Why was Jesus virginally conceived? On the face of it, the Incarnation doesn't require a virginal conception.
Mind you, Christianity is a historic religion, so what matters is what God has actually chosen to do rather than unrealized possibilities and hypothetical alternatives.
If Jesus was born of two parents, he'd seem to be merely human. An earthling. From this world. He began to exist.
But that's a half-truth. The Virgin Birth illustrates the preexistence of the Son. The Son didn't come into existence. He's not from this world. He comes into the world from the outside. From the divine side of the ledger.
Because he has a human mother, that secures his humanity. But the absence of a human father is a sign that God takes the place of human paternity. So that illustrates the divine Sonship of Christ.
Although the Virgin Birth isn't entailed by the Incarnation, it dramatizes the Incarnation. It does justice to both the humanity and divinity of Christ. It betokens the preexistence and divinity of the Son.
Preach it AthanHaysias!
ReplyDeleteAuguSteve of Hippo
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the Incarnation did require the virgin conception and birth. Without it, there would have to be a lot of other Scripture explaining how Jesus could be the eternal Son of God and have God's nature and be homo-ousias and "the Word" in eternity past and without sin. If he had a human father, sin would enter his being. But with the virgin conception and birth, the Divine nature in Him, protected Him from getting a sinful nature from Mary.
ReplyDeleteHow does your reasoning apply to one human parent (a father) but not another (a mother)? How would Christ's divinity protect himself from a mother's sin but not a father's sin? How would human paternity prevent an Incarnation?
ReplyDeleteI don't know. But that seems to be what is implied in the Matthew and Luke passages - Luke 1:34-35 - "for this reason the holy offspring will called the Son of God." (since he had no human father, and the conception by done by the power of the Most High (the Father) and the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit)- since sin is passed down through the male (Romans 5:12), it seems like a reasonable point, that the Virgin birth was necessary for the incarnation to take place. If He had a human father, then we could not call Him the Son of God in an eternal, homo-ousias sense that John 1:1-5; 14 and Philippians 2:5-8 and Hebrews 1:3, 6, 8, and other passages point to. Otherwise, there would have to be additional verses that explain the Divine nature in Jesus in addition to having a human father. It just seems implied that the Divine nature protected Jesus from getting a sinful nature from Mary.
DeleteSorry, I got the two phrases in Luke 1:34-35 mixed up. "The Holy Spirit will come upon and the power of the Most High [the Father] will overshadow you".
DeleteLuke 1:34-35 implies that Jesus could not be called "the Son of God"(in the eternal, homo-ousias with the Father sense) without a virgin birth. "for this reason" is key.
DeleteThere's a certain tension in your explanation:
Deletei) You don't want to say Jesus was the Son of God as a result of the virginal conception, as if that process caused him to be the Son of God.
ii) I expect "holy" is being used, not in an ethical sense (i.e. sinlessness), but in the commissive sense that this is how he was consecrated or set apart for his unique mission.
iii) Strictly speaking, as the divine agent of the virginal conception, it would be the Spirit of God rather than God the Father who assumes the role of "fathering" the Messiah. The Holy Spirit takes the place of a human father. In that respect it's a Spirit/Son relation rather than a Father/Son relation.
iv) There's probably a like-takes-after-like principle. Jesus is holy because the Spirit is holy. Jesus is divine because the Most High is divine.
That, however, is an unveiling of his preexistent status.
v) The Incarnation involves something new as well as something eternal. Divine sonship is intrinsic and eternal, but the Incarnation is new. So there's that dialectic in Luke's rather poetic formulation.
i) You don't want to say Jesus was the Son of God as a result of the virginal conception, as if that process caused him to be the Son of God.
DeleteTrue - it proves He was already the eternal Son of God because He pre-existed before the incarnation - along with texts like John 1:1-5; 14; 17:5; Philippians 2:5-8, etc. "for this reason" points to His nature that He shares with the "Most High" and "the Holy Spirit" - Luke 1:34-35 points to the Trinity, that all three persons of the Trinity are involved in the incarnation. (a modified view of your point # iii)
But I don't see the necessary tension.
I think "holy" means His sinlessness (contra your point # 2) and homo-ousias with the Father and the Holy Spirit (your point iv); and "for this reason" - because it is connected to verse 34 and Mary's question of "how can this be, since I am a virgin?" It seems to point to the incarnation as requiring the virgin birth.
I don't see a tension with point # v and my argument. Overall, I think it still points to the virgin birth being necessary for the incarnation, because of the implications of all the texts, and if not, then why the extensive verses and several chapters on the virgin birth anyway? (Matthew 1, Luke 1-2). If it was not necessary, it would not be there, but that would require necessarily some other texts that explain how He could have 2 sinful parents, and the Spirit of God or substance/nature of God within Him, is sinless and God by nature and eternal; ie, how that He could be the eternal Son of God without the virgin birth.
Ken
Delete"since sin is passed down through the male (Romans 5:12), it seems like a reasonable point, that the Virgin birth was necessary for the incarnation to take place."
i) To begin with, original sin has two components: (a) objective guilt and (b) subjective corruption. Even if guilt is passed down through the male, it doesn't follow that corruption is exclusively transmitted through the male.
ii) In addition, Paul doesn't indicate that the guilt of Adam's sin is conveyed from father to child. It could just as well be directly imputed from Adam to his posterity. There's nothing in Rom 5 to indicate that Adam's guilt is transferred through the male line, viz.
great-grandfather>grandfather>father>son
Rom 5 doesn't state or imply that mode of transmission.
"It just seems implied that the Divine nature protected Jesus from getting a sinful nature from Mary."
By that logic, the divine nature would/could protect Jesus from getting a sinful nature from a human father.
i) Keep in mind that "son of God" (or "son of the Most High") isn't always or necessarily a divine title in NT usage. Sometimes it may be a political title, viz. Israel or David as God's adoptive son. Sometimes it's used in that sense to designate Christ is the heir to David's throne.
DeleteOf course, there are various instances in the NT where "son of God" is used as a divine title.
ii) I'm inclined to think Luke is using "son of the Most High" as a divine title here due to the comparison with John the Baptist, who is a "prophet of the Most High." "Son of the Most High" is something over and above "prophet of the Most High." Jesus is greater than John. Luke frequently uses John as a backdrop to stress the superiority of Christ.
Ken
Delete"I think 'holy' means His sinlessness (contra your point # 2)."
You may think that, but what's the lexical evidence that Luke is using "holy" in that sense?
"why the extensive verses and several chapters on the virgin birth anyway? (Matthew 1, Luke 1-2)."
Those chapters cover a lot more ground than just the virgin birth.
"Mary's question of 'how can this be, since I am a virgin?'…seems to point to the incarnation as requiring the virgin birth."
It's not the Incarnation, per se, that requires a virgin birth, but Mary's pregnancy. Given that the Virgin Mary will become pregnant apart from insemination by a man, that requires a virginal conception. It's conditioned on the way God chose to engineer the Incarnation. That's not an absolute metaphysical necessity.