Question: In the July Q&A you said “the only begotten Son of God [did not] inherit sinful genes”! Pregnancy is via the woman’s egg and the man’s sperm. In this case, it appears that Mary would supply the egg and her half of the genes, and the Holy Spirit would supernaturally impart the other half of the genes, to make Jesus a fully human male as well as fully God. So if it is true that half of Mary’s genes were involved, and if sin is inherited in the genes, then Jesus would have had a sinful nature. We know that isn’t right, so the only other conclusion is that sin is imparted via the father’s genes that cause blood type....It is obvious that the genes which the mother and father contribute to the body have nothing to do with the spirit and soul that the Holy Spirit creates in each body that God allows to be born. In Isaiah:53:10 we are told that Jesus’ soul would be a sin offering, but Hebrews:10:10 says we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all. In 2 Corinthians:5:21 we are told that Jesus became sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him; and 2 Peter:2:24 says Jesus bore our sins in His own body. I believe Jesus put away my sins at the cross, but when I try to explain it to someone, it seems to get confusing when I tell them God cannot partake of sin because of His holy nature.
Answer: You correctly state, “the genes which the mother and father contribute to the body have nothing to do with the spirit and soul which the Holy Spirit creates in each body” at conception. But in Christ’s case, we have no reason to believe that Mary’s genes were involved at all, much less that the reason He was born of a virgin was because, as you suggest, “sin is imparted via the father’s genes that cause blood type.” You assume that “Mary would supply the egg and her half of the genes, and the Holy Spirit would supernaturally impart the other half of the genes....” Scripture doesn’t say so. Yes, twice the expression “conceive” is used, but simply as a common term, not to explain the process.
Jesus is called the “second man” (1 Cor:15:47)and the “last Adam” (v. 45). Just as Adam needed no mother to contribute “half of the genes,” neither did Christ. The “first man” was created by God without father or mother. It is therefore proper to conclude that, although Mary’s womb and blood contributed to the nourishment and growth of the One to whom she gave birth, she had nothing to do with the physical origin of the body of this “second man.” He was created in her womb, just as God created Adam.
As for Christ’s sacrifice for sin, the fact that, as you say, “God cannot partake of sin” would not prevent Christ from bearing God’s judgment upon the sin of all mankind. Yes, Scripture speaks both of His body and soul being offered for sin. God’s judgment upon mankind eternally in the lake of fire will not be so much physical as spiritual—a fact which we see in Christ’s bearing of that judgment on the cross. Our salvation comes not merely in His being nailed to a cross in fulfillment of remarkable and specific prophecies, but in what Isaiah tells us: “...the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all....It pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin...” (53:6, 10).
That “the iniquity of us all” was laid upon Him did not mean that He “partook” of our sin in any sense. The phrase “he made him to be sin for us” can’t mean that Christ literally became “sin” itself, for sin is not an entity or some thing for Christ to “become.” Sin is the willful act of people. Second Corinthians 5:21 can only mean that Christ was punished as though He were sin itself, that is, He endured the full judgment which His own holy and righteous law required for all the sins of every person who will ever live. Christ did not partake of that sin in any way, did not become sinful, but endured its just punishment, declaring, “it is finished”—i.e., the penalty is paid in full.