Did Mary sleep with Joseph after she had Jesus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rosie11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rosie11

Guest
I was just reading the bible to my mom(she can’t read) and I read Mathew 1:24 where it says he took his wife but knew her not until she had borne a son

Can someone explain the meaning of this to me
 
No. It is my understanding that Mary never consumated her marriage with Joseph.
 
Mary remained a virgin her whole life. We know that this was the plan because of how she reacts to the angel Gabriel.

“How is this to be, for I know not man?”

That’s not merely “I haven’t had sex.” It is much deeper than that. Mary would have surely understood how conception occurs, and if she was planning on being intimate with Joseph, she’d have had no need to question how she was going to get pregnant. Instead, this verse shows us that Mary was intent on remaining a virgin, and so she did not understand how she was to conceive a child in light of that intention.

In modern English, the word “until” is generally used transitionally, as in, the state changes after that criteria is met. However, in traditional usage this is not the case. We see other verse that speak of God being with us “until” the end of time. Clearly, this does not mean that, at the end of time God will no longer be with us. It just means that God isn’t going anywhere, just as with Mary it meant that she hadn’t had sex, and the greater context indicates that that state didn’t change after Christ’s birth.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for clarifying this verse really confused me
I’m happy to be of service. ^^

There’s an excellent book, Behold Your Mother by Tim Staples, that digs deep into this and other Marian dogmas. It can help clear up any confusion you have about Mary and her role in salvation history.
 
Last edited:
The idea of Mary not being a perpetual Virgin is a fairly new concept, maybe in the last 100 years or so.

The early Protestant reformers believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Rapture theology is also very new, but that’s another topic
 
If you mean by “sleep with”, have sexual relations with, the answer is no.

But if you actually mean “sleep”, quite possibly. People of low to moderate means often all slept in the same bed not so terribly long ago. Good point to remember when you read about 2 men “sleeping in the same bed together” in the past. It was often exactly that, sleep.
 
but knew her not until she had borne a son
76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33. they are not to be misunderstood as customs or human behaviour or habits
  • I have not seen anything that makes me believe that the perpetually virginity of Mary was taught by the Apostles.
  • 2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm3.htm

This delay is explained by the fact that the efforts of the Church Fathers and of the early Ecumenical Councils, focused as they were on Christ’s identity, necessarily left other aspects of dogma aside. Only gradually could the revealed truth be unfolded in all its richness. Down the centuries, Mariology would always take its direction from Christology. The divine motherhood of Mary was itself proclaimed at the Council of Ephesus primarily to affirm the oneness of Christ’s person. Similarly, there was a deeper understanding of Mary’s presence in salvation history.
  1. At the end of the second century, St Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, already pointed out Mary’s contribution to the work of salvation. He understood the value of Mary’s consent at the time of the Annunciation, recognizing in the Virgin of Nazareth’s obedience to and faith in the angel’s message the perfect antithesis of Eve’s disobedience and disbelief, with a beneficial effect on humanity’s destiny. In fact, just as Eve caused death, so Mary, with her “yes”, became “a cause of salvation” for herself and for all mankind (cf. Adv. Haer., III, 22, 4; SC 211, 441). But this affirmation was not developed in a consistent and systematic way by the other Fathers of the Church.
Mary became spiritual Mother of whole human race

Instead, this doctrine was systematically worked out for the first time at the end of the 10th century in the Life of Mary by a Byzantine monk, John the Geometer. Here Mary is united to Christ in the whole work of Redemption, sharing, according to God’s plan, in the Cross and suffering for our salvation. She remained united to the Son “in every deed, attitude and wish” (cf. Life of Mary, Bol. 196, f. 122 v.). Mary’s association with Jesus’ saving work came about through her Mother’s love, a love inspired by grace, which conferred a higher power on it: love freed of passion proves to be the most compassionate (cf. ibid., Bol. 196, f. 123 v.).

From this age on other authors explain the doctrine of Mary’s special cooperation in the redemptive sacrifice.
 
“She studied hard, until she got a perfect score on the SAT.”

That doesn’t mean that she turns into a druggy alcoholic party girl the day after she took the SAT.

I’m sure someone who’s better with Greek verb tenses would have some insight about what the original is trying to convey. 🙂
 
I have this book I also have another one called handed down which is a really good read
 
No.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is a dogma of the Church.

That is an idiomatic phrase in English.
 
The Church teaches Mary remained a virgin.
That is not conclusively found in the Bible.

Did Mary sleep with Joseph and have cuddles and kisses?
Quite possibly.
But really, who knows.
In the end I do not think our salvation rests on this matter.
 
Last edited:
The Chuch definitely teaches Mary’s Perpetual Virginity as a dogma…

I find it a bit sad that Mary and Joseph’s marriage isn’t the ‘ideal’ marriage as it’s primary end was not procreation… but if it was so, so be it.

I do not believe that Mary being a virgin added anything to her holiness though… she would have been just as perfect if she and Joseph we together in a married way…If I were to venture a guess, it seems to me that this belief came about during a time when the Church believed that something was dirty and sinful about marital relations and that it was better to be a virgin…
 
I find it a bit sad that Mary and Joseph’s marriage isn’t the ‘ideal’ marriage as it’s primary end was not procreation… but if it was so, so be it.
Theres much to unpack here.

I believe the Church has modified its teaching on the purpose of marriage beyond this traditional position.

Further, even the classic “primary end” was not simply “procreation” but procreation and the upbringing of children. Mary and Joseph brought up not only Jesus but also some of his cousins.

Finally, one can intend an end without being actually successful in the execution thereof.
There is no reason to believe either Mary or Joseph denied the procreative end of marriage. If either partner had asked nuptial rights to the body of the other I have no reason to believe either would have denied.
Not desiring to ask for those rights (but being willing to give them if asked) does not deny the procreative end of marriage. In Catholic theology an “end” is primarily in the intent of the soul not in the actual execution of the bodily capacities.

Their marriage would not have been valid (had they been Catholics) if they intended to deny the procreative end of their marriage beforehand.
 
Last edited:
I believe the Church has modified its teaching on the purpose of marriage beyond this traditional position.
Yes, the Church has added the good of the spouses or the unitive aspect to the ‘legit’ reasons for marriage.
There is no reason to believe either Mary or Joseph denied the procreative end of marriage.
I don’t know that this is true… many Catholics have put forward Mary’s words at the Annunciation (and I paraphrase) ‘how can this be for I know not man’ as proof that Mary was a consecrated virgin and never intended to give up her virginity and therefore never intended the exercise the procreative aspect of the marriage… I’ve heard Catholic Priests say this and some well know apologists.

I’m really more interested in if people believe that not having sex in a marriage increases one’s virtue or holiness? Or said a different way does having sex inside of marriage decrease one’s virtue or holiness. For me, outside of this question, the entire question of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity doesn’t really mean much and invites more questions than it does add to my faith.
 
Last edited:
I read Mathew 1:24 where it says he took his wife but knew her not until she had borne a son
The main purpose of this verse is to establish that Jesus is the Son of God, not the offspring of any human father.
Did Mary sleep with Joseph and have cuddles and kisses?
Quite possibly.
Actually the term “overshadowed” is a euphemism for the marital embrace. Joseph considered Mary to the the spouse of the Holy Spirit. He obeyed God’s command to marry her because he was a righteous man, but not because he expected any “cuddles and kisses”.

Mary was the tabernacle of God, and those who touched the Holy Tabernacle suffered the pain of death.
I do not believe that Mary being a virgin added anything to her holiness though… she would have been just as perfect if she and Joseph we together in a married way
Except that Mary was the spouse of another…

It was permissible in Israel for a man to take as “wife” a woman who had made vows of perpetual virginity. As long as he agreed to it before the marriage, there would be no expectation of sexual relations. In those days, the best protection for a woman was to remain in her father’s house until she was given to a husband.
How would any of us know?
Like seriously?
Because it has been divinely revealed to the Church.
I believe the Church has modified its teaching on the purpose of marriage beyond this traditional position.
this is not really relevant, since Mary and Joseph were under Judaic Law, not Church law.
There is no reason to believe either Mary or Joseph denied the procreative end of marriage.
As was mentioned above, Mary’s response to the angel makes it clear that she intended to remain a perpetual virgin. She was already betrothed to Joseph, so naturally she would expect, when the angel told her she would conceive and bear a son, that it would happen in the natural way. She asked how it was to be because she had no intention of the natural procreative purpose of marriage.
If either partner had asked nuptial rights to the body of the other I have no reason to believe either would have denied.
Since Joseph considered her the spouse of the Holy Spirit, it would have been very inappropriate to “share” the marital bed after she had been overshadowed by another. This is why he was making plans to quietly divorce her.
 
I’m really more interested in if people believe that not having sex in a marriage increases one’s virtue or holiness?
Scripture is clear that fasting from sexual relations can build holiness in the couple. It is clear, however, that it is only “for a time”. One has to keep in mind that this was a Jewish marriage, and that there were other reasons for Jews to marry, other than procreation. One of these was to place a young virgin under the protection of a man.
For me, outside of this question, the entire question of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity doesn’t really mean much and invites more questions than it does add to my faith.
A good point of growth for the future!
 
40.png
Sophie111:
There is no reason to believe either Mary or Joseph denied the procreative end of marriage.
I don’t know that this is true… many Catholics have put forward Mary’s words at the Annunciation (and I paraphrase) ‘how can this be for I know not man’ to mean that Mary was a consecrated virgin and never intended to give up her virginity and therefore never intended the exercise the procreative aspect of the marriage…
If we are to go so far as to say something may not be true I suggest it is more consistent to apply that judgement to your unusually pious “many Catholics” view (of a single line in the NT that is inconclusive on the matter of an alleged vow of virginity) rather than suggest it more likely Mary and Joseph were invalidly married (from a Catholic point of view).
I’m really more interested in if people believe that not having sex in a marriage increases one’s virtue or holiness?
That is a no brainer unless one is a Manichean (as per Augustine). If one is married then one is sinning against the end of marriage to go into it without being prepared to give one’s body to ones partner when requested. It is the very nature of marriage to gift each other so.

Is a vow of virginity a better symbol/witness to the Kingdom than marriage. Undoubtedly for there is no marriage in heaven and we serve the community and each other perfectly.
But this is not about holiness…unless we are personally called to it.

But marriage is not the place to live such a vow.
One can also give witness to the Kingpom in sexually active marriage, though in a less communally visible way.
And if one is called to marriage this is the more perfect and holy way for the one called.
 
Last edited:
If we are to go so far as to say something may not be true I suggest it is more consistent to apply that judgement to your unusually pious “many Catholics” view (of a single line in the NT that is inconclusive on the matter of an alleged vow of virginity) rather than suggest it more likely Mary and Joseph were invalidly married (from a Catholic point of view).
Gee… I don’t know… there is one of the so-called ‘unusually pious’ folks posting in this thread…
As was mentioned above, Mary’s response to the angel makes it clear that she intended to remain a perpetual virgin.
You should know that this argument is often put forward in this way to establish Mary intent to remain a virgin even after marriage. You should also know that I find that argument pretty flimsy… your point about ‘being willing, but not asked’ seems more believable.
 
Mary was the tabernacle of God, and those who touched the Holy Tabernacle suffered the pain of death.
You believe that Joseph couldnt have kissed or cuddled Mary because God would have killed him if he did so?

OK, when you can authoritatively quote that from the NT or even the Magisterium do come back 🙂.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top