Part V Mariology Series: MARY AS THE PERPETUAL VIRGIN

Mary as revealed through the Scriptures from The Old Testament to The New Testament

Welcome to our Mariology Series. In this fifth part, we will be looking into the Catholic Christian Doctrine of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Was she truly ever virgin or did she have children as Protestants believe? 

Jewish context is really essential both in terms of customs and language to understand and grasp this topic at hand. If you want a more detailed study about this particular topic, I highly recommend the book “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary” by Dr. Brant Pitre.

Now, let's move on to the study. As always, let’s start with Jesus.

The Lord Yahweh was the bridegroom and Israel was the bride. Christ comes into the world as God incarnate in order to give his life and love for the church who is his bride.

Jesus’ celibacy is crucial to his divinity. 

Luke 20:34 AMP

‘Jesus said to them, “The sons of this [world and present] age marry and [the women] are given in marriage; but those who are considered worthy to gain that [other world and that future] age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage;’

Not only is Mary’s perpetual virginity rooted in scripture it also has theological significance. Let’s go back to the Old Testament roots of the Gospel but first let's start with the Annunciation and then go back to the Old Testament.

Luke 1:31-35 NKJV

‘And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.’

Her response to the angel Gabriel in the Annunciation is relevant to Mary’s perpetual virginity. As a betrothed, legally married woman who’d probably be anticipating the birth of children after her wedding ceremony celebration, Mary responds to Gabriel with a strange response.

She says: 

“How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

                                                                 ↴

The original Greek text reads andra ou ginōskō (ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω) which literally is “man not I know” or in English “I know not man.”

All Gabriel says to Mary is “you’re going to have a baby.” He doesn’t say anything at this point about how or when the baby is going to be conceived. Not until after her response. She was close to celebrating her wedding feast and yet she responds with ‘how?’. Her response is unexpected. 

Even scholars agree that Mary’s response doesn’t make sense for a young bride. Unless she doesn't intend to have relations with Joseph. That’s the meaning of the greek word there. When she uses the words ‘I do not know man’, she is using an Old Testament expression for marital relations. Genesis 4. She’s expressing an intention to remain a virgin. 

Where do we have any biblical evidence of Jewish women taking celibacy vows in marriage in the Old Testament? In a book hardly anyone reads, the book of Numbers. 

There is a whole chapter dedicated to vows made by Jewish women, including married women. 

Numbers 30:6-8, 13-15 AMP

“But if she marries while under her vows or if she has bound herself by a rash statement, and her husband hears of it and says nothing about it on the day he hears it, then her vows shall stand and her pledge by which she bound herself shall stand. But if her husband disapproves of her [making her vow or pledge] on the day that he hears of it, then he shall annul her vow which she is under and the rash statement of her lips by which she bound herself; and the Lord will forgive her.

                                                             ↙(used for fasting or abstinence from marital relations) 

“Every vow and every binding oath to deny herself, her husband may confirm it or her husband may annul it. But if her husband says nothing to her [concerning the matter] from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or all her pledges which are on her. He has confirmed them because he said nothing to her on the day he heard them. But if he indeed nullifies them after he hears of them, then he shall be responsible for and bear her guilt [for breaking her promise].”

↓

This speaks permanent vows

The Dead Sea Scrolls spoke about this a lot. They referenced the above texts often. This was during Jesus’ time and after. 

Mary’s response to Gabriel is that Mary has taken some vow of virginity and that Joseph has accepted it. Because if he accepted it, according to Biblical law, the vow would stand. 

What about the Bible passage that says that Joseph did not know Mary until Jesus’ birth? Doesn’t that imply that they had relations after Jesus' birth?

Let’s look at the passage again and pay close attention to the language and the context.

Matthew 1:25 NKJV

‘and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.’

When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until (heōs) she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. 

‘Until’ used in this passage does not imply that they had relations after Jesus was born. Even Protestants recognize the greek word ‘until’ does not necessarily imply a change in the situation after the time delimited by the word.  We see the same context used in a different passage in the Old Testament. 

2 Samuel 6:23 KJV

‘Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.’

Unfortunately, many different translations change the original greek in this sentence. The original greek word for ‘until’ is (heōs) just as it was used in Matthew 1:25. Did Michal have a child after her death? The obvious answer for that is no. ‘Until’ does not determine a change in the situation. 

Another point Protestants like to bring up from that verse is that it mentions that Jesus was her ‘Firstborn’ which has to mean that there had to be other children. 

"Firstborn" (Greek, prôtotokos) isn't found in the better manuscripts. Present day interpretations—Protestant and Catholic—do exclude it. 

Yet, Jesus was Mary's firstborn, and he is portrayed as such in Luke 2:7. The firstborn had a special job in Jewish culture (Exodus 13:1-2). The title "firstborn" didn't indicate additional children; it was a title given at the moment of childbirth. Subsequently, calling Jesus "firstborn" doesn't infer that he had siblings. 

The fact that Joseph "knew [Mary] not till she had delivered her firstborn" doesn't obligate the fact that they "knew" each other after she had Jesus. 

The Greek word heōs (until) can show that something changes at one point. However, it can likewise imply that something went on until a specific point, with no regard to what occurs after that point. Matthew unmistakably expresses that in spite of the fact that Joseph took Mary to be his wife, they didn't consummate their marriage on their wedding night. For what reason wouldn't Joseph and Mary consummate their marriage either on their wedding night or during her pregnancy? All things considered, nothing in the virginal origination of Jesus would deny them having common conjugal relations.

For instance, when we read that “Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to until (heōs) the day of her death,” we don't accept that she had kids after she died (2 Samuel 6:23). Also, when Paul tells Timothy, “Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching,” we don't expect Timothy to stop preaching when Paul comes back (I Timothy 4:13).

Jesus’ words in Matthew 28:20 say:

‘teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until (heōs) the end of the age.’

The word until (heōs) is just meant to tell you that Joseph and Mary didn’t have any relations during Mary’s pregnancy. If Matthew didn’t write this, people would have just assumed that Joseph was the father. This was to reaffirm that Jesus was divine and to clarify that Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ biological father. 

The same verse often used to argue against Mary’s perpetual virginity, actually supports the idea that she had taken a vow. In this passage they got married, celebrated the wedding ceremony, but he didn’t know her. In other words, Matthew is being clear here that they did not have marital relations on their wedding night. Mary had taken a vow and Joseph had accepted it from the first night of their marriage. 

Brothers of Jesus

Although in English the word brother primarily refers to a blood brother, in ancient Judaism it is really important to recognize that the greek word brother ‘Adelphos’ can also mean relative por cousin. How do we determine what the meaning is? We have to look at the context.

We see a really good example of this in 1 Chronicles 23:21-22

‘The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi. The sons of Mahli: Eleazar and Kish. Eleazar died leaving no sons, only daughters; the sons of Kish, their brothers (Greek adelphoi), married them.’

Josephus, The Jewish War

‘On the same day, the sons and brothers (adelphoi) of King Izates… entreated Caesar to grant them a pledge of protection. For the present he kept them all in custody; the King’s sons and relatives (syngeneis) he subsequently brought up in chains to Rome.’

Notice that it is the context that gives us the clue to when the word “brothers” means actually “relatives” or “cousins”. In context, Jacob is actually using “brothers” (Greek adelphoi) to refer to his cousins. We see the same with the second passage. The word used for “brothers” (Greek adelphoi) of the daughters of Eleazar are explicitly identified as first cousins. Lastly, Josephus proves that a first century Jew could use the word “brothers” (Greek adelphoi) and “relatives” (Greek sungeneis) as synonyms in the same Greek text. He uses both brothers and relatives in the same passage to refer to the same group of people.

It is important to determine which meaning of the word in context was used to describe Jesus’ brothers. When the brothers of Jesus are mentioned in the Gospels, does the context give us any reason to think that they're not children of Mary?

Mark 6:3

‘Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother (Greek adelphos) of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?”

Later in the Gospel, two of these so-called ‘brothers’ of Jesus, James and Joses, are explicitly identified as the son of another woman named Mary.

Mark 15:37, 40-41

‘Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last… There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome. These women had followed him when he was in Galilee and ministered to him. There were also many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem.’

Being that the same two ‘brothers’ are being explicitly identified as the sons of another woman Mary, then it is obvious that the word ‘brothers’ used in this context is used to refer to Jesus’ relatives.

Matthew 27:61

‘But Mary Magdalene and the other Mary remained sitting there, facing the tomb.’

If these men were the children of the virgin Mary, would the gospel authors call her the other Mary? The Gospel of John provides an important clue to the identity of ‘the other Mary’ who was present with Mary Jesus’ mother at the crucifixion.

John 19:25-27

‘Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister (Greek adelphḗ), Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.’

This clearly shows that this is not Mary, his mother because she is married to Clopas. Meaning that the brothers mentioned in Mark’s Gospel are not the sons of Mary or Joseph’s, therefore they are not Jesus’ actual siblings. 

The other Mary = Mary the Wife of Clopas

This account of Jesus’ death provides us with three more significant insights into the relationship between Jesus, Mary and his ‘brothers’. It is very unlikely that Mary’s parents would have given both her and her sister the same name, Mary. It makes perfect sense if John is using the word ‘sister’ to refer to a close relative of Jesus’ mother. Mary and Clopas were relatives of Mary and Joseph meaning they were cousins of Jesus. 

If there is still doubt about this, it is important to point out that Jesus himself actually uses the word for ‘cousins’ or ‘relatives’ to describe his so-called brothers and sisters. Reading the below text, pay close attention to Jesus’ final statement:

Mark 6:3-4 

‘Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?’ And they took offense at him. Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and among his own kin (Greek syngeneusin - cousins) and in his own house.’

The Greek word I added for emphasis is translated as ‘cousin’ (Greek syngeneus) which is from the same Greek root as the angel Gabriel’s reference to Elizabeth, Mary’s ‘cousin’ (Greek syngenis) [See Luke 1:36 KJV, Douay-Rheims]. 

Finally, in John’s account of the crucifixion, Jesus gives his mother Mary, to the Beloved Disciple as ‘his own’ mother.

John 19:26-27

‘When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.’

If by any chance Mary would have had other children at the time of the crucifixion, it would have been inconceivable for Jesus to give his mom to one of his disciples. In ancient Judaism context, to neglect one's elderly parents was a grave sin. For evident reasons, this is one that Jesus himself depicts as a capital offense (Mark 7:9-13). This, the most conceivable clarification for why Jesus goes to considerable lengths amidst dying to ensure his mom is thought about by the Beloved Disciple, is that Mary has no other children. He is her only child. 

If we only had the evidence of the New Testament, it would have been enough to confidently conclude that the so-called brothers of Jesus are in fact his close relatives' children, Mary and her husband Clopas’. Fortunately for us as Catholics, our faith goes beyond the last chapter. So we will be currently looking at the evidence for the identity of Jesus' 'siblings' from  ancient church history which is proof frequently disregarded.

The ‘Brothers’ of Jesus = The First Bishops of Jerusalem

As indicated by the old Christian historian Hegesippus, who was apparently the first individual to compose a 'history' of the Church, two of the alleged siblings of Jesus (James and Simon) likewise happened to be the initial two bishops of Jerusalem.

1. James - who Paul calls “The Lord's brother” in Galatians

2. Simon

They were broadly known to be Jesus' cousins! Here is the accompanying testimony from Hegesippus, which is cited by Eusebius in his fourth century history of the Church:

‘The same writer [Hegesippus] also [writes]... as follows: 

“After James the Just had suffered martyrdom for the same reason as the Lord, Simon his cousin, the son of Clopas, was appointed bishop, whom they all proposed because he was another cousin (Greek anepsion) of the Lord. (Hegesippus [2nd century A.D.], quoted in Eusebius, Church History, 4.22)

What’s the significance of this biblical argument for the perpetual virginity of Mary? Did ancient Christians believe this?

This belief was universally accepted by Christians. From the 2nd Century on, nobody cast out on this except for heretics. Now, the perpetual virginity of Mary is widely rejected and condemned by Christians of many denominations, especially those who’s origins come from the Protestant Reformation.  It has become so universally accepted that Mary had other children after Jesus, that no one nowadays feels the need to defend or explain the assumption that Mary had other children. This wasn’t always the case. Study of ancient Christianity shows that from the earliest times, the belief held by Christians worldwide was that Mary remained a virgin. 

Athanasius, On Virginity, 4th Century A.D.

‘If she had had other children, the Savior would not have ignored them and entrusted his Mother to someone else (John 19:26-27); nor would she have become someone else’s mother.’

John Chrysostom, Homily on Matthew 5.2, 4th Century A.D.

‘The expression ‘until’ (Matthew 1:25) need not lead you to believe that Joseph knew her subsequently rather, it is used to inform you that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth of Jesus.’

Augustine of Hippo, On Holy Virginity 4.4, 401 A.D.

‘Already before he was conceived he wished to choose for himself, in order to be born, a virgin who was consecrated to God, as indicated by the words which Mary responded to the angel, who was announcing her imminent motherhood: “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” (Luke 1:34). And she certainly would not have responded in such a way if she had not already made a vow of virginity.’

Origen, Commentary of John, 1.4, 3rd Century A.D.

‘There is no child of Mary except Jesus, according to the opinion of those who think correctly of her. 

Basil of Caesarea, Homily on the Holy Nativity of Christ, 5, 4th Century A.D.

‘Those who love Christ refuse to hear that the Mother of God ceased to be a virgin at a particular moment.’

Even today, the Catholic Church still teaches this. The doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity has never changed. This belief was regarded as a benchmark of authentic Christian teaching. This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

CCC 499-500 ‘Mary - "ever-virgin" (Greek Aeiparthenos)

‘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".

Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary". They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.’

Her perpetual virginity matters. Mary, just like Jesus, was not an ordinary person. If we regard other women in the Bible with respect and honor (Ruth, Noemi, Sarah, etc) then why speak so lowly of Mary, the one who carried our Savior and God in her womb. If the ground the Lord walks in is holy, then how much more would that hold truth to the woman whose womb carried him and delivered him? Mary is the new Eve, the new Ark and the new Queen Mother. Mary has become a symbol of the Church, who is both the virgin bride of Christ and the fruitful mother of all Christians.