While it is not a “knock-down-drag-out” proof against the perpetual virginity of Mary, Matt 1:25, alongside other considerations, strongly suggests the “Helvidian” view is the biblical one. Note the following from Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis in an appendix dealing with Matt 1:25 and the meaning of “until” (εως ου) in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew:
As it stands, the LXX has 85 uses
of heos hou which, identical to the function of heos, can
continue the action of the main verb (e.g., Gn 26:13; 2Kg 6:25; 1Ch 6:32; 2Ch
21:15; 29:28; Ps 56:2 (57:1); 71:7 (72:7); 93:14,15 (94:13,15); 111:8 (112:8);
141:8 (142:7)). The same is true of four of the 19 NT passages in which heos
hou appears (e.g., Mt 14:22; 26:36; 2Pt 1:19; Ap 6:11). Hence the LXX
cases in which heos hou continues the action are about 14%. The cases in
the NT are 21%, and thus the proportions between the LXX and the NT are
approximately equal, dictating against any obsolescence occurring in the LXX’s
meaning of heos hou. (Robert A. Sungenis, The Gospel According to St.
Matthew: Exegetical Commentary [2d ed.; State Line, Pa.: Catholic
Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2019], 172, emphasis in bold added;
Sungenis argues the same in Commentary on the Catholic Douay-Rheims New
Testament from the Original Greek and Latin, 4 vols. [State Line, Pa.:
Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2022], 1:239 n. 17)
In other words, according to Sungenis, 86% of instances in
the LXX and 79% of instances in the New Testament of εως ου (allowing for Sungenis’s exceptions, some
of which are debatable) results in a cessation, not the continuation, of the
main clause.
