Does Matthew 1:25 Refute The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Mary's Perpetual Virginity?

• Discussion:

          -It is an official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church that Mary never had any children after the birth of Jesus Christ. It is believed that she was a virgin before the birth of Christ and remained so afterward for the rest of her earthly life. Various theories have been made in an effort to explain the references to His brothers and sisters in the gospels. The Roman Catholic Catechism makes reference to Augustine in supporting this teaching: 

          "Mary "remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin" (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is "the handmaid of the Lord" (Lk 1:38)." (# 510)

          The term "knew" was a modest way of describing sexual relations. That is how it is used in various places throughout the Old Testament (Genesis 4:1; 17; 25; Judges 11:39). To know carries with it connotations of people being intimate with each other. This idea of "knowing" is also expressed in the context of the covenant relationship between God and Israel (Amos 3:2; Hosea 2:14-23). Therefore, "knowing her not" in Matthew 1:25 means "keeping her a virgin" until marriage.

          Children in Jewish culture were viewed as blessings from God (Psalm 127:3-5). The wife was likened to a vine and children to olive shoots (Psalm 128:3). The "barren womb" was said to "never be satisfied" (Proverbs 30:16). Children were viewed as a sign of divine favor (Genesis 21:6; 1 Samuel 1-2) . In fact, women who were unable to bear children felt humiliation and attributed their condition to some underlying sin or wrongdoing. For example, Rachel preferred death over childlessness (Genesis 30:1). This backdrop seriously weakens the Roman Catholic view of Matthew 1:25.

          If we understand the clause "until" in Matthew 1:25 to indicate a change in the virginity status of Mary, then that reading would lend support to the virgin birth. It would further emphasize the fact that Jesus was not born as a result of sexual relations. Further, if Joseph had children from an earlier marriage, then Jesus would not have been recognized as the rightful heir to the Davidic throne. He would not have been Joseph's eldest son.

          The Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity ignores the positive portrayal of childbearing by the Old Testament. It requires a highly unusual reading of Matthew 1:25, which centers around the marriage of Mary and Joseph. Matthew does not give us any indication whatsoever of Mary being a perpetual virgin. Why would a man abstain from sexual relations with his wife? Would it not have been unnatural for a Jewish woman to not have children? God created the sex act. He pronounced His creative work to be good upon finishing it (Genesis 1:31). Sex within the confines of marriage does not spiritually defile a person.

The Ancients Did Not Believe In A Flat Earth

"The world, being made spherical, is confined within the circles of heaven….Without a doubt, the world is beautiful. It excels as well in its magnitude as in the oblique circle and those about the north, and also in its spherical form. Yet we must not worship the world, but other its Artificer."

Athenagoras (ca.175), 2.132,136. Cited in A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, edited by David W. Bercot, p. 222

On The Historicity And Morality Of The Canaanite Conquests (Part 2 Of 2)

• Discussion:

          -James Bishop created a series of posts explaining what he thinks is problematic with traditional defenses of God commanding the Israelites to kill the Canaanites. The second installment of this series continues on the work of the first by answering a few other objections to this narrative. Following are a few excerpts from the author along with a critique: 

          "...If we swapped “Canaanites” with “Jews” in the Old Testament, and Joshua with Hitler, we would have Archer defending Hitler on the basis that the Jews cancerous, including their infants and children. If we swapped “Canaanites” with “Jews” in the Old Testament, and Joshua with Hitler, we would have Archer defending Hitler on the basis that the Jews cancerous, including their infants and children."

          This is a false analogy. Israel was a theocracy, not a dictatorship. Classes of people were not being eliminated at whim. The context of these battles in the Old Testament relates to purity of worship, not racial hatred. Note that the Old Testament does not paint these battles in a positive light, and rightfully so. It only records the details of these events, no matter how gruesome. The biblical texts present a complex picture, including both military conflict and peaceful coexistence.

          No other nation in history besides Israel had been led directly by God. He commanded His people to wage this war. Consequently, this cannot simply be applied to justify any genocide committed throughout history. A man actually commanded by God to do something should be distinguished from one who is delusional in the belief that He is calling upon him. It is not our duty as Christians to kill anyone so that they do not sin later. It was a specific judgment by God against a particular group of people.

          This truly is a paradoxical situation. How can God be one essence in three persons? How can His sovereignty be reconciled with our freewill? How can God remain just while making just the unjust? These types of questions are raised here to illustrate the point that there are many aspects of God's nature that confound human rationality and sensibilities, especially that of nonbelievers.

          "God’s plan, however, is to not only kill all the Canaanite parents but their children and infants too. In other words, God is judging the Canaanites for practicing child sacrifice by killing their children."

          The Canaanite children would likely have grown up to resent the Israelites who raised them and cause rebellion. Further, Israel was not strong enough at this time like Rome was in a more developed stage to keep several hostile districts under control at the same time. Not every surrounding nation posed a threat to Israel. Sometimes groups voluntarily surrendered themselves to the Jews.

          God could have terminated the lives of the Canaanite children to spare them from becoming corrupt like their forefathers. The same idea could be applied to the multitudes of children who died in the Genesis flood. They would be received into His kingdom rather than come under eternal condemnation for sin. God's reasons include what is best for the children given the entirety of circumstances at the time. Children die all the time and in many different ways. This is ultimately rooted in the problem of evil, which has been tackled by different theodicies. 

          "Going on what the biblical authors tell us, God wanted to eradicate the Canaanite religion and identity because they were a major threat to Israel. But here God, given his want to eradicate the Canaanites, we learn that they were not fully wiped out (Judg. 3:1–4)."

          Israel did not finish the job due to disobedience, so there is no inconsistency in the narrative.

          God extended mercy to nations that repented during the Old Testament (Jeremiah 18:7-8; Jonah 3:10). He is merciful enough to spare even the smallest remnant of righteous people in the midst of a wicked city (Genesis 18:24). The Canaanites had enough time and understanding of what God required of them in order to be spared from divine judgment, but they persisted in their ways. 

          God has the authority to use anything in His created order as an instrument to punish the unrighteous. He is sovereign over life (Deuteronomy 32:39). He gave it to us. Life belongs to Him. God can also take it back from us. He can do so in any way that He deems appropriate.

On The Historicity And Morality Of The Canaanite Conquests (Part 1 Of 2)

• Discussion:

          -James Bishop created a series of posts explaining what he thinks is problematic with traditional defenses of God commanding the Israelites to kill the Canaanites. This two part series attempts to show that a number of those objections do not hold water when put under scrutiny. Following are a few excerpts from the author along with a critique: 

          "...Wesley Morriston agrees writing that there “is nothing uniquely “Canaanite” about them. All, or nearly all, of these practices—from sexual intercourse during a woman’s menstrual period to homosexual behavior to bestiality—are still common. Is there any real reason to believe that these things were more common among the Canaanites in the ancient world?”

          Some cultures in the ancient world were worse than others. It is not even claimed that Canaanite culture was the worst that ever existed. There are other instances in the Old Testament of societies that were destroyed by God because of their sin (e.g. Genesis 19). 

          Genesis 15:16 refers to a point of wickedness at which God has no other choice but to act in judgment. His patience with perverse people wanes according to the degree of their perversity. These people had four hundred years to repent. The real wonder is why God gave them so much time to do so.

          "More likely it is that the biblical authors are deliberately depicting their Canaanite enemies in a negative light, thus portraying them in a way that is not entirely fair. One should remember that the Israelites were the supposed exterminators of the Canaanites and we only have their testimony bearing witness to the Canaanites themselves. We have to rely on the killers of the Canaanites to learn about the Canaanites."

          This is not likely given that Jewish culture taught heavily against lying (Exodus 20:16; Psalm 101:7; Proverbs 12:22; Hosea 4:2). The Old Testament contains warnings against modifying the substance of its message (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6), which suggests that honest people wrote it.

          Even if we have only one side of an event presented by a source, that does not necessarily make it untrue or untrustworthy.

          "Evidence of the Canaanite culture, beliefs, and practices appear to leave out much of what the biblical authors say about them. This suggests that the biblical authors had limited knowledge of the Canaanites. For instance, translations of the Ugaritic texts do not suggest the Canaanites being a particularly “debauched” or “cruel” culture (unless one sees the common ancient practice of animal sacrifice as cruel)."

          Archaeological discoveries may be helpful in shedding light on more obscure parts of the Old Testament, but the insight that they provide is limited. How can we be sure that the Ugaritic texts provide us a full picture as to how the Palestinian world was? 

          The biblical authors should not be dismissed on a priori basis until proven correct. It is much more likely that our, not their, knowledge of the Canaanites is limited. The biblical authors were alive thousands of years before us. They would be better suited to speak to these matters than us.

          There could have been other documents further supporting the description of the Canaanites as found in the Old Testament that have since perished. We do not have even a fraction of literature produced from that time period.