Читать книгу Reflections on Biblical Themes by an Octogenarian - Reuben J. Swanson - Страница 6

¶ The conception and birth of Jesus of a virgin is one of those peripheral references in our gospels that has attained a central place in the theology of the church. The word “virgin,” parthenos in Greek, occurs in only two passages, the first in chapter one of Matthew, a quote from Isaiah 7.14, and the second in chapter one of Luke’s gospel. The passages are as follows: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (Matthew 1.23) and “In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary” (Luke 1.26–27). Matthew has prefaced his citation from Isaiah with a reference that implies the virginity of Mary, although this is not precisely stated: “When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1.18).

Strangely, there is no reference to the virgin conception and birth elsewhere in our New Testament, not even in the remainders of the gospels of Matthew and Luke. There is no reference in John’s gospel, in the writings of Paul, nor in any of the canonical epistles. Even more striking is the absence of any suggestion in the main bodies of the gospels of Matthew and Luke that their reference to the conception and birth from a virgin has in any way influenced their image of Jesus as they portray his life and ministry throughout the course of their gospels. Immediately it becomes apparent that the scriptural support for this highly regarded teaching is very minimal. Only two references and one of these a quotation of a highly questionable passage found in Old Testament Isaiah. Why then has this teaching attained such preeminence in the theology of the church that a denial of its validity has been cause for persecution and even banishment as a heretic? My purpose is to examine the passages cited and the theology that has grown from them, and to suggest an alternative interpretation of the passages that have given birth to this theology.

The Problem of Legitimacy

The suggestion is made in the essay on “Genealogies” that the conception and birth of Jesus had created problems for the Christian community. Evidently there was a question about his legitimacy. Matthew in particular suggests this when he writes, “When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.” Evidently there was no refuting the reality of Mary’s pregnancy prior to her marriage to Joseph, but the assumption is made that this pregnancy is of the Holy Spirit and not of human origins. This assumption, of course, is a very untenable conclusion from a rational point of view. Later Jewish sources refer to an illicit relationship between Mary and a Roman soldier resulting in the conception and birth of Jesus. Thus the references in Matthew and Luke to Jesus’ conception and birth from a virgin appear to be an apology, that is, a defense or a response to these charges. Since Jesus was recognized and adored in the community as Savior and Lord and since there was a question as to the propriety of his conception and birth or at least a lack of knowledge of the attendant circumstances with which to refute the slanderous charges, one solution was to formulate stories that attest to his miraculous conception and birth of a virgin. His conception and birth was not as other men or as an ordinary man. God intervened in a unique and supernatural way, and Mary was with child of the Holy Spirit. Such a claim raises the question above the level of criticism and controversy.

Matthew documents the validity of the claim of the community by an appeal to scripture. This is in character with his method of finding proof texts from the scriptures to support his thesis that Jesus is the fulfillment of scripture and of God’s plan of redemption. The validity of this method is open to question as will be pointed up in other references in our essays. Furthermore, there is a problem with the citation of Isaiah 7.14, since the author of Matthew cites the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures that were composed in Hebrew. The Hebrew text that reads, “an ’amah (young woman) shall conceive and bear a son,” is translated in the Septuagint by the Greek word, parthenos, “virgin.” ’Amah has no connotation of virginity, but refers to a young woman, either married or unmarried, and in the context of Isaiah unquestionably refers to a young married woman. The problem for this writer with Matthew’s use of scripture is precisely this: he searches scripture to find passages that he believes support his thesis concerning Jesus, takes them out of context, and embodies them with a meaning inappropriate to their original context and intention. Perhaps his use of this particular passage from Isaiah and its application to the birth of Jesus is excusable, since the Septuagint translation of ’amah by parthenos is so appropriate for what he is attempting to do. But the question rises whether it is ever necessary or appropriate to defend or rationalize the acts of God. The Apostle Paul, citing Isaiah 40.13 “Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?”, properly rejects this approach. There is always a flaw in the method of using proof texts to demonstrate a particular thesis, even though this particular example has resulted in a veritable superstructure supporting the supernatural birth of Jesus and his divinity as well. The question remains whether such proof can be found or whether the proof offered is authentic and necessary.

The Role of Dreams in Matthew

According to the author of Matthew, the information about the conception by the Holy Spirit is communicated to Joseph by an angel of the Lord who appears in a dream. It is apparent that the central figure in the birth stories in this gospel is Joseph, not Mary. This is only one of four revelations to Joseph communicated to him by an angel through a dream. The angel of the Lord directs him to flee to Egypt to save the young child from the attempt of Herod to take his life (2.12), informs him of the death of Herod and bids him return to the land of Israel (2.19), and sends him to Galilee to circumvent the threat from Archelaus (2.22). In addition, the wise men are warned in a dream not to return to Herod (2.12). These references point up the mythological character of the birth narratives in this gospel. Myth does not denote that these stories are untrue. Myth is a way of portraying historical events according to the world view of the people and of the time. Just as the world view of the Yahwist was mythological—his three tiered universe with the heavens above, the earth beneath, and the water under the earth, so the world view of the gospel writers is mythological with their references to angels and divine guidance through dreams.

But there is something more here that needs to be noted. Why do dreams play such a prominent role in this account? Immediately it becomes apparent that the writer is steeped in the ancient religious traditions of Israel. Who is Joseph, referred to as the father of Jesus in verse 16, “Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born”? Does not this call to mind the patriarch Joseph? Was not the distinguishing feature of the patriarch his dreams and his ability to interpret them? Is it not probable then that the name Joseph, known as the husband of Mary and father of Jesus, stimulated the author of our gospel to create by analogy a similar pattern of divine guidance for his leading character in these stories?

The Use of Mythology

There is no supporting documentation for the visit by the wise men, the murder of the children at Bethlehem by Herod, or the sojourn in Egypt of the child Jesus. The visit by the wise men, or magi, is particularly instructive as to the use of mythology and burgeoning of tradition in the early community. The three become Oriental kings identified as Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar by a later generation. The appearance of the star in the east was the signal to the three, members of a hereditary priestly class among the ancient Medes and Persians, of the birth of a king. The connection is not made, but it should be remembered that the Jews had been ruled by the Persians from approximately B.C.E. 539 when Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon to their overthrow by Alexander the Great, the founder of the vast Macedonian Empire, in B.C.E. 331. Perhaps there were bits of Jewish lore concerning a coming king that had filtered down to Persian society and to this priestly class of magi during this long period of association. Astrology, initiated and practiced in ancient Mesopotamia from the time of the Assyrians who emerged approximately at the time of David’s kingdom, had developed into a system of beliefs that the heavenly bodies exercised a strong influence over the lives and affairs of the human family.

The appeal of astrology is still strong in our twenty-first century in the lives of the many who religiously consult their astrological tables, although there is not an iota of evidence to support the claims made by practitioners. We are so mesmerized and awed by Matthew’s account of the appearance of the star in the east to guide the magi that we have lost our critical acumen to evaluate the myth. There have been numerous efforts by modern astronomers to equate the star in the east with a conjunction of planets that supposedly occurred at the time of or soon after the birth of Jesus. The problem is that we have no fixed date for his birth, inasmuch as our gospel records are incomplete and our present calendar that identifies the year C.E. 1 as the year of his birth is evidently in error, as noted elsewhere. But a larger problem is the account that says the magi sighted the star in the east and traveled west, or more correctly southwest, to Jerusalem. Evidently the star disappeared for a time, for they had to make inquiries as to the place of the birth of the king of the Jews. When they resumed their journey, “the star that they had seen in the east went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was. . . . and going into the house they saw the child. . . .” (Matt. 2.9, 11). Modern astronomy would find it difficult indeed to verify such phenomena, for the movement of stars and/or planets has never been known from observation to be so precise a directive.

Other Motifs in the Matthean Account

There are a number of motifs that play a role in this formulation of the birth narratives by our author in addition to the “Joseph motif” and the “angel and dream motif” referred to above. There is the motif of the wicked king who seeks to destroy the infant Jesus who is destined to be the deliverer of his people from oppression just as the wicked Pharaoh sought to destroy the infant Moses who was born to deliver his people from Egypt. There is the motif of the descent into and the coming forth from Egypt of the infant Jesus, essentially a recapitulation of the history of God’s people in Egypt and the history of salvation. There is the motif of the continuing threat in the land of promise, so that the child Jesus as Israel of old must take refuge in an isolated locale until he comes of age. The reader must judge whether these are authentic accounts of historical events or whether the author has set forth in these constructions his faith that the inscrutable purpose of God will come to fulfillment despite the peril and threat that constantly confronts the young and endangered Christian community. These are themes and motifs created and developed by a highly fertile and imaginative mind. They become prosaic and dull when subjected to our proclivity to read them as factual and literal accounts of reality. They are expressions of the worshipping community and to be cherished not as history but as interpretation of the event of salvation, an event so marvelous that it is impossible to depict the reality and the fullness of it in human language.

The Lukan Account

Luke’s account is to be read in a similar fashion. When compared to Matthew’s account, the narratives in Matthew and Luke are mostly divergent and conflicting in their detail. The points of agreement are limited to the reference to the conception and birth of a virgin, the names of the principal characters—Joseph, Mary, and Jesus—a birth in Bethlehem but under quite different and irreconcilable circumstances, and a growing up in Nazareth. To sharpen the contrast between the two accounts, let it be noted that according to Matthew Joseph and Mary are residents of Bethlehem and it may be presumed that Jesus is born in their home, whereas in Luke’s account their residence is in Nazareth and they only come to Bethlehem to fulfill the conditions of a census that has been appointed by Caesar Augustus. Thus it is only by chance or by divine guidance that Jesus is born in a stable in Bethlehem, which in itself is an assumption since the only reference is that the newborn baby was “laid in a manger.” If these stories were not side by side in our scripture, it might even create a problem of identity; are the two authors speaking of the conception and birth of the same person?

Luke is the liturgist with his hymns and liturgical settings. There is no scriptural documentation as in Matthew to demonstrate the authenticity of the claim that Jesus is born of a virgin. The angel Gabriel appeared in Nazareth “to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David” (Luke 1.26–27). There is the same link that Joseph is the father of Jesus in Luke’s genealogy as in Matthew’s, but he has placed the genealogy after the baptism of Jesus rather than prior to his birth as in Matthew. But this link conflicts with the references in the conception and birth accounts that state that Mary was a virgin and refer to Joseph only as a surrogate father. Why list genealogies at all and why trace them through Joseph, since he was not the father of Jesus? Luke suggests that Mary was of the tribe of Levi (1.36) and not of Judah, the tribe from which David was descended. The key, as we have noted, is that a link must be forged with David, since the Messiah was to descend from that great king.

Two Supernatural Births in Luke

Luke even outdoes Matthew in his zeal for the miraculous, for he tells of two supernatural births, prefacing the birth of Jesus of a virgin with the birth of John to the aged couple, Zechariah and Elizabeth. Elizabeth, as Sarah of old, is beyond the age for child bearing; yet she who was barren conceives in her womb and bears a son who becomes the forerunner and announcer of the Messiah. A second unusual, if not supernatural birth, that of Samuel, may also be in the background, especially since there are clear points of reference between Hannah’s prayer in First Samuel 2.1–10 and Mary’s “Magnificat” in Luke 1.46–55. Again it is probable that this author has taken motifs from scripture and formulated a story to enhance the marvel of the event of salvation.

Mary Plays the Leading Role in Luke

Luke’s narrative also differs from Matthew’s account by focusing attention upon Mary, the mother of Jesus, rather than upon Joseph. The revelation of the impending birth of this child is given by the angel Gabriel to Mary, not to Joseph. Mary formulates the great hymn we entitle “The Magnificat,” although some Old Latin texts attribute this to Elizabeth. Joseph is more of a prop in the narrative of the birth at Bethlehem, a kind of onlooker rather than an active participant, since it is Mary who does the wrapping of the child and also keeps and ponders in her heart all that is told them by the shepherds. Simeon addresses his prophecy concerning the future of the child to Mary and she is a leading actor in the account of the second visit to the temple when the boy Jesus is twelve years of age. This is in character with the tendency of this author to emphasize the role of women throughout his gospel narrative in contrast to Matthew and the other evangelists. Elizabeth, Anna the prophetess, and especially Mary are all in the forefront, whereas the male characters only play supporting roles or even fade into the background.

The Problem with a Virgin Conception and Birth

How did the idea of a virgin conception and birth originate? Is it true in a literal sense? Or was it created by the early Christians to defend their beloved Jesus from slander and to give to him a more than proper birth certificate? The question of virgin conception and birth is a live issue from a scientific point of view, since conception and birth within the human family without insemination by a male is to this time impossible. There must always be appended this qualification to such a statement, since we must acknowledge that there is much that we do not know and perhaps can never know in spite of the great progress of scientific investigation. For the present we must acknowledge from a scientific point of view that virgin conception and birth is an improbability, if not even an impossibility. There is no problem from a religious point of view for those who interpret the scripture literally, for Luke the Evangelist says through the angel Gabriel, “with God nothing will be impossible” (Luke 1.37). How are these two points of view to be reconciled? How can the sophisticate of the twenty-first century hold to both conclusions that are in fact contradictory?

Virgin conception and birth is not a real option for a twenty-first century scientist. Conception and birth in the human family normally results from the joining of the male sperm with the female ovum in the womb of the mother, although there are some differentiation from the norm in our twenty-first century laboratories. But the point remains that the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary either was the result of a union with an unknown male or with Joseph. The alternative is to accept the conclusion of the religious believer that God intervened directly in this one birth and that the conception of Jesus was the result of Mary’s impregnation by the Holy Spirit. If the latter is our conclusion, then the question rises, Does God ever act in that way? Is it consistent with the nature of God whom we know through scripture and through faith to violate the laws of nature that govern the universe that he has made? If the universe is the result of his creative act and if the universe is governed by laws or principles that are expressions of God’s will, how is it possible for God who is true and trustworthy in all that he does to violate from time to time in a capricious and inconstant way his own principles or laws? Is it ever safe to maintain even in defense of his divine majesty that the end justifies the means?

The Integrity of God

My mind and heart affirm the integrity of God. God is faithful, God is trustworthy, God is true. This is the cornerstone of my life to affirm with the Apostle Paul, “Let God be true though every man be false” (Romans 3.4). The view that “all things are possible to God” grows out of our human weakness and not out of our strength. Our strength, the only strength for us, is God’s strength in us. The image of God that is sealed upon our hearts must be freed from every idol, from every human desire and endeavor to find security in that which is not God.

My own point of view is an integration and an expression of all the knowledge that has come to me from science and from religion. Jesus is born of woman as every human and in the same way that every human is conceived and born. Even our confession that “he was conceived by the Holy Spirit” does not distinguish him from our conception and birth. If God is Creator, as we affirm in another article of our faith, than each one of us is conceived and born of the Holy Spirit. Our conception and birth is not simply or merely the result of a natural process of procreation. Each one of us is the handiwork of God who in a unique creative act has brought me and every human into being. God is never aloof or far removed from the universe that he has made. He is not a part of it, but is above and beyond it. But at the same time he is intimately involved in every new life that comes into existence, whether plant or animal or human, because he is always and ever the Creator God. He creates moment by moment in the same dynamic and wise way that he has always created and always will create. There has never been an interruption of his creative work nor a violation of the process that he instituted from the very beginning of time. God is God and it is for us to let him be God, rather than to fashion and shape a creature God in the image of man.

The Pauline View

How then, if Jesus was conceived and born in the same and natural way as we are, can he be distinguished from us to be our Savior and Lord? He is one with us in conception and birth, in life, in nature, in his humanity, but he is called and set apart by the Creator and Redeemer God for his unique role as Savior. The Apostle Paul states the reality in this way, “the gospel concerning his son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 1.3–4). There is no reliance upon miraculous conception and birth, no dependence upon a divine human, but only the qualification that he was descended from David according to the flesh. The distinction is in his calling and in his resurrection, a unique creative act of God, a creative act that is not all that different from the rebirth that we see in nature and in the human family constantly. This is what sets Jesus apart, for God has acted through this one man to reconcile the entire creation and especially the entire human family to himself.

What then is the meaning of the “virgin conception and birth theology” that we find in the opening chapters of the gospels of Matthew and Luke? Did they intend their words to be read literally? Did they intend to set up criteria to measure the faith or faithfulness of the members of the community? Is the confession or the acknowledgment that Jesus was actually and literally born from a virgin a sine qua non for faith? Is this one of those beliefs that is essential for salvation and for remaining within the good graces of God? I think not and I would propose another and distinctive possibility, a new interpretation of what the evangelists had in view.

A Reinterpretation of the Gospel Accounts

Inasmuch as no canonical New Testament writing other than the opening chapters of the gospels of Matthew and Luke make any reference to a virgin conception and birth and inasmuch as this was not the theology of the earliest Christian believers and inasmuch as the evidence suggests that his origins created problems for the church, it is altogether possible that he was an illegitimate child. Is this the death knell for our faith in Jesus as God’s Son and our Savior? Not at all! It is very possible that this is what the Apostle Paul refers to in First Corinthians when he writes, “God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God” (1.27–29). Was Paul aware of the question of Jesus’ illegitimate birth? Probably. How could any believer of the time be unaware. Was it a stumbling block to Paul? Not at all. For God chooses what is low and despised to carry forward his great plan and purpose for the redemption of the entire human family. Who would have been lower or more despised in that generation than a child born out of wedlock? The attitudes of many of us towards such an innocent have hardly changed over the centuries. What could be more damning to the criteria we have set up for God to be God than his choice of an illegitimate child to be raised from such ignominy to his position of lordship over all?

Our Salvation Always and Ever of God

What did the evangelists intend by their references to the virgin conception and birth of Jesus? Is it possible that they were simply enunciating their faith that our salvation is beyond the reach and the capacity of man? Is it possible that they were setting forth in a worshipful and reverent way that the ways of God are beyond our understanding? For who has known the mind of the Lord, and who has been his counselor? There is nothing inconsistent or contradictory in their teaching when understood in this way with the Pauline point of view expressed in the words, “by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2.8). God alone accomplishes our salvation without any assistance from us; in fact, God works his work of grace in us in spite of our resistance and our efforts to second-guess and improve upon what he has done. Jesus is Jesus without regard to human origins, or manner of coming into the world, or credentials, or legitimacy. He is Jesus, our Lord and Savior, because God has chosen him, God has appointed him, God was in him reconciling us to himself. The marvel of God is just this that he calls those who are unworthy—sinners, unrighteous, those whom he has every right to throw upon the trash heap, and through them accomplishes his work of grace. The evidence is in scripture itself, when we consider the life history of a few of the great personages in the history of salvation—Moses, David, and Saul who became Paul. And he has called you and me to be his disciples, witnesses to his grace and of our salvation.

The virgin conception theology is one of the most sublime expressions of the human spirit, liberated from the dungeons of ignorance, from bondage to sin and ego, and enlightened by God’s Spirit to confess with reverence and awe, “I believe in God the Father, I believe in God the Son, I believe in God the Holy Spirit.”