Immaculate Conception 1

Last updated on: June 19, 2006 at 4:20 am by Scot McKnight

Immaculate Conception 1 2006-06-19T04:20:44-05:00 Scot McKnight

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Last week we looked at the perpetual virginity. While we didn’t agree on each point, we did behave ourselves and, speaking for myself, worked our way through some issues that we might not think of very often. The immaculate conception, while it is not at all defensible from specific biblical passages, is one of the Marian doctrines that may have a theological logic much more in tune with Protestant theological thinking.

So, here goes. As I understand it, Ambrose of Milan put into a powerful set of word what many were already believing: that the virginal conception occurred so that Jesus could be sinless. Ambrose did this in his Commentary on Psalm 37, and this idea influenced St. Augustine — and on down through the Western Church to Luther and to Protestant theology. Jesus was “not conceived in iniquity nor born in sin.” Augustine, you may remember, made an exception for Mary when it came to all humans being sinners.
There is a lot here, and I want to bring out some emphases that are not customarily said in this way in order to make the issue all the more clear for each of us:
1. The sin nature must be passed on through males, and that is why a male is not involved. (I’m not sure Ambrose ever put it quite like this, but this thought is involved in this issue.)
2. The virginal conception, in essence, was a “new creation” of Adam by God in the womb of Mary in order to redeem Adam’s descendants by completely identifying with them (as humans) yet without sin.
3. Jesus’ flesh, if we think about it, is entirely from Mary.
Now this creates a problem if one does not understand the male as the one through whom the sinful nature passes on.
If Mary is born in sin or the sin nature is passed on to her through her parents, then the “flesh” and human nature she passed on to Jesus must have been sinful, and that would mean Jesus had a sinful nature. The irony of the argument from virginal conception to Jesus’ sinlessness is that eliminating the male, which is what most of us emphasize, does not eradicate sin from the female and Jesus came from the female. So, the theory that the virginal conception eliminated the sinful nature inevitably throws all the theological debate onto Mary. If we are fair to our thinking, we need at least to think about Mary and the sinful nature with honestly.
By eliminating Joseph from the picture, the theological issue lands on Mary. Jesus got his human nature, and all the other categories we might choose to use for his humanity, from Mary. If we don’t think this, then we have to argue that Jesus got a totally unique human nature, neither from Mary nor Joseph, and that means Mary simply “housed” Jesus. We are, therefore, led to think more about Mary.
Was Mary sinful? If she was, did Jesus inherit her sinful nature? If he didn’t inherit her sinful nature, how did it happen that he was “of” her but not sinful? This is the issue: if we believe, and as orthodox this is required, that Jesus is sinless, we have to ask if he could be sinless if his mother had a sin nature.
So, if the sin nature is inherent to females as much as it is to males, then for Jesus to have been sinless, Mary somehow had to be preserved from or saved from her sinful nature before, at, or after the moment of conception.
The immaculate conception teaches precisely this, and it is a logical corollary of Ambrose’s major argument: connecting sinful nature and normal reproduction, or to say that the virginal conception occurred to preserve Jesus from a sinful nature. If we use his logic completely, we are driven to argue that Mary’s sinful nature was somehow resolved by an act of God’s grace.
Hence, the immaculate conception.
The immaculate conception teaches that Mary was, from the moment of her conception, “by the singular grace and privilege of almighty God and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ the Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.” (This from the official papal declaration by Pope Piux IX, on December 8, 1854, on the immaculate conception.)
Let this be observed: Mary was not born perfect, but somehow from the moment of her conception (there’s a bit of time there) was preserved from the stain of orginal sin.
Let this also be observed: Mary’s perservation was based solely on the atoning work of Jesus Christ. She was in need of grace as anyone else was. She was preserved from sin while all others are saved from sin.
Textually, the “full of grace” in Gabriel’s words to Mary at the annunciation is a understood by many Roman Catholics to be a special plenitude of grace that saved and preserved Mary. This “full of grace” includes the virginal conception itself as an act of God giving Mary the grace of the incarnation.
Let this also be observed: the immaculate conception implies that Mary lived a sinless life, and for some (not all so far as I can see) this also means she did not experience pain in childbirth, the normal aging of her body since it was not susceptible to decay (all art of Mary is of a young woman), and she did not die in the normal way but “assumed” into heaven. If these are all features of what happens because of sin (Genesis 3), then these features did not occur to her since she did not sin.
Let this also be observed: Mary, in order to be perfectly free and do God’s will had to be in perfect harmony with God. Since she was, she must have been preserved from a sinful nature and sinful will.
Are we driven by our own theological logic (illustrated by Ambrose) to the immaculate conception?
Here’s our (Protestant) set of questions: How can Jesus be sinless if Mary was sinful? The virginal conception may have cleaned Jesus from Joseph’s sinful nature, but what about Mary’s?

Mary

Previous Post

June 19, 2006

J. Frye's Jesus the Pastor 7

Next Post

June 19, 2006 Father's Day

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What woman followed Naomi to Bethlehem and later married Boaz?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Sarah Hannah Ruth Esther