HAIL MARY!

“And the angel [Gabriel] came in unto her [Mary], and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” (Luke 1:28)

Catholics will look at this verse and claim that it is saying that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is indeed an exception to the rule of the universal sinfulness of man.  This means that God saw fit to cause Mary (apart from any other mere human) to be born, and even conceived, sinless and that she remained sinless throughout her entire life.  This concept is known as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which the Catholic Church has dogmatically proclaimed in the apostolic constitution Ineffabilis Deus in 1854 by Pope Pius IX.  And since it is a dogma, Catholics are obligated to believe it.

But I just can’t imagine an intelligent person reading the first few chapters of the book of Romans and understanding its message, to then go and read Luke 1:28 (above) and come up with the Catholic interpretation of Gabriel’s message to Mary.  Theirs is not a natural reading of the text.

If this intelligent person reads the beginning of Paul’s letter to the Romans (chapter 1), he will easily see that Paul is proclaiming that the gentiles (non-Jews) are all guilty of sin and living under the wrath of God.  In chapter 2, he then addresses the Jews and tells us that they, too, are all under the curse of sin.  Then in chapter 3, Paul states that the whole world is unrighteous and says that ALL people are under the bondage of sin (v. 10-18), pointing to the Psalms.  He then specifically says:

“For ALL HAVE SINNED and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). (Emphasis added)

And in the rest of this chapter and the next, the apostle Paul goes on to define how all these lost and sinful people can be justified/made right with God, which is, of course, only through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ and what He accomplished on the cross.  But the Scriptures are clear that no one (i.e., no mere mortal) has escaped the curse of sin.  Jesus Christ is the only exception.

I cannot imagine our intelligent inquirer (after first reading Romans) could come upon Luke 1:28 and conclude that this passage would automatically cause him to understand that Mary must necessarily be an exception to the rule… again, this is NOT a natural reading, and this would turn the easily understandable message found in Romans on its head!  This would negate a very clear biblical concept about the universality of sin in every person.   This is exactly why the Word says, “All have sinned…” 

Issues

So, why indeed does the Catholic Church think that this passage really means that Mary was conceived sinless?  According to them, the angel’s phrase “highly favoured” or “full of grace” in the Greek language (“kecharitomene”) is a very unique term which indicates something that already happened in the past.  I have heard Catholics say that this term is used only once in the New Testament.  I don’t know if that’s true, but let’s assume that it is indeed used only here.

According to one Catholic Answers article, “The word is the past perfect tense, meaning that the action of giving grace has already occurred.  It was not something that was about to happen to her but something that has already been accomplished.”  See here:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/full-of-grace-versus-highly-favored

But no, this whole context is about Mary giving birth to the Savior (v. 30-35), that’s all – the whole point of Gabriel’s message was NOT about something that was already accomplished in the past.  Mary giving birth to Jesus was definitely something that had not yet happened.  And yes, Mary certainly received grace and favor, but the angel’s focus was on the sinless Savior coming into the world, not on someone else’s (supposed) sinlessness.

By the way, this same article from Catholic Answers admits that this term is “… difficult to translate because it is a unique use of the word.”  In fact, there are many, many articles out there written on this same passage, and the debate on this topic continues to rage, so I would think that it is safe to say that the term itself is not as clear as it could be. 

It is also interesting that the phrase “full of grace” for this particular verse is very seldom used in the different Bible versions.  I looked at over thirty different versions and saw that only a small percentage of them use “full of grace” (e.g., two Catholic versions and two Aramaic ones).  But these are the only ones in which I saw this term used.

Actually, the only time we find the words “full of grace”  in the New Testament in most Bible versions is in a reference to Jesus Christ, himself (John 1:14) and to Stephen, the deacon (Acts 6:8).

Problems with the Term

But there are even more issues with the Catholic interpretation of the passage.  According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

“But the Greek term ‘kecharitomene’ (‘full of grace’) serves only as an illustration, not as proof of the dogma.” (under “Immaculate Conception”)

In another Catholic source, we find:

“The words of Gabriel, ‘Hail, full of grace’ (Lk. 1.28), have also been appealed to as a revelation of the Immaculate Conception, on the grounds that to be truly full of grace, Mary must have had it always. This interpretation, however, overlooks the fact that the Greek term κεχαριτωμένη [kecharitomene] is not nearly so explicit as the translation ‘full of grace’ might suggest. It implies only that God’s favor has been lavished on Mary, without defining the degree of grace.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII, Page 378)

We also have to ask ourselves a question: Why was Mary troubled and perplexed at the greeting of the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:28-29)?  If this greeting meant that she was sinless, wouldn’t Mary have already recognized that fact in her life before now?  Hadn’t she already realized that she had never given in to the temptation of any sin up to this point?  So then why would she be troubled or confused if the angel points her “sinlessness” out? 

I believe that she was surprised at the angel’s words, “highly favored” of God, because she knew that she was only a young, humble peasant girl, and she was not aware of the great blessing that God had in store, that is, that she would be allowed to bear the Messiah. 

Furthermore, the final wording of Luke 1:28, “blessed art thou among women” is interesting.  Why would he say, “among women”?  The angel didn’t say “among mankind,” that is, among all people.  She would stand out among women because she would be the envy of all women through giving birth to the Christ.  That was the focus.  There is no reason to believe that the angel was talking about Mary towering over all humans with the gift of sinlessness that no one else among mankind would have.   

So, the Catholic interpretation of this passage doesn’t make sense.

Only Fitting?

It was absolutely necessary for Jesus to be born sinless, not anyone else.  The concept of the Immaculate Conception of Mary demands an unbiblical and unnecessary exception of Romans 3:23, based on a questionable and highly debated rendering of a rare Greek term used in Luke 1:28, when there is very strong biblical evidence in both the Old and New Testament that ALL mankind is corrupted with sin.  It would be much simpler (and more biblical) to interpret the phrase as simply “highly favored,” as most Bible versions do.

But Catholics will say that it is “only fitting” that Mary would be without sin.  But why would it be necessary for Jesus to have been kept in a perfect and sinless womb for a mere nine months of His life, when, for 33 years, He was exposed to a very, very sinful world, having a sinful (earthly) father and sinful relatives, and coming in daily contact with sinful people, tainted by a filthy and corrupt society?  Is any of this “fitting” for a Savior?  But if He remained pure and untainted while in contact with this ungodly world for all those years, there was never any need for a sinless mother with a sinless womb in the first place.  

A good question for Catholics is why is it that the only thing that needed to be sinless in Jesus’ world was His mother?  Why did God stop there?  Why couldn’t Joseph (her husband) also be created sinless?  And how about Mary’s parents – if Mary needed to be sinless to bear a sinless Savior, should not Mary’s mother also need to be sinless to bear a sinless Mary?

“But God Could Do It…”

Yes, God could have made Mary sinless before she was even born (as the Catholic Church teaches).  God does indeed have the ability to do such a thing, but God’s ability is not what is in question here.  Just because He could possibly do something does not mean that it was necessary.  Scripture plainly tells us that all of us have sinned.  A Catholic may say, “But the word ‘all’ in Romans 3:23 doesn’t necessarily mean every single person.  There are examples in the Bible where the word ‘all’ clearly does not mean all.”

Well, that’s true, but we could also say that the term “full of grace” in Luke 1:28 may not really mean “full of grace,” either.  And the biblical evidence does indeed suggest that it doesn’t.

See also this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/05/was-mary-without-sin.html