|
A
brief study regarding the
Ever-Virginity of Mary, the Theotokos (God-bearer)
This question was
asked at Bible
study:
"Doesn't Matthew 1:25 say
that Joseph did not know Mary until she had born a son?
That pretty much implies that they had sexual relations afterwards,
doesn't it?"
It
is first of all important to remember that Mary and Joseph were only betrothed,
not married. (Notice in Matthew
1:18b, for example the NRSV[1]
says "engaged" NIV says "pledged to be married"
and NKJV says "betrothed.") In the Jewish tradition, betrothal lasts for a year and was legally
binding. There is no mention in the
original Greek that they were ever married. Thus, the Church had always taught that the fact that they were never
married is further evidence that there was no physical sexual relationship.
The
specific passage in question: Matthew
1:25a
"...but he had no union with her
until she
gave birth to a son." (NIV)
"...but had no marital relations with her
until she had borne a son; (NRSV)
"...and did not know her
till she
had brought forth her firstborn Son." (NKJV)
But first, a word about "firstborn"
Many ancient texts include the word
"firstborn" (proto-tokon)
According to the Orthodox Study Bible,
"firstborn" means having been born first, and never implies the birth
of others. It is common in
scripture and ancient writings to show that something is the “only” using the word “first”
in order to emphasize pre-eminence, elevation or honor.
Here are some cross references using the same Greek word to illustrate this:
See
Isaiah 44:5 - “I
am God, the First, and with Me there is no other”
See
Psalm 88:27 -
“I will set Him firstborn high among the kings of the earth”
According to St. Cyril of Alexandria:
"To show that the Virgin did
not bring forth a mere man, there is added the word “firstborn”, for as she
continued to be a Virgin, she had no other son but Him who is of the Father.”
And
now, a brief study of the concept of "until" as used in Matthew 1:25a
"...but he had no union with her until she
gave birth to a son." (NIV)
"...but had no marital relations with her
until she had borne a son; (NRSV)
"...and did not know her
till she
had brought forth her firstborn Son." (NKJV)
The Greek word most often translated as "until"
is eos (pronounced āōs), and is negated by ouk at the
beginning of the phrase, meaning "not."
The modern-day meaning of the word "until"
might lead us to think that Joseph "did not know her until..." but
that he did afterwards. However,
the biblical usage is quite different. In
ancient and biblical usage, the word eos is used to
designate a "boundary formed by a historical event."[2]
The
Greek conjunction eos (till), like the Hebrew ad-ki and the Latin donec, while
expressing what has occurred up to a certain period, leaves the future entirely
aside"[3]
Here are some cross references to illustrate that
ouk...eos it more
accurately translated as "not until this important event, but still not
after" (i.e. never.)
1) Note Luke 2:36-37, the story of Christ's
Presentation at the Temple. The
verse describes Anna the prophetess as having lived with her husband for 7
years after their marriage, and then, "she has lived as a widow until
(eos) ." At the time of The Presentation of Christ she is still a
widow, and will continue to be so after this. The "boundary" historical event is the Presentation of
Christ.
2) Another good example of this is Acts 8:40.
The verse says "Phillip.... traveled about, preaching the
gospel in all the towns until (eos)
he reached Caesarea" (NIV) Did Phillip the deacon
preach the gospel after he reached Caesarea? Of course he did.
The
"boundary" historical event is Phillip the deacon's arrival in
Caesarea and the word eos is used to
denote the importance of this event. He
preached before, until this significant event, and still after.
3) Another example is Matthew 24:21, where the use of
the word (eos) as having an action as continuing into the future
is actually clarified in the text: "then
there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until
(eos) now – and never to be equaled again." This great distress has not been seen until now, and
still, will never be seen again.
4)
See
John 5:17. Jesus is speaking: "My
Father is always at work to (eos)
this very day, and I, too am working." (NIV) or "My Father
has been working until (eos) now..."(NKJV) "My Father is still
working, (eos) and I also am working." Clearly Jesus did not mean that His Father was
working only until that very day, but still. Jesus' presence on earth was a "boundary" historical event.
The Father worked until that day, and still afterwards.
5) other
examples: Genesis 8.7 "Noah...sent forth a raven; and it went
to and fro till the waters were dried up from the earth."
Psalm 110.1
"the Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy
enemies thy footstool."
See also
Isaiah 22.15, Matt 12.20, 1 Tim 4.13, Psalm 90.2, Psalm 72.7
Finally,
back to Matthew 1:25a, the birth of Mary's Firstborn Son is a
"boundary" historical event. In the same sense as the examples above,
Joseph did not know Mary before the birth, but also after this
watershed event of the birth of the Messiah.
Believe
it or not, it is not difficult to argue (using only modern Biblical exegetical
methods) that the position of the Orthodox Church of the Ever-Virginity of Mary
is true. However the most
significant argument in this discussion is not the Biblical evidence, but that
it has simply always been the teaching of the Church. Any contradictory views were always considered heretical.
This alternate view did not gain momentum until after the Protestant
reformation, after which many of the foundational tenets of
orthodox Christianity, and especially anything which appeared "Popish"
(or Roman
Catholic) had been thrown out entirely.
From The Virgin Mary,
Theotokos
by Rev. George Mastrantonis The
Ever-Virginity is not a miraculous act but an attitude. The
virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus Christ was not a miraculous act
of God; it was merely her preference for the rest of her life. It
would have been impossible for her to have considered the virgin birth as
a "sign" of the birth of the Messiah and then to have neglected
its importance to her. The sacred writers took her condition and
attitude for granted. Moreover, they were not writing about her, nor
even a full biography of Jesus Christ; therefore, they did not dwell on
things which were known to the Church and had no direct bearing on
salvation. The early Church seems to have held the perpetual
virginity of Mary as a treasure of human attitude. Later, when it
was attacked, the Church as a whole expressed its strong conviction in her
perpetual virginity as a fact and not as an after-though or a
sequence. Only a man of strong prejudice against the Virgin Mary's
personal physical attitude will interpret and deny the face of her ever
virginity which had been accepted for 18 centuries.
A good link to a more-detailed
explanation about this same topic: http://www.eastern-orthodoxy.com/Mary.htm
|
