Matthew 1:25? Mary not a virgin?

[JD27076]

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 1:25[/BIBLEDRB]

This says, Joseph didn’t have relations with Mary, UNTIL they bore a son. Would this mean that Joseph did have relations, but after Mary gave birth to Jesus?

Well, the Catholic Bible, New American Bible, says this: He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

 

[bmullins]

That is a common misconception that occurs when we try to take the bible to the very literal level. You are making an assumption that because of the conditional nature of the idiom, ‘he knew her not until’, that after the until was fulfilled he had to have naturally known her? Let’s take a look at what would happen if we judged the entire bible based on those assumptions:

“Even to old age I am He” Isaiah 46:4

Does this imply that He will cease to be God when they have grown old? Of course not.

“Lo, I am with you always to the close of the age.” Matthew 28:20

Does this mean God is going to abandon us and leave us behind at the end of time?

We cannot assume anything in scripture without solid exegesis. This is not a new question, or even a new attempt to make the tradition that Mary is a perpetual virgin out to be false. In fact, Jerome debated Helvidius on this very same concept in the 4th century.

 

[Hokomai]

But given the fact that a married couple having no sex, ever, is remarkable, would not the author of the gospel have remarked upon it?

 

[bmullins]

But given the fact that a married couple having no sex, ever, is remarkable, would not the author of the gospel have remarked upon it?

It’s remarkable in today’s society, but there were many Jewish sects where the married couples did indeed take vows of celibacy. It would not have been odd at all for Mary to be dedicated to God for her entire life, especially considering the old age of Joseph when they were betrothed. We can’t interpret the bible on today, we have to look at it from then.

As a matter of point, in the gospel of Luke when she is told by Gabriel that she will have a baby she responds “How can this be that I have no husband?” Why would Mary if she was planning on ‘making babies’ after she was married to Joseph have trouble having a child? Especially as a young Jewish girl she would have known the story of Abraham and Sarah who God promised a child. So you are right, the writers of the Gospels did give us answers implicitly.

 

[BB2]

It’s remarkable in today’s society, but there were many Jewish sects where the married couples did indeed take vows of celibacy. It would not have been odd at all for Mary to be dedicated to God for her entire life, especially considering the old age of Joseph when they were betrothed. We can’t interpret the bible on today, we have to look at it from then.

Another important thing to take note of is that even the early Reformers (e.g. Luther) believed that Mary was perpetually virgin. The belief that Mary was not perpetually virgin, in the grand scheme of the history of Christian thought, is a fairly new belief.

 

[Brywan]

Another important thing to take note of is that even the early Reformers (e.g. Luther) believed that Mary was perpetually virgin. The belief that Mary was not perpetually virgin, in the grand scheme of the history of Christian thought, is a fairly new belief.

Exactly. If you have two possible interpretations of a verse, how do you find the correct interpretation? You have to look at how the Holy Spirit has led the Church to understand that verse throughout the ages.

 

[Good_Fella]

But given the fact that a married couple having no sex, ever, is remarkable, would not the author of the gospel have remarked upon it?

Matthew is addressing a Jewish audience. In this passage he is affirming the reality of the Incarnation. In other words, the evangelist is saying that Joseph and Mary had no relations before the birth of Jesus, and so Joseph isn’t his natural father. His concern is strictly with the period of time before our Lord’s birth after Joseph had taken Mary into his home (v.24). Not unlike Matthew, the early Church Fathers defended the Christian belief in the Incarnation in their apologetic works.

*“There is one Physician who his possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 110)

“For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that he was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.”
St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 155)

“We do not act as fools, O Greeks, or utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of man.”
Tatian the Syrian (c.A.D. 175)

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.”
Matthew 1, 22-23*

PAX
:heaven:

 

[minkymurph]

But given the fact that a married couple having no sex, ever, is remarkable, would not the author of the gospel have remarked upon it?

Perhaps, and perhaps not - if the Gospel knew they were not having sex. We cannot assume he did know.

A married couple not having sex ever may seem strange from our view of marriage in the 21st century Western society. Plenty of couples in the past had sexless marriages for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes marriage was like a business contract, or a political arrangement. I don’t think Julius Caesar or Mark Anthony spent much time with their wives; they spent a lot more time with their mistresses. Their wife’s job was to produce an heir and not much else. I she couldn’t produce an heir - husband lost interest and the case of Henry VII - wife looses head.

My grandmother told me that in her day, once you didn’t want any more children your sex life was over.

We don’t know Mary and Joseph were a ‘love match.’ In fact, its more likely it wasn’t as marriages were arranged and young girls were often betrothed as young as 9, and married as soon as they could have children. If the legend of Mary is true, which it might be, that Joseph’s wife had died, he had children from a previous marriage, he was a lot older than Mary, he married Mary to help her family financially because they were very poor, Mary was a temple virgin and married Joseph because in marrying him, she could keep her temple vows as he already had children and was much older than her, not having sex ever isn’t so strange.

 

[philial]

Remember, also, that the term ‘firstborn’ was a legal title in 1st century jewish life, not intending to suggest anything other that the person so discribed had all the legal entitlements consumate with that status. It does not imply any subsequent birth, but stands alone as a title.

 

[philial]

If you go to ’ jewishvirtuallibrary.org ’ you can find an artical detailing privledges / obligations of the firstborn.

 

[iloveangels]

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 1:25[/BIBLEDRB]

This says, Joseph didn’t have relations with Mary, UNTIL they bore a son. Would this mean that Joseph did have relations, but after Mary gave birth to Jesus?

Well, the Catholic Bible, New American Bible, says this: He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

You can’t read the Gospels like a high school biology book or a math book. They’re different kinds of literature. Don’t get carried away.

 

[Zekariya]

And when he had taken her, “he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.” He hath here used the word “till,” not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, “till”? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, “The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.” Gen 8:7. And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, “From age till age Thou art,’ (Psalm 90:2). not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, “In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,” (Psalm 92:7). It doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word “till,” to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord (John 19:27). commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? - St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily V, ed. Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 10

 

[Hokomai]

The other issue about this tradition of Mary being 'ever-virgin" is why it arose at all. The Church holds that sex between married people that is open to life is good. And yet this tradition. even if it is true, appears designed in the repeating to argue that celibacy between married couples if ‘better’ or, as I have seen on CAF, that Joseph would have somehow defiled Mary by having sex with her. And then, of course, there is the never-mentioned aspect of Catholic teaching that Mary was in fact ‘physically a virgin’ after the birth of Jesus, which implies some sort of physical status to virginity that I for one cannot fathom.

 

[bmullins]

The other issue about this tradition of Mary being 'ever-virgin" is why it arose at all. The Church holds that sex between married people that is open to life is good. And yet this tradition. even if it is true, appears designed in the repeating to argue that celibacy between married couples if ‘better’ or, as I have seen on CAF, that Joseph would have somehow defiled Mary by having sex with her. And then, of course, there is the never-mentioned aspect of Catholic teaching that Mary was in fact ‘physically a virgin’ after the birth of Jesus, which implies some sort of physical status to virginity that I for one cannot fathom.

You are considering Mary to be just another woman though. Think of her in our terms when trying to understand why we believe as we do. The Ark of the Covenant was so Holy once the Spirit of God overshadowed it, that men were not allowed to touch it. They had to use poles to carry it and cover it with a veil when it was in public. To even touch it meant certain death. It became Holy not because of what it was, but because of what it contained. Mary contained the same things, but the living ones. Where as the ark contained the word of God written on stone, Mary contained the Living Word of God.

This made Mary Holy as well, in a way that we have difficulty understanding. Needless to say if men were not allowed to touch the Ark of the Covenant of Moses, why do we think Joseph would have been allowed to touch Mary in an intimate way?

Secondly, your assumptions are that Jesus was just another kid. That is why you cannot fathom how his birth could be different than anyone else. Until you think of Jesus as both God and Man, none of it is going to make sense.

 

[JD27076]

You are considering Mary to be just another woman though. Think of her in our terms when trying to understand why we believe as we do. The Ark of the Covenant was so Holy once the Spirit of God overshadowed it, that men were not allowed to touch it. They had to use poles to carry it and cover it with a veil when it was in public. To even touch it meant certain death. It became Holy not because of what it was, but because of what it contained. Mary contained the same things, but the living ones. Where as the ark contained the word of God written on stone, Mary contained the Living Word of God.

This made Mary Holy as well, in a way that we have difficulty understanding. Needless to say if men were not allowed to touch the Ark of the Covenant of Moses, why do we think Joseph would have been allowed to touch Mary in an intimate way?

Secondly, your assumptions are that Jesus was just another kid. That is why you cannot fathom how his birth could be different than anyone else. Until you think of Jesus as both God and Man, none of it is going to make sense.

That is a REALLY good explanation you got there. I would love to share it.

 

[Hokomai]

You are considering Mary to be just another woman though. Think of her in our terms when trying to understand why we believe as we do. The Ark of the Covenant was so Holy once the Spirit of God overshadowed it, that men were not allowed to touch it. They had to use poles to carry it and cover it with a veil when it was in public. To even touch it meant certain death. It became Holy not because of what it was, but because of what it contained. Mary contained the same things, but the living ones. Where as the ark contained the word of God written on stone, Mary contained the Living Word of God.

This made Mary Holy as well, in a way that we have difficulty understanding. Needless to say if men were not allowed to touch the Ark of the Covenant of Moses, why do we think Joseph would have been allowed to touch Mary in an intimate way?

Secondly, your assumptions are that Jesus was just another kid. That is why you cannot fathom how his birth could be different than anyone else. Until you think of Jesus as both God and Man, none of it is going to make sense.

This implies that there is something unholy in particular about sex. I know of no tradition that Mary was not touched physically in other ways, or indeed that during her life there was any parallel drawn with the Ark of the Covenant. Why exactly does doing something good with Mary have anything to do with her holiness?

 

[bmullins]

This implies that there is something unholy in particular about sex. I know of no tradition that Mary was not touched physically in other ways, or indeed that during her life there was any parallel drawn with the Ark of the Covenant. Why exactly does doing something good with Mary have anything to do with her holiness?

It doesn’t imply that sex is unholy, but that mankind is not worthy to touch the ark that contains God’s Word. As to if there are parallels to the Ark in the New Testament? There literally dozens. Here are some verses for you to go study to see that not only are there parallels but that the New Testament writers would not have been ignorant of them, but completely aware of what they were writing. Here are just a few of the verses to show you that:

Exodus 40:34-35 and Luke 1:35, Dueteronomy 10:3-35, Hebrews 9:4 and Luke 1:35, 2 Samuel 6:1-11 and Luke 1:39, 2 Samuel 6:14 and Luke 1:43, 2 Samuel 6:15 and Luke 1:42, 2 Samuel 6:9 and Luke 1:43, 2 Samuel 6:11 and Luke 1:56, 2 Samuel 6:11 and Luke 1:39-45 (Notice specifically the word blessed and how many times it is used.), 2 Samuel 6:12; 1 Kings 8:9-11 and Luke 1:56; 2:21-22, Numbers 17:8 and Hebrews 4:14, Numbers 4:4-6 and the depiction of Mary, Revelation 11:19 and Revelation 12:1

@JD27076 - Anything I write on here you can feel free to share with anyone else, just remember that if I in anyway contradict church teaching I am the one in the wrong. I try to research things thoroughly though before I talk about them.

 

[Hokomai]

It doesn’t imply that sex is unholy, but that mankind is not worthy to touch the ark that contains God’s Word. As to if there are parallels to the Ark in the New Testament? There literally dozens. Here are some verses for you to go study to see that not only are there parallels but that the New Testament writers would not have been ignorant of them, but completely aware of what they were writing. Here are just a few of the verses to show you that:

Exodus 40:34-35 and Luke 1:35, Dueteronomy 10:3-35, Hebrews 9:4 and Luke 1:35, 2 Samuel 6:1-11 and Luke 1:39, 2 Samuel 6:14 and Luke 1:43, 2 Samuel 6:15 and Luke 1:42, 2 Samuel 6:9 and Luke 1:43, 2 Samuel 6:11 and Luke 1:56, 2 Samuel 6:11 and Luke 1:39-45 (Notice specifically the word blessed and how many times it is used.), 2 Samuel 6:12; 1 Kings 8:9-11 and Luke 1:56; 2:21-22, Numbers 17:8 and Hebrews 4:14, Numbers 4:4-6 and the depiction of Mary, Revelation 11:19 and Revelation 12:1

@JD27076 - Anything I write on here you can feel free to share with anyone else, just remember that if I in anyway contradict church teaching I am the one in the wrong. I try to research things thoroughly though before I talk about them.

I seem to recall that Jesus touched and was touched frequently. If people are not worthy to touch Mary, who ‘contained’ him. how is it that they are worthy to touch Him Himself? I also cannot see that any of the references you have provided show that Mary was regarded during her lifetime as the Ark of the Covenant, let alone that there was a tradition that she could not be touched in any way.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s perplexing that sometimes we are supposed to take the words literally, and sometimes we are not. And the rules of when to do which have changed along the way.

Why is this perplexing to you, DG? Do you not experience this each and every day of your life in your own conversations? Sometimes you speak literally? Sometimes you speak metaphorically, yes? Sometimes you’re poetic?

Not sure why you find this puzzling.

If you’re not sure when the Scriptures are being literal and when they are poetic or metaphorical or hyperbole or symbolic, we have been given an authority to tell us how we should interpret the Scriptures.

 

[PRmerger]

But given the fact that a married couple having no sex, ever, is remarkable, would not the author of the gospel have remarked upon it?

Why must we assume this as Catholics? Perhaps if you were speaking to a fundamentalist or evangelical Christian forum this would be a question which gives one pause…

However, as I am certain you know, we as Catholics do not believe that everything we must believe was contained in the written Word.