Jump to content
KiwiChristian

Was mary "full of grace"?

Recommended Posts

I've searched through many different translations of the mainstream bible for 'full of grace', and nowhere is Mary called that. She is told by the angel that she is 'favoured by god', or has 'found favour in god's eyes'. So? David was favoured in god's eyes. At one time Saul was favoured in God's eyes. Samuel was favoured in God's eyes. All Christians are favoured in God's eyes. Luke 1:18 "kai eiselthōn pros autēn eipen kecharitōmenē Kyrios meta sou eulogēmenē sy en gynaixin"

The phrase, "full of grace," in Greek is "plaras karitos," and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament. Neither one is in reference to Mary.

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).
"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).

The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation, it is Stephen who is full of grace.  We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase, "full of grace," does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom" along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase "full of grace" come from regarding Mary?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, KiwiChristian said:

I've searched through many different translations of the mainstream bible for 'full of grace', and nowhere is Mary called that. She is told by the angel that she is 'favoured by god', or has 'found favour in god's eyes'. So? David was favoured in god's eyes. At one time Saul was favoured in God's eyes. Samuel was favoured in God's eyes. All Christians are favoured in God's eyes. Luke 1:18 "kai eiselthōn pros autēn eipen kecharitōmenē Kyrios meta sou eulogēmenē sy en gynaixin"

The phrase, "full of grace," in Greek is "plaras karitos," and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament. Neither one is in reference to Mary.

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).
"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).

The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation, it is Stephen who is full of grace.  We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase, "full of grace," does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom" along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase "full of grace" come from regarding Mary?
 

Mary was "highly favored" Luke 1:28 which means "much grace". Mary did recognize that she needed a Savior. The Bible does not say that Mary was anything other than an ordinary human.

  • Thumbs Up 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

I've searched through many different translations of the mainstream bible for 'full of grace', and nowhere is Mary called that. She is told by the angel that she is 'favoured by god', or has 'found favour in god's eyes'. So? David was favoured in god's eyes. At one time Saul was favoured in God's eyes. Samuel was favoured in God's eyes. All Christians are favoured in God's eyes. Luke 1:18 "kai eiselthōn pros autēn eipen kecharitōmenē Kyrios meta sou eulogēmenē sy en gynaixin"

The phrase, "full of grace," in Greek is "plaras karitos," and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament. Neither one is in reference to Mary.

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).
"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).

The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation, it is Stephen who is full of grace.  We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase, "full of grace," does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom" along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase "full of grace" come from regarding Mary?
 

The mother of Jesus, Mary, was highly favored (to grace, special honor, unmerited favor). 

Short of spending a great deal of time researching where Mary being "full of grace" originated. I'd put up my cow it started with the unholy traditions of men; and saint worship and intercession of dead Saints, praying to Mary, the daily Eucharist, the repetitive rosary. In short, I'd hedge my bet on the Roman Catholics.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's interesting that Mary gets used so often as the ball in the rugby match between those that see the Bible as the ultimate authority and those who see a man-made church in that role, yet both seem to rarely consider the life and plight of Mary, the woman. We that have accepted the biblical authority perhaps react too harshly against Mary, seeing the abuses done in her name -and they are many- that the catholics have done.

First, it is absolutely scriptural to recognize that she was given the extreme honor and privilege of being chosen to be the earthly mother of the Messiah. We must not brush that fact aside and describe her as "the same as every other human". She was uniquely chosen by God and for that alone she deserves our respect. The fact that the catholics have gone too far -much too far- doesn't diminish the need to recognize the honor she received.

But consider her life, afterward. Can you imagine the years she spent after the birth of Jesus, when everybody knew that Joseph was not the father? John 8:19 & 41 reflect this.  In a culture where such evidence of adultery was punishable by death, can you imagine living in that small town where everybody knew each other's business; the gossip, the whispered slurs and shunned existence? She was chosen by God for honor, but I doubt she received much honor until much later in life, if at all. If it's true that 2 John was written to her as "the elect lady" (not known for sure, just an intriguing possibility), then at the end of her life she was still receiving encouragement and exhortation from John.

As Christians, I hope we don't also choose to shun Mary, the person, as an over-reaction to the catholics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Persuaded said:

I think it's interesting that Mary gets used so often as the ball in the rugby match between those that see the Bible as the ultimate authority and those who see a man-made church in that role, yet both seem to rarely consider the life and plight of Mary, the woman. We that have accepted the biblical authority perhaps react too harshly against Mary, seeing the abuses done in her name -and they are many- that the catholics have done.

First, it is absolutely scriptural to recognize that she was given the extreme honor and privilege of being chosen to be the earthly mother of the Messiah. We must not brush that fact aside and describe her as "the same as every other human". She was uniquely chosen by God and for that alone she deserves our respect. The fact that the catholics have gone too far -much too far- doesn't diminish the need to recognize the honor she received.

But consider her life, afterward. Can you imagine the years she spent after the birth of Jesus, when everybody knew that Joseph was not the father? John 8:19 & 41 reflect this.  In a culture where such evidence of adultery was punishable by death, can you imagine living in that small town where everybody knew each other's business; the gossip, the whispered slurs and shunned existence? She was chosen by God for honor, but I doubt she received much honor until much later in life, if at all. If it's true that 2 John was written to her as "the elect lady" (not known for sure, just an intriguing possibility), then at the end of her life she was still receiving encouragement and exhortation from John.

As Christians, I hope we don't also choose to shun Mary, the person, as an over-reaction to the catholics.

You're absolutely right on the mark in my view. I've also pondered some other thoughts.

What was it like for Mary, Joseph and their other siblings, to know with absolute certainty that they were raising the "Son of God"? We're not told anything about Jesus' upbringing from about 2 years old to the start of His ministry at about 30 years old, except when Jesus was 12 and stayed behind in Jerusalem. 

From all indications and appearances, the siblings must have been raised in a normal environment? We're not told how or when Joseph died, but it must have been well before Jesus' ministry.

I had read something a long time ago that said Jesus' siblings didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God until His resurrection? I don't know if that is true or not, but if James the less, James the Just was indeed the "half brother" of Jesus, that could not be the case?

What an honor it must have been for the Apostle John, to have Jesus suffering on the Cross entrust the care of His earthly mother to him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure it was an uncomfortable family upbringing, all around. Jesus, even as a 12 year old, had an idea of who He was, while His brothers did not believe (John 7:4).

 

James the apostle (son of Zebedee, brother of John) is killed at the beginning of Acts 12, and it is indeed James the brother of Jesus who is the guy that seems to be the head guy in Jerusalem, summarizing the decision in the 2nd half of Acts 12, and who later writes the epistle of James. Jude, the other brother of Jesus, also not one of the 12 and also (presumably from John 7) didn't believe until after the resurrection. It must have been hard on them later, to have spent their lives in denial about their big bro, only to realize much later that they had wasted so much time in their doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when she had baby Jesus in her belly she was full of grace.  LoLz.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Persuaded said:

I'm pretty sure it was an uncomfortable family upbringing, all around. Jesus, even as a 12 year old, had an idea of who He was, while His brothers did not believe (John 7:4).

 

James the apostle (son of Zebedee, brother of John) is killed at the beginning of Acts 12, and it is indeed James the brother of Jesus who is the guy that seems to be the head guy in Jerusalem, summarizing the decision in the 2nd half of Acts 12, and who later writes the epistle of James. Jude, the other brother of Jesus, also not one of the 12 and also (presumably from John 7) didn't believe until after the resurrection. It must have been hard on them later, to have spent their lives in denial about their big bro, only to realize much later that they had wasted so much time in their doubt.

I agree with you but getting a little confused. I've spent a lot of hours trying to figure all this out. There's confusion even between Bible expositors and scholars of the three James' of the Bible.

My research shows, James the Apostle (the greater), son of Zebedee and Solome, elder brother of the Apostle JOHN, one of Jesus inner circle. A fisherman and business partner with with his brother JOHN and the Apostle Peter. The 1st Apostle martyred by Herod about A.D 44 [Acts 12:2]... This was not the half brother or kin to Jesus. This is were all my confusion comes in and I can't say with 100% certainty I'm correct.

My best estimate of Jesus' half brother, or cousin, or near kinsman, is JAMES the Less (in stature), or JAMES the Just, son of Alphaeus [a.k.a. CLEOPAS]. The brother [Gal 1:18-19] cousin or kinsman of our Lord. Author of the Epistle which bears his name, and head of the church of Jerusalem. I have confusion between the three James of the Bible. Flavis Josephus says [antiq 20.9.1] this James, the brother of Jesus was stoned and clubbed to death. Some say he was thrown over a hundred feet down from the SE pinnacle of the temple and survived, then was beaten to death with a fuller's club.

Now with all that said... How can this James many think is the half brother of Jesus, be the son of ALPHAEUS? 

I'm still beating my head against the wall trying to figure this out.

 

 

Edited by Dennis1209

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vincent's Word Studies is often relied upon by Bible translators.  This is his comment:

Thou that art highly favored (κεχαριτωμένη)

Lit., as Rev. in margin, endued with grace. Only here and Eph 1:6. The rendering full of grace, Vulgate, Wyc., and Tynd., is therefore wrong.

 

Many mistakes were found in the Vulgate, the original translation of the Greek Bible into Latin which became the official translation of the Roman church.  Other Catholic translators later found these mistakes but some incorrect passages had already been used for doctrine in the Roman church.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×