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

beechan · Oct 31, 2026

Ronald Nolette said:
Yes it does mean that! You are just so inculcated in your Catholic tradition that you have unconsciously redefined the word until.

Example: we did not go outside until it stopped raining. Based on that sentence- they did go outside. There is not modifier saying they changed their mind or action, so the statement stands- Once it stopped raining they went outside!

Then let see another example from the scripture:
Deuteronomy 34:6:
“No one knows his [Moses’] burial place until(ἕως (heōs) this day.”

Does it mean that 'on this day' we know the burial place of Moses?
'No one knows the burial place of Moses' persists with the use of word 'until (heos)'!

Give you one more example:
Matthew 28:20: “I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Clearly, the 'until' does not imply He will leave afterward.

So, what @Moonwood said in #1 is correct.

In Koine Greek and throughout Scripture, heos does not inherently imply that the opposite condition began afterward.

Ronald Nolette · Sunday at 11:04 AM

beechan said:
Then let see another example from the scripture:
Deuteronomy 34:6:
“No one knows his [Moses’] burial place until(ἕως (heōs) this day.”

Does it mean that 'on this day' we know the burial place of Moses?
'No one knows the burial place of Moses' persists with the use of word 'until (heos)'!

Give you one more example:
Matthew 28:20: “I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Clearly, the 'until' does not imply He will leave afterward.

So, what @Moonwood said in #1 is correct.

Both your examples use a closing position. Matt. 1:25 shows that one action was ceased and another began after an event took place.

Deut. shows that Moses burial place was still unknown to the present. It does not give a further revelation to take place in the future.

Same with the Matthew passage. Jesus was assuring His presence (through the Holy Spirit) while the world stood. We know from other passages< Jesus will always through eternity be with us. The same is not so with Matt.1.

Matthew 1 clearly and unambiguously shows that Jospeh' celibacy ended. For it describes his present state (knew her not) an event (Jesus birth) and a new practice taking place (formed by until and beginning sex). C'mon you guy sknow this.

I already agreed with Moonwood that until does not always connote a new action. The example of Michal being barren is the best verse for it.

Anyone reading Matt. 1:25 with a preconceived bias would understand that Joseph started having sex with Mary after Jesus was born.

Just like the point of Moses burial site. It was unknown to the time of the author writing. Whether or not it was discoverd after is not known from that passage and would have to be found elsewhere.

But reforming Matt. 1 in the fashoin of Deut.

And Jospeh had no sex with Mary up to the point of Jesus birth. The assumption is Joseph had sex with her. It it up to Moonwood to prove Joseph did not have sex after the miraculous birth and her arguments from Luke have nothing to do with Jsopeh having sex, but the miraculuous birth.

Moonwood · Sunday at 11:07 AM

Ronald Nolette said:
Sorry but your knowledge of basic grammar is atrocious! It is not that it "can" imply a change, but it "does" imply a change unless in the passage there is some kind of modifier like in the verse you use about Michal.

I think you've actually conceded my central point. Earlier you argued that the word "until" itself settles the matter. Now you're saying that factors such as a modifier, the terminus, and the surrounding context must be considered. That's exactly what I've been arguing from the beginning: the word "until" alone does not tell us what follows afterward.

As for Michal, you're proving my point again. You say:

"Only a dense one would think that until death implies her lack of children could end after death."

Precisely. Why? Because you're appealing to the context and the nature of the terminus, not merely to the dictionary definition of the word until. In other words, the word itself is not enough to determine what happens afterward. Which brings us right back to Matthew 1:25.

My argument throughout this discussion has been that Matthew 1:25 establishes the Virgin Birth by excluding Joseph as the father of Jesus. That's why I've repeatedly argued that Matthew's purpose in the passage is to show that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not by Joseph. What I've challenged is the claim that Matthew 1:25 itself proves Joseph and Mary had sexual relations afterward. Those are two different questions.

You've spent much of this discussion arguing that the word "until" settles the matter, but we've now reached the point where you're appealing to the nature of the terminus, the surrounding circumstances, and your understanding of the broader biblical evidence. That is precisely why I've maintained that the word until by itself does not settle the question.

So let's keep the issues separate:

1. What is Matthew 1:25 trying to establish?
I contend that it is establishing the Virgin Birth by excluding Joseph from Jesus' conception.

2. Did Joseph and Mary later have marital relations?
That is a separate question that would have to be argued from other evidence.

In fact, I've already said that if you believe there are other passages proving Joseph and Mary had marital relations, I'm happy to discuss those. But that discussion belongs in a separate thread.

The present discussion began over what Matthew 1:25 itself says, and on that point I still maintain that the verse tells us what did not happen before Jesus' birth, while remaining silent about what happened afterward.

beechan · Sunday at 11:18 AM

Ronald Nolette said:
Matthew 1 clearly and unambiguously shows that Jospeh' celibacy ended. For it describes his present state (knew her not) an event (Jesus birth) and a new practice taking place (formed by until and beginning sex). C'mon you guy sknow this.

The last two examples of 'until' I gave you in #41 has no meaning of the present state ends and a new practice will take place.

Deut 34:6, 'no one knows the burial place of Moses' does not end with 'until'.
Matthew 28:20 : 'I (Jesus) with you always' does not end with 'until end of age'.

C'mon you Protestant guy know this as well!

beechan · Sunday at 11:25 AM

Ronald Nolette said:
Both your examples use a closing position. Matt. 1:25 shows that one action was ceased and another began after an event took place.

"You are not allowed to drive on the highway until you pass your road test."

Does it mean a new practice happens afterward? Yes, you can drive afterward, but notice that the word 'until' itself doesn't cause you to drive; it only restricts you before the test.

Yes, my wife passed the road test, but she never drive onto the highway, she only drives on the city roads.

beechan · Sunday at 11:31 AM

Ronald Nolette said:
Both your examples use a closing position.

Explain what you mean by 'a closing position'.

beechan · Sunday at 11:36 AM

Ronald Nolette said:
Both your examples use a closing position. Matt. 1:25 shows that one action was ceased and another began after an event took place.

Deut. shows that Moses burial place was still unknown to the present. It does not give a further revelation to take place in the future.

Same with the Matthew passage. Jesus was assuring His presence (through the Holy Spirit) while the world stood. We know from other passages< Jesus will always through eternity be with us. The same is not so with Matt.1.

Matthew 1 clearly and unambiguously shows that Jospeh' celibacy ended. For it describes his present state (knew her not) an event (Jesus birth) and a new practice taking place (formed by until and beginning sex). C'mon you guy sknow this.

I already agreed with Moonwood that until does not always connote a new action. The example of Michal being barren is the best verse for it.

Anyone reading Matt. 1:25 with a preconceived bias would understand that Joseph started having sex with Mary after Jesus was born.

Just like the point of Moses burial site. It was unknown to the time of the author writing. Whether or not it was discoverd after is not known from that passage and would have to be found elsewhere.

But reforming Matt. 1 in the fashoin of Deut.

And Jospeh had no sex with Mary up to the point of Jesus birth. The assumption is Joseph had sex with her. It it up to Moonwood to prove Joseph did not have sex after the miraculous birth and her arguments from Luke have nothing to do with Jsopeh having sex, but the miraculuous birth.

May be you should take a look at the Protoevangelium of James. It gives different account on Joseph and Mary's 'marriage', which makes Mary's perpetual virginity a very sensible explanation.

There are paintings showing Joseph holding baby Jesus. Joseph was presented as an old man, as if Jesus's grandfather!

quite different from the ordinary pictures of Joseph and Mary as young couples:

Moonwood · Sunday at 11:46 AM

Ronald Nolette said:
I already agreed with Moonwood that until does not always connote a new action. The example of Michal being barren is the best verse for it.

This is exactly the shift I've been pointing out. You originally argued that the word until itself proved Joseph and Mary had sexual relations afterward. Now you've explicitly conceded that until does not always connote a new action, citing Michal as an example. Therefore we both agree that the word itself does not settle the matter.

The disagreement is now about Matthew's context. You say Matthew 1:25 "clearly and unambiguously" shows Joseph's celibacy ended. But that is precisely the conclusion you're trying to prove. The text itself says Joseph did not know Mary until She gave birth. It does not say:

"and afterward Joseph knew her."

You're inferring that from the context. I disagree with your inference because I believe Matthew's purpose is to establish the Virgin Birth by excluding Joseph from Jesus' conception, based on the preceding verses. But at least we've clarified the issue. The debate is no longer about the definition of until, because you've already admitted the word does not always imply a subsequent action. The debate is about what Matthew intended to communicate in this particular passage.

Ronald Nolette · Tuesday at 9:18 AM

beechan said:
"You are not allowed to drive on the highway until you pass your road test."

Does it mean a new practice happens afterward? Yes, you can drive afterward, but notice that the word 'until' itself doesn't cause you to drive; it only restricts you before the test.

Yes, my wife passed the road test, but she never drive onto the highway, she only drives on the city roads.

Well then prove that Mazry and Jospeh lived celibate lives and that the near universally understood meaning is that Jospeh and MAry had sex.

You can bring all sorts of maybes and could bes- but you need to prove they apply here with biblical evidence.

Ronald Nolette · Tuesday at 9:20 AM

beechan said:
Explain what you mean by 'a closing position'.

That one event ends without another happening. The biblical exam[ple is Michal bore no children U*NTIL her death. Well all but the most ignorant people know that death would not allow childbirth so Michal bore no children in her life. That is a closing position for the context and passage supply the end.

Ronald Nolette · Tuesday at 9:29 AM

Moonwood said:
This is exactly the shift I've been pointing out. You originally argued that the word until itself proved Joseph and Mary had sexual relations afterward. Now you've explicitly conceded that until does not always connote a new action, citing Michal as an example. Therefore we both agree that the word itself does not settle the matter.

So yu must prove that Joepsh and Mary remained celibate. That is the point of all this other garbage. You contened Mary was a perpetual virgin- Prove it and stop dancing around all the nuances of grammar.

If you had any grammatic intelligence you would know instinctively that teh words until in the case of Michal and MAtthew 1 connote very different conclusions.

Moonwood · Tuesday at 6:51 PM

Ronald Nolette said:
So yu must prove that Joepsh and Mary remained celibate. That is the point of all this other garbage. You contened Mary was a perpetual virgin- Prove it and stop dancing around all the nuances of grammar.

If you had any grammatic intelligence you would know instinctively that teh words until in the case of Michal and MAtthew 1 connote very different conclusions.

That's not the claim I made in the OP. The title of this thread is:

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

And my argument from the beginning has been that 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. You have since acknowledged that until does not always connote a subsequent action, citing Michal as an example. Therefore, we both agree that the word itself does not settle the question.

The disagreement is now about Matthew's context. You say Matthew 1:25 "clearly and unambiguously" teaches that Joseph later had sexual relations with Mary. I disagree because I believe Matthew's purpose, based on the preceding verses, is to establish the Virgin Birth by excluding Joseph from Jesus' conception. So no, I do not first have to prove perpetual virginity in order to challenge your interpretation of Matthew 1:25. 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 tell us what did or did not happen afterward."

If you want to argue that Joseph and Mary had marital relations later, you're free to do so. But that conclusion must come from somewhere other than Matthew 1:25 itself.

Ronald Nolette · Thursday at 9:34 AM

Moonwood said:
That's not the claim I made in the OP. The title of this thread is:

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

And my argument from the beginning has been that 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. You have since acknowledged that until does not always connote a subsequent action, citing Michal as an example. Therefore, we both agree that the word itself does not settle the question.

The near universal answer is yes they did! that is how the sentence is constructed and nothing in the passage says otherwise.

You are promoting perpetual virginity- so it is incumbent upon you to prove it. You have danced around providing biblical proof this whole time- put up or shut up!

Moonwood · Thursday at 10:33 AM

Ronald Nolette said:
The near universal answer is yes they did! that is how the sentence is constructed and nothing in the passage says otherwise.

You are promoting perpetual virginity- so it is incumbent upon you to prove it. You have danced around providing biblical proof this whole time- put up or shut up!

You're asking me to defend a claim I did not make in the OP.

The subject of this thread is whether Matthew 1:25 itself proves that Joseph and Mary had marital relations after Jesus' birth. My argument has always been that it does not. Earlier, you argued that the word until settled the matter. You have since acknowledged that until does not always connote a subsequent action, citing Michal as an example. So we've already established that the word itself does not settle the question.

The disagreement is now over Matthew's context and purpose. You believe Matthew intended verse 25 to inform us that Joseph later had sexual relations with Mary. I disagree because I believe Matthew's purpose, as established by the preceding verses, is to establish the Virgin Birth by excluding Joseph from Jesus' conception. Therefore, I do not have to prove perpetual virginity in order to challenge your interpretation of Matthew 1:25. 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 tell us what did or did not happen afterward."

If you wish to argue that Joseph and Mary later had marital relations, you're welcome to make that argument. But that conclusion must come from somewhere other than Matthew 1:25 itself.

Ronald Nolette · 2026-11-06T12:32:52-0600

Moonwood said:
You're asking me to defend a claim I did not make in the OP.

The subject of this thread is whether Matthew 1:25 itself proves that Joseph and Mary had marital relations after Jesus' birth. My argument has always been that it does not. Earlier, you argued that the word until settled the matter. You have since acknowledged that until does not always connote a subsequent action, citing Michal as an example. So we've already established that the word itself does not settle the question.

The disagreement is now over Matthew's context and purpose. You believe Matthew intended verse 25 to inform us that Joseph later had sexual relations with Mary. I disagree because I believe Matthew's purpose, as established by the preceding verses, is to establish the Virgin Birth by excluding Joseph from Jesus' conception. Therefore, I do not have to prove perpetual virginity in order to challenge your interpretation of Matthew 1:25. 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 tell us what did or did not happen afterward."

If you wish to argue that Joseph and Mary later had marital relations, you're welcome to make that argument. But that conclusion must come from somewhere other than Matthew 1:25 itself.

And I also said which you seem to willingly ignore is that the context determines whether until connotes and end. Matt. 1 does not.

The universal, normal,natural, grammatic, and usual understanding of Matt. 1 is that after Jesus was born Mary and Joseph had sex! You must prove it doesn't.

All the smokescreen about until can mean something is just you diverting from the issue. Prove that until here does not mean they began having sex! Prove it or stop writing! I grow weary of your false comparisons and wrong use of grammar for Luke anbd Matthew.

Moonwood · 2026-11-06T23:06:05-0600

Ronald Nolette said:
And I also said which you seem to willingly ignore is that the context determines whether until connotes and end. Matt. 1 does not.

The universal, normal,natural, grammatic, and usual understanding of Matt. 1 is that after Jesus was born Mary and Joseph had sex! You must prove it doesn't.

All the smokescreen about until can mean something is just you diverting from the issue. Prove that until here does not mean they began having sex! Prove it or stop writing! I grow weary of your false comparisons and wrong use of grammar for Luke anbd Matthew.

You've just restated the very point I've been making.
Earlier you argued that the word until itself settled the matter. Now you're saying:

"The context determines whether until connotes an end."

Exactly.
That's why I've repeatedly argued that the word until does not, by itself, determine what follows afterward. Context must be considered.
And that brings us back to Matthew 1:25.
You believe the context requires the conclusion that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations afterward.
I disagree because I believe the context, especially the preceding verses (Matthew 1:18-23), is focused on establishing the Virgin Birth by excluding Joseph from Jesus' conception.
So the real disagreement is no longer about the definition of until. You have already acknowledged that until does not always connote a subsequent action.
The disagreement is over what Matthew intended to communicate in this particular passage.
And since the title of this thread is "Does 'Until' Mean What You Think It Means? (Matthew 1:25)", 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 tell us what did or did not happen afterward.

If you wish to argue that Joseph and Mary later had marital relations, you're certainly free to do so. But that conclusion is not established by the word until alone, and that's the very point you've now conceded.

Ronald Nolette · 2026-11-07T10:05:19-0600

Moonwood said:
You've just restated the very point I've been making.
Earlier you argued that the word until itself settled the matter. Now you're saying:

"The context determines whether until connotes an end."

Exactly.
That's why I've repeatedly argued that the word until does not, by itself, determine what follows afterward. Context must be considered.
And that brings us back to Matthew 1:25.
You believe the context requires the conclusion that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations afterward.
I disagree because I believe the context, especially the preceding verses (Matthew 1:18-23), is focused on establishing the Virgin Birth by excluding Joseph from Jesus' conception.
So the real disagreement is no longer about the definition of until. You have already acknowledged that until does not always connote a subsequent action.
The disagreement is over what Matthew intended to communicate in this particular passage.
And since the title of this thread is "Does 'Until' Mean What You Think It Means? (Matthew 1:25)", 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 tell us what did or did not happen afterward.

If you wish to argue that Joseph and Mary later had marital relations, you're certainly free to do so. But that conclusion is not established by the word until alone, and that's the very point you've now conceded.

But it did say what happened afterward. You jusrt reject the plain common sense literal passage. ONce again go to 100 people show them the passage and ask them what it means. I am willing to bet over 97 will say Joesph had sex with Mary after jesus was born ( don't go to just Catholics who already are biased). It is what the passage means! You are trying to force it toi suggest something it doesn't. Prove from Scripture that this passafge does not mean Joseph and Mary did not have sex. Quit diverting from this point.

If Josewph and Mary did not have sex as this passage says- prove it! You are saying they didn't so show it from Scripture! 2nd and 3rd Century people do not count.

Search

Search

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

beechan

New Member

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member

Moonwood

Member

beechan

New Member

beechan

New Member

beechan

New Member

beechan

New Member

Moonwood

Member

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member

Moonwood

Member

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member

Moonwood

Member

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member

Moonwood

Member

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member

Similar threads