Matthew 1:25 Mary's perpetual virginity question?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EvangelistVictor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EvangelistVictor

Guest
During my morning bible reading I started the book of St. Matthew’s today. At the end of chapter 1, I read this verse that Joseph didn’t have marital relations with Mary until after Jesus was born. How do we defend Mary’s perpetual virginity from this verse?

St. Matthew 1:
24 When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, 25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son;[j] and he named him Jesus.

Trying to defend the Catholic view on Mary. I need weapons I can use to defend our position. The enemy satan is out to destroy our blessed Mother by all means possible.
 
Last edited:
This is a common questoin stemming from a misunderstanding about the use of the word “until.”

Until does not imply that the contrary event takes place after the conditions are met.

A perfect example of this is Matthew 28: 20 (extra verses for context)
18
Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
Click to expand...
I think we can all agree that Jesus isn’t going to stop being with us at the end of time, what with Him being eternal and all ^^

While this usage isn’t that common in the way we speak today, we have to recognize that the Bible wasn’t written in modern English, and that stylistic conventions and word usage of the time may vary from our modern understanding.

I hope this helps clear up the issue.
 
Thats true, but Protestants can’t easily swallow that explanation. Any other verses we can used to defend Mary’s lifelong virginity besides our tradition?
 
You have not encountered this before? Or are you simply being provocative? 😉

Q: What is the very purpose of that sentence?
A: To reveal that Christ was born of a virgin, in fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. (7:14)

Q: Which of the reformers questioned Mary’s perpetual virginity?
A: Not a single one.

Q: What did Jean Cauvin (Calvin) have to say about Mary having “other children”
A: Those who postulate such simply love to dispute.

Q: Who hates Mary, is at enmity with her, yet is prevented from toughing her, so incites non-Catholics to attack her?
A: Hint - we live in his princedom.
John 13:1
Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.
Click to expand...
Scriptural proof that Jesus no longer loves His own.

Or is it?
 
Last edited:
I was reading that verse this morning and it caught my attention, thats all. Hope we all read the bible everyday.
 
Last edited:
Q: Have you only recently entered apologetics?

This is a problem only when the verse is isolated, and generally only in European langiages. We cannot do that, as the scriptures, as with our Lord’s vestment, are a seamless garment.

Rather, let us see how Monsignor Ronald A. Knox dealt with it in his magnum opus, the Knox Bible.
Matthew 1:25 …and he had not known her when she bore a son, her first-born, to whom he gave the name Jesus.
Click to expand...
To show the fulfillment or prophecy in the miraculous virgin birth. We have heard of the concept our entire lives - but no one had back then.
 
Last edited:
One of these days I’m going to make up a list of the times in the Bible where it is mentioned that So-and-so didn’t do X until Y had occurred, and it would have been impossible for him/her to do X after Y had occurred. The list is humongous. One example is 2 Samuel 6:23, after Michal, Saul’s daughter and one of David’s wives, had criticized him for dancing before the Lord: “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.”

D
 
That is because English isn’t Greek. Isn’t it interesting the Greek Orthodox Church also says she didn’t have marital relations with Joseph.

What an interesting family with a sibling who is God. What an interesting family line being related to Jesus. Could you imagine the decendants wanting to run Christianity? Can you imagine in the time when the church was persecuted relatives being hunted down to be terminate? God has a little more sense.
 
Yes, just trying to defend the Catholic view on Mary. I need weapons I can use to defend our position. The enemy satan is out to destroy our blessed Mother by all means possible.
 
EvangelistVictor said:
How do we defend Mary’s perpetual virginity from this verse?
Click to expand...
There is no need to defend Mary’s perpetual virginity from this verse. The entire context of Matthew 1 is the birth of Jesus being from a Virgin. Nothing else is being revealed here from this Chapter. In verse one St. Matthew out right tells everyone this book is about Jesus Birth.

Verses 1 through 17 gives us the genealogy.
Verse 18 through 25 speaks to Mary’s virginity and the fact that Mary was pregnant before they came together.

That’s it nothing else in there. Think about it why would St. Matthew spend 24 verses defending the Virgin birth of our Lord and then all of the sudden say by the way they had sex AFTER Jesus’ birth?

Like already stated the word until, through out the Bible, does not always signify a change occurs after the event in question.

Basically, what I am getting at is ask the person why they believe St. Matthew is trying to make a point in verse 25 that has nothing to do with the rest of the chapter.

Hope this helps,

God Bless
 
Thanks. Please pray for me that I can defend all our Catholic faith.

Peter 3:15 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
15 but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you;
 
Interesting that this has nothing - zip, zero, nada, to do with anyone’s salvation, but is raised solely to oppose Christ’s Church. The evil one wins through the vicarious attack on Mary, and the division in the Body of Christ.

By so-called “Christians.”

Those who interpret for themselves risk being ‘Buy-Bull’ Christians.
 
EvangelistVictor said:
Thanks. Please pray for me that I can defend all our Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
Definitely.

Two things to always keep in mind when speaking with those opposed to our Catholic faith. Number one and most important. You don’t need to have an answer for them on the spot. There is absolutely nothing wrong saying to someone…

That is a very good question. I don’t know the answer right now off the top of my head, but I am confident there is a good answer. Let me get back to you on that. When would you like to talk again?

Just be confident in the Catholic Church that there is an answer.

Number two, always keep in mind that we don’t read the Bible like some do, as if it is an all inclusive self help book. A good analogy for the Bible is it is Jesus Love letter to His bride the Church. Well could you imagine reading a love letter without having any personal knowledge of the Bridegroom or the Bride? Quite often you wouldn’t have a clue what they were talking about.

This is why it is also important to understand the context of the time and of the Jewish customs. Such as…
From the Jewish encyclopedia

After betrothal the parties were regarded as man and wife; and the act could be dissolved only by death or by a formal bill of divorce. If the woman proved unfaithful during the period of betrothal she was treated as an adulteress, and her punishment (that of stoning; Deut. xxii. 23, 24; Sanh. 66b) was considered to be much more severe than that (strangulation) inflicted upon the unfaithful married woman (Deut. xxii. 22; Sanh. 52b). The parties were not, however, entitled to conjugal rights, nor were they bound by the obligations of married life.
Click to expand...
Mary became pregnant by another (the Holy Spirit) during her betrothal to Joseph. Joseph wanted to divorce her quietly, I believe because he was hoping that the father would take her in and she wouldn’t be treated as an adulteress. Once he was told she became pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit. He took her in as his wife, but Joseph was a righteous man he wouldn’t have gone against the Jewish law, I quoted, by having relations with her. By this act Joseph would have made Jesus the son of an adulteress.

We can see this in 2 Samual 16 where Ahith′ophel tells Ab′salom to sleep with his father’s concubines. If we keep reading 4 chapters later it says
20:3 And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten concubines whom he had left to care for the house, and put them in a house under guard, and provided for them, but did not go in to them. So they were shut up until the day of their death, living as if in widowhood.
Click to expand...
If you read the 4 chapters at once this verse leaves you scratching your head wondering why the heck is this even important. Well thanks to the Catholic Church, now we know.

Hope this helps,

God Bless
 
Remember also that you can argue with intellect, but not with ego. And bible Christianity is fairly well ego-driven.
 
I think I read in the Glories of Mary that Our Lord revealed to Saint Gertrude that Jesus was Mary’s firstborn according to the flesh, but all of mankind was second-born according to the spirit.
 
Last edited:
God bless you for defending the Catholic Faith and Our Blessed Mother!
 
SebastianMary said:
God bless you for defending the Catholic Faith and Our Blessed Mother!
Click to expand...
Thanks. I just want to be able to understand why we believe, what we believe, and then able to share that knowledge with anybody that asked about the hope that is in me.

This past Sunday, at the homily, our Priest asked us to share the good news of Jesus to at least one person. I reached out to two people, but only my cousin responded.
 
I think the primary scriptural evidence that Mary remained a virgin is her response when Gabriel told her she was going to have a child.

A woman planning on having normal relations would have assumed she would get pregnant when she and Joseph moved in together.

The other strong arguments are the old testament typology. I find the other NT points valid but individually weak.

Until does not mean they had relations after Jesus was born, but I tend to agree that in common usage it would be implied that they did unless used in relation to an impossible event or an act that would be impossible after the event. I agree however that Matthew was focusing on establishing that Jesus was born of a virgin and not making any claims about Mary and Joseph’s marriage after the birth of Christ.

Jesus would have given Mary to one of his brothers if they were her sons. It is a good point but Jesus would have broken tradition if he felt it necessary so I don’t think it’s a very strong argument.

Brothers does not mean of the same mother. Since I find the Jesus had brothers argument the best one against Mary’s perpetual virginity it’s interesting that this is easily refuted. Brothers was used for non biological brothers much more commonly in the past. I think that the point that they were children of Joseph or cousins has a lot of merit.

In short I accept that the points brought up against Mary’s perpetual virginity are good ones but on balance I think the evidence is in favor of Mary remaining a virgin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top