In his book, "Born of a Woman," John Shelby Spong proudly rejects the historical event and the literal interpretation of the Virgin Birth. Spong interprets the New Testament, especially the Nativity scenes in Matthew and Luke as Christian Midrash. He sees them as a type of reverse allegory. Rather than events and narratives in the Old Testament foreshadowing the events and revelation of the New Testament, Spong sees the events in the Nativity to be a reflection of the old. For example, the miraculous conception of John the Baptist mirrors that of Samson in Judge 13.Spong suggests that Jesus was perhaps an illegitimate son, perhaps not of Josephs (if that was his name he surmises). One of the arguments he raises, and Spong is not alone here, regards the date of the writing of Matthew and Luke and how they appear to be the only writers in the New Testament to proclaim a virgin birth of Jesus Christ. He raises the point that according to modern scholarship, Mark was the first canonical Gospel written (it should be pointed out, however, that the early church believed Matthew to have been the first Gospel written in the New Testament), thus it reflects an earlier understanding of the theology of the church. And the Gospel of Mark makes no mention (directly at least) to the Virgin Birth. Thus, he suggests, when Matthew and Luke were written, several years later both relying on Mark, the issue of Jesus' origins and the scandal surrounding it was being raised. Therefore, the two authors offer their own (contradictory he would add) accounts of the origins of Jesus. And the only way to reconcile the Church's theology at that time, the Virgin Birth became a necessity.
Similarly, Spong suggests that the Virgin Birth is found nowhere in the New Testament apart from Matthew and Luke. Several of the other books in the NT were written before Matthew and Luke and yet they fail to explicitly mention the Virgin Birth. In Paul, Spong notes Galatians 4:4-5 and Romans 1:3-4 as the only times that the birth of Christ is mentioned. Outside of that, only the family members are mentioned (thus suggesting that they were blood related and conceived in very much the same way as Jesus, that is, naturally through intercourse).
But is this true? Was the Virgin Birth invented in order to defend the Deity of Christ? Was the concept of the Virgin Birth absent from a more primitive Christianity? What can we know from the books written prior to Matthew and Luke?
To begin, we must affirm that we are not obligated to answer wild heretical claims like this. To suggest that Jesus was actually an illegitimate child of Joseph or someone else (some have suggested that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier) is blasphemous at best. As Christians, we must affirm the work of the Holy Spirit as He breathed the Scripture. Matthew and Luke did not make up the narrative of the Nativity, but were moved by the Holy Spirit to tell it as it had happened.
Let us not forget the differing perspectives and purposes by which the New Testament writers (not just the Gospel writers) wrote. Some dealt with heresies like anitnomianism (like Jude), others dealt with legalism (like Galatians), some dealt with believers rejoining themselves to Judaism in order to escape persecution (like Hebrews), some were perhaps apologetic books written primarily to Jews (like Matthew), others seek to make an orderly and accurate account of historical events (like Luke-Acts), etc. John begins at the beginning by identifying Jesus (the Word/Logos) as the Creator and God Himself, who came down in flesh and "dwelt among us" (John 1:14) for a reason. John has no need to write of the Nativity (for one he was aware of at least one of the other Gospels) because he has his own theological purpose in writing (that is for the reader to believe that Jesus is the Son of God) and after writing about the Divine Logos, there is no need to describe the Nativity.
But are there hints of a virgin birth written prior to Matthew and Luke? We certainly can affirm such a thesis. For those who study Source Criticism, the point should be raised that though Matthew and Luke tell two different (not contradictory) parts of the Christmas story, the similarities are interesting; including the Virgin Birth. If Source Criticism is true, it is reasonable to conclude that a Virgin Birth narrative and theology had already been developed prior to the writings of Matthew and Luke.
Secondly, let us look at the two half-brothers of Jesus who contributed to the NT canon: James and Jude. James wrote perhaps the earliest book in the New Testament (others suggest Galatians). Spong goes out of his way to show how the NT reveals James simply as the brother of Jesus. Never does it mention half-brother or anything similar. Thus, he and others like him argue that the early church understood them to be actual brothers born of both Mary and Joseph.
But what did James and Jude have to say on the subject? James begins: "James, a servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ." Interestingly James never mentions his shared bloodline with Jesus. This does not call into question their shared biology in their mother, but James considers his submission to the Lordship of Christ more important than his relation to him. It would have been very tempting to put his right of authority based on his relation to Jesus, but James does not do that. Perhaps, even, James finally realized (after his own conversion) that he wasn't as closely related to Jesus as he thought he was (though we can only speculate here). In the end he affirms the gospel. James is a slave (the actual meaning there) of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. That is more important.
Jude, in similar fashion writes: "Jude a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James." Here, Jude (though written after Matthew and Luke, yet still relevant) notes his relation to James, but not to Christ. Rather, like James, Jude notes his full submission, as a slave, to Christ. Jude is willing to identify his authority to write with his relation to James, but not to his relation to Christ. Perhaps Jude too, after his conversion, realized that his relationship with Jesus was not primarily of bloodline (for they did not have the same earthly father), but of Lordship.
Thirdly, let us return to Galatians 4:4-5. It reads: "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons." Spong suggests that this argues against the Virgin Birth and its early date of writing only proves his argument. I would like to suggest otherwise.
We must return to Genesis 3:15 which affirms that the will come one from the "Woman's seed" that will crush the head of the serpent. What is interesting about this statement is that women do not carry the seed of reproduction. Men do. Many see this as an early prophecy of the Virgin Birth and I think that is a reasonable conclusion.
I believe that this interpretation of Genesis 3:15 helps us to understand Galatians 4:4-5 a little clearer. Paul is writing a basic creed regarding Christ in context of his attack against the Legalists (thus why he mentions the law). Paul notes here that when providential had willed it, Christ was born of the woman's seed, or as Paul put it, "born of a woman." No mention of Joseph or an earthly father as was common at this time (normally one would mention their father's lineage: son of John, son of Mark, son of Augusts, etc.), but rather mentions the woman. This must imply that, at the very least, that Jesus' human lineage and biology, was primarily linked (in the early Church and early theology) to Mary, not Joseph or another man.
But note what Paul says prior to this. When the "fullness of time had come," God sent His Son to be born of a woman. Isn't that interesting? Here we have both the Fatherhood of Jesus (God the Father) and the motherhood of Jesus (Mary). The NT is emphatic, and Jesus repeatedly affirms, that Jesus was God's Son. It was this claim to be God's Son that got Jesus killed (see Luke 22:69ff and John 19:6-7).
To be God's Son and Mary's child is the essence of the Virgin Birth.
One final thing should be noted here and that is the necessity of the Virgin Birth. Heretics like Spong are all too willing to reject the doctrine of the Incarnation simply because it is no longer relevant. I say, who cares? Is God subject to the winds of culture, thus is submissive to the corrupt waves of men, or does God expect all men, everywhere, to repent? God is not up for a vote. I don't care what the culture may think or say. Why should I put more faith in the corruption of man than in the holiness of God? God cannot lie and yet man swims in lies. Why believe in the fallenness of man instead of the purity of God?
The Virgin Birth is necessary because of what it says about the gospel. Is that not Paul's point in Galatians 4? Christ came to redeem us and so long as He was conceived through natural means, He would have been only a man needing to be saved. The doctrine of original sin would apply to Him as it would us. What we would have, then, is not a Savior, but a good guy that was unjustly killed. But if Christ only appeared suddenly without being incarnated, we would only have a God that cannot sympathize with us nor could He serve as a perfect propitiatory sacrifice for us.
What we need is a God-man. One who had both natures. The perfect bridge who, through His sacrificial death and victorious resurrection, reconciled God and man. One who can suffer the full wrath of God and can at the same time forgive man's sins. This cannot happen apart from the Virgin Birth.
So no matter how hard Spong and others might try, the Virgin Birth is not an accessory that can be discarded. Apart from it, the death and resurrection of Christ would make no sense and would not satisfy God's wrath. Without such satisfaction being made, we would remain in our sins. As Christians, we must not so easily discard the difficult parts of Scripture and Biblical theology. To do so dilutes the gospel and only plays into the hands of men who above all else need to be reconciled. The fervency in which many are so eager to attack the Incarnation should remind us of how much Christ and His substitutionary death is hated by sinners. If Christ died in my place, that means I am accountable to God. And when we love darkness rather than the light (cf. John 3) we will do all we can to pretend it isn't real.
"She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21). That is the beauty of the Virgin Birth.
