Matthew 1 25

[eamonnroma]

I recently read that this text indicates that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Christ.

Some texts read (such as the RSV and NRSV) ‘that he (Joseph) did not know Mary until she bore him a son and called his name Jesus’.

This would seem to leave open the possibility that Mary could have had relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus.

Other texts (such as the New Jerusalem Bible) ‘he had not had intercourse with her when she gave birth to a son, and he named him Jesus’.

The Vatican website, www.bibliaclerus.org has ‘but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus’.

The original Greek text seems to say that he did not know Mary until she had borne him a son.

The Italian CEI bible, the one currently approved by the Italian Church says ‘senza che egli la conoscesse, ella diede alla luce un figlio ed egli lo chiamò Gesù’. This translates as ‘he had not known her and she brought forth a son, e he called him Jesus’.

There seems to be quite a difference in meaning in different translations. One leaving open the possibility of Mary’s having relations after the birth of Christ and the other interpretation not mentioning it.

I think here that Matthew is trying to assert the virgin birth. But the original text seems to leave open the possibility of Mary having other children.

Can anyone help me here?

 

[thistle]

I recently read that this text indicates that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Christ.

Some texts read (such as the RSV and NRSV) ‘that he (Joseph) did not know Mary until she bore him a son and called his name Jesus’.

This would seem to leave open the possibility that Mary could have had relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus.

Other texts (such as the New Jerusalem Bible) ‘he had not had intercourse with her when she gave birth to a son, and he named him Jesus’.

The Vatican website, www.bibliaclerus.org has ‘but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus’.

The original Greek text seems to say that he did not know Mary until she had borne him a son.

The Italian CEI bible, the one currently approved by the Italian Church says ‘senza che egli la conoscesse, ella diede alla luce un figlio ed egli lo chiamò Gesù’. This translates as ‘he had not known her and she brought forth a son, e he called him Jesus’.

There seems to be quite a difference in meaning in different translations. One leaving open the possibility of Mary’s having relations after the birth of Christ and the other interpretation not mentioning it.

I think here that Matthew is trying to assert the virgin birth. But the original text seems to leave open the possibility of Mary having other children.

Can anyone help me here?

The original texts do not leave it open, in my opinion.

If I say I won’t smoke a cigarette until the day I die are you suggesting that using the word “until” means I will smoke after I’m dead.

 

[dmar198]

I recently read that this text indicates that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Christ.

Some texts read (such as the RSV and NRSV) ‘that he (Joseph) did not know Mary until she bore him a son and called his name Jesus’.

This would seem to leave open the possibility that Mary could have had relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus.

Other texts (such as the New Jerusalem Bible) ‘he had not had intercourse with her when she gave birth to a son, and he named him Jesus’.

The Vatican website, www.bibliaclerus.org has ‘but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus’.

The original Greek text seems to say that he did not know Mary until she had borne him a son.

The Italian CEI bible, the one currently approved by the Italian Church says ‘senza che egli la conoscesse, ella diede alla luce un figlio ed egli lo chiamò Gesù’. This translates as ‘he had not known her and she brought forth a son, e he called him Jesus’.

There seems to be quite a difference in meaning in different translations. One leaving open the possibility of Mary’s having relations after the birth of Christ and the other interpretation not mentioning it.

I think here that Matthew is trying to assert the virgin birth. But the original text seems to leave open the possibility of Mary having other children.

Can anyone help me here?

It is my understanding that the Greek text uses the phrase “he had no relations with her until she gave birth,” but does not suggest that he had relations with her after she gave birth. There are other passages that reflect this usage – “I will with you always, until the end of the world.” Matthew 28:20 This doesn’t mean He will depart after the end of the world. “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.” 2 Samuel 6:23 This does not mean she had a child after the day of her death.

Mary had no relations until the day she gave birth to Jesus, and she also had no relations after that. Perhaps this passage doesn’t teach the latter half of that sentence, but it doesn’t deny it either, and other passages, as well as the historical record, clarify that Jesus was Mary’s only child.

 

[TimothyH]

It is not possible for Mary to have had other children after Jesus.

Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit. To have had relations with another makes her an adulterer and makes Jesus the son of an adulterer.

It is not possible for Jesus to be the Son of God and the son of an adulterer.

-Tim-

 

[thetazlord]

I recently read that this text indicates that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Christ.

Some texts read (such as the RSV and NRSV) ‘that he (Joseph) did not know Mary until she bore him a son and called his name Jesus’.

This would seem to leave open the possibility that Mary could have had relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus.

Other texts (such as the New Jerusalem Bible) ‘he had not had intercourse with her when she gave birth to a son, and he named him Jesus’.

The Vatican website, www.bibliaclerus.org has ‘but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus’.

The original Greek text seems to say that he did not know Mary until she had borne him a son.

The Italian CEI bible, the one currently approved by the Italian Church says ‘senza che egli la conoscesse, ella diede alla luce un figlio ed egli lo chiamò Gesù’. This translates as ‘he had not known her and she brought forth a son, e he called him Jesus’.

There seems to be quite a difference in meaning in different translations. One leaving open the possibility of Mary’s having relations after the birth of Christ and the other interpretation not mentioning it.

I think here that Matthew is trying to assert the virgin birth. But the original text seems to leave open the possibility of Mary having other children.

Can anyone help me here?

Two dozen times Matthew uses the Greek word for “until” (heos) in his Gospel to mean that once an event ends, so does the activity. In fact 100% of the time in his Gospel he uses it this way. So, to believe that Matthew is using it in 1:25 to refer to Mary’s virginity to continue after the birth of Jesus is arguing by exception. Plus, this belief is forced into the text, which if it were true, Matthew wouldn’t have needed to add “until she gave birth to a son.” All Matthew would have had to say is “Joseph kept her [Mary a virgin]”…period. Also, in the OT, when Isaiah prophecies about the mother of the future Messiah, he explicitly states in 7:14 that she would be a virgin DURING her pregnancy & AT His birth. But Isaiah says nothing about the future mother of the Messiah “remaining” a virgin after His birth. This is why Matthew writes “until she gave birth to a son” which implies completion of the event & activity of being a virgin. Plus, there is no command from God (or an angel or anyone else) in Scripture for the mother of the Messiah to “remain” a virgin her entire life. And with no command from God or anyone else for her to “remain” a virgin, there would be no reason for Mary to refrain from having sexual relations with her husband Joseph (which is what Scripture calls him), nor violate God’s command to married couples to “be fruitful & multiply” (Genesis Ch.1). So, when Mary tells Gabriel “I know not man,” all she’s declaring is that she’s a virgin, because she has not had sexual relations with a man…up to that point, since she was in the non-sexual period of betrothal to Joseph that lasted a year. “Know not man” is in the Present Indicative Active form, just as when John the Baptist “saw Jesus coming.” John didn’t “perpetually” “see” Jesus - meaning John didn’t continually keep his eyes on Jesus forever, since John was placed in prison out of sight of Jesus. Also, using 2 Samuel 6:23 to use “until” to mean an ongoing action (or inaction) doesn’t work, because 2 Samuel was originally written in Hebrew. Matthew was written in Greek, & only the original language Scripture was written in are Inspired, not the translations, because translations can be translated differently, even in English translated Catholic & Protestant Bibles.

Hope this helps.

 

[Mystophilus]

Two dozen times Matthew uses the Greek word for “until” (heos) in his Gospel to mean that once an event ends, so does the activity.

Really?

Do you think the Star of Bethlehem ceased to shine, or fell out of the sky after it came to rest “over the place where the child was”?

After their audience with the king they set out. And behold, the star that they had seen at its rising preceded them, until it came and stopped over the place where the child was.–Matthew 2:9

Can you provide evidence that this star fell out of the sky afterward?

Two dozen times Matthew uses the Greek word for “until” (heos) in his Gospel to mean that once an event ends, so does the activity. In fact 100% of the time in his Gospel he uses it this way.

Do you believe that the Lord stops being seated at the right hand of the Father?

You must believe it, according to your paradigm, if “until” means 'once an event ends, so does the activity".

‘The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies under your feet”’?–Matt 22:44

Once God has placed his enemies under his feet, Jesus ceases to sit at the right hand?

Is that your position?

thetazlord:

The same thing with Jesus at God (the Father’s right hand). When Stephen saw Jesus “at the right hand of God,” Jesus was there because He had already ascended to Heaven, which He hadn’t done when He was walking on the earth during His ministry. Likewise, when Jesus returns to earth, He will no longer be in Heaven, but ruling & reigning on earth.

This fails to address the passage which P R Merger quoted, “Mat 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool”. Sitting at the right hand of God was a metaphor for a position of great honour (cf Mt 20:21-3). Nothing in Scripture implies that Jesus will lose his position of honour at any time.

So, again, your argument is strawman, which again has been explained to you, which again, you are demonstrating you are not learning.

Not being convinced is different to not learning, and aggression is different to civility.

 

[Mystophilus]

Two dozen times Matthew uses the Greek word for “until” (heos) in his Gospel to mean that once an event ends, so does the activity. In fact 100% of the time in his Gospel he uses it this way.

No.

Mat 26:36 “Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while 'εως] I go and pray yonder.”

The time in which Jesus wants to them to remain does not terminate at the point of his going.

Mat 27:8 “Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto 'εως] this day.”

The naming of the field does not change.

See also P R Merger’s comment about Mt 22:44.

So, to believe that Matthew is using it in 1:25 to refer to Mary’s virginity to continue after the birth of Jesus

The linguistic issue is not that 'εως means that Mary did not have sex later, but that it does not mean that she did have sex. It is singularly unaffirmative.

Also, in the OT, when Isaiah prophecies about the mother of the future Messiah, he explicitly states in 7:14 that she would be a virgin DURING her pregnancy & AT His birth. But Isaiah says nothing about the future mother of the Messiah “remaining” a virgin after His birth.

True, but irrelevant. The argument from silence, that she did not remain a virgin because he does not say that she remained a virgin, would be illogical.

with no command from God or anyone else for her to “remain” a virgin, there would be no reason for Mary to refrain from having sexual relations with her husband Joseph (which is what Scripture calls him)

Apart from a/ the enormous age gap which the nearest historical source, The Protoevangelium of James, describes (Joseph, as an old man, views her a child, which makes the idea of his being attracted to her just plain creepy), b/ his advanced age and the fact that he disappears entirely from the narrative after Jesus’ boyhood visit to the Tempe, c/ the considerable hesitancy most people would have about engaging in such relations with someone who was apparently the Bride of God, and d/ the fact that there is no record of the fruit of any such alleged union.

 

[Mystophilus]

It is my understanding that the Greek text uses the phrase “he had no relations with her until she gave birth,” but does not suggest that he had relations with her after she gave birth. There are other passages that reflect this usage – “I will with you always, until the end of the world.” Matthew 28:20 This doesn’t mean He will depart after the end of the world. “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.” 2 Samuel 6:23 This does not mean she had a child after the day of her death.

Mary had no relations until the day she gave birth to Jesus, and she also had no relations after that. Perhaps this passage doesn’t teach the latter half of that sentence, but it doesn’t deny it either, and other passages, as well as the historical record, clarify that Jesus was Mary’s only child.

What he said.

 

[thetazlord]

Really?

Do you think the Star of Bethlehem ceased to shine, or fell out of the sky after it came to rest “over the place where the child was”?

After their audience with the king they set out. And behold, the star that they had seen at its rising preceded them, until it came and stopped over the place where the child was.–Matthew 2:9

Can you provide evidence that this star fell out of the sky afterward?

These arguments of yours have discussed with you already, which demonstrates you are not learning. The passage of Matthew 2:9 declares:

“After hearing the king, they went their way; and the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over the place where the Child was.”

It doesn’t say it “ceased to shine” or “fell out of the sky.” I simply stopped to “went on before them,” & “stood over” where Christ was. Your argument is strawman, because although you quoted the verse, your question was irrelevant to the actual verse.

The same thing with Jesus at God (the Father’s right hand). When Stephen saw Jesus “at the right hand of God,” Jesus was there because He had already ascended to Heaven, which He hadn’t done when He was walking on the earth during His ministry. Likewise, when Jesus returns to earth, He will no longer be in Heaven, but ruling & reigning on earth. So, again, your argument is strawman, which again has been explained to you, which again, you are demonstrating you are not learning.

 

[thetazlord]

No.

Mat 26:36 “Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while 'εως] I go and pray yonder.”

The time in which Jesus wants to them to remain does not terminate at the point of his going.

Yes, it does. First, Matthew translates “heos” as “while,” not “until.” Second, all Jesus is saying to remain there “while (until)” He finishes praying. Immediately after Jesus finishes praying, Jesus was arrested. Peter, James, & John didn’t “remain” at Gesthemene. Peter & John followed Jesus at a distance, while James hid in a locked room with the other disciples. So, their action DID cease, otherwise, they would have “remained” in Gethesmane “perpetually.”

Mat 27:8 “Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto 'εως] this day.”

The naming of the field does not change.

“Day” in Greek, just as in Hebrew, has numerous different meaning. In context, the “day” Peter is referring to is his time period. There is no record in the rest of the NT that it “perpetually” continued to be called “The Field of Blood.”

See also P R Merger’s comment about Mt 22:44.

I addressed her already. (Edited) Her argument is strawman.

The linguistic issue is not that 'εως means that Mary did not have sex later, but that it does not mean that she did have sex. It is singularly unaffirmative.

True, but irrelevant. The argument from silence, that she did not remain a virgin because he does not say that she remained a virgin, would be illogical.

It’s completely relevant, because without a specific command from God or anyone else in the Bible that the mother of the Messiah need to “remain” a virgin after the birth of Jesus, you have “force” Mary “remaining” a virgin her entire life, which is not supported from the text, let alone the rest of Scripture. You also have to make Mary disobeying God’s command to married couples to “be fruitful and multiply,” which is what Joseph & Mary did.

Apart from a/ the enormous age gap which the nearest historical source, The Protoevangelium of James, describes (Joseph, as an old man, views her a child, which makes the idea of his being attracted to her just plain creepy), b/ his advanced age and the fact that he disappears entirely from the narrative after Jesus’ boyhood visit to the Tempe, c/ the considerable hesitancy most people would have about engaging in such relations with someone who was apparently the Bride of God, and d/ the fact that there is no record of the fruit of any such alleged union.

Yeah, by about 150 years after the actual events, & the “author” is attributed to James the Just - even though he was long DEAD! Plus, there is ZERO evidence in Scripture that Joseph was “an old man.” That too is ONLY found in Proto-James, not Scripture. The fact that Joseph doesn’t appear in Bible after Jesus is 12 years old, which means he was most likely dead by Jesus’ ministry doesn’t “imply” he was “an old man.” Generally, “old” in Jesus’ day isn’t what “old” is in the 21st Century. It was no unusual for people back then to die in their 50’s due to disease & other ailments. Sorry, but this “enormous age gap which the nearest historical source” IS the source that Mary remained a “perpetual” virgin, not Scripture. The “Mary & Joseph” of Proto-James is not the exact same Mary & Joseph of Scripture. They are similar, but not the exact same.

 

[thetazlord]

Mystophilus:

This fails to address the passage which P R Merger quoted, “Mat 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool”. Sitting at the right hand of God was a metaphor for a position of great honour (cf Mt 20:21-3). Nothing in Scripture implies that Jesus will lose his position of honour at any time.

I addressed ALL of her quotes:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12780123&postcount=10

 

[Mystophilus]

I addressed ALL of her quotes

But not the point made by the second one. There is no Scriptural implication of the cessation of that state of Jesus being at God’s right hand.

 

[Mystophilus]

“Day” in Greek, just as in Hebrew, has numerous different meaning. In context, the “day” Peter is referring to is his time period. There is no record in the rest of the NT that it “perpetually” continued to be called “The Field of Blood.”

The issue of perpetuity is irrelevant. The claim which you made about 'εως is that Matthew always uses it to indicate a state which changes. He does indicate that the name changes. Therefore, he does not always use it to indicate a state which changes.

I addressed it with her on another post (Edited) .

I would suggest that “not being convinced” is a far more accurate description, and not only for P R Merger.

It’s completely relevant, because without a specific command from God or anyone else in the Bible that the mother of the Messiah need to “remain” a virgin after the birth of Jesus, you have “force” Mary “remaining” a virgin her entire life

Actually, no, we don’t. All that we need to do is read the text and consider what it says. It never says that she had sex.

You also have to make Mary disobeying God’s command to married couples to “be fruitful and multiply,”

It does not say, “multiply until you run out of money to feed your children”. She did already have a child. He apparently already had a few. The requirements of that commandment had thus been met.

Yeah, by about 150 years after the actual events

Which is not a considerable length of time for events that long ago. The earliest complete Bible shows up 300 years after the events which it describes.

The Protoevangelium remains the nearest historical source to the events which it describes.

 

[dmar198]

[150 years] is not a considerable length of time for events that long ago. The earliest complete Bible shows up 300 years after the events which it describes.

The Protoevangelium remains the nearest historical source to the events which it describes.

I believe there is at least one earlier source, St. Papias the hearer of the Apostle John, and he also indicates that Mary had no children besides Jesus. His book “Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord” was written between 95 A.D. and 120 A.D. and it is particularly interesting because he heard directly from Mary’s caretaker. In Fragment 10 he identifies the “brothers of the Lord” as sons of one of Mary’s sisters.

“James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt of the Lord’s. Mary, mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason.” (Fragment 10) source

John’s Gospel may or may not be earlier than Papias’ Exposition, but if it is earlier, I would also count it as an earlier witness to this tradition, since there appeared to have been no siblings available to take care of Mary when Jesus gave her to John from the Cross.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

“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.’ And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,’ 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,’ 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.”
St. John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew (A.D. 320)

It should be pointed out that St Chrysostom was a native Greek speaker.

 

[JMM1957]

The word “until” has no other meaning than to emphasize Mary’s virginity right up till the time she gave birth to Jesus. That was to prove by scripture that Joseph had nothing to do with Jesus conception, just in case there were any doubters. There is no scriptural evidence that Mary had other children after Jesus. The passages that refer to his brothers and sisters cannot be shown by any other scripture to prove that they were from Mary. Some people also claim that any other children in Mary and Joseph’s house were children of Joseph’s from a previous marriage, that is total speculation. In my opinion, the scene at the cross carries the most weight in showing Mary had no other children. She was given to John the Apostle for him to take her into his home, which the scripture say’s he did so from that hour. If Mary had other children, one of them would have taken her into their home, whether sons or daughters. Doesn’t matter if none of them were believers yet, which some people claim was the reason Mary didn’t go with them instead of John. Jesus didn’t tell John to take her into his home, he said “behold your mother”, and John understood what Jesus meant for him to do and he did it immediately. Scripture says to “honor your father and mother”, so being good Jewish children, one of them surely would have taken their own mother into their home. The Catholic church has always taught Mary’s perpetual virginity because they understand the truth of the matter. The churches who teach otherwise have an agenda, as they do in other disagreements with the Catholic church.

 

[JMM1957]

Plus, this belief is forced into the text, which if it were true, Matthew wouldn’t have needed to add “until she gave birth to a son.” All Matthew would have had to say is “Joseph kept her [Mary a virgin]”…period.

That’s exactly what Matthew was saying when he said “until she gave birth to a son”, Joseph kept Mary a virgin. I find it amazing how some people are so bold to have no problem telling God that his words were’nt sufficient to get His point across, and that instead God should have used their own words which clarify things much better.

 

[JMM1957]

Also, in the OT, when Isaiah prophecies about the mother of the future Messiah, he explicitly states in 7:14 that she would be a virgin DURING her pregnancy & AT His birth. But Isaiah says nothing about the future mother of the Messiah “remaining” a virgin after His birth. This is why Matthew writes “until she gave birth to a son” which implies completion of the event & activity of being a virgin.

You’re doing it again. This amounts to nothing but your own opinion that Mary had normal sexual relations after the birth of Jesus. Both those texts do not require that Mary had relations after Jesus birth. The point trying to be made is that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, the Bible prophesied the Messiah would be born of a virgin, period. If you use scripture to try to prove beyond a doubt that Mary did not remain a virgin the rest of her life, you will have a very difficult time doing it. This is why the Catholic church has the fullness of truth, handed down by Apostolic succession and guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit. I know you don’t want to hear that.

 

[Mystophilus]

I believe there is at least one earlier source, St. Papias the hearer of the Apostle John, and he also indicates that Mary had no children besides Jesus. His book “Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord” was written between 95 A.D. and 120 A.D. and it is particularly interesting because he heard directly from Mary’s caretaker. In Fragment 10 he identifies the “brothers of the Lord” as sons of one of Mary’s sisters.

There seems to be some considerable doubt as to whether that fragment truly comes from Papias of Hierapolis. It does not appear in Irenaeus or Eusebius, first coming to light in a single, apparently mediaeval manuscript (see note 1764 here).

 

[Mystophilus]

It should be pointed out that St Chrysostom was a native Greek speaker.

I have used precisely that argument a few times when talking with SS Protestants about this, but, for some reason, they are quite unmoved by it. Apparently, their belief that the Church Fathers were ‘corrupted’ by Tradition overrules their consideration of the difference between native-speaker and second-language-learner accuracy.