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

[Armour of God]

You're still asserting your conclusion rather than proving it.

You keep saying "that's the definition," but the issue has never been the definition of until. The issue is whether until, by itself, always requires that the opposite condition occurred afterward.

Your handling of 2 Samuel 6:23 actually proves my point.

"Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death."

The text never says Michal had a child on the day she died. That's something you've added to the text to preserve your theory.

In other words, when Matthew 1:25 doesn't explicitly say Joseph knew Mary afterward, you insist the event must be assumed. But when 2 Samuel 6:23 doesn't explicitly say Michal had a child on the day of her death, you also assume an event not stated in the text.

The difference is that your assumption in 2 Samuel 6:23 has no textual support whatsoever.

More importantly, you've still ignored the context of Matthew 1.

Matthew is explaining who fathered Jesus. The chapter repeatedly emphasizes that the Child was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not by Joseph. Matthew 1:25 fits that purpose perfectly: Joseph did not know Mary before Jesus was born, therefore Joseph was not the source of Mary's pregnancy.

That is the subject under discussion.

You keep treating Matthew as though he were answering the question:

"Did Joseph and Mary ever have marital relations?"

But Matthew is answering:

"Was Joseph the father of Jesus?"

Those are not the same question.

So no, my position hasn't been "easily debunked." You've simply repeated "until means until" while never addressing why Matthew mentions Joseph's abstinence in a context focused on the Virgin Birth, nor why your interpretation requires adding a childbirth to 2 Samuel 6:23 that the text never mentions.

Declaring victory is not the same thing as demonstrating it.

Your the one making assumptions, inventing your own definitions, twisting facts, adding stuff to the bible.
It never says that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Ever

 

[markalan]

That's a fair question. The Hebrew example was never meant to prove the meaning of heos in Matthew 1:25. It was meant to refute the claim that "until" by definition always requires a reversal afterward.

As for the Greek heos, yes, we can find New Testament examples where the word itself does not require the opposite condition afterward.

One obvious example is Matthew 28:20:



Surely no Christian believes Christ ceases to be with His people after the end of the age. The point is not what happens afterward, but the assurance being given up to the stated point.

Another example is 1 Timothy 4:13:



Does Paul mean Timothy must stop reading Scripture, exhorting, and teaching once Paul arrives? Of course not. The verse does not address what happens afterward.

In both examples heos indicates there will be a change in the circumstances.
What circumstances concerning Mary & Joseph's marital relationship changed after the birth of Jesus?

The larger point is that heos marks a boundary. Whether the opposite condition follows afterward is determined by the context, not by the word itself.

Which brings us back to Matthew 1:25.

The question is not, "What can I imagine happened after Jesus was born?"

The question is, "What is Matthew trying to establish?"

Matthew has just spent the entire chapter explaining that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not by Joseph. Then he adds that Joseph did not know Mary until She gave birth. The statement perfectly serves Matthew's purpose: it excludes Joseph from the conception of Jesus.

That is certainly an aspect of Matthew 1 but it is a very narrow understanding of the chapter.

The whole chapter is primarily focused on Joseph and his genealogy which establishes Jesus' right to kingship through descent.

Joseph's marital relationship with Mary is explained to confirm the prophecy of the virgin birth and the divinity of Jesus, not to assert Mary's perpetual virginity.

 

[markalan]

Your the one making assumptions, inventing your own definitions, twisting facts, adding stuff to the bible.
It never says that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Every

A person has to forsake the obvious meaning for a convoluted, fanciful interpretation in order to justify this dogma.

 

[markalan]

Some useful references for those interested in the Marian dogma of "perpetual virginity"

Pt. 1: Refuting the Catholic Myths of Mary - Perpetual Virginity - Relearn.org

Here is the post I referenced, along with the specific claims made by Dr. Marshall, which, in this series, I will thoroughly examine and evaluate in light of both Scripture and church history, providing an …

relearn.org

The Blood Brothers of Jesus - Ad Fontes

Did Jesus have blood siblings?

adfontesjournal.com

 

[Armour of God]

A person has to forsake the obvious meaning for a convoluted, fanciful interpretation in order to justify this dogma.

True

 

[Moonwood]

Your the one making assumptions, inventing your own definitions, twisting facts, adding stuff to the bible.
It never says that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Ever

You're changing the subject.

I never claimed the Bible explicitly says, "Mary remained a perpetual virgin."
My claim is much narrower: Matthew 1:25 does not prove that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus' birth.
Those are two different claims.

You keep saying I'm adding to the Bible, but look at what you're doing with Matthew 1:25. The verse says:

"He did not know her until she had given birth to a son."

It does not say:

"Afterward Joseph knew her."

You're the one adding an event that the text never explicitly states.

And when I pointed out that Matthew's purpose is to establish that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, you never addressed that argument. Instead, you simply repeated your conclusion.

So let's keep it simple:

Where does Matthew 1:25 explicitly say that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after Jesus was born?

Not where you think it implies it.
Not what you assume happened.
Not what you believe Matthew knew.

Where does the text actually say it?

Because my entire point has been that Matthew is ruling out Joseph as the source of Mary's pregnancy. That's what the passage is discussing. The verse tells us what did not happen before Jesus' birth. It does not tell us what happened afterward.

 

[Moonwood]

In both examples heos indicates there will be a change in the circumstances.

You're asserting more than the examples prove. The examples show that heos marks a point at which circumstances change. They do not show that the previous condition is reversed.

That's the very point under dispute in Matthew 1:25. Even if a change occurred after Jesus' birth, where does Matthew identify that change as Joseph and Mary beginning sexual relations?

What circumstances concerning Mary & Joseph's marital relationship changed after the birth of Jesus?

That's the very point under dispute. You're assuming that the change Matthew has in mind concerns Joseph and Mary's sexual relationship.
Matthew never says that.

The context of Matthew 1 is the conception and birth of Jesus, not the future details of Joseph and Mary's marriage.
Before Jesus' birth, Joseph's abstinence is directly relevant because Matthew is establishing that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. After Jesus' birth, that question has been settled.
Therefore, a change in circumstances certainly occurred: Jesus had been born, and the issue Matthew was addressing had been resolved.

But where does Matthew say that the change was Joseph and Mary beginning sexual relations? The text never identifies that as the change.
In other words, your argument requires two steps:

1. heos marks a boundary.
2. Therefore Joseph and Mary began having sexual relations afterward.

I agree with step 1.
The problem is step 2. Matthew never states it.

The whole chapter is about answering the question, "Who is Jesus' father?" The answer is that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not by Joseph. Matthew 1:25 fits that purpose perfectly.
So the issue isn't whether circumstances changed after Jesus was born. Of course they did. The issue is whether Matthew says the change was Joseph and Mary beginning marital relations. He doesn't.

That is certainly an aspect of Matthew 1 but it is a very narrow understanding of the chapter.

The whole chapter is primarily focused on Joseph and his genealogy which establishes Jesus' right to kingship through descent.

Joseph's marital relationship with Mary is explained to confirm the prophecy of the virgin birth and the divinity of Jesus, not to assert Mary's perpetual virginity.

I completely agree that Matthew 1 is not written to assert Mary's perpetual virginity.

In fact, that's essentially my point.

Matthew mentions Joseph's abstinence to confirm the Virgin Birth and to show that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit rather than by Joseph.

If that's Matthew's purpose, then Matthew 1:25 is functioning to establish what did not happen before Jesus' birth, namely that Joseph was not involved in the conception.

The difficulty for your position is that you're asking Matthew 1:25 to do something beyond its stated purpose. You're taking a verse whose purpose is to establish the Virgin Birth and using it as proof of what happened later in Joseph and Mary's marriage.

Yet Matthew never says, "and afterward Joseph knew her."

So I agree that Matthew is not trying to teach perpetual virginity. My point is simply that he is not trying to teach the opposite either.

Matthew tells us why Joseph was not Jesus' father. He does not tell us what happened afterward.

Therefore, whether one accepts or rejects perpetual virginity, the conclusion cannot be proven from Matthew 1:25 alone.