So Joseph married Mary but didn’t have sex?

[Lambano]

All this fascination with some celebrity's sex life seems so undignified.

 

[Davy]

Brethren in Christ Jesus:

The immaculate birth of Lord Jesus Christ through a virgin involved the Power of God, and is not some doctrine started by the Roman Church.

Ahaz, king of Judah, went up to Jerusalem but could not prevail against it, because the king of Syria and the king of Israel (northern ten tribes under the tribe of Ephraim) were confederate with each other. God told Ahaz to not go up, that their confederacy against him would not stand, and that soon Ephraim would be broken and not be a people (i.e., scattering of the ten tribes by the kings of Assyria).

So God told Ahaz to ask of Him for a 'sign' that what He said would happen.

Isa 7:10-14
10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
11 "Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above."
12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD."
13 And he said, "Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
KJV

Thus the fact that Lord Jesus Christ was born of a "virgin" was to be a SIGN from God to Ahaz king of Judah. It didn't happen until later, yet it was fulfilled just as God told Ahaz, a VIRGIN BIRTH. So who can go against the Power of God?

Starting early in Genesis, the devil sought to end the Seed of the Woman, (i.e., the lineage that Christ would be born through). Throughout Old Testament history, and into The New Testament, Satan tried many times to prevent Christ's birth. And Satan's workers here on earth have always denied that SIGN from God about Jesus being born of a 'virgin'. Many of those began creeping in among the Jews of the tribe of Judah early in its history. The scribes of Israel were of the Kenites of the land of Canaan.

Jude 4 warned us about this creeping in that was ordained to happen, and we, Christ's Church, are to know about it. So when you hear of someone trying to usurp the Power of God, especially over a SIGN which was to serve as miracle to His people, especially the king line of Israel, the house of David, then we are to sit up and take notice that one trying to reverse the Power of God got their ideas directly from the devil who failed in preventing Christ's birth.

 

[David in NJ]

They are scripture but another topic. But I would like to know what "a body YOU have prepared for Me" means?
Because of the words and the terms used and the occurrences in the scriptures .…begotten, conceived ….impregnate….delivery of a baby that is defined as the Son of Yahweh….Because of the significance that Yeshua is the actual Son of Yahweh born of a woman, it had to be from His seed or He would not be called the Son of God.

Because any other explanation other then the normal process, involves words that are not biblically connected to this event.

Both John chapter 1 and Hebrews 10:5 disagree applying 'begotten' as it pertains to a flesh man & woman.

The WORD that was GOD was never "begotten".

Only the physical body for the WORD was prepared in the womb of Mary when the HOLY SPIRIT overshadowed her.

 

[Grailhunter]

Both John chapter 1 and Hebrews 10:5 disagree applying 'begotten' as it pertains to a flesh man & woman.

The WORD that was GOD was never "begotten".

Only the physical body for the WORD was prepared in the womb of Mary when the HOLY SPIRIT overshadowed her.

If you say they disagree, that is your issue to resolve.
God so loved the world that He made a body for Yeshua and beamed it into Miriam's womb. So that He would not have to do something as dirty and nasty and sinful as sex.
Sorry that is not there.
God created a body that was a God. That is not the Son of God.
I go with the scriptural description of the event.
Scriptural understanding is not about what you like and don't like. It is what it is.
We are all sons and daughters of God, but if you say that makes us like Yeshua......I will have to disagree.

 

[Moonwood]

Matthew had a choice to set the boundary at Jesus's birth or the end of Mary's life. Either would have established his theological point. His choice of when to set the boundary implies volumes in both cases. That's just the way human language works.

Matthew wasn’t choosing between “birth” and “death.” He was marking the only boundary relevant to his point: the period before Jesus’ birth, when the question of paternity matters. Koine Greek heos does not imply that the opposite happened afterward; it simply marks the limit of the statement. That’s why Scripture can say, “Michal had no children until the day of her death,” without implying she bore children after dying. Matthew sets the boundary at the birth because that is where the theological issue ends — not because anything changed afterward. The inference of later intercourse is imported, not implied.

 

[David in NJ]

If you say they disagree, that is your issue to resolve.
God so loved the world that He made a body for Yeshua and beamed it into Miriam's womb. So that He would not have to do something as dirty and nasty and sinful as sex.
Sorry that is not there.
God created a body that was a God. That is not the Son of God.
I go with the scriptural description of the event.
Scriptural understanding is not about what you like and don't like. It is what it is.
We are all sons and daughters of God, but if you say that makes us like Yeshua......I will have to disagree.

"God is not a man that He should lie"

GOD's Truth is as simple as 1,2,3 = that simple!

#1 - The Scriptures Say we are to believe John 1:1 = The WORD was GOD and thus unbegotten in HIS ETERNAL SPIRIT
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us = This is the Point in Time that JESUS is begotten of the FATHER

#2 - Hebrews 10:5 = Only a flesh body was prepared inside Mary's womb for the WORD to Come into the world as a man.

#3 - Philippians 2:8 = And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

in appearance
σχήματι (schēmati)
Noun - Dative Neuter Singular
Strong's Greek 4976: Fashion, habit, form, appearance. From the alternate of echo; a figure, i.e. external condition.

 

[Grailhunter]

"God is not a man that He should lie"

GOD's Truth is as simple as 1,2,3 = that simple!

#1 - The Scriptures Say we are to believe John 1:1 = The WORD was GOD and thus unbegotten in HIS ETERNAL SPIRIT
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us = This is the Point in Time that JESUS is begotten of the FATHER

#2 - Hebrews 10:5 = Only a flesh body was prepared inside Mary's womb for the WORD to Come into the world as a man.

#3 - Philippians 2:8 = And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

in appearance
σχήματι (schēmati)
Noun - Dative Neuter Singular
Strong's Greek 4976: Fashion, habit, form, appearance. From the alternate of echo; a figure, i.e. external condition.

Who said He lied?

Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME; Hebrew 10:5

Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Philippians 2:8

I do not see a lie here.?????

 

[David in NJ]

Who said He lied?

Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME; Hebrew 10:5

Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Philippians 2:8

I do not see a lie here.?????

Neither do i = which is why i posted those scriptures!

Which pertains to: "God is not a man that HE should lie"

 

[Grailhunter]

Neither do i = which is why i posted those scriptures!

Which pertains to: "God i snot a man that HE should lie"

Gesundheit!!! God is snot! LOL

 

[David in NJ]

Gesundheit!!! God is snot! LOL

Thank you for the lol to my miss-placed letter.

 

[Grailhunter]

Thank you for the lol to my miss-placed letter.

You will get your turn, I do it all the time.

 

[Lambano]

That’s why Scripture can say, “Michal had no children until the day of her death,” without implying she bore children after dying.

No. It is highly uncommon for women to have babies after they die. (At least, I don't know of any.) The common pattern is for married couples to have sexual intercourse after marriage, with a hiatus in the latter stages of pregnancy, followed by a resumed pattern of sexual intercourse. Matthew is using an "until" statement to highlight a deviation from expected conditions with a specified endpoint. The unstated assumption of this kind of "until" statement is that normal conditions will resume following the specified boundary point. Normal conditions for Michal after her death would not involve childbearing.

 

[Moonwood]

No. It is highly uncommon for women to have babies after they die. (At least, I don't know of any.) The common pattern is for married couples to have sexual intercourse after marriage, with a hiatus in the latter stages of pregnancy, followed by a resumed pattern of sexual intercourse. Matthew is using an "until" statement to highlight a deviation from expected conditions with a specified endpoint. The unstated assumption of this kind of "until" statement is that normal conditions will resume following the specified boundary point. Normal conditions for Michal after her death would not involve childbearing.

Appealing to “normal marital patterns” doesn’t change how Koine Greek works. Matthew isn’t describing Joseph and Mary’s marriage; he’s marking the period before Jesus’ birth when the question of paternity matters. Greek heos with a negative clause does not imply that the opposite happened afterward — that’s why Scripture can say, “Michal had no children until the day of her death,” without implying she bore children after dying. Matthew sets the boundary at the birth because that is where the theological issue ends. The inference of resumed intercourse is not stated by Matthew; it is supplied by the reader.

 

[Lambano]

Appealing to “normal marital patterns” doesn’t change how Koine Greek works.

Again, no. Use Bible Gateway to do a search on G2193, ἕως. Some use-cases assume behavior after the terminus; some do not.

Example: Matthew 16:28.

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till G2193 they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

It is implied that Peter, James, and John will eventually die after seeing the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. The Transfiguration immediately follows, and Peter, James, and John did die sometime afterwards.

Example: Matthew 17:9

And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until G2193 the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

It is implied is that the disciples were permitted to disclose the vision after the Resurrection. Apparently, they understood it that way too, 'cuz it's right there in the Bible.

Example: Matthew 27:45:

Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto G2193 the ninth hour.

It is implied that the light came back after the ninth hour.

Matthew 26:29, the post-terminus condition is explicitly named. And if you want to stir up a hornet's nest, have a go at Matthew 24:34. Did we reach the boundary condition in 70 AD, and did "This Generation" pass?

 

[Moonwood]

Again, no. Use Bible Gateway to do a search on G2193, ἕως. Some use-cases assume behavior after the terminus; some do not.

Example: Matthew 16:28.

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till G2193 they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

The unstated assumption is that Peter, James, and John will eventually die after seeing the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. The Transfiguration immediately follows, and Peter, James, and John did die sometime afterwards.

Example: Matthew 17:9

And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until G2193 the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

The unstated assumption is that the disciples were permitted to disclose the vision after the Resurrection. Apparently they did, 'cuz it's right there in the Bible.

Example: Matthew 27:45:

Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto G2193 the ninth hour.

It is implied that the light came back after the ninth hour.

Matthew 26:29, the post-terminus condition is explicitly named. And if you want to stir up a hornet's nest, have a go at Matthew 24:34. Did we reach the boundary condition in 70 AD, and did "This Generation" pass?

Appealing to “normal marital patterns” doesn’t determine the meaning of heos. The examples already on the table show that heos sometimes marks a boundary with no implied reversal (2 Samuel 6:23), and sometimes marks a temporal limit without commenting on what follows (Matthew 16:28). That’s exactly the point: heos does not inherently imply resumed behavior afterward. Matthew sets the boundary at the birth because that is where the paternity question ends. Any inference about later intercourse is supplied by the reader, not by the Greek.

 

[Lambano]

. Matthew sets the boundary at the birth because that is where the paternity question ends. Any inference about later intercourse is supplied by the reader, not by the Greek.

First of all, I have demonstrated that implying the behavior after the terminus of an "heos" statement is an accepted practice in Biblical Greek.

Second, Papias and Eusebius both state that Matthew wrote his "oracles" in Hebrew (or Aramaic), which were later translated to Greek. The Greek may or may not have captured any of Matthew's original intent. DID Matthew intend to imply Joseph and Mary resumed a normal marital relationship after Jesus was born? I claim that he did, because this is how language is used.

 

[Moonwood]

First of all, I have demonstrated that implying the behavior after the terminus of an "heos" statement is an accepted practice in Biblical Greek.

Second, Papias and Eusebius both state that Matthew wrote his "oracles" in Hebrew (or Aramaic), which were later translated to Greek. The Greek may or may not have captured any of Matthew's original intent. DID Matthew intend to imply Joseph and Mary resumed a normal marital relationship after Jesus was born? I claim that he did, because this is how language is used.

Appealing to “normal marital patterns” doesn’t determine the meaning of heos. The examples you listed show exactly why heos cannot be assumed to imply reversal: sometimes it marks a boundary with no change (2 Samuel 6:23), sometimes it marks a temporal limit without commenting on what follows (Matthew 16:28), and sometimes the text explicitly states the post‑boundary condition (Matthew 26:29). That variety is precisely the point — heos does not inherently imply resumed behavior afterward. Matthew sets the boundary at the birth because that is where the paternity question ends. As for the hypothetical Hebrew original, we can only interpret the inspired text we actually possess: the Greek Matthew. Any inference about later intercourse is supplied by the reader, not by the Greek.

 

[Armour of God]

Scripture tells women to submit to their husbands.

The gospels say that Jesus had siblings.

Surely Mary obeyed scripture, loved her husband and allowed Joseph to love her.

Otherwise it would of been an unhealthy marriage.

 

[Lambano]

That variety is precisely the point — heos does not inherently imply resumed behavior afterward.

Inherent implication isn't the point. How do people fluent in a language use it to communicate?

If heos does not inherently imply resumed normal behavior after the terminus, neither does it imply the continuance of the exceptional behavior afterwards. If you are going to rigidly follow dictionary meanings and grammatical rules, then you have to say, "We don't know whether or not Mary and Joseph enjoyed normal marital relations."

 

[Lambano]

Scripture tells women to submit to their husbands.

The gospels say that Jesus had siblings.

Surely Mary obeyed scripture, loved her husband and allowed Joseph to love her.

Otherwise it would of been an unhealthy marriage.

The Greek word for "brothers" and "sisters" (adelphous and adelphai) can also refer to cousins, so that isn't definitive.

Theologians have noted that Joseph disappears from the gospel narrative after Jesus is 12 years old. The assumption is that he died. But if it was an unhealthy marriage, you can speculate that Joseph divorced Mary and married another woman. That might explain why Jesus comes down hard on those who divorce their wives and marry again (though it was permitted by Torah).