In this post I will be citing from renowned medieval Muslim scholar and Quranic expositor Al-Qurtubi’s commentary on specific texts which directly relate to Christian-Muslim polemics and debate. All bold and/or capital emphasis will be mine.

Al-Qurtubi on Mary’s Status

Maryam, Allah has chosen you and purified you.

The words ‘purified you’ refer to purification from disbelief, as Mujāhid and al-Ḥasan said. Az-Zajjāj said it means of all impurities: menstruation, lochia and other things. Allah ‘chose her’ to give birth to ‘Īsā over all the women of her time. Al-Ḥasan, Ibn Jurayj and others say that it means over all women until the Trumpet is sounded, and that is sound as we will explain. That is the position of az-Zajjāj and others.

The word ‘chosen’ is repeated because the first time it means chosen for worship and the second chosen to bear ‘Īsā. Muslim reports that Abū Mūsā said that the Prophet said, ‘There are many perfect men, but the only perfect women are Maryam daughter of ‘Imrān, and Āsiyah, the wife of Pharaoh. ‘Ā’ishah is preferred to other women like tharīd over other types of food.’ Our scholars said that ‘perfect’ means complete. The perfection of each thing is according to what it is. Absolute perfection belongs only to Allah. There is no doubt that the most perfect human beings are the Prophets, then the awliyā’, then the truly sincere, then the martyrs and then the righteous. If this is confirmed, then it is said that the perfection mentioned in the hadith means Prophethood which would necessitate that Maryam and Āsiyyah were Prophets, and that is indeed said. The sound position is that Maryam was a Prophet because Allah gave revelation to her by means of an angel in the same way that he gave revelation to the other Prophets. This will be further discussed in Sūrat Maryam. As for Āsiyyah, there is no clear evidence of her Prophethood, but of her ṣīddiqiyyah and excellence, as will be explained in at-Taḥrīm.

It is related by sound paths from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said, ‘The best of the women of this world are four: Maryam bint ‘Imrān, ‘Āsiyyah bint Muzaḥam, Khadījah bint Khuwaylid and Fāṭimah bint Muḥammad.’ Ibn ‘Abbās reported that the Prophet said, ‘The best of the women of the Garden are: Khadījah bint Khuwaylid, Fāṭimah bint Muḥammad, Maryam bint ‘Imrān and ‘Āsiyyah bint Muzaḥam, the wife of Pharaoh.’ Another path has: ‘After Maryam, the mistress of the women of the people of the Garden will be Fāṭimah and Khadījah.’

The apparent meaning of the Qur’an and the hadiths DEMANDS that Maryam is the best of all the women of the world from Ḥawwā’ to the last woman alive when the Final hour comes. The angels conveyed to her revelation from Allah containing responsibility, information and good news, as was conveyed to other Prophets, and so she is a Prophet, and a Prophet is better than a walī. Therefore she is better than all other women, first and last. Next in excellence is Fāṭimah and then Khadījah according to what is related by Ibn ‘Abbās whereby the Messenger of Allah said: ‘The mistress of the women of the world is Fāṭimah, then Khadījah and then Āsiyyah.’ This is a good hadith which gives rises to ambiguity.

Allah singled out Maryam for things he did not give to any other woman: the Spirit of Absolute Purity spoke to her, purified her, blew into her shirt and approached her for that breath. That happened to no other woman. She believed the words of her Lord and did not ask for any sign as proof of the good news as Zakariyyā had done. That is why Allah called her ṣiddīqah in the revelation when he says ‘a woman of truth’ (5:75) and: ‘She confirmed the words of her Lord and His Books and was one of the obedient’ (66:12). Allah testified that she was a woman of truth and affirmed the words of the good news and testified that she was one of the obedient. (Tafsir al-Qurtubi – Vol. 3: Juz’ 3: Sūrat al-Baqarah 254 – 286 & Sūrah Āli ‘Imrān 1 – 95, translated by Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley [Diwan Press, 2019], pp. 300-302; bold emphasis mine)

Al-Qurtubi On Jesus’ Nature In heaven

Aḍ-Ḍaḥḥāk said, ‘The story is that ‘Īsā gathered the Disciples in a room. There were twelve of them. The Messiah entered by a niche in the room and Iblīs informed all the Jews about that. About four thousand of them met and attacked the door of the room. The Messiah said to the Disciples, “Which of you will go out and be killed and be with me in Paradise?” One man said, “I will, Prophet of Allah.” He gave him a woollen shirt and turban and handed him his staff and he was made to look like ‘Īsā. He went out to the Jews and they crucified and killed him. Allah robed the Messiah in feathers, clothed him in light and cut him off from the pleasure of food and drink, and he flew with the angels.’ (Ibid,, p. 323)

Al-Qurtubi on Q. 2:29

and then directed His attention up to heaven

In His words ‘then directed’, the word ‘then’ is simply a narrative aid and does not imply any time sequence in the matters referred to. Linguistically the word ‘directed’ (istawā’) means to ascend to and be on top of something, as in: ‘Then you and those with you settled in the ship.’ (23:28). It is used for the sky over your head and the birds over your head.

This āyah is one of those which are considered problematic. Regarding it and others of a similar nature people take three views. One of them is that we should read it and believe in it and not try to explain it, which is the position of most of the Imams. An example of this attitude is what is related from Mālik when a man asked him about the words of Allah: ‘The All-Merciful was established firmly on the throne.’ (20:5) Mālik said, ‘The meaning of istawā (established firmly) is not unknown but the how of it is not intelligible; belief in it is mandatory; and asking about it is an innovation. I think you are an evil man!’ Others say that we should read it and understand it literally. This is the position of the anthropomorphists. Yet others say that we should read it and interpret it metaphorically and cannot take it literally.

Al-Farrā’ said about this āyah, ‘Istawā in Arabic has two usual meanings. One refers to people reaching full maturity. The second is being free from crookedness. A third possibility is someone directing himself to something. This is its meaning in this āyah and Allah knows best.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said that istawā here means to ascend. All these things are possible in Arabic. Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn ‘Alī ibn al-Ḥusayn al-Bayhaqī said that it is sound for istawā to mean to direct oneself because here directing Himself is to aim for creating heaven and aiming for something is a question of will. That is permitted in respect of the Attributes of Allah Almighty. So ‘then’ is connected to creation, not will. What is related from Ibn ‘Abbās is taken from the commentary of al-Kalbī who is weak. Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah said that it means ‘to aim for it’, in other words its creation. This is one view. It is said that the meaning of the word is without limitation or definition, as aṭ-Ṭabarī preferred. Abu-l-‘Āliyah ar-Riyāḥī said, ‘It means “to rise”.’ Al-Bayhaqī said, ‘Allah knows best, but what is meant by that is its elevation. It is the vapour of the water from which the sky was created.’ It is said that ‘mustawā’ means smoke. Ibn Aṭiyyah said that the words do not accept that interpretation. It is said that it means to take control, and Ibn Aṭiyyah said that this comes from His words: ‘The All-Merciful was established firmly on the throne.’ (20:5)

It would appear from this āyah, if you take the word ‘then’ as having a temporally sequential meaning, that Allah created the earth before the heavens whereas in Sūrat an-Nāzi‘āt (79) He describes the heavens being created before the earth. This was the position of Qatādah: heaven was created first. Aṭ-Ṭabarī related it from him. Mujāhid and other commentators say that Allah dried the water on which His Throne rested and turned it into the earth and made smoke rise from it and made heaven. Thus earth was created before heaven. I believe that what Qatādah said is sound, Allah willing: that Allah first created the smoke of heaven and then created the earth and directed Himself to heaven, which was smoke and arranged it and then He smoothed out the earth.

Part of what indicates that smoke was created before the earth is what is related by as-Suddī from Abū Mālik from Abū Ṣāliḥ from Ibn ‘Abbās, and from Murrah al-Hamdānị from Ibn Mas‘ūd and some Companions about this āyah: the Throne of Allah Almighty was on the water and He did not create anything before water.

When He desired to bring about creation, He produced smoke from the water and it rose above it and was high above it (samā) and so He called it heaven (samā’). Then He dried the water and made it earth and then split it up made it into seven earths over two days, Sunday and Monday. The earth WAS PLACED ON THE FISH which is the nūn which Allah mentioned in the Qur’an in al-Qalam. The fish was in the water and the water was on a stone. The stone was on the back of an angel and the angel was on a large stone. The stone, which is the one Luqmān mentioned, was in the wind, neither in heaven nor on earth. The fish moved and was agitated and so the earth quaked. So He sent down mountains on it and it became firm. The mountains vaunt themselves over the earth. That is His words: ‘He cast firmly embedded mountains on the earth so it would not move under you.’ (16:15)

He created the mountains and the provision and trees and its inhabitants and what it needs over two days, Tuesday and Wednesday. That is when He says: ‘Say: “Do you reject Him who created the earth in two days, and make others equal to Him? That is the Lord of all the worlds.” He placed firmly embedded mountains on it, towering over it, and blessed it and measured out its nourishment in it, laid down for those who seek it – all in four days.’ (41:9-10) That is the answer for someone who asks. Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke’. That smoke came from the respiration of water. He made it one heaven. Then He split it open and made it seven heavens in two days, Thursday and Friday. It is called ‘Jumu‘ah’ because in it the creation of the heavens and earth were combined.’ ‘He revealed, in every heaven, its own mandate.’ (41:12)

Then in every heaven He created the angels and creatures in it of vapour and mountains of hail and what is not known. Then He adorned the lower heaven with stars and made them an adornment and protection from shayṭāns. When he finished creating what He wished, He settled on the Throne. That is: ‘It is He who created the heavens and the earth in six days’ (57:1) and: ‘they were sewn together and then He unstitched them.’ (21:30)

Wakī‘ mentioned from Abū Ẓabyān that Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The first thing that Allah Almighty created was the Pen. “Write,” He told it. It said, “Lord, what shall I write?” He said, “Write the Decree.” So it wrote what would be on the day until the coming of the Final Hour. Then He created the Nūn and flattened the earth on it and made it firm with the mountains. The mountains will vaunt themselves over the earth until the Day of Rising.’ One variant states that He created the earth before elevating the vapour of the water, which is the smoke, differing from the first variant. The views about this differ and there is scope for independent judgment regarding it.

The basic element of the creation of all things is water as is reported by Ibn Mājah and Abū Ḥātim al-Bustī from Abū Hurayrah. He said to the Messenger of Allah, ‘When l see you my self is happy and my eye delighted. Tell me about the origin of all things.’ He replied, ‘All things were created from water.’ He asked, ‘Tell me about something by virtue of which, I will enter the Garden.’ He said, ‘Feed people, extend the greeting, maintain ties with your kin, and stand in prayer at night when people are asleep, and you will enter the Garden in peace.’

Ibn ‘Abbās said that the Messenger of Allah said, ‘The first thing that Allah created was the Pen and He commanded it to write down all that would be.’ Al-Bayhaqī said, ‘Allah knows best, but he meant that the first thing that Allah created after water, wind and the Throne was the Pen.’ Ṭāwus said that a man came to ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ and asked ‘What was creation created from?’ He said, ‘From water, fire, darkness, wind and earth.’ The man asked, ‘And from what were these created?’ He replied, ‘I do not know.’ Then the man went to ‘Abdullāh ibn az-Zubayr and asked him and he gave the same answer as ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr. Then he went to ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbas and he answered the same. When he asked the second question, Ibn ‘Abbās recited: ‘He has made everything in the heavens and everything in the earth subservient to you.’ (45:13) The man said, ‘This could only come from a man of the people of the House of the Prophet!’ Al-Bayhaqī said, ‘He means that it is the source of all in its creation and origination. He created water first, or water and whatever He willed of His creation, not from a root or prior model. Then He made it the root for what He created afterwards. He is the Originator and He is the Creator. There is no god but Him and no Creator but Him. Glory be to Him! He is Mighty and Exalted!’

and arranged it into seven regular heavens.

Allah mentions seven heavens but does not give a clear number of earths in the Revelation. The only possible reference to seven earths is found in His words: ‘and of the earth the same number (mithlahunna)’ (65:12). There is disagreement about the meaning of that but it is said that it is referring to their number (literally ‘their like’), and the number is also used in several hadiths reference to the number of earths. Their quality and description varies, as it is said that ‘the same number’ can mean ‘the same density’. It is said that there are seven heavens, but they are not unstitched. Ad-Dāwūdī said that. The first is the sound view: there are seven heavens. Muslim related that Sa‘īd ibn Zayd said that he heard the Messenger of Allah say, ‘If someone takes a span of land unjustly, his neck will be encircled with it through the seven earths.’ ‘Ā’ishah has something similar as does Abū Hurayrah. An-Nasā’ī related from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī that the Messenger of Allah said, ‘Mūsā said, “Lord, teach me something by which I can remember you and by which I can pray to you.” He said, “Mūsā, say: ‘There is no god but Allah.’” Mūsā said, “Lord, all of Your slaves say that.” He said, “Say: ‘There is no god but Allah.” He said, “There is no god but You. I want something especially for me.” He said, “Mūsā, if the seven heavens and their inhabitants other than Me, and the seven earths, were put in one pan, and ‘There is no god but Allah’ in the other pan, ‘There is no god but Allah’ would outweigh them.’”

At-Tirmidhī related that Abū Hurayrah said, ‘Once while the Prophet of Allah and his Companions were sitting, clouds came over them, and the Prophet of Allah asked, “Do you know what this is?” “Allah and His Messenger know best,” they answered. He said, “These are the clouds. These are the water-bearers of the earth which Allah drives to people who are not grateful to Him and do not call on Him.” He asked, “Do you know what is above you?” “Allah and His Messenger know best,” they answered. He said, “It is the firmament, a protected ceiling and waves that are held back.” Then he asked, “Do you know what is between you and it?” “Allah and His Messenger know best,” they answered. He said, “Between you and it is the distance of five hundred years.” Then he asked, “Do you know what is above that?” “Allah and His Messenger know best,” they replied. He said, “Above that are two heavens with a distance of five hundred years between them.” He continued in that manner until he had mentioned seven heavens, the distance between every two heavens being like that which is between heaven and earth. Then he asked, “Do you know what is above that?” “Allah and His Messenger know best,” was the reply. He said, “Above that is the Throne and the distance between it and the [final] heaven is like what is between a pair of heavens.” Then he asked, “Do you know what is below you?” “Allah and His Messenger know best,” they answered. He said, “It is the earth.” Then he asked, “Do you know what is under that?” They replied, “Allah and His Messenger know best.” He said, “Under that is another earth, and the distance between them is five hundred years,” and he continued until he had counted seven earths with a distance of five hundred years between each two. Then he said, “By the One Who has the soul of Muḥammad in His hand, if you were to drop a rope to the lowest earth, it would fall on Allah.” Then he recited: “He is the First and the Last, the Outward and the Inward. He has knowledge of all things.” (57:3)’ Abū ‘Īsā said, “The fact that the Prophet recited this āyah indicates that it means “it would fall in the knowledge, power and authority of Allah. He is on His Throne as He described in His Book.” It is a gharīb hadith. Al-Ḥasan did not hear directly from Abū Hurayrah.

There are many reports about there being seven earths. We have mentioned enough that about that. (Tafsir al-Qurtubi – Vol. 1: Juz’ 1: Al-Fātiḥah & Sūrat al-Baqarah 1-141, translated by Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley [Diwan Press, 2019], pp. 141-146)

Al-Qurtubi on Q. 2:30

… It is also said that they asked the question because they had seen the corruption and bloodshed of the jinn who had inhabited the earth before the creation of Ādam. So Allah sent Iblīs against them with an army of angels and they killed them and drove them into the seas and to the tops of the mountains. That was when pride entered Iblīs’s heart. Their words, ‘Why put…?’ is thus a simple question. ‘Is this caliph going to be like the jinn or not?”’ (Ibid., p. 161)

Al-Qurtubi on Q. 2:34

with the exception of Iblīs.

The exception is connected to what was just mentioned before (i.e. the angels), as is generally stated. Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ibn Jurayj and others said that Iblīs was one of the angels. Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘His name was ‘Azāzīl and he was one of the noblest of the angels. He had four wings and then was deprived of his angelic status. When he disobeyed Allah, Allah cursed him and he became Shayṭān.’ Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr said, ‘The jinn were a tribe of the angels, created from fire and Iblīs was one of them. The rest of the angels were created from light.’ Ibn Zayd, al-Ḥasan and Qatādah said, ‘Iblīs was the father of the jinn in the same way that Ādam was the father of human beings. He was not an angel.’ A similar statement is also related from Ibn ‘Abbās. He said that his name was al-Ḥārith in Arabic. Sahr ibn Ḥawshab and others say, ‘He was one of the jinn who were on earth. The angels fought them and captured him as a child and he worshipped with the angels.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī related that from Ibn Mas‘ūd.

Others find their evidence in Allah’s description of the angels: ‘They do not disobey Allah in respect of any order He gives them and carry out what they are ordered to do’ (66:6), and in the āyah: ‘Iblīs was one of the jinn.’ (18:50) The jinn are not angels. The proponents of the first position answer that nothing prevents Iblīs from issuing from the angels as a whole, since Allah knew that he would be wretched and He is not asked about what He does. There is nothing in the fact that he was created from fire nor in the development of his appetites, demonstrated by his becoming angry, that precludes him from being one of the angels. As for those who say that he was one of the jinn of the earth who was captured, to counter that it is related that Iblīs, accompanied by an army of angels, was the one who fought the jinn on earth. Al-Mahdawī and others related that.

Ath-Tha‘labī related that Ibn ‘Abbās said that Iblīs was from one of the clans of the angels who were called ‘jinn’ and who were created from smokeless fire. The angels were created from light. His name in Syriac was ‘Azāzīl and in Arabic al-Ḥārith. He was one of the guardians of the Garden and chief of the angels of the lowest heaven. He had authority over it and over the earth. He was one of the angels with the greatest striving and most knowledge. He used to manage what was between heaven and earth. Because of that he saw himself as great and noble. That is what led him to unbelief and to disobey Allah. Then he was transformed into the accursed Shayṭān. Sometimes the angels are referred to as ‘jinn’ because of their being hidden from sight in the same way. We find in Revelation: ‘They claim there is a blood-tie between Him and the jinn.’ (37:158) (Ibid., pp. 176-177)

Al-Qurtubi on Q. 2:282

but men have a degree above them.

The root of the word darajah (degree) means ‘to roll up’. A darajah is a step which one steps on to ascend. ‘ijlah means ‘strength’ and a horse that is ‘rajīl’ is strong in walking. The extra degree of a man is on account of intelligence, power to spend and maintain, paying blood money, larger shares of inheritance, and jihād. Ḥumayd said that the degree referred to is the beard, but even if this is sound from him, it is weak because it is not implied by the āyah nor does the āyah mean it. Ibn al-‘Arabī said, ‘Bliss to the slave who refrains from what he does not know, especially when it concerns the Book of Allah! The superiority of men over women is not hidden from someone who is intelligent, even if it were not that woman is created from man, and so he is her root. He can prevent her going out without his permission and she may only fast with his permission and only make ḥajj with him.’

It is said that the degree is the dower as ash-Sha‘bī said. It is said that it is the permission to discipline. Thus the degree entails preference. You should be aware that the right she owes to her husband obliges the right that he owes to her. That is why the Prophet f said, ‘If I were to command anyone to prostrate to other than Allah, I would have commanded a woman to prostrate to her husband.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘The degree indicates encouragement for men to be good company and expansive to women in money and character, because the one preferred must make greater efforts.’ Ibn ‘Aṭiyyah said that this is an outstanding and excellent opinion. Al-Māwardī said that it is possible that it is about marital rights because he can initiate divorce but she cannot and he can call her to bed while she cannot force him to respond. Related to that are the words of the Prophet, ‘If a woman is called to her husband’s bed and refuses, the angels curse her until morning.’ (Tafsir al-Qurtubi – Vol. 3: Juz’ 3: Sūrat al-Baqarah 254 – 286 & Sūrah Āli ‘Imrān 1 – 95, translated by Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley [Diwan Press, 2019], pp. 456-457)

According to the Apostle John, Jesus is the Word whom God employed to create and give life to all creation, being the Source of light who grants enlightenment to every man:  

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were created by him, and apart from him not a single thing was created that has been created. In him was life, and that life was the light of men… The true light, which lightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not know him… And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we gazed on his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth… No one has ever seen God. The only Son, himself God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” John 1:1-4, 9-10, 14, 18 Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)

The language used here to describe Christ is astonishing since the Hebrew emphatically teaches that Jehovah alone created the heavens and earth and everything within them, and that he is the source of life whose light illuminates mankind:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1

“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and ALL THE HOST of them.” Genesis 2:1  

“And Ezra said: ‘Thou art the Lord, thou alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them; and thou preservest all of them; and the host of heaven worships thee.’” Nehemiah 9:6

“who ALONE stretched out the heavens, and trampled the waves of the sea;” Job 9:8

“For with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light do we see light.” Psalm 36:9

“Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: ‘I am the Lord, who made all things, who stretched out the heavens ALONE, who spread out the earth—Who was with me?—’” Isaiah 44:24

“‘I made the earth, and created man upon it; it was MY HANDS that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host.’… For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it a chaos, he formed it to be inhabited!): ‘I am the Lord, and there is no other.’” Isaiah 45:12, 18

“For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another. Hearken to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am He, I am the first, and I am the last.” Isaiah 48:11-16

Interestingly, Christ claims to be the preexistent Son of God whom the Father glorifies in the same way that the Son glorifies him. Jesus further states that he existed alongside the Father in the very same glory from before the creation of the world, which explains why he was able to personally see Abraham’s reaction to having seen the coming of Christ. I.e., since the prehuman Jesus personally existed before the creation he was there to behold the moment when Abraham came into being:  

“‘Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it and he will be the judge.’… Jesus answered, ‘If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God. But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar like you; but I do know him and I keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.’ The Jews then said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.’ So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.” John 8:50, 54-59

“When he had gone out, Jesus said, ‘Now is the Son of man glorified, and in him God is glorified; if God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once.’” John 13:31-32

“When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, ‘Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee…  and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made… Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.’” John 17:1, 5, 24

Astonishingly, Christ even describes himself as the First and the Last who has power over life and death, and allowed the Apostle John to behold every creature in the entire creation glorifying the risen Son in the exact same manner that God the Father is glorified!

“When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.” Revelation 1:17-18

“And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints; and they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth.’ Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, ‘Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor AND GLORY and blessing!’ And I heard EVERY CREATURE in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, AND ALL THEREIN, saying, ‘To him who sits upon the throne AND TO THE LAMB be blessing and honor AND GLORY and might for ever and ever!’ And the four living creatures said, ‘Amen!’ and the elders fell down and worshiped.” Revelation 5:8-14

The fact that Jesus is distinguished from every created thing in all of the creation proves that Christ is no mere creature. Rather, like the Father the Son is uncreated by his very nature, making him co-equal to the Father and therefore worthy of receiving the exact same worship that the Father is given.

This helps us appreciate why Hebrews has God the Father taking the following Psalm, which glorifies Jehovah as the unchangeable Creator and Sustainer of all creation,

“Hear my prayer, O Lord; let my cry come to thee!… But thou, O Lord, art enthroned for ever; thy name endures to all generations… Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They will perish, but thou dost endure; they will all wear out like a garment. Thou changest them like raiment, and they pass away; but thou art the same, and thy years have no end.” Psalm 102:1, 12, 25-27

And using it to praise and magnify Jesus as his Firstborn Son, being the eternally reigning God whom all of God’s angels must worship:

“In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high… For to what angel did God ever say, ‘Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee’? Or again, ‘I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son’? And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’… But of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom… And, ‘THOU, Lord [the Son], didst found the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of THY hands; they will perish, but THOU remainest; they will all grow old like a garment, like a mantle THOU wilt roll them up, and they will be changed. But THOU art the same, and THY years will never end.’” Hebrews 1:1-3, 5-6, 8a, 10-12

Or why Colossians identifies Jesus as the eternal Son of God by, through, and for whom every created thing exists:

“He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for IN HIM all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created THROUGH HIM and FOR HIM. He IS before all things, and IN HIM all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.” Colossians 1:13-18

I.e., Jesus is not a mere creature but is God Almighty who became flesh, being the eternal Son who is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit in essence, power, glory, honor, and worship.

Unless stated otherwise, scriptural references are taken from the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Holy Bible.

Taken from: https://dapacemdomineonline.wordpress.com/2020/03/28/protestant-claim-the-greek-heos-hou-in-matthew-125-disproves-marys-perpetual-virginity/.

The Protestant Claim Paraphrased:

In Matthew 1:25, the Greek heos hou for “until” proves that Mary lost her virginity sometime after she gave birth to Jesus.

Source: Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism, by Eric Svendson

The Response:

All it takes is one example to refute this argument. Here are three:

1. Psalm 72:7 from the Septuagint: “In his days shall righteousness spring up; and abundance of peace till [heos hou] the moon be removed.

The Greek:

ἀνατελεῗ ἐν ταῗς ἡμέραις αὐτοῦ δικαιοσύνη καὶ πλῆθος εἰρήνης ἕως οὗ ἀνταναιρεθῇ ἡ σελήνη

According to Svendsen’s logic, all this righteousness and peace will end when the moon goes Alderaan boom.

2. 4 Maccabees 7: 1, 3:
For like a most skillful pilot, the reason of our father Eleazar steered the ship of religion over the sea of the emotions, and though buffeted by the stormings of the tyrant and overwhelmed by the mighty waves of tortures, in no way did he turn the rudder of religion until [heos hou] he sailed into the haven of immortal victory.

The Greek Septuagint text:

ὥσπερ γὰρ ἄριστος κυβερνήτης ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ελεαζαρου λογισμὸς πηδαλιουχῶν τὴν τῆς εὐσεβείας ναῦν ἐν τῷ τῶν παθῶν πελάγει καὶ καταικιζόμενος ταῖς τοῦ τυράννου ἀπειλαῖς καὶ καταντλούμενος ταῖς τῶν βασάνων τρικυμίαις κατ’ οὐδένα τρόπον ἔτρεψε τοὺς τῆς εὐσεβείας οἴακας ἕως οὗ ἔπλευσεν ἐπὶ τὸν τῆς ἀθανάτου νίκης λιμένα

And then after Eleazar sailed into immortal victory, he then turned the rudder of religion and apostatized . . . Well, at least according to Svendson.

3. Acts 25:21:

“And when Paul appealed that he be held in custody for the Emperor’s decision, I ordered him to be held until [heos hou] I could send him to Caesar. ”

The Greek New Testament text:

τοῦ δὲ Παύλου ἐπικαλεσαμένου τηρηθῆναι αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ διάγνωσιν ἐκέλευσα τηρεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἕως οὗ ἀναπέμψω αὐτὸν πρὸς Καίσαρα

And then as soon as St. Paul was sent to Rome, he was released from custody!

4. Another relevant detail comes from St. John Chrysostom’s commentary on Matthew 1:25:

And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son. He has here used the word till, not that you should suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform you that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, has he used the word, ’till’? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, ‘The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.’ And yet it did not return even after that time. (Homily on Matthew 5:5)

There are a couple of notable observations from this:

1. St. John Chrysostom is one of the Greek Fathers and doctors of the Church; as such, he would have known the language well. It’s highly telling that he didn’t see a connotation from heos hou which would have shown that the Mother of God had indeed lost her virginity.
2. St. John equates “until” in Genesis 8:7, which in the Septuagint text simply has heos, not heos hou, with Matthew 1:25. If such a difference in connotation existed between the two terms, a Greek Church Father would have noticed.

Yes, it is true that heos hou at times appears when there is a change in condition. However, that it is also used in instances in which there is no such change refutes the claim that it demonstrates any such thing. As such, Matthew 1:25 cannot be taken as a refutation of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

A bogus Greek argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity is making the rounds.
By Ronald K. Tacelli, S.J.

Recently, in some Internet discussion groups, a few Protestant apologists have been expending quite a bit of energy trying to refute the Catholic doctrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s perpetual virginity. “Ho hum”, you might be saying to yourself. “What’s new or interesting about that? The ‘Mary-had-other-children’ canard has been effectively demolished by Catholic apologists a hundred times over. Who cares about this latest twist on a worn-out claim?”

Well, as one who believes in Mary’s perpetual virginity, I care, and you should, too. You see, this new argument is based on two Greek terms that mean “until”: heos and heos hou.

These Protestant critics of Mary’s perpetual virginity are training their guns on Matthew 1:25, claiming that the Greek term for “until” used by St. Matthew – heos hou – implies a reversal or cessation of the condition that is expressed in the clause preceding it. Thus they’re attempting to show from linguistic evidence alone that Scripture contradicts the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity. And that is a very big deal.

These Internet Intellectuals willingly admit that the Greek word heos all by itself does not imply any such reversal or cessation. This is true of 1 Timothy 4:13, for example: “[heos] I come, attend to the public reading of scripture.” But in Matthew 1:25, heos is not used by itself; the word for “until” is heos hou. And in the New Testament heos hou always indicates reversal of the preceding clause – or so they claim. One of the Protestant apologists involved in this Internet argument wrote:

“We have insisted that the basic meaning of heos hou in the New Testament, when it means ‘until,’ always implies a change of the action in the main clause” (emphasis in the original).

Now if this were true it would indeed indicate that there is linguistic reason for denying the teaching of the Catholic Church on Mary’s perpetual virginity. So on that little conjunction, heos hou, a great deal seems to depend.

My old history professor at Boston College, Vincent McCrossen, God rest his soul, used to scream at us in class: “Matthew 1:25, where it says that Joseph did not know Mary until she had given birth to Jesus, does not – repeat: does not – prove that Mary was perpetually a virgin!” He went on to say (or rather scream) that the Greek word for “until” (heos) leaves the matter open. It does not necessarily imply that what didn’t happen before the birth (ie. Joseph’s “knowing” Mary) did happen after it.

My reaction, each time Professor McCrossen ranted about this, was: What’s the big deal? No reasonable person would take the phrase “He knew her not until she gave birth” as somehow proving that he never knew her at all. Why rail away against a position no sensible person is likely to take anyway?

That was my first reaction. But upon further reflection, part of what he said seemed reasonable. Even in English the word “until” need not imply that what didn’t happen before some point in time did happen after it.

Think of Granny. She started taking an antibiotic last night; this morning her skin has broken out in welts. We call the doctor and he tells us: “Don’t give her any of that medicine until I get there!” In this case the word “until” means pretty much the same as “before”; and there is no implication that Granny will get the medicine after the doctor arrives. In fact, it’s implied that she probably won’t. So I concluded at the time: Better to say that Matthew 1:25 does not disprove Mary’s perpetual virginity; that considered in itself and from the point of view of language alone it does indeed leave the matter open. Catholics can read it as consistent with their Faith; Protestants, as consistent with theirs. Both readings are possible. In any case, it’s no big deal. Right?

Wrong. The heos hou argument is bogus.

I’m fluent in classical and koine Greek (koine is the simpler style of Greek used by the New Testament writers), having studied it for many years prior to my ordination to the priesthood and before I earned my Ph.D. I’ve taught high school and university courses in Greek, and I regularly read Scripture in Greek. But none of that qualifies me as anything close to being an expert in Greek. So rather than trust my own judgment, I checked it out with the experts.

I printed out transcripts of the online heos hou arguments made by these Protestant apologists and showed them to several Greek scholars. They laughed, treating them with scornful derision. They confirmed what I already knew: that heos hou is just shorthand for heos hou chronou en hoi (literally: until the time when), and that both heos and heos hou have the same range of meaning. But do they? Professional scholars can sometimes be dismissive because they’ve been scooped by unpedigreed amateurs. Could that be the case here? What does a hard look at the evidence reveal?

For one thing, it reveals that not every occurrence of heos hou in the New Testament plainly indicates reversal of the condition being described in the main clause.

Consider Acts 25:21: “But when Paul demanded to be kept in custody until [eis] the Emperor’s verdict, I gave orders that he should be kept in custody until [heos hou] I could send him on to Caesar” (Anchor Bible translation, slightly amended; my bracketing).

Now when St. Paul was to be sent on, he was surely going to remain in custody; for his original request was to be kept in custody until the Emperor’s verdict. Hence the use of heos hou in this verse does not imply that Paul ceased to be kept in custody after he had been remanded to Caesar. It implies the very opposite.

Another example of heos hou being used without any sense of a change in condition after the “until” happens is 2 Peter 1:19:

“Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as a lamp shining in a dark place, until (heos hou) the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.” Clearly, St. Peter was not insinuating that we should cease being attentive to the truths he was presenting after “the day dawns and the morning star rises in [our] hearts.” Here, as in Matthew 1:25, heos hou does not imply a change.

Think of a comparable case. Luigi, a mob informant in Chicago, tells agent Smith that he wants to be held in protective custody till he can meet with the head of the FBI in DC. Agent Smith phones his superiors and says: “I’ve put Luigi in protective custody until I can arrange for transportation to DC.” Will Luigi cease to remain in protective custody once he leaves for DC? Of course not. The force of agent Smith’s “until” obviously concerns the time before Luigi’s leaving. He might have said to his superiors: “Luigi is in protective custody now and will remain in protective custody during the whole time before I’m able to arrange for his transportation to DC.” But we express this in normal English by the word “until.” If agent Smith had been speaking koine Greek, it seems clear he’d have said heos hou.

But suppose all this is wrong. Suppose that, apart from Matthew 1:25, every occurrence of heos hou in the New Testament clearly indicates a reversal of the main clause. That would still not prove that reversal is implied by Matthew 1:25. It would merely prove that Matthew 1:25 may be the only place in the New Testament where reversal is not implied. If this is supposed to be a linguistic argument, we need to ask ourselves: Did heos hou really have a range of meaning significantly different from heos all by itself? Is there evidence that between (say) 300 B.C. and 300 A.D., Greek speakers recognized that heos hou, unlike heos by itself, always implied reversal or cessation of what is expressed in the main clause?

The answer is no.

One Greek text well known to the authors of the New Testament was the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. It was in place roughly two hundred years before Christ. And there, lo and behold, we find that heos hou does not always indicate reversal or cessation. In Psalm 111 (112):8 we read: “His heart is steadfast, he shall not be afraid until [heos hou] he looks down upon his foes.” Obviously the man who delights in the Lord’s commands is going to continue to have a steadfast heart and to be unafraid even after he looks down upon his foes.

Skip ahead now to the third century A.D. Clement of Alexandria wrote: “Thus thirty years were completed until [heos hou] He [Jesus] suffered” (Stromateis, 1.21; Patrologia Graeca, 8.885a). There is no reversal of the main clause here; once again, heos hou is equivalent to “before.” So two hundred years before the New Testament and two hundred years after the New Testament, heos hou could be used, like heos all by itself, to mean extent of time up to a point – but with no negation of the idea expressed in the main clause.

Do our Cyberspace Savants really expect anyone to believe that for a brief period in the middle of this consistent usage, heos hou suddenly had to indicate reversal of the main clause? Or maybe they think that the New Testament was written in a special kind of Greek – one raised uniquely above the mundane flow of usage that preceded and followed it. Or maybe they’re blowing smoke concerning a language they really don’t know very much about. Or maybe these Protestant apologists do know a good deal about Greek, but they are either ignorant of this particular issue (and are trumpeting their ignorance over the Internet), or they do know their argument has no merit on linguistic grounds and are sneakily persisting in using it.

But regardless of how well or poorly these men know Greek, St. John Chrysostom, one of the greatest early Church Fathers, surely knew the Greek language immensely well (he wrote and spoke it fluently) and was sensitive to its every nuance. Let’s look at what he had to say on the subject of Mary’s perpetual virginity and the meaning of heos hou.

In his sermons on St. Matthew’s Gospel (cf. Patrologia Graeca, 7.58), St. John Chrysostom quotes Matthew 1:25 and then asks, “But why . . . did [St. Matthew] use the word ‘until’?” Note well here: In quoting the verse, Chrysostom had used heos hou; but in asking the question, the word he uses for “until” is heos all by itself – as if he were unaware of a difference in meaning between these two expressions.

He answers his question by saying that it is usual and frequent for Scripture to use the word “until” (heos) without reference to limited times. Then he gives three examples. The first is his own paraphrase of Genesis 8:7: “The raven did not return until the earth was dried up.” Here Chrysostom uses heos hou for “until.” (But the actual text of the Septuagint has heos alone.) The second example is from Psalm 90:2: “From everlasting to everlasting you are.” The verse quoted (correctly) by Chrysostom has heos all by itself. The third example is from Psalm 72:7: “In his days justice shall flourish and fullness of peace until the moon be taken away.” And here the word for “until,” as in the Septuagint text, is heos hou.

It’s clear that for St. John Chrysostom, heos has exactly the same meaning as heos hou. That’s why he framed his question about “until” in terms of heos alone, even though the verse giving rise to the question, which he’d just finished quoting, had heos hou instead. That’s why it was natural for him to use heos hou in his paraphrase of Genesis 8:7. And that is why, in his list of analogues to Matthew 1:25, he used both heos and heos hou without the slightest hesitation – his linguistically sensitive ear registered no difference in meaning between them. (But there is a syntactical difference: heos hou came normally to be used as a conjunction; heos by itself as a preposition.)

If an unbridgeable linguistic chasm separated these two expressions, how could it be that the greatest master of the Greek language in all Christendom was unaware of it? The plain answer is that there was no such chasm. The whole “heos hou vs. heos” argument is a bunch of hooey. And both Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods and Stephanus in his Thesaurus Graecae Linguae agree; they state explicitly that heos and heos hou are equivalent in meaning.

And finally, we have the testimony of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament that the Apostles and the early Church Fathers almost always quoted from in their writings.

So in this corner, ladies and gentlemen, we have Sophocles, Stephanus, the Septuagint, St. John Chrysostom, and modern Greek scholars; in that corner, we have the “Pentium Pamphleteers,” swashbuckling Internet polemicists who are pretty clumsy in their wielding of this particular “argument” from the Greek. If you were inclined to wager money, I’d ask you: Where would you place your bets?

But beyond all this, it’s the surrounding context, not words considered simply in themselves, that will usually tip the balance of interpretation. If we hear someone say: “I’m not going to eat anything until Thursday,” we figure that come Thursday he’s going to eat something – because people normally eat. Likewise when we read that a married couple did not have intercourse until a certain time, we figure that they did have intercourse after that time – because this is one of the ways married people normally express their love. And no doubt most (though not all) Protestants read Matthew 1:25 as they do, not out of any pedantic pseudo-scholarship or desire to derogate Mary or compulsive hatred for the Catholic Church.

Rather, they simply desire to see Mary and Joseph as a normal, loving couple. And to all such people of good will, I would close with the following question I’d ask them to ponder before they deny Mary’s perpetual virginity: If Joseph was a just man and a faithful Jew, if he believed that the God he worshipped, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God who was present in the Holy of Holies, was present also in Mary’s womb as Father of her Child – is it really likely that he would have had relations with his wife once the Child had been born?

And if that question does not give you pause, be assured of my prayers until (heos hou) it does (and afterwards as well).