The perfect indicates a completed action whose effects are felt in the speaker's present. The action normally occurred in the past. Keep in mind the time of the verb is from the standpoint of the speaker/writer. (Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, pp.24-25)
It is not a verbal title. It is a greeting as Mary noted in verse 29 "as she kept pondering what kind of salutation this might be."
Although these four grammatical characteristics do not prove the Immaculate Conception,
Yet the author goes right ahead and makes the point that it does prove it. This is eisogesis...reading something into the text that isn't there. This is a very dangerous way to interpret the Word and often leads the reader astray into false doctrine(s).
KEKARITOMENE is the best Greek word that could have been chosen to coincide with it. Any other Greek word would have been inadequate or even faulty. That is all we can really say, grammatically speaking."
Let's recall that Luke was a physician. If he had wanted to say Mary was sinless he would have made that clear. What is clear is that something very special is about to happen to Mary as Gabriel goes on to explain in the rest of the chapter.
"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament)."
It is permissible to do a lot of things, but they aren't always the right thing to do. The best one could derive from this is that Mary was highly favored. She is blessed as noted in the text and as the text records "from this time on all generations will count be blessed." She was favored by God to give birth to Christ. She deserves nothing less and nothing more beyond what Luke records.
The ongoing scholarly discussion about how to best translate this word, is due to the fact that the word is unique in the world, used only in the Gospel of Luke. It has the characteristics of being a title with a feminine ending, and also of being the past perfect passive verb form. The root verb is "charitoo," to fill with grace. The "past, perfect, passive" form means that it was done ab initio, from the beginning, it was done fully, and it was done TO her (it was not something she did herself.)
This is an incorrect understanding of the perfect passive form. I cannot find anything in my grammers that indicates it means it was done from the "beginning"....which I presume the authors mean from the beginning of time. Other uses of perfect tense in the NT do not support this understanding.
I do agree she did not do it herself. That's an easy one. Only God can grant His favor to someone.
This is not, as I said, a mathematical proof. It's something that lends a certain weight as evidence. It prompts the legitimate question, "Why would Luke use a completely unheard-of word like "Kecharitomene" (instead of "pleres charitos")?
How would you answer that question?
This is conjecture and again would be practicing eisogesis.
There isn't anything perplexing about the word Luke has used if one keeps Mary's story in proper context with the rest of the Bible and the clear teaching on sin as noted in Romans 3:23.
We --- you and I ---DO share the belief that the Gospel is Divinely-inspired.
Yes we do.
See my point? (I'm asking whether you "see" my point. I'm not asking if you agree with it!)
I do not "see" your point....the grammer doesn't support it nor does a reading of the text in conjunction with the rest of the Bible.
Good discussion. Nice and civil and hopefully educational.
Thank you. I thinmk we both appreciate that.
Conjectur? It's a legitimate question. We're talking about the exact meaning of words.
We talk freely about why St. Paul uses "eros" versus "agape" vs "phileo" vs "storge" --- which English translators almost always render as the same word, "love," but which really demands getting into Paul's mind to see why he is making these distinctions. We're obliged to deal with Paul's word choices and their distinct shades of meaning.
We don't at all mind discussing the difference between "Sarx" and "soma" in verses like "For though I be absent in the flesh (sarx)," "change this vile body (soma) into His "life is more than meat and the body(soma) more than the raiment" "sown a natural (psuchikos) body (soma) raised a spiritual (pneuma) body (soma)" "neither did His flesh (sarx) see corruption" "in the body (soma) of His flesh (sarx)" "all flesh (sarx) is not the same flesh (sarx)"
I'm sure you'd agree that the exact word choices are important becdause they make distinctions between one thing and another.
So to the question: why, reasonably, would Paul pass up words used elsewhere in the NT and common in the Greek "Pleres charitos" and coin an entirely new, unheard-of term (or, better, quote the Angel Gabriel saying something nobody ever said before), "Kecharitomene"?
You don't wonder about that? You don't think it's worth looking into?