Does "Until" Mean What You Think It Means? (Matthew 1:25)

[Ronald Nolette]

You're still shifting the burden of proof. The claim made in the OP was not: "Matthew 1:25 proves perpetual virginity." The claim was:

"Matthew 1:25 does not, by itself, prove that Joseph and Mary had marital relations after Jesus' birth."

Originally, you argued that the word until settled the matter. Since then, you've explicitly agreed that until does not always connote a subsequent action, citing Michal as an example, and you've repeatedly argued that context determines how until functions. Therefore, we agree on the very point I set out to defend: the word until by itself does not settle the question.

You now believe the context of Matthew 1 requires the conclusion that Joseph later had sexual relations with Mary. I disagree because I believe the context of Matthew 1:18-23 is focused on establishing the Virgin Birth by excluding Joseph from Jesus' conception. So the debate is no longer about the meaning of the word until. The debate is about which contextual reading better explains Matthew's purpose.

As for "97 out of 100 people," popularity is not an exegetical argument. The question is not how many people read a verse a certain way. The question is what Matthew intended to communicate. My contention remains exactly what I stated in the OP:

Matthew 1:25 tells us what did not happen before Jesus' birth. It does not explicitly tell us what happened afterward.

If you want to argue that Joseph and Mary later had marital relations, you're free to make that case. But you can no longer claim that conclusion follows merely from the word until, because you've already acknowledged that the word does not always function that way.

Matt 1 does speak of the virgin birth. Verse 25 so the before and after sexuality of Joseph and Mary surrounding Jesus birth! Once againyou fail to prove that the until here means Joseph never had sex with Mary, when the normal reading (exegetically as well) shows they had sex afterwards

 

[Moonwood]

Matt 1 does speak of the virgin birth. Verse 25 so the before and after sexuality of Joseph and Mary surrounding Jesus birth! Once againyou fail to prove that the until here means Joseph never had sex with Mary, when the normal reading (exegetically as well) shows they had sex afterwards

You're now making a contextual argument, not a grammatical one.

Earlier you argued that the word until itself settled the matter. You have since acknowledged that until does not always connote a subsequent action and that context determines how the word functions. Fine. We agree on that.

But from that point forward, simply saying that the "normal" or "usual" reading is that Joseph had sex with Mary afterward is not an argument. It is your conclusion. The question is why Matthew's context requires that conclusion.

My contention remains that the immediate context of Matthew 1:18-25 is focused on establishing that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not by Joseph. Matthew repeatedly emphasizes Joseph's non-involvement in the conception, culminating in:

"And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son."

That statement perfectly serves Matthew's stated purpose.

So we're no longer debating the meaning of the word until. You've already conceded that context determines how until functions.

We are now debating which reading best explains Matthew's purpose. You believe Matthew intended verse 25 to tell us that Joseph later had sexual relations with Mary. I believe Matthew intended verse 25 to exclude Joseph as the father of Jesus and thereby safeguard the Virgin Birth.

Merely asserting that your reading is the "normal" reading does not demonstrate that Matthew intended it.

My point from the beginning has been much narrower than the one you're asking me to defend. I have not argued that Matthew 1:25 proves perpetual virginity. I have argued that Matthew 1:25, by itself, does not prove that Joseph and Mary had marital relations after Jesus' birth.

Once you acknowledge that until does not always imply a subsequent action and that context must determine its force, the real question becomes:

What in Matthew's context requires the conclusion that Joseph later had sexual relations with Mary, rather than simply establishing that Joseph was not the father of Jesus?

That's the question I've been asking all along.