Was Mary Sinless? Fav Arguments

[Good_Fella]

I also don’t find the doctrine of “Full of Grace” bearing the complete removal of sin in a person who confesses the need of Savior.

And coming to her, the angel said, “Hail, O favoured one!”
*Luke 1, 28 [NAB] *

In the Greek text, the singular female vocative “favored one” is kecharitomene. It can be paraphrased as “completely, perfectly, and enduringly endowed with grace.” The perfect passive participle shows “a completeness with a past result.” The term does not merely mean that God granted Mary the special favour of a divine vocation. Grace and favour are associated insofar God chose to grace Mary and preserve her free from the stain of all sin because of her divine maternity. The root of this word is charis, which means grace. The prefix ke means that Mary was graced by the time the angel appeared to her. The suffix mene indicates that Mary was the recipient of God’s grace. True, charis may also be translated as meaning “favour” or “kindness”, but it’s inconceivable that Luke intended the word to merely mean this, for the word never means favour or kindness in other parts of the NT. Thus the more accurate translation of the expression kecharitomene is the one we find in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and the Aramaic Peshitta of the 3rd century which properly reflect the sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church: “full of grace”. Indeed, this is how the Greek Fathers of the early Church interpreted Luke’s text.

*Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.
[stephanos de playrais charitos kai dunamaos epoie terata kai saimaya megala en to lao.] *
Acts 6, 8 [NRSVCE]

Many Protestants cite this verse in an attempt to prove that being “full of grace” doesn’t necessarily mean that a person is sinless, or else Mary couldn’t have been the only sinless human creature to have ever lived. However, the KJV reads “full of faith”. Anyway, charitos is the noun used in Acts 6:8. It places* charis *(grace) in a genetive case. If we look at the verb epoie in this passage, we can place the noun within a time reference. The verb tense is imperfect past progressive, so it indicates that the action - performing great signs and wonders - is completed in the past and left there. So charitos simply indicates that Stephen was full of or filled with wisdom and fortitude (actual signal graces) while he was debating with the religious elders in the synagogue and performing great signs and wonders. Whether Stephen remained wise and strong after this event is unimportant. The point is that Luke isn’t concerned with the time before and after the event during which Stephen was filled with a sufficient supply of grace that rendered him faithful and in the state of sanctity in his present task. But this is not so with regard to Mary.

In Luke 11:28, the expression kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle and singular female vocative. A participle is a verb that is used to describe a subject. The perfect tense describes an action in the present with a completed result. And since this term is used as a title, the evangelist doesn’t intend to describe Mary’s state within the time reference of the present moment. He presents the angel as saying, "Hail, you who are the one who has been “completely, perfectly, and permanently endowed with grace.” Someone completely endowed with grace is obviously full of grace despite the verbal difference. Mary’s endowment of grace to the extreme capacity is a completed past action with a lasting effect into the future. And Luke is concerned with this fact which is obvious by his use of grammar. He is acknowledging an important and fundmental belief about Mary held in the nascent church of his time, which he may have learned from his companion Paul.

When the angel Gabriel addressed Mary with the title* kecharitomene* – the one having been completely, perfectly, and permanently endowed with grace - he wasn’t simply describing her at a given instance in time as Stephen is described to be in the Book of Acts. And by grace the angel did not mean any of the particular actual graces such as wisdom and fortitude, which help to sanctify the soul. The grace the angel had in mind was that of unlimited sanctification itself. The Greek singular female vocative can be paraphrased or translated into the Latin to mean “full of grace” (gratia plena) for Mary had been endowed with a fullness of sanctifying grace to the extreme capacity, having been completely, perfectly, and enduringly endowed with grace in view of her maternal vocation, which required that she be preserved free from all the stains of original sin: concupiscence of the eyes, concupiscence of the flesh, and the pride of life which lead to personal sins. To conceive and bear the holy Child of God as a mother worthy of him, the spiritual gifts of wisdom and fortitude, however plentiful and well-supplied in her soul, wouldn’t have been enough to meet her divine call. Mary had to be perpetually holy in every virtuous aspect - from the moment she was conceived to the time of her dormition - in order to be a worthy mother of the divine Son. Her most highly privileged divine call was lifelong.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

The word of God is rational. It is not illogical. “all” means all. “none” means none. there is no exception. if there was, you use “almost all”, “some”, “all except”. To break the rules of logic is to mean irrationality.

We don’t study logic in Koine Greek 101. But we do learn the meaning of vocabulary.

If there is no exception, does “many” (polloi) mean “all” (pas/pantes)? See Romans 5:12, 19, which I discussed above.

No sane professing christian will ever say that the word of God is irrational.

True, but many private interpretations of God’s written word is.

The reason Jesus is not included in “all have sinned” is because, although he is 100% man, he is also 100% God.

The reason why Jesus would not be included is because he alone was not subject to inheriting original sin and was incapable of committing personal sins on account of a sinful nature. God could not fall short of His own glory being incarnate. An infant or a mentally disabled person has inherited the stain of original sin but, nevertheless, would not be included as well because of his incapability of committing any personal sins and incurring personal guilt. Sin is imputed where there is full knowledge of right and wrong.

The argument that the word “all” allows for an exception because Enoch and Elijah did not die when “death spread to (all) men” and they did not die is just false. It is a complete misunderstanding of the text. Instead of redefining the meaning of “all”, we should be asking what “death” can mean in this text.

In Romans 5:12, Paul is saying that the condemnation of ‘physical’ death that came to Adam was universally passed on to every human being. What Paul isn’t saying is that all human beings, including infants, die because they have personally sinned as Adam had. Paul explicitly states in Romans 5: 15-18 that Adam’s sin, not our own personal sins, brought judgment, condemnation, and death to the whole human race. And since Adam’s personal sin isn’t imputed to us, it wouldn’t negate the Divine justice if Enoch and Elijah were preserved free from the universal condemnation of physical death, although they still await the resurrection of their bodies on the last day being subject to original sin. Paul isn’t speaking of spiritual death, which is being in the state of alienation from the life of God at the present moment because of our personal transgressions and sinful habits (Eph 2:1; 4:18; Col 2:13).

Consider this: In Genesis it says “…on the day you eat of this fruit, you shall surely die.” When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, did they die that very same day? No. They still lived hundreds of years. Why? Because when the Bible teaches about death and dieing, it does not always mean “physical” death (Heart stops beating). It also refers to “spiritual” death (eternal separation from God).

What matters is that they did in fact die because of their disobedience. Originally Adam and Eve weren’t destined to die. All of their descendants die, although some people do in fact live longer than others.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[ezeekl]

hello guys. wow. i honestly don’t know where to begin. i’m just going to respond to one issue. Interpretation.

The word of God is rational. It is not illogical. “all” means all. “none” means none. there is no exception. if there was, you use “almost all”, “some”, “all except”. Whether it be in english or greek or hebrew. whether it be written 2000 BC, 100 AD or 1795, the rules of logic does not change. To break the rules of logic is to mean irrationality. No sane professing christian will ever say that the word of God is irrational.

The reason Jesus is not included in “all have sinned” is because, although he is 100% man, he is also 100% God.

The argument that the word “all” allows for an exception because Enoch and Elijah did not die when “death spread to (all) men” and they did not die is just false. It is a complete misunderstanding of the text. Instead of redefining the meaning of “all”, we should be asking what “death” can mean in this text.

Consider this: In Genesis it says “…on the day you eat of this fruit, you shall surely die.” When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, did they die that very same day? No. They still lived hundreds of years. Why? Because when the Bible teaches about death and dieing, it does not always mean “physical” death (Heart stops beating). It also refers to “spiritual” death (eternal separation from God).

1. “…Death spread through all men” 2. Enoch and Elijah did not die 3. Therefore Elijah and Enoch must not be men OR “all” must inherently allow for an exception. This is the kind of logic that you are trying to argue. Both your conclusions are ILLOGICAL. Therefore, “death” must mean something else other than physical death. The only logical interpretation is “death” in this verse means “Spiritual” death.

Same goes for “none is righteous”. instead of redefining the rules of logic to accommodate an exception to “none”, we better ask ourselves what could “righteous” mean. Instead of giving me countless verses of “this person and that person is righteous” therefore “none” must mean there are exceptions, ask what could the word “righteous” mean?

There are a lot of words in the bible like “death”, “faith”, “justify”, etc. that may have different meanings depending on the context. If one definition leads you to an illogical conclusion, it must be wrong. The word of God is rational.

I apologize if i appear to be confrontational. i’m not. just driving a point. peace… i need to sleep… i will respond about the other issues next time i find the time.

To God be the Glory through the Lord Jesus.

• curious146

The above quote is the result of 500 years of the protestant heresies of sola scriptura and private interpretation of the scriptures being taught to millions of people who are ignorant of the truth. Maybe if these people will pick up a respected protestant Greek lexicon and look up the word ‘all’ which in the Greek is the word ‘pas’ they will find that even the protestant lexicons acknowledge that the word *‘pas’ * does not mean each and everyone. Maybe they would do that but then ignorance is bliss, isn’t it?

 

[curious146]

Hello ezeekl,

i do not know if there is really a protestant or catholic lexicon. i am thinking that greek is greek. but anyway –

Strong’s Concordance
pas: all, every
Original Word: πᾶς, πᾶσα, πᾶν
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: pas
Phonetic Spelling: (pas)
Short Definition: all, the whole, every kind of
Definition: all, the whole, every kind of.
HELPS Word-studies

3956 pás – each, every; each “part(s) of a totality” (L & N, 1, 59.24).

3956 /pás (“each, every”) means “all” in the sense of “each (every) part that applies.” The emphasis of the total picture then is on “one piece at a time.” 365 (ananeóō) then focuses on the part(s) making up the whole – viewing the whole in terms of the individual parts.

[When 3956 (pás) modifies a word with the definite article it has “extensive-intensive” force – and is straightforward intensive when the Greek definite article is lacking.]

— at the very least, if this is indeed a protestant lexicon, it does really say “pas” means each and everyone. so at this point, ezeekl, you are wrong when you stated protestant lexicons will show otherwise. peace.

Let us be gracious and not call names. let us agree to disagree and have a cordial discussion. i am not here to fight.

i am not saying that i am absolutely right. i am not infallible. i just want to provoke people to think because it provokes me to think as well. everybody wins then when everybody thinks harder.

to all,

i have been doing a lot of thinking and i realized that we should be focusing more on the Gospel instead of Mary. i will move on to the other topics in this forum… even if i don’t agree, at least i learn something. thank you guys.

respectfully,
curious146

 

[curious146]

hello good fella,

my entire argument i guess is on the definition of all. you appear to be the greek expert here so i defer to you. i concede then that i am mistaken with my argument only and only if you insist that “all” does have an exception inherently built into it.

by the way, i am not conceding because of your “many” and “all” references. i actually have a lot to say about those two using just the rules of logic. but i have no idea whatsoever about greek vocabulary so i cannot argue against that if you are indeed versed in the meaning of greek vocabulary and their nuances.

thanks again to all.

-curious146

 

[Hawkiz]

hello guys. wow. i honestly don’t know where to begin. i’m just going to respond to one issue. Interpretation.

The word of God is rational. It is not illogical. “all” means all. “none” means none. there is no exception. if there was, you use “almost all”, “some”, “all except”. Whether it be in english or greek or hebrew. whether it be written 2000 BC, 100 AD or 1795, the rules of logic does not change. To break the rules of logic is to mean irrationality. No sane professing christian will ever say that the word of God is irrational.

The reason Jesus is not included in “all have sinned” is because, although he is 100% man, he is also 100% God.

The argument that the word “all” allows for an exception because Enoch and Elijah did not die when “death spread to (all) men” and they did not die is just false. It is a complete misunderstanding of the text. Instead of redefining the meaning of “all”, we should be asking what “death” can mean in this text.

Consider this: In Genesis it says “…on the day you eat of this fruit, you shall surely die.” When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, did they die that very same day? No. They still lived hundreds of years. Why? Because when the Bible teaches about death and dieing, it does not always mean “physical” death (Heart stops beating). It also refers to “spiritual” death (eternal separation from God).

1. “…Death spread through all men” 2. Enoch and Elijah did not die 3. Therefore Elijah and Enoch must not be men OR “all” must inherently allow for an exception. This is the kind of logic that you are trying to argue. Both your conclusions are ILLOGICAL. Therefore, “death” must mean something else other than physical death. The only logical interpretation is “death” in this verse means “Spiritual” death.

Same goes for “none is righteous”. instead of redefining the rules of logic to accommodate an exception to “none”, we better ask ourselves what could “righteous” mean. Instead of giving me countless verses of “this person and that person is righteous” therefore “none” must mean there are exceptions, ask what could the word “righteous” mean?

There are a lot of words in the bible like “death”, “faith”, “justify”, etc. that may have different meanings depending on the context. If one definition leads you to an illogical conclusion, it must be wrong. The word of God is rational.

I apologize if i appear to be confrontational. i’m not. just driving a point. peace… i need to sleep… i will respond about the other issues next time i find the time.

To God be the Glory through the Lord Jesus.

• curious146

 

[Good_Fella]

hello good fella,

my entire argument i guess is on the definition of all. you appear to be the greek expert here so i defer to you. i concede then that i am mistaken with my argument only and only if you insist that “all” does have an exception inherently built into it.

Strong’s Lexicon

3956 pas { pas} . . .

GK - 4246 { pa`” }

1. individually
   1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
   2)** collectively **
   2a) some of all types

“… the whole world has gone after him” [John 12:19 ] Did all the world go after Christ?

“then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.” [Matt. 3: 5-6] Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan?

“Ye are of God, little children”, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one”. [1 John 5:19] Does the whole world there mean everybody?

The words “world” and “all” are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the “all” means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts – some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile …

C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc…) 1995.

by the way, i am not conceding because of your “many” and “all” references. i actually have a lot to say about those two using just the rules of logic. but i have no idea whatsoever about greek vocabulary so i cannot argue against that if you are indeed versed in the meaning of greek vocabulary and their nuances.

The voice of reason tells me that personal sin cannot be imputed to an infant, and that God had to intervene by His grace to preserve Mary free from the stain of original sin, because she was subject to inherit it like everyone else and in need of redemption. The exception lies in the great thing God had done for Mary because of her special calling.

But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
Ephesians 4, 7

thanks again to all.

You’re welcome.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[curious146]

good fella,

i think that “all” in these instances is still without exceptions. if you look at the context, yes it does not refer to “each and every single person” in the world but it does speak about “each and everyone” in a particular group. that is the “collective”.

just a shot at an example to clarify my own muddy definition… " The whole stadium went wild when all the people roared in excitement." In this example we could see that the “all people” does not mean “all people in the world” but is obviously referring to “all the people in the stadium only”. It’s still “all” meaning the totality of what is being referred to.

I believe context is very important and when the bible speaks about the world, it does not always refer to the physical world or each and everyone in the world. sometimes it is a reference to the unbelievers. “… the whole world lieth with the wicked one” - whole world here does not mean everybody in the world, rather those who belong to the world spiritually (unbeliever’s) - the totality of the unbeliever’s.

I can’t explain each and every verse (John 12:19, Matt 3:5-6 etc.) But i believe that the context of it must be determined to identify the “collective” being referred to. again just an example: “Then all the Jets fans rushed to my side” - i obviously mean the totality of the Jets fans in my particular vicinity only and not the entire Jets fans in the world. But it is still total inclusion of the “collective” i am referring to.

So back to Romans, “all have sinned” is referring to the the totality of the human race isn’t it? Each and every single person in the world is the “collective” in this context isn’t it?

again, i could be wrong.

-curious146

 

[Good_Fella]

good fella,

I think that “all” in these instances is still without exceptions. if you look at the context, yes it does not refer to “each and every single person” in the world but it does speak about “each and everyone” in a particular group. that is the “collective”.

Including infants and young children who cannot yet judge between right and wrong in venial and grave moral matters? Certainly they belong to the human race. Or must we deduce that they aren’t yet fully human and thus not part of the collective.

just a shot at an example to clarify my own muddy definition… " The whole stadium went wild when all the people roared in excitement." In this example we could see that the “all people” does not mean “all people in the world” but is obviously referring to “all the people in the stadium only”. It’s still “all” meaning the totality of what is being referred to.

But surely not each and every individual roared with excitement, although those who refrained from roaring (perhaps out of an acute sense of modesty) belonged to the totality of spectators in the stadium and like them were still people.

I believe context is very important and when the bible speaks about the world, it does not always refer to the physical world or each and everyone in the world. sometimes it is a reference to the unbelievers. “… the whole world lieth with the wicked one” - whole world here does not mean everybody in the world, rather those who belong to the world spiritually (unbeliever’s) - the totality of the unbeliever’s.

And in Romans 3:23 “all” refers only to those who are capable of committing personal sins. Yet In Scripture, pas does sometimes refer to each and every individual, but rarely. We have an example in 1 Timothy 2:4:

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. [KJV]

who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [NRSVCE]

Not everyone will be saved, by their own free will, although God desires without exception that all people be saved. With regard to Romans 3:23, all those who have sinned refers only to those who are accountable for their sins. Infants and toddlers are an exception, but still part of the human race. Though they, too, like everyone else, including Mary, are subject to inheriting the stain of original sin and are in need of redemption.

] I can’t explain each and every verse (John 12:19, Matt 3:5-6 etc.) But i believe that the context of it must be determined to identify the “collective” being referred to. again just an example: “Then all the Jets fans rushed to my side” - i obviously mean the totality of the Jets fans in my particular vicinity only and not the entire Jets fans in the world. But it is still total inclusion of the “collective” i am referring to.

Those who are exempted are nonetheless still Jets fans even though they are not in close proximity with you. An infant is still a human being like us, though it cannot be held personally accountable for any venial or grave sins as we can.

So back to Romans, “all have sinned” is referring to the the totality of the human race isn’t it? Each and every single person in the world is the “collective” in this context isn’t it?

Like I said, infants and toddlers still individually belong to the human race (collective), although they cannot be held accountable for any personal sins like many other human beings.

 

[ezeekl]

Hello ezeekl,

i do not know if there is really a protestant or catholic lexicon. i am thinking that greek is greek. but anyway –

Strong’s Concordance
pas: all, every
Original Word: πᾶς, πᾶσα, πᾶν
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: pas
Phonetic Spelling: (pas)
Short Definition: all, the whole, every kind of
Definition: all, the whole, every kind of.
HELPS Word-studies

3956 pás – each, every; each “part(s) of a totality” (L & N, 1, 59.24).

3956 /pás (“each, every”) means “all” in the sense of “each (every) part that applies.” The emphasis of the total picture then is on “one piece at a time.” 365 (ananeóō) then focuses on the part(s) making up the whole – viewing the whole in terms of the individual parts.

[When 3956 (pás) modifies a word with the definite article it has “extensive-intensive” force – and is straightforward intensive when the Greek definite article is lacking.]

— at the very least, if this is indeed a protestant lexicon, it does really say “pas” means each and everyone. so at this point, ezeekl, you are wrong when you stated protestant lexicons will show otherwise. peace.

Let us be gracious and not call names. let us agree to disagree and have a cordial discussion. i am not here to fight.

i am not saying that i am absolutely right. i am not infallible. i just want to provoke people to think because it provokes me to think as well. everybody wins then when everybody thinks harder.

to all,

i have been doing a lot of thinking and i realized that we should be focusing more on the Gospel instead of Mary. i will move on to the other topics in this forum… even if i don’t agree, at least i learn something. thank you guys.

respectfully,
curious146

Not so. This is from the website www.biblestudytools.com for the Greek word ‘pas’. Notice the part I embolden and underline:

"Pas
individually each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything collectively some of all types … “the whole world has gone after him” Did all the world go afterChrist? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.“Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? “Ye are of God,little children”, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one”. Doesthe whole world there mean everybody? The words “world” and “all” areused in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is veryrarely the “all” means all persons, taken individually. The words aregenerally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has notrestricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile …Lexicons - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New Testament Greek Lexicon - King James Version - Pas "

I do believe that the King James Version is protestant. I mean, the last time I checked it was.

The fact is that the Greek word pas is ambiguous and could have a range of meanings from the very rigid ‘each and every single solitary one’ to the liberal ‘some of this, some of that’. Therefore to force a strict interpretation on the word pas as to mean “each everyone” does violence to the scriptures. This is how protestantism has devolved into the myriads of denominations we find today. Another example is protestantisms strict interpretation of the Greek word adelphos to mean a sibling brother. Yet the scriptures are clear that is not the case. For instance in Luke 22:31-32 Jesus says:

“31Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” [Luke 22:31-32 KJV]

I emboldened the word brethren. The Greek word here is *adelphoi *which is the plural form of adelphos. The brethren refers to the other apostles of whom only one, Andrew, was Simon Peter’s sibling. Now are to think that the scriptures are in error here or is there another explanation? Maybe *adelphos/adelphoi *do not mean strictly a sibling brother each and every time it is used.

Here is another gem inherent in Luke 22:31-32. Notice both of the words ‘you’ in verse 31. They are plural meaning more than one. Satan has not only desired Simon Peter but all of the Apostles. Now look at verse 32 and the words thee, thou and thy. They are all singular. Jesus prays only for Peter not all of the Apostles. It is then Peter’s job to ‘strengthen’ the faith of his brother apostles. Here is the papacy in its infancy. This same theme will be seen at Pentecost when Peter addresses the crowd and at the Council of Jerusalem when Peter stands to speak everyone stops talking. They knew then what protestants of the last 500 years did not. The boss was speaking.

 

[Good_Fella]

I’m a huge fan of typology …

Luke acknowledges the nascent Marian tradition of designating Mary as the personification of daughter Zion, as is evident in the first part of her canticle of praise (1:46-49). I’ve highlighted in bold what I believe are prophetic allusions to Mary’s immaculate conception and sinless nature.

"My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord,
my spirit rejoices in God my saviour

I will rejoice greatly in the Lord;
my soul shall exult in my God;
for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
he has covered me with the robes of righteousness.
Isaiah 61, 10

Rejoice heartily, O daughter Zion,
shout for joy, O daughter Jerusalem.
See, your king shall come to you;
a just saviour is he.
Zechariah 9, 9

Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion;
shout, O Israel!
Rejoice and exult with all your heart,
O daughter of Jerusalem!
Zephaniah 3, 14

*"for he has looked with favour on the lowliness of his handmaiden. *

The Lord has taken away the judgments against you,
he has cast out your enemies.
The King of Israel, the Lord, is in your midst;
you shall fear evil no more.
Zephaniah 3, 15

But you, O Lord, will arise and have compassion on Zion,
for** it is time to show favour on her;
the appointed time has come**.
Psalm 102, 13

*"From this day all generations will call me blessed; *

"At that time I will bring you home,
at the time when I will gather you together;
yea, I will make you renowned and praised
among all the peoples of the earth,
when I restore your fortunes
before your eyes, " says the Lord.
Zephaniah 3, 20

*“the Almighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.” *

When* the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion***,
then we thought we were dreaming.
Our mouths were filled with laughter;
our tongues sang for joy.
Then it was said among the nations,
"The Lord has done great things for them."
The Lord has done great things for us;
Oh, how happy we were.
Psalm 126, 1-3

Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem!
Praise your God, O Zion!
For he strengthens the bars of your gates;
he blesses your sons within you.
Psalm 147, 12-13

Evidently, the Apostles and the faithful of the nascent church perceived Mary to be the exemplary daughter of Zion. They saw the culmination of Israel’s faith in her: a true servant of God and the remnant of Israel in the person of Mary. Being Jews themselves, they couldn’t miss the link between the Old and the New Covenants in Mary as the personification of messianic Israel. The connection between the election of Israel and the election of Mary in God’s plan of redemption was clear to them. As Israel was elected to be the people in whom the Divine Word would take flesh, so Mary was chosen to bring Him to birth as Saviour of the world. Both Israel and Mary had the divine privilege of bringing the Messiah into the world. And because of their common missions, both of them had to be specially prepared by God. The apostles knew, that because the people of Israel were to receive God Incarnate in their midst as one of them, they would have to be made exclusively worthy by means of a special holiness imparted by the Old Covenant. “You shall be holy to me; for I the Lord am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine” (Leviticus 20:26). Far more was expected from them than from the people of the surrounding nations because of the holiness that was required of them in view of the Incarnation. Thus if that were true of the people of Israel as a whole, wouldn’t the apostles have perceived how much more true it would have been of Mary in whose maternal womb the Son of God became incarnate? Wouldn’t she in some way receive a means of a singular holiness that would separate her from all other people in the whole world by God’s merciful intervention?

To be continued

 

[Good_Fella]

Continued.

I’m sure the apostles pondered this question and answered in the affirmative. Luke tells us in 1:28 (kecharitomene) that Mary was permanently and completely made perfect by the grace of God, and so Mary had no reason to fear His justice (Lk 1:30). She received the divine privilege of being conceived in the state of sanctifying grace, preserved free from the stain of original sin (“clothed in a mantle of justice”) and of receiving all the signal graces (“clothed in the garments of salvation”) that would help her persevere in purity of faith and fidelity to God and His Covenant as a true servant of Israel in the spirit because of her Divine Maternity. Mary was “overshadowed by the power of” (resuth: a Hebrew euphemism for marital union)) the Most High, for she was the chaste bride of God. The OT frequently speaks of Israel as God’s bride, who is expected to be pure and chaste in her nuptial relationship with Him, faithful and loving. It is God who espouses Israel, removing her from her lowly origin, her fornication and prostitution, and purifying her to be His worthy spouse. “And I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, and in love, and in mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord” (Hosea 2:19-20). Clearly the first Christian community of Jewish converts perceived Mary as daughter of Zion par excellence who perfectly lived up to the expectation of Israel for the Messiah. They saw her as the faithful and loving virgin bride awaiting her Lord to come in her midst, wrapped in a mantle of righteousness – betrothed in righteousness and justice – when God sanctified her soul for His glory upon fashioning it at the instant she was conceived. The payment for sin is the sting of death (cf. Rom 6:23; 1 Cor 15:5). But because of the chasteness of God’s bride – her purity of faith and perfect fidelity to God’s covenant with her, the showers haven’t been withheld from Daughter Zion, and for her the spring rains have come, for she had no cause to be ashamed (cf. Jer 3:3-4).

"I, your handmaid, have never eaten at the table of Haman, nor have I graced the banquet of the king or drunk the wine of libations.
From the day I was brought here till now, your servant has had no joy except in you, Lord, God of Abraham." *
The Book of Esther, Chapter C 28-29

PAX
:heaven:

 

[PoorKnight]

good fella,

i think that “all” in these instances is still without exceptions. if you look at the context, yes it does not refer to “each and every single person” in the world but it does speak about “each and everyone” in a particular group. that is the “collective”.

just a shot at an example to clarify my own muddy definition… " The whole stadium went wild when all the people roared in excitement." In this example we could see that the “all people” does not mean “all people in the world” but is obviously referring to “all the people in the stadium only”. It’s still “all” meaning the totality of what is being referred to.

I believe context is very important and when the bible speaks about the world, it does not always refer to the physical world or each and everyone in the world. sometimes it is a reference to the unbelievers. “… the whole world lieth with the wicked one” - whole world here does not mean everybody in the world, rather those who belong to the world spiritually (unbeliever’s) - the totality of the unbeliever’s.

I can’t explain each and every verse (John 12:19, Matt 3:5-6 etc.) But i believe that the context of it must be determined to identify the “collective” being referred to. again just an example: “Then all the Jets fans rushed to my side” - i obviously mean the totality of the Jets fans in my particular vicinity only and not the entire Jets fans in the world. But it is still total inclusion of the “collective” i am referring to.

So back to Romans, “all have sinned” is referring to the the totality of the human race isn’t it? Each and every single person in the world is the “collective” in this context isn’t it?

again, i could be wrong.

-curious146

Hi Curious, I’m so glad you’re asking these questions. They’re good ones!

I used to be a member of a Presbyterian church and was big into bible study. We would have great discussions on different parts of Scripture. Two of the big wigs in our bible study would go round and round on the issue of predestination vs free will. They each had their verses and stuck to them… to the detrament of all the other verses in Scripture.

I bring this up because we need to look not only at Rom 3:23 but all other Scripture pertaining to Mary.

Please look at my previous post in this thread for some more info but here’s a quick nutshell version:

Mary is Prophesised to have “enmity” between her and Satan, just as Christ does (Gen 3:15).

Mary is placed out of reach of Satan Rev 12:6; 12:14).

Mary is given the Title ‘Full of Grace’ by a messanger from heaven. (Lk 1:28);

Mary is shows as the Ark of the New Covenant (see article from last post)

Mary is told she is more blessed than all women (Lk 1:42) which would include Eve who was created without sin.

Mary is shown as the New Eve (again see article in my last post). The Early Church (Christians of the first few hundred years) also saw this connection and wrote about it.

Let me ask it this way: Does God have the power to do it? Does God have the power to make Mary one of those exceptions? Is it POSSIBLE this is what God did?

If you had the power to, how would you have made your own mother?

God Bless you on your journey of Faith,
Poor Knight for Christ and His Church.

 

[Good_Fella]

I bring this up because we need to look not only at Rom 3:23 but all other Scripture pertaining to Mary…

Mary is placed out of reach of Satan Rev 12:6; 12:14)…

His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born. And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne; and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, so that there she can be nourished for one thousand two hundred sixty days… But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to her place where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time.
Revelation 12, 4-6, 14

Basically there are four prevailing traditions pertaining to wilderness in the Hebrew OT. With regard to the woman in Revelation 12 (Daughter Zion), the imagery of wilderness signifies a place where one has a close encounter with God, notably when they are called for an important task during a time of crisis. For the Jewish people who were delivered from bondage in Egypt, the wilderness is where they received the Torah in order for them to be prepared as a holy nation set apart from all other peoples in expectation of the divine Messiah. The wilderness is the site of the dispensation of divine grace in salvation history where God disciplines, purifies, and transforms his chosen people by imparting a special holiness to them through His covenant. There are many passages in the OT which observe the wilderness as an aspect of God’s good creation which should be regarded with awe because of its sublimity. Finally, the wilderness provides refuge in time of need and also serves as a moral and spiritual haven for those in need.

It was because Mary was chosen by God through his eternal decree to be the mother of His only-Begotten Son that He sanctified her soul and preserved her free from the stain of original sin, freeing her from the power of Satan and the slavery of sin. She was set apart from all of Adam’s other descendants - purified and transformed - because she ought to be a holy mother of God incarnate. “And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself "(Exodus 19:3-4). The Divine theophanies took place in the wilderness for those who were specially set apart by God to do His tasks. The Incarnation took place through Mary by the overshadowing (episkasei) of the Holy Spirit, since she was “the most blessed among women” by a singular holiness which separated her from common sinful humanity. Mary was subject to inheriting the stain of original sin and was in need of redemption, but her soul had found haven in the unique favour God had shown towards her, that she should have no cause to fear His justice being His most chaste spouse. Indeed, Mary is God’s sublime handiwork which we must regard with awe, and for this reason all generations shall call her blessed. The woman’s fleeing into the wilderness draws a created aspect of Mary’s person which the Church has celebrated since apostolic time.

*“For the New Testament is hidden in the Old, and the Old is fulfilled in the New.” *
St. Augustine, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[siamus2k13]

I disagree.

Mary, in no way was sinless.

Was Mary a woman, or was she not?

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

The fall of man did not miss her.

 

[siamus2k13]

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+2%3A1-5&version=KJV

Why did Jesus refer to Mary as “Woman?”

Probably because that’s what she is. (…)

 

[Filioque]

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+2%3A1-5&version=KJV

Why did Jesus refer to Mary as “Woman?”

Probably because that’s what she is. (…)

Well we also have to strip our 21rst Century bias, and read it in the context of a Jewish reader, and speaker of the Time our Lord walked the earth. Woman, was not a disrespectful, or degrading term, but one of honor. To our ear it may be dismissive, but then we would have to regard Jesus as someone who would disrespect, and dishonor His mother. I seem to recall a Commandment direct from God on to Moses then given to Israel, and those travelling with them. (For those who hold the minority opinion that the Ten Commandments only apply to the Jews, and forget that there were non-Jews who travelled with the Israelites, the commandments apply to us all.)

 

[siamus2k13]

Well we also have to strip our 21rst Century bias, and read it in the context of a Jewish reader, and speaker of the Time our Lord walked the earth. Woman, was not a disrespectful, or degrading term, but one of honor. To our ear it may be dismissive, but then we would have to regard Jesus as someone who would disrespect, and dishonor His mother. I seem to recall a Commandment direct from God on to Moses then given to Israel, and those travelling with them. (For those who hold the minority opinion that the Ten Commandments only apply to the Jews, and forget that there were non-Jews who travelled with the Israelites, the commandments apply to us all.)

Never tried to imply that the word “Woman” was used in a disrespectful way.

I don’t recall ever seeing Jesus call any of his followers, anything less than of the most uplifting terms.

Mary is a woman that knew her place in regard to the Lord.

Mary is a woman of God and a great teacher.

 

[Good_Fella]

Why did Jesus refer to Mary as “Woman?”
Probably because that’s what she is. (…)

It was because originally Adam had called his wife “woman” (cf. Gen. 2:23). It wasn’t until she mortally sinned and fell from grace, that the woman was named Eve: “mother of all the living” (cf. Gen. 3:13-20). We should ask ourselves why it was that Jesus called his mother Woman precisely at the beginning and at the end of his public ministry (cf.Jn. 2:3-5;19:26-27) rather than affectionately call her Em (Mother) as the Jews customarily called their mothers. I believe that in his address Jesus meant not only to draw a parallel between his mother Mary and Eve, but also to affirm the antithesis which existed between them (cf. Gen. 3:15). On both occasions, at Cana and at Golgotha, Jesus refrained from calling his mother *Em * because she was much more than just his biological mother in the Divine order of redemption and in his work of salvation. And at the same time our Lord acknowledged that Mary was predestined by God’s eternal decree to be the spiritual mother of all his disciples and Mother of the Church (cf. Rev. 12:17).

***And to the disciple he said, “Behold your mother.”
Jn. 19:27 ***

Jesus used a familiar Jewish expression when he asked his mother at the wedding feast: “Woman, what have I to do with you?” In the Greek text of John’s Gospel the Hebraism used by Jesus reads te emoi kai soi: literally “what to me and to you”. This idiom denotes a close personal relationship between the one who is asking the question and the one who is being asked. It can be used by one who is at first reluctant to do a favour for someone, but complies nonetheless out of respect for her because they share a common interest. The closest equivalent to this expression in English is “What is that between friends (mother and son)?” It suggests that the one who is seeking the favour should not even have to ask. In the Hebrew NT this expression reads mah-liy walak isah: literally “what is there to me and you”. In other words, “What would you have of me, woman?” This is the polite form of asking “What would you have me do woman?” and implies that the speaker already has an idea of what she would like him to do, provided she first explicitly tells him. By asking his mother this question, Jesus was drawing her closer into association with him in his divine work of salvation. He essentially asked his mother whether she was willing to go through with what he was about to do, for their relationship to each other in the biological and social order would no longer be the same if he did. Jesus was apparently confirming her faith.

Thus when Jesus addressed his mother, he was mindful of the fact that they shared a similar interest far from beneath their common dignity, a concern far more important than the replenishing of wine. Both the Mother and the Son desired that he begin his public ministry in the shadow of the cross for the spiritual benefit of the entire human race. The apparent reluctance of Jesus to do his mother a favour stemmed only so far that he would not perform his first miracle if it were merely to satisfy the temporal wants of the guests. He would act insofar that the purpose was of eternal spiritual significance. By his words, Jesus invited his mother to confirm that she was prepared to complete this objective together with him, despite the many sorrows she would have to endure for our sake because of her love for him. And so our Lord actually asked his mother: “What is that to me and to thee?” [Latin Vulgate]. Mary’s concern affected Jesus, for it conformed with her Son’s divine will. Our Lord’s human will did not initiate his most significant miracle. It was when his divine will took charge in collaboration with his mother’s will and his own human will that the miracle was inevitable. His hour had indeed arrived in the shadow of the cross. Mary knew this, and so in expectation she said to the servants: “Do whatever he tells you.”

To be continued.

 

[Good_Fella]

Why did Jesus refer to Mary as “Woman?”

Probably because that’s what she is. (…)

If I may continue, Scripture does support the Church’s perception of Mary as the spiritual mother of all the living. It becomes clear by drawing a parallel between Eve and Mary. Both women were daughters of a covenant with God; Eve was a daughter of the first covenant between God and Adam and Eve: The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die” (Gen. 2:16-17); The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die’” (Gen. 3:2-3). Mary was a daughter of the Sinai Covenant: “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully. The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today… He said, ‘I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. ‘You shall have no other gods before Me. ‘You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing loving kindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments ‘ “ (Deut. 5: 1-10).

Both Eve and Mary were under a pledge of obedience under a covenant with God, since God had given each of them a free will to choose between life and death, both physical and spiritual, by either accepting His will or rejecting it. Eve’s disobedience resulted in mankind’s (Adam’s) transgression and fall from grace: The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.” Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate” (Gen. 3: 12-13). Mary, on the other hand, freely accepted God’s will and, as a result, received the gift of salvation on behalf of the entire human race and for her by the redeeming merits of Christ: And Mary said: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word” (Lk 1:38). Eve’s name means “mother of the living”, and so the entire human race is biologically descended through her in its fallen state on account of what she had freely done. Mary became the mother of all the living in Christ by having brought the Saviour and Source of all grace into the world and offering him back to God as a sacrificial propitiatory offering for the reconciliation of the entire human race with God and the regeneration of souls: “And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed (Lk 2:35).

By her act of faith working through love, Mary freely undid what Eve had freely done under their respective covenants with God. Her soul “magnified the Lord”. Eve, on the contrary, contributed to Adam’s fall because her vanity and self-idolization rendered her vulnerable to the devil’s deception. Fortunately, Mary chose “life and prosperity” over “death and adversity” by observing the will of God when the angel spoke to her. She heard and observed it (cf. Lk 11:28) because it was “very near to [her]” and “in [her] heart” for her “to observe”. If her heart had been far from God, as was the hearts of the unfaithful Israelites, Mary wouldn’t have conceived and borne Christ. She humbly refused to bow down to any form of idol the ancient serpent or dragon might have conjured up in his enmity with the woman, and because of her fidelity to God under her covenant with him, she saved the human race from unconditionally perishing spiritually by bringing the Source of eternal life into the world (cf. Deut. 30: 11-20). It was because of Mary’s free act of faith and charity that Elizabeth praised her kinswoman: “Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled” (Lk. 1:45).

As the free woman of promise prophesied in the Protoevangelium, Mary acted as our universal representative no less than Eve had. By God’s validation of her will, she “untied the knot of Eve’s disobedience by her obedience”. As Eve “was made the cause of death both to herself and the human race” by “having become disobedient”, Mary “became the cause of salvation both to herself and the entire human race” by “yielding obedience” (cf. St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:22). According to His design, God willed that the Divine Word become man by a virgin “so that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin” (St. Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho 100) – that is through the choice of a woman. It was by her act of faith working through love that Mary crushed the head of the serpent and helped deliver us all from impending spiritual death to be reborn in the spirit for which Elizabeth pronounced her kinswoman blessed above all women in her enmity with the devil. Mary’s collaboration with God in his plan of salvation is not only foretold in the Protoevangelium, but also in the Song of Deborah, among many other places in the OT (Judges 5:24-27).

To be continued.