Post by Ramon on May 9, 2009 10:05:14 GMT -5
This will be detailed inspection on Matthew 1:25. Please forgive me if my post is long. Matthew 1:25 will be fully explained without leaving any stones untouched. This is a rebuttal to Watchman's belief that the Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph had sexual relations after she had Christ Jesus based on Matthew 1:25.
Hello,
All the Apostolic Churches believe the Most Holy Virgin, our Lady the Theotokos, was Ever-Virgin. The Tradition of the Orthodox Church has always regarded her as being Ever-Virgin, even the Ecumenical Councils confess this belief (e.g., the third Holy Ecumenical Council in there profession). Some Protestants, like the Lutherans, also believe this as well. Many Protestants deny this however, and point to Matthew 1:25 as proof that Mary had Children. Let me first say that there is no conclusive evidence in Scriptures that the Theotokos had more children besides Christ Jesus. Lets take Matthew 1:25 and investigate the text.
"When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a firstborn son. And he called his name Jesus." (Matthew 1:25).
Two Objection Protestants arise.
The Word "Until":
The problem is that people always try to impute modern meaning in the words of the Holy Bible. Scriptures was not written in English, but rather Greek and Hebrew. In order to understand any given passage, we must go to the source, not simply think that our modern usage of the word mean the same thing to the authors of the Bible.
The phrase "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." The Greek word "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Protestants use this text to deny the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos, but a closer look will prove that it doesn't contradict this teaching.
Examples:
Matt. 28:29 - I am with you "until the end of the world." This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.
Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert "up to the point of his manifestation to Israel." Not John "was in the desert until after" his manifestation.
Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow "up to the point that" she was eighty-four year old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.
Furthermore, if we read Deuteronomy 34:6, 2 Samuel 6:23, Psalm 72:7 and 110:1 (as interpreted by Jesus in Matthew 22:42–46), Matthew 11:23, Romans 8:22, and 1 Timothy 4:13, to reference just a few examples, we will see that in none of these passages does the word "until" indicate a necessary change. The problem is this: In English, the word "until" indicates a change after the fact, but in the ancient languages of the Bible this is simply not the case. But for the sake of the argument, let's say it did, then apparently we would have to believe that Jesus will at some point stop sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that on some unknown date in the future He intends to abandon the Church!
That is why is important for one not to rely solely on there English translation, since the Holy Bible was not written in the English language. When it comes to "until" in regards to St. Matthew 1:25, one need to see how this word is used in other places in Scriptures (and see how it is used in the original language of the Holy Bible), not what one want it to mean because one have some preconceived idealistic views.
The word "firstborn".
Most take this as necessary meaning that the Theotokos had other Children. The Biblical usage of the word has various meanings.
Does the word "Firstborn" strictly means "firstborn son/daughter in which subsequent children follows"? Does the word "firstborn" always been used in a literal meaning? The answer is "No".
In Ps 89:27, we see that the phrase is used in David's Rulership not that he was the "firstborn" son. The phrase "firstborn" has the OT meaning: "First in position", "heir" or "supreme" (i.e., Ex 4:22; Jer 31:9).
In Hebrews 1:6, for example, the use of "prototokos" in reference to the Incarnation of the Word of God cannot mean that there is a "second-born" Word of God! Nowhere is the term used to express merely the order of birth; instead in Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, 18, Hebrews 11:28 and 12:23, and Revelation 1:5, the title is applied to Jesus as the privileged and legal Heir of the Kingdom, attesting that He is truly “first in all things.” In Hebrews 12:23 it is said: “church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven.” Christian believers, united with and as joint heirs with Jesus Christ, enjoy the status of “firstborn” in God's household. The phrase "firstborn of the poor" is used in Isaiah 14:30 to mean one who is supremely poor. Again, the phrase "firstborn of death" is used in Job 18:13 to refer to Job's disease.
The Greek word is not identical in semantic range to the English rendering. The English "firstborn" usually (not always) implies the existence of subsequent children, but with prototokos there is no such implication.
The word carries the idea of positional preeminence and supremacy which Scripture supports. To say it is always used to mean "subsequent children" is misleading. Apparently, you have not study the passages where "firstborn" does not mean "subsequent children follows", which is a literal interpretation of the word. They are different uses for firstborn in the Bible. And like I said before, the English "firstborn" usually (not always) implies the existence of subsequent children, but with prototokos there is no such implication. Apparently, you have no idea how the Jews used the word "firstborn". Prototokos can be used to describe one's having privileges of the birthright, but it does not always imply other children. In Genesis 25:31, Esau sells his birthright to Jacob; the idea here is that Jacob becomes the heir carrying the firstborn rights.
Compare Jeremiah 31:9 with Genesis 41:51 and 48:14. How can they be two firstborn? A scribal error? No. A contradiction in the Bible? No. But by examining the meaning of firstborn used in Jeremiah 31:9, it appears that Manasseh was simply removed from his first place position because of sin, losing all of his firstborn privileges his birth right gave (cf. 2 Chronicles 33:1-10 and 2 Kings 21:16). Ephraim was not the first son born by birth, and yet he is called the firstborn because after his brother Manasseh lost his firstborn privileges, Ephraim moved up to his brother’s first place position, becoming figuratively firstborn with all of the same privileges. This idea is carry on throughout Scriptures. The word "firstborn" does not always mean that a particular person is "first" to be born.
"Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: Israel is My son, My firstborn.' " (Exodus 4:22).
Here God calls Israel His firstborn son. But he also calls Ephraim His firstborn, and in Colossians 1:15, Jesus Christ is also called firstborn. Now we are left with a serious dilemma. If there are three firstborns, then how many firstborns does God have? Is this a contradiction? God-forbid! It becomes very evident, however, that the firstborn in Jeremiah 31:9, Exodus 4:22, and Colossians 1:15 are not dealing literally with chronology of first, second, and third respectively or the first child born into a family. They deal with becoming the pre-eminent one ("first in rank", "heir"). This confirms what I have always been saying, and what the Greek Scholars agreed, that firstborn can mean first in rank, pre-eminent one, heir, and eldest child.
In case with Christ,
Vine's Expository Dictionary says:
prototokos ^4416^, "firstborn" (from protos, "first," and tikto, "to beget"), is used of
Christ[...]in His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and preeminence
over, creation, not in the sense of being the "first" to be born. In Col. 1:15, where His
eternal relationship with the Father is in view, the clause means both that He was
figuratively the "Firstborn" before all creation and that He Himself produced creation
(the genitive case being objective, as <v. 16> makes clear). Christ was figuratively the
firstborn and He is unique in His relation to the Father in that, being an eternal Being,
He was not literally created or birthed of God. He is figuratively the firstborn and is
given the benefits and the responsibilities of the Firstborn of Almighty God.
Matthew 1:25 does not prose a problem for us Orthodox Christians who believed that the Holy Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, was ever-virgin. We interpret the text the way the Church has interpreted it in the past 2,000 years.
To say Matthew 1:25 is a clear indication that Mary had other children is to ignore the clear truth that the phrase "firstborn" is not used literally all the time. It shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. It has metaphorical applications. It also show ignorance to the biblical usage of the word "until", which has a very different meaning that our modern usage of it.
In IC.XC,
Ramon
P.S. Even in Dictionary of the Apostolic Church by James Hastings and other Bible dictionaries, it is said that the word "firstborn" is used in a literally or figuratively sense, and so passages such Matthew 1:25 has no bearing in the identity of the "brethren of the Lord". Not here nor in the OT does it necessary implies other children.
#4416 prototokos - from prwtoV - protos 4413 and the alternate of tiktw - tikto 5088; first-born (usually as noun, literally or figuratively):--firstbegotten(-born).
Hello,
All the Apostolic Churches believe the Most Holy Virgin, our Lady the Theotokos, was Ever-Virgin. The Tradition of the Orthodox Church has always regarded her as being Ever-Virgin, even the Ecumenical Councils confess this belief (e.g., the third Holy Ecumenical Council in there profession). Some Protestants, like the Lutherans, also believe this as well. Many Protestants deny this however, and point to Matthew 1:25 as proof that Mary had Children. Let me first say that there is no conclusive evidence in Scriptures that the Theotokos had more children besides Christ Jesus. Lets take Matthew 1:25 and investigate the text.
"When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a firstborn son. And he called his name Jesus." (Matthew 1:25).
Two Objection Protestants arise.
The Word "Until":
The problem is that people always try to impute modern meaning in the words of the Holy Bible. Scriptures was not written in English, but rather Greek and Hebrew. In order to understand any given passage, we must go to the source, not simply think that our modern usage of the word mean the same thing to the authors of the Bible.
The phrase "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." The Greek word "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Protestants use this text to deny the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos, but a closer look will prove that it doesn't contradict this teaching.
Examples:
Matt. 28:29 - I am with you "until the end of the world." This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.
Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert "up to the point of his manifestation to Israel." Not John "was in the desert until after" his manifestation.
Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow "up to the point that" she was eighty-four year old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.
Furthermore, if we read Deuteronomy 34:6, 2 Samuel 6:23, Psalm 72:7 and 110:1 (as interpreted by Jesus in Matthew 22:42–46), Matthew 11:23, Romans 8:22, and 1 Timothy 4:13, to reference just a few examples, we will see that in none of these passages does the word "until" indicate a necessary change. The problem is this: In English, the word "until" indicates a change after the fact, but in the ancient languages of the Bible this is simply not the case. But for the sake of the argument, let's say it did, then apparently we would have to believe that Jesus will at some point stop sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that on some unknown date in the future He intends to abandon the Church!
That is why is important for one not to rely solely on there English translation, since the Holy Bible was not written in the English language. When it comes to "until" in regards to St. Matthew 1:25, one need to see how this word is used in other places in Scriptures (and see how it is used in the original language of the Holy Bible), not what one want it to mean because one have some preconceived idealistic views.
The word "firstborn".
Most take this as necessary meaning that the Theotokos had other Children. The Biblical usage of the word has various meanings.
Does the word "Firstborn" strictly means "firstborn son/daughter in which subsequent children follows"? Does the word "firstborn" always been used in a literal meaning? The answer is "No".
In Ps 89:27, we see that the phrase is used in David's Rulership not that he was the "firstborn" son. The phrase "firstborn" has the OT meaning: "First in position", "heir" or "supreme" (i.e., Ex 4:22; Jer 31:9).
In Hebrews 1:6, for example, the use of "prototokos" in reference to the Incarnation of the Word of God cannot mean that there is a "second-born" Word of God! Nowhere is the term used to express merely the order of birth; instead in Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, 18, Hebrews 11:28 and 12:23, and Revelation 1:5, the title is applied to Jesus as the privileged and legal Heir of the Kingdom, attesting that He is truly “first in all things.” In Hebrews 12:23 it is said: “church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven.” Christian believers, united with and as joint heirs with Jesus Christ, enjoy the status of “firstborn” in God's household. The phrase "firstborn of the poor" is used in Isaiah 14:30 to mean one who is supremely poor. Again, the phrase "firstborn of death" is used in Job 18:13 to refer to Job's disease.
The Greek word is not identical in semantic range to the English rendering. The English "firstborn" usually (not always) implies the existence of subsequent children, but with prototokos there is no such implication.
The word carries the idea of positional preeminence and supremacy which Scripture supports. To say it is always used to mean "subsequent children" is misleading. Apparently, you have not study the passages where "firstborn" does not mean "subsequent children follows", which is a literal interpretation of the word. They are different uses for firstborn in the Bible. And like I said before, the English "firstborn" usually (not always) implies the existence of subsequent children, but with prototokos there is no such implication. Apparently, you have no idea how the Jews used the word "firstborn". Prototokos can be used to describe one's having privileges of the birthright, but it does not always imply other children. In Genesis 25:31, Esau sells his birthright to Jacob; the idea here is that Jacob becomes the heir carrying the firstborn rights.
Compare Jeremiah 31:9 with Genesis 41:51 and 48:14. How can they be two firstborn? A scribal error? No. A contradiction in the Bible? No. But by examining the meaning of firstborn used in Jeremiah 31:9, it appears that Manasseh was simply removed from his first place position because of sin, losing all of his firstborn privileges his birth right gave (cf. 2 Chronicles 33:1-10 and 2 Kings 21:16). Ephraim was not the first son born by birth, and yet he is called the firstborn because after his brother Manasseh lost his firstborn privileges, Ephraim moved up to his brother’s first place position, becoming figuratively firstborn with all of the same privileges. This idea is carry on throughout Scriptures. The word "firstborn" does not always mean that a particular person is "first" to be born.
"Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: Israel is My son, My firstborn.' " (Exodus 4:22).
Here God calls Israel His firstborn son. But he also calls Ephraim His firstborn, and in Colossians 1:15, Jesus Christ is also called firstborn. Now we are left with a serious dilemma. If there are three firstborns, then how many firstborns does God have? Is this a contradiction? God-forbid! It becomes very evident, however, that the firstborn in Jeremiah 31:9, Exodus 4:22, and Colossians 1:15 are not dealing literally with chronology of first, second, and third respectively or the first child born into a family. They deal with becoming the pre-eminent one ("first in rank", "heir"). This confirms what I have always been saying, and what the Greek Scholars agreed, that firstborn can mean first in rank, pre-eminent one, heir, and eldest child.
In case with Christ,
Vine's Expository Dictionary says:
prototokos ^4416^, "firstborn" (from protos, "first," and tikto, "to beget"), is used of
Christ[...]in His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and preeminence
over, creation, not in the sense of being the "first" to be born. In Col. 1:15, where His
eternal relationship with the Father is in view, the clause means both that He was
figuratively the "Firstborn" before all creation and that He Himself produced creation
(the genitive case being objective, as <v. 16> makes clear). Christ was figuratively the
firstborn and He is unique in His relation to the Father in that, being an eternal Being,
He was not literally created or birthed of God. He is figuratively the firstborn and is
given the benefits and the responsibilities of the Firstborn of Almighty God.
Matthew 1:25 does not prose a problem for us Orthodox Christians who believed that the Holy Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, was ever-virgin. We interpret the text the way the Church has interpreted it in the past 2,000 years.
To say Matthew 1:25 is a clear indication that Mary had other children is to ignore the clear truth that the phrase "firstborn" is not used literally all the time. It shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. It has metaphorical applications. It also show ignorance to the biblical usage of the word "until", which has a very different meaning that our modern usage of it.
In IC.XC,
Ramon
P.S. Even in Dictionary of the Apostolic Church by James Hastings and other Bible dictionaries, it is said that the word "firstborn" is used in a literally or figuratively sense, and so passages such Matthew 1:25 has no bearing in the identity of the "brethren of the Lord". Not here nor in the OT does it necessary implies other children.
#4416 prototokos - from prwtoV - protos 4413 and the alternate of tiktw - tikto 5088; first-born (usually as noun, literally or figuratively):--firstbegotten(-born).
