Perpetual Virginity Of Mary

[yinandyang]

I have a question someone asked me in regards to the perpetual virginity of Mary. The verse in question is Matthew 1:18. In the New American Bible it says “…before they lived together…”. I’ve also seen it translated, in other Bibles, as “…before they came together…”.
So we looked up the original Greek and the word is “sunerchomai”. (I don’t know of a Catholic website that gives the original Greek/Hebrew, so I used a Protestant site, BlueLetterBible.org. If anyone knows of a Catholic site please let me know). It seems this Greek word can mean:

1. to come together
   a) to assemble
   b) of conjugal cohabitation
2. to go (depart) or come with one another, to accompany one

So it seems it can mean to “live together”, but only with the implication of marital relations taking place. So this person’s argument is that Matthew 1:18 is directly implying Mary and Joseph had relations later on. I’ve already had to explain the “heos” argument in our discussion regarding Matthew 1:25 and the word “until”. But I haven’t been able to come up with a suitable answer to Matthew 1:18. If anyone would help me in standing up for Our Lady’s perpetual virginity, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[dadude]

I’m a bit confused by your post. I’m not sure of the correct translation from the greek. In the RSV bible it states:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit;

Saying before they came together in no way indicates that they ever came together. It simply states thats Mary concieved Christ by the power of Holy Spirit before having any relations with Joseph.

 

[Scottgun]

Try this:

Replies to Protestants’ Alleged Biblical Disproofs of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (vs. Ken Temple)

Scroll down a bit for the passage in question. Two nice tidbits:

Martin Luther:

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

John Calvin:

The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

Dumping perpetual virginity is a modern phenomenon and seems to be an example of certain people letting the not-the-Catholic polemic get the better of them.

Scott

 

[patientone]

A betrothal is a promise to marry. Coming together is a union as in marriage, this doesn’t necessarily mean a conjugal union. It may be hard for one without sin (all of us) to believe this is feasible without properly understanding scripture, but we are talking about the Mother of God here! When Joseph found out Mary was with child he was going to leave her until the Angel appeared to him with the news. Joseph stood up to the plate for the Kingdom! As did Mary!

Hail Mary…

 

[KephasAugustine]

patientone:

one without sin (all of us)

Did I read that correctly?

 

[yinandyang]

So can “come together” (Greek word-“sunerchomai”) just mean live together without marital relations, without it meaning conjugal cohabitation? Because the definition I listed before seems to say it has to mean conjugal cohabitation if used in a way that implies living together.
Or is it just that Matthew 1:18 isn’t implying anything, with the word “before”, about the event in question actually taking place (as in Matthew 1:25 and the word until)?
It’s like if someone said- While I was at the park, before I came home, I found a baseball.
Wouldn’t the person have eventually come home.
By that logic the person I’m having this discussion with is saying that then didn’t Mary eventually have relations with Jospeh?
Again, I don’t believe they had marital relations, I just want to be able to adequately explain Matthew 1:18 (with regard to Mary’s perpetual virginity) to him. Thank you for the prior help and (hopefully) future help.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Read here about her Perpetual Virginity, especially this part:

“St. Jerome shows, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8, 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return anymore. Also Isaias 46, 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be?..God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued?”

 

[Pax]

Mary and Joseph were married. A description of marriage would include conjugal relations. Nevertheless, there are and have been marriages where people lived together without ever consumating their “marriage” through sexual relations. In those cases the term marriage would still be used. Likewise, the term “before they came together/assembled to go (depart) or come with one another, to accompany one” as applied to Mary and Joseph would be the terminology used for them as a married couple, but there simply is no evidence that they engaged in marital relations. This is clearly established by the fact the brothers and sisters of Jesus argument can be refuted.

 

[mouda772]

i get tied of protestants trying to call our mother some kind of whore-because thats how it feels when they deny her perpetual virginity.so i always say-look at some/most of the saints-they remained virgins all their lives,and the “power of the Most High” did not overshaddow them as it did mary,she gave birth to God,she would never dream of going near a man because she gave birth to God!they think with carnal,human,uninspired minds-just because they cant handle it or resist their passions doesnt mean that the most blessed of all woman couldnt either-it just doesnt make sense now does it?ofcourse she ever remains a virgin,its the most remarkable thing that somebody would have a child who is God,while a virgin-she doesnt need any more children because she has us!she doesnt need to have marital relations because she gave birth to the Son of God,who was always around her.st joseph had the special task of protecting mary and Jesus because if the other villages saw her pregnant without a husband she would have been stoned.i think that when they deny marys perpetual virginity they deny the divinity of Christ.luther and the other protestant leaders were evil men,hell bent on the diruption of the church and its teachings and therefore they take away the light of truth which means less glory for God-which is what satan wants.which is a bit off track-but basically i think if you get them to think through the stupidity of mary and joseph doing that stuff with the Son of God near by is just so dumb.doing that sort of thing in the presence of God,or where He has been…it just does not make sense!its gross and just not right to think that…nup-it just does not work:doh2:

 

[sandusky]

Scottgun:

Dumping perpetual virginity is a modern phenomenon and seems to be an example of certain people letting the not-the-Catholic polemic get the better of them.

That’s a strawman; simply because your church binds your conscience to its teachings, and the teachings of the ECFs, doesn’t mean that I, or anyone else, is bound to the teachings of Luther, and Calvin. Catholics claim that their doctrines develop; is that another infallibly exclusive claim?

You are obviously enamored with Luther’s and Calvin’s teachings on the Virgin Mary, why do you reject their other teachings? :ehh:

Why is it OK for you to reject some of the teachings of Luther and Calvin, but it’s not OK for me to do the same? :ehh:

 

[dadude]

.luther and the other protestant leaders were evil men,hell bent on the diruption of the church and its teachings and therefore they take away the light of truth which means less glory for God-which is what satan wants.

This here is so very true. St. Louis De Montfort used devotion to our Blessed Mother to combat heresy. As many of you may know he wrote a book True Devotion To Mary. He predicted that this writing would be hidden for many as the work of satan himself. And sure enough it was many years of his death that this manuscript was found.All people trying to convince others that Mary was not a perpetual virgin,she is not the mother of God,or she never sinned is truly being used by satan.

 

[yinandyang]

All people trying to convince others that Mary was not a perpetual virgin,she is not the mother of God,or she never sinned is truly being used by satan.

Doesn’t the Catholic belief of the Immaculate Conception of Mary state that she was conceived free from original sin and never sinned a day in her life (by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross of course)?
So then, she never sinned, correct?

 

[MarcoPolo]

So then, she never sinned, correct?

Correct.

 

[Axion]

So can “come together” (Greek word-“sunerchomai”) just mean live together without marital relations, without it meaning conjugal cohabitation? Because the definition I listed before seems to say it has to mean conjugal cohabitation if used in a way that implies living together.
.

There is no statement of marital cohabitation in this word. here’s a few other examples of the use of sunerchomai in scripture…

Mark 3.20 And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.

Luke 5.15 .But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities.

Luke 23.55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.

Joh 11:33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,

Joh 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

Acts 1. 6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

Acts 9.39 Then Peter arose and went with them. When he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber: and all the widows stood by him weeping, and shewing the coats and garments which Dorcas made, while she was with them.

Acts 21.22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

 

[Pax]

Axion,

Good job on the research.

 

[eagle_55]

i get tied of protestants trying to call our mother some kind of whore-because thats how it feels when they deny her perpetual virginity.so i always say-look at some/most of the saints-they remained virgins all their lives,and the “power of the Most High” did not overshaddow them as it did mary,she gave birth to God,***she would never dream of going near a man because she gave birth to God! ***they think with carnal,human,uninspired minds-just because they cant handle it or resist their passions doesnt mean that the most blessed of all woman couldnt either-it just doesnt make sense now does it?of course she ever remains a virgin,its the most remarkable thing that somebody would have a child who is God,while a virgin-she doesnt need any more children because she has us!she doesnt need to have marital relations because she gave birth to the Son of God,who was always around her.st joseph had the special task of protecting mary and Jesus because if the other villages saw her pregnant without a husband she would have been stoned.i think that when they deny marys perpetual virginity they deny the divinity of Christ.luther and the other protestant leaders were evil men,hell bent on the diruption of the church and its teachings and therefore they take away the light of truth which means less glory for God-which is what satan wants.which is a bit off track-but basically i think if you get them to think through the stupidity of mary and joseph doing that stuff with the Son of God near by is just so dumb.doing that sort of thing in the presence of God,or where He has been…it just does not make sense!its gross and just not right to think that…nup-it just does not work:doh2:

So your view is that once she became pregnant, by God, she was disenchanted with mortal man, and would never consider having relations with he husband?

 

[eagle_55]

Look at Matthew 1:23-25

23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.”
24 When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home.
25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son and he named him Jesus.

Why not state, “the Angel also instructed him that she was to remain ever virgin AFTER the birth of Christ, and he is not to have relations with her”?

Also Luke 2:6-76 While they were there, the time came for her to have her child,
7 and she gave birth to her firstborn son. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
Why not just state, her only child, a son? unless it was understood by Luke that she had other children AFTER Jesus’ birth.

 

[savedsinner]

Look at Matthew 1:23-25

23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.”
24 When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home.
25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son and he named him Jesus.

Why not state, “the Angel also instructed him that she was to remain ever virgin AFTER the birth of Christ, and he is not to have relations with her”?

Also Luke 2:6-76 While they were there, the time came for her to have her child,
7 and she gave birth to her firstborn son. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
Why not just state, her only child, a son? unless it was understood by Luke that she had other children AFTER Jesus’ birth.

For Matthew, the point being made is that Mary was a virgin at birth. It is not trying to make a statement whether she was a virgin after that point.

Here is an article on the perpetual virginity by St Jerome, written around 383 AD

As for Luke, the term “first born” is not saying that there were other children, but that was the honor, or authority that Jesus possessed. In the Hebrew Culture, the first born was given the blessing, and had special privileges, and the first born of the animals was the one that was sacrificed.

Here is an article on “first born”

 

[Pax]

So your view is that once she became pregnant, by God, she was disenchanted with mortal man, and would never consider having relations with he husband?

This is the wrong approach and the wrong question. In order to understand this you have to look at the larger picture. This includes what we can deduce about Mary from scripture as well as what we can learn from the OT scriptures and Jewish OT practices.

The following is taken from an article PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY by Br. Anthony Opisso, M.D.

"In Jewish Law a man betrothed to a woman was considered legally married to her. The word for betrothed in Hebrew is Kiddush, a word that is derived from the Hebrew word Kadash which means “holy” “consecrated,” “set apart.” Because by betrothal (as in Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27) , or marriage, a woman became the peculiar property of her husband, forbidden to others.
The Oral Law of Kiddushin (Marriages and Engagements) states; “The husband prohibits his wife to the whole world like an object which is dedicated to the Sanctuary” (Kiddushin 2b, Babylonian Talmud).

We know from the Gospel of Matthew 1:14 that Joseph the husband of Mary was a righteous man, a devout law-abiding Jew. Having noticed that Mary was pregnant and that he, her betrothed, had nothing to do with the pregnancy, Joseph had either to publicly condemn her and have her put to death for adultery (Dt 22:22-29) or put her away privately.
His decision was made when an angel appeared to him in a dream, saying: “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” (Mt. 1:20-21). The angel does not use the phrase for marital union: “go in unto” (as in Gn 30:3, 4, 16) or “come together” (Mt 1:18) but merely a word meaning leading her into the house as a wife (paralambano gunaika) but not cohabiting with her. For when the angel revealed to him that Mary was truly the spouse of the Holy Spirit, Joseph could take Mary, his betrothed, into his house as a wife, but he could never have intercourse with her because according to the Law she was forbidden to him for all time.

Marriage to the Holy Spirit
We also have to take into consideration that when Mary was told by the archangel Gabriel “Behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus” (Lk 1:31), he also added that this was to come about because “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy one to be born shall be called the Son of God” (Lk 1:35).
By stating it in those terms the archangel declared to Mary that God would enter into a marital relationship with her, causing her to conceive His Son in her womb, For “to lay one’s power (reshuth) over a woman” (Targum to Dt 21:4) was a euphemism for “to have a marital relationship with her.”
Likewise “to overshadow” (Lk 1:35) by spreading the “wing” or “cloak” over a woman was another euphemism for marital relations. Thus, the rabbis commented (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 39.7; Midrash Ruth Rabbah 3.9) that Ruth was chaste in her wording when she asked Boaz to have marital relations with her by saying to him “I am Ruth you handmaid, spread therefore your cloak ( literally, “wing”: kanaph) over your handmaid for you are my next-of-kin” (Ruth 3:9).
Tallith, another Aramaic-Hebrew word for cloak, is derived from tellal = shadow. Thus, “to spread one’s cloak (tallith) over a woman” means to cohabit with her (Kiddushin 18b, see also Mekhilta on Exodus 21:8). Did not the Lord say to His bride Israel: “I am married to you” (Jr 3:14) and “your Maker is your husband”? (Is 54-5:5; Jr 31:32)? And what is more intimate than what the Lord said to His bride: “You developed, you grew, you came to full womanhood; your breasts became firm and your hair grew… you were naked… and I saw that you were now old enough for love so I spread my cloak over you… I gave you My oath, I entered into a covenant with you and you became Mine, says the Lord God” (Ezk 16:7, 8).

cont. on next post:

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post:

Mary prohibited to Joseph
Having been enlightened by an angel in a dream regarding her pregnancy, and perhaps further by Mary concerning the words of the archangel Gabriel to her at the Annunciation, Joseph knew that God had conducted himself as a husband in regard to Mary. She was now prohibited to him for all time, and for the sake of the Child and Mary he could only live with her in an absolutely chaste relationship.

Living a celibate life within marriage was not unknown in Jewish tradition. It was told that Moses, who was married, remained continent the rest of his life after the command to abstain from sexual intercourse (Ex 19:15) given in preparation the seventy elders abstained thereafter from their wives after their call, and so did Eldad and Medad when the spirit of prophecy came upon them; indeed it was said that the prophets became celibate after the Word of the Lord communicated with them (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 19; 46.3; Sifre to Numbers 99 sect. 11; Sifre Zutta 81-82, 203-204; Aboth Rabbi Nathan 9, 39; Tanchuman 111, 46; Tanchumah Zaw 13; 3 Petirot Moshe 72; Shabbath 87a; Pesachim 87b, Babylonian Talmud)."

I hope this helps.