The questioner has in mind recent
claims by an evangelical writer that the body of the Lord Jesus was
formed by the action of the Holy Spirit on genetic material provided
by Mary, and that it is this ‘union’ which made the Lord truly man.
Several supposed Biblical ‘proofs’ are offered, while the one
critical Scripture that completely destroys his theory is ignored.
Extrapolating
from Lev. 25: 25, it is asserted that in order to exercise the right
of redemption, Christ must be a blood–relative of the sinner.
Scripture teaches no such thing. Ruth was not a blood–relative of
Boaz, and yet Naomi says to her “the man is near of kin to
us, one of those who
have the right of
our redemption” (Ruth
2:20, my emphasis). Christ’s kinship to us lies in virtue of the
simple fact that He is a man. There is, for example, no kinship
between angels and men, and hence no angel could redeem us. That is
why it “behoved” Christ “in all things to be made like to [his]
brethren” (Heb. 2: 17), and since they partook “of blood and flesh,
he also, in like manner, took part in the same” (v14; see John 1:
14). Furthermore, to redeem
means to buy back—and you
can only buy back what you had rights to in the first place.
Christ’s rights to mankind are not genetic, but creatorial: “thus
saith Jehovah, that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee,
O Israel: Fear not, for I have redeemed thee, I have called [thee]
by thy name; thou art mine” (Is. 43: 1).
It is said that the
word conceive
(sullambanw—see
Luke 1: 31) means that Mary’s ovum (or egg) must have been involved
in the incarnation. Scripture itself explains what
conceive means in the
context of Luke 1: 31 and it is clear that the Lord’s mother had an
entirely passive role: “[The] Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and
power of [the] Highest overshadow thee, wherefore the holy thing
also which shall be born shall be called Son of God” (v35). God’s
Word is explicit: all creation is affected by the fall (see Rom. 8:
22), and a woman’s ovum is no exception. She has two sinful parents,
and both are involved in the genetic makeup of that ovum. In short,
it is tainted, and subject to death. If (as is alleged) Mary’s ovum
was used in the incarnation, then the “holy thing” (Luke 1: 35)
would not be holy at all. Talk of such a union without contamination
is speculative nonsense. Now the Bible does not reveal how the
sinful nature and its effects are transmitted, only that “by one man
sin entered into the world, and by sin death; and thus death passed
upon all men” (Rom. 5: 12—where the word for
man in “all men” is
anqrwpoV,
that is, man
as a race and not in
contrast to woman). Some
say that the sinful nature is only passed on by the male line, and
so Mary could not contaminate her own ovum. However, Adam could not
then have passed on his sinful nature to his daughters (see Gen. 5:
4) contradicting Rom. 5: 19 that “by one man’s disobedience many
were made sinners” (AV). All is confusion once the boundaries of
Scripture are abandoned. The Lord Jesus came only in the “likeness
of flesh of sin” (see Rom. 8: 3). It had to be so, for the pure
could never coalesce with the impure.
Much is made
of the word seed, and it
is asserted that this demands a genetic connection. Scripture says
otherwise. Thus: “God is able of these stones to raise up children
to Abraham” and “if ye [are] of Christ, then ye are Abraham’s seed”
(Matt. 3: 9; Gal. 3: 29). Of course, when talking about Mary, we are
specifically talking about Christ as the seed
of woman (see Gen. 3:
15). However, what is ignored is that this seed is not mentioned by
itself in Genesis 3—there are
two seeds: the seed
of the woman and the seed of the serpent. This fact completely
crushes the argument that the woman’s seed necessarily implies a
genetic link. Why? Because while the serpent has seed among mankind
(see Matt. 3: 7; John 8: 44), his seed is obviously not genetic—and
it follows that there is
no reason for the
woman’s seed to be genetic either! How is Gen. 3: 15 to be
understood then? A man’s seed can be seen (see Gen. 38: 9), a
woman’s seed is only manifested in pregnancy and childbirth. The
Lord Jesus was born of Mary—thus it is in that sense He was of her
posterity (see Luke 3: 23). The writer also refers to the prophecy
that Christ was to come out of David’s loins (see 1 Kings 8: 19;
Acts 2: 30)—the same David who testified that “in iniquity was I
brought forth, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51: 5)!
Certainly Christ is described as the Son of David (see John 7: 42)
but His credentials as Israel’s Messiah are based on His link to
David through Joseph—His
step–father (see
Matt. 1: 16, 25).
It is further argued
that “come of woman” (Gal. 4: 4; the AV has
made instead of
come) implies that Mary
provided the material that the Holy Spirit united with in forming
the body of “[the] man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2: 5). However, “come of
woman” needs to be read in context: the first thing said in Gal. 4:
4 is that “God sent forth his Son” and the rest of the verse tells
us how this took place. Now the sending forth was public, and hence
the conditions under which the Lord was sent were also public. The
Greek words
ginomai ek
(come
out of)
have to be understood in this setting, for, as regards his public
existence, the Lord was literally
from out of woman. Hence,
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a
son” (Matt. 1: 23). Put another way, Gal. 4: 4 refers to the point
at which the Lord’s manifestation in flesh commenced (see 1 Tim. 3:
16).
Finally, it is argued that to deny Christ’s
genetic connection to Adam in Luke 3: 38 is to deny His humanity.
Certainly, the Lord Jesus was (and is) a real man (see John 8: 40; 1
Tim. 2: 5) but to speak of His
humanity is to associate
Him too closely with our fallen race. Scripture says He took “his
place in [the] likeness of men” and was “found in figure as a man”
(Phil. 2: 7, 8). Man is a tripartite being (see 1 Thess. 5: 23), and
the Lord had a spirit, soul and body (see John 11: 33; Matt. 26: 38;
Heb. 10: 10). He was, therefore, a man. As for Luke 3: 38 itself,
there the Lord’s genealogy through Mary is traced back to Adam. Does
this then imply a genetic connection? No, because Adam is
equally said to be
“of God”, and in that context, genetics clearly do not apply.
It can be seen then, that none of the supposed
‘proofs’ are credible. The Lord’s body was prepared by God (see Heb.
10: 5), and there is never the slightest intimation of any input
from his mother, except as the vessel in which that “holy thing”
(Luke 1: 35) would be conceived, carried and nurtured. The Lord was
“a lamb without blemish and without spot” who “bore our sins in his
body on the tree” (1 Pet. 1: 19; 2: 24) thus fully answering to the
divine requirements set out in Lev. 22: 20–25. If Christ inherited
one atom from Mary then He could not offer Himself “spotless to God”
(Heb. 9: 14) and there is no salvation.
What is the critical Scripture that the writer
ignores? It is what the Lord Jesus Himself says in John 3: 6: “That
which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the
Spirit is spirit”. These are two parallel and
absolute statements.
What comes from the flesh remains flesh and
cannot change.
Equally, that which comes from the Spirit remains spirit, and
cannot change. Flesh
cannot become or produce spirit, nor can spirit become or produce
flesh. Mary was born in “flesh of sin” (Rom. 8: 3), and what came
from her was flesh. If her flesh was changed
in any way then the
Lord’s words in John 3: 6
cannot be true, and
He is no longer “a man who has spoken the truth” (John 8: 40).
