Did Jesus have any of Mary's DNA?

If Christ didn't have Mary's DNA and if Christ didn't have a sin nature (that is the urge to sin) then how could Satan have tempted him to sin? Can someone without a sin nature be tempted to sin?

The whole idea behind the Perfect Sacrifice is that while Christ was fully human and could be tempted, he conquered the the temptation, didn't sin and thus became the perfect Lamb.

If it wasn't possible for Him to sin then what was gained by His sinlessness?

 

Good post Marcia.

 

Well, technically, the x gene comes from Mary, a Y gene is also needed to become a man. Men are XY and women are XX....hope this makes sense...

 

Very interesting concept Dr. Bob.

Personally, I do believe he carried Mary's genes. This was part of the sacrifice for MAN,

He had to become a man and that would have probably been from His own set of Genes (created specifically for this reason, since God does not have genes, I would not imagine.).

As far as the X chromosome, no problem with God doing the artificial insemination.

Born of a virgin, also, at least to me, implies that she was more than just a carrier; otherwise, a virgin today can carry an embryo from conception to birth....this would definitely NOT be the miracle that occurred when God became man. It seems to imply that she (the virgin Mary) was not just implanted, but one of her eggs was fertilized with sinless DNA.

Oh, Dr. Bob, does the DNA carry the sin? We may not know what carries the sin yet, and although it probably does come from the man, why do we have to believe it comes from DNA?

And, another thing to think about. If a woman is cloned, does the clone not have sin, since there is no male to provide the sin "molecule" or "seed"?

 

Dr. Bob, on the Internet it says: Arianism is the heresy propagated by Arius denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

That is exactly the opposite of what I posted.

 

God revealed to Isaiah the miraculous nature of the birth of the Messiah, the seed of Abraham. He would be born to a virgin, thus fulfilling the promise made in Eden that the Redeemer would be the seed of woman.

Isaiah 7:14, KJV
14. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

That the prophecy recorded in Isaiah is valid is shown in the record of the Apostle Matthew and the physician Luke.

Luke 1:26-28a; 30b-35, KJV
26. And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27. To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.
28a. And the angel came in unto her, and said, ....
30b. Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33. And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

We see here that Jesus Christ as the Seed of Abraham was through the work of the Holy Spirit, conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary, a daughter of Abraham. Jesus Christ had no human father. He received His human nature from the Virgin Mary alone. This truth has, unfortunately, been corrupted into grievous error by some who claim that Mary is the mother of God. Mary is the mother of the human nature of the God-man, Jesus Christ, not the Divine nature. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, an eminent British pastor of Westminster Chapel during the 20th century, writes [God the Father, God the Son, page 262]: “As the Lord’s divine nature had no mother, so His human nature had no father.”

There are also some who wrongly teach that a completely new human nature was created for Jesus Christ [page 134f, The Modern Creation Triology, Volume 1, by Henry and John Morris]. If this were true He would not be the seed of Abraham, David, or the woman, Mary and is, therefore, directly contrary to Scripture. Martin Lloyd-Jones also clearly refutes this error by Morris and others in his book God the Father, God the Son, page 259ff.

Note that this Scripture also tells us that the work of the Holy Spirit was such that the human nature the Son took to Himself was sinless, i.e., that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. This does not say that Mary was sinless, which she was not, but only that the child was Holy or sinless. It is only because Jesus Christ was sinless that he was able to pay the penalty for our sins as well as those of His mother Mary. Scripture tells us:

1 Peter 1:18,19, NKJV
18. knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, [like] silver or gold, from your aimless conduct [received] by tradition from your fathers,
19. but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

 

If Jesus did not have Mary's DNA, then he could not fit the description of Hebrews 2 -- he would not be related to us in his incarnation.

This reminds me not of Arianism but more of Docetism, the belief that Jesus could not be fully human as man is because the flesh is tainted by evil.

As Dr. Bob pointed out, Gen 3.15 foretells the crushing of the serpent by the "seed" of the woman.

According to Heb 2, if Jesus was not made like us "in every way," (v. 17) then He could not redeem us.

 

From the Internet:

In Christianity, Docetism is the belief that Jesus Christ did not have a physical body; rather, that his body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion.

I never implied or indicated that Jesus Christ did not have a physical body, or that He was an illusion. Try again.

Genesis 3:15 talks about both the woman's seed and the serpent's seed. If the woman's "seed" (DNA) is literal, then who is Satan's seed (DNA)?

And where did the First Adam get his DNA?

 

I said it reminded me of Docetism, not that it was.

The main argument for Jesus not having DNA is thinking he had to inherit a sin nature by having Mary's DNA. But there is no Biblical reason to believe that DNA transmits sin. In fact, the more I think about it, the more that seems like a gnostic idea -- that matter can be evil.

I think the sin nature is transmitted just as part of the fallen human nature -- and that is a spiritual condition. Jesus did inherit some of the fallen physical nature -- getting tired, thirsty, and hungry, for example. But it is not evil to feel tired or hungry. I think the sin nature is transmitted another way -- not through DNA. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in thinking that Jesus had Mary's DNA.

I keep going back to Hebrews, and that convinces me more than the man-made arguments here. Having a special DNA made secretly apart from God is not indicated in the Bible, imo. He was the new Adam because he redeemed men that had fallen through the old Adam.

 

I dont think that Marys egg was used.

If it was, then the Roman Catholic Church would have a claim on being able to use the title "Mother of God".

Consider that carefully. How does that affect the Christian Trinity if Mary is the "Mother of God" because she a created human gave DNA to God.

 

"I dont think that Marys egg was used.

If it was, then the Roman Catholic Church would have a claim on being able to use the title "Mother of God". "

What has this got to do with theology. We should not be developing theology based on what it would or wouldn't do to the RCC's claims.

 

Exactly, Ben. No one has yet answered the question: Who created Adam's DNA? Instead of trying to stick some handy label (that doesn't fit) on the concept of Jesus Christ having divine blood, why not discuss it from Scripture?

And what if His blood WAS divine - does that mean those who don't believe it was are believing in the "wrong Jesus" - the accusation that has been leveled about some other denominations?

Was it His blood that saved us or not? If that blood was human blood, how could that pay for sin? Unless female blood is not sinful - yet the Bible says ALL have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. There is NONE righteous, no, not one!

And, who was Satan's seed?

 

I would say yes.

Galatians 4:4
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.

"under the law" He was mortal, subject to death, He received the penalty of sin (death) from Mary but not the ability to sin (ohoh, enter the impeccability dunnybrook).

NKJV Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that
Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

HankD

 

The Mother of God statement originally came about to refute a heresy that Jesus was not God. The statement was to affirm the deity of Christ -- it was not about Mary.

We cannot divide Jesus' human and divine nature --he was not a two-part being but one Being fully God and fully man, the human/God nature neither divided nor confused. So Mary was the mother of God the son in his human incarnation. Just because some people misuse the meaning of that does not mean Jesus did not have Mary's DNA.

From the Chalcedon Creed

 

Bottom line, this is all a facinating mind game.

It really doesn't matter, does it?

Jesus is the "only begotten of the Father." That's all that matters.

 

I don't think blood can be sinful. If Jesus did not have human blood, he was not fully human and therefore could not redeem us (see Heb 2).

If God created Jesus separately apart from Mary's DNA, then he must have made Jesus imperfectly because Jesus thirsted, hungered and got tired. I don't think God did this (create Jesus physically apart from Mary's DNA). These are physical characteristics of being human that Jesus got from Mary's DNA. But he did not get a sin nature from Mary because there is no reason to believe sin is carried in DNA.

 

I don't think that man's sin nature is passed on in the DNA. God created Adam with proper and fully functioning DNA (necessary for normal human physiological functions). Adam and Eve were originally sinless, since they had not sinned they had no sin nature. The sin nature came to them, and the rest of humanity, when they willfully disobeyed God. It seems to me, for the sin nature to be in the DNA, God would have had to "mutate" their original DNA. I don't think their DNA was changed, but their spirit(s) died due to their sin. Their eventual physical deaths were due to their banishment from the garden and the tree of life. The fall was, and is, a spiritual problem, not a physical problem.

Jesus' DNA (well, 1/2 anyway) was fully human and was from Mary. We know He had no sin nature because He never sinned. We know we have a sin nature because we have sinned. We cannot be saved unless (until) we are convicted (convinced) of this fact. That's why our only hope, as humans, is to be found in Him. His blood cleanses us because He was sinless. That is what makes His blood "special".

No doubt there is probably somebody's theological heresy in the above. I'm just thinking (writing) out loud.

 

If Jesus has Marys DNA, then she is a part of the Trinity. That is not something that I am prepared to accept whether or not it comes from Catholiscm in idea initially.

The Trinity is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Yet if Mary is Jesus Biological mother, then there would be a case to add Mary Mother of God. She would rightly be the Mother of a Divine member of the Godhead and a "Co-Creator" With God the Holy Spirit.

 

Why would it be impossible for Jesus to have Divine Blood that flowed through human veins and arteries?