Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony

[Moonwood]

Maybe it true, maybe Mary was a bad wife.
Maybe that's why we don't hear about Joseph after Jesus age 12.
Maybe Joseph left Mary because she was a bad wife who refused to submit to her husband.

But a man doesn't marry a woman to remain celibate. He marries her to have children with her. So if Mary refused to submit to her husband that would make her a bad wife.

Perpetual virgin = Bad wife

Scripture never says Mary had marital intercourse. So no one can claim with certainty that She did, and that leaves room for the possibility that She never did. But even if She remained a lifelong virgin, that would not make Her a “bad wife.” That accusation assumes a definition of marriage that Scripture itself does not teach — and it contradicts every biblical description of Joseph’s righteousness, Mary’s innocence, and God’s intervention.

Try this 3‑step exercise:

1. Suppose for a moment that you believed Mary remained a lifelong virgin for the same reasons I do — two of them being that God had consecrated Her for a unique vocation as the Virgin of Isaiah 7:14, and Her own stated intention to remain a virgin (Luke 1:34).

2. Consider the following facts:

• Joseph remained married to Mary for at least twelve years (Luke 2:41-43).
• Joseph is repeatedly described as a righteous man (Matthew 1:19).
• When Joseph discovered Mary was pregnant, he did not accuse Her or treat Her as a “bad wife”; he sought to protect Her from shame (Matthew 1:19).
• God sent an angel specifically to tell Joseph not to divorce Mary, and Joseph obeyed without hesitation (Matthew 1:20). Would God have sent an angel to affirm Mary’s innocence and instruct Joseph to stay married to Her — and would a righteous man like Joseph have obeyed — if She were actually doing something wrong?
• Nothing in Scripture portrays Joseph as resentful, deprived, or mistreated, nor does anything suggest he “left Mary” or viewed Her as failing in marital duty.

3. Ask yourself honestly:

Does Joseph look like a man who married Mary expecting a conventional marriage and then abandoned Her because She “refused to submit sexually”? Or does he look like a man whom God specifically chose because he would understand that his marriage to Mary was part of God’s plan — a plan that required protecting Her unique vocation, safeguarding Her purity, and providing a righteous home for God the Word Incarnate once the Divine and Virgin Conception occurred?

The text supports the second view, not the first.

Calling Mary a “bad wife” because She fulfilled a divine calling is not a biblical argument. It’s a modern assumption being projected onto Scripture. Joseph honored God’s will for Mary. That is what righteous men do.

 

[sondring7]

Scripture never says Mary had marital intercourse. So no one can claim with certainty that She did, and that leaves room for the possibility that She never did. But even if She remained a lifelong virgin, that would not make Her a “bad wife.” That accusation assumes a definition of marriage that Scripture itself does not teach.

Try this 3‑step exercise:

1. Suppose for a moment that you believed Mary remained a lifelong virgin for the same reasons I do — one of them being that God had consecrated Her for a unique vocation as the Virgin of Isaiah 7:14.

2. Consider the following facts:

• Joseph remained married to Her for at least twelve years (Luke 2:41-43).
• Joseph is repeatedly described as a righteous man (Matthew 1:19).
• When Joseph discovered Mary was pregnant, he did not accuse Her or treat Her as a “bad wife”; he sought to protect Her from shame (Matthew 1:19).
• God sent an angel specifically to tell Joseph not to divorce Mary, and Joseph obeyed without hesitation (Matthew 1:20). Would God have sent an angel to affirm Mary’s innocence and instruct Joseph to stay married to Her — and would a righteous man like Joseph have obeyed — if She were actually doing something wrong?
• Nothing in Scripture portrays Joseph as resentful, deprived, or mistreated, nor does anything suggest he “left Mary” or viewed Her as failing in marital duty.

3. Ask yourself honestly:

Does Joseph look like a man who married Mary expecting a conventional marriage and then abandoned Her because She “refused to submit sexually”? Or does he look like a man whom God specifically chose because he would understand that his marriage to Mary was part of God’s plan — a plan that required protecting Her unique vocation, safeguarding Her purity, and providing a righteous home for God the Word Incarnate once the Divine and Virgin Conception occurred?

The text supports the second view, not the first.

Calling Mary a “bad wife” because She fulfilled a divine calling is not a biblical argument. It’s a modern assumption being projected onto Scripture. Joseph honored God’s will for Mary. That is what righteous men do.

As Adam knew his wife so did Joseph after the birth of Jesus.
Hopefully we are all mature enough to understand the pleasures of knew

 

[Moonwood]

As Adam knew his wife so did Joseph after the birth of Jesus.
Hopefully we are all mature enough to understand the pleasures of knew

The exercise asked you to consider specific biblical facts about Joseph’s righteousness, Mary’s innocence, and God’s intervention. Your reply doesn’t address any of those points.

Also, Matthew 1:25 is already addressed in posts #9, #14, and #16 — including the context, the Greek, and how Matthew uses “know” differently than Genesis. If you want to respond to those arguments, I’m happy to continue the discussion.

 

[sondring7]

The exercise asked you to consider specific biblical facts about Joseph’s righteousness, Mary’s innocence, and God’s intervention. Your reply doesn’t address any of those points. But my posts #9, #14, and #16 address Matthew 1:25.

Gen 4:1
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain,
Gen 4:17
And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived,
Gen 4:25
And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son
Mat 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:

 

[Moonwood]

Gen 4:1
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain,
Gen 4:17
And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived,
Gen 4:25
And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son
Mat 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:

Listing Genesis verses doesn’t prove that Matthew is using “know” in the same way. Genesis uses the Hebrew verb yadaʿ to describe sexual relations that result in conception. Matthew uses the Greek verb ginosko in a legal context to describe Joseph’s obedience and restraint before the birth of Jesus.

Luke 1:34 also shows Mary had already chosen a virginal vocation (“I do not know man”), and Matthew shows Joseph obeying God’s command to protect Her unique calling. Nothing in Scripture ever says Joseph later changed that.

Your reply doesn’t address any of the biblical facts in the exercise — Joseph’s righteousness, Mary’s innocence, or God’s intervention.

 

[sondring7]

Listing Genesis verses doesn’t prove that Matthew is using “know” in the same way. Genesis uses the Hebrew verb yadaʿ to describe sexual relations that result in conception. Matthew uses the Greek verb ginosko in a legal context to describe Joseph’s obedience and restraint before the birth of Jesus.

Luke 1:34 also shows Mary had already chosen a virginal vocation (“I do not know man”), and Matthew shows Joseph obeying God’s command to protect Her unique calling. Nothing in Scripture ever says Joseph later changed that.

Your reply doesn’t address any of the biblical facts in the exercise — Joseph’s righteousness, Mary’s innocence, or God’s intervention.

New International Version
But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son
New Living Translation
But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born
Berean Study Bible
But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a Son
New American Standard Bible
but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son
Christian Standard Bible
but did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son
Holman Christian Standard Bible
but did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son
Contemporary English Version
But they did not sleep together before her baby was born
Good News Translation
But he had no sexual relations with her before she gave birth to her son
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And he did not know her sexually until she delivered her firstborn son
International Standard Version
He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son

 

[Moonwood]

New International Version
But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son
New Living Translation
But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born
Berean Study Bible
But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a Son
New American Standard Bible
but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son
Christian Standard Bible
but did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son
Holman Christian Standard Bible
but did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son
Contemporary English Version
But they did not sleep together before her baby was born
Good News Translation
But he had no sexual relations with her before she gave birth to her son
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And he did not know her sexually until she delivered her firstborn son
International Standard Version
He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son

Listing English translations doesn’t change the fact that Genesis and Matthew are using different languages, different verbs, and different contexts. Genesis uses the Hebrew verb yadaʿ to describe sexual relations that result in conception. Matthew uses the Greek verb ginosko in a legal context to describe Joseph’s obedience and restraint before the birth of Jesus.

English translations often paraphrase Matthew 1:25 to make the meaning clearer for modern readers, but they do not prove what happened afterward. The Greek text simply says Joseph “did not know Her until” the birth — it does not state or imply anything about later relations.

Luke 1:34 also shows Mary had already chosen a virginal vocation (“I do not know man”), and Matthew shows Joseph obeying God’s command to protect Her unique calling. Nothing in Scripture ever says Joseph later changed that.

Your reply still doesn’t address any of the biblical facts in the exercise — Joseph’s righteousness, Mary’s innocence, or God’s intervention.

 

[sondring7]

Listing English translations doesn’t change the fact that Genesis and Matthew are using different languages, different verbs, and different contexts. Genesis uses the Hebrew verb yadaʿ to describe sexual relations that result in conception. Matthew uses the Greek verb ginosko in a legal context to describe Joseph’s obedience and restraint before the birth of Jesus.

English translations often paraphrase Matthew 1:25 to make the meaning clearer for modern readers, but they do not prove what happened afterward. The Greek text simply says Joseph “did not know Her until” the birth — it does not state or imply anything about later relations.

Luke 1:34 also shows Mary had already chosen a virginal vocation (“I do not know man”), and Matthew shows Joseph obeying God’s command to protect Her unique calling. Nothing in Scripture ever says Joseph later changed that.

Your reply still doesn’t address any of the biblical facts in the exercise — Joseph’s righteousness, Mary’s innocence, or God’s intervention.

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

 

[Moonwood]

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

Quoting a few verses and posting a link doesn’t address the argument I made. My exercise was about Joseph’s righteousness, Mary’s innocence, and God’s intervention — not about modern polemics.

I also directed you to my posts where I addressed Matthew 1:25 in detail, including the Greek, the context, and how Matthew uses “know” differently than Genesis. You haven’t responded to any of those points.

If you want to discuss perpetual virginity, I’m happy to do that. But simply dropping a link doesn’t engage the Scriptural evidence I presented, nor does it explain how your claims fit with what the Bible actually says about Joseph’s behavior.

If you’d like to respond to the specific biblical evidence in the 3‑step exercise, I’m happy to continue the conversation.

 

[sondring7]

Quoting a few verses and posting a link doesn’t address the argument I made. My exercise was about Joseph’s righteousness, Mary’s innocence, and God’s intervention — not about modern polemics.

I also directed you to my posts where I addressed Matthew 1:25 in detail, including the Greek, the context, and how Matthew uses “know” differently than Genesis. You haven’t responded to any of those points.

If you want to discuss perpetual virginity, I’m happy to do that. But simply dropping a link doesn’t engage the Scriptural evidence I presented, nor does it explain how your claims fit with what the Bible actually says about Joseph’s behavior.

The Alleged Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The recent discovery of an ossuary (bone box) in Jerusalem that contained the phrase "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" has rekindled the controversy as to whether Mary had children other than Jesus. Catholicism claims she did not. What does the actual evidence reveal?

christiancourier.com

 

[Moonwood]

The Alleged Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The recent discovery of an ossuary (bone box) in Jerusalem that contained the phrase "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" has rekindled the controversy as to whether Mary had children other than Jesus. Catholicism claims she did not. What does the actual evidence reveal?

christiancourier.com

Posting another external link still doesn’t address the biblical argument I made. My exercise focused on Joseph’s righteousness, Mary’s innocence, and God’s intervention — and you haven’t engaged any of those Scriptural facts.

I also directed you to my posts where I addressed Matthew 1:25 in detail, including the Greek, the context, and how Matthew uses “know” differently than Genesis. You haven’t responded to any of those points.

Linking to articles is not a rebuttal. If you want to discuss perpetual virginity, we can do that — but you need to engage the actual Scripture I presented, not outsource your response to websites.

If you’d like to respond to the specific biblical evidence in the 3‑step exercise, I’m happy to continue the conversation.

 

[sondring7]

Posting another external link still doesn’t address the biblical argument I made. My exercise focused on Joseph’s righteousness, Mary’s innocence, and God’s intervention — and you haven’t engaged any of those Scriptural facts.

I also directed you to my posts where I addressed Matthew 1:25 in detail, including the Greek, the context, and how Matthew uses “know” differently than Genesis. You haven’t responded to any of those points.

Linking to articles is not a rebuttal. If you want to discuss perpetual virginity, we can do that — but you need to engage the actual Scripture I presented, not outsource your response to websites.

If you’d like to respond to the specific biblical evidence in the 3‑step exercise, I’m happy to continue the conversation.

Please list your PhD qualifications as a NT Greek to English translation expert.

 

[Moonwood]

Please list your PhD qualifications as a NT Greek to English translation expert.

You don’t need a PhD to read Scripture. The points I raised come directly from the biblical text itself — Joseph’s righteousness, Mary’s innocence, God’s intervention, and the Greek wording of Matthew 1:25.

I also directed you to my posts where I addressed Matthew 1:25 in detail, and you still haven’t responded to any of those Scriptural arguments.

Asking for academic credentials doesn’t answer the biblical evidence. If you want to continue the discussion, please engage the actual passages I cited.

 

[sondring7]

You don’t need a PhD to read Scripture. The points I raised come directly from the biblical text itself — Joseph’s righteousness, Mary’s innocence, God’s intervention, and the Greek wording of Matthew 1:25.

I also directed you to my posts where I addressed Matthew 1:25 in detail, and you still haven’t responded to any of those Scriptural arguments.

Asking for academic credentials doesn’t answer the biblical evidence. If you want to continue the discussion, please engage the actual passages I cited.

Therefore, the consistent use of ἀδελφός (adelphos) throughout the New Testament proves that these were indeed Jesus’ biological siblings. To claim that every other use of this term (adelphos) by multiple apostles meant something different only when speaking of Jesus’ relations—suggesting it refers to “cousins” or “relatives” instead of “biological brothers”—is a radically inconsistent way to interpret Scripture. This approach disrupts the systematic and coherent nature of biblical theology, where terms are used consistently to convey clear meanings. We would never apply those same principles of interpretation to other familial terms such as “father,” “mother,” or “son” because the opportunity for heresy would be astronomical.

 

[Moonwood]

Therefore, the consistent use of ἀδελφός (adelphos) throughout the New Testament proves that these were indeed Jesus’ biological siblings. To claim that every other use of this term (adelphos) by multiple apostles meant something different only when speaking of Jesus’ relations—suggesting it refers to “cousins” or “relatives” instead of “biological brothers”—is a radically inconsistent way to interpret Scripture. This approach disrupts the systematic and coherent nature of biblical theology, where terms are used consistently to convey clear meanings. We would never apply those same principles of interpretation to other familial terms such as “father,” “mother,” or “son” because the opportunity for heresy would be astronomical.

I already addressed adelphos and the identity of Jesus’s adelphoi in my opening post, and you haven’t responded to any of that evidence. I explained that the term has a broad semantic range in Koine Greek, that the men called Jesus’s adelphoi are never identified as Mary’s sons, and that the Gospels themselves identify their actual mother as Mary of Clopas/Cleophas. I also showed how the earliest Christian writers — Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, Jerome — independently preserve the same identification.

So the claim that adelphos “always means biological brother” is simply not accurate. Scripture uses adelphos for biological siblings, fellow Israelites, fellow believers, and near relatives. Likewise, Scripture uses “father,” “mother,” and “son” in non‑biological ways (Paul calling Timothy his “son,” Jesus calling Abraham “father,” etc.). Context determines meaning.

More importantly, your reply still hasn’t addressed the actual argument I made: Joseph’s righteousness, Joseph’s obedience, Joseph’s protection of Mary, the angel’s intervention, Mary’s stated intention in Luke 1:34, and the twelve years Joseph remained with Mary. I also directed you to my posts on Matthew 1:25, including the Greek and the context, and you haven’t responded to any of those points.

Posting links is not a rebuttal. If you want to continue the conversation, please engage the Scriptural evidence I presented rather than outsourcing your response to external articles.

 

[sondring7]

I already addressed adelphos and the identity of Jesus’s adelphoi in my opening post, and you haven’t responded to any of that evidence. I explained that the term has a broad semantic range in Koine Greek, that the men called Jesus’s adelphoi are never identified as Mary’s sons, and that the Gospels themselves identify their actual mother as Mary of Clopas/Cleophas. I also showed how the earliest Christian writers — Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, Jerome — independently preserve the same identification.

So the claim that adelphos “always means biological brother” is simply not accurate. Scripture uses adelphos for biological siblings, fellow Israelites, fellow believers, and near relatives. Likewise, Scripture uses “father,” “mother,” and “son” in non‑biological ways (Paul calling Timothy his “son,” Jesus calling Abraham “father,” etc.). Context determines meaning.

More importantly, your reply still hasn’t addressed the actual argument I made: Joseph’s righteousness, Joseph’s obedience, Joseph’s protection of Mary, the angel’s intervention, Mary’s stated intention in Luke 1:34, and the twelve years Joseph remained with Mary. I also directed you to my posts on Matthew 1:25, including the Greek and the context, and you haven’t responded to any of those points.

Posting links is not a rebuttal. If you want to continue the conversation, please engage the Scriptural evidence I presented rather than outsourcing your response to external articles.

Contrary to popular belief within Roman Catholicism, the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity was not universally held by the early church. In fact, early Christian writings indicate that this belief was not remotely a standard doctrine during the first few centuries of the church.

The earliest references to Mary in the writings of the Church Fathers do not mention perpetual virginity at all. For example, Tertullian (c. 160–225 AD), one of the early Church Fathers, explicitly refuted the idea of perpetual virginity. He affirmed that Mary had other children with Joseph, thus directly contradicting the notion that she remained a virgin throughout her life.3

 

[Moonwood]

Contrary to popular belief within Roman Catholicism, the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity was not universally held by the early church. In fact, early Christian writings indicate that this belief was not remotely a standard doctrine during the first few centuries of the church.

The earliest references to Mary in the writings of the Church Fathers do not mention perpetual virginity at all. For example, Tertullian (c. 160–225 AD), one of the early Church Fathers, explicitly refuted the idea of perpetual virginity. He affirmed that Mary had other children with Joseph, thus directly contradicting the notion that she remained a virgin throughout her life.3

Appealing to Tertullian doesn’t address anything I wrote. I already explained in my opening post that the term adelphos has a broad semantic range in Koine Greek, that the men called Jesus’s adelphoi are never identified as Mary’s sons, and that the Gospels themselves identify their actual mother as Mary of Clopas. I also cited the earliest Christian writers — Papias, Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, Jerome — who independently preserve the same identification. You haven’t responded to any of that evidence.

As for Tertullian: he is the only early writer who denied perpetual virginity, and he is also the only major early writer who later joined a schismatic movement (Montanism). His views were not representative of the early Church, and they were not followed by the Fathers who came after him. The mainstream early Christian tradition — East and West — consistently identifies Jesus’s adelphoi as the sons of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary.

More importantly, your reply still hasn’t addressed the actual argument I made: Joseph’s righteousness, Joseph’s obedience, Joseph’s protection of Mary, the angel’s intervention, Mary’s stated intention in Luke 1:34, and the twelve years Joseph remained with Mary. I also directed you to my posts on Matthew 1:25, including the Greek and the context, and you haven’t responded to any of those points.

Posting links and isolated patristic quotes is not a rebuttal. If you want to continue the conversation, please engage the Scriptural evidence I presented rather than outsourcing your response to external articles.

 

[Armour of God]

 

[Moonwood]

Maybe it true, maybe Mary was a bad wife.
Maybe that's why we don't hear about Joseph after Jesus age 12.
Maybe Joseph left Mary because she was a bad wife who refused to submit to her husband.

But a man doesn't marry a woman to remain celibate. He marries her to have children with her. So if Mary refused to submit to her husband that would make her a bad wife.

Perpetual virgin = Bad wife

Scripture never says Mary had marital intercourse. So no one can claim with certainty that She did, and that leaves room for the possibility that She never did. But even if She remained a lifelong virgin, that would not make Her a “bad wife.” That accusation assumes a definition of marriage that Scripture itself does not teach — and it contradicts every biblical description of Joseph’s righteousness, Mary’s innocence, and God’s intervention.

Try this 3‑step exercise:

1. Suppose for a moment that you believed Mary remained a lifelong virgin for the same reasons I do — two of them being that God had consecrated Her for a unique vocation as the Virgin of Isaiah 7:14, and Her own stated intention to remain a virgin (Luke 1:34).

2. Consider the following facts:

• Joseph remained married to Her for at least twelve years (Luke 2:41-43).
• Joseph is repeatedly described as a righteous man (Matthew 1:19).
• When Joseph discovered Mary was pregnant, he did not accuse Her or treat Her as a “bad wife”; he sought to protect Her from shame (Matthew 1:19).
• God sent an angel specifically to tell Joseph not to divorce Mary, and Joseph obeyed without hesitation (Matthew 1:20). Would God have sent an angel to affirm Mary’s innocence and instruct Joseph to stay married to Her — and would a righteous man like Joseph have obeyed — if She were actually doing something wrong?
• Nothing in Scripture portrays Joseph as resentful, deprived, or mistreated, nor does anything suggest he “left Mary” or viewed Her as failing in marital duty.

3. Ask yourself honestly:

Does Joseph look like a man who married Mary expecting a conventional marriage and then abandoned Her because She “refused to submit sexually”? Or does he look like a man whom God specifically chose because he would understand that his marriage to Mary was part of God’s plan — a plan that required protecting Her unique vocation, safeguarding Her purity, and providing a righteous home for God the Word Incarnate once the Divine and Virgin Conception occurred?

The text supports the second view, not the first.

Calling Mary a “bad wife” because She fulfilled a divine calling is not a biblical argument. It’s a modern assumption being projected onto Scripture. Joseph honored God’s will for Mary. That is what righteous men do.

 

[Armour of God]

Scripture never says Mary had marital intercourse. So no one can claim with certainty that She did, and that leaves room for the possibility that She never did. But even if She remained a lifelong virgin, that would not make Her a “bad wife.” That accusation assumes a definition of marriage that Scripture itself does not teach — and it contradicts every biblical description of Joseph’s righteousness, Mary’s innocence, and God’s intervention.

Try this 3‑step exercise:

1. Suppose for a moment that you believed Mary remained a lifelong virgin for the same reasons I do — two of them being that God had consecrated Her for a unique vocation as the Virgin of Isaiah 7:14, and Her own stated intention to remain a virgin (Luke 1:34).

2. Consider the following facts:

• Joseph remained married to Her for at least twelve years (Luke 2:41-43).
• Joseph is repeatedly described as a righteous man (Matthew 1:19).
• When Joseph discovered Mary was pregnant, he did not accuse Her or treat Her as a “bad wife”; he sought to protect Her from shame (Matthew 1:19).
• God sent an angel specifically to tell Joseph not to divorce Mary, and Joseph obeyed without hesitation (Matthew 1:20). Would God have sent an angel to affirm Mary’s innocence and instruct Joseph to stay married to Her — and would a righteous man like Joseph have obeyed — if She were actually doing something wrong?
• Nothing in Scripture portrays Joseph as resentful, deprived, or mistreated, nor does anything suggest he “left Mary” or viewed Her as failing in marital duty.

3. Ask yourself honestly:

Does Joseph look like a man who married Mary expecting a conventional marriage and then abandoned Her because She “refused to submit sexually”? Or does he look like a man whom God specifically chose because he would understand that his marriage to Mary was part of God’s plan — a plan that required protecting Her unique vocation, safeguarding Her purity, and providing a righteous home for God the Word Incarnate once the Divine and Virgin Conception occurred?

The text supports the second view, not the first.

Calling Mary a “bad wife” because She fulfilled a divine calling is not a biblical argument. It’s a modern assumption being projected onto Scripture. Joseph honored God’s will for Mary. That is what righteous men do.

To me the topic is not such a big deal.

I've read the arguments from both sides and I think it's more probable that Mary had kids with Joseph.

If Mary did choose not to love her husband then I consider that to be the actions of a bad wife.