Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
November 26, 2009
Free Newsletters:
RSS Feeds | Audio | Twitter

Home > 2007 > December (Web-only)Christianity Today, December (Web-only), 2007  |   |  
CT Classic
Our Lord's Virgin Birth
Why it matters that "a real son of a real mother" did not have a human father.




ADVERTISEMENT

The inadequacy of man for this work is linked, of course, with the sinfulness of man. Hence the Virgin Birth carries with it not only the implication of the initiative of grace but also that of the hopeless sin and guilt of man. To be sure, this is not to be identified exclusively with the sexual act, as though this were the essence of sin and the problem of original sin would be solved by its evasion. Mary is no less a sinner than Joseph, and, while the sexual act is affected by sin like all others, the original sin of the race extends to every act as to each individual. No, the point is that though the Son of Mary as such stands in solidarity with sinners, his real birth is directly from God, so that unlike all others he is not himself a sinner, but has come to bear their sin in God's own work of salvation. A man born in the normal way could have been one with sinners, but he could not have been the sinless sin-bearer. The sinless sin-bearer comes into the world in such a way that he is also one with man, yet there is a decisive break with the old humanity as well as continuity with it. He is not sinful man accomplishing in a more worthy representative his own salvation. He is the second man, the Lord from heaven, the Son of Man who is also the Son of God incarnate for us men and for our salvation.

In this connection it is important to consider the importance of the fact that the human part is played by the female rather than the male. In a sense this is self-explanatory, for by nature the female is always present at generation. It is also theologically apt, for, as divines have pointed out from at least the time of Leo, Jesus has neither a mother in heaven nor a father on earth. There is also the further point, however, that it is the male who plays the active, initiatory role in generation, and therefore in a work in which the initiative necessarily lies with God "the whole action of man, the male can have no meaning" (ibid., p. 194). On the other hand, it must be emphasized that, though the female provides the link with humanity, this is not because either by sex or in person she has innate qualities alien to the male, nor because she is free from sin, nor because there is a special female Mary herself immaculately conceived and destined to represent human glorification as the queen of heaven, but because she can fulfill the essentially passive role as the one in and on and through whom God acts in accomplishment of his gracious salvation.

share this pageshare this page



E-mail this pageWrite CTPrint this articlePost a comment





  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

[Reader Reviews]
Average User Rating: 

Displaying 1 - 3 of 8 comments.See all comments
Zack   Posted: December 26, 2007 1:40 PM
To me insisting that Jesus was a divine being lets regular humans off the hook for not striving to be as good and compassionate as he was. It is only because he was a mortal man, with whom we can all identify as mortals ourselves, that his resolution and actions, particular his decision to do right even though it cost him his life, has significance. Just for the record, if you do believe in the divinity of Jesus, Mary wasn't a "virgin," she only supposedly had a "virgin birth," meaning a birth without sexual conception (it's an unfortunate that in English people have made the mistake). If she was married to Joseph, obviously she would have had to consummate the marriage and could have had children with him before or after Jesus.

*****   Posted: December 21, 2007 9:50 AM
this is orthodox Christianity; we are fortunate to have this clear exposition of Biblical truth

Doug   Posted: December 21, 2007 6:15 AM
This is an excellent piece. Can someone tell us who the original author was in 1959?

The allotted time for commenting has ended.

sponsors 








[Browse More Christianity Today]

Search






















Search by Name
Or use Advanced Search to search by program, region, cost, affiliation, enrollment, more!

Search by:





Books & Culture
Christianity Today
Church Law & Tax Report
Church Finance Today
Leadership Journal
Men of Integrity
Outcomes
Kyria.com
Your Church
ChristianityTodayLibrary.com
PreachingToday.com