A Textual Challenge to the “Mary and Joseph Had Later Relations” Position

[Pavel Mosko]

M

If Mary expected to conceive naturally through Joseph, why does Gabriel respond with a description of miraculous, non‑sexual conception and reinforce it by citing Elizabeth — a woman whose conception was naturally impossible? What relevance would Elizabeth’s impossibility have if Mary’s conception were expected to be natural?


These questions arise directly from Luke’s narrative logic. If the text supports the expectation of normal marital relations, it should be possible to explain why Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention. Impossibilities in Scripture are tied to physical obstructions — barrenness, age, infertility, or lack of a husband. Mary has none of these. Under Her circumstances, natural conception through Joseph is entirely possible. Yet She speaks as though conception is impossible under Her expected future circumstances. I ask that responses address these questions directly, without shifting to unrelated topics or assumptions.

This is an interesting presentation and a little different than what I'm used to. I sort of made a similar kind of argument to an Evangelical woman on a web site in the early 2000s. It always stuck out for me the title "Virgin Mary". It is really funny for people to believe the Helvidian position of the thread and use that. Really if you were to believe that confessionally speaking you should be using a title similar to those proposed by Nestorius 16 centuries back calling her "The Mother of our Savior", "The Mother of our Lord". Yet these people literally believe she lost her actually virginity 2000 years ago a few weeks or months after giving birth, and made her a perpetual honorary virgin perpetually because of the original virgin birth, in spite of that actually being totally. And then of course you got to mention, all the proof of virginity stuff that was around back then, when stoning people for adultery was in and that just would add another layer to things. Like why it would be a miracle.

 

[sondring7]

This is an interesting presentation and a little different than what I'm used to. I sort of made a similar kind of argument to an Evangelical woman on a web site in the early 2000s. It always stuck out for me the title "Virgin Mary". It is really funny for people to believe the Helvidian position of the thread and use that. Really if you were to believe that confessionally speaking you should be using a title similar to those proposed by Nestorius 16 centuries back calling her "The Mother of our Savior", "The Mother of our Lord". Yet these people literally believe she lost her actually virginity 2000 years ago a few weeks or months after giving birth, and made her a perpetual honorary virgin perpetually because of the original virgin birth, in spite of that actually being totally. And then of course you got to mention, all the proof of virginity stuff that was around back then, when stoning people for adultery was in and that just would add another layer to things. Like why it would be a miracle.

Do you believe that Mary did NOT have sex with Joseph AFTER the birth of Christ ?

 

[rwb]

Thank you for replying.

My questions are not about “doctrines of man” — they come directly from Luke’s narrative.

Could you please answer the two specific textual questions I asked?

1. Why does Mary ask how conception will occur if She expects normal marital relations?
2. Why does Gabriel respond with a description of miraculous conception rather than simply telling Her it will happen through Joseph?

Your reply didn’t address either of these, and they are the core of the discussion.

1. Because Mary knew that conception could not normally occur without copulation between man and woman.
2. Gabriel replies in a manner that we as well as Mary might know the child conceived in her womb was miraculous proof the child is the Son of God. That the prophesy would come to pass.

As further confirmation the angel of the LORD appeared to Joseph in a dream telling him the same thing, which is fulfillment of that which was spoken by the prophet saying the Lord Himself would given a sign, a virgin would conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel, meaning God with us.

According to the law for a thing to be true there must be testimony given by at least two people.

Mt 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Mt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mt 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Mt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Mt 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Isaiah 7:14 (KJV) Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

John 8:17 (KJV) It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

The truth established spoken by the prophet Isaiah, confirmed of both Mary and Joseph.

 

[Moonwood]

1. Because Mary knew that conception could not normally occur without copulation between man and woman.
2. Gabriel replies in a manner that we as well as Mary might know the child conceived in her womb was miraculous proof the child is the Son of God. That the prophesy would come to pass.

As further confirmation the angel of the LORD appeared to Joseph in a dream telling him the same thing, which is fulfillment of that which was spoken by the prophet saying the Lord Himself would given a sign, a virgin would conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel, meaning God with us.

According to the law for a thing to be true there must be testimony given by at least two people.

Mt 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Mt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mt 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Mt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Mt 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Isaiah 7:14 (KJV) Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

John 8:17 (KJV) It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

The truth established spoken by the prophet Isaiah, confirmed of both Mary and Joseph.

Thank you for replying.

But your response does not actually address the argument I presented.

We already agree that Jesus was conceived virginally and by the Holy Spirit. Quoting Matthew 1 simply establishes a point that is not in dispute.

The question is not whether the conception was miraculous.

Restatement of the Textual Challenge

This challenge is for those who assert that Mary had marital relations with Joseph.
Such an assertion carries clear expectations about what Mary Herself would have anticipated as a betrothed woman.
According to Jewish law, betrothal was a legally binding marriage, and a betrothed woman would naturally expect:

• future marital relations with her husband,
• future conception of children through those relations.

If any of you deny that, then you may as well abandon your position entirely.
If not, let’s continue.

When Mary was betrothed to Joseph, Gabriel announced to Her:

“You will conceive and bear a Son.”

Notice what Gabriel does not say:

• He does not say when She will conceive.
• He does not yet say how She will conceive.

According to your position, at hearing such an announcement Mary would have:

• expected conception to occur through marital relations with Joseph,
• expected conception to occur after the pre‑consummation period,
• and therefore had no reason to ask "How?" at all.

But instead, the narrative gives us something entirely different:

• Mary asks “How will this be?” — a mechanism question, not a timing question.
• She explains Her question with “since I do not know man” — an idiom referring to sexual relations in general, not merely the present moment.
• Gabriel answers Her “How?” with a description of a miraculous, non‑sexual conception: “The Holy Spirit will come upon You… the power of the Most High will overshadow You.”
• Gabriel reinforces impossibility by pointing to Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception.
  He is explaining why Mary’s conception will happen — precisely because it is impossible under normal circumstances.
  This is the same logiche uses with Elizabeth:
  • Elizabeth’s conception was impossible naturally, specifically because she was barren and advanced in age (Luke 1:36).
  • Mary’s conception is impossible naturally — yet not because of barrenness, age, infertility, or lack of a husband. It is impossible specifically because She “knows not man” (Luke 1:34).
  • God will make both possible, for "nothing is impossible with God" (Luke 1:37).

That is the narrative logic.

Under Mary’s expected future circumstances — a legally binding betrothal, anticipated marital relations, and no physical impediments — natural conception through Joseph was entirely possible.

None of Luke’s narrative fits a scenario where Mary expects conception through Joseph at any point in the future.

Given your own position — that Mary expected future marital relations and natural conception through Joseph — how do you explain that both Mary and Gabriel speak and act as though conception is impossible under those expected circumstances?

That is the narrative tension.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Do you believe that Mary did NOT have sex with Joseph AFTER the birth of Christ ?

Yes, I do not believe in the Helvidian position. Really nobody should that has any background in the Jewish Cultural context of the Bible, especially the Mitzot. or the concept of the sacred, any Godfearing Jew would be afraid to consummate the marriage literally speaking if you actually believed God incarnate or some kind of Divine miracle theophany passed through the birth canal. Furthermore there are linguistic reasons to believe the matter is not as cut and dried as it appears in some kind of English or European translation. I had Grok summarize things for me.


Here are usable quotes on the biblical idiom of “until” (heōs / heōs hou, reflecting Hebrew ʿad / ʿad-kî), which does not require that the contrary state begins afterward.
John Calvin (commentary on Matthew 1:25):

“This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. … Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ.”

John Nolland (The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC):

“Ἕως οὗ is conventionally translated ‘until’, but because the focus is on the period prior to the birth and implies nothing about what happened afterwards, I prefer the translation ‘before’ here.”

Daniel Harrington (The Gospel of Matthew, Sacra Pagina):

“The text neither confirms nor denies the perpetual virginity of Mary; there is no implication about what happened after Jesus’ conception and birth.”

John Chrysostom (Homily 5 on Matthew; commenting on the same verse):

“He has here used the word ‘till,’ not that you should suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform you that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man.”

The same pattern appears throughout Scripture. Classic examples include:

• 2 Samuel 6:23: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.”
• Psalm 110:1: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”
• Genesis 8:7: the raven “went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth” (and never returned).
• Matthew 28:20: “I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

In each case the “until” clause marks the period under discussion; it does not assert that the opposite state begins once the boundary is reached. That is the ordinary biblical usage of the idiom.

 

[sondring7]

Yes, I do not believe in the Helvidian position. Really nobody should that has any background in the Jewish Cultural context of the Bible, especially the Mitzot. or the concept of the sacred, any Godfearing Jew would be afraid to consummate the marriage literally speaking if you actually believed God incarnate or some kind of Divine miracle theophany passed through the birth canal. Furthermore there are linguistic reasons to believe the matter is not as cut and dried as it appears in some kind of English or European translation. I had Grok summarize things for me.


Here are usable quotes on the biblical idiom of “until” (heōs / heōs hou, reflecting Hebrew ʿad / ʿad-kî), which does not require that the contrary state begins afterward.
John Calvin (commentary on Matthew 1:25):

John Nolland (The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC):

Daniel Harrington (The Gospel of Matthew, Sacra Pagina):

John Chrysostom (Homily 5 on Matthew; commenting on the same verse):

The same pattern appears throughout Scripture. Classic examples include:

• 2 Samuel 6:23: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.”
• Psalm 110:1: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”
• Genesis 8:7: the raven “went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth” (and never returned).
• Matthew 28:20: “I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

In each case the “until” clause marks the period under discussion; it does not assert that the opposite state begins once the boundary is reached. That is the ordinary biblical usage of the idiom.

+++Yes, I do not believe in the Helvidian position
List the verses that PROVE Mary did not have sex with Joseph