Mary's Perpectual Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter emom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

emom

Guest
How can we interpret and defend Mary’s virginity when someone points out this verse as her not be a virgin? I am trying to explain this to a Bible only person.

Matthew1:25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.
 
The Greek word (actually construction) for “until” does not necessarily mean a reversal of the previous action. Much like I say to my kids, “I’m stepping out for a minute, behave until I get back.” This does not at all imply that they get to misbehave when I get back.

Also, I would point out that virtually every major Reformer accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary. Rejecting it is a very recent development and my own opinion is that certain people have let their anti-Catholicism get the better of them.
 
I agree with the above post. Somewhere in the OT, sorry, I can’t say where, there is a verse about David’s wife, who had no children “until she died.” Surely she didn’t have children after she died! This verse did it for me.

Peace,
Linda
 
If you are really bored and want more information, go to The Catholic Legate’s Heos Hou Central and watch as a non-Catholic makes a tragicomic attempt to make the Greek construction exclusively a reversal for a period long enough for when the passage was written; after which it reverts to the multiple meanings again. 🙂
 
This should help:
Karl Keating:
The word until indicated that an act did not occur up to a certain point; it did not imply, as it does today, that the act later took place. In Genesis 8:7 Noah lets out a raven, which is said not to return to the ark “until” the waters had dried up from the face of the earth. In fact, the raven never returned at all, even after the waters had dried up. In 1 Timothy 4:13, Paul instructs Timothy to attend to reading, exhortation, and teaching “until I arrive,” but has any Christian understood Paul to mean that Timothy should cease those activities after Paul’s visit? In 2 Samuel 6:23 we are told that Michal, the daughter of Saul, “had no children until the day of her death.” Surely this does not imply that she gave birth to children after she died.
Click to expand...
Further, I like to start by saying that even they don’t believe that Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” as mentioned in Scritpure are actually Jesus’ brothers and sisters. THE MOST they could believe is that they’re Jesus’ HALF-brothers and HALF-sisters. But surely this is unwarranted, as there are early Church fathers who speak of Joseph being a widower who had children from a previous marriage. Why should we believe that Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” are HALF-brothers/sisters rather than STEP-brothers/sisters? Isn’t that dogmatic insistance going well beyond what is written? Why are they insisting on something the Bible doesn’t teach?

Moreover, “brothers and sisters” as used in that time period quite commonly refer to cousins and other near relatives. In ancient Hebrew and Aramaic there was no word for “cousin”, so you would have to say a person is the son of your mother/father’s brother in order to express the concept. Typically, this sort of circumlocution was not used, but rather simply the word “brother”. This explains passages like the following:
Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).
Click to expand...
There’s also the argument from the Holy Spirit being the spouse of Mary, but I wouldn’t go there yet. Start with milk until they are ready for stronger food.

Hope that helps.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
You might also want to explain that literalistic interpretation as opposed to literal interpretation is quite a recent notion. There is a HUGE difference between reading the words in a verse as if they stand alone and understanding the context in which they were written, the message the author was trying to make, as well as the constant teaching of Christ’s Church. Your friend is reading into the text what s/he already believes instead of taking in consideration the things I mentioned as necessary for true understanding/interpretation of such verses/texts.
 
“She didn’t go to heaven until she died.”

The fact is, your “Bible-only” friend is interpreting the “until” in a way that begs the question; he’s assuming what he intends to prove.

Jeremy
 
Hi emom,

Every objection to Mary’s perpetual virginity was answered in the 4th Century by St. Jerome, translator of the Bible (Vulgate) and Doctor of the Church in his treatise Against Helvidius. (variously spelled).You will find it here.

Verbum
 
I want to read that St. Jerome essay a bit later.

For some time, I asked myself “perpetual virginity of Mary” – so what? Lots of people are perpetual virgins, both men and women. What possible relevence could that have to us today? Much as if somebody broke their leg 1500 years ago, so what?

but, now I think there is a “so what.” the prophecy predicted that the Messiah would be born of a virgin (as we translate it), and Mary’s p.v. is a constant reflection of who Jesus is.
 
I struggled not with believing the mystery of the Perpetual Virginity of Our Blessed Mother, but with what it meant.

I had heard the explanations of the ark which were helpful, but also heard another helpful explanation, I believe from Christopher West discussing the Popes Theology of the Body:

Human maritial union is to point / experience heavenly union with God (obviously in a lesser way). Since Mary experienced a total unity with Jesus (God) there would be no use in the maritial union with Joseph. Mary, and to a lesser extent Joseph experienced total unity with God on earth, they did not need maritial union to experience this unity.

For me it makes me think of God walking with Adam and Eve in the garden when they experienced original innocence and were in union with Our Father. It points to the divinity of Jesus and the redemption present at his coming.
 
emom said:
How can we interpret and defend Mary’s virginity when someone points out this verse as her not be a virgin? I am trying to explain this to a Bible only person.

Matthew1:25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.
Click to expand...
Mt 1:25
και ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην 'εως 'ου ετεκεν 'υιον or τον 'υιον αυτης πρωτοτοκον

Note that the manuscripts vary as to whether it is ‘she bore a son’ or ‘she bore her first son’. 'εως means something like ‘during this period’, without reference to anything outside of that period.

See also other appearances of 'εως in the NT, e.g.,
1 Corinthians 15:6, ‘the majority of whom still remain’
2 Corinthians 3:15, ‘upto this day’
1 John 2:9, ‘he is in darkness until now’.

A question might also come up regarding Mt 12:46-7, and the reference to Jesus’ brothers, for which you could point them to the enormous range of possible meanings of αδελφος.

I am not a Catholic, and I do not believe that it is definite that Mary never had any other children. I am, on the other hand, a literature student, and I can state that the text does not definitely indicate that she did have other children.

As a historical argument, it boils down to the fact that the first reference to those others not being Mary’s children is in the Protoevangelium of James, which dates from the early C2nd, about eighty years after the events which it describes. While this is not close enough to make its accuracy unquestionable, it is certainly a great deal closer than we are now.

In other words, I would describe the idea that Mary did not have other children as being ‘historically supported, and not textually contradicted, and, therefore, quite reasonable’. I realise that this is not enough for ‘proof’, but it is certainly enough for defence, and you will never prove anything to anyone who does not want to believe you, no matter what you try.
 
I don’t understand how a document so WORTHLESS that it wasn’t admitted into the Canon of scripture can be apealed to as HISTORICAL evidence that the perpetual virgin mother of God bore children.

That might be good enough for some historians but not for people who truely love Jesus.
 
I posted this earlier but it is relevant even here:

Mary is the Living Ark of the Covenant. Do you know what the Ark of the Covenant meant to the choosen people, the people of God? Do you know how big of a role it played in the Divine Pedagagy which God used?

The Ark had two Golden Cherubim angels, looking at each other, and spreading their wings. The Ark was central in the way God communicated to the people of Isreal through Moses:

Exoodus 25:22. Thence will I give orders, and will speak to thee over the propitiatory, and from the midst of the two cherubims, which shall be upon the ark of the testimony, all things which I will command the children of Israel by thee.

I assert that Mary is the living Ark by the following passages:

2 Sam 6:1-11 and Luke 1:39-43 & Luke1:59

These verses match blow for blow summarized in the following:
  1. The Ark moved from Galilee to Jerusalem (2 Sam:6:2)
    – the Blessed Virgin moved from Galilee to Jerusalem (Luke 1:39)
  2. David and the Isrealites made merry BEFORE the Lord ( 2 Sam 6:5)
    – St. Elizabeth made merry BEFORE the Lord (Jesus in the Womb of His dear mother) (Luke 1:41-42)
  3. David confessing “How can the ark of the LORD come to me?” (2 Sam 6:9)
    – St. Elizabeth confessing "And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (Luke 1:43)
  4. The ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite for three month ( 2 Sam 6:11)
    – Mary remained with St. Elizabeth about three months (Luke 1:56)
Therefore, the Ark of the Covenant prefigured the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Ark contained the manna, the staff of Aaron, and the Law which were fulfilled in Jesus (Hebrew 9:4); Jesus is the Bread of Life, the Eucharst; Jesus is the staff of Aaron, liberation from Sin; Jesus is the Law, the Word of God.

Mary contained Jesus in her womb for 9 months. She is the only person that can look at the cross and say “flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone”.

Furthermore, in Revelations 11:19 we read the following:
“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.”

Guess what the Sacred writer is leading into?

Revelations 12:1:
“A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.”

This being said, if you look at what happened back in 2 Sam 6:6-7, we read that when Uzzah simply touched the Ark, he was struck dead on the spot. Therefore, no man has ever touched the Blessed Virgin.

Also, as a side note, it is noteworthy to point out that in Hebrew there is no word for cousin.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I don’t understand how a document so WORTHLESS that it wasn’t admitted into the Canon of scripture can be apealed to as HISTORICAL evidence that the perpetual virgin mother of God bore children.

That might be good enough for some historians but not for people who truely love Jesus.
Click to expand...
I think that you had best go back and reread that post: the Protoevangelium of James, while not having been included in the canon, is the earliest historical support for the idea that Mary did not have other children.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I don’t understand how a document so WORTHLESS that it wasn’t admitted into the Canon of scripture can be apealed to as HISTORICAL evidence that the perpetual virgin mother of God bore children.

That might be good enough for some historians but not for people who truely love Jesus.
Click to expand...
Just because something didn’t make it into the canon of Scripture does not make it untrue, however.
You’re trying to make the Bible cover every single base, when you don’t like the alternative. But, when the stronger argument from Scripture is on the other person’s side, you’re going to quote from the authority of your choice…even if it’s something your pastor said in church last Sunday–which may have been very well & good, but it won’t pass your own test here.

And as far as “people who love Jesus”? Darlin’ child,I love Jesus! I love Him so much that I absolutely positively love His mother, too!!
 
Crumpy said:
I want to read that St. Jerome essay a bit later.

For some time, I asked myself “perpetual virginity of Mary” – so what? Lots of people are perpetual virgins, both men and women. What possible relevence could that have to us today? Much as if somebody broke their leg 1500 years ago, so what?

but, now I think there is a “so what.” the prophecy predicted that the Messiah would be born of a virgin (as we translate it), and Mary’s p.v. is a constant reflection of who Jesus is.
Click to expand...
More than that, it shows Joseph and Mary’s own knowledge (to a greater or lesser degree) of who Jesus was, and of his importance, that they would take the highly unusual step of living in a celibate relationship purely for his sake.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I don’t understand how a document so WORTHLESS that it wasn’t admitted into the Canon of scripture can be apealed to as HISTORICAL evidence that the perpetual virgin mother of God bore children.
Click to expand...
Let me guess, the only book on your shelf is the Bible?

Because if not, your actions contradict your words.

Jeremy
 
I 100% believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. I also 100% believe that the Protoevangelium of James should have ZERO weight in defense of that belief.

Such sources are not needed to be appealed to defend Mary. When such sources are used–don’t blame the ignorant who are not Catholics for being skeptical.

That doesn’t mean that writings other than the bible should not be read–it just means that good theology doesn’t need to be buttressed by them.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I 100% believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. I also 100% believe that the Protoevangelium of James should have ZERO weight in defense of that belief.

Such sources are not needed to be appealed to defend Mary. When such sources are used–don’t blame the ignorant who are not Catholics for being skeptical.

That doesn’t mean that writings other than the bible should not be read–it just means that good theology doesn’t need to be buttressed by them.
Click to expand...
I have to beg to differ here. For instance, it’s useful to know Jewish Tradition to understand the full meaning of some of Jesus’ teachings. It’s useful to be familiar with (or to know someone who is familiar with:)) the Jewish Talmud to understand the Seat of Moses and the Pharisees (or is it the Jewish Rabbi’s?) power to “bind and loose”. I agree, though, that the Protoevangelium can only add creedence to an already accepted fact, and not to persuade someone of a fact.
 
NotWorth: You are correct–I was just thinking in the sense of apologetic arguments for people who predominantly believe in Bible only arguments.

Catholic theology is much bigger than that and it certainly is true that to really know the Bible you should know more than Just the Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top