catholicsphere

Continuing with answering the objections raised by a reader in a previous comment, which I started to answer in Part 1…

And then there is Miriam (Mary), mother of Yeshua HaMashiach. Catholic tradition teaches that she remained chaste. Not only would there have been no reason for Joseph to have gone through life chaste, or for the brothers and sisters of Yeshua HaMashiach to have been miraculously conceived without male seed (thereby making them free of original sin and therefore just as capable of being an unblemished sacrifice and innocent payment of sin as was Yeshua HaMashiach), but this is specifically contradicted in Matthew 1:25, which reads “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS”, with the implication that Miriam and Joseph had the marital relations that God commands all married couples to engage in (to be fruitful and multiply given first in Genesis 1:28 to Adam and Eve and again in Genesis 9:1 and 9:7 to Noah). There simply is no record given in scripture where God withheld from Joseph the blessing of touching his wife (and more importantly where He told Joseph to violate His Own Word and Commandment given to all married couples before then).

Let me start off this portion of my reply by affirming that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary remained “Ever Virgin”. Many of the early Reformers acknowledged and taught this very same thing, in conjunction with the writings of the Early Church Fathers that likewise taught and defended this.

Now, we can certainly put to rest the fact that the “brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ” were “conceived without male seed” (along with all the “unblemished sacrifice” and “innocent payment of sin” talk) because Catholic doctrine states that Mary had no other children. Mt 1:25 doesn’t present any “contradiction” to this unless one interprets the Scriptures in a particular way that is also at odds with the teaching from the times of the Early Church (which I link to above). Only if we read the passage in isolation of other historical accounts is it possible to come up with such an assertion. But “knew her not till…” does not require the exegete to assume that Joseph “knew” (which is a reference to marital relations) Mary after Jesus was born.

For instance, take this phrasology: “He remained celibate until his death”. Does this mean that he was no longer celibate after his death? Of course not.

In Scripture we read in Gen 8:5 “And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.” Since the tops of the mountains were what was seen, we should be confident that the waters continued to recede even after the tenth month.

However, what about the terminology “first-born”? Doesn’t that assume there was at least a “second-born”? It does not, especially in the way it was used in Judaism. A child was first-born even if there was no “second-born”. The Jewish laws related to the “first-born” did not have to wait until a second child was born to be fulfilled. (See Exodus 13:2 about the “first-born” being defined as the child “which opens the womb”.)

And, finally, regarding Mary and Joseph’s marital relations I would otherwise not consider it important to delve into matters of marital intimacy between them (or lack thereof), but the line of questioning has somewhat required it — unfortunately. Although, I do think we gain much understanding from the points I’ve already raised that we should not have to dig into their married relationship. Nonetheless, I think it really only necessary to ponder for a moment the revelation that Joseph received (via the angel for instance) about the Incarnation of Jesus and how Mary had become pregnant. It would be quite reasonable based on that alone that they wouldn’t have just gone on as regular married folk.  Joseph would have understood the special place he and Mary had as guardians of the Son of God.
Further, it would be good to take note of something mentioned in a July 2000 article appearing in This Rock magazine:

Consecrated virginity was not common among first century Jews, but it did exist. According to some early Christian documents, such as the Protoevangelium of James (written around A.D. 120), Mary was a consecrated virgin. As such, when she reached puberty, her monthly cycle would render her ceremonially unclean and thus unable to dwell in the temple without defiling it under the Mosaic Law. At this time, she would be entrusted to a male guardian. However, since it was forbidden for a man to live with a woman he was not married or related to, the virgin would be wed to the guardian, and they would have no marital relations.

If they both were consecrated to the temple and had taken a chastity vow, it also explains Mary’s shock at hearing from the angel that she would conceive and bear a son.  She was surprised since she had not planned to “know” man, so “how could this be” that she could become pregnant.  It was not merely a reaction to the fact that the angel acted like some “heavenly pregnancy test”, as she was not, at that time, pregnant.  We know that much from her reply: “May it be done to me according to your word”.

All of this demonstrates at least two things: 1) that the Catholic interpretation and teaching is quite plausible (in fact, it makes much sense, especially in light of the historical record), so as to retain the fact that … 2) the Bible does not contradict either itself or Catholic teaching.

I will answer the remaining two issues in 1 or 2 more entries, soon. And I have answered a few others here.

[tags]apologetics, protestant, catholic, church, bible, Scripture, Mary, Joseph, Holy Family, Jesus, catholicsphere, anti-catholic[/tags]