That is interesting.
I don't read Greek, or Hebrew ... I don't care about the English semantic distinction between womb and fallopian tube ... it is beside the point of interest for me. I wonder ... is it physically possible that Christ's blood had no trace of his mother. You know ... a miracle is by definition: A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine. ... so, if I'm willing and able (and I am) to accept, embrace, the miracle of The Christ via a virgin birth, I'm obviously on board with the possibility of "divine blood"; aka, not human blood.
For Jesus Christ, there was no human male gamete (sperm) that penetrated the gamete (ovum) of Mary, fertilizing the egg, and then passing from the fallopian tube into the uterus and attaching itself in order to become a fetus. It was the Holy Spirit that came upon the Jewish virgin Mary and implanted the holy "seed" of Jesus in her "womb" supernaturally. This in itself is miraculous because normal conception takes place in the fallopian tube, not in the womb. This is confirmed again in the Bible in Luke 2:21. "And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb."
A second, and most vital point is this. "The blood which flows in an unborn babe's arteries and veins is not derived from the mother but is produced within the body of the fetus. Yet it is only after the sperm has entered the ovum and the foetus begins to develop that blood appears." (The Chemistry of the Blood, p.30, M.R. DeHaan M.D.) Medical science has shown that none of the mother's blood is given to a developing embryo. She supplies the nutrients for developing the baby, but no blood ever passes from the mother to the child. In doctor M.R. DeHaan's book The Chemistry of the Blood, page 32, he quotes from the Nurse's Handbook of Obstetrics by Louise Zabriskie, R.N., fifth Edition, pages 75 and 82.
Mary supplied the womb for Jesus Christ, and nourished His body, but her sin blood (since she was from the seed of Adam) was not passed on to Him. It was not the sperm of a man, but the Holy Spirit of God who supplied the "seed" for Jesus‚ conception, and the divine blood for His body. God provided a way for Jesus to have a human body, but His blood came from God. He was the God-Man. He was begotten of God. "Begotten" does not mean that God had a consort (a female) in order to produce a Son. It was a supernatural act of the Holy Spirit, as we said before.
Jesus was not conceived by a human father, but by the Holy Spirit of God Himself, in the womb of Mary. In the Gospel of John, chapter 1, verse 14, we see four profound truths.
(bold print mine)
I did read quite a bit of Dr. DeHaan's book last night and I think I'll look at it again tonight ... what my friend was saying (if I understood properly) and what Dr. DeHaan writes is that Jesus' blood came from His Father, God's side of the creation ... I think my buddy is saying (what he understands from reading this book) is that the sperm pinging the egg generates the development of blood ... therefore the blood is from the dad or in this case The Father. I was like, "Now whaattt??!" I tend to be pretty skeptical ... and my buddy said, "He is a doctor, an obstetrician!" For me that really doesn't even begin to settle it. I would think it was super awesome cool if it turned out to be true, and quite frankly, I hope it is, but. Well, as I said earlier ... I have had five babies ... and I've met some OBs that weren't that sharp.
I totally thought I was not drinking a glass of wine with dinner because I didn't want alcohol in my babies bloodstream ... how would those "nurtrients flow, if not via the blood. Hmmm, I didn't think of us as independent "closed" systems. What's the problem with incompatible blood Ph or types ... if they are closed systems?
Well, I'm in discovery on this stuff ... I already believe "the blood", and blood sacrifice for who knows exactly what reason is important, hmmm, how do I say it? Not important to God in His Godness, but important to God as a tool for helping "us" see. Humans have an intimate relationship with their own blood. So ... blood talks in a way that gets our attention.
The Bible chronicles His life being "sinless" so He would be found without spot or blemish and by that standard/train of thought ... would be/was an acceptable (to God) sacrifice ... and by/because of that sacrifice, believers may be eventually restored to closeness to God's glory. Sin scoots us away ... Christ's blood provides the way back to nearness to God as it was experienced before "sin".
It is interesting to me that the blood of Christ may have been ... not human. Thinking about this.
It would be truly beautiful if the blood sacrifice was ... divine blood.
I wish it weren't a "blood thing" ... I don't understand why it had to be that ... that is the essential element of sacrifice ... and the idea of "living sacrifice" is closely bound in Christian discipleship. The blood is an essential element in the sacrament of Communion. Blood ... and body ... the vehicle for the life force of the Christ. God makes a big deal about blood. I think He wants it understood.
all three of the photos are from http://www.sciencephoto.com
No comments:
Post a Comment