Perpetual virginity

OSV.com ^ | 03-09-16 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

Perpetual virginity

3/9/2016

Question: I am a lifelong and devout Catholic and have always considered Mary to be ever virgin. But recently, I read in my Bible that Joseph had no relations with Mary “before” she bore a son (Mt 1:25). Now, I wonder if our belief does not contradict the Bible.— Eugene DeClue, Festus, Missouri

Answer: The Greek word “heos,” which your citation renders “before,” is more accurately translated “until,” which can be ambiguous without a wider context of time. It is true, in English, the usual sense of “until” is that I am doing or not doing something now “until” something changes, and then I start doing or not doing it. However, this is not always the case, even in Scripture.

If I say to you, “God bless you until we meet again.” I do not mean that after we meet again God’s blessing will cease or turn to curses. In this case, “until” is merely being used to refer to an indefinite period of time which may or may not ever occur. Surely, I hope we meet again, but it is possible we will not, so go with God’s blessings, whatever the case.

In Scripture, too, we encounter “until” being used merely to indicate an indefinite period whose conditions may or may not be met. Thus, we read, “And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death” (2 Sam 6:23). Of course, this should not be taken to mean that she started having children after she died. If I say to you in English that Christ “must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25), I do not mean his everlasting kingdom will actually end thereafter.

While “until” often suggests a future change of state, it does not necessarily mean that the change happens — or even can happen. Context is important. It is the same in Greek, where heos, or heos hou, require context to more fully understand what is being affirmed.

The teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary does not rise or fall on one word, rather, a body of evidence from other sources such as: Mary’s question to the angel as to how a betrothed virgin would conceive; Jesus entrusting Mary to the care of a non-blood relative at this death; and also the long witness of ancient Tradition.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Here is your specific truth claim:

No. No other siblings were in existence.

You have failed to provide a shred of evidence to support your own claim.

As such, we will categorize it as opinion.

[agere_contra]

Mary did have more children, and at least some of them were influential in the days when the literature of the New Covenant was being written. The Book of James, her son, half-brother to Jesus, was one of the earliest letters sent to the churches, warning them of imposters

No, Mary didn't have more children. James was the son of Joseph by a previous marriage.

Epiphanius the bishop of Salamis wrote in 'The Panarion' (AD 374-375) that "... James (brother of Jesus) was Joseph's son by Joseph's first wife, not by Mary".

[agere_contra]

Did you miss my post 95?

[ealgeone]

No, the Greek uses adelphos, adelphe and/or adelphoi

And throughout scripture these words are also used for relationships which have nothing to do with literal brotherhood.

Just because adelphos and adelphoi are used to denote literal brotherhood for Peter and Andrew, this doesn't mean that these words must always be translated in the same way.

I agree. That's why context is your key to understanding the Word.

You're attempting to equate a Greek word with a Hebrew word.

Let's stay with the Greek for now.

It would be insane (for instance) to insist that Jesus had literal brothers simply because a word that usually doesn't mean literal brother is used.

Why would it be insane for Jesus to have brothers and sisters?

46While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” Matthew 12:46-47.

The people who were at this event recognized that these were the brothers of Jesus....your mother....your brothers.

[agere_contra]

Prove that you've stopped howling at the moon.

This is your theory. You still haven't listed any siblings of Christ.

The thread eagerly awaits their names, and your evidence. I really hope that your evidence doesn't rely on a simplistic English translation of adelphos.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Prove that you've stopped howling at the moon.

I *never claimed* that I did so. You *claimed* there are no other siblings. Demonstrate your claim is true.

This is your theory. You still haven't listed any siblings of Christ.

Actually, no. I did not claim they existed nor didn't exist. It was *you* who claimed *there are no siblings.*

That leaves you alone with a truth claim to support. Have at it, or we just disregard it as your opinion. Nothing wrong with opinions. Just don't claim it is Biblical.

[agere_contra]

100+ posts in and you are still insisting on a unitary translation of adelphos despite being given multiple counter-examples. That's what I mean by insane.

This translation is just as good, given the multiple meanings in scripture:

"Behold your Mother and your family are standing outside seeking to speak to You"

[omegatoo]

There is nothing in scripture that says his mother and brethren were there to stop Him from preaching. They might have been there to bring Him lunch, or to ask if He were OK, or to get His keys because they locked themselves out of their house. They couldn’t get in because of the crowd, so they asked Him to come out.

In what you call a rebuke, which I believe is a teaching moment directed at the crowd, Jesus calls everyone there his ‘mother and brethren’, a clear example of those terms being used by Jesus himself and not meaning literal brothers and sisters or even blood relatives at all.

Which of His siblings denied Him? Which of them were not at the crucifixion? Which were saved? When?

It is you who expect all interpretations to be backed up by indisputable scripture references, so you should be able to supply these... ‘familiar with the New Testament’ is a diversion.

And Mary being a perpetual virgin in no way gives her any power or authority. It is simply a state of being which is not contradicted by my interpretation of scripture. That is all that is addressed by this article.

Love,
O2

[agere_contra]

You're the one who made up the siblings: after I pointed out that Christ declared from the cross that John was to be a son to Mary.

And I quote your post.

Apparently, at that moment of His death, no other siblings were in attendance.

I repeat: Christ's action was pointless if there were other siblings.

[imardmd1]

I know where you’re going with this,. I’m not engaging on anything that has no Biblical foundation. Your hypothesis has no standing on that basis. Quit grasping at straws. I’ve had my say, and it sticks.

[agere_contra]

Uh-huh.

Ok guys. It's late here, and I must go home. No doubt we will all meet again.

May God bless us and bring us to a perfect end. Amen.

[omegatoo]

In the bible, sometimes until means until, sometimes until means until and after. Sometimes the meaning is clear, sometimes not so much. That is where interpretation comes in, and mine is just as valid as anyone else’s. The article shows 2 clear examples of it meaning until and after, and there are more, so in the language of the time it is not that unusual.

Mary’s perpetual virginity is a dogma of my faith, not yours, (I’m assuming you are not Catholic) so its relevance to our salvation is not the same.

Love,
O2

[omegatoo]

Clarification:

What part exactly does Paul say is a sin?

Love,
O2

[ealgeone]

Dude....you paying attention or do you just want to argue just to argue? I've never said there is only one way to understand the Greek word for brother.

I've said repeatedly the context determines the usage.

[Salvation]

Not just Catholic teaching. Check out Luther, Zwingli and Calvin.

Perpetual virginity
Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?
Aeiparthenos (An Anglo-Catholic Priest on Mary's Perpetual Virginity)
The Early Church Fathers on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Heõs Hou polemic is over: Radio Debate Matatics VS White & Svendsen on Perpetual Virginity Mary
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

[aMorePerfectUnion]

'Apparently, at that moment of His death, no other siblings were in attendance.'

I make no claim about siblings other than as an answer to your question - that no siblings were in attendance. Scripture records none at the scene.

I repeat: Christ's action was pointless if there were other siblings.

I see you claim you alone know Christ's mind and reason, but of course you do not. Why would anyone believe your secret knowledge?

When you start repeating the same unsupported claim over and over, you might consider providing some actual evidence.

Since you do not, we know it is simply your personal opinion that you have mindreading ability. We do not believe it.

[omegatoo]

HA!!

Love,
O2

[kosciusko51]

That is where interpretation comes in, and mine is just as valid as anyone else’s

And here I thought that personal interpretation of Scripture is not allowed by the Roman Catholic church, for it make everyone their own pope, or at least what we non-Catholics have been told over and over (and over) again by Roman Catholics on this forum.

[omegatoo]

Clarification:

Are you for or against personal interpretation?

Love,
O2

[rwa265]

Thank you for posting this link. What it shows to me is that Scripture is ambiguous as to whether Jesus had brothers and/or sisters. Scripture does not say whether Mary did or did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus. Scripture does not say whether Joseph and Mary did or did not have relations after the birth of Jesus. Nowhere does Scripture say whether Mary did or did not conceive any children other than Jesus. Neither does Scripture say whether Mary did or did not give birth to any children other than Jesus.

Accordingly, from Scripture alone, it cannot be definitively stated that Mary did or did not remain a virgin. So how did this idea come about? Why was it important to the early Christians that Mary remain a virgin. One possibility is that they felt it was essential because it fulfilled the following Old Testament prophecy from Ezekiel 44:2, Then said the Lord unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. In his Exposition of the Old Testamant, John Gill wrote:

“Some of the ancients have interpreted it of the Virgin Mary, by whom Christ came into this world in human nature, being born of her, a virgin, who had never known man, and as is thought never did after the birth of Christ; nor were any afterwards born of her; no man might come into the world by her, by that self-same way the incarnate God did, and for that reason. This sense is approved of, not only by Papists, but by many Protestant writers.”

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/view.cgi?bk=25&ch=44#2