Quick note on Matthew 1:25

[Miguel_Sastre]

I’m starting this thread to look briefly at this argument made by Pete Holter on another thread:

Matthew believed that Mary remained a virgin. If Matthew wanted his use of heos hou in 1:25 to imply a reversal in marital relations by – speaking grammatically – using heos hou to terminate the action of the main clause, then this verse would have marital relations ensuing between Joseph and Mary right there in the stable as soon as she “had given birth to a Son” (Matthew 1:25)! When Helvidius wanted the wording of Matthew 1:25 to imply such a reversal, Jerome ushered in this very objection with the following words: “your own thoughts shall now prove your master” (The Perpetual Virginity of Mary). Since Matthew’s use of heos hou is strategically placed at a point in the narration where a reversal of relations would be preposterous, we rightly believe that he intended to preclude our inferring such an implication, and that by doing this, he was actually pointing us in the opposite direction: Mary remained a virgin.

Now I would agree that Matthew’s main purpose was to teach Mary’s virginity until the time when Mary gave birth to a son. I think it reads far too much into the text, however, to argue that that was his only purpose.

Pete’s claim that IF Matthew is saying Mary’s virginity ended “as soon as” she gave birth to a son, THEN she and Joseph would have had marital relations right then and there in the stable, seems like a non-sequitur to me. Why? Because, grammatically speaking, all that needs to be inferred is that at some point after Jesus’ birth, normal marital relations ensued. The hidden premise is that marital relations would have taken place “as soon as” she gave birth, which I think we would all dismiss as highly unlikely, not to mention illegal by Jewish standards of the day.

The issue really comes down to what is the most likely and most plausible understanding of the heous hou clause. Here is my view:

1. Context is king. It trumps even grammatical rules. So while there may be general rules that “until” clauses normally follow, there can be exceptions, if warranted by context.
2. Grammatical rules are vice-regents. All things being equal, unless there are contextual reasons to the contrary, we assume the grammatical rule is being followed.
3. Matthew 1:25 features a negated verb in the main clause and an “until” (heos hou) in the subordinate clause.
4. The general rule is that when an “until” clause (of which heous hou is just one type), follows a negated main verb, then the action of the main verb takes place after the action of the verb in the subordinate clause. (I can show you a Greek grammar where this is stated explicitly, but it’s in my basement, and I’m feeling lazy right now.)
5. Therefore, “did not have relations until she bore a son,” normally implies *did have relations after she bore a son," by rule.
6. But rules are only vice regents. There may be contextual reasons that override the general rule. For example: The LXX of 2 Sam. 6:23 reads: καὶ τῇ Μελχολ θυγατρὶ Σαουλ οὐκ ἐγένετο παιδίον ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτήν. “And Michal, the daughter of Saul, did not have a child until the day of her death.” (Leaving aside the textual question of whether this should read Merab, instead of Michal, it is clear that neither one of them could have had children after death.) Here we have a negated main verb and an until clause, but clearly the action of the main verb does not continue after the until, which the grammatical rule would normally predict.
7. Question: Is there any such contextual reason to argue that the until in Matthew 1:25 trumps the grammatical rule? Apart from the later tradition in which Mary’s perpetual virginity becomes explicit, I don’t see any. Had Matthew intended to teach this doctrine, then it seems he would have been far more clear about the precise relationship of Jesus’ “brothers,” especially when seen side-by-side with Jesus’ mother, in Matthew 12:45-47.
8. In other words, by itself, “until she bore a son” does not have to imply future marital relations. But when we join this to the appearance of Mary with Jesus’ “brothers,” then the probability seems to favor that she did.
9. If so, then there seems to be no reason NOT to follow the general grammatical rule.
10. Conclusion: Matthew is probably teaching that Mary and Joseph went on to have normal marital relations at some point after the birth of Jesus.

 

[PerfectTiming]

I disagree. Whilst Matthew 1:25 is somewhat ambiguous, there are other Scriptural references that support the Catholic teaching that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not have marital relations with Joseph and had no more children.

Also, you argue that it is “read[ing] far too much into the text, however, to argue that that was his only purpose”. I would say it is reading too much into it to argue that he had any other purpose than to teach Mary was a virgin.

Take a look at this:
fisheaters.com/mary.html
It explains how Scripture shows us that Mary remained a virgin.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Hi Miguel!

Thank you for starting this thread. It is a joy and pleasure to talk about the power of the grace of God at work in our Mother!

I’m starting this thread to look briefly at this argument made by Pete Holter on another thread:

Now I would agree that Matthew’s main purpose was to teach Mary’s virginity until the time when Mary gave birth to a son. I think it reads far too much into the text, however, to argue that that was his only purpose.

Pete’s claim that IF Matthew is saying Mary’s virginity ended “as soon as” she gave birth to a son, THEN she and Joseph would have had marital relations right then and there in the stable, seems like a non-sequitur to me. Why? Because, grammatically speaking, all that needs to be inferred is that at some point after Jesus’ birth, normal marital relations ensued. The hidden premise is that marital relations would have taken place “as soon as” she gave birth, which I think we would all dismiss as highly unlikely, not to mention illegal by Jewish standards of the day.

I agree with you that Matthew’s main purpose is to show how the prophecy from Isaiah was fulfilled, that a virgin would not only conceive, but also give birth to Jesus. So he mentions the birth in connection with the abstention of relations to prove his point. But I still think that there is also an implication in his use of heos hou to the effect that nothing changed in Mary and Joseph’s marital arrangements.

The issue really comes down to what is the most likely and most plausible understanding of the heous hou clause. Here is my view:
7. Question: Is there any such contextual reason to argue that the until in Matthew 1:25 trumps the grammatical rule?

Without going outside of the immediate context I would say that the birth of Jesus as the selected point in time beyond which Joseph no longer knew her not is the reason. If you allow for a delay between the birth of Jesus and their ensuing relations, then when did these relations take place? As Jerome would say, “But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it” (The Perpetual Virginity of Mary).

Apart from the later tradition in which Mary’s perpetual virginity becomes explicit, I don’t see any. Had Matthew intended to teach this doctrine, then it seems he would have been far more clear about the precise relationship of Jesus’ “brothers,” especially when seen side-by-side with Jesus’ mother, in Matthew 12:45-47.

Mary’s perpetual virginity is explicit through the necessary deduction that must be drawn from Luke 1:34. In terms of Trinitarian dogma, you are starting with the “Father is greater than I” verse instead of the “Word was God” verse. But even if we stay with Matthew, Joseph and Mary were married long before she gave birth to Jesus. Why did they abstain from relations for this long period of time if they had not resolved to just simply remain virgins? Luke 1:34 is our answer.

1. In other words, by itself, “until she bore a son” does not have to imply future marital relations. But when we join this to the appearance of Mary with Jesus’ “brothers,” then the probability seems to favor that she did.

We say that since these “brothers” are always referred to as “brothers,” and never as “sons of,” then their being mentioned in conjunction with Jesus’ mother doesn’t suggest that they were her children; rather, it more simply suggests that both they and Mary are related to Jesus.

Sorry I don’t have a knock-out punch for you in this post. Just enough to get us started.

In Christ,
Pete

 

[thistle]

Hi Miguel!

Thank you for starting this thread. It is a joy and pleasure to talk about the power of the grace of God at work in our Mother!

I agree with you that Matthew’s main purpose is to show how the prophecy from Isaiah was fulfilled, that a virgin would not only conceive, but also give birth to Jesus. So he mentions the birth in connection with the abstention of relations to prove his point. But I still think that there is also an implication in his use of heos hou to the effect that nothing changed in Mary and Joseph’s marital arrangements.

Without going outside of the immediate context I would say that the birth of Jesus as the selected point in time beyond which Joseph no longer knew her not is the reason. If you allow for a delay between the birth of Jesus and their ensuing relations, then when did these relations take place? As Jerome would say, “But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it” (The Perpetual Virginity of Mary).

Mary’s perpetual virginity is explicit through the necessary deduction that must be drawn from Luke 1:34. In terms of Trinitarian dogma, you are starting with the “Father is greater than I” verse instead of the “Word was God” verse. But even if we stay with Matthew, Joseph and Mary were married long before she gave birth to Jesus. Why did they abstain from relations for this long period of time if they had not resolved to just simply remain virgins? Luke 1:34 is our answer.

We say that since these “brothers” are always referred to as “brothers,” and never as “sons of,” then their being mentioned in conjunction with Jesus’ mother doesn’t suggest that they were her children; rather, it more simply suggests that both they and Mary are related to Jesus.

Sorry I don’t have a knock-out punch for you in this post. Just enough to get us started.

In Christ,
Pete

Forgive an old guy who’s not at his best in the morning but what point are you trying to show.
Are you agreeing Mary was a perpetual virgin ot not? Its not clear to me what the issue is.

 

[NHInsider]

The strongest “contextual” evidence that Mary did not have other children is the provision for her future that the Lord made from the Cross when He instructed His best friend to take her into his home. If she had ANY other children, male or female, they would have been obligated to care for her - and John, who had his own mother to take care of, would not have been given that responsibility.

There are lots of other places here in CAF where the “brothers of the Lord” argument has been deconstructed, but if OP needs the details I can post them again.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Here are some posts I’ve written on the subject:

Origen: Denial of Perpetual Virginity is Heresy; Clement of Alexandria
The Authenticity of the Preceding Quote from Origen; Clement Again
Still Thinking It’s Authentic…
Mary Does Not Know Man and Is Uniquely Related to Joseph
Unwitting Fulfillment of Prophecy
Isaiah 7:14 Was Already Fulfilled, Justin and Trypho
More of the Same and the Vision of the Wonderworker
God Miraculously Fulfilling Isaiah 7:14 in an Unexpected Way, John’s Gospel Considered, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril of Alexandria
Joseph, His Kingly Ancestor, and Heos Hou
Various Correlations, Jesus in the Temple, and Brothers as Mature Adults
Mary Is the Church in Archetype
Mary Is Disciple Antitype and Virgin Bride of Christ; Quodvultdeus

The Brethren of the Lord by J. B. Lightfoot is a very instructive historical and Biblical survey on this question. He comes to the conclusion that the “Epiphanian” view is probably correct.

And speaking of Quodvultdeus, my sweet wife let me give our new son “Quodvultdeus” as a second middle name. What a sweet wife! I love the meaning of this name: “What God Wills.”

“Although I have always been conscious of my own sins, I now recognize clearly that, when it is a case of gaining the favor which I asked, my character is a hindrance to the whole Church. But I firmly trust that He who deigned to blot out the sins of the human race by the grace of His only Son will not permit mine to prevail for the destruction of others, but will, instead, make His grace to abound where sin had abounded” (Quodvultdeus to Augustine, Letter 223).

Back to the thread… there are, of course, the Early Church Father citations provided by Catholic Answers. I’m not sure why they omitted John Chrysostom:

“And when he had taken her, ‘he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ He has here used the word ‘till,’ not that you should suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform you that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, has he used the word, ‘till’? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, ‘The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.’ And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture says, ‘From age until age You are,’ not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, ‘In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,’ it does not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word ‘till,’ to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves you to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for you to learn of Him, this He Himself has said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for you to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home?

“How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary” (Homily 5 on Matthew).

With the grace and love towards man of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Pete

 

[steve_b]

The issue really comes down to what is the most likely and most plausible understanding of the heous hou clause. Here is my view:

1. Context is king. It trumps even grammatical rules. So while there may be general rules that “until” clauses normally follow, there can be exceptions, if warranted by context.

How do you come to that conclusion?
MS:

1. Grammatical rules are vice-regents. All things being equal, unless there are contextual reasons to the contrary, we assume the grammatical rule is being followed.

Therefore, grammatical rules DO determine context.
MS:

1. Matthew 1:25 features a negated verb in the main clause and an “until” (heos hou) in the subordinate clause.
2. The general rule is that when an “until” clause (of which heous hou is just one type), follows a negated main verb, then the action of the main verb takes place after the action of the verb in the subordinate clause. (I can show you a Greek grammar where this is stated explicitly, but it’s in my basement, and I’m feeling lazy right now.)

That’s perfectly reasonable, but not absolute. You give the example of exception, in the following
MS:

1. Therefore, “did not have relations until she bore a son,” normally implies *did have relations after she bore a son," by rule.
2. But rules are only vice regents. There may be contextual reasons that override the general rule. For example: The LXX of 2 Sam. 6:23 reads: καὶ τῇ Μελχολ θυγατρὶ Σαουλ οὐκ ἐγένετο παιδίον ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτήν. “And Michal, the daughter of Saul, did not have a child until the day of her death.” (Leaving aside the textual question of whether this should read Merab, instead of Michal, it is clear that neither one of them could have had children after death.) Here we have a negated main verb and an until clause, but clearly the action of the main verb does not continue after the until, which the grammatical rule would normally predict.

True. So how can a rule, if it IS a rule, which seems soooooo clear, get breached so easily? And not just here but other places in scripture as well. Part of this “until” issue, is the expanded perpetual virginity defense, which also includes other children of Mary and Joseph, i.e. brothers of the Lord. These points are covered in the following article
catholic.com/thisrock/2009/0907btb.asp
MS:

1. Question: Is there any such contextual reason to argue that the until in Matthew 1:25 trumps the grammatical rule? Apart from the later tradition in which Mary’s perpetual virginity becomes explicit, I don’t see any.

It presumes

• “until” gurantees a change will happen. And that’s not absolute
• Joseph “knowing” Mary absolutely means “marital relations”…absolutely. That specific connection/conclusion is idiomatic, but not necessarily absolute.
• The previous article covers that

MS:

Had Matthew intended to teach this doctrine, then it seems he would have been far more clear about the precise relationship of Jesus’ “brothers,” especially when seen side-by-side with Jesus’ mother, in Matthew 12:45-47.

covered in that article
MS:

1. In other words, by itself, “until she bore a son” does not have to imply future marital relations. But when we join this to the appearance of Mary with Jesus’ “brothers,” then the probability seems to favor that she did.

Covered in that article
MS:

1. If so, then there seems to be no reason NOT to follow the general grammatical rule.
2. Conclusion: Matthew is probably teaching that Mary and Joseph went on to have normal marital relations at some point after the birth of Jesus.

There is No evidence Mary had other Children from her womb. The ones who were mentioned by name (brothers of the Lord) can be traced to another Mary or another father and mother, NOT Mary the mother of Jesus. However, in Rev 12:17 here’s another illusion to Mary’s offspring

17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. And he stood on * the sand of the sea.

There’s no question, reading Rev 12, who this woman is that John is speaking of. If all those referred to are Mary’s offspring, That would make Mary the most prolific mother known to history if all of them came from her womb. Even in the 1st century, her children then, would number in the 10’s of thousands. Obviously

" offspring" can’t refer to offspring from her womb