First, this is not sacreligious to discuss. It is of interest to anyone who considers the Incarnation a pivot point in history, the moment at which the fullness of God was supernaturally compressed—like a ball of molecules at absolute zero—into two human cells with a few frail strands of human DNA and an immediate death sentence.
The question (which I hinted at several days ago) is whether Mary contributed an egg to the incarnation. I say "no," and here's why in 200 words.
Jesus was the "second Adam," created by God, with no human father or mother. Both were representatives of humanity: one, whose transgression plunged all of his descendants--with one Exception--into sin; the other, whose sinless life, death and resurrection overcame the actions of the first Adam and present a prototype for true humanity. As Athanasius compellingly argues, Jesus had to be human. I agree, but humanity is not theologically defined as sharing genetic material with a human mother or father--or Adam would not have been human.
In his genealogy of Jesus, Matthew refers to Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba as "mothers", but does not refer to Mary as Jesus' mother ("... Mary, of whom was born Jesus ..."). Of course, elsewhere in the Gospels, Mary is referred to as Jesus' mother, but Matthew's is an interesting choice of language.
If Mary contributed an egg to the incarnation, who contributed the sperm? If God did, doesn't that make Jesus a hybrid--part divine, part human?
I'm running out of words, so I'll just say this: God created a body for Jesus, and Jesus entered the world through a human woman and lived in a human family, but he shared no genetic material with the woman or the man who served as His earthly parents.
Here's the big hole in my argument: Besides the references to Mary as Jesus "mother," if I'm right, Jesus was not an actual descendent of David in the biological sense. Isn't this a problem?
3 comments:
200 words more or less... :-) 215?? Ahem...I guess I am a bit too technical there...but you said 200.
Food for thought. I really think the incarnation matters. I had never thought about whether Mary provided an egg until you mentioned it earlier. I'm interested to hear the prof's response too. You have very good arguments. I will have to camp out on the "line of David" thing for a while. ...might comment further after I've had a chance to mull over it for a while.
Thanks for sharing this. I was hoping you would!
It's not necessarily a hole. For a long time, the question's been in my mind of why they included two separate lineages for Jesus. Maybe it's for that reason? It just says that Jesus will come from the line of David. Jeremiah 33:15 says "'In those days and at that time I will make a righteous Branch sprout from David's line; he will do what is just and right in the land.'"
I'm no gardener, but I'm pretty sure that plants (especially trees?) can be grafted onto an existing plant/tree without any real relation to the host, and I'm sure that God knew that the plants could do this long before we did.
I like your theory because it makes Jesus stand above the likes of Heracles, and the countless other Nephilim that God despised enough to flood the world.
I like the orthodox position better.
The Chalcedonian Creed
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
Westminster Confession
8. II. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature,[10] with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin;[11] being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance.[12] So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.[13] Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.[14]
10. John 1:1, 14; I John 5:20; Phil. 2:6; Gal. 4:4
11. Phil. 2:7; Heb. 2:14, 16-17; 4:15
12. Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Gal. 4:4; see Matt. 1:18, 20-21
13. Matt. 16:16; Col. 2:9; Rom. 9:5; I Tim. 3:16
14. Rom. 1:3-4; I Tim. 2:5
Belgic Confession 18
We confess, therefore, that God has fulfilled the promise which He made to the fathers by the mouth of His holy prophets, when He sent into the world, at the time appointed by Him, His own only-begotten and eternal Son, who took upon Him the form of a servant and became like unto man, really assuming the true human nature with all its infirmities, sin excepted; being conceived in the womb of the blessed virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit without the means of man; and did not only assume human nature as to the body, but also a true human soul, that He might be a real man. For since the soul was lost as well as the body, it was necessary that He should take both upon Him, to save both.
Therefore we confess (in opposition to the heresy of the Anabaptists, who deny that Christ assumed human flesh of His mother) that Christ partook of the flesh and blood of the children; that He is a fruit of the loins of David after the flesh; born of the seed of David according to the flesh; a fruit of the womb of Mary; born of a woman; a branch of David; a shoot of the root of Jesse; sprung from the tribe of Judah; descended from the Jews according to the flesh; of the seed of Abraham, since (A.V.) he took on him the seed of Abraham, and was made like unto his brethren in all things, sin excepted; so that in truth He is our IMMANUEL, that is to say, God with us
Post a Comment