Advent 4 – THE VIRGIN CONCEPTION
St Stephens, Mt Waverley, 2008
ought to speak of his ‘virginal conception’ and
not, as many inaccurately do, of his ‘virgin birth’.
Sermons/Luke/Virgin Birth
In recent years some Christians have questioned
‘The angel said to Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come
whether it is strictly essential to believe that the
upon you, and the power of the Most High will
virginal conception actually happened in order to
overshadow you: therefore the child to be born will be
holy; he will be called the Son of God”’. Luke 1:35
There was nothing extraordinary about the birth of
Jesus. His birth was normal and natural. What was
believe in the event of the incarnation. The Gospel
writers were not concerned, they claim, with brute
historical facts. Instead, the event of the
incarnation is dressed up in myth and legend.
extraordinary, according to the Gospels of
Matthew and Luke, was the manner of Jesus
conception. He was conceived, as has been
affirmed in our Creeds since the second century,
‘by the power of the Holy Spirit’, without the cooperation of a human father. In other words, we
It is fascinating in this regard, to compare Muslim
teaching to this recent trend in some Christian
circles. The Koran accepts the virginal conception
of Jesus as an historical event. Yet Muslims do
not recognize Jesus as the incarnate Son of God.
Their strict monotheistic faith – ‘there is no god
but Allah’ – excludes believing Jesus to be
the main criticisms levelled against understanding
anything more than a remarkable prophet.
these stories in a factual way:
Conversely, we have some Christians saying ‘yes’
First, the scarcity of biblical evidence.
to the incarnation but ‘no’ to any virginal
conception.
Apart from the references to it in the nativity
stories of Matthew and Luke, the nature of Jesus
What are we to make of this? Are we to accept the
conception is not explicitly referred to again in the
extraordinary, supernatural nature of Jesus’
N.T. (John’s Gospel does make repeated
conception? Are the Gospel’s symbolic legends
statements that would seem to imply some kind of
which, at least at this point, are not to be
supernatural intervention – statements such as,
understood literally? Are they metaphorical
that Jesus – ‘came from above’ or ‘came down
rather than metaphysical?
from heaven’ or ‘was sent from the Father’.)
Those who reject the virginal conception as
Nevertheless, it must be conceded that only
something that actually happened do so for a
Matthew and Luke mention the Virgin Conception
number of reasons. Let me briefly mention four of
explicitly and the rest of the New Testament is
mother of Isaac or Rebekah the mother of Jacob
silent about it.
and Esau or Hannah the mother of the boy Samuel
– the story of the virginal conception was
Arguing from silence however is notoriously
developed. This reflection produced a form of
unconvincing. One could equally say that Mark
literary genre, so it is alleged, that has
and John tell us nothing about the childhood of
subsequently become known as midrash (a
Jesus. We do not therefore conclude from this
mixture of history and non-history by
that Jesus never had one!
embroidering Old Testament stories of children
born to parents of great old age).
Second, the development of the OT Scriptures.
Third, the borrowing of legends from the
Some commentators think that the source of the
Greco-Roman world.
virginal conception stories arose from reflection
on the sacred texts that the Gospel writers
In the Greco-Roman world there were legends
inherited. From OT stories recounting
about the conception and birth of heroes such as
extraordinary conceptions producing great persons
Herakles, Romulus and Remus, Plato, Alexander
from barren, infertile wombs, like Sarah the
the Great and Augustus Caesar.
One of the most articulate popularisers of this
These stories tell of sexual intercourse between a
view is Bishop Jack Spong. He writes:
deity and a woman who is sometimes tricked into
‘Christianity’s basic tenets have been made
having relations or even raped by the god in
inoperative by the advance of secular knowledge.
question. They are stories which verge on being
The Christmas story, a narrative in which stars
soft pornography and are quite unlike the
are said to wander, virgins conceive, foetuses
Annunciation story in which Mary’s conscious
salute each other out of their respective mother’s
agreement features prominently – ‘Here am I, the
womb, and angels sing to hillside shepherds is
servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to
hardly the stuff of reality.
your word’.
The moment the world discovered that women had
4. Undergirding all these three objections,
an egg cell which contributed 50 per cent of the
there is usually a fourth: the virginal
genetic code of every new-born life, all virgin
conception is dismissed as being scientifically
birth stories died as literal biology. If Mary is
impossible.
Jesus’s mother, and the Holy Spirit the paternal
agent, then Jesus would be a half-human, half-
divine monster, hardly the claim the church
Mary to be the mother. The angel says that the
intended.
Holy Spirit will rest upon Mary. This, as Mary’s
revolutionary Magnificat brilliantly makes clear,
Despite the claims of the literalisers, the virgin
is an advance sign that the new creation is
birth story was never anything but the stuff of
dawning.
mythology. The story of Jesus’ miraculous entry
into this world is no longer believable.’
Mary will be called blessed by all generations
because it is she who has borne the One who
Spong’s remarks about the biology of women’s
declared by his life and death the overturning of
eggs; foetus’s and Jesus being a hybrid - half
all conventional human values: our respect for the
human, half divine monster totally misconstrue
strong and the proud, the mighty and the rich. All
what the New Testament actually says. The Spirit
come tumbling down and the weak and the meek
is not presented in the NT as playing the role of
and the lowly are God’s special concern.
the father.
The virginal conception is about the flooding of
Rather, the Spirit, as the Bishop of Durham, Tom
God’s good creation with God’s new life. In
Wright, has insisted on pointing out, is equipping
Mary, God’s new and healing embrace of the
whole creation has begun to take effect. The new
In the preface of his Gospel, Luke writes: ‘Since
creation, where the old limitations are broken
many have undertaken to set down an orderly
down and new possibilities open up, was always
account of the events that have been fulfilled
meant to begin, in Messianic expectation, with a
among us, just as they were handed on to us by
newborn child. Certainly, the virginal conception
those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses
does not imply any denigration of sexuality.
and servants of the word, I too decided after
investigating everything carefully from the very
I turn now from these four ways of attacking the
first, to write an orderly account for you, most
historical veracity of the virginal conception to
excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the
mention just one positive reason why I personally
truth concerning the things about which you have
accept with reverent respect what the Gospel’s of
been instructed’ (Luke 1:1-4).
Matthew and Luke have to say about the ‘uniquely
unique event’ of the virginal conception.
The importance of the role of eyewitnesses has
been vigorously reinforced in a book by the
It has to do with the part played by eyewitnesses
recently retired Professor of New Testament
in the transmission of the Gospel material.
Studies at St Andrew’s University in Scotland,
Richard Bauckham, entitled ‘Jesus and the
back to eyewitnesses who were participants in the
Eyewitnesses’.
Gospel story.
The jury is still out on the argument of this book
I strongly suspect that this new research supports
but if it is correct, most ‘Introductions to the NT’
the ancient view, that Luke’s narrative, which tells
will need to be rewritten. This is not the place to
of the annunciation to Mary and of her perplexity
go into the fascinating evidence that Professor
as to how she could become a mother when she
Bauckham uncovers – things that the modern
was not yet married, is material that goes back to
reader of the Gospels may not notice - like the
Mary herself , while Matthew’s telling of Joseph’s
various lists of the apostles and the order in which
discovery of Mary’s pregnancy and of his
they are named; the names of people whom Jesus’
perplexity is a complementary story that goes
healed like Bartimaeus; or the women named at
back to Joseph himself.
the cross and burial place. These names,
Bauckham argues in a convincing way, indicate
In short, Luke tells Mary’s story, while Matthew
that the Gospel material is not the invention of
tells Josephs.
anonymous communities, but material that goes
There is good reason to be cautious about thinking
I find myself in agreement with the highly
that we have in these birth narratives fanciful
respected Roman Catholic theologian, Gerald
inventions or legendry accretions that have no
O’Collins when he writes:
historical veracity.
‘Everyone negotiates this kind of argument (i.e.,
The virginal conception cannot be proved but to
what is scientifically possible) in terms of their
the person who does not rule out a priori the
notion of God. Those who accept that God has
possibility of the miraculous, it seems entirely
created the world along with the natural laws
congruous that a supernatural person (who was
which govern its working should have no trouble
simultaneously God and man) should enter as well
in also accepting that, for good reasons, God
as leave the world in a supernatural way.
could and will in special cases override the
normal working of these laws. … On the occasion
In the end, it is our theological presuppositions
of the incarnation, a once-and-for-all assuming of
and our understanding of God, that will determine
the human condition by the divine Word, God
how we approach these stories in Luke and
might be expected to do something unique in
Matthew.
bringing it about. Those who stress the ‘natural’
impossibility of the virginal conception might well
Pregnancy was infinitely more mysterious and
be asked to re-examine their picture of God’.
puzzling in the ancient world than it is to us today.
In conclusion let me apply two lessons that we
Bishop Spong is right when he points out that it
can learn from Mary’s response in this story as it
was only in 1827, with the discovery of the ovum,
stands in the Gospels. It is a response that reveals
that the key role of the woman in conception was
both her frailty and her faith.
acknowledged. Mary’s pregnancy was puzzling to
her and all she could do was secretly ponder this
First, Mary’s frailty
knowledge in her heart, initially too frightened to
tell anyone. In the medieval period, unexpected
‘Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I
pregnancy conjured up the terror of impregnation
am a virgin?”
by the devil!
To think that Mary’s pregnancy would speak to
Moreover, the whole of idea of incarnation, of
her irrefutably of God coming into the world, is to
God coming into the world, was anathema in the
read modern certainties back into the first century.
Jewish world to which Mary belonged. The
Jewish faith was strictly monotheistic. God was
understood as One and there were no runners up!
First, Mary’s frailty. Second, Mary’s faith
This is not the kind of story any Jew would invent
and believe.
Mary’s response to the angelic announcement
wins our immediate admiration. ‘Here am I the
And this is where the story impinges on us. We
servant of the Lord: let it be with me according to
are sometimes, like Mary, confused and we
your word’. The Gospels do imply that there was
struggle to understand. “How?”, “When?”,
considerable struggle in Mary’s coming to this
“Why?”. We share Mary’s frailty. But God’s call
conviction. There was much pondering and
to salvation is an invitation to go beyond the
probably, she did not finally comprehend the
boundaries of understanding, recognizing our
significance of the Virginal conception until
human frailty and finitude.
tongues of fire came down upon her at Pentecost.
‘O the depths of the riches and wisdom and
Her revolutionary Magnificat may have been
knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his
written by others (the words appear to be
judgments and how inscrutable his ways!’
modelled on Hannah’s Song in 1Samuel 2:1-10),
(Rom.11:33).
but after Pentecost, they became her very own.
Then she could see that the Virginal conception
had been an enormous privilege for her: ‘the
What matters is that we allow God to be God and
Mighty One has done great things for me’. (1:49).
to do things God’s way, even if with Mary, we
thereby risk losing our good name.
The faith of Mary in submitting to the virgin
conception stands out in contrast to the attitudes
of some of the critics who deny it. The tendency
of many today is to reject it because it does not fit
in with their presuppositions.
Mary was so completely willing for God to fulfil
his purpose, that she was willing to risk the stigma
of being thought an adulteress herself and of
bearing an illegitimate child. She surrendered her
reputation to God’s will.