Teachings about Mary, the so-called Marian doctrines, are prominent dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church-State. Even those not from a Roman Catholic background are aware of this. But even though Evangelicals have a general sense of the importance of Mary in Romanist teaching, most are uncertain about the specifics. As a result, they become easy prey for ecumenists, both of Protestant and Roman Catholic variety, who never cease from their common goal of overthrowing the Reformation.
One such recent example is Rick Warren, who recently has gone on record as saying, “We [Roman Catholics and Protestants] have more in common than what divides us.” If by this statement Warren is referring to Protestant ecumenists such as himself, then his statement undoubtedly is true. As John Robbins once commented, about the only thing today’s Protestants protest is Biblical Christianity. But if by his statement Warren intends to suggest that the historic Protestant faith has a broad base of agreement with Rome, he is merely putting on display his ignorance of both the teachings of Scripture and of the Roman Catholic Church-State.
In light of the efforts of Warren and others of his ilk, it is worth taking a more detailed look at the afore mentioned Marian doctrines. According to Rome, there are four Marian dogmas – 1) Divine Motherhood (Mary is the Mother of God), 2) Perpetual Virginity (Mary remained a virgin her whole life, even after the birth of Christ), 3) Immaculate Conception (Mary was born without original sin), and 4) The Assumption (Mary did not die, but was bodily taken into heaven) – all which are false. The focus of this short essay is on the second of these dogmas, Mary’s perpetual virginity.
For Protestants unfamiliar with Rome’s Marian doctrines, it may seem incredible that anyone could seriously argue that Mary spent her whole life as a virgin. After all, does not Scripture plainly tell us that Jesus had brothers and sisters (Mark 6:1-3, Matt. 13:55)? In Matthew 1:25 we read, “And [Joseph] knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.” But for these and other arguments from Scripture, the Romanists have ready answers. Let’s look at them.
The meaning of “till” in Matthew 1:25
In a tract titled Against Helvidius, Jerome, one of the greatest scholars of the early church, lays out a rather invective laden argument in defense of Mary’s perpetual virginity. His opponent Helvidius had argued, as have most Protestants, that after the birth of Christ, Joseph and Mary engaged in normal marital relations and had other children besides Jesus. One of the chief cornerstones of Jerome’s argument is his interpretation of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. In the King James Version, this verse reads, “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son) (Matt. 1:24, 25).
Helvidius understood “till” to mean that the couple waited until after the birth of Christ to consummate their marriage. But Jerome would have none of this. In his tract he argues, correctly I may add, that there are many places in Scripture where “till” is used without any implication of a subsequent change of condition. For example, in 1 Cor. 15:25, we read, “For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.” Of this passage Jerome writes, “What does he mean then by saying, ‘for he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet’? Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign?” No Christian would answer yes to this question. And by the force of this and several other similar examples of the use of “till,” Jerome believes he has won his point.
And many Roman Catholics over the centuries have agreed with Jerome. For instance, on the Catholic Answers website in an article titled “Brethren of the Lord”
we read the following,
“They [fundamentalists] first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children…But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until,” instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point, it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.
Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?
There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the locations of this grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.
The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea – nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “he had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).
Although it is not at all clear to this author how Knox’s translation helps the cause of Jerome and the Catholic Answers apologists, their citations from Scripture certainly appear to advance an air-tight case for Mary’s perpetual virginity based on the usage of the word “till.” It’s game, set and match in their favor. Or is it?
If we look at the Greek text of Matthew 1:25, we find that the adverb “till” or “until” is used to translate term eos ou. And while eos ou certainly can be used in the sense described by Jerome and Catholic Answers – i.e., with no implication of a change of condition – the Greek word is not restricted to this usage. Consider the following examples,
- Matt. 17:9. And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, “Tell the vision to no man, until [eos ou] the Son of man be risen again from the dead.” Are we to take Jesus to mean that even after he had risen from the dead, the disciples were to tell no man about his transfiguration? If so, the Peter, James and John must have disobeyed Christ, or we would have no record of this event. This can hardly be the case. Jesus put a restriction on them until he had risen from the dead. From that point, the disciples were free to relate the events that had taken place on the mountain.
- Matt. 18:30. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till [eos ou] he should pay the debt. If what Catholic Answers says about until – that is never implies a subsequent change of condition – then even if the prisoner paid the debt if full, he would never get out of jail. This is contrary to the principles of justice.
- Luke 12:50. But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till [eos ou] it is accomplished! Jerome and his posse would have us believe that Jesus continued to be just as distressed after his crucifixion as before. This is a strained interpretation to say the least.
- Acts 23:12. And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till [eos ou] they had killed Paul. If Jerome is right, then the conspirators never had any intention of eating or drinking again, even after they had killed Paul. Their evil intent notwithstanding, such a reading strikes this author as simply bizarre. Having dispatched Paul, the conspirators had every intention of eating and drinking after the deed was done.
What the above examples have proven is that while “till” or “until” do not by themselves imply a change after the fact, they clearly can be used in this sense. Since this is the case, context must be used to determine the usage of “till” in Matthew 1:25. Given the God’s command to Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28), given that large families are considered a blessing Scripture (Ps. 127:4, 5), given that the Apostle Paul enjoined married couples not to deprive one another, absent an explicit, authoritative statement to the contrary, the context of “till” in Matt. 1:25 demands to be understood as implying a change in the relationship between Joseph and Mary after the birth of Christ. Joseph and Mary refrained from intercourse until the Birth of Christ, and thereafter lived together as a normal married couple.
Argument from tradition
The above argument by itself is conclusive, but not everyone will see it that way. In particular, a doctrinaire Romanist will not be satisfied
for the reason that Rome’s argument for the perpetual virginity of Mary does not rest on Scripture alone. As with it many other dogmatic assertions, Rome appeals to Tradition as well as to Scripture.
In another Catholic Answers posting, this one titled Mary: Ever Virgin, the author begins his defense of Mary’s perpetual virginity with an appeal to an extra-biblical document called the Protoevangelium of James. The main purpose of which, we are told, “is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ.” It also is used to explain away the brothers and sisters of Jesus as children of Joseph from a prior marriage. The relevant section of the Protoevangelium reads,
And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin [Mary] of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord your God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah…how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction.
From this point, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph agreed to take Mary into his care as a sort of Hebrew Vestal Virgin. In the interest of saving time and space, I will not weary the reader with an involved discussion of the Christian doctrine of Sola Scripture (by Scripture alone). Suffice it to say that the 66 books of the Bible named in the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter I.2 are alone immediately inspired by God and are the sole rule of faith and life for Christians. All other human writings, however excellent they may be, are of no authority in the church. Since the Protoevangelium is not numbered among the inspired books of the Bible, by good and necessary inference it has no authority to determine church doctrine, whether the questions concerns the virgin birth or any other subject.
One other short comment about Tradition is in order here. Since the Romanists like to appeal to the church fathers as a source of authority, it is worth noting that they were not all in agreement on the subject of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Perhaps the most prominent church father who possessed a Biblical understanding of the marriage of Joseph and Mary was Tertullian. Commenting on the text of Matthew 12:46-50, Tertullian wrote,
First of all, nobody would have told Him that His mother and brethren were standing outside, if he were not certain both that He had a mother and brethren, and they were the very persons whom He was then announcing (Flesh of Christ, 7, 17)
That Tertullian believed Jesus brothers were really his brothers and not cousins as Rome dogmatically asserts, apparently was well known. In defense of his assertion that Jesus had actual half-brothers and sisters, Helvidius appealed to Tertullian. To which Jerome graciously responded in Against Helvidius by pronouncing what amounts to anathema on Tertullian. Commenting on him, Jerome wrote, “Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church.”
Conclusion
The purpose of this essay has been to refute at one of Rome’s Marian doctrines, that of Mary’s perpetual virginity. We have looked closely at two arguments put forth by Rome in defense of the doctrine: first, the meaning of “till” in Matthew 1:25 and second, Rome’ appeal extra-biblical sources. Although this by no means exhaustive treatment of Rome’s arguments, it has been my goal to show, at least in part, the glaring weakness of some of them.
I would like to close by citing one of the more honest statements I have seen from a Catholic writer on the subject of Mary’s perpetual virginity. The Catholic Study Bible, Second Edition, has a note on Mark 6:3 which reads, “The question of meaning here [the question concerning the meaning of the terms “brothers” and “sisters” in Mark 6:3] would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Mary’s perpetual virginity.” To put it another way, the Catholic Study Bible concedes the argument from Scripture to Tertullian and the Protestants. The only leg the Church has to stand on, we are told, is extra-biblical tradition. This is hardly a firm foundation.
Thx Steve. I often get confused by the sophistries of Rome. Showing the use of ’till’ from other Scriptures was very useful.
Thanks, John.