Matthew 1:25 explanation?

[Mystophilus]

Gen 8:7 – the raven “did not return TILL the waters were dried up…” Question: Did the raven return? NO!

Deut 34:6 – Moses died “and no one knows his grave TILL this day.” Question: Have we found Moses’ grave? NO!

2 Sam 6:23 – Michal “had no children TILL the day of her death.” Question: Did she have children after she died? NO!

1 Macc 5:54 – “…not one of them was slain TILL they had returned in peace.” Was Judas M and his troops killed when they returned? NO!

Luke 1:80 – John the B “was in the deserts TILL the day of his manifestation to Israel.” Did John the B stay in the desert? YES! (cf. Matt 3:1; Mark 1:3-4; Luke 3:2-4)

John 4:49 – “Sir, come down BEFORE my child dies!” Did he die? NO!

Rom 8:22 – “…the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together UNTIL now.” Is it still groaning? YES!

Might I suggest using different examples for the NT?

John the Baptist does not stay in the desert: the moves to the inhabited area along the side of the Jordan in Luke 3:3, revealing himself to Israel as mentioned in Luke 1:80.

John 4:49 and Romans 8:22 use different words: πριν and αχρι respectively, instead of 'εως, which is the term used in Matthew 1:25.

Should you use such examples, you risk seriously undermining your own argument.

As alternatives, I would suggest the likes of 1 Corinthians 1:8, 2 Corinthians 1:13 and 3:15, all of which do use 'εως. The OT examples are all fine, in that the Septuagint uses 'εως in those passages.

 

[Gorgias]

Might I suggest using different examples for the NT?

Should you use such examples, you risk seriously undermining your own argument.

If the argument is “prepositions in one language don’t translate perfectly and exactly into other languages,” then the examples that use prepositions other than heos are just fine. For the sake of avoiding misunderstanding, though, your caveat – that not all of these examples use the same word in the source language as is found in Mt 1:25 – is valuable to head off potential attempts at rebuttals before they’re even raised…

 

[Mystophilus]

For the sake of avoiding misunderstanding, though, your caveat – that not all of these examples use the same word in the source language as is found in Mt 1:25 – is valuable to head off potential attempts at rebuttals before they’re even raised…

It is very much that: all too often, we seize upon tiny and even irrelevant details as reasons to dismiss what disagrees with our preconceptions.

 

[adrift]

It is very much that: all too often, we seize upon tiny and even irrelevant details as reasons to dismiss what disagrees with our preconceptions.

 

[Mystophilus]

Have you not seen this a thousand times? Someone posts a comment, and someone else finds some tiny oversight or inaccuracy in that comment, and uses it to dismiss the original poster’s comprehension of the question as a whole. Motivated Cognition leads us to conclusions which support our preconceptions rather than our reason.

 

[adrift]

Have you not seen this a thousand times? Someone posts a comment, and someone else finds some tiny oversight or inaccuracy in that comment, and uses it to dismiss the original poster’s comprehension of the question as a whole. Motivated Cognition leads us to conclusions which support our preconceptions rather than our reason.

My confusion is why did you post the comment to the post that you did? Were you disagreeing with Gorgias? Were you saying that he was dismissing your comments as whole? Or were you dismissing his point?

 

[Gorgias]

My confusion is why did you post the comment to the post that you did? Were you disagreeing with Gorgias? Were you saying that he was dismissing your comments as whole? Or were you dismissing his point?

I took it to mean that he was agreeing with my point – that the examples don’t invalidate the argument, as he originally claimed, but that they might allow someone to suggest (without merit) that the case being made was faulty.

 

[adrift]

I took it to mean that he was agreeing with my point – that the examples don’t invalidate the argument, as he originally claimed, but that they might allow someone to suggest (without merit) that the case being made was faulty.

I took it the opposite way. Hence my confusion what he really meant. The way you phrase it would make sense with what he said.

 

[Mystophilus]

I took it to mean that he was agreeing with my point – that the examples don’t invalidate the argument, as he originally claimed, but that they might allow someone to suggest (without merit) that the case being made was faulty.

 

[Cathoholic]

Truth_Faith13.

WHY do you think St. Joseph “knew Mary not” while the Blessed Virgin WAS pregnant with Jesus?

After all, the Angel told St. Joseph to “fear not”, to “take Mary your wife” (into his home), etc. etc.

MATTHEW 1:20 20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit;

There is no sin in “knowing” your wife while she is with child.

Scripturally speaking, the angel never told St. Joseph, “Don’t you dare ‘know’ the Blessed Mother while she is pregnant”. (St. Joseph already knew he wouldn’t dare)

So keeping all the above in mind, WHY do you think Joseph “knew her not” DURING pregnancy-time during the marriage?

(Incidentally, St. Jerome asks the same question to Helvetius, lest someone thinks I am trying to be argumentatively provocative)

When you come up with a reason WHY St. Joseph “knew her not” at that point, you will probably answer the question of WHY St. Joseph knew her (the Blessed Virgin Mary) not, AFTER Mary had delivered Jesus too.

I’ll try to answer the “until” aspect shortly but it has to do with what other readers have said. “Until” tells you nothing about what occurs afterwards.

ST. JEROME In short,** what I want to know is why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery? ** Helvidius will of course reply, because he heard the angel say, “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” And in turn we rejoin that he had certainly heard him say, “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife.” The reason why he was forbidden to forsake his wife was that he might not think her an adulteress. Is it true then, that he was ordered not to have intercourse with his wife? Is it not plain that the warning was given him that he might not be separated from her? And could the just man dare, he says, to think of approaching her, when he heard that the Son of God was in her womb? ** Excellent! We are to believe then that the same man who gave so much credit to a dream that he did not dare to touch his wife, yet afterwards, . . . Helvidius, I say, would have us believe that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders, dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Ghost, the mother of his Lord?**
— From St. Jerome. Against Helvidius , 383 A.D. Section VIII

 

[Mystophilus]

I took it the opposite way. Hence my confusion what he really meant. The way you phrase it would make sense with what he said.

While I understand the cause for suspicion, interfaith/interdenominational discussion is not all polemic.

 

[Cathoholic]

Below is an excerpt from our local men’s Bible study group handout (the “until” in the Greek or the “heos hou” objection will eventually come up for some readers of this).

The Greek “Until” or “Heos Hou” Objection Is Phony (Bullet Points Only)

• Patristic evidence says Matthew’s Gospel was written originally in Hebrew, not Greek (if this is true, then the Greek “heos hou argument” would be irrelevant)
• Greek speaking and writing ancient Church Fathers very naturally affirmed the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (you’d think one of them might have picked up on this supposed “cataclysmic rebuttal” of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity)

The native Greek-speaking St. John Chrysostom uses “heos” and “heos hou” interchangeably as Fr. Tacelli has pointed out (He’s an Only Child-- A bogus Greek argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity is making the rounds. By Ronald K. Tacelli, S.J. Envoy Magazine, May/June, 1997, p.54.)

• No Christians wrote against the Christian men teaching the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (until Helvidius in about 400 A.D. Tertullian was a heretic)
• When Helvidius asserted his denial of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, it brought swift condemnation upon him, and eventual Catholic Church Council statements re-affirming the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to help the faithful to NOT be confused by this theological invention of denying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by Helvidius. But even Helvidius didn’t try to assert the “heos hou” angle of the argument—that’s a new invention.
• Non-Scriptural writings of the same time era used “heos hou” in such a manner where it didn’t necessitate a change in status too (this fact does linguistically support heos hou NOT NECESSITATING a change in status)
• The Old Testament Greek translation of Sacred Scripture, the Septuagint, used heos hou at times in the context of NOT NECESSITATING a change in status.
• The New Testament itself elsewhere specifically uses heos hou in situations NOT NECESSITATING a change in status as well.

Let’s look at some New Testament examples where the *heos hou *theme of the deniers doesn’t make any sense. Here’s an example.

A woman takes leaven (yeast) and puts it in her flour “until” (heos hou is used here) the loaf was all leavened.

MATTHEW 13:33 33 He told them another parable. “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.”

So here we see leaven that this woman takes and she hides this leaven within flour.

She hides the leaven in three measures of flour. Now you know what I am going to ask.

Does the fact that the woman hid the leaven in the flour UNTIL the whole loaf was leavened . . . . . mean she took out the yeast from the bread afterwards? No. Obviously not.

But doesn’t heos hou NECESSITATE a change in status? No!

That’s the point—that heos hou does NOT NECESSITATE a change in status. There may or may not be a change in status of something or someone. But you cannot tell merely from seeing the word “until” used.

Let’s take another example.

You know the parable of the unmerciful servant . . . .

 

[adrift]

While I understand the cause for suspicion, interfaith/interdenominational discussion is not all polemic.

I wasn’t suspicious. I was confused by what you meant. I did not assume what you meant and I did misunderstand. I asked for clarification and was given it. That is part of discussion. I remember having a discussion with a relative that went on for several hours. We than defined our terms and discovered we were arguing for the same point.:whacky: Thanks for your explanation because I wasn’t sure what you meant now I am. I think

 

[Cathoholic]

You know the parable of the unmerciful servant so we won’t recount the whole story here. A man servant owes the King (who represents King Jesus) an enormous sum of money that this servant cannot pay. The servant begs the King to release him. The King releases the servant from his debt that he could not pay.

Then this same servant (of the King) had another guy (we will call him a “lowly servant”) who owed this same unmerciful servant just a pittance or a small sum of money. This lowly servant couldn’t pay even the small amount he owes, and he begs the unmerciful servant (who had HIS OWN debt cancelled recently by the King) to release his debt.

Yet this same (unmerciful) servant refused to forgive a small debt owed to him (by the lowly servant) and had him . . . . imprisoned!

What happened to this unmerciful servant when all of this got back to the King?

Well fortunately the Bible tells us what happened. The King was upset because the unmerciful servant did not forgive the small debt owed to this him by this lowly servant (I use “lowly” only in a financial sense here).

What then happened to this unmerciful servant?

Let’s find out.

MATTHEW 18:32-35 32 Then his lord summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me; 33 and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."

So we see in verse 34, that the King “in anger . . . delivered him to the jailers, till (heos hou) he should pay all his debt.”

Recall this “debt” was an enormous sum he cannot pay. How is he going to pay it back now when he couldn’t before? And how is he going to pay this enormous sum back from “prison”?

Is “prison” here Hell (permanent)?

Is “prison” here Purgatory (temporary)?

Considering that heos hou crowd insists heos hou ALWAYS means a “change in status”, then what would we expect?

If this unmerciful servant has a necessary change in his debt status, he is in prison UNTIL he pays back ALL his debt to the King. The Protestants who are asserting their heos hou objection are unwittingly affirming Purgatory.

OR . . . .

If this unmerciful servant is being condemned to Hell (where he won’t be getting out of “prison” anytime ever), he is in prison UNTIL he pays back ALL his debt to the King which would be NEVER! If they assert this, then it affirms there is NO CHANGE in debt status and these same Protestants are affirming heos hou doesn’t necessitate a change in his status!

Which is it?

• A NECESSARY CHANGE in status stating he gets out of prison (consistent with Purgatory—a doctrine these same Protestant apologists despise) . . . OR . . . .
• No Change in Status (Consistent with the unmerciful servant being consigned to Hell BUT inconsistent with these same Protestant apologists heos hou usage)

The parable of the unmerciful servant has layered meanings which the Fathers unpack, which are beyond the scope of this study to get into here.

But concerning the heos hou issue, the fact is when you see “until” as heos or as heos hou, it doesn’t mean anything by itself with regards to future status.

In 1st Peter 1, St. Peter (almost certainly alluding to the Transfiguration event) says “we” (likely alluding to Peter himself, and James and John who were of course all there on the Mount of Transfiguration and saw Jesus Transfigured) talks in context of “God the Father” and hearing “this voice from heaven” how the word of God (that’s Jesus) was made “more sure” to them.

Then St. Peter tells us to do the same. He tells us to pay attention to God’s voice when he said “pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place.”

Notice we are to pay attention to the voice of God!

1st PETER 1:19b 19b You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

Notice we are to pay attention to the voice of God too UNTIL we receive the grace of the Holy Spirit or “the morning star rises in your hearts”.

Let’s look at the passage closer now that we’ve got the context.

You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, UNTIL (heos hou) the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

Using the same Scripture methods as the denier of the perpetual Virginity of Mary, this would mean we pay attention to the voice of God UNTIL (heos hou) the morning star is risen in our hearts. Then what?

Well if the objector is correct and heos hou NECESSITATES a change in status, then the verse is telling us to listen to the voice of God, then goes on to teach that after we receive the Holy Spirit (remember, now comes the NECESSARY change in status according to these guys because heos hou is in the text) we are to do what . . . ?

. . . . We are to (according to the “logic” of these objectors) STOP listening to the voice of God!!

Admittedly they would not say we are to stop listening to the voice of God (even though that’s exactly what they do when rejecting the Church).

But this is what you would be forced to conclude if you apply their heos hou objection consistently.

That’s what you are stuck with using their heos hou invention if you are going to be consistent in how you unpack Scripture when heos hou is used the way these guys insist upon using it for Matthew 1:24-25.

 

[Mystophilus]

I wasn’t suspicious. I was confused by what you meant. I did not assume what you meant and I did misunderstand. I asked for clarification and was given it. That is part of discussion. I remember having a discussion with a relative that went on for several hours. We than defined our terms and discovered we were arguing for the same point.:whacky: Thanks for your explanation because I wasn’t sure what you meant now I am. I think

All I meant by “suspicion” was your conception that I was arguing with Gorgias: all three of your options presume disputation rather than agreement between us.

 

[MarcoPG]

philvaz.com/apologetics/num27.htm

Gen 8:7 – the raven “did not return TILL the waters were dried up…” Question: Did the raven return? NO!

and sent forth a raven; and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth

Since the raven went back and forth, can we say he really flew away? or that he certainly didn’t return? Ultimately, the dove didn’t return either
So until is not always used as is Matthew. But nevertheless in Matthew it has the meaning that at least to that point in timee she was virgin. It does not mean she was no more after that point.