Christ, the Son of God and Man

[panta dokimazete]

Not sure if this is the right forum, but I wanted to work through this paradigm with Reformed brethren.

If this has been covered somewhere else, just give me the link.

I am going to go piece by piece to try and make sure I "stay within the bounds".

The first question in building my premise is this:

Was Jesus' body formed from the "flesh", that is the egg, of Mary or was He knit in Her womb wholly of new material formed by the God through the Spirit?

Your considered answer is appreciated.

 

[Zenas]

Christ was born into the flesh, by a woman, under the Law. I see no other conclusion to make than Christ was the biological son of Mary.

 

[dannyhyde]

From Daniel R. Hyde, God With Us: Knowing the Mystery of Who Jesus Is (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2007), 64–67:

Of the Virgin Mary
The phrase in the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed stating that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit “of the Virgin Mary” (ex Maria virgine/ek Marias tēs parthenou) is vitally important. This truth comes from Scripture in Matthew 1:20–21, in which Jesus is said to be “conceived in her” and born of her (Cf. Luke 2:7; Gal. 4:4 cf. Gen. 3:15).

The Reformers, while defending the gospel of salvation through faith alone against the Roman Catholic Church, also had to defend the truly catholic doctrine of the incarnation against the Anabaptists (ana, “again,” and baptizō, “baptize,” hence, “re-baptizers). These radical groups rejected infant baptism, along with many other doctrines, as Roman Catholic error. Regarding the doctrine of the incarnation, many Anabaptists held to the views of heretical groups in the ancient church, which rejected the true humanity of our Lord such as the Docetists (Christ appeared to be human), the Gnostics (spirit was good and flesh was evil), and the Modalists (God appears in various modes throughout history: as Father, as Son, and as Holy Spirit), whether ancient or modern. The Belgic Confession rejects the view of some Anabaptists that Christ did not receive His humanity from His mother Mary. To do so it calls upon an impressive string of biblical witnesses:

Therefore we confess (in opposition to the heresy of the Anabaptists, who deny that Christ assumed human flesh of his mother) that Christ is become a partaker of the flesh and blood of the children; that he is a fruit of the loins of David after the flesh; made of the seed of David according to the flesh; a fruit of the womb of the Virgin Mary; made 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 he took on him the seed of Abraham, and became like unto his brethren in all things, sin excepted; so that in truth he is our Immanuel, that is to say, God with us (art. 18).

The Anabaptists did not deny that Christ was born of Mary or that He was fully God. They did deny, however, that He received His human nature from His earthly mother, Mary. Some Anabaptists compared Mary to a funnel, saying that the Son merely passed through her as a conduit to get to earth; hence, he did not take on a human nature. Their reasoning sprang from a Gnostic error. Gnosticism was a teaching that threatened the Church in its first three centuries. Its basic premise was that “spirit” was good and “flesh” was evil. The material world was bad just because it was material.

The Belgic Confession agrees with Scripture in teaching that it is imperative for Jesus Christ to be a true man in order to save humanity from their sin. Since the curse of sin fell on humanity, the curse had to be reversed by a human. In its defense of the true humanity of Christ, the Belgic Confession uses the magnificent presentation of the reality and necessity of the incarnation found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hebrews chapters 1–2 proclaim the greatness of the Son over angels in both His exaltation and humiliation. The conclusion to this argument is in 2:10–18, which say,

For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

The writer speaks of this humiliation in terms of being “made a little lower than the angels” (Heb. 2:9). The text says the incarnation “became him,” that is, it was fitting, suitable, proper, or right (2:10) and that it “behooved” Christ, that is, it was necessary (2:17) for him “to be made like unto his brethren.” It was fitting for the Son to suffer for us as our Mediator and necessary for him to suffer as a man, with a body and soul.

Notice what Hebrews 2 says about the suitability and necessity of Christ’s true humanity being received from his mother Mary. In verse 11 the writer speaks of the link between Christ and us, literally saying that we are “all of one,” meaning, we have one origin. In verse 14 the writer says that since we as humans “partake of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same.” Here the writer is saying that Christ shares a common humanity with us. Just as we received our humanity from our parents, so also Christ received His humanity from His only earthly parent, Mary. He did not just appear to be a human (as the ancient heresy of Docetism said); He was a human in the full sense of the term. The phrase “flesh and blood” connotes that He was a human being; He was a man. Hebrews also says Jesus shared with us in our humanity “in all things” (Heb. 2:17). He was as human as human can be.

One interesting question to ponder in our modern time, is that if Christ received His humanity from his mother, where did he get his Y chromosome? The Y chromosome, which the father contributes, produces a male baby. Was a part of the miracle of the incarnation that Jesus received the Y chromosome immediately by the power of God, or that Mary miraculously contributed this aspect of Jesus’ humanity contrary to ordinary means? Regardless, it is a miracle indeed.

Cf. Stuart Olyott, Jesus Is God and Man: What the Bible Teaches About the Person of Christ (Evangelical Press, 2000), 89–91.

 

[christiana]

We cant know for sure but isnt it possible that the Holy Spirit implanted a fertilized embryo into Mary's womb, to be carried, nurtured, nourished until time for birth! Of course if this were true, He would have none of her features or genes. but we dont know that part either, do we?

 

[panta dokimazete]

Thanks for the replies, thus far - a question:

Why must Christ's flesh be made of Mary's flesh to be considered truly Man or fully human?

 

[christiana]

Well, I see that my previous post cannot be correct as Luke 1:36 says: And the angel answered and said unto her, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called 'the Son of God'.

Luke 1:31 said: and behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus

If conception took place in the womb that indicates Mary must have contributed the egg to be fertilized by the Holy Spirit.

I continue to learn!

 

[christiana]

If only deity was involved then Christ would only be deity. However, He is both God and man due to Mary's contribution to His life!

 

[sastark]

Thanks for the replies, thus far - a question:

Why must Christ's flesh be made of Mary's flesh to be considered truly Man or fully human?

Well, one reason that comes immediately to mind is: to fulfill prophecy. He was to be "the seed of the woman" and "a rod of Jesse", etc. How could a man, created ex nihilo by God and implanted in the woman, be called the seed of the woman or the son of David? I would argue that simply being birthed by Mary would not be sufficient to fulfill these prophecies.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Thanks for the replies, thus far - a question:

Why must Christ's flesh be made of Mary's flesh to be considered truly Man or fully human?

Well, one reason that comes immediately to mind is: to fulfill prophecy. He was to be "the seed of the woman" and "a rod of Jesse", etc. How could a man, created ex nihilo by God and implanted in the woman, be called the seed of the woman or the son of David? I would argue that simply being birthed by Mary would not be sufficient to fulfill these prophecies.

Why? We know Joseph's line was used to substantiate Jesus' heritage and his flesh was not used.

Jesus was born in the conventional manner, even if His flesh was not conceived that way.

 

[sastark]

Thanks for the replies, thus far - a question:

Why must Christ's flesh be made of Mary's flesh to be considered truly Man or fully human?

Well, one reason that comes immediately to mind is: to fulfill prophecy. He was to be "the seed of the woman" and "a rod of Jesse", etc. How could a man, created ex nihilo by God and implanted in the woman, be called the seed of the woman or the son of David? I would argue that simply being birthed by Mary would not be sufficient to fulfill these prophecies.

Why? We know Joseph's line was used to substantiate Jesus' heritage and his flesh was not used.

I don't follow.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Joseph's line was used to show Jesus' fulfillment of prophecy:

Mat 1:

1The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham

and Christ was not literally the fleshly son of Joseph.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Danny Hyde (above) has provided the answer and answered the "whys".

 

[Zenas]

Hmm.

I'm not switching sides at all but ex nihilo creation does not subtract from the humaness of Christ. Adam was made in such a way and Adam was fully man. However, would Christ then have been born under the Law, having not actually descended from any human being under the curse?

 

[panta dokimazete]

I understand that it has supplied an answer, but not from the angle I am approaching it.

Semper Reformanda

 

[Zenas]

Thanks for the replies, thus far - a question:

Why must Christ's flesh be made of Mary's flesh to be considered truly Man or fully human?

Well, one reason that comes immediately to mind is: to fulfill prophecy. He was to be "the seed of the woman" and "a rod of Jesse", etc. How could a man, created ex nihilo by God and implanted in the woman, be called the seed of the woman or the son of David? I would argue that simply being birthed by Mary would not be sufficient to fulfill these prophecies.

Why? We know Joseph's line was used to substantiate Jesus' heritage and his flesh was not used.

Jesus was born in the conventional manner, even if His flesh was not conceived that way.

Luke 1:31, quoted above, seems to rebut this reasoning. Christ was concieved in the womb, not merely born from it.

 

[panta dokimazete]

hmm - not so sure - what does conceived actually mean? Did God create a "divine sperm" and fertilize Mary's egg?

 

[Zenas]

Whose got a concordance and a good dictionary? We would need to know the manner in which the words are used in Scripture in order to derive the intended meaning.

 

[sastark]

Hmm.

I'm not switching sides at all but ex nihilo creation does not subtract from the humaness of Christ. Adam was made in such a way and Adam was fully man. However, would Christ then have been born under the Law, having not actually descended from any human being under the curse?

No, no. That wasn't my point at all (though I see how it could be taken that way). My point was that creation ex nihilo would make Christ not be the descendant of David. God, of course, is capable of creating a perfectly human man out of nothing.

 

[Greg]

Thanks for the replies, thus far - a question:

Why must Christ's flesh be made of Mary's flesh to be considered truly Man or fully human?

I may be off the mark here so correct me if I am, but by being made of Mary's flesh He has direct lineage to Adam, though without sin since man's seed was not part of the conception process here if in fact natural generation via man's seed is how sin is passed on.

Tough without sin, would not Christ still have to trace his human lineage back to the first Adam in order to properly execute the mediatorial role of the second Adam? To share in the same exact humanity that those whom He saves has?

 

[sastark]

hmm - not so sure - what does conceived actually mean? Did God create a "divine sperm" and fertilize Mary's egg?

I don't have my Shedd's Dogmatic Theology with me at the moment, but I seem to remember him addressing the issue of Christ's conception. What I can say is: We know He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary. What method God used to accomplish this may be unanswerable (divine sperm or some other means).

I tend to think that God, through the Holy Spirit, did provide the necessary components which, when added to Mary's ovum, resulted in the conception of a male child - the Christ. Whether we want to call that a "divine sperm" or not, I don't know.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Hm - I think "conceived by the Holy Ghost" could attribute the whole work of human flesh to Him, thus "born of the Virgin Mary"...

 

[Zenas]

Let me ask you this, do you think there is something inherantly wrong or bad with him sharing part of His humanity with Mary?

 

[panta dokimazete]

I think this paradigm could "of good and necessary consequence" help explain Christ's ability to confound the Pharisees.

41Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question:

42"What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" They said to Him, "The son of David."

43He said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying,
44'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
"SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET"'?

45"If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?"

46No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question.

...food for thought...

 

[panta dokimazete]

Let me ask you this, do you think there is something inherantly wrong or bad with him sharing part of His humanity with Mary?

I think scripture teaches that the curse of original sin is transmitted through the flesh of Adam. Christ could be fully human without having tainted flesh.

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,And in sin my mother conceived me.

 

[sastark]

Hm - I think "conceived by the Holy Ghost" could attribute the whole work of human flesh to Him, thus "born of the Virgin Mary"...

I disagree. If the Christ's humanity is from God, then he is not the Son of Man, not the Son of Adam, not the Son of David.

45"If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?"

What the Pharisees failed to understand is that David's Son (Christ) would also be the Son of God, therefore, David properly calls him "Lord". They (the Pharisees) did not understand Christ's two natures, and instead looked only for a human savior who would save them from the political oppression of the Romans.

 

[sastark]

Let me ask you this, do you think there is something inherantly wrong or bad with him sharing part of His humanity with Mary?

I think scripture teaches that the curse of original sin is transmitted through the flesh of Adam. Christ could be fully human without having tainted flesh.

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,And in sin my mother conceived me.

So, then, are you advocating traducianism?

Personally, I am a creationist, but traducianism vs creationism does make for some great conversations!

 

[Zenas]

Hm - I think "conceived by the Holy Ghost" could attribute the whole work of human flesh to Him, thus "born of the Virgin Mary"...

I disagree. If the Christ's humanity is from God, then he is not the Son of Man, not the Son of Adam, not the Son of David.

45"If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?"

What the Pharisees failed to understand is that David's Son (Christ) would also be the Son of God, therefore, David properly calls him "Lord". They (the Pharisees) did not understand Christ's two natures, and instead looked only for a human savior who would save them from the political oppression of the Romans.

I agree. If Christ were to be created ex nihilo by God as a man He would still be wholly man, but would be deficient in the capacity of serving as the Second Adam.

If He were to be the Second Adam, he would impliedly have to descend from the first. In the ex nihilo hypothetical, Christ would not have descended from Adam in a way which would allow Him to come after, but would be created in like-manner so as to be offered as an alternative.

I find there to be a distinction between an alternative and a subsequent. Christ, in being the Second Adam, would impliedly be a subsequent.

 

[Zenas]

Wow. I never knew there was that kind of a distinction.

I would definately advocate for creationism.

I don't think he's agruing for that, though he may be. What I think he's trying to convey is that fallen nature is conveyed via the male because Adam was the Federal head and doomed the race to condemnation and rebellion.

Christ, in having God as His physical father, did not inherit the curse from a fallen man. In this way He could still be born of Mary yet not have the curse transmitted to Him because it is done so through men and not women.

*shrug*

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

From a biologic standpoint, it would be interesting to know how God physically formed Jesus without the additional 23 chromosomes to match Mary's. He obviously used something else, otherwise Jesus would physically be identical to Mary (including female), which of course isn't the case. Did God simply create a unique set of genes to physically form Him, and if so how did God determine what those would be? Or did God use some set of "all-star" genes from the ancestors of Jesus, incorporating their best physical attributes ("best" in the sense of accomplishing Christ's mission) into His flesh. I voted yes to this question, because Christ was clearly 100% man (and 100% God), and was in the blood lineage of David and Adam. The mechanics of it all are interesting to consider...

 

[Zenas]

I would vote against the "all star" theory.

Something where I think people get so wrapped up in, and I don't mean you but generally, is the notion of Christ's perfection. People, mostly non-believers, seem to think that if Jesus was perfect, he was supposed to be physically perfect, i.e. handsome, strong, etc. This departs from what is meant by perfection, i.e. morally perfect.