Posted on 08/24/2014 3:18:46 AM PDT by markomalley
The Gospel today sets forth the biblical basis for the Office of Peter—the Office of the Papacy—for Peter’s successors are the popes. The word “pope” is simply an English version (via Anglo-Saxon and Germanic tongues) of the word “papa.” The Pope is affectionately called “Papa” in Italian and Spanish as an affectionate indication that he is the father of the family, the Church.
That Peter receives an office and not simply a charismatic designation we will discuss later. As to certain objections regarding the Office of the Papacy, we will also deal with them later. But for now let’s look at the basic establishment of the Office of Peter in three steps.
I. The Inquiry that Illustrates – The text says, Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi and he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?“
It should be noted that in asking these questions Jesus is not merely curious about what people think of Him. He seems, rather, to be using these questions as a vehicle by which to teach the apostles, and us, about how the truth is adequately revealed and guaranteed.
Jesus’ first two questions reveal the inadequacy of two common methods.
1. The Poll - Jesus asks who the crowds say that He is. In modern times we love to take polls and many moderns put a lot of stock in what polls say. Many people (Catholics among them) like to point out that x% of Catholics think this or that about moral teachings or about doctrines and disciplines. It is as if the fact that more than 50% of Catholics think something makes it true, and that the Church should change her teaching based on this.
But as this gospel makes clear, taking a poll doesn’t necessarily yield the truth. In fact ALL the assertions of the crowd were wrong no matter what percentage held them. Jesus is not John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets redivivus. So, running the Church by poll-taking or democracy seems not to be a model that works.
2. The Panel - Jesus, having taught this implicitly, now turns to a group of experts, a “blue-ribbon panel” if you will. He asks the twelve, “Who do you (apostles) say that I am?” Here we simply get silence. Perhaps they were looking around like nervous students in a classroom, not wanting to answer lest they look foolish. The politics on the panel led not to truth but to a kind of self-serving, politically correct silence.
That Peter finally speaks up is true. But, as Jesus will say, he does not do this because he is a member of the panel but for another reason altogether.
Hence the blue-ribbon panel, the committee of experts, is not adequate in setting forth the religious truth of who Jesus is.
And through this line of questioning, Jesus instructs through inquiry. Polls and panels are not adequate in yielding the firm truth as to His identity. All we have are opinions or politically correct silence. Having set forth this inadequacy, the Gospel now presses forward to describe God’s plan in setting forth the truths of faith.
II. The Individual that is Inspired - The text says, Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”
We are taught here not merely that Peter spoke, but also how he came to know the truth. Jesus is very clear to teach us that Peter spoke rightly not because he was the smartest (he probably wasn’t), or because some one else told him (Jesus is clear that flesh and blood did not reveal this to him), or because he happened to guess correctly. Jesus teaches that Peter came to know the truth and speak it because God the Father revealed it to him. God the Father inspires Peter. There is a kind of anointing at work here.
So here is God’s methodology when it comes to adequately revealing and guaranteeing the truths of the faith: He anoints Peter.
It’s not polls or panels that God uses—it’s Peter.
And while truths may emerge in the wider Church, reflecting what is revealed, it is only with Peter and his successors that such views can be definitively set forth and their truth adequately guaranteed. Thus the other apostles are not merely bypassed by God. He anoints Peter to unite them and give solemn declaration to what they have seen and heard.
The Catechism says the following of Peter and his successors, the popes:
When Christ instituted the Twelve, he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them … The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head. This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.
The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head. As such, this college has supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff. The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council. But there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor (Catechism of the Catholic Church, pp. 880-884, selected).
All these truths point back to this moment when we see how God Himself chooses to operate.
And note, too, the dimension of faith we are called to have. We are to assent to the Pope’s teaching and leadership not merely because we think he is smarter, or because it might happen that he has power, riches, or other worldly means that might impress us or compel us to assent. Rather, we assent to the Pope because, by faith, we believe he is inspired by God. It is not in flesh and blood that we put our trust; it is in God Himself, who we believe has acted on our behalf by anointing someone to affirm the truth and adequately guarantee that truth to be revealed by God.
And this then leads to the final stage wherein Jesus sets forth a lasting office for Peter.
III. The Installation that is Initiated - The text says, “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Jesus does not merely praise Simon for a moment of charismatic insight. He goes further and declares that He will build his very Church upon Simon, and thus He calls him Peter (rock). And here, too, He does not merely mean this as a personal gift or as a sort of recognition that will die with Peter. In giving Peter the keys, He is establishing an office, not merely a “promotion” for Peter. This will be God’s way of strengthening and uniting the Church. In Luke’s Gospel Jesus says more of this:
Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, all that he might sift you all like wheat, but I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith may not fail; and when thou hast turned again, strengthen thy brethren (Luke 22:31).
Hence it is clear once again that God’s plan for the Church is to strengthen one man, Peter (and his successors), that in turn the whole Church may be strengthened and united. Thus the Lord Jesus establishes not only Peter, but also his office. This is God’s vision and plan for His Church.
It is true that many have objected to this teaching. There is no time here to do a full apologetical reply to every objection. But frankly most of the objections amount to a kind of wishful thinking by some, who want this text to mean something other than what it plainly means. Nothing could be clearer than the fact that Jesus is establishing both Peter and an office that will serve as a foundation for the unity and strength of His Church.
Some object that within other verses Peter will be called “Satan” and will deny Christ. But Jesus knew all this and still said and did what He does here.
Others object that Jesus is the head and foundation, that He is the rock. True enough, but apparently Jesus never got the objectors’ memo, for it is He Himself who calls Peter the rock and establishes him with the authority to bind and loose. It is also true that both Jesus and Peter can be head and rock, in terms of primary and secondary causality (more on that HERE). And in addition that Peter and his successors are head and rock by making visible and being the means through which Christ exercises His headship and foundational aspect.
Finally, let’s return to the title of this post: “If no one is Pope, EVERYONE is pope!” Without a visible head, there is no principle on earth for unity in the Church. The Protestant experiment tried to replace the Pope with Scripture and gave it sole authority. But Protestants cannot agree on what Scripture says and have no earthly way to resolve their conflicts. While they say that authority resides in Scripture alone, the fact is, in claiming the anointing of the Holy Spirit and thus the ability to properly interpret Scripture, they really place the locus of authority within themselves and become the very pope they denounce. Having denied that there is a pope they become pope. If no one is Pope, everyone is pope.
I have read that some objectors think Catholics arrogant in asserting that we have a pope whom we trust to be anointed by God to teach us without error on faith and morals. But which is more arrogant: to claim there is a pope (not me), or to in fact act like one myself?
In the end, the Protestant experiment is a failed one. Many estimates place the number of Protestant denominations as high as 30,000. Personally, I think this is exaggerated—but not by much. Protestants all claim the Scriptures as their source of the truth but differ on many essential matters such as sexual morality, authority, the necessity of baptism, whether once saved is always saved, etc. When they cannot resolve things they simply subdivide. There is an old joke, told even among Protestants, that goes,
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!” Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
A strange little joke, and not entirely fair since most Protestants of different denominations that I know get along fine on a personal level. But the truth is, the denominations disagree over many very important things. The Protestant experiment is a failure that leads only to endless division. The Church needs a visible head. The Bible alone does not suffice, for there are endless disagreements on how to interpret it. Someone must exist to whom all turn and who all agree will resolve the differences after listening.
Jesus installed an individual in this role to manifest His office of rock and head of the Church. That individual was Peter and after, his successors.
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.Gill says that "by 'the fathers' they mean the first inhabitants of the world, as Adam, Abel, Seth, &c. and all the patriarchs and prophets in all ages; the Ethiopic version renders it, 'our first fathers':"
The content of passages in Romans, 1Cor and Eph refer to the unique spiritual gifts given to every believer by God the Holy Spirit when we are baptized by the Spirit.
One such gift provided to male believers is the gift of Pastor-Teacher. It is a very real spiritual gift. It is a spiritual communication gift for perceiving the requisite Gospel to be taught between the Pastor-Teacher and his flock in the local assembly.
Worldly religious organizations working independent of being in fellowship through faith in Christ in their thinking, confuse the thinking of a pastor-teacher with a worldly mastering of soulish thinking. Many worldly systems then require the office to be held by persons with academic credentials to validate their mastery of academic topics, so as to prepare them to minister to others. That is a false system of pastoring, similar to present scholarly approaches in modern Judaism or Catholicism.
Human anthropology for the believer is a composition of body, soul, and spirit. Isolating the human spirit and its system of perception from the body and the soul, fails to acknowledge the system of teaching, which God provides and is very actively works, in this present Church Age.
A parallel spiritual communication gift for communicating the Gospel to unbelievers is the spiritual gift of evangelism. A person with that gift is guided by God the Holy Spirit in the presence of other unbelieving persons to communicate the right thinks to the local audience to communicate His Word to them.
In both of these positions, the believer in the body of Christ serves a unique role predestined by God in His Plan.
The most embarrassing place to be for an unbeliever or out of fellowship believer, is in an audience of either an evangelist or pastor-teacher with these spiritual gifts. They have the ability from God the Holy Spirit to spiritually perceive exactly what is necessary to communicate His Word to individuals and collective groups in their local audience. In order to communicate to individuals, it frequently is required to catch their attention, or communicate a topic of faith directly perceivable by that listener. There is nothing hidden from God in our lives. It isn’t uncommon for a pastor-teacher to directly perceive explicit hidden sin in the lives of his audience in order for him to effectively communicate the Word to that audience.
Believers in sin, who conceal their thinking by counterfeit behavior, lay completely exposed before those with these spiritual gifts. Likewise, when searching for one’s pastor-teacher, not all people who hold the worldly office are uniquely gifted to perform that task with some other believers. Some pastor-teachers are logistically predestined for explicit audiences. The Body of Christ has many members and likewise for systems of teaching which He provides for His Body.
One might glean some academic information from other teachers, but knowledge of His Word is fed directly by those whom He has provided for His Body.
I don’t think it’s Luther; or any of his followers...
HMMMmmm... Rabbit Standard Version?
Oh?
Shouldn't you guys rather be BIBLICALLY accurate?
Go back 101 years. That would be a really good place to START 'appearing' like Matt 23:9 means something.
Ah HA!
But you see; the Roman Catholic Church does this all the time; inferring that a vague thing that was NOT said gives it reason to claim it is permitted.
Thus all the complaints of Protestantism that so many things about Rome's religious organization are non-biblical.
We Protestants have not dealt with Catholics for years on FR and not learned SOMETHING!
Rome has: it's Mary!
Also in Heaven.
Elsie:
Well, fingers getting tired.
Springfield Reformer:
Thanks for the protestant commentary on this. This is one of those vague passages as it could mean all of the OT prophets were fathers [beyond the ones specifically names as such, Abraham, Isacc, David in the NT] and broadens the usage of the term to all of the OT prophets who lead the OT Jewish people and term fathers, if I read Gill correctly, also refers to all spiritual fathers for all ages. So does he believe that spiritual father is restricted for usage within dome defined age, or does it go beyond the NT period into early Apostolic Church. As the article I linked earlier pointed out, Saint Irenaeus of Lyons used the term “fathers” as did Saint Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century, so those 2 at least, seemed to think the term spiritual father could indeed be applied to men like Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, etc.
And as you do acknowledge, Paul as a father is acceptable as he was involved in the conversion, pastoring and shepherding of souls. A parish priest called father is, from the Catholic perspective, doing the same. It is the parish priest who is the ordinary minister of the sacrament of baptism, which as I think you know, from the Catholic perspective, is a sacrament that gives Grace and removes original sin and makes one an adopted son or daughter of God. So just on that point, a parish priest functionally in terms of their pastoring ministries is in essence equivalent to what Saint Paul was to say the Corinthians.
Hey no problem with your views, I am not trying to play a gotcha game. I stand by the Catholic position but at least you have the objectivity to recognize that reading MT 23:7-9 in English today and thinking it can only mean X is problematic as you do recognize words, even in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc, can have different meanings and do change over time.
Elsie:
That would be in the English speaking world.
Disobey it all you want. Rationalize it away all you want. Have at it. It's your choice and your life.
But I sure wouldn't want to be in a position of answering for why I sinned by defiantly disobeying a clear, concise command of His and rationalizing it away.
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
Remember Gill is addressing this as Peter quoting a hypothetical group of yet to be born mockers in the last days. So there’s no prerequisite that these “fathers” are internal to the church or even the faithful OT believers, but may simply represent the ancient peoples generally. The mockers being quoted are unbelievers, so it stands to reason they would not necessarily limit themselves to church history, but would rather be talking about human history generally.
This is actually the case with modern evolutionary skeptics, who have argued against the global flood, and also reject the apocalypse, because they reject that God intervenes in human history with these large scale judgments. In fact, many Protestants think these skeptics are probably at least a partial fulfillment of Peter’s prophecy.
As for the Father versus father controversy, I want to ask you to acknowledge something. I’m not asking you to agree, but just recognize this, that we are not saying, none of us, that these terms are off limits for descriptive use, only for use as ecclesiastical titles, which is a very narrow application. None of us has ever denied that Paul could teach or be a spiritual father to those he actually helped find faith in Christ. We only deny that such descriptive terms should evolve into formal religious titles, because as Augustine suggests, this can lead to pride and even idolatry. No one ever called Paul “Rabbi Paul,” or “Father Paul,” etc. That’s our point, and if you make it out to be more or less than that, you are not faithfully representing our actual argument.
Now I’m an attorney (plus a few other things), and I can tell you it’s cool to have that “Esq.” appended to your signature line in Outlook. But as a Christian I can also recognize the temptation to pride, to regarding oneself to being in some superior clique that can look down on others, and the badges of pride, titles and such other indicators of status, contribute directly to that temptation.
That’s what I think Jesus was getting at. It’s a narrow command but extremely useful, not hyperbole at all. He doesn’t want pride in the church leadership. He wants a servant heart. But the prohibitions are real. If you have a role in someone’s life as father, someone you actually know personally, then use of the right term to describe that role is fine. But not as part of your name. You may be revered, but you cannot be “Reverend.” You may be a father or teacher to someone, but you are not allowed to be “Father CT,” or “Rabbi SR.”
Anyway, I’m not asking you to agree, but I think it would be very helpful if you could at least acknowledge that this is our argument. Because then we could stop going on these defensive rabbit trails of “that’s not what we said,” and we could get down to addressing what we think is the real point, why you allow your clerics to bear such titles, when it would be so easy to comply with this command of Jesus by just using people’s names, as exampled by Paul, Peter, and everyone else in the New Testament church.
Peace,
SR
And the pastors were titled "priests" and "fathers" first in Rome.
Springfield:
It is true titles can lead one to pride, which of course, was the source of the fall in Genesis, thus one needs to be careful with anything that can cause pride, not only titles.
I understand your concerns of titles for clergy as one of the key principles of Protestantism is the stressing of the universal priesthood, which Catholicism affirms as all baptized are baptized into Christ and thus part of the universal priesthood. There is a danger that the non ordained clergy could be seen as not on equal standing with God. So I do recognize your concerns. But I would argue that would apply to anyone who is in any type of leadership position in the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church, who do use the term father in the context of spiritual father and Protestants who don’t. For example, a Protestant clergyman who use the term Doctor such and such [if they have a Phd from a Protestant seminary] or maybe some other term or don’t use any term at all, but still because they are the pastor of a local protestant group, is subject to the same temptations that the Catholic and Orthodox clergyman called Father Peter or Father Petros is subject to, which is of course pride.
As for Saint Augustine, he did refer to the Bishop of Rome by the term Papa [Father/Pope] as well as venerable, so while Augustine certainly understood the Christian should guard against pride, lest you fall, he did not take Christ words in Mt 23:7-9 to restrict titles such as father for Bishops and in the case of Augustine, the Bishop of Rome was the only one I can find that he called Papa [Father/Pope]. Here is the translation from schaff at ccel as I wanted to avoid any Charges of translation bias
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.vii.1.CCIX.html
So while I do recognize your concerns, I don’t agree with the restrictions you are making with respect to the word father. I will point out that the Catholic term Monsignor has come to be associated with careerism and thus is a title that many Bishops now shy away from as it promotes in language, a tiered system among parish priest, and Monsignor does not give anything in terms of Holy Orders. As one priest once told me, the Bishop if the chief Pastor of the diocese and on faith and moral teaching, that is his job. But in terms of pastoral ministry, I [this priest speaking] am in the front lines so sometimes when the Bishop makes a pastoral decision about how we are going to prepare kids for the sacrament of The Eucharist or Confirmation, I feel that sometimes I need to tell the Bishop what he is proposing is not the best way. Some priests would just kiss the Bishop’s you know what and play along. As this priest noted, it was these types of priests who were the careerist and many times, not all, got the titles of Monsignor. In other words, this particular priest was not fond of the term Monsignor to differentiate parish priests who were pastors. And no, he was not a spirit of Vatican II lunatic, very solid Irish priest who was my pastor back in the 90’s.
Good job with your post and I appreciate the respectful dialogue. I do and I will commend people who post the way you do, of course those who don’t, I freely acknowledge I sometimes loose my cool with some here and post accordingly.
It all depends on how you interpret "free will". Please note the following observation from Moses:
Our "free will" is to act corruptly and to provoke the Lord. It is only because of God's steadfast love that He constantly works with us to bring us around. There isn't anything that we do for God including wanting to live for Him.
Free will is an illusion. Our desire is to freely act against God. We deceive ourselves when we believe we are acting for God.
Mary is not God and no Catholic teaching would ever make such claim because that is heresy.
Let's look at the facts that are claimed about Mary by the Catholic Church:
2) She did not die
3) If one makes a request to her, she will intercede with the Son and the Son will not deny His mother
4) Salvation came to the world because of Mary's righteous act
The [sic] issue of pre-Vatican II and post Vatican II on who is part of the Church is what you are getting at. There is only 1 Church, all are in it at some level, some more than others, but all are related to it or part of it so the question of how one understands “outside the Church there is no salvation” is one of those things that has always been part of Church teaching, but it has never been completely and definitively defined.
The dogma of the Roman Catholic Church reads as following:
2.Christ founded the Catholic Church in order to continue His work of redemption for all time.
3.Christ gave His Church a hierarchical constitution.
4.The powers bestowed on the Apostles have descended to the Bishops.
5.Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the first of all the Apostles and to be the visible Head of the whole Catholic Church, by appointing him immediately and personally to the primacy of jurisdiction.
6.According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Catholic Church and for all time.
7.The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the Bishops of Rome.
8.The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church.
9.The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
10.By virtue of Divine right, the bishops possess an ordinary power of government over their dioceses.
11.Christ founded the Catholic Church.
12.Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church.
13.In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals, the Catholic Church is infallible.
14.The primary object of the Infallibility is the formally revealed truths of Christian Doctrine concerning faith and morals.
15.The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to he held by all the faithful.
16.The Church founded by Christ is unique and one.
17.The Church founded by Christ is holy.
18.The Church founded by Christ is catholic.
19.The Church founded by Christ is apostolic.
20.Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.
HarleyD:
Salvation was given to Mary by a Special Grace and thus she had the Grace to respond in faith to the Angel Gabriel. And not to dispute Moses, but all OT texts should be interpreted in the light of the Person of Christ, i.e. as Saint Augustine said the OT prefigures the NT and NT fulfills in Christ the OT.
So again, I don’t outright reject free will the way the Reformed theologians do. To Love God one as to be free, otherwise it is not Love. Are we weakened due to the consequences of original sin, yes. But does God Grace enlighten and transform us to live out our faith and practice the virtue of Love, which is the greatest of faith, hope and love [Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians] yes it does.
As for #20 yes that is true, but who is and is not a member is the question. Like I said, even when that statement was written by Father Ott, and he is an orthodox Priest theologian not doubt, Fr. Fenney was claiming or interpreting that only those who are visibly in the Catholic Church would be saved, thus Orthodox and Protestants have no chance. Fenney was excommunicated by Rome in the 1940’s over this view and we are talking over 20 to 25 years before the close of Vatican 2.
Take a look at the Fr. Feeney case, he rejected baptism of blood and baptism of desire [which the Church Fathers affirm] and had a restricted view of outside the Church there is no salvation and those same Church Fathers affirmed “extra Eccliesiam nulla salus” [outside the Church there is no salvation].
Feeney was correct about secularism, communism and free masonery. He was an early prophet on the hole anti-hate speech movement which seemed to have its origins in the Ivey league in the 1950’s, and of course now if you speak out for traditional marriage, you are charged with hate speech.
Here is the actual Letter from the Holy Office in 1949 [the CDF] which had Pope Pius XII affirmation. Again, this is still 16 years before the close of Vatican II. So the reformulated statement in Vatican II in a positive manner “All salvation is from Christ through his Church” is in keeping with the Dogma and actually communicates it more accurately, despite the protests of some sedevacantist.
So I actually thank you for bringing up #20 in Ott’s list because it allowed me to go back and provide some clarification on this.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm
The grace given Mary was the same grace given all believers. The exact same work in the Greek is used in this passage in Ephesians in regard to all believers.
And there is nothing anywhere in Scripture that says that she was given more grace than any one else.
She was highly favored but among those born of women, there was none greater than John the Baptist. Jesus' own words.
Mary and Grace
The word grace used in this passage in Luke is used in one other place in the Bible and that is Ephesians 1 where Paul is us that with this same grace, God has blessed us (believers) in the Beloved. IOW, we all have access to that grace and it has been bestowed on us all.
http://biblehub.com/greek/5487.htm
Luke 1:28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”
Ephesians 1:4-6 In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Greek word “grace”
charitoó: to make graceful, endow with grace
Original Word: χαριτόω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: charitoó
Phonetic Spelling: (khar-ee-to'-o)
Short Definition: I favor, bestow freely on
Definition: I favor, bestow freely on.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 5487 xaritóō (from 5486 /xárisma, "grace," see there) – properly, highly-favored because receptive to God's grace. 5487 (xaritóō) is used twice in the NT (Lk 1:28 and Eph 1:6), both times of God extending Himself to freely bestow grace (favor).
Word Origin: from charis
Definition: to make graceful, endow with grace
NASB Translation: favored (1), freely bestowed (1).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.