Shroro:

Bible Study - Matthew Chapter 1
Verse 22-25

from Kaniyamparmabil Achen, the Great Teacher of Malankara

V22,23: - Fulfillment of the Isaiah (BC 742) prophesy 7:14. - Emmanuel, which is interpreted as “God with us.”

V25 – “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”

We can learn two things from this:

1) Virgin birth of Jesus Christ - From this verse it is clear that Birth of Jesus is not from a man (i.e. from Holy Spirit). There were many heretic teachings against this scripture. Main proponents of this heresy were Cerynthos (2nd century) and Ebionites. But their effort did not succeed. But there are some even today who subscribe to those views.
2) Ever virgin St. Mary

Since the usage is “And he knew her not, until she had borne her firstborn son,” some people started propagating that ‘she knew after the birth of the firstborn’. It was one ‘Helviduss’ who started this heresy. He said that people referred as “brothers of Lord” were brothers born this way. But let us look at some views point s from New Testament.

a. Child Jesus along with Joseph and Mary went to festival at the synagogue. And Jesus was lost in the crowd. But they search the child among their own people. Instead if there were younger children, they would have searched among ‘those young children.’ As per the teaching of Hevlvadyos, if Jacob et al, were younger brothers of Jesus, then when they went for this festival Mary should have taken the 9 year old Jacob and 6 year old Yosi and 3 year old Simon and possibly Mary should be carrying an younger sister too. But there not even pointer to believe that this was the case.
b. If Jesus had 3 brothers and a sister, then during the time of crucifixion, our Lord would have entrusted His mother to those brothers and sister. Not to apostle John. Even if He entrusted His mother to John, would these brothers and sister allow their mother to go with Apostle John? But St. Mary went with Apostle John and lived with him in Ephesus till her death.
c. But if you look at some old Translation the usage is ‘with his brethren” not brothers.
d. The church fathers of the first few centuries also were of the opinion our Lord did not have any brothers.

Jews used the word ‘brethren’ to address children born of same parents, people having blood relation, the people that belong to same caste (Deut 15:12, Nehemiah 5:7, Exodus 32:37) or even friends (2 Samuel 1:26; 1 Kings 13:30). Even Christians also did the same way. (Acts 9:17; Romans 14:15, Philippians 2:25; I John 2:9)

Another argument was that since the usage is Jesus as ‘firstborn son,” So the argument was the St. Mary did not know man till the first born son but there could be sons other than first born (second born, third born etc) and so St. Mary should know man for this. The meaning of the word ‘first born’ is born first. But whether some one was born or not after the first born he was called “first born”. That means even if that child was the only child, still he was called “first born”. (Exodus 22:29, Duet 21:17, 25:6; 2 Kings 3; 27). For the Jews, there were some special laws and customs for the “first born”. “First born” is also used for our Lord in Col 1:5; and Hebrew 1:6. So by this argument can we argue that God has other sons too?

We have seen that Helvidyos argued since it is written ‘and he knew her not, until she had borne her firstborn,” it is possible that she know man after the first born’s birth. Observe some other instances with same usage:

· And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth (Genesis 8:7)
· I will be your God throughout your lifetime--until your hair is white with age. I made you, and I will care for you. I will carry you along and save you. (Isaiah 46:4)
· The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool ( Psalm 110:1)
· Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death (2 Samuel 6:23)

So should we believe that after the occurrence of the incident “till”, directly opposite has occurred? The words from St. Jerome will clarify this.

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. Nor we do say this in order to condemn marriage; for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage… You say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a Virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock.”