Does it really matter if a Christian believes in the virgin birth? It would seem that Christmas Eve is a good a time as any to ponder this question.

Well-known emerging church pastor/author Rob Bell holds to the virgin birth, but doesn't think it is essential to Christian belief. Writing in Velvet Elvis he says,

What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archaeologists find Larry's tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if as you study the origin of the word virgin, you discover that the word virgin in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word virgin could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being "born of a virgin" also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?

I responded in my review:

Yes, it does fall apart. If Mary was not a virgin, and also was not "with child through the Holy Spirit" (Matt 1:18), any claims to Christ's unique origins are lost, and any claims to truthfulness in the gospel accounts are abandoned. Ironically, Bell praises Mary for raising questions when the angel appears:

"But how can this be? I'm a virgin!"

If the gospel writers really meant "young woman" or "pure bride," why would Mary be so puzzled? Her response only makes sense if she was a virgin. Non-virgins tend to be less shocked about finding out they will have a baby, so Bell is undermining his earlier questioning.

If the gospel writers would mythologize about the origins of Jesus, how difficult would it be for them to mythologize about his life, death and resurrection? Why believe anything they wrote?

Bell's scenario is somewhat confused here. Archaeologists doing DNA samples on Larry to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt (not an emerging concept) that the virgin birth is a myth makes no sense at all. How does a DNA test on a person say anything about his offspring or his wife's virginity? Or does Bell suppose that we have DNA of Jesus on file to compare to that of Larry? I couldn't really follow his point.

But if the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn't that strong in the first place, was it? (27).

That, or the whole spring analogy is flawed.

Southern Seminary president Albert Mohler recently posted an article called Can a Christian Deny the Virgin Birth? (thanks to Scott Kelly for the tip). He answers negatively--a Christian can not deny the virgin birth, for that is a betrayal of Scripture and orthodox Christianity.

The virgin birth matters!

---