Jesus' genetic material

[Grace_Seeker]

Another Catholic website, in discussing Mary as the the Mother of God, included the following:

A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body**, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3).
** I was surprised by the concern over Jesus’ “genetic matter”. I’m not disputing the whole concept of Mary as the Mother of God (I’m not a Nestorian), but Romans 1:3 seems pretty weak to make the arguement that Jesus was an iheritor of Mary’s genes. Isn’t it enough simply to say that God caused Jesus to be conceived in and borne by Mary? This sort of argument seems to connect Jesus’ humanity to Mary.

If Mary actually contributed DNA to Jesus, I would have thought that the argument would be that she contributed only 50 % of it. Of course there would be problems with that for that would seem to imply that Jesus is only half-human (50% of his DNA from Mary and 50% from God), but we know that this is not true for Jesus is fully (100%) human, as affirmed by the Council of Chalcedon.

So, this articles says that she was the source for all of his “genetic matter”. Such a view view still leaves us with Jesus’ humanity being dependant on Mary. This has a different set of problems, as a female possessing only X chromosones, she would only be able to pass on to any offspring X chromosones, and since Jesus was a male he had to also have a Y chromosone.

To me it makes more sense to say that Jesus is human not because he gets his genes from a human Mary, but simply because he was incarnated, by whatever means. God could have simply created the zygot Jesus ex nihlo and it would be no less human than was Adam. Indeed to me that makes more sense as Jesus is the second Adam.

Is this other article out of line in its statements? Or is there more that needs to be said that they failed to say?

 

[bpbasilphx]

One thing many spiritual writers agree on: the flesh of Christ is Mary’s flesh.

DNA and such were totally unknown to the writers of the Bible, and therefore they don’t speak to it. In fact, the whole process of conception was known only a little more than 100 years ago.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

OK. So it might be that the other author was being a bit presumptious to speak of “genetic matter”?

 

[TheDoctor]

Can we first agree that Jesus started human life in the form of an embryo? OK. So, there are two ways you get the genetic material for that embryo:

1. God just blinks it into existence and implants it in Mary’s womb, in which case none of Jesus is related to Mary and she is an incubator (sorry Blessed Mother, just an exaggeration for effect).
2. God uses Mary’s egg and fertilizes it by changing the DNA so that fertilization and implantation can begin in the natural way (I believe if He can make the entire universe out of nothing, he can change some cells into a Y chromosome).

I don’t see the issue. I have a problem with (1), I have no problem with (2).

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Why would you have a bigger problem with #1 than #2?

 

[TheDoctor]

Because #1 presupposes that Mary is nothing special and that God could have popped the Jesus embryo into any fertile woman.

Realizing that God chose Mary from the beginning of time to bear Jesus just does not jibe with that. I can’t see Gabriel hailing her as “full of grace” and Mary knowing that “all generations will call me blessed” being applied to a “womb for a Jew”.

Realizing that Jesus became flesh from one of us lowly, unworthy humans helps me to realize the infinite potential that we all can aspire to.

That’s why I have more of a problem with #1.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Because #1 presupposes that Mary is nothing special and that God could have popped the Jesus embryo into any fertile woman.

Realizing that God chose Mary from the beginning of time to bear Jesus just does not jibe with that. I can’t see Gabriel hailing her as “full of grace” and Mary knowing that “all generations will call me blessed” being applied to a “womb for a Jew”.

Isn’t the specialness of Mary found in her openness to be available to whatever God will for her life, rather than asserting her own in God’s place? That seems to make her unique among all human beings. In that regard, there is nothing belittling about Mary humbling herself that way, indeed that might be the very reason that she is called blessed. It would take a very special person to fulfill that role and be the Christ-bearer.

Realizing that Jesus became flesh from one of us lowly, unworthy humans helps me to realize the infinite potential that we all can aspire to.

This part resonantes a little more with me. It is good to think that in coming to earth God really did take on all of humanity, including allowing himself to inherit our infirmities. But then is there not a problem with referring to Christ as the second Adam?

 

[TheDoctor]

Isn’t the specialness of Mary found in her openness to be available to whatever God will for her life, rather than asserting her own in God’s place? That seems to make her unique among all human beings. In that regard, there is nothing belittling about Mary humbling herself that way, indeed that might be the very reason that she is called blessed. It would take a very special person to fulfill that role and be the Christ-bearer.

I think we agree that Mary’s fiat (“I am the handmaid of the Lord”) and her willingness to be the Christ-bearer does make her unique among all human beings. I don’t see it as Mary ever asserting her own in God’s place, I see it as Mary telling us just how it is. All generations will call me blessed. It is not her opinion, it is a statement of fact.

What I don’t believe though is that God would chose a woman just to bear his “magically” created seed. If he was going to do that, why bother with the child Jesus in the first place? Why not just Jesus incarnate walking out of the dessert as a 33 year old man? I believe there was more to Mary than just this.

This part resonates a little more with me. It is good to think that in coming to earth God really did take on all of humanity, including allowing himself to inherit our infirmities. But then is there not a problem with referring to Christ as the second Adam?

Because God chose to come as both fully human and fully divine, I don’t see the where he ever chose to also inherit our infirmities. The human Jesus could sin, just as Adam could sin. The difference is that the human Jesus chose not to sin, where Adam chose to sin.

It’s funny you mentioned this, because as I was thinking about the embryo Jesus being implanted in his mother, that line from Genesis came to mind “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”.

I need to get away for a while but maybe we can pick it up later. Thank you for an interesting conversation. Good night and God bless.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Infirmities: he was hungry, he was thirsty, he wept. Jesus had the full range of human emotions and experiences. It doesn’t say it anywhere in scripture, but I assume he got cold in the winter and hot in the summer, that his nose ran from a cold, and that when he stubbed his toe it really hurt. These are things that Clark Kent never experienced, but Jesus does because he not only looks like us, but actually is one of us.

One of the objections that some have to the concept of the incarnation is that they cannot imagine the humiliation of a god. Not just the humiliation of a cross, but that the Creator would submit himself to being on the order of a creature. Yet, I find that one of the most compelling aspects of the whole story of redemption, that God actually came in Jesus Christ and dwelled among us. Immanuel doesn’t just mean that God was with us, because of the Holy Spirit that has always been true. To say that God with us, is about him walking amongst us having come alongside as one of us. And unless he is also subject to our infirmities (remember infirmities are not sins, but the limitations of being in the flesh) then he really didn’t experience human life as we do. Only a truly great God could take these things on.