Sunday, December 10, 2006

Immaculately Conceived In Protestant Churches

Does Jesus have to be born of a woman Immaculately Conceived? During the early centuries of the church, the attack against Christ and His Deity was the foremost battle for several centuries. Although the attacks have never relented totally, the church has defined its beliefs in the Creeds.

As devotion towards Mary grew over time it is easy to look back and see how the two theological beliefs would converge. Since Christians have recognized that Jesus is born without a sinful nature that is inherent in Adam, what are we to do with a Jesus that is born of a woman who is also a sinner? Today we are told that Jesus’ atoning work was applied to Mary prior to her being born. Therefore Mary was able to live a sinless life and not give Jesus any taint of sin. This sounds nice but the underlying presupposition must be challenged.

That however is not my concern. Many Protestants believe the same problem must be solved. I have heard several times that God merged new DNA with Mary’s to conceive a child in describing the Virgin Birth. So we now have a man mixed with Adam’s DNA through a woman and something else. Does this mean that Jesus is somehow inherently sinful?

This seems to be the presupposition that both groups need to understand. Protestants have come up with different ways to solve this problem. Recently I have heard that sin is only transmitted through the male. Therefore since Jesus had only Mary as His mother and no human father, he is free from sin. Again, the problems with this understanding overlook the many texts that speak of Jesus’ fathers according to the flesh. He is the son of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He is the son of David. He is also said to be the son of Joseph. Does this mean that since Jesus is born into their household that their sin is imputed to Him just because he is not directly of their DNA? So now Mary's sinfullness is not given Jesus in any way?

Although the many texts that are used by both positions are important, there a couple that are overlooked and have more of a direct bearing on the subject.

Let’s look at Mat 1:20:

But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Notice the text never says that what is conceived in Mary is of Mary in any way. We simply assume that Jesus must be half Mary and half God as if there is something magical going on between God and Mary. There is simply no textual warrant for such an illogical conclusion. Jesus is conceived of the Holy Spirit. He is from above and conceived into a man that is good and sinless.

The church fathers were right in attempting to protect the teaching that Jesus is fully human by teaching Mary gave birth to God in the flesh. For dogs give birth to dogs. Humans give birth to humans. Therefore Jesus is fully human. But it is a logical leap to say that Jesus must be of Adam or Mary’s DNA.

This leads to the next text that must be more directly dealt with.

1Co 15:45 So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

And also

Rom 5:19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

In these two texts we see that Jesus is a New Man who is able to represent a new humanity in Himself. He is totally distinct from the first Adam. Yet He is able to live among Adam’s humanity in order to save His Elect perfectly and redeem them from the curse of the law, their sin and death.

Jesus is not some half-breed or a mixture of fallen sinners and perfect righteousness. We do not need to do theological gymnastics to make Mary perfect (as in RCism), nor do we need to conflate Federal Headship doctrines to go farther than the Scripture teaches (as in some Protestant circles).

He is in truth the New Man (Adam) and New Humanity. All those joined to Him by faith possess His perfect life and need never to come under condemnation. He is the only-begotten or unique Son of God.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Howard:

I enjoyed reading this post and its follow-up. Thank you for sharing.

Regarding the dogma itself:
It isn't surprising that as a professing Catholic Christian, I embrace the teaching of the Immaculate Conception as truth.

However, some of your readers might be surprised to know that this does not necessarily mean that I consider all arguments that Catholics proffer in support of the dogma are valid.

Therefore: regarding the “spiritual genetics” idea:
Speaking only for myself, I find speculation along the lines that Tiber blogged makes amusing coffee-table chit-chat, but is not productive--as I commented on his blog (as "The Son of Epstein's Mother"), this sort of reasoning strikes me as falling into "the nature of spiritual nature" discussions along the "How many angels can dance on the head of a Pin" line.

I believe questions one can raise about the DNA of Jesus' physical body are not relevant to His being fully human and fully God. The Father can fashion genuine descendants of Abraham from stones--so Jesus tells us. Had He wished to fashion Jesus' incarnate form using DNA of one human parent, two human parents--or from inert clay--or from nothing--He could do so.

The Church does teach that Mary was afforded extraordinary grace that perfectly suited her to be the vessel of His incarnation. Many Catholic theologians seem to argue that God did this because he "had to" for (fill in the reasons). I have never understood this sort of argument, as to me it seems to shackle the Almighty. That isn’t to say that I *know* such arguments to be false—but merely that I do not follow them.

Personally, I suspect God did this not because of any 'need" He has for pure accommodations. After all, what impurity could corrupt, tarnish, stain or fade the glory of God? No matter how pure was Mary, the manger was merely a manger—and nothing more—though we hope Joseph cleaned it.

Were I to hazard a guess--and indeed this is only a guess--I can imagine God choosing and preparing the Mary as a pure vessel of his incarnation for reasons as mysterious as His command to Moses that his presence be carried on a man-made arc--that arc being fashioned according to God's own design, fashioned from pure materials as He directed, and sanctified by His mandate.

With continued prayer for your blessing, especially during this time of advent, I remain
Your Brother in Christ,
--Theo