Matthew 1:25 explain?

[Ag9830725]

Can someone help me understand the Bible verse from Matthew chapter 1 verse 25:

“And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.”

 

[Fauken]

This article argues for Our Lady’s perpetual virginity and discusses that verse:

The Case for Mary's Perpetual Virginity | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[stpurl]

Sure. Here is another Scriptural quote for comparison:

2 Samuel 6: 23
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.

What does ‘until’ mean in this passage of Scripture?

Does it mean that Michal had no child all the time she was alive, but then had a child after her death?

Of course not. The use of until meant to convey a sense that the situation of Michal (being childless) never changed in her entire life, but not that it changed ‘afterward’.

Similarly, in Matthew, he was speaking most specifically to the Jewish people. Matthew was a Jew. Matthew was making it most clear that Joseph --who was considered the father of Jesus by all the community who knew the Holy Family–was not the literal flesh-and-blood father.

Since Joseph was legally married to Mary, if he had ‘known’ her, i.e. engaged in sexual relations with her at any time from her conception until the birth of Jesus, (which is the ‘knew her not until birth’ making crystal clear that Joseph could not be physically considered the father of Jesus), it would be argued by the Jewish people that, hey, if Joseph ‘knew’ Mary at any time prior to the pregnancy, then he ‘could have’ been the father.

Matthew was saying that No, Joseph had no physical relations whatever before the child was born.

But here’s the thing. He is not, in saying ‘until’ meaning that the situation CHANGED after the birth, any more than Michal’s childlessness CHANGED after her death. The whole point was the situation itself. Michal never had a child her life long. Joseph ‘did not know Mary’ his whole life long.

We are 21st century English speakers. We have our own idioms and our own understanding of words (imagine a 1st century Jewish person trying to understand our saying, “It’s raining cats and dogs outside”, for example). Trying to force our modern understanding of a word and retcon it back to make a passage mean something it never originally meant is the reason we have people getting conniption fits over "knew her not until’.

I mean seriously, people. You think that Christians the world over for some 1500 years read those words but never made the ‘until’ connection until some genius said Wait what?

Or maybe nobody ever had a problem because people understood from the getgo that Matthew was talking about Joseph not knowing Mary throughout that entire pregnancy. Maybe the written (as well as oral) records that refer to her perpetual virginity made sense because the people who knew people whose parents and grandparents and great grandparents had known Jesus and His Family KNEW there were never any other children, and knew that there had been explanations from Matthew and Peter and everybody else which nobody turned a hair at because, “Well it makes perfect sense. Of course Jesus is the Son of God if Joseph had never, and did never, know Mary. of course she was a virgin then and forever”. . .

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Holy Bible (Douay Rheims)
Mt 1:24-25 • ‘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.’

Commentary:
Ver. 24-25.
REMIGIUS. Life returned by the same entrance through which death had entered in. By Adam’s disobedience we were ruined, by Joseph’s obedience we all begin to be recalled to our former condition; for in these words is commended to us the great virtue of obedience, when it is said, And Joseph rising from sleep, did as the Angel of the Lord had commanded him.

JEROME. (Cont. Helvid. c. 5.) Helvidius is at much superfluous trouble to make this word know refer to carnal knowledge rather than to acquaintance, as though any had ever denied that; or as if the follies to which he replies had ever occurred to any person of common understanding. He then goes on to say, that the adverb ‘until’ denotes a fixed time when that should take place, which had not taken place before; so that here from the words, He knew her not until she had brought forth her first-born Son, it is clear, he says, that after that he did know her. And in proof of this he heaps together many instances from Scripture. To all this we answer, that the word ‘until’ is to be understood in two senses in Scripture. And concerning the expression, knew her not, he has himself shewn, that it must be referred to carnal knowledge, none doubting that it is often used of acquaintance, as in that, The child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and His parents knew not of it. (Lk 2:43) In like manner ‘until’ often denotes in Scripture, as he has shewn, a fixed period, but often also an infinite time, as in that, Even to your old age I am He. (Isa 46:4) Will God then cease to be when they are grown old? Also the Saviour in the Gospel, Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of this world. (Mt 28:20) Will He then leave His disciples at the end of the world? Again, the Apostle says, He must reign till He has put His enemies under His feet. (1 Cor 15:25) Be it understood then, that that which if it had not been written might have been doubted of, is expressly declared to us; other things are left to our own understanding. So here the Evangelist informs us, in that wherein there might have been room for error, that she was not known by her husband until the birth of her Son, that we might thence infer that much less was she known afterwards.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Cont…

REMIGIUS. Or, Took her so far, as that the nuptial rites being complete, she was called his wife; but not so far as to lie with her, as it follows, And knew her not.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. As one might say, ‘He told it not so long as he lived;’ would this imply that he told it after his death? Impossible. So it were credible that Joseph might have known her before the birth, while he was yet ignorant of the great mystery; but after that he understood how she had been made a temple of the Only-begotten of God, how could he occupy that? The followers of Eunomius think, as they have dared to assert this, that Joseph also dared to do it, just as the insane think all men equally mad with themselves.

GLOSS. Otherwise; On account of the glorification of the most holy Mary, she could not be known by Joseph until the birth; for she who had the Lord of glory in her womb, how should she be known? If the face of Moses talking with God was made glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look thereon, how much more could not Mary be known, or even looked upon, who bare the Lord of glory in her womb? After the birth she was known of Joseph to the beholding of her face, but not to be approached carnally.

JEROME. From the words, her firstborn Son, some most erroneously suspect that Mary had other sons, saying that first-born can only be said of one that has brethren. But this is the manner of Scripture, to call the first-born not only one who is followed by brethren, but the first-birth of the mother.

JEROME. (Cont. Helvid. 10.) For if he only was first-born who was followed by other brethren, then no first-birth could be due to the Priests, till such time as the second birth took place.

GLOSS. (Ord.) Or; He is first-born among the elect by grace; but by nature the Only-begotten of God the Father, the only Son of Mary. And called His name Jesus, on the eighth day on which the circumcision took place, and the Name was given.

REMIGIUS. It is clear that this Name was well known to the Holy Fathers and the Prophets of God, but to him above all, who spake, My soul fainted for Thy salvation; (Ps 118:81) and, My soul hath rejoiced in Thy salvation. (Ps 12:5) Also to him who spake, I will joy in God my Saviour. (Heb 3:18)

 

[Dan_Defender]

Sure. It just means that St Joseph took the virgin into his home after Jesus was born, for before that she was living at her mother Anne’s house. And they had a sexless marriage.