Replies

My dear Mrs. Don-o, The same word used in Luke 1.28 is used in Ephesians 1:6 without the attached "you".

Ephesians 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

I understand your intense desire that Luke 1:28 include some illusion to "full of grace" but it does not.

>>by a completed action (hence "fully" accomplished),<<

Fully accomplished does NOT mean "full of". I have explained that to you in the past. If I finish putting a 100 bushel wagon load of grain into a 1000 bushel bin I have fully accomplished unloading that wagon. It also means it's been done in the past. It does NOT mean the bin is full.

Mary receiving grace which was naturally in the past since the angel was already there telling her she had received grace in no way indicates she was "full of grace" once again. The term "full of grace" is once again a twisting of words by the Catholic Church to insert justification for their belief.

If the Holy Spirit had intended to indicate that Mary was "full of grace" as He clearly did for Stephen, He would have included the word pleres as He did for Stephen.

Finally, the greeting Chaire is a a primary verb; to be "cheer"ful, i.e. Calmly happy or well-off; impersonally, especially as salutation (on meeting or parting), be well -- farewell, be glad, God speed, greeting, hall, joy(- fully), rejoice. [http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/5463.htm].

past (the state of grace completed in past time), I already unloaded the corn.
perfect (a completed and accomplished action), I completely unloaded that 100 bushel load of corn.
continuing (its results continue into the present), The load continues to be unloaded. I do not have to do it again.
nominative (name/ title bestowed by an outside agent, in this case, God.) I was the one who unloaded the corn, it did not unload itself.

Now, you didn't attribute the source of your post so I would guess it's from the Catholic Church itself rather than an impartial source. In that can I assume you care not about impartial sources for fear of finding truth?

Dittos on the misuse of the perfect tense. Folks need to be careful when referencing Greek language resources. After spending some serious time doing translation of the Greek, even at the introductory level, you start to realize that these grammatical categories are necessary to figure out the semantic meaning, but they don't give you "magic bullet" neologisms that you can fill with whatever meaning you like, least of all meanings based on a radical misconception of the "perfect" tense.

For example, the tenses in Greek are primarily to help you locate an event in time or logical sequence. They do NOT tell you anything about the quantities involved internally to the event. For example, the aorist is punctilliar. It sets down an event at a specific point, and that's it. The "perfect" tense goes a little beyond that, because it not only sets out the event as having happened, but it indicates a continued effect into the present.

This works out in Luke 1:28 very straightforwardly. Mary received a great kindness from God. She received it at some point in the past, and she is still benefiting from it in the present. Done. Then we learn what that great kindness was, that she should be chosen to give birth to the Messiah. That's the grace/kindness/favor she received, and she received it gladly.

Mrs D, really, one of the reasons it would be good for you to source that whole misconstruction of the Greek you cited is to evaluate the source, and perhaps see if a response has been posted to refute it. I tried going back and finding it, but couldn't find the original citation. I'm thinking whoever posted it probably removed it because it is so utterly indefensible. That's not your fault. But it's kind of a peer review thing.

BTW, there is a simple, grammatical reason for the passive being used in Luke 1:28 and the active in Ephesians 1:6. In Luke 1:28, God is presumed to be the giver of the kindness to Mary, but in Ephesians 1:6, God is explicitly set out as giver of this grace/favor/kindness to us. So in Luke 1:28, the subject being unnamed (God) transfers the focus of the verb to the object (Mary) the passive recipient, but in Eph. 1:6, the subject has been named (verse 1, God), so the verb takes on the active voice, even though the object ("us") is just as much a passive recipient of the grace/favor/kindness as Mary.

Bottom line, no creditable Greek scholar would find any real difference between Ephesians 1:6 and Luke 1:28, based simply on person, number, or voice. Those are structural requirements for each context, but they don't change the meaning at all. They are both based on charitoo, both in the perfect tense, both describe recipients of an action, that action is done, but has ongoing consequences. Therefore, if you make a special pleading for Luke 1:28, it necessarily applies equally to Ephesians 1:6. If you can stretch the "perfect" to give Mary "full grace," then every Ephesians 1:6 believer necessarily has the same thing. Same subject, same verb, same tense, same effect. Much better to just let the text inform us that both we and Mary have been shown great and undeserved kindness by our God, and that the blessings from that favor just keep on coming.

Peace,

SR