Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

[sennincatholic]

My thanks to San Juan Catholic Seminars for publishing this in their Beginning Apologetics # 5 booklet.

The three “pillars of the reformation”, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all believed.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

Martin Luther: “ It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin… Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” ( Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pages 319-320; Vol. 6, page 510.)

John Calvin: “ There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And beside this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25. Published in 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” ( Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, page 424.)

Good post! I usually wonder how our contemporary protestant folks always make the exploit of ignoring Luther’s, Calvin’s and Zwigli’s opinions on the perpetual virginity of Mary.:banghead:

 

[adrift]

Matt 16: 18 Jesus said to him, “That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”
As we look at the interpretation of it, we need to understand how Peter himself understood it and how the other apostles understood it?
It cost God His son to redeem mankind; the same son, Jesus would not make a mortal man like Peter to be a foundation of His church. If Jesus was to build a church, it had to have a foundation by which it will stand. The church today does not stand because of Peter, it is built on the revelation of Christ. So the Rock which Jesus talked about was that revelation which Peter had received from the Father.
.

This is off topic. However, what is ignored is Jesus changed Peter’s name a significant move. Hardly what would be expected if it was just the revelation. In fact, this interpretation is not justified by the statement. Peter means rock. Jesus changes Peter’s name to rock, then states upon this rock I will build my Church but Jesus does something more.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

It is by only considering the scripture out of context can you arrive that Jesus meant that it was the revelation that He was building His Church upon. I could go on but since this is off topic I will end it only to say that there is much evidence both with Scriptures and out that the Apostles acknowledged Peter as leaded. Please start a new thread if you wish to discuss this further.

 

[anthonymarie]

I haven’t read all of the posts so far (there are rather a lot now) so sorry if I’m repeating what has already been said, but one thing that seems to be missing is Joseph’s perspective on deflowering a creature that has already born God’s child. It is clear Joseph was a good man. He obeys the angel without question. At a time before contraceptives, when sex was synonymous with “baby making”, would Joseph - a good and holy man - really have dared use the same vessel for his offspring as God used for His?

If I married a woman who had born God’s child I don’t think I would dare go there and I’m not even half the man I suspect Joseph was. Jews believed that sex made them dirty: Leviticus told them they had to be purified after sex. Joseph would have seen it as dirtying a vessel used by God Himself and therefore a form of disrespect towards God.

I think it’s very unfair to suggest that Joseph would “not be able to help himself” when lesser men go without sex for far less of a reason. Ask yourself would you have deflowered God’s vessel? Would you plant your seed where God had chosen to plant His?

 

[kkollwitz]

Yes to Anthonymarie. I also think Mary being overshadowed points to her being permanently unavailable for sexual relations.

 

[Faith1960]

Okay…enough speculation. Here’s proof based on the facts.
The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (The blog is mine)

According to the Word of God…
If Jesus had been the eldest among children then the others would have been responsible for taking care of their mother. This was not true of step children, who would not have had that responsibility.

If, as some ancient sources say, Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children by his previous wife, then this passage makes perfect sense.
Why then was one of the last things that Our Lord did from the cross the act of assigning his mother to the care of a non-family member?

If He had blood siblings instead of step siblings (who were not responsible for their step mother), why would he have done that?

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

Furthermore, it was scandalous in Jewish society for a younger sibling to rebuke or mock the eldest, yet this is what we see happened in the New Testament. However, if His step brethren were older than He then this might occur. Look at Jacob’s sons and Jesse’s sons in dealing with Joseph and David.

Also, it was virtually criminal for a younger sibling to mock or rebuke the first born son, and yet the word of God shows that this happened to Our Lord This would only be possible if they were the older step siblings by another mother.

With historical documents that suggest that Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children, your assertions fails.
‘Brethren of the Lord’
Mary: Ever Virgin (Fathers)
If Mary had other children, then where were they the day their eldest brother Christ was Crucified? Their mother was there and Jesus’ best friend John? If she had other kids they would’ve been there too and they would’ve been responsible for taking care of Mary. Instead, from the cross and with almost his last breath Jesus gives her to St. John. Something that he wouldn’t have done under Jewish customs back then IF HE HAD SIBLINGS.
The New Testament clearly indicates that they were his cousins…the children of Mary’s cousin Mary (John 19:25-27).
"25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.

See! Even his mom’s cousin was there…where are these supposed siblings of his? Nowhere…that’s where, because they simply did not exist.

(Cont’d)

BUT… Many people say that they didn’t have a word for cousin in their language.

 

[nmgauss]

Thanks for the explanation of the term “eisegesis”. This is certainly the first time I’ve heard this term; anyhow, I can see your point if we were trying to read into the text that Mary was a virgin before the birth of Jesus, because there is big importance on Jesus being born from a virgin, but reading into the text that Mary was a virgin after the birth of Jesus doesn’t really make any sense. Why would the Catholic Church want to read that into the text, what would be the alterior motif to do so? We have to remember that this is not strictly a Catholic phenomenon. All Christians believed that Mary was ever virgin until very recently. Even the reformers Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, as well as the Anglican Church believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

I suppose that as long as the term “The Virgin Mary” appears in the teachings of Christian churches, it makes sense to revere Mary as a virgin forever rather than a faded virgin. After all, a perpetual virgin remains pure, but a faded virgin is impure because of being polluted by semen. There is nothing special about a mother whose children have a human father, but one who gave birth without a human father is really outstanding.

 

[David_Zampino]

s There is nothing special about a mother whose children have a human father, …

???

I suspect you’re not a parent! Motherhood makes a woman special! Not “Blessed Mary Ever Virgin” special – but very special nonetheless!

 

[gntlmnr]

BUT… Many people say that they didn’t have a word for cousin in their language.

I am not sure I quite understand what you mean. It is very true that the term “cousin” does not exist in Semitic languages.

The use of the word “cousin” in Church Militant’s post is his own usage. The Bible doesn’t say that Mary had a “cousin” by the name of Mary, but it says that Mary had a “sister” by the name of Mary; Furthermore, the Bible doesn’t say that Jesus had “cousins”, but it said that He had “brothers” and “sisters”. It is Church Militant that used the term “cousin” as an interpretation of those relationships.

 

[Peebo]

Jesus said to Peter that upon this rock I will build my church…and that church…the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has stood for 2,000 years under the successors of Peter…then along came the Protestants who said no…Jesus didn’t give Peter authority over his church…and over the last 500 years the 40,000 or so Protestant churches (and growing) have been saying the same thing…so denying the perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lords mother is not hard to understand when they also deny the authority that Jesus gave to Peter.

 

[gntlmnr]

I suppose that as long as the term “The Virgin Mary” appears in the teachings of Christian churches, it makes sense to revere Mary as a virgin forever rather than a faded virgin. After all, a perpetual virgin remains pure, but a faded virgin is impure because of being polluted by semen. There is nothing special about a mother whose children have a human father, but one who gave birth without a human father is really outstanding.

I know that people all over the world reserve very special feelings towards their mothers, and this is a very well established fact, but that fact is even much truer when it comes to Middle-Eastern cultures. Personally my love for my mother falls a little short of worship. So, personally, to me it is enough for Mary to be the mother of Jesus to love her at least as much as I would love my own mother regardless of whether Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus or not. What I am trying to say is that I don’t need to search for reasons to prove that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus, because, personally, that would not change the way I feel about her either way.

 

[Faith1960]

I am fluent in English, French, and Arabic; but I have no clue when it comes to Greek; however, what I can say is that the usage of the term “until” is identical in English, French, and Arabic; and that is, like I mentioned in a previous post, the usage of the term “until” is extremely context sensitive in all threI languages. Let’s consider the following examples:

1 - “The doctor won’t be here ‘until’ 10 o’clock” - here what happens before the “until” is the opposite of what happens after the “until”, and that is the doctor is Not here before 10, but the doctor will be here after 10.

2 - “Jack had a terrible argument with his wife and they did not speak with each other ‘until’ their divorce” - the purpose of the usage of the word “until” in this example is strictly to tell us what happened between the argument and the divorce, and it is not used to tell us anything about what happened after the divorce, because if they spoke with each other after the divorce, the statement would still be true, and if they did not speak with each other after the divorce, again, the statement would still be true. Personally that’s how I believe “until” is being used in (Matthew 1:25), since Matthew is primarily concerned strictly about the time period between the conception of Jesus and the birth of Jesus, and Matthew, in my opinion, was not trying at all to tell us what happened between Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus. So if Joseph had a marital relationship with Mary after the birth of Jesus, the statement would be true, and if Joseph did not have a marital relationship with Mary after the birth of Jesus, again, the statement would still be true.

I think the focus on (Matthew 1:25) is blown completely out of proportion, because it doesn’t prove anything at all; however, if we consider what happened in the first chapter of Luke, we find out that AFTER Mary was betrothed to Joseph, angel Gabriel announced to her: “Behold, you WILL conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus”. The response of Mary was “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” The question here is: If Mary was planning to have a “normal” marriage with Joseph, why would she give such a response? Since angel Gabriel did not specify exactly at what point in time the conception was going to take place, why did Mary assume that the conception was going to happen before she had relations with Joseph? So her response would make absolutely no sense if her marriage with Joseph was supposed to be a “normal” marriage.

I’m not worried a oh the Greek words, I’m worried about the English translation “until which”. “until which time” and “until such time.” Doesn’t that wording sound as if Mary didn’t remain a virgin?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I study Greek some, and this passage concerns me. The thing is, if the Greeks wanted to use “heos” and mean “until such a time came, but maybe no such time came at all”, they have a very simple and eloquent way to say that. They would use “heos” plus a subjunctive verb.

But that’s not what we have here; the verb is indicative. In Attic Greek, at least, this would mean that the activity indicated by the main verb – the consummation of the marriage – did actually occur.

Are there any Greek scholars here that can explain this to me? Are there other places in Greek literature where “heos + indicative” is used to indicate mere possibility instead of fact?

 

[gntlmnr]

I’m not worried a oh the Greek words, I’m worried about the English translation “until which”. “until which time” and “until such time.” Doesn’t that wording sound as if Mary didn’t remain a virgin?

I understand what you mean, but to me “until which”, “until which time”, and “until such time” all shed the light and affirm/confirm what happened between the conception and the birth of Jesus, but they don’t affirm or shed the light on what happened after the birth of Jesus. Yes, that usage could be interpreted that Joseph knew Mary after the birth of Jesus, but it does not affirm/confirm that he knew her after the birth of Jesus. It just leaves the issue open for interpretation, and this is exactly why we are having this lengthy debate that seems to have no end.

In all honesty, the first time I heard about this whole controversy was from my cousins when they became “Born Again” Christians. All of a sudden they wanted to “convert” me, and that’s the very first issue they brought up. It was amazing how much stress they were putting on proving that Mary did not remain a virgin and that she had other children after Jesus. Like I mentioned in a previous post, even if truly Mary did have other children after Jesus, that would not change my feelings toward her a tiny bit. So I didn’t know what that whole fuss was all about.

I read (Matthew 1:25) an endless number of times before my cousins attempted to “convert” me, and in all honesty, I was very puzzled as to why this particular verse was being used at all as a proof that Mary did not remain a virgin. I sincerely felt that it was a very weak “weapon” against the virginity of Mary, because that particular verse never ever made me feel that it was trying to tell anything about what happened after the birth of Jesus. I always felt that it was affirming to me that Joseph did not have relations with Mary while she was carrying Jesus in her womb, because this particular point is of great significance.

 

[Gorgias]

It is only natural to interpret the text toward what we want it to mean, especially if the reader has some assumptions, and Scripture is searched to find a passage that supports that assertion.

Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that it introduces one’s own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text. The act is often used to “prove” a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda.

This passage was used by Matthew to support the theory that Jesus Christ was prophesied by Isaiah. This is eisegesis. The words say nothing asserting that Emmanuel was the Messiah.

LOL! Your definition of what ‘eisegesis’ means is good, as far as it goes, but you’re way off base here! If you or I read into Scripture a meaning that we want to insert into it, then that’s clearly eisegesis; however, you’re making a claim that’s false on its very face! Let me explain: in a Christian context, the Scriptures are the inspired word of God. The human author of Scripture, then, has been inspired by God in order to put God’s Word into writing. Therefore, if God inspired the author of Matthew to interpret Isaiah as prophesying the birth of Jesus, then there’s no possible way to assert that it is eisegesis! To make that claim is to make the claim that God is misinterpreting His own Word!

So… the evangelist is certainly inserting a new interpretation of Isaiah here, but since he is a Spirit-inspired writer, then by definition we cannot make the claim that he’s inserting an interpretation at odds with what God meant in His Word!

 

[Gorgias]

What about Scripture which calls Elizabeth, Mary’s cousin?

Actually, it doesn’t. It calls her συγγενίς (‘soongenis’), which means ‘relative’ or ‘kin.’

 

[Gorgias]

So we can conclude that the exact meaning of the original nouns when they were written cannot be determined conclusively.

No… we can conclude that we cannot use 21st century understandings of relationship words as if there’s an exact one-to-one correspondence between them and the words used in Scripture. That doesn’t at all mean that there is no way to understand what they mean, however!

If we follow this concept, the term “parthenos” when referring to the young woman in Isaiah who became pregnant, and this was a sign from God, it is eisagesis to assume that she was a virgin.

This, too, is too simplistic an approach. If the ‘young woman’ of the Hebrew version of Isaiah didn’t mean ‘virgin’, then a far coarser word would have been used to indicate that she was sexually active and unmarried. There are plenty of places in the OT in which unmarried, unchaste women are called by a name that, in essence, ‘slut shamed’ them. You don’t need me to elaborate, do you?

So, since this is a miraculous sign from God (and after all, it’s not too miraculous to suggest that young, sexually active women get pregnant, isn’t it?), the clear implication is that the ‘young woman’ is a virgin. To explicitly call her a virgin in the Septuagint, then, isn’t ‘eisegesis,’ nor is it eisegesis for the inspired evangelist to utilize that translation in his appropriation of the prophecy.

 

[Gorgias]

I study Greek some, and this passage concerns me. The thing is, if the Greeks wanted to use “heos” and mean “until such a time came, but maybe no such time came at all”, they have a very simple and eloquent way to say that. They would use “heos” plus a subjunctive verb.

But that’s not what we have here; the verb is indicative. In Attic Greek, at least, this would mean that the activity indicated by the main verb – the consummation of the marriage – did actually occur.

Are there any Greek scholars here that can explain this to me? Are there other places in Greek literature where “heos + indicative” is used to indicate mere possibility instead of fact?

heos+subjunctive could yield the ‘cognitive possibility’ meaning. Yet, we’re not claiming that in this case, heos+indicative means ‘possibility’; rather, we’re claiming that it’s an adverbial usage!

 

[Faith1960]

I am fluent in English, French, and Arabic; but I have no clue when it comes to Greek; however, what I can say is that the usage of the term “until” is identical in English, French, and Arabic; and that is, like I mentioned in a previous post, the usage of the term “until” is extremely context sensitive in all three languages. Let’s consider the following examples:

1 - “The doctor won’t be here ‘until’ 10 o’clock” - here what happens before the “until” is the opposite of what happens after the “until”, and that is the doctor is Not here before 10, but the doctor will be here after 10.

2 - “Jack had a terrible argument with his wife and they did not speak with each other ‘until’ their divorce” - the purpose of the usage of the word “until” in this example is strictly to tell us what happened between the argument and the divorce, and it is not used to tell us anything about what happened after the divorce, because if they spoke with each other after the divorce, the statement would still be true, and if they did not speak with each other after the divorce, again, the statement would still be true. Personally that’s how I believe “until” is being used in (Matthew 1:25), since Matthew is primarily concerned strictly about the time period between the conception of Jesus and the birth of Jesus, and Matthew, in my opinion, was not trying at all to tell us what happened between Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus. So if Joseph had a marital relationship with Mary after the birth of Jesus, the statement would be true, and if Joseph did not have a marital relationship with Mary after the birth of Jesus, again, the statement would still be true.

I think the focus on (Matthew 1:25) is blown completely out of proportion, because it doesn’t prove anything at all; however, if we consider what happened in the first chapter of Luke, we find out that AFTER Mary was betrothed to Joseph, angel Gabriel announced to her: “Behold, you WILL conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus”. The response of Mary was “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” The question here is: If Mary was planning to have a “normal” marriage with Joseph, why would she give such a response? Since angel Gabriel did not specify exactly at what point in time the conception was going to take place, why did Mary assume that the conception was going to happen before she had relations with Joseph? So her response would make absolutely no sense if her marriage with Joseph was supposed to be a “normal” marriage.

Actually, it doesn’t. It calls her συγγενίς (‘soongenis’), which means ‘relative’ or ‘kin.’

Oh, ok. Thanks!

 

[philv]

Matthew 1:25 has me confused. I believe that there will be an explanation, but I need help finding it.

In comparing four different versions, they all indicate that Joseph had no relations with Mary until she bore a son. This implies to me that he did after. Below is the verse in the translations I used:

Douay-Rheims
And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus.
New American Bible
He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.
Revised Standard Version
but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.
New International Version
But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Does anyone have a good explanation for this?

Oh, oh… I know the answer!! pick me, pick me…

We talked about this in our bible study yesterday. Matthew was pointing out that Mary didn’t conceive Jesus through another man, but through the Holy Spirit only. Saying she can now have relations after Christ is born doesn’t mean she had other sons or daughters, it just means she was truly a virgin before. That’s the author’s point. Whether she had more sons or daughters is uncertain, but historically she wouldn’t because that would be considered un-pure back then through another man. So that’s a church tradition of one of the cultural reasons why she would have stayed pure and ever-virgin.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

heos+subjunctive could yield the ‘cognitive possibility’ meaning. Yet, we’re not claiming that in this case, heos+indicative means ‘possibility’; rather, we’re claiming that it’s an adverbial usage!

So wait, the ‘heos’ AND the verb are modifying something? Or the “heos” itself is the adverb? Once again, I am wondering whether there are other places in Greek literature where I can see this usage.