Rev. Dr. Jan Davis on the Virgin Birth

Methodist Voices on December 21, 2020

Rev. Dr. Jan Davis is Senior Pastor of Central United Methodist Church in Fayetteville Arkansas and an elder in the Arkansas Annual Conference.  Central Fayetteville is one of the fastest growing large UM churches and the only one led by a woman senior pastor.  Prior to her time in Arkansas Jan served churches in the North Texas Conference.

She wrote this article earlier this year for Central UMC’s website.  Reposted with permission in this Christmas season.  

The Apostle’s Creed moves rapidly through the events of Christmas, Holy Week, Good Friday, and Easter.  These events are core to our faith. 

“Jesus Christ, his only son, Our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried.”

In my hometown in Western Pennsylvania, I grew up placing nativity figurines, appearing in Christmas pageants and annually viewing the beloved A Charlie Brown Christmas.   I am certain I had Jesus’ birth narrative memorized.  I suppose I was naïve to assume all Christians believed in the birth of Jesus by a virgin woman.  In the 20th century, the rise of historical-critical biblical scholarship caused many leading Christian scholars to place doubt on classic doctrines like Jesus’ bodily resurrection and virgin birth.   

Not all Christians accept the doctrine of the virgin birth.  For some, believing in the virgin birth is optional, others say it is not important. Some Christian theologians consider the story a mere myth similar to other hero birth narratives.  Some believe early Christians invented the story to give Jesus credibility and attribute divinity.  Some believe Jesus was a human fathered by a man, perhaps Joseph.  Some believe Jesus was a God who came to earth and only pretended to be human (Docetism).  Some believe Jesus was fully human but was adopted by God at his baptism (adoptionism).

In my second semester of seminary, I gathered in the break room over coffee and snacks with other theological students following an Introduction to Theological Studies class.  The conversation spilled out from the classroom and we began to debate the circumstances of Christ’s birth.  I quickly discovered I was in the minority in upholding the virgin birth.  Some clergy colleagues do not believe this doctrine and choose to omit it when reciting the Apostle’s Creed. 

United Methodist Communications and Research NOW collaborated on an online survey of United Methodists to identify differing theological perspectives. The results were released in 2019 and indicate a church that exhibits theological disagreement.  (More information about this survey can be found at https://www.umnews.org/en/news/what-do-united-methodists-really-believe.)

Of the many questions asked, one was a belief in the virgin birth.  Out of respondents, 94 percent of United Methodist conservatives, 82 percent of UMC moderates, and 68 percent of UMC progressives reported belief in the virgin birth. It is not my intent to criticize another UMC’s theology, but I do want to highlight why I believe the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is essential.

Fulfillment of Prophecy

As early as Genesis 3, the Bible promises the offspring of a human woman will defeat evil.  “I will put enmity between you (the Serpent) and the woman, and between your offspring and hers;
he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel (Genesis 3:15).”  Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a woman, Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14).” See Matthew 1: 22-23.

Fully Divine and Fully Human

The way Jesus was conceived confirms what the gospels proclaim.  Jesus was both God and man at the same time, fully divine and fully human.  If Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of Mary who was his father?  He would have a human father and be fully human or he would be a god and not human at all.  The virgin birth perfectly illustrates how Jesus is both God and man. He is God incarnate; the word made flesh. 

Salvation

The doctrine of the virgin birth is at the heart of our salvation.  If Christ is not both divine and human, our redemption would not be possible.  We believe we are saved only through Jesus Christ.  If Jesus is just another human being, he is like the rest of us, sinful and in need of redemption.  Every normal human birth produces another sinner, separated from a holy God.  We need a Savior who is utterly sinless and fully human to be the perfect atonement for our trespasses.  The virgin birth lies at the heart of the person of Jesus Christ and his salvific work. 

Beauty

The doctrine of the virgin birth is one of the most beautiful indications of God’s amazing love for humanity.  God could have become human without Mary’s help, but it seems particularly fitting that God would choose to be born of a human womb and enter the world a helpless infant to experience all it means to be human.   

I recently had the opportunity to hold our newborn grandson in my arms, marvel at the perfection of his tiny body, listen to his heartbeat, and see him take a breath.  Imagine a God who would become a tiny baby to save humanity. That is beyond extraordinary.  The Nicene Creed beautifully summarizes,

For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven; he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made human.

It is important that the Church not lose the doctrine of virgin birth, nor reduce its theological importance.  I give thanks that my salvation proceeds from the beautiful miracle of a powerful God who became a newborn babe for the redemption of the world.

Resources:

I Believe – Exploring the Apostle’s Creed, Alister McGrath.

Christianity Today – “The Virgin Birth: What’s the Problem Exactly?,” 2017.

United Methodist News Service – “What Do United Methodists Really Believe?,” Sam Hodges, 2019.

  1. Comment by David on December 21, 2020 at 6:47 am

    The oft quoted verse in Isaiah is taken out of context and has nothing to do with the time of Jesus:

    10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”

    12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”

    13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

    Jesus was never called “Immanuel” in the New Testament and how the Christians happened upon this verse seems strange. What is meant by “virgin” can be argued as well. As mentioned, the tradition of the gods coming down and having children with humans is a common aspect of paganism. Prominent Roman families liked to trace back their ancestry to some god. Other than the instance in Genesis where apparently angelic beings fathered giants, this tradition is unknown in Judaism. The early Christians went to extremes in trying to connect Jesus with earlier prophecies such as having him coming out of Egypt.

  2. Comment by Jeffrey Walton on December 21, 2020 at 10:23 am

    David, I think you raise a valid point that Isaiah’s words have an immediate meaning for those they were delivered to. But that does not mean that a prophetic future meaning is not also within his words. The church has historically understood many prophetic verses to have dual meaning.

  3. Comment by Mike on December 21, 2020 at 8:34 am

    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….. and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…” It could not be much clearer that Jesus deserves the title “Emmanuel”. The apostle Matthew quoted that passage from Isaiah, applying it to the birth of Jesus.

    Jesus was born of a virgin; Mary herself testified to it in Luke 1. A virgin is one who has had no sexual relations, period. It couldn’t be any clearer.

  4. Comment by Brad Pope on December 21, 2020 at 12:16 pm

    Jan is right but far too gentle in her rebuke. That is a heresy that is articularly tolerated in the UMC. All heresy ultimately lead to weakening the body and collectively they can destroy denominations as they are doing in the UMC.
    For those like David who feel compelled to argue against the virgin birth, it must be exhausting because so much of scripture lines up against that worldview.

  5. Comment by Out of the ordinary on December 21, 2020 at 12:19 pm

    David,

    Ok, if that floats your boat there’s little I can do about it. I guess if Mathew 1 and 2 and Luke 1 and 2 are great pieces of mythology oh well. I guess I’m living a lie or in a fantasy world like Star Wars, excuse me.

    But riddle me this, if Ahaz was accosted by a prophet named Isaiah as he was getting ready for war, and the prophet says “… a ‘young woman’ will bear and son and you will call him Immanuel…” why would Ahaz care? It would seem that there are many babies being born all the time back then. why would the baby be named ‘God is with us’?

    The point is too obvious to state, but I will anyway. That birth had to be a miracle of some kind or Ahaz would have snorted the prophesy back in his face, and the whole episode would never have made into Isaiah 7. Something out of the ordinary happened then, why not believe something happened in Bethlehem hundreds of years later?
    Or is God so small He would allow myths and falsehoods to confuse and turn people away from Him for thousands of years?

    I may be wrong, let me know if I am.

  6. Comment by Wally W Jones on December 21, 2020 at 1:21 pm

    Having spent my youth in the same part of the country as Jan, although in an EUB congregation, I never questioned the virgin birth either. I always figured that Gabriel’s visit to Mary in Luke’s first chapter was proof that God, who can do whatever God chooses to do, that Mary was able to conceive without the benefit of a simple human man. However, I don’t agree with those who say that she remained a virgin for the rest of her life.

  7. Comment by David S. on December 21, 2020 at 1:36 pm

    Sadly, this is tolerated in too many a mainline denomination, hence that is why long before the current leftist Pharisaical trend of social justice, they started loosing members of denying essential tenets.

    For example, in the social justice magazine of the denomination of which I am a member, the managing editor over the summer provided his exposition or something on Matthew 15. Jesus was accused by this individual, in true fashion of the Pharisees, of the sins of misogyny, xenophobia, hypocrisy, narrow-mindedness, and hard-heartedness, either directly or indirectly. The author didn’t even try to couch it in terms of “I have a problem, because it seems like this…”

    In a letter to head of the church agency in which he is employed as well as to the ordination council of his geographic region, I questioned that he cannot accuse Jesus of sins and genuinely affirm the historic church teaching of Jesus’ sinlessness. I added that if he believes this, then this brings into question a whole host of his beliefs on everything else. I concluded that if he believes that Jesus sinned, then he cannot be a Christian, since Jesus’ sinlessness is an essential doctrine/tenet of the faith.

    The reply from his boss ignored the foundational issue of my complaint, but said, he is, including that statement that “Jesus is truly God and truly man.” The review by his regional body was that there was no substance to the charge, and only a bureaucratic reply. (But since this is a potential personnel matter that may be all that I will be entitled to on that one.)

    I have escalated my complaint back to the agency head and the denominational head, stating that both individuals ignored addressing the foundational aspect of my complaint, which was a point of theology, I guess in hopes I would take them at their word that easily. I also copied our regional equivalent to a bishop. Since this correspondence occurred late last week, it will be after the new year before I hear back. But, I am not holding my breath on the wording of any response. The “truly God and truly man” response from his boss leaves me troubled in my spirit, because liberal Christianity typically does simply mean God in the form of flesh as orthodox Christianity, but God with all the problems of the flesh, including the sin nature.

    I tend to agree that she was too generous in her rebuke. Perhaps it is because there are some who have issues with only the virgin birth but nothing else. However, as I interact with these people more and more, I have come to the conclusion as one well known author from 75 years ago in my denomination, who was placed on trial and convicted by a predecessor denomination, a liberal/progressive Christianity that denies the essential tenets of the Christian faith is an entirely separate religion from genuine Christianity. I would add that it should be treated as a cult on par with other “Christian” cults (LDS, JW, Prosperity Gospel).

  8. Comment by Loren J Golden on December 22, 2020 at 3:11 am

    For those who are interested, I have posted a new treatise on my blog entitled, “Does It Matter that Jesus Christ Was Born of a Virgin?”  The Index for my blog can be reached by clicking on my name, above, and the treatise is listed under both Bible Study and Presbyterianism.

  9. Comment by David on December 26, 2020 at 9:01 am

    Without a Virgin Birth…we have just another human baby…inherited sinful and unable to be a sinless sacrifice for anyone’s sins, this leaving humanity with no hope of salvation.
    Such attempts to negate such vital doctrines as the Virgin Birth are why liberal churches are in such a quagmire of human thinking and are becoming nothing more than pseudo religious clubs that instead of having a salvation message for the world have become part of the lost world that the Virgin born, sinless Jesus was born to save.

  10. Comment by W E Lang on December 26, 2020 at 12:13 pm

    The Isaiah prophecy is a message to Ahaz that there will be a time of peace for a kingdom facing invasion. This is indicative that normal marital relations would be in order since the men would not be out fighting the threat.
    The confirmation of the the virgin birth is found in Mary’s question to the angel, “How is this possible since I have not had relations with a man”.
    Hence the beginning of the new creation story.

  11. Comment by GEORGE W BROWN on December 26, 2020 at 1:20 pm

    Truth and historicity does not depend upon “belief.” Whether or not one believes this or that makes no difference to “this or that” but can make a profound and eternal difference to the believer/non-believer. In historical/biblical Christianity all is “by faith” and determined by what we CHOOSE to believe – and it IT IS indeed a choice we all make. Truth is not determined by my belief or my un-belief but scripture says my eternal destiny IS.
    Eternity would surely be the wrong thing to be wrong about!

  12. Comment by Charles R. Hogge, Jr. on December 27, 2020 at 5:30 pm

    “Fully Divine and Fully Human”

    “The way Jesus was conceived confirms what the gospels proclaim.
    I appreciate your defense of the Virgin Birth. I have an issue, however, with the Apostles’ Creed regarding the statement, “— And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, —.” In my opinion, he was not “conceived!” As is made clear in John’s Gospel, God’s Son existed before anything was made!

    I believe he willingly allowed himself to be transitioned into an embryo and was miraculously implanted in Mother Mary’s womb. Thus, she was his surrogate mother for nine months and gave birth to him as a fully human child. He was already fully God – from the beginning.

    I much prefer the Nicene Creed in this respect. “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human.”

    You ask, “If Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of Mary who was his father?” Since when have we identified the Holy Trinity as Father, Holy Spirit, and Son of the Holy Spirit?! He needed no Father at the time of birth other than his step-father, Joseph. His Father was God – from the beginning! It makes no sense to believe Mary provided an egg which the Holy Spirit fertilized. If that was how it happened, then Jesus would have inherited all of the DNA carried sin of all his ancestors dating back to Adam and Eve.

  13. Comment by Loren J Golden on December 27, 2020 at 10:11 pm

    Mr. Hogge,
     
    I would not object too strenuously to the use of the word “conceive”, if I were you.  After all, the word comes directly out of the Scriptures:
     
    “But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived (Gk. τὸ γὰρ ἐω αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν) in her is from the Holy Spirit.’” (Mt. 1.20)
     
    “And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.  And behold, you will conceive (Gk. συλλαμβάνω) in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” (Lk. 1.30-31)
     
    According to Thayer’s Lexicon, τὸ γὰρ ἐω αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν in Mt. 1.20 means, “that which is begotten in her womb.”  This fully comports with what John says in his Gospel, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten (Gk. μονογενής) Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” (Jn. 3.16 NASB)
     
    Likewise according to Thayer, συλλαμβάνω, when used of a woman, means to conceive, and this same word is used in Lk. 1.24,36 of Elizabeth’s conception of John the Baptist.
     
    So then, if the Scriptures use the word “conception” of the Lord Jesus in Mary’s womb—even though He existed from all eternity with the Father (Jn. 1.1-5, 17.5,24), we should have no problem praying, as I did in my church’s worship service this morning, “I believe in Jesus Christ, (God the Father’s) only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary.”

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.