Jesus as 2nd Adam and role of Mary

[panta dokimazete]

Been a while since I posted, but I am working through a couple of theological concepts and would like some thoughtful discussion:

1. Did Jesus consider Mary as His mother in a conventional sense?

a. He was never recorded as calling her “mother”.

b. He basically deemphasized his relationship with His mother and brothers and contextualize them into the greater family of God (Scripture on demand)

2. Was Jesus, as the 2nd Adam, formed from incorruptible flesh?

a. If He was formed of the same substance as Mary, He would have been formed using her corrupted genetic material.

b. If He was implanted as a fully formed perfect human embryo it would avoid 2a.

d. Would His implantation as a perfect human embryo also resolve the Roman Catholic conundrum of the “immaculate conception of Mary”?

Thanks for your considered responses.

 

[Phil D.]

2. Was Jesus, as the 2nd Adam, formed from incorruptible flesh?

a. If He was formed of the same substance as Mary, He would have been formed using her corrupted genetic material.

b. If He was implanted as a fully formed perfect human embryo it would avoid 2a.

WCF 8.2. 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 fulness of time was come, take upon him man’s nature,a with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin:b being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance.c 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.d Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.e

a. John 1:1, 14; Gal 4:4; Phil 2:6; 1 John 5:20. • b. Heb 2:14, 16-17; 4:15. • c. Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Gal 4:4. • d. Luke 1:35; Rom 9:5; Col 2:9; 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 3:18. • e. Rom 1:3-4; 1 Tim 2:5.

 

[panta dokimazete]

WCF 8.2. 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 fulness of time was come, take upon him man’s nature,a with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin:b being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance.c 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.d Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.e

a. John 1:1, 14; Gal 4:4; Phil 2:6; 1 John 5:20. • b. Heb 2:14, 16-17; 4:15. • c. Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Gal 4:4. • d. Luke 1:35; Rom 9:5; Col 2:9; 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 3:18. • e. Rom 1:3-4; 1 Tim 2:5.

Thank you, and I definitely subscribe to the WCF and the Athenasian Creed.

What Scripture demands that He be formed from her substance?

Matthew 3:9
And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.

Genesis 2:7
then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Or what GNC?

 

[LittleFaith]

Thank you, and I definitely subscribe to the WCF and the Athenasian Creed.

What Scripture demands that He be formed from her substance?

Matthew 3:9
And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.

Genesis 2:7
then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Or what GNC?

It seems that Jesus experienced hunger, thirst, and fatigue. Presumably his body was capable of aging and illness, though off the top of my head I cannot think of a Scripture that explicitly references him having a cold, getting sunburned, or experiencing joint pain. He was also capable of the full range of human emotions - sadness, apprehension, anger.

I think the GNC is following the implications of Hebrews when it states that Jesus shared in all our infirmities yet without sin. Though himself not possessed of a corrupted human nature with original sin and innate depravity, he bore all the consequences of the fall including the physical corruption of the flesh inherent in the post-fall created order. "What is not assumed is not healed."

@RamistThomist am I off-base here?

 

[panta dokimazete]

It seems that Jesus experienced hunger, thirst, and fatigue. Presumably his body was capable of aging and illness, though off the top of my head I cannot think of a Scripture that explicitly references him having a cold, getting sunburned, or experiencing joint pain. He was also capable of the full range of human emotions - sadness, apprehension, anger.

I think the GNC is following the implications of Hebrews when it states that Jesus shared in all our infirmities yet without sin. Though himself not possessed of a corrupted human nature with original sin and innate depravity, he bore all the consequences of the fall including the physical corruption of the flesh inherent in the post-fall created order. "What is not assumed is not healed."

@RamistThomist am I off-base here?

This is a great response, thank you!

 

[panta dokimazete]

It seems that Jesus experienced hunger, thirst, and fatigue. Presumably his body was capable of aging and illness, though off the top of my head I cannot think of a Scripture that explicitly references him having a cold, getting sunburned, or experiencing joint pain. He was also capable of the full range of human emotions - sadness, apprehension, anger.

I think the GNC is following the implications of Hebrews when it states that Jesus shared in all our infirmities yet without sin. Though himself not possessed of a corrupted human nature with original sin and innate depravity, he bore all the consequences of the fall including the physical corruption of the flesh inherent in the post-fall created order. "What is not assumed is not healed."

@RamistThomist am I off-base here?

Again, thanks for the great response. I went and researched the text you indirectly referenced :

Hebrews 4:15 (ESV) For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

I think this was more intended to speak to our spiritual weaknesses and not physical.

Hunger, fatigue, pain signals, etc are natural human indicators for attention and remediation. In other words, integral components of our natural functions as humans, not caused by the Fall, although they may be exacerbated by it.

I think Jesus was as Adam - posse peccare and posse non peccare in the spiritual sense. He didn’t adopt our non posse non peccare nature or He could not have accomplished His objective.

In the same way, there was no need for Him to be composed of or inherit the fleshly corruptions caused by the Fall.

He was truly the 2nd Adam in a physical and spiritual sense.

 

[LittleFaith]

Since we are embodied souls I am not sure we should distinguish so sharply between physical weakness and spiritual. Fatigue and pain I do believe to be a result of the fall, part of the groaning of creation discussed in Romans 8. Certainly physical weakness sharpens temptations to sin - it's harder for me to be even keeled with my wife and children when I am tired or in pain. We know that Jesus experienced the burden of the fallen physical order on top of the humiliation of being locally bounded in space and time by virtue of his humanity and I do believe this is part of what Hebrews 4 is talking about. He experienced the weakness of humanity in a fallen world, weakness of an embodied spiritual being, as part of his humiliation in bearing the wrath of God against sin, but did so without the corruption of his human nature itself as one supernaturally conceived by the Spirit.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Hebrews 4:15 (ESV) For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

I think this was more intended to speak to our spiritual weaknesses and not physical.

I'm sure he meant Heb.2:17, "Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people."

 

[Phil D.]

I'll let the theologians among us potentially answer more fully (or maybe set me straight...), but as for GNC:

There are a number of passages where I believe the natural, at-face-value reading suggests Mary contributed her substance to Jesus' as a human being, including:

Genesis 3:15 refers to the coming Savior as the “seed” of the woman. The Hebrew word for seed here is zera, a word that carries one of two meanings, depending on context: either ‘seed’ in a literal sense, or ‘descendant’ in a figurative sense. Either way, as the “seed of the woman”, the clear inference is that Christ must have a genetic connection to Mary.​

​

Galatians 4:4 says Christ was “made of a woman”. In context, to ‘make’ is to generate or cause to be, and ‘of’ is the Greek proposition ek (out of). So, the expression “made of a woman” strongly suggests a physical and genetic link to Mary, not a totally separate ex nihilo creation.​

​

Hebrews 2:17 has already been mentioned.​

​

The connection made between Gen. 17:7 and Gal. 3:16 seems pretty plain.​

In terms of church history, from almost the very beginning a common theme among gnostic heretics, though especially the Vallentinians, was that Mary was merely an incubator for Jesus' human body. Early orthodox writers like Ignatius (Letter to the Trallians, 9) and Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.16.2, 3.21.5, 3.22.1-2) strongly refuted this idea, with Irenaeus citing Psalm 132:11, Luke 1:42, Romans 1:3, Romans 9:5, and Gal. 4:4 in the process. Tertullian wrote a treatise called On the Flesh of Christ that dealt extensively with the topic.

Of course in line with the WCF the Heidelberg Catechism states:

Q. 35. What is the meaning of these words — “He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary”? A. That God’s eternal Son, who is and continueth true and eternal God, took upon Him the very nature of man, of the flesh and blood of the Virgin Mary, by the operation of the Holy Ghost; that He might also be the true seed of David, like unto His brethren in all things, sin excepted. 1 John 1:1, Col 1:15, Psa 2:7, Rom 9:5, 1 John 5:20, John 1:14, Gal 4:4, Matt 1:18, Luke 1:35, Psa 132:2, Acts 2:30, Rom 1:3, Phil 2:7, Heb 4:15.​

So too the Belgic Confession (18):

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.​

 

[panta dokimazete]

Thank y’all for the responses - great food for thought!

 

[panta dokimazete]

I'm sure he meant Heb.2:17, "Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people."

Thank you for this - do you ascribe to Augustine’s 4 states of Man? If so, how could He be non posse non peccare in the same sense?

 

[panta dokimazete]

I'll let the theologians among us potentially answer more fully (or maybe set me straight...), but as for GNC:

There are a number of passages where I believe the natural, at-face-value reading suggests Mary contributed her substance to Jesus' as a human being, including:

Genesis 3:15 refers to the coming Savior as the “seed” of the woman. The Hebrew word for seed here is zera, a word that carries one of two meanings, depending on context: either ‘seed’ in a literal sense, or ‘descendant’ in a figurative sense. Either way, as the “seed of the woman”, the clear inference is that Christ must have a genetic connection to Mary.​

​

Galatians 4:4 says Christ was “made of a woman”. In context, to ‘make’ is to generate or cause to be, and ‘of’ is the Greek proposition ek (out of). So, the expression “made of a woman” strongly suggests a physical and genetic link to Mary, not a totally separate ex nihilo creation.​

​

Hebrews 2:17 has already been mentioned.​

​

The connection made between Gen. 17:7 and Gal. 3:16 seems pretty plain.​

In terms of church history, from almost the very beginning a common theme among gnostic heretics, though especially the Vallentinians, was that Mary was merely an incubator for Jesus' human body. Early orthodox writers like Ignatius (Letter to the Trallians, 9) and Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.16.2, 3.21.5, 3.22.1-2) strongly refuted this idea, with Irenaeus citing Psalm 132:11, Luke 1:42, Romans 1:3, Romans 9:5, and Gal. 4:4 in the process. Tertullian wrote a treatise called On the Flesh of Christ that dealt extensively with the topic.

Of course in line with the WCF the Heidelberg Catechism states:

Q. 35. What is the meaning of these words — “He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary”? A. That God’s eternal Son, who is and continueth true and eternal God, took upon Him the very nature of man, of the flesh and blood of the Virgin Mary, by the operation of the Holy Ghost; that He might also be the true seed of David, like unto His brethren in all things, sin excepted. 1 John 1:1, Col 1:15, Psa 2:7, Rom 9:5, 1 John 5:20, John 1:14, Gal 4:4, Matt 1:18, Luke 1:35, Psa 132:2, Acts 2:30, Rom 1:3, Phil 2:7, Heb 4:15.​

So too the Belgic Confession (18):

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.​

How about the genealogy that claims Joseph’s heritage - how do you reconcile that? It seems that Jesus could claim both bloodlines without sharing physically in at least one of them.

 

[ReformedChristian]

How about the genealogy that claims Joseph’s heritage - how do you reconcile that? It seems that Jesus could claim both bloodlines without sharing physically in at least one of them.

In terms of Joseph, Jesus is given that heritage by legal adoption. Remember the curse of Jechoniah (Jeremiah 23:30) and Luke 3:23 where the text states the supposed son of Joseph. So it is because of this Jesus is in his genealogy. Hope that helps.

 

[panta dokimazete]

In terms of Joseph, Jesus is given that heritage by legal adoption. Remember the curse of Jechoniah (Jeremiah 23:30) and Luke 3:23 where the text states the supposed son of Joseph. So it is because of this Jesus is in his genealogy. Hope that helps.

I agree and I also think Mary was His adoptive mother.

 

[Phil D.]

Several

How about the genealogy that claims Joseph’s heritage - how do you reconcile that? It seems that Jesus could claim both bloodlines without sharing physically in at least one of them.

Again, I'm not a theologian, but a number of plausible possibilities have been proposed concerning the two genealogies, which address that issue...

Ligonier
Zondervon Academic
Apolegetics Press

edit - sorry, for some reason I can't get some links to work...

 

[Eyedoc84]

Again, thanks for the great response. I went and researched the text you indirectly referenced :

Hebrews 4:15 (ESV) For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

I think this was more intended to speak to our spiritual weaknesses and not physical.

Hunger, fatigue, pain signals, etc are natural human indicators for attention and remediation. In other words, integral components of our natural functions as humans, not caused by the Fall, although they may be exacerbated by it.

I think Jesus was as Adam - posse peccare and posse non peccare in the spiritual sense. He didn’t adopt our non posse non peccare nature or He could not have accomplished His objective.

In the same way, there was no need for Him to be composed of or inherit the fleshly corruptions caused by the Fall.

He was truly the 2nd Adam in a physical and spiritual sense.

Jesus could not sin. He is a divine person. That doesn’t mean he didn’t have a human will or body. He was temptable, but was incapable of falling.

 

[Theoretical]

I agree and I also think Mary was His adoptive mother.

Why do you say adoptive rather than biological?

 

[panta dokimazete]

Jesus could not sin. He is a divine person. That doesn’t mean he didn’t have a human will or body. He was temptable, but was incapable of falling.

Non posse peccare is only for the glorified. It doesn’t make logical sense for Him to be the 2nd Adam if He was incapable of falling.

 

[Laborer for the Lord]

Non posse peccare is only for the glorified. It doesn’t make logical sense for Him to be the 2nd Adam if He was incapable of falling.

Part of resolving this difficulty is understanding the specific context in which Christ is being compared to Adam. When Paul contrasts the two in Romans 5, he has in mind their roles as representative heads for the posterity that would follow after them. Christ completes the work that Adam failed to accomplish; namely, the perfect and perpetual obedience demanded by the moral law, in addition to the specific requirements of the Mosaic covenant. The outcome of his obedience is then imputed to those whom the Father has given Him, those born again by the Spirit of God, in contrast to Adam's ordinary posterity receiving both the guilt and the iniquity (i.e. the corrupt nature) wrought by his disobedience. However, as Paul goes on to state in 1 Corinthians 15:45-49, Jesus' primary nature as The Son of God is as opposed to fallen humanity as one can be.

When considering the hypostatic union, then, we may rightly say that the human nature of Jesus was sourced from his mother (Galatians 4:4), but was preserved from the corruption of sin due to the consecrating power of the Holy Spirit in His conception (Luke 1:35). As such, He was akin to a pre-lapsarian Adam in that He was, speaking strictly of his capacities as a man, both able to sin (posse peccare) and able not to sin (posse non peccare). Nevertheless, when we recall that Jesus is Immanuel, the incarnate God with us, and therefore heir to all the attributes of deity that are ascribed to the Father (ala John 14:9 and Hebrews 1:3), then we are forced to recognize his impeccability. As theanthropos, with the divine nature subsisting alongside and upholding the human nature, Jesus Christ was, in a real sense, incapable of committing sin. Yet we acknowledge and confess that He was tempted and tried and all of the ways that we are, yet no sin was found in Him. It is a mystery that is received only in faith, and that even the saints ponder in awe and majesty (1 Timothy 3:16).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thank you for this - do you ascribe to Augustine’s 4 states of Man? If so, how could He be non posse non peccare in the same sense?

I think the 4-states are a helpful and accurate summary of the human condition, for those born "of ordinary generation." Jesus is self-evidently not born of ordinary generation, therefore "made like his brethren in every respect" means every relevant respect, i.e. that which would make him absolutely ideal as Mediator and sinless sin-offering for his fellow men. He was one of us, but born in such a way and taking on our flesh in a manner that excluded his inheritance of either our fallen nature (demolished likeness of God related to knowledge, righteousness, and holiness) or the guilt of original sin.

I don't believe Jesus had to be constituted as Adam was, if that constitution is alleged to necessitate a posse peccare condition. Jesus does not arrive in order to begin in a garden-setting either; but rather in the midst of the terrifyingly harsh and cruel landscape of a sin-wracked world. Thus, when his ministry begins he is driven out into the actual wilderness from whatever residual comforts existed in civilization, so that it is clear he starts not from whatever advantages as the original Adam had to start; but instead is oppressed even by the environment.

Jesus is tempted, and that beyond what we fully comprehend as sinners who are tempted. We fail, and our temptations get the better of us because we never run them out to exhaustion. Jesus resisted the devil, and the evil one fled from him always his whole earthly life, thwarted. How Jesus was capable of such resistance, for longer and in rougher circumstances than Adam's probation, is not to be discovered from Jesus' human constitution; but in the benefits of the hypostatic union. The theanthropos cannot sin, inasmuch as God cannot sin. Persons act; natures are; and Jesus is uniquely the divine-and-human Person. It cannot be the case that a part of Jesus could sin, but another part could not sin. His unified moral constitution has never been vitiated.

But the weakness inherent to the creature resided in the flesh of Jesus, and that was the one avenue of attack for Satan upon the Savior. It was the avenue that proved successful against Adam, and persisted among his descendants. If there was a way for an assault on the Christ to succeed directly, it would have to come by rendering him an unfit, morally blemished sacrifice, through some effort shamed from its design. We can be thankful there was no way Satan could succeed; but his failure would be demonstrated by relentless testing of the Christ--which tests could be and certainly were felt.

Jesus' work is unto the end of "bringing many sons to glory," to a share in what he is become. "We will be like him," glorified and finally not-able to sin in that ultimate estate for which we were created. Jesus did not pass through all four estates, since that is not essential to him being made like us in every useful way. But perhaps we can see elements of Adam's created-estate reflected in Jesus, as well as the death-estate he endured through the cross and tomb; and certainly he was "able to not-sin" (as regenerated believers exist) in a way that magnificently reflects what we ought to do as the redeemed but fail to live up to. It is our resurrected-estate in which our humanity will be at last most like his who became like us in order to save us.