Mary's perpetual virginity

[brgregmack]

I have a protestant friend who has brought up Matt 1:25 to try to refute Mary’s perpetual virginity.

How should I respond to him???

 

[PerfectTiming]

“When Joseph woke up he did what the angel of the Lord had told him to do: he took his wife to his home; he had not had intercourse with her when she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.” Matthew 1:24-25, NJB

catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

fisheaters.com/mary.html

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-III

Others have already done all the work

 

[brgregmack]

side question: is truthorfiction.com a reliable source???

 

[ESMDHokie77]

you could bring up how the fathers of the protestant reformation believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

 

[Meg120]

Tell them how Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit. If they don’t believe what the Bible says, then there’s really nothing else you can do. Good luck!

 

[Della]

This one verse is too ambiguous to tell us anything about Joseph and Mary’s relationship except what it states. The real question is: Does it imply sexual relations afterwards? The answer is, no because that wasn’t Matthew’s intention in telling us this information. He wasn’t telling us what they did afterwards, only what they didn’t do until Mary gave birth to Jesus.

Something you might ask your Protestant friend to do is to find all the verses where Mary is listed as anyone’s mother except Jesus. He won’t find any. Mary is only referred to as the mother of Jesus. She gave birth to no one but him.

The danger in picking verses out in order to formulate doctrine/dogma is the Bible was never intended to be used for that. The Church never has and doesn’t do it with any verses. Something most of our Protestant brethren do not know is the Church does not use the Bible as a proof-text or even as a basis for doctrine/dogma. It uses the Bible as a witness to what it taught from the beginning, as handed on to it by Jesus and the Apostles.

Protestants think the Bible is the foundation of Christian belief, but it isn’t. Trying to get them to see that, though is quite hard since all their lives they have been taught it is. They’ve been taught little to nothing about early Church history (real history, that is, not revisionist ideas), and they do not believe authority lies in men, in any form, which is the opposite of what the Bible itself tells us.

All the best with your Protestant friend. If he has an open mind the information in this thread should prove helpful. But, it may take him a long time to absorb it/accept it, so be patient, knowing that you are planting a seed that you may not see grow. Someone else may reap, but it’s always good to tell people the truth in love and to pray for them, which is all God asks of us.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have a protestant friend who has brought up Matt 1:25 to try to refute Mary’s perpetual virginity.

How should I respond to him???

Matthew 1:24-25: Until she brought forth a son

Matthew 1:24-25
24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.

The word *until *here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth. It doesn’t imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word until seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.

Firstborn

Matthew 1:25 (KJV)
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

From this verse, many non-Catholics assume that Mary had a second child because Jesus is referred to as her “firstborn son”. However, firstborn is merely a technical term which was applied to the first child that “opened the womb”. The term does not imply a “secondborn”. In ancient times, a woman who only had one child during the course of her lifetime still called that child the “firstborn”. Scripture also supports this understanding:

Numbers 3:40
And the LORD said unto Moses, Number all the firstborn of the males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward, and take the number of their names.

Note here that a child as young as one month old was called the “firstborn”. Given the length of the human gestation period, it is not possible for a month old infant to have a younger sibling. Thus, we see clearly that “firstborn” was a technical term that did not prove that additional children had been born.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Matthew 1:24-25: Until she brought forth a son

Matthew 1:24-25
24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.

The word *until *here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth. It doesn’t imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word until seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.

Firstborn

Matthew 1:25 (KJV)
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

From this verse, many non-Catholics assume that Mary had a second child because Jesus is referred to as her “firstborn son”. However, firstborn is merely a technical term which was applied to the first child that “opened the womb”. The term does not imply a “secondborn”. In ancient times, a woman who only had one child during the course of her lifetime still called that child the “firstborn”. Scripture also supports this understanding:

Numbers 3:40
And the LORD said unto Moses, Number all the firstborn of the males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward, and take the number of their names.

Note here that a child as young as one month old was called the “firstborn”. Given the length of the human gestation period, it is not possible for a month old infant to have a younger sibling. Thus, we see clearly that “firstborn” was a technical term that did not prove that additional children had been born.

Good Response. I concur.

Here’s a snipet from a great article on how to explain and defend Mary’s perpetual virginity:

…Now, does Matthew’s use of “until” mean what your friend says it does? Not necessarily. The Greek word for “until” (heos) does not imply that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Christ. In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child “until” the day of her death. (Rest assured that she didn’t have any children after that day, either.) Hebrews 1:13 and 1 Timothy 4:13 are similar examples.

When we interpret any passage, we must consider what the author was trying to say. Matthew’s intent here is not to explain what happened after the birth of Christ. He is only concerned with the fact that Joseph and Mary had no relations before then. It is the virgin birth, not later siblings, that Matthew is concerned with.

A link to the entire article is here. Lots of good discussion points with citations to authority to back up your points.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Tiberius1701]

I just finished a whole series about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary from the Bible and a final post quoting the ECFs and the council that declared it infallibly on my blog: MacarianApologetics.Xanga.com. I’ve covered a few of the other Marian doctrines and hope to continue, God willing. Hope that helps!

 

[thistle]

I have a protestant friend who has brought up Matt 1:25 to try to refute Mary’s perpetual virginity.

How should I respond to him???

You might like to point out to your Protestant friend that all the founders of Protestantism believed in Mary’s perpetual viginity.

**Martin Luther: **

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned. {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

**John Calvin: **

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned. {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

**Huldreich Zwingli: **

He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - ‘Hail Mary’ . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
‘Fidei expositio,’ the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’{Thurian, ibid., p.76}I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity. {Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

Heinrich Bullinger:

Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary’s perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: ‘In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.’ She is ‘the most unique and the noblest member’ of the Christian community . . .
‘The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.’
{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}

John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)

The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. {“Letter to a Roman Catholic” / In This Rock, Nov. 1990, p.25}

 

[puzzleannie]

I have a protestant friend who has brought up Matt 1:25 to try to refute Mary’s perpetual virginity.

How should I respond to him???

you might begin by asking him to research when his denomination began preaching against this belief which was universal for all Christians, including the Reformers, up until the mid-19th century and is still a dogma explicitly stated in the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds. If his denomination rejects this, deleting it from the Creeds, it must by definition claim authority to challenge or delete ALL credal statements and doctrines. From whom to they claim this authority?

 

[thistle]

In my post #10 I see that I’ve duplicated Calvin comments under Luther. Below is what Luther said:

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . . {Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }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 . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:
Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary. {Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}

“. . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.”
Ref: Luther’s Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968

“. . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.”
Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther’s Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)

“Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”
(REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther’s Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)

“Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees.” (From the Commentary on the Magnificat.)

 

[MarcoPolo]

When we interpret any passage, we must consider what the author was trying to say. Matthew’s intent here is not to explain what happened after the birth of Christ. He is only concerned with the fact that Joseph and Mary had no relations before then. It is the virgin birth, not later siblings, that Matthew is concerned with.

This snippet from your article is key. Matthew is trying to demonstrate that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of being born of a virgin. His argument only pertains to Joseph not having relations with Mary up to that point—he asserts nothing about afterward because that is irrelevant to his point.