Scripture- Virginity of Mary

[jps23430]

I am a Catholic and I am a disciplined Catholic. I was just reading the bible and i read a passage that I never took note of before. If you can explain this to me, please do, because it is bothering me.

Matthew 1:25 He[Joseph] had no relations with her until she bore a son, and named him Jesus.

I never before took note of the “until” before now. Doesn’t including the word until lead you to believe that he had relations after, otherwise what is the point of that entire passage. If he never had relations with her that it is doesn’t make sense to say it in this way. Is it relations that may mean something else or is this just supposed to reinforce the virgin birth? either way, I wouldn’t be able to defend this passage to a non-catholic.

 

[teachccd]

The same author, Matthew, uses the word “until” in the last verse of his gospel. Matthew 28:20b states, “And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age”. In the original Greek the word for “until” is identical in both passages so if you use another english translation that says differently keep that in mind. Now using the reasoning that something must change because it was done “until” some event then Christ would no longer be with us after the end of the age. We know that that is not the case but it is emphasizing the fact that Christ will never leave us in this age. The same is true in Matthew 1:25. It emphasizes the fact that Jesus was truly the Son of God and not the Son of Joseph. Mary does not have to have relations with Joseph to make this statement true. There are other scripture passages that make the same use out of the word until. I don’t have them in front of me but perhaps others here will bring them to light. Even we often say to loved ones, " I will love you until the day you die." Surely we don’t let that end the day after the funeral… teachccd

 

[JRKH]

Thanks teacherccd for that reference. I had not heard taht before but it makes perfect sense.

jps23430,
Indeed this passage is confusing and could have been expressed more clearly. As a result it is actually used a lot by protestants as a proof text against the dogma of perpetual virginity.

But you know what…In considering this matter, I found that by putting myself in Joseph’s sandals, I could easily see how Mary could have remained a virgin even after the birth of Jesus.
Consider - Joseph knew that Mary was pregnant by the Holy Spirit of God. An angel came and told him so. So Joseph knew that Mary was, in essence, “betrothed” to the Holy Spirit of God.
If you were Joseph, would you choose to have marital relations with Mary, the mother of the Son of the living God?
I know I wouldn’t…

Peace
James

 

[po18guy]

To infer from this passage alone that Mary somehow had other children is reading into scripture what is not there. As teachccd mentioned, it was written to demonstrate that Jesus was not Joseph’s son, and that the birth was of a virgin - thus Isaiah was being fulfilled. A couple of things to remember: No scripture anywhere mentions “Mary’s children”, “her other children”, “Joseph’s children” or “their children” Not one. At the annunciation, Mary declared herself to be the handmaid of the Lord. How many masters can you serve? See Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13.

In Luke 2, when Joseph and Mary were returning from Jerusalem, they found that Jesus was not with them. Did they look for Him among their “children”? No! They searched among their relatives and acquaintances. Is there evidence from scripture that there were other “children” when Joseph and Mary returned to Jerusalem? No. Any evidence from scripture of “children” being them being with them when they found Jesus in the temple? No. Any mention of “children” being with them upon their return to Nazareth, or at any time during their entire lives? No.

This idea is a recent invention of man, which manages to insult:

1. Joseph
2. Mary
3. Martin Luther
4. Jean Calvin
5. the bible
6. The Lord, Who decreed the virgin birth, chose the Holly Family and inspired the scriptures.

I believe that it is used by some who are “ignorant and unstable” (2 Peter 3:16) in an attempt to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is wrong.

Just what has crept into “bible alone” thinking since the reformation? And, who is motivating it?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Ezekiel 44:2 refers to a gate that only God shall enter through. There is no gate in Jerusalem that only Jesus went through. This Scripture refers to Our Lady, not to a physical gate. She must be ever-virgin or else the prophecy is not fulfilled.

The word “until” does not imply a later change in state.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 15:25[/BIBLEDRB]

If it did, then that would mean that Jesus would not reign forever, which is a ridiculous conclusion.

 

[po18guy]

Thanks teacherccd for that reference. I had not heard taht before but it makes perfect sense.

jps23430,
Indeed this passage is confusing and could have been expressed more clearly. As a result it is actually used a lot by protestants as a proof text against the dogma of perpetual virginity.

But you know what…In considering this matter, I found that by putting myself in Joseph’s sandals, I could easily see how Mary could have remained a virgin even after the birth of Jesus.
Consider - Joseph knew that Mary was pregnant by the Holy Spirit of God. An angel came and told him so. So Joseph knew that Mary was, in essence, “betrothed” to the Holy Spirit of God.
If you were Joseph, would you choose to have marital relations with Mary, the mother of the Son of the living God?
I know I wouldn’t…

Peace
James

In the angel’s message to Joseph, I see it as a command for him to accept Mary. Break the sentence into its two parts: “Do not be afriad to” “take Mary into your house” (Matthew 1:20, 1:24) Might be just me, though.

Remember when Moses was on Sinai? (Exodus 3:5) The Lord said “Put off thy sandals from thy feet, for the ground upon which you stand is holy” How much more holy the womb that bore the eternal Son of God?

Oh, almost forgot: No who claims the “other children” argument has ever explained why Mary, who was betrothed to Joseph, would be perplexed as to how she was to “conceive and bear a Son” By her own words, she knew that it was via marital relations. (Luke 1:34) Hmm…

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I never before took note of the “until” before now. Doesn’t including the word until lead you to believe that he had relations after, otherwise what is the point of that entire passage.

That passage is one reason why MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of sincere, deeply Godfearing people MISunderstand the bible on this point.
Yes, it is possible for honest, godly people to misunderstand very important documents, including the bible, for years and years, even many decades.

It is PERFECTLY understandable for a person raised in the 19th and 20th centuries to assume that “until” implies that they had sexual relations after Christ was born.
BUT, “until” did NOT necessarily mean that in the original manuscripts and texts.
What Matthew was doing, was emphasizing that Jesus was, INDEED, born of a woman who had never had intercourse at all, from her betrothal right through her ENTIRE pregnancy. He was not commenting, one way or another, on whether Joseph and Mary had relations afterward. Under Jewish Law, it WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A SIN FOR THEM TO HAVE DONE SO after Christ was born, no sin at all.
HOWEVER, Joseph was an unusually holy and righteous man, dubbed a RIGHTEOUS MAN by the Holy Spirit himself in scripture. Joseph knew, by revelation, that Mary had conceived this child by the Spirit of God and that this Child was, mysteriously, somehow, likely God himself in some way. KNOWING THAT, and with his deep spirituality that comes with spirit-recognized Righteousness, Joseph could NEVER have looked at Mary the same way again. He would have seen her body as a Temple of God PAR EXCELLENCE and UTTERLY UNIQUELY. I firmly believe that he would have not only honored her body (as all husbands are supposed to honor the bodies of their wives), but especially REVERED her body as something uniquely holy BECAUSE of the Universe-Shaking miracle that took place in her body by the Almighty Holy Spirit of God, something which Joseph KNEW that no other woman HAD experienced NOR WOULD EVER EXPERIENCE again. I believe (and so do many theologians) that Joseph would have seen Mary’s virginal body as a Divine Shrine and NEVER lusted for her, even in the way that husbands are allowed to lust for the body of their lawfully wedded wives.
Imagine knowing that your wife brought forth a divinely-conceived, divine-human, utterly sinless Son of God, and then thinking to impregnate her with your imperfect seed afterward, so that after giving birth to an immaculate, heaven sent child, she would now give birth to a weak and fallen sinner. I believe that that would have been UNTHINKABLE to the Righteous Joseph.
Much love to you,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[po18guy]

Ezekiel 44:2 refers to a gate that only God shall enter through. There is no gate in Jerusalem that only Jesus went through. This Scripture refers to Our Lady, not to a physical gate. She must be ever-virgin or else the prophecy is not fulfilled.

The word “until” does not imply a later change in state.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 15:25[/BIBLEDRB]

If it did, then that would mean that Jesus would not reign forever, which is a ridiculous conclusion.

Context is everything, isn’t it? When one considers that Matthew was intended to show Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy, especially considering the genealogy in the first chapter, it places it in an entirely different light.

 

[SonCatcher]

When I was a teenager, my mother had to run an errand, leaving me and my brothers on our own for a few hours. On her way out, she called, “Don’t kill each other until I get back.”

I asked if that meant we could kill each other when she returned.

How do you think she responded?

 

[JRKH]

When I was a teenager, my mother had to run an errand, leaving me and my brothers on our own for a few hours. On her way out, she called, “Don’t kill each other until I get back.”

I asked if that meant we could kill each other when she returned.

How do you think she responded?

The other day I was watching a show on TV and they were talking about a person who had been killed, cremated and his ashes buried in an unknown location. The narrator said, “…and the location of his ashes remains unknown until even today”.

Likewise I have heard hosts of programs sign off by saying, “until next week, I’m (insert name)”. Does that mean that after next week they will be somebody else??

Peace
James