Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year A
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we focus on two apologetical themes found in the Liturgy of the Word for the Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year A. The first theme, the perpetual virginity of Mary, comes up in the Gospel reading, which is Matthew 1:18-24. The second theme is the nature of justification as intrinsic righteousness and is found in the second reading from Romans 1:1-7.
Speaker 1:
This is the Sunday Catholic Word, a production of Catholic Answers. The only podcast to look at the Sunday mass readings from an apologetics perspective.
Karlo Broussard:
Hey everyone, welcome to the Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday mass ratings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending the faith. I’m Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast. In this episode, we’re going to focus on two apologetical themes that arise out of the liturgy of the word for the fourth Sunday of advent year A. The first theme, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary comes up in the gospel passage, which is Matthew 1:18-24. The second theme, the Nature of Justification as Intrinsic Righteousness is found in the second reading from Romans 1:1-7.
So let’s start with the gospel passage from Matthew 1:18-24, and we will unpack it. Now, this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about When his mother, Mary, was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the Holy Spirit. Joseph, her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly. Such was his intention when behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph’s son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it’s through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins. All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet. Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel, which means God is with us.”
When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home. He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. Now, the issue comes up on account of two verses within this gospel passage. The first is verse 18, where we read, “Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about when his mother, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the Holy Spirit.” Protestant apologist Eric Svendsen, in his book Evangelical Answers page 144 sees in this verse evidence that Mary did not remain a virgin. He argues this, “The phrase ‘before they came together’ makes sense here only if Mary didn’t make a vow of lifelong virginity. Matthew is making a point of letting his readers know that the child was conceived before any sexual union took place.”
Svendsen assumes the word “before” implies that Mary and Joseph had relations later after Jesus was conceived or was born. And then, so that’s the first objection. That’s the first verse that causes an obstacle or a problem for Mary’s perpetual virginity. The second verse is verse 24, where we read this “Joseph had no relations with Mary until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.” It’s argued by many Protestants that Matthew’s use of the word “until” the Greek word “heos” tells us that Mary was a virgin only up to the time of Jesus’s birth, and that thereafter Joseph began to have sexual relations with Mary.
So let’s take the first objection, the before objection. Let’s take that first. And the first way, or the way in which we can respond, or answer, is that the word “before” doesn’t necessarily imply change in the future. The Greek word here, “prin” for before, both in Greek and English can be used only to signify and emphasize a select period of time without any reference to what happened after that select period of time is complete. So here’s a couple of examples. One example comes from my colleague and good friend Tim Staples, in his book, Behold Your Mother, we might say this, “Tom died before he graduated high school.” Now surely this doesn’t imply that Tom went on to graduate after he died. Of course not. Rather, the word “before” is used only to emphasize that Tom died while in high school.
Another example comes from St. Jerome in the 4th century. He dealt with this very issue in his exchange with one named Helvetius. Jerome used an example involving Helvetius, writing, “Helvetius, before he repented, was cut off by death.” Jerome goes on to ask rhetorically, “Must Helvetius repent after death?” Of course, the implied answer is no. The Greek word “prin” is used in a similar way in John 4:49. So not just appealing to mundane examples, but even in the scriptures itself. John tells us that a man approached Jesus and said, “Sir, come down before, prin, my child dies.” The implication of course is that the father wanted Jesus to heal his child.
Must we conclude from this that after the child was healed, the father no longer wanted Jesus to heal his child? Of course not. The father was not concerned about what would take place after the child was healed. He was only concerned with Jesus coming to heal his child while his child was sick. To know whether Mary and Joseph had relations later after Jesus’s conception in birth, more information would need to be provided. The word before, in and of itself, is not sufficient to tell us one way or the other. So that’s the before objection.
Now let’s move to the until objection. Recall, Matthew tells us Joseph had no relations with Mary until, “heos” in Greek, she bore a son and he named him Jesus. The word “until” here seems to imply, as it’s argued, that Mary and Joseph had relations, again, after Jesus was born. So how do we respond to this? Well, like the word “before”, the word “until”, even in English, can be used to emphasize an existing state or a select period of time up to a point, without any reference to what occurs afterward. So for example, I might say to a friend, be safe until I see you again. I often say this at the end of the episodes for this podcast and other podcasts. By this, I don’t mean that after I see him again, I expect him to begin behaving unsafely. Of course not. I’m only emphasizing a select period of time up until that point without any indication of what’s going to take place after that select of time is complete.
We have examples in the Old Testament of the Greek word “heos” being used, or “until” being used, to emphasize only a select period of time up to some point without any indication of change in the future. So for example, classic text that’s been appealed to by apologists, Deuteronomy 34:6, which speaks of Moses’ burial place, “No man knows the place of his burial to this day.” In the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures here, the Septuagint, the Greek word “heos” is used. We don’t know the place of his burial until this day. And guess what? We still don’t know where Moses was buried. Again, emphasizing only a select period of time without any indication of change after that select of time is complete.
Another example is 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Saul’s daughter Michal or Michal, had no child “heos” until the day of her death. Obviously, this doesn’t mean that Michal’s childless or Michal’s childless state changed after the day of her death. It only means that she went throughout her life without having any children. We can even look in the New Testament. We have New Testament examples of “heos” being used only to emphasize a select period of time without any indication of change after that select of time is complete. 1 Timothy 4:13, “Until I come,” Paul writes, “Heos, I come, attend unto reading to exhortation into doctrine.” Does that mean that after Paul comes, Timothy is to no longer attend unto reading exhortation and doctrine? Of course not.
1 Corinthians 1:8, “Our Lord Jesus Christ who will sustain you until (heos) the end guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Does that mean that after the end, Jesus will no longer sustain us? No. 2 Corinthians 3:15, “Until (heos) this day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds.” Again, only an emphasis of a select period of time without any indication of change after that select of time is complete. And so we even have it used in the same way in Matthew’s own writings. Remember the objection is coming from Matthew’s gospel here in Matthew 1. And even in Matthew’s own writings, he uses heos in a way only to emphasize a select period of time without any indication of change after that select of time is complete.
Matthew 13:33, Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to the leaven that a woman takes and hides in three measures of flour, “Until it was all leavened.” By using heos Matthew doesn’t mean that the leaven was taken out of the flour once it was leavened. Matthew 14:22, Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side while or until (heos) he dismissed the crowds. We know from Matthew 14:25 that the disciples continued to journey to the other side even after the crowds were dismissed. Given this common usage of heos in both the old and the New Testaments, it’s reasonable to suggest that Matthew could be employing heos only to refer to the period of time before Jesus’ birth without any reference to what happened afterward.
The only way to know is to look at the context. You can’t just appeal to the word “until”, in and of itself, and therefore conclude while something different is happening after the select of time is complete. No, the word “heos” can be used in either way to refer only to a select period of time without any indication of change after that select of time is complete, or it could be used to refer to a change in a situation after the select of time is complete. So we have to look at something else in order to determine how Matthew is using the word here within the context.
And so that leads us to the second way in which we can respond to this objection, and that is the context reveals Matthew’s emphasis is only on the select period of time of prior to Jesus’ birth without any indication of a change after that select period of time. Matthew’s point is that Joseph and Mary had no sexual relations prior to Jesus’ birth. That’s all he’s trying to emphasize here. Whether they had sexual relations afterward, that’s a separate question that Matthew’s language doesn’t settle for us. Matthew states his primary interest in verse 18, “Now, the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way.” It’s the birth of Christ, his conception and his birth that’s Matthew’s concern, not what came after.
And Matthew even explicitly tells us which period of time in Mary and Joseph’s relationship he’s focusing on, “Before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.” Before they came to be living together. After that interim period of being validly married and then you have the interim period of Joseph all preparing a place for his bride comes back to her to take her to come together, to come to live together. She was found with child of the Holy Spirit. So it’s that interim period of time before they come together to live together that Matthew is emphasizing. He then reiterates the virginal conception two more times when he records Gabriel’s words, “That which is conceived in hers of the Holy Spirit,” there in verse 20. And when he quotes Isaiah 7:14, “Behold a virgin shall conceive in bare a son,” in verse 23.
In other words, Joseph didn’t have anything to do with this conception of Jesus. Since the immediate context bears on the period of time before Jesus’ birth, we have good reason from the immediate context itself, to think that this is what Matthew was interested in, not what happened after Jesus’ birth. Bottom line, Matthew’s trying to persuade his audience that Jesus’ conception and birth were miraculous, not to tell us what Mary did after Jesus was born. So that completes our first apologetical theme, Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
So now let’s move to the second apologetical theme that comes out of the liturgy of the word and that is the Nature of Justification as Intrinsic Righteousness in contrast to the idea that justification is merely an external forensic declaration by God. And of course this comes to light in the second reading for Romans 1:1-7. The key verse though is verse 5, Paul writes, “Through him, we have received the grace of apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the gentiles.” So that’s the key verse that we want to focus on here. Here’s the question, what is Paul referring to by the obedience of faith?
Well, who becomes the example poor excellence for faith throughout the rest of Paul’s letters to the Roman? Of course, it’s Abraham. The obedience of faith that Paul desires to bring about in the Romans, and of course us, is a faith that is exemplified in Abraham. Well, what did Abraham’s faith get him? Paul gives the answer, Romans 4:4, quoting Genesis 15:6, “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Paul then comments in verse 5 of Romans 4, “The one who does not work but trust him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.”
Now think about this. If our obedience of faith is meant to parallel Abraham’s faith, and Abraham’s faith was reckoned as righteousness, then our obedience of faith will be reckoned and is reckoned as righteousness. That’s Paul’s whole point, comparing our obedience of faith to Abraham’s faith, leading to the conclusion that our obedience of faith will be reckoned as righteousness. Now, obedience to God entails the intellect and will being rightly ordered to God’s will. That, my friends, is an intrinsic state, a state that’s constitutive of our very character. It’s something intrinsic to us.
So if we could put it in the form of an argument, it would go something like this. Premise one, if our obedience of faith is the ground… Not in a conditional statement, stated in the affirmative. Our obedience of faith is the ground for our righteousness. And that’s clear from Paul drawing a parallel between our obedience of faith and Abraham’s faith, which was reckoned to him as righteousness. So it’s clear, when Paul talks about our obedience of faith, he means for that to be the ground of our righteousness. Okay. Well premise two, our obedience of faith is an intrinsic state of being rightly ordered to God’s will. Therefore, it follows that our intrinsic state of being rightly ordered to God’s will is the ground for our righteousness.
And of course, it follows from that, our righteousness therefore, is an intrinsic state of righteousness that God brings about in us through his grace. And it is not merely an extrinsic declaration by God. Now, in order to supplement this passage here, we have supporting evidence for this interpretation, that our obedience of faith is the ground of our righteousness, our obedience of faith is something intrinsic to us, and therefore the ground of our righteousness is something intrinsic to us. So our justification? The ground of our justification? Our righteousness? Is an intrinsic state of righteousness. This is supported by other passages from the letter to the Romans.
So take for example Romans 6:16. Our interpretation of the obedience of faith is confirmed by what Paul teaches here. “Do you not know that if you present yourself to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?” The Greek word for righteousness here is “dikaiosune”, the very word that Paul uses throughout his letter to the Romans when he talks about Abraham’s righteousness through faith. For Paul, here in Romans 6:16, obedience to God leads to attaining the kind of righteousness that Abraham had. Very much a very much like what he’s teaching in the first reading here from Romans 1:5.
Since obedience to God entails an intrinsic state of mind and heart properly ordered to God, it follows that the righteousness we attain is a righteousness that is intrinsic to us. And that’s the kind of righteousness that Abraham had. Now, we can also turn to Romans 6:17-18, the very next two verses. This intrinsic state of righteousness that comes about from obedience to God, it becomes even clearer in verses 17 through 18 of this same chapter. Check out what Paul says, “But thanks be to God that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed. And having been set free from sin have become slaves of righteousness.”
Notice that it’s through obedience in the heart, that God brings about within us, that we are set free from the slavery to sin and become slaves of righteousness. Again, the Greek word for righteousness is “dikaiosune”. Friends, slavery to sin, that’s an intrinsic state. That’s something interior. It has to do with the wheel being bound up with sin. Paul says that the opposite state of that, to which we move through obedience in the heart, is righteousness. Therefore, the state of righteousness, to which we move through obedience in the heart, is an intrinsic state. It’s juxtaposed to the intrinsic state of slavery to sin. That’s what Paul’s doing here.
If our state of righteousness were merely extrinsic, the contrast between being slaves to sin and being slaves to righteousness would be unintelligible, but of course that can’t be. And then finally, we can appeal to Roman 6:7. Paul explicitly ties this freedom from slavery, which involves an intrinsic state to justification in Roman chapter 6:7, when he writes, “For he who has died the death of,” he’s talking about the death of baptism, “for he who has died is freed from sin.” The Greek verb for freed is “dikaio”. So the text can be literally translated as “he who has died,” the death of baptism, “is justified from sin”. Again, the ground of our righteousness or justification is not merely an extrinsic declaration by God that we’re in a right relationship with him without some corresponding intrinsic state within the believer to match. According to Paul, God’s declaration that we’re righteous, does have an intrinsic state of righteousness within the believer for it to match up with or correspond to.
Well, my friends, that does it for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we have two important apologetical issues that we can take to heart and share with others for this upcoming Sunday mass readings, Mary’s Perpetual Virginity and the Nature of Christian Justification. Thanks for subscribing to the podcast, my friends. Please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well. I would greatly appreciate it. I hope you have a great and blessed fourth Sunday of Advent. God bless you.
Speaker 1:
Thank you for listening to the Sunday Catholic Word. Find more great shows by visiting catholicanswerspodcasts.com or just search for Catholic Answers wherever you listen to podcasts.