Apologetics for the Masses #493 - Does the Word, "Until", Prove Mary Was Not a Perpetual Virgin?

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter

Topic

Does Matthew 1:25 "prove" that Mary was not a perpetual virgin?

Introduction

This is going to be a relatively short newsletter, seeing as how it primarily focuses on one word..."until". Protestants who deny the Catholic dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary will, quite often, cite Matthew 1:25 to "prove" their case that Mary was not a perpetual virgin. Matthew 1:25 says, essentially, that Joseph "knew not" Mary until Jesus was born. Which means, of course, that Joseph did indeed "know" Mary after Jesus was born, right? Well, not so fast. Let's look at that word..."until".

Challenge/Response/Strategy

"Until" and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
I picked up a book titled, The Doctrines That Divide, which is by Erwin Lutzer who was, at the time the book was written (1998), the Senior Pastor of Moody Church in Chicago. Moody Church appears to be, from a quick perusal of their doctrinal beliefs, a typical Evangelical one church non-denominational denomination. I.e., their pastor answers to no one outside of their church.

Anyway, this book was written to try shed light on, and offer suggestions for healing, the doctrinal divisions that plague Christianity. Oh, all true believers are in "the Church," and of course they're all saved, but "the Church" needs to be unified in doctrine and not just in spirituality, according to Pastor Lutzer. Basically, though, the book is an apologetic against Catholic teaching. I might do more from this book in a future newsletter, but for purposes of this newsletter, I wanted to focus on just four sentences from the chapter in the book titled, "Was Mary the Mother of God?"

The first two sentences I want to look at are these: "The Gospel of Matthew explicitly states that she [Mary] had other children by Joseph after Jesus was born. The names of his brothers were James and Joseph and Simon and Judas (Matt. 13:55)." Really, Pastor?! It says that "explicitly"?! Actually, no, it does not. Ya gotta watch these guys closely. Here is what Matthew 13:55 says, "explicitly": "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And are not His brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

Nowhere does the Word of God "explicitly" say, "Mary had other children by Joseph after Jesus was born." No, what the Word of God says, is that the people thought Jesus was the son of Mary and Joseph...which means the people were wrong. It also says that the names of His "brothers" were James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. As I have shown in other newsletters, and in my talk on Mary and the Bible, we know - from the Bible - that the first two "brothers" of Jesus mentioned here - James and Joseph (aka Joses) - were not sons of Mary and Joseph. James and Joseph were clearly shown to be the sons of another woman - who was also named Mary - in both Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40. And if the first two "brothers" mentioned in the list are not sons of Mary and Joseph, then it's not a far-fetched idea to think that the next two mentioned aren't either. And we actually have some evidence of this from the Letter of Jude. Jude, verse 1, says: "Jude [aka Judas], a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James. James and Joses, Judas and Simon. Jude is a "brother" of James. So, it looks like Jude might be the "Judas" mentioned in the list of Jesus' "brothers". You would think, though, that if he was indeed the the son of Mary, and blood brother of Jesus, that he would introduce himself as, "Jude, brother of Jesus Christ..." Hmmm.

All of which is to say, that Pastor Erwin Lutzer was playing fast and loose with the meaning of the word, "explicitly". Pastor Erwin Lutzer was not giving his readers what the Gospel of Matthew "explicitly" stated, rather, he was giving his readers what he interpreted the Gospel of Matthew to be saying. So, it wasn't the Word of God that "explicitly" stated that Mary had other children by Joseph after Jesus was born, it was the Word of Lutzer that stated that. Not the inspired, inerrant Word of God; rather, the uninspired, errant, fallible, non-authoritative Word of Lutzer.

Always, always keep in mind that whenever someone presents a passage of Scripture to you that supposedly "proves" Catholic teaching to be wrong, that one of two things is true: Either, 1) What they are saying the Bible says does not match what the Bible actually says (as in this case); or, 2) They are taking the Scripture passage out of context.

Okay, I just wanted to mention that because when I was reading the book that claim from Pastor Lutzer rather irked me. So, now, I want to get on to the main focus of this newsletter, the word..."until". In the very next paragraph of his book, we find Pastor Lutzer writing this: "We read [in the Bible] that Joseph kept her [Mary] a virgin until she gave birth to Christ (Matt. 1:25). Thereafter she had normal sexual relations."

Two things: 1) Again, we see that it is the Word of Lutzer saying Mary and Joseph had "normal sexual relations" after the birth of Jesus, not the Word of God; and, 2) He is interpreting the word, "until", to mean that Condition A was true up to a certain event occurring, and then, after the event occurred, Condition A stopped being true and Condition B - which is the opposite of Condition A - was now true. So, in Pastor Lutzer's uninspired fallible interpretation, Joseph knew not Mary "until" the birth of Jesus means, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph did indeed "know" Mary.

I can't tell you how many times I have seen this verse used as an argument to counter the dogma of Mary's Perpetual Virginity. But, it is an argument that is without any merit whatsoever. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. In fact, it's a rather ridiculous argument to make. Why? Because, if those who make this argument are consistent in how they interpret the word "until" when it is used in other places in Scripture, then it requires them to hold to teachings that I guarantee cause contradictions in their theology, and in Scripture.

For example:

1 Corinthians 15:25, "For He [Jesus] must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet." So, once Jesus conquers death, His "last enemy," then He shall no longer reign, at least, according to how Pastor Lutzer interprets the word "until". Jesus will no longer be sitting on the throne of Heaven as King of kings. But, wait a minute, Scripture says Jesus will reign forever and ever, doesn't it (Revelation 11:15)? It seems Pastor Lutzer's way of interpreting things could result in some scriptural contradictions.

Acts 8:40, "But Philip was found at Azotus, and passing on he preached the gospel to all the towns till [same Greek word that is also translated as "until"] he came to Caesarea." Which means, Pastor Lutzer must believe that once Philip got to Caesarea, he never again preached the gospel. Do you think that's the case? Very doubtful.

Matthew 22:44, "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet’?" Again, once death is conquered for good, then Jesus will, apparently, no longer sit at the right hand of the Father. At least, according to Pastor Lutzer's methodology of interpretation.

Luke 2:37, "[Anna the Prophetess lived] as a widow till she was eighty-four." Which means Pastor Lutzer must believe that Anna remarried at age 84 and no longer lived as a widow.

Matthew 24:39, "...and they [the people of Noah's day] did not know until the flood came and swept them all away..." Oh, so after the flood swept them away - and they were dead - then they knew, right?

Revelation 16:21, "...and great hailstones, heavy as a hundredweight, dropped on men from heaven, till men cursed God for the plague of the hail...". So, great hailstones were falling from Heaven, until men cursed God and then the hailstones must have stopped, right? I mean, that's what "until" means, right? Hailstones falling "until" men cursed God, so that means they stopped falling after men cursed God. Kind of strange that cursing God would work to stop the hail.

And, one of my favorites, from the Old Testament, is this verse, 2 Samuel 6:23: "And Saul’s daughter Michal bore no children from that day on until the day she died," (ISV). Which means, she apparently started having children after she died.

In other words, the word "until" can indeed mean that some condition was true up to a particular point in time, and then it changed; or, it can mean some condition was true up until a particular point of time, and then it didn't change. With the latter meaning, the word "until" is being used to simply emphasize what was going on up until a particular point in time. It's not trying to tell you, or even imply, that there was a change in condition after that point of time. That's what's going on in Matthew 1:25. The whole point of that passage is to emphasize that, in accord with an Old Testament prophecy, Jesus was born of a virgin. Again, 1 Corinthians 15:25, cited above, is a perfect example of this use of the word "until". Jesus must reign until His enemies are put under His feet does not in any way, shape, or form mean that after His enemies are put under His feet then He will no longer reign. As the Bible itself tells us (Rev 11:15).

I always use the example of a little prayer I say when I'm pulling out of my driveway headed to work: "God, watch over my family until I get back." Does that mean that once I get back I no longer want God to watch over my family? Of course not! It means I'm asking God, in a special way, to watch over my family until I get back and then we can both watch over my family.

All of which is to say, that Matthew 1:25, with the word "until", is not suggesting, implying, insinuating, or any such thing, that Mary and Joseph had marital relations after the birth of Jesus, so it is in no way a "proof", or even an ounce of evidence, that they did. Should you ever have this verse thrown in your face to disprove Mary's Perpetual Virginity, just go to 1 Cor 15:25 and/or Acts 8:40 and see if they interpret the word "until" in the same way in those verses, as they do in Matthew 1:25. If they don't, then just say to them, "Oh, so you interpret 'until' in different ways - basically, whatever way is necessary for it to fit your pre-conceived theology. I understand..." Then just shake your head and smile at them.

Closing Comments

I hope all of you have a great week!

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations

or send a check to:

Bible Christian Society

PO Box 424

Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.

Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter