The Annunciation Objection

[zpolar_23]

I need a little help with answering an objection to the annunciation. Without trying to be too vulgar, how should I respond to someone who says that the blessed mother had no choice, and was “forced upon” by God, specifically because Gabriel doesn’t flat out say “hey I’m about to tell you something, and when I finish let me know if you’re on board, sounds good? break!”
The only two responses that I can think of is the passage where Mary says “let it be done…” which implies there had to be some sort of indication in Gabriel’s voice that this was optional.
The second using an analogy of a sports coach. Let’s say coach comes up to you and (let’s use Gridiron Football) and says “hey so-and-so, I have this play where you are going to run behind the QB and wait for him to toss it back to you so you can throw it over to #99.” Notice coach doesn’t ask if so-and-so wants to, nor his opinion, but I don’t think anyone would think coach would berate so-and-so if he had an objection or opinion, or would force so-and-so to be part of the play. It’s normal human conversation to make a statement which is implying an objection or acceptation or an opinion.
If I should stick with these responses let me know, if I need to change it up let me know, or if you have something to add, thanks in advance!
PS: I should have simplified the objection by phrasing it “why is the Angel’s message declarative and assertive, that this WILL happen. In contrast to Mary’s response being a voluntary one”

 

[Vico]

She approved.

Luke 1

38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

 

[zpolar_23]

I agree, and would use the same passage, however what if followed up and said “Ok cool, how come the angel didn’t say something like “what say you then to my word from God?” to set up her approving response?” I don’t object that Mary approved, I’m just speaking from another point of view.

 

[Dorothy]

Because she always wanted to do God’s will!

Alleluia!

 

[Vico]

I agree, and would use the same passage, however what if followed up and said “Ok cool, how come the angel didn’t say something like “what say you then to my word from God?” to set up her approving response?” I don’t object that Mary approved, I’m just speaking from another point of view.

To say what she did proves that it was not forced upon her – it was not against her will.

 

[1ke]

If I should stick with these responses let me know, if I need to change it up let me know, or if you have something to add, thanks in advance!

I don’t think you should go down that line of reasoning at all.

To try to defend the biblical account as if it were some sort of video recording or news account of the incident is completely wrong headed.

Biblical passages must always be looked at in context, within the mind of the church, within the four senses of scripture. It isn’t a News account. It isn’t a history as we think of it today. It isn’t a biography. These aren’t first hand accounts.

This is Luke writing theology not biography.

The annunciation of John’s birth and the annunciation of Jesus’s birth are parallels in the first book of Luke. They have a theological meaning. They are not meant to be taken literally.

If you try to argue this literal stuff you are completely barking up the wrong tree. This person’s entire premise is nonsense. We know from the whole of the Bible that each person has free will. Yes Mary’s response does confirm that in that she chose to participate in God’s plan. However, again we do not take this as some sort of literal transcription of a conversation.

 

[Gorgias]

It isn’t a News account. It isn’t a history as we think of it today. It isn’t a biography. These aren’t first hand accounts.

This is Luke writing theology not biography.

I agree that this isn’t a 21st century history account; but, the Gospels are written in the style of contemporary Greco-Roman histories, according to Dr Brant Pitre.

So… is it merely a “theological meaning… not meant to be taken literally”? I would say that this is too strong a judgment.

I think you’re spot on with the suggestion that we look at the parallel account of the announcement of John’s birth, in order to glean additional meaning here: in both cases, we have an announcement – in Zechariah’s case, it’s met with disbelief and skepticism, but in Mary’s, with trust and faith. I think that’s the line of thought we can assert to make our point.

 

[1ke]

So… is it merely a “theological meaning… not meant to be taken literally”? I would say that this is too strong a judgment.

You skipped where I said that one must look at the four senses of scripture and read with the mind of the church. Nor did I use the word merely.

Don’t pick apart my posts out of context. You actually do that a lot. It’s tiresome.

 

[Gorgias]

Don’t pick apart my posts out of context. You actually do that a lot. It’s tiresome.

Hardly out of context. I took your assertion – “theological, not literal”, and disagreed with it. Sorry if that is “tiresome” for you.

 

[zpolar_23]

So basically, the response to the objector would be:
it was all free-will, Mary had a choice(Plus, who would say “let it be done to me according to thy word” after being forced? it makes no sense.), and what we find in Luke is just a “summary,” if you will, of their conversation. It is not a word for word, authentic, conversation much like a journalist keeping track of an interview and has the whole thing on tape, but has to make a summary out of such a long tape.
I think a lot of the confusion about you’re “literal” take is about the conversation actually happening, historically, versus the non-literal transcript we are given in sacred scripture.
Please correct or add, thanks and God bless!

 

[1ke]

Correct, it’s not a transcription. And it’s not to be taken out of context of the Bible + Tradition (which together form Divine Revelation) as a whole, the four senses of scripture, and what Luke is communicating through the two parallel stories of the annunciation of John the Baptist and the annunciation of Jesus.

 

[JohnR77]

Thanks for the comments above.

I can certainly imagine there being more words spoken at the Annunciation.

But on the other hand, I think it is not impossible that more was communicated between Archangel Gabriel and the Blessed Virgin Mary not just by words, but by way of Tradition and relationship between the Jewish people and God and even more so between Mary and her relationship with God. Mary just knew God was not forcing Himself upon her. The waiting of the angel seems to imply that Mary did have a decision to make, and to give to Archangel Gabriel in this regard.

Anyway, I hope I am not out of line by offering this piece on

The Interpretation Of Scripture ‘In The Spirit’:
The Edelby Intervention At Vatican Ii

“He also reminds us that docility to the Holy Spirit produces and reinforces another attitude needed for the correct orientation of exegesis: fidelity to the Church. But this is not a restriction on the freedom of the exegete.”

Earlier in the article it is stated :

“Consequently it is necessary to have recourse to a higher principle of unity - the action of the Holy Spirit. If the Scriptures in their entirety have been written ’ in the Spirit ’ and under his influence, it is only natural to deduce that the Bible must have a basic unity. …

“John Paul II reaffirms Edelby’s insistence on the need for a deep personal commitment to ’ life in the Spirit ’ as a necessary precondition for an authentic exegesis of Scripture. In his address on the occasion of the publication of The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church , the 1993 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, he advised that

’ to arrive at a completely valid interpretation of words inspired by the Holy Spirit, one must first be guided by the Holy Spirit and it is necessary to pray for that, to pray much, to ask in prayer for the interior light of the Spirit and docilely accept that light, to ask for the love that alone enables one to understand the language of God who “is love” (1 Jn 4:8,16)’ .
[61 : Address, 23 April 1993, no. 9, published in the L’Osservatore Romano , English language edition, 28 April 1993. ]”