At 09:21 AM 2/26/02 -0500, Keith B. Miller wrote:
>My currrent view on this is that the virgin birth was a "sign" pointing to
>the incarnation. It, like the resurrection, was an affirmation of Jesus'
>divine character. I guess I would say that the virgin birth was not a
>requirement for the incarnation but a sign pointing to it.
>
>I would value the response of those with theological training of which I
>have none.
Theological training, of course, comes in many different sizes, and it's
not the case that one size fits all. Nonetheless, here's mine.
Your comments suggest to me that God was in Christ primarily for the
purpose of communicating something to humankind, of imparting divine
information of various sorts. That's what the word "sign" indicates to me:
that the virgin birth, for instance, was a kind of testimony affirming the
truth of Christ's essential nature. My own tradition (Lutheran) would make
this -- that the virgin birth was God's way of trying to tell us something
-- a secondary consideration, at best. The real import of the virgin birth
and the resurrection is that they are events in which God has acted to
change the way things are. The virgin birth was God's action to enter
human history; the resurrection was God's act to change forever the
relationship between God and his creation. In short, God made something
radically new happen, rather than simply disclosing new information to
humanity.
For instance, the events of this past 9/11 are far more than just a sign of
a disordered morality, or a communication regarding the nature of evil. It
emphatically changed the world, not only for those who were directly
touched by the loss of life, but for all Americans, and perhaps for all
persons everywhere. That event was much more than sign; it established a
new reality. So, too, did the incarnation and resurrection of Christ.
It's entirely possible that, in viewing the virgin birth as a sign, you are
not at all discounting the truth that God also acted decisively in the
life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But my tradition tends to
start from the other end -- that it was God's historical action in Christ
that is the fundamental meaning of the incarnation and resurrection of
Christ, rather than the communication of divine truths, principles or
insights.
Tom Pearson
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Thomas D. Pearson
Department of History & Philosophy
The University of Texas-Pan American
Edinburg, Texas
e-mail: pearson@panam1.panam.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 26 2002 - 15:19:06 EST