The Significance of Jesus’ Humanity and Virgin Birth

If Jesus were not fully human and fully God, and if He were not virgin born, then we would not be able to go to heaven. Here’s why.

We are separated from God due to sin, because God is holy and we are sinful. Because we have sinned, God, being just, must be a just judge and condemn sinners. However, because God is also loving, he has provided a way for us to be saved: Jesus paid our price for us……Jesus died for us, so that we don’t have to.

If Jesus were not fully human, He could not have died for humans; He could not have paid the penalty for humans. If He were not fully God, He could not have been a mediary, for a mediary must have an interest in both sides. Further, without being fully God, Jesus could not have been sinless.

The virgin birth is also significant. The bible teaches that humans inherit sin from our parents, the sin nature that originated with Adam and continues all the way to us. If Jesus were not virgin born, He would not be God, but merely human, and would have inherited a sin nature.

So both the virgin birth and Jesus being born as a human baby were absolutely essential for us to go to heaven. Those who deny these central doctrines of the faith are outside of Christianity.

About these ads

About humblesmith

Christian Apologist & Philosopher
This entry was posted in Bible. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The Significance of Jesus’ Humanity and Virgin Birth

  1. Jay says:

    The bible teaches that humans inherit sin from our parents, the sin nature that originated with Adam and continues all the way to us. If Jesus were not virgin born, He would not be God, but merely human, and would have inherited a sin nature.

    You say the bible teaches humans inherit sin from their parents. By the logic you are using, why wouldn’t Jesus have inherited sin from Mary? Or do you mean sin only passes through the father?

  2. humblesmith says:

    The Roman Catholic Church wrestled with this, and due to this question plus an elevated view of Mary, they decided Mary must have also not been born in sin, and thus developed the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary. This answer is not acceptable because it has no scriptural support and because it merely pushes the problem back a generation (what about Mary’s parents?). Nor was it due to a lack of an act of sex, for there’s nothing immoral about sex per se. Rather, a better answer is that the birth was miraculous, having been conceived by God in the womb of Mary. Without a normal set of parents, and due to the perfect holiness of the Father, Jesus was born as both fully human and fully God, yet without sin. He had the capacity to sin, but did not sin, and did not have a corrupted sin nature as we do. So the lack of a sin nature in Jesus is due to the lack of two human parents and the holiness of God. Part of it cannot be explained fully, since we’re dealing with an issue of God, who is not fully understood by humans.

  3. Jay says:

    I am with you (logically speaking) up to this point:
    So the lack of a sin nature in Jesus is due to the lack of two human parents and the holiness of God.

    I see the biblical author as saying that something miraculous happened, and the virgin birth of Jesus attests to the supernatural nature of his birth. I do not see a logical construct of one (virgin birth) leading to the other (sinless nature), without the additional of something extra-textual, such as you note in the RCC view.

    Which makes me to think you have not adequately supported the claim you make in the last paragraph of your post:
    So both the virgin birth and Jesus being born as a human baby were absolutely essential for us to go to heaven. Those who deny these central doctrines of the faith are outside of Christianity.

  4. humblesmith says:

    The main doctrinal point is not the method of which the humanity interacts with the deity. This we will never know fully, for we are finite and God is infinite.

    Rather, the main doctrinal point of the virgin birth is that Jesus was not a regular sinful human on which God fell. If Jesus would have had two regular human parents, he would have inherited a sin nature, per Romans 5. Further, he would have been under what theologians call the federal headship of Adam, thus subject to the penalty of death, and could not have been sinless before God. But because of the virgin birth, Jesus was not subject to the penalty we inherited through Adam, then he could therefore be the payment for us. Denying the virgin birth puts Jesus as a regular human who inherited a sin nature and thus subject to death, and takes away the payment for sin.

    The other extreme is to deny Jesus humanity, saying he is pure spirit who only appeared to be a man. This is equally heretical. Only by being both fully God and fully man could Jesus be a mediator, therefore being generated by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin is required for being both fully God and fully man.

    The exact mechanism for how the virgin birth happened, how the sin nature is passed on, or in Jesus case not passed on, is not essential doctrine. But the church has always held that Jesus did not inherit original sin due to the virgin birth, which is essential to Christian belief.

  5. Jay says:

    You said, regarding the RCC view of the immaculate conception:
    This answer is not acceptable because it has no scriptural support…

    also:
    …the church has always held that Jesus did not inherit original sin due to the virgin birth, which is essential to Christian belief….

    What scriptural support is there for that assertion? Could the miracles of the virgin birth and of Jesus’ sinless nature be independent of each other? Does the bible say that they are connected?

    It seems your assertion may be based on speculative inference and on church tradition. If that is the case, where is the support for your statement that belief in the virgin birth is a necessary component of Christian belief?

  6. humblesmith says:

    Romans 5:12 says “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” This verse and Romans 5:16-17 teach that sin entered through one man, Adam, and thus spread to all men, resulting in all men sinning. It says sin entered through Adam, which means it was passed on through Adam. Romans 5:15 says “many died through one man’s tresspass.” v. 17 says “For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man…” This is referred to as original sin. Pelagius denied that men inherited original sin, so he was declared a heretic and excommunicated from Christianity in 418. Romans 5 is sufficient scriptural support that says all men inherit sin and death from Adam, but further biblical support is Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.”

    Some theologians are very literal and teach that the term “man” in Romans 5:12 means that sin is inherited through the male. I do not find this to be a strong case, but if one is very literal, this verse can be used to teach this view.

    What is a strong case is in Luke 1:35 when it speaks of the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary, and Jesus being called the “holy one.” Due to the biblical support above, no one born in original sin (through Adam) can be called holy, for they are sinners. (Further support is Rev. 15:4) Thus Jesus was born sinless according to Luke 1:35. Thus Jesus did not inherit sin according to Luke 1:35. Denying the sinlessness of Jesus is also a heresy.

    Thus the Bible teaches that humans inherit sin from their parents, as shown in Romans 5. Since Jesus was born holy, he did not inherit sin from his parents. The only possible reason for this is the virgin birth, which is what the church has held for 2000 years. Those who denied it, such as Pelagius and some Gnostics like Cerinthius, were excommunicated as heretics. If you need more support, I refer you to any lengthy systematic theology, such as Hodge, Shedd, Geisler, or Chafer.

    Since I already showed this with the earlier reference to Romans 5, and no theological support has been given to refute it, and because all denials of it are heresy, I’m stopping comments on this. It’s been shown sufficiently enough. Anything further is but round and round.

Comments are closed.