A friend on Facebook posed a good question about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Another friend, who “is big into apologetics,” had tried to point to “some sort of fallacy” in the notion that “Mary was conceived without original sin, then so was her mother, then her mother and so on and so on.” On a certain understanding of original sin and the purpose of the Virgin Birth, this is quite a common objection (one I’d expressed myself, “back in the day,” even).
To which I reply:
I expect he’s thinking of a “regress problem” rather than a fallacy, properly speaking. Of course, in matters divine, “regress” is not necessarily a very strong argument: after all, it is the inevitability of causal regress that suggests that only an infinitely great Creator could be the origin of all things.
But in this case, it simply misses the point through a (typical Protestant) misunderstanding of what original sin is and why the Virgin Birth was important. In fairness, this misunderstanding is suggested by some language in Augustine’s anti-Pelagian polemics (a fertile source of misreadings in the Lutheran/Reformed tradition).
The elements of the misunderstanding are roughly these:
- Original sin is a transmitted condition, like sickle-cell anemia.
- To be sinless, Jesus had to be born without “original sin.”
- For Jesus to be born without “original sin,” so must Mary, etc.
This sets up the regress problem. Incidentally, it is also a common explanation for the Virgin Birth, in another variant that takes the “genetic” model of original sin so seriously that it imagines “original sin” is transmitted only by the male, so that all women are affected by it but would not transmit it–if, that is, if men were not needed for procreation. Hence, goeth the flawed theory, Virgin Birth.
But this model misunderstands almost everything (again, bearing in mind that parts of it appear in various polemics and apologetics, so I don’t accuse people of just making up fantasies, here).
Start with original sin. Even on the traducian hypothesis, which Augustine tends toward, original sin is only *analogous* to genetic transmission. It is often quite confusing whether the “soul” or the “nature” is transmitted, and whether it is “transmitted” or shared/diffused, on this view. Suffice to say that the explanation that makes sense of this is *far* more metaphysically sophisticated than the notion of sin as a sort of genetic defect suggests. When we say that some sin is “original” rather than “personal” (or “actual”), we are making a statement about the way sin inheres in the subject and the way God chose to permit sin’s temporary triumph in order to both propagate and rescue the People He always intended to raise up for His Son on this earth. We don’t see sin only in this or that action we take, but as something in us–something we are subjectively incapable of not seeing *as* us. From our conception, we are habitual sinners, that is, we seek our subjective happiness in ways and to degrees that assume and perpetuate our separation from God and which can only keep us happy while we can maintain the illusion that we are uncreated, that we are in total control of what we are and become.
Which is why it is problematic to take the view that Jesus could not have been sinless except under some particular conditions. Jesus is, after all, eternally begotten of the Father before all ages, God from God, light from light, and so could not conceivably have required any additional steps to be free from sin of any kind. Sin had no purchase in Him, and only by His own intentional assumption of human limitations (something He added to Himself) could He even experience temptation and the suffering of struggling against sin in His own being. Jesus did experience separation from God, but the separation was subjective and as a consequence of a voluntary and blameless sharing of our condition that went all the way to a death with no sign of God’s love except His own faithful suffering. How would it make sense to say that this Jesus “needed” a special birth so that He could be sinless?
No, what He chose to do was to fully assume our humanity, to add it to His deity, and to do so in a way that sanctified that humanity–actually and demonstratively marking not only his own human being but human being as such as transformed by His redemptive work–and as such it was fitting that His assumption of humanity should not rupture the ordinary method of generation, but be an unmistakably divine and redemptive participation in that method. For the rest, see the Gospels.
So the Virgin Birth depends upon the work of each Person of the Trinity in accomplishing the Incarnation, but more substantially it is the seed of the New Creation, that is, the re-creation of all humanity and of the cosmos as the scene of divine/human friendship. Mary is not only the human tabernacle in which God Himself is enclosed, but hers is the most immediate cooperation with divine grace. Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, Paul, John Paul II, are all well “downstream” from Mary in how central their cooperation was. Mary is the nearest in intimacy to the Incarnate Son, as well–Moses was the last man God spoke to face to face, and Uriah was struck down for even touching the Ark of the Covenant, but Mary had God Himself within her for nine months. How would it be fitting for the God whose eyes cannot even look directly on sin, who is a consuming fire, to be enclosed in sinful flesh and placed under the maternal care of a sinner? It would have been necessary for Him to wholly sanctify her at some point, and that point would have to be prior to His conception, and even prior to her Fiat.
When we understand it correctly, it quickly becomes fitting that Mary, who was unique in her role, should be dealt with uniquely by the grace of God. She was preserved from all sin so that her Fiat would be a perfect cooperation with God’s will, so that she would be a fit New Eve, a perfect tabernacle, a good Mother of God, and a suitable first member of Redeemed humanity. All those who died expecting the Promise, receive it through her; all those who lived to see Jesus walk the earth, received Him through her; and we who believe without seeing have received Him through her.
There’s no “dodge the sin” game, here. And no regress; what God did in Anna’s womb was unique, and He did it to Mary (not Anna) as the first (in order of generation, not of causation) step in the Incarnation and the work of the Church. And Mary did in fact freely cooperate with this unique grace, and her Fiat was pure, and the rest follows.
Yes, as people have debated and theologized this, over the centuries, you’ll find all kinds of theories. Pious legends about Joachim and Anna abound, and let’s be honest that they must have been pretty amazing parents (else we might have heard about the sufferings of Mary at the hands of her family). Heavily traducian interpretations, sex-is-always-tainted interpretations, and others are pretty easy to find. Some of these make more sense than they sound like to our jaded ears; others are just flawed moments in our continuing effort to listen well to God.
I hope that helps.