Some Gospel Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blizzard_Wolf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Blizzard_Wolf

Guest
I attended Christmas Mass with my family, and listened as the pastor read the Gospel according to Matthew. (I was listening the whole time, actually, but I digress.) As you surely know, that Gospel reading details Jesus geneology and gives information about his conception and birth. Two things immediately struck me: Jesus’ place within the geneology and what seems [to me, at least] like a theological contradiction.

First, the genology. Matthew opens with a very long, detailed look at Jesus’ ancestry. I understand that knowing one’s family line was an important part of ancient Jewish culture, and that theirs was and is a patrilineal culture. However, as awesome as it is that one may follow Abraham to Joseph, Jesus was not born of Joseph because he was conceived through the Holy Spirit. So does the genology still hold its importance for Jesus as Joseph is sort of a foster father, or what?

What really leapt out at me was the verse “He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus”. I thought that perhaps the pastor had misspoken himself, but when I got home and looked up the Bible verse, I found that that’s exactly what it says. This presents an interesting problem. The Bible, as it is held to be the word of God, is of course without error. It is also a central Catholic teaching that the Blessed Virgin Mary always was and always will be a virgin. But the word “until” suggests that Mary and Joseph did have relations with each other after Jesus was born. So the perfect Bible appears to say one thing and the Church (which, as I recall, was making an Ex Cathedra/infallible statement when it was issued) appears to say something else, with the two statements being mutually exclusive.

What is the reasoning behind the apparent contradiction? Given that there are two perfect sources, I’m sure the error lies in my obviously imperfect understanding of the two. (My best guess is that there were some linguistic inconsistencies between the original Greek and the later Latin and English, but the inadequacies of language leading to a gross mistranslation would seem to detract from the perfection of the Bible.)

If you’d like to help me understand these two things, I’d be greatly obliged. I love learning about religion and I want to know as much as I can about the Church. Please understand that if I come across as ignorant or insultory, that’s absolutely not my intention and I wish you and yours all the best in this blessed Christmas season.
 
Hi Blizzard,

Let me try to answer one of your questions. There is no contradiction between what the Bible says and what the Catholic Church teaches. When the Biblical authors used the word “until” they do not necessarily imply that some action must then occur. For example in the Scriptures Jesus tells his disciples that he will be with them “until the end of the age.” Does this then mean that he will abandon them after the end? No of course not. It’s the same line of reasoning with the usage in your question.

St. Jerome in the 330s tackled this same question. He was writing against a man named Helvidius, that raised this very question. If you follow this link I think you’ll find his response very illuminating.

newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

ChadS
 
Here is Jerome as quoted by Aquinas in the Catena Aurea.

JEROME. Helvidius is at much superfluous trouble to make this word know* refer to carnal knowledge rather than to acquaintance, as though any had ever denied that; or as if the follies to which he replies had ever occurred to any person of common understanding. He then goes on to say, that the adverb ‘until’ denotes a fixed time when that should take place, which had not taken place before; so that here from the words, He knew her not until she had brought forth her first-born Son, it is clear, he says, that after that he did know her. And in proof of this he heaps together many instances from Scripture. To all this we answer, that the word ‘until’ is to be understood in two senses in Scripture. And concerning the expression, knew her not, he has himself shown, that it must be referred to carnal knowledge, none doubting that it is often used of acquaintance, as in that, The child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and His parents knew not of it
(Luke 2:43). *
In like manner ‘until’ often denotes in Scripture, as he has shown, a fixed period, but often also an infinite time, as in that, *Even to your old age l am He *(Is 46:4). Will God then cease to be when they are grown old? Also the Savior in the Gospel, *Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of this world (Matt 28:20). *Will He then leave His disciples at the end of the world? Again, the Apostle says, He must reign till He has put His enemies under His feet *
(1 Cor 15:25). Be it understood then . . . *that that which if it had not been written might have been doubted of, is expressly declared to us; other things are left to our own understanding . So here the Evangelist informs us, in that wherein there might have been room for error, that she was not known by her husband until the birth of her Son, that we might thence infer that much less was she known afterwards.
 
First we need to clarify some terms. The “Immaculate Conception” only has to do with Mary. Jesus was NOT “immaculately conceived” he was “miraculously” conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb.

This economy that is the foundation of the Marian doctrines is taught in the Old Testament and in the New. While these Marian dogmas are not explicitly stated in the bible they are implied in the bible and further, are derived from Biblical principle.
First we must remember that St. John said in John 21:25 that not everything that Jesus taught was written down. Not every teaching was put into the Bible. St. Paul affirms this when he says in 1 Cor 11:2 and 2 Thess 2:15 to hold fast to the Traditions (that is God’s Revealed Revelation) whether oral Tradition or written Tradition (the Bible is “written” Tradition and Tradition means Divine Teaching. It does not mean customs or man-made rules. It is referring to the Word of God.)

Thus, it is not necessary for a particular doctrine to have a Biblical Reference. With that said, nearly all of the dogmas of the Catholic Church, including the Immaculate Conception, has either a direct teaching, or an indirect/implied teaching, or a direct reference, or an indirect/implied reference in Scripture.

In this case the Immaculate Conception is implied primarily by Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28.
It is implied in Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel”.
Here we see the foreshadowing of Mary’s fiat in Luke 1:28. Where Eve had failed, Mary passed. Through Eve original sin had its birth; through the Blessed Virgin, redemption gave its birth.
Thus Mary bruises the head of the devil. She is victorious. The implication the Church has always taught is that Mary is the new Eve, the mother of the redeemer, who shares (by anticipation and pre-eminently) in the victory of her Son. By that, sin never left its mark on her and the Church calls her the Immaculate Conception.
The Immaculate Conception is also implied in Luke 1:28: " And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”
The “full of grace” greeting was a most unusual one. It reveals the special honor and dignity given to Mary. She is NOT, however, merely a “favored one”. She is FULL of grace, not 99% full, but 100% full. No other human being has ever been 100% full of grace except Jesus. The rest of us all have original sin to contend with and a human nature prone to sin. We will not receive our glorified bodies in which we will have 100% fullness of grace until after we have passed from this material world. But Mary has this fullness now.

The Fathers and Doctors of the Church “taught that this singular, solemn and unheard-of greeting showed that all the divine graces reposed in the Mother of God and that she was adorned with all the gifts of the Holy Spirit”, which meant that she “was never subject to the curse”, that is, was preserved from all sin. These words of the archangel in this text constitute one of the sources which reveal the dogma of Mary’s immaculate conception (cf. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus; Paul VI, Creed of the People of God)

Then we have the phrase, “The Lord is with you!” Notice that this was NOT the typical greeting of, “the Lord BE with you”, but a specific affirmation, “the Lord IS with you”.

St. Augustine comments about the archangel saying this: “He is more with you than he is with me: he is in your heart, he takes shape within you, he fills your soul, he is in your womb” (Sermode Nativitate Domini, 4)

This gives us insight to another factor of who Mary is. Mary is the TABERNACLE of God. Her womb is the Tabernacle, the place of abode of God, where God chooses to rest himself. Because Mary is the Tabernacle of God her womb MUST be pure and stainless. We learn this from the Old Testament. .

The tabernacle where God’s presence resided before the nation of Israel was a place “set aside” (blessed) and made pure. The Ark of the Covenant itself was made of the purest materials and could not be allowed to be contaminated by any means. It could not be touched by unconsecrated hands. Even after the birth of Jesus, she must remain unblemished and untouched (she did not have children after Jesus).
We know from the tradition and teaching of the Jews and the Church that once an object is made sacred it cannot ever be returned to secular purposes. Mary was made sacred – she was FULL of Grace – she was set-aside as the tabernacle through which our Lord would reside for nine months. She HAD to be made pure, unblemished, and untouched. Our Lord could not have resided in a tabernacle (a womb) that did not have this purity.
 
Thank you all for explaining it. That was quite enlightening.
 
Blizzard… where in da UP are you? I was stationed up there for 7 years at KI Sawyer from 86-93. Brrrrrrrr…
 
If you are worried about Catholic bias in dealing with the Matthew and the word “until”, try some Protestants:

Martin Luther:
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.
Click to expand...
John Calvin:
[On Matt 1:25:] 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.
Click to expand...
Denial of Mary’s perpetual virginity is a relatively recent fad.
 
I understand that the emphasis of the statement, “He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus”, was to hammer home the point that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, and nothing more.

On another note, Joseph in adopting Jesus, became the full legal father of Jesus in all aspects. This is why it was SO CRUCIAL that Joseph does not divorce Mary. The entire Genealogy of Jesus would have been null and void, and Jesus would not have been the Son of David. The Jews would have had a huge problem with that.
 
The only information I was able to find was a comparison with the NRSV which does use the word “until” but does not explain it and the NJB which doesn’t use the word at all, but claims the better translation is: “He had not had intercourse with her when she gave birth to a son.”

The NJB says that the text does not assert Mary’s perpetual virginity, but in fact that was the assumption “of the rest of the Gospel” and became the tradition of the Church.

The Church makes no claim of course that the bible is the “perfect word of God” which would be a fundamentalist notion and not a Catholic one, It claims that the bible is correct in matters necessary to fatih and morals. It makes no such claim otherwise. In any case, the better translation appears to eliminate the problem altogether. I’m sure this does set your mind at ease.
 
Because of my work I move more often than I would like and one result is my library is scattered up and down the east coast of the USA and other locations so the other day I had a pleasant surprise when I was looking through some old storage boxes and found several old books of mine. Two I was extremely happy to find were both works of Pope Benedict XVI and I had replaced them a long time ago (actually I replaced them a couple of times because I either gave away my copies or the copies I had are somewhere but I don’t know where) but it was a little like finding a lost coin which is probably why I am writing this. (Both books are first editions but far from mint condition - they were working copies).

Both works are quite revelant to the topic here and I strongly suggest those who can read them. The first is “Introduction to Christianity” especially the pope’s reflections on the “Incarnation” and the other is a small book, only around 80 pages, its title is,“Daughter Zion”. This work is especially informative about the Dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption and the role of Mary as Mother of the Church (all that in 80 pages!)

One quick note, if you ever want to read the meaning in the Apostles Creed of the terms “Descended into Hell” and “Ascended into Heaven” read the Pope’s “Introduction to Christianity”.
 
You really have to go a “long way out” here in order to disbelieve the Scriptures.

They tell us that Joseph had intercourse with Mary after Jesus was born. They also tell us Jesus had brothers and sisters and names the brothers.

Many times in Scripture, reference is made to James, the Lord’s brother, who was the leader of the first church in Jerusalem. He didn’t believe in Jesus until after the resurrection, but then became the leader of the church; not Peter.

We are told that the Bible is the Word of God and every word in it is true and sufficient for teaching, correction and that no word of it should be changed or nothing added to it.

Yet this post is a very good example. Watch how the RCC attempts to change Scripture to read the way they want it and not the way it was written. You won’t find the changes in the first couple of centuries after Jesus was resurrected, but hundreds of years later as the false doctrines began to be developed. This is a very good example here.

Mary was just a simple young girl, betrothed to Joseph when she was chosen to be the vessel of our Saviour into this world. She was not the “Mother of God” because God always was and always will be. He had no Mother. Only His human nature, by being born into this world required a human Mother.

Jesus warned us of false teachers and those who would fall away from the faith.

Keep reading this post and you will see how it happens…
 
Old_Scholar said:
Mary was just a simple young girl, betrothed to Joseph when she was chosen to be the vessel of our Saviour into this world. She was not the “Mother of God” because God always was and always will be. He had no Mother. Only His human nature, by being born into this world required a human Mother.
Click to expand...
Just to deal with only one error in an error laden post. You totally and completely misunderstand what the Church means and understands when it gives Mary the title “Mother of God.” Nowhere does the Church teach that Mary created God or is somehow above God – that idea comes from a complete misreading of Catholic doctrine.

What the Church really and truly teaches is that Christ is truly God and truly man. He has two natures that are perfectly united and indivisible. So in that manger 2000 years ago Mary gave birth to both his human and divine nature. This in no way implies that she had a hand in creating or making his divine nature. Through the mystery of the incarnation his divine nature was united perfectly with his human – hence the title “Mother of God.”

Ironically the position you are defending as the “Biblical position” was declared heretical long, long before the Reformation when another group of people called into the question Christ’s nature.

Perhaps some research into Catholic teachings and doctrine would benefit you before you presume next time to tell us how the Catholic Church gets the Bible wrong.

ChadS
 
And notice how he blew past the Protestants that had no problem affirming perpetual virginity and handled the very same objections. Which puts him in a real quandry because if you declare them wrong about perpetual virginity, it is reasonable to assume they are wrong about other things like, say, Sola Scriptura. Like I said, denying this is a new fad. An example of certain quarters letting anti-Catholicism get the better of them. Round and round the Bible-alone wheel goes, where it stops, nobody knows. 😉
 
Old_Scholar said:
You really have to go a “long way out” here in order to disbelieve the Scriptures.

They tell us that Joseph had intercourse with Mary after Jesus was born. They also tell us Jesus had brothers and sisters and names the brothers.

Many times in Scripture, reference is made to James, the Lord’s brother, who was the leader of the first church in Jerusalem. He didn’t believe in Jesus until after the resurrection, but then became the leader of the church; not Peter.

We are told that the Bible is the Word of God and every word in it is true and sufficient for teaching, correction and that no word of it should be changed or nothing added to it.

Yet this post is a very good example. Watch how the RCC attempts to change Scripture to read the way they want it and not the way it was written. You won’t find the changes in the first couple of centuries after Jesus was resurrected, but hundreds of years later as the false doctrines began to be developed. This is a very good example here.

Mary was just a simple young girl, betrothed to Joseph when she was chosen to be the vessel of our Saviour into this world. She was not the “Mother of God” because God always was and always will be. He had no Mother. Only His human nature, by being born into this world required a human Mother.

Jesus warned us of false teachers and those who would fall away from the faith.

Keep reading this post and you will see how it happens…
Click to expand...
You read a lot of Jack Chick don’t you?

I also can’t help but notice that you have a patriotic symbol saying one nation under God on it in your signature. It’s a nice sentiment, but I wonder which particular nation you think it which is under God since the Bible specifically states that all the Kingdoms of the Earth are in the hand of Satan for this season until the return of our Lord. That being so, and the very specific admonition in the Bible to obey civil law but swear no oath of allegiance to any save Christ Himself, I wonder how your sola brain can get around this obvious contradiction?

I only ask because it gets around so many others and well…
 
Old_Scholar said:
You really have to go a “long way out” here in order to disbelieve the Scriptures.

They tell us that Joseph had intercourse with Mary after Jesus was born. They also tell us Jesus had brothers and sisters and names the brothers.

Many times in Scripture, reference is made to James, the Lord’s brother, who was the leader of the first church in Jerusalem. He didn’t believe in Jesus until after the resurrection, but then became the leader of the church; not Peter.

We are told that the Bible is the Word of God and every word in it is true and sufficient for teaching, correction and that no word of it should be changed or nothing added to it.

Yet this post is a very good example. Watch how the RCC attempts to change Scripture to read the way they want it and not the way it was written. You won’t find the changes in the first couple of centuries after Jesus was resurrected, but hundreds of years later as the false doctrines began to be developed. This is a very good example here.

Mary was just a simple young girl, betrothed to Joseph when she was chosen to be the vessel of our Saviour into this world. She was not the “Mother of God” because God always was and always will be. He had no Mother. Only His human nature, by being born into this world required a human Mother.

Jesus warned us of false teachers and those who would fall away from the faith.

Keep reading this post and you will see how it happens…
Click to expand...
You would be a fundamentalist? sola scriptura?
 
Old_Scholar said:
You really have to go a “long way out” here in order to disbelieve the Scriptures.
… They also tell us Jesus had brothers and sisters and names the brothers.

Many times in Scripture, reference is made to James, the Lord’s brother, who was the leader of the first church in Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
You really have to go a long way out to disbelieve Matthew 27:55-56, which shows that “Mary the mother of James and Joses” was a different “Mary” than Mary the mother of Jesus. The “brothers” in Mark 6:3 are sons of a different “Mary” and are “brothers” to Jesus only in the sense of being kinsmen — just like Scripture calls Lot Abraham’s “brother” (Gen 14:14) even though Lot actually was Abraham’s nephew (Gen 11:27). There was no Hebrew word for cousin, nephew, uncle, etc so the word “brother” was used. Or do you think Lot was Abraham’s “brother”?
 
Old_Scholar said:
She was not the “Mother of God” because God always was and always will be. He had no Mother. Only His human nature, by being born into this world required a human Mother.
Click to expand...
“… and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?’” Luke 1:43.

A mother carries the baby’s whole person inside herself – not just the body, but the body, mind, heart and soul of the little baby are inside the mother. Yes, all of Jesus was inside Mary, not just His body. That doesn’t mean Mary “created” Jesus at all — it just means that all of Jesus was within Mary. Mary is the Mother of God because God became a baby in her womb. To deny this is to deny the Incarnation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top