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

[Ronald Nolette]

But that's precisely the point.

You keep saying Mary was focused on the fact that She was not sexually active.

Yet Gabriel did not tell Her that She was conceiving immediately. He simply told Her:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

Under your view, Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and therefore future conception through ordinary means.

So why does She immediately explain Her question by saying:

"I know not man"

rather than understanding the conception as something that would occur through the marital relations She expected in the future?

And why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception, then point to Elizabeth's miraculous conception, and conclude: "For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

Elizabeth's example is the part you still haven't explained.

If Mary's only issue is that She is not sexually active yet, what relevance does Elizabeth's naturally impossible conception have to Gabriel's answer?

Why does Gabriel connect Mary's case to Elizabeth's and then conclude with God's power over impossibilities?

You keep focusing on the wrong area.

The key point is the next verse.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

Joseph did not have sex with Mary UNTIL Jesis was born. You need to prove that Joseph' celibacy continued on after Jesus was born. The word until is a terminus. It shows that one thing ends when an event happens.

And please do not bring up Michal again! She did not have children all her life or until she died. Unless you can prove that woman can have children after death- the point you are trying to make is false.

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

Yes Joesph did not have sex wit Mary while she was pregnant with Jesus. That is a fairly common pracxtice among many ehtnic groups after a certain point in the pregnance, the wife simply is not that interested generally speaking.

But, the text tells us that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until Jesus was born! That is what it say in plain simple unreinterpreted language.

un·til

/ ˌənˈtil, ənˈtil /
preposition

1. up to (the point in time or the event mentioned):
   "the kidnappers have given us until October 11th to deliver the documents" · "he held the office until his death" · "we didn't find that out until recently"
   Synonyms
   till
   up to
   pending
   through
   before
   prior to
   Antonyms
   beyond
   after

conjunction

1. up to the point in time or the event mentioned:
   "you don't know what you can achieve until you try"
2. 
   
3. The point of reference that until lspeaks of is sex and waiting to after Jesus was born.

Again, will respect Moonwood's request to avoids tangents on this thread, and this can be taken up on the new thread Moonwood created. But just to be clear--

Not sure where you are getting this "common practice," but from what we know of conventional Jewish practice of the day, if Joseph and Mary had a conventional marriage, they would have consummated the day he brought her into his home. And according to Tractate Niddah 31a, that would've been considered not just acceptable but beneficial (in the later stages) while Mary was pregnant. So why would Joseph and Mary not consummated, had they had a conventional marriage?

As for until, look, "until" in the original language, just as in English, often is used to convey the meaning that a state exists until a certain time, after which the opposite state exists. But it is also used to convey simply that a state exists at a certain time without implying that the opposite state exists after. And Matthew uses the word just like that here and elsewhere in his Gospel (and we could multiply examples throughout the Greek Old Testament and New Testament beyond Matthew with similar examples). So in Matthew 27 the Field of Blood was called that "until this day," according to Matthew, which does not imply the name changed the day after he wrote the Gospel. And in Matthew 28, Jesus is with us "until the end of the age," which does not imply he will leave us after this age is done. Context dictates how "until" is being used. And here, the context indicates that the author is speaking in the same way about what was true during Mary's pregnancy, without implying that the opposite state existed after - Matthew is highlighting that Jesus's birth was completely supernatural/cannot possibly be attributed to natural conception, not commenting on Joseph and Mary's postpartum marital life. As John Calvin himself put it:

"And knew her not" 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. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. 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. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

As this passage illustrates, the modern Protestant attempt to read this passage to somehow disprove the perpetual virginity does violence to the text and is contrary to the historic Christian understanding.

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

Well you could play your word games, but Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin and then had at least 6 kids after. She did not have relations, was not expected tpo have relations for many months so her natural question would be how! She went to be with Elizabeth while pregnant so much time had passed before Her marriage to Joseph. And then like it says, Joseph did not have sex with her until after Jesus was born. Thhat is the inspired word of god without any bias or prejudice from denominational predisposition.

What you call "word games" is how Christians have read and understood Matthew 1 and Luke 1 for millennia. And calling the careful exegesis of the text "word games" just betrays the error of your position. And the idea that your reading lacks a "bias or prejudice from denominational predisposition" is also wrong - again, the historic Christian understanding is the perpetual virginity. The contrary position - this supposedly unbiased one - is more or less the product of ancient heresy. Plenty of "bias or prejudice" inherent therein!

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

Simple because Maaaary did not know a man to that point, and it is implied she would not know Joseph for at least6-9 months.

This is one scenario and thought.

Matthew 1:24-25 King James Version​

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

This is a separate scenario with a separate action irrelevant of what Gabriel told Mary.

Joseph was told in a dream, married Mary and did not have sex with her until after Jesus was born! Common practice of abstinence in later stages of pregnancies in those days!

Again, where are you getting this "common practice"?

 

[David in NJ]

Again, will respect Moonwood's request to avoids tangents on this thread, and this can be taken up on the new thread Moonwood created. But just to be clear--

Not sure where you are getting this "common practice," but from what we know of conventional Jewish practice of the day, if Joseph and Mary had a conventional marriage, they would have consummated the day he brought her into his home. And according to Tractate Niddah 31a, that would've been considered not just acceptable but beneficial (in the later stages) while Mary was pregnant. So why would Joseph and Mary not consummated, had they had a conventional marriage?

As for until, look, "until" in the original language, just as in English, often is used to convey the meaning that a state exists until a certain time, after which the opposite state exists. But it is also used to convey simply that a state exists at a certain time without implying that the opposite state exists after. And Matthew uses the word just like that here and elsewhere in his Gospel (and we could multiply examples throughout the Greek Old Testament and New Testament beyond Matthew with similar examples). So in Matthew 27 the Field of Blood was called that "until this day," according to Matthew, which does not imply the name changed the day after he wrote the Gospel. And in Matthew 28, Jesus is with us "until the end of the age," which does not imply he will leave us after this age is done. Context dictates how "until" is being used. And here, the context indicates that the author is speaking in the same way about what was true during Mary's pregnancy, without implying that the opposite state existed after - Matthew is highlighting that Jesus's birth was completely supernatural/cannot possibly be attributed to natural conception, not commenting on Joseph and Mary's postpartum marital life. As John Calvin himself put it:



As this passage illustrates, the modern Protestant attempt to read this passage to somehow disprove the perpetual virginity does violence to the text and is contrary to the historic Christian understanding.

The Author, in fact, did specify that the sexual relations between Joseph and Mary took place after(until) Mary gave birth to Jesus.

There is One Command given by GOD in His Declaration of marriage between a man/husband/male and the man's wife/female.
This Commandment from GOD was first given to Adam & Eve and transfers thru all mankind until we leave this earth.

Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth.....

GOD repeats His Command AFTER the Flood to Noah & his sons.
Genesis 9:1 - So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth"


The LORD Jesus Christ Confirms the marriage commandment from Genesis = Matthew 19:4-6
The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”



The LORD Jesus Christ Confirms 'when' the marriage commandment from Genesis ends = "until"
"until" is when the marriage/sexual reproduction commandment ends
As the marriage vow states = "UNTIL death do we part"

Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.
For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.

 

[BillTaylor]

Many here — including @Titus, @David in NJ, @Armour of God, @marks, @David Lamb, @sondring7, and @markalan — reject the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and instead assert that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus. The usual arguments are:

• Marriage is oriented toward procreation (Genesis 2).
• “To know one’s wife” means sexual relations.
• “Joseph knew Her not until She had given birth to a Son” (Matthew 1:25), therefore they must have had intercourse afterward.
• Paul teaches that spouses owe each other conjugal rights except for limited periods (1 Corinthians 7).

If this position is truly confident, scriptural, and well‑supported — and if those of us who disagree, including myself, @BreadOfLife, @Marymog, and @GodsGrace, are mistaken — then it should be able to withstand these simple, text‑based questions.

​

1. Mary’s Question to Gabriel (Luke 1:34)​

When Gabriel announces that Mary will conceive a son, Mary replies:

“How will this occur, since I do not know man (οὐ γινώσκω ἄνδρα)?”

The text shows Mary:

• betrothed (legally married under Jewish law; cf. Matthew 1:19–20) to Joseph (Luke 1:27),
• responding to the announcement of conception by asking how conception will occur (Luke 1:34)
• explaining Her confusion by stating that She “does not know man” (Luke 1:34)

So the question stands:

If Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph, why does She ask how conception will occur — and explain Her confusion by saying She "knows not man"?

​

2. Gabriel’s Answer (Luke 1:35–37)​

Gabriel answers Mary’s question by describing a conception brought about by divine action:

“The Holy Spirit will come upon You, and the power of the Most High will overshadow You.”
“Your kinswoman Elizabeth has conceived in her old age… for nothing will be impossible with God.”

The text shows Gabriel responding to Mary’s question with:

• a description of miraculous conception,
• an example of another woman whose conception was naturally impossible,
• and a statement that God overcomes what is impossible.

So the question stands:

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.

And I don't want anyone to view an inability to answer this challenge, or a decision to reevaluate a long-held belief, as some kind of personal failure.

The purpose of this challenge is not to embarrass, ridicule, or humiliate anyone. Quite the opposite.

If anything, I have respect for those who are willing to set aside assumptions about my being Catholic and honestly engage the textual argument itself.

If someone carefully considers these questions and concludes that their current position should be reevaluated, I would see that not as a weakness but as an intellectual and spiritual strength.

My hope is not victory over other Christians, but greater understanding, greater honesty with the text, and ultimately greater unity among those who sincerely seek the truth.

You are reading into the text what is not there.

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

Mid‑Thread Summary and Restatement of the Textual Challenge

• @Armour of God
• @sondring7
• @markalan
• @David in NJ
• @Ronald Nolette
• @marks
• @Grailhunter
• @Taken
• @quietthinker
• @David Lamb
• @Lambano
• @Titus
• @JimKnox
• @shepherdsword
• @rwb

What I find most intriguing is not merely that multiple answers were offered for the same conclusion, but that the answers themselves vary substantially.

• Some argue that Mary's question refers only to Her present virginity.
• Some argue that Gabriel is simply answering Mary's question about how conception will occur.
• Others appeal primarily to Matthew 1:25.
• Others distinguish Christ's miraculous conception from Mary's later married life.

Yet all of these arguments are offered in support of the same conclusion: that Mary and Joseph later had marital relations.

More intriguing still is that I have repeatedly been told that the "plain meaning" of Scripture, especially Matthew 1:25, clearly establishes that conclusion. Yet we are now eleven pages into this discussion, and I have yet to see anyone reconcile that belief with the actual narrative flow of Luke 1:34-37:

• Mary's appeal to "I know not man."
• Gabriel's explanation of divine conception.
• Gabriel's appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception.
• His conclusion: "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

To be clear, I am not saying that no one has attempted an answer. Many have explained individual elements of the passage. The recurring answer has been that Mary asks how conception will occur because She is not sexually active, and Gabriel responds by explaining how conception will occur through divine action.

The question, however, is whether that explanation adequately accounts for the entire narrative.

If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph, and therefore expected future conception through Joseph, why does She present Her not knowing man as the obstacle to the announced conception when Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur? And why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception, appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and conclude with God's power over impossibilities?

That remains, in my view, the central unresolved tension in the discussion. If your position is truly confident, scriptural, and well supported, then it should be able to answer those simple, text-based questions. If those questions cannot be adequately answered within the framework of future marital relations between Mary and Joseph, then I think it is reasonable to reevaluate whether that framework is correct.

And I don't want anyone to view an inability to answer this challenge, or a decision to reevaluate a long-held belief, as some kind of personal failure.
The purpose of this challenge is not to embarrass, ridicule, or humiliate anyone. Quite the opposite.
If anything, I have respect for those who are willing to set aside assumptions about my being Catholic and honestly engage the textual argument itself.
If someone carefully considers these questions and concludes that their current position should be reevaluated, I would see that not as a weakness but as an intellectual and spiritual strength.
My hope is not victory over other Christians, but greater understanding, greater honesty with the text, and ultimately greater unity among those who sincerely seek the truth.

Yes.

The main question and conclusion remains unrebutted: when Mary is told she "will conceive," she asks "how can this be because I know not man." I.e., how can I conceive at any point in the future, because I do not, and don't intend to in the future, engage in the conduct normally necessary to conceive a child.

Some attempted answers have been proffered, but as noted before, they either read into the text what is not there (such as reading Mary's answer in the past tense) or they simply make mishmash of the text (by saying all Mary was saying was that she hadn't had marital relations up to that moment - an answer that makes no sense since she was told she "will conceive," not "you are conceiving right now").

 

[David in NJ]

Yes.

The main question and conclusion remains unrebutted: when Mary is told she "will conceive," she asks "how can this be because I know not man." I.e., how can I conceive at any point in the future, because I do not, and don't intend to in the future, engage in the conduct normally necessary to conceive a child.

If you are claiming that Mary remained a virgin by adding your words upon God's words = you commit a very serious sin!!!

 

[Moonwood]

You are reading into the text what is not there.

Which is?