Matthew 1:25 and perpetual virginity of Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hoxbar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hoxbar

Guest
Why does the Church teach the perpetual virginity of Mary when according to Matthew 1:25, Joseph “knew” her not till Christ’s birth. Sounds like they had sex after Christ’s birth.

And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord
had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son:
and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:24, 25 Douay Rheims Bible)
 
Hoxbar said:
Why does the Church teach the perpetual virginity of Mary when according to Matthew 1:25, Joseph “knew” her not till Christ’s birth. Sounds like they had sex after Christ’s birth.

And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord
had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son:
and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:24, 25 Douay Rheims Bible)
Click to expand...
You are filling in the blanks. The point of this verse is to say that Mary conceived not by a man but by God. It doesn’t say anything until after the birth. To say that “it looks like” is to insert one’s own personal opinion on it. Matthew is addressing the fact that Jesus does not have an earthly father. He is not discussing Mary’s perpetual virginity here.
 
Hoxbar said:
Why does the Church teach the perpetual virginity of Mary when according to Matthew 1:25, Joseph “knew” her not till Christ’s birth. Sounds like they had sex after Christ’s birth.

And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord
had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son:
and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:24, 25 Douay Rheims Bible)
Click to expand...
There actually is a Catholic Answers article on this:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-case-for-mary%E2%80%99s-perpetual-virginity

To quote a good paragraph specifically noting what you’ve mentioned:
Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:
2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
Click to expand...
I would suggest takin’ a look at the article. It’s great stuff (written by a great Catholic Apologist, Tim Staples) and it should help answer your concerns. 🙂

Dominus Vobiscum!
 
Here are a couple of footnotes from the Aquinas Study Bible

1:18 before they came together: Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ’s Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ’s perfection…… Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose “shrine” was the virginal womb, wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man. Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God’s Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her. Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel’s revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Spirit. We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards. As Jerome says (Contra Helvid. i): “Although this particle ‘before’ often indicates a subsequent event, yet we must observe that it not infrequently points merely to some thing previously in the mind: nor is there need that what was in the mind take place eventually, since something may occur to prevent its happening. Thus if a man say: ‘Before I dined in the port, I set sail,’ we do not understand him to have dined in port after he set sail: but that his mind was set on dining in port.” In like manner the evangelist says: “Before they came together” Mary “was found with child, of the Holy Spirit,” not that they came together afterwards: but that, when it seemed that they would come together, this was forestalled through her conceiving by the Holy Spirit, the result being that afterwards they did not come together. (St. Thomas Aquinas Sum Theo 3.28.3)

1:25 That is, he never came together with her at all. “Until” here does not mean that before the birth he did not know her and afterwards he did, but that he absolutely never knew her. Scripture employs this expression. For example, the raven “returned not unto the ark until the water had dried off from the earth” (Gen 8:7). But neither did it return after the water had dried off. Again, “I am with you until the end of the world” (Gen 28:20). So after the end He will no longer be with the saints? But how can that be? For at that time more than ever will He be with them. So must you understand here "until she brought forth’’ to mean, neither before the birth nor after the birth did he know her. How could he have touched the Holy Virgin having once understood the ineffable birth giving? (Theophylact)
 
But it says he knew her not till…

If I said, “I’m not going to work till tomorrow.” that mean I’m going to work tomorrow. So I really don’t understand.
 
Hoxbar said:
But it says he knew her not till…

If I said, “I’m not going to work till tomorrow.” that mean I’m going to work tomorrow. So I really don’t understand.
Click to expand...
Right, and again, if you’ve read the article, you’ll see that it doesn’t have to necessarily mean that something will change. It’s an idiom, an expression. Again, we look at Scriptural Examples previously mentioned. If we agree with that interpretation of the word “until”, then we must mean that Jesus will stop reigning at some point. And that simply is false. Thus, we have to come to another opinion. Again, I encourage you to read the article if you haven’t already.
 
Hoxbar said:
But it says he knew her not till…

If I said, “I’m not going to work till tomorrow.” that mean I’m going to work tomorrow. So I really don’t understand.
Click to expand...
There are many examples to be given, but here are the ones I gave above from the footnotes, this one is from Theophylact
For example, the raven “returned not unto the ark until the water had dried off from the earth” (Gen 8:7). But neither did it return after the water had dried off. Again, “I am with you until the end of the world” (Gen 28:20). So after the end He will no longer be with the saints? But how can that be? For at that time more than ever will He be with them. So must you understand here "until she brought forth’’ to mean, neither before the birth nor after the birth did he know her.
Click to expand...
 
And there’s also, “And Michal, the wife of David, had no child until her death.”

Um, since we KNOW there is no sex in heaven, she surely isn’t having a child after her death!

Here’s the thing --the Bible was not written in 21st century English (U.S.) idiom. The meanings of words and phrases in the original languages are often ‘lost in translation.’

To us, “Adam” and “Eve” are names like “John” and “Mary”. To the Hebrew writer, they were a PLAY ON THE HEBREW WORDS, such as “Eve” (mother of the living).

To the writers of the time, use of the word “until” did not ‘automatically’ leave one assuming that ‘after’ there would be an OPPOSITE reaction. It marked that ‘something’ occurred up to a given point (usually related to a prophecy or a law) and then AFTER that given point, the ‘something’ COULD KEEP GOING ON EXACTLY AS IT HAD BEEN.

Because what was being considered was the time that was covered UP TO THE UNTIL.

It was very important from the Jewish perspective, in which Joseph, as the legal husband of Mary, would be assumed to be the father of her child, to ASSURE the listeners that no, Joseph at NO time before the birth of Jesus ‘knew’ Mary. . .there was no WAY that Jesus was the son of Joseph. . .it was a PROOF of Jesus’ DIVINITY in that Joseph could NOT have been the father.

AFTER the birth. . .there is no indication that Joseph would ‘know’ Mary.

Hey, they lived in an occupied country. . .after the first few years on the run in an ALIEN land trying to keep away from killers. . .in a time when maternal mortality was high, there were no hospitals, no day care centers, etc. And Mary and Joseph were supposed to PROTECT the Son of God. Yeah, easy to do, on the run, for an older man and a woman perpetually pregnant. . .she’s going to be able to raise the Son of God and NOT be partial, she’s going to be able to pay strict attention to ALL the children, there isn’t going to be ANY sibling rivalry, oh no, and Joseph of course being a man just can’t keep his hands off ‘his’ woman. Great start for the baby Jesus. And where were all these ‘brothers and sisters’ in the story of the Finding at the Temple when Jesus was 12? Not a mention of them, only Mary and Joseph.

Not to mention that for the first years of Christianity. . .when there were plenty of people who would have KNOWN Mary, Joseph, Jesus, and the kids. . .and all the ‘facts of life’. . .nobody came forward and said, "Sure, Mary and Joseph had a ‘complete’ marriage, several kids, we were neighbors’. . .

I mean, there was ‘mention’ in Scripture of Jesus’ ‘brethren’ so it’s not like IF they had really been uterine brothers this would have SHOCKED people . . .UNLESS the oral teaching had already back then clearly indicated the contrary --that Jesus was an only child. And because it was the TRUTH, it was heard and listened to.

It’s only in the last 400-500 years that people have started to preach a ‘different’ gospel and to cherry picture TRANSLATIONS of Scripture based on 21st century speech patterns. . .
 
Hoxbar said:
But it says he knew her not till…

If I said, “I’m not going to work till tomorrow.” that mean I’m going to work tomorrow. So I really don’t understand.
Click to expand...
You are still reading into scripture what is not there. Have you asked yourself why Mary, knowing that she was betrothed to Joseph, would ask Gabriel at the annunciation just how she was to bear a Son in her womb? Do you know any soon-to-be-married woman who would be surprised at being told she would have a child? There is a reason.
 
po18guy said:
You are still reading into scripture what is not there. Have you asked yourself why Mary, knowing that she was betrothed to Joseph, would ask Gabriel at the annunciation just how she was to bear a Son in her womb? Do you know any soon-to-be-married woman who would be surprised at being told she would have a child? There is a reason.
Click to expand...
I can honestly say I have not. Gives me something to think about.
 
Hoxbar said:
I can honestly say I have not. Gives me something to think about.
Click to expand...
In Mary, God chose His own mother. From all eternity, the soul destined to be given the flesh of Mary was preferred by God to any other woman who would ever live. Make no mistake - she is a pure creation, just as you and I are. Yet, God had a mission of extreme trust to send her on. He knew every fiber of her being. He knew that she would say “yes” to Gabriel, but allowed her to retain her free will. Mary declared to Gabriel “Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done to me according to thy word”. Notice how she referred to herself: Handmaids served a single master. The very word maid or maiden, as used in that culture and language, indicated virginity. Before she was married, Jesus was conceived in her womb by the Holy Spirit, and thus Mary is known as the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

Just 5 verses before this (Matthew 1:20), Joseph was told by an angel that Mary was pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Imagine this news, being made to a righteous, God-fearing man. He was afraid to take her into his home, but the angel’s word to him was not to fear. By its angelic delivery, it was also served as a command to take Mary into his home. This is because Joseph was also chosen to serve the Lord. His protection of the Child Jesus from Herod, who wanted to kill him, bears witness to this.

By Mary saying “yes” to Gabriel, she gave herself, body and soul, to the mission of the Lord - which was the redemption of all who would accept Him. This was no ordinary woman. This was to be no ordinary betrothal. This was no ordinary child. Absolutely nothing was ordinary about the Holy Family - except that each had a human nature. In the case of Christ, His conception by the Holy Spirit created something new: the hypostatic union of God and man.

Note: There is nothing above that the primary Protestant reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) did not believe. Each believed that Mary was perpetually virgin. The question is, what has happened to Protestant thinking since the reformation? Regarding Mary, it has changed almost 100%. In fact, the Eastern Orthodox Church, which shares its apostolic history with the Catholic Church, has devotions to Mary that overshadow Catholic devotions to her.

Just a few thoughts to consider.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top