So I was reading Matthew’s genealogy the other day–I know, exciting stuff right?–with some Dutch people and one of them asked, “How can Jesus be Joseph’s son, since he wasn’t physically his father?” (As I think about it now, I wonder if that isn’t a very Western thinking sort of question, but that’s not what I’m here to write about). Anyway, that got me to thinking. I don’t think I’ve ever really heard a satisfying explanation of the virgin birth.
As I recall, the dialogue generally goes something like this: “So why was Jesus born of a virgin?” “Because it was prophesied in Isaiah” “Oh. Great…Why did God go through the trouble of prophesying that he would come in the flesh through a virgin birth?” “Cause it makes Jesus birth even more special…I guess…” Yeah, I’m not satisfied either. So here’s what I’m thinking:
The early chapters of Genesis tell us that eating from the forbidden tree would result in death for God’s specially appointed vice-regent stewards of the earth, Mankind. Through the story (and Paul’s restatement in Romans) it becomes pretty clear that in Adam, all died, because no one seems to display the marks of life within themselves, and so Man’s role as vice-regent/stewards of the earth is somewhat called in to question. How will humanity fulfill the task and potential to which God has called them (in relation to both Creation and God)?
As the story moves along, in the precarious story of Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38) there arises a provision called the Leverite Marriage, which served to continue the line of families who no longer had a fitting heir (Another great example is found in the book of Ruth). As Judah’s sons deny their duty to their brother, the narrative pronounces them “evil” and God kills them–(which I’ve always found to be a bit of an overreaction–but then again, the Leverite marriage has never seemed that important or meaningful to me either).
I’m sure you’re already putting the puzzle together, but here’s how I see this shaking out:
#1 The mother of the savior must be a virgin, because, without the intervention of the next of kin (in whose image we have been made), mankind is “dead” and cannot possibly produce a rightful heir.
#2 If God, in Christ, is providing a rightful heir for humanity through the Leverite marriage, then it must also make beautiful sense of the family terminology which permeates the rest of the NT. Why are we a family? Why are we “brothers and sisters”? Why is Paul so fond of adoption language? Because Jesus was born of a virgin, thus reestablishing our true humanity.
Not to belabor the point, do you guys have any more thoughts on this?
joewulf
cameronwyenberg
ryandavidtopper
dwyenberg
kjudd52
manscout
March 7, 2009 at 1:05 am |
We discussed the idea of the genealogies in Koivisto’s class the other day actually, and I believe we saw one as possibly being Mary’s line, the other Joseph’s line. And maybe we talked about how Jesus could be Joseph’s son? I can’t fully remember and it appears my notes are blank.
I always caught that it must be a virgin birth though so that Jesus was not only born of a woman (man) but also of God (divine) thus fulfilling that he be divine and human in nature, a literal combining of the two. And you really can’t have that with a third party (Joseph) thrown in. But I’m sure there are all sorts of theological problems in it.
It also seemed that if Jesus was born of just two humans he’d naturally already be of sinful nature, just a creation of fallen man, and not pure, divine, holy (set apart). But these are my ramblings.
Now as to how exactly he is Joseph’s son, I guess the Leverite Provision fulfills that, and I especially like the idea that Jesus’ adoption ties into our adoption. Thus King Elessar’s lineage becomes ours. A gospel of Adoption?
March 12, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
What I love so much about the Leverite marriage option is that it dips so deeply into and explains some of where Paul may be getting his thoughts about the first Adam and the Second Adam and the Jesus identity as the heir of all creation–Why is he the heir? Because the person to whom God gave creation died in Genesis 3, requiring a new, rightful heir to be raised up! More than mere pragmatics and theological nit picking (discussions around the virgin birth have always tended to be so petty to me), it provides a[nother] framework/lens to view the whole story through.