As I was reading my Bible, I came across a peculiar passage over-looked by Protestants when they use the “Until” Argument against Mary’s Perpetual Virginity (and perhaps even Catholics who are defending against this argument).
In fairness to their argument, I will post the Scriptural verse here from Matthew 1:25.
"He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus."
They say that “until” implies that the action actually happened either at the event or after the event. Quotidian usage says that we do in fact say “until” to denote doing something on or after the event considered. So, their argument, according to them and contemporary usage, implies the action actually happened. In this case, the position is that Mary and Joseph had relations after Jesus was born.
There are even some who argue that the Greek use of “until” when followed by a negation (“had no relations” is a negation) implies that the action did happen some time after. I have no response to that though. As the saying goes, it’s all Greek to me.
Obviously, the Catholic position is that the word “until” neither implies normal marital relations nor does it exclude it.
Here is what I found in Luke 9:27.
"Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God."
According to argument #1 and #2, that would mean that they would in fact taste death after seeing the kingdom of God, that is, they will die after being in Heaven. This goes against ETERNAL LIFE!
Now, I can see some objections to this objection:
“Kingdom of God does not necessarily mean Heaven. It just means the church.” Well, then why did Jesus say in John 18:36 “My kingdom is not here”? (See also Romans 14:17, 1 Thessalonians 2:12, 2 Peter 1:11 and Revelations 11:15.) Revelations 21-22 should also shed light on His Bride and the Kingdom. (I think Kingdom of God can and does mean both. But, this is just speculation.) And according to John 3:5, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without Baptism. (If one makes the above argument, then one concedes that the Catholic Church is the true Church because she is the only one who makes Baptism a requirement for salvation. If I am wrong about this, just correct me. But do NOT call me ignorant. That is my job.)
“To ‘see’ the kingdom does not necessarily imply BEING in Heaven.” Fair enough. Then, what DOES it mean? Would God allow one to “see” Heaven and then send them to Hell? I cannot imagine anything more cruel. Especially when Jesus is talking to His own disciples! Revelations 20:15 says that those not in the Book of Life will be thrown into the pool of fire. Even literal Fundamentalists would agree that neither “seeing Heaven” nor “seeing the Kingdom of God” are written in this verse.
“I still disagree. Jesus had brothers.” Well, that is another argument for another thread. I am not using this to prove Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. I am just objecting an argument.
Now, if there are more objections, we can discuss those, obviously. If there are none, then Matthew 1:25 actually helps our side a LITTLE more than not. Matthew was just stressing the virgin part. That we know. But, paired with Luke 9:27, it gives more hint TO her Perpetual Virginity!
P.S. - Catholics, do you think that Luke 9:27 could be a little more support to Mary’s Assumption?