Incarnation

[darinhouston]

So, we generally understand God chose a virgin to "conceive" Jesus in her womb from Mary's dna but not Joseph's to avoid having a genetic link to the male. I don't see any basis for that in Scripture. We know Jesus was "born" of a virgin, but do we know He was even "conceived" of Mary? Couldn't the Father have created Jesus to be human and simply placed Him in Mary's womb to be nurtured and delivered by her? If so, then He was truly created as a "second Adam."

Thoughts?

[steve]

Darin,

I am not sure if I understood your post correctly, so my thoughts may or may not prove relevant.

I don't think there was a need to avoid a genetic link to the male (as some people may, who are concerned about "the sin nature" being passed down through a child's father). I do think that it was important for Christ to be part of the human race (that is, Adam's race), which would require at least one human parent to contribute some genetic history to the baby. Christ was to be a "kinsman redeemer" to our race. That required, it seems, for Him to actually share some common ancestry with us. I believe that God's prediction about the woman's Seed, in Genesis 3:15 suggests that Mary served as more than a carrier for the baby. I think she was the actual mother, rather than a surrogate.

[darinhouston]

Good point (as usual) - especially on the "Seed" argument.

[RickC]

So, we generally understand God chose a virgin to "conceive" Jesus in her womb from Mary's dna but not Joseph's to avoid having a genetic link to the male. I don't see any basis for that in Scripture. We know Jesus was "born" of a virgin, but do we know He was even "conceived" of Mary? Couldn't the Father have created Jesus to be human and simply placed Him in Mary's womb to be nurtured and delivered by her? If so, then He was truly created as a "second Adam."

Thoughts?

To which Steve replied (Hi Steve):
Darin,

I am not sure if I understood your post correctly, so my thoughts may or may not prove relevant.

I don't think there was a need to avoid a genetic link to the male (as some people may, who are concerned about "the sin nature" being passed down through a child's father). I do think that it was important for Christ to be part of the human race (that is, Adam's race), which would require at least one human parent to contribute some genetic history to the baby. Christ was to be a "kinsman redeemer" to our race. That required, it seems, for Him to actually share some common ancestry with us. I believe that God's prediction about the woman's Seed, in Genesis 3:15 suggests that Mary served as more than a carrier for the baby. I think she was the actual mother, rather than a surrogate.

I don't believe in the doctrine of Original Sin. My understanding is: What we inherit from Adam is death - as opposed to a "sinful nature." So, imo, Christ did not need to be born of (or conceived by) a virgin for the express purpose that he would not have a "sinful nature."
====================

I've said (perhaps on the old forum) that the virgin conception is the one commonly held belief that I believe in only "because the Bible says so." How Christ could totally-be-like-us if he didn't have two-human-parents-like-us is something I can't quite wrap my mind around (yet I do believe Jesus was 'fully human' and in his full divinity and pre-existence. I don't understand why Jesus could not have had human parents, nor of a 'need' for his being born of a virgin. It's beyond me)!
====================

I've wondered if the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke were 'doctored up' by early copyists in order to counter Jewish accusations that Jesus was illegitimate - and even if the narratives may have been composed 'as they are' to do the same (but that would be outright deception, so I ruled this out)!

Non-canonical writings of the 2nd century about Jesus' virgin conception gave me reason to ask if the virgin conception was a 2nd century contra-Jewish-myth. If it could have been (theoretically speaking), it might have, then, been read back into the canonical narratives (and influenced scribal additions/editing). These things could have conceivably happened - but the Bible doesn't say so!

One of the earliest manuscripts (Sinaiticus) of Matthew 1:16 reads that Joseph was Jesus' father. Though this manuscript is very early, I was advised by some textual criticism experts that we can't base a belief or doctrine on just one manuscript. I suppose we can't or probably shouldn't - even though some early 'Jesus people' did not believe in the virgin conception (those who read Sinaiticus, e.g.).
====================

In any event -
Outside of my apparently unresolvable 'doubts' about the virgin conception (which 'I believe in, because the Bible says so'), I've taken comfort in seeing it in ways other than what it literally appears to be (in terms of the 'physicality' of it).

First, I see the virgin conception (Incarnation) as a typological fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. Whether or not one believes in a literal/physical virgin conception, one can see it like this.

Next, and to reply more to what's been posted, I see the NT contrasting the First and Last Adams in a 'corporate headship' manner -
The first woman came from a man, Adam.
(First Adam): Head of the Old/First Humanity.
The last man came from a woman, Mary.
(Last Adam, Jesus): Head of the New/Last Humanity.
To put it another way, the first time around started from a man; the second time around started from a woman.

Hopefully not a 'heretic' in anyone's perception (and just being honest here, thank you),
Rick C.
Bible/Theology Student