Did Jesus inherit sin from Mary?
 |
| Mary Writing the Magnificat (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
In Matt. 1:18–25 it appears as the fulfillment of Isa. 7:14, which indicates that a virgin (Gk. parthenos, used in the LXX to translate the Heb. ‘almah, a young woman of marriageable age) would conceive and bear a son. In Luke 1:26–38, this miraculous conception (1:34, 37) is associated with the application of the title Son of God to Jesus (1:32, 35).
Neither Matthew nor Luke displays much interest in how or why this miracle happened. With regard to “how,” Matthew and Luke are both content to say that it is the work of the Spirit (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35), who, after all, created life out of nothingness at the genesis (the word translated “birth” by the NRSV in Matt. 1:18) of the world (Gen. 1:1; cf. 2:7). As for “why,” Matthew and Luke seem to think that it was in accord with God’s plan to mark Jesus as unique in this manner.
Neither Matthew nor Luke displays much interest in how or why this miracle happened. With regard to “how,” Matthew and Luke are both content to say that it is the work of the Spirit (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35), who, after all, created life out of nothingness at the genesis (the word translated “birth” by the NRSV in Matt. 1:18) of the world (Gen. 1:1; cf. 2:7). As for “why,” Matthew and Luke seem to think that it was in accord with God’s plan to mark Jesus as unique in this manner.
A child being born to a virgin is a miracle that is in line with, but also greater than, miracles of the past in which children were born to women who were infertile or past the age of childbearing (Gen. 21:2; 30:22–24; 1 Sam. 1:19–20).
In the same way, Matthew and Luke believed that Jesus would prove to be in line with, but also greater than, all the heroes of Israel’s history. Jesus’s status as God’s Child was unique, distinct from the status of others who could rightly be called children of God (cf. Matt. 5:45; 13:38).
There does not appear to be any thought in either of these Gospels that Jesus had to be born of a virgin in order to be free of the effects of inherited sin. Nor is there any evidence that the Gospel writers thought that being born to a virgin would by itself render Jesus more pure than persons conceived through the sexual unions that characterize God’s intended order for creation (Gen. 1:28).
It is interesting to scholars that neither Matthew nor Luke ever mentions the Virgin Birth again in their writings—it is recounted in the opening chapters, but nothing that follows assumes such a birth or relies upon it; in both cases, the account of the Virgin Birth could be removed without affecting anything else in the narratives.
It is interesting to scholars that neither Matthew nor Luke ever mentions the Virgin Birth again in their writings—it is recounted in the opening chapters, but nothing that follows assumes such a birth or relies upon it; in both cases, the account of the Virgin Birth could be removed without affecting anything else in the narratives.
Thus, in Matthew and Luke—as well as in the rest of the NT—neither the disciples of Jesus, his family members, nor any others ever betray any indication of knowledge of his miraculous birth. Suggested allusions to the tradition elsewhere in the NT (e.g., Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 4:22; John 1:13, 14; Gal. 4:4–5; Heb. 7:3) are generally regarded by scholars as uncertain or implausible.
Munro, W., & Powell, M. A. (2011). Virgin Birth. In (M. A. Powell, Ed.)The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (Revised and Updated). New York: HarperCollins.
Munro, W., & Powell, M. A. (2011). Virgin Birth. In (M. A. Powell, Ed.)The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (Revised and Updated). New York: HarperCollins.
