of personhood with all those around him to the end that his gift from God become the common property of the entire human family.
That process continues to the present day and will continue to the end of time. For this dimension of personhood is not transferred from generation to generation through the genes, that is, through the procreation of the human race. Each individual begins where pre-Adam began as a creature of body, mind, and soul awaiting the inbreathing of God to awaken the life of spirit, the awareness of personhood, the sense of calling and purpose that comes to life when the Creator God breathes into each one the breath of life. Without this inbreathing man is creature living below the level of humanity, striving towards his own goals, sating his appetite for things, and when his last day has come sinking into the abyss of nothingness and oblivion. Inbreathed by God, man knows his highest purpose is to be the intermediary through whom the Creator continues to inbreathe and create the life of the spirit universally.
Conclusions
The two accounts of creation were written at different times in history and under very different circumstances. The one is a classic expression of the “who” of creation; the other a most insightful perception into the nature of personhood. Both affirm unequivocally that the God of Israel is Creator and Lord of all that was, of all that is, and of all that will be. Both affirm that apart from the Creator God there is no authentic existence. To be at one with God is the wellspring of life, for from that relationship of recognition and acknowledgment rises the possibility to be and to do that which is far above and beyond the capacity of creature hood.
The contributions of the ancient biblical writers to our twenty-first century understanding of the universe and of human life are immeasurable. How impoverished we are, how lacking in spirit, when we choose to ignore or discard them. Their reflections, not so much upon the “how” of creation or the order of creation, manifest a profound probing into the meaning of existence, a probing that is most provocative to the mind that still searches for answers today. The Yahwist, for example, who antedated a Plato or an Aristotle by several centuries, had already arrived at germinal ideas of the nature of human existence that are still fresh and stimulating. Unfortunately, these ideas have mostly been lost to us because they were set forth in what are considered by many to be merely sectarian religious writings of little importance for modern man. Our egotism, our sophistication, is often our worst enemy, preventing us from perceiving and learning from the giants of the past just because they are ancient.
Perhaps the most valuable lesson of all that we might learn from a review of their thoughts upon the origin and the meaning of existence is humility. In reality, we know so little of the universe that is our home and so little of man the most complex of all the creatures inhabiting the universe that we ought not disparage those ancients who probed so unerringly into the deepest mysteries and suggested for our consideration possibilities that far exceed in profundity our sophisticated explanations. What does it profit us if we arrive at answers to the deep mysteries of the “how” of our origins and utterly fail to perceive the meaning and the purpose of it all?
The Conception and Birth of Jesus
¶ The conception and birth of Jesus of a virgin is one of those peripheral references in our gospels that has attained a central place in the theology of the church. The word “virgin,” parthenos in Greek, occurs in only two passages, the first in chapter one of Matthew, a quote from Isaiah 7.14, and the second in chapter one of Luke’s gospel. The passages are as follows: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (Matthew 1.23) and “In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary” (Luke 1.26–27). Matthew has prefaced his citation from Isaiah with a reference that implies the virginity of Mary, although this is not precisely stated: “When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1.18).
Strangely, there is no reference to the virgin conception and birth elsewhere in our New Testament, not even in the remainders of the gospels of Matthew and Luke. There is no reference in John’s gospel, in the writings of Paul, nor in any of the canonical epistles. Even more striking is the absence of any suggestion in the main bodies of the gospels of Matthew and Luke that their reference to the conception and birth from a virgin has in any way influenced their image of Jesus as they portray his life and ministry throughout the course of their gospels. Immediately it becomes apparent that the scriptural support for this highly regarded teaching is very minimal. Only two references and one of these a quotation of a highly questionable passage found in Old Testament Isaiah. Why then has this teaching attained such preeminence in the theology of the church that a denial of its validity has been cause for persecution and even banishment as a heretic? My purpose is to examine the passages cited and the theology that has grown from them, and to suggest an alternative interpretation of the passages that have given birth to this theology.
The Problem of Legitimacy
The suggestion is made in the essay on “Genealogies” that the conception and birth of Jesus had created problems for the Christian community. Evidently there was a question about his legitimacy. Matthew in particular suggests this when he writes, “When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.” Evidently there was no refuting the reality of Mary’s pregnancy prior to her marriage to Joseph, but the assumption is made that this pregnancy is of the Holy Spirit and not of human origins. This assumption, of course, is a very untenable conclusion from a rational point of view. Later Jewish sources refer to an illicit relationship between Mary and a Roman soldier resulting in the conception and birth of Jesus. Thus the references in Matthew and Luke to Jesus’ conception and birth from a virgin appear to be an apology, that is, a defense or a response to these charges. Since Jesus was recognized and adored in the community as Savior and Lord and since there was a question as to the propriety of his conception and birth or at least a lack of knowledge of the attendant circumstances with which to refute the slanderous charges, one solution was to formulate stories that attest to his miraculous conception and birth of a virgin. His conception and birth was not as other men or as an ordinary man. God intervened in a unique and supernatural way, and Mary was with child of the Holy Spirit. Such a claim raises the question above the level of criticism and controversy.
Matthew documents the validity of the claim of the community by an appeal to scripture. This is in character with his method of finding proof texts from the scriptures to support his thesis that Jesus is the fulfillment of scripture and of God’s plan of redemption. The validity of this method is open to question as will be pointed up in other references in our essays. Furthermore, there is a problem with the citation of Isaiah 7.14, since the author of Matthew cites the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures that were composed in Hebrew. The Hebrew text that reads, “an ’amah (young woman) shall conceive and bear a son,” is translated in the Septuagint by the Greek word, parthenos, “virgin.” ’Amah has no connotation of virginity, but refers to a young woman, either married or unmarried, and in the context of Isaiah unquestionably refers to a young married woman. The problem for this writer with Matthew’s use of scripture is precisely this: he searches scripture to find passages that he believes support his thesis concerning Jesus, takes them out of context, and embodies them with a meaning inappropriate to their original context and intention. Perhaps his use of this particular passage from Isaiah and its application to the birth of Jesus is excusable, since the Septuagint translation of ’amah by parthenos is so appropriate for what he is attempting to do. But the question rises whether it is ever necessary or appropriate to defend or rationalize the acts of God. The Apostle Paul, citing Isaiah 40.13 “Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?”, properly rejects this approach. There is always a flaw in the method of using proof texts to demonstrate a particular thesis, even though this particular example has resulted in a veritable superstructure supporting the supernatural birth of Jesus and his divinity as well. The question remains whether such proof can be found or whether the proof offered is authentic and necessary.
The Role of Dreams in Matthew
According to the author