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 other objections to this narrative. Excerpts from the author are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary:

          "...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 others so that they do not sin later. The incident was a specific judgment by God against a particular group of people. The Jews were not predisposed with racial hatred as were the Germans during the Nazi era, further distinguishing both contexts.

          This truly is a paradoxical situation. How can God be one essence in three persons? How can His sovereignty be reconciled with our free will? 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. It is almost amusing how some people think that can fully grasp the divine with their limited understanding. Perhaps they should focus on comprehending basic human concepts first.

          "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 potential for future conflict between the Israelites and the Canaanite children they were raised by cannot be ignored. If left alive, these children would likely have grown up to resent their conquerors, potentially leading to insurrections or a desire for revenge. Given the historical context, the Israelites were in a precarious position as they entered a new land. Unlike empires such as Rome, which had sophisticated methods of governance and control, the Israelites were a relatively nascent nation with limited resources and military capacity to manage hostility from surrounding populations. This makes it reasonable to consider that the eradication of the Canaanite children could be seen as a pragmatic step by God to prevent future rebellion that could endanger the Israelite community.

          From another perspective, God's actions in removing the Canaanite children could be viewed as an act of mercy rather than cruelty. By terminating their lives, God could be seen as preserving their innocence and ensuring they would not suffer the same fate as their parents. In many theological frameworks, children, particularly infants, are considered innocent and incapable of moral culpability. Therefore, it is possible that removing them from a morally compromised society might prevent their eventual condemnation for the sins of their forefathers.

          The problem of evil is also a relevant aspect of this narrative. The existence of suffering and death, especially concerning innocent lives, poses a significant challenge to many belief systems. However, various theodicies address this complexity, proposing that suffering serves a larger divine purpose or ultimately leads to a greater good. In the context of the Canaanite conquest, God's actions could be interpreted as a necessary step towards the establishment of a society that could facilitate justice, mercy, and the worship of God. This perspective highlights a broader theme of divine justice that prioritizes the fulfillment of His larger plan for humanity.

          "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)."

          The narrative remains consistent with Israel’s incomplete conquest of the Canaanites, which is attributed to their disobedience and failure to follow God's commands completely. In Judges 2:1-3, God rebukes Israel for not breaking covenants with the Canaanites and for not tearing down their altars. This illustrates human frailty and the consequences of disobedience, rather than a contradiction in the biblical account.

          Another interpretive possibility is that God’s commands regarding the Canaanites were intended to be fulfilled gradually. In Exodus 23:29-30, God says He will drive out the inhabitants little by little to prevent the land from becoming desolate and to allow Israel to grow in strength. This gradual approach aligns with the overall biblical narrative and demonstrates God’s wisdom in managing both immediate and long-term consequences.

          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. Further, He 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 is not a moral agent acting on the same moral field as human beings. Why is it wrong for God to take a life? Who does He owe life to?

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 shows that those objections do not hold water when put under scrutiny. Excerpts from the author are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary: 

          "...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?”

          While 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, such as Sodom and Gomorrah in 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. The Canaanites had four hundred years to repent. The real wonder is why God gave them so much time to do so.

          Furthermore, the Canaanite practices were not only morally reprehensible, but also posed a significant threat to the moral and spiritual integrity of the Israelites. The destruction of the Canaanites was a necessary measure to prevent the Israelites from being led astray by these corrupt practices. This divine judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining moral and spiritual purity in the face of pervasive wickedness.

          "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."

          One must remember that Jewish culture taught heavily against lying (Exodus 20:16; Psalm 101:7; Proverbs 12:22; Hosea 4:2). The Old Testament contains clear warnings against modifying the substance of its message (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6), which suggests that the texts were written by honest and sincere individuals committed to truthfulness.

          Moreover, the consistency and prevalence of biblical teachings against falsehood further support the credibility of the biblical authors. While it is true that we primarily rely on Israelite testimony to learn about the Canaanites, this does not inherently make their accounts untrustworthy. In fact, the strict cultural and religious emphasis on honesty would have made deliberate deception highly unlikely.

          Even if we have only one side of an event presented by a source, it does not necessarily make it untrue or untrustworthy. If the biblical authors deliberately manipulated the narrative to put themselves in a better light, then why would they have recorded any wars at all? For example, the defeat at Ai in Joshua 7 highlights the Israelites' failure and the consequences of disobedience. Similarly, the recurring theme of the Israelites’ unfaithfulness and punishment throughout the Judges period (Judges 2:11-19) showcases their struggles and failures. If history is written by the winners, how did the Jews manage to tell about their conquerors such as the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans?

          "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 can shed light on more obscure parts of the Old Testament, but the insight they provide is limited. How can we be sure that the Ugaritic texts provide a full picture of the Canaanite world?

          Dismissing the biblical authors on an a priori basis is unwarranted until proven correct. It is more likely that our knowledge of the Canaanites is limited rather than theirs. The biblical authors lived thousands of years before us and would have been better suited to speak on these matters. It is unfair to criticize them in the way that James Bishop has because they are no longer alive to defend themselves.

          Furthermore, there could have been other documents further supporting the description of the Canaanites found in the Old Testament that have since perished. We possess only a fraction of the literature produced from that time period. The destruction of documents over time means that much historical evidence has been lost, making it difficult to obtain a complete picture of ancient cultures.

          Therefore, while archaeological discoveries and external texts like the Ugaritic writings provide valuable insights, they should be considered alongside the biblical narrative rather than used to undermine it. The biblical authors, with their close temporal and cultural proximity to the events they describe, offer a perspective that remains crucial for understanding the ancient Canaanite world.