Tim Staples, a popular Catholic apologist, has a forthcoming book on the Marian Doctrines entitled Behold your Mother (Catholic Answers, 2014). In the past number of years, he has written a number of articles defending Roman Catholicism’s Marian dogmas, including the following two articles on the perpetual virginity:
In this post, I will focus on Staples’ attempt to defend perpetual virginity with respect to the phrase “until” (εως ου) in Matt 1:25.
For those who do not know, Catholic apologists for decades have focused on trying to show that the bare term εως does not, in and of itself, necessitate the cessation of the main clause (e.g. Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism [1988]). However, Matt 1:25 does not use this term, but εως ου. For a full-length study of this term, see the opening chapters of Eric D. Svendsen’s book, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism, a book endorsed by leading Matthean scholars such as Craig Blomberg.
Catholic apologists have cited two alleged instances of εως ου being used wherein the main clause continues. To quote Staples in "The Case for Mary's Perpetual Virginity":
The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary.Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: "But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar."
Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was "sent" to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.
In this article, “Mary Worshippers need not apply,” Staples provides another alleged instance:
Pastor Bob responds by pointing out that the text in Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until,” whereas the texts you alluded to use heos alone. “The words heos hou together indicate the opposite is true after the ‘until’ is fulfilled,” Pastor Bob declares.
Having heard that one before you quickly quote 2 Peter 1:19: “And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.”
“This text uses heos hou for ‘until,’” you say. “Now, I ask you, what is the prophetic word referring to in this text?” you ask rhetorically. “Prophecy doesn’t refer only to future events foretold. It simply means ‘the mind of God spoken forth.’ Does this text mean there will come a time when we won’t have to pay attention to the Word of God? Obviously not!”
Let us examine these two texts.
Acts 25:21
The Greek (followed by the NRSV) reads as follows (emphasis added):
τοῦ δὲ Παύλου ἐπικαλεσαμένου τηρηθῆναι αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ διάγνωσιν, ἐκέλευσα τηρεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἕως οὗ ἀναπέμψω αὐτὸν πρὸς Καίσαρα.
But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of his Imperial Majesty, I ordered him to be held until I could send him to the emperor."
Catholic apologists such as Staples, Sungenis, Pacheco, and Albrecht who appeal to this text miss the point of this passage completely. Firstly, the Greek does not say that Festus held Paul in custody. The Greek word used here is simply "kept/held" (τηρεω) and the verse simply states that Festus "held" Paul until he could send him to Caesar. The question becomes, "Kept where or in what way?" The plain meaning in context is that Festus "held" Paul in Caesarea as opposed to sending him back to Jerusalem (contrary to the request of the Jews) to stand trial (vv. 15-20). The point here is not one of "custody," but location. Obviously, once Paul had been sent to Caesar (Rome) he was no longer "kept" in Caesarea. Hence, εως ου in this verse functions in its normal way, indicating cessation of the action of the main clause once the "until" has been reached.
2 Peter 1:19
καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον, ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτε προσέχοντες ὡς λύχνῳ φαίνοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ, ἕως οὗ ἡμέρα διαυγάσῃ καὶ φωσφόρος ἀνατείλῃ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν.
So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
Staples (and other Catholic apologists) again miss the point of this verse. Peter is not addressing truth as a category, but specifically "the word of the prophets" that are subsequently inscripturated (vv. 20-21). Scripture then is compared to a "shining light." The "dark place" is this present age through which the Scriptures give us safe passage. The phrase "day dawns and the morning star rises" is doubtless a reference to the parousia (final coming of Christ), after which it will no longer be necessary to turn to the word of the prophets as a guide which navigates us through a dark place, since Christ Himself will supersede any such need. Hence, once the εως ου is reached at Christ's coming, we will no longer "see through a mirror darkly," or "know in part"; rather we will "see face to face" and "know fully just as we also have been known" (cf. 1 Cor 13:12). Once again, when we read the passage correctly, we see that εως ου retains its normal usage.
The Catholic response to the use of εως ου in Matt 1:25 are to be found wanting, exegetically. Latter-day Saints are on firm biblical-grounding for rejecting the perpetual virginity of Mary.
