More wacky (and borderline heretical) YEC views

My ears perked up today as I listened to listener emails read and answered on "Issues, Etc." One woman emailed in to claim that she had heard that the Institute for Creation Research (a prominent young-earth organization) had said that the Virgin Mary served as the place where Christ was conceived but did not provide her genetic material for him to be conceived from.

Ummmm.... huh?

I couldn't believe that this was for real. A little bit of searching revealed it was true, because I found this article. Here are some excerpts of the lunacy written by Henry Morris.

Perhaps the most amazing aspect of the incarnation is that a God who is absolute holiness could reside in a body of human flesh. Is it not true that "they that are in the flesh cannot please God?" (Romans 8:8). Our human bodies have been formed through many generations of genetic inheritance from Adam himself, and "in Adam all die" (I Corinthians 15:22).

The paradox is partially resolved, of course, when it is realized that Jesus Christ came in a body which was not of sinful flesh. His body was truly "in the flesh," but only "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Romans 8:3).

 So far, so good, I suppose, but I wouldn't make too much of the distinction between "in the flesh" and "in the likeness of sinful flesh" as Morris does. I think that Paul's point is merely that the flesh of humans is sinful, though Jesus is the exception to this. But beyond that, Jesus took our sin upon us on the cross, so in this limited sense it is true that the flesh of Jesus was "sinful." However, Morris quickly goes overboard:

But even this doesn't resolve the dilemma completely, for how could His body be of flesh (carbon, hydrogen, amino acids, proteins, etc.), received by the normal process of reproduction of the flesh of his parents, without also receiving their genetic inheritance, which is exactly what makes it sinful flesh? "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5). "Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble … Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one" (Job 14:4).

Sinful flesh comes about by genetic inheritance? It's, like, in the DNA like a gene? I don't want to go into this too much, but it seems clear to me the Bible doesn't teach this. Whatever "born in sin" and "conceived in sin" means, I doubt it has anything to do with meiosis. However, building on this argument, he carries it through to a very odd conclusion, even for an odd argument:

Not only is there the problem of inherent sin, but also of inherent physical defects. Over many generations, the human population has experienced great numbers of genetic mutations, and these defective physical factors have been incorporated into the common genetic pool, affecting in some degree every infant ever born. Yet the Lamb of God, to be an acceptable sacrifice for the sins of the world, must be "without blemish and without spot" (I Peter 1:19). The very purpose of the incarnation was that God could become the Saviour of men as well as their Creator, but this required that in His humanity He must be "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Hebrews 7:26), and this would have been absolutely impossible by the normal reproductive process.

Morris has completely missed the point. In the Old Testament ritual, "without blemish and without spot" may have been from a physical perspective, but it was only because it was a type and a shadow of the one who would be without blemish or spot of sin. It has nothing to do whatsoever with whether or not Jesus had or didn't have physical defects. The New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus got tired, hungry, frustrated, worried, etc.. For Jesus to fully take part in our humanity it seems essential that he was not immune to the effects of genetic deterioration that piled up over the centuries either. I believe that Jesus was in pain when he stubbed his toe, that he bled if he scraped his knee, and that he got sick and ran fevers. Why should we deny the possibility that he also might have inherited physical defects? He was fully a part of our humanity, with only one Biblically-stated exception: he was without sin. Morris has completely re-defined and misunderstood the humanity of Jesus.

The solution could only be through a mighty miracle! He could not be conceived in the same manner as other men, for this would inevitably give him both a sin-nature and a physically defective body, and each would disqualify Him as a fit Redeemer. And yet He must truly become human. "Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (Hebrews 2:17).

Morris has taken away with one hand what he gave with the other. How in the world is Jesus truly human if he does not have a human conception? I'm not denying the conception by the Holy Spirit  and the virgin birth. I'm simply stating that Jesus' true humanity requires he receive genetic material from Mary. Otherwise all of the fuss that the Gospel writers make with the geneaologies showing the lineage of Jesus is pointless.

On second thought, however, one realizes that it was not the virgin birth which was significant, except as a testimony of the necessity of the real miracle, the supernatural conception. The birth of Christ was natural and normal in every way, including the full period of human gestation in the womb of Mary. In all points, He was made like His brethren, experiencing every aspect of human life from conception through birth and growth to death. He was true man in every detail, except for sin and its physical effects.

The miracle was not His birth, but His conception. And here we still face a mystery. Conception normally is the result of the union of two germ cells, the egg from the mother and the seed from the father, each carrying half the inheritance and thus each, of course, sharing equally in the transmission of the sin-nature as well as all other aspects of the human nature.

Morris has completely contradicted himself. It is simply not possible for him to affirm that Jesus was made like his brethren in "all points" if he did not receive genetic material from Mary. Jesus needs to have a human conception, albeit a miraculous one, for him to have true humanity. The early church fathers would not have tolerated such nonsense had they had access to the science we have today.

Therefore, even though He was nurtured in Mary's womb for nine months and born without her ever knowing a man, it was also necessary for all this to have been preceded by supernatural intervention, to prevent His receiving any actual genetic inheritance through her. The body growing in Mary's womb must have been specially created in full perfection, and placed there by the Holy Spirit, in order for it to be free of inherent sin damage. Christ would still be "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3), because His body was nurtured and born of Mary, who was herself of the seed of David. He would still be the Son of Man, sharing all universal human experience from conception to death, except sin. He is truly "the seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15), His body formed neither of the seed of the man nor the egg of the woman, but grown from a unique Seed planted in the woman's body by God Himself.

 So Morris claims that Jesus has no physical continuity whatsoever with his mother, or anyone before him for that matter. He claims that the human flesh of Jesus was a special creation. That's right, creation ex nihilo. He claims that this is necessary because if he did he would of necessity be tainted with sinful flesh. Where on earth did he get all of this? Certainly not from the Bible.

Where did all of this nonsense come from? It comes from the assumptions that he reads into Scripture and binds himself to. YECs have a view of the Fall that ends up being a soft Gnosticism, irrevocably tying whatever comes from physical processes to sin, including conception. Morris assumes that for something to be "good" and without sin it must come from a special creation, brand spanking new out of nothing. Rather, it seems that the true message of the Bible is that God is taking the good creation which has been tainted by sin and is making it without sin through the work of Jesus. Jesus was made of the stuff of this creation, yet was without sin, by the miraculous power of God. And through the perfect, sinless life of Jesus, his sacrifice on the cross, and his resurrection from the dead God is making "all things new." From our own sinful lives and flesh to the creation itself, God is making all things good once again. Paul says:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (Romans 8:18-23, ESV)

Jesus, true God, Creator of the cosmos, is also true man, conceived and born of the Virgin Mary. I have no idea how this happened, or where the "rest" of the material came from. That's why it's a miracle. But when we deny Jesus a real conception with real physical continuity with his mother, we implicitly deny his humanity.

Luckily, Todd Wilken, the host of "Issues, Etc." affirmed this. However, he then derisively questioned if ICR was one of those "old-earth, quasi-theistic" organizations. I'm sorry, but that's patently insulting. I wish Todd would seriously interact with old-earth creationism. However, that's another topic for another time.