Does Joseph have sexual relations with Mary

[AlanFromWichita]

fredrock:

Incidently, verse 25 says that Joseph did not know her till she brought forth her firstborn Son (implying other sons, four infact.

That’s pretty interesting. Which Bible translation are you using?

Alan

 

[Tom]

fredrock:

Hi, I looked over Numbers 30. A couple things,
First, Mary was under a command of celibacy not a vow, as are every other unmarried people in the sight of God.

Not so, Mary was under a perpetual vow as is revealed in Luke chapter 1. I find it interesting that, Mt and Lk approach the annunciation (of the birth of Jesus) from different perspectives. Mt, Chap 1 addresses the annunciation from Joseph’s side, while Lk Chap 1 addresses it from Mary’s. I think this is very significant when viewed from the OT book of Numbers.
We know Mary is a young teenager engaged to be married to Joseph. We know they are both good and pious Jews. We know Mary has knowledge of how children are conceived (I know not man). We know that at that time it was not unusual for engaged couples to have sexual relations, actually being engaged was considered a part of being married. We also know that Mary and Joseph did not yet have sexual relations. The question we must ask ourselves is, did Mary and Joseph intend to have sexual relations after their marriage? It was not uncommon to dedicate yourself to God, actually if we read Numbers chaps 27-30 we’ll find there were even laws concerning these vows.
When we read the rendering in Lk, the angel greets her and tells her she is to conceive in her womb and bare a son. Sounds simple enough doesn’t it? Put yourself in Mary’s place. So, I’m engaged to Joseph, we will marry, and have a child, it will be a son. Any question? Shouldn’t be “if” we intended to have sexual relations after marriage. “If” we didn’t intend to have sexual relations after our marriage then we’d ask “how can this be”?
The question “how shall this be"? makes absolutely no sense if they intended to have sexual relations, remember she knew “how”. So why did she ask “how shall this be”?

 

[Tom]

fredrock:

Joseph was contemplating wether to have her stoned to death which was the command of God, for she appeared to him to be an adultress, ( Read Deuteronomy Chapter 23) or to become a law breaker himself and give her a secret divorce that would spare her life because of his love for her. Since he was a just man he seemed to be conflicted by believing the amazing story that Mary no doubt had told him or the alternitive, that she had sinned. This is when the angel appeared to him in his sleep and told him to not be affraid to take Mary as his wife. Matthew 1:18-24

This could hardly be considered an acceptance of the alledged vow you speak of. Instead it was the angel of the Lord who confirmed this to Joseph and he accepted it as a blessing and the will of God…

This is perfectly understandable, he knew of her vow and this revealation that she was pregnant made him feel she “must” have violated her vow. At that time it was normal for “bethrothed” couples to engage in sexual relations, it was actually considered part of marriage, that’s why he would have to “divorce” her (no reason to divorce a person you’re not married to). So explain to me why a man who “could” legally have sex with this lovely young girl and decide not to??? LOL

 

[Angainor]

Scott Waddell:

This is known as the Heos Hou debate (from the Greek). It concentrates on the word for “until”. Protestants think it means a reversal of the previous action. Catholics think it doesn’t make a distinction either way. Like if I am leaving a room of children and I say, “behave until I get back.” This does not imply that they get to misbehave when I get back. This passage neither proves nor disproves perpetual virginity, and there is no passage in Scripture that explicitly says Mary had other children in utero.

Matthew was recording the events as they happened many years previously. It stretches the imagination to think Matthew meant “until” indistinctly (but I fully admit that may be because of my lack of knowledge of first century Greek).

If I was recording past events, and I wrote: “Sam never traveled to Europe until 1913” what would you think? Did Sam ever travel to Europe?

 

[Kurt_G]

Angainor:

Matthew was recording the events as they happened many years previously. It stretches the imagination to think Matthew meant “until” indistinctly (but I fully admit that may be because of my lack of knowledge of first century Greek).

If I was recording past events, and I wrote: “Sam never traveled to Europe until 1913” what would you think? Did Sam ever travel to Europe?

But that was Scott’s point, that the Greek word being translated as “until” does not imply a reversal of action… I think it would be every bit as correct to say “…and Joseph knew her not even up to the time of her delivery…” anyway…

St. Jerome and Helvidius had it out over this very subject many centuries ago, folks. Just for a taste of the “flavor” of the written argument, Jerome writes in “The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary - Against Helvidius”:

1." I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating."

In 24 numbered long paragraphs, Jerome goes on to defend, against this novel attack, the accepted Christian belief of the time (which is Mary’s perpetual virginity). It’s a good read for this topic.

When one reads it, a few important things come across right away:

a. Helvidius has the “new” idea that Mary had other children, while Jerome is defending the “commonly accepted” idea of the early Church, Mary’s perpetual virginity.

b. the arguments in this thread are identical to the arguments Helvidius uses for “Mary’s other children”, and which Jerome
defends against.

c. While Helvidius holds up Tertullian as one of two previous writers who believed Mary to have other children, this was Jerome’s opinion of Tertullian:

…“he (Helvidius) there produces Tertullian as a witness and quotes the words of Victorinus bishop of(3) Petavium. Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel–that he spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship not by nature.”

According to Jurgens “Faith of the Early Fathers”, Tertullian’s relative comments were made later in his life, during his Montanist period. So maybe Jerome’s comments about Tertullian, although harsh, are actually true.

And for Helvidius’ 2nd witness to “other children for Mary”, Victorinus, Jerome says Helvidius just flat out misunderstood him.

This much comes clear for me:

1. At Jerome’s time (late 300’s early 400’s ?) the prevailing belief among Christians was that Mary had no other children.
2. Helvidius is writing a pamphlet to “counter” the prevailing belief of the day (much like Dan Brown today, I would say…)

Now, if Mary had other children, you would think early Christians would have been well aware of the fact. Yet 350 years later we see it assumed that she had no other children.

It is **difficult **to see how the truth of “other children” could be supplanted with a lie of “Jesus as only child”, and no one in the Christian world fought to preserve the “truth”.

It is not difficult to see, though, how someone 350 years later could come up with a new idea from Scripture, and present it at that late date as truth. No original eye witnesses are around any more to counter a story, so you just come up with what you want!

Man, I read a little of St. Jerome, and I think the moderators would have canned him here, for being sarcastic and inconsiderate!!
But I think he was right!!

 

[cecelia]

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but if we are aware of Biblical typology the Blessed Mother is the Ark of the New Covenant. In the Old Testament, one could not even enter the Holy of Holies as it was guarded by the priests, the Levitical priests I believe. It was the encasement of God. Now in the Incarnation where the Word becomes flesh and dwells among us and the abstract is Incarnate, the spiritual becomes the human, the encasement is the Virgin Mary. That her flesh is Holy,as is worthy of the Mother of God, is evident in her being chosen to bring forth the Word. Her flesh does not become any less holy after Christ birth. As the Ark of the New Covenant, she is privileged and her place in Salvation history secure. Joseph, her most chaste spouse is her guardian. He guards the Ark, so to speak. Furthermore,isn’t the Holy Family a mirror of Heaven where the family will not have a need to procreate and therefore no need for sexual relations as a means for achieving such procreation? And if we think about it, God the Father had one son, His only begotten Son. On earth, Mary had one son, the son of God, free from Original Sin. Would Mary’s other children have been free of Original Sin too? Or would Original Sin have to be stamped upon Mary’s soul, so that her subsequent children would be born as all other humans were born? Just some thoughts. Thanks for reading.

 

[Genesis315]

cecelia,

Awesome post! I too was wondering what would be the deal with her kids. I guess protestants don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception either so they don’t have to worry about it.

 

[FCEGM]

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but if we are aware of Biblical typology the Blessed Mother is the Ark of the New Covenant… . .[etc.]

Precisely, Cecelia. Something that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli had no problem appreciating - and something which their inheritors have discarded.

 

[FCEGM]

Incidently, verse 25 says that Joseph did not know her till she brought forth her firstborn Son (implying other sons, four infact.

“Firstborn” is a LEGAL term, and it refers to any male who “opens the womb” of his mother. This is explained in sometimes gruesome detail in Exodus 13. There need be no “secondborn” for Christ to have been the “firstborn” of Mary.

 

[FCEGM]

Christ, with ten thousand brothers and sisters does not suffer the distinction of being unsuitable and His Divine origin is not unrealizable to those who love Him.

Apples and oranges - and doesn’t follow from the point originally made:

Being the only Child of Mary is a fitting way of manifesting the Special Divine origin of the Child she bore. If she had other children the ordinary way then why wouldn’t her first be just a human with a human father like His brothers and sisters? He is the unique son of Mary to manifest being the unique Son of God the Father, having no human biological father.

Of course on this issue and others pertaining to the Mother of God, some are uncomfortable with an understanding of anyone - including the Blessed Virgin - being at an advantage by God’s predilection in the Trinitarian life. This discomfiture appears when there is a diminished understanding of what the grace flowing from Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit accomplishes in the faithful soul as he or she progresses in this Christ-life. A Catholic, on the other hand, knows that Mary’s participation in the life of the Trinity (a life to which we are all called) is of a higher “status” or “role” than ours or any of the Saints in heaven, canonized or not. The Catholic says, “Yes, this is what we have by grace, and since these is what we have the Blessed and Ever-Virgin Mary - by grace - has it in spades!”

 

[Ignatius]

Angainor:

If I was recording past events, and I wrote: “Sam never traveled to Europe until 1913” what would you think? Did Sam ever travel to Europe?

I had a uncle with a drinking problem. He finally quit and did not drink again until he died. What do you think that means, that he started drinking again after he died?

 

[tuopaolo]

GerardPaul:

My free church fellowship friend said that in Matthew 1 when it states that Joseph did not KNOW Mary untill after Jesus birth directly implies sexual relations. What say you?

Jeffrey

I say that what Matthew says suggests that Mary didn’t have sexual relations and that she remained a faithful virgin her entire life.

If I say, “She was faithful to him till the day of their wedding” does that imply that she cheated on him the day after the wedding? No of course not. If anything it hints that she was very faithful to him and continued to be faithful after the wedding just as before. Likewise when St Matthew says that Mary was a faithful virgin, a virgin faithful to God, till the day of God’s birth, does that mean that Mary became unfaithful to God after God’s birth? No of course not. If anything it hints that she was very faithful to God as a virgin and continued to faithfully remain a virgin her whole life.

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello everyone!

The problem so far is that people are not taking into account the material that has been published since the time of Jerome and Helvidius.

First, with regards to the Greek phrase heōs hou, people have been going to the septuagint to get places where it means "until [and continuing]. The problem is this is an exegetical fallacy. D.A. Carson calls this the fallacy of “semantic obsolesence,” that is, a diachronic fallacy in which “the interpreter assigns to a word in his text a meaning that the word in question used to have in earlier times, but that is no longer found within the live, semantic range of the word” [Exegetical Fallacies p.35]. The problem with this particular phrase is that it never bears the meaning “until [and continuing]” in the 200 years surrounding the birth of Christ [100BC-100AD]. In fact, if you look at the septuagint, you will see that it was a rare meaning, and, hence that meaning was probably falling out of usage even at the time the Septuagint was written. The only two meanings that heōs hou has in this time period is “while” [a meaning that is totally nonsensial in Matthew 1:25], and “until [but not continuing].”

The same problem comes with the term adelphos which means “brother.” There are thousands and thousands of usages of the term adelphos in the 200 years surrounding the birth of Christ, and not a single one of them is used to mean “half brother” or “cousin.” Again, it is simply an exegetical mistake to read those meanings into the words. You have to first demonstrate that in the time period you are talking about, those meanings exist. I am in good company with this assessment. Dr. Craig Blomberg agrees with me as does Roman Catholic scholars Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmayer. Joseph Fitzmayer said that “Jerome thought adelphos could mean could mean ‘cousin,’ but this is almost certainly to be ruled out as the NT meaning” The Gospel According to Luke, Luke, I-IX p.724].

As far has history goes, the first mention of this belief is not even found in orthodox writings. It is first found in the Odes of Solomon, Ascention of Isaiah, and Protevangelium of James all of which are gnostic. Gnosticism had a very low view of sexuality. This is because of their dualism, believing that the material universe was evil, and the spirit universe was good. Hence, this is where history tells is the doctrine originated from.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[Schabel]

tuopaolo:

I say that what Matthew says suggests that Mary didn’t have sexual relations and that she remained a faithful virgin her entire life.

In all fairness to both sides, the heos hou argument merely demonstrates that the wording of Matthew is ambiguous, and can’t be used as an argument either for or against Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Examples of how this phrase can be used to actions which continue, or do not continue, are easily generated, as shown in the above interactions.

This truth is most damaging to the parguments against perp. virginity, since it is one of the “proof texts” that has been nullified.

envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.3/mayjune_story2.html

However, there are many other reasons to believe that Mary was and still is a virgin.

 

[Mickey]

Revisionist theology teaches contrary to the perpetual virginity of Mary. This position has been reasonably refuted many times on many different threads, so I will not re-hash this debate. A member of this forum uses two scholars to back his conclusions who are schooled in baptist theology–D. A. Carson and Craig Blomberg. Both of these scholars are graduates of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He also references two Catholic priests–the late Fr Raymond Brown and Fr Joseph Fitzmyer. Fr. Brown states that though Mary’s perpetual virginity cannot be conclusively proven from Scripture alone, it is made certain by the teachings of the Church. Fr Fitzmyer says, " The word did not simply mean blood brother, and you will find in the book of Tobit a variety of broader meanings: compatriot, kinsman, relative…"

The protestant reformers also belived in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Martin Luther said, " Mary realized she was the mother of the son of God, and she did not desire to become the mother of the son of man, but to remain in this divine gift." Calvin agreed with this, along with John Wesley and Ulrich Zwingli.

For anyone on this forum who would like to study church history on this subject, I would suggest the writings of Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Ephraem, John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria. The deepest wells have the clearest water.

God Bless everyone!

 

[DianJo]

I agree that the particular verse mentioned does not confirm or deny Mary’s perpetual virginity. Although it is a teaching that is taught by the Church and being endowed with the Holy Spirit to teach all truth, I’ll go with the Church on this. Most things that are NOT taught in scripture are those things that were NOT an issue at the time - no reason for them to be mentioned if all were in agreement. The NT letters were written for specific reasons (to bring some teaching that had gone off track back in line or to admonish the churches for falling from the truth), written to specific churches or people. The teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity was simply not an issue at the time. Everyone knew it and accepted it. There was no need to make a point of teaching it.

Further, the purpose of Matthew’s gospel is to prove who Jesus was by constantly referring back to OT prophecies. He lists in the geneology of Jesus, other women who were prominant in that lineage. This to show Mary also as having a special place in Jesus’ lineage - the virgin prophecied in the OT. That’s all.

His point was to show that Jesus was born of the virgin of Isaiah’s OT and that Jesus was not conceived by a man, namely Joseph, but by the Holy Spirit. That’s why the word until is used - to prove that Jesus was not conceived by man.

Now, because of the Incarnation and to clarify the Divinity of Jesus, I find it highly unlikely that Mary would’ve had any other children because it would’ve spread doubt to His conception / nature as being divine.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

 

[Kurt_G]

Martin Luther:

Hello everyone!

The problem so far is that people are not taking into account the material that has been published since the time of Jerome and Helvidius.
Martin Luther

And Hello Martin! I saw the problem a little differently… many people arguing about perpetual virginity today (maybe not on this thread, but still “many people”)**, have never read St. Jerome’s defense of Mary’s perpetual virginity. **(I thought it was worth mentioning, for those who may have forgotten about it)

The other points you bring up can be refuted by a number of us here, in due time. However, your following claim I would like to refute immediately…no reference materials needed:
Martin Luther:

The same problem comes with the term adelphos which means “brother.” There are thousands and thousands of usages of the term adelphos in the 200 years surrounding the birth of Christ, and not a single one of them is used to mean “half brother” or “cousin.” Martin Luther

Martin, will you agree that by definition “half brothers” share only one biological parent? The point is that, for those of us who hold to the virginal birth of our Lord Jesus, Jesus could only have had “half brothers and sisters”. He could not have had any full brothers.

So all the “adelphoi” references in the NT, to Jesus’ “brothers”, at best could only mean “half brothers”, never full brothers.

You would argue then that the “half brothers” mentioned in Scripture share Mary as a mother with Jesus…
While we would hold that, at best for your case, these “half brothers” shared Joseph as a father, not Mary as a mother.

Christians who believe in the virginal birth of Jesus cannot make the claim you did… namely that adelphoi is never used for “half brother”. Gee, it’s GOT to mean half brother…

Your comments about Gnosticism, where we can agree about much, are interesting but not relevant here. You know full well a celibate lifestyle is held in high esteem by our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as St. Paul. I do not need to be Gnostic to place the Holy, Sacred vocation of Marriage and Family (a Sacrament for Catholics!) a step below the even Holier and more Sacred vocation of a celibate life dedicated to God… rather, to deny this is to go directly against Holy Scripture.

More later… Thanks for you posts though, Martin. A difference of opinion is what these forums are all about!
GOD BLESS US ALL!

 

[Scott_Waddell]

From New Advent:

The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these “brethren” are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Saviour, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the “brethren” of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins.

Scott

 

[tuopaolo]

Schabel:

In all fairness to both sides, the heos hou argument merely demonstrates that the wording of Matthew is ambiguous, and can’t be used as an argument either for or against Mary’s perpetual virginity.

My argument for Mary’s perpetual virginity is not based on the grammar of a particular word or phrase, but on the context in which it is employed. Please read the rest of my post if you haven’t already to see what I mean.