One of my favorite comedians is Jim Gaffigan who has a funny routine about the virgin birth saying it would be great to overhear the conversation where Mary explained to Joseph that she was pregnant and Joseph wasn’t the father:
Mary: Joseph.
Joseph: Yeah?
Mary: Yeah, um, ya know how we’ve never made love?
Joseph: YEAH?
Mary: Yeah, um, anyway, last night an angel visited me…and now I’m pregnant.
Joseph: Jesus Christ!
Mary: Oh, you already know about it.
Of course it’s on YouTube and the full video of Jim Gaffigan doing this routine about the virgin birth and Mary, Joseph and Jesus during his Beyond the Pale Tour is below.
But I want to use this as a starting point for a discussion about what exactly the virgin birth is and what it really means. Most people are extremely confused about this and just accept on faith that Jesus was literally conceived without Mary and Joseph having sex. But how can that be? For a human being to be born there needs to be a coming together of a man and woman, right?
Of course! As I’ve written about in Bible: Literal or Figurative, much of the Bible should be understood figuratively. The virgin birth has has nothing to do with Jesus’ literal physical conception. It has to do with His spiritual birth. The spirit, or soul, is “born” into this lifetime, not of a man and woman, but of the One, God. When One brings forth another One then in a sense it’s a virgin birth. God gave birth to the soul and the soul gave birth to the human being.
The allegory of a virgin birth is not unique to Jesus. It is found in many traditions, most relevantly in Mithras, Romulus and Remus, as outlined in this list of virgin births. I think that is it another of the many things that were carried over from the former beliefs of the pagans and gentiles to incorporate them into the growing Christian fold
As promised, here’s the YouTube video of Jim Gaffigan on the virgin birth during his Beyond the Pale comedy tour:
Brendan, As an architect I’ve watched as movements have made their way from academia through art and architecture to the general society and finally to the church. The main ones in my time have been modernism, post-modernism and deconstruction/deconstructivism. As I’m sure you know, Jacques Derrida coined the term in the 1960′s. In my view, deconstruction/deconstructivism has finally made it to the church in the form of the emergent movement. I’ve been anticipating its arrival with some trepidation. Now that it’s here…I’m afraid. Reading your post makes me wonder. Is everything I know wrong? Is it necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater with regard to Christianity? Is what the emergent church doing/saying/thinking still “Christian”? In what sense is it and in what sense is it not? Finally, what do you feel are the ultimate benefits of believing or not believing in something like the virgin birth? In other words, if one comes away from a belief in the virgin birth with the understanding that you give in your post, above, what is the difference between believing or not believing?
Peace, Kim
Kim, Wow, I don’t know where to start…I guess I have the following points:
1. I don’t know a thing about deconstruction/deconstructivism and/or Jacques Derrida but it seems to imply a breaking apart to examine the pieces of an idea or concept. However what I’m talking about is the complete opposite. When trying to learn about the figurative meaning behind the parables of the Bible we’re making the meaning whole or complete. You see I think it’s incomplete to interpret, for example, the idea of a virgin birth in a literal sense. It makes no sense (nonsense) literally…but it makes complete sense figuratively, as I describe.
2. This has nothing to do with throwing the baby out with the bathwater with regard to Christianity. When you see behind the literal words of any parable, story or myth you are greatly enriching your understanding of your faith. It’s like a curtain is pulled back and you see the meaning behind everything including the similarities behind the teachings of many religions. It’s not that everything you currently know is wrong, it’s just that you want to add a deeper dimension to what you already know.
3. Finally, I don’t see any benefit to “believing” in a literal virgin birth. We’re meant to use our minds to discern how life works. We know that virgin births aren’t a real event for human beings. Believers are just suppose to “take it” and have faith that it’s true or they’re not in the clan. This isn’t acceptable. This kind of blind, unthinking acceptance is the very reason that people like Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything), Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Sam Harris (The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason) and Michael Schermer (skeptic.com) are writing best-selling books that are gaining acceptance. They have a relevant point that religion seems non-nonsensical when believed literally. But they’re completely missing the deep divine understanding that comes from a figurative understanding of religion and an intuitive understand of the all-enveloping love of God.
It is normal for people to be afraid to let go off years of conditioned behaviour and fearful reaction to new (actually very old) insights; they fear they are losing something very important. This is why in eastern iconography saints and deities are almost always represented holding the “abhaya” (“have no fear”) mudra (hand signal); encouraging the seeker to proceed with fear. Mythology and Iconography are always symbolic; they are metaphors that are there to force you to “look beyond what you see”. People following abrahamic religions have a tough time understanding this because the authority figures in these insitutionalized religions have always used the literal interpretations to control every aspect of their life. They are threatened not to “look beyond”. So people are afraid of being free; and the authorities exploit this to keep them under control.
Brendan, Thanks, for your thoughtful reply. The one thing I won’t do is condemn you for believing the way you do. There’s been enough of that! One of the things that I agree with the emerging church is that traditional Christianity has been arrogant and condemning towards any deviation from the fundamentalist view. It has not been loving or spiritually aware. I guess at a very basic level, what I’m saying is this:
Belief in the “Judeo-Christian” God as described in the Scriptures has never relied on the scientific method to “prove” His existence. By His very (supernatural to us) nature He exists outside of our ability to “prove” He is there or not there. Those who believe “see” and those who do not are “blind” to His presence. To believe in things unseen is the nature of “faith.”
I hate quoting Scripture in a “debating” way, but sometimes it seems too relevant to ignore:
II Cor 5:7 “for we walk by faith, not by sight.”
Heb 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
I Cor 2:5 “so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.”
I think it is significant that Jesus was quoted in Scripture as speaking in parables at certain times and clearly was not speaking in parables at other times.
If I believe in Him and that belief moves me to the same place that (I think) you are, that is, if I’m moved to a more complete spiritual interpretation of the events described in Scripture, what difference does it make to you if I believe in miracles like creation, the virgin birth, the resurrection, the Holy Spirit, why get hung up on those differences?
On the other hand, if you do not believe the things that have come to represent a time-honored definition of “Christianity” in what sense are you or are you not a “Christian”?
Whether you know about it or not, the basics of your belief system are rooted in deconstruction.
Hope we can continue a stimulating discussion!
Peace, Kim
“The allegory of a virgin birth is not unique to Jesus. It is found in many traditions, most relevantly in Mithras, Romulus and Remus, as outlined in this list of virgin births. I think that is it another of the many things that were carried over from the former beliefs of the pagans and gentiles to incorporate them into the growing Christian fold.”
Are you prepared to give a reason as to why you “think” these myths were influential to Christianity? Concerning Mithras, you may want to decide whether you’re drawing from the Iranian Mithra or the Roman Mithra (the only similarities they seem to share is the name). You’ll find nothing remotely similar to the virgin birth in myths stemming from the former. When it comes to the latter, the earliest legend tells us that he was born out of a rock. And what do you suppose the timeframe is for this evidence? Over a century later than the time of the New Testament! There is no way possible that Christianity borrowed from this.
I would also love to see your comparison in the birth of Romulus and Remus and Christ’s birth. Their mother was impregnated by Mars. A far cry from the Bible’s account of the Holy Spirit’s act in the conception.
In the case of Mithras especially, I challenge you to show me any source that pre-dates Christianity claiming the virgin birth of a deity.
Well, there’s Horus, born of Isis-Meri, (Mary?)…Zoroaster… Dionysus…you want I should go on? And one might assume as Mitras goes that his tale was an oral tradition LONG beferoe it was written down…much like Jesus…whose disciples seemed to have marvelously spotty memories, like all but one forgetting the ZOMBIE PLAGUE that occurred when Christ died. Matthew 27:52