www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings GOSPEL OF MATTHEW CHAP 2 VS 18-25

I was going to write to Eastern Catholic Life to: "Ask Father," but I believe this will do also. Questions are always asked about this chapter in the gospel and I understand what the teenagers are asking. The question is: did Joseph know Mary in a sexual way? Quote: Matthew Chapter 2 vs. 25: "He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus." This is quoted from the New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition, I don't mean to offend anyone, but with my son and so many of his friends reading it to imply there were relations, what type of relations is the writer of the gospel talking about? I want to give a good, solid answer and for three years I have been wondering why it is worded this way that causes so much confusion among teenagers I know and myself included as I can see how they (teens) are reading it. Thanks to all in advance.

Dear Seraphim41,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

The struggle you have is not with the word �relations�. You should focus on the word �until�.

Consider the statement: �I never swam in the river until the stream went dry�. Does that mean I swam in the river AFTER the stream went dry? Of course not.

It is good to seek spiritual answers to questions. A good spiritual director could also help here.

May prayers are with you for a most blessed Holy Week.

Deacon El

Dear friend,

I appreciate your concern in finding information on the correct understanding of this verse. This was one of the verses in my Protestant/"anti-Catholic" days that I would bring up to discount the Church's teaching regarding the Blessed Mother and hence attempt to undermine the Church's other teachings.

Rather than just restate what others have already written (I'm lazy), here are a few links - Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic, etc (there are many) that I have found very helpful:

Why Do We Believe Mary Was "Ever-Virgin"?
http://www.sspeterandpaulonline.com/virginfaq.html

Why is Mary Considered Ever-Virgin?
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/evervirgin.aspx

The Perpetual Virginity Of Blessed Mary by St. Jerome (Against Helvidius)
http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-06/treatise/mary.htm

The Blessed Virgin Mary
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-VIII

Mary (see " Ever-Virgin" about midway through this excellent article)
http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/mary.html

Coptic/Pope Shenouda: Comparative Theology, Part II, Veneration Of The Virgin St. Mary
(see "did not know her til�" under Summary of Opposing Opinions)
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/comptheo.pdf

Hope this helps a little.

In Christ's love,

Woody

P.S. I think you meant St. Matthew 1:25

Thanks Woody! Good nite!

In a 'nutshell' Seraphim...this might help:

Misunderstanding about Matthew 1:25 (Joseph knew her "not until")
Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her "not until ("heos", in Greek)" she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove "not until" means "not up to the point that":

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you "until the end of the world." This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert "up to the point of his manifestation to Israel." Not John "was in the desert until after" his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow "up to the point that" she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, "take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool." Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 - "up to the point that I come," attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing "until after" I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth "up to the point that" [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won't leave Jacob "up to the point that" he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but "up to the point of today" no one knows Moses' burial place. This does not mean that "they did not know place until today."

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul's daughter Micah was childless "up to the point" [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain "up to the point that" they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.


In His Holy Name,
Your poor brother in the Lord,
+Fr. Gregory

Dear Father Gregory, your blessing and prayers for me. I wanted to thank you for your comments, I am pretty sure I have what I need now to clear up the question with my teenage son and his friends and also myself. Different translations "suggest" other things and often mis-interpreted. Thank you again!

"Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus."

Fr Gregory,

I think you stop short of saying that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus, her first-born, was born. Did God give her all her children in the same way God gave her Jesus? Or did she and Joseph have conjugal relations after Jesus was born?

For me, as an ecumenical Christian in the protestant tradition, Mary doesn't need to remain a virgin after Jesus was born. Are James and Jude sons of Joseph or sons of God?

Or do we hear little of Joseph after the Temple incident because that many years without conjugal relations got the better of him? Everybody knows that the Jews are sex-positive folk and always have been (the 'this at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh' speaks very loudly and boldly in this direction); wouldn't it have been highly unlikely that Mary and Joseph had not enjoyed conjugal relations?

Thanks a lot, wg

Every so often, somebody shows up on a Catholic message board trying to take issue with the ancient Church teaching about the Holy Mother of God.

Anyone who would think that St. Joseph could have even considered to enter the womb where the Holy Spirit dwelled is just plain crazy.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Holy Theotokos gave birth to any more children. Some aspects of Protestantism have been trying to dispute this for around 500 years and have always failed.

If Maria had borne other children, then Jesus would not have handed her care over to the disciple he loved while He was dying on the Cross.

"Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Holy Theotokos gave birth to any more children."

Respectfully jw10631,

The Scriptures do not focus on Mary or her other sons and or daughters. The NT is focused upon Christ Jesus. Had any author of any NT book thought is important to prove that Mary had given birth, they would have done so. The verses below are ample indication that Mary had other children and that Jesus had siblings:

Mark 3:32 - And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." (some manuscripts include 'sisters' as well)

Luke 8:20 - And he was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you."

The apocryphal gospel of Peter (140-150 C.E.) has the idea that Joseph had other children by a former wife. That's not Scrpiture. (Much other traditional material also denies the clear words of Scripture, all of which comes from an historical period far removed from the first third of the first Christian century.)

Two Gospels say that Jesus had (younger) brothers; one non-canonical book suggests that Joseph had had another wife before Maria-- was Joseph, in the mind of the author of the gospel of Peter, a divorced man or a widower? Something does not set well with that, in my mind.

With all due respect across denominational borders, jw, it is inapropriate to let later tradition (Maria only gave birth once) influence the clear words of Scripture: Jesus brothers (and perhaps sisters) were with his mother on this occasion, during which time they may have been concerned about his mental health.

The apocryphal, non-canonical idea cannot be, faithfully, superimposed upon the clear wording of Scripture.

Here's a good example: the Gospel of John is clear that John, the baptiser, is not the One for whom God's people had been waiting... but it hints that there were some living when John wrote who still venerated John, the baptiser. There are, to this day, folk living in Iraq and Iran who count the Baptiser as the last of their prophets-- the Mandaeans.

Just as we're not going to leave Christ to follow John the baptiser, neither should we disregard the clear words (and their meaning) of Scripture: Jesus had brothers (and perhaps sisters), hence, Maria had other sons. Hence Maria did give birth to other children.

No where in the Bible does it say that Maria had a holy womb-- Joseph would not have been hesitant to be a husband in the fullest possible sense. Jewish married men are not expected to be celibate, not even Joseph!

With every blessing, wg

Dear Wild Goose, You need to read the Scriptures in their ORIGINAL languages---then you will SEE how VERY clear it is!

My mother had a saying: "When you come into OUR HOME, you need to be respectful of our family and its traditions...if you are not, then very simply not welcome in our home."

No offense, but you're standing very close to the door right now.

In Christ Jesus Our Lord,
+Fr. Gregory

Are you certain that the tradition of Mary not having other children only exists in the non-canonical books? If the tradition existed before the creation of the New Testament scriptures, then you would be putting the cart before the horse. It seems to me that firm dates on this are hard to verify and that several opposing camps exist on this matter of dating. I would hold with Church Tradition since the Church pre-dates scripture and is a constant that has held to the tradition over time, but that is my opinion. It seems that proof is hard to come by, since even respected scholars speculate wildly and hotly debate various dating schemes. We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

The teaching of the Churches (both Roman Catholic and Orthodox) is clear and definitive---no disagreement here, she is: The EVER -Virgin Mary! There is no discussion when it comes to the teaching of the Church, one either accepts it in humility or denies it and places oneself outside of her mantle.

In His Holy Name,
+Fr. Gregory

Miss post, this always happens to me....lol

Wild Goose please understand that when Sacred Scripture speaks of Jesus' brothers and sisters it doesnt mean they are Christ's blood brothers. The gospels were written in Greek but spoken in Aramaic and in that language there is no word for cousins etc as St Jerome highlights in his defence of Our Lady's perpetual virginity:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

Moreover, the unanimous tradition of the Church is that Mary was a virgin as Fr Gregory says and this has rarely been challenged. Such an idea could not have become widespread in the first place were it not true. The early Church was close knit but not a monolithic structure. The very fact all its different particular churches held to the idea of Our Lady being a virgin all her life is testimony in itself.

Had the Church wanted to they could've included the protoevangelium of James in the NT Canon and killed the debate. But they didnt because the Church's 1st interest is not in pushing any sort of agenda but in defending the truth. The Marian doctrines are defended because they are true and it would be wrong of us to concede in matters of truth. Please understand. It is not an attempt to look down on those who do not feel called to apostolic celibacy or even an attempt to call people to such a life. It is simply a matter of whether or not she was a Virgin. Since the truth is that she was indeed perpetually perfectly chaste then that truth must be protected.

PS) More good stuff for y'all http://www.salvationhistory.com/library/apologetics/mary.cfm#L4

PPS)I should've read this thread before I posted Woody's got all the good stuff down already.

Dear Wild Goose,

No offense, but your posts about the ever-Virgin Mary and Mother of our God are downright offensive!

JW is absolutely correct! Wouldn't our Lord commended his mother's care unto a brother or sister, if He had one, rather than a disciple?

The problem with folks that like to bring modernistic twists to scripture is that they judge from today's twisted culture of morality and thought, and try to apply that limited thought and experience to the past.

Just because we are told that having sex is as healthy and basic a need as eating in today's society does NOT mean that past cultures and eras, thought the same TWISTED way!

Besides, cousins were so much a part of the family in those days, that they were referred to as brothers and sisters.

Everything you are contending about the relationship of the Blessed Mother and Joseph is nothing short of blasphemous to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions!

I would trust the original Ecumenical Councils that interpreted Scripture in the original language, and were guided by the Holy Spirit, rather than the modernist revisions we encounter today.

As the Russian Orthodox priest at yesterday's vesper service said, it is because of the blood of martyrs that Christianity flourished.

It was also because of that sacrifice that the Holy Spirit allowed for the establishment of a Christian state and for the subsequent convening and enlightenment of the Ecumenical Councils that have defined Holy Tradition for Catholics and Orthodox ever since.

In Christ,
Alice

P.S. Your crude comments to Father Gregory about St. Joseph the Betrothed and guardian of our Lady, belittle the millenia of chastity and celibacy practiced by our Lord, and the holy saints, female and male monastics, and clergy who sacrificed everything of this world for the greater Kingdom of God! Your comments also belittle historical context...