Christ received His human nature from His human mother, Mary (contrary to the teaching of Menno Simons).
God did not create a new human nature in Mary’s womb that was unconnected with Mary’s humanity, so that she was simply a pipe or conduit through which an unrelated human nature came into existence. Luke 1:35 states:
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
The Son was conceived through the working of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35) in the womb of a virgin named Mary, who was engaged to a man named Joseph.
Similarly, Galatians 4:4 reads:
Gal. 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman [γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός], made under the law,
Christ’s human nature became or came into existence, was made, from, of, or out of His human mother, Mary.
The Lord Jesus was the “fruit” of Mary’s “womb”:
Luke 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
And her actual Son:
Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
He was a literal descendent of David, both through His adopted human father Joseph and through His literal mother, Mary:
Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
If you have taught (likely without thinking it through and with no bad intentions) that Christ’s human nature was not connected to Mary’s humanity through a miraculous work that resulted in Christ’s sinless humanity, despite Mary’s being a sinner, and instead taught that God just created a human nature in the womb of Mary, based on the verses above, you need to change. Stop teaching that. Such a teaching undermines Christ’s true human nature and thus attacks the salvation He wrought for us as the God-Man.
I am thankful for the history of Anabaptist martyrs in the book The Martyr’s Mirror, it is definitely worth reading, and as a history of martyrs in immersions assemblies, has a great deal to commend it above Foxe’s much more well known book of martyrs.
However, Menno Simons, the Reformation Anabaptist leader, denied the Scriptural and traditional Christian view that Christ took His human nature from Mary for the heretical position that His human nature was created in the womb of Mary. Unfortunately, some of the later individuals mentioned in The Martyr’s Mirror follow Menno’s false doctrine in this matter. Thankfully, Menno’s error did not make it into any Baptist confessions; it is more of an idiosyncratic view that he held personally. One may think of Jack Hyles’ similar idiosyncratic heresy that Jesus Christ was human even before His incarnation. Nor does Menno’s heretical view on Christ’s incarnation appear in J. Newton Brown’s edifying book Memorial of Baptist Martyrs.
The Divine Person of Christ was “sent forth” from the Father, but His human nature was “made of a woman” in the virgin conception and birth (Galatians 4:4). Mary was not a surrogate mother, which Christ’s humanity simply passing through her in a manner comparable to the position of the ancient Gnostic heretic Valentinus:
Menno’s own view of the incarnation, however, became a source of controversy among the Anabaptists. It was never accepted by the Swiss Brethren. His view was similar to that of Hofmann. The crux of the problem to him was the origin of Christ’s physical nature. He held that it was a new creation of the Holy Spirit within the body of Mary. Menno’s position differed from the historic view in denying that Christ received his human body from Mary. He replaced the orthodox view, “per Spiritum Sanctum ex Maria virginenatus,” with “per Spiritum Sanctum in Maria virgine conceptus, factus et natus.”[1]
There is some historical evidence that Anabaptists who practiced believer’s immersion rejected Menno’s heretical view on Christ’s humanity with greater consistency than did those who were open to believer’s pouring for “baptism.” This may account for why, as already indicated, no evidence for Menno’s view appears in Brown’s book Memorial of Baptist Martyrs.
I am thankful for Menno Simon’s many stands for truth in a very hostile environment, and look forward to meeting those who trusted in Christ alone and submitted to believer’s immersion in heaven, including those who did not think through the implications of Menno’s view on Christ’s incarnation but adopted Menno’s error from him. I am also thankful for The Martyr’s Mirror and the edifying narratives of Christian martyrs it contains. But on the subject of the incarnation Menno was wrong, and the Baptists and other Anabaptist churches that rejected his heresy were correct, following the teaching of Scripture.
–TDR
[1] William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism, 3rd ed., rev. and enl. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 172.
Links to Amazon are affiliate links. Learn about how you can support righteous causes with Amazon purchases here.
I agree that Menno’s position is weak biblically, but should we call it a heresy? The term heresy is usually reserved for a teaching that would result in damnation. As long as Menno affirms that Christ really was human and divine, born of Mary, son of David, he may be wrong about the technicalities (and I do believe he is wrong), but a heresy?
Surely there is a lot mystery about the incarnation. What really happened? Did God use one of Mary’s ovum and somehow supplied the missing “sperm gene”? Did God use a cloning method from one of Mary’s adult cell, and changed the gene? Surely we go beyond what is written to affirm such things. Wouldn’t you agree?
Hi,
As I read this, I thought of Hebrews 10:5. It seems Jesus’ body was already prepared by God the Father, while the Son was still in heaven with Him before the incarnation. “Hast prepared” is aorist, so completed action. How do you think this relates?
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
Thanks for the question. I would view Hebrews 10:5 and its OT passage as a prophecy. Christ did not have a body before His incarnation, fitting the following category of aorist:
“An author sometimes uses the aorist for the future to stress the certainty of the event. It involves a “rhetorical transfer” of a future event as though it were past.”
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: an Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 564.
So I don’t think Hebrews 10:5 tells us one way or the other about Menno’s view. The Father was obviously involved in the miraculous virginal conception of Christ.
Dear Tenrin,
I don’t believe the word “heresy” is necessarily damnable. Nestorianism, monophysiticsm, and monothelitism are Christological heresies, but people can out of ignorance or error hold them and still be born again. I had a very intelligent student tell me he thought Nestorianism was correct after taking a seminary Trinitarianism class from a professor who appears to have needed to do a better job. I believe he is a godly person who is now a missionary on a foreign field. I hope he doesn’t believe in Nestorianism.
I don’t want to take any error about Christ and make it seem like it is not really bad–it is really bad. But as far as I know, I will see Menno Simons in heaven, and, as I said in the post, I am thankful for much that he believed and taught.
There is certainly a great deal of mystery in Christ’s virginal conception. Also, miracles do not need to be explained, so we have to be careful about speculation. The reason Menno’s view is wrong and dangerous is not because of what we can figure out about how the Father by the Holy Spirit performed the miracle involved, but because the passages of Scripture cited in the post show Menno’s view is wrong, and the broader teaching of Scripture shows that Menno’s view undermines Christ’s true humanity. Galatians 4:4 clearly teaches that Christ’s human nature was from or out of (ek) Mary’s human nature. The other texts in the post also show Menno was wrong.
Thanks to you both for the questions.
Hi Thomas,
Interesting article. I think you make a good point about Christological heresies being something to avoid, as well as the fact that it is without controversy, that great is the mystery of godliness. If you know your Bible, you know that’s a reference to 1 Timothy 3:16, where Paul writes “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh”. And of course, we get this from John 1:14, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”. In other words, because this is a divine mystery, it is I think very possible to inadvertently place oneself in a position of going beyond what is written.
In a book called “The Apology of Tertullian,” an English translation, there is a footnote which makes the following remark which I will partly transcribe:
³ “Cui et Sermo insit Pronuncianti,” etc. — There is a threefold generation of the Son of God frequently mentioned by the primitive writers. The first is the true and proper generation of the Son, which was from the Father before all worlds. The second is the progression of the Word from His Father at the creation, which they call “προέλενσις, ἔρενξις,” etc. The third was at His incarnation in the womb of the Blessed Virgin overshadowed by the power of the Most High. The second kind of generation is that which Tertullian hints at in the words cited.
End quote. In addition to the above, there is also the begetting spoken of, in for instance Acts 13:33, distinctly from the eternal begetting as in the Holy Trinity. Now having said all that, what I would suggest speaking directly is that Jesus Christ had the image of God, was the original owner of it, and was therefore able to manifest in that image. And the following is my conclusion and biblical support for it.
I am drawn to the inescapable conclusion that, in order for Christ to be able to impart the image of God to man, in Genesis 1:26, He must have already possessed it Himself. See Colossians 1:15-17. Insofar as the image of God is connected with man’s nature, this certainly belonged to God originally first. I wouldn’t try to place my own speculations as to the exact nature of the connection of that to a human nature, referring to the conventional description of the hypostatic union, however.
I believe Christ makes an important point about this when He raised the question, given in three Gospels, about who the Son of David is. How does David then call Him Lord, if He is his son? And the title of God given in Revelation 22, where Christ is called the root and offspring of David, further illuminates this duality of facts. In other words, He stands at the root of the tree of mankind as well as being the Branch spoken about by Isaiah in Isaiah 11:1. So I would be hesitant personally to imply by any means that Christ lacked the attributes which He imparted to man in Genesis 1:26, in the context of all the Biblical passages previously cited. Because It’s a question of implying I understand the mystery of godliness. I would rather have the understanding, that there is no controversy that it is a great mystery. And based on these Scriptures, I’m not sure that we could agree that 1) the image of God that was imparted to man wasn’t already possessed by God (the Son – Col. 1:15), or, that, 2) the “image of God” is necessarily tied to physical manifestation as such, rather than something that can come before it, either immediately or otherwise; for we would probably agree that the “physical” (think physis) or material substance of Christ was derived from Mary – the so-called “third generation.” But in making this second observation, we must ask a corollary consideration, that is, where was the physical substance of Adam originally derived from? because biblically it’s a chain from him to every physical descendant.
Thanks again for your article.
Dear Andrew,
I agree that we should be careful about speculation about things not revealed by God. The term “mystery” in the Pauline epistles, however, is often about things that were formerly unknown but now are revealed, so 1 Timothy 3:16 may not be conclusive for proving your point about the incarnation being mysterious (though it certainly has mysterious aspects, even apart from whether 1 Timothy 3:16 makes that affirmation).
Also, Acts 13:33 is likely proving who Christ is as a Person, namely, the Divine Son who possesses the undivided Divine essence and is distinct from the Father by eternal generation, while Acts 13:34ff actually is the case for the Person of 13:33 being raised from the dead. Note the first clause of 13:34:
Acts 13:34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
Acts 13:35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Acts 13:36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:
Acts 13:37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
In other words, Acts 13:33 does not clearly teach that today have I begotten thee” refers to the resurrection of Christ, although Christ’s resurrection could well evidence the fact that any day and every day the Son is “begotten” “today,” as the begetting represents the Son’s eternal relation to the Father.
You stated: “I am drawn to the inescapable conclusion that, in order for Christ to be able to impart the image of God to man, in Genesis 1:26, He must have already possessed it Himself.”
The creation of man was the work of the entire Trinity, as the external works of the Triune God are undivided (and hence the “us” in the creation narrative). Thus, for example, the Holy Ghost was also involved in the creation of man:
Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
I doubt that you would argue that the Father and the Holy Spirit are also the “image” of God. So I believe that your statement would prove too much—it would have to prove that the Father is also His own image rather than being the One imaged, or the Father would not be able to make man in His image.
You are wise not to push your statement very far, but stating that man’s nature belonged to the Son before His incarnation, as you seem to do, perhaps without meaning it or seeing the implications of it, is clearly incorrect.
Your “root” and “offspring” as being from mankind vs. from David seems to me like reading a great deal into Revelation 22 that is not clearly stated in that passage.
Some of the attributes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit gave to Adam in the garden were certainly not possessed by the Triune God, such as mutability, the ability to sin, limited power, limited knowledge, a material body, and many others. I have no hesitation affirming that the Trinity did not possess certain things that the Father through the Son by the Spirit imparted to man in Genesis 1-2.
One can make a good case that there is a certain sense in which Christ is eternally the Image of the Father from Colossians 1:15-17. But please be careful not to read into texts what is not clearly in them in conclusions drawn from that fact. The idea conveyed by one word for “image” in Colossians in Greek may not have the same semantic domain or the same sense as a word for “image” used 1500 years earlier by Moses in a different language.
The physical substance of Adam was derived from the dust of the ground.
Thanks again for seeking to understand the Scripture and think deeply about it.