<br>Ok, got home finally and did a quick bit of research. <br><br>Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. <br><br>I think your point is that it is the not modifying the until that pushes towards your understanding.<br><br>From what I have gathered going back to the BDAG citation I put in a few pages back is that the ouk (not in the KJV however translated differently in other versions) modifies the verb not the ews (until or till in other versions). The lectionaries I have available, which are Protestant and the BDAGs being one of the standards in the field all seem to agree on this. That evidence plus the commentaries I have available, Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox agree that the emphasis of Matthew 1:25 is to stress that no sexual union took place before the Birth of Christ to preserve the Virgin Birth narrative and the fulfillment of the Prophecy from Isaiah that is also cited in the chapter, not to emphasize that a sexual union took place after the Birth of Christ<br><br>The specific construction used in Matthew 1:25 occurs only 4 times in the NT. 2 are // texts where the woman hides the leaven until it leavens the whole lump. In these two cases the leaven is still hidden even though the whole lump is leavened.<br><br>The 4th passage is where Paul is offering the sacrifices of purification for the men.<br><br>The objection based on not fulfilling the marriage, I would still cite the singular exceptionalism of this betrothal as satisfactory evidence for me that Joseph and Mary not moving to act two is satisfactory enough for me. Although I do know that isn't for you.<br><br>
Horrible formatting! Apologize. I started logging out of forums on all my devices for Lent and wiping all the cookies so it didn't log me me back in. Well I typed too long and since rmeember me isn't checked it logged me out when i hit post!
If only ATM wouldn't have PM'd me then I wouldn't have had to come back here and logged back in again.
Now to log back out :0