A recent illustration of the significance of this issue comes from a commentary on Luke published earlier this year (The Gospel Of Luke [New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018]). It was written by two New Testament scholars, Amy-Jill Levine, an agnostic, and Ben Witherington, a Christian. In a section written primarily by Levine, we read:
The verse [Acts 2:30] follows from 2 Sam 7.12, where God promises David, "When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom." That is, David's heir is to be David's biological descendant. Ben notes that Jesus, as Joseph's adopted child, has all the rights and responsibilities as any child he might have conceived; Amy-Jill notes the lack of sources to justify this claim and finds, instead, what appears to be a Christian adjustment to the original promise to David (36)
She takes Luke 1:36 as evidence that Mary is, at least in Luke's account, "from a priestly family" (36-37) and apparently not a descendant of David.
I've discussed potential Christian responses to Levine's argument in the past, such as here. The evidence for Mary's Davidic ancestry is better than you'd think from reading Levine's comments, for example. But what I'm focused on here is the fact that an appeal to something like adoption by Joseph or Mary's Davidic ancestry isn't necessary. Levine, like other critics who raise this kind of objection, seems to be assuming a mechanism for the virgin birth that she hasn't argued for. Why think there's no biological relationship between Joseph and Jesus under a virgin birth scenario?
And there's no need for only one of the proposed Christian answers to this objection to be correct. I think all three of the answers I've referred to in this post are likely to be true. An adoptive relationship with Joseph would be sufficient to make Jesus a descendant of David in the relevant sense, Mary probably was a descendant of David as well, and the transference of material from Joseph to Mary seems to be the best candidate for the mechanism God used to bring about the virgin birth.
Is there any evidence that Mary was of Davidic descent? Also, I have never thought that biological material could have been transferred from Joseph to Mary supernaturally. Did the Jews question Jesus' Davidic descent in the first and second centuries?
ReplyDeleteBlake,
DeleteThere's widespread patristic support for Mary's Davidic ancestry from the early second century onward (Raymond Brown, et al., edd., Mary In The New Testament [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978], 260-261 and notes; Thomas Scheck, Origen: Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, Books 1-5 [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Of America Press, 2001], n. 108 on 72). Celsus, who consulted at least one Jewish source when writing against Christianity in the second century, attributes to Christians the view that Mary was of Davidic descent (in Origen, Against Celsus, 2:32).
Neither Jesus' Davidic descent nor Mary's seems to have been disputed to any significant extent in the earliest generations. Craig Keener writes, "non-Christian Jewish polemicists never bothered to try to refute it (Jeremias 1969: 291)…B. Sanh. 43a, bar., may preserve a [non-Christian Jewish] tradition that Jesus was of royal lineage (unless it suggests connections with the Herodian or Roman rulers, or that he was about to take control of the people; both views are unlikely)." (A Commentary On The Gospel Of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999], 75, n. 9 on 75)
Who thought it was a good idea to publish a commentary half written by an agnostic? And why would Witherington take part in it?
ReplyDeleteLisa,
DeleteI've only read about 75 pages of the commentary, but there are a lot of problems with it so far. Levine is supposed to be primarily responsible for the odd-numbered chapters in Luke, whereas Witherington is supposed to be primarily responsible for the even-numbered ones. I expected a bigger improvement than there actually is when the commentary moves from Luke 1 to Luke 2. Instead, in a section that Witherington is supposed to be primarily responsible for, we get material like this:
"As John Meier, states, 'Attempts to reconcile Luke 2.1 with the facts of ancient history are hopelessly contrived.'…Isaiah's original message [in Isaiah 9:6] was about the son of the Davidic king currently on the throne; Christian readers took his comment as a prophecy concerning a future king to be born centuries later." (54, 60)
Some parts of the commentary are better than that, and Witherington makes some good points (so does Levine at times), but there's a large amount of bad content along with the good. Levine is Jewish and has been active in feminist circles, and there are many references to Jewish/Christian relations, gender issues, and such. It's often hard to tell how much the wording of a particular part of the commentary should be attributed to one author and how much it should be attributed to the other. There's far too much unevenness, ambiguity, and incompleteness resulting from brevity and unsettled disagreements. The commentary comes across to me as an ill-conceived experiment that went poorly.
//An adoptive relationship with Joseph would be sufficient to make Jesus a descendant of David in the relevant sense//
ReplyDeleteI usually ask them what the pertinent rules for inheritance are in case of a virgin birth. They have none.
Steve Hays,
ReplyDeleteRom 1:3 tells us, "...concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,..." --not according to adoption or to the laws of men, but according to His flesh. Therefore, either Mary was a descendant of David, or it you are correct that Joseph's DNA must have been supernaturally transferred. But consider that such a transfer is antithetical to the idea of a virgin conception. Contrary to the Catholics, there is no virtue in a married woman remaining a virgin. There is a view you've not considered here, that of traducianism--and specifically, the idea that the soul of the child is propagated from the soul of the physical father. See Gen. 5:3; Rom. 5:12; Heb. 7:9-10. You can find a thorough argument here:
https://kenhamrick.com/2014/10/11/origin-of-the-soul-a-defense-of-paternal-traducianism/
i) The post was written by Jason Engwer, not me.
Deleteii) But as far as that goes, I'm a traducian. However, I wouldn't say a child's soul is the product of the father, but both parents.
The basic argument for traducianism is that family resemblance extends to character traits as well as physical traits. But that's something kids share in common with both parents, not just the father. Indeed, some kids are a throwback to a grandparent–physically, psychologically, or both.
DeleteKen Hamrick wrote:
Delete"Therefore, either Mary was a descendant of David, or it you are correct that Joseph's DNA must have been supernaturally transferred."
We don't have to choose one scenario. Both of the scenarios you refer to above could have occurred, and I suspect that both did.
You go on to write:
"But consider that such a transfer is antithetical to the idea of a virgin conception. Contrary to the Catholics, there is no virtue in a married woman remaining a virgin."
You haven't demonstrated that "such a transfer is antithetical to the idea of a virgin conception". And I don't believe the virgin birth was used by God because there's "virtue in a married woman remaining a virgin".
I don't see how traducianism has any bearing on Jason's post since the question at issue isn't the origin of Christ's soul but his body.
DeleteJason Engwer,
DeleteYou said: “You haven't demonstrated that "such a transfer is antithetical to the idea of a virgin conception.”
If nothing else, the virgin conception signified the conceiving of a child without the contribution of a father.
Ken Hamrick
Delete"If nothing else, the virgin conception signified the conceiving of a child without the contribution of a father."
However, that doesn't mean there was no actual "contribution" at all, right? Otherwise we'd only have Mary's egg. After all, even on the traditional view, the sperm came from somewhere (i.e. God creating sperm ex nihilo). Hence the question is from where?
EoD,
DeleteThe traditional view is that His human nature was derived from Mary. We don’t know that God even used a sperm cell. He’s quite capable of incarnating His Son without it, and His ways may be past finding out. He may have given Jesus the whole of His mother’s DNA and simply changed the sex chromosome.
Ken Hamrick
Delete"The traditional view is that His human nature was derived from Mary. We don’t know that God even used a sperm cell. He’s quite capable of incarnating His Son without it, and His ways may be past finding out. He may have given Jesus the whole of His mother’s DNA and simply changed the sex chromosome."
I'm sorry to say this sounds scientifically amateurish at best:
1. A mother's DNA only includes XX sexual chromosomes. So you're saying Jesus was a female (or asexual) at conception, but God changed his DNA at some point after conception to make him male? Depending on when this occurred, that could have serious ramifications, even teratogenic ramifications.
One can't "simply" change "the sex chromosome" as if that has no effects elsewhere.
2. In fact, it sounds like you're saying Jesus was a carbon copy of Mary herself, whom God changed to be male. If so, then Jesus would be a male version of Mary.
I agree with you, however, there's mystery around how the Holy Spirit conceived Jesus. That's why a lot of this is speculative.
Delete"A mother's DNA only includes XX sexual chromosomes."
DeleteThat should just be one X.
Of course, sperm can be X or Y.
EoD,
DeleteMy point was that God is not constrained by science. He could have created the zygote from out of Mary's substance without using any gametes, and of course, He would have ensured all the genetic i's were dotted and t's were crossed. Scripture does not tell us anything about the method or mode, except, "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit." All the Reformed creeds & confessions speak in terms of sin being passed through "natural propagation." There is a necessity for the messiah's propagation to be supernatural. And while Jason's theory seems to entail a supernatural uniting of sperm & egg, it is in all other ways just as natural a propagation as anyone else's. It reduces the cause of transmission of sin in all other cases to merely the lack of divine help in uniting sperm and egg. But, really, every child is conceived by the will of God and no egg & sperm are united without His involvement and power. Where, then, is the big difference?
Ken Hamrick
Delete"My point was that God is not constrained by science."
Sure, but my point is our speculations should still be constrained by some degree of logic and reason. It can't be all mumbo jumbo and hocus pocus.
"He could have created the zygote from out of Mary's substance without using any gametes"
Normally a zygote is made from a sperm and an egg, but you're saying the zygote could've been made out of Mary's "substance" (which is itself vague) "without any gametes" (i.e. no sperm or egg)? Mary must have some amazing "substance" if God can take her "substance" and craft Jesus' physical body out of Mary's "substance"!
EoD,
DeleteThat's funny! It would be an amazing God and not an amazing substance out which He crafts anything.
Welp, I guess if the substance doesn't matter so much, then God could have used any part of Mary to craft Jesus' physical body! Maybe God used Mary's rib. Maybe God used Mary's tears a la Catholicism. And so on. :)
DeleteOf course, you do know that every cell contains the entire DNA sequence...
DeleteKen Hamrick
Delete"Of course, you do know that every cell contains the entire DNA sequence..."
Actually that's false. For example, take anucleated cells like mature red blood cells. Mature RBCs don't contain DNA.
And that's an insurmountable obstacle to God's creative power? If not, then what's your point?
Delete1. I'm simply responding to you on your own grounds.
Delete2. You have to have at least some logic or reason to your speculations.
Ken Hamrick wrote:
Delete"If nothing else, the virgin conception signified the conceiving of a child without the contribution of a father."
The reason for the "virgin" qualifier is that the contribution being excluded is sexual intercourse. It doesn't follow that other factors, such as the use of a Y chromosome, need to be excluded as well.
And Joseph didn't even know about his contribution until after God initiated it and carried it out. It's not as though Joseph took the initiative or carried it out in a way analogous to how a husband would decide to have a child and go about conceiving the child through sexual intercourse.
You go on:
"Scripture does not tell us anything about the method or mode, except, 'that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.'"
No, scripture also gives us other information, such as in its comments on the relationship between David and the Messiah. And there are other issues involved, like the ones I mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
You write:
"And while Jason's theory seems to entail a supernatural uniting of sperm & egg, it is in all other ways just as natural a propagation as anyone else's."
No, there are other aspects of the conception that make it different than a normal conception under my view (the initiative taken by God in bringing about the conception, the involvement of Jesus' Divine nature, etc.). But why would there need to be other distinctions between my view and a normal conception? There wouldn't.
You write:
"It reduces the cause of transmission of sin in all other cases to merely the lack of divine help in uniting sperm and egg. But, really, every child is conceived by the will of God and no egg & sperm are united without His involvement and power. Where, then, is the big difference?"
Even if you were correct, so what? You would have to argue that there's a need for a "big difference" in the way you're referring to.
But you're not correct. The mechanism of the virgin birth doesn't tell us "the cause of transmission of sin in all other cases". And the way in which God is involved in a normal conception and the way in which he was involved in Jesus' conception are significantly different under my view, regardless of whether you consider the difference "big". You need to produce an argument that the difference has to be big in the sense you have in mind.
I have wondered about this before, but any info I found was always predicated on an anti-supernatural reading of the Virgin Birth. I wonder if Matt 3:9 is on point, i.e., whether Jesus were "reckoned" as Joseph's natural son by divine command with no recourse to any sexual or genetic intervention.
ReplyDeleteJust a thought.
//welshmann
welshmann,
DeleteThere's some merit to that sort of view, but it seems less likely than the alternative I've proposed. One of the factors we should take into account when deciding which view is more likely is what the relevant Biblical passages tell us about the relationship between David and the Messiah. Given all of the references to the Messiah coming from David's body, the genealogies, references to Joseph being "of the descendants of David" (Luke 1:27), Jesus being raised up "in the house of David" (Luke 1:69), Joseph being from the "family of David" (Luke 2:4), etc., I think the transfer view I've referred to makes more sense of the evidence than the kind of view you've referred to does. We're looking for the optimal balance between what we're told about the virgin birth and what we're told about Davidic ancestry. The view you've referred to and the transfer view are both consistent with the virgin birth and involve some sort of Davidic ancestry, but the transfer view is more consistent with the language of passages like the ones I've cited above and is more consistent with what happened with the line of David leading up to Jesus. It has other advantages as well, such as honoring Joseph and being more consistent with a traditional Jewish view of marriage and parenting. It seems to be better if Joseph's wife is pregnant with a child who came from his body and if he's raising a child who physically came from him rather than one who came from another source.
Personally, I'm still mulling over the options, but if I can make my (probably bumbling) defense of Jason's transfer view:
ReplyDelete1. Given Jesus is male (XY), God presumably used Mary's ovum to supply the X chromosome, but where did Jesus' Y chromosome come from? It couldn't have come from Mary's ovum alone. Isn't the standard view that the Holy Spirit created ex nihilo the sperm (spermatozoon) that would supply Jesus' human nature with a Y chromosome?
By contrast, if I understand him correctly, Jason is simply arguing God took Joseph's sperm and used it to supply Jesus' human nature with a Y chromosome.
2. If so, then is God creating sperm ex nihilo or God using Joseph's sperm the more reasonable position in light of Scripture, philosophical theology, and medical science? Related, Jason's transfer view doesn't necessarily have to stand on its own two feet (though, ideally, perhaps it should). It "just" has to be better than the primary alternative.
3. Both views require God's miraculous intervention so it seems to me they're on more or less equal footing as far as that's concerned.
4. It seems to me it might be possible to argue the Holy Spirit miraculously creating human sperm ex nihilo that's indistinguishable from human sperm may not necessarily, in fact, be human sperm. I realize that might sound illogical, but what I mean is this. Imagine future humans and future medical technology could create synthetic human sperm (sHS) that's indistinguishable from human sperm (HS). Imagine a future where most the human population is created by HS but one human by sHS. Would the sHS created human be human or would he be "like" humans but not in fact human? In other words, is being indistinguishable necessarily being identical?
I don't know the answer, but if the answer is he would only be "like" or "akin to" humans, then that would seem to count against the traditional ex nihilo view and be a point in favor of Jason's transfer view in which the sperm would be identical human sperm.
In addition, if this is so, then it has the problem that Jesus' human nature may not necessarily be identical to our human nature, with all the relevant ramifications.
Granted, a glaring hole in all this is it assumes God created human sperm wouldn't be identical or actual human sperm, but perhaps it would be.
5. Also, it takes me out of my comfort zone, but in theory it seems to me the virginal conception isn't strictly speaking necesssary. At least I don't see an issue with Jesus having been born with parents like everyone else but still be God Incarnate, the Second Person of the Trintiy, the Son of God, all in line with biblical orthodoxy.
6. In any case, it seems to me Jason's transfer view is a view that stands in between two worlds, as it were. The transfer view is doubtless miraculous, of God, but there's also the natural or human element involved. Not unlike the Son of God himself.
Anyway, I might be sorely mistaken in what I've said. I'm just thinking through these things myself.
Epistle,
DeleteOn (4), I see no reason why God's creating the sperm ex nihilo would suggest the sperm is anything other than genuine, natural, top-of-the-line sperm.
Thanks, Danny. :) That's fair. (Just so I don't sound like a total heretic, I did suggest at the end of #4 that God could have created identical sperm, of course.)
DeleteHardly in the realm of heresy, Epistle ( :) ), but, I fear, speculation for speculation's sake. If I were Mary, I'd be welcoming the ex nihilo stuff (as if God's creating units of mass/energy ex nihilo would be 'synthetic' :) ), just like if Jesus were creating my red wine I'd be swerving my usual preference for Australian red wine and reaching for Jesus' finest (Jn. 2:10).
DeleteLol, Danny. :) To be fair, I think the ex nihilo view is quite plausible. I was just trying (in my own pathetic way) defend Jason's transfer view too.
DeleteDon't get me wrong, while I'm unconvinced, I find Jason's view both interesting and plausible; however, we needn't deny the ex nihilo view on the grounds that it is inherently problematic or incoherent in order to affirm the transference view. I see nothing inherently problematic or incoherent with the ex nihilo view.
DeleteThat's cool. I guess for me I see pros and cons to both views. Or at least I think I do, but maybe I'm mistaken.
DeleteGod did not create Adam from any sperm or egg, and was he not a genuine human being?
Delete"God did not create Adam from any sperm or egg, and was he not a genuine human being?"
DeleteSo you're suggesting Jesus was created like Adam?
"God did not create Adam from any sperm or egg, and was he not a genuine human being?"
DeleteOn a more serious note, we know God directly created Adam from the dust and we know Jesus came from Mary's womb, thanks to the Holy Spirit's miraculous conception. That's a key difference. Hence our speculations about Jesus' conception involve what happened in Mary's womb. That's not the case for Adam.
I am failing to see the problem of a "divinely synthetic sperm". Isn't DNA just information? If "AGTAGGCTA" is Joseph's DNA marker, and the "divinely synthetic sperm" is identical to what could come from Joseph, then what is the big deal? The DSS is identical to Joseph's sperm in its DNA makeup, which is all that would seem to distinguish Adam's sperm from some different sperm. It seems to me all that is needed is the transfer of information. Of course God could supernaturally take Joseph's sperm, but I don't see why that is required. Either way it seems to me that Mary is still a virgin at conception and hence the birth would be miraculous. There wasn't any artificial insemination in first century Palestine (as far as i know.)
DeleteHi Blake,
DeleteI think my argument depended mainly on the distinction between indistinguishable vs. identical. That is, just because something is indistinguishable doesn't necessarily mean it's identical.
I think it's arguable there's something more than only information that's passed on in our DNA. DNA is like a blueprint or computer code or information, but I wouldn't say that's all it is.
Of course, this could be a bad argument. I'm not entirely convinced of it myself. But anyway there it is.
Blake,
Delete1. A problem, as Epistle notes, would be that a 'synthetic sperm' would bring into question Jesus' 'fully human' nature.
2. A 'divinely synthetic sperm' is still synthetic and it raises the further question of Why? Why would God create ex nihilo a synthetic sperm when He is perfectly capable of creating ex nihilo genuine, natural, first-rate sperm? If it is suggested that God could not create ex nihilo genuine human sperm then I'd like to see the argument.
3. On (2), if God's ability to create ex nihilo genuine human sperm is in question then why does a 'divinely synthetic sperm' get a swerve? To produce a synthetic sperm by definition would involve the manipulation of a starting/pre-existing material, i.e., genuine human sperm, and if the genuine material is readily available to God then, well, He can create genuine human sperm after all and this is all rather a moot point :), which brings me back to my point about this whole thought experiment being entirely unnecessary.
4. It is Mary's conception that is miraculous. After conception nature takes its course in terms of the pregnancy and birth. If by a miraculous birth you simply mean the conception alone produced a birth that would otherwise never have happened then I understand; I'm not trying to be pedantic at all.
5. Again, I'm not trying to be pedantic but I fail to see the relevance of stating there was no artificial insemination in first century Palestine. To my knowledge the first medical procedure of AS occured in the mid to late 1800s. But of course, the kack of such a medical procedure doesn't prevent God from artifically inseminating Mary.
If I have misread you then I apologise; I'm quite busy and so I am responding to this on the hop.
Possibly “synthetic” was a poor choice of words. I agree with the idea of God creating Joseph’s mojo ex nihilo. I think Joseph’s genetical material could even be “transported”. This is seen in various paranormal phenomena where items in houses teleport or materialize on other places.
DeleteDanny,
DeleteNothing pedantic, I enjoy the back and forth, I got off Facebook, and I’m going to camp out here and on my blog. :)
Blake,
DeleteI'm currently in the Facebook gulags. I have to say, I hardly miss it at all. Never thought I'd hear myself say *that*! :)
My apologies to Steve & Jason for confusing one for the other.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteMore than character traits, traducianism is about the transmission of sin (and the just inheritance of its consequences) due to a corporate participation in Adam’s sin. Rom. 5:12-21 tells us it was through one man and by the one sin of that one man that sin entered the world and all were made sinners—not through one man and one woman. Like Levi who was in the loins of Abraham, but not in Sarah, when Melchizedek met him, we were in the loins of Adam when he sinned. We all were begotten of sinful fathers, so we all were born needing a new Father, and as adopted sons, He sends the spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba-Father!”
i) Federal headship doesn't require genetic lineage. Immediate rather than mediate imputation will suffice.
Deleteii) The statement in Hebrews is a figure of speech.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThat's a concise statement of your position, but not everyone agrees. W.G.T. Shedd & A.H. Strong, for examples. Federal Headship, in its current Nominalistic form, is a product of the 18th century. Until then, the Reformed church was "under the sway of a realistic mode of thinking," as George P. Fisher described it. Adam's sin was not ours merely because God imputed it but rather, God imputed it to us because it was already ours (by our participation in it, our moral nature having been naturally propagated from Adam). Federal headship devoid of the substance that realism provides is only a shell of truth. It is justice that requires this genetic linkage, and Scripture supports it. Gratuitous salvation is grace, but gratuitous condemnation is injustice. And nearly every leader to whom the evangelical and Reformed church reveres from as early as Augustine until the 1700's has acknowledged that federal headship alone is insufficient without the adamic union that attends natural propagation. Even John Murray, who was against realism, taught that it was a mistake to think that Adamic imputation could happen without the genetic lineage.
Respectfully,
Ken Hamrick
A slight qualification is in order. Prior to the existence of "federal headship," it was forensic imputation alone that was seen as insufficient without the adamic union that attends natural propagation. But since the Augustinian realism was completely eroded from federal headship in the 18th century, we have been left with a federal headship that consists only in a forensic imputation.
Deletei) Shedd and Strong are second-rate theologians.
Deleteii) You're trying to amalgamate two divergent paradigms. If realism is true, then imputation is superfluous; if imputation is true, then realism is superfluous.
The very notion of imputation implies something extrinsic.
iii) Realism proves too much or too little. If realism is true, why is only Adam's first sin imputed to his posterity rather than all his sins? Likewise, if genetic lineage is the principle, then when am I not responsible for the sins of my father, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, &c.? Realism lacks a limiting principle.
iv) Rom 5 is counterproductive to your thesis. In Reformed theology there's a threefold imputation: the demerit of Adam's first sin imputed to humanity; the demerit of the elect's sin imputed to Christ; the merit of Christ's atonement imputed to the elect. But there's no consistent principle based on heredity. So it must be something else.
v) Realism fails to solve the problem it poses for itself. If the problem is the perceived injustice of original sin/immediate imputation, appealing to realism/mediate imputation doesn't solve that problem because critics think it's a travesty of justice to be punished for what a lineal forebear did.
Steve,
DeleteThank you for the reply. Before I reply further, I must ask you if you have anything to share regarding the following from my previous comment: "And nearly every leader to whom the evangelical and Reformed church reveres from as early as Augustine until the 1700's has acknowledged that federal headship alone is insufficient without the adamic union that attends natural propagation. Even John Murray, who was against realism, taught that it was a mistake to think that Adamic imputation could happen without the genetic lineage."
An illicit argument from authority.
DeleteThat's a characteristic ploy by which people try to leverage a weak argument.
DeleteAnother characteristic ploy "by which people try to leverage a weak argument" is to ignore and dismiss any great theologians of the past with whom they do not agree. It's easier to dismiss out of hand an opposing argument than to substantively engage it. I did not cite Shedd & Strong as if to say that you ought to concede merely on the weight of their authority. Rather, you ought to give more consideration to the position than the terse judgment, "Federal headship doesn't require genetic lineage." It is in the interest of weak arguments NOT to consider all the significant positions in their best light. It's easy to call Realistic theologians "second-rate;" but not so easy to engage them.
ReplyDeleteii) What you call an amalgamated position is what the churches of the Reformation held until the 18th century, being very slow to abandon the Augustinian principle of the participation in Adam's sin that follows from a real presence in and propagation out of Adam's nature. Even after adopting Federal Headship, they still maintained a realistic view of participation in and propagation from Adam, which was the ground of the Federal imputation. In these first two points, I've done nothing that any good theologian would not do.
Imputation does NOT necessarily imply something extrinsic. To "impute" is to account something, 1. as it actually is; and 2. as it is not. Does God not impute sin to unbelievers? He imputes their own sins to them, just as He imputed Christ's righteousness to Him, prior to imputing it to us.
iii) The most common objection to realism is that, “If the realistic view is correct, then why was only Adam’s first sin imputed to the race and not his subsequent sins?” The question fails to comprehend the finality and ruin that took place at the fall. What makes the first sin different from subsequent sins is not some change in representative capacity, but merely and simply the fall itself—changing both mankind and the world from unfallen and holy to corrupt and condemned. If Adam’s second sin had been imputed to us, would we be doubly condemned?—doubly depraved?—doubly mortal? No subsequent sins bring about the changes that only the first could cause. Looking to the Adam-Christ analogy, would you want to restrict the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to only His final act of obedience? Is not His every act of righteousness imputed to us? Just as Christ’s final act stood as the sum of the righteousness of His life, Adam’s every subsequent sin was encompassed in his first. “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—”
iv} The consistent principle is not specifically heredity, but rather, it is the principle of an identifying spiritual union (whether union of spiritual origin or the union between Christ and the believer through the Holy Spirit's indwelling). Given that all men were propagated from Adam in both body and spirit, then if Adam had gone to hell prior to begetting any children, ALL of humanity would have went to hell in him and with him (and deservedly so). The moral agency of all men was in Adam, chose to sin, and was propagated to us with that responsibility inhering. Thus, we're justly born spiritually dead and alienated from God. Adam's spirit has been propagated to the many, and sin, death, and condemnation multiplied with it.
ReplyDeleteThe new race, propagated from the Last Adam, operates on the same principle, but inversely so. While one man's sin resulted in condemnation to the many, the many are justified through union with the One, Christ. Adam's seed were united with him in his sin and then multiplied to the many; while Christ's seed are gathered and brought into union with Him, the many becoming one with Him who obeyed. Just as our union with Adam when he sinned made us sinners and brought us spiritual death, union with Christ now makes us righteous and brings us spiritual life. His spirit in us, united with us to make us one new man in Him, gives us a new identity in Him. All that He did is now counted as ours as if we did it, and His inheritance is now ours.
This application of Realism to the Adam-Christ parallel is where my view departs from traditional realism, which in my estimation, failed to develop this parallel.
v) First, Reformed theology is mistaken to view the imputation of Adam's sin to the race as an imputation condemning individual persons. Each person will stand before the Judgment Seat and answer for his own deeds, and not for the deeds of the race (see Ps. 62:12; Prov.24:12; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 20:12-13). We were not PERSONALLY present in Adam, but we were corporately (or "seminally,") present. In other words, it was not our persons that were condemned, but our nature that was held corporately responsible. What that means is that God is not unjust to condemn any man merely for the sins of our forefather, Adam; but neither is God unjust in holding us responsible AS A RACE, in the form of all those natural consequences that fall to us, such as mortality & death, spiritual death, pain, toil, and every misery of this fallen world. This is demonstrated in the fact that even after we are saved and brought to spiritual life, every other consequence remains on us. Christ died for us, but yet, we must still die. It is because we remain a part of a race that bears those consequences, until that Last Day.
ReplyDeleteWhile our union with Adam ended with the conception of Seth, by which we were propagated out of Adam and no longer "in his loins," our union with Christ will never end. And while Adam's spirit is propagated to us, his person is not; but we do gain the Person of Christ when we gain His Spirit in us. We were not present in Christ when He walked this earth in righteousness and died on the cross, but the Christ who is in us now is the same Christ who did these things. So now, it can be rightly said, "I am crucified with Christ...," and, "we are seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."
DeleteI'll address these points tomorrow or next week, but some preliminary observations: You need to scale back your overweening egotism, as you presume to school me on the history of this debate. I'm actually quite well-read on the topic.
DeleteBy the same token, I don't owe Ken Hamrick a detailed response. You're like the village atheist who repeats all the stock objections to Christianity, then expects a Christian apologist to start from scratch, going over the same ground each time a new atheist confronts him.
Life is short and I pick my sparring partners. Just because you're spoiling for a fight doesn't mean I'm obligated to cater to your demands. I have my own priorities. Your agenda isn't my agenda. You have no claim on my time. I don't owe you anything.
I'm sorry I gave you the impression that you owe me anything, or that I was presuming to "school" you on the history. I thought you might have known about it; but the fact is that most do not and many others are commenting and reading here. I just wanted to present my argument in its best light, which includes a mention of the history.
ReplyDeleteWhether you decide to continue or not, I commend you for permitting me the opportunity to address your view here. Many others would have simply deleted my comments. And my time is also limited, so it doesn't matter to me whether you address these points or not. I'm at peace either way.
Respectfully,
Ken Hamrick