And He Knew Her Not

  • Thread starter Thread starter GeorgeSword
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GeorgeSword

Guest
Matthew 1:24-25 - " Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus…"

This verse would seem to state that Joseph had relations with Mary after the birth of Christ. It’s been bothering me a b it and I was wondering if anyone might be able to offer an explanation?
 
well, the bible didn’t say anywhere that he DID… and well, to put it frankly, it ususally does-when someone did (hope that didn’t confuse you!). But, the teaching of the Catholic Church is that Mary was ever a virgin. And since it IS a doctrine, that’s what we believe (not optional, though i know many Catholics who wish it was :o)\

God Bless!
4verjustjesus

p.s. looking forward to having you join our faith!
 
Matthew 1:24-25 - " Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus…"

This verse would seem to state that Joseph had relations with Mary after the birth of Christ. It’s been bothering me a b it and I was wondering if anyone might be able to offer an explanation?
The bible uses similar wording elsewhere, it is really a translation problem. It really says Joseph did not have relations with his wife yet she bore a son. Just as the word “know” if used in common language today would not imply relations. “Know” on occasion was translated that way or used that way then. Today we add more implication to the word “until” than they did. Similarly today someone could claim Joseph had not met Mary until after Jesus was born (!) because a literal read certainly supports such a claim. Joseph had met Mary, and they did not have relations, we know this from various sources.

hope that helps
 
I think it’s the “till”. or “until”, or whatever the translation uses that’s confusing, because sometimes we use those types of words to mean that something didn’t happen UP TO a certain event, but then it DID happen after that event. But we often use those types of words simply to emphasize that the action didn’t happen before the event (without meaning anything about afterward): “She never spoke ill of any one up until the day she died”, for example. Obviously, the action that didn’t happen before the event also didn’t happen afterward. It’s being used to emphasize that the action never happened. I think that’s probably what’s going on in the passage quoted, emphasizing that Joseph did not have relations with Mary prior to marriage because otherwise the virgin conception of Christ would be questioned. But it’s not necessarily stating that they had relations AFTER they were married.

Yes, Joseph took her as his wife, but that doesn’t mean they had sex: there have been plenty of marriages that, for whatever reasons, did not include sex.

To speculate on some reasons why (I have no proof of this - I’m just speculating):
  1. Joseph was a God-fearing Jew and would never have entered the Holy of Holies. Mary’s womb became the Holy of Holies when Jesus lived there, so Joseph probably wouldn’t have wanted to go anywhere near there.
  2. I would imagine that Christ’s parents had a HUGE sense of responsibility. I have one kid and hope to have more, but if that one kid were GOD, I probably wouldn’t want to divide my attention among other kids.
I don’t know what the exact reasons were for Joseph and Mary’s continence, but as a Catholic I believe in Mary’s perpetual Virginity.
 
The bible uses similar wording elsewhere, it is really a translation problem. It really says Joseph did not have relations with his wife yet she bore a son. Just as the word “know” if used in common language today would not imply relations. “Know” on occasion was translated that way or used that way then. Today we add more implication to the word “until” than they did. Similarly today someone could claim Joseph had not met Mary until after Jesus was born (!) because a literal read certainly supports such a claim. Joseph had met Mary, and they did not have relations, we know this from various sources.

hope that helps
eos prep gen

[UBS] eos (1) conj. until (with any tense); while (with pres. ind. only); (2) prep. with gen. to, until, as far as, to the point of; as many as (of numerals); (3) to the brim (Jn 2.7); until now, so far, still.

Your assertion is completely incorrect. Eos means until, the exception on (2) above only occurs when the verb is present indicative; which is not the case here. Therefore, they knew each other (thus the children mentioned elsewhere).
 
The mention of brothers of the Lord probably refers to cousins for several reasons:
  • 2 of the 4 men mentioned by name as brothers are actually sons of another Mary (of Cleophas) See Matthew 27:56 and John 19:25.
  • In Hebrew and Aramaic languages, there was no word for cousin, so close male relatives were called brothers. Use of “brother” reflected a cultural practice of the time.
  • If Jesus had brothers, He would not have entrusted Mary to John at the cross. It would have been the responsibility of the brothers to care for their mother. And it would have been an insult for Mary to go to another family instead of being cared for by her own kin.
  • Scripture refers to Jesus as “the” son of Mary, never as “a” son of Mary.
  • In John 7:3-4, the “brothers” of the Lord are giving him advice. In that culture, younger brothers would never give advice to the first born, as it would be very disrespectful. Had that been done, it would have been commented on in scripture.
  • Read Ezekiel 44:1-3 about the “East Gate”. This is the gate through which Christ would enter, and once he entered, the gate would be shut forever. Mary is the East Gate.
 
Matthew 1:24-25 - " Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus…"

This verse would seem to state that Joseph had relations with Mary after the birth of Christ. It’s been bothering me a b it and I was wondering if anyone might be able to offer an explanation?
Hope this helps:
Replies to Protestants’ Alleged Biblical Disproofs of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (vs. Ken Temple)

Here are some interesting quotes:
Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity.
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her.
There are many more similar expressions, so that this babble of Helvidius is without justification; in addition, he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
Martin Luther-* That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew [1523]*
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.
John Calvin- Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 [1562]
Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
John Calvin- Commentary on John, [7:3]
 
Matthew 1:24-25 - " Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus…"

This verse would seem to state that Joseph had relations with Mary after the birth of Christ. It’s been bothering me a b it and I was wondering if anyone might be able to offer an explanation?
This issue comes up all the time, but here is a great Catholic page that solidly refutes the Protestant argument on “until” (‘heos hou’ in Greek):

catholic-legate.com/articles/heoserrors6.html
 
eos prep gen

[UBS] eos (1) conj. until (with any tense); while (with pres. ind. only); (2) prep. with gen. to, until, as far as, to the point of; as many as (of numerals); (3) to the brim (Jn 2.7); until now, so far, still.

Your assertion is completely incorrect. Eos means until, the exception on (2) above only occurs when the verb is present indicative; which is not the case here. Therefore, they knew each other (thus the children mentioned elsewhere).
No, If Joseph did not know Mary until she gave birth; then Joseph could not know Mary before she gave birth, that is it. Just as someone today might read “know” as equal to “acquaintance” the logic is more important than the syntax.
 
(thus the children mentioned elsewhere)
There are only four brethren of Jesus named in the Gospels: **Matthew 13:55 ** “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

**Mark 6:2-3 ** - “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”

Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less: Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and ** Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph,** and Salome.” (emphasis added)
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve: Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (emphasis added)
This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! * Alphaeus* is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion: John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, *** Mary the wife of Cleophas***, and * Mary Magdalene*.” (emphasis added)
Look up John 19:25 at blueletterbible.org/ and click the ‘C’ icon (for the Strong’s Concordance), then click the Strong’s number for the name Cleophas. It comes up “father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!

So, two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude: Acts 1:13 ** "…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and ** Jude the brother of James…" (emphasis added)
There goes Jude out of the mix! *** Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle: Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ *** and brother of James…" (emphasis added)
Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ! Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and ** Simon who was called the Zealot
," (emphasis added)

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and ** Simon the Cananaean**…” (emphasis added)

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there! So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding! Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’!

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…

So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.
 
From Brethren of the Lord,
A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.
When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.” If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.
Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).
Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).
Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?
There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.
The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25
Also check out Mary Ever Virgin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top