Virgin Birth - Original Sin (Christ)

[darinhouston]

Apart from the miraculous confirmation of deity, the traditional reason for the virgin birth is said to be to avoid Christ having been "tainted" by "original sin." However, if that simply implies an inherited "tendency" to sin (as I believe), why would that necessitate this? We assume that being born only of Mary would result in one without such taint, but why do we think this is so? Wouldn't He have a "lesser" humanity if He lacked such tendency? I would find it less remarkable that Christ was actually without sin and also don't see how He could be said to have been tempted in all points as I have been if He lacked the broken tendency of mankind resulting from the Fall.

Am I missing something?

[steve7150]

Wouldn't He have a "lesser" humanity if He lacked such tendency? I would find it less remarkable that Christ was actually without sin and also don't see how He could be said to have been tempted in all points as I have been if He lacked the broken tendency of mankind resulting from the Fall.

Am I missing something?




No and i agree and i think Paul does too since he said Christ was like us in every way (Heb 4 , i think). For something to really be a temptation you really have to be tempted or it's not really a temptation.
However then why did he need to born from a virgin? Perhaps anyone else would be married and it could be considered adultery?

[Jill]

.

[darinhouston]

Yes, I do believe much of what Christians believe about such things derive from Augustine -- that is one reason I'm putting them to the test. Even the assumption that sin comes genetically through the fathers (hence, the need to avoid Joseph's seed) is scripturally supported only by the very thinnest of evidence (such as Romans 5:12 saying that sin came through one MAN adam). Putting the very difficult translation issues aside for the various views of Romans 5:12, it doesn't follow to me to suggest that since this is how sin entered the world (in a very unique situation) that this is a general truth about how the resulting "sin nature" would be transferred. Particularly since all Creation was likewise affected (and not just mankind) I think it's more responsible to assume that there was a metaphysical change in the state of things brought about by Adam's actions that affected all of mankind rather than some tangible sort of thing transferred by the male dna to his progeny.

I tend to think that Jesus was, indeed, very much like us -- though unlike us by having the nature of God, yet having the same inborn incarnational characteristics as us (that thing oft-called "original sin" included) and that what made Him different from us in His humanity was the perfect communion with the Holy Spirit, something to which we should be able to aspire.

[Jess]

I've got (as far as I can tell) an original take on this whole matter, one which, however, answers all these questions.

Matthew tells us that Mary, "was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit." (Matt 1:18) We also read of the angel's conversation with Joseph where Joseph is told that. "that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit." (Matt 1:20) I think Jesus was all of the Holy Spirit and none of Mary, in other words God did not somehow fertilize one of Mary's eggs but just used her womb to implant a "Holy Embryo" so to speak. That which was conceived in her was not a combination of her egg and some sort of divine sperm, it was an untainted "second Adam" (of the Holy Spirit) created by God but born in the natural way. There was no inheritance from Joseph (obviously), but neither was there any inheritance from Mary. He was born to Mary but did not share her DNA or her bent toward sin. This kind of thing is certainly done in laboratories all over the world nowadays with assisted reproductive techniques such as embryo transfer (obviously minus the sinless factor).

In my mind, this solves the difficulty of inherited sin nature (Jesus didn't have a bent toward sin because He didn't get it from His natural parent(s). It solves the need for Mary to be somehow sinless. It also eliminates the need for some sort of Pelagian system where people are born sinless but then become corrupted. It also gets rid of the notion that sin nature is transmitted only through the paternal line. I can't think of any scriptures that would be incompatible with this.

To answer your comment above, Steve 7150, I don't think Jesus being born without a bent towards sin means He couldn't be tempted as we are. Adam, for example, was born without a sin nature and still sinned when tempted. Jesus was tempted in the wilderness but didn't sin. The verse in Heb 4;15 you mentioned above tells us explicitly that He, "has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin."

Augustine didn't have any knowledge of modern genetics. Neither did Matthew for that matter but he still got it right. "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" (no mention of anything from Mary).

Just my thoughts. I suspect they're not all that original either but I haven't seen them espoused by others. I probably just haven't looked long or hard enough yet.

[steve7150]

To answer your comment above, Steve 7150, I don't think Jesus being born without a bent towards sin means He couldn't be tempted as we are. Adam, for example, was born without a sin nature and still sinned when tempted. Jesus was tempted in the wilderness but didn't sin. The verse in Heb 4;15 you mentioned above tells us explicitly that He, "has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin."


Hi Jess,

When the serpent tempted Eve she did lust in her eyes,heart and mind before she ate from the tree, therefore this sounds like a bent toward sin to me. So i think for Jesus to be tempted like us he needed to have the same nature as us or else we can always rationalize our sin by our bent toward it. Jesus i think had the same bent but was filled with the Holy Spirit all the time which gave him the power to overcome and is a goal for us to attain to.
I understand your points, and they are good points except for this one issue which to me is the biggest issue.

[Homer]

Hi Jess,

Wouldn't your idea make the geneology of Jesus irrelevant? The scriptures seem to place inportance on his ancestry. He would be neither "Son of David" nor "Son of Man".

I have thought the virgin birth was necessary simply to establish His divine nature. No one has ever been considered a Christian who believed Jesus had a human father.

God bless, Homer

[darinhouston]

Some argue that Christ couldn't have actually be seen as the kinsman redeemer if He didn't actually inherit from one of Mary or Joseph (and hence Joseph) -- that's pretty thin, too, I think but my question is really assuming that He did actually share Mary's DNA, why must we assume that He lacked the same "original sin" that we have?

In other words, assuming Christ was human in all physical respects, must He have been human like Adam was (to be the first Adam), and lacking taint (though not created in the same way of course as He was developed and born naturally from an embryo it seems though His conception was supernatural) or could He have been human like me (to be in all points tempted as I have been), and having taint ?

[Jill]

.

[darinhouston]

The question appears to have been put otherwise also: "Christ was human, but was He mortal?"

It appears that no less than F.F. Bruce has written on this very subject. It seems I have at least some support in the literature, and if from Bruce that's good enough for me at present (I'm at least in good company)...

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/h ... _bruce.pdf

Bruce basically believes as I do that to have redeemed us He must have been captive like us by fallen human nature, and therefore to have been subject to the same original sin as me, but quickened immediately and fully by the Holy Spirit so as to equip Him from the start to be and remain free from actual sin through the Holy Spirit as we can be from conversion onwards (at least in theory -- that's another question for another day).