Update: Funky Dung has posted a brief reply.

Over at Ales Rarus, Funky Dung posted a brief portion of my response from Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 1. The resulting discussion in the comments (over there) has been intelligent, respectful, fascinating and thought provoking. The thoughts triggered by that discussion just won’t let me go, so it’s time to do some more exploring of the topic.

Intimate Contact With Mary

Tom Smith started things off by writing:

Christ’s intimate contact with Mary in the womb was far deeper than the contact He had with any of the disciples—Christ wasn’t physically attached via a placenta to any of them. Along that same vein, if Christ took up a human nature alongside His divine nature (contra-Monophysitism), which most agree on, He would have taken it from Mary. If Christ’s human nature (via Mary) was sinful, it would have been in conflict with His divine nature, and He would’ve either been two persons, or one will would’ve taken over (monophysitism, condemned virulently by Athanasius at Nicea).

Yes, it is true that Christ’s contact was more intimate with Mary than with others. It’s also an interesting and somewhat logical thought that if Jesus was going to have such intimate contact with woman that she should be pure. However, only God can institute such a requirement, no matter how cool the idea may seem to us. So did He state such a requirement in scripture? I am not aware that He has done so.

Also, if Christ was floating around in Mary’s womb for nine months while she was sinning, would Christ not be somehow complicit in Mary’s sins?

In a word, no.

“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”

(Ezek. 18:20, NASB)

In this passage, Ezekial is delivering a word for word message from the Lord. In fact, God’s exposition on this point is much more thorough than the snippet I’ve posted here. Read all of Ezekial 18 for the full impact of God’s point. Put succinctly, each person is responsible only for their own sins, not the sins of others.

What exactly is meant by “under the law?” While I’m not intimately familiar with the theology regarding the new and old covenants, I’d say that, since Christ had not yet fulfilled the law, all were bound to follow it, regardless of what sins had been committed by believers.

As I said in my comment, Paul explains this concept more fully throughout Galatians chapters 3 and 4 and Romans 5:12-21, but I think Tom has the gist of it.

What Is “Sin Nature?”

The conversation then quickly moved into discussing what the sin nature actually is and Jesus’ relationship to it. There are a lot more good thoughts than I have room to post here, so I’ll try to pick out the highlights.

Andrew wrote:

Two thoughts:

1. The sin nature is descended through Adam, through the man. Hence the whole point of the virgin birth in the first place—-Christ would not have receieved the sin nature.

2. Christ’s human nature, got from Mary, had to be capable of sinning, had to be temptable, since otherwise Christ would not have been “tempted in every way” just as we are.

There’s every reason to believe that Christ was sinless and without the sin nature, since he had no human father, but Mary, who had a human father, must have had the sin nature.

Christ in his divine nature was not capable of sinning, in his human nature was capable of sinning, and there lies his mystery. But he emphatically did not have a sin nature, since in that case he could not help but sin.

Funky Dung responded with:

I’d point out, however, that there are two kinds of sin - original and actual. To be totally sinless is to be without both. Original sin is the “stain” upon humanity because of the fall that objectively keeps us out of heaven … Actual sin is the sin that is attributed to each individual as the result of his actions. Though Jesus’ human nature was not stained by original sin, He could have (at least in theory) still sinned, though to do so would conflict with His divine will and a logical impossibility.

Tom Smith then asked:

First off, we should probably start by agreeing exactly what is meant by “sin nature.” Do you mean concupiscence, the inordinate attachment to sin (not to be confused with simple temptation), or original sin, the lack of sanctifying grace? Where does the notion that the fallen state passes seminally come from?

Jerry chimed in with this insightful post:

To supplement Tom’s comments: one thing that the Orthodox find irritating about original sin is that Catholics seem to imply that original sin or concupiscence is some inheritable trait or stain that we pass on to the next generation. This seems to be a stumbling block with Protestants as well.

A clarification of the doctrine of original sin that I prefer is that original sin is just a state of being apart from God’s grace. Because of Adam’s sin, we are by default at a certain remove from God’s grace, and thus vulnerable to sin, which drives us further yet. Thus, original sin is not a physical thing (which does sound rather Manichean), but rather a pervasive lack of grace, or distance from God.

My Thoughts on Sin Nature

“And that’s where I got stuck, your honor.” The rest of this post (including the last two sections) were written quite quickly. At this point, I was all set to tie my understanding of sin nature based on Galations and Romans back to the ideas which were being discussed here. It seemed like we were just using different language for the same ideas. But the more I read through Romans and Galations, the more I searched for a single verse or two to highlight and the more I thought about it, the less well my understanding of the ideas discussed here cleanly matched up with what I was reading in scripture. Two days later, I’m finally ready to continue.

That’s not to say that all the ideas discussed are off track. In fact, Jerry has nailed our position in respect to God. We are either under the law or under grace. The two are mutually exclusive. (Though the law highlights why grace is necessary.)

“For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.”

(Rom. 7:5, NASB)

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.

(Rom. 6:14, NASB)

Sometimes when the landmarks get confused, it’s time to go back to familiar territory and retrace your steps. So that’s what I’ll do to explain my understanding of what the Bible says about our sin nature. In this case, it means going back to the beginning; to Genesis, chapter 1.

And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

(Gen. 1:27, NASB)

And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.

(Gen. 1:31a, NASB) Emphasis mine.

When I think of God’s standards, there is one word that stands out: perfection. In order for God to think of something as “very good” it had to be perfect. Adam and Eve weren’t just physically perfect, they also had to be morally perfect. The tree they weren’t to eat from was “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” which suggests they didn’t even know what evil is. When I think of a perfect person (as God measures perfection) I think of someone who is not even capable of sinning, which means they would also not be capable of conceiving of what sin is.

God only told them there was one thing they could not do. Does that mean that it was okay for them to do things which we now know as sins? Let’s say… murder? Not bloody likely!

Imagine with me that you are a professional reporter. You have been given the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to go back in time to interview Adam. You’ve been sitting in the garden talking with this perfect specimen of a human being. He has the rippling muscles, perfect proportions, chiseled good looks, a brain that can run circles around today’s geniuses, the works.

Adam has been telling about life in the garden. How the fruit on the trees is always perfectly ripe. How beautiful the flowers are. About his gorgeous wife who is just as brainy as he is. He even tells you how wonderful it is to walk with God through the garden each evening discussing the day’s events.

Then you ask a question you think your readers back home might be able to relate to. “Adam, the Bible tells us that your second born son, Cain, will murder your first born son, Abel. How does that make you feel?”

Adam’s face, which has been so animated for your entire interview changes to a blank stare. After a few uncomfortable moments he asks, “What is murder?”

When Adam & Eve ate the fruit, three basic things happened. First, they were separated from God (they hid when they heard God walking in the garden), experiencing spiritual death. (Gensis 3:8) Second, they became capable of suffering physical death. (Genesis 5:5) Third, they gained the ability to know — and therefore commit — evil, otherwise known as the ability to sin. (Genesis 3:7 and the entire rest of the Bible)

The word “sin” is literally an archery term which means “to miss the mark.” The law is like the rings and other markings on an archery target. Hitting the mark means living up to the requirements of the law. Missing the mark means that we have stepped outside the lines. That’s what it means to be under the law. The law itself gives the yay or nay verdict.

Inheriting Mary’s Traits

Sixty two generations later, God physically returns to earth in the form of baby Jesus. Only instead of being incorruptible God, he is now “under the law” in that it is possible for Him to sin, He knows what evil is (though I suspect that was always true) and He is capable of dying. The big difference between Him and us is that He was also capable of obeying not just the law, but His Father’s will in exacting detail.

For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

(Heb. 4:15, NASB)

So what traits did Mary share with Adam and Eve in regard to sin?

• She was capable of sinning. If she was not capable of sinning, she could not have passed that capability to Jesus. That would certainly not be a trait He could receive from God the Father.
• She was capable of dying. I know I’m stating the obvious, but Mary was certainly not immortal. Again, Jesus needed to be able to die so His blood could pay the price for our sins. God is immortal and incapable of dying, so Jesus had to inherit this trait from Mary.
• She was separated from God. This one is essentially impossible to quantify. Was Jesus just as separated from God when He walked this earth as we are now? I don’t really know. His prayer life — our primary relationship with God — certainly exceeded that of every human in history, with the possible exception of Adam before the fall. What we do know for sure, is that he was fully separated from God the Father upon His death. We also know that the apostles were capable of performing many of the same miracles which Jesus did, and they certainly started with as much separation from God as we do today.

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”

(Matt. 27:46, NASB)

Conclusions

Tom Smith stated his conclusion about Mary like this:

I’m not saying he and Mary weren’t temptable; I’m saying they didn’t have concupiscence. There is a difference.

Jerry agreed, stating:

Mary, however, being “full of grace” avoided concupiscence, which brings us back to Tom’s point that while Mary could sin, being blessed by God, she avoided it, thus being a pure tabernacle for the Christ Child.

I have to disagree with these conclusions on these grounds:

• Mary had to be capable of sinning so that Jesus would be capable of sinning.
• Mary had to be capable of dying so that Jesus would be able to die.
• Mary had to be able to be fully separated from God so Jesus could also be separated.
• As shown in Ezekial 18:20, each person is responsible for their own sins. Mary could sin without her sins being charged to Jesus.
• There is no scripture (which I am aware of) which states outright — or even implies — that Jesus’ mother had to be sinless.

If you know of scriptures which actually show otherwise, by all means, point them out to me. My goal is to draw nearer to God with the aid of the authority of scripture. If I’m wrong, I need to know it. But without scriptural support, the idea that Mary was sinless — no matter how marvelous that idea may seem to us — is flatly wrong.
(I’m reluctant to use the word heresy, but the definition seems to fit.)

Who Were Mary’s Ancestors?

Along the way, the question of who Mary’s ancestors was raised. This is just a side issue, but I know the answer. Both Mary and Joseph were descended from King David. The genealogy in Matthew is for Joseph and the one in Luke is for Mary. In 1 Kings 9:4-5, God promises Solomon that if he stayed faithful to God, his throne would be established “forever” which would be fulfilled in Jesus. 1 Kings 11:9-11 records that Solomon failed to hold up his end of the bargin. Therefore, Mary was a descendent of King David, but not Solomon.

And a Little Humor

Tom Smith also tossed in a joke that I have got to remember!

Christ was drawing a line in the sand before the adulterous woman. He said, “May he has not sinned throw the first stone.” Christ then sees a little rock whizzing through the air over his head, hitting the adulterous woman. “MO-OMMM!!!” he shouted.

See also:

• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 1
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 2
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 3
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 1
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 2