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

[Cachonga]

David Zampino:

Are you speaking of Definitions of Faith from the Ecumenical Councils?

Council of Ephesus 431 was were Mary was declared to be theotikos. This was done to combat the Nestoriam heresy and was meant to show that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man (if I am wrong about this, please feel free to correct me).

I believe it was the Council of the Lateran 649 when she was declared to be “ever-virgin” (again, I welcome correction on this).

The point is, whether defined in a council or by some “infallible” papal decree, these dogmas carry an anathema on anyone who doesn’t believe them, and I find no scriptural evidence to believe them.
David Zampino:

You do make quite the assumptions! And I think that you know that I don’t consider the Reformers infallible! But here are a few citations . . . . with editorial information if you want to look up their validity.

I knew you didn’t think they were infallible, I was just being a bit fecitious (sorry!). The examples you provide are interesting, but sound more like “traditional” beliefs than scriptural proofs (I haven’t seen any scriptural evidence that I haven’t seen before).
David Zampino:

As far as your “Show me in Scripture” hermeneutic, I reject it utterly. The Scriptures proceed from the Church – not the other way around.

The Scriptures proceed from God.
David Zampino:

YOU tell ME why I should discount what East believes, what West believes, what the Reformers believed, etc. on account of your personal interpretation?

I will readily admit that I am not infallible! I would also encourage you NOT to believe everything I say (or write), except when it agrees with Scripture (see 1 Cor 11:1)!

 

[Katrn]

:tiphat: Thank you! That cleared it right up for me!

You really have to look at the Hebrew language… there are many things non translatable to English so we get mixed readings and feelings…such as the word “brother” could mean cousin, kinsman, countryman, relative etc. We really need to leave niddy griddy’s up to the theologins and the pope…thank God that’s what our church has that others don’t so we don’t have to relie on our own personal revelations that can be confusing at times. trust a priest or spiritual advisor to help you with this.

God Bless,

Kathleen

 

[alvin77]

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

Maybe this could help. Have a time to read:
The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary
St. Jerome Against Helvidius

God bless…
illumina Domine vultum tuum super nos

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m curious. Is the Greek usage in Matthew 1:25 different from Genesis 28:15?

13 ****** And there was the LORD standing beside him and saying: "I, the LORD, am the God of your forefather Abraham and the God of Isaac; the land on which you are lying I will give to you and your descendants.*** 14 ****** These shall be as plentiful as the dust of the earth, and through them you shall spread out east and west, north and south. In you and your descendants all the nations of the earth shall find blessing.****** 15 ****** Know that I am with you; I will protect you wherever you go, and bring you back to this land. I will never leave you UNTIL I have done what I promised you.**"*

 

[wbarquez]

I guess I’m coming in a bit late on this as well, but here’s my 2 cents worth -
2 Sam 6:23 uses the word Greek word heos (from the LXX). Matt 1:25 uses a Greek phrase, heos hu, which does indicate a change afterward. That Joseph and Mary DID have relations after the birth of Jesus is (I assert) obvious from Scripture. Let’s review - Mary was engaged to Joseph BEFORE she was told she would be the mother of Jesus. Joseph was told in a dream not to be afraid to take Mary as his WIFE (which he did)! There is nothing in Scripture (other than Matt 1:25 where we’re told Joseph didn’t know Mary UNTIL the birth of Jesus) telling us the marriage was NOT consumated (other than “oral tradition”, based (apparently) on human logic, but not backed up anywhere in scripture), so why should we think that Joseph and Mary DIDN’T have normal, marital relations? Furthermore, Matt 13:54-56 and Mark 6:1-3 clearly indicates (actually names) brothers (James, Joses, Simon & Judas) and sisters (plural, so at least 2). Notice, no other relatives were mentioned (other than Joseph and Mary), so the claim that these brothers and sisters are actually cousins (or some other relation) doesn’t jive with the context. We can also look to Matt 12:47-50 and Mark 3:31-35 where Mary is traveling with the brothers of Jesus.

In conclusion, I would say that Joseph and Mary definitely did NOT have marital relations before Jesus was born. I would also assert (based on scriptures) that Joseph and Mary DID have normal, marital relations AFTER Jesus was born. I would also point out that even if heos hu doesn’t mean there was a change, the bare word “until” doesn’t disprove the other evidence provided.

There is no conclusive evidence in Scriptures that Mary had other children aside from Jesus. The Hebrew does not have a word for cousin, but has a word for brother (ach) that would also apply to any relative. Notably, the word was used for the “brothers” of Jesus and it was used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot in Genesis 14. The Greek has a word for brother (adelphoi) and the word was used for the “brothers” of Jesus, but it was also used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot in Genesis 14 (Septuagint). Thus, the adelphoi was used in the Hebrew context of familial relationship and not in the Greek context.

“[W]hy should we think that Joseph and Mary DIDN’T have normal, marital relations?” Indeed, it would not be irrational to think that way. But that is only based on your assumption. That is not what the teachings (tradition) of the leaders of the early Church taught. It is your assumption vs. the Church’s tradition. I’m sorry, but if I will not believe what these leaders, like Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria and Bishop Ambrose of Milan, who were closer than us to the times of the Apostles have taught in favor of the ever-virginity of Mary, why would I believe you?

 

[Arandur]

I believe there was some question earlier by the non-Catholics about what the point of Mary’s perpetual virginity would be, as well as her immaculate conception and assumption, what value there is in believing these things. Responses seem to have covered the “what” as if it were just some rigid dictate. I’d like to explain a little of the “why.”

I should start by saying that a number of years ago, I rejected the Church’s teachings on Mary, having been led into doubt. My primary problem was with the perpetual virginity, believing that Mary and Joseph couldn’t have been married without consummating that marriage, and that the idea of perpetual virginity would demean sex and marriage. I was rather emotional about this. Through prayer and study, however, I came to fully accept the Church’s teachings (Christ’s Truth). These are some of the things I discovered on that journey.

1. Mary’s Immaculate Conception is a necessary part of Jesus’ Saving work. I bring this up first because aspects of the reasons for her perpetual virginity flow from her Immaculate Conception. Original Sin is a reality that cannot be denied without denying any need for Jesus; put another way, if there is no Original Sin, no Generation of Adam in which that nature was transmitted, then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for Jesus and His death was meaningless and powerless.

Jesus served as the New Adam, the new Creation; in Him all things were made new. This new creation required a New Eve. In traditional chiasmic form, this time Eve comes first, then Adam. In order to be the New Eve, Marry cannot have taken part in the original generation of Adam, cannot have had that taint of Original Sin.

By God saving Mary from Original Sin for Jesus’ sake, He shows us that He truly does bless us and prepare us for the roles in which He intends us, and that He truly has created a new generation in Life to restore and replace the generation of death. He prepared Mary to be the bearer of the Word of God, of God’s Incarnate presence, in just the way that He foretold us through the Ark of the Covenant. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and so was built spotless and perfect for the bearing of Him.

2. Mary’s perpetual virginity befits her role, honors God, and nurtures the Church. Since Mary is the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant, for her to have relations with one of the old generation would be to deny both of those roles. It would be to deny the salvation from Original Sin that is the glorious part of the New Creation, because it would be to return to generating children in the old generation of death.

Further, the Ark is too holy to have anything else placed within it, even too holy to be touched. How could the Ark of the New Covenant, infinitely greater than that of the old, be subject to another use?

Contrary to what I had thought previously, Mary’s perpetual virginity does not deny the fertility of marriage but in fact glorifies it–and glorifies the single and the barren woman in a way that no other state could. It is only by her virginity, by her lack of other children after Jesus, that she can properly fulfill her role as the Queen Mother of the King (Jesus), the Queen Mother of the the Kingdom. She becomes our mother because we are Christ’s brothers and sisters, because Christ made her our mother on the Cross. Even as the Church is Christ’s Body, Mary is the Mother of Christ, the Mother of the Body of Christ, the Mother of the Church. As the Queen Mother of Israel served, so too is she a gentle mediatrix and intercessor before the King.

Normally a Queen Mother would produce additional heirs in case the King died before he could produce an heir. There is obviously no need whatsoever for further heirs in the case of the ever-living Jesus. In fact, one could say that further heirs would be a blasphemy denying the sufficiency and forever-life of Jesus, the King of Kings. Mary’s perpetual virginity in this and on many of the other points is also strongly supported by the fact that Jesus, by the age of 33, had not taken a wife and children Himself–for an ever-living King building a Kingdom of brothers and sisters (not children), and taking the Church as His Bride, needs none of these, and so neither does His mother need any beyond Him.

If Mary had had other children, they would have been her first concern after Jesus, not the nourishment of the wider family Jesus Himself had instituted–His Body, His Church. Mary’s virginity was a perfect example of holy sacrifice and the fruitfulness that marriage can have without it, the fruitfulness that even single women and barren women can have.

Then there is also an extremely practical reason. If Mary had had other children, can you imagine the conflict it would have caused to have living brothers and sisters of the King of Kings, the Messiah? We moderns often forget how incredibly important lineage was, and dynasties, and how monarchies worked and were envisioned–even how the Bible describes they should work. If Jesus had had direct blood brothers and sisters, their lineage would be vastly important. A few people would be placed far above all the rest in importance through this relation. Why do you think there are cults where people do claim to be of the line of Jesus? That there was no mention of this after Jesus, no concern about the lineage of the Davidic line after this point, cannot be explained away by just claiming that everyone was so enlightened it didn’t matter. Given the many other heresies and sinful practices dealt with in the Apostles’ time, such an explanation just doesn’t wash.

 

[Arandur]

**3. Mary’s Assumption is fitting for her role; God did not abandon her after He had used her. ** And it’s not like this hasn’t happened twice before in Scripture. Whether she was assumed bodily before or after physical death, the New Eve could not have her body, uncorrupted at any point by Original Sin, subject to decay, for such would be a sign that Original Sin cannot be overcome. Just as she was the firstfruits of Jesus’s saving work, so was she the first after Him to enter heaven bodily. Her Assumption confirms the reality of the heavenly life and Resurrection as being not just for the divine Jesus, but for all of us (for many see the divinity of Jesus as a stumbling block, something that makes Him apart from us, leaving doubt as to just what we will experience since we are not divine). The Ark of the Covenant was taken up into heaven, as described and confirmed in Revelation; Mary has taken her rightful and final place in the heavenly Temple as the Ark and the Queen Mother.

We should rejoice at such a glorious, perfect plan of God’s and how wonderful it is for us all! He has truly overcome sin and death, truly made us New, truly built an everlasting kingdom with the perfect King of Kings at its head, truly given us a wonderful, loving Mother for our Kingdom and for us personally, truly established a glorious Court for the King of Kings, and placed the Ark of the New Covenant, now fulfilled, in a safe place for all eternity, never to be lost.

I believe that to not accept these Truths of Christ’s work in Mary is to deny much of what He has done for us, to diminish even the triumph over sin and death, and to diminish the Kingdom itself. I believe that is why the Church says it’s important–not just because it is true, but because it is an integral part of Christ’s work in each of our lives, a glorious part of the reality He has prepared for us and the Kingdom He has established.

I have sadness for those who reject so much of God’s glory whether out of ignorance or wilful pride in the plan they’d prefer, trusting in their own understanding of a normal world without miracles and divine realities. I pray and hope that they will see this brilliant light of truth and let it enliven their souls.

 

[Cachonga]

wbarquez:

There is no conclusive evidence in Scriptures that Mary had other children aside from Jesus. The Hebrew does not have a word for cousin, but has a word for brother (ach) that would also apply to any relative. Notably, the word was used for the “brothers” of Jesus and it was used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot in Genesis 14. The Greek has a word for brother (adelphoi) and the word was used for the “brothers” of Jesus, but it was also used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot in Genesis 14 (Septuagint). Thus, the adelphoi was used in the Hebrew context of familial relationship and not in the Greek context.

Not quite. We know Lot was Abraham’s nephew because Scripture gives us their exact relationship (even though there is no Hebrew word for “nephew”). When we read about the brothers and sisters of Jesus in Matthew and Mark, there is no mention of any other relatives, other than Joseph and Mary. Taken in this context, how can they be anything other than actual brothers and sisters?

Arandur:

1. Mary’s Immaculate Conception is a necessary part of Jesus’ Saving work.

What Scripture is this based on? Even IF Mary had to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus, what Scripture shows she was immaculately conceived? Luke 1:28 doesn’t work (there is a thread on that very topic right now). Even if “full of grace” had anything to do with sinlessness, there is nothing to indicate when this may have happened (at conception, at puberty, 2 seconds before the angel greeted her, whatever). I’ve heard the argument of someone falling into a pit, but the problem with this analogy is it assumes we all begin outside of the pit (thanks to Adam, we all begin life in the pit). Claiming she is the new Ark of the Covenant doesn’t help your case. I would point out that until it was completed and consecrated, it was little more than a very beautiful box (maybe not the best way to say it, but it’ll do for now). Claiming Mary is the new Eve is not supported anywhere in Scripture! The whole idea of immaculate conception is on very shakey ground when you realize that Mary made a sin offering (perhaps many such offerings during her life).

Arandur:

1. Mary’s perpetual virginity befits her role, honors God, and nurtures the Church.

What in Scripture makes you believe Joseph and Mary didn’t have a normal, marital relationship? If God requires a deviation from the norm, He usually gives some indication in Scripture (such as when Samsons mother was told not to eat grapes or drink wine during her pregnancy, when Zachariahs was told that Elizabeth would conceive and bear a son, etc…). Why didn’t the angel tell Mary that she would remain a virgin throughout her life? Why do we not have any clear indication that it was God’s purpose for her to remain a virgin? I’ve heard the argument “The Bible says that not everything Jesus said or did was recorded in scripture”, but I would ask if God recorded what was important for us to know?

Comparing Mary to Bathsheba (Solomon’s “queen mother”) scares me just a bit. Bathsheba came in to see Solomon and he bowed to her and commanded that a throne be brought in for her. Do you think Jesus get’s off His throne and bows to Mary whenever she comes into His presence? He promises to give her whatever she asks, yet when she makes ehr request, it is not granted. At this point I usually hear something like “Well, Old Testament types are imperfect.”, but that’s just a cop-out. Bathsheba didn’t get her request because as soon as she made it, Solomon realized 2 things; 1) she was not making this request on her own and 2) the purpose was for selfish gain (to take the kingdom from Solomon). At that point, Solomon had to put off being a son , and put on his Kingship, making a righteous judgment. Now, what do you suppose would happen if Mary took your request to Jesus, and it wasn’t for His glory?

Saying there would be problems with lineage, Mary needing to care for these other brothers and sisters, etc… doesn’t work. The line of David was not on the throne when Jesus was on here, and He is still the rightful heir, so there is no problem. Also, Jesus was 30 when he began his public ministry, so it’s very possible that all of his brothers would have been old enough to be on their own (keep in mind, when a Jewish boy has his Bar Mitzvah he becomes a “man” in Israel, capable of entering into legally binding contracts, leaving home, etc…, which is why Jesus was not being disobedient when He stayed behind in Jerusalem when He was 12).

Arandur:

1. Mary’s Assumption is fitting for her role; God did not abandon her after He had used her.

You are using human logic and reasoning, not Scripture. You should know that the earliest commentary on Revelations nowhere mentions Mary (not in relation to the Ark, not as the woman with the crown of stars, nowehere). This commentary was written somewhere around the end of the thrid or beginning of the fourth century by a fellow named Victorinus. I find absolutely no scriptural basis for any of these beliefs, and have yet to hear anything to change my mind. I will say that, while I do not believe in her bodily assumption, I will not deny that it could have happened. Even so, since God’s word doesn’t record it, I do not believe it should be a dogma!

 

[NotWorthy]

I will not deny that it could have happened. Even so, since God’s word doesn’t record it, I do not believe it should be a dogma!

I’m curious about this line of reasoning.

Do you believe that God’s Word gave the Christian Church the authority to declare dogma? I would assume that Matthew 16 & 18 make that abundantly clear.

 

[ScotchIrish]

To those who have issue with the word “union”, where is it stated that the union you are talking about meant sexually relations? Sounds like your interpretation based on todays language. Just asking.

 

[Arandur]

Cachonga, it was not my intention to get into contention, but rather to show the beauty of the Truth, to demonstrate to those who scoff why it is important to our faith. That you approach a description of the glory and implications of these Truths with an eye not to understand, but only to tear down, to doubt, taking your personal interpretation of a few passages of Scripture to attack and destroy, denying other possible interpretations that might question your own, denying other Scriptures that build up God’s glory beyond your limited sight, denying other historical truths, denying even aspects of Christ’s mission, well, I think that’s rather telling about the spirit in which you are approaching this. It doesn’t appear to be one of prayer and contemplation.

When we read about the brothers and sisters of Jesus in Matthew and Mark, there is no mention of any other relatives, other than Joseph and Mary. Taken in this context, how can they be anything other than actual brothers and sisters?

There is mention of other relatives. As has been pointed out, several of those “brothers” were given other parents in other Gospel passages.

What Scripture is this based on? Even IF Mary had to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus, what Scripture shows she was immaculately conceived? Luke 1:28 doesn’t work (there is a thread on that very topic right now). Even if “full of grace” had anything to do with sinlessness, there is nothing to indicate when this may have happened (at conception, at puberty, 2 seconds before the angel greeted her, whatever).

“Full of grace” is indeed one of the major Scriptures, for it refers to her state before she had conceived. As you say, perhaps that is best left for another thread. Keep in mind that Scripture does not contain all truth, all details of God’s works, all description of Him.

As for when it could have happened, well, she hasn’t benefited from Baptism by her conception, has she? That’s the only other method we know of for cleansing of Original Sin–or do you deny Original Sin?

Claiming she is the new Ark of the Covenant doesn’t help your case. I would point out that until it was completed and consecrated, it was little more than a very beautiful box (maybe not the best way to say it, but it’ll do for now).

Doesn’t help my case because the Ark wasn’t the Ark before it was built and consecrated? That’s a rather weak riposte, and it doesn’t even work. In fact, it supports my case. Mary wasn’t “built” until she was conceived, and as she was, like the Ark, it was as perfectly as possible–free from original sin. The Ark was built for a purpose and didn’t fulfill that purpose until the sacred items were placed inside it; so too with Mary.

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fea5.asp It’s scattered all over the Bible.

Claiming Mary is the new Eve is not supported anywhere in Scripture! The whole idea of immaculate conception is on very shakey ground when you realize that Mary made a sin offering (perhaps many such offerings during her life).

Not supported in Scripture? Are you blind to miss the allusions to Mary and Jesus at the curse of Eve? The way Mary’s Fiat reverses Eve’s disobedience? Do you deny that Jesus is the New Adam? If not, what’s missing from that picture, if Adam is alone, has no one cooperating with his act? The idea of Jesus being the new Adam is exceptionally weak without an Eve, unless women lose all their dignity and are not also saved, or unless this New Creation is little like the old, with no partnership, no reason for woman. The New Adam is then fertile alone, with no participation from another person; Jesus didn’t need or use or dignify anyone else. We become divorced from the very concept of family without the New Eve.
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0312sbs.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9812frs.asp

What in Scripture makes you believe Joseph and Mary didn’t have a normal, marital relationship? If God requires a deviation from the norm, He usually gives some indication in Scripture (such as when Samsons mother was told not to eat grapes or drink wine during her pregnancy, when Zachariahs was told that Elizabeth would conceive and bear a son, etc…). Why didn’t the angel tell Mary that she would remain a virgin throughout her life? Why do we not have any clear indication that it was God’s purpose for her to remain a virgin? I’ve heard the argument “The Bible says that not everything Jesus said or did was recorded in scripture”, but I would ask if God recorded what was important for us to know?

There’s a lot of details left out of Scripture. Why doesn’t it clearly define the Trinity? Why isn’t more said about the nature of life after death, life in heaven? Why wasn’t abortion and contraception spoken of with enough clarity that we need not have debates? Why weren’t the Sacraments and organization of the Church defined in explicit detail to avoid debate? And why didn’t Jesus write all this stuff down Himself so the Church wouldn’t have to wonder and debate things for 350 years before having an agreed canon to work from at all; why didn’t He just write everything down in His own voice so it was all perfectly clear?

For that matter, you’re important to God aren’t you? As important as Mary and Joseph? Why wasn’t there any clear indication in Scripture about His purpose for YOUR life?

I’m sorry, but it sounds to me like your questions are the wonderings of a child who has not come to grips with the reality that everything isn’t as easy and clear as he may want it.

 

[Arandur]

Do you think Jesus get’s off His throne and bows to Mary whenever she comes into His presence?

Oh, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if He did! What Jesus do you worship? The one I know is so humble He’d wash my feet despite my utter unworthiness to be in His presence. The one I know is so loving, respectful, and faithful a Jewish Son that He gives His mother and even earthly father great honor.
Wow, it’s shocking to me to even here that question.

He promises to give her whatever she asks, yet when she makes ehr request, it is not granted. …1) she was not making this request on her own and 2) the purpose was for selfish gain (to take the kingdom from Solomon)…Now, what do you suppose would happen if Mary took your request to Jesus, and it wasn’t for His glory?

So where’s the problem? Do you really think she’d be making a request of Him out of selfishness, or in a way that violates the Kingdom or His glory? Is that even possible for someone who’s in heaven? Where do you gather that Catholics think she can make Jesus take actions contrary to “His glory?”

We, of course, got to see the example of Jesus’ respect for His mother at the Wedding at Cana. And there, of course, she placed it in His hands–“do whatever he tells you to do.” Which is exactly what she does with us. Why is this such a stumbling block for you, when it so clearly glorifies Christ all the more?

Saying there would be problems with lineage, Mary needing to care for these other brothers and sisters, etc… doesn’t work.

You entirely missed my point. It had very little to do with Mary needing to take care of other children. It had much more to do with the normal need for heirs in a dynasty, a need no longer present after Jesus. It had much more to do with the importance people place on lineage, and the fact such close blood relation to the King of Kings would be seen as vastly important in that time period, certainly would not have gone unmentioned. Look at all the dynastic squabbles through history, the persecution of the line of David, the emphasis rulers placed on being related to Zeus or Hercules or Ra, etc. I think the utter lack of any discussion of brothers and sisters of Jesus after His death and resurrection is extremely telling, given the culture. There simply were none born of Mary and Joseph.

You are using human logic and reasoning, not Scripture.

I find it to be the reverse. You are looking on this issue not with eyes of faith that seek Spirit and Truth, but of Pharisaical emphasis on the earthly and the letter, refusing to consider beyond your preconceived notions, beyond the limited, fleshly bounds to which you try to force and limit God’s work in Mary and the Church.

You should know that the earliest commentary on Revelations nowhere mentions Mary (not in relation to the Ark, not as the woman with the crown of stars, nowehere). This commentary was written somewhere around the end of the thrid or beginning of the fourth century by a fellow named Victorinus. I find absolutely no scriptural basis for any of these beliefs, and have yet to hear anything to change my mind. I will say that, while I do not believe in her bodily assumption, I will not deny that it could have happened. Even so, since God’s word doesn’t record it, I do not believe it should be a dogma!

You’ll take the earliest commentary and discount all others? Then why not the Protoevangelium of James? catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

Are you saying that the Scriptures were perfectly known in their earliest form and anything anyone ever had to say about them later was bunk, just “not scriptural?” I think that would rule out probably most of what you believe based on your own interpretations.

Your questioning of dogma is because you don’t understand the place of Scripture and that of the Church. I don’t believe I’ve heard you address the big 350 year blind spot between Jesus and canon, nor why Jesus seemed to care so much about setting up the Church and not at all about having anything written down for a New Testament.

 

[wmscott]

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?

The below is some commentary that may help explain it to you. there is lots of information here in the library. what I would suggest is that you read them and try to formulate your opinion from there, and ask questions if you are unclear on anything. I want to caution you one one thing, there are a lot of anti-Catholics that post in opposition of Marian Doctrine and this may be confusing for you. while you are here seek out what the Catholic Church teaches to determine what Catholic believe. Do not rely on anti-Catholic Protestants to tell you what Catholics believe. They mostly get the Catholic perspective wrong. then if you want go to a Protestant site and see what they have to say. Most importantly, you are going to have to decide for yourself what you want to believe. Good luck

Matt 1:18 - 25

Ver. 18. The account of the birth of Jesus Christ follows his genealogy. From these words, “before they came together,” Helvidius and others have started objections, which have been answered long ago by St. Jerome, where he shews in many examples from Scripture, that the words before and until do not signify what happened afterwards; for that point is left indefinite, but only what was done before, or not done. Thus when it is said, Sit thou at my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool, Psalm cix, by no means signifies, that after the subjection of his enemies, the Son of God is no longer to sit at the right hand of his Father. In common conversation, when we say that a man died before he reached his 30th year, we do not mean that he afterwards attained it. Or, should we say that Helvidius died before he did penance, we cannot mean that he afterwards did penance: the same conclusion should be deduced from the words, “before they came together,” the end being accomplished by the power of the operation of the Holy Ghost, without their going together. If we should advance, that such a man was cured before he went to a physician, the natural inference would be, that he did not go to a physician at all. Thus also in the language of Scripture, the word first-begotten does not mean after whom others were born, but before whom no one was born, whether there were further issue or not. And the reason is, because the law required that a sacrifice should be offered for the first-born, and that he should be redeemed very soon after his birth; nor did it allow the parents to wait and see if any other son should be born. (Estius) — True and perfect marriage, and continual living in the same, without knowing each other. (St. Augustine, lib. ii. Consen. Evang. chap. i.) (Bristow)

Ver. 19. And Joseph her husband, knowing her strict virtue, was surprised at this her pregnancy, but “being a just man,” and not willing to expose her, by denouncing her, or giving her a bill of divorce, he had a mind to dismiss her privately, committing the whole cause to God. Let us learn from Joseph to be ever tender of our neighbour’s reputation, and never to entertain any injurious thoughts, or any suspicions to his prejudice. (Haydock)

Ver. 20. Fear not to take, &c. i.e., fear not to marry her, if we suppose them not yet married, or if married already, the sense is, fear not to keep and remain with thy chaste wife; lay aside all thoughts of dismissing and leaving her. (Witham) — As the incarnation of the Son of God was effected by the whole blessed Trinity, it may be asked why this operation is peculiarly attributed to the Holy Ghost, not only here, but in Luke ii. and in the apostles’ creed? The answer is, because as power is attributed to the Father, wisdom to the Son, so goodness is attributed to the Holy Ghost, and the gifts of grace which proceed from it. (Estius in diff. loca.)

continued…

 

[wmscott]

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?

Ver. 21. Jesus…he shall save, &c. The characteristic name of Saviour was peculiar to the Messias, by which he was distinguished, as well as by the adorable name of Jesus. The expectations of both Jew and Gentile looked forward to a saviour. St. Augustine, in the 18th book, 23rd chapter, de Civitate Dei, introduces a curious anecdote. He mentions there, that he received from the eloquent and learned Proconsul Flactianus, a book containing in Greek the verses of one of the Sybils, which related to the coming of Christ. The substance of them is much the same as occurs in the prophecies of Isaiah, from which Virgil has likewise copied into his Pollio, many of the sublime thoughts which we find in that beautiful eclogue. It is remarkable that of the initials of these verses, St. Augustine had formed an acrostic to the following import, Iesous Christos Deos uios soter; that is, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Saviour. (Haydock)

Ver. 22. The Greeks in general, after St. John Chrysostom, look upon this as a continuation of the angel’s speech to St. Joseph. The other Fathers and commentators think it a reflection of the evangelist.

Ver. 23. Behold a virgin,[5] &c. The Jews sometimes objected, as we see in St. Justin’s dialogue with Tryphon, that the Hebrew word alma, in the prophet Isaias, signified no more than a young woman. But St. Jerome tells us that alma signifies a virgin kept close up. Let the Jews, says he, shew me any place in which the Hebrew word alma, is applied to any one that is not a virgin, and I will own my ignorance. Besides the very circumstances in the text of the prophet, are more than a sufficient confutation of this Jewish exposition; for there a sign, or miracle, is promised to Achaz; and what miracle would it be for a young woman to have a child, when she had ceased to be a virgin? (Witham) — How happens it that nowhere in the gospels, or in any other part, do we find Christ called Emmanuel? I answer, that in the Greek expression the name is given for the thing signified; and the meaning is: He shall be a true Emmanuel, i.e., a God with us, true God and true man. (Estius) — The text says, they shall call, i.e., all men shall look upon Him as an Emmanuel. Again, his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty, the Prince of peace, &c., i.e., He shall be all these, not so much nominally, as really and in effect. (Haydock)

Ver. 24. The heretic Helvidius argues from this text, and from what we read in the gospel of Christ’s brethren, that Christ had brothers, and Mary other sons. But it is evident that in the style of the Scriptures, they who were no more than cousins were called brothers and sisters. (Haydock)

Ver. 25. See note on ver. 18. — St. Jerome assures us, that St. Joseph always preserved his virginal chastity. It is “of faith” that nothing contrary thereto ever took place with his chaste spouse, the blessed Virgin Mary. St. Joseph was given her by heaven to be the protector of her chastity, to secure her from calumnies in the birth of the Son of God, to assist her in her flight into Egypt, &c. &c. We cannot sufficiently admire the modest reserve of both parties. Mary does not venture to explain to her troubled husband the mystery of her pregnancy; and Joseph is afraid of mentioning his uneasiness and doubts, for fear of troubling her delicate mind and wounding her exquisite feelings. So great modesty, reserve and silence, are sure to be approved by heaven; and God sends an angel to Joseph in his sleep, to dissipate his doubts, and to expound to him the mystery of the incarnation. (Haydock)

 

[mrearly2]

Well said Cachonga. If I didn’t imply in my previous post I wasn’t suggesting that Mary and Joseph had sexual intimacy before Jesus was born, but, yes I agree that Mary and Joseph did have sexual relations after Jesus was born, and not before.

It is BLASPHEMOUS to believe and teach that the Blessed Virgin Mary and her Most Chaste Spouse St. Joseph had sexual relations. Our Lady was a virgin all her life. Why do think she is called the “Blessed Virgin Mary”? St. Joseph remained pure and chaste, as well.

Many people (especially non-Catholics) err, when reading Scripture, because they usually have only themselves, for guides and authority. When Holy Scripture is interpreted in the light of Church doctrine and the saints’ writings, it makes sense. We can’t apply modern thinking to every verse–people fall into error when they do that.

 

[wbarquez]

Not quite. We know Lot was Abraham’s nephew because Scripture gives us their exact relationship (even though there is no Hebrew word for “nephew”). When we read about the brothers and sisters of Jesus in Matthew and Mark, there is no mention of any other relatives, other than Joseph and Mary. Taken in this context, how can they be anything other than actual brothers and sisters?

This is still not conclusive enough. You are arguing from silence. Just because the Bible does not mention that Peter, James and John had wives or children does not mean that they were not married and hod no children, right? Besides, are the writers of the Gospels expected to give us the exact members of the family of Jesus? Another point to ponder: In the Gospel of John, Jesus enstrusted Mary to John at the foot of the cross. This would not be the case in Jewish culture if Mary had other sons. Still, I go back to my original question: if I would not believe the leaders of the early Church, like Saint Jerome who was the first to tackle the issue on the so-called brothers of Jesus and who taught in favor of the perpetual virginity of Mary, why should I believe any Johnny-come-lately Tom, Dick and Harry who teaches otherwise?

 

[Cranch]

What Scripture is this based on?

…what Scripture shows she was immaculately conceived?

What in Scripture makes you believe…

You are using human logic and reasoning, not Scripture.

I find absolutely no scriptural basis for any of these beliefs…

…since God’s word doesn’t record it, I do not believe it should be a dogma!

Are you under the impression that you are debating Protestants? Catholics do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura. Your premise is flawed so your conclusions are as well.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

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?

The New Testament Committee’s footnote on Matthew 1:25 is incomplete. Where the translation is careful, frequently the only words available to translate word-for-word seem misleading in English.

In English, “until” gently implies sex after giving birth.

It does not per se have that implication in Graeco-Roman Greek.

 

[David_Zampino]

The problem here, is that the two sides of the discussion are operating under diametrically opposed paradigms, which are completely incompatible.

Cachonga is arguing from a “prove it from Scripture” Sola Scriptura mindset – and a fairly radical one at that.

The Catholics are arguing from a “the Church is the interpreter of Scripture” mindset – a mindset which recognizes the authority of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

The two views are irreconcilable.

 

[mtk76]

The two views are irreconcilable.

I would not say that it is hard to fundamentally defend the it must be in scripture to be valid argument when it never says in scripture that this is the case. The idea doesn’t even hold up to its own principle.