March 01, 2004
Linguistic Issues Regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
There has been some significant discussion on this site regarding the "brothers" of Jesus referred to in the Gospels. Most of you know that the Church teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary, meaning that she could not have had any children after Christ, making Christ an only child. The common Protestant response is to point to the brothers mentioned in Scripture and then, presto, anounce the end of the discussion. Catholics will frequently respond with the equally flawed "there was no word for 'brother' in Greek." I hope this post will clarify some linguistic issues to show why the Catholic position is at a minimum not contrary to the Scriptures.
First, we must start with the understanding that Christ spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew or Greek. Though Aramaic had a word for brother, the word was used for many male relatives (i.e. cousins, step brothers, half-brothers, etc; the word was "aha"). In other words, Aramaic did not have a separate word for cousin, half brother, or step brother. So, when Christ spoke of His brothers, the words themselves would not have told us the particular blood relationship. Additional words would have to have been used, such as "son of my mother".
The dispute arises because the New Testament is not written in Aramaic, but in Greek. Contrary to what many Catholics have heard, Greek actually does have a word for both brother (adelphos) and for cousin (anepsios). So which word was used in the New Testament? Adelphos. That is why Protestants are so adamant that Mary had other children. There are a few problems, however, that must be addressed.
One problem is that we must remember Jesus and Mary did not speak Greek, but Aramaic. Moreover, even though the writers of the Gospels wrote in Greek, their native tongue was also Aramaic. It is not difficult to imagine that when they swithched, one of two things could have happened. First, they may have used a mixed or polluted form of Greek that commingled Aramaic. More plausible however, is that they could have used the language imprecisely, just as we are apt to do with second languages. Having used tha same word (aha) to describe both brothers and cousins in their native tongue, they may also have used "adelphos" in a broader sense (and consider the innumerable references throughout Scripture to "brother" where it really does not mean blood brother).
There is, however, a much bigger problem that is insurmountable for Protestants, and that is this: even Protestants concede that Jesus did NOT have any "brothers". Think about it; who was Christ's Father? No other human being has God/Holy Spirit as their literal parent. So at the very most, Jesus had HALF-brothers. And yet our Protestant brothers (aren't I a pun genius?!) must concede that the text does not say that Jesus had half-brothers, but rather that he had brothers. Now they may respond that a half-brother is pretty close to a brother (i.e. a shared parent). However, a step-brother would for all intents and purposes be equally close. Consider that Joseph may have taken a second wife by whom to bear children (note that this is not the standard Catholic position, though it has never been dogmatically defined). If he did so, would not Joseph's children have grown up with Jesus? Wouldn't they have shared the same earthly father (though an adoptive one for Christ)? What term would even a Greek speaking native have applied to Christ and his step-brother other than "adelphos"? So you see, the term adelphos proves nothing. At most it proves that Joseph had children of his own. At the least, it is simply an example of the broad use of the word brother. I hope this sheds a little more light on this issue.
In Christ,
Dave
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Dave,
Another problem with the protestant position is Jesus' actions during the Crucifixion. He gave His mother to the Apostle John, which would have never happened if Jesus had an actual "brother." There is often the suggestion that Jesus wanted a believer to care for his mother, but remember James (the one commonly cited as Jesus' brother) was an apostle, so this doesn't wash. In fact, Jesus would only say this if he had no brothers. A key point in the debate.
God bless,
Jay
Right on the money, Jay. That and other points were well stated in Joe's piece, "The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: Did Mary have other children?" I recommend that our readers review that article in conjunction with this one.
In Christ,
Dave
Not exactly a salvation issue but I'll take a crack at it. If you check Matt 1:25 it says.
But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
In your opinion what does union mean?
Posted by: Stan at March 2, 2004 05:49 PMStan,
The linguistic problem here is the word "until." In english this implies that something did happen after this point in time. In Greek it does not. So Matthew is simply reporting that no union occured before the birth of Christ, without referencing the time after the birth.
Not sure if I'm making myself clear or not, but basically "until" in the Bible does not indicate a positive occurence after the point when it is used.
God bless,
Jay
Stan,
Consider this statement by Christ: "And lo I am with you even until the end of the age." (Matt. 28:20). Certainly "until" here does not signify that Jesus will not be with us after the end of the age. Rather, Jesus is not making a statement about what will or won't happen after the end of the age; simply what will happen between now and then. Similarly, the same writer uses the term until in Matt. 1:25. And there again, he is not intending to convey what happened after Mary gave birth. All that he is making clear is that there was no union before the birth.
Why make this point, you may ask? Because Matthew was laying the foundation for the virgin birth. If Joseph had no union with her prior to the birth, it eliminates the possibility that Mary mistakenly thought she was pregnant as a virgin, but really got pregnant when her husband slept with her for the first time. Understanding the context of why this verse is in Scripture helps us understand why it does not serve the inferential purposes that some would claim.
In Christ,
Dave
Dave your argument is weak because the word cousins is used in the Bible. Second you are trying to imply that Joseph had children outside of his marriage to Mary. If that was the case was he divorced then married to Mary. If that is so then Mary sinned by marrying a divorced man. Second, your argument has NO scriptual support whatsoever. The worst part of your argument like the rest of your argument is based on assumption. You are assuming that the writers of the gospel made linguistic errors. How can you prove such a thing? You can't.
Stan, Dave is trying to twist the meaning of the word until. In Matthew 28:20 Christ is talking with his disciples and instructing them to go make disciples of the nations. Christ also said that authority on heaven and on earth...let me repeat AUTHORITY ON HEAVEN AND ON EARTH has been given to me. I point that out to illustrate that authority is not shared...it wasn't with Peter or with anyone else on Earth. Back to the main point, Christ is goes on to say teach them everything I HAVE COMMANDED YOU (again, now new teachings that Christ has not taught). Surely I am with you always EVEN UNTIL the end of age. Jay is right on one thing, until means up to a certain point in Greek. In the case of Mary, all we know is that she had no sex up until the birth of Christ. After that, no one knows. It doesn't say that she remained a virgin nor does it say that she had sex. But the scriptures show that Jesus did have brothers. The reason that argument of Joseph's children from a prior marriage is weak is because no where in the Bible does it say that Joseph had children. So lets look at the facts, the New Testament authors did have words for brothers and cousins. No where does it say that Mary remained a virgin forever in the Bible. It does say that Jesus had brothers. It does say that Joseph was married to Mary. It also says that Jesus own brothers didn't believe in him. Are these his spiritual brothers? Obviously not, because spiritual brothers in Christ believe in Jesus. So at the time of His crucifixion, Jesus's own biological brothers did not believe in Him. So that is why Jesus entrusted Mary to John. Jesus said himself whom he considers his brothers. Those who believe in Him are his brothers, those who do not believe are not his brothers. Why would he give His mother who was a believer, to someone he does not consider his brother? Jay that is why Christ entrusted Mary to John. The fact remains is that originally Jay said that there was no word to distinguish brothers from cousins. Now that that theory was disproven, Dave assumes that while the NT was written in Greek, that writers...made a mistake! HA HA HA! I find that funny!:) Scripture interprets scripture. Like some others who have posted on this site, if Jesus did not teach it....it ain't real!
Amen
SandT,
One problem with your analysis is that virtually everyone who claims Jesus had brothers points at James as one of them. James was one of the writers of the New Testament, so how can we say he was "not a believer"? Clearly he did believe and follow Christ. So this is the most obvious proof available that Jesus had no brothers. Period.
Another point: history has held for 1,500 years that Mary was a virgin. You are suggesting she wasn't and demanding that we prove our case - the burden of proof lies on you, not us. As others have pointed out, the word "brother" or "brethren" in the New Testament is used repeatedly in a non-familial way. No one claims that Matt 25:40 or Luke 22:32 literally mean "brother" as in "son of my parents." Yet this is the same word you claim proves Jesus had brothers. Catholics have always held (again 1,500 years) that these "brethren" of Jesus were believers, rather than literal brothers. How can you prove that you are correct? You can't. But I can clearly point to the moment of the crucifixion as proof that Jesus had no brothers.
God bless,
Jay
SandT,
First, I think you have misconstrued my argument regarding Joseph. On the one hand, I am not necessarily saying that Joseph had another spouse. Merely that a non-Catholic must consider that possibility. On the other hand, it need not have been a former wife; he could have married her after Mary. Also, note that polygamy was not only lawful, but common. Consider the patriarchs, Abraham, Jacob, David, and so on all had multiple wives. Also consider that at the time of Christ's birth, divorce was not unlawful as you suggest; God had explicitly authorized Moses to permit divorce.
Second, other than the fact that it does not say that Joseph had another wife, you offer no evidence that he didn't. This is not very logical on your part. The Bible does not say that Jesus performed carpentry. Does that mean he didn't? More to the point, the Bible never says that Mary had children other than Jesus. By your own argument, that means she didn't. (As an interesting side note, the Bible also does not say that polygamy is wrong; you are aware that this is a uniquely Catholic teaching, right? To again use your logic, Jesus didn't teach it, so I guess it "ain't real".)
Third, why did you claim that I twisted the meaning of "until", then go on to admit that it meant exactly what I said it meant?
Fourth, I would very much be interested in hearing you respond to Jay's point regarding James the brother of Jesus being the proper person to entrust His mother to. Note that James was not only the "brother" of Christ, he was also the highest Christian authority in Jerusalem in the early church. It seems to me you are in a corner here. If James was indeed Christ's brother, Mary would have lived with James, not John.
Finally, you have still not addressed the fact that "adelphos", which means full brother, could not possibly have been the meaning of the word used in Scripture, since Christ clearly did not have any full brothers. That being the case, why not use some description as "half-brother", which is the meaning you are proposing? Or why not identify Jesus' brothers as simply the sons of Mary? Your position is hardly clear on its face, and the support you offer is tenuous at best.
In all honesty, Catholics do not offer anything more than tenuous proof of their position as well. However, we have 2000 of Church history behind us. Every single father of the Church commenting on the issue of perpetual virginity agrees on the Church's teaching. Moreover, you have not addressed the simple logical point I raised regarding the appropriateness of Joseph having a sexual relationship with Mary. You speak of Mary being married to a divorced man as sinful; imagine Joseph depositing his seed into the vessel used by the Holy Spirit to carry God in the flesh! Your position simply does not add up.
In Christ,
Dave
Another linguistic issue concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary revolves around the word "until". As early as the 4th century AD, Helvidus argued (just as today's Protestants do) that because the Bible says that Joseph did not have relations with Mary "until" she gave birth to Jesus, this proves Joseph did have relations with Mary.
I found St Jerome's response discussion on this issue (point 6, and 7) brilliant. He points to numerous passages of Scripture where it clearly does not mean that the things said to hold true "until" an event necessarily cease hold true after the event occurs.
He reminds of Jesus saying "For Lo, I am with you until the end of the age". Also St Paul says "for Christ must reign, until he hath put all enemies under his feet". The psalmist writes "so our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until he have mercy".
Though St. Jerome saves the best two for last from Genesis and Deuteronomy respectively:
"And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and the rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem, and lost them until this day". And also "And he buried Moses in the valley, in the land of Moab over against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day"
I enjoyed a good chuckle when St Jerome went on to challenge the self-styled Scripture experts (who claimed to have found proof the Mary and Joseph had relations) to produce Jacob's lost idols and the grave of Moses seeing as they had been lost only unto this day.
Posted by: Richard Wan at October 26, 2004 11:20 PMSUMMARY: While it is not heresy to believe Mary had or did not have children it is heresy to believe she was sinless (Philip. 3:18-19).
Shalom Aleykhem,
This argument can not be resolved by simply throwing scriptures back and forth at each other as we must examine the motives for the different interpretations. Why is it important to those who claim she remained a virgin and why is this important to those who claim she was not. What is the root and drive for the arguments!
The single point of agreement (praise the Lord) is that both sides agree that Christ is the only begotten son (John 3:16) who had a supernatural conception and birth. Therefore even if Mary had more children they were from this earth while Jesus came down from heaven with his origins being heavenly conceived by the Holy Spirit.
The error with the argument of claiming Mary was a virgin is not an error in letter but an error of spirit. (2 Cor. 3:6) I will explain…
The same people who claim Mary was a virgin all her life will also claim she was sinless. Therefore we must ask ourselves, why does the Roman Catholic church and other large religious sects insist she was sinless when the Bible says she was not? While it is not heresy to believe Mary had or did not have children it is heresy to believe she was sinless (Philip. 3:18-19). This is the spirit of error that is behind this false doctrine and if you believe this you have not recognised who Christ is and the light of God is not in you. So wherever you believe Jesus had half brothers or not make sure… you do not associate Mary as being sinless for there is only one lamb without blemish and without spot. (1 Peter 1:19)
… maybe a testimony of a Catholic nun would help to reassure you...
“For they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.” (Rev. 12:11)
Please get on Google and do a search for “Sandy Hooper” who is a Former Roman Catholic Nun.
God Bless
May God be true and every man a liar...
(Romans 3:4)
Kefa,
I'm wondering why you keep quoting Philippians 3:18-19, which says nothing about whether Mary was sinless or not. You also quote 1 Peter 1:19, which again has no bearing on this argument.
The Bible does not say Mary had sinned, in fact there are multiple passages that state just the opposite. For an angel to give Mary the title "full of grace" is in direct conflict with your statement. No one who has committed sin or who has original sin on their soul can be full of grace - it's an impossibility. Grace is driven out by sin. Period.
Also, it's important to note that this was taught universally for 1,500 years until Martin Luther decided to change it. To say you are the one with the burden of proof would be an understatement.
By the way, I recommend taking a look at Scott Hahn, a former protestant. My guess is that he has a deeper Scriptural understanding than an ex-Catholic nun.
God bless,
Jay
It is also understood that James (the brother of Jesus) did not come to his faith until AFTER Jesus was resurrected.
If Mary was not sinless, why would she need to be filled with God's grace?
1 a : unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification b : a virtue coming from God c : a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine grace
