How can Mary be a perpetual virgin if Matthew 1:25 states otherwise?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Facite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Facite

Guest
Hello!

I am well aware that there are so many threads on the perpetual virginity of Our Lady (especially “Brethren of the Lord; Fundamentalist Arguments”), but I want to devote this thread to this verse in order to get further knowledge on this. Here is the verse (Matthew 1:25):

-"…but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son;* and he named him Jesus." (NRSV)
-“but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.” (RSV)
-“And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” (KJV)

Most other bible translations (except some Protestant versions which replace “knew her not” with “sexual relations” or “kept her a virgin”) have similar verses.

Many non-Catholic commentaries on the verse state that ‘“And knew her not,… Or “but he knew her not”, answering to the Hebrew that is, had carnal knowledge of her, or copulation with her, though his wife”’ (Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible) and many other similar things denying Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity. In the NRSV version (a Catholic-approved version), “marital relations” is used in place of “knew her not”, and it is easy to know that relations within a marriage usually include intercourse.

So, here comes my question. This verse firmly states (or am I mistaken) that Mary conceived a virgin, but was not a perpetual virgin. As Catholics, how can we defend the dogma of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity when it comes to this verse?
 
This question has been answered many many times here on the forums. A simple search for Matthew 1:25 should bring up a few threads that should help.
 
It has been answered many times, but I will give you the quick response. The word until in this case does not imply that something happened after the birth, only that nothing happened before. It’s like, when people say “He loved her until the day she died”, does that mean he stopped loving her? No! the word “until” says nothing about what happened after the birth.
 
Where does it say that they had sexual relations after the until? :confused::
 
Thank you Silhouette so much! Your answer is very simple and easy to remember!

Tabycat, the New Living Translation of the Bible states this.

I agree, this forum might be a bit redundant. Thank you anyway!
 
I think it simply means that the Evangelist wants to emphasize that Jesus was born out of a Virgin conception, but he has no knowledge of what happened afterwards since it’s their private life. From that Gospel, we can simply conclude that Mary was virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, and we have to rely on tradition to know that Mary remained virgin forever.
 
seagal said:
This question has been answered many many times here on the forums. A simple search for Matthew 1:25 should bring up a few threads that should help.
Click to expand...
Somehow a search for numbers doesn’t work quite well in this forum engine… 😦
 
Facite said:
Thank you Silhouette so much! Your answer is very simple and easy to remember!

Tabycat, the New Living Translation of the Bible states this.

I agree, this forum might be a bit redundant. Thank you anyway!
Click to expand...
I stay away from the New Livinng Translation.🤷
 
Facite said:
Thank you Silhouette so much! Your answer is very simple and easy to remember!

Tabycat, the New Living Translation of the Bible states this.

I agree, this forum might be a bit redundant. Thank you anyway!
Click to expand...
Actually, NLT renders the verse:
But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born.

As poor as that translation is, even they didn’t write anything about “after”.
 
tabycat said:
Where does it say that they had sexual relations after the until? :confused::
Click to expand...
Exactly! And, can anyone show us the names of the “other children” of Mary…

The point of the verse is to demonstrate to the world that Jesus was born of a virgin, so as to fulfill prophecy. Period. There is not a single verse which demonstrates that this was anything other than a supernaturally arranged marriage, with the only (and single) child that the world would ever need.

OP: please consider getting a copy of Catholicism for Dummies. It is an excellent and easily read resource that will teach you many of the things about your faith that you were not taught in your catechesis. I learn something each time I browse my copy.

Our faith is not determined, or controlled, by tiny little bits and pieces of God’s seamless Word to mankind. As well, the idea that she bore other children is the result of private interpretation of scripture, which the bible itself prohibits us from doing.

As to bible translations, protestant bibles are all skewed, to a greater or lesser degree, against the teachings of the Catholic Church. They MUST be, or there is no reason to be protestant, right? Get a good, solid Catholic bible.

The Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition is an excellent example of a solid Catholic bible.

It is a sad fact that all of protestantism teaches error (some small, some great), from the Catholic, and from the Eastern Orthodox perspective.
 
Ever watched a show on TV and at the end of the show the host says, “Until next time I’m Joe Smith”…

Did you ever wonder who Joe Smith was gong to be AFTER the next time??? :rolleyes:

Until does not always mean a change After…

That said - the way I resolved the matter of the perpetual virginity was to put myself in Joseph’s sandals.
Joseph was told that Mary was pregnant by the Power of the Holy Spirit. He was told by an angel to take her into his house. He was after told to flee to Egypt to protect the baby and his mother.

Now - If you knew what Joseph knew - would YOU figure it’s OK to have relations with this woman?? The betrothed of the Spirit and Mother of the Messiah??

Personally I don’t think Joseph would.

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
Now - If you knew what Joseph knew - would YOU figure it’s OK to have relations with this woman?? The betrothed of the Spirit and Mother of the Messiah??

Personally I don’t think Joseph would.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Totally agreed here, and remember Joseph was one of the most righteous men of that time 👍👍👍
 
JRKH said:
Ever watched a show on TV and at the end of the show the host says, “Until next time I’m Joe Smith”…

Did you ever wonder who Joe Smith was gong to be AFTER the next time??? :rolleyes:

Until does not always mean a change After…

That said - the way I resolved the matter of the perpetual virginity was to put myself in Joseph’s sandals.
Joseph was told that Mary was pregnant by the Power of the Holy Spirit. He was told by an angel to take her into his house. He was after told to flee to Egypt to protect the baby and his mother.

Now - If you knew what Joseph knew - would YOU figure it’s OK to have relations with this woman?? The betrothed of the Spirit and Mother of the Messiah??

Personally I don’t think Joseph would.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top