On the virgin birth and the Anabaptist view

Following in the footsteps of the recent discussion of infant baptism, I figured that I would spent a little time on what the book Credo calls the Anabaptist error on the doctrine of the virgin birth:

The Anabaptists taught that the Lord Jesus took His body from heaven, and so did not receive His flesh and blood from the blessed virgin Mary. Since Mary was conceived and born in sin, they argued that Christ would have been sinful if He had taken her flesh and blood. For them, Mary acted like a funnel, a route through which Christ passed without in any way being affected by it in His person. Note how the passages above show this to be wrong. Ultimately, the Anabaptists made flesh and blood to be sinful in itself.

The "passages above" referred to here are Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23, and Hebrews 4:15 and are found in the World English Bible as follows (assuming that I don't make a copying error this time, as I did in the original post on baptism):

Isaiah 7:14 - Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:23 - “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son. They shall call his name Immanuel;” which is, being interpreted, “God with us.”

Hebrews 4:15 - For we don’t have a high priest who can’t be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but one who has been in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin.

It's a little bit interesting to see how, although the first bit of Matthew 1:23 is stated as a quote of Isaiah 7:14, that they are a little bit different in their wording (I guessing that this is due to one coming from a Hebrew manuscript, and the other from a Greek one). In the NIV, Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23 come out the same.

Anyways, three things come to mind when I think of these passages:

  1. Views at the time on pregnancy: I think that the views at the time of the birth of Christ were still those of Aristotle. His views were something along the lines of the male providing sperm which contained the complete essence of a child, with the mother basically being nothing more than a source of matter.
  2. Modern views on pregnancy: Modern biology would suggest that beyond the point of conception, the mother and developing child are genetically distinct. The mother provides oxygen and other nutrients for to the child via the placenta, but this is merely a meeting point at which transfer takes place with the circulatory systems and blood remaining distinct.
  3. Language: Given the views at the time on how children came to exist, and also the one-time nature of the event, I'm just wondering if we might be hitting some sort of barrier in terms of usable language (ie. an inability to differentiate the start of pregnancy from modern views of conception is - something which they didn't really know of at the time).
  4. .

Given the above, I'm finding it a little difficult to say that scripture disproves this so-called "Anabaptist error". Beyond providing nutrition - which would contain none of her genetic material - did Mary provide anything more than the funnel view of Anabaptism allows? Feel free to disagree (and to try to persuade me).

Comments

Science has proven that Aristotle was wrong, and we know that scientific facts are true even before they are discovered. Even if the Anabaptist error was based on Aristotle views of pregnancy, that doesn't make it not an error.

The question here perhaps is: did Jesus receive his X chromosome from Mary? Isaiah 7:14 says that Mary would conceive, which indicates to me that indeed one of her eggs became fertilized by some sort of spiritual sperm.

I'm no biologist, but I suspect that if Jesus were anything but a true human his embryo would not be able to grow inside Mary's placenta. Indeed, it is essential for him to be a true human or he would not meet the requirements for paying for our sins. Since God is not human and Mary was a virgin, the human genetic material must have come from Mary herself. The only way he could be true human without having Mary's genetic material is if God created not only the sperm but also a special egg. I wonder though would Mary's body reject a foreign egg? I know that today it is possible to transplant an egg, but I don't know if anti-rejection drugs are needed. Even if Mary did act as a "funnel" as the Anabaptists claim, he would still have to be true human to be able to pay for our sins, which makes their argument a rather moot point.

Even if the Anabaptist error was based on Aristotle views of pregnancy, that doesn't make it not an error

The question here perhaps is: did Jesus receive his X chromosome from Mary? Isaiah 7:14 says that Mary would conceive, which indicates to me that indeed one of her eggs became fertilized by some sort of spiritual sperm.

If the views at the time suggested that an embryo was only an "insert", with a woman merely acting as a source of matter, (a) would the author of the book be aware of such a distinction, (b) would the language possess a sufficient vocabulary to allow such a distinction to be made, and (c) would the words in the language be correctly translated?

Since God is not human and Mary was a virgin, the human genetic material must have come from Mary herself.

This is kind of peripheral to the original argument I was making, but if genetic material from Mary was involved, then why is it Joseph's name and not Mary's which appears in the geneology in Matthew 1?

The only way he could be true human without having Mary's genetic material is if God created not only the sperm but also a special egg.

... Or if he just implanted a complete embryo

I wonder though would Mary's body reject a foreign egg? I know that today it is possible to transplant an egg, but I don't know if anti-rejection drugs are needed.

There are surrogate mothers in this day and age. Whether they are required to take anti-rejection drugs or not I'm unsure.

Even if Mary did act as a "funnel" as the Anabaptists claim, he would still have to be true human to be able to pay for our sins, which makes their argument a rather moot point.

I'll agree that Jesus was still truely human, but if God can create Adam from scratch, I see no reason that he couldn't create Jesus from scratch as well. I don't think that the Anabaptists are claiming here that Jesus wasn't fully human (they may have done so elsewhere - I'm not totally sure). I see this more as a question as to the role of Mary.

If the views at the time suggested that an embryo was only an "insert", with a woman merely acting as a source of matter, (a) would the author of the book be aware of such a distinction, (b) would the language possess a sufficient vocabulary to allow such a distinction to be made, and (c) would the words in the language be correctly translated?

I think those questions need to be directed to someone more knowledgeable than us.

This is kind of peripheral to the original argument I was making, but if genetic material from Mary was involved, then why is it Joseph's name and not Mary's which appears in the geneology in Matthew 1?

I remember this being explained a few years ago. As I recall, the answer given was along the lines of proving that both sides of the family were descended from the same line. We should check some commentaries on that chapter to see what others have to say about it.

... Or if he just implanted a complete embryo

That thought did cross my mind as I was writing my last post, but I dismissed the idea because Isaiah mentions that Mary would conceive, and I wasn't sure if implanting an entire embryo could still be called conception. According to Merriam-Webster Online, implanation is considered conception.

I'll agree that Jesus was still truely human, but if God can create Adam from scratch, I see no reason that he couldn't create Jesus from scratch as well. I don't think that the Anabaptists are claiming here that Jesus wasn't fully human (they may have done so elsewhere - I'm not totally sure). I see this more as a question as to the role of Mary.

When I first read this, I thought to myself, "What is the significance of the role of Mary?" After a few minutes, I remembered that according to various prophesies, the Messiah would be a descendant of David. If the entire embryo was created from scratch, Jesus would not have been a true descendant of David genetically speaking.

I've always toyed with the idea that God needed the "correct" DNA for Jesus's mother. Maybe a certain set of genes was required, and that from David (or Abraham or Noah or Seth), God was guiding everyone together to make it such that Mary had just the right DNA strand so He would be able to supply the "other half" of Jesus's DNA and make Jesus DNA exactly what it should have been.

That being said, I do not hold this to be the truth, it's more just a thought that crossed my mind.

If the views at the time suggested that an embryo was only an "insert", with a woman merely acting as a source of matter, (a) would the author of the book be aware of such a distinction, (b) would the language possess a sufficient vocabulary to allow such a distinction to be made, and (c) would the words in the language be correctly translated?

I agree that these are all valid questions. There would be no real way for the language of that time to describe what quite possibly could have happened. That being said, how could we ever use human language to describe the incredibly miracle that God enacted in sending His Son to the earth for our sins?

set of genes was required, and that from David (or Abraham or Noah or Seth), God was guiding everyone together to make it such that Mary had just the right DNA strand so He would be able to supply the "other half" of Jesus's DNA and make Jesus DNA exactly what it should have been.

That being said, I do not hold this to be the truth, it's more just a thought that crossed my mind.

On the one hand, I would not put too much emphasis on exact DNA. Even two people with the same DNA are not the same person (identical twins). On the other hand, since everything happens according to God's will, would not everybody's DNA be exactly as it should be?

Yes, everybody is formed exactly as God intended. What I was saying is that maybe a specific DNA sequence was needed.

Also, I thought identical twins just have a small set of their DNA the same, not all of it.

Also, I thought identical twins just have a small set of their DNA the same, not all of it.

You could be right; I'm not a geneticist. Apparently identical twins have different fingerprints so they could have different DNA too. I presumed they had the same DNA because they came from one embryo that split into two.

If you were looking for a "divine" DNA sequence, I would say that such a sequence would consist of no defects. However, I still disagree that Jesus needed to have a specific DNA sequence to be Christ.

I can agree with that.