Mary Full of Grace: The Greek Words

[PhilVaz]

Sand << The point is that as Mary is fully and ever graced kecharitomene, so is the believer fully and ever saved sesosmenoi. >>

Have been saved (Eph 2:8-9), and have been graced (Luke 1:28) refers to a past event, continuing on in the present, not to the future. On Salvation, for Catholics and Orthodox and all the Church Fathers, that past event was Baptism (1 Peter 3:21; John 3:5; Titus 3:5; Acts 2:38; 1 Cor 6:11) which grace and salvation continues in the present (Phil 2:12-13; 1 Cor 1:18; 1 John 1:7-9), and could in the future if we continue in grace and don’t fall away (Matt 10:22; 24:13; 2 Peter 1:10; Col 1:22-24; Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-29; Luke 8:13; John 15:1-10; etc). The Blessed Mother was full of grace in the past and present when Angel Gabriel spoke those words. An article on what ancient Greek speakers and writers thought:

The Meaning of Kecharitomene

Phil P

 

[RyanL]

Phil,

Did you know your article is the first one linked if you google “kecharitomene”? Just thought you might like to know.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Phil, Did you know your article is the first one linked if you google “kecharitomene”? Just thought you might like to know. >>

Oh yeah, its awesome. Try these too hee hee

Augustine Papacy
Augustine Eucharist
Sola Scriptura Debate
Cardinal Ratzinger Evolution
Jerome Papacy
Athanasius Scripture Tradition
Aquinas Sola Scriptura
Immaculate Conception Church Fathers
Immaculate Conception Bible
Tertullian Infant Baptism
Da Vinci Code Critics (used to be #1)
Bible Contradictions (I get a lot of hits from this one)

Most of these are #1 or at least top 5.

AND coming soon…I predict!

Purgatory Church Fathers

On and on…hooray! Google likes me, it started on my AOL pages, and I moved them all to the dumb bringyou.to domain in 2002.

Phil P

 

[Mystophilus]

Interesting argument, but let’s see how consistent you are with it:

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

have been saved = Greek sesōsmenoi = Perfect, Passive, Participle.

Salvation cannot be lost.

What do you say? :ehh:

My apologies for the intrusion, but I think that you may have missed the fact that the participle is only one half of the form in Eph 2:8. The complete form is εστε σεσωισμενοι [with or without the iota on or after the omega], which is a ‘periphrastic’, i.e., a combination of the verb ‘be’ (ειναι), with a participle, in this case a perfect passive participle, as you noted.

The periphrasis is important, because the writer did not simply use σεσωισθε, which is the 2nd person plural perfect passive: “you have been saved”.

εστε σεσωισμενοι is “you are having been saved”, which is horribly clumsy in English, but it refers to a present state as the result of a past event: there is no necessity in it being a present state of perpetuity, because no reference is made to the future.

This might be clearer if you consider the fact that Greek made no particularly strong distinction between nouns and substantive adjectives: any adjective could be used substantively. Thus, the phrase in question could be just as reasonably rendered “you are [the ones who are] having been saved”. Again, there is no reference to a future state: ‘you are saved [now]’.

 

[Mystophilus]

I think that others here have done a great job of identifying the form and presenting some interpretations of the term in question. As my :twocents:, I would just like to provide a link to the LSJ entry for the root-form of κεχαριτωμενη: χαριτοω. Put those into the form ‘having been ____ed’, and you have a pretty useful translation of the term.

Regarding the Immaculate Conception, or Mary’s sinlessness, I would describe the term as being non-determinant. Calling Mary κεχαριτωμενη was certainly praising her, but no precise reference is made in the text to the cause of that praise. Likewise, the perfect form does not indicate anything about the future, which is to say that it does not describe her as ‘going to be favoured’, and so it does not give any definite indication of future sinlessness.

I am, personally, not a fan of the ‘Full of Grace’ translation, despite its self-evident beauty and traditional appeal, simply because it omits the agency which, I feel, ought to be there. The verb χαριτοω is transitive: it refers to action done by one person to another. The passive form emphasises that, because only transitives can be passive (e.g., you can ‘be seen’, because you can ‘see something’, but you cannot ‘be happened’, because you cannot ‘happen something’). As such, I prefer “Favoured One”, or something similar, because it implies the agent, God, who performs the act of favouring.

Having said all of this, translation is an art, not a science. It is never exact, and there are usually a dozen valid translations which could be made of any phrase which you want to change into another language. Which ones are ‘better’ depends more upon personal preference than it does upon any strict rules, although we can talk about contextual relevance, cultural connotations, and degrees of correlation.

Last but not least, I would like to add the (perhaps quite obvious) point that doctrines such as Mary’s Immaculate Conception and sinlessness were not, and should never be, built around the reading of one, single word. From memory, the Immaculate Conception draws its origin from this text, and later readers’ reiterations of the ideas therein. As for her sinlessness, I am not sure who was first to express that.

 

[porthos11]

The point is that as Mary is fully and ever graced kecharitomene, so is the believer fully and ever saved sesosmenoi.

Salvation cannot be lost, IOW, “Once Saved, Always Saved.”

But no claim is ever made about kecharitomene. The Greek says nothing about Mary’s future state, only that from the past (and we don’t know when), up to the time of the annoucement. That’s all. Kecharitomene, linguistically speaking says nothing about Mary’s state of grace in the future, which is not covered by the perfect tense.

 

[Zooey]

But no claim is ever made about kecharitomene. The Greek says nothing about Mary’s future state, only that from the past (and we don’t know when), up to the time of the annoucement. That’s all. Kecharitomene, linguistically speaking says nothing about Mary’s state of grace in the future, which is not covered by the perfect tense.

Exactly!!

 

[NotWorthy]

Last but not least, I would like to add the (perhaps quite obvious) point that doctrines such as Mary’s Immaculate Conception and sinlessness were not, and should never be, built around the reading of one, single word. From memory, the Immaculate Conception draws its origin from this text, and later readers’ reiterations of the ideas therein. As for her sinlessness, I am not sure who was first to express that.

I understand the link to Mary as the “Woman” in Genesis 3:15 also lends creedence to her Immaculate state and sinlessness. The key that links the woman to Mary, of course, is “I will place enmity between you and the woman, and your seed and hers. You will strike at his heel, and he will strike at your head”.

Of course, Jesus is the one who will strike at Satan’s head on the Cross (as Satan is striking him on the heel), and Jesus is the seed of Mary’s.

But the phrase, “I will put enmity….” shows that Satan and the woman are enemies. In Hebrew literature (as I understand it) the word “enmity” shows lifelong enemies in a lifelong struggle. The only way that Mary could be an enemy of Satan’s is if she is sinless. If she sinned, then she would be a slave to sin, just like all others before Christ offered us Salvation.

 

[NotWorthy]

But no claim is ever made about kecharitomene. The Greek says nothing about Mary’s future state, only that from the past (and we don’t know when), up to the time of the annoucement. That’s all. Kecharitomene, linguistically speaking says nothing about Mary’s state of grace in the future, which is not covered by the perfect tense.

OK, now you’ve confused me. I feel like I’m really liiving down to my name.

In posts numbers 5 & 8, the posters do say that Mary is “ever graced” - past, present, and future. I’ve read this in numerous Apologetics articles.

Can you please clarify to a brother in need???

 

[Mystophilus]

In posts numbers 5 & 8, the posters do say that Mary is “ever graced” - past, present, and future. I’ve read this in numerous Apologetics articles.

Can you please clarify to a brother in need???

Part of the problem most likely lies in the differences between the Greek text and Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.

Luke’s Greek uses the perfect participle κεχαριτωμενη, which, being ‘perfect’, refers to an action ‘having been completed’. The reference is to the present and the past, and fails to say anything about the future.

Jerome took a different tack. He used ‘plena gratia’, an adjective phrase. Being an adjective, plena has no tense whatsoever, and can be said to apply to all times equally well.

He could have used a more direct translation, such as ‘fauta’, but chose not to, and it is in that choice that readers of the Vulgate find the basis for reading Jerome as asserting the perpetuity of that fullness. Their reading is a good one of the Latin, as authorial choices between different linguistic possibilities have a great bearing upon meaning.

Since contemporary Catholic theology is based heavily upon previous Catholic theology, the historical influence of the Vulgate wording is quite significant (q.v. the specific references to that translation in the Council of Trent).

 

[NotWorthy]

Mystophilus,

Not to belabor a point, but the posts #5 and #8 are specifically referencing the Greek, not the Latin, and they are saying it’s past, present, and future.

Thanks, though, for the post that does help to explain a lot, just not this specific contention.

 

[francisca]

I read post #5 & #8, but they only say about past and present, NOT the future.

 

[francisca]

I have this question : what is the word “grace” in hebrew ? I notice that this word “grace” is used quite a lot in the new testament, but not so much in the old testament.

I am curious about what the greek word “grace” equivalent to in the hebrew old testament.

There are many of words “salvation” in the hebrew old testament, but not “grace”.

 

[NotWorthy]

I read post #5 & #8, but they only say about past and present, NOT the future.

So what am I reading into this that does not imply the future.

So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

or

Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action

 

[Mystophilus]

Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action.

There is a result, but it need not be permanent. The continuance is a continuance into the present, not a continuance into the future. We can see this in other uses of perfect participles, which are actually quite rare in the NT because the Aorist often serves as the past participle, and the need for the perfect idea of ‘an action which occurred before another’ is quite rare. (We can ignore the voice, because we are only concerned with the nature of the perfect forms, and so the examples will use actives rather than passives.)

Let us take, for example, John 7:15, wherein the Jews exclaim about Jesus’ learning:
Πως 'ουτος γραμματα οιδεν μη μεμαθηκως;
How - this one - letters - knows - not - having learnt?

μεμαθηκως is a perfect participle, i.e., it is the same form as κεχαριτωμενη, albeit active voice rather than passive voice. Quite obviously, there is no future meaning: they are not saying that he will not ever learn these things.

Another example is in John 4:45, where the Galileans received Jesus,
παντα 'εωρακοτες 'οσα εποιησεν εν 'Ιεροσολυμοις
all things - having seen - which - he did - in - Jerusalem.

The perfect is used to say that the act of seeing is prior to the act of receiving, and this is the purpose for which perfects are employed.

In English, we use perfects in essentially the same was as Greek did (actually because Greek used them that way, but that is another story). A perfect refers to an action or event which took place before the ‘basic’ time of past, present, or future.

I saw that John had taken the car, and so I walked to the shop. (‘saw’ and ‘walked’ are past, but ‘had taken’ is before either of them.)
Someone has eaten my sandwich! (‘has eaten’ is before now.)
We can go on holiday in December, because we will have saved enough money then. (‘will have saved’ is before the future holiday in December.)

The usage of the perfect form κεχαριτωενη in Luke 1:28 tells us that the action of the ‘giving of grace’ occurred before Gabriel’s announcement to Mary. It says nothing about the future. If Luke had wanted to present an ongoing giving of grace, he could have used the present passive participle, χαριτουμενη, particularly if he combined it with the usual formula for perpetuity, εις τον αιωνα (‘into the age’).

I suspect that those who have grown up with the Latin ‘plena gratia’ timelessness are simply reading it back into the Greek. The Greek, however, is silent about the future.

 

[porthos11]

I suspect that those who have grown up with the Latin ‘plena gratia’ timelessness are simply reading it back into the Greek. The Greek, however, is silent about the future.

I suspect as well. Unfortunately, a proper reading of the Greek only says that

1. Mary was [completely] graced (hinted at and somewhat enforced by the vocative and substantive use of the participle) at some time in the past (perfect tense).
2. We do not know at what point in the past Mary was graced (the tense or time says nothing of this).
3. The status of being graced continued from that initial time (we don’t know when) up to the present (the point at which the angel gave the announcement).
4. It says nothing of her future state of grace.

That’s why Catholics do not use kecharitomene alone as a proof-text for the Immaculate Conception. It, however, provides a strong basis and foundation, given the fact that the angel used the term as a title for her (in place of her name), and that her state of being fully graced was continuous. So if any, it “proves” that she was continually in a state of holiness even before she conceived Christ.

To use the Bible in support of the Immaculate conception, one must use this verse and combine it with Old Testament typology, especially the symbolism and legislation concerning the Ark of the Covenant, and the fact that the Woman and the serpent will be mortal enemies.

 

[salvereginadude]

I’m sure others could give much greater (name removed by moderator)ut and insight than I, but I just thought I’d share something that I realized the other day that might be relevant to this thread. As we were reading chapter 1 of John in my (LCMS) high school class we came upon the verse which I had heard many times, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” This verse speaks to us of the reality of the Incarnation and we bow our heads every time we hear these words while praying the Angelus. The next part I was also used to hearing, “Full of grace and truth” But then I realized, FULL OF GRACE!!! The only other person in the Bible described as “full of grace” is the Blessed Virgin. On the other hand, the only other person in the Bible besides Mary described as “full of grace” is Jesus! To me, this was just another example which proved the state of Our Lady’s sinlessness in comparison to that of her Son’s. But I’m sure to others this was probably very obvious.

 

[NotWorthy]

Let us take, for example, John 7:15, wherein the Jews exclaim about Jesus’ learning:
Πως 'ουτος γραμματα οιδεν μη μεμαθηκως;
How - this one - letters - knows - not - having learnt?

μεμαθηκως is a perfect participle, i.e., it is the same form as κεχαριτωμενη, albeit active voice rather than passive voice. Quite obviously, there is no future meaning: they are not saying that he will not ever learn these things.

Mysto, all I can say about that explanation is:

“It’s all Greek to me” Ba-da-boom, Ching!

I can’t believe this thread’s gone this long without somebody throwing that out.

 

[rr1213]

As the OP, let me say that all of this is way over my head and I’m still reading through it trying to grasp some imperfect understanding. Much thanks for everyone taking a stab at the question.

 

[Mystophilus]

I’m sure others could give much greater (name removed by moderator)ut and insight than I, but I just thought I’d share something that I realized the other day that might be relevant to this thread. As we were reading chapter 1 of John in my (LCMS) high school class we came upon the verse which I had heard many times, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” This verse speaks to us of the reality of the Incarnation and we bow our heads every time we hear these words while praying the Angelus. The next part I was also used to hearing, “Full of grace and truth” But then I realized, FULL OF GRACE!!! The only other person in the Bible described as “full of grace” is the Blessed Virgin. On the other hand, the only other person in the Bible besides Mary described as “full of grace” is Jesus! To me, this was just another example which proved the state of Our Lady’s sinlessness in comparison to that of her Son’s. But I’m sure to others this was probably very obvious.

My apologies, but the Greek does not describe Mary as ‘full of grace’, most particularly in that none of the several Greek expressions for ‘full’ is used: that only occurs in Jerome’s Latin, and would only be obvious to those reading the Vulgate or having been brought up (a perfect passive participle in English!) within a tradition based upon the Vulgate.

John 1:14 describes Jesus as being πληρης χαριτος και αληθειας, ‘full of grace and truth’, while, in Luke 1:28, Gabriel describes Mary as being κεχαριτωμενη, ‘having been given grace’. Similarly, in Ephesians 1:6, it is said of God that εχαριτωσεν 'ημας, ‘he gave grace to us’. From the Greek, then, the linguistic connection between the use of the verb in Eph 1:6 and the participle (a derivation of the verb) in Luke 1:28 is at least as strong as the connection between the participle used substantively in Luke 1:28 and the noun (a substantive, and the root of the verb) in John 1:14.

While Jerome certainly saw a connection between the descriptions of Mary (gratia plena) and Jesus (plenum gratiae), but he also presents the connection in Ephesians, saying, ‘gratificauit nos’.

However, as mentioned by Porthos11, Catholic traditions are not built upon isolated verses.