Could Mary have said “no?”

bibleThere are two things you can almost always count on during Christmas time. Well, there are actually more than two things you can count on during this time of year — but for my purposes today we will look at two of them…

First, there will be any number of sappy, tug-at-the-heartstrings proclaimed “real meanings of Christmas.”

  • “The real meaning of Christmas,” some say, “is the joy of giving.”
  • “The real meaning of Christmas,” others contend, “is being with family.”
  • “The real meaning of Christmas is love, or hope, or…”  you get the idea.

And second, you may get to hear a gratuitous reading of either the birth narrative of Jesus or of the angel telling Mary she is going to have a son — or both.

I’d like to take a look at the passage in Luke where Mary is first made aware she is to give birth to the very Son of God. But I hope your reading of it here is anything but gratuitous. I want to consider a question after the passage. Read carefully…

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”

And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.” And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. — Luke 1:26-38

birthofbabyjesusfigurinesetDid you read carefully? Good. Here’s the question: Could Mary have said “no” to the angel?

The Church in America is so captive to an Arminian mindset that many people automatically answer: “Mary had a free will just like anyone, of course she could have said no.”

But consider the implications of that. Just where does that kind of thinking lead? Consider the following statements taken from theological websites where the writers believe Mary could have said no.

Example 1:

“The Bible clearly shows us that man was given free will. Eve had free will to say “no” to God and cause the fall. Mary was free to say “no” to Gabriel. She was given free will. So [we] believe that Mary’s role at the annunciation was special, not shared by any other human in the history of the world. If she said “no,” none of us know what would have happened. Perhaps God would have worked out salvation history another way. Perhaps it was God’s last chance for us, we just don’t know. But when we think about the immensity of Eve’s “no” we get a pretty good idea. Mary’s “yes” was huge.”

This writer makes a couple of statements that absolutely boggle the mind — they fly right into the face of the doctrine of God’s sovereignty. The first is “Perhaps God would have worked out salvation history another way.” The second is “Perhaps it was God’s last chance for us.” The Bible clearly contradicts this pathetic view of God.

“I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.” — Job 42:2

“Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.” — Psalm 115: 3

It’s amazing to me that anyone professing to be a Christian has such a limited view of God. God does not make contingencies. He has no plan B. But if you research the topic for very long you will find it is an attitude that has quite a bit of support.

Example 2:

“I firmly believe that Mary freely consented to her divine inpregnation, but recognize that this question poses difficulties similar to the entire question of predestination itself. Did God really put the fate of our entire race into the hands of a single woman, who was truly free to veto His divine scheme for our salvation? Yes — just as traditional Christianity teaches that the entire race was doomed to perdition because of the free choice of a single woman. Eve was herself beguiled by Satan and, in turn, beguiled her husband. What Eve did in freely rejecting God’s grace, Mary undid by freely consenting to it.”

Again, if Mary “was truly free to veto [God’s] divine scheme for our salvation” as this writer suggests then the Bible is clearly in error where it says things like…

“My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.” — Isaiah 46:10

and…

“God, “…works all things according to the counsel of his will.” — Ephesians 1:11

Apart from these clear contradictions there are other problems with making this comparison between Eve and Mary. I mean, it sounds good, sure. But Scripture cautions us against leaning on our own understanding. We must decide if we are going to believe things that seem right to us, or if we are going to believe the Bible — because sometimes the two are at odds. Personally, I like to go with Scripture. And Scripture makes no comparison between Eve and Mary as the instruments of the fall and of redemption. The Bible makes that comparison between Adam and Christ.

“Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.” — 1 Corinthians 15:45-49

appleA comparison between Eve and Mary does not work because Adam and Eve were created in the image of God. They did not have a sinful nature until after the fall. Mary, like every other person born of man, had a sinful nature. She could no more stand as a representative for the human race than any one of us.

Some of you may say, “Fine. The comparison between Eve and Mary does not work, but that does not mean Mary didn’t have a free will and the ability to say ‘no’.”

Remember, I cautioned you to read the passage in Luke carefully. Let’s take a closer look at it. Do you see any place where the angel seeks Mary’s consent?

“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” — Luke 1:31-33

Note, the angel does not say all of these things will come to pass if you agree. He says these things will happen, period.

Many people object, saying, “Isn’t this a violation of Mary’s free will? Isn’t free will the one thing God can’t mess with?”

I respond with another question: Doesn’t God have every right to use people as He sees fit? Furthermore, has he not already done so on other occasions?

Yes, He does and yes, He has.

Occasion 1: God used Pharaoh without Pharaoh’s consent.

Time after time Pharaoh’s heart was hardened and Scripture declares God specifically hardened Pharaoh’s heart, Himself.

“But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had spoken to Moses.” — Exodus 9:12

God goes on to point out why He did this:

“But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” — Exodus 9:16

The apostle Paul quotes this passage in his letter to the Romans when discussing election:

“For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” — Romans 9:17-18

Occasion 2: God called Paul to ministry without asking for his consent.

“Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, ‘Ananias.’ And he said, ‘Here I am, Lord.’ And the Lord said to him, ‘Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.’ But Ananias answered, ‘Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on your name.’ But the Lord said to him, ‘Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.” — Acts 9:10-16

God tells Ananias that Saul is a chosen instrument and that Paul must suffer for God’s name. There is no question. There is no request for consent. Saul is going to become the Apostle Paul.

One thing most Christians can agree on is that Jesus Christ is the culmination of God’s plan. His birth, life, death, and resurrection are the central events upon which all of history hangs. All of the Old Testament points to the coming of Christ. All of the New Testament points back to it. He is central. He is key.

Now, consider for a moment the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus. He is…

  • From the seed of a woman
  • Born of a virgin
  • Son of God
  • Seed of Abraham
  • From the tribe of Judah
  • Son of Isaac
  • From the House of David
  • Born at Bethlehem

And on and on and on…

In both His earthly parents Jesus’ linage is from the House of David. The genealogy in Luke traces back through Mary. It shows the actual, physical lineage of Jesus to the House of David. His humanity comes from there. The genealogy in Matthew follows Joseph’s line. And, even though Jesus is not the physical son of Joseph, Jewish law held that the adopted son of a man was the legal son and legal heir and entitled to the lineage of the father as his own. This shows Jesus’ legal claim to the throne of David.

nativitiyAll of the prophesies of the Old Testament converge perfectly through Mary and Joseph at the person of Jesus Christ.

The Bible even says that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world. So, before the world was even created the death of God’s own son was a done deal.

Now, do you really think that Mary had in her the power to thwart God’s perfect plan of redemption — a plan whose completion was already set before the foundation of the world — by the power of her free will?

So, does this mean Mary was forced into something contrary to her will? No. her response to the angel, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word,” clearly indicates her willingness to be used by God. But how did she come to be so willing? Giving birth to the Christ child was not an easy thing.

There is a key in the passage from Luke.

“And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.” — Luke 1:30

The phrase translated here “found favor” is literally “grace.” In the Greek it is charis. What this means is that Mary was the recipient of God’s grace. She was perfectly willing to do what God required of her because God had already given her the grace necessary to make her so. She chose the path she wanted, and that path was completely consistent with the path God wanted because God had conformed her desires to his own.

Likewise, Paul did exactly what he wanted. Can you think of anyone in Scripture with a more fierce desire to share the gospel than Paul? But his desire was made consistent with God’s desire through God’s application of grace on Paul.

Pharaoh did exactly what Pharaoh wanted to do. And it was exactly what God wanted him to do. It was through the removal of His grace that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened. We all have a sinful, selfish nature. Pharaoh was no exception. God merely allowed Pharaoh to be Pharaoh.

We all choose exactly what we want. But God is sovereign. Even over our desires.

Mary certainly had the free will to choose whatever she wanted. But God made sure she wanted what He wanted.

Could Mary have said “no?”

No.

Congressional hubris: Exhibit A

In my article, “Congressional hubris,” I pointed out the government’s  tendency to pass ridiculous laws from which they are exempt. This was in the context of Congress passing out blame for the American automobile industry being in sad financial shape while Congress is probably more responsible than any other entity involved.

shellgameLittle did I realize a golden example of government arrogance was right around the corner. Consider the recent news about Bernard Madoff, a long-time fixture in the financial world, who has been running a fraudulent investment scheme for years. In essence, his investment plan was nothing more than an elaborate Ponzi scheme.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where older investors are paid with the money of newer investors. But the whole thing is bound for failure at some point because nothing is produced.

Now, Madoff is going to face prosecution for this crime — and rightfully so. He stole from others. What’s remarkable is this: The very government that is going to prosecute Madoff for running a Ponzi scheme has been running one of the world’s largest Ponzi schemes for years. It’s just called Social Security.

Economist Thomas Sowell characterizes Social Security like this:

Social Security has been a pyramid scheme from the beginning. Those who paid in first received money from those who paid in second — and so on, generation after generation. This was great so long as the small generation when Social Security began was being supported by larger generations resulting from the baby boom.

But, like all pyramid schemes, the whole thing is in big trouble once the pyramid stops growing. When the baby boomers retire, that will be the moment of truth — or of more artful lies.

With Social Security many people will pay far more into the system than they ever get out. If you die before the government’s approved “retirement age” you’re heirs will get next to nothing. So, in typical fashion, the federal government has reserved for itself the right to engage in activity that it outlaws for everyone else.

If you discover yourself being duped by a Ponzi scheme run by a private citizen you can get your money out. Or, at the very least, stop paying in. With the government’s Ponzi scheme you must continue to pay, even after you realize it is a giant fraud — because the government has reserved for itself the right to coerce you to continue in the scheme by use of force.

We’ll call this example of Congressional hubris “Exhibit A.” I wonder how long we’ll have to watch the news for Exhibit B. My guess is not very long.

Congressional hubris

Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) has made the grand pronouncement that it is time for General Motors CEO, Richard Wagoner, “to move on.” His reasoning for such a statement is “those who created this problem should not be a part of fixing it.”

flattire

Now, I will assume that Senator Dodd makes such a statement on the same basis as all other government dictates — it applies to everyone, except the government. You see, congress is just as much to blame for the current problem in the auto industry as anyone. Their enforcement of CAFE standards on American built automobiles has not accomplished its stated purpose and has, instead, wrought unintended consequences that continue to cripple American automobile makers.

So, if anyone who has had a hand in creating this problem is to be excluded from coming up with a solution, then I would expect congress to be first in line in excusing itself from the process.

I’m not holding my breath.

%d bloggers like this: