Sin and the Human Nature of Christ

[John Bauer]

I remain unconvinced either way.

That’s all right, for I wasn’t trying to convince you in the first place. You are asking questions about my view, trying to understand it, and I am happily answering those questions. What you do with those answers is up to you.

That God sees our 'defect' forensically does not preclude that God can take righteous offense, (which we might consider a clinical judgement), at the defect. (Here I'm thinking in terms of the Romans 9 "vessel marred in his hands"). The thought here is something along the lines of the command not implying the ability to obey.

It sounds like you’re saying that even if our sinful condition is understood forensically (legal status before God) that doesn’t mean God is declaring a legal fiction, for we truly are (in reality) corrupt sinners. Both are true: God can both judge us legally and view our condition as genuinely defective or disordered in itself, in a way that rightly provokes his holy revulsion and righteous judgment. “Along the lines of the command not implying the ability to obey,” as you said, here the command exposes the defect.

The question is: Why are we defective or disordered? This is what your view has not yet worked out. My view draws from Reformed theology in asserting that our sinful corruption is the product of our sinful condition, all of which is tied to that covenant rupture and alienation in Adam.

It sounds like you don’t have a clear account of the origin, transmission, or structure of that defect or disorder—which is fine, of course. There are probably bigger fish to fry. It’s just weird that your position would be preferable to mine, which does have a clear account.

I consider the notion of it not being merely genetic but a genome (?) inhabited or controlled or otherwise describable by "you are of your father the devil."

Wait, you think Jesus was speaking in biological terms? “This would be a stretch,” indeed. I would suggest that Jesus is using “father” as a Second Temple idiomatic expression (e.g., sons of Belial, bĕnê beliyyaʿal) to emphasize the archetypal source of the pattern they are enacting. To have someone as “father” in this sense is to share his moral likeness, to act according to his will, to participate in his purposes—and it was quite opposed to God, Jesus said. The devil is the spiritual usurper whom fallen humanity operates under and serves (e.g., Eph 2:2).

 

[John Bauer]

The divine decree is always linked with covenant. It is a part of it. And maybe that is the position you are coming from when you say Adam's sin and guilt are transmitted by our covenantal solidarity with him. If so, then I agree. I simply say the same thing with “because God said so.” To me, then, covenant is the reason, but not the conduit.

How so? What God decreed was that Adam would be the federal head of all mankind, and that Adam would sin. As Adam goes, so go all his progeny—and not in a biological sense, but as being humans like Adam and, yes, because his covenant headship.

Decree, covenant, and headship

Yes, that is the position I am coming from (“sin and guilt are transmitted by our covenantal solidarity with Adam”).

If I am hearing you correctly, you explicitly affirm that (a) God’s decree is always linked to covenant, not apart from it, (b) Adam’s sin and guilt apply to humanity because God decreed Adam to be the federal head, and (c) covenant is therefore the reason, but not the “conduit,” for Adam’s sin counting for others.

So, when you say “because God said so,” you don’t mean a naked, arbitrary decree detached from structure. What you mean, I think, is

• “God decreed a covenantal arrangement in which Adam would represent humanity.”

At this point, you are much closer to my position than your earlier language suggested. I think the only place we disagree is that “conduit” bit. I think covenant is both the reason and conduit for the transmission of our status and liability before God—not a physical conduit, of course, but a juridical one—for God deals with us corporately in covenant. As you put it, “As Adam goes, so go we all.”

“Being human” as shorthand, not mechanism

When you said that sin is transmitted “by being human,” you meant that as elliptical language, a compressed way of saying, essentially, “Being human means a postlapsarian humanity existing under Adam’s covenant headship.” In other words, “being human” was not meant to replace covenant; rather, it presupposes it without spelling it out. You may not have been articulating the means with precision, but for you the Pauline logic was already present implicitly in what you meant. So, you do affirm mediated, representative causality (even if you “never used the ‘covenant transmission’ argument or thought of it in exactly that way”).

You’re right, this just might be “a matter of the difference between male and female concept processing.”

“In Adam” and “in Christ”

Here, we enjoy explicit agreement. These are covenantal categories, they are outcomes of a decree (but not merely outcomes in a reductive sense), and Adam’s headship is real, representative, and explanatory.

Covenant headship vs. male headship

That just leaves one small issue, namely, the relationship between structural male headship and covenantal federal headship, which strike me as two distinctly different categories—and it seems like the former is starting to carry explanatory weight that Scripture assigns to the latter. I agree that Scripture teaches male headship in the family and in the church, and I also agree that Adam’s headship is not defined in biological terms. But I can’t see how structural male headship can do the work of explaining original sin or Christ’s sinlessness without sliding into a different category altogether.

Male headship seems to describe authority, order, and responsibility, but it does not explain imputed status (sinner) and liability (guilt)—whereas federal headship does. If Adam’s headship were simply an extension or intensification of male headship, then we would expect to see guilt transmitted through ordinary paternal authority. But Scripture explicitly denies that. A man’s headship over his wife or children does not make them guilty of his sin (cf. Deut 24:16; Ezek 18:20; Jer 31:29-30). These texts tell me that guilt is not transmitted by structural male headship. Adam’s headship is unique precisely because it is covenantal and federal, not merely structural.

Put simply, I don’t see how fatherhood as a creational structure can bear the weight that Scripture places on Adam’s unique, covenantal role, especially when Christ’s sinlessness is already fully accounted for by his not being “in Adam” covenantally, rather than by the absence of a human father as such.

That’s the tension I’m trying to get my hands on, to see whether the appeal to male headship is actually doing the work needed, or whether it’s unintentionally displacing the covenantal logic that Paul emphasizes in his major epistles—for whom covenantal federal headship is not a background assumption; he places it at the center of his explanation for why Adam’s transgression counts for others.

In any case, I appreciate you staying in the conversation and clarifying. This has helped me see your position more clearly, even where I still want to sharpen the categories a bit.

 

[Arial]

If I am hearing you correctly, you explicitly affirm that (a) God’s decree is always linked to covenant, not apart from it, (b) Adam’s sin and guilt apply to humanity because God decreed Adam to be the federal head, and (c) covenant is therefore the reason, but not the “conduit,” for Adam’s sin counting for others.

Yes, but I could waffle on the covenant not being the conduit as I am coming to understand the wording of your position better. It could be the "conduit". The problem I am having and that I think many have in understanding another's "words" is that when a word is used, everyone has their own "picture" of relating to that word. When I hear "conduit" I see pipes connected to direct water flow. And also, unfortunately, something K. Copeland said about faith using that same word. Of course, he has a misconception of the biblical meaning of faith--and used conduit for faith as the way God has to do whatever we ask.

So, I think we are actually seeing the same thing, if not saying the same thing exactly, and I still think there is an element of sin being passed to (another expression that can causes confusion because it immediately conjures biology/genetic) progeny by the father. I will deal with that more when I come to it in your post.

So, when you say “because God said so,” you don’t mean a naked, arbitrary decree detached from structure. What you mean, I think, is

• “God decreed a covenantal arrangement in which Adam would represent humanity.”

Yes.

At this point, you are much closer to my position than your earlier language suggested. I think the only place we disagree is that “conduit” bit. I think covenant is both the reason and conduit for the transmission of our status and liability before God—not a physical conduit, of course, but a juridical one—for God deals with us corporately in covenant. As you put it, “As Adam goes, so go we all.”

I agree. "Judicial" makes all the difference in the world, and maybe I will someday I will learn to articulate more precisely, but I tend to "see" things as a conceptual whole, without bothering or in some cases, knowing how, to hit all the crucial points. Example in everyday life: When my ex (now deceased)and I had a crane business in the Coachella Valley in California (Palm Springs area) the bulk of the business was setting beams, rafters, and air conditioners of a booming and blooming desert. We had to upgrade our equipment to handle it all, to a longer boom (telescopic) to handle the weight and load capacity and in tight spaces, and a different truck. He was debating getting a twin screw, I didn't know what that was, but we always discussed and evaluated these things together. Two heads better than one. I had him explain a twin screw to me and its advantages for our situation. I understood him perfectly. I could "see" it conceptually. Exactly how it worked. But could I articulate that? Not on your life!

When you said that sin is transmitted “by being human,” you meant that as elliptical language, a compressed way of saying, essentially, “Being human means a postlapsarian humanity existing under Adam’s covenant headship.” In other words, “being human” was not meant to replace covenant; rather, it presupposes it without spelling it out. You may not have been articulating the means with precision, but for you the Pauline logic was already present implicitly in what you meant. So, you do affirm mediated, representative causality (even if you “never used the ‘covenant transmission’ argument or thought of it in exactly that way”).

Yep. It was perfectly clear in my head. Couldn't you read my mind?

That just leaves one small issue, namely, the relationship between structural male headship and covenantal federal headship, which strike me as two distinctly different categories—and it seems like the former is starting to carry explanatory weight that Scripture assigns to the latter.

Not in my head John! LOL. They are two different categories. But the way I see it, the male headship over family and church is covenant, but not federal headship covenant over humanity as Adam is. It unfolds out of that federal headship as creative order. It isn't the federal headship of Adam in and of itself but created order headship that remains consistent with the federal headship but distinct from it. Because Adam---the male--is covenant federal head of all humanity, and the male is the covenant head over church and family, it seems to me that the maleness of Joseph would be in play as to its absence in the conception of Jesus. That absence is striking and made much of in Christ's birth and his sinlessness.

However, I am perfectly accepting that I may be wrong and that I look at it that way because I always have. Long before I ever heard of Reformed or Covenant theology, or even knew of the Covenant of Redemption, let alone of Adam as covenant federal head of humanity. And to be honest, did not know how we inherited a nature to sin, and may for a time have subconsciously been thinking that the connection must be biological and was passed by the male. So, some of that old way of processing may still be in place---minus the biology.

Put simply, I don’t see how fatherhood as a creational structure can bear the weight that Scripture places on Adam’s unique, covenantal role, especially when Christ’s sinlessness is already fully accounted for by his not being “in Adam” covenantally, rather than by the absence of a human father as such.

But isn't the reason he is not "in Adam" because he did not have a human father? "In Adam", even though it is a spiritual condition also means Adam was our father and that is a biological fact. Hmmm. OK, I am starting to see it. "In Adam is mistakenly taken to mean "of natural birth". Christ was not "in Adam" because that refers to a covenant head, not exclusively to a "biological" man. Did I get it?

If so, I concede, and relinquish my position.

 

[John Bauer]

But isn't the reason he is not "in Adam" because he did not have a human father? "In Adam", even though it is a spiritual condition also means Adam was our father and that is a biological fact. Hmmm. OK, I am starting to see it. "In Adam is mistakenly taken to mean "of natural birth". Christ was not "in Adam" because that refers to a covenant, not exclusively to a "biological" man. Did I get it?

If so, I concede, and relinquish my position.

Correct, you've got it now. "In Adam” is not shorthand for “born via ordinary procreation.” It is shorthand for covenantal solidarity with Adam as federal head. Ordinary human birth coincides with that reality, but it doesn’t define it.

I'll respond more tonight after work. tomorrow night after work. I got back too late tonight.

 

[makesends]

The question is: Why are we defective or disordered? This is what your view has not yet worked out. My view draws from Reformed theology in asserting that our sinful corruption is the product of our sinful condition, all of which is tied to that covenant rupture and alienation in Adam.

I tend to consider the sinful corruption and sinful condition, (unless I'm misunderstanding you, here), as one and the same thing. I don't consider that it being tied to that covenant rupture and alienation in Adam must be separated from physical transmission father-to-children. The whole person is corrupted.

(Lol, that last, "The whole person is corrupted.", would by some be considered a necessary contradiction to the suggestion that the sin nature could only be transferred by the male of the species!)

It sounds like you don’t have a clear account of the origin, transmission, or structure of that defect or disorder—which is fine, of course. There are probably bigger fish to fry. It’s just weird that your position would be preferable to mine, which does have a clear account.

You are a much more concrete thinker than I am. I don't mean concrete as opposed to abstract, but you seem —at least more than I do—to want a conclusion to a line of thinking. Also, it seems to me, you tend to think in single, nice clean lines, avoiding overlap. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. Just that I don't think that way as much as you do. Besides, I easily recognize that you are far more educated, more driven and more logical than I am. As you indicated, I don't have a clear account of the origin, transmission or structure of that defect or disorder—I don't need one, nor do I even yet accept the notion that "defect" and "disorder" are suitable words for use in our discussion, even though I'm the one that introduced that. I'm just "thinking out loud". The roadblocks I'm seeing against drawing this notion to a conclusion are not clear to me.

Wait, you think Jesus was speaking in biological terms? “This would be a stretch,” indeed. I would suggest that Jesus is using “father” as a Second Temple idiomatic expression (e.g., sons of Belial, bĕnê beliyyaʿal) to emphasize the archetypal source of the pattern they are enacting. To have someone as “father” in this sense is to share his moral likeness, to act according to his will, to participate in his purposes—and it was quite opposed to God, Jesus said. The devil is the spiritual usurper whom fallen humanity operates under and serves (e.g., Eph 2:2).

Why not both? But, to me it is a stretch because it is mere dot-connecting, missing quite a few dots. I still think it could be true, and if so that it would have a rather poetic 'full-circle' feel to it. (Which of course, proves nothing).

It’s just weird that your position would be preferable to mine, which does have a clear account.

In this particular forum, I'm trying to present notions not necessarily NEEDING correction or affirmation, but to hear them bounced off of logic and scripture. And I'm getting that in spades. Thank you. The thing is, as soon as I see something said that sounds logical, it (usually) only sounds to me logical to some degree, and I'm thinking, "—but..." pretty much every time. Lol, and that is only when I actually follow your reasoning. The 'position' you say is mine, is only mine for the purposes of this discussion. I don't hold it as true. I want to hear why it cannot be true. It is not even nearly a belief, as some other things that I am convinced of that are not Orthodoxy.

 

[makesends]

Correct, you've got it now. "In Adam” is not shorthand for “born via ordinary procreation.” It is shorthand for covenantal solidarity with Adam as federal head. Ordinary human birth coincides with that reality, but it doesn’t define it.

I'll respond more tonight after work.

But, that it coincides with it and doesn't define it, doesn't preclude it from paralleling, or producing it. Or is that, "producing it", what you mean by, "defining it"?

 

[John Bauer]

The way I see it, the male headship over family and church is covenant, but not federal headship covenant over humanity as Adam is. It unfolds out of that federal headship as creative order. It isn't the federal headship of Adam in and of itself but created order headship that remains consistent with the federal headship but distinct from it. Because Adam—the male—is covenant federal head of all humanity, and the male is the covenant head over church and family, it seems to me that the maleness of Joseph would be in play as to its absence in the conception of Jesus. That absence is striking and made much of in Christ's birth and his sinlessness.

However, I am perfectly accepting that I may be wrong and that I look at it that way because I just always have—long before I ever heard of Reformed or covenant theology, or even knew of the covenant of redemption, let alone of Adam as covenant federal head of humanity. And to be honest, did not know how we inherited a nature to sin, and may for a time have subconsciously been thinking that the connection must be biological and was passed by the male. So, some of that old way of processing may still be in place—minus the biology.

Male headship is structural and governs order in human relations (authority and responsibility), not standing before God. A husband is head of his wife, and a father is head of his family, but his sins are never imputed as guilt to those under his authority. Scripture is explicit about that. Ordinary male headship therefore does not carry forensic weight. It orders life; it does not determine standing before God.

Federal headship is covenantal and governs human standing before God (condemnation and justification), not order in human relations. Adam is not just a leader or authority figure; he is a public representative under a covenant, whose single act is reckoned to others. Thus, condemnation comes through one man’s trespass. That kind of representation does not occur in male headship (husbands over wives, fathers over children).

They are parallel, not derivative. Male headship operates under federal headship; it does not unfold out of it. Husbands and fathers are stewards, not mini-federal heads. If male headship “unfolds out of” federal headship, we would expect guilt to flow through ordinary paternal authority—and it doesn’t.

How this applies to Jesus Christ and the virgin birth (or Joseph not fathering him) becomes clear when we understand that sinfulness or sinlessness is not a question of authority structure, but rather of forensic standing before God. Nothing about ordinary fatherhood, whether headship or genealogy, can account for forensic standing. That category simply does not carry imputation. Jesus was sinless not because Joseph didn’t father him but because Adam’s federal headship did not include him (irrespective of ordinary paternal generation). And Adam’s headship did not include him because Christ was already himself a federal head under a prior and eternal covenant—the pactum salutis.

As I have argued, the necessity of the virgin birth is about kingship, not sinlessness. Given the Jeconiah curse (Jer 22:24-30), Jesus could not be the biological son of Joseph and lawfully inherit David’s throne because Joseph stands in the Solomonic line. Matthew’s genealogy traces his legal right to the throne through Solomon (via Joseph’s adoptive fatherhood), while Luke’s genealogy traces his genealogical descent from David through Nathan (via Mary and the virgin birth).

 

[Arial]

Male headship is structural and governs order in human relations (authority and responsibility), not standing before God. A husband is head of his wife, and a father is head of his family, but his sins are never imputed as guilt to those under his authority. Scripture is explicit about that. Ordinary male headship therefore does not carry forensic weight. It orders life; it does not determine standing before God.

I know you are not accusing me of having said or of believing that male headship is anything other than what you state above. Though you may have understood my words as saying such. It is a headship but not the same type of headship as Adam's federal headship. Nevertheless, my connection was the structure of headship as the reason Jesus could not have an earthly father. My view of "transmission" of sin by the father was by fiat. God said it would be. Frankly, I had the tools to see it otherwise--the Scriptures and the brain---but did not know they needed to be used differently.

So, the above by you serves a purpose despite the fact that I was not looking at the male headship as his sins imputing guilt. And I see now that that is what it would be and how it can be a different way. Not nature but covenant federal head as the "in Adam". The scales fell off my eyes.

As I have argued, the necessity of the virgin birth is about kingship, not sinlessness. Given the Jeconiah curse (Jer 22:24-30), Jesus could not be the biological son of Joseph and lawfully inherit David’s throne because Joseph stands in the Solomonic line. Matthew’s genealogy traces his legal right to the throne through Solomon (via Joseph’s adoptive fatherhood), while Luke’s genealogy traces his genealogical descent from David through Nathan (via Mary and the virgin birth).

It is rather obscure, almost as though it were hidden. To modern man anyway though it probably was obvious to Jewish readers at the time of the writings. Are you aware of the ECF's or the Reformation era writers presenting the view you have presented? I don't like to just follow or even consider that what any one person says, such as you in these posts, has just put forth such a convincing argument that I was swayed. But I do understand what you are saying, however what I was thinking before made sense to me at the time also. The thing that would make me question your position is if it was unique to you. I certainly have never come across it in any of my reading.

 

[JesusFan]

Agreed. The sinful nature itself is not imputed. What is reckoned to all those in Adam is status (sinner) and liability (guilt)

Corruption, although not imputed, follows from that covenant rupture and alienation, the loss of covenantal communion with God that resulted from Adam’s breach. Once humanity is cut off from God—the source of life and righteousness—moral corruption necessarily ensues. Both guilt and corruption are distinct but inseparable consequences of the same covenantal transgression.

Jesus had to born via the Virgin Birth in order to avoid being tagged with our sin nature

Yes, but I could waffle on the covenant not being the conduit as I am coming to understand the wording of your position better. It could be the "conduit". The problem I am having and that I think many have in understanding another's "words" is that when a word is used, everyone has their own "picture" of relating to that word. When I hear "conduit" I see pipes connected to direct water flow. And also, unfortunately, something K. Copeland said about faith using that same word. Of course, he has a misconception of the biblical meaning of faith--and used conduit for faith as the way God has to do whatever we ask.

So, I think we are actually seeing the same thing, if not saying the same thing exactly, and I still think there is an element of sin being passed to (another expression that can causes confusion because it immediately conjures biology/genetic) progeny by the father. I will deal with that more when I come to it in your post.

Yes.

I agree. "Judicial" makes all the difference in the world, and maybe I will someday I will learn to articulate more precisely, but I tend to "see" things as a conceptual whole, without bothering or in some cases, knowing how, to hit all the crucial points. Example in everyday life: When my ex (now deceased)and I had a crane business in the Coachella Valley in California (Palm Springs area) the bulk of the business was setting beams, rafters, and air conditioners of a booming and blooming desert. We had to upgrade our equipment to handle it all, to a longer boom (telescopic) to handle the weight and load capacity and in tight spaces, and a different truck. He was debating getting a twin screw, I didn't know what that was, but we always discussed and evaluated these things together. Two heads better than one. I had him explain a twin screw to me and its advantages for our situation. I understood him perfectly. I could "see" it conceptually. Exactly how it worked. But could I articulate that? Not on your life!

Yep. It was perfectly clear in my head. Couldn't you read my mind?

Not in my head John! LOL. They are two different categories. But the way I see it, the male headship over family and church is covenant, but not federal headship covenant over humanity as Adam is. It unfolds out of that federal headship as creative order. It isn't the federal headship of Adam in and of itself but created order headship that remains consistent with the federal headship but distinct from it. Because Adam---the male--is covenant federal head of all humanity, and the male is the covenant head over church and family, it seems to me that the maleness of Joseph would be in play as to its absence in the conception of Jesus. That absence is striking and made much of in Christ's birth and his sinlessness.

However, I am perfectly accepting that I may be wrong and that I look at it that way because I always have. Long before I ever heard of Reformed or Covenant theology, or even knew of the Covenant of Redemption, let alone of Adam as covenant federal head of humanity. And to be honest, did not know how we inherited a nature to sin, and may for a time have subconsciously been thinking that the connection must be biological and was passed by the male. So, some of that old way of processing may still be in place---minus the biology.

But isn't the reason he is not "in Adam" because he did not have a human father? "In Adam", even though it is a spiritual condition also means Adam was our father and that is a biological fact. Hmmm. OK, I am starting to see it. "In Adam is mistakenly taken to mean "of natural birth". Christ was not "in Adam" because that refers to a covenant head, not exclusively to a "biological" man. Did I get it?

If so, I concede, and relinquish my position.

Jesus had to be Virgin Born and conceived in mary by the Holy Spirit to be able to be born not in the Fall of Adam and not conceived with NHis Adamic nature

 

[makesends]

Jesus had to born via the Virgin Birth in order to avoid being tagged with our sin nature

Jesus had to be Virgin Born and conceived in mary by the Holy Spirit to be able to be born not in the Fall of Adam and not conceived with NHis Adamic nature

Why could Jesus not be conceived by the Holy Spirit even if his mother was not a virgin? Her virginity is proof that he was not a direct descendent of Joseph.

 

[John Bauer]

I know you are not accusing me of having said or of believing that male headship is anything other than what you state above. Though you may have understood my words as saying such. It is a headship but not the same type of headship as Adam's federal headship. Nevertheless, my connection was the structure of headship as the reason Jesus could not have an earthly father. My view of "transmission" of sin by the father was by fiat. God said it would be. Frankly, I had the tools to see it otherwise--the Scriptures and the brain---but did not know they needed to be used differently.

So, the above by you serves a purpose despite the fact that I was not looking at the male headship as his sins imputing guilt. And I see now that that is what it would be and how it can be a different way. Not nature but covenant federal head as the "in Adam". The scales fell off my eyes.

I came across an interesting quote on this from John Frame in his Systematic Theology, as I was reading last night. My only intent here is to share something interesting I found:

It is sometimes said that the virgin birth preserves Jesus from the contamination of the sin of Adam. But although Adam’s sin comes upon everyone born of natural generation, it is not proved that inherited sin comes by means of natural generation. To say that it does presupposes a traducianist view of the origin of the soul (see chapter 34). If the soul (i.e., the human life) is entirely an inheritance from the person’s parents, then sin is an inheritance from them as well. But if, as on the creationist view, each human life is a special creation of God, then sin is by a divine imputation to each individual. On a creationist view, then, Jesus can be genuinely the son of Mary, without God’s imputing to him the sin of Adam. On a traducianist view, there evidently had to be a supernatural action of God to exempt Jesus from inherited sin. But that accords with the supernatural character of the whole event. On either a creationist or traducianist account, however, it is God’s decision, not the absence of a human father, that exempted Jesus from inherited sin. Scripture tells us specifically that it was the Spirit’s involvement that made the child to be holy (Luke 1:35). So the doctrine of the virgin birth should not be used to suggest that sin is transmitted through the male lineage rather than one’s female ancestry.

It is rather obscure, almost as though it were hidden. To modern man anyway though it probably was obvious to Jewish readers at the time of the writings. Are you aware of the ECF's or the Reformation era writers presenting the view you have presented? I don't like to just follow or even consider that what any one person says, such as you in these posts, has just put forth such a convincing argument that I was swayed. But I do understand what you are saying, however what I was thinking before made sense to me at the time also. The thing that would make me question your position is if it was unique to you. I certainly have never come across it in any of my reading.

The virgin birth being an answer to the Jeconiah curse? I got it from three sources, two modern and one early church father. That is not to say these are the only sources that discuss this, but only that these are what I have read thus far (as I continue to explore my ideas).

I got my first hint in the Believer’s Bible Commentary, quoting C. H. Dyer (Bible Knowledge Commentary, I:1158) on this passage in Jeremiah:

Had Christ been a physical descendant of Joseph and not virgin-born, he would have been disqualified as Israel’s king. Luke presented the physical line of Christ through Mary, who was descended from David through the line of his son Nathan (Luke 3:31). In that way Christ was not under the “curse” of Jehoiachin.

(Jehoiachin is a variant spelling of Jeconiah, as is Coniah.)

Then there is the Moody Bible Commentary on this same passage, more articulate and more fully:

The long-range significance is seen in the line of the Messiah, the exalted Son of David, because Jesus was not physically related to Coniah/Jechoniah. This prophecy helps explain the genealogies of the Messiah in Mt 1 and Lk 3. Specifically, Matthew recorded the legal line of Messiah through Joseph, his stepfather. Joseph was a descendant of David through Shealtiel, who was a son of Jeconiah/Coniah (Mt 1:11-12; cf. 1Ch 3:17). Had Jesus been a physical descendant of Joseph and not virgin-born, He would have been disqualified as Israel’s King based on the prophecy that no man of Coniah’s descendants would … sit on the throne of David. Luke recorded the physical line of Jesus the Messiah through His mother, Mary. She was descended from David through the line of Nathan, son of David (Lk 3:31; 1Ch 14:3-4). Being virgin-born of Mary, Jesus was not under the curse of Coniah, and was qualified to rule on the throne of David. However, since Jesus was a physical descendant of David through Nathan, He was the rightful Son of David.

And there is Iranaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 21:

But besides, if indeed He had been the son of Joseph, He could not, according to Jeremiah, be either king or heir. For Joseph is shown to be the son of Joachim and Jechoniah, as also Matthew sets forth in his pedigree (Matt 1:12-16). But Jechoniah, and all his posterity, were disinherited from the kingdom; Jeremiah thus declaring, As I live, says the Lord, if Jechoniah the son of Joachim king of Judah had been made the signet of my right hand, I would pluck him thence, and deliver him into the hand of those seeking your life (Jer 22:24-25). And again: Jechoniah is dishonoured as a useless vessel, for he has been cast into a land which he knew not. Earth, hear the word of the Lord: Write this man a disinherited person; for none of his seed, sitting on the throne of David, shall prosper, or be a prince in Judah (Jer 22:28) And again, God speaks of Joachim his father: Therefore thus says the Lord concerning Joachim his father, king of Judea, There shall be from him none sitting upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the heat of day, and in the frost of night. And I will look upon him, and upon his sons, and will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, upon the land of Judah, all the evils that I have pronounced against them (Jer 36:30-31). Those, therefore, who say that He was begotten of Joseph, and that they have hope in Him, do cause themselves to be disinherited from the kingdom, failing under the curse and rebuke directed against Jechoniah and his seed. Because for this reason have these things been spoken concerning Jechoniah, the [Holy] Spirit foreknowing the doctrines of the evil teachers; that they may learn that from his seed — that is, from Joseph — He was not to be born but that, according to the promise of God, from David's belly the King eternal is raised up, who sums up all things in Himself, and has gathered into Himself the ancient formation [of man].

For as by one man's disobedience sin entered, and death obtained [a place] through sin; so also by the obedience of one man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify in those persons who in times past were dead. Romans 5:19 And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil (for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground Genesis 2:5), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for all things were made by Him, John 1:3 and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin. If, then, the first Adam had a man for his father, and was born of human seed, it were reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin. Why, then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so that the formation should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation called into being, nor any other which should [require to] be saved, but that the very same formation should be summed up [in Christ as had existed in Adam], the analogy having been preserved.

It is very likely that I am going to continue amassing references to this fascinating angle for my notes as I continue digging.

 

[Arial]

The virgin birth being an answer to the Jeconiah curse?

I wasn't asking specifically/only about that, though I had not heard that either. I did do a ChatGPT (so I could ask it questions) look at it when you first mentioned it and can agree whole heartedly that there is nothing in it that would contradict or confuse Scripture and does lay the foundation for the transmission of sin in humanity is by Covenant headship. Which is what I was specifically asking about when I asked if it was a unique to you view or was it a common teaching in Reformed theology or ECF's and I just hadn't come across it. And I hope you know I meant nothing against you when I asked. I am just careful. And which you answered in your quote from Frame.

The reason given for the virgin birth are obscure though. At least to the new believer who usually does not start reading the Bible On the first page (although I did because I woke up that glorious morning knowing every word in the Bible was true and I set out to find what those words were) but in the Gospels ( which I did too simultaneously with the OT reading). And even in all the multiple read through of the Bible, I had never seen (nor heard anywhere else) of the Jeconiah curse connection to Jesus' genealogy. I just can't retain all those strange names. And in the books I studied on Reformed theology when I left my former A'ist/Charismatic beginnings, I have not come across it as it was not the subject of that material. I thought I knew all I needed to know in that regard as it, on the surface, makes sense---the male being the transmitter of sin and the reason why Jesus had to be born of a virgin. After all, it is a human father that is omitted.

But a question. Is the Holy Spirit as his Father necessary for his deity, and a human mother necessary for his humanity? IOW he has the nature of his Father (deity) and the nature of his mother (human). Two natures that can exist in one person but that can never be mixed as they are incompatible.

 

[JesusFan]

Why could Jesus not be conceived by the Holy Spirit even if his mother was not a virgin? Her virginity is proof that he was not a direct descendent of Joseph.

I take the Virgin birth as meaning was not conceived via normal sexual relationship

 

[JesusFan]

I wasn't asking specifically/only about that, though I had not heard that either. I did do a ChatGPT (so I could ask question) look at it when you first mentioned it and can agree whole heartedly that there is nothing in it that would contradict or confuse Scripture and does lay the foundation for the transmission of sin in humanity is by Covenant headship. Which is what I was specifically asking about when I asked if it was a unique to you view or was it a common teaching in Reformed theology or ECF's and I just hadn't come across it. And I hope you know I meant nothing against you when I asked. I am just careful. And which you answered in your quote from Frame.

The reason given for the virgin birth are obscure though. At least to the new believer who usually does not start reading the Bible On the first page (although I did because I woke up that glorious morning knowing every word in the Bible was true and I set out to find what those words were) but in the Gospels ( which I did too simultaneously with the OT reading). And even in all the multiple read through of the Bible, I had never seen (nor heard) of the Jeconiah curse connection to Jesus' genealogy. I just can't retain all those strange names. And in the books I studied on Reformed theology when I left my former A'ist/Charismatic beginnings, I have not come across it as it was not the subject of that material. I thought I knew all I needed to know in that regard as it, on the surface, makes sense---the male being the transmitter of sin and the reason why Jesus had to be born of a virgin. After all, it is a human father that is omitted.

But a question. Is the Holy Spirit as his Father necessary for his deity, and a human mother necessary for his humanity? IOW he has the nature of his Father (deity) and the nature of his mother (human). Two natures that can exist in one person but that can never be mixed as they are incompatible.

He came down from heaven as full Deity, and when placed into womb of Mary he then also assumed human flesh of a sinless nature also

 

[John Bauer]

And I hope you know I meant nothing against you when I asked.

No offense was taken in any way. You are being cautious. That’s a good thing. And it was a question I would have asked if I were in your shoes. So, no worries. At all.

And [my question was answered] in your quote from Frame.

Awesome.

In all the multiple read-throughs of the Bible I had never seen (nor heard anywhere else of) the Jeconiah curse connection to Jesus’s genealogy.

To be candid, I had never heard of it before either. I stumbled across that information somewhat recently when I was trying to reconcile the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. I have heard a variety of arguments trying to make sense of their differences but none of them ever satisfied me, and I usually don’t stop until I land on something coherent, solid, and consistent. When I learned about the Jeconiah curse, everything clicked into place—and well beyond just the genealogy question. It also answered why the virgin birth was important. (It’s weird that we call it the virgin birth. It was the conception that was virginal.) Now I can answer Donald Spoto, who wrote the 1998 book The Hidden Jesus: A New Life and pondered what possible significance the virgin conception could have (pp. 25-27). Despite being a Roman Catholic, he could not take the virgin conception literally.

Never mind. That matters to me, not you. That book was impactful on my journey from atheism to Christianity, as was On Being a Christian (1974) by that other unorthodox Roman Catholic, Hans Küng. (One of my favorite quotes from Küng: “[The Christian believes] not in the Bible, but in him whom it attests … not in tradition, but in him whom it transmits … not in the Church, but in him whom it proclaims.”)

A question: Is the Holy Spirit as his Father necessary for his deity, and a human mother necessary for his humanity? In other words, he has the nature of his Father (deity) and the nature of his mother (human). Two natures that can exist in one person but that can never be mixed as they are incompatible.

That is not a question I have contemplated, so I don’t have a ready answer for that.

However, that framing raises a serious theological concern for me. The Holy Spirit as necessary for the Son’s deity? Christ’s divine nature is not caused by the Spirit the way human nature is caused by parents. In fact, that is an inversion of classical trinitarian order. The Father is unbegotten, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son, if you accept the filioque).

The difficulty I see is that, if we press that model, it seems to entail one of three things: (a) that the Son’s divinity is contingent, (b) that the Spirit is ontologically prior to the Son, or (c) that the Spirit mediates the Son’s being. None of these would sit comfortably for a Christian—especially you, I am sure, as perspicacious as you are. The pre-incarnate Son was already fully divine, a divinity that didn’t change one iota with the incarnation.

What the Holy Spirit did, I would argue, is conceive the human nature of Christ in the womb of Mary, which the Son assumed into union with himself, his person. The Spirit is the agent of the Son’s incarnation, not the source of his deity.

The right way to say it, then, is not that Christ gets one nature from the Holy Spirit and another from Mary, but that the divine Son assumes a human nature by the Spirit from Mary, two natures that remain distinct and unmixed.

 

[makesends]

Arial said:
A question: Is the Holy Spirit as his Father necessary for his deity, and a human mother necessary for his humanity? In other words, he has the nature of his Father (deity) and the nature of his mother (human). Two natures that can exist in one person but that can never be mixed as they are incompatible.

Is the Holy Spirit as the source of the 'seed' --I would say necessarily, yes. But that is an instinctive reaction, as it may suggest an indication of the form of relationship between the persons of the Trinity, their unity, their intercommunication.

I'm not saying well what comes to mind, as usual. But to think of him being conceived by other means seems to me to not fit that unity of the Godhead.


John Bauer said:
That is not a question I have contemplated, so I don’t have a ready answer for that.

However, that framing raises a serious theological concern for me. The Holy Spirit as necessary for the Son’s deity? Christ’s divine nature is not caused by the Spirit the way human nature is caused by parents. In fact, that is an inversion of classical trinitarian order. The Father is unbegotten, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son, if you accept the filioque).



The difficulty I see is that, if we press that model, it seems to entail one of three things: (a) that the Son’s divinity is contingent, (b) that the Spirit is ontologically prior to the Son, or (c) that the Spirit mediates the Son’s being. None of these would sit comfortably for a Christian—especially you, I am sure, as perspicacious as you are. The pre-incarnate Son was already fully divine, a divinity that didn’t change one iota with the incarnation.

What the Holy Spirit did, I would argue, is conceive the human nature of Christ in the womb of Mary, which the Son assumed into union with himself, his person. The Spirit is the agent of the Son’s incarnation, not the source of his deity.

The right way to say it, then, is not that Christ gets one nature from the Holy Spirit and another from Mary, but that the divine Son assumes a human nature by the Spirit from Mary, two natures that remain distinct and unmixed.

I don't see any of those problems you point out. They seem to me dependent on the notion that his deity was formed by the Spirit if the Spirit was necessarily the, shall we say, 'seed planter'. I don't see that at all. There is no human component to his deity, in that sense. But I see no problem with the Spirit of God, who is God, being the means by which God the Son became man. To me, that, if anything, buttons up the Trinity --come full circle, so to speak. His deity did not begin small and grow. One might indeed suppose that the Spirit was the father of his humanity, but not of his deity. But the means by which the body of his humanity WAS also* of deity, came to pass* by that action by God.

*Speculation, here. I'm not even saying this makes total sense to me, but the reasons you seem to discard the notion expressed by @Arial seem to assume unnecessary facts. I don't think what she said implies that the Spirit is the source of his deity.​

And, like I said to Arial, the 'interplay' between the three persons, the intimate being of one with the other---(we of necessity call them three persons, but of more evidence is the terminology, "one", by which they are referenced in Scripture. I don't see that diminished at all by Arial's framing.

 

[JesusFan]

Arial said:
A question: Is the Holy Spirit as his Father necessary for his deity, and a human mother necessary for his humanity? In other words, he has the nature of his Father (deity) and the nature of his mother (human). Two natures that can exist in one person but that can never be mixed as they are incompatible.

Is the Holy Spirit as the source of the 'seed' --I would say necessarily, yes. But that is an instinctive reaction, as it may suggest an indication of the form of relationship between the persons of the Trinity, their unity, their intercommunication.

I'm not saying well what comes to mind, as usual. But to think of him being conceived by other means seems to me to not fit that unity of the Godhead.


John Bauer said:
That is not a question I have contemplated, so I don’t have a ready answer for that.

However, that framing raises a serious theological concern for me. The Holy Spirit as necessary for the Son’s deity? Christ’s divine nature is not caused by the Spirit the way human nature is caused by parents. In fact, that is an inversion of classical trinitarian order. The Father is unbegotten, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son, if you accept the filioque).



The difficulty I see is that, if we press that model, it seems to entail one of three things: (a) that the Son’s divinity is contingent, (b) that the Spirit is ontologically prior to the Son, or (c) that the Spirit mediates the Son’s being. None of these would sit comfortably for a Christian—especially you, I am sure, as perspicacious as you are. The pre-incarnate Son was already fully divine, a divinity that didn’t change one iota with the incarnation.

What the Holy Spirit did, I would argue, is conceive the human nature of Christ in the womb of Mary, which the Son assumed into union with himself, his person. The Spirit is the agent of the Son’s incarnation, not the source of his deity.

The right way to say it, then, is not that Christ gets one nature from the Holy Spirit and another from Mary, but that the divine Son assumes a human nature by the Spirit from Mary, two natures that remain distinct and unmixed.

I don't see any of those problems you point out. They seem to me dependent on the notion that his deity was formed by the Spirit if the Spirit was necessarily the, shall we say, 'seed planter'. I don't see that at all. There is no human component to his deity, in that sense. But I see no problem with the Spirit of God, who is God, being the means by which God the Son became man. To me, that, if anything, buttons up the Trinity --come full circle, so to speak. His deity did not begin small and grow. One might indeed suppose that the Spirit was the father of his humanity, but not of his deity. But the means by which the body of his humanity WAS also* of deity, came to pass* by that action by God.

*Speculation, here. I'm not even saying this makes total sense to me, but the reasons you seem to discard the notion expressed by @Arial seem to assume unnecessary facts. I don't think what she said implies that the Spirit is the source of his deity.​

And, like I said to Arial, the 'interplay' between the three persons, the intimate being of one with the other---(we of necessity call them three persons, but of more evidence is the terminology, "one", by which they are referenced in Scripture. I don't see that diminished at all by Arial's framing.

The Incarnation of God becoming human flesh just might be the biggest miracle in the Bible, for if you can accept that truth by faith , all other miracles make perfect sense

 

[makesends]

The Incarnation of God becoming human flesh just might be the biggest miracle in the Bible, for if you can accept that truth by faith , all other miracles make perfect sense

I'm not following; why did you say this? I understand it as a stand-alone statement, but I don't follow your inserting it here.

 

[Arial]

I have heard a variety of arguments trying to make sense of their differences but none of them ever satisfied me, and I usually don’t stop until I land on something coherent, solid, and consistent

Same here to a degree. The main one was simply that Joseph wasn't his father, and he was in David's line through Mary. Being a son of David being the necessary criteria. And that is true. Since I didn't know any better, I rested there as to the two genealogies.

The one that makes me laugh came from a Unitarian. He used the Mary's line to connect Jesus to David and the said the Holy Spirit somehow miraculously created Jesus in Mary's womb. Making him a created creature. For some reason, every time he wrote that, which was often, I couldn't get this image out of my head of a white ethereal something performing hocus pocus gestures over Mary and walla! embryo! Magic.

However, that framing raises a serious theological concern for me. The Holy Spirit as necessary for the Son’s deity? Christ’s divine nature is not caused by the Spirit the way human nature is caused by parents. In fact, that is an inversion of classical trinitarian order. The Father is unbegotten, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son, if you accept the filioque).

The framing certainly could at least cause theological confusion. Christ's divine nature is not caused by the Spirit in the same way as our nature is caused by our parents. It is not caused at all.

The difficulty I see is that, if we press that model, it seems to entail one of three things: (a) that the Son’s divinity is contingent, (b) that the Spirit is ontologically prior to the Son, or (c) that the Spirit mediates the Son’s being. None of these would sit comfortably for a Christian—especially you, I am sure, as perspicacious as you are. The pre-incarnate Son was already fully divine, a divinity that didn’t change one iota with the incarnation.

Unbalanced and poor theological understanding of God and pressing the model beyond sound theology might. I can see that and I can see a lot of people doing that, unfortunately, though those who would, probably wouldn't give it enough thought to get that far. I agree that the Holy Spirit did not make Jesus divine, but the fact that the Spirit is in the place of a natural father announces his divine nature. Having had the above pointed out, I would agree that to simply word it as Jesus gets his divine nature from the Father and his human nature from his mother, probably shouldn't be left there without expounding. It leaves it too much in horizontal terms.

So, is Mary as is mother for the sake of a human nature? Or only for the sake of the throne of David? Does his human nature come from Mary? Or is it about covenant promises being made and fulfilled?

What the Holy Spirit did, I would argue, is conceive the human nature of Christ in the womb of Mary, which the Son assumed into union with himself, his person. The Spirit is the agent of the Son’s incarnation, not the source of his deity.

The right way to say it, then, is not that Christ gets one nature from the Holy Spirit and another from Mary, but that the divine Son assumes a human nature by the Spirit from Mary, two natures that remain distinct and unmixed.

I agree. Well said for someone who started out by saying he didn't have a ready answer because he had never thought about that particular question.

 

[Arial]

*Speculation, here. I'm not even saying this makes total sense to me, but the reasons you seem to discard the notion expressed by @Arial seem to assume unnecessary facts. I don't think what she said implies that the Spirit is the source of his deity.
And, like I said to Arial, the 'interplay' between the three persons, the intimate being of one with the other---(we of necessity call them three persons, but of more evidence is the terminology, "one", by which they are referenced in Scripture. I don't see that diminished at all by Arial's framing.

He wasn't discarding my notion---he was thinking through it, is the way I see it. He wasn't implying that I believe or was saying that the Spirit is the source of his deity either, or I never took it that way. In fact, he said the ideas he presented that could be formed from by wording (framing) would be untenable to me. I absorb it as a reminder to self to be more precise about how I say things. One day hopefully, I will. I love thinking but consider the typing a bit of drudgery (like paperwork, details, details, details) and skip over finding all the necessary clarifying words. A bit selfish in a way since I know what I mean, how come "you" don't know what I mean?" I know exactly what I mean, I can see it like a picture, and my mind goes---"How do I say all that?" and "Why do I have to." like a spoiled child.