Of Great Presumption

aaahfOf Great Presumption

I need to pull together some strands from earlier posts.  I have written about the essential miraculous quality of all conceptions, and about the sometimes anomalous quality of biblical conceptions--specifically about paternity.  It is, of course, important to avoid veering off into essentially unwarranted directions simply because the human imagination can go there.  We don't need any conjectures about Eve having sex with the snake.

It is, however, something more than mere conjecture to recall that some biblical phenomena that would seem most fittingly to be unique--such as the Luke/Acts account of Jesus, triumphant over death, ascending without dying--are actually not completely unique events.  Enoch and Elijah, it would appear, were also taken away without the mechanism of death.

It would be worthwhile to ask, however, what the unusual departures of Enoch and Elijah had to do with the purposes of God.  Their ministries did not hinge on, or be necessarily validated by, their exits.

So it is, as I have said, with the miracle of conception.  Conception, no matter how objectively unlikely, was going to happen within Sarah, whether she laughed about it or not.  Similarly, Elizabeth was going to become pregnant with the Baptist, however unlikely was the pregnancy, and whatever was Zechariah's response to the angel.  Zechariah, however, was punished for asking a rather natural question: "Whereby shall I know this?" (Luke 1:18, KJV).

This all leads toward Mary, who--in the same text with Zechariah--asks a similar question.  Wags have pointed out gleefully that Mary's response to the angel, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (1:34) is illogical, since nothing yet said by the angel could not apply to a child she might have naturally with Joseph her intended.  Mary's response is viewed by the critics as a narrative artifice, setting up the angel's description of the virgin conception.

But why is it to be assumed that Mary's response is qualitatively different from that of Zechariah, or that the repercussions are not similar?  Why is the virgin conception seen to be essential to the identity of Jesus, and why is it to be seen as a blessing to Mary?  Both Zechariah and Mary question.  Zechariah is unable to speak about his experience in the temple, and is laid open to accusations of great impiety.  Mary is unable to produce believable evidence in her defense, and is laid open to accusations of great evil.

And for us to decide that the savior need be born to a virgin (or that the savior alone could be born so) rightly lays us open to accusations of great presumption.