Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[DanteAlighieri]

Additionally, refuting the perpetual virginity of Mary can benefit from a simple reading of Matthew’s gospel. Matthew’s gospel specifically states that after the angel visited Joseph, Joseph took Mary as his wife, and contrary to what would be almost certainly assumed (that they had sex thereafter), specifically says that he knew her not until she had given birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:25).

The reason this is a strong evidence of disproof is that it specifies the timing as “until”. Until in English, and from what I can tell the Greek source is much the same, indicates a forthcoming qualification which much be completed before an action will take place. The specification of some such qualification is utterly useless in writing if indeed the event (Mary and Joseph having sexual relations) never took place. So at the least, Matthew felt it important to specifically not say that they never had sex (for that would have certainly been easier, and much clearer, to write), but rather that they didn’t have sex until Mary had given birth to Jesus.

See the below article from totustuus.com:

The problem with this understanding is that it forces a modern English use of until on the Bible. In the Bible the Greek and Hebrew words for until means only that some action did not happen to a certain point. Scholars are in agreement on this point. For example, Dr. William Hendriksen, the former Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan writes: “This conclusion cannot be based merely upon the negative plus “until.” That wording does not always introduce an event (in this case: she gave birth to a son) whereby the earlier situation (the couple had no sexual relations) is reversed (they now begin to have sexual relations).”

Consider this quotation from Samuel: “And so Saul’s daughter Michal was childless until the day of her death (2 Sam 6:23).” Are we to conclude that she bore children after her death? How about the raven released from the ark? We read that the raven “flew back and forth until the waters dried off from the earth (Gn 8:7).” Does that mean the raven returned? Other examples can be seen in Dt 34:6; 1 Macc 5:54 and Ps 109:1 [RSV 110:1].

In English, the word until often (though not always) implies an “A will be true when B is no longer true” relationship; according to the above article and others like it, this sense is not present in the original languages.

Peace,
Dante

 

[apophasis]

Even more simply – by Jewish law (that is, here on earth), Jesus was almost certainly recognized as the son of Joseph by others, so from an earthly perspective, it might almost have been seen as abnormal for there to be no additional children.

I also must refute the point made in a link above that Mary would have taken a lifelong vow of celibacy. Such a vow typically required refraining from marriage. As Mary was espoused to Joseph (Luke 1:27), this would be unthinkable – married couples should, do, and did have sex. God gave this illustration as well – “for that reason shall a man leave his mother and father – and he and his wife shall become as one flesh”. Second – Mary’s objection was, “how can this be – I don’t know (sexually) a man” (Luke 1:34), not “how can this be – I have taken a vow of celibacy” or something similar.

Additionally, refuting the perpetual virginity of Mary can benefit from a simple reading of Matthew’s gospel. Matthew’s gospel specifically states that after the angel visited Joseph, Joseph took Mary as his wife, and contrary to what would be almost certainly assumed (that they had sex thereafter), specifically says that he knew her not until she had given birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:25).

The reason this is a strong evidence of disproof is that it specifies the timing as “until”. Until in English, and from what I can tell the Greek source is much the same, indicates a forthcoming qualification which much be completed before an action will take place. The specification of some such qualification is utterly useless in writing if indeed the event (Mary and Joseph having sexual relations) never took place. So at the least, Matthew felt it important to specifically not say that they never had sex (for that would have certainly been easier, and much clearer, to write), but rather that they didn’t have sex until Mary had given birth to Jesus.

Absolutely! VERY well put, PCM.

 

[Brendan]

Perhaps, but where is there any indication in scripture that this new direction included perpetual virginity? Yes, God chose them to be the earthly parents of Jesus, but on the other hand, sex between a husband and wife is a God-ordained act. It’s not something unholy or dishonoring to God, so a righteous married couple, as parents of Jesus, would have no reason to abstain…

Actually, Joseph, as a Jew, would have had a GREAT reason to abstain. He recognized that his wife is the Ark of the New Covenant.

As a Jew, he knows that Mary is now the new “Holy of Holies”. What would have been a 1st Century Jew’s reaction to the concept of ejaculating into the Sanctuary of the Temple?

Would they considered that to be a pious act, to be 'God Ordained"

He knew his wife was more than any other woman he had ever met. Her womb was Holy Ground, the place where God resided?

How did Jews treat the ground around the Bush of Moses, or the spot where Jacob wrestled? How did they treat the tent of Moses, also an area ‘overshadowed’ by God. They marked alll of those as Holy spots, kept them Sacred, someplace outside of the Ordinary.

But Mary had within her an even more Sacred spot, it was where God Himself became Incarnate and took human Nature.

 

[maurin]

Hi PC Master,

I’m sure you missed my question earlier on this thread, or maybe you haven’t had time to address it.

From post #8 on this thread:

so what you are saying,. PC master, is that when Jesus said that He will be with us until the end of the age, He meant that after the Parousia, He will abandon us, is that correct?

Or after Jesus conquered death, the Father would take away His position of "He sits at the Right Hand of the Father: Psalm 109 (110): The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. (see also Heb 1:13).

Your explanation contradicts the meaning of the above verses.

 

[NonDenom]

We don’t believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity because of some word in scripture. We believe it because it was taught (unambiguously, as was all revelation) to the Apostles and handed down from them.

If something so important as your belief in the perpetual virginity was taught to the Apostles the Holy Spirit would have guided those Apostles to include it in the Scriptures.

Ask your Jewish friend when, in OT law, it would have been allowed for a woman to bear the children of two different fathers. When the first father died? But did God the Father die?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

If something so important as your belief in the perpetual virginity was taught to the Apostles the Holy Spirit would have guided those Apostles to include it in the Scriptures.

 

[apophasis]

Hi PC Master,

I’m sure you missed my question earlier on this thread, or maybe you haven’t had time to address it.

From post #8 on this thread:

Maurin, the word “kept” in “kept her a virgin” literally in the Greek means “was not knowing her.” Translated: Did not have sexual relations with her.

The Greek word heos, translated “until” means “unto,” “up to,” “till” (see 2:9, 13, 15).

There’s nothing difficult to understand or complicated by what Matthew very plainly communicates to us in his account. Joseph refrained from sexual relations with Mary until she gave birth to Jesus.

You distort what Matthew communicated and torture the Scriptures by trying to conform that passage to your tradition. Your tradition should reflect what is plainly taught in Scripture. If it doesn’t, then its your tradition that has the problem.

 

[maurin]

Maurin, the word “kept” in “kept her a virgin” literally in the Greek means “was not knowing her.” Translated: Did not have sexual relations with her.

The Greek word heos, translated “until” means “unto,” “up to,” “till” (see 2:9, 13, 15).

There’s nothing difficult to understand or complicated by what Matthew very plainly communicates to us in his account. Joseph refrained from sexual relations with Mary until she gave birth to Jesus.

You distort what Matthew communicated and torture the Scriptures by trying to conform that passage to your tradition. Your tradition should reflect what is plainly taught in Scripture. If it doesn’t, then its your tradition that has the problem.

i’m sorry, apo, but it seems that you have misunderstood the question, and in doing so have resorted to skillful gymnastics in defending what is undefensible.

If ‘until’ means ‘no longer’ in one passage, it must mean the same in all passages.

You have offered no proof–it would be impossible to provide any–that the Tradition of the Apostles is self-contradictory.

 

[apophasis]

i’m sorry, apo, but it seems that you have misunderstood the question, and in doing so have resorted to skillful gymnastics in defending what is undefensible.

I haven’t resorted to any so-called “gymnastics.” If any one has you have. Matthew communicates very plainly and very clearly.

If ‘until’ means ‘no longer’ in one passage, it must mean the same in all passages.

Oh Maurin, please. Stop it!!! In literature and in speech context always defines how a word is used. And the context is very clear and uncomplicated in Matt. 1:25.

You have offered no proof–it would be impossible to provide any–that the Tradition of the Apostles is self-contradictory.

However, Matt. 1:25 provides plentiful proof that the Catholic tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity is contrary to the Apostle Matthew’s plain teaching in his theopneustos (God-breathed) account.

 

[Mickey]

then its your tradition that has the problem.

Oh I see. The Sacred Tradition was wrong for about 1500 + years. Wait a minute. Did not Luther and Calvin also teach Our Lady’s perpetual virginity?

Pulease!

 

[mlchance]

I was chatting with a Jewish co-worker about faith. This gentleman mentioned that he had heard that it is a misconception that Mary was a perpetual virgin, because the word in the original language could be translated one of two ways, only one of which meant “virgin”.

He doesn’t actually have much of an argument. Noting that the word could be translated one of two ways, only one of which means “virgin,” means that translating the word as “virgin” could indeed be correct. All he’s done is establish the possible reasonableness of the Catholic interpretation.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[apophasis]

Oh I see. The Sacred Tradition was wrong for about 1500 + years. Wait a minute. Did not Luther and Calvin also teach Our Lady’s perpetual virginity?

Pulease!

I don’t know about the length of time, but as we can see it was taught from the beginning through Matthew (himself an Apostle) that Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage after the birth of Mary’s “first-born” son. Now, what is one to trust, that which was written from the beginning (God-breathed, in fact) or hearsay?

 

[LilyM]

I don’t know about the length of time, but as we can see it was taught from the beginning through Matthew (himself an Apostle) that Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage after the birth of Mary’s “first-born” son. Now, what is one to trust, that which was written from the beginning (God-breathed, in fact) or hearsay?

Nice try.

It is NOT so taught by Matthew, any more than it is taught in the OT that Michal, David’s first wife, had children AFTER her death, or that God will remove Christ from His position at the Father’s right hand AFTER Christ’s enemies have been made his foot stool.

And no more than Matthew himself teaches us that Christ will no longer be with us after the ‘consummation of the world’ (the Last Judgement).

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t know about the length of time, but as we can see it was taught from the beginning through Matthew (himself an Apostle) that Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage after the birth of Mary’s “first-born” son. Now, what is one to trust, that which was written from the beginning (God-breathed, in fact) or hearsay?

According to the Jewish Law a child was designated as “first-born” irrespective of whether there were yet, or ever to be, subsequent children born to the same mother. This is gathered from Exodus 13, 2, which required that “every first-born that openeth the womb among the children of Israel” be consecrated to God forty days after their birth.

Who, then, exactly were the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ?

It is best to start by looking at St. John 19, 25. There it is evident that the Virgin Mary had an older sister whose name was also Mary: “Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

Turning next to the Gospel of St. Mark 15, 40, speaking on the same point: “There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger (Less) and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome.” Who is this “Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses?” Of the Marys mentioned in St. John 19, 25 it must be Mary the wife of Clopas, not Mary the “mother of Jesus,” as the Virgin Mary is never mentioned by any other title except as “mother of Jesus.” Further, we know that the father of James the younger was Clopas, the husband of Mary of Clopas (St. Mark 3, 18), making Mary of Clopas James’ mother. As for Jude, he was also a son of Clopas and the Virgin Mary’s sister as Scripture speaks of him as a brother of James the younger: “James son of Alphaeus (Clopas), and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the brother of James” (Acts 1, 13 [Douai]). Consequently, Our Lord had cousins by the names of James, Joseph and Jude.13

One can safely state then that the “brothers” of Our Lord as mentioned in St. Matt. 13, 54 -57 being James, Joseph, Jude etc. are in fact the same James, Joseph and Jude just determined to be His cousins. This was St. Jerome’s assertion in the early fourth century:

“Suppose that the Brethren of the Lord were Joseph’s sons by another wife. But we understand the Brethren of the Lord to be not the sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, his mother’s sister.”

St. Augustine was no less strident in his defence of the Virgin Mary’s perpetual virginity:

“It is written (Ezekiel 44, 2): ‘This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it…’ What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this -‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,’ except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this - ‘It shall be shut for evermore,’ but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth.”

It would be forcing credibility to believe that the Virgin Mary and Her older “sister” both had the same names and also had children with the same names. One can expect, also, that after St. Joseph died the Virgin Mary would have gone with Our Lord to live with or nearby Her older “sister,” explaining why She was travelling with those mentioned in St. Matt. 12, 46. It is a clear example of the word “brother” being used to refer to a first or second cousin.

It is also important to examine closely three major events in Our Lord’s life referred to in the Gospels: (i) the return of the Holy Family from Egypt to Nazareth after the death of Herod; (ii) the finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple of Jerusalem after being lost for three days; (iii) Our Lord giving His Mother to the care of St. John at His crucifixion. Our Lord, according to tradition, was 10, 12 and 33 years of age respectively when these events occurred. Yet, never is there any mention of brothers or sisters of His being present, which one would naturally expect if they had actually existed.

Source: theworkofgod.org/LIBRARY/Apologtc/R_Haddad/4dgmMary.htm

 

[mtr01]

Nice try.

It is NOT so taught by Matthew, any more than it is taught in the OT that Michal, David’s first wife, had children AFTER her death, or that God will remove Christ from His position at the Father’s right hand AFTER Christ’s enemies have been made his foot stool.

And no more than Matthew himself teaches us that Christ will no longer be with us after the ‘consummation of the world’ (the Last Judgement).

Furthermore, even in today’s usage, “until” has the same meaning (contrary to what PC Master or apophasis contend).

If I’m watching my children and have to leave the room and say “I want you to behave until I get back”, that certainly does not imply that I want them to start misbehaving once I return.

 

[maurin]

I haven’t resorted to any so-called “gymnastics.” If any one has you have. Matthew communicates very plainly and very clearly.Oh Maurin, please. Stop it!!! In literature and in speech context always defines how a word is used. And the context is very clear and uncomplicated in Matt. 1:25.However, Matt. 1:25 provides plentiful proof that the Catholic tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity is contrary to the Apostle Matthew’s plain teaching in his theopneustos (God-breathed) account.

You have offered no proof for your interpretation.

You can’t have it both ways.

Your dilemma is clear. The Greek compoind word used in Matthew 1:25 is heos-hou, and it does not imply a change or revbersal of starus that is spoken about in the clause that precedes it. Heos-hou is an abbreviation of the longer Greek phrase “heos hou chronou en hoi,” which means “until the time when.” The shorter version, which you referenced above is just ‘heos.’ In Greek, ‘heos’ does not imply that a condition changes in the clause following it.

Examples for you:

Ps 118:8: His heart is steadfast, he shall not be afraid until ‘heos hou’ he looks down upon his foes.

will he be afraid once he looks down upon his foes?

Stop it!!!
Mt 28:20 still stands, stop-it-man.

in 2 Peter 1:19, Peter tells the people that they should be attentive to God’s word until ‘heos hou’ the day dawns and the morning star rises in their hearts.

should they, stop-it-man, cease being attentive to God’s Word after the day dawns?

 

[maurin]

I don’t know about the length of time, but as we can see it was taught from the beginning through Matthew (himself an Apostle) that Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage after the birth of Mary’s “first-born” son. Now, what is one to trust, that which was written from the beginning (God-breathed, in fact) or hearsay?

You offer your own interpretation of Mt 1:25. Sorry, stop-it-man, but your interpretation is not that of the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

“I am the Lord’s servant – let it be done to me as you have said” (paraphrasing). What does that say regarding her virginal status after Jesus birth?

Not at all. The point I was making is that “X until Y” is usually in the form of correcting a standard assumption that is incorrect. In the case of Mary, it would surely be assumed that Joseph would have sex with her as soon as they were married, as this is what married couples do. Matthew uses a “he did not know her until” clause to clarify the portion of this assumption that was in error.

Likewise, here, Jesus was ascending into heaven. The apostles knew this, and knew they would see him again once they were there. They assumed also, however, that he would not be with them until then – this he was correcting by saying “I am with you even until the end of the earth”.

Simply put, there’s absolutely nothing scriptural to support the perpetual virginity of Mary, and nothing I’ve read in early church history in regards to it either. It, like the papacy, seems to have developed well afterward.

Please provide complete quotes as to what you’re referring to, as I’m unable to tell specifically where the “until” bit is in these passages. Thanks.

Perhaps, but where is there any indication in scripture that this new direction included perpetual virginity? Yes, God chose them to be the earthly parents of Jesus, but on the other hand, sex between a husband and wife is a God-ordained act. It’s not something unholy or dishonoring to God, so a righteous married couple, as parents of Jesus, would have no reason to abstain.

Well, the after part we can only assume because it was Jewish law, and we (rightly) assume that Mary would have complied with that.

In regards to “Sacred Tradition”, would you care to show me where in pre-Romanized Christianity we find even a breath of the idea of perpetual virginity? Sure, “Sacred Tradition” of today says it, but if “Sacred Tradition” of tomorrow declared Mary to have been believed to be a deity throughout all church history, I have no doubt Roman Catholics would schism in droves. So, really, we need tradition that stems back to times before the first schisms in the church.

Starting with the second century Protoevangelion of James and all other testimony, the perpetual virginity was always upheld. Helvidius denies it, because of his dogmatic stance on marriage, not because he had inside information.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yes that word in Isaiah can be translated in one of two ways. Although there is actually some dispute as to whether the word ‘almah’ was the only one used in that passage. There are manuscripts that use another word that escapes me - one which does indeed mean virgin.

In any event Luke goes out of his way to make clear which meaning HE intends, and therefore which applied to Mary, by recording Mary’s own words - ‘I know not man’.

The LXX translates as parthenos, which means only virgin.

I recall (but have not been able to verify) that the Isaiah scroll of the Deas Sea has batula which only means virgin.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Do you really believe that God would place someone pure and sinless (Jesus) in someone who was dirty and sinful?

Isn’t that like pouring water in a dirty glass?

Besides to be “full of grace” means to have no sin.Doesn’t it?

If you have a glass (Mary) and you say she is “full of grace” (full of clean water) there is no room in the glass for dirty water (sin)

And in the Old Testament did God tell Moses “Just grab any old box so that I might dwell on.”?

No! God gave specific instructions on how the Ark of the Covenant should be made.

The Ark of the Covenant contained The Stone Tablets, The Manna that God sent from heaven and Aaron’s rod.

The New Ark of the Covenant (Mary) contained The Word made flesh who is the Bread of Life that came from heaven and who rules His church.

God made Eve without sin, is Eve greater then Mary? Nothing is impossible for God.

There I got that off my chest. I just hope I made sense.

Then what do you make of II Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him
Who knew no sin to be sin for us?