In 1539, John Calvin wrote in his “Research Institute of Christian Religion”:
“And we remember that Satan performs miracles. It’s more of a trick than a true wonder, but it still deceives the ignorant and unwary.”
This warning resonates today, particularly when the Bible is cited not for truth, but to endorse contemporary views.
Many American Christians find that scripture is increasingly interpreted through a political lens, reframing its core messages into therapeutic or ideological concepts.
Do you agree with Jesus’ choice?
Recently, Texas Democratic state Rep. James Talarico suggested that the Bible endorses a woman’s right to an abortion, citing the story of Mary in Luke 1 as his basis. He argues that before the Incarnation, God sought Mary’s approval, leading him to conclude that creation requires consent. Thus, he believes that compelling women to have children contradicts the essence of Jesus’ ministry.
Talarico went so far as to assert that the Bible, which he describes as the infallible moral guide, supports abortion rights. He expressed this view on a podcast, claiming that:
“Before God comes to Mary and we become incarnate, He asks for her consent… An angel came down and asked Mary if she wanted to do this, and Mary said…let it be… That is an affirmation…that creation must be done with consent. You can’t force someone to create one. It must be done freely. This aligns completely with the life and ministry of Jesus.”
This interpretation, while certainly striking, strays from what Luke actually states.
Consent and consent
In Luke 1:26-38, Gabriel does not seek permission from Mary. Instead, the texts — found in major English translations and observed throughout Christian history — present a declaration of action instead of a request for consent. Gabriel tells her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and you will call His name Jesus.”
The only inquiry made is Mary’s response to the announcement: “How can this be, since I do not know men?” Gabriel replies, “For with God nothing is impossible,” emphasizing God’s omnipotence. Mary concludes with, “Behold, the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”
This is not an issue of consent as we understand it today. Mary wasn’t asked for permission; rather, she chose to accept and obey God’s will.
Throughout the Bible, when God pursues His plans for salvation, He rarely asks for human consent. For instance, in Job 1, God allows Satan to test Job’s faith without consulting him. Similarly, the risen Christ confronted Saul on the road to Damascus without inquiring if he was ready for a change of purpose.
The sovereignty of God operates independently of human permission.
Project politics
Interpreting Luke 1 as God seeking permission reflects a contemporary view of autonomy superimposed on ancient scripture. This approach distorts the central miracle of Christianity, the Incarnation, into a narrative about individual choice, revealing more about modern politics than ancient Judaism.
Talarico is correct that conception is a sacred issue. However, Biblical holiness is not equivalent to personal autonomy; it derives from God’s purpose.
Historically, Christians have distinguished between God’s unique act of creation and human reproduction. Children born of a man and woman bear God’s image, an image that is a gift, not a possession that can be discarded.
Claiming abortion rights based on the Annunciation poses significant challenges. Firstly, the text makes no mention of consent being required. Secondly, because the central figure is the incarnate Son of God, it strongly affirms that life in the womb is not expendable.
Related: Is President Trump targeting Talarico? Colbert’s lie exposed
Talarico also referenced Mary’s Magnificat, noting its depiction of scattering the proud and unseating the mighty, often interpreted as evidence of Jesus’ inherently political mission aimed at economic equality.
Still, the Gospels resist such simplifications. While Jesus addresses wealth frequently, His warnings primarily concern the idolatry of the heart, rather than outright condemnation of the wealthy. The crux lies not in financial status but in loyalty: whether one serves God or wealth.
The Magnificat celebrates divine justice, focusing on God’s authority rather than class conflict. Reducing it to a political manifesto flattens its theological richness.
The concerns extend beyond one legislator or a single podcast.
American Christians are increasingly faced with a Bible interpreted through a political filter, with its fundamental messages being reframed into contemporary catchphrases. Terms like “justice,” “freedom,” and “consent” have been infused into scriptures not intended to affirm modern ideologies, but to unveil God’s character and His plan for salvation.
Such reinterpretations can seem persuasive if believers lack a firm grounding in the text. They conveniently align with familiar moral intuitions while cloaking modern assumptions in Scriptural language.
However, the authority of the Bible isn’t found in its adaptation to current trends, but rather in its steadfastness against them. When politics prompts a reimagining of the Annunciation, it’s a signal that Christians should heed the underlying warnings.
False prophet
Jesus explicitly cautioned against such distortions: “If anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ, or, behold, there he is,’ believe not, for false Christs and false prophets will arise, showing signs and wonders to mislead, if possible, even the elect” (Mark 13:21-22).
The risk lies not just in outright opposition to faith but in subtly reshaping Christ into a more palatable image for modern tastes.
The Annunciation teaches us about God’s divine initiative, not our personal sovereignty. God acts; Mary responds. Her greatness is not in negotiating terms but in her obedient faith: “Behold, the handmaid of the Lord.”
This humility before God’s word is becoming more countercultural, not fitting neatly into our notions of autonomy or placing human choices at the forefront.
Christianity teaches that salvation begins with surrender, not self-assertion.
Knowing the Bible
James Talarico may fade from public attention, but the temptation to reinterpret scripture to fit contemporary politics will persist. The greater danger isn’t merely politicians misquoting the Bible; it lies in Christians’ potential lack of familiarity with it.
A nation oblivious to its founding principles is vulnerable to misinterpretations. Churches that are not steeped in scripture are even more exposed.
The more believers engage with and internalize the Bible, the less prone they will be to interpretations that sacrifice theological truth for cultural approval.
Ultimately, the Incarnate does not endorse the “gospel of consent.” It presents a young woman who responds in trust, not negotiation, to a sovereign God who interjects His narrative into history for the redemption of His people.
