Series Introduction:
James Talarico is not the first politician to invoke the Christian faith or the Bible to score political points. He is, however, the first I am aware of who has been enrolled in seminary while running for office. Talarico is certainly popular among prospective voters, but he has received significant scrutiny from pastors and academics because of his theological statements. He may be a faithful representative of his denomination, but he has brought the views of that denomination into the limelight due to the widespread publicity of his senatorial race.
We do not elect political candidates for their religious beliefs, though we may have reason to support or oppose a candidate when their religious beliefs affect their policy positions. Talarico is a politician and not a pastor, and the focus of his campaign is certainly not doctrinal precision. He has, however, positioned his faith and seminary background as a foundational driver behind the policies he supports. If you visit his campaign website or watch almost any of the interviews he has given in the last year, it is one of the first things you will hear. He speaks with Christian conviction and presents himself as an authority on biblical teaching.
Despite his tone of authority, James Talarico badly misunderstands or misrepresents biblical truth. While I am concerned about several of his policy positions, I will concentrate this series on the unbiblical doctrines he holds that inform those positions. Nearly every book of the New Testament warns that we must be wary of false teaching. As Jude aptly put it, we are to “contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3). Doctrinal clarity and precision matter. This is not just about the current political moment in Texas and the nation; it is about an accurate understanding of the gospel and the eternal destiny of souls.
James Talarico has maintained a consistently pro-choice stance during his senatorial campaign, but he has been somewhat inconsistent in the method by which he defends that position in relation to his Christian faith. During his recent interview with Jamie Kern Lima, Talarico suggested that “the Bible is silent on abortion,” and that Christians need to review the whole of Scripture to inform our ethical position.[1] The former has justifiably occasioned controversy since it dramatically oversimplifies the biblical data, but it is also inconsistent with Talarico’s earlier statements. While discussing the Bible and abortion on The Joe Rogan Experience, Talarico suggested that the Bible defends the idea that “creation has to be done with consent,” and he offered the example of Mary in Luke 1:31–38 as support:
“And then the last, I think, story I would go to is the story of Mary… I say all this in context of abortion because before God comes over Mary and we have the incarnation, God asks for Mary’s consent, which is remarkable. I mean, go back and read this in Luke. I mean, the angel comes down and asks Mary if this is something she wants to do, and she says ‘If it is God’s will, let it be done. Let it be. Let it happen.’ So, to me that is an affirmation in one of our most central stories that creation has to be done with consent. You cannot force someone to create. Creation is one of the most sacred acts that we engage in as human beings, but that has to be done with consent. It has to be done with freedom. And to me, that is absolutely consistent with the ministry and life and death of Jesus. And so that’s how I come down on that side of the issue.” [2]
According to Talarico, God (through Gabriel) sought Mary’s consent to bear Jesus. The implication is that women should have the option to consent to pregnancy and, as a result, have the right to an abortion if they do not consent. Few will disagree that consent is hugely important. No person should ever be pressured or forced into sexual relations without consent or be taken advantage of. However, once someone has become pregnant, the time for consent has passed.
It is not entirely clear to the present author how Talarico arrived at the conclusion that Luke 1:31–38 supports his consent-to-create idea since Mary was not yet pregnant at the time of Gabriel’s announcement; if consent were involved, it would be an agreement to become pregnant [‘you will conceive’ Lk. 1:31] rather than to remain pregnant. But putting aside the non sequitur and granting for the sake of argument that Mary’s situation would somehow be applicable, the fact remains that there is nothing in this passage to suggest that consent was involved. On the contrary, the grammatical, contextual, and intertextual evidence aligns to confirm that the thrust of the birth announcement centers around God’s sovereign fulfillment of his plan, not Mary’s choice.
Grammatical Evidence
The grammatical evidence against Talarico’s position is clear and unavoidable when this text is examined in its original language, Greek. With only a brief explanation, even those unfamiliar with the language will be able to see that the assertion that Gabriel sought Mary’s consent is utterly devoid of support at the level of grammar and syntax. The key verse is Luke 1:31a, when Gabriel announces to Mary that she will conceive and bear a child:
Greek: Καὶ ἰδοὺ συλλήμψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τέξῃ υἱὸν…
Transliteration: Kai idou, sullēmpsē en gastri kai texē huion…
English: And behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son…
The immediate problem with the claim is that both verbs that Gabriel uses—συλλήμψῃ (from συλλαμβάνω, sullambanō, “to conceive”) and τέξῃ (from τίκτω, tiktō, “to give birth [to]”)—are in the indicative mood. Moods are a feature of the Greek verb system that indicate a verb’s portrayal of reality, either as actual or potential.[3] The indicative mood presents the action of the verb as certain or real; it is presented as actual and not potential.[4] Thus, Gabriel says to Mary that she will conceive and she will give birth to a child. There is no contingency in his statement.
If Luke had intended to represent Gabriel’s oracle to Mary as conditional in any sense, there are a variety of ways he could have done this. First, Gabriel’s verbs could have been in the subjunctive mood, which, at the risk of oversimplifying, presents the action of a verb as probable.[5] The verb forms then would have been συλλάβῃ (sullabē) and τέκῃς (tekēs), and they would have indicated that Gabriel thought it was likely that Mary would conceive and bear Jesus, but at minimum there was some element of uncertainty.[6] If he were less certain and simply wanted to portray the situation as possible, he could have used the optative mood, thus rendering the forms συλλάβοιο (sullaboio) and τέκοις (tekois).[7] But he does neither.
The clearest way that Gabriel (or Luke, representing Gabriel’s words) could have indicated conditionality would be to preface the statement with the protasis of a conditional statement—that is, an “if” statement (i.e., “If you are willing, then you will conceive…”). In other words, he could have supplied an explicit condition. In Koine Greek, this likely would have been either a first-class or third-class condition.[8] A first-class condition presents the condition as “assumed-true-for-the-sake-of-argument” (e.g., if Gabriel wanted to indicate the assumption that Mary would accept), while a third-class condition presents the situation as more uncertain but still likely.[9] Structurally speaking, the former would be indicated by εἰ (ei, “if”) plus a verb in the indicative, and the latter by ἐάν (ean, also “if”) plus a verb in the subjunctive. In our context, the verb would probably have been θέλω (thelo) or perhaps βούλομαι (boulomai), which express one’s wish or desire.
Jesus’s consent was occasionally sought by others during his adult ministry, and two examples from Matthew will help illustrate this discussion of conditions. In Matt 8:2, a leper asks Jesus to heal him if he is willing; the phrase used is ἐὰν θέλῃς (ean thelēs, “if you are willing”), so this is a third-class condition.[10] The leper does not wish to presume Jesus’s consent but certainly hopes for it. Next, consider Matt 17:4: Upon seeing Jesus’s transfiguration and a visionary appearance of Moses and Elijah, Peter offers to construct three shelters for them if Jesus wishes. Peter apparently presumes that Jesus will consent because he uses εἰ θέλεις (ei theleis, “if you are willing”); this is a first-class condition.[11] These examples supply the language that Gabriel could have used if he were seeking Mary’s consent. But even the casual reader without any knowledge of Greek can examine the text of Luke 1:31 above and observe that neither these nor any analogous markers are present.
In short, from the standpoint of grammar and syntax, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Gabriel sought Mary’s consent. There are no subjunctives, no optatives, and no conditional clauses in Gabriel’s statements. Both verbs that he uses are simple future indicatives. The evidence decidedly militates against Talarico’s position.
Contextual Evidence
Besides the decisive grammatical/syntactical evidence, there are also strong contextual reasons for believing that Talarico misses the mark when he says that Gabriel sought Mary’s consent. Throughout his Gospel, Luke often places pericopes that share a similar thrust side-by-side. On a few occasions, he pairs one featuring a male main character with one featuring a female (e.g., Zechariah/Mary in 1:5–23/1:26–38, Simeon/Anna in 2:25–35/2:36–40, the centurion/the widow of Nain in 7:1–10/7:11–17). The birth announcements of John the Baptist (1:5–25) and Jesus (1:26–38) are one such pairing that, among other functions, serves to contrast the reactions of Zechariah and Mary.[12] Careful comparison of these episodes highlights Mary’s response of faith but also suggests that Mary, like Zechariah’s wife Elizabeth, had no choice in the matter.
In Luke 1:5–25, Gabriel appears to Zechariah during his priestly “tour of duty” at the Jerusalem temple, an occasion when he was selected to burn incense in the holy place (vv. 8–10). Gabriel’s appearance caused Zechariah distress and fear (v. 12), similar to how he caused Mary to become greatly troubled (v. 29).[13] It is telling that one of the first things Gabriel says to both parties is “do not be afraid” (v. 13, 30). In Zechariah’s case, Gabriel tells him that his barren (and elderly) wife Elizabeth will bear a son—namely, John the Baptist. As with the announcement of Jesus’s birth to Mary, Gabriel gives Zechariah a brief outline of John’s significance and a preview of what he will accomplish (vv. 13–17; cf. vv. 32–33). Luke then recounts Zechariah’s response to the announcement (v. 18) in the same way that he does for Mary (v. 34).
The parallels between the two pericopes should be apparent, but it is at this point that the contrast is made. Zechariah asks for a sign as proof that this miracle would really come to pass, but Mary’s question is an innocent attempt to understand the mechanics of what sounds like a biological impossibility. Gabriel’s reply to Zechariah reveals to the reader that he had failed to trust God’s plan (v. 20), while Mary had trusted God and exemplified faith (see especially v. 38). For his lack of faith, Zechariah is made mute and deaf until John’s birth.[14] Although the difference in their initial inquiries is subtle, Zechariah serves as a foil for Mary. Recognizing this fact allows us to make two key observations. First, with respect to the human participants, a key thrust of these pericopes concerns faith in response to God’s sovereignty.[15] Second, Zechariah never had the opportunity to consent on Elizabeth’s behalf because he was silenced, and Gabriel certainly did not ask Elizabeth for consent directly. Yet, Elizabeth does become pregnant and gives birth to John just as Gabriel predicted (v. 24, 57). If these two pericopes are parallel and consent was not involved in the first, why should we try to force it into the second? Especially given the focus on faith and the complete lack of grammatical/syntactical support, this would seem unwarranted. The contextual evidence is firmly against Talarico’s claim.
Intertextual Evidence
The assertion that Gabriel required Mary’s consent for her to bear Jesus is also exceedingly unlikely when the situation is viewed from the standpoint of intertextuality. When Jesus’s birth announcement is read through the lens of OT prophecy and messianic expectation—a lens that Gabriel himself introduces—it becomes extremely doubtful that Mary could have chosen otherwise.
Gabriel tells Mary that Jesus would sit on the throne of David and reign over the house of Jacob forever (vv. 32–33), a clear allusion to the covenantal promise God made to David in 2 Sam 7:8–16 roughly a thousand years earlier: David would never lack an heir on the throne of Israel (i.e., Jacob; cf. Gen 32:28), and his house would endure forever. This allusion creates a connection to the broader salvation-historical narrative running all the way back to Genesis. Insofar as it highlights God’s sovereign execution of his plan throughout the course of history, this point warrants extended discussion.
God’s promise to David—the promise which Gabriel links to Jesus—is not random or arbitrary. On the contrary, it stands in the stream of a broader narrative reaching back to God’s promise to Abraham in Gen 12:3, where he pledged a land, a people, and, most importantly, blessing through Abraham’s descendant(s) to all the families of the earth. This promise of blessing is significant because, since the third chapter of Genesis, humanity had suffered under the curse of sin and death. God carried this promise forward through Abraham’s descendants, Isaac and Jacob, whose family became the nation of Israel. After delivering Israel from Egypt, God commissioned them to become “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex 19:6). Just as a priest mediates between God and people, Israel was to represent God to the nations and mediate his blessing to them. Yet Israel repeatedly failed in that calling, a pattern evident from Exodus through Judges and summarized poignantly in Psalm 106. Amidst this failure, the book of Judges hints at God’s next step: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg 21:25). The kingdom of priests needed a king—someone to represent God to his people and serve as Israel’s archetypal representative to the nations. Although Israel’s request for a king sprang from the sinful desire to be like the surrounding nations (1 Sam 8:4–9), God redemptively used it to raise up David, “a man after his own heart” (1 Sam 13:13–14), and later gave him the promise recorded in 2 Sam 7:8–16. As the head of the nation through whom God intended to bless the world, the Davidic king would become the vehicle of that blessing by upholding God’s law and imaging him before the nations. This expectation is made explicit in the prophets. Speaking to his anointed, God declares, “You are my servant, Israel, through whom I will reveal my splendor… I will make you a light to the nations, so you can bring my deliverance to the remote regions of the earth” (Isa 49:3, 6d–e; cf. Isa 55:3–5). Gradually, the prophets reveal that the final Davidic king would be unlike any who preceded him, uniquely able to subdue evil, inaugurate peace, and reign with perfect justice and wisdom (e.g., Isa 9:6–7; 11:1–9; 42:1–9; Jer 23:5; 33:15; cf. Ps 2:6–9).
All this expectation is latent in Gabriel’s announcement that Jesus would sit upon David’s throne. It is dripping with prophetic significance. God had been sovereignly working to fulfill his plan for over two thousand years, and everything would now come together in the birth (and subsequent life) of this promised child. This child would be the child, the promised son foretold in Isa 9:6–7. This begs the question: Could Mary really have said no? Could she have chosen not to bear the Messiah, whom we later discover is nothing less than God himself become man? Abraham did not have the option to say no. Neither could Moses “opt out” at Sinai; he even tried to persuade God to send someone else to Pharoah to no avail (Exod 4:10–17).[16] David was never asked if he wanted to be king. Others like Elijah and Jonah learned that there is no running away from God’s directives (1 Kgs 19:1–18; Jonah 1:1–3, 2:10–3:2). When God chooses to do something, he does so. Though in his great mercy he allows us the honor of participating in his work, he never asks for our permission. Thankfully, God is merciful, gracious, and abounding in steadfast love (cf. Exod 34:6); even in the midst of his plan, he still manages to work all things together for our good (Rom 8:28–30). But this hardly means that he seeks our input when making his plans (cf. Job 38:1–30). If none of these other biblical figures had the option to say no to God’s will, there is little reason to think that Mary’s case would be any different.
When one considers Jesus’s role at the center of God’s salvation-historical narrative and the consistent pattern of God’s interactions with his chosen players in that narrative, the suggestion that Mary had the opportunity to withhold consent appears far-fetched. The intertextual evidence invoked by Gabriel’s allusion to the Davidic Covenant joins the grammatical and contextual data to render Talarico’s assertion unlikely.
Conclusion
The grammatical, contextual, and intertextual evidence all align to confirm that consent is not at issue in the birth announcement of Jesus in Luke 1:31–38. The thrust of the passage centers around God’s sovereign fulfillment of his plan, not Mary’s choice. Grammatically, Gabriel’s announcement utilizes the indicative mood and presents Mary’s impending pregnancy as a certain fact. There are no markers of contingency anywhere in his statements. Contextually, the account of Gabriel’s announcement to Mary in Luke 1:31–38 parallels that to Zechariah in 1:5–23, and comparison between the two makes clear that faith—not consent—is the main issue from the perspective of the human participants, at least insofar as their responses are concerned. Zechariah certainly did not have the option to consent on behalf of Elizabeth since he was silenced for his lack of faith. Intertextually, the role of Jesus as the fulfillment of long-awaited messianic prophecy, along with God’s consistent pattern of sovereign action throughout the OT, makes it highly unlikely that Mary would have been given the option to decline God’s plan. Whatever Talarico or others may say, Luke 1:31–38 is not evidence that “creation requires consent” and should not be marshalled as biblical support to legitimize abortion.
An Afterword on Consent and Abortion
As Christians, it is critical to be sober-minded and discerning when it comes to politically (and personally) charged issues like abortion. This article has taken a firm stance that Talarico is far wide of the mark in deploying Luke 1:31–38 to defend the pro-choice position. The time for consent has already passed once a person becomes pregnant. None of this, however, should be taken to mean that consent is unimportant or that unplanned pregnancy cannot be an immensely difficult situation for a woman to find herself in.[17] On the contrary, far from trivializing these things, Christians of all people have a reason to care. Christians believe that every person is created in the image of God, and as image-bearers, they are worthy of dignity and respect. Every person is worthy of our care and concern. Jesus taught that all the Law could be summarized in two commands: Love the Lord your God with all your being, and love your neighbor as yourself (Matt 22:34–40 // Mark 12:28–34 // Luke 10:25–28).[18] Those who struggle with unplanned pregnancy are our neighbors just like everyone else, and it is incumbent upon the church and parachurch ministries to love and provide for them just as Jesus would have us do, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy (cf. Luke 10:29–37). This is not just an opportunity for Christians; it is an obligation. It is a difficult calling, but the solution is not to love one class of neighbors by promoting the killing of another class, the unborn. Be careful lest you claim to be carrying out the love of Christ while unthinkingly promoting the kind of evil that he would firmly oppose.[19] We are called to love all of our neighbors, and we must never misrepresent Scripture in service of anything that would seek to do otherwise.
References:
[1] You can find Talarico’s interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiL4mhP5q8A&t=1745s. This is part three of a three-part interview, and discussion of the abortion issue takes place between 8:38–9:23.
[2] The interview with Joe Rogan can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jOGPvMftb8&t=4798s; the relevant discussion about Mary’s consent occurs between 23:07–24:28.
[3] According to Wallace, “mood is the feature of the verb that presents the verbal action or state with reference to its actuality or potentiality.” See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 1996), 443. Koine Greek, the language of the NT, has four moods: the indicative, subjunctive, imperative, and optative.
[4] Wallace, ExSyn, 448. Wallace would remind the reader that use of the indicative does not mean that something is a fact, but only that it is presented as such from the standpoint of the speaker. The distinction is not terribly significant in Luke 1:31, but it is terribly important in other cases like Luke 11:15 where Jesus is accused of performing exorcisms by the power of Beelzebul!
[5] Wallace, ExSyn, 461.
[6] For any stray Greek morphologists who happen to read this: τίκτω does not have any middle-voice forms in the aorist tense, so I have assumed that the active form would have been used.
[7] Wallace, ExSyn, 480. The optative was dying out by the NT period in favor of the subjunctive because the difference between the two was too subtle for most non-Greeks who had adopted the language in the wake of Alexander the Great’s conquests in the 4th century B.C. That said, Luke, being one of the highest-register literary authors in the NT, does still employ the optative occasionally. In fact, he does so in Mary’s reply to Gabriel in v. 38; this is an example of what Wallace calls an “optative of obtainable wish,” an idiomatic usage indicating Mary’s desire for what Gabriel has said to come true (ExSyn, 481–83). This may be where some like Talarico arrive at the conclusion that consent is involved, but this is a clear misunderstanding. Mary may use the optative to express her wish, but Gabriel—the one giving the oracle—does not.
[8] Technically, there are also fourth-class conditions. These indicate “a possible condition in the future, usually a remote possibility…” See Wallace, ExSyn, 699. Fourth class conditions employ the optative, but as noted above, the optative was falling out of use in the NT period. Thus, there are no complete fourth-class conditions in the NT.
[9] This is a bit of an over-generalization but is sufficient for our purposes; see Wallace, ExSyn, 696–97 for a fuller discussion of third-class conditions. For first class conditions, see pp. 690–94.
[10] The whole conditional statement reads: κύριε, ἐὰν θέλῃς δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι (kurie, ean thelēs dunasai me katharisai, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean”).
[11] The whole conditional statement reads: εἰ θέλεις, ποιήσω ὧδε τρεῖς σκηνάς, σοὶ μίαν καὶ Μωϋσεῖ μίαν καὶ Ἠλίᾳ μίαν (ei theleis, poiēsō hōde trees skēnas, soi mian kai Mōusei mian kai Ēlia mian, “If you are willing, I will make three shelters here—one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah”).
[12] See Darrell L. Bock, Luke, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994), 1:102–03, 118n33.
[13] The verbs used are etymologically related, which strengthens the parallel between the two episodes. In Zechariah’s case in v. 12 it is ἐταράχθη (from ταράσσω, tarassō, “to cause inward turmoil”) and in Mary’s in v. 29 it is διεταράχθη (from διαταράσσω, diatarassō, “to confuse, perplex”). See BDAG, “ταράσσω,” s.v. 2; “διαταράσσω.”
[14] See Bock, Luke, 1:91–93, for discussion of Zechariah’s response and the penalty imposed for his lack of faith.
[15] The reader can glean different applications depending on whose perspective is adopted. For example, if we view these passages from the standpoint of the divine narrative, the key point is the fulfillment of God’s covenants with Abraham, Moses, and David and the hope this offers to all of God’s people. Another emphasis is the superiority of Jesus to John the Baptist, which clarifies their respective roles in the divine plan and may have been deliberate in light of future confusion among John’s disciples, such as recorded in Acts 19:1–7. See Bock, Luke, 1:68. However, Mary’s consent is indefensible as one of the emphases no matter who’s perspective is taken; as argued in this article, the grammatical, contextual, and intertextual evidence all point the opposite direction.
[16] The editors of NET Bible offer helpful commentary on this point. Even though God allowed Aaron to act as the speaker for Moses after his many protestations, Moses still had to go to Pharoah! God would not release Moses from the responsibility he had tasked him with. Furthermore, God’s “mercy” in providing Aaron was at least in-part a punishment for Moses’s lack of faith; rather than having the honor of accomplishing the task himself, he now had to share that honor with Aaron. See study note I at Exod 4:14 in NET Bible, Full Notes ed. (Thomas Nelson, 2019).
[17] Or a couple, as the case may be.
[18] This is a passage that Talarico also holds dear and mentions frequently.
[19] Cf. N.T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies (London: SPCK, 2024), 71: “Jesus warned against mistaking the work of God’s holy spirit [sic] for the work of the devil. There is equal danger the other way round, when people suppose they are working for God while unthinkingly serving the ‘powers.’” Wright and Bird are alluding to Matt 12:22–32, which has parallels in Mark 3:20–30 // Luke 11:14–23.
Recommended Resources:
The Case for Christian Activism MP3 Set 👉📱https://bit.ly/3xcdakW, DVD Set👉📱 https://bit.ly/3Kgono2, and mp4 Download Set 👉📱https://bit.ly/38tu6Zz by Frank Turek
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek: Book👉📱 https://bit.ly/3JWzzFH, DVD 👉📱https://bit.ly/3HogJ8Q, Mp3 👉📱https://bit.ly/3BUTzWA, Mp4 👉📱https://bit.ly/35g7F8Z, PowerPoint download 👉📱https://bit.ly/3vndZGu, PowerPoint CD 👉📱https://bit.ly/33UNqx7
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? Mp4👉📱https://bit.ly/3AbN2X1, Mp3👉📱https://bit.ly/3c9lvgV, and DVD👉📱https://bit.ly/3wfyLHx by Frank Turek
Ryan M. Crews is a Bible teacher and ordained minister. He holds a Masters of Theology (ThM) from Dallas Theological Seminary where he received the Harold W. Hoehner Award in New Testament. His graduate studies concentrated in New Testament Studies and New Testament Textual Criticism, and he has previously been affiliated with the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM). His current research interests include the Gospels, Historical Jesus Studies, New Testament Use of the Old Testament, and Textual Criticism.
The post Who Do You Say That I Am, James Talarico? Part II: Luke 1:31–38 Is Not About Mary’s Consent To Create appeared first on CrossExamined.
CrossExamined