Born of the Virgin Mary & Without Father, Mother, or Ancestry

[kainosktisis]

I apologize in advance if this has already been answered, but I did do a search, & I didn’t see exactly what I was looking for.

I’d come across something online where a preacher at a church was stating that Jesus had no mother, & in support of this, provided the citation from Hebrews 7 NABRE (USCCB) on Melchizedek, of whom we’re told…:

3
Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life,*thus made to resemble the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

So by the aforementioned verse, he concludes that Jesus can’t have any earthly parents.

This, of course, neglects Luke 1:26-45 on the Annunciation & the Visitation. It also completely misses all of the Messianic prophecies of the OT.

How would you put the two together into a cohesive unit of thought? Son of God & Son of Man?

Thank you for your assistance.

In Him,

kainosktisis

 

[Fauken]

From Haydock’s Commentary:

" Ver. 3. Without father, &c. Not that he had no father, &c. but that neither his father, nor his pedigree, nor his birth, nor his death, are set down in Scripture. Ch. — Not that he was without father and mother, says S. Jer. (ep. cxxxvi.) for Christ himself was not without a Father according to his divinity, nor without a Mother in his humanity; but because his genealogy is not given in Genesis, as that of the other patriarchs is, but he is abruptly introduced without any mention of either his birth or death. In Melchisedech all was prophetical and figurative of Jesus Christ; and Abraham undoubtedly in this patriarch saw Jesus Christ in spirit, and exulted that all the nations of the earth were to be blessed in him. Abraham, your father, greatly desired, says our Lord to the Jews, to see the day of my coming: he saw it, and was filled with joy. Jo. viii. 56."

 

[De_Maria]

I apologize in advance if this has already been answered, but I did do a search, & I didn’t see exactly what I was looking for.

I’d come across something online where a preacher at a church was stating that Jesus had no mother, & in support of this, provided the citation from Hebrews 7 NABRE (USCCB) on Melchizedek, of whom we’re told…:

3
Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life,*thus made to resemble the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

So by the aforementioned verse, he concludes that Jesus can’t have any earthly parents.

This, of course, neglects Luke 1:26-45 on the Annunciation & the Visitation. It also completely misses all of the Messianic prophecies of the OT.

How would you put the two together into a cohesive unit of thought? Son of God & Son of Man?

Thank you for your assistance.

In Him,

kainosktisis

I’m not sure what you’re asking.

How would you put the two together into a cohesive unit of thought? Son of God & Son of Man?

Above, you seem to answer your own question when you point out that Scripture declares that Jesus’ has a mother.

Son of man is a Messianic title which points out the fact that Jesus is fulfiling the prophecy of 77 weeks (book of Daniel).

Son of God refers to the fact that Jesus’ was engendered in Mary’s womb by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Is that what you’re asking?

 

[BartholomewB]

The author of Hebrews develops at considerable length the idea of Jesus as “a priest in the order of Melchizedek”, beginning at 6:13 and continuing all through chapters 7 and 8. The passage stresses that Melchizedek, the ancient priest-king of Jerusalem to whom Abraham paid tithes, obviously could not be in compliance with the “order of Aaron” rule introduced many generations later, which stipulated that only descendants of Aaron were entitled to serve as priests in the Temple. Similarly Jesus, being descended from Judah, lacked the genealogical qualification for the Temple priesthood, but nevertheless is rightly honored as a priest and king, just as Melchizedek was.

The editors of the Jerusalem Bible describe Genesis 14:18-20 as a later insertion or interpolation, serving to set an Abrahamic precedent for the Levitical priesthood, while Ps 110:4 is intended as a flattering reference to David as a new Melchizedek. David is, in fact, once glimpsed performing a sacred ritual, normally the prerogative of a duly qualified priest. When the Ark of the Covenant is ceremonially installed in the newly erected Tabernacle, “David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord” and “blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts” (2 Sam 6:17-18).

 

[MHawbaker]

If a protestant visitor to the board might be allowed to speculate…

Could this preacher have been referring specifically to Christ’s divine nature rather than his human nature?

Christ is both fully 100% human, but also at the same time fully 100% God.

As a human He most certainly has a Mother (the Virgin Mary) , a Father (God the Father), and a definite time of birth; but as the eternal second person of the Holy Trinity, He is eternally pre existent with “no beginning of days” and therefore no parents in the sense that we usually understand that term (though even then it seems that there was a parental relationship of sorts between God the Father and God the Son within the Trinity).
.

 

[Michael16]

This preacher makes no sense. Jesus had a Father, God the Father; has a mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary and had an an ancestry; as detailed twice in Sacred Scripture.

 

[kainosktisis]

Yes, I understand that. I also understand the Virgin birth. However, he totally seems to ignore Lk 1 for the reference in Hebrews 7 & focuses solely on Christ’s Divinity staying that He can’t have a mother because Scripture declares Him to have no father or mother…

 

[kainosktisis]

I’m saying that I think this preacher is building up Christ as without father or mother, saying Mary is therefore not the Mother of God because Scripture teaches Christ has no parents.

Some commenters stated that it sounds like the Nestorian heresy all over again…

 

[Michael16]

Here’s my thing, kaino: Who should you listen to: The Church, whom we can trust to know better than we unlearned laypeople; or a potentially misunderstanding but honest person or worse; a possible heretic?

 

[De_Maria]

I’m saying that I think this preacher is building up Christ as without father or mother, saying Mary is therefore not the Mother of God because Scripture teaches Christ has no parents.

Oh. But St. Paul isn’t talking about Christ. He’s talking about the Melchizedek priesthood.

1. There was no written account of Melchizedek’s parents.
2. That doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.

Some commenters stated that it sounds like the Nestorian heresy all over again…

Yep. Some things just won’t stay dead.

 

[Hodos]

Whoever you are referring to is speaking of Hebrews 7:

“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.”

This person is misreading who the “He” of Hebrews 7 is and because of this ends up in all kinds of eisegesis. The “He” in Hebrews 7 is speaking of Melchizedek, mentioned in Genesis after Abraham’s battle against the four kings. The author of Genesis offers to account of Melchizedek’s lineage. The Psalmist of Psalm 110, the most quoted Messianic Psalm of the OT, is picking up on this lack of lineage and makes the move that David’s successor will not only be a king (as Melchizedek was) but also a priest (as Melchizedek was) eternally. It is the Psalmist using an archetype for a future king/priest. In his divine nature, it is true that Christ has no mother or father because he was pre-existant, which the author of Hebrews already covered in the opening passage of the first chapter. However, in Chapter 2 he shows how the son had to be made human in all respects in order that he might be the perfect intermediator between man and the Father (to include the incarnation through the Virgin Mary). Trying to push any metaphor too far, particularly without the context of the rest of the Bible causes the metaphor to break down. In this case, your opponent has tried to extend the metaphor of Melchizedek far beyond what the author of Hebrews intended.

 

[kainosktisis]

Just to clarify: I’m not listening to him. I’m trying to formulate a coherent rebuttal to his heresy.

 

[kainosktisis]

In his divine nature, it is true that Christ has no mother or father because he was pre-existant, which the author of Hebrews already covered in the opening passage of the first chapter. However, in Chapter 2 he shows how the son had to be made human in all respects in order that he might be the perfect intermediator between man and the Father (to include the incarnation through the Virgin Mary). Trying to push any metaphor too far, particularly without the context of the rest of the Bible causes the metaphor to break down. In this case, your opponent has tried to extend the metaphor of Melchizedek far beyond what the author of Hebrews intended.

Yes! That’s it! How did you do that? :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes: I think my head’s about to explode from all of that! I gotta bookmark that one…!

 

[Michael16]

Ah. Gotcha.