and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus. Matthew 1:25

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)
You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“And he knew her not until that she brought forth the Son, her Firstborn. And he called His name JESUS” (CG).

In the previous verse, it said that after his visitation by the messenger, he thoroughly aroused from his sleep and did as the angel commanded him, taking to him his wife. Now, Matthew continues the narrative, saying, “And he knew her not.”

This is a biblical euphemism, meaning that he did not have intercourse with her. The first of many times this is mentioned in Scripture is in Genesis 4 –

“Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, ‘I have acquired a man from the Lord.’” Genesis 4:1

Joseph refrained from consummating his marriage to Mary until a certain point. However, at some point after that time, they would have come together as husband and wife. That is seen in the next words, “until that.”

The Greek says heós hu, until that. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon says of this concerning the word heós, “with the genitive of the neuter relative pronoun οα½— [hou] or α½…του [hotou] it gets the force of a conjunction, until, till (the time when).” In other words, up until a certain point, Joseph did not know his wife intimately. However, that certainly changed after the time “she brought forth the Son.”

The birth of Jesus was untainted by any hint of sexual intercourse between Joseph and Mary. She was a virgin, and her virginity remained until the birth of her Son, “her Firstborn.”

The words are a standard designation. They do not imply she had other children. It simply calls out that this Child, regardless of whether He had siblings or not, was the Firstborn of Mary. As He is also God’s only begotten, Jesus is also the Firstborn of God –

“For to which of the angels did He ever say:
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You’?
And again:
‘I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son’?
6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
‘Let all the angels of God worship Him.’” Hebrews 1:5-6

Of this, the words of Exodus 4:22 should be reviewed –

“Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord: “Israel is My son, My firstborn.”’”

Israel, the nation, is said to be the Firstborn of the Lord. This means through adoption. God selected them to carry out His purposes, leading to the coming of the Messiah. However, Jesus is the Firstborn in the sense of being begotten.

A couple who could not have their own children might adopt a child who becomes their firstborn. However, later that condition could change, and they beget a child through the life-generative process. This is the difference between the two.

Next, and in accordance with the words of the messenger, Matthew notes, “And he called His name JESUS.”

It is Joseph who named the Child in accordance with the divine instructions. Mary was also told that His name was to be Jesus, but the text records that Joseph is the one who is credited with following through with what he was instructed. Mary, though the human mother of Jesus, is seen to otherwise portray a minor role in the events that take place in the gospel records.

Life application: Although the biblical record does not speak of any future intimacy between Joseph and Mary, the way that Matthew writes of Joseph’s keeping separate from Mary until a certain point is a strong indication that their refraining from intercourse was only temporary. For example, this is recorded in Genesis 38 –

“So Judah acknowledged them and said, ‘She has been more righteous than I, because I did not give her to Shelah my son.’ And he never knew her again.” Genesis 38:26

When something is set and final in this manner, the Bible generally says so to highlight the matter. Not only is there no such statement concerning Joseph and Mary, but exactly the opposite is the case. This is contrary to the aberrant teaching of Roman Catholicism, which dogmatically states that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

There is no biblical support for this. The teaching was only decided upon in the year 553, hundreds of years after anyone could have known whether this was the case or not. In other words, it was a decision based on vapor and nothing else.

But why would the church want to make this claim? It is the same reason for innumerable decisions in the Roman Catholic Church: to direct people’s attention away from Jesus. Contrary to Scripture alone, the RCC holds to the Bible plus the authority of the church. Contrary to Christ alone, the RCC holds to the mediation of Christ plus the intercessory ability of Mary, the Pope, etc. Contrary to faith alone, the RCC holds to faith plus works in the process of justification. Contrary to grace alone, the RCC teaches merit apart from the grace of God. Contrary to the glory of God alone, the RCC uses exalted titles for the dead (such as Mary) and the living (the living pope at any given time), etc.

There is nothing acceptable about the doctrines of the RCC. Everything taught is tainted with the machinations of man. Whether Joseph and Mary came together or not after the birth of Jesus is not specifically addressed in Scripture because it has no bearing on where our eyes should be directed, which is to Jesus. Let us not get caught up in strange teachings that misdirect us from this key doctrine.

Lord God, may we be faithful to hold to Scripture alone for our doctrine concerning You and the theology that we pursue. Keep us from those who would misdirect us and confuse us in our walk. Thank You for Your word which is sufficient to instruct us. And thank You for Jesus who is the central figure presented in Your word. Amen.