26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. 38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
Assume that the New Testament story is true.
I’d like to think she had free will and could have said no, but that’s a lot to lay on what was probably a teenage girl in ancient Galilee. Could she have declined? Would she have been punished by the Lord for doing so?
If she had said no, and God respected that decision, would He have found another virgin to bring Jesus into the world?
Is the Immaculate Conception (which is extra-scriptural) considered true as well? If so, Mary was destined for this role, unless God had a stable of immaculate virgins on standby.
If you assume a story to be true, then it literally can’t be any other way. The way it is written is the way it is. The story is of an omnipotent creator being who in earlier parts of the saga commands the humans to do its bidding. There are a few examples of humans refusing commands, e.g. Jonah, but his story is hardly comforting for those who want to be refuseniks. I think all the other defiances are examples of the horrible consequences of refusal.
The god of the New Testament is not as vengeful as the one from the Old Testament, but since even Jesus himself suffered because of the Plan it’s hard to believe that Mary would have been different.
While it was widely supposed and debated by Catholic theologians for centuries, it wasn’t formally affirmed as Catholic dogma (i.e., considered “true” by the Catholic church) until 1854.
The Eastern Orthodox Church, and most (if not all) Protestant faiths, don’t consider it to be a thing.
Particularly in the Old Testament, there are a number of individuals who defied God’s will (i.e., they said “no”), and suffered repercussions: Jonah getting swallowed by a whale, Solomon’s line losing most of his kingdom, etc.
It’s generally portrayed as an object lesson about choosing to follow selfish motivations, rather than following God wholeheartedly, though in some cases, the person eventually chooses to follow God’s will, and is rewarded for that.
So, I can’t think of an example offhand where God said, “do this,” the person said “no,” and suffered no repercussions.
So if Mary was just some random pious virgin, and not the result of immaculate conception (i.e. she was tainted with original sin), what made her so special, i.e. why specifically was she chosen by God for this role? Is there doctrine about that?
Again, there is no one answer to this; different denominations and traditions say different things, and a lot of it is based on teachings beyond what is in the Bible.
Catholics see her as having been conceived without original sin (that’s what “Immaculate Conception” means).
The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that she was “superior to all created beings” (though not divine, and they reject the idea of Immaculate Conception).
Most Protestant denominations* downplay her as being particularly special, at least in part as a reaction against what they see as “Marianism” by Catholics – they see her as devout and “blessed,” but not worthy of veneration.
If one looks into the Apocrypha regarding Mary, it would be a hard case to make. Mary was said to be very dedicated to God and in service in that capacity since childhood, and I believe was dedicated by her parents to God from infancy.
Hypothetically, could she have? I guess so, but that’s not how the story is written, even in the Gospels, much less in Catholic dogma.
If we, as @Elendil_s_Heir posits in his OP, assume that the NT story is true as written, then we have an extremely pious and faithful young woman, who is told by her God and creator that she has been chosen to bear the son of God. The assumption that Christianity has is that we all have free will, but in this case, it’s difficult to imagine that she would even consider saying “no.” She never asked, “why me?,” she simply asked “how is it possible?”
But, if she did, then God moves on to his second choice, I guess.
As I mentioned above, there were precedents of people disobeying. Presumably, these were parables or fables about humanity’s possession of free will while showing the consequences of defying their god, or, more prosaically, the rules and regulations of the religion attributed to Yahweh. Interestingly, I don’t believe any of the earlier examples were women, though. That’s probably indicative of the society’s attitudes toward women, who were expected to be compliant to the words of men. Nevertheless, by the rules established in this invented, I mean true, world, she could.
Since the Gospels deliberately showed Jesus breaking the rules established by the Pharisees, these precedents may not have been as powerful as they once were. So does that mean that a “could she” was conceivably in the mind of the writer of Luke? Inconceivable. And I do know the meaning of the word.
Tradition (primarily based on Chapter 3 of the book of Luke) holds that Mary was a descendant of King David. This would fulfill the prophecy that Jesus would be a descendant of David, whether or not Joseph was his biological father.
True, some of this tradition relies on non-biblical sources, but when you’re talking about centuries old traditions (e.g., the first two dozen-plus emperors from the Imperial House of Japan) the followers tend to fill in the blanks.
Would the authors of the Bible been particularly interested in telling the story of someone who told God, “It’s a tempting offer, but no thanks”?
Of course not. If the Mary in the OP did say “no, thank you” to God, then God finds another faithful virgin of the House of David who says “yes,” that young woman becomes the “Mary” in the story, and Mary #1 is lost to history.
Fulfilling “prophecy” is the entire reason for the tradition.
I’ve seen multiple Biblical scholars go through the lineages and you can not link Jesus to David.
Even if so, the presumption in the OP is that the Mary story, as presented in the Gospels, is to be taken as true, for purposes of the discussion here.