THE
VIRGIN BIRTH

Two Archaeologists Critique An Article From Biblical Review

As the season of the Advent of our Lord Jesus Christ approaches, we do well to consider the full implications of the Virgin Birth.

Last October Biblical Review (sister magazine to Biblical Archaeology Review) presented an article entitled “Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” Although authored by a professor from a Christian college (Muskingum in Ohio), it was anything but Christian in content. We asked two true scholars (both seasoned field archaeologists) to critique this article for our readers. You may find that the article itself is not as scholarly as the author presumed it to be. We hope that considering the Virgin Birth in this fashion will sharpen our readers’ awareness of the importance of this central doctrine of the Christian faith.

The two scholars are Dr. Bryant Wood and Professor Wilbur Fields. Both have taught college and university students for years, have done considerable research including being on the staff of many excavations in Israel and Egypt, and have published a good number of articles. Both these scholars take the Virgin Birth seriously.

The author, J. Edward Barrett, closes his article with the suggestion: “Surely it is… possible to be a disciple who takes the virgin birth seriously, but not literally” (p. 29). Wood answers: No, you cannot be a disciple of Christ and

BSP 2:4 (Autumn 1989) p. 101

not believe He is the literal Son of God. That is a central tenet of the Old and New Testaments. Fields says, “Those like Barrett who feel the virgin birth cannot be literal probably have missed one of the greatest, and often-repeated, promises of Scripture – that God was going to come to dwell as man with mankind.”

Barrett (p. 14): There is “… clear internal disagreement on the matter of the virgin birth within the New Testament itself… myths and endless genealogies… If we ask what Paul could possibly be describing as ‘myths’ in close association with ‘genealogies,’ the virgin birth stories immediately come to mind.”

Fields: “They come to his mind! Paul surely did not specify that the virgin birth was one of the myths he had in mind. It is difficult to think that Paul was against the virgin birth when he wrote that Christ Jesus existed in the form of God, but then emptied Himself, and took the form of a bondservant, and came in the appearance of man (Phil 2:5–7). Paul also said that in Christ “all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:10). That sounds harmonious with the virgin birth.

Wood: In this, his first central argument, Barrett makes a very large assumption with no proof whatever that Paul rejected the virgin birth. Furthermore, Mark and John do not mention the virgin birth simply because they are not dealing with the birth of Jesus. He stressed repeatedly that He was the Son of God, what else did He need to say?

Barrett (p. 15): “In Hebrew thought.., sonship was understood not primarily as a matter of biology, but as a matter of obedience … a child was the son of a father because he obeyed his father.”

Wood: Nonsense! Sonship was a matter of biological lineage from generation to generation and was greatly stressed. What are all the O.T. genealogies about if sonship is only a matter of obedience? His second central argument is simply off base.

Fields: The N.T. plainly says that Jesus, though He existed with God since the beginning, was conceived as a human in the virgin Mary without human sex relations. Thus God came to dwell with men as a man. That is the greatest news since creation! But Prof. Barrett objects. For him the virgin birth was only a “poetic way” (p. 29) of saying how much Jesus meant to His admirers; Jesus was called “son of God” because he was obedient to God, not because he was biologically born without a human father. That idea seems like a very inadequate help for us in our needt

Barrett (p. 15): Jesus was crucified (in part) not because he claimed to be of the same substance as God, but because he claimed a righteousness that “exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees” (Mt 5:20), a degree and quality of obedience that set him apart.

Fields: This simply does not stand. It is pure dogmatic speculation. In Jn 19:7: “The Jews answered… He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.” See also Jn 10:33, etc.

Barrett (pp. 15, 29): “A third possible way to understand the virgin birth depends upon the search for meaning in language. It holds that literal interpretations are not always the intended meaning.., when Jesus said ‘I am the door’, he did not mean that he

BSP 2:4 (Autumn 1989) p. 102

had hinges attached to his shoulders.”

Wood: This is a cop out. Any text can then mean whatever you want it to mean. There is no standard or absolute. Furthermore, this is an obvious figure of speech. Really now, can we compare “door” with “virgin birth”?

Barrett (p. 11–12): “Is the Hebrew Bible a dependable source of information about Jesus? Matthew… seems to think so… (he) tells us that the virgin conception of Jesus was to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah (Is 7:14)… But, actually, Isaiah does not say this. The Hebrew word Isaiah uses, ‘almah, means a “young woman,” without reference to her sexual experience.” [However, Barrett does go on to admit that perhaps Matthew was using the Septuagint (LXX) where the Greek word for “virgin” –parthenos – is used!]

Fields: Admittedly, ‘almah sometimes refers to a young damsel without reference to her sexual experience. But, even the Jewish author of the Soncino commentary on Isaiah says that ‘almah sometimes bears this meaning (virgin). The most vivid example is Rebekah, wife of Isaac, who is referred to as an ‘almah (Gn 24:43), but certainly was a virgin (24:16).

Barrett (p. 13): Isaiah is simply not talking about what Matthew says Isaiah is talking about, but rather about an event in Isaiah’s own time.

Wood: There is a double meaning in Isaiah’s prophecy. It has to do with the immediate as well as the future.

Fields: By making an analogy between the “sign” of the virgin-born Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14 and several other individuals who were called “signs,” we see that the possibility exists that a “sign” can refer both to a person living at the time the prophecy was spoken, and also to a person in the future who would fully fuIfifl the sign. Joshua the high priest (Zec 3:8–10) was a “sign” of a greater priest to come, one called “The Branch.” Jonah was a sign to Ninevah, but also a sign of someone (Jesus) who would come long afterwards resembling Jonah, one who would be buried and rise again, as Jonah was swallowed and regurgitated. King David’s “seed” who was to rule after David, was not merely Solomon, but one whose throne would be established forever -Jesus (2 Sm 7:12–13). And “Elijah” was to come long after Elijah was dead (Mal 4:5; Mt 11:14). Jeremiah (23:5–6) spoke of a “branch” (descendent) of David who would come, but would be the IX)RD (Jahweh) OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Finally, Micah (5:2) foretold that the ruler to come from Bethlehem would be One who had gone forth “from eternity,” in other words, God Himself!

Barrett (p. 29): “… humans are unable to redeem themselves and the appearance of a deliverer requires a special act of God.”

Wood: This is an excellent statement. Barrett needs to stay with just that.

Fields: While Mary was yet a virgin, the angel told her, “The holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the ‘Son of God’“ (Lk 1:35). By this virgin birth Jesus took upon Himself our nature. “Since the children (US!) share in flesh and blood, He (Jesus) Himself also partook of the same” that He might save us. We ordinary humans cannot avoid being flesh and blood. But Jesus, existing as He did in the form of God, had to take upon Himself human form by some such process as the virgin birth.