Why would Mary remain a virgin...after marriage?

[Randy_Carson]

I think Joseph thought she committed adultery. An angel told him about the child so what Mary said wasn’t enough for him.

cena.

Perhaps St. Joseph did think that. Some of the Fathers speculated in favor of that too.

Some Fathers even speculated about St. Joseph being confused over this basically asking himself, “How can this come about”, and concluding, “I will put Mary away quietly and God will reveal it to me if He wants different of me.”.

Interesting speculating upon what was going on in St. Joseph’s holy mind.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the Righteous Man

Matthew 1:19
19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

Two interpretations attempt to explain why Joseph decided to separate from Mary. They give opposite answers to the question: Who did Joseph think was the unworthy partner in the betrothal?

The Suspicion Theory

This view holds that Joseph suspected Mary of adultery when he discovered that she was pregnant. The troubling news led him to seek a divorce in accordance with Deuteronomy 24:1-4, although he wished to do this secretly to avoid subjecting Mary to the rigorous law of Deuteronomy 22:23-24, which mandates capital punishment for adulterers. Joseph was a just man inasmuch as he resolved to act (divorce) in accordance with the Mosaic law. This common interpretation suffers from a serious weakness: Joseph’s desire to follow the law for divorce does not square with his willingness to sidestep the law proscribed for adulterers. A truly righteous man would keep God’s law completely, not selectively.

The Reverence Theory

This view holds that Joseph, already informed of the divine miracle within Mary (Matthew 1:18), considered himself unworthy to be part of God’s work in this unusual situation (cf. Lk 5:8; 7:6). His resolve to separate quietly from Mary is thus seen as a reverent and discretionary measure to keep secret the mystery within her. Notably, the expression “to expose her to public disgrace” is weaker in Greek than in the translation: it means that Joseph did not wish to “exhibit” Mary in a public way. The angelic announcement in Matthew 1:20, then, directs Joseph to set aside pious fears that would lead him away from his vocation to be the legal father of the Davidic Messiah. This view more aptly aligns Joseph’s righteousness with his intentions. (Hahn, Scott and Curtis Mitch, The Gospel of Matthew, Ignatius Study Bible, 18).

 

[thetazlord]

James 2
14 - What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?
15 - And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food:
16 - And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit?
17 - So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.
18 - But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.
19 - Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.
20 - But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 - Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 - Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?
23 - And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God.
24 - Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
25 - And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?
26 - For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.

James 2:18 is the point of his passage here. He’s not saying works LEADS to salvation; rather works is the EVIDENCE that one’s faith is genuine & not “dead.” Now, can we get back to the OP, rather then commit more Red Herrings?

 

[thetazlord]

Sorry, but no. In Acts 7:13, Luke uses αδελφοι for all of the other sons of Jacob in their relationship to Joseph, regardless of the fact that only one of the eleven had the same mother.

Meanwhile, the term used in Luke 1 and 14, Mark 6, and Rom 9 and 16 is συγγενης, “belonging to the same clan”. English translations have misleadingly used different terms in different locations.

The difference between αδελφος and συγγενης is not, in Greek, a difference between having shared and not having shared a womb, but, instead, a difference between “person who has a close relationship” and “member of the wider family”. The former overlaps the latter.

Actually, Acts 7:13 uses ἀδελφός (adelphos) to refer to Joseph’s 11 brothers, most of them were half-brothers, which is the exact same Greek word Mark 6:3 uses to describe Jesus’ half-brothers. The συγγενής you are thinking about is in Mark 6:4, not Mark 6:3. Look again. Mark 6:3 refers to Jesus’ ἀδελφός, while Mark 6:4 refers to Jesus’ συγγενής, not His ἀδελφός. So, in Mark 6:3, Jesus “is” making a distinction between His “brothers” ἀδελφός (who are in His “own household” in Mark 6:4), with His “relatives” συγγενής & His own “hometown” πατρίς.

Still, you should really read what the Orthodox say about this, because a/ this is not a matter of dogma for them, and b/ they have been reading the untranslated text for nearly two thousand years: orthodoxanswers.org/media/documents/didmaryhave.pdf

The reason they agree with the RCC is because by the time “The Great Schism” occured in the 11th Century, the PVM was well-established for centuries. That was merely a dogma that they didn’t dispute with, not that there’s necessarily any Scriptural merit for that “belief.” The important thing is does Scripture support that Mary “remained” a virgin after she gave birth to Jesus? And Scripturally no, it doesn’t, because Mary lost her virginity to her husband after the birth of Jesus, as evidenced to the fact that Jesus’ “brothers” in Mark 6:3 & elsewhere were younger sons of Joseph & Mary, which would not conflict with Isaiah 7:14 prophecy, nor anything in the NT. This is why even Eusebius, centuries later, reaffirmed this Scripturally supported belief, which was shared by even earlier ECF’s. Check out Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History.

 

[Porknpie]

James 2:18 is the point of his passage here. He’s not saying works LEADS to salvation; rather works is the EVIDENCE that one’s faith is genuine & not “dead.” Now, can we get back to the OP, rather then commit more Red Herrings?

Well, Paul says Abraham’s faith was made complete by works.

Very Catholic is Paul and we hold to what he taught.

 

[ericc]

(2) Then also James, called the brother of the Lord, because he is also called the son of Joseph…. This James, therefore, whom the ancients, on account of the excellence of his virtue, surnamed the Just, was the first that received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem. (3) Clement, in the sixth book of his Institutions, represented it thus: “Peter, and James, and John after the ascension of our Savior, though they had been preferred by our Lord, did not contend for the honor, but chose James the Just as bishop of Jerusalem.” (4) And the same author, in the seventh book work, wrote also thus: “The Lord imparted the gift of knowledge to James the Just, to John and Peter after his resurrection, these delivered it to the rest of the apostles, and they to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.” (5) There were, however, two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from a wing of the temple and beaten to death with a fuller’s club, and another, who was beheaded. Paul makes mentions of the Just in his epistles. “But other of the apostles,” said he, “saw I none, save James the brother of our Lord” (Gal. 1:19).

In Book 2, pp. 58-62, Eusebius goes on to talk about the death of James the Just & exactly who he is, quoting & referencing Hegesippus, who Eusebius says is “fully coincided with Clement” (p.61), as well as quotes Josephus on the same matters, “James the Just, who was the brother of him that is called Christ” (20).

In Book 3, p. 81, Eusebius states:

(1) After the martyrdom of James [the Just]…the apostles & the disciples of our Lord…declared Simeon, the son of Cleophas, of whom mention was made the sacred volume, as worthy of the Episcopal seat there. They said he was the cousin german “first cousin” – translated by Maier, p.92] of our Savior, for Hegesippus asserted that Cleophas was the brother of Joseph.

In Book 4, p.134, Eusebius states:

(4) ”After James the Just had suffered martyrdom…Simeon, the son of Cleophas our Lord’s uncle, was appointed the second bishop, whom all proposed as the cousin of our Lord.”

Based on Cruse’s & Maier’s translations, if Simeon & Jesus were indeed first cousins, by way of Cleophas & Joseph the step-father of Jesus being brothers, then that would mean that in order for James the Just to be the son of Cleophas & the “other” Mary mentioned in the Gospels, then Jude would also have to be Cleophas’ son as well. However, Simeon is not mentioned anywhere in the Gospels as a brother of James, nor a brother of Jude, nor does Eusebius mention this, nor quote from an earlier Christian source. Nor is Cleophas mentioned as the father of James the Just. In fact, the “Joseph” who is mentioned as a “brother” of Jesus in the Gospels does not appear anywhere else in the New Testament, nor mentioned by Eusebius, nor does he quote who this “Joseph” is from an earlier source.

In Maier’s translation of “Eusebius – the Church History,” he states:

“Book 7 also describes two material items of maximum interest: the statue of Jesus at Caesarea Philippi and the bishop’s throne of his half brother James in Jerusalem,” p.255.

In Appendix I of Maier’s translation, he cites Josephus’ Antiquities, as well as Eusebius:

“In Antiquities 20.200, Josephus makes a second reference to Jesus in reporting the death of his half brother James, which is also cited by Eusebius in 2.23,” p.336

Regarding Jude, in Book 3, p.84, Eusebius quotes Hegesippus:

(1) “There were yet living of the family of our Lord, the grandchildren of Judas, called the brother of our Lord, according to the flesh.”

And again, in Book 3, p.97, Eusebius again quotes Hegesippus:

(5) “But the same historian said that there were others, the offspring of one of those considered brothers of the Lord, who name was Judas.”

James the Just is the step brother of Jesus because his biological father is Joseph, Jesus’s adoptive father.
The foursome in Mark 6;3 James/Joses(Joseph?)/Judas and Simon(Symeon?) are Jesus’ cousins. Clopas the father of Simon/Symeon is the brother of Joseph(Jesus adoptive father). Both Clopas and Joseph married Marys.

The two James may have caused the confusion.

Incidentally, I believe all of the Reformer Fathers believed in the Ever Virgin Mary. (They resources should be around somewhere.) Hence it always puzzles me, if the Reformer Fathers believed it, the CC believes it, on what basis would someone reject this belief? Then the non-belief in the EVM would be a relatively new fad.

 

[stewstew03]

Actually, Acts 7:13 uses ἀδελφός (adelphos) to refer to Joseph’s 11 brothers, most of them were half-brothers, which is the exact same Greek word Mark 6:3 uses to describe Jesus’ half-brothers. The συγγενής you are thinking about is in Mark 6:4, not Mark 6:3. Look again. Mark 6:3 refers to Jesus’ ἀδελφός, while Mark 6:4 refers to Jesus’ συγγενής, not His ἀδελφός. So, in Mark 6:3, Jesus “is” making a distinction between His “brothers” ἀδελφός (who are in His “own household” in Mark 6:4), with His “relatives” συγγενής & His own “hometown” πατρίς.
…

Hey, thetazlord… I take it you need more time to answer these questions?

I’m hoping that, at some point, thetazlord will answer the questions I posted here (and repeated below for the sake of convenience).

• Is Jesus the High Priest described in the NT? (see Hebrews)
• Is Jesus the New Temple? (see Gospel of John)
• Do you read the OT in light of Jesus and the NT?
• Do you understand Ezekiel to be describing a literal third temple that will be built in Jerusalem?

 

[spedteacherita]

I guess I am a little curious as to why this would be an issue with a Catholic

I’m always confused as to why some Catholics question other Catholics if they ask questions to clarify something that may not make sense to them. I’ve seen this on here a lot where a Catholic asks a questions about a doctrine or dogma and someone is “confused” as to why a CATHOLIC would even ask something like that?

I’m actually glad they ask these questions because it gives me a little more info as to why you all believe some of the things you do.

I would think it would be better to come here, on the Catholic Answers website, to get questions clarified rather than get your answers another way…

Just a thought…

 

[spedteacherita]

Of course, it cannot be the second temple, because that one was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD…

Doesn’t Jesus refer to Himself as the Temple?

**John 2:19

19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”**

 

[steido01]

The Suspicion Theory

This view holds that Joseph suspected Mary of adultery when he discovered that she was pregnant. The troubling news led him to seek a divorce in accordance with Deuteronomy 24:1-4, although he wished to do this secretly to avoid subjecting Mary to the rigorous law of Deuteronomy 22:23-24, which mandates capital punishment for adulterers. Joseph was a just man inasmuch as he resolved to act (divorce) in accordance with the Mosaic law. This common interpretation suffers from a serious weakness: Joseph’s desire to follow the law for divorce does not square with his willingness to sidestep the law proscribed for adulterers. A truly righteous man would keep God’s law completely, not selectively.

Not to discredit the “Reverence Theory,” because it’s equally as legitimate, as far as mere speculations go… but doesn’t this assume that Joseph was a “*truly *righteous man”? I know the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was without sin, but I was not aware that Joseph was also considered to be.

Scripture and the Fathers note only that Joseph was trying to do the right thing, given what he knew-- whatever it was he knew. That’s the lesson that needs to be gleaned here. Anything else is human invention, and detracts from Who matters.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not to discredit the “Reverence Theory,” because it’s equally as legitimate, as far as mere speculations go… but doesn’t this assume that Joseph was a “*truly *righteous man”? I know the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was without sin, but I was not aware that Joseph was also considered to be.

Scripture and the Fathers note only that Joseph was trying to do the right thing, given what he knew-- whatever it was he knew. That’s the lesson that needs to be gleaned here. Anything else is human invention, and detracts from Who matters.

First, scripture says that Joseph was a righteous man:

19 Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

Now, when I wrote that a “truly righteous man would keep the law completely”, I was not implying that Joseph was without sin. I simply attempted to make the distinction between those who sought to keep the law completely and those who did not.

Sorry if I appeared to overstate the case.

 

[steido01]

First, scripture says that Joseph was a righteous man:

19 Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

Now, when I wrote that a “truly righteous man would keep the law completely”, I was not implying that Joseph was without sin. I simply attempted to make the distinction between those who keep the law completely and those who did not.

Sorry if I appeared to overstate the case.

No worries, and I appreciate the clarification. I was just amused at the idea of Joseph, a regular, sinful guy like all of us, somehow being so righteous that he couldn’t have broken the Law. “Righteous” people broke laws all the time - Christ Himself ate with prostitutes and tax collectors. Perhaps a foreshadowed message here is that Christians would no longer be held to the consequences of the Ceremonial Law, yet can still, rightly, be called “righteous.” As Webber said, “Go, go, go, Joseph, ahead of your time!”

Anyway, not meaning to make a mountain out of a molehill (and, again, I do not pretend to discredit either of those legitimate conjectures). My point is only that we do not know with certainty what God revealed to Joseph. We know simply that he tried to do the best he could, given whatever it was he did know. Why not focus on that, rather than try to read into the Scriptures what is not clear?

 

[pablope]

No worries, and I appreciate the clarification. I was just .

Why not focus on that, rather than try to read into the Scriptures what is not clear?

Well…if it isn’t clear in Scripture…is this not the role of the magisterium to make clear what is unclear?

 

[stewstew03]

Doesn’t Jesus refer to Himself as the Temple?

**John 2:19

19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”**

Yes. Jesus is the eternal Temple to which Ezekiel refers.

 

[thetazlord]

Well, Paul says Abraham’s faith was made complete by works.

No, actually Paul states that Abraham’s faith was “credited” to him, not that his works lead to salvation. Otherwise, Paul would be contradicting himself when he states we are “justified” by faith, & saved by grace through faith, & NOT of works. James mirrors this by stating that a person’s faith is “dead” if it’s not evidenced BY faith.

Now, enough Red Herrings, let’s attempt to get back to the OP, shall we?

 

[Erich]

I can’t even begin to imagine the inferiority complex any (hypothetical) blood siblings of Jesus would surely have had growing up, due to their inability to live up to the example set by their older brother.

Why can’t you be like your brother Jesus?
He never gives us a moments trouble.
He always makes his bed.
He always picks up his toys.
He is never a minute late for curfew.
He always brings Dad’s camel home clean.
He never talks back.
He even cleans the ring out of the bathtub and hangs up his clothes.

 

[stewstew03]

No, actually Paul states that Abraham’s faith was “credited” to him, not that his works lead to salvation. Otherwise, Paul would be contradicting himself when he states we are “justified” by faith, & saved by grace through faith, & NOT of works. James mirrors this by stating that a person’s faith is “dead” if it’s not evidenced BY faith.

Now, enough Red Herrings, let’s attempt to get back to the OP, shall we?

• Is Jesus the High Priest described in the NT? (see Hebrews)
• Is Jesus the New Temple? (see Gospel of John)
• Do you read the OT in light of Jesus and the NT?
• Do you understand Ezekiel to be describing a literal third temple that will be built in Jerusalem?

 

[ericc]

I’m well aware that the Greek word for “brothers” (adelphos) has numerous meanings, which include uterine sibling. But I’m not “limiting” my understanding to it either. Rather, Scripture itself supports that the “UNbelieving brothers” Jesus is referring to are not His “believing brothers,” nor His disciples (John Ch.2), nor “relatives” (Mark Ch.6), nor cousins (see Luke Ch.1), nor kinsmen (see Paul’s epistles). The Gospel writers, as well as the apostle Paul, use different & specific Greek words for “relatives,” “cousins,” & “kinsmen,” in their Greek NT writings than they do for “brothers.” So, if they were referring to any of these other groups of people when they wrote in the GREEK, they would have used of these Greek words, just as they did in other parts of their same writings. In fact, Mark, Luke & John specifically use the Greek words for “relatives” & “kinsmen” rather than “adelphos,” when referring to non-uterine relationships.

Are you aware that there are at least 4 instances in the Gospels that the Greek word adelphou is used for half brother? No I am not referring to James the Just which you already know is Jesus half-brother.

Reputable biblical scholars already recognized that there are alternative meanings and usage to the word adelphou and have stopped beating the dead horse. I highly recommend that you do so too to conserve your energies on more worthy issues.

 

[Porknpie]

Hence it always puzzles me, if the Reformer Fathers believed it, the CC believes it, on what basis would someone reject this belief? Then the non-belief in the EVM would be a relatively new fad.

I’ve said this for while now on CAF (perhaps someone else said it and I’m repeating it ), paraphrased in different ways: it’s hard to imagine a person following a belief of Christian faith that is held in common to the Orthodox, Major Reformers and Catholics. Doing so defines the word “man-made” in the worst of possible lights.

 

[Porknpie]

---

No, actually Paul states that Abraham’s faith was “credited” to him, not that his works lead to salvation. Otherwise, Paul would be contradicting himself when he states we are “justified” by faith, & saved by grace through faith, & NOT of works. James mirrors this by stating that a person’s faith is “dead” if it’s not evidenced BY faith.

Now, enough Red Herrings, let’s attempt to get back to the OP, shall we?

Just a sec and then back to the OP.

James 2
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, (RSVCE)

Could be the topic of a new thread.

 

[cena]

No, actually Paul states that Abraham’s faith was “credited” to him, not that his works lead to salvation. Otherwise, Paul would be contradicting himself when he states we are “justified” by faith, & saved by grace through faith, & NOT of works. James mirrors this by stating that a person’s faith is “dead” if it’s not evidenced BY faith.

Now, enough Red Herrings, let’s attempt to get back to the OP, shall we?

In James 2:19 he basically says the demons believe in God, so faith without works is not enough