Posted on 03/12/2016 9:36:07 AM PST by 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.
I’d also think the idea here is to let the Lord guide, and yes that includes desires that of themselves are not unholy. Not just to do a marriage because “everybody else is doing it.” Maybe in this modern day the advice could be flipped around. Not just to stay single because “everybody else is doing it.”
Each position has an advantage. Paul was able to cowboy for the Lord, so to speak, because he wasn’t hitched. Aquila was able to team with Priscilla to advise unclear believers. Both were blessed; and certainly the one who has “been there and done that” would carry the most credibility when witnessing to troubled couples about the ways in which God blesses marriages.
But the accusations would have been untrue and anyhow there was a host of witness about the special child. Anyone who knew enough about Jesus to question the faithfulness of his Mother would have known enough to understand his virgin birth.
You’re looking at it from the eyes of faith.
That culture was not.
And so? The question would have arisen from the point of the holy pregnancy. Too late to worry about that.
The culture had to be TOLD it was a holy pregnancy. The scandal would have actually been a witnessing opportunity.
I don’t disagree with all that. I’m just sympathetic with the origin of the idea. It’s not like there biblegateway.com for those folks to consult. If they had a hard copy of scripture, then they were extremely fortunate.
So, the easy mental dodge is that she became a holy woman and didn’t engage in that stuff anymore....or something like that.
Are you asking for a verse that says a woman with a living husband shouldn’t be having kids by another man?
I think I’m misunderstanding you.
I asked for a chapter and verse on this. I do not remember it.
Oh true... the impetus for preaching that this was the case with her could arise that way.
Ultimately I’ve found that being Christian is worth the scandals it causes. God can deftly turn those scandals into witnessing opportunities. It’s when we start esteeming above all the way the world does things, that we lose the ability to do that.
You go ahead and believe whatever you want to interpret Scripture to mean. I prefer to take Jesus at His word.
I mean, of course, while your husband is still living.
The bible says a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives.
You might want to take Him at His leading and teaching. Typically this means tying in a scripture passage to many others (primarily) and to natural evidence (secondarily) and to extrabiblical evidence (tertiarily).
Which however would be balanced against the need to care for that family, i.e. it’s never supposed to be a mere trophy, left in the lurch otherwise. With Him getting crucified and dying and rising in a new form and then ascending back to heaven, that ruled out the usual Plan A.
If He had been asked about it, I wonder if He would have answered in the vein that he was using His body to glorify His Father.
He didn’t have to be a woman, either, to fulfill all righteousness in that manner.
And you clearly believe you are interpreting what Jesus said so that it supports the way that you want to believe. I presume my self to be believing what scriptures teach based upon the many places in scripture that remain consistent with the perspective I believe. I am also relying on common sense with regard to what the believers in Asia Minor, under the leadership of John and possibly Philip, and then Polycarp were doing, keeping the 14 Nisan Passover meal as a remembrance of Jesus as the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world. It is this opposite belief quandary which drove Polycarp to Rome, to oppose heresies. And there were thriving men like Marcion, under the wing of Anicetus.
I think in a bible interpretation conflict like this, the one who strives to be least puffed up generally wins...
I’ve found time and again that what I couldn’t pick apart with my intellect, the good Lord reveals in good time. The bible really needs an understanding of what the Lord is like, and it’s an iterative process to get there as witnesses become clearer and clearer, and I’m still not all the way.
None of us are, Brother, and perhaps that’s why He leaves us here even in our old age.
And others go to eternity early. There seems to be an event coming up in which all our sin (and erroneous belief) will get squared up with the Lord, together with an evaluation of the basis of our reward to come. Some traditions call it a purgatory. The name seems less important than the fact. The more open we try to be to the Lord, the less difficult such an experience would be when we encounter it.
That anything good happens on the face of the earth is one of the biggest wonders to me. It is an arena of God’s grace winning against the devil’s evil in seemingly improbable manners. A school of hard knocks might be a way of putting it. But the morals learned are heavenly, not earthly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.