Matthew 1:25- What does it say?

I was asked today if Matthew 1:25 impacts the Roman Catholic claim of Mary’s perpetual virginity. And when I’m asked these types of questions I like to answer them here because I figure if one person is willing to ask me this there are probably others who are thinking about it. If you simply want the short answer click the note and it will take you to my summary of the point. ¹

Now as a disclaimer I do not hold with my Catholic brothers and sisters that Mary remained perpetually a virgin. And it should be noted that this doctrine is built primarily from philosophical underpinning to their theology more than from the Bible.That said, like many doctrines within many denominations, there is nothing inherently wrong with this, doctrines can be built out of the Bible’s silence but in my opinion they should be held very loosely.

First here is the verse in question Matthew 1:25

καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν· καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν.

But he didn’t have sexual relations [literally know] with her until she gave birth to a son. Joseph called him Jesus.

On to the verse itself, Matthew is writing this verse to confront the notion that Jesus was Joseph’s legitimate son, one of many accusations made against Jesus at the time. The primary point of this verse is to say that Joseph had not slept with Mary prior to Jesus’ birth and so, though he is often referred to by the title, he was not Joseph’s son in the biological sense. That said there seems to be an assumption by Matthew that after Jesus was born Joseph and Mary had a normal martial relationship. And so on the whole yes I would argue that Matthew here is intending to say Jesus was not Joseph’s biological son but that after Jesus was born Joseph and Mary behaved as a normal married couple. Along with this we see in the Gospels references to Jesus’ siblings (Matt. 12:47). This is the plain reading of Matthew’s text and I tend to side with that.

However, I also recognize that familial relationships are not always certain when discussing 1st century Jewish culture. Just like today in certain parts of America it is common for people to use the term cousin to denote any family member that is not included in one’s immediate family (and even some people who are not biologically related). It is conceivable that when Matthew that when the Gospel authors refer to Jesus’ brothers they mean close family or step-siblings. Further, in Matthew 1:25 the focus is on whether or not Joseph and Mary were intimate prior to Jesus’ birth and not in general. This means it is certainly a valid reading to say that Matthew does not know anything about Joseph and Mary’s intimate life other than that they did not have a sexual union before Jesus’ birth. In other words he says they did not have a sexual relationship before Jesus’ birth but makes no claim about afterward. As I said above, this is a less natural way to read the text, but it is possible.

Overall, I am not convinced by the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, mostly because I do not think that the theology or philosophy that the doctrine is used to support is necessary. But also because I do not think the most natural reading of the Gospel’s does not support the claim.

1. Summary ↩︎

This all being said, it is possible to read Matthew 1:25 in line with the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, and this verse does not inherently destroy the doctrine. Does Catholic doctrine require a specific reading of the text that I disagree with, yes. Can it be supported, yes but not without some difficulty.

I really enjoy these kinds of questions and if you would like to ask one email me at- wesley@saintsandidiots.com