It is funny how many views there are on any given topic in the world. One potential website that I may be doing work on had a link to another site that attempts to be a complete exposition on the Bible when it comes to sex. Don’t worry, I didn’t go read the whole site. Anyway, there are a few issues that are controversial in some of the circles that I run in so I had wanted to see what the author said about those topics. I disagreed with the author about half of the time. The man who put this together, Ronald L. Ecker, seems to be rather liberal in his theology. There were a couple times that he essentially says “this is what they believed then” (implying that we know better now). When it comes to the question of whether Mary was a virgin at Jesus’ birth, he actually pits the Bible against itself. From:
http://www.ronaldecker.com/andv.htm#VIRGIN_BIRTH
He starts off well enough:
Sure enough, Mary is soon "found to be with child of the Holy Ghost." Joseph has some doubts, though, about the paternity, and is about to divorce her, till things are divinely explained in a dream. Joseph doesn't "know" Mary until she has borne her son Jesus. According to Catholic belief, Joseph doesn't even know her after that. Immaculately conceived by Saint Anne (see the noncanonical book of James), Mary remains forever a virgin, Joseph's other children considered to be from some previous marriage.
He sounds a little dubious but I should say that there is good cause for that with the last part. I’ve read St. Jerome’s arguments for the “Perpetual Virginity” of Mary and am a little less than impressed. It pretty much falls to his own preferences in beliefs as opposed to what was actually recorded. But then Mr. Ecker continues:
The cult of Mary the perpetual Virgin reflects the rise in Christianity of an ascetic attitude, not found in biblical Hebrew religion, toward sexuality. The virgin birth of Christ is found only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. It is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament. And by denying Joseph a role in Christ's conception, the virgin birth contradicts Matthew's own contention, through a lengthy opening genealogy, that Jesus was "the son of David, the son of Abraham," by direct descent. The Apostle Paul (writing years before the gospels were written) also posits a Davidic human father of Christ in Rom. 1:3-4, stating that Jesus "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," and "was _declared_ to be the Son of God" (emphasis added)[sic] by virtue of the resurrection. It is strange indeed, if belief in the virgin birth of Christ was current among Christians of Paul's day, that Paul is silent on that belief even when discussing how Christ was "made" and became God's Son.
Likewise, there is Galatians 4:4. It was also written by Paul:
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Clearly Jesus was God’s son before the resurrection. Coming back to life simply declared this fact. And it also says that he was made of woman. Why is the father absent here? The article continues to rail against Matthew and Luke for their writings:
Matthew seems determined, though, to contradict himself, by appealing to the prophet Isaiah. But Matthew's effort to find a virginal conception foretold in the Old Testament--"Behold, a virgin shall be with child" (Matt. 1.23, based on Isa. 7:14)--takes some liberty with the original text. Isaiah's sign of Immanuel (7:14), which is non-Messianic, is a "young woman" (Hebrew almah) who conceives. The Hebrew word for virgin is bethulah, not almah. Yet almah was translated into Greek as parthenos, "virgin," which Matthew, working from a Greek text, found much to his liking.
The “Greek text” that he is referring to is the Septuagint. This was the same Greek text that Paul quoted in his writings, which means that Paul would have seen the “virgin” prophesy in exactly the same way Matthew read it. There was no reason for Paul to have specifically taught this. It was already clear. I have heard from others that the way the Revised Standard Version translators chose to interpret the word in Isaiah 7:14 as “a young woman” is part of what sparked the KJV only movement. Whether that is true or not, I do not know (though I do refer to both translations periodically). What I do know is that the virginal birth of Jesus is taught by the New Testament writers and that those who have come before us were right to acknowledge it as an important piece of our faith. Here’s a funny twist on the liberal theology of Mr. Ecker. I don’t think it is a straw man argument, but if you think it is please explain why. In Isaiah 9:6,7, we find:
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
This child will be born to sit forever on the throne of David. Even Samuel had to make a choice whether he would serve God or not. Or Samson, who was to judge Israel before he was born, lost his authority because he pushed God’s permissiveness too far. If this child, named in Isaiah, was to become the son of God sometime after being born by natural human means, I think that you would have to accept the doctrines of Calvinism. You would have to ensure that this human child did not ever err (Hebrews 4:15). But if you did that, the conservative ideas that come with Calvinism would not allow such a teaching as this in the first place. Acknowledging that Jesus Christ was the son of God from the very beginning is so much easier. It is also supported by Scripture. John 1:1-2,14:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. ... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Became flesh. He didn’t indwell someone else’s body (except maybe for the pregnancy), he became his own.