Posted: 7/27/2026 9:47:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Tech-Com][Edited]
|
I was listening to a discussion and I was reminded of the Bereans who were willing to receive the word but examined with scripture daily what they had heard to determine if it were true. Now I apply this reasoning to myself regarding the concept of the Virgin Mary. In Matthew 1:25 it states eginosken auten heos eteken huion and he was not knowing her until she produced a son (eginosken) is an imperfect active indicative verb, portraying Joseph’s ongoing abstinence from marital relations up to the birth of Jesus.” If we consistently suppress the ordinary implication of “until” whenever it is convenient, we risk dismantling our faith in the power of Jesus Christ. Now, if you are willing, please consider how you naturally understand the word “until” in these verses and whether the context leads you to expect a change after the stated event. What does it mean for our faith if the change does not occur? Before this faith came, we were held in custody under the law, locked up UNTIL faith should be revealed. (Galatians 3:23) Truly I tell you, you will not get out UNTIL you have paid the last penny. (Matthew 5:26) How would those believe that Mary remained a virgin convince a Berean who reads Matthew 1:25 that the marriage was not consummated after the birth of Christ? With Love, Jesse |
|
https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/answering-objections-to-marys-perpetual-virginity Here is a medium long answer to your question. Okay, so that's the famous until argument in Matthew 1:25. The idea here was that Mary and Joseph did not have relations until she had given birth to Jesus. So normally when we use the word until, even in English, it signifies a reversal of some kind. I'm not going to eat chocolate until Lent is over, which then you can apply from that, that once Lent has finished then I'm going to resume eating chocolate again. But the word until, of course, doesn't always mean that. It doesn't necessarily imply there is a cessation or a reversal of activity after that point. There are examples of this in scripture itself. So let me talk about some of those. The Greek word that is translated until in this passage is Heos. In English, if you transliterated it, it would be H-E-O-S, Heos, and here are a few examples where there is no reversal, even though the word until is used. In 2 Samuel 6:23, in the Greek translation of the Old Testament or the Septuagint, it says, "Michal, the daughter of Saul had no child to," or heos, "the day of her death." So Michal, call the daughter of King Saul, it says she had no child to the day of her death. That does not mean after she died she started having children. We go on, when Jesus quoted Psalm 110, He said, "David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand till," Greek heos once again, "'I put your enemies under your feet.'" That doesn't mean that he won't be sitting at the Lord's right hand after the enemies are put under his feet. Once again, it's talking about a continuing action, even though the word until is used. Now, some people, I've read other Protestant authors who will say, "Well, you're picking and choosing out of the Old Testament here to say what heos means or until. Matthew doesn't use it this way. So you can't impose the Old Testament's usage onto Matthew." But actually that's not the case. Matthew does use the word heos in this way. Look at Matthew 28:20. In there, Jesus says, Jesus tells the disciples, the apostles, "Observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always to the close of the age," heos, the close of the age. But Jesus is going to be with the apostles even after this present age comes to an end. It's cited in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 says that. So the word heos, until, yes, it can talk about a reversal, but it can also just mean an action was done and it will still be continuing. It's just focusing on the prior elements of the action, but it doesn't imply some kind of reversal at a future time. So 2 Samuel 6:23, Michal had no child until the day of her death; just means she'd never had children throughout her entire life. It doesn't say anything of what she did after the day of her death. So this passage in Matthew 1:25, I would ask a Protestant who brings us up, what is Matthew's point? What is he trying to get across? Is Matthew trying to tell the reader, "My point is that Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born." That's not his concern. That's not Matthew's main point in Matthew Chapter One. His main point is that Jesus does not have an earthly father. Jesus' Father is God the Father. We know that because Mary and Joseph did not have sexual relations before Jesus was born. That is the main point he's trying to get across. He's not saying anything about what happened after Jesus was born. His main point is about the span of events that took place before Jesus was born. |
|
Thank you for sharing. I came across those arguments and studied some of those verses, so I originally provided a few verses where the promises of our faith are challenged if the same reasoning is applied. I had never seen the need to reconsider the use of “until” in the “at His right hand “until” verse. Does not this simply imply the patient waiting before Christ will begin a new action because the Earth would be made His footstool, meaning He can step some place new? |