Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the Editor
The Trouble With The Virgin Birth
Kathryn A.Lindskoog
1344 East Mayfair Avenue
Orange, California 92667
From: JASA 29
(March 1977): 44-45.
I believe in the biological truth of the virgin birth. That is easy.
But it isn't
enough.
I can't think much about the biological truth of the virgin birth,
because I can't
find any comment anywhere on the obvious alternatives we have to sort
out in order
to think clearly about the subject. (How much do we really value a creed if we
don't care to think about it?)
Here are the six questions about the virgin birth that block me.
1. Could God have used a kind of parthenogenesis within Mary? (As I
recall, parthenogenesis
is full development of an egg into an animal without benefit of fertilization.
It occurs in nature in certain lower animals and has been
accomplished in laboratory
experiments with certain more complex animals.)
2. If the ovum was never fertilized, then Jesus' genes were all from Mary. What
are the biological implications of that for the kind of man Jesus
was? What could
have been the nature of his chromosomal pattern?
3. In contrast, do any Christians hold the theory that the Holy
Spirit inplanted
a zygote (fertilized ovum) within Mary? If that were the case, Jesus
was no more
a physical descendent of Mary than of Joseph, but her body nurtured Him without
contributing any genetic material. Would this tie in with Christ
being the second
Adam, a new creation?
4. The only alternative I can see to the two ideas above is the idea that God
implanted a sperm full of chromosomes into Mary's body to unite with her ovum.
Is that an acceptable idea to orthodox theologians? Supernatural
insemination.
5. If God created or transferred a certain sperm into Mary and united it with
an ovum, what genetic code did He use? Surely not His own, I assume. Could He
have drawn a sperm of David from a ''celestial frozen sperm bank'' so
that Christ
was literally the SON of David? (Here, of course, I am talking about the code,
not the speck of material.) Did God use a sperm from Joseph? Or could
Christ actually
be the Second Adam genetically in that the sperm He grew from carried
Adam's exact
chromosomal pattern? (This, in contrast to the David theory, would
give him twenty-four
unfatlen chromosomes out of forty-eight.)
6. My final question sounds zany, but I don't mean to be profane. I ask it in
reverence. All time is now to God, I truly believe. Jesus was fully
God and fully
man. As a true human man, Jesus had sperm in His testicles, didn't
He? Those sperm
had genetic codes. Perhaps God took one of those sperm from Jesus' mature body
and moved it back in time (from our point of view) and implanted it inside Mary
to unite with her ovum to form Jesus in her womb. So He was physically the Son
of God because He was His own father. If this idea is out of court, why?
In conclusion, I am willing to happily accept mystery at the point where human
reason and knowledge fall short. But won't some perceptive Christians who know
biology guide me to that given point? I can't get there on my own.