Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony

[Moonwood]

There are Christians who assume that because Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas are called Jesus’s adelphoi (“brothers”) in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, they must have been additional sons of Mary. But once the New Testament’s own data and the earliest Christian testimony are brought back into view, that assumption collapses. The term adelphos does not, by itself, indicate biological brotherhood, and the men in question are never identified as Mary’s sons. What follows is a structured demonstration of that point.

I begin where the argument must begin: with the Gospels themselves — with the identities of the men called Jesus’s adelphoi and with the family relationships the New Testament actually describes. From there, I trace how the earliest Christian writers, independent and geographically diverse, preserve the same identification of James and his brothers. The cumulative picture is coherent, historically stable, and fully compatible with Paul’s language in Galatians.

1. The Gospels do not identify these men as Mary’s sons
Matthew and Mark list Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas as Jesus’s adelphoi. But several textual details immediately undermine the assumption that they were Mary’s biological sons:

• These men are never called sons of Joseph.
• These men are never called sons of Mary.
• Only Jesus is called "the carpenter’s Son" (Matthew 13:55).
• Only Jesus is called "the Son of Mary" (Mark 6:3).

The term adelphos in Koine Greek has a broad semantic range: “a brother, near kinsman, or relative.” Paul’s reference to “James, the Lord’s brother” (Galatians 1:19) shows that James was both a relative of Jesus and an apostle, since Paul explicitly includes him among the Twelve he met. This immediately rules out the idea that he was a younger biological son of Mary, because the Gospels list no such James in the apostolic circle. And since within that circle only James of Alphaeus had a brother named Judas (Thaddeus), the contextual evidence strongly suggests that Paul’s James — the James mentioned in Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, and Galatians 1:19 — is James of Alphaeus.

The term in Koine Greek has a broad semantic range: “a brother, near kinsman, or relative.” Paul’s reference to “James, the Lord’s brother” (Galatians 1:19) shows that James was both a relative of Jesus and one of the Twelve, since he explicitly includes him among the apostles he met. This immediately rules out the idea that he was a younger biological son of Mary, because the Gospels list no such James among the Twelve. And since among the Twelve only James of Alphaeus had a brother named Judas (Thaddeus), the contextual evidence strongly suggests that Paul’s James — the James mentioned in Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, and Galatians 1:19 — is James of Alphaeus, one of the Twelve.

2. The Gospels identify the actual parents of these men
Across all four Gospels, only one Mary is ever called the mother of James the Less and Joseph: Mary the wife of Clopas/Cleophas. She appears in:

• Mark 16:1
• Luke 24:10
• Matthew 27:56
• Mark 15:40
• John 19:25

John identifies her as Mary's adelphe (“sister”), a term that — like adelphos — includes female relatives. Two biological sisters would not both be named Mary, so the natural reading is that she is Mary’s sister‑in‑law, married to Joseph’s brother. Her sons Joseph and James — the same individuals listed among Jesus’s adelphoi — were therefore Jesus’s cousins by marriage, a relationship fully covered by the semantic range of adelphos.

3. Why “cousins by marriage” is the correct kinship category (Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38)
This kinship category is not a conjecture but a conclusion drawn from the New Testament’s own genealogical data. Matthew 1:1-17 traces Jesus’s legal lineage through Joseph, following the royal succession from David through Solomon and down to Joseph. Luke 3:23-38, by contrast, traces Jesus’s biological ancestry through a different son of David—Nathan—recording Mary’s line under Joseph’s name, as was customary when women’s genealogies were not formally kept. This explains why both genealogies include Zerubbabel but diverge at his sons: Matthew follows Abiud, while Luke follows Rhesa. Joseph cannot biologically descend from both brothers, so the two genealogies necessarily serve different purposes—one legal, one biological. And because Joseph is not Jesus’s biological father, Joseph’s nephews (the sons of Clopas/Cleophas) are not Jesus’s blood relatives. Their relationship to Jesus is familial, but not biological; they are His cousins by marriage, a kinship category fully encompassed by the semantic range of adelphos. This is why the Gospels can call them Jesus’s “brothers” without implying they were Mary’s sons.

Thus, the genealogical evidence confirms the familial identification already established by the Gospel family lists: the men called Jesus’s adelphoi were Joseph’s nephews, not Mary’s sons.

4. The earliest Christian writers preserve the same identification
From the 1st through the 4th century, independent Christian writers consistently identify the “brothers of the Lord” as the sons of Clopas/Cleophas (or Alphaeus):

Josephus of Jerusalem (as preserved by Eusebius)
Records the martyrdom of “James, the brother of Jesus who is called Christ” (Ant. Jud., via Hist. Eccl. II.23.20), identifying him as a known figure in Jerusalem.

Papias of Hierapolis
States that Mary the wife of Cleophas/Alphaeus was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, Simon, Thaddeus (Judas), and Joseph (Fragment X). These are the very names listed among Jesus’s adelphoi.

Hegesippus of Jerusalem
Reports that Clopas was Joseph’s brother, making his sons Jesus’s cousins by marriage. He identifies James the Just as the leader of the Jerusalem Church and “the Lord’s brother,” and notes that after James’s martyrdom, Symeon (Simon), the son of Clopas, became bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord (via Hist. Eccl. II.23; III.32.3,6).

Clement of Alexandria
Distinguishes James the Just from James son of Zebedee and explicitly calls him bishop of Jerusalem (via Hypotyposes, Hist. Eccl. II.1.3-4).

Eusebius of Caesarea
Affirms that James the Just, “the Lord’s brother,” was the first bishop of Jerusalem, was known as a son of Joseph, and authored the Epistle of James. He identifies him with the James mentioned in Galatians 1:19 and records that Symeon son of Clopas, Jesus’s cousin, succeeded him (Hist. Eccl. II.1.2-4; II.23; III.11.2; III.32.1).

Jerome of Stridon
States plainly that Mary of Clopas was the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus and the mother of James the Less (De Viris Illustribus; De Perpetua Virginitate).

These witnesses are independent, geographically diverse, and chronologically separated — yet they preserve the same identification of James. Their convergence is exactly the kind of multi-source stability historians look for.

5. The unified identification of Jesus’s adelphoi
Taken together, the Gospels and the early Christian writers show that:

• Jesus’s “brothers” — Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas — were the sons of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas (also called Alphaeus) and her husband.
• James and Judas were the same individuals as James of Alphaeus and Judas (Thaddeus), apostles among the Twelve.
• James of Alphaeus, James the Less, James the Just, James the Lord’s brother, and James the bishop of Jerusalem are one and the same person — and the author of the Epistle of James.
• Judas (Thaddeus), son of Alphaeus, authored the Epistle of Jude.

6. The belief‑status of Jesus’s adelphoi (John 7:5)
The Gospel note that “not even His brothers believed in Him” (John 7:5) cannot refer to James and Judas (Thaddeus), since both were believers, apostles, and authors of New Testament epistles. This leaves Joseph and Simon—the other two sons of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas—as the unbelieving relatives mentioned in John’s narrative. Thus, even the belief status of Jesus’s adelphoi aligns with the broader evidence: they were His cousins by marriage, not children of Mary.

When all the evidence is considered, the lexical range of adelphos, the Gospel family lists, the apostolic identification of James, and the unanimous testimony of the earliest Christian writers form a single, coherent historical picture. The men called Jesus’s adelphoi were not additional sons of Mary, but the well‑attested sons of Mary of Clopas/Cleophas — Jesus’s cousins by marriage, two of whom were numbered among the Twelve. No alternative reconstruction accounts for the New Testament data, the patristic record, and the internal consistency of the early Church’s memory as fully or as precisely. The traditional identification is not a later theological invention; it is simply the only reading that fits the facts.

 

[Armour of God]

Your saying that Mary married Joseph knowing full well that she must sexually submit to him.
But then after they got married Mary refused to submit to her husband.

I suppose you think this makes her holy or good or something.

I don't believe that's true but if it is then that would make their marriage dysfunctional and would make Mary a bad wife.

Maybe it true, maybe Mary was a bad wife.
Maybe that's why we don't hear about Joseph after Jesus age 12.
Maybe Joseph left Mary because she was a bad wife who refused to submit to her husband.

But a man doesn't marry a woman to remain celibate. He marries her to have children with her. So if Mary refused to submit to her husband that would make her a bad wife.

But to me its much more probable that Jesus had siblings. If they meant to say cousin then they would of used the Greek term for it which does get used elsewhere in the NT.
Plus the end of Matthews 1st chapter says that Joseph didn't have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born.
Besides how can they possibly forget about Jesus and leave him behind when he was 12 if He was their only son. An impossible thing to do unless they had other children.

 

[markalan]

So your saying that Mary married Joseph knowing full well that she must sexually submit to him.
But then after they got married Mary refused to submit to her husband.

There is no Scriptural support for the perpetual virginity of Mary ... as you have stated, it would have made her a "bad wife".

The false doctrines of 'immaculate conception' and 'perpetual virginity' have made Mary into a goddess.

 

[BreadOfLife]

There is no Scriptural support for the perpetual virginity of Mary ... as you have stated, it would have made her a "bad wife".

Show me the Scriptural support for the idea that MARY had other children.
Not a SINGLE verse of Scripture makes this claim . . .

The false doctrines of 'immaculate conception' and 'perpetual virginity' have made Mary into a goddess.

Now that's a silly remark.

How does perpetual virginity make someone a "goddess". I know several women who died childless.
Are they "goddesses?

 

[lforrest]

Mat 1:25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus........

 

[BreadOfLife]

Mat 1:25 But he did not consummate their marriage UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus........

Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “UNTIL”.

2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL the day of her death.
Are we to assume that Michal had children AFTER she died?

Moses was buried by God in the valley of Moab after his death. Deut. 34:6 explicitly states: And he buried him in the valley of the land of Moab over against Phogor: and no man hath known of his sepulchre UNTIL this present day.
Sooooo – did they find his grave AFTER this??

Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand UNTIL I make your enemies your footstool."'
Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father AFTER his enemies are made his footstool?

The problem here is that you are attempting to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago. Just as Adelphos has multiple uses - so does "Until" . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

Your saying that Mary married Joseph knowing full well that she must sexually submit to him.
But then after they got married Mary refused to submit to her husband.

I suppose you think this makes her holy or good or something.

I don't believe that's true but if it is then that would make their marriage dysfunctional and would make Mary a bad wife.

Maybe it true, maybe Mary was a bad wife.
Maybe that's why we don't hear about Joseph after Jesus age 12.
Maybe Joseph left Mary because she was a bad wife who refused to submit to her husband.

But a man doesn't marry a woman to remain celibate. He marries her to have children with her. So if Mary refused to submit to her husband that would make her a bad wife.

But to me its much more probable that Jesus had siblings. If they meant to say cousin then they would of used the Greek term for it which does get used elsewhere in the NT.
Plus the end of Matthews 1st chapter says that Joseph didn't have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born.
Besides how can they possibly forget about Jesus and leave him behind when he was 12 if He was their only son. An impossible thing to do unless they had other children.

It's not possible that Mary was a bad wife.
God chose Mary to be the Mother of His Son on earth...to bear Him.
I believe she was immaculate...born without the sin nature.
Whether she had other children or not will never be known with 100% certainty.

What we do know is that a few of the Apostolic Fathers did write that she was a perpetual virgin.
That would tend to confirm the theory that she had no other chirldren.
They also believed her to be a holy person...being put aside for service to God, in the truest sense of the word.

The Protoevangelium of James​

“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).

Origen​

“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers​

“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

​

 

[Moonwood]

Your saying that Mary married Joseph knowing full well that she must sexually submit to him.
But then after they got married Mary refused to submit to her husband.

The claim you’re responding with assumes I was making an argument about Mary’s marital obligations or her sexual relationship with Joseph. I wasn’t discussing that at all. My point concerned the identities of Jesus’s adelphoi — Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas — and showing that across all four Gospels, only one Mary is ever called the mother of James the Less and Joseph: Mary the wife of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary the Mother of Jesus.

In other words, the men listed as Jesus’s adelphoi in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 are consistently identified in the Gospels as the sons of another Mary — Mary of Clopas/Cleophas — not Mary the Mother of Jesus.

You say, "...its much more probable that Jesus had siblings. If they meant to say cousin then they would of used the Greek term for it which does get used elsewhere in the NT." But if you’re going to argue that Matthew and Mark “should have used anepsios,” then you must apply that standard consistently. Luke had the exact same opportunity when referring to Mary’s relative Elizabeth — universally understood to be her cousin — yet he didn’t use anepsios either. He used syngenis, a broad kinship term meaning “female relative,” the same kind of broad term the NT uses with adelphos (“brother, near kinsman, or relative”).

So the linguistic argument does not support the assumption of biological siblings; the New Testament regularly uses broad kinship terms rather than precise ones.

As for Mary’s marriage to Joseph: Scripture itself shows that Mary did not enter marriage under the same conditions as any ordinary woman of Israel. God had already decreed Her unique vocation before She was even conceived. Isaiah 7:14 does not simply predict a virgin birth — it identifies a specific woman whom God Himself designates as “the Virgin.” That title is not incidental; it is Her identity and Her mission.

If Mary were bound to the ordinary expectations of marriage under the Law, then She would not have needed to be a virgin at the moment of Christ’s conception — yet Scripture insists on Her virginity with unusual emphasis (Luke 1:34). Her question to the angel, “How shall this be, since I do not know man?” only makes sense if She had already committed Herself to a life of virginity. Otherwise, a newly betrothed Jewish woman would naturally expect children.

Joseph, described as a righteous man (Matthew 1:19), does not “claim sexual rights” over Mary. Instead, he receives a divine commission: to guard the Virgin Mother and the Child conceived by the Holy Spirit. His role is protective, not possessive.

So the idea that Mary “must sexually submit” to Joseph contradicts:

• Isaiah 7:14 — God’s decree that the Virgin would conceive.
• Luke 1:34 — Mary’s stated intention to remain a virgin.
• Matthew 1:18-25 — Joseph’s obedience to God’s command regarding a virginal conception.
• The entire logic of the Incarnation — which requires Mary’s unique consecration.

Mary’s marriage to Joseph is real, but its purpose is not sexual union. It is the divinely appointed structure through which God protects the Virgin and Her Child. Her virginity is not a personal preference; it is a divine vocation, announced centuries before Her birth and accepted freely by Her.

 

[Moonwood]

Mat 1:25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus........

If you apply your rule about “until” in Matthew 1:25 consistently, then you must also conclude that Michal began having children after her death, because Scripture says:

“Michal had no children until the day of her death.” (2 Samuel 6:23)

Obviously, she did not start bearing children after she died. This proves that “until” does not automatically imply a later change. Sometimes it simply marks a boundary without commenting on what happens afterward.

The translators of Matthew knew 2 Samuel 6:23 perfectly well, yet none of them believed “until” in that passage meant Michal had children after she died. The point is not that “until” never implies a change — but that it does not always imply one, and Scripture itself demonstrates this.

In Matthew 1:20-24, Matthew is emphasizing the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 by showing:

• Mary conceived as a virgin,
• through the Holy Spirit,
• and Joseph played no role in the conception.

Verse 25 — “he did not know Her until She gave birth” — is Matthew’s way of safeguarding the doctrine of the Divine and Virgin Conception, not a commentary on Joseph and Mary’s marital life afterward.

The focus is Christ’s miraculous origin, not Joseph’s behavior after the birth. While “knew her” is indeed a Hebrew and Greek idiom for sexual intercourse, its meaning does not change the argument. Matthew is simply stating that Joseph had no marital relations with Mary before the birth of Jesus. The idiom itself does not imply anything about what happened afterward, because the force of the sentence lies in the word “until,” which—like 2 Samuel 6:23 shows—does not inherently signal a later reversal. Matthew’s concern is to affirm the Divine and Virgin Conception, not to describe Joseph and Mary’s later marital life.

And the word translated "until" is ἕως (heos) or ἕως οὗ (heos hou). In Koine Greek, this construction:

• marks a time boundary,
• but does not inherently imply that the opposite condition occurred afterward.

It simply says Joseph had no relations with Mary up to the birth. It says nothing about what happened after.

This is standard Greek usage, and Scripture uses ἕως the same way in multiple passages — including the Michal example — where no reversal occurs.

In conclusion, Matthew 1:25 affirms the Divine and Virgin Conception, not the end of Mary’s virginity. Your interpretation treats “until” as a universal rule that always implies a later change, but Scripture itself disproves that rule. Therefore, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to argue that Mary and Joseph later had sexual relations.

 

[markalan]

Show me the Scriptural support for the idea that MARY had other children.
Not a SINGLE verse of Scripture makes this claim . . .

only if you misconstrue the plain meaning of the text

Now that's a silly remark.

How does perpetual virginity make someone a "goddess". I know several women who died childless.
Are they "goddesses?

The doctrine of perpetual virginity with the doctrine of immaculate conception make Mary into a goddess who has unique access to God like the ancient Greek religious hierarchy.

 

[Moonwood]

The doctrine of perpetual virginity with the doctrine of immaculate conception make Mary into a goddess who has unique access to God like the ancient Greek religious hierarchy.

You’re mixing categories. The Catholic doctrines you’re pointing to don’t make Mary a goddess; they underline Her dependence on God, not divinity. The Church is actually obsessive about that distinction.

The perpetual virginity and the immaculate conception aren’t divine attributes—they’re graces. Mary doesn’t originate them, doesn’t wield supernatural power, and doesn’t have independent access to God. She’s not worshiped, She’s not a deity, and She’s not part of a divine hierarchy.

If you want to argue that the shape of Marian devotion resembles ancient religious patterns, fine—that’s a historical observation. But saying Catholic doctrine “makes Her a goddess” is just inaccurate. You won’t find the Church calling Her that because the theology doesn’t support it.

Do you think resemblance in structure automatically implies equivalence in theology?

 

[David Lamb]

If you apply your rule about “until” in Matthew 1:25 consistently, then you must also conclude that Michal began having children after her death, because Scripture says:

“Michal had no children until the day of her death.” (2 Samuel 6:23)

Obviously, she did not start bearing children after she died. This proves that “until” does not automatically imply a later change. Sometimes it simply marks a boundary without commenting on what happens afterward.

The translators of Matthew knew 2 Samuel 6:23 perfectly well, yet none of them believed “until” in that passage meant Michal had children after she died. The point is not that “until” never implies a change — but that it does not always imply one, and Scripture itself demonstrates this.

In Matthew 1:20-24, Matthew is emphasizing the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 by showing:

• Mary conceived as a virgin,
• through the Holy Spirit,
• and Joseph played no role in the conception.

Verse 25 — “he did not know Her until She gave birth” — is Matthew’s way of safeguarding the doctrine of the Divine and Virgin Conception, not a commentary on Joseph and Mary’s marital life afterward.

The focus is Christ’s miraculous origin, not Joseph’s behavior after the birth. While “knew her” is indeed a Hebrew and Greek idiom for sexual intercourse, its meaning does not change the argument. Matthew is simply stating that Joseph had no marital relations with Mary before the birth of Jesus. The idiom itself does not imply anything about what happened afterward, because the force of the sentence lies in the word “until,” which—like 2 Samuel 6:23 shows—does not inherently signal a later reversal. Matthew’s concern is to affirm the Divine and Virgin Conception, not to describe Joseph and Mary’s later marital life.

And the word translated "until" is ἕως (heos) or ἕως οὗ (heos hou). In Koine Greek, this construction:

• marks a time boundary,
• but does not inherently imply that the opposite condition occurred afterward.

It simply says Joseph had no relations with Mary up to the birth. It says nothing about what happened after.

This is standard Greek usage, and Scripture uses ἕως the same way in multiple passages — including the Michal example — where no reversal occurs.

In conclusion, Matthew 1:25 affirms the Divine and Virgin Conception, not the end of Mary’s virginity. Your interpretation treats “until” as a universal rule that always implies a later change, but Scripture itself disproves that rule. Therefore, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to argue that Mary and Joseph later had sexual relations.

But if you apply "until" consistently, you end up believing that it remained dark after the ninth our on the day of the crucifixion:

NKJV Luk 23:44 Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Also, Jesus must have meant (in your view) that the disciples were to remain in Jerusalem even after they had been endued with power from on high:

Luk 24:49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high."

And Paul must have continued preaching long after midnight:

Act 20:7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

There are many more examples where the word translated "until" clearly cannot mean "up to and beyond." You have found one example where it must mean that, because the lady in question died. But it seems that the word "until" in the Bible far more often means "up to that time.)

 

[GodsGrace]

only if you misconstrue the plain meaning of the text



The doctrine of perpetual virginity with the doctrine of immaculate conception make Mary into a goddess who has unique access to God like the ancient Greek religious hierarchy.

What a silly remark.
God will do with each human as He had planned to do. ( I'm not reformed).
Mary said the Great Yes to God....she OBEYED Him.
Obeying God does not make one a god.

 

[Moonwood]

But if you apply "until" consistently, you end up believing that it remained dark after the ninth our on the day of the crucifixion:

NKJV Luk 23:44 Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Also, Jesus must have meant (in your view) that the disciples were to remain in Jerusalem even after they had been endued with power from on high:

Luk 24:49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high."

And Paul must have continued preaching long after midnight:

Act 20:7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

There are many more examples where the word translated "until" clearly cannot mean "up to and beyond." You have found one example where it must mean that, because the lady in question died. But it seems that the word "until" in the Bible far more often means "up to that time.)

You’re actually reinforcing the point I made. I never argued that “until” always means “up to and beyond.” My argument was that “until” does not always imply a later reversal — and therefore you cannot treat it as a universal rule in Matthew 1:25.

Your examples from Luke 23:44, Luke 24:49, and Acts 20:7 simply show cases where “until” marks a time boundary and the opposite condition happens afterward. That’s perfectly fine — because “until” can function that way. No one disputes that.

But the existence of passages where “until” implies a change does not erase the passages where it does not imply a change.

And Scripture gives multiple examples of the latter:

• 2 Samuel 6:23 — Michal did not begin having children after her death.
• Deuteronomy 34:6 — Moses’ grave was not discovered after the author’s “present day.”
• Psalm 110:1 / Acts 2:34–35 — Christ does not cease sitting at the Father’s right hand after His enemies are subdued.

In all these cases, “until” marks a boundary without implying a reversal.

So your examples simply prove that “until” can work in both ways — which is exactly why you cannot treat it as a universal rule in Matthew 1:25.

Matthew’s use of “until” functions like the Michal and Moses examples:
it marks the period during which Joseph had no relations with Mary up to the birth, without making any statement about what happened afterward.

Matthew’s concern is to affirm the Divine and Virgin Conception, not to describe Joseph and Mary’s later marital life.

Therefore, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to argue that Mary and Joseph later had sexual relations.

 

[David Lamb]

You’re actually reinforcing the point I made. I never argued that “until” always means “up to and beyond.” My argument was that “until” does not always imply a later reversal — and therefore you cannot treat it as a universal rule in Matthew 1:25.

As I said, there are far more instances where "until" means "up to that time, and not beyond", so how does that reinforce your argument?

Your examples from Luke 23:44, Luke 24:49, and Acts 20:7 simply show cases where “until” marks a time boundary and the opposite condition happens afterward. That’s perfectly fine — because “until” can function that way. No one disputes that.

But the existence of passages where “until” implies a change does not erase the passages where it does not imply a change.

And Scripture gives multiple examples of the latter:

• 2 Samuel 6:23 — Michal did not begin having children after her death.
• Deuteronomy 34:6 — Moses’ grave was not discovered after the author’s “present day.”
• Psalm 110:1 / Acts 2:34–35 — Christ does not cease sitting at the Father’s right hand after His enemies are subdued.

In all these cases, “until” marks a boundary without implying a reversal.

So your examples simply prove that “until” can work in both ways — which is exactly why you cannot treat it as a universal rule in Matthew 1:25.

Matthew’s use of “until” functions like the Michal and Moses examples:
it marks the period during which Joseph had no relations with Mary up to the birth, without making any statement about what happened afterward.

Matthew’s concern is to affirm the Divine and Virgin Conception, not to describe Joseph and Mary’s later marital life.

Therefore, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to argue that Mary and Joseph later had sexual relations.

But together with the fact that we are told about brothers and sisters of Jesus, the word until often meaning "up to that time" can indeed be used to argue that after the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage, including sexual relations. I do know that some people say they were cousins, or children of Joseph from a supposed previous marriage, but that is not in the Bible.

 

[Moonwood]

As I said, there are far more instances where "until" means "up to that time, and not beyond", so how does that reinforce your argument?

But together with the fact that we are told about brothers and sisters of Jesus, the word until often meaning "up to that time" can indeed be used to argue that after the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage, including sexual relations. I do know that some people say they were cousins, or children of Joseph from a supposed previous marriage, but that is not in the Bible.

You’re still misunderstanding the point. I am not arguing that “until” usually means “up to and beyond.” I am arguing that “until” does not always imply a later reversal. That’s all. The frequency with which “until” implies a change is irrelevant; my argument is not statistical, it’s linguistic. The fact that “until” can function in both ways means you cannot treat it as a universal rule in Matthew 1:25.

Your examples from Luke 23:44, Luke 24:49, and Acts 20:7 simply show cases where “until” marks a boundary and the opposite condition happens afterward. That’s perfectly valid — but it does not contradict my argument. It simply shows that “until” can function that way. No one disputes that. But the existence of passages where “until” implies a change does not erase the passages where it does not imply a change.

Scripture itself gives multiple examples of the latter:

• 2 Samuel 6:23 — Michal did not begin having children after her death.
• Deuteronomy 34:6 — Moses’ grave was not discovered after the author’s “present day.”
• Psalm 110:1 / Acts 2:34–35 — Christ does not cease sitting at the Father’s right hand after His enemies are subdued.

In these cases, “until” marks a time boundary without implying a reversal. So when you say “there are far more instances where ‘until’ means up to that time and not beyond,” you are simply describing one legitimate usage — not a universal rule. And because “until” can work in both ways, you cannot impose the “later reversal” meaning onto Matthew 1:25.

Matthew’s use of “until” functions like the Michal and Moses examples: it marks the period during which Joseph had no relations with Mary up to the birth, without making any statement about what happened afterward. Matthew’s concern is to affirm the Divine and Virgin Conception, not to describe Joseph and Mary’s later marital life. That is why Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to argue that Mary and Joseph later had sexual relations.

Now you’re shifting to a different argument — the identity of Jesus’ “brothers and sisters.” But that is a separate issue from the meaning of ἕως ("until") in Matthew 1:25. Even if you were correct about the “brothers,” it would not change the fact that Matthew 1:25 itself does not say Joseph and Mary had relations after the birth.

And the “brothers and sisters” argument is not as simple as you’re assuming. The Bible never says they were Mary’s children. It never says they were Joseph’s children. It never says Mary had other children. It never says Joseph had a “normal marriage.” Those are assumptions you are reading into the text.

Once you examine the New Testament’s own data, the assumption collapses. The term adelphos does not, by itself, indicate biological brotherhood, and the men in question are never identified as Mary’s sons. In fact, the Gospels consistently avoid calling anyone but Jesus “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3) or “the carpenter’s Son” (Matthew 13:55). The men called Jesus’s adelphoi are never called sons of Joseph or sons of Mary.

The Gospels actually identify their parents: Mary the wife of Clopas/Cleophas is repeatedly named as the mother of James the Less and Joseph (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25). John calls her Mary’s adelphe — a term that, like adelphos, includes female relatives. Two biological sisters would not both be named Mary, so she is Mary’s sister‑in‑law, married to Joseph’s brother. Her sons — Joseph, James, Simon, and Judas — are therefore Jesus’s cousins by marriage, a kinship category fully covered by the semantic range of adelphos.

This identification is reinforced by the apostolic circle. Paul’s reference to “James, the Lord’s brother” (Galatians 1:19) identifies him as both a relative of Jesus and one of the Twelve. The only James among the Twelve who fits the Gospel family lists is James of Alphaeus, whose brother was Judas (Thaddeus) — the same Judas listed among Jesus’s adelphoi. This means the “brothers of the Lord” were not Mary’s sons, but the sons of Clopas/Cleophas, Joseph’s brother.

The earliest Christian writers — Papias, Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Jerome — independently and consistently preserve this same identification: the “brothers of the Lord” were the sons of Clopas/Cleophas (or Alphaeus), not Mary. Their testimony is geographically diverse, chronologically separated, and historically stable.

When all the evidence is considered — the lexical range of adelphos, the Gospel family lists, the apostolic identification of James, the genealogical data, and the unanimous testimony of the earliest Christian writers — the picture is coherent: Jesus’s “brothers” were Joseph’s nephews, not Mary’s sons.

The bottom line remains unchanged:

• “Until” in Matthew 1:25 does not imply a later reversal.
• Matthew is affirming the Divine and Virgin Conception, not describing later marital relations.
• The “brothers and sisters” passages do not prove Mary had other children.
• The New Testament and earliest Christian testimony identify Jesus’s adelphoi as the sons of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary.
• Therefore, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to argue that Mary and Joseph later had sexual relations.

Your argument depends on treating “until” as a universal rule and treating “brothers” as biological siblings. Scripture itself shows that neither assumption is valid.

 

[Armour of God]

You’re still misunderstanding the point. I am not arguing that “until” usually means “up to and beyond.” I am arguing that “until” does not always imply a later reversal. That’s all. The frequency with which “until” implies a change is irrelevant; my argument is not statistical, it’s linguistic. The fact that “until” can function in both ways means you cannot treat it as a universal rule in Matthew 1:25.

Your examples from Luke 23:44, Luke 24:49, and Acts 20:7 simply show cases where “until” marks a boundary and the opposite condition happens afterward. That’s perfectly valid — but it does not contradict my argument. It simply shows that “until” can function that way. No one disputes that. But the existence of passages where “until” implies a change does not erase the passages where it does not imply a change.

Scripture itself gives multiple examples of the latter:

• 2 Samuel 6:23 — Michal did not begin having children after her death.
• Deuteronomy 34:6 — Moses’ grave was not discovered after the author’s “present day.”
• Psalm 110:1 / Acts 2:34–35 — Christ does not cease sitting at the Father’s right hand after His enemies are subdued.

In these cases, “until” marks a time boundary without implying a reversal. So when you say “there are far more instances where ‘until’ means up to that time and not beyond,” you are simply describing one legitimate usage — not a universal rule. And because “until” can work in both ways, you cannot impose the “later reversal” meaning onto Matthew 1:25.

Matthew’s use of “until” functions like the Michal and Moses examples: it marks the period during which Joseph had no relations with Mary up to the birth, without making any statement about what happened afterward. Matthew’s concern is to affirm the Divine and Virgin Conception, not to describe Joseph and Mary’s later marital life. That is why Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to argue that Mary and Joseph later had sexual relations.

Now you’re shifting to a different argument — the identity of Jesus’ “brothers and sisters.” But that is a separate issue from the meaning of ἕως ("until") in Matthew 1:25. Even if you were correct about the “brothers,” it would not change the fact that Matthew 1:25 itself does not say Joseph and Mary had relations after the birth.

And the “brothers and sisters” argument is not as simple as you’re assuming. The Bible never says they were Mary’s children. It never says they were Joseph’s children. It never says Mary had other children. It never says Joseph had a “normal marriage.” Those are assumptions you are reading into the text.

Once you examine the New Testament’s own data, the assumption collapses. The term adelphos does not, by itself, indicate biological brotherhood, and the men in question are never identified as Mary’s sons. In fact, the Gospels consistently avoid calling anyone but Jesus “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3) or “the carpenter’s Son” (Matthew 13:55). The men called Jesus’s adelphoi are never called sons of Joseph or sons of Mary.

The Gospels actually identify their parents: Mary the wife of Clopas/Cleophas is repeatedly named as the mother of James the Less and Joseph (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25). John calls her Mary’s adelphe — a term that, like adelphos, includes female relatives. Two biological sisters would not both be named Mary, so she is Mary’s sister‑in‑law, married to Joseph’s brother. Her sons — Joseph, James, Simon, and Judas — are therefore Jesus’s cousins by marriage, a kinship category fully covered by the semantic range of adelphos.

This identification is reinforced by the apostolic circle. Paul’s reference to “James, the Lord’s brother” (Galatians 1:19) identifies him as both a relative of Jesus and one of the Twelve. The only James among the Twelve who fits the Gospel family lists is James of Alphaeus, whose brother was Judas (Thaddeus) — the same Judas listed among Jesus’s adelphoi. This means the “brothers of the Lord” were not Mary’s sons, but the sons of Clopas/Cleophas, Joseph’s brother.

The earliest Christian writers — Papias, Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Jerome — independently and consistently preserve this same identification: the “brothers of the Lord” were the sons of Clopas/Cleophas (or Alphaeus), not Mary. Their testimony is geographically diverse, chronologically separated, and historically stable.

When all the evidence is considered — the lexical range of adelphos, the Gospel family lists, the apostolic identification of James, the genealogical data, and the unanimous testimony of the earliest Christian writers — the picture is coherent: Jesus’s “brothers” were Joseph’s nephews, not Mary’s sons.

The bottom line remains unchanged:

• “Until” in Matthew 1:25 does not imply a later reversal.
• Matthew is affirming the Virgin Conception, not describing later marital relations.
• The “brothers and sisters” passages do not prove Mary had other children.
• The New Testament and earliest Christian testimony identify Jesus’s adelphoi as the sons of Clopas, not Mary.
• Therefore, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to argue that Mary and Joseph later had sexual relations.

Your argument depends on treating “until” as a universal rule and treating “brothers” as biological siblings. Scripture itself shows that neither assumption is valid.

Perpetual virgin = Bad wife

 

[BreadOfLife]

only if you misconstrue the plain meaning of the text

Ummm, then, SHOW me a single verse that shows I "misconstrued" anything.

I haven’t see one SHRED of it on this or other threads . . .

The doctrine of perpetual virginity with the doctrine of immaculate conception make Mary into a goddess who has unique access to God like the ancient Greek religious hierarchy.

I can see how Scriptural ignorance would lead someone to this conclusion with regards to the Immaculate Conception. But the Perpetual Virginity is EASY to see in Scripture and testimonies pf the Early Church, as I have shown.
You remember the Early Church, don’t you? They’re the ones who were hunted down, tortured and killed to bring the Gospel to YOU and everyone else . . .

Scripture shows us that Mary has NO other children. There isn’t a SINGLE verse that makes this claim.
Scripture ALSO shows us the prophecies with regards to the Immaculate Conception. However – this takes a deeper dive into OT Prophecy and NT Fulfillment . . .

The following comparison chart illustrates the Old Testament type, the Ark of the Covenant with the New Testament fulfillments of that type, Mary:

COMPARISON CHART – Ark of the Covenant and Mary
OT - The Tabernacle that housed the Ark was overshadowed by the cloud of glory of the Lord (Shekinah glory) filled the Tabernacle (2 Chron. 5:13-14).
NT - Mary was overshadowed by the power of the Most High (Luke 1:35).

OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1:14) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) who carried the Word of God.

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the Word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15).
Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

The OT Ark had to be made of pure materials and was blessed out (Exod. 25:10-22).. How much more pure and undefiled would the vessel that carried the ACTAL Word of God made flesh have to be? Jesus, who is God is the antithesis of sin – so He could NOT have been born into sin.

Only a person who chooses to CLOSE their eyes cannot see the truth . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Perpetual virgin = Bad wife

Perpetual Virgin = Obedient Servants (Joseph included)

I’ll never understand why people like YOU dare to question the sovereign Will of God.
God CAN and DOES make exceptions whenever He wants.
- God allowed Abraham and Sarah to conceive a child (Isaac) LONG after the normal age of conception.
- In Mark 16:16, Jesus said that to be saved, you must believe and are BAPTIZED.
HOWEVER, He told the Thief on the cross that he was saved (Matt. 27:38-44, Luke 23:39-43).

So much for YOUR putting limitations on God . . .

 

[Armour of God]

Perpetual Virgin = Obedient Servants (Joseph included)

I’ll never understand why people like YOU dare to question the sovereign Will of God.
God CAN and DOES make exceptions whenever He wants.
- God allowed Abraham and Sarah to conceive a child (Isaac) LONG after the normal age of conception.
- In Mark 16:16, Jesus said that to be saved, you must believe and are BAPTIZED.
HOWEVER, He told the Thief on the cross that he was saved (Matt. 27:38-44, Luke 23:39-43).

So much for YOUR putting limitations on God . . .

I'm not putting limitations on God, that claim is just nonsense. I'm being empathetic towards Joseph, if Mary really did refuse to submit to her husband, which I highly doubt.

A man marries a woman, works and provides for her to be able to have kids with her, not to remain celibate. Any woman who refuses to submit to her husband is creating a toxic relationship and being a bad wife.

So your effort to make Mary appear to be holy or good just backfires.
It makes her look bad. Really bad.

A good wife submits to her husband.
A bad wife refuses to submit to her husband.