N. T. Wright on History and the Virgin Birth

Mike Bird over at Euangelion has drawn attention to this fine piece at ABC Religion and Ethics On-Line by Professor N. T. Wright regarding how a Christian historian—as both a confessing Christian and a professional historian—must approach the issue of Jesus' virginal conception. This biblical affirmation, of course, found its way into the Ante-Nicene "Rule of Faith" (regula fidei) as preserved in the so-called Apostles' Creed. More recently, it has played a prominent role as a sociological boundary marker defining who is, and who is not, a "Bible-believing Christian," most prominently in the context of early-20th century fundamentalism, for which the virginal conception was one of five such defining doctrines.


This prominence, however, contrasts with the apparent reticence of the New Testament authors to discuss the topic and their circumspection while doing so. It is narrated or mentioned independently in both the Matthean and Lukan Infancy Narratives, and nowhere else. Moreover, comparisons with partial "parallels" in pagan literature, such as the supposed conceptions of Alexander the Great (Plutarch, Alexander, 2) and Plato (Diogenes Laertius, 3.2) are notable in that only the New Testament accounts affirm parthenogenesis—conception without a male element—in a strict sense.


Theologically, there is no ground for the common claim that the virginal conception was necessary to protect Jesus from inheriting the guilt and/or corruption of "original sin." Nor—and this is a point that must be developed at a later time—are there firm exegetical grounds for claiming necessity based on the need to "fulfill" predictive "prophecy." At the most basic level, we can affirm that this was the chosen means whereby God brought about the incarnation of his Son. More profoundly, Karl Barth helpfully suggested that it was a sign pointing to the mysterious unity of  divinity and humanity in the person of Jesus of Nazareth (cf. Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/1, 207).


But what of the historicity of the event? Nowhere, I suppose, do preunderstandings and presuppositions play a greater role than in matters such as these. There is, of course, no way to prove that Jesus was born of a virgin by means of the canons of modernist, positivist historiography. Skepticism about such outrageous claims is likewise healthy. Nevertheless, it is likewise silly to claim, as many skeptics continue to do, that we in this scientific age, unlike those poor, benighted ancients, know that such things don't and can't occur. Even a cursory examination of both Matthew and Luke will reveal that is not the case.


Can a convincing, or even plausible, historical case be made? You must be the judge, though Professor Wright argues that indeed one can. The same can be said of an older British theologian and New Testament scholar, Charles E. B. Cranfield, who concluded in a penetrating article on the subject ("Some Reflections on the Subject of the Virgin Birth," Scottish Journal of Theology 41 [1988] 177-89 [187]) thus:

It is, surely, extremely difficult, on the assumption that the Virgin Birth is not historical, to explain at all convincingly how the early church came during the first century to affirm it, in spite of the fact that there was no expectation that the Messiah would be virgin-born, in spite of the certainty that such an affirmation would be met by ridicule among the Jews, in spite of the church's own interest in maintaining the Davidic descent of Jesus, and in spite of the obvious danger that among Gentiles the doctrine would be misunderstood along the lines of pagan mythology. The arguments for rejecting the historicity of the Virgin Birth seem to me, as I examine them yet again, not nearly as strong as they are often assumed to be, and the arguments for accepting it seem to me weighty. I have to declare myself convinced that I can, without violating my intellectual integrity, affirm with the Apostles' Creed, ex animo, without mental reservations and without shuffling, that Jesus Christ "was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.

Some Reflections on the Tim Tebow Phenomenon, Part 1

Yesterday's stunning overtime playoff victory by the Denver Broncos over the heavily-favored Pittsburgh Steelers revived a phenomenon I had thought was in danger of going into eclipse, namely, the cult of Tim Tebow. Not surprisingly, most of the devotees of this cult self-identify as evangelical, "born again" Christians, who—at least in America—are wont to consider themselves to be a minority religious group oppressed and disrespected by the "liberal" forces at work in the wider culture. Thus when a high-profile professional athlete comes along who openly proclaims his faith, demonstrates it visibly by adopting a prayerful posture after plays ("Tebowing"), and participates in an anti-abortion ad (here), it is to be expected that many Christians would wish him well and even begin rooting for the Broncos if they had no former gridiron allegiance. Precedent for this may be found in the Dallas Cowboys of the 1970s, whose coach Tom Landry and quarterback Roger Staubach were shrewdly used by marketing genius Tex Schramm to forge the image of what became known as "America's Team" (much to the chagrin and gastrointestinal discomfort of Eagles fans like myself).


Nevertheless, the extent to which allegiance to Tebow has grown to cult status is, to my mind, unprecedented in my fifty years of following sports. Critics of Tebow, such as Boomer Esiason (here), are assumed to base their criticism less on his play than on his overt religious faith. Indeed, many accuse his critics of hostility based solely on this criterion, thereby feeding the flock's sense of undeserved cultural marginalization. Some, such as Fox's Jen Engel (here), have even opined that Tebow wouldn't be treated in this fashion were he a Muslim.  Positively, some even have pointed to Tebow's 316 passing yards in yesterday's game as divine vindication in light of his once having been barred from painting John 3:16 into his eye black (here).


Quite apart from the irrelevance—indeed, silliness—of this last observation, one must look seriously at the basis for the near-unanimous panning of Tebow by football experts. Is it due to the experts' disdain for Christianity? In a word, the answer is "No." I am not questioning the probability that Tebow's outspoken faith rubs many critics the wrong way. However, if this is the real basis of their "hostility," this is certainly a new direction in football punditry. The fact of the matter is that Tebow is not the first, nor is he the only current, star athlete to be a very public Christian. One thinks of Bobby Jones, the star basketball player in the '70s and '80s for the North Carolina Tarheels and Philadelphia 76ers. Or Orel Hershiser, the former Dodger World Series hero and winner of 204 big league games. Or Yankee stars Bernie Williams and Mariano Rivera, the latter of whom is my choice as the greatest relief pitcher in baseball history. Or "The Minister of Defense," the late Reggie White, he of the 199.5 sacks and arguably the greatest defensive lineman in NFL history. Or—even most to the point—Brian Dawkins, Tebow's teammate and former Eagles All-Pro safety. Every one of these players was lauded by friend and foe alike both for their athletic prowess and Christian lifestyle. Once again, perhaps the culture has shifted to the point where using athletic events as a platform for verbal Christian witness is less accepted than in the past. If so, we Christians will have to adjust accordingly.


The real reason, however, for the skepticism surrounding Tebow is that, to be frank, his mechanics are terrible, he is an inaccurate passer, and he is not even close to being a top-tier NFL quarterback. I have followed the game for fifty years and have seen all the greats—from Unitas and Starr to Tarkenton and Staubach to Montana and Marino to Elway and Favre to Manning and Brady to Rodgers and Brees. Tebow simply cannot be mentioned in the same breath with players such as these. I will gladly acknowledge that his unorthodox style and prowess with a non-standard NFL offense may have led to some skepticism and consequent underrating. His size and running ability have caused many to compare him to former Bears quarterback Bobby Douglass. This is unfair to Tebow, however, for, as poor a passer as Tebow is—his 72.9 passer rating this year is well below average—Douglass was far worse, as is attested by his career 48.5 rating. He also may be better than Vince Young, another star college quarterback whose contribution to the 2011 Eagles included a four-interception performance against Seattle that likely kept the team out of the playoffs. But he has a long way to go before he can be mentioned in the same breath with Steve Young, to whose standard Tebow should aspire.


In my next post I will look at some biblical perspectives to analyze the Tebow phenomenon. Before I do that, however, I would like to ask my Christian readers two questions for them to ponder. First, Why is it that so many Christians in America have taken up the Tim Tebow banner when they have not done so for players like Rivera, White, and Dawkins, all of whom are far superior performers at their respective sports? Second, How would they respond to a prominent Muslim athlete who ostentatiously took out a prayer rug every game and gave praise to Allah after every victory? I have some suspicions about how the first question would best be answered, but I have no doubt about the answer to the second question. You see, I remember well the public conversions to Islam of two of the greatest athletes in my lifetime, Cassius Clay and Lew Alcindor. More to the point, I remember full well the reaction of mainstream America to these conversions, not least that of the Christians among whom I lived and worshipped. If indeed most Christians answer this latter question honestly, they have very shaky ground upon which to criticize those who dislike Tebow for similar reasons.

The Feast of Epiphany and Gentile Christianity

(Botticelli, The Adoration of the Magi, The Uffizi, Florence, 1475)

Today marks the traditional date for the Feast of the Epiphany (though, as in the Anglican Church, usually celebrated on the Sunday between 2-8 January), which commemorates the visit of the Magi bearing their gifts to the baby Jesus narrated in Matthew 2:1-12. This feast has special significance to the vast majority of present-day Christians who, like me, are Gentile in their origin.

Matthew begins his Gospel by identifying the subject of his biographical work as “Jesus Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt 1:1, my trans.). These titles, as well as the order in which he lists them, are essential for an understanding of his work. By identifying Jesus as “Messiah” (“Christ”) and “son of David,” Matthew claims that Jesus of Nazareth was the heir of the Davidic/Messianic promises who would inaugurate the long-expected everlasting kingdom (2 Sam 7:4-17; Pss. Sol. 17:21). Simply put, he was the rightful heir to Israel's throne then occupied by Herod the Great as a Roman puppet. This “son of David” was also, according to Matthew, the “son of Abraham,” the status Jewish people proudly saw themselves as having (e.g., Matt 3:9; 8:11-12; 4 Macc 6:17, 22: 18:1; t.Ned. 2.5; Sifre Deut 311.1.1 et al.). By this designation Matthew refers back to Genesis 12:1-3 (and subsequent promises) and thereby identifies Jesus as the “seed” of Abraham in whom the promise of blessing for all the world is fulfilled. Jesus, in other words, was Israel's king for the whole world. How this blessing is extended and received is clear from the conclusion of the Gospel, where the resurrected Jesus commissions his disciples in Matthew 28:19: people from all nations—even Celtic Americans like me!—receive the Abrahamic blessing when they respond to the gospel and become disciples (i.e., “followers”) of the “son of Abraham.”

This is how the visit of the Magi must be understood in Matthew's story. These astrologers “from the east” (Parthia? Babylonia? Arabia?), having seen his “star” (the tailed comet recorded in the Spring of 5 BC?) deduced (because of the planetary massing of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars in 7-6 BC?) that one had been “born” (techtheis) “King of the Jews” (Matt 2:2). Herod (thus implicitly viewed as a usurper to the throne) and “all Jerusalem” responded to this news the way Pharaoh and the Egyptians had more than a millennium earlier when they received news that Moses had been born: they were “terrified” (etarachthē [Matt 2:3]; cf. Josephus, Ant. 2.206, 215). In contrast to this Jewish response (foreshadowing the passion narrative; cf. Matt 27:1, 25, 37), the Gentile Magi found Jesus and “worshipped” (prosekynēsan) him. In Matthew's narrative, it is clear that the Magi are being presented as the firstfruits of the anticipated pilgrimage of the nations and their submission to the true God (cf. Matt 8:11-12; Isa 60:6; Ps 72:10-11, 15 [cf. 72:17!]).

All too often we Gentile Christians forget that the one we love and serve is, first and foremost, Israel's Messiah, and that it is by God's grace alone that we “wild branches” have been “grafted in” to replace the “natural branches” who have been broken off the olive tree because of their unbelief (Rom 11:17-24). But, thanks be to God, the natural branches will one day be grafted back on (Rom 11:25-27)! Let us, then, remember what St. Paul said in a later letter: “Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)—remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ” (Eph 2:11-13, NIV). Soli Deo Gloria!

I will close by quoting the Collect for Epiphany from The Anglican Book of Common Prayer:

O GOD, who by the leading of a star didst manifest thy only-begotten Son to the Gentiles; Mercifully grant that we, who know thee now by faith, may after this life have the fruition of thy glorious Godhead; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

John Wanamaker Building - 100th Anniversary

Yesterday marked the 100th anniversary of the dedication of the old John Wanamaker's department store in center city Philadelphia. This massive (1.9 million square feet) Renaissance Palazzo, designed by D. H. Burnham, presents a restrained, dignified face to the world, contrasting nicely with the flamboyant Second Empire stylings of MacArthur's adjacent City Hall. But its true glory lies within, where a marble-columned (with gold-plated capitals), five-storey atrium rises to an ornate, vaulted ceiling. It is often said, "They can't make them like this any more." Well, they certainly DON'T make them like this, as any visitor to one of America's tawdry, cookie-cutter malls knows.

It is said that such buildings are too expensive to make. Well, America, and the owners of businesses like this, are far more wealthy than they were 100 years ago. What it really speaks to is a difference in philosophy. Building such a building would hurt the bottom line of people who see their only responsibility to lie in their (and their shareholders') pocketbooks. Building something of lasting beauty for the public good simply is no concern of theirs ... and we are all the poorer for it.

One matter Christians, many of whom worship the regnant system that has led to the demise of such architecture, should keep in mind is the fundamental matter of humanity's creation as the imago dei. We were put here to reflect and mediate God's rule here on earth. Compare the Wanamaker Building (now a Macy's) with the Macy's at King of Prussia Mall. Which do you suppose better reflects God's design for humankind?