Mary's pregnancy of Jesus, contribution or surrogacy ?

Geralt said:

Nobody dares to ask the question and discussion mostly dwells in Mary giving birth to Christ.

a) But did Mary really contribute her egg/DNA to the formation of Jesus body based on the assumption of a 'miracle sperm' (ex nihilo!) ?

or

b) Did Mary act merely as a gestational surrogate? This means a human embryo (ex nihilo!) was instead miracle implanted in her womb.

Mariology is based on the assumption that Mary was christ's real biological mother, and this connectivity gave birth to a lot of other 'jesus-influence' attributes concerning Mary. But then again, our theologians for the last thousand years including the reformation age has no notion about surrogacy (that a woman can act as a 'rented womb' or 'human incubator' in order to develop a baby- which is common in our day and age.

And there are studies suggesting that 'gestational' surrogacy (rented womb) does NOT contribute the DNA of the surrogate mother to the child itself; though other studies as well suggest DNA might be contributed in the way of blood.

Though scripture is silent about this and the issue will most likely be classified as speculation, my position in this case is that both Mary and Joseph were foster parents to Jesus, their 'first born' son. Neither has contributed to Jesus's biology.

Could explain:

- why Christ is the "second" Adam, and not "directly" a descendant of david or abraham. Christs genealogy in the 1st chapter of Matthew connects Jesus by Joseph which we all know has really no biological connection with Jesus , except by responsibility as a rearing human father. obviously connection with lineage is more than biological connections in this case.

Mat 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

- why Adam's fallen nature is not passed on the the sinless christ

- why Jesus never addressed Mary as mother, but 'woman'.

- why Jesus is addressed in the book of Hebrews as similar to Melchizedek (or vice versa in this case), no paternal origin. son of God has really no paternal origin.

Heb_7:3 He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the interesting ideas. I had not considered this, nor, do I think, have most of us. As you clearly stated, there is no biblical support to either side of the argument and it is pure speculation. However, the ideas are of some interest.

Geralt said:

Though scripture is silent about this and the issue will most likely be classified as speculation, my position in this case is that both Mary and Joseph were foster parents to Jesus, their 'first born' son. Neither has contributed to Jesus's biology.

Could explain:

- why Christ is the "second" Adam, and not "directly" a descendant of david or abraham. Christs genealogy in the 1st chapter of Matthew connects Jesus by Joseph which we all know has really no biological connection with Jesus , except by responsibility as a rearing human father. obviously connection with lineage is more than biological connections in this case.

Click to expand...

As far as scripture being silent, we have the following verses:

Samuel 7:12 "When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom."

Romans 1:3 "regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David,"

Luke 1:31 "You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus."

Luke 2:7 "and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son."

John 7:42 "Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David's descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?""

Matthew 1:1 "A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham:"

There are many more verses that indicate that Jesus was indeed a descendant of David and a natural son of Mary's. Now you are partly right. We could say that he had Joseph as his adopted father, which is why Matthew had no problem pointing to Joseph's genealogy, since an adopted son was granted the same birthrights as a natural son. Matthew writing to the Jews would want to establish the fulfillment of the Davidic prophesy through the normal genealogy of the Jews, which showed the paternal line. But the maternal line is shown in Luke chapter 3 and indicates that Mary was a descendant of David as well.

So I think the evidence is pretty compelling for a natural conception and birth, not a surrogacy, which only today with IVF has taken on the meaning of a person that carries a child that has no DNA from the mother. Originally a surrogate mother was impregnated in the natural way with a man's seed and when the child was born the surrogate gave the child to the childless couple. The Puritans and the Muslims are two groups which have used this apologetic to diminish Mary and through that to diminish the humanity of Jesus.

tz620q said:

As far as scripture being silent, we have the following verses:

Samuel 7:12 "When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom."

Romans 1:3 "regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David,"

Luke 1:31 "You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus."

Luke 2:7 "and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son."

John 7:42 "Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David's descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?""

Matthew 1:1 "A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham:"

There are many more verses that indicate that Jesus was indeed a descendant of David and a natural son of Mary's. Now you are partly right. We could say that he had Joseph as his adopted father, which is why Matthew had no problem pointing to Joseph's genealogy, since an adopted son was granted the same birthrights as a natural son. Matthew writing to the Jews would want to establish the fulfillment of the Davidic prophesy through the normal genealogy of the Jews, which showed the paternal line. But the maternal line is shown in Luke chapter 3 and indicates that Mary was a descendant of David as well.

So I think the evidence is pretty compelling for a natural conception and birth, not a surrogacy, which only today with IVF has taken on the meaning of a person that carries a child that has no DNA from the mother. Originally a surrogate mother was impregnated in the natural way with a man's seed and when the child was born the surrogate gave the child to the childless couple. The Puritans and the Muslims are two groups which have used this apologetic to diminish Mary and through that to diminish the humanity of Jesus.

Click to expand...

I am unaware of any Puritan divines who believed purposefully diminished Mary in this manner. Could you please provide some source material?

bbbbbbb said:

I am unaware of any Puritan divines who believed purposefully diminished Mary in this manner. Could you please provide some source material?

Click to expand...

http://puritanbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/jesus-virgin-birth-mary-surrogate.html is a blog that proposes this odd theory; but it does not seem to be the actual teaching of the Puritan catechism.

Maybe the blog was using Matthew Henry's commentary on Luke 1 quoted below:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/luke/1.html
"Much more was the formation of the child Jesus a mystery; without controversy, great was the mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh,1 Tim. 3:16 . It is a new thing created in the earth (Jer. 31:22 ), concerning which we must not covet to be wise above what is written. (3.) The child she shall conceive is a holy thing, and therefore must not be conceived by ordinary generation, because he must not share in the common corruption and pollution of the human nature. He is spoken of emphatically, That Holy Thing, such as never was; and he shall be called the Son of God, as the Son of the Father by eternal generation, as an indication of which he shall now be formed by the Holy Ghost in the present conception. His human nature must be so produced, as it was fit that should be which was to be taken into union with the divine nature."

tz620q said:

http://puritanbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/jesus-virgin-birth-mary-surrogate.html is a blog that proposes this odd theory; but it does not seem to be the actual teaching of the Puritan catechism.

Maybe the blog was using Matthew Henry's commentary on Luke 1 quoted below:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/luke/1.html
"Much more was the formation of the child Jesus a mystery; without controversy, great was the mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh,1 Tim. 3:16 . It is a new thing created in the earth (Jer. 31:22 ), concerning which we must not covet to be wise above what is written. (3.) The child she shall conceive is a holy thing, and therefore must not be conceived by ordinary generation, because he must not share in the common corruption and pollution of the human nature. He is spoken of emphatically, That Holy Thing, such as never was; and he shall be called the Son of God, as the Son of the Father by eternal generation, as an indication of which he shall now be formed by the Holy Ghost in the present conception. His human nature must be so produced, as it was fit that should be which was to be taken into union with the divine nature."

Click to expand...

Thank you. I don't see anything unorthodox about Matthew Henry's statement. He is obviously concerning about the divine nature of Jesus Christ and His incarnation. He is not stating anything directly about Mary because that is not his focus.

Geralt said:

Nobody dares to ask the question and discussion mostly dwells in Mary giving birth to Christ.

a) But did Mary really contribute her egg/DNA to the formation of Jesus body based on the assumption of a 'miracle sperm' (ex nihilo!) ?

or

b) Did Mary act merely as a gestational surrogate? This means a human embryo (ex nihilo!) was instead miracle implanted in her womb.

Mariology is based on the assumption that Mary was christ's real biological mother, and this connectivity gave birth to a lot of other 'jesus-influence' attributes concerning Mary. But then again, our theologians for the last thousand years including the reformation age has no notion about surrogacy (that a woman can act as a 'rented womb' or 'human incubator' in order to develop a baby- which is common in our day and age.

And there are studies suggesting that 'gestational' surrogacy (rented womb) does NOT contribute the DNA of the surrogate mother to the child itself; though other studies as well suggest DNA might be contributed in the way of blood.

Though scripture is silent about this and the issue will most likely be classified as speculation, my position in this case is that both Mary and Joseph were foster parents to Jesus, their 'first born' son. Neither has contributed to Jesus's biology.

Could explain:

- why Christ is the "second" Adam, and not "directly" a descendant of david or abraham. Christs genealogy in the 1st chapter of Matthew connects Jesus by Joseph which we all know has really no biological connection with Jesus , except by responsibility as a rearing human father. obviously connection with lineage is more than biological connections in this case.

Mat 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

- why Adam's fallen nature is not passed on the the sinless christ

- why Jesus never addressed Mary as mother, but 'woman'.

- why Jesus is addressed in the book of Hebrews as similar to Melchizedek (or vice versa in this case), no paternal origin. son of God has really no paternal origin.

Heb_7:3 He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.

Click to expand...

You are stretching to point WAY TO FAR. I think you are on a slippery slope here.

Geralt said:

Nobody dares to ask the question and discussion mostly dwells in Mary giving birth to Christ.

a) But did Mary really contribute her egg/DNA to the formation of Jesus body based on the assumption of a 'miracle sperm' (ex nihilo!) ?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Geralt said:

'natural' i assume you mean 'biological' connections, and not just 'natural' as in 'natural conception or natural birth'.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I mean. Mary is Jesus' biological mother and contributed her egg and therefore her DNA to his humanity.

Geralt said:

- scripture does not identify christ as from the line of mary then to david, but to joseph and to david.

Click to expand...

Actually it is generally accepted that Luke chapter 3's genealogy of Jesus is through Mary.

Geralt said:

- their is no issue on christ being their son, the issue i am forwarding is that both mary and joseph were foster parents, with mary's conception as a rented womb (surrogate).

Click to expand...

So your proposal is that Christ's humanity was supernaturally created by God and implanted in Mary's womb. This goes against the prophesy in Genesis that the seed of the woman would be responsible for the downfall of the serpent. It goes against the prophesy to David in Samuel chapter 7 where David is told that an offspring from his body would reign in a kingdom raised up by God. It goes against Isaiah chapter 7, which prophesizes that a virgin will conceive. It goes against Luke chapter 1 where the angel Gabriel tells Mary that she will conceive. How does one conceive if one does not contribute their egg? It goes against Luke chapter 2 where Elizabeth calls Mary, "the Mother of my Lord".
Perhaps worst of all it makes the incarnation of Jesus a sleight of hand trick by God without any human involvement. This leaves the Jews thinking that the Messiah came from them and share their ancestory when in fact he did not. How does Jesus raise mankind by becoming man when he is actually an ex-nihilo creation that merely looks like a man. He might as well been a clone of God, with no humanity. This approach has led to many heresies like Docetism and Gnosticism.

Geralt said:

- do not stop at the word 'natural' and proposing mary as aa true 'biological' mother. this suggests that a miracle sperm happened that combined with mary's egg. say it explicitly as it is.

- what i am suggesting is that instead of an ex-nihilo sperm which your view avoids to say (and therefore gives mary her own contribution), why not consider an ex-nihilo zygote or embryo.

given the circumstances of the scriptural verses i have quoted, this is the most acceptable conclusion with regards to christ and his apostles disregard of jesus as a 'mum' but a woman.

Click to expand...

Christ did not disregard his mother, that would have been a violation of the fifth commandment. If you think so, I would strongly suggest you buy a study Bible and read the notes on the verses that you think show this. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that God works through humans? Can't you see that by denigrating Mary's biological motherhood, you actually denigrate Jesus' biological humanity?
I am more than willing to discuss this with you; but you need to go beyond your interpretation of the Bible and your opinion to focus more on the thoughts of people at that time on who Jesus was and what his relationship to Mary was. Throughout history only a very small minority of Christians has ever believed that Jesus was not Mary's biological son.

tz620q said:

Actually it is generally accepted that Luke chapter 3's genealogy of Jesus is through Mary.

Click to expand...

They are both of Joseph. Joseph's grandmother was widowed after the birth of her first son and remarried, giving birth to another son. So one son was descended from David through Solomon and the other was descended from David through Nathan. One of the sons married but died before producing an heir, so his brother lay with his brother's widow to raise up seed for him in accordance with the law. Thus Joseph was born, the biological descendant of one brother, but the legal descendant of the other.

prodromos said:

They are both of Joseph. Joseph's grandmother was widowed after the birth of her first son and remarried, giving birth to another son. So one son was descended from David through Solomon and the other was descended from David through Nathan. One of the sons married but died before producing an heir, so his brother lay with his brother's widow to raise up seed for him in accordance with the law. Thus Joseph was born, the biological descendant of one brother, but the legal descendant of the other.

Click to expand...

I have spent many years of study and you bring an interesting point. Can you tell me how you arrived at this? Is this something original to you or someone else?

farout said:

I have spent many years of study and you bring an interesting point. Can you tell me how you arrived at this? Is this something original to you or someone else?

Click to expand...

It is from St John of Damascus

prodromos said:

It is from St John of Damascus

Click to expand...

Please can you be more specific" Volume and page or chapter and verse?

prodromos said:

It is from St John of Damascus

Click to expand...

It seems Julian Africanus also proposed this theory of both lineages being of Joseph.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm - Genealogies of Christ

farout said:

Please can you be more specific" Volume and page or chapter and verse?

Click to expand...

I can't at the moment. I believe it is in his exposition of the Orthodox faith.

Geralt said:

Nobody dares to ask the question and discussion mostly dwells in Mary giving birth to Christ.

a) But did Mary really contribute her egg/DNA to the formation of Jesus body based on the assumption of a 'miracle sperm' (ex nihilo!) ?

or

b) Did Mary act merely as a gestational surrogate? This means a human embryo (ex nihilo!) was instead miracle implanted in her womb.

Mariology is based on the assumption that Mary was christ's real biological mother, and this connectivity gave birth to a lot of other 'jesus-influence' attributes concerning Mary. But then again, our theologians for the last thousand years including the reformation age has no notion about surrogacy (that a woman can act as a 'rented womb' or 'human incubator' in order to develop a baby- which is common in our day and age.

And there are studies suggesting that 'gestational' surrogacy (rented womb) does NOT contribute the DNA of the surrogate mother to the child itself; though other studies as well suggest DNA might be contributed in the way of blood.

Though scripture is silent about this and the issue will most likely be classified as speculation, my position in this case is that both Mary and Joseph were foster parents to Jesus, their 'first born' son. Neither has contributed to Jesus's biology. S





Could explain:

- why Christ is the "second" Adam, and not "directly" a descendant of david or abraham. Christs genealogy in the 1st chapter of Matthew connects Jesus by Joseph which we all know has really no biological connection with Jesus , except by responsibility as a rearing human father. obviously connection with lineage is more than biological connections in this case.

Click to expand...

Scripture is not silent about this. The first promise of Christ as Redeemer in Scripture, he is referred to as being the 'seed' of the woman (Genesis 3:15) and Romans 1:3 says "the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh". David is not merely Christ's father in a genealogic sense through Joseph but truly by the flesh. While the genealogy of Christ of is given through Joseph, that does not mean that Mary was not also of the line of David and has to be in order for Christ to truly be descended from David "according to the flesh".

Consider the consequence if this is not true -- Christ would not be of the human race but rather an alien being who was placed in the womb of Mary. He could not have offered reparation to the Father for the sins of the human race because he would not have truly been one of us.

Geralt said:

Mat 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

- why Adam's fallen nature is not passed on the the sinless christ

- why Jesus never addressed Mary as mother, but 'woman'.

- why Jesus is addressed in the book of Hebrews as similar to Melchizedek (or vice versa in this case), no paternal origin. son of God has really no paternal origin.

Heb_7:3 He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.

Click to expand...

Adam's fallen nature is not passed on to the sinless Christ because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus refers to Mary as 'woman' as she is the fulfillment of the first person who held the title of 'woman' -- Eve before the fall. To infer from this that she wasn't really the mother of Christ is in direct contradiction of Scripture which refers to Mary as the mother of Jesus more than 25 times.

Regarding Hebrews 7:3, the second person of the Trinity indeed has no father or mother or genealogy -- he is the eternal God who has no beginning of days nor end of life. But this passage is not referring to the human nature that Christ assumes, which indeed has a mother, a beginning of days, and experiences an end of life.