The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

One controversial Catholic teaching for many Protestant Christians is the Church's declaration of the perpetual virginity of Mary. For instance, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 499, states:

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever Virgin.”

This doctrine is often a stumbling block for many of our Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ. They fully recognize that Mary was a virgin before giving birth to our Savior, as the Gospels of Matthew and Luke clearly teach, but they believe that afterwards she lived a normal married life with Joseph, and had other children. Indeed, it seems obvious to them that this is the plain teaching of Scripture, and so it understandably perplexes them as to how the Catholic Church could justify its belief that Mary remained a virgin all her life.

So how would a Catholic respond? First, it would be helpful to examine the Scriptures that seemingly “contradict” the Church’s position in this matter. For when we do so, we discover that (just as when atheists point out so-called “errors” in Scripture), closer examination of the texts reveals a different story. After doing this, it would be good to examine some of the clues found in Scripture that strongly support that Mary did, in fact, remain a virgin all of her life. Combined with the almost unanimous tradition of all Christians for the first 1,500 years of Christianity, we see that the perpetual virginity of Mary is strongly supported by the word of God. Finally, we will see why this doctrine is important. It is not meant to denigrate marriage or marital relations, but rather to (among other reasons) serve as a model for those who are nevertheless called to dedicate themselves more fully to the Lord in a state of consecrated virginity.

Not a Catholic Distinctive

Before doing that, however, it would be helpful to remember that it is not simply Catholics who believe that Mary remained a virgin all her life. In fact, it is all Christian groups except Protestants who believe such to be the case. And, as just mentioned, it was the almost unanimous position of all Christians throughout history until the advent of Protestantism in the sixteenth century, with only a very few individuals here and there who ever disputed it before that time. Even since that time, some Protestants, including many of the original Protestant Reformers themselves (such as Martin Luther and John Calvin) [1], believed it to be what is taught by Scripture.

With that said, let us begin our examination of the Scriptural evidence.

I. Does the Bible teach that Mary Ceased to Be a Virgin?

The first thing to note is that the Bible never actually teaches that Mary ever ceased to be a virgin after the birth of Christ. Nowhere does it state that after that event, Mary had marital relations with Joseph. Of course, many Protestants will argue that it is implied that she did so, citing such texts as Matthew 1:18 and 25. They will also mention the fact that Jesus is called her “firstborn", inferring that means she had other children. And, of course, they will point out that Jesus is described as having “brothers” (and “sisters”) in the gospels. So while it might not be explicitly stated, they may argue, it is certainly the implication of Scripture. And at first glance, that seems a pretty convincing case. How could most Christians throughout history (including many of the Protestant Reformers themselves) have overlooked these obvious difficulties? But the very fact that they do seem so obvious, yet were not seen as obstacles by people as diverse as St. Augustine and Martin Luther, should be our first clue that there is more to such texts than meets the eye on a first glance.

Therefore, we will examine each of these objections in turn, starting with Matthew 1:18 and 25.

Matthew 1:18 and 25

"Before"

Let us take Matthew 1:18 first. There we read:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit

Many people, reading this verse, see the phrase “before they came together”, and therefore conclude that implies that means afterwards they did “come together”. So did they?
Certainly they afterwards "came together" in the sense of living together, of course, as we know from the rest of the chapter (cf. v. 24) and the rest of Scripture. That is in fact how I interpret the phrase. That is to say, the phrase is referring to the completion of the “betrothal/marriage” process of the time (which betrothal Matthew had referred to just immediately before), in which the husband and bride finally started living together under the same roof. But let us assume (for the sake of argument) that the phrase “came together” is referring to having marital relations. Even then, the conclusion that they had marital relations afterwards does not follow from the text.

Recall that Matthew's purpose in this verse is to emphasize the virginal conception of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. His focus is not on what happened afterwards (that not being to his purpose), but rather simply what happened beforehand. Thus, naturally he emphasizes that Mary was found with child of the Holy Spirit "before" she and Joseph came together (whether that means simply living together or in fact having marital relations). He emphasizes this so as to leave no doubt in the reader's mind that Jesus was truly born of a virgin, and that He was not the natural son of Joseph.

Even so, it may be objected, doesn’t the phrase nevertheless still imply that afterwards they did “come together”, i.e., have marital relations? No. By itself, “before” is ambiguous, not necessarily implying anything one way or the other of what happened afterwards. It could go either way. We would have to have more context to make that determination.

To take a parallel example from Scripture, there is the story of the Capernaum official whose son was ill. He said to Jesus, "Sir, come down before my child dies." (John 4:49). Obviously, by using the word "before", the official did not mean to imply that his child would in fact necessarily die after Jesus came down, as he had requested Jesus to do. Indeed, his child's death was what he was trying to prevent in the first place! And as we see from the context of the next verse, the child did not die.

Even in English such a principle applies. It is as if I were to mention the fact that President James Monroe died before completing his autobiography. Needless to say, the word "before" only emphasizes that he did not finish his autobiography before he died. It does not mean that I am implying Monroe completed his autobiography after he died.  (Though I suppose if he had done so, that would give new meaning to the term "ghostwriter"!)

In other words, even if one were to interpret “come together” as meaning having marital relations, the meaning would at most be ambiguous, without further context, and could go either way. (Lest there be any misunderstanding, I am not arguing that the word "before" never implies the situation reverses after a certain point; obviously, sometimes it does. In fact, since I believe “came together” is referring to the completion of the betrothal process and their living under the same roof, and since the context clearly shows that such did happen afterwards, it would be self-defeating for me to argue otherwise. No, I'm only arguing that the word “before” does not require such to be the case, and that therefore to determine if it does or does not in any specific example, it would have to be justified by the context. Yet if one interprets “came together” as referring to marital relations, then the phrase is ambiguous, because the context does not specify anything one way or the other about what happened afterwards as far as that is concerned.)

"Until"

Again, let us look at Matthew 1:25

[Joseph] knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus

Once more, the use of the word "until" is often assumed to imply that Joseph knew Mary after she had borne a son.  But just as with the word "before", we also see that in Scripture (just as is often the case in English as well) the word "until" (or its equivalent such as "till" or "to") often means only that something did or did not occur until a certain point, but does not necessarily imply that the situation was reversed afterwards. The focus in such situations need be only on what happened beforehand (which, again, fits the context of Matthew 1:25, where quite clearly Matthew's focus is on defending the virginal conception of Christ; in this context he is not focused on what happened afterwards, but simply showing that Joseph was not Jesus's natural father, which is his purpose in this chapter.)

So, to give a parallel example from English, if I were to say that “I will worship God until the day that I die”, that does not imply I will cease worshiping God after I die. (On the contrary, I will be worshiping him even more then!) Rather, it just means that I will worship God all my life.  

Just as in English, so in Scripture, we see that the word “until” (or its equivalent) need only mean that a situation lasted until a certain point in time. It need not necessarily imply a reversal afterwards. (Of course, it is possible there is a reversal in any specific example, but without any context to justify coming to that conclusion, one cannot simply presume there is a reversal implied.)

Thus, we read in 2 Samuel 6:23, for instance, that David's wife Michal "had no child to the day of her death". Certainly, it is safe to assume that Michal didn't start having children after the day of her death. We read in the book of Psalms concerning the righteous man, "His heart is steady, he will not be afraid, until he sees his desire on his adversaries" (Ps 112:8), but that doesn't imply he will be afraid afterwards. Again, Jesus tells His disciples that "I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Matt 28:20), yet He will not cease to be with us afterwards.  John the Baptist is described as having been “in the wilderness till the day of his manifestation to Israel.” (Luke 1:80), even though we know he was in the wilderness afterwards as well. The Apostle Paul states concerning Christ that "he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet" (1 Cor 15:25), though obviously Christ continues to reign afterwards, of whose "kingdom there will be no end" (Luke 1:34). Examples could be multiplied indefinitely, but hopefully that suffices to establish the point.

And so, a Catholic would argue, it is true Joseph “knew her not until she had borne a son”, but this does not imply he “knew” her afterwards. To argue that it does, one would have to establish from the context that it does. But nothing in the context supports that. In and of itself, the term is ambiguous. (And, again, such ambiguity is unsurprising, because what happened afterwards is irrelevant to Matthew’s purpose in writing this passage. He is focused on establishing that Christ was born of a virgin, and is not concerned with what happened afterwards concerning Mary and Joseph's married life.)

"Firstborn"

Another common objection to Mary’s perpetual virginity is the use of the phrase "firstborn son” to describe Jesus (found in Luke 2:7 and some translations of Matthew 1:25). Given that Matthew and Luke were wishing to emphasize the virginal conception of Christ, it makes sense that they would be sure to stress that Christ was Mary's "firstborn".  But contrary to what modern day readers may assume, in an ancient Jewish context, the phrase by itself wouldn’t necessarily imply subsequent children.

This was because the phrase "firstborn son" was a legal term (found in the Mosaic law), and only meant that no other sons were born before him.  It would be used of a couple's first son, regardless of whether or not any additional children followed, and so an only son (such as Catholics believe Jesus to be) would also be called a "firstborn". This is because in the law of Moses, the "firstborn son" was consecrated unto the Lord.  In Exodus 13:1-2, we read:

The LORD said to Moses, 'Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine.

Needless to say, an Israelite couple would not wait until they had additional sons to consecrate their "firstborn" son. Even if he were an only son, he would be a "firstborn" in a Jewish context, and therefore need to be consecrated to the Lord. Hence, why we see that in the very same chapter that Luke describes Jesus as Mary's "firstborn son", we also see that Mary and Joseph fulfilled this very same legal requirement from Exodus. Forty days after the birth of Christ, when everybody would acknowledge Jesus was still an only child, he nevertheless was presented in the temple to fulfill the law, because he was considered “the firstborn”, though an only child. (cf. Luke 2:23).

Mark Shea also mentions in his book First Guardian of the Faith (p. 60) of a “tomb at Tel el Yaoudieh [bearing] this inscription for a mother who died in childbirth: ‘In the pain of delivering my firstborn child, destiny brought me to the end of my life,’” giving additional evidence that “firstborn” need not imply subsequent children.

“The Brothers of the Lord”

So far, a person may be quite willing to acknowledge all of the above, that the text never actually explicitly states that Mary and Joseph had marital relations, that the use of the words “before” and “until” are ambiguous in isolation from further context, and that firstborn was a legal term that would be used of an only child just as much as of one with many siblings. Still, there is the fact that in numerous places of Scripture it refers to Jesus having “brothers” (and “sisters” as well a couple times, though we will only focus on his “brothers”, since the same principles will apply). How can that be the case, if Mary and Joseph did not have other children?

As a matter of fact, there are many Christians who believe that the “brothers” of the Lord were children of Joseph’s from a previous marriage. They would argue that Joseph was an older man at the time of his marriage with Mary, a widower who had children from his previous marriage. They note that once Jesus begins his ministry we see no mention of Joseph as we do with Mary, with the implication that he is probably dead by this time. And (they argue), when your Son is the Divine Physician, chances are you will not die of anything but old age. That argues that Joseph was already quite a bit older than Mary, and could have had such a previous marriage therefore. The fact that an early Christian document (which will be discussed more later), written about the year 120, states such was in fact the case, seems to them to lend credit to such a theory. Certainly, given the silence of Scripture concerning Joseph’s life prior to his betrothal to Mary, and at the same time how such speculation “fits” with the facts related above, I can understand why such a theory is popular with many.

With that said, it is not the position that I take. Or, rather, to speak more strictly, while all of the above is compatible with my own position (it's not an "either/or" proposition), I think more needs to be said in addition, because it would not apply to at least some of His "brothers" (i.e., those mentioned by name in Scripture). However, I did wish to mention it before giving my own view (which is the more common view among Catholics).

One thing that we do know for a fact, however, is that the “brothers” of the Lord are not brothers of Christ in the strict sense. Even Protestants should easily acknowledge such. At most they could be half-brothers, for Christ had no human father.  For linguistic reasons, Protestants still refer to them as “brothers”, but they are using the term loosely. But, as we shall see, there are linguistic reasons that would justify us in not considering them even half-brothers. As a matter of fact, I believe that they are cousins of our Lord.  First, I will give a summary below of why I hold this view in three points, and afterwards I will explain each point in more detail.

1. "Brothers" in the language of Scripture had a far wider meaning than it does in English. It could refer to any close male relative that one was not directly descended from or an ancestor of. Thus, it included cousins, uncles, and other such close male relations (and even a wider meaning than that at times). So references to Jesus’s “brothers” would not, in and of itself, show that Mary and Joseph had other children, because they could have been some other type of male relation. (Similarly, the use of the term “sisters” could refer to more distant female relations)

2. Nowhere in Scripture are these "brothers" of Jesus ever described as the sons of Mary. Rather, there are strong indications, in fact, that they are not the sons of Mary. Specifically, there are cultural implications in the text that they are older than Jesus, something that would be impossible if they were children of Mary, since Jesus was her "firstborn".

3. Finally, at least two of these "brothers" we know were not the sons of Mary the mother of Jesus, because later in the same Gospels they are elsewhere identified as the sons of a different Mary. (Similarly, early Christian writers indicate that the other two brothers also were sons of this same Mary.)

Now we shall go into more detail.

1. The meaning of "brother" in Scripture

Let us begin with the first point concerning the meaning of the word “brother”. We see from numerous examples that the word "brother" had a far wider meaning in Scripture than it normally has in English.

For instance, even though we know that Lot was the son of Abraham's brother Haran (cf. Gen 12:27), nevertheless Abraham refers to him and Lot as being "brethren" (KJV) in Genesis 13:8 and Genesis 14:14. (Some translations translate the term more dynamically as "kinsman" or something similar, but the literal translation is “brothers”; cf. the textual note in the ESV for Gen 13:8)

Again, Jacob is called the "brother" of Laban in Genesis 29:15, even though in fact Laban was his uncle, being the brother of Rebekah, Jacob's mother (cf. Gen 24:29; 29:12).

Especially interesting is 1 Chronicles 23:21-22, where we read:

[...] The sons of Mahli; Eleazar, and Kish. And Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters: and their brethren the sons of Kish took them. (KJV)

As we can see, even though their father had no sons, nevertheless the daughters of Eleazar married their "brethren". But their "brethren" in this case were actually their cousins, being the sons of their father's brother, Kish.

Hopefully those examples will suffice. So why such a broad usage for the word "brother"? This is because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the everyday language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a specific word for, say, “cousin”. Therefore, those who spoke those languages either had to use a clumsy circumlocution, such as "the son of the brother of my father", or they would simply say "brother" as an easier alternative. Naturally, most often they chose the latter option.

Of course, one may object that the Gospels were written in Greek, which does have a specific word for cousin. But in this case, it should be remembered that the Evangelists, being Palestinian Jews, nevertheless wrote with a Semitic mindset, and would naturally write as Palestinian Jews would, even when writing in another language like Greek. (That assumes the synoptic Gospels were, in fact, originally written in Greek, though some scholars, like Jean Carmignac, in his book The Birth of the Synoptics, dispute that, arguing that they were originally written in a Semitic language, and later translated into Greek.) Even the one exception that was a Gentile, Luke, seems to be relying on originally Jewish sources, and therefore would follow their use of language.

In this respect, the Gospel writers were just like the translators of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament which is the version of Scripture the writers of the New Testament usually quoted). The Septuagint also translates "brother" literally from Hebrew into Greek, even when context indicates they were another type of male relation (such as in Genesis 14:14).

So the use of the word “brothers” does not, in itself, describe their precise relationship to Jesus. They could very well be another sort of male relation, such as cousins.

2. Cultural reasons arguing that Jesus’s brothers were not sons of Mary

The above considerations may show that such "brothers" are not necessarily brothers in the strict sense. But what are the positive arguments that his “brothers” are not brothers, strictly speaking (or rather, one should say half-brothers)? That brings us to the next two reasons that I gave above.

To begin with, there are cultural considerations that seem to argue against the "brothers" of Jesus being sons of Mary. For one thing, the attitude which Jesus’s "brothers" display towards Jesus imply that they are His elders (in which case, as pointed out above, by definition they could not be Jesus’s brothers in the strict sense, since Jesus was a "firstborn"). In Eastern societies such as ancient Palestine, older sons would give advice to younger sons, but younger sons would never give the older ones advice. Yet, Jesus’s "brothers" proceed to give Him exactly such advice in John 7:3-4. That argues that they are in fact older than Him. Similarly, at this point in time, it is clear that His “brothers” do not believe in His mission (cf. v 5). Now, while it is possible that children raised by Mary nevertheless would be incredulous of Jesus, it seems much more likely that they were a more distant relation unfamiliar with the events of Christ's nativity.

Again, on the cross, Jesus entrusted his mother to the Apostle John for the rest of her life (cf. John 19:27), instead of to His "brothers". Once more, this is inexplicable in the terms of Jewish culture, if in fact His "brothers" were sons of Mary. Under those circumstances, naturally He would have entrusted her to His “brothers”. Some may argue that since His brothers were unbelievers, that is why He did not entrust her to them. However, by this time, even assuming His "brothers" were not believers in Christ yet, certainly they would be within just a matter of weeks, since they are described as among the disciples in the upper room in the days between the Ascension of Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost (cf. Acts 1:14). So that explanation is problematic. On the other hand, if His "brothers" were more distant relations, then no such cultural problem arises, and that would explain why He entrusted her to John (who himself may have been a relation of Christ’s.)

Finally, while not directly related to the above considerations, I heard someone once make a humorous observation. For the sake of argument, let's say Jesus did have brothers in the strict sense. Now imagine you were one of His brothers. Think about it: your older brother is God. Talk about a sibling rivalry destined to set you up for life with an inferiority complex! Of course, that “argument” is made more in jest, but there is still a profound psychological truth in it nevertheless.

3. The “brothers” of Jesus are elsewhere identified as not being the sons of the mother of Jesus, but of a different Mary.

The final argument against the “brothers” of Jesus being the sons of Mary are that these “brothers” are elsewhere identified as not being the sons of Mary, the mother of Jesus, but rather of a different Mary.

Take, for instance one of the passages where we read about Jesus’s “brothers”, Matthew 13:55:

Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

So far, so good. From this passage, we know the names of the “brothers” of Jesus. Now let’s fast forward to near the end of Matthew’s gospel, at the scene of the crucifixion, where two of these brothers are mentioned by Matthew again. In Matthew 27:55-56, the Evangelist writes:

There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Let’s stop right there. Matthew has already identified “James and Joseph” earlier in his Gospel as the “brothers of Jesus”.  Yet in this passage, he further identifies them as sons of a different Mary, who later on in this chapter (v. 60), he significantly describes as the “other Mary”. Obviously, this Mary is not the mother of Jesus. Therefore, this means that James and Joseph are the children of a different Mary (which, as one can tell from the Gospels themselves, was a very common name in first century Palestine).

Let’s go on. Can we identify this other Mary even further? If we turn to John’s Gospel, also describing the scene of the crucifixion, we read in 19:25:

[...] But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

Just going by the Scriptural evidence alone, it appears likely (assuming the Mary in this passage is the same Mary referred to in Matthew’s crucifixion account, which seems probable), that Mary, the mother of James and Joseph, is in fact the wife of Clopas (and hence, not the wife of Joseph). She is also described as the “sister” of Mary the mother of Jesus, and therefore her sons were in fact “cousins” of Jesus.

If that was all the evidence we had, we would know that at the least Jesus’s “brothers” James and Joseph (though probably the other two as well) were only His brothers in the sense of being cousins of some sort. [2]

However, we also have historical evidence for the other two of them being His cousins as well. The early church writer Eusebius, writing in the early part of the fourth century, wrote a work called The History of the Church, the oldest surviving book on the history of the church we possess after the book of Acts.  In it he relies on documents of earlier writers, works that have since perished. It is an invaluable resource for investigating the history of the first three centuries of Christianity, and has earned its author the title of the “Father of Church History”. In this work, Eusebius in three different places also tells us the identity of these brothers of the Lord (based on the earlier historical sources he is relying on).

In 4:22:4,  Eusebius quotes an earlier writer Hegesippus (who lived from 110 to 180), who refers to “Symeon, [i.e., Simon], the son of the Lord’s uncle Clopas” [3].  So we have a witness from a writer who lived within living memory of Simon himself that this “brother” of Jesus was in fact the son of Clopas.

This is also reaffirmed in 3:11:2 where again reference is made to  "Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention”. Naming Hegessipus as his source, Eusebius also relates how that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

Finally, for the last “brother” of Jesus, Jude [i.e. Judas], Eusebius, in 3:32:5  and again relying on Hegessipus, makes mention of him as a “so-called brother of the Lord”, for just like James, Simon, and Joseph, Judas [4] was only a “brother” in the looser sense of the term, being in fact a cousin.

It is important to keep in mind that Eusebius is in this book writing a historical work, not a work of apologetics. Indeed, there was no controversy at this time concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary (as there would be today), so he had no need to try to explain why the Gospels refer to the “brothers” of the Lord. Rather, as a good historian, he is simply gathering the earliest sources he can for whatever information he can find, in this case the writer Hegessipus (who was himself born only around 10 years or so after the death of the Apostle John) to write an accurate history of the Church.  And from such early sources, we learn that just as Scripture indicates that James and Joseph were in fact cousins of some sort, the same is true of the other two “brothers” of Jesus as well, Simon and Judas.

Taking the above evidence into account, we see that there is no Scriptural evidence that Mary ever ceased to be a virgin.

If that was all we could establish, that Scripture was silent on the issue, that would still, I think, be enough to justify us in accepting the practically unanimous testimony of the early Church that she did, in fact, remain a virgin. However, as a matter of fact, I think there are arguments from Scripture itself that imply this teaching as well. And so, we continue into the next section

II. Arguments from Scripture for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Before discussing why Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, it should be recalled that ultimately Catholics accept such for the same reason that they accept any other teaching, such as the Trinity, because it is part of the deposit of faith handed down to us from the Apostles (cf Jude 3). However, as we also know from Scripture itself, the deposit of Faith was not only delivered to us through Scripture, but also through Tradition. Catholics do not believe in a “Scripture alone” principle (a principle that is itself, ironically enough, unscriptural, and therefore self-refuting). Rather, following the admonition of the Apostle Paul, which he wrote to the Thessalonians, we “stand firm and hold to the traditions which” have been taught, “either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess 2:15). As we see from the New Testament itself, oral teaching was in fact the primary way that the Apostles handed on to us the faith.

Nevertheless, while not accepting a “Scripture alone” principle, it should come as no surprise that Catholic teaching is reflected in Scripture, since both Scripture and Tradition are derived from the same Apostolic source. And we shall see that when it comes to the perpetual virginity of Mary, Scripture itself give us clues that support the tradition that the Apostles handed down to us.

As we know, in describing Mary’s virginity in their nativity stories, Matthew and Luke are concerned with how it relates to Christ’s birth, not what occurred afterwards in Joseph and Mary’s married life. This is to be expected, for their main focus was on how Christ fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 7 in being born of a virgin. That being said, while they do not focus on Mary’s perpetual virginity, nevertheless in describing Mary in the Gospels, the Evangelists do give implications that Mary remained a virgin.

One example is the story of the boy Jesus in the temple when he was 12 years old. In that story, there is no mention of other children being with Joseph and Mary.  That is interesting. It is, of course, possible that Luke merely fails to mention them, but it is nevertheless something to keep in mind that, in this story, Mary and Joseph appear to have no other children. And if it was in fact the case that Mary and Joseph did not have other children by that time, how likely is it they would have had more children afterwards? Not conclusive evidence, to be sure, but noteworthy.

Also interesting is how Jesus is described as “the” son of Mary in Mark 6:3,, not as  “a” son of Mary, even though in the same verse mention is made of Jesus’s “brothers” (who, we saw above, were in fact cousins of some sort). Again, far from conclusive. But it is something to keep in mind.

“How will this be?”

But there is one argument that does seem to me to be very convincing. And it is that there seems to be a quite clear implication in the Gospel of Luke that Mary had already determined to live perpetually as a virgin when the angel Gabriel appeared to her at the Annunciation. When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and announced that she would have a son, she surprisingly asks:

“How will this be, since I do not know man?” (Luke 1:34)

Now, that is an odd response, when you come to think about it. To give a parallel, imagine you were to approach a friend who was soon to be married (and consequently afterwards living with her husband), and told her that the two of them would have such cute children together after they were married.  Now imagine that she was utterly dumbfounded by your statement, and asked “How will this be? I'm a virgin!” At that point, you would probably be confused by her reaction. For why would she be surprised by such a statement, unless there was something unusual about her plans for her marital situation even after she was married?

In the same way, why would Mary ask such a strange question? For notice that the angel does not state that Mary had conceived, but that she will conceive (i.e., in the future) and bear a son (cf. v 31). There was no timetable given as to when she would conceive. That being the case, why should this surprise Mary, as if it was some shocking announcement that a young woman very soon to be joined to her husband should have a son in the future? (And the addition “since I do not know man” indicates that having a child at all is the reason why she was surprised, not some other reason).

Again, let me repeat: Mary was a young woman, already betrothed, and one who would soon be living with her husband Joseph. If Mary had intended to engage in regular marital relations with Joseph after coming together, her response “How will this be? I do not know man” is inexplicable. Like any other young woman, she would naturally have known “how” she would have a son, if she planned on having marital relations with Joseph.

No, her question only makes sense if she had intended to remain a virgin even after she started living with Joseph (which, while rare, consecrated virginity was not unheard of in ancient Jewish culture). It is only then that her statement “I do not know man” (as if such were to be a permanent characteristic of herself, even after marriage) would then pose a seeming obstacle to the fulfillment of the angel’s prophecy. In that case, and that case only, would she wonder “how” it could be she would have a son.

It is then that the angel announces that she will have a son by the power of the Holy Spirit coming down upon her, reassuring her that to accomplish God’s will, her plans of continuing to remain a virgin after marriage would not have to change, but that rather God would miraculously preserve her virginity she so valued by the “overshadowing” of the Holy Spirit (which, I may mention in passing, recalls the Shekinah glory “overshadowing’ the tabernacle in the desert, which contained the ark of the covenant; cf. Ex 40:34-35. More on the ark of the covenant below)

To quote St. Augustine (354-430) in his commentary on this passage:

How, says she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin [...] she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. (De Virginitate 4)

It is relevant to add that an early Christian document, written about the year 120 and alluded to earlier, called The Protoevangelium of James, indicates that Mary had in fact vowed perpetual virginity (and that Joseph, being a widower who already had children, was willing to marry her to be her “protector” and provider, so she could fulfill her vow). Now, this work is apocryphal, and it would be rash to treat it as if it were necessarily a historical document. It could very well be more like a sort of early example of a “historical novel”, by a pious early Christian “filling in” the details that the Gospels are silent about. Still, just as a historical novel nevertheless contains some true historical facts, so too it is quite possible that the same is true concerning the Protoevangelium, especially given its early date, being written within living memory of the lifetime of Mary herself. Therefore, it would be equally rash to treat it as without any historical value whatsoever. This is all the more the case, at least as far as to how it relates to her vow of perpetual virginity, given that it explains extremely well the otherwise mysterious question posed by Mary in the Gospel of Luke.

The “Ark of the Covenant"

Even apart from the strong implications found in Luke 1 that Mary had already intended to remain a virgin even after marriage, it is very unlikely that once Joseph learned of the identity of the Child in her womb, that he would have ever been tempted to approach her to engage in normal marital relations. Recall that she carried the Incarnate God Himself in her womb. In the Old Testament, the ark of the covenant contained the word of God in stone (i.e.,the Ten Commandments), and yet to touch it at all could result in death. Uzzah discovered this when he simply put forth his hand to steady it after oxen stumbled, and the Lord slew him. (cf. 2 Sam 6:6-7).  Yet Mary bore not simply the word of God in stone, but rather the Word of God Himself enfleshed! (cf. John 1:1, 14). That being the case, what do you think would first come into the mind of an ancient observant Jew like Joseph when he learned of the identity of her Son? He would be scared even to take her as his wife! That also helps explain why the angel tells him “Do not fear to take Mary your wife.” (Matt 1:21), and why he at first was tempted to put her away quietly.

Of course, I do not mean to state that merely coming into contact with Mary in a normal everyday manner would result in death (which would have resulted in some very difficult practical problems of an even worse sort than those King Midas encountered!). However, it does strongly suggest that Joseph and Mary would have a marriage quite unlike other couples, just as the Child that Mary bore, being God himself, was unlike any other child.

Incidentally, for some examples of how the New Testament parallels Mary with the Ark of the Covenant, see the footnote below. [5]

III. Why is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary Important?

With all this said, one final question remains. Let us grant that there is a strong Scriptural case to be made that Mary remained a perpetual virgin (and that the objections to such are shown not to pose an obstacle when examined more closely). Let us also grant, as we know to be the case, that it had been the virtually unanimous tradition of Christianity, from the earliest Christians until the time of the Reformation, that Mary remained a virgin. Still, why does it matter? After all, there are no doubt lots of facts about Mary that are “true”, but nevertheless the early Christians did not take the trouble to remember and make sure to pass down to subsequent generations.

Perhaps the first thing to emphasize is that such a doctrine is not in any way meant to denigrate marriage or marital relations at all. In fact, the Catholic Church teaches that Christ raised marriage to the level of a sacrament (cf. Matt 19, Eph 5), and that the marital relations between a man and wife, because they both consummate and renew the sacrament, are therefore holy. (That, incidentally, is one reason among others why voluntarily engaging in marital relations outside of the context of marriage is so seriously wrong, because it is a sort of sacrilege.)

But while the marriage state is honorable for those who are called to such (“Let marriage be held in honor among all”; Heb 13:4), it is also true that the New Testament in many places holds up consecrated virginity as an ideal for those who are called to that state. For one thing, such better reflects the final eschatological state of the elect after the general resurrection, in which “they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matt 22:30). In that respect, it is an eschatological sign of our final destination.

Jesus Himself also invited those who were called to such a state to be “eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God” in Matthew 19:12 (which, as Chesterton points out in The Everlasting Man, “If this does not mean the voluntary enthusiasm of virginity, it could only be made to mean something much more unnatural or uncouth.”)  So, too, the Apostle Paul encouraged those who were willing to live in such a state to do so in his first letter to the Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor 7), giving all sorts of practical reasons for this ideal. And we see many examples in the New Testament of those who lived in such a state. Most notable is Jesus Himself, of course, but there was also Paul, who appears to have never married, as well as the Apostle John who also apparently never did so. But, of course, the supreme model for followers of Christ (after Jesus, obviously) would be Mary, His own mother, and who was closer to Him than anyone else. Given that is the case, it is quite obvious why the Church would emphasize her perpetual virginity, as a model for those who were called to that state.

Of course, the Church could only do so because Mary was, in fact, perpetually a virgin.  For without such being a historical fact, the Church could never had held her up as a model. But as we have seen above, there is solid ground for trusting that the earliest Christians were correct to believe that Mary remained a virgin all her life. (There are other reasons for the importance of this doctrine, but I restricted myself to this one).

IV. Conclusion

In conclusion, let us review what we have seen above.

First, while at first glance their seems to be Scriptural evidence suggesting that Mary had normal marital relations after the birth of Christ, when examined more closely, such is not the case. The words “before” and “until” in the passages from Matthew are ambiguous without a clarifying context that we do not have. The term “firstborn” was a legal title that would be held by any son that opened the womb, even if he were to be an only child. The word “brothers” in Scripture had a far wider meaning than brothers in the strict sense, including any close male relation that one was neither descended from nor an ancestor of; for instance, cousins. Furthermore, the actions of the “brothers” of Jesus in Scripture suggest that they were older than Him, even though Jesus was a “firstborn”. Finally, two of these “brothers” are identified elsewhere in Scripture as the sons of a different Mary, the wife of Clopas, and similarly the other two are also identified as sons of Clopas by early Christian writers, including one who lived within living memory of them.

As for the positive evidence that Mary remained a virgin, it is striking that we never read of anybody else ever described as a child of Mary and Joseph other than Jesus. Christ is described as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. And while these two pieces of evidence are perhaps not as conclusive as could be desired, the scene at the Annunciation does seem quite strong evidence. Mary’s question makes no sense whatsoever apart from the context of her having already decided beforehand not to have normal marital relations even after marriage. That an early Christian document written within a generation of the Apostolic age, even if it were simply an early example of “historical fiction”, nevertheless mentions her having made such a vow seems relevant in light of the otherwise inexplicable question she asks the angel Gabriel in the gospel of Luke. And quite apart from such a vow, it is quite unlikely that Joseph would have ever approached in such a manner a woman that is presented in the New Testament as paralleling the ark of the covenant.

As for the reason why the truth of her perpetual virginity is important (even though many other facts about her, though true as well, are not emphasized) can be explained in different ways, but one in particular is precisely because she is the epitome of a model Christian disciple, and therefore is held up as a model for those called to a life of consecrated virginity, which is emphasized so strongly in the New Testament.

Finally, the Church has always held to the perpetual virginity of Mary, from the earliest centuries. [6] Given that the early Church was archconservative to the core, then how could such a belief have become so widespread without drawing numerous protests if, in fact, it was some innovation that did not reflect what was handed down from the Apostoles? Moreover, the very same Church leaders that discerned which books belonged in the canon of Scripture also held to the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. If they could get a belief like that so wrong, then why trust their discernment when it comes to which books belong in Scripture? In which case, how do we even now which books are Scripture in the first place? Therefore, to try to argue from Scripture against the early Christians concerning her perpetual virginity is, ultimately speaking, to be sawing off the limb that you are sitting on.

Let us allow Martin Luther to have the last word:

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. [7]

Notes

____________

[1] See here

[2] Presumably Matthew only mentioned those two brothers because he was “abbreviating”, so to speak, and giving just enough information necessary to make the identification obvious.

[3] Symeon was a variant of the name Simon (cf. Acts 15:14; 2 Pet 1:1)

[4] Again, Jude is a variant of the name Judas.

[5]  See here

[6] See here

[7] Same link as in footnote 1