As we know from the extreme example of abused children themselves
becoming abusive to others, sin is contagious. In fact, sin spreads
very much like physical disease. The domino effect is so pervasive
that no one avoids it during the course of her life.
Yet, I suggest, sin is also transmitted via spirits, and in particular via the spirits of people during the sex act. This theory has had many adherents, from Augustine (354-430), to Ambrose (340-397) to Barth (1886-1968), though it has fallen into disfavor in modern times. Yet I do not mean to say that sex during marriage is not ordained by God. On the other hand, pair-bond marriage is for the fallen, not the risen who are admitted to paradise, as we see from Matthew 22.
Similarly, when Martha was grieving over her brother Lazarus's death, Jesus says that those who trust him will never die, not that they will die and be resurrected. They already have life, whatever the condition of the body.
Recall that Jesus told us that if a person even looks at another person with lust, the heart is stained by sin. Yes, I realize that such feelings are natural — in this fallen world. During the sex act the male at least is experiencing some sort of intensity, and perhaps the female. At the point of conception, the soul is imparted to the new being. Whatever sin is staining each person may also stamp the new creation.
In fact, in some cases "lower" souls enter humanity this way; or possibly one of the biological parents already has a "lower" soul, thus tending to unconsciously "believe" a lower soul into existence. I am referring here to the souls of the "children of perdition" who, though human, are not truly made after the image of God. These are the tares that will be sifted out and destroyed when the time comes. They were never meant to be.
But even for those not born as tares, the imprint of sin is passed from one generation to the next in the human race.
These observations lead us to realize why the early church thought Jesus must have been born of a virgin. The natural seed of Adam was spiritually tainted. Jesus, as the new Adam, must begin life without taint. His mother Mary, pure in heart, did not experience lust during the act of conception. She was a meek vessel. The Holy Spirit assured that conception was indeed immaculate. Thus, a new beginning for humanity could occur, with a man who was born with no sin becoming a "man of sorrows, acquainted with grief" (Isaiah 53:3). In this conception, we have the son of God becoming a son of humanity (son of Man). God mercifully made his utterly innocent son into sin for our sakes. By taking the sin of humanity upon himself, he actually became a cesspool of sin on the cross. The "man of sorrows" was a "man of sin" for our sakes.
Of course, we may wonder: how is it that Mary was not tainted by the sin of Adam? But the point is that Mary experienced no carnal desire during a sex act, because there was no sex act. She did transmit anything impure to her son. Another point is that "God does not look upon sin" (close paraphrase of Habakkuk 1:13 and of Paul's theology), so that whatever problems she may have had were overlooked by God, who declined to see those problems as sinful. All this is speculation. But the point is that it was necessary, for our sakes, that a sinless man come into our fallen world and submit to a total injustice so as to pay off all the debt incurred under God's highest law.
Some scholars see the infancy narratives as pious inventions rather than strict history. They were written, it is thought, in order to hone the theological point that Jesus was and is God the Son and not simply son of God. We notice that, unlike Matthew and Luke, the John writer achieves this theological objective with his prelude, which identifies Jesus as the pre-existent Word.
Not only does John disclose nothing about Jesus' childhood, neither does the apostle Paul, whose conversion occurred only a few years after the crucifixion. Paul, in his voluminous writings, takes no notice of a virgin conception and birth.
Early "heretics" insisted that the spirit of Christ came to Jesus at his baptism and left him just before he was crucified. The church rightly saw this scenario as an attempt to strip the Christ of his true humanity. Some scholars think the infancy stories were written as part of a campaign to refute this doctrine.
An alternative to virgin conception that was overlooked is the idea that God can become one of his creatures, and, on so doing, extend into the past to make any sin into non-sin (in fact, that is what he does do with born-again Christians). So, Jesus could, possibly, have been an ordinary human that God chose to be Messiah. Then, once that divine act had occurred, Jesus' life up to that time would have been made pure, and likewise that of his mother. In any case, Jesus would have to pay for even this transformation, I would assume, on the cross.
That scenario, of course, would have been seen as too complex for simple believers to cope with. And, it would have been virtually impossible to bring about agreement among church elders on such an idea.
But, whatever happened or did not happen with respect to Mary, Christ's sacrifice would have been worthless had he not been utterly blameless. Sin cannot save. Sin cannot heal. Sin can only make you sick and kill you. By suffering the outrageous injustice of judicial murder of an utterly innocent man, Jesus was able to renew and revive humanity.
Yes, he was a man born of the Spirit. But his and the Father's gift to us is that we can also be born of the Spirit with no taint of sin. On account of Jesus, God does not look upon the "old man of sin" — our animalistic or carnal nature. So when the Father and Son send the Holy Spirit to remake our lowly spirits into a new creation, there is no sin during the process of being born again! We are now in with the In Crowd. No worries.
Though a born-again person should put Jesus first in his life, we all know that one may be truly born again and yet unable to tolerate the idea of not marrying. Jesus leaves the believer free to decide. Whom the Son sets free is free indeed (John 8:36).
In I Corinthians 7, we observe that it is Paul's personal opinion that if one partner in a marriage is born again but the other not, the other partner is nevertheless sanctified. God honors the marriage. That doesn't mean the non-believing partner will be saved; maybe not. In any case, we see that if God did not bless the marriage bond on behalf of the born-again partner, the children would be, according to Paul, "unclean." Implicitly, this suggests that children receive the imprint of the sin of parents who have yet to avail themselves of God's gracious forgiveness.
Plus, would not any siblings born in the usual way be tainted with sex-transmitted original sin?
But the fact is that the gospels refer to Jesus' brothers and sisters, including James, the brother of Jesus, who led the Jerusalem church after the Resurrection. A standard answer is that these were cousins or close neighbors who had grown up with him. So the conclusion is that we do not know whether Mary gave birth to other children by Joseph. I would say that I do not see a strong theological reason for denying that she bore other children.
And, if one questions the accuracy of the infancy narratives, the question remains open as to whether there was a virgin conception. But, again, God must have found some way to assure that Jesus was sinless as he approached the cross.
Yet, I suggest, sin is also transmitted via spirits, and in particular via the spirits of people during the sex act. This theory has had many adherents, from Augustine (354-430), to Ambrose (340-397) to Barth (1886-1968), though it has fallen into disfavor in modern times. Yet I do not mean to say that sex during marriage is not ordained by God. On the other hand, pair-bond marriage is for the fallen, not the risen who are admitted to paradise, as we see from Matthew 22.
Matthew 22: 23-33
Notice that Jesus is implying that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were
already resurrected. The "day" of resurrection is Jesus himself.
23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
Similarly, when Martha was grieving over her brother Lazarus's death, Jesus says that those who trust him will never die, not that they will die and be resurrected. They already have life, whatever the condition of the body.
John 11::24-26
In order for God to ransom us from our terrible captivity and from the
grim fate of death, it was necessary that a deadly injustice be done
to a sinless person. Who would God choose for that role other than
someone with whom he was on very intimate terms? And yet no man who
had Adam's spiritual seed in him could qualify. Why? Because sin is
transmitted during the sex act between two people.
24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Recall that Jesus told us that if a person even looks at another person with lust, the heart is stained by sin. Yes, I realize that such feelings are natural — in this fallen world. During the sex act the male at least is experiencing some sort of intensity, and perhaps the female. At the point of conception, the soul is imparted to the new being. Whatever sin is staining each person may also stamp the new creation.
In fact, in some cases "lower" souls enter humanity this way; or possibly one of the biological parents already has a "lower" soul, thus tending to unconsciously "believe" a lower soul into existence. I am referring here to the souls of the "children of perdition" who, though human, are not truly made after the image of God. These are the tares that will be sifted out and destroyed when the time comes. They were never meant to be.
But even for those not born as tares, the imprint of sin is passed from one generation to the next in the human race.
These observations lead us to realize why the early church thought Jesus must have been born of a virgin. The natural seed of Adam was spiritually tainted. Jesus, as the new Adam, must begin life without taint. His mother Mary, pure in heart, did not experience lust during the act of conception. She was a meek vessel. The Holy Spirit assured that conception was indeed immaculate. Thus, a new beginning for humanity could occur, with a man who was born with no sin becoming a "man of sorrows, acquainted with grief" (Isaiah 53:3). In this conception, we have the son of God becoming a son of humanity (son of Man). God mercifully made his utterly innocent son into sin for our sakes. By taking the sin of humanity upon himself, he actually became a cesspool of sin on the cross. The "man of sorrows" was a "man of sin" for our sakes.
Of course, we may wonder: how is it that Mary was not tainted by the sin of Adam? But the point is that Mary experienced no carnal desire during a sex act, because there was no sex act. She did transmit anything impure to her son. Another point is that "God does not look upon sin" (close paraphrase of Habakkuk 1:13 and of Paul's theology), so that whatever problems she may have had were overlooked by God, who declined to see those problems as sinful. All this is speculation. But the point is that it was necessary, for our sakes, that a sinless man come into our fallen world and submit to a total injustice so as to pay off all the debt incurred under God's highest law.
Some scholars see the infancy narratives as pious inventions rather than strict history. They were written, it is thought, in order to hone the theological point that Jesus was and is God the Son and not simply son of God. We notice that, unlike Matthew and Luke, the John writer achieves this theological objective with his prelude, which identifies Jesus as the pre-existent Word.
Not only does John disclose nothing about Jesus' childhood, neither does the apostle Paul, whose conversion occurred only a few years after the crucifixion. Paul, in his voluminous writings, takes no notice of a virgin conception and birth.
Early "heretics" insisted that the spirit of Christ came to Jesus at his baptism and left him just before he was crucified. The church rightly saw this scenario as an attempt to strip the Christ of his true humanity. Some scholars think the infancy stories were written as part of a campaign to refute this doctrine.
An alternative to virgin conception that was overlooked is the idea that God can become one of his creatures, and, on so doing, extend into the past to make any sin into non-sin (in fact, that is what he does do with born-again Christians). So, Jesus could, possibly, have been an ordinary human that God chose to be Messiah. Then, once that divine act had occurred, Jesus' life up to that time would have been made pure, and likewise that of his mother. In any case, Jesus would have to pay for even this transformation, I would assume, on the cross.
That scenario, of course, would have been seen as too complex for simple believers to cope with. And, it would have been virtually impossible to bring about agreement among church elders on such an idea.
But, whatever happened or did not happen with respect to Mary, Christ's sacrifice would have been worthless had he not been utterly blameless. Sin cannot save. Sin cannot heal. Sin can only make you sick and kill you. By suffering the outrageous injustice of judicial murder of an utterly innocent man, Jesus was able to renew and revive humanity.
Yes, he was a man born of the Spirit. But his and the Father's gift to us is that we can also be born of the Spirit with no taint of sin. On account of Jesus, God does not look upon the "old man of sin" — our animalistic or carnal nature. So when the Father and Son send the Holy Spirit to remake our lowly spirits into a new creation, there is no sin during the process of being born again! We are now in with the In Crowd. No worries.
Though a born-again person should put Jesus first in his life, we all know that one may be truly born again and yet unable to tolerate the idea of not marrying. Jesus leaves the believer free to decide. Whom the Son sets free is free indeed (John 8:36).
In I Corinthians 7, we observe that it is Paul's personal opinion that if one partner in a marriage is born again but the other not, the other partner is nevertheless sanctified. God honors the marriage. That doesn't mean the non-believing partner will be saved; maybe not. In any case, we see that if God did not bless the marriage bond on behalf of the born-again partner, the children would be, according to Paul, "unclean." Implicitly, this suggests that children receive the imprint of the sin of parents who have yet to avail themselves of God's gracious forgiveness.
Matthew 19:3-11
We can understand why some Christian thinkers concluded that Mary must
have remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. As the "Mother of
God," they thought it inappropriate that she would have ever had
carnal relations. And certainly one can point to New Testament
references in which Jesus indicates that paradise's pleasures are
better than sex, which is why people who have been deprived of sex
have nothing to worry about.
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?1 Corinthians 7:1-16
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
Plus, would not any siblings born in the usual way be tainted with sex-transmitted original sin?
But the fact is that the gospels refer to Jesus' brothers and sisters, including James, the brother of Jesus, who led the Jerusalem church after the Resurrection. A standard answer is that these were cousins or close neighbors who had grown up with him. So the conclusion is that we do not know whether Mary gave birth to other children by Joseph. I would say that I do not see a strong theological reason for denying that she bore other children.
And, if one questions the accuracy of the infancy narratives, the question remains open as to whether there was a virgin conception. But, again, God must have found some way to assure that Jesus was sinless as he approached the cross.
No comments:
Post a Comment