Now that the 12 days of Christmas are in full swing, I want to propose what I think will be a controversial reading of Matthew’s account of Jesus’ virginal conception and birth.  Consider it a theological thought experiment if you like, but it is an attempt to take seriously Matthew 1:20.  The first Gospel says no more about the topic but what he does say is clearly suggestive:

“Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 1:20)

Now immediately, we must set aside any modern notions of conception, for though Matthew and his audience would have been aware generally of how babies were made, they were not versed fully in the biology of it.   The Greek word translated “conceived” in most modern translations does not mean what moderns mean when they think scientifically regarding conception.  So we must not insist that it carry the full freight of our biological knowledge.  The word simply means “to bring forth.”  The same word was used earlier in the chapter dozens of times to refer to how fathers bring forth children: e.g., “Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob” (Matthew 1:2a,b).  The King James read: “Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob” (Mat 1:2 KJV).virgin-mary-and-jesus

If we assume for a moment that Matthew was aware of at least some of the biological processes involved, would he have thought that Mary provided the ovum or was Mary for him more like a surrogate mother, a vessel in whom the Christ-child, Emmanuel, was destined to grow?  If Mary provided the ovum, who or what supplied the seed?  I suggest Matthew’s account should be interpreted as making Mary Jesus’ surrogate mother not his biological mother.

Now to be fair neither Matthew nor his audience could have been familiar with the notion of an “egg” as we know it.  Not until the invention of the microscope were humans able to see the mico-world.  Instead they viewed the woman’s womb as the ground upon which the seed could be planted.  They were after all an agricultural people so many of their life images were drawn from agriculture.  If the seed found favorable “ground,” then a child would result.  If a woman’s womb were “barren,” then the couple remained childless. 

Let”s be clear.  Matthew does not see her pregnancy as a sexual act.  In fact, the way he tells the story it is obvious he is trying to distance his account from any notion of sexual intercourse.  Perhaps that is because during his days charges were being made by Jesus’ opponents about his legitimacy; or more likely in my view, Matthew had a theological and apologetic purpose.

According to the first evangelist, Mary is a virgin and stays a virgin up to the time of Jesus’ birth (Catholics and many other faithful believers say forever).  Furthermore, the child which will come forth from her is “from the Holy Spirit” (likely a genitive of source governed by the Greek preposition ek).  Matthew must have been aware of Greek myths and pagan stories of gods coming down and having sexual relations with women and giving birth to semi-divine beings (e.g., Hercules).  His account of Jesus’ miraculous birth is meant to distance Jesus’ origins as far as possible from these pagan notions.  That which is in Mary is from the Holy Spirit.  Full stop.  It is the work of God in her from start to finish.

Reading Matthew’s account in this way makes it possible to view Jesus as a new Adam in line with other NT writers (e.g., Paul in Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15 and the Gospel of Luke in particular).  The genealogy of the third Gospel (Luke 3) begins with Jesus and traces his lineage all the way back to Adam (cf. Matthew’s geneaology which begins with Abraham and ends with Jesus: Matthew 1).  Jesus is therefore the Son of Adam, who is none other than the Son of God..  The God who said, “Let there be light” and light “became” can surely say, “Let there be a child in the womb of my loyal servant, Mary,” and make it so.  Adam was the product of adamah (Hebrew for “earth”) and the breath (Spirit) of God (Genesis 1-3).  Jesus, son of Mary, was the product of the Holy Spirit, according to Matthew.  Mary did not provide the biological raw materials. What she did provide–by common agreement with God–was a nurturing place or “ground” for the Christ child to grow and develop.  Natalogists can explain to us all that the woman’s body provides a child that grows within her.  Once implanted there is a great deal of exchange that takes place from the mother’s body to the baby’s. Needless to say, “we are wonderfully made.”

Now some may wonder whether reading Matthew’s account in the way I propose detracts from Jesus’ full humanity.  How could Jesus be fully human if he did not have a biological mother the way we moderns understand it, that is, in sharing Mary’s DNA?  Well was Adam “fully human”?  He had no mother.  His wife was to become the mother of all the living.  God sculpted Adam from the earth and breathed into him the breath of life and he became a living soul, fully human.  The analogy I suggest we consider here is new creation and new Adam.  What was in Mary was “from the Holy Spirit” start to finish.

Now if we take Mary’s role as surrogate rather than biological mother, we do not detract one bit from her ultimate significance in the story of salvation.  She remains the virgin mother in whom a miracle has taken place to bring forth a son who is properly called “Emmanuel” (God with us).  All of the honor due Mary as theotokos (“the Mother of God”) is not set aside by this reading of Matthew.

1 Comment

  1. I’m slightly embarrassed about responding to such an old post, but I just learned about _The Voice Bible_ this morning and have been researching it (and its contributors) all day, so please forgive my tardiness.

    My big, “BUT?!?!” with this understanding of Mary as surrogate/vessel and not biological contributor is two- (or maybe three- or more-) fold.

    First of all, I go back to _Genesis 3:15, which discusses woman’s seed/offspring/brood (in English translations other than _The Voice_). To me, this (“seed” et alia, implies a biological relationship).

    Secondly, think about the extensive genealogies in Luke and Matthew. Were Jesus not biologically related to these ancestors, why do they matter? (Relatedly, re-read scripture while keeping an eye on how involved The Eternal One was with this genetic line, while you reconsider your new theory about Mary as only a vessel.)

    Thirdly, I guess (maybe this is just my second point — expanded), The Eternal made promises to Abraham and David about what would come from their line(s). Does Mary as only a vessel fulfill this? Perhaps, but this theory (to me) waters down that connection.

    I wonder why it is (or at least why it seems to me that it is) important to you to take Mary’s DNA out of the equation. You’re right. The Creator made Adam without a human mother, but he did use earth (i.e. one of his created materials) in the crafting. Similarly, when He created vegetation, He did not have bees pollinating thin air. Vegetation sprang forth — from the earth.

    Adam is our first human father (and Eve our first human mother). Adam was made from earth (and Eve was made from Adam, who was made from earth). The Eternal One did not make them out of thin air. He made them out of his his earlier creations. Somehow, to me, that makes it more likely that he begat his only begotten Son, using biological material from one of his other creations (i.e. Mary).

    I appreciate that you aren’t trying to sexualize (or Zeus-ify) the conception of Jesus. I agree with you that Matthew steers as far clear of that is possible. I don’t believe the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary the way my husband impregnated me. I also don’t believe (and don’t understand your need/desire/inclination to interpret) the passage implies that Mary was only an incubator.

    The Creator made Adam out of dirt. You try to explain that that is the same as the Holy Spirit making Jesus out of nothing, but it is not. I’m not sure how to better explain my objection (and I apologize for that). That said, I am a 47 year old woman, who was saved from the sin and degradation of the sandbox at age 4 (my mother says 3, but I remember it), and deeply appreciate that you have offered new food for thought.

    Also, regardless of my above objections, I am so interested in _The Voice Bible_ that I will be ordering two, tonight (one for my family and one for my mother).

    Thank you, and God bless.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s