Crossfunction: Marriage
Showing posts with label Marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marriage. Show all posts

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Matthew 1: "...he had no union with her until she gave birth..."

M,

I really enjoyed our recent discussion of Luke chapter 1. One passage You raised in connection with Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus was something from Matthew’s Gospel:

"But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus". (Matthew 1:25)


You explained that this passage proves or at least implies that Joseph and Mary had marital relations after Mary gave birth to Jesus. Certainly some Christians hold this interpretation, but is it really supported by Scripture?

In fact, the passage "only says what it actually says": that up to the time of Jesus' birth there were no marital relations between Mary and Joseph. Matthew is defending the reality of the virgin birth, and here he is trying to demonstrate that the conception of Jesus was brought about by God, not Joseph. Therefore the passage relates to the time leading up to the birth of Jesus. It doesn't actually say or imply anything about what might have happened later. Using this passage to argue that Mary and Joseph subsequently had marital relations simply isn’t justified by Matthew’s statement.

The word translated "until" in Matthew 1:25 comes from the Greek word, "hou". This word is used in a similar manner in a number of other New Testament (and Greek Septuagint Old Testament) passages, along the lines that "'X' happened (or didn’t happen) until 'Y'". (Occasionally "hou" is translated as "unto" or "till".) Sometimes the implication is that once 'Y' occurred, 'X' changed. In other passages, once 'Y' occurs 'X' clearly does not change. Sometimes the context suggests what happens subsequently, but other times it does not.

You asked me for an example of a passage where 'X' clearly does not change once 'Y' occurs; here are several relevant examples:



"Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death." (2 Samuel 6:23 KJV)


...Does this imply that Michal had children after the day of her death? Of course not.




"The LORD says to my lord: 'Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.'" (Psalm 110:1 RSV)


...Does this mean that once Jesus' enemies are subdued He shall no longer sit at the Father’s right hand? Certainly not.




"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." (1 Corinthians 15:25 RSV)


...Shall the reign of Christ end once His enemies are vanquished? No way.





"But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until I could send him to Caesar." (Acts 25:21 RSV)


...Does this imply that Paul would be released once he was sent to Caesar? Not at all. Paul's release would depend upon Caesar's verdict.





[The Son of God says,] "But to the rest of you in Thyati'ra, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay upon you any other burden; only hold fast what you have, until I come." (Revelation 2:24-25 RSV).


...Once Jesus comes are the believers of Thyatira no longer to hold fast to what they believe? Of course not.






The point of highlighting these verses is to demonstrate that when the Bible says "Condition 'X' exists until event 'Y'", it doesn't necessarily mean that Condition 'X' changes after 'Y'. We have proved this by identifying several scriptural passages where 'X' clearly does not change after 'Y'.

Catholics and many Protestants differ on whether Mary bore natural children after the birth of Jesus. But it should be clear by now that Matthew 1:25 offers nothing to support the theory that Mary and Joseph ever had marital relations.

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

1 Timothy 3: Why can't Catholic bishops marry?

Today the question was asked, "Paul clearly permitted married men to become bishops, but the Catholic Church doesn't let married men become bishops. Doesn't Catholic practice on this point contradict Scripture?" Excellent question.

It's important to recognize that scripture distinguishes between doctrine and church practice or "discipline". Doctrine -official teaching about matters of faith and morals- can't change because divine truth doesn't change. What's true is true. Church discipline, on the other hand, is a separate matter. It refers to how the Church maintains order and carries out its mission.

Without going into the history of why the Church later adopted the rule of celibacy for bishops, the fact remains that the Church regards this not as a doctrine but simply as a matter of discipline, and has kept the rule in place for many centuries because she judges it to be a worthy and wise practice, one which has yielded great blessings for the Church. You and I may agree or disagree with the wisdom of the rule, but that's hardly relevant. The point is the Church has the authority to govern itself in matters of practice for the sake of the good of its members, and it has this authority from Christ.

Now, as circumstances change, the best way to maintain order and promote the good can likewise change. Someday, the Pope conceivably could cancel the rule of celibacy for bishops. The New Testament shows numerous of examples of the Church developing disciplines, and we don't have to look far for one. In our meeting today, there was some disagreement over this simple fact.

Yet just a few verses earlier Paul wrote,


"women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire 10 but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." 1 Timothy 2:9-12 RSV

If we are to maintain that sort of teaching in the New Testament is a matter of unchangeable doctrine, how are we to interpret this passage? One must conclude that today women are obliged to remove braids from their hair, gold jewelry from their bodies, and must learn in silence from their husbands -no matter how ignorant of the faith their husbands may be! What's more, nowhere in the New Testament are these rules cancelled.

The Catholic Church does not teach that these rules about women are matters of unchangeable doctrine, so I'm free to believe that they were temporary rules which Paul imposed for a unique set of circumstances in a local church, circumstances which do not apply everywhere today. But I'm deeply curious about how some of my Protestant brothers and sisters can justify setting aside Paul's restrictions on women if they do not acknowlege the Church's power to interpret Scripture, discern discipline from doctrine, and make temporary rules to address temporary situations.