Proof of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity in John 19

[Hodos]

It is you who says the construction isn’t the same. But you demur where is your definition that defines it any other way than up to the time of it’s happening. You can’t.

Brother on the other hand is shown in Scripture to have numerous meanings other than a blood Brother.

Yes, and these are normally assumed where the relation between two people is not established in a genealogy, or within the text, etc. Normally this is obvious to the reader. So Paul calling the Church in Corinth brothers, okay. You are correct. There is no reason to believe that those in the Church of Corinth are blood relations to Paul. Matthew saying that Jesus mother, and brothers, and sisters came to find him, and Jesus then asking who are his mother and brothers, then answering in an obvious contrast to his blood relations is another context all together, and that is ignoring the statement already made in Matthew 1:25. You want to talk about human interpretations and take the meaning from other entirely different works in different contexts without dealing with the actual usage made by Matthew in the instances we are discussing.

It is you who says the construction isn’t the same. But you demur where is your definition that defines it any other way than up to the time of it’s happening. You can’t.

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon. b. with the genitive of the neuter relative pronoun οὗ or ὅτου it gets the force of a conjunction, until, till (the time when).

Notice that Matthew gives the terminus of the time when as until she gave birth to a son. And then later describes that Jesus has mother is looking for him IN THE SAME SENTENCE AND CONTEXT as he describes that he has brothers and sisters.

So another example of this construction is found in Acts 21:26, where Paul’s companions are under a time of purification due to an oath, terminating with the offering of a sacrifice that Paul had provided. Note the state of purification continued up until the sacrifice was offered on their behalf, providing the terminus of the preceding clause.

The significance here is that the word Έως is strengthened with the particle όυ, which roughly translates as Έως (as many as, until) όυ (which or when) then offers an indicative statement, not a subjunctive statement, indicating that the terminus actually does happen, not will or might or we hope will happen.

 

[hope]

You are not considering that the Jews of the time did not live in families as we do today. They lived in extended families of Grandparents, brothers, sisters and their families. All being referred to as brothers.
Until no matter how you try to talk around it means up to a time and not anything after that time including Acts 21:26
Whenever I have this discussion, the other person never provides a dictionary meaning of until other than the one I have stated and that includes you.

 

[Hodos]

Until no matter how you try to talk around it means up to a time and not anything after that time including

Accept that the conditional part of the sentence directly refers to Joseph taking his wife, but kept her a virgin until…which according to you was the normal process for a marriage - engagement followed by consummation…using a strengthened form of until followed by an indicative statement which implies in all cases it is used as a terminus that occurred in reality, and ends with a terminal condition that we know for a fact actually happened (a son was born and they names him Jesus). Which is later followed up with the knowledge that Jesus had brothers and sisters, all provided by the same author.

Whenever I have this discussion, the other person never provides a dictionary meaning of until other than the one I have stated and that includes you.

I certainly did. Your issue is that you reject both the semantic construction of the sentence and the meaning of until in favor of extra-textual tradition. I also pointed out that this construction is more literally translated as until when, until which, until such time as, etc., showing you the lexicon that provides this. However, you literally said earlier that until doesn’t mean until. Your concern has been addressed quite directly.

But here you go…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[hope]

Which is later followed up with the knowledge that Jesus had brothers and sisters, all provided by the same author.

Your problem is that Matthew never says they were siblings. Considering his culture you cannot conclude that he was saying that they were siblings. Matthew was only trying to say that it was a virginal birth and nothing more.

I certainly did.

You did not.
You provided your interpretation of semantic construction. You have not used a dictionary definition.
conjunction
up to the time that or when; till:
preposition
onward to or till (a specified time or occurrence):
It doesn’t meant a change occurred and you haven’t provided a definition from a dictionary that it does. Why? Because it doesn’t.

 

[Hodos]

Your problem is that Matthew never says they were siblings.

He literally did. You reject the word that Matthew used when referring to his brothers.

You provided your interpretation of semantic construction. You have not used a dictionary definition.

I certainly did, and demonstrated how the Greek lexicon requires the second definition or understanding, and provided a similar example using the same construction.

 

[hope]

Nowhere does he say that they were children of Mary. The only son mentioned is Jesus.

I certainly did

I missed your quoting of the dictionary. That definition says exactly what I have stated to you Up to the time there is nothing in the definition that says the condition changes.
So no you have not provided a definition that says that it changed after a period of time.

 

[hope]

I found this on an old flash drive. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[fide]

Your issue is that you reject both the semantic construction of the sentence and the meaning of until in favor of extra-textual tradition

Exactly. A faithful Catholic believes that the Lord actually did do as He promised: He did send a Holy Spirit, Who actually did what Jesus and the Father sent Him to do:

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
Joh 16:8 And when he comes, he will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
Joh 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;
Joh 16:10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more;
Joh 16:11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
Joh 16:12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Joh 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

It is good to be a “scholar of the law” - as indeed the scribes and others were. But they were kept in error concerning Jesus, perhaps precisely because of their “expertise.” That knowledge kept them from the simple humility of the “babes” to whom God did reveal Himself.

Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus declared, "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes;
Mat 11:26 yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will.

Scholarship is a good thing, but it must not become an obstacle to the best thing: holy faith. Scholarship can never pronounce absolutes, but true faith can and does, because God cannot lie.

If I have misjudged your comments and reasonings, please forgive me.

 

[stoplooklisten]

The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary requires also that Jesus passed out of the uterus without taking the usual path through the birth canal.

Jesus appeared in a room with closed doors after his death and resurrection (John 20:19). The infant Jesus must have appeared at his birth in a similar miraculous way having passed from Mary’s womb into the midst of Joseph and Mary.

 

[stoplooklisten]

You are not considering that the Jews of the time did not live in families as we do today. They lived in extended families of Grandparents, brothers, sisters and their families. All being referred to as brothers.
Until no matter how you try to talk around it means up to a time and not anything after that time including Acts 21:26

Exactly. And if that type of extended family had been in place, then Jesus would not have assigned the Apostle John to get involved and care for Mary.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Pope St. Leo the Great said: ‘She (Mary) brought Him forth without the loss of virginity, even as she conceived him without its loss…(Jesus Christ was) born from the Virgin’s womb because it was a miraculous birth.’

 

[hope]

I am not sure what you are saying. That is what was in place at the time of Jesus. But a widow was cared for only by her son. If she didn’t have a son she was out of luck.

 

[Hodos]

Your flash drive demonstrates a exactly what I was talking about earlier. It rejects the meaning of Έως όυ provided in the standard lexicons without citing why. This is likely because it attempts to conflate Έως όυ with Έως alone. It then tries to support this using four examples which do not use the Έως όυ construction. In other words it is attempting to use a bait and switch tactic to avoid having to deal with the meaning of the text.

Nowhere does he say that they were children of Mary. The only son mentioned is Jesus.

I find this logic interesting. You are attempting to say I am making an argument from silence. So this discounts the most natural and logical reading of both Matthew 1:25 and Matthew 12, in favor of a theory that Joseph had children by another wife nowhere mentioned in Matthew, essentially making an argument from silence. Not a strong sell.

I missed your quoting of the dictionary. That definition says exactly what I have stated to you Up to the time there is nothing in the definition that says the condition changes.
So no you have not provided a definition that says that it changed after a period of time.

Actually it did. If you look at the examples provided in the two dictionary definitions, the second definition gives examples where until is used to designate a condition that stops once the time is arrived, and this is the definition that the lexicon suggests when using the Έως όυ construction.

So the examples were: play continued until it got dark (play stopped presumably to go inside); never able to relax until he took up fishing (the premise here is that fishing allowed the person to relax which ended the original condition of not being able to relax); ran until she was breathless (she could not continue running because she was out of breath).

The two definitions demonstrate the difference between showing a continuing action, and an action or condition that has a terminus ad quem. And even the first definition usually suggests a terminus ad quem where the action or condition ceases, although I would agree, not always. Context provides the determination.

 

[hope]

The Case for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until” whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph “not having come together” would have ended after Jesus was born.

The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou ) I could send him to Caesar.”

Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou .

 

[Hodos]

Even that example is incorrect. The speaker is Festus. Festus held Paul in his (Festus’) custody until he was able to send him to Caesar. At that point, Paul was no longer under Festus’s custody. Another obvious reach to redefine the meaning of a passage based on taking something out of context and ignoring the meaning of the vocabulary.

 

[SeekSalvation]

I think you will find Isaiah foretold the Virgin Birth long before our the time of our Incarnate Lord’s birth - Isaiah 7:14

 

[Medawlinno]

To sort of echo what Hodos I think may be driving at…

Have to do it in two parts though - Part 1…

Much of the argument of Mary’s perpetual virginity, and hence the siblings of Jesus, hinges on the use of the Greek prepositions ‘heos’ and heos hou’. Most Catholic apologists seem to like to argue that there is no difference in meaning between the two and that they are used interchangeably.

I do not believe this is the case though. The classic comparison is Mat. 1:25 and 2 Sam. 6:23. In this case, however, Matthew uses ‘heos hou’ and Samuel uses just ‘heos’. To paraphrase from a book called “Who is my Mother?” by E. Svendsen, heos hou occurs 17 times in the NT, and all are temporal. Two have the meaning of (or are best interpreted as) “while” (Mat. 14:22; 26:36), whereas the other 15 occurrences are instances in which the action of the main clause is limited by the action of subordinate clause and require the meaning, “until a specific time, (but not after)”.

He goes on to demonstrate that just the ‘heos’ construction could mean what many people want it to mean with respect to Mary (i.e. Joseph did not have relations with her before the birth of Jesus as well as after), but ‘heos hou’ typically carries the meaning of “until that point in time, with a change or stopping of that action before that time”. This is the meaning carried by 15 of the 17 times it’s used. As mentioned, the other two carry the meaning/interpretation of “while”. None of the passages in the NT with ‘heos hou’ mean “until, and continuing on after that”, which is required for the Perpetual Virginity dogma.

Contrary to what some writers would have one believe, ‘heos’ and ‘heos hou’ do not mean quite the same thing and they are certainly not interchangeable with the same intended meaning.
Here’s another way of looking at the “until” argument –

If I say “Hey, don’t start swimming until I get back, okay.” There’s a bit of ambiguity here in English. Are we going swimming when I get back, or not?

This type of ambiguity is common in some languages. Many though, have ways of completely eliminating it.

In koiné Greek, if the preposition I use for ‘until’ in my phrase above is ‘heos’, the implication is that even after I get back, no swimming will occur. That’s the sort of ‘understood’ meaning.

If for the same phrase I use ‘heos hou’ for ‘until’, the implication changes a bit in that that it becomes definite –after I arrive, we will indeed start swimming.

The ambiguity over whether the initial action still occurs after another event/action occurs is eliminated. With ‘heos hou’ X will occur only up until Y happens; after Y, X will stop.

 

[Medawlinno]

Part 2 -
Granted, in most cases, one might consider the use of one preposition over the other to be simply a subtle change in meaning, a way to avoid any ambiguity, but for Mat. 1:25, this subtlety makes a huge difference for the rest of the narrative.

“He knew her not (un)till she had brought forth her firstborn son.”

If ‘heos’ were used, one could certainly argue that after this child was born, sexual relations continued not to occur. If, however ‘heos hou’ is used (which, of course, it is), the implication is that after the birth, normal sexual relations between the couple would commence.

On perhaps a more practical level, if the author wished to say that even after the birth of Jesus, the couple had no sexual relations, why didn’t he just say it? Why word it so to cloak such a simple statement in (what at first glance seems like) complete ambiguity? One answer might be that he really didn’t make it ambiguous at all – what he meant he made perfectly clear in his choice of prepositions.

And again, to be completely fair, there are, as one might suspect, arguments against the whole ‘heos’/’heos hou’ issue, but of the ones I’ve seen, I have to say that they’re not overly convincing. As mentioned in a previous post, there is a definite difference between the two; they do not both mean the exact same thing. It’s only when the phrase gets translated into other languages that ambiguity arises.

Another sensitive issue is that since the church has chosen to make Mary’s perpetual virginity dogma, it can’t very well back out of the decision. The arguments for a perpetual virginity based on Mat. 1:25 seem to involve a lot of back-paddling. I can’t imagine that these early scholars did not recognize the differences in this aspect of Greek grammar. However, as one writer put it: “Mary was idealized over time as the divine-like Holy “Mother of God.” She was so far removed from her culture and her time that the very idea that she had sexual relations, bore additional children, and lived a normal life as a married Jewish woman seemed unthinkable for centuries. She was quite literally “exalted to heaven,” and her actual humanity was lost.”

I think that says it quite well – for many early Christians, the thought of Mary having normal sexual relations with her husband after the birth of Jesus was simply too unthinkable; the solution – perpetual virginity. The author of Matthew’s gospel however seems to suggest otherwise.

 

[Medawlinno]

Should have added to the above - another argument for perpetual virginity is when Jesus hands his mother’s care to an unnamed disciple while on the cross (and not the “eldest brother”).

The disciple Jesus hands his mother over to is assumed to be John but may not have been. I’m not suggesting it was Lazarus, but, just as an example, he is also one “whom Jesus loved”. Valid arguments have also been made for his ‘brother’, James. The point is that it could have been almost anyone, not just John.

With that thought in mind, I suspect, that the inclusion of this dialogue of Jesus between his mother and an unnamed disciple, was done for its symbolic connotation/implications; i.e. this disciple was never meant to be anyone specific.

Could this unnamed disciple simply be a metaphor for humanity in general (a “disciple whom he loved” enough to give his life for their sins) – Jesus symbolically handing Mary over to ‘us’ (humanity) as ‘our’ (humanity’s) spiritual mother? I think perhaps so.

 

[hope]

You do not explain why it was incorrect. The article states

that The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it.

You don’t dispute that nor provide evidence that it is not true. It is funny because it is my opinion that you ignore vocabulary. The point of what he is saying which I guess you didn’t get is that Paul was in custody. According to the way you say the word means he would not longer be in custody. The article goes on to point out that the action of the main clause did not cease.
In the definition you quoted you failed to note its use as a conjunction which is the definition I have been using all along. Up to the time without any reference to after that time. You still have not provided a definition that states that after the time it changes. Even the use as a preposition which you seem to be hanging your hat on, it states to a specific time without any reference to a change.

The two definitions demonstrate the difference between showing a continuing action, and an action or condition that has a terminus ad quem. And even the first definition usually suggests a terminus ad quem where the action or condition ceases, although I would agree, not always. Context provides the determination.

This is an interpretation on your part. The definition does not state. It ignores the actual definition. Until as used is a conjunction not a preposition but even so both have the same meaning.