the alleged importance shown in this very questionable document, a document from a time when the ‘fox was guarding the hen house’ (that is, when the church has severed links with its Jewish foundations)!
If we are going to use such extra-Biblical quotes as evidence for or against the Virgin Birth it would seem the words of Cerinthus are more relevant than the questionable Ignatius of Antioch or the Old Romans Creed. For example, Irenaeus (late 2nd century) wrote about the believer, Cerinthus[2] (of late first century CE) “who believed Jesus was not born of a virgin, but was the son of Joseph and Mary according to the usual manner.”” – I think this is more telling as an historical reality than the Old Roman Creed.
The absence of explicit Virgin Birth teachings in the NT (outside of Matthew, and possibly Luke) sharply conflicts with the alleged importance shown in this very questionable document, a document from a time when the ‘fox was guarding the hen house’ (that is, when the church has severed links with its Jewish foundations)!
If we are going to use such extra-Biblical quotes as evidence for or against the Virgin Birth it would seem the words of Cerinthus are more relevant than the questionable Ignatius of Antioch or the Old Romans Creed. For example, Irenaeus (late 2nd century) wrote about the believer, Cerinthus[2] (of late first century CE) “who believed Jesus was not born of a virgin, but was the son of Joseph and Mary according to the usual manner.”” – I think this is more telling as an historical reality than the Old Roman Creed.
Another argument presented for the Virgin Birth is the inference
from the phrase ‘the son of Miriam’ in Mark 6:3, that Yeshua was not the son of Yosef as well
(i.e. that those who used this phrase did not think Yosef was the natural
father of Yeshua.
Mark 6:1-3 “Now Jesus left that place and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue. Many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did he get these ideas? And what is this wisdom that has been given to him? What are these miracles that are done through his hands? 3 Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And aren’t his sisters here with us?” And so they took offense at him. (NET)
Part of the argument here is that this phrase is not used anyway
else in the Bible.
But this is not the case. A number of verses in the Tanakh show that there were a number of instances where a man was described as the ‘son of X’ where X is his mother, rather than father.
For example, Psalm 69 contains: “I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother’s sons.”, and Genesis 37:2 has “These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren, being still a lad even with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives; and Joseph brought evil report of them unto their father.”
But perhaps even more relevant is 2 Chron 24:7, which states: “For the sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman, had broken up the house of God; and also all the hallowed things of the house of the LORD did they bestow upon the Baalim”.
But this is not the case. A number of verses in the Tanakh show that there were a number of instances where a man was described as the ‘son of X’ where X is his mother, rather than father.
For example, Psalm 69 contains: “I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother’s sons.”, and Genesis 37:2 has “These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren, being still a lad even with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives; and Joseph brought evil report of them unto their father.”
But perhaps even more relevant is 2 Chron 24:7, which states: “For the sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman, had broken up the house of God; and also all the hallowed things of the house of the LORD did they bestow upon the Baalim”.
It could be argued that in the cases of Bilhah, Zilpah, and Athaliah as they were not the only wives of their husband then this description, ‘son of …’ clarifies this. But it is also possible that the same reasoning or some other (unknown to us) reason is behind the same reference to Yeshua’s mother.
For example the apocryphal ‘The
Proto-Evangelium of James’ (dated
around 130 CE) identifies Miriam’s husband, Yosef as an old man with at least
one other wife. While I don’t find this apocryphal writing convincing overall,
there may be some truth in it, as it is possible that Yosef was already married
and much older (there are other factors that support this inference). If this
were so, or even alleged to be so by some of the community at the time, then
the use of ‘Son of Miriam’ in Mark 6 may be because of this very reason.
It is also possible, if this verse from 2 Chronicles is at all
indicative, that stating that someone was a ‘son of X’ where X is a woman may
have been a chauvinistic insult of some sort. This would also appear to fit the
context of the Mark 6:3 narrative, where the speakers are clearly offended by
the authority and wisdom that Yeshua displays (a good example of Yeshua’s
statement that ‘a prophet is not honoured in his own country’ – Yochanan 4:44).
I have argued that the only apparent reference to a Virgin Birth
in Luke is Luke 1:34 “And
Mary said unto the messenger, `How shall this be, seeing a husband I do not
know?'”- YLT.
A common retort is that Luke 1:35 explicitly refers to the Virgin Birth: “And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.”
While most English readers may be quick to assume that the ‘overshadow’(ing) of the Spirit of God means that the child is conceived miraculously without sexual relations (i.e. a virgin birth), but the problem here is the English translation.
The Greek word ‘επισκιάσει’ used here does mean to ‘overshadow’, or ‘to protect, to surround, or to cover over, but it does NOT mean to have sexual union or to create a human being!
It is used 5 times in the New Testament: Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:34, (all translated into English as ‘enveloped’); also in Luke 1:35 & Acts 5:15, and 4 times in the Tanakh (LXX version): Ex 40:35; Psa 90:4; 139:8; Prov 18:11. And in none of these uses is there any implication of a sexual union or conception of a child.
A common retort is that Luke 1:35 explicitly refers to the Virgin Birth: “And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.”
While most English readers may be quick to assume that the ‘overshadow’(ing) of the Spirit of God means that the child is conceived miraculously without sexual relations (i.e. a virgin birth), but the problem here is the English translation.
The Greek word ‘επισκιάσει’ used here does mean to ‘overshadow’, or ‘to protect, to surround, or to cover over, but it does NOT mean to have sexual union or to create a human being!
It is used 5 times in the New Testament: Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:34, (all translated into English as ‘enveloped’); also in Luke 1:35 & Acts 5:15, and 4 times in the Tanakh (LXX version): Ex 40:35; Psa 90:4; 139:8; Prov 18:11. And in none of these uses is there any implication of a sexual union or conception of a child.
Also Luke 1:35 does not inform us of when the Ruach HaKodesh
(the Spirit of God) will ‘overshadow’
Miriam (implying instead perhaps a sense of ‘surrounding’ or ‘protecting the
conception’ so that a special child is conceived). This could be before she had
sexual relations with Yosef, when she did, or after the event. But what it does
tell us is that the power and purpose of HaShem is involved in this conception
so that the child born will be a very unique ‘son’ of God.
And this is where another translation problem arises. Our English translations have the phrase ‘only begotten son’ in reference to Yeshua. ‘Only begotten son entails an adjective (only) followed by a verb (begotten), followed by the noun (son) it applies to. ‘Begotten’ comes from the root word ‘begat’ which means to create a child (and there is only one way to do that – with the seed of a man impregnating or fertilising the egg of a woman).
This phrase in such verses as Yochanan (John) 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” (NASB), and may seem to imply that this son has been created by God, especially when we first read similar passages such as Hebrews 11:17 “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son.”
And this is where another translation problem arises. Our English translations have the phrase ‘only begotten son’ in reference to Yeshua. ‘Only begotten son entails an adjective (only) followed by a verb (begotten), followed by the noun (son) it applies to. ‘Begotten’ comes from the root word ‘begat’ which means to create a child (and there is only one way to do that – with the seed of a man impregnating or fertilising the egg of a woman).
This phrase in such verses as Yochanan (John) 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” (NASB), and may seem to imply that this son has been created by God, especially when we first read similar passages such as Hebrews 11:17 “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son.”
But with respect to Hebrews 11:17 we know that Isaac was not
Abraham’s ‘only created son’, as he
had many more, including Ishmael who was born before Isaac.
The problem here is that the single Greek word ‘μονογενη’ is deceptively translated as ‘only begotten’ when it is better translated as ‘unique’, which most significantly is an adjective which describes the son’s role.
As I stated, when ‘only begotten’ is used it implies as action (as it is a verb) by the father, rather than its proper role as an adjective which describes the unique role of the son, whether Isaac or Yeshua in these two examples.
This is the reality in all 6 cases where this word, and its derivatives are used, namely John 1:14 & Jn 3:18, where it is a genitive adjective (and ‘son’ is implied); Jn 1:18 where it is a nominative adjective; and Jn 3:16, Heb 11:17 and 1 John 4:9, where it is a masculine accusative adjective. To repeat, in all these uses of this Greek word ‘μονογενη’ it is an adjective and not a verb, and therefore it describes the noun, that is, the son and his uniqueness, not some action of the father or Father.
This deceptive translation of ‘only begotten’ clearly leads to the incorrect pre-suppositions and inferences about the birth of Yeshua.
The problem here is that the single Greek word ‘μονογενη’ is deceptively translated as ‘only begotten’ when it is better translated as ‘unique’, which most significantly is an adjective which describes the son’s role.
As I stated, when ‘only begotten’ is used it implies as action (as it is a verb) by the father, rather than its proper role as an adjective which describes the unique role of the son, whether Isaac or Yeshua in these two examples.
This is the reality in all 6 cases where this word, and its derivatives are used, namely John 1:14 & Jn 3:18, where it is a genitive adjective (and ‘son’ is implied); Jn 1:18 where it is a nominative adjective; and Jn 3:16, Heb 11:17 and 1 John 4:9, where it is a masculine accusative adjective. To repeat, in all these uses of this Greek word ‘μονογενη’ it is an adjective and not a verb, and therefore it describes the noun, that is, the son and his uniqueness, not some action of the father or Father.
This deceptive translation of ‘only begotten’ clearly leads to the incorrect pre-suppositions and inferences about the birth of Yeshua.
Many Hellenistic Christians argue that the Virgin Birth is a
necessary reality to overcome the problem of Original Sin, a doctrine invented
by Augustine[3].
But even some of those who reject the full implications of the false doctrine seem to still be under its Hellenistic sway.
One argument for example is: “If Jesus had been conceived and born the usual way he too would have inherited Adam’s mortality. …. From the moment of his miraculous conception Jesus was free from the drag, the bias, the ballast of Adam’s legacy of death operating in him. … The Virginal conception of Jesus was therefore essential if he was to avoid entering this world as a man already under the reign of death! Fact of the matter is this: If Jesus had been born of natural processes, he could not be our Saviour for he would have been “in Adam” and unfit to be the Head of God’s new and redeemed humanity.”
What is this declaration, if not a declaration of a form of Original Sin? This is one of the most serious flaws in the whole Virgin Birth argument in my opinion.
I would argue that the truth is the exact opposite. If Yeshua was born in some special, totally unique way he could not be the example for us and thus he cannot be our future High Priest[4] able to make any sort of atonement for us.
Yeshua was mortal and died. It was an act of God that raised him to eternal life, not some inherent ‘immortality’ gene (or attribute) that he had and no-one else had. It was because he had been chosen and was obedient to the point of death that HaShem raised him up to demonstrate that we too, could one day be raised to life eternal, if we are faithful and obedient to HaShem.
But even some of those who reject the full implications of the false doctrine seem to still be under its Hellenistic sway.
One argument for example is: “If Jesus had been conceived and born the usual way he too would have inherited Adam’s mortality. …. From the moment of his miraculous conception Jesus was free from the drag, the bias, the ballast of Adam’s legacy of death operating in him. … The Virginal conception of Jesus was therefore essential if he was to avoid entering this world as a man already under the reign of death! Fact of the matter is this: If Jesus had been born of natural processes, he could not be our Saviour for he would have been “in Adam” and unfit to be the Head of God’s new and redeemed humanity.”
What is this declaration, if not a declaration of a form of Original Sin? This is one of the most serious flaws in the whole Virgin Birth argument in my opinion.
I would argue that the truth is the exact opposite. If Yeshua was born in some special, totally unique way he could not be the example for us and thus he cannot be our future High Priest[4] able to make any sort of atonement for us.
Yeshua was mortal and died. It was an act of God that raised him to eternal life, not some inherent ‘immortality’ gene (or attribute) that he had and no-one else had. It was because he had been chosen and was obedient to the point of death that HaShem raised him up to demonstrate that we too, could one day be raised to life eternal, if we are faithful and obedient to HaShem.
What we have all inherited from Adam is the reality of our
nature to make mistakes (to act in Torah-less ways) and the reality of physical
death. But Deuteronomy 30 makes it abundantly clear that we can overcome our
Yetzer HaRa and act righteously[5].
Yeshua, a real human being proved this. He grew in obedience and then lived a life of Torah obedience and demonstrated the ultimate love in laying his life down for his friends. A Virgin Birth takes from us the trust and faith that we can follow his example, because it makes him more than, and different, to us. Our promise of resurrection is then also questionable, because we are not like him.
Another common argument put forward by those who still cling doggedly (and perhaps emotionally) to the Virgin Birth doctrine is that if Yosef and Miriam has slept together and conceived Yeshaua, then they had committed ‘fornication’ and seriously flaunted the Torah’s commandments. The argument is that such an action would not be fitting of these two very Torah obedient Israelites.
Yeshua, a real human being proved this. He grew in obedience and then lived a life of Torah obedience and demonstrated the ultimate love in laying his life down for his friends. A Virgin Birth takes from us the trust and faith that we can follow his example, because it makes him more than, and different, to us. Our promise of resurrection is then also questionable, because we are not like him.
Another common argument put forward by those who still cling doggedly (and perhaps emotionally) to the Virgin Birth doctrine is that if Yosef and Miriam has slept together and conceived Yeshaua, then they had committed ‘fornication’ and seriously flaunted the Torah’s commandments. The argument is that such an action would not be fitting of these two very Torah obedient Israelites.
The problem with this argument is that such as act would not be
fornication. Yosef and Miriam (his betrothed) were perfectly within Torah to
have sexual relations before the marriage ceremony. The Torah considers them
married as soon as they are betrothed. See Lev 18 for what instead does
actually constitute ‘fornication’.
However, it may well have been seen as culturally inappropriate
before they had the marriage ceremony and began to live under the same roof.
This may have been why Yosef was initially reticent.
Instead of approaching this whole situation form the standard Christian pre-suppositional position, consider instead the expected response of this young Jewish maiden when being told she would bear this very 'unique' child. She would have reacted in some disbelief like Sarah did with Abraham, but then her whole life's experience, and her knowledge of the Tanakh would inform her that if she was to have a special child, she would need to go and 'sleep' with her husband, Yosef.
What actually occurred here none of us are privy to, but it does appear that once Yosef had had his angelic visitation they did not have sexual relations again until after Yeshua's birth.
Instead of approaching this whole situation form the standard Christian pre-suppositional position, consider instead the expected response of this young Jewish maiden when being told she would bear this very 'unique' child. She would have reacted in some disbelief like Sarah did with Abraham, but then her whole life's experience, and her knowledge of the Tanakh would inform her that if she was to have a special child, she would need to go and 'sleep' with her husband, Yosef.
What actually occurred here none of us are privy to, but it does appear that once Yosef had had his angelic visitation they did not have sexual relations again until after Yeshua's birth.
At the time of Miriam’s angelic visitation she was a virgin, but
this does not necessarily infer that she would become pregnant before having
sexual relations with her husband, Yosef.
I would also argue that the fact that the other book written by Luke, namely the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, does not have any reference to the Virgin Birth is very significant.
Acts is in many ways the most important book in the NT[6] (along with the Epistle of James[7]) because it tells us how the followers of Yeshua behaved and sets the example for us.
I would also argue that the fact that the other book written by Luke, namely the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, does not have any reference to the Virgin Birth is very significant.
Acts is in many ways the most important book in the NT[6] (along with the Epistle of James[7]) because it tells us how the followers of Yeshua behaved and sets the example for us.
The fact that there is no
Virgin Birth narrative should demonstrate that, even if it were somehow a
reality, it is not that important in matters of faith and obedience.
[2]
The 1911 Classic Encyclopedia: "CERINTHUS: … It would appear, … that
Cerinthus laid stress on the rite of circumcision and on the observance of the
Sabbath…. He taught that the world had been made by angels ….(and that) Jesus was the offspring of Joseph and Mary
… Cerinthus, if we may trust the notices of Gaius the Roman presbyter (c. 290)
and Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 340), he held a violent and crude form of
chiliasm (the belief that Christ will return to reign in the body for a
thousand years)" -http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Cerinthus
[3]
See Frank Selch’s article on this doctrine - http://circumcisedheart.info/christian/Original%20Sin%20and%20the%20Fall%20of%20Adam.pdf
[4]
See my article ‘Yeshua: The High Priest’ - http://circumcisedheart.info/Yeshua%20the%20High%20Priest.pdf
[5]
See my article on ‘The Practically of Torah’ - http://circumcisedheart.info/Christian%20site/The%20last%20Torah%20portion%20before%20Yom%20Teruah.pdf
[6]
A great article that makes this point very
powerfully is http://torahofmessiah.org/under-the-microscope-the-book-of-acts/
[7]
See ‘James the Just: Re-evaluating his Legacy’ - http://circumcisedheart.info/James%20the%20Just%20%E2%80%93%20Reevaluating%20his%20legacy.pdf
sHALOM!!! iF there was really no Virgin Birth, and if Yoseph was the biological father of Yeshua, how are we going to answer the claim that there is in the Lineage of Yoseph who was cursed by God (was it Jeconiah?) and hence the descendants of this cursed person has no right to inherit the kingship. Perhaps you already knew this kind of argument. Honestly, for now I do not have an answer yet to this question. Thank you for your response.
ReplyDeleteThanks Philippine Messianic - please see my article on the Genealogy of Yeshua here http://circumcisedheart.info/The%20Genealogy%20of%20Yeshua.pdf
ReplyDelete