The Virgin Birth/Conception in the letters of the Apostle Paul

[Gene_C]

Hi all,

Need some help. Am discussing the Virgin Birth/Conception with some brethren on another Web site (Protestant). There are some liberals who are trying to denigrate the Virgin Birth/Conception as a doctrine, stating that not even Paul believed in it since there is nothing mentioned of it in his writings.

1. The VB is clearly apparent in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but there is no clear mention of it in the epistles, at least in the language that we use to talk about it. It occured to me that more details about the VB could have been passed down orally.
2. Home about some exegesis on this text, Romans 1:1-4:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God– the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Could the VB be here in this passage but just not in the language we would use today?

Thanks and blessings,

Gene

 

[Erich]

2) Home about some exegesis on this text, Romans 1:1-4:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God– the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Could the VB be here in this passage but just not in the language we would use today?

I vote “yes”, assuming Paul considered Isaiah 7: 14 as part of the Holy Scriptures

Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

 

[GAssisi]

It is a historical/cultural fact that Jews believed sin was passed on through the father. If this is the case, Paul could not write: “For our sake He made Him to be sin WHO KNEW NO SIN” (2 Cor 5:21). If Christ knew no sin, His Father could not have been human, for Paul also says “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23) — himself and His mother excluded, of course.

Greg

 

[Chesster]

Gene C.:

Hi all,
Need some help. Am discussing the Virgin Birth/Conception with some brethren on another Web site (Protestant). There are some liberals who are trying to denigrate the Virgin Birth/Conception as a doctrine, stating that not even Paul believed in it since there is nothing mentioned of it in his writings.
Gene

First, the absence of any VB information in St Paul’s letters is not proof that he didn’t believe in it. Second, since St Paul and St Luke were such close associates I find it hard to believe that the two were at odds over the VB.

 

[Fidelis]

It can’t be pointed out enough that you should not fall into the trap that, just because something is not mentioned explicitly (or even implicitly) somewhere in Scripture, means we do not have good reason to believe it. This is the crassest form of Sola Scriptura. For example, the canon (the list of inspired books that make up the Scriptures) are nowhere compiled in the Scriptures. Do all Christians accept some form of them? Of course. Your friends are going one step further by playing off one writer of Scripture against another. Carried to it’s extreme, you could say that Paul is not an apostle or an inspired writer (or even exists!) because he is not mentioned in the Gospels. Don’t fall for it.

I’m kind of surprised that you say it is liberal Christians that are saying this for the reasons you stated (they usually have other reasons for denying the Virgin Birth, like their distaste for the miraculous). It is usually fundamentalists who are hard-core dispensationalists that like to say only what we find in Paul’s letters apply to us, not the OT or even the Gospels.