Full of Grace

[mariahloves]

Can anyone help me with resources or anything that prove that full of grace is the correct translation concerning the Blessed Virgin and not “highly favored one”?

 

[CSJ]

Mary was called by a title rather than by a name. This is the only such instance in the Bible. The term “full of grace” was traced back to St. Jerome’s translation in the Latin Vulgate. However, it lacks the depth of the original Greek. Luke could have used ***pleres charitos ***as he did of Stephen, but instead, he used kecharitomene. This second word indicates that God has already graced Mary previous to this point – this is where the dogma of the Immaculate Conception originated from.

• The “highly favored one” translation is lacking because of the major role that Mary played in salvation history. It is inadequate of such a high calling. In this instance, this latter description is tantamount to disrespect - like addressing Queen Elizabeth by “Liz” rather than by “Your Highness”. In light of Mary’s calling, the best translation is the most exalted one. I’m certain that Jesus would have fulfilled the Ten Commandments by honoring his mother as such.

A key point to remember is that we must translate Scripture in light of all Scripture. When we see the above point, we must look at what the rest of Scripture has to say about Mary. For example, Luke (Chapter 1) alludes to comparing Mary with the Ark of the Covenant in 2 Samuel 6. There are many similarities between Mary’s visit with Elizabeth and David’s effort to return the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. Immediately after the Annunciation, Mary goes with haste into the Judean hill country to visit Elizabeth.

When Elizabeth “cried out”, Luke used the Greek word “anaphoneo”.
an-af-o-neh’-oFrom G303 and G5455; to exclaim: - speak out.

This is a rare Greek word (used only once in the New Testament) and it’s use was in connection with liturgical ceremonies that were centred around the Ark and worship. It was only used 5 times in total in the Old Testament. Three of them are as follows: 1 Chron 15:28, 16:4-5, 2 Chron 5:13.

It’s interesting to note that a baby that is only 6 months old in the womb “leaps” for joy at the sound of Mary’s voice. Is he excited about a small blob of protoplasm that is only days old in the womb? Hardly. He is overjoyed at meeting the God-man who is fully Divine and fully human. This only shows that the Sacred Scriptures are not outdated or obsolete, but rather very relevant to modern times in promoting a Culture of Life.

Hope this helps. God Bless,
CSJ

 

[Myqyl]

I looked into this few months ago and checked with an ancient Greek scholar (she’s a scholar of ancient Greek, not an ancient Greek that is a scholar)…

She told me that the literal translation is neither “full of Grace” nor “Highly favored one”… It is “Having been filled with Grace” or “Having been fully Blessed”… The action was definitely in the past.

Hope that helps

God bless

 

[Cristian_B]

So … what’s the difference if she was filled with grace in the past or in the present? What does it matter? Since it is in the past, when is that exactly? Saying in the womb is pure speculation. But my question is: why does it even matter?

 

[Myqyl]

I didn’t mean to suggest it matters, just giving the translation as accurately as possible.

However I do find that it is interesting the the angel is calling Mary “Having been filled with Grace” before she conceived Jesus. This seems to me to be sound Scriptural support for the teaching of Immaculate Conception that I’ve often been told was a “made up tradition of the Catholic Church with no supporting Scripture”. If Mary was “Filled with Grace at some time in the past” when the angel came to her, it cetainly seems plausible that she “Had been filled with Grace” since conception as the Church teaches.

There’s a lot of other Scriptural passages that favor this teaching, but this one seems the most compelling when faced with someone saying the Church “made the whole thing up”.

Hope that clears it up.

God bless.

Mike

 

[CD_Michels]

However I do find that it is interesting the the angel is calling Mary “Having been filled with Grace” before she conceived Jesus. This seems to me to be sound Scriptural support for the teaching of Immaculate Conception that I’ve often been told was a “made up tradition of the Catholic Church with no supporting Scripture”. If Mary was “Filled with Grace at some time in the past” when the angel came to her, it cetainly seems plausible that she “Had been filled with Grace” since conception as the Church teaches.

There’s a lot of other Scriptural passages that favor this teaching, but this one seems the most compelling when faced with someone saying the Church “made the whole thing up”.

Also note that many other Christian groups tend to have a different understanding of what ‘grace’ is. As Catholics we believe that Grace is God’s Love. And to be in a ‘state of Grace’ is to be in union with God, which requires one to be free from sin. So the Angel is telling Mary she is sinless.

Now, some Protestants believe that grace is nothing more than a ‘sugar coating’ that allows God to look at us sinful beings. So, those that have this view of grace would still not believe that this verse supports the Immaculate Conception.

So, if you are trying to teach others about the Immaculate Conception, you have to first teach them about Grace. And only after they grasp this concept will the Church’s teachings on Mary make sense.

 

[Myqyl]

Also note that many other Christian groups tend to have a different understanding of what ‘grace’ is. As Catholics we believe that Grace is God’s Love. And to be in a ‘state of Grace’ is to be in union with God, which requires one to be free from sin. So the Angel is telling Mary she is sinless.

Now, some Protestants believe that grace is nothing more than a ‘sugar coating’ that allows God to look at us sinful beings. So, those that have this view of grace would still not believe that this verse supports the Immaculate Conception.

So, if you are trying to teach others about the Immaculate Conception, you have to first teach them about Grace. And only after they grasp this concept will the Church’s teachings on Mary make sense.

I’ve found it effective to go through the Old Testament and point to how God prepared for the “containers” (or Arks) for all of His previous covenants… He didn’t say to Noah, “Build me boat”… He gave very detailed, explicit instructions. He didn’t say to Moses “Build a box for those tablets I gave you”… Again He gave very detailed, explicit instructions on how it was to be prepared. If God was so careful about a box for stone tablets, wouldn’t it be odd for Him to tell the Angel “Pick a woman” instead of preparing her very carefully before she carried His only begotten Son and the Saviour of all humanity? It just doesn’t make sense any other way.

God bless.

Mike

 

[CD_Michels]

I’ve found it effective to go through the Old Testament and point to how God prepared for the “containers” (or Arks) for all of His previous covenants… He didn’t say to Noah, “Build me boat”… He gave very detailed, explicit instructions. He didn’t say to Moses “Build a box for those tablets I gave you”… Again He gave very detailed, explicit instructions on how it was to be prepared. If God was so careful about a box for stone tablets, wouldn’t it be odd for Him to tell the Angel “Pick a woman” instead of preparing her very carefully before she carried His only begotten Son and the Saviour of all humanity? It just doesn’t make sense any other way.

God bless.

Mike

 

[panevino]

So … what’s the difference if she was filled with grace in the past or in the present? What does it matter? Since it is in the past, when is that exactly? Saying in the womb is pure speculation. But my question is: why does it even matter?

My understanding is that it is a magnification/ illumination of the divinity of Jesus. That she was prepared this way for the role of bearing god.
So the point is not to elevate Mary , it is due given the divinity of Jesus.