# Mary and the Incarnation



## Antipas_14 (Jan 23, 2016)

Hi everyone!

I've been searching for the an answer to this question for quite some time, and after reading some of Mark Jones' new book "Knowing Christ" I really wanted to see what the differing views on the following were, and possibly if anyone is aware of any books that would specifically address this.

My question is regarding Mary's role in the incarnation. I grew up Roman Catholic, and converted to Orthodox Presbyterian about a year and a half ago. I love constantly learning and questioning my beliefs, because the more I do, the more truth I find to savor. Anyway, The question might sound odd, but I believe it is rooted in the fact that I grew up with a misunderstanding of the doctrine of Mary from Roman Catholicism.

So here's the question, when Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35) how are we to understand how the Holy Spirit used Mary to do so? Did Mary provide anything from a reproductive perspective? I understand that Christ was fully human so my initial thought was that He must have used some part of Mary in order that Jesus be fully human. But then I remembered Adam was created from dust (Gen 2:7), and he was considered fully human. But then when I contrast that idea with 'the seed of the woman' found in Genesis 3:15, it leads me to question that as well. So I keep going back and forth, whether or not she is a mother how we view mothers, or solely a bearer of God (theotokos).

Thus, my question is, when Christ was conceived, how are we to properly understand how conception worked? Did God use Mary as the God-bearer only or as something more? What was truly meant by Mother of God, or Mother of my Lord (Luke 1:43).

I really appreciate the help on this. I plan on purchasing J Gresham Machen's The Virgin Birth of Christ to study this further, but heard it is a pretty tough read. Is there any other resources I could look into? 

Lastly, forgive if this post is utterly elementary. Like I said, I am new to everything and still learning! Thanks!


Luke G


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 23, 2016)

Westminster Confession of Faith 8 Of Christ the Mediator8:2 The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man’s nature,1 with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin:2 being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, *of her substance*.3 So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.4 Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.5

3. Lk.1:27,31,35; Gal.4:4.​
Westminster Larger Catechism Q.37Q. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
A. Christ the Son of God became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary, *of her substance*, and born of her, yet without sin.​
Belgic Confession of Faith, Article 18 - The Incarnation of the Son of GodWe confess, therefore, that God has fulfilled the promise He made to the fathers by the mouth of His holy prophets when, at the time appointed by Him, He sent into the world His own only-begotten and eternal son, who took the form of a servant and was born in the likeness of men. He truly assumed a real human nature with all its infirmities, without sin, for He was conceived in the womb of the blessed virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit and not by the act of a man. He not only assumed human nature as to the body, but also a true human soul, in order that He might be a real man. For since the soul was lost as well as the body, it was necessary that He should assume both to save both.
Contrary to the heresy of the Anabaptists, who deny that Christ assumed human flesh of His mother, *we therefore confess that Christ partook of the flesh and blood of the children* (Heb.2:14).He is a fruit of the loins of David (Act.2:30);
born of the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom.1:3; Mt.1:1; Lk.3:31; Mt.21:15);
a fruit of the womb of the virgin Mary (Lk.1:42);
born of woman (Gen.3:15; Gal.4:4);
a branch of David (Jer.23:5; 33:15);
a shoot from the stump of Jesse (Is.11:1);
sprung from the tribe of Judah (Gen.49:10; Heb.7:14);
descended from the Jews according to the flesh (Rom.9:5);
of the seed of Abraham (Gal.3:16), since the Son was concerned with the descendants of Abraham. Therefore He had to be made like His brethren in every respect, yet without sin (Heb2:16-17).​In this way He is in truth our Immanuel, that is, God with us (Is.7:14; Mt.1:23).​
Heidelberg Catechism Q.35Q. What do you confess when you say: He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary?
A. The eternal Son of God, who is and remains true and eternal God,[1] took upon Himself true human nature *from the flesh and blood of the virgin Mary*,[2] through the working of the Holy Spirit.[3] Thus He is also the true seed of David,[4] and like His brothers in every respect,[5] yet without sin.[6]

[2] Mt.1:18-23; Jn.1:14; Gal.4:4; Heb.2:14.​

I hope these references to regular Confessional statements are helpful.


----------



## timfost (Jan 23, 2016)

I've also found this helpful from Ursinus's commentary on Heidelberg 35:



> 2. The Holy Ghost miraculously sanctified that which was conceived and produced in the womb of the Virgin, so that original sin did not attach itself to that which was thus formed; for it did not become the Word, the Son of God, to assume a nature polluted with sin, for the following reasons: 1. That he might be a pure sacrifice ; for it behooved him to make satisfaction for sin. 2. That he might also, by his purity, sanctify others. 3. That we might know that whatever the Son says is truth; for that which is born of flesh, which is sinful, and not sanctified, is flesh, falsehood and vanity.
> 
> Obj. But Christ was born of a mother that was a sinner. Therefore he himself had sin. Ans. The Holy Ghost knows best how to distinguish and separate sin from the nature of man ; for sin is not from the nature of man, but was added to it from the devil.



This may be especially helpful because it speaks to the perfection of Christ's human nature without the absurdity of the doctrine of the immaculate conception.

I would also recommend reading further in the Heidelberg (15-18, 29-52) to explore the benefits of Christ adding to Himself human flesh in relation to His mediatorial work and offices of Prophet, Priest and King.


----------



## Antipas_14 (Jan 23, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Westminster Confession of Faith 8 Of Christ the Mediator8:2 The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man’s nature,1 with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin:2 being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, *of her substance*.3 So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.4 Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.5
> 
> 3. Lk.1:27,31,35; Gal.4:4.​
> Westminster Larger Catechism Q.37Q. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
> ...



Thanks so much for pulling this info together! This is extremely helpful!

The only question I am left with then, and maybe I am missing the point, so forgive me if I am, but the question now is why did God the Father find it necessary to have the humanity of Jesus derived from the humanity of Mary, when He could have done as the Anabaptists say and not assumed the flesh of His mother? I understand that it is because it was prophesied that way, but is there a reason, systematically speaking, (and that may be known) that it must be done this way?

Any insight you might have will be beneficial!


Luke G


----------



## Antipas_14 (Jan 23, 2016)

timfost said:


> I've also found this helpful from Ursinus's commentary on Heidelberg 35:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow, great insight here. That is definitely helpful. I've noticed that coming out of Roman Catholicism seems like a complete paradigm shift from what I thought Christianity is, and this perspective is just that. What I mean by that, is this Ursinus's comments give God the glory in the matter, whereas in Roman Catholicism, it was Mary who was held in high regard.

I also left a follow-up question to the post above yours, if you would happen to have insight on that as well it would be great.

Thanks again so much!


Luke G


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 23, 2016)

It's really not a matter of what God could have done, but what the scriptures revealed that He did: namely to entrust His own Son to be carried in a body of dust, subject to all the dangers of childbirth, and the indignities of being a helpless baby in the arms of a very young mother. Fully God (conceived by the Holy Spirit) and fully man (born of the Virgin Mary).


----------



## timfost (Jan 23, 2016)

Antipas_14 said:


> I also left a follow-up question to the post above yours, if you would happen to have insight on that as well it would be great.



Rev. Buchanan can probably give a much more thorough answer than I can, but I'll take a stab at it.

Heidelberg 16 and 36 are helpful:



> 16. *Why must He be a true and righteous man?*
> 
> Because the justice of God requires that the *same human nature which has sinned* should make satisfaction for sin; but one who is himself a sinner cannot satisfy for others.
> 
> ...



Christ conquered sin in _every_ area that we failed. Our sinful nature begins at conception, so it was necessary that He be born of _fallen_ man in order to be a suitable substitute for fallen man.

Heb. 2:17:



> Therefore, *in all things* He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.



Catholicism actually deprives us of this comfort in the doctrine of the immaculate conception, because it makes Christ _unlike_ His brethren and therefore of a _different_ human nature than our own. What assurance would we have then that His human nature can actually substitute for ours? For example, could Christ have substituted for our original sin if He did not conquer it, being born of sinful mankind (Mary)?

So the gospel promise of Gen. 3:15 was necessary in God's design because it demonstrated that the curse would be undone through the same nature that sinned so that substitution could be made. Because Christ has the same nature as ours, He can stand before God and fallen man and be a suitable Mediator.

Not only is Christ a perfect substitute and Mediator, but also a perfect example for us to emulate, as He endured exactly what we do, yet without sin.

It's incredible!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 24, 2016)

Both other commentators have amply said anything I might have said, just as well.

Here's a quote from Gregory of Nazianzus (A.D. 329-390):

"For that which He has not assumed He has not healed."
_Critique of Apollinarius and Apollinarianism, Epistle 101_

The best of the ancient church is still ours.


----------

