In the previous post we looked at the possibility that angels are able to have sex and offspring with human women, as suggested in Genesis 6. Many (most?) Christians would object to such an idea, but they readily accept that God through the Holy Spirit in some way impregnated Mary, the mother of Jesus. This raises not only theological questions, but also biological ones.
You probably know that the Gospels of Mark and John begin with Jesus already as an adult. Perhaps they did not think there was anything unusual or special about Jesus’ birth, or maybe it just did not matter for their portrayal of Jesus. In fact, Mark seems to portray Jesus as a man who went to John the Baptizer with all the other people, to experience a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4), as if Jesus was seeking forgiveness along with everyone else. It is after the baptism that God then claims (adopts?) Jesus as His own son (Mark 1:11). On the other hand Matthew and Luke (using the traditional author names assigned to those Gospels) clearly have reason to detail Jesus’ birth. They both make a point of having Jesus born in Bethlehem, as was thought befitting for the Messiah, but then raised in Nazareth, since people knew that was Jesus’ hometown. But both also make a point of saying that Jesus did not have an earthly father, but rather, in some way, God Himself was the father, so Jesus was literally the Son of God. Not figuratively after his baptism, but literally right from birth. Matthew phrases it as “she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit,” without explanation for how that was done. Luke says, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.”
How would the Holy Spirit impregnate Mary? No details are given. However, the early Christians may have been conditioned to accept such an idea. In Genesis 6 (see the previous post) we are told that “the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose… The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown” (Genesis 6:2, 4). There was a book that came to be known as 1st Enoch that was known to Christians and Jews in the 1st Century; it is explicitly quoted in the Epistle of Jude in the New Testament. It explains quite clearly that angels mated with earthly women and also taught people various arts like metallurgy and warfare. Greek and Roman mythology also contained tales of the gods having children with humans, like Hercules. So, I suspect it was easy for those in the 1st Century to accept the idea that God through the Holy Spirit could impregnate Mary. Especially since they did not have any clue about the microscopic processes that took place at conception. Some thought that the man implants a homunculus or seed into the women. Some thought it was just done by the gods in answer to prayer (even in the Bible there are several stories of women getting pregnant in response to prayer). Some thought both the man and the woman contributed something to produce an embryo (getting closer!).
Now we know that a single cell from the man merges with a single cell from the woman to create a fertilized egg (zygote). The great thing about this from an evolutionary biology perspective is that it provides a mixture of genetic material; diversity tends to help with adaptation and survival (consider the bad results of inbreeding). We now know that the father and mother each have their genetic material (DNA) contained in 46 chromosomes; 23 matched pairs. The male sperm and the female egg each contain one set of the pairs. When the egg is fertilized by the sperm it then contains the necessary full complement of 46. So, what does any of this have to do with Jesus?
Well, orthodox Christian doctrine states that Jesus was fully God but also fully human. So, Jesus had to have a full complement of 46 chromosomes; 23 pairs, with father and mother each contributing a set. It was no problem for human Mary to contribute her set, but does God have chromosomes? Where did His set come from?
God is thought of as an eternal transcendent being, absolutely superior to everything else in the universe (and beyond). Our genes, contained in our chromosomes, are the instructions for how our bodies develop and function. They determine not just what we look like but to a large degree who we are. We receive them from our parents and pass them on to future generations. Why would a being like God have or need genes? He did not have parents. Muslims would say He doesn’t have children either, although Christians obviously think He had one. Does God need genes to control His inner functions? A Supreme Being subject to its own genes? It really does not make sense to think of God as having genes and chromosomes.
So, did God have to create a set of chromosomes to implant into Mary? He must have: how could Jesus be fully human without a full set? Now, we are not quite there yet, but let’s assume I have the ability to go into a lab and construct a set of chromosomes. I fertilize an egg with these constructed chromosomes and implant it into a woman’s uterus so that she eventually gives birth to a child. Am I that child’s father? Maybe in a figurative sense, but only in that sense. It is not my genetic material. I am not literally that child’s father. It would be more accurate to call me the child’s co-creator (with the mother) rather than his father.
So, perhaps we should be calling Jesus the Creation of God rather than the Son of God? But of course thinking of Jesus as a creation of God led to huge controversy in the early church (Arianism). Jesus is supposed to be co-eternal with God and of the very essence of God, but that still leaves the question of where the human part of Jesus got his genetic material. I suppose one could argue that God could create genetic material but He also mystically put his Spirit into the physical being of Jesus, so he was in some sense God’s son, but that’s not really what makes a person a son of his father. Throughout the Bible God is said to put His spirit in various people: does that make them all His sons?
That sounds more like another early church controversy: Adoptionism. If Jesus was crafted by God, like Adam in the Garden, and then adopted by God then the issue of chromosomes and fatherhood is irrelevant. Or, if Jesus was simply a human adopted by God (as in Mark?) who somehow imbued him with His spirit then this speculation about chromosomes is unnecessary. Perhaps the early doctrine of Docetism (later deemed to be heresy) would also work: Jesus only appeared to be human, but was not really, so he did not need any chromosomes. But the orthodox doctrine of Jesus as fully human while being the Son of God seems problematic to me in light of modern knowledge.
This article may seem silly to you, but what do you believe about the nature of Jesus? If there was a virgin birth, where did that second pair of chromosomes come from? Was Jesus the Creation of God rather than the Son of God? Was he physically the Creation of God but spiritually the Son of God? Was he simply human but exalted to divine status by God? Was he only exalted to divine status in the minds of his disciples? If modern theology wants to be taken seriously then it needs to accommodate modern knowledge and not pretend that we are living 2,000 years in the past, in the days of Hercules and the Nephilim.
Thinking Exercises:
1. The virgin birth of Jesus became a major doctrine in the Christian church. Why do you think the gospels of Mark and John as well as the apostle Paul say nothing about it? Do you have to believe in the virgin birth to be a Christian?
2. In the Roman culture adopted sons were often given more honor than natural sons; after all, they were chosen to be part of the family, rather than being an accident of birth. Would it matter to you if Jesus were a human adopted by God at his baptism, or even at his birth, rather than being literally born of God in some way?
2 responses to “7: Does God Have Chromosomes?”
I don’t know the answer to these questions. My fall back scripture is
1Ti 3:16
Beyond question, great is the mystery of godliness:
He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was [fn]vindicated [fn]in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.
I don’t understand the metaphysics or the philosophical answers to the virgin birth or how the cross forgives sins in scripture. I rely on the mystery. My views are not always consistent with orthodoxy as the questions and answers of Nicea and Chalcedon tend to rely on combatting what was viewed as heresy and the answers tend to rely on philosophical arguments about the nature of God and Jesus. As Romans 11 says his thoughts are beyond tracing out. I respect your thinking, this is just how I approach it.
Thanks for reading and commenting! Although I think the Bible stories reflect the knowledge level of the ancients who wrote them and often lack satisfying explanations, one could also argue that God prefers us to think and discuss and question rather than have all the answers. If only churches were more open to such questions instead of pretending they have all the answers.