Mary, only surrogate?

This is the heresy of Melchiorism which was popular with some of the Anabaptists in the 16th Century. It denies effectively that our Lord was true Man as well as true God. The 'proof-text' is Romans 8:3 where it is said that Christ came in the 'likeness' of human flesh. Therefore it is claimed that He didn't really have human flesh, it only appeared so.

However, our Lord is referred to many times as a 'man' and spoke of Himself as the 'Son of Man.' Therefore orthodox Christians have always maintained that He inherited His human nature from Mary.

I'm not aware that any church holds to Melchiorism today.

Steve

 

Amy that teaching is not an uncommon teaching although it is incorrect. Here is a one verse of many to prove it.

John 7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

She had to be His biological mother for Him to be the seed of David. Also the genealogies support this as well. He was not created and put into her womb. She was impregnated through the power of God through the Holy spirit and He was born of woman. There are many others reasons He had to be her literal biological child, but this alone is proof.

 

I agree and use the text 'freeatlast' used when speaking with people who ask this question, amoung a few others.
I 'think' John Hagee holds this position Amy is asking about.

 

Death was passed on through the man not the woman. Contrary to false teaching the woman is not held accountable for the fall, the man is.
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 

Yes, I have to deal with his teachings on certian aspects quite bit up here as well.

Thank you for the welcome :wavey:

 

Amy,

This discussion really goes to the heart of what we reformed-types mean when we discuss original sin.

The thought is that Jesus, because He didn't have a human father, was exempted from having a sin nature as such.

The idea is this: The guilt for Adam's sin and the sin nature itself is passed through the man (by one man sin entered the world...and death...and passed to all mankind). Since there was no "man" in Jesus' conception, the curse bypassed Him.

Also, the "in the loins" passage of Hebrews 7:10 suggests that it would matter greatly that Jesus was not conceived with human sperm. Because Jesus was not conceived with human sperm, He was not "in the loins" of Adam when Adam sinned. Therefore, Jesus was neither tainted by the sin nature of Adam nor held guilty for the guilt of Adam that was passed on to all of us by nature of Adam being our "Federal Head."

It is interesting that while on the cross, Jesus took extra care, as Mary's firstborn, to provide for her (by entrusting her to John). If He were not actually her son, there would be no need to do such a thing. Also, when you see in the Gospels that Jesus is referred to as "Mary's son" this has to be understood as a scathing insult (to both Mary and Jesus). The Pharisees usually use this epithet and it means, basically, "Hey look! There's that bastard-child Jesus." Had Jesus not been Mary's biological son, this charge could have been easily refuted, perhaps (though the medical establishment was not what it is today).

To sum up...most, if not all, of the evidence for Mary being Jesus' actual mother (ie. He had her DNA) is circumstantial inference. But, it must also be noted that there is nothing that clearly speaks against it. It must be said, though, that Jesus did, in fact, have a human nature (and He gets that from Mary). All through the New Testament you have the idea given that Jesus was the God-Man. He is both God and Man. The humanity of Christ is VERY important to our salvation because if Jesus was not actually human--having a human nature--He could not have been the last Adam.

The Gospel writers, likely, never considered they should make a specific case that Jesus wasn't of Mary. So, the Hagee argument really falls flat in trying to twist something into the pages of scripture that isn't there. And, it isn't like Hagee doesn't do this at nearly every turn.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Well said, .. and for the record.. most of us non-reformed hold to it to

Amy, here is a post from the past on this same subject you and I were discussing in a similar thread --- Here

There are other threads in here I have taken part in that go in much more depth. But there are good answers with a sound basis here already

 

I got in trouble with this some time ago here...mostly because I didn't define my terms well at the outset.

I think it is important to make the distinction between Adam and Christ. Even if you look at their respective temptations the difference is night-and-day: Adam was in paradise; Jesus was in the desert. Adam was tempted once and failed; Jesus was tempted three times and succeeded.

In, at the least, the temptation we see the mission of Christ to "redeem." In some sense, Christ is undoing the curse of Adam. It is not as if He is starting with a clean slate. Rather, He is making the slate clean. There is a mountain of difference between the two. Jesus is setting right what went wrong and is undoing the curses that Adam brought.

Why is this important? Because in the early church councils there was a discussion (many, in fact) about Jesus and His attributes. Was He fully God, was He fully man or mostly man, etc.?

In the Council of Constantinople, Gregory of Nazianzus made the statement: "That which is not taken up is not saved." The idea here is that if Jesus was not fully human, our humanity cannot be ultimately saved. Gregory gets this right (and he really hits the ball out of the park!).

A side note: (We know that God always intended us as humans to live a corporeal existence. God does not intend for us to live as disembodied spirits. How do we know? Because Jesus, the Second Adam, when resurrected was not a spirit; He was flesh. Jesus, being the first fruits, shows what "fruit" we'll have--a body like His.)

Since Jesus is described as the "Second Adam" and not the "First Jesus" we are to understand that God's goal in history is not to make new things but to make everything new. This is, again, the difference between redeeming something and starting over. To put it more simply, God is about renewal, not replacement.

Since we, as humans, are under the just condemnation of God for our sin (inherited and committed) we need someone who is fully human to do for us what we could not do for ourselves--live a perfect life (as Jesus did). Since Jesus lived a perfect life, His accrued righteousness, as a fully-human (and fully-God) being, can be imparted to us (imputation) and, for those of us who are believers, God can look on us and see us as righteous. Though, it is a righteousness that is alien to us because it is not our own righteousness, it is Christ's.

So, in trying to tie this up, Jesus was not a "new" creation, per se. His human nature was an Adamic human nature--tainted and thoroughly tainted by sin (NOTE: I am not saying Jesus had a sin nature). Because Jesus was a biological descendant of Adam (though through Mary and no human father), He was able to be hungry, sweat, be tired, bleed, die, etc. All those things have their genesis in the Curse levied on Adam at the Fall. And because God sought redemption of His creation (as opposed to replacement of His creation) Jesus bore full, fallen humanity in His own humanity, though without sin nature.

He took up what we were and redeemed it. And, to do that, He had to be fully human which means He had to have Adam's post-fall humanity (though, again, not Adam's sin nature).

The Archangel

 

Since He suffered, was tempted and died, didn't He fall under the curse of Adam?

 

An additional aspect of this discussion is the fact that both Mary and Joseph were of the line of David. Many believe that Joseph came through the cursed line of David while Mary the uncursed line. Joseph, the legal "adoptive" father of Jesus supplied the family line for Jesus to inherit the throne of David forever, while Mary, the "birth" mother of Jesus supplied the physical connection to David.

In a sense, God worked out what only God could work out in order to birth a Son, from the tribe of Judah, who was of the line of David (on both sides!) and yet avoided the curse placed on one of David's lines so as to allow the birth of a pure and "free" man as was Adam pre-fall. That "free" man had the power to grant manumission to slaves, who themselves had no rights (justification -- a legal term) to do so. It takes a free man to set free a slave. This is but one of the specific issues that Jesus came to fulfill for our behalf. Others are the perfect sacrifical lamb, a priest in the order of Melchizedek, the kinsman redeemer, perfect prophet, Bridegroom, Firstborn of all Creation, Creator, and others, each necessary to God's overall plan, and none particularily set above any other, though many have taken one facet or another and ran with it as the primary reason for Christ.

 

Absolutely.

I was preparing to preach Revelation 3:14-22 and in doing so I was listening to a John MacArthur message about the passage (he tends to be quite good in the historical aspects of the "Churches," among other things--though I am not in agreement with his eschatology).

He said something that really struck me. He says, and I think he's very right, that all major heresies, all major cults, etc. get their Christology wrong.

This is one major example of getting one's Christology wrong. I don't watch or listen to Hagee enough to know how far down the "dark path" (sorry, Star Wars metaphor) this has led him.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

I've heard the conjecture that Jesus was formed from the elements in Mary's body in the same way that Adam was formed from the same elements present in the earth.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.- 1 Cor 15:45