I read some years ago an article that speculated on the sex chromosomes of Jesus, it suggested that because Jesus was not born of a human father that he would not have had a y chromosome so maybe xo,today while reading the memory of this came back,the bible tells us Jesus was fully man and i know the bible is the truth, can anyone clarify or share their thoughts on this, and is it ok to ask about this?
Hi, @chris2. Of course it is okay to ask about this . Many people do wonder about these things. I think for me, Jesus’ human body being formed without a human father’s contribution is simply a miracle of God. After all, we could wonder about Adam’s and Eve’s chromosomes. They were not born of any human parents, and yet God made them male and female! If God is the one who engineered their structures down to the tiniest parts, then He clearly was able to provide whatever chromosomes were lacking in the making of Jesus’ human body. Maybe someone with a more scientific mind can jump in and say more, I don’t know. This is just what comes to mind when I think on the question.
Thank you psalm151 I never thought of adam and eve and what their’s would be what a good point. You are right God is more than able to do what man cannot, thank you for sharing.
@chris2. The birth of JESUS for me is evidence that the laws governing our physical world are subject to the Will of GOD. I think it was Vince Vitale who spoke so beautifully about this truth. Even laws of Science bend in subjection to the plan of GOD.
A baby without human seed or egg was implanted in the womb of a human woman. And the laws of gestation enfolded that embryo and produce it as if it had been created like any human. Nine months after Mary was discovered pregnant she delivered a child, her body performing as if it were her egg and her husband’s seed.
When GOD speaks, even our natural laws must obey. Makes me believe what we call a miracle is simply the physics of our World bowing in submission to the CREATOR. When we understand that even our natural world obeys GOD; then water turning to wine is a simple act of obedience to GOD. I don’t intend for a vessel of water to outshine my obedience to GOD.
Amen cer7 thank you for your post
Hey there, @cer7. Where do you see that it wouldn’t be Mary’s egg? It wasn’t Joseph’s seed, but the Bible never indicates it wasn’t Mary’s egg. If God was just going to make a human being without any of the human bloodline in it at all, seems He wouldn’t have needed a human woman to carry an embryo for nine months. Just wondering what your line of thought is
It’s not an uninteresting question, and it might be fun to hear an answer for someone with the relevant medical and biological background. However, I think at some point we start making a categorical error if we try to find a naturalistic explanation for everything that God does in the world. I mean, I get it, we usually want a naturalistic mechanism and God, so that we can verify the one with our senses and then attribute it to the Almighty after that fact.
However, A much simpler answer may just be that God created a “y” chromosome for Jesus.
@psalm151ls. You are right scripture does not say it was not Mary’s egg, nor does it say it was. We make that assumption because we attribute GOD’s ability to act as one that ascribes to human limitations. My thinking is to remove my human assumption from the equation because it was not necessary to the planning of GOD.
I can’t assume that JESUS needed Mary’s egg or womb to be born. Just as GOD did not need human flesh to fashion Adam and Eve. Of all things He used dirt! In the womb of women dirt is never an element in the forming of the embryo or its development. Yet, when we die the flesh returns to dirt.
The fact that He used a woman to give birth to His son although significant for our understanding, was not because there was no other way for GOD to form a human or connect JESUS to the bloodline of King David.
We would have had to arrive by those methods, but everything obeys GOD. The path chosen was I believe in consideration of our mental and emotional limitations. There are limits to the way we humans are able to “skin the cat.”
I personally believe the significance of using the womb of a woman is probably one of the most astounding pieces of evidence that GOD sees the least among us as proper vessels of honor. He granted salvation to the world via a human instrument most definitely underrated, underappreciated, and devalued; especially during the social period into which JESUS was born.
That is such a perfect picture of the practice established throughout our history of the movement of GOD. GOD is known for using the least of us. Just as He tells us, except we become as little children we can not see His kingdom.
This became my personal philosophy as a teenager. By virtue of the womb, GOD sent redemption to the World. From that conclusion forward no one could make me believe GOD considered me lesser because I was a female, or because I was someone’s daughter, wife and etc.
When GOD is allowed to lead and guide my life, all human definitions are challenged.
Thanks Anthony for sharing and I agree we should not try to have things of God explained by our natural or scientific understanding because our God works in supernatural, tho He does it through natural sometimes. My thoughts go back to the garden of eden when God told the serpent that the seed of the woman will crush his head. Seed is not normally used for a woman so i suppose in Mary all that was needed was there, just a thought.
This is an interesting conversation and I just wanted to contribute one thought I had on this. I really hope I explain this well enough! …
You’re absolutely right that we don’t need to force any natural explanation on the things that God can do supernaturally. However, I’ve felt led to believe that it was pretty crucial that Jesus was conceived from Mary’s egg in God’s whole redemption plan in order to make the sacrifice cover mankind. Scriptures make it clear that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. Matthew supports this in his genealogy of Jesus in chapter 1. Usually in this culture, only the fathers would be named. Matthew names them in chronological order, starting from the earlier generations, Abraham etc, and ending with Jesus. However, Matthew only names Joseph as the husband of Mary. This both diminishes Joseph’s role by placing him in relation to Mary’s (I.e. he was not the biological father) and gives Mary huge honour in a culture where women are rarely named in these lists. Joseph is named here as the son of Jacob, the son of Matthan.
Now, when looking at Luke’s genealogy of Jesus in chapter 3, we see something interesting. He actually orders his genealogy in reverse, starting with Jesus and going back to Adam and then God. He names Joseph as the son of Heli, the son of Matthat. This gets to the bit where I can’t remember how I know this so please bear with me : that there is the suggestion that Heli was actually Mary’s father but to stick to the custom of the day, Joseph’s name is inserted. Matthew’s naming of both Joseph and Mary may allow for this. If this is true, it suggests that Jesus was indeed the biological product of Mary’s egg. But Placing Joseph into this genealogy highlights God’s supernatural part played here. Both genealogies certainly allow the suggestion that both Jesus’ humanity and his divinity can be supported.
Going back to your original question, I have always assumed that God would have created all the necessary chromosomes and bits and pieces to fertilise Mary’s egg, but that it was certainly in conjunction with her egg. Such a good thought though, thanks for putting it forward! I’d be interested if anyone can verify what i’ve suggested or offer other ideas.
@cer7 @chris2, I was just about to bring that up. It doesn’t simply say seed that would come from her, but specifically it says “her seed.” That is significant. And, actually, God did intentionally engineer everything from Adam and Eve to Jesus to connect Jesus to the bloodline of David for our benefit. Although we cannot always explain things God does with science or our natural reasonings, God intentionally gives us things to reason through. To say otherwise is to deny the masterful way in which everything in His Word pieces everything together so that we could see how he was working out His redemptive plan and purposes for His creation in human history. As we see these things and put them together and figure them out, it only serves to glorify Him as they reveal His sovereignty and character. Furthermore, those who are Christian and study everything scientifically do so to the glory of God. To say that we “should” or “should not” see if there is a scientific explanation to some things God has done is really, I think, an overstep. For instance, in the case of Jesus only having Mary’s genetic material and not a man’s, science honors God in the way that it can posit no natural explanation for it. However, in other instances in which science can explain things, it also honors God because of the discovery of how intricately complex and designed all things life and nature are. Science that honors the possibility of miracles while also honoring God’s gift of the human ability to explore and discover how some things work isn’t something we should shun. We need to be balanced in our attitudes and approach, because going to one extreme or the other can actually have the effect of dishonoring God in some way.
Quite a few years back I went to a service where my brother’s family attended. It was Christmas Eve and for whatever reason the format was a question and answer session about Christmas. My 11-year old niece asked how Jesus could be from the line of David if Joseph was not his father? A very logical question. I expected to hear the pastor say, “tradition tells us that both Mary and Joseph were from the line of David.” But instead he said that Jesus did not have any DNA–basically he was not genetically linked to either Mary or Joseph. I was really taken aback.
First of all, it’s quite a claim that Jesus has/had no DNA. We certainly can’t prove it either way. But this claim that Jesus was not genetically linked to Mary is basically saying her egg was not part of the equation, similar to cer7 comments. Which would basically make Mary a surrogate. Once again we cannot prove it either way.
The idea of Jesus not having XY chromosomes seems to fall into the same category. Unprovable either way. Are all of these a means of trying to understand the mechanics of the incarnation through the lens of modern science? Is the chromosome issue something being used to open possibilities for a wider definition of gender?
In my view all these ideas are fascinating to think about, but I wonder if it’s at the cost of missing the forest for the trees. How wonderful that from creation God had a plan for my salvation. How incredible that the creator of the universe walked in sandals in the very dust from which man and woman were created. How blessed women are that we were the means of bringing the divine into the world.
There are fundamental understandings from Christian traditions that are certainly pre-science (or at least as we know it), but that does not mean those traditions are wrong. I absolutely believe Jesus to be fully God and fully man, and there is nothing Biblical that would suggest Jesus biology (DNA, chromosomes, etc) would be any different from mine. As a matter of fact, Paul’s and the Apostles push back against the Gnostics would indicate any suggestion that Jesus was not fully like us and one of us is taking the wrong path entirely. The Bible also tells us much of Mary’s involvement in the incarnation and nothing suggests that she is not the full mother of Jesus. Clearly the conception was much different than how children are usually conceived, but I don’t know that there’s enough to assume the biology itself would be different. Supernatural, yes. Different?
Thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts. I haven’t been on the site for awhile and this is truly a fascinating discussion thread.
@psalm151ls. Not to belabor a small point. But when did ‘her seed, or his seed, or the seed of his/her body, or the seed of her womb’ when mentioned in the Bible mean anything other than children? Are we concluding in this forum it means the egg of a woman’s body?
I only meant to clarify my personal confidences. Some in the things man discovers but always with the understanding that our best research, conclusion, and knowledge only represents a small drop in the larger bucket that is GOD’s knowledge, GOD’s power.
We should continue looking and learning thank goodness that seems coded into the human dna. That exploration is necessary even in our spiritual walk. We should follow on to know GHRIST. Hosea 6:3. However, we should remember when in comparison to the immensity of GOD our greatest discovery is just the apex of our minds; not even the beginning of the knowledge that GOD possesses.
It would not be rational to serve a God that could be explained or defined by humans. If we could define by wit, science, or wisdom; than GOD would no longer be GOD. Our explanations nor our summations can hope to clearly know GOD. No more then we can explain what went ‘boom’ in the big bang. It just feels silly accepting the guesses that we present as fact.
Some things we can attest to concerning who GOD is, but what we can not know fully within bodies that by our knowledge only use a fraction of its brain matter and that we say possesses ‘junk’ or undefined useless biology; is the mystery of GOD. We are told His ways are not our ways His thoughts are not ours. Isiaih 55:8.
That is why when trying to help others understand GOD’s love we must conclude that it is love that is beyond understanding. There are some things we can say about GOD’s love but its presence will always astound, bemuse, amaze and confuse. It is a gift that is never earned and never deserved.
Pssst! Guys, I never said JESUS was not fully human. Never said He did not come from the womb of Mary. What I said was, how CHIRST was conceived should not be decided based upon how humans conceive. Nor should we worry that GOD should be seen as having to introduce a new strain of chromosone to establish the miracle of life.
Quite right, @cer7. It does refer to children; however, the word “seed” was never used of children that were not biologically one’s own. Also, when all of Scripture is put together, I think it becomes quite obvious that Jesus being a human from the humanity that fell was and is necessary for him to be a representative and advocate for the fallen human race.
Again, quite right. And I think we are all simply discussing our own perspectives and clarifying our confidences on the subject, and your input is greatly appreciated!
@psalm151ls. Just remember the entire Gentile race was ingrafted. Seed we agree means children.
Yes, a good point. In that regard, though, we are seed of Abraham through faith, and that still pertains to a spiritual birth: we are reborn. In the way seed is used of Christ, this isn’t the case, which means the normal sense of the word must be used-biological seed. What do you think?
@psalm151ls. I think to say it is truer to reference biology when referring to the birth of JESUS, I must conclude that when scriptures say "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with GOD and the Word was GOD; the birth of JESUS was already past tense. Mary can be given credit for being the vessel to provide the human body. But JESUS/WORD was already in existence. How do you see that? Is that a paradox?
This verse does not refer to Jesus’ birth, but his pre-incarnate existence (meaning before his birth). It’s what he was as a person of the Trinity before he became human.
I guess I don’t see taking on human form separate from being a person of the Trinity. I see the birth through the human body just one more way it is clear, our natural laws are GOD’s tools. How is it possible to be GOD and be human. Easy. You are GOD. There is no conflict in being human for the purpose of offering reunion and redemption to humans to return back to You, when you are GOD.