A Christmas Question?
Could there be a more bizarre yet dramatic mystery than the nativity-- the story of Jesus birth. An engaged couple face crisis upon crisis. The woman discovers she pregnant by someone other than her betrothed. Angels appearing to both man and woman declaring God to be the father of the child. A national census creates the need for the couple to return to the man's home town fulfilling an ancient prophecy about the anticipated Messiah's birth. With no vacancies in the inns in the small town the child is born in a cattle stall and met there by shepherds who themselves have had an epiphany. Eight days later the couple dedicated the child in the Jewish synagogue. A prophet and prophetess declare the child to be the expected Messiah. Shortly after the couple returns home to Nazareth emissaries from foreign nations appear before the governor. They are following a star to anoint a new King. The sovereign attempts to ensnare them in his conspiracy to kill the child whom he considers a rival for his throne. The emissaries go and greet the child at the couple's home, leaving him expensive gifts. The child's father takes the family and emigrates to Egypt fleeing the genocide of the sovereign, who is out to kill them. The story has become so familiar to some of us that we hardly recognize the strange turns-of-event, the divine hand. What mystery writer could do better? Yet it is not fiction. The birth of Jesus Christ is a mysterious, radical, unique intervention of God into the lives of an ordinary couple to do something extraordinary.
This Christmas I stand in awe at the miracle of Christ's birth. I stand in awe at the nature of Jesus' incarnation. Christians believe Jesus was fully God and fully man with no conflation or confusion of natures. He was neither schizophrenic nor neurotic. He was one Person with two natures. He was also God's Son. Although being the Second person of the Divine God head for all eternity (Psalm2:12; Isaiah 48:16 et.al), he voluntarily subordinated himself to the Father who promised him a kingdom (Mark 2:1 - 12;John 1: 1 -5; 8:58; 10:30; Colossi ans 2:1-18 et.al). He was fully God but functioned in subordination to the Father in relation to the kingdom promised Him. When Jesus Christ came into possession of human flesh he was all ready the eternal Son of God, fully Divine.He was unique, unlike any other before since or who will exist. He was the eternal God who became flesh at the radically unique event we call the Nativity. We celebrate his incarnation, the Divine Person taking on flesh at Christmas.
Although he was Son of God prior to his incarnation He did not possess human flesh, that came at his birth. He condescended himself to take on human likeness and nature (Phil 2:5-11). Jesus took on human flesh to pay the price for sin, no other person can pay, because of their own sin (Psalm 49: 7-9). How could Jesus, sinless, impeccable, take on human flesh? How could Jesus have been born of human parentage and not inherit a, human, sin nature?
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14 ESV).
The child was going to be called "God with us." because he was going to come to be with man and restore the broken relationship between God and man. He was to come through the birth of a virgin. He was not to be the product of human procreation. The virgin birth was essential because the child could not inherit a human sinful nature.
If he was not to be born with human flaw or sin, then what role did Mary play? How could she bear a sinless child, if she was, sinful like the rest of humanity? Mary was the vessel through whom the Redeemer came. How much of Mary was present in the person of Jesus? How could the Holy Spirit unite with her embryonic material in such a way that she would conceive a child who had no sin?
The Roman Catholic church has answered this question through a doctrine they call the immaculate conception. Mary's parents were of such probity that they attained sinless perfection; she was conceived by immaculate human parents, and therefore inherited no, sin nature, herself. She was born and lived her entire life as a sinless virgin. Therefore, the genetic material Jesus obtained from her was sinless.
There are at least seven problems with this view: first, the elevation of Mary to spinelessness, puts her in iconic if not divine status. She herself becomes an object of worship, which for the Protestant seems like idolatry. Second, human beings die because of the corruption that occurs through sin (Romans 5:12 &13; 6:23;8: 18-25; Heb 9:27). If Mary was sinless, then why did she die? Third in the Magnificat, she declares the Child to be her Savior (Luke 1:47) implying she was a sinner; Fourth, not the scripture makes clear that no human being is righteous (Romans 3: 9- 18), but that all have sinned including Mary. Fifth, Jesus clearly had siblings, (Matthew 12:46 & 47; Matthew 13:55-58; Mark 13:31-33; Luke 8:19; John 2:12) meaning she did not remain a virgin and since they had a sin nature, doesn't that imply that Mary was sinful. Sixth Jesus knowing she understood the unique nature of his birth, often spoke of her in diminutive terms. Far from being disrespectful he often sought to clarify his position to his mother, distinguishing himself from her. Jesus ministry must have been difficult and confusing for Mary. The child whom she had raised through a normal physical, spiritual, emotional, social and intellectual development Lk 2:52 was now claiming to be God, himself; rather than elevating her to a status of co-redeemer, He often put her in her place:
[48] And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress.” [49] And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?” [50] And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them. (Luke 2:48-50 ESV, cf. Mt 12:46-50);
[26] When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” [27] Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:26-27 ESV)Jesus loved his mother, but clearly sought to define himself as morally and spiritually superior. He never elevated her to iconic status, nor encouraged her veneration (nor did any of the apostles or New Testament writers). Strangely, at Jesus the tomb is the last place we see her. He appears to her there. He wants her to understand that she has no claim on him. She was merely human subject to death, he was glorified fully human and fully divine, the conqueror of death. Mary was transformed from more than a mother struggling with the ambiguity of both pride and grief to a worshiper of the Son whom she had born.
She was blessed among women because she had been a vessel of God's ultimate redemptive event. So, seventh, even if it were possible for Mary's character to have been impeccable she still would have had been condemned as a member of Adam's race. Even had she been of impeccable character she would have still been guilty of sin. God's condemnation of the race was federalistic; in other words, when Adam was cast out of the presence of God divine judgment fell to all his progeny (Romans 5: 12 -21). So the Catholic view that Mary was morally impeccable appears untenable with Scripture.
The Protestant view is that the virgin birth was the product of God's intervening and enabling Mary to bear the child. Isaiah 7:14 predicts that a young unmarried virgin will bear the promised Messiah. Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.
Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
(Isaiah 7:14 ESV)
This is really the best explanation, but for me it raises one question: How did God intervene? How did a Divine Human child grow in the womb of a sinful woman? One of the amazing aspects of the incarnation is that the infinite God became a single-cell human embryo and went through normal genetic and human development (Luke 2:52). If we Protestants believe that Mary had a sin nature, then how could He have inherited any genetic material from Mary? We agree he could not have been the product of some dalliance, but how could he have been free of a sin nature if he had inherited any of her nature? Yet Jesus was fully human, born from a single cell.
A human embryo contains 46 chromosomes ("The Human Body - How Many Chromosomes Are There In A Human Body Cell?." Science Fact Finder. Ed. Phillis Engelbert. UXL-Gale, 1998. eNotes.com. 2006. 24 Jul, 2010 cited July 24, 2010), each parent contributing 23. Jesus had 46 chromosomes in his DNA.So did Mary contribute chromosomes to Jesus' human body? If so were 23 chromosomes corrupted and the 23 contributed by the Holy Spirit impeccable? Did God miraculously superintended so Mary's chromosomes were impeccable? But if God changed the genetic make up of Mary's chromosomes, then were they hers, at all? When he created Eve from the rib of Adam; he apparently used all of his DNA except for his one Y chromosome, giving her the double X chromosomal pair. This did not mean she was 42 parts Adam and one part Eve. This one small adjustment made her a radically different person from her husband, and gave trillions of possible combinations and permutations for their progeny. So if God manipulated Mary's DNA, was it hers at all? On the other hand, if half of Jesus' flesh came from Mary and half from God, then how he could be fully either human or divine? Wouldn't he be a partial reflection of each person who contributed to his flesh? It was clear that the Apostles recognized that Jesus had to be born of human flesh by a human parent (Gal 4:4 & 5), so that a perfect man, could live perfectly under the law and be able to be a redeeming sacrifice for sin. Suppose he received 46 chromosomes from Mary and only the Y male chromosome the Holy Spirit, and other new DNA markers had been uniquely created, then he would have born no relationship to Mary at all. In either event, He would be unique from every human being on earth? He would have been part human and part divine, which we have all ready asserted is contrary to what scripture teaches?
Whatever happened in the incarnation? The nativity was a radically unique birth. In the most famous passage of scripture, John 3:16, Jesus is referred to as God's "only" son. It is an important word in the Greek language translated as "only begotten." in the King James Version" The modern translations will use the term "one and only," or sometimes "unique." In Greek, the original language of the New Testament, the word is "monogenes," a compound of two Greek words "mono," usually meaning " single," "one of a kind, and "genes," which can mean "generate," literally "uniquely generated. The word usually refers to an only child or unique birth in the New Testament (Luke 8:42, 9:38, 11:7; Hebrews 11:17) How was the incarnation of Jesus Christ different? The word expresses the fact that Jesus' incarnation, his eternal person came into possession of a human body that was unlike any other uniquely qualifying Him for the work of redemption:
[14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14 ESV) .
He was the Word (God) and He was the flesh (human body) full of grace and truth. He was the eternal Son of God, now in a uniquely created fully human body.
[18] No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (John 1:18 ESV).
In other words Jesus being fully human and fully God was not half Mary's child and half God's. "For in him the whole fullness of Deity dwells bodily (Colossians 2:9). The child born to Mary was a unique person who was at once fully God and fully human.For me this raises a profound question: "Was Mary a surrogate mother?" Was she blessed to be a vessel of the Savior's birth rather than a participant in his pro-generation? Did her womb, blessed of God carry a child uniquely created as our Advocate, containing none of her genetic material? Does Jesus unique birth with 46 unique human chromosomes mean his human body was specially generated? How could he have been a representative of the race without inheriting DNA from a human mother. God uniquely and radically created a fully human person once before -- Adam!
Jesus' possession of human flesh, uniquely generated, does not makes him unique. One other time God created a fully human, man from nothing putting together 46 individual chromosomes. That man was Adam. Human beings have come into the flesh, through pro-creation and creation. Adam was created, as was Jesus' human body. Adam was created "from the dust of the ground" (Genesis 2:7). God took the proteins, enzymes and acids he had created, combined them into DNA nuclei, created multiple copies creating a fully human man. The scripture often refers to Jesus as the Second Adam. Could that reference imply a similarity in that both men's spirits were contained in uniquely created bodies? In what ways are Adam and Jesus similar, and different, and what difference does it make?
Although Jesus refers to Adam as a type of Christ, someone who prefigures him, and the Second Adam. While Adam and Christ share characteristics they also have profound dissimilarities. The primary being in their duration. While Adam was created from the dust of the ground and God's Divine breath (Genesis 2:7), Jesus was eternal (John 1:1&2) and became flesh (John 1:14). Clarifying the comparisons and contrast between Adam and Christ helps to understand the incarnation.
The New Testament makes refers t0 the first Adam 9 times. The first reference is in Luke 3:38 which traces Jesus' lineage through Mary back to Adam, identifying him as a descendant of Adam, and a member of the human race. (We will come back to how he could have been referred to as a descendant of Adam were he uniquely created later). It is interesting, however, that this genealogy makes no reference to Mary, even though this book's account of the Christmas story focuses on her. It is here Mary is told she will bear the child. She visits her cousin Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Here she sings the Magnificat. Here she dedicates the 8 day old child in the temple. Yet, she is not mentioned as a progenitor of the Savior in the genealogy contained in this book. Genealogies in the period seldom listed the mother's, if this genealogy is Mary's, so one would not expect it to mention her by name. Another reference to Adam explains male and female roles in the family and church (1 Timothy 2:13 & 14.). This verse has no bearing on his nature. The Last is Jude 14 where Adam is referenced in the genealogy of Enoch. It too has no relevance to this discussion of the nature of Christ birth. Below are the references that do:
[14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Romans 5:14 ESV).This passage makes reference to men and women who lived before the Law was given, and says they were condemned to death, because they were descendants of Adam. His sin was imputed to them. So even though, people may have been unaware that their actions were transgressions against God's holiness they stood condemned, because when Adam was condemned all his descendants were condemned with him. Death came to the human race. But before we cry "unfair", they were condemned because of their ancestry. Paul says God did it this way because Adam was " a type of one to come" Adam prefigured a Second Adam whose action would also apply to all men. In other words as Adam sin was applied to all men, a Second Adam, a man, uniquely created would come who had no sin. His spinelessness would be applied to his descendants. So just as through One Adam death became the possession of all who were his descendants, through the Second Adam life was granted to his descendants (Romans 5: 15 -17). Few of us question the fairness of Christ's imputed righteousness to us, so why do we question the fairness of imputing condemnation? It is this redemptive work of grace that Christ alone can do. This is what Christmas is all about.
A comparison between first and Second Adams is drawn in 1 Corinthian 15:22-45 where Adam is referred to 3 times:
[22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. [23] But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:22-23 ESV) This passage explains how Christ's gift of eternal life can be applied to men. It affirms that Adam's death and Christ's gift of life are both applied to all men. Adam is different from all other human beings save 2, his wife, Eve and Jesus. Eve too was created without sin; Jesus was pre-existent and had no sin. Neither Adam nor Eve inherited a sin nature, nor was sin imputed to them federally. They chose sin, and in that choice represented their progeny. What relationship does Christ have with humanity? He too was born fully human without inheriting a sin nature or Adam's imputed sin, and was fully human, but when he was given the choice (in the temptation, and the garden) he did not sin. The bondage of sin, either through genetics or imputation, was forever broken and the authority of Satan was destroyed at that moment (Matthew 4: 1-11; 28;18; Luke 4:1 - 13; 10:17-20).Christ was like Adam because he possessed of uniquely generated human flesh but he was different from him in relationship to sin, and therefore was unlike any other person before or after him.
Besides the possession of 46 chromosomes what does the fully human Christ share with the human race? Only death. Death came to the race by Adam's sin, he deserved it, and we do too. Christ was similar to Adam only in the uniqueness of his human origin. What he shares with Adam's descendants is death. Adam was a living human being, with a long progeny, but due to his failure all of his descendant would die. The life he gives through procreation will ultimately fail. Jesus was not corrupted (1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5). Like Adam his flesh was generated in perfection. In his perfection he represented his progeny, so having no sin of His own He could be the perfect sacrifice for our sin. "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."(2 Corinthians 5:21 ESV) By assuming human flesh then dying an undeserved death he was able to take the death we deserved-- penalty transferred. The theological term is "substitutionary atonement." He was able to satisfy God's penalty for sin on our behalf because he was fully human and without sin. As there is a comparison between the 2 Adams, there is an important contrast between them:
[45] Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. Corinthians 15:45 ESV cf. Romans 4:25; 8:3 &4; Galatians 3:13 & 14).The Second Adam -- Jesus Christ -- uniquely came to be able to offer himself as a sacrifice for others. He was like Adam; he was fully man. The first Adam was able to pro-create and give life, but it was life under condemnation. Life that would die. He was different from Adam in that he did not inherit death from Adam. He did not deserve death, and therefore was able to pay the price for those who did. He gave life too, but it was spiritual life (John 3:1-8). He died to do what we could not do for ourselves!
So how do we compare and contrast the First and Second Adams. First both were uniquely generated human beings. Adam inherited no DNA from any human parent; he was uniquely created by God. Could Jesus have been otherwise? How could he have inherited human material from a mother, and not carried her nature (which even if morally pure, would be corrupt federally)? For Jesus to be an impeccable Second Adam his flesh had to be unique? His unique birth neither diminishes his deity nor discredits his humanity. Adam was a uniquely created man, without parents and was fully human. Christ, the "one and only" Second Adam had no need to inherit human material to be Fully Man.
Neither does this view diminished his Deity. Adam was fully human but was not God, he was created in God' image and likeness, but he was not God. Jesus was God from eternity (John 1: 1 -14).The term God's only begotten refers to his unique role as Fully Human/Full God. Adam prefigured a second man who was to come by a radical generation. They both pass on their life status imputation-ally. As all who shared in Adam's DNA died with him. All who share in Christ's death and resurrection life through faith live with him. Both men died to expunge sin's penalty. Both were cast out of the presence of God, one deservedly (Genesis 3:24), the other by substitution (Mathew 15:34) . Adam was created as a fully grown man. Jesus experienced every aspect of human life and development. Whereas Adam died because of his own sin. Christ died for your sin and mine. Whereas Adam's death corrupted the race, Jesus' brought about righteousness, regeneration and transformation. Whereas the human nature was transmitted by procreation. Jesus' Spirit transforms lives through regeneration (John 1:12 &13Roman 4:13 -15; 5:26 and 17). All of this raises a question?
In addition to "one and only" and the reference to the Second Adam. One other term that I believe has reference to Jesus unique birth: Jesus is referred to as the "first born from the dead."
[5] and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood (Revelation 1:5 ESV).
I have heard various explanations of this term. Some have said, he was first man to be resurrected. But he was not. The Old Testament prophets Elijah and Elisha raised people from the dead. After Jesus' death their was a group of Old Testament saints who arose.
"[52] The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, [53] and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. (Matthew 27:52-53 ESV)"
Our Lord himself raised several people, including Lazarus (John 11). So Jesus was not the first to be resurrected. The phrase "first born" does not necessarily imply birth order as much as legal prominence. The birthright could be passed to one who was not first in line (cf. Jacob and Esau). The phrase "first born" means legal preeminence or importance. So the idea of the "first born from the dead" is a theological term meaning that Jesus was has preeminence over death, he has conquered sin. Because of that he reversed the curse of the fall and took preeminence over earth.
But what does all this say about Mary and the nature of her child? One of the questions surrounding Mary is that if she was impeccable, then married Joseph, a sinful man, would she have been corrupted? In other words, how could a sinless virgin have children. Were her children only half corrupted? Our catholic friends deny she had other children, when the scripture is clear Jesus had siblings:
[46] While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. [48] But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” [49] And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! [50] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50 ESV).
His own brother became a leader in the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:2, 17; Acts15:13; 21:18; Galatians 1:16; 2:9-12; Jude 1). He went own to be an apostolic leader an author of a New Testament text:
[1:1] James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion: Greetings. James 1:1 ESV)Did her children, his siblings, share DNA with Jesus? Was Mary's DNA corrupted by Joseph's, or were these people superior to others as they were half impeccable. The existence of Jesus' brothers and sisters make it exceedingly difficult to explain the Catholic teaching that Mary' is the mother of God. Our Catholic friends deny the problem by denying the existence of the other children. Yet the scripture says she was "blessed among women" to be the mother of Jesus Christ. She is blessed as she was chosen to a vessel of redemption and the preeminent example of obedience. If her nature was corrupted, as Protestants believe, and scripture teaches that it was; Jesus was her Savior, which is what she asserted:
And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; (Luke 1:46-48 ESV)
Did he inherit anything from Mary? Since God is the author of life, it is unnecessary for Jesus to receive any material from a human parent to be human, any more than it was necessary for Adam to receive any material from a human parent. If Mary was a surrogate mother, then what purpose is served by recording Jesus in her genealogical record?
Strangely neither biblical genealogy of Jesus mentions Mary by name. The Advent accounts in Luke center around Mary, her family, and the visit of the angel to her, while the account in Matthew centers around Joseph, and the two genealogies are different. Most evangelicals believe that since the Matthean account has to do with Joseph and Luke's emphasizes Mary. The account in Luke is Mary's genealogy, although she is not mentioned. Some say this is because of the Jewish tendency to not mention women in genealogy. The Christ Child in the Lukan account is described as "the supposed son of Joseph", whose genealogy is recorded in Matthew. Luke,s birth account emphasizes Mary, Elizabeth, the prophetess Anna. The gospel is the most feminine of the Synoptics. Luke unapologetic ally makes reference to female figures in Jesus' life. Luke's gospel is the first part of a two part work directed to a Hellenistic judge (Acts 1:1). It is written to a Gentile audience. Why leave Mary out of the genealogy due to Jewish sensibilities or traditions? In the context her absence from the genealogy stands out? What was Luke's reason for excluding his central character, the mother, whom he had built the whole story around from the birth account? Was her role in the birth as a passive recipient of God's work in response to her obedience? Contrasting the Luke account with Matthews one could suppose that Jesus was neither a physical descendant of either Mary or Joseph.
The genealogy in Matthew Chapter One is a different (Matthew 1:17) from Luke's. This birth account emphasize Joseph, Jesus' earthly father. It list all ancestors as fathers of their descendants. Yet it describes Joseph as father by relationship to his marriage to Mary (1:16). It is also incomplete. It only traces the line back to Abraham. It is put together in 3 groups of 14 generations, which may imply Trinitarian perfection, but undoubtedly connects Jesus birth to the covenant of Abraham. It connects Jesus to God's superintendency of the Jewish nation and people. This is the Jewish genealogy, the book that is least feminine of the Synoptics. the one written to a Jewish audience and most likely to be sensitive to a Jewish attitude towards women. Yet this genealogy also is unconventional when compared to genealogies of the time. If upsets Jewish conventions listing several female progenitors of Jesus (1:3 Jesus is descended of Tamar, an incestuous daughter-in-law; Rahab, a temple prostitute; Ruth, a Moabitess, a Gentile and an enemy of the Jews 1:5, Bathsheba an adulteress 1:6; and lastly Mary chosen by grace 1:16. ). The most Jewish birth account intentionally breaks with Jewish tradition in the listing of Jesus' ancestry.
Each of the women in Matthew's account stands out as unqualified to be mothers of the Messiah. The genealogy is structured to show Christ's connection to the men as legal heirs of the Davidic kingdom, connecting him to the covenant and to the Jewish Nation. The women though seem to emphasize that Christ's connection to failed humanity. That each of these women were uniquely undeserving of their place, but chosen by the grace of God, emphasizes the radical uniqueness of Jesus' birth. This was no ordinary child. The genealogy screams a message that we are connected to Christ by grace rather than law or birth. Since it makes clear that Jesus relationship to Joseph is by adoption, and his relationship to the women is by grace, does that imply physical progeny to David is unnecessary for one to enter the covenant? Could Mary have been a surrogate mother, Joseph a step-father, and Jesus been a descendant of David? There seems to be nothing preventing that in either genealogy, or in terms describing his birth. Jesus usually refers to Mary as "woman," rather than as his "mother." He consistently speaks to her in diminutive terms. Why is Mary left out of the genealogies?
A reference in Hebrews shines some light on the Messiah's origin:
[3] He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever. (Hebrews 7:3ESV)'
While this reference speaks of Melchizedek, who was a type of Christ (an historical image). The author draws an analogy between Jesus and Melchizedek in the fact that there is no record of Melchizedek's lineage. Melchizedek is a type of Christ because he had no human genealogy implying that neither did Jesus. Jesus like Melchizedek, while fully human, has no human geneaology?
So when one thinks of a fully human fully Divine Savior, there is no reason to expect he received human material from any human being. The term "only" defines the radical uniqueness of his flesh." The reference to him as a Second Adam, seems to emphasize their similar special creation and federal representation of the human race. The term first born from the dead, implies that because of his special human life, he is the penultimate Man. The fact that the most feminine of the birth accounts leaves Mary out out of genealogy was no accidental omission. The author for some reason wanted to distinguish Jesus from Mary and her physical ancestors. The list in Matthew, while connecting him to the Davidic covenant through his stepfather Joseph, connects him with all human beings through 5 unlikely, unqualified, sinful women, screaming out that his human legacu is one of grace, rather than genetics.
I see no reason why Jesus needed to inherit any thing physical from Mary. She was uniquely blessed with the most important ministerial call in history to give life to the hope of us all. God chose Mary, a special obedient woman of faith to carry and nurture the Holy Embryo and raise Him as a child, and adolescent to be a healthy, happy man, while contributing nothing of her own flesh to his. There is nothing in the incarnation or the terms surrounding it that would require Jesus to have received genetic material from Mary. I therefore ask again, "was Mary a surrogate mother?"
This Christmas I stand in awe at the miracle of Christ's birth. I stand in awe at the nature of Jesus' incarnation. Christians believe Jesus was fully God and fully man with no conflation or confusion of natures. He was neither schizophrenic nor neurotic. He was one Person with two natures. He was also God's Son. Although being the Second person of the Divine God head for all eternity (Psalm2:12; Isaiah 48:16 et.al), he voluntarily subordinated himself to the Father who promised him a kingdom (Mark 2:1 - 12;John 1: 1 -5; 8:58; 10:30; Colossi ans 2:1-18 et.al). He was fully God but functioned in subordination to the Father in relation to the kingdom promised Him. When Jesus Christ came into possession of human flesh he was all ready the eternal Son of God, fully Divine.He was unique, unlike any other before since or who will exist. He was the eternal God who became flesh at the radically unique event we call the Nativity. We celebrate his incarnation, the Divine Person taking on flesh at Christmas.
Although he was Son of God prior to his incarnation He did not possess human flesh, that came at his birth. He condescended himself to take on human likeness and nature (Phil 2:5-11). Jesus took on human flesh to pay the price for sin, no other person can pay, because of their own sin (Psalm 49: 7-9). How could Jesus, sinless, impeccable, take on human flesh? How could Jesus have been born of human parentage and not inherit a, human, sin nature?
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14 ESV).
The child was going to be called "God with us." because he was going to come to be with man and restore the broken relationship between God and man. He was to come through the birth of a virgin. He was not to be the product of human procreation. The virgin birth was essential because the child could not inherit a human sinful nature.
If he was not to be born with human flaw or sin, then what role did Mary play? How could she bear a sinless child, if she was, sinful like the rest of humanity? Mary was the vessel through whom the Redeemer came. How much of Mary was present in the person of Jesus? How could the Holy Spirit unite with her embryonic material in such a way that she would conceive a child who had no sin?
The Roman Catholic church has answered this question through a doctrine they call the immaculate conception. Mary's parents were of such probity that they attained sinless perfection; she was conceived by immaculate human parents, and therefore inherited no, sin nature, herself. She was born and lived her entire life as a sinless virgin. Therefore, the genetic material Jesus obtained from her was sinless.
There are at least seven problems with this view: first, the elevation of Mary to spinelessness, puts her in iconic if not divine status. She herself becomes an object of worship, which for the Protestant seems like idolatry. Second, human beings die because of the corruption that occurs through sin (Romans 5:12 &13; 6:23;8: 18-25; Heb 9:27). If Mary was sinless, then why did she die? Third in the Magnificat, she declares the Child to be her Savior (Luke 1:47) implying she was a sinner; Fourth, not the scripture makes clear that no human being is righteous (Romans 3: 9- 18), but that all have sinned including Mary. Fifth, Jesus clearly had siblings, (Matthew 12:46 & 47; Matthew 13:55-58; Mark 13:31-33; Luke 8:19; John 2:12) meaning she did not remain a virgin and since they had a sin nature, doesn't that imply that Mary was sinful. Sixth Jesus knowing she understood the unique nature of his birth, often spoke of her in diminutive terms. Far from being disrespectful he often sought to clarify his position to his mother, distinguishing himself from her. Jesus ministry must have been difficult and confusing for Mary. The child whom she had raised through a normal physical, spiritual, emotional, social and intellectual development Lk 2:52 was now claiming to be God, himself; rather than elevating her to a status of co-redeemer, He often put her in her place:
[48] And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress.” [49] And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?” [50] And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them. (Luke 2:48-50 ESV, cf. Mt 12:46-50);
[26] When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” [27] Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:26-27 ESV)Jesus loved his mother, but clearly sought to define himself as morally and spiritually superior. He never elevated her to iconic status, nor encouraged her veneration (nor did any of the apostles or New Testament writers). Strangely, at Jesus the tomb is the last place we see her. He appears to her there. He wants her to understand that she has no claim on him. She was merely human subject to death, he was glorified fully human and fully divine, the conqueror of death. Mary was transformed from more than a mother struggling with the ambiguity of both pride and grief to a worshiper of the Son whom she had born.
She was blessed among women because she had been a vessel of God's ultimate redemptive event. So, seventh, even if it were possible for Mary's character to have been impeccable she still would have had been condemned as a member of Adam's race. Even had she been of impeccable character she would have still been guilty of sin. God's condemnation of the race was federalistic; in other words, when Adam was cast out of the presence of God divine judgment fell to all his progeny (Romans 5: 12 -21). So the Catholic view that Mary was morally impeccable appears untenable with Scripture.
The Protestant view is that the virgin birth was the product of God's intervening and enabling Mary to bear the child. Isaiah 7:14 predicts that a young unmarried virgin will bear the promised Messiah. Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.
Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
(Isaiah 7:14 ESV)
This is really the best explanation, but for me it raises one question: How did God intervene? How did a Divine Human child grow in the womb of a sinful woman? One of the amazing aspects of the incarnation is that the infinite God became a single-cell human embryo and went through normal genetic and human development (Luke 2:52). If we Protestants believe that Mary had a sin nature, then how could He have inherited any genetic material from Mary? We agree he could not have been the product of some dalliance, but how could he have been free of a sin nature if he had inherited any of her nature? Yet Jesus was fully human, born from a single cell.
A human embryo contains 46 chromosomes ("The Human Body - How Many Chromosomes Are There In A Human Body Cell?." Science Fact Finder. Ed. Phillis Engelbert. UXL-Gale, 1998. eNotes.com. 2006. 24 Jul, 2010 cited July 24, 2010), each parent contributing 23. Jesus had 46 chromosomes in his DNA.So did Mary contribute chromosomes to Jesus' human body? If so were 23 chromosomes corrupted and the 23 contributed by the Holy Spirit impeccable? Did God miraculously superintended so Mary's chromosomes were impeccable? But if God changed the genetic make up of Mary's chromosomes, then were they hers, at all? When he created Eve from the rib of Adam; he apparently used all of his DNA except for his one Y chromosome, giving her the double X chromosomal pair. This did not mean she was 42 parts Adam and one part Eve. This one small adjustment made her a radically different person from her husband, and gave trillions of possible combinations and permutations for their progeny. So if God manipulated Mary's DNA, was it hers at all? On the other hand, if half of Jesus' flesh came from Mary and half from God, then how he could be fully either human or divine? Wouldn't he be a partial reflection of each person who contributed to his flesh? It was clear that the Apostles recognized that Jesus had to be born of human flesh by a human parent (Gal 4:4 & 5), so that a perfect man, could live perfectly under the law and be able to be a redeeming sacrifice for sin. Suppose he received 46 chromosomes from Mary and only the Y male chromosome the Holy Spirit, and other new DNA markers had been uniquely created, then he would have born no relationship to Mary at all. In either event, He would be unique from every human being on earth? He would have been part human and part divine, which we have all ready asserted is contrary to what scripture teaches?
Whatever happened in the incarnation? The nativity was a radically unique birth. In the most famous passage of scripture, John 3:16, Jesus is referred to as God's "only" son. It is an important word in the Greek language translated as "only begotten." in the King James Version" The modern translations will use the term "one and only," or sometimes "unique." In Greek, the original language of the New Testament, the word is "monogenes," a compound of two Greek words "mono," usually meaning " single," "one of a kind, and "genes," which can mean "generate," literally "uniquely generated. The word usually refers to an only child or unique birth in the New Testament (Luke 8:42, 9:38, 11:7; Hebrews 11:17) How was the incarnation of Jesus Christ different? The word expresses the fact that Jesus' incarnation, his eternal person came into possession of a human body that was unlike any other uniquely qualifying Him for the work of redemption:
[14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14 ESV) .
He was the Word (God) and He was the flesh (human body) full of grace and truth. He was the eternal Son of God, now in a uniquely created fully human body.
[18] No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (John 1:18 ESV).
In other words Jesus being fully human and fully God was not half Mary's child and half God's. "For in him the whole fullness of Deity dwells bodily (Colossians 2:9). The child born to Mary was a unique person who was at once fully God and fully human.For me this raises a profound question: "Was Mary a surrogate mother?" Was she blessed to be a vessel of the Savior's birth rather than a participant in his pro-generation? Did her womb, blessed of God carry a child uniquely created as our Advocate, containing none of her genetic material? Does Jesus unique birth with 46 unique human chromosomes mean his human body was specially generated? How could he have been a representative of the race without inheriting DNA from a human mother. God uniquely and radically created a fully human person once before -- Adam!
Jesus' possession of human flesh, uniquely generated, does not makes him unique. One other time God created a fully human, man from nothing putting together 46 individual chromosomes. That man was Adam. Human beings have come into the flesh, through pro-creation and creation. Adam was created, as was Jesus' human body. Adam was created "from the dust of the ground" (Genesis 2:7). God took the proteins, enzymes and acids he had created, combined them into DNA nuclei, created multiple copies creating a fully human man. The scripture often refers to Jesus as the Second Adam. Could that reference imply a similarity in that both men's spirits were contained in uniquely created bodies? In what ways are Adam and Jesus similar, and different, and what difference does it make?
Although Jesus refers to Adam as a type of Christ, someone who prefigures him, and the Second Adam. While Adam and Christ share characteristics they also have profound dissimilarities. The primary being in their duration. While Adam was created from the dust of the ground and God's Divine breath (Genesis 2:7), Jesus was eternal (John 1:1&2) and became flesh (John 1:14). Clarifying the comparisons and contrast between Adam and Christ helps to understand the incarnation.
The New Testament makes refers t0 the first Adam 9 times. The first reference is in Luke 3:38 which traces Jesus' lineage through Mary back to Adam, identifying him as a descendant of Adam, and a member of the human race. (We will come back to how he could have been referred to as a descendant of Adam were he uniquely created later). It is interesting, however, that this genealogy makes no reference to Mary, even though this book's account of the Christmas story focuses on her. It is here Mary is told she will bear the child. She visits her cousin Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Here she sings the Magnificat. Here she dedicates the 8 day old child in the temple. Yet, she is not mentioned as a progenitor of the Savior in the genealogy contained in this book. Genealogies in the period seldom listed the mother's, if this genealogy is Mary's, so one would not expect it to mention her by name. Another reference to Adam explains male and female roles in the family and church (1 Timothy 2:13 & 14.). This verse has no bearing on his nature. The Last is Jude 14 where Adam is referenced in the genealogy of Enoch. It too has no relevance to this discussion of the nature of Christ birth. Below are the references that do:
[14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Romans 5:14 ESV).This passage makes reference to men and women who lived before the Law was given, and says they were condemned to death, because they were descendants of Adam. His sin was imputed to them. So even though, people may have been unaware that their actions were transgressions against God's holiness they stood condemned, because when Adam was condemned all his descendants were condemned with him. Death came to the human race. But before we cry "unfair", they were condemned because of their ancestry. Paul says God did it this way because Adam was " a type of one to come" Adam prefigured a Second Adam whose action would also apply to all men. In other words as Adam sin was applied to all men, a Second Adam, a man, uniquely created would come who had no sin. His spinelessness would be applied to his descendants. So just as through One Adam death became the possession of all who were his descendants, through the Second Adam life was granted to his descendants (Romans 5: 15 -17). Few of us question the fairness of Christ's imputed righteousness to us, so why do we question the fairness of imputing condemnation? It is this redemptive work of grace that Christ alone can do. This is what Christmas is all about.
A comparison between first and Second Adams is drawn in 1 Corinthian 15:22-45 where Adam is referred to 3 times:
[22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. [23] But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:22-23 ESV) This passage explains how Christ's gift of eternal life can be applied to men. It affirms that Adam's death and Christ's gift of life are both applied to all men. Adam is different from all other human beings save 2, his wife, Eve and Jesus. Eve too was created without sin; Jesus was pre-existent and had no sin. Neither Adam nor Eve inherited a sin nature, nor was sin imputed to them federally. They chose sin, and in that choice represented their progeny. What relationship does Christ have with humanity? He too was born fully human without inheriting a sin nature or Adam's imputed sin, and was fully human, but when he was given the choice (in the temptation, and the garden) he did not sin. The bondage of sin, either through genetics or imputation, was forever broken and the authority of Satan was destroyed at that moment (Matthew 4: 1-11; 28;18; Luke 4:1 - 13; 10:17-20).Christ was like Adam because he possessed of uniquely generated human flesh but he was different from him in relationship to sin, and therefore was unlike any other person before or after him.
Besides the possession of 46 chromosomes what does the fully human Christ share with the human race? Only death. Death came to the race by Adam's sin, he deserved it, and we do too. Christ was similar to Adam only in the uniqueness of his human origin. What he shares with Adam's descendants is death. Adam was a living human being, with a long progeny, but due to his failure all of his descendant would die. The life he gives through procreation will ultimately fail. Jesus was not corrupted (1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5). Like Adam his flesh was generated in perfection. In his perfection he represented his progeny, so having no sin of His own He could be the perfect sacrifice for our sin. "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."(2 Corinthians 5:21 ESV) By assuming human flesh then dying an undeserved death he was able to take the death we deserved-- penalty transferred. The theological term is "substitutionary atonement." He was able to satisfy God's penalty for sin on our behalf because he was fully human and without sin. As there is a comparison between the 2 Adams, there is an important contrast between them:
[45] Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. Corinthians 15:45 ESV cf. Romans 4:25; 8:3 &4; Galatians 3:13 & 14).The Second Adam -- Jesus Christ -- uniquely came to be able to offer himself as a sacrifice for others. He was like Adam; he was fully man. The first Adam was able to pro-create and give life, but it was life under condemnation. Life that would die. He was different from Adam in that he did not inherit death from Adam. He did not deserve death, and therefore was able to pay the price for those who did. He gave life too, but it was spiritual life (John 3:1-8). He died to do what we could not do for ourselves!
So how do we compare and contrast the First and Second Adams. First both were uniquely generated human beings. Adam inherited no DNA from any human parent; he was uniquely created by God. Could Jesus have been otherwise? How could he have inherited human material from a mother, and not carried her nature (which even if morally pure, would be corrupt federally)? For Jesus to be an impeccable Second Adam his flesh had to be unique? His unique birth neither diminishes his deity nor discredits his humanity. Adam was a uniquely created man, without parents and was fully human. Christ, the "one and only" Second Adam had no need to inherit human material to be Fully Man.
Neither does this view diminished his Deity. Adam was fully human but was not God, he was created in God' image and likeness, but he was not God. Jesus was God from eternity (John 1: 1 -14).The term God's only begotten refers to his unique role as Fully Human/Full God. Adam prefigured a second man who was to come by a radical generation. They both pass on their life status imputation-ally. As all who shared in Adam's DNA died with him. All who share in Christ's death and resurrection life through faith live with him. Both men died to expunge sin's penalty. Both were cast out of the presence of God, one deservedly (Genesis 3:24), the other by substitution (Mathew 15:34) . Adam was created as a fully grown man. Jesus experienced every aspect of human life and development. Whereas Adam died because of his own sin. Christ died for your sin and mine. Whereas Adam's death corrupted the race, Jesus' brought about righteousness, regeneration and transformation. Whereas the human nature was transmitted by procreation. Jesus' Spirit transforms lives through regeneration (John 1:12 &13Roman 4:13 -15; 5:26 and 17). All of this raises a question?
In addition to "one and only" and the reference to the Second Adam. One other term that I believe has reference to Jesus unique birth: Jesus is referred to as the "first born from the dead."
[5] and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood (Revelation 1:5 ESV).
I have heard various explanations of this term. Some have said, he was first man to be resurrected. But he was not. The Old Testament prophets Elijah and Elisha raised people from the dead. After Jesus' death their was a group of Old Testament saints who arose.
"[52] The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, [53] and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. (Matthew 27:52-53 ESV)"
Our Lord himself raised several people, including Lazarus (John 11). So Jesus was not the first to be resurrected. The phrase "first born" does not necessarily imply birth order as much as legal prominence. The birthright could be passed to one who was not first in line (cf. Jacob and Esau). The phrase "first born" means legal preeminence or importance. So the idea of the "first born from the dead" is a theological term meaning that Jesus was has preeminence over death, he has conquered sin. Because of that he reversed the curse of the fall and took preeminence over earth.
But what does all this say about Mary and the nature of her child? One of the questions surrounding Mary is that if she was impeccable, then married Joseph, a sinful man, would she have been corrupted? In other words, how could a sinless virgin have children. Were her children only half corrupted? Our catholic friends deny she had other children, when the scripture is clear Jesus had siblings:
[46] While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. [48] But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” [49] And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! [50] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50 ESV).
His own brother became a leader in the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:2, 17; Acts15:13; 21:18; Galatians 1:16; 2:9-12; Jude 1). He went own to be an apostolic leader an author of a New Testament text:
[1:1] James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion: Greetings. James 1:1 ESV)Did her children, his siblings, share DNA with Jesus? Was Mary's DNA corrupted by Joseph's, or were these people superior to others as they were half impeccable. The existence of Jesus' brothers and sisters make it exceedingly difficult to explain the Catholic teaching that Mary' is the mother of God. Our Catholic friends deny the problem by denying the existence of the other children. Yet the scripture says she was "blessed among women" to be the mother of Jesus Christ. She is blessed as she was chosen to a vessel of redemption and the preeminent example of obedience. If her nature was corrupted, as Protestants believe, and scripture teaches that it was; Jesus was her Savior, which is what she asserted:
And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; (Luke 1:46-48 ESV)
Did he inherit anything from Mary? Since God is the author of life, it is unnecessary for Jesus to receive any material from a human parent to be human, any more than it was necessary for Adam to receive any material from a human parent. If Mary was a surrogate mother, then what purpose is served by recording Jesus in her genealogical record?
Strangely neither biblical genealogy of Jesus mentions Mary by name. The Advent accounts in Luke center around Mary, her family, and the visit of the angel to her, while the account in Matthew centers around Joseph, and the two genealogies are different. Most evangelicals believe that since the Matthean account has to do with Joseph and Luke's emphasizes Mary. The account in Luke is Mary's genealogy, although she is not mentioned. Some say this is because of the Jewish tendency to not mention women in genealogy. The Christ Child in the Lukan account is described as "the supposed son of Joseph", whose genealogy is recorded in Matthew. Luke,s birth account emphasizes Mary, Elizabeth, the prophetess Anna. The gospel is the most feminine of the Synoptics. Luke unapologetic ally makes reference to female figures in Jesus' life. Luke's gospel is the first part of a two part work directed to a Hellenistic judge (Acts 1:1). It is written to a Gentile audience. Why leave Mary out of the genealogy due to Jewish sensibilities or traditions? In the context her absence from the genealogy stands out? What was Luke's reason for excluding his central character, the mother, whom he had built the whole story around from the birth account? Was her role in the birth as a passive recipient of God's work in response to her obedience? Contrasting the Luke account with Matthews one could suppose that Jesus was neither a physical descendant of either Mary or Joseph.
The genealogy in Matthew Chapter One is a different (Matthew 1:17) from Luke's. This birth account emphasize Joseph, Jesus' earthly father. It list all ancestors as fathers of their descendants. Yet it describes Joseph as father by relationship to his marriage to Mary (1:16). It is also incomplete. It only traces the line back to Abraham. It is put together in 3 groups of 14 generations, which may imply Trinitarian perfection, but undoubtedly connects Jesus birth to the covenant of Abraham. It connects Jesus to God's superintendency of the Jewish nation and people. This is the Jewish genealogy, the book that is least feminine of the Synoptics. the one written to a Jewish audience and most likely to be sensitive to a Jewish attitude towards women. Yet this genealogy also is unconventional when compared to genealogies of the time. If upsets Jewish conventions listing several female progenitors of Jesus (1:3 Jesus is descended of Tamar, an incestuous daughter-in-law; Rahab, a temple prostitute; Ruth, a Moabitess, a Gentile and an enemy of the Jews 1:5, Bathsheba an adulteress 1:6; and lastly Mary chosen by grace 1:16. ). The most Jewish birth account intentionally breaks with Jewish tradition in the listing of Jesus' ancestry.
Each of the women in Matthew's account stands out as unqualified to be mothers of the Messiah. The genealogy is structured to show Christ's connection to the men as legal heirs of the Davidic kingdom, connecting him to the covenant and to the Jewish Nation. The women though seem to emphasize that Christ's connection to failed humanity. That each of these women were uniquely undeserving of their place, but chosen by the grace of God, emphasizes the radical uniqueness of Jesus' birth. This was no ordinary child. The genealogy screams a message that we are connected to Christ by grace rather than law or birth. Since it makes clear that Jesus relationship to Joseph is by adoption, and his relationship to the women is by grace, does that imply physical progeny to David is unnecessary for one to enter the covenant? Could Mary have been a surrogate mother, Joseph a step-father, and Jesus been a descendant of David? There seems to be nothing preventing that in either genealogy, or in terms describing his birth. Jesus usually refers to Mary as "woman," rather than as his "mother." He consistently speaks to her in diminutive terms. Why is Mary left out of the genealogies?
A reference in Hebrews shines some light on the Messiah's origin:
[3] He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever. (Hebrews 7:3ESV)'
While this reference speaks of Melchizedek, who was a type of Christ (an historical image). The author draws an analogy between Jesus and Melchizedek in the fact that there is no record of Melchizedek's lineage. Melchizedek is a type of Christ because he had no human genealogy implying that neither did Jesus. Jesus like Melchizedek, while fully human, has no human geneaology?
So when one thinks of a fully human fully Divine Savior, there is no reason to expect he received human material from any human being. The term "only" defines the radical uniqueness of his flesh." The reference to him as a Second Adam, seems to emphasize their similar special creation and federal representation of the human race. The term first born from the dead, implies that because of his special human life, he is the penultimate Man. The fact that the most feminine of the birth accounts leaves Mary out out of genealogy was no accidental omission. The author for some reason wanted to distinguish Jesus from Mary and her physical ancestors. The list in Matthew, while connecting him to the Davidic covenant through his stepfather Joseph, connects him with all human beings through 5 unlikely, unqualified, sinful women, screaming out that his human legacu is one of grace, rather than genetics.
I see no reason why Jesus needed to inherit any thing physical from Mary. She was uniquely blessed with the most important ministerial call in history to give life to the hope of us all. God chose Mary, a special obedient woman of faith to carry and nurture the Holy Embryo and raise Him as a child, and adolescent to be a healthy, happy man, while contributing nothing of her own flesh to his. There is nothing in the incarnation or the terms surrounding it that would require Jesus to have received genetic material from Mary. I therefore ask again, "was Mary a surrogate mother?"
Comments
Post a Comment