“THE CASE FOR MARY’S PERPETUAL

VIRGINITY”
Those who deny Mary’s perpetual virginity most commonly refer to two
texts:
 Matthew 13:55-56: 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? And are not all of his sisters with us?
 Matthew 1:24-25: And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel
of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. And
he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn (Gk. prototokon)
son: and he called his name Jesus. (Douay-Rheims)
A surface reading of these passages seems problematic. If Jesus had
“brothers” and “sisters,” would not Mary have had other children? If Jesus
was Mary’s “firstborn,” would there not be at least a second-born? And if
“he knew her not till,” did he not then “know her” at some point? We’ll
begin with Matthew 13:55-56.
Oh, Brother!
First, we must understand that the term brother has a wide semantic
range in Scripture. It can mean a uterine brother, an extended relative, or
even a spiritual brother. In Genesis 13:8 and 14:12, we read of one
example of brother being used to describe an extended relationship:
Abraham and Lot. Though they were actually uncle and nephew, they
called one another “brother.” Moreover, in the New Testament, Jesus told
us to call one another “brothers” in Matthew 23:8. The passage obviously
does not mean to suggest that all Christians have the same physical
mother.
Second, if we examine more closely the example of James, one of these
four “brothers of the Lord” mentioned in Matthew 13:55, we discover him
to be a cousin or some other relative of Jesus rather than a uterine
brother. For example, Galatians 1:18-19 informs us: “Then after three
years I [Paul] went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him
fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s
brother.”
Notice, the “James” of whom Paul was speaking was both a “brother of the
Lord” and an “apostle.” There are two apostles named James among the
12. The first James is revealed to be a “son of Zebedee.” He most likely
would not be the “James” referred to because according to Acts 12:1-2 he
was martyred very early on. Even if it was him, his father was named
Zebedee, not Joseph.
Paul more likely is referring to the second James who was an apostle,
according to Luke 6:15-16. This James is revealed to have a father named
Alphaeus, not Joseph. Thus, James the apostle and Jesus were not uterine
brothers. Easy enough. Some will argue, however, that this “James” was
not an apostle or that he was not one of the original 12. Though this is a
possibility—others in the New Testament, such as Barnabas in Acts 14, are
referred to as “apostles” in a looser sense—the argument from Scripture
is weak. When Paul wrote about going “up to Jerusalem” to see Peter, he
was writing about an event that occurred many years earlier, shortly after
he had converted. He was basically going up to the apostles to receive
approval lest he “should be running or had run in vain.” It would be more
likely he would have here been speaking about “apostles” (proper), or “the
twelve.”
But for those inclined to argue the point, the Catechism of the Catholic
Church uses another line of reasoning:
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. (CCC
500)
The Catechism here refers to the fact that 14 chapters after we find the
“brothers” of the Lord listed as “James, Joseph, Simon and Judas,” we find
“James and Joseph” mentioned again, but this time their mother is
revealed as being named Mary, but not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. We can
conclude that “James and Joseph” are “brothers” of Jesus, but they are not
uterine brothers.
But what about Matthew 1:24-25, and the claim Jesus was Mary’s
“firstborn son” and that Joseph “knew her not until” Christ was born? Does
Matthew here teach that Mary had other children?
Exodus 13:1-2 reveals something very important about the firstborn in
Israel: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn;
whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both
of man and beast, is mine.’”
The “firstborn” were not given the title because there was a “second-born.”
They were called “firstborn” at birth. Jesus being “firstborn” does not
require that more siblings be born after him.
Until Then
Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth
her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other
after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an
idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you,
“Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we
meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to
emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not
intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are
some biblical examples:
 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to
(until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after
she died?)
 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of
scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should
stop teaching after Paul comes?)
 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his
enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By
no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of
Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the
Greek words heos hou for “until” whereas the texts I mentioned above
from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning.
The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause
does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph “not having come together”
would have ended after Jesus was born.
The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available
scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos
hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts
25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: “But when Paul had appealed
to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him
to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.”
Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was
“sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in
custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a
time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease
with heos hou.
The Affirmative Argument
Now let’s look at some reasons to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Among the many we could examine, we will briefly consider three:
1. In Luke 1:34, when Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she was
chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah, she asked the question, literally
translated from the Greek, “How shall this be since I know not man?” This
question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.
When we consider that Mary and Joseph were already “espoused,”
according to verse 27 of this same chapter, we understand Mary and
Joseph already have what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New
Covenant. They were married. That would mean Joseph would have had
the right to the marriage bed. Normally, after the espousal the husband
would go off and prepare a home for his new bride and then come and
receive her into his home where the union would be consummated. This
is precisely why Joseph intended to “divorce her quietly” (Mt 1:19) when he
later discovered she was pregnant.
This background is significant because a newly married woman would not
ask the question “How shall this be?” She would know—unless, of course,
that woman had taken a vow of virginity. Mary believed the message, but
wanted to know how this was going to be accomplished. This indicates
she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with
Joseph.
2. In John 19:26, Jesus gave his Mother to the care of John even though by
law the next eldest sibling would have the responsibility to care for her. It
is unthinkable that Jesus would take his Mother away from his family in
disobedience to the law.
Some claim Jesus did this because his brothers and sisters were not there.
They had left him. Thus, Jesus committed his Mother to John, who was
faithful and present at the foot of the cross. This claim betrays a very low
and unbiblical Christology. As John tells us, Jesus “knew all men” (cf. Jn
2:25). If James were his uterine brother, Jesus would have known he would
be faithful along with his “brother” Jude. The fact is Jesus had no brothers
and sisters, so he had the responsibility, on a human level, to take care of
his Mother.
3. Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In
Luke 1:34, when Mary asks the angel how she will conceive a child, the
angel responds: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the
Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be
called holy, the Son of God.”
This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to
Boaz “spread your skirt over me” when she revealed to him his duty to
marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary became
pregnant, Joseph would have been required to divorce her because she
would then belong to another (see Dt 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). But when Joseph
found out that “the other” was the Holy Spirit, the idea of his having
conjugal relations with Mary was not a consideration.
Mary’s Protector
An obvious question remains: Why did St. Joseph then “take [Mary] his
wife” according to Matthew 1:24 if she belonged to the Holy Spirit?
The Holy Spirit is Mary’s spouse, but Joseph was her spouse and protector
on this earth for at least two obvious reasons. First, as Matthew points out
in his genealogy in chapter 1, Joseph was in line to be a successor of David
as King of Israel. Thus, if Jesus was to be the true “son of David” and king
of Israel (see 2 Sm 7:14, Heb 1:5, Rv 19:16, 22:16), he needed to be the son
of Joseph. As the only son of Joseph, even though adopted, he would have
been in line for the throne.
Also, in a culture that did not take too kindly to espoused women getting
pregnant by someone other than their spouse, Mary would have been in
mortal danger. So Joseph became Mary’s earthly spouse and protector as
well as the protector of the child Jesus.
LINK: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-case-for-
marys-perpetual-virginity

“WHY MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

MATTERS”
One of the primary points of contention between Catholics and
Protestants is belief regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary. Catholic tradition
of venerating the mother of Jesus and dogmas such as the Immaculate
Conception and the Assumption are frequently challenged by Protestants.
Even Mary’s perpetual virginity is denied by most Protestants today,
though most of the Protestant Reformers, in line with universal Christian
belief for a millennium and a half before, defended this teaching.
Was Mary a virgin for her entire life? And why does it matter?
This is not the forum to summarize the evidence that demonstrates
Mary’s perpetual virginity. These arguments have already been well–
made many times over by Catholic Answers apologists. Here we will be
concerned chiefly with why the answer to the question matters.

The first reason that Mary’s perpetual virginity matters is that it is a

question of truth, not opinion, and the fact is that the Church has
unerringly defended the doctrine since its earliest days. Certainly the
Church Fathers, for example, would not defend an untruth; veritas vos
liberabit, after all. Mary’s perpetual virginity was rarely challenged in
Christian history. Even the leading Protestant reformers acknowledged
that Mary’s perpetual virginity is taught in Scripture and the Church
Fathers all held the teaching as true.
Such heavyweights as Tertullian, St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, St.
Ambrose, and St. Augustine made arguments based in Scripture that she
remained a virgin her entire life. This was true of Christians throughout
the known world, Latin and Greek, east and west. Origen of Alexandria, for
example, wrote that “There is no child of Mary except Jesus, according to
the opinion of those who think correctly about her” (Commentary on John,
1.4). St. Jerome, the magnificent Biblical translator and scholar, stated
clearly that we believe Mary remained a virgin her whole life because we
read it in Scripture (see Against Helvidius 21).
The Protoevangelium of James, while not canonical Scripture, is
an important historical document that tells us a lot about what the early
Church believed. Written in the second century A.D., not long after the end
of Mary’s earthly life, this document goes to great lengths to defend the
perpetual virginity of Mary. In fact, some scholars—including Johannes
Quasten, the great patristics scholar of the twentieth century—thought
that this was its primary purpose for being written. Among other things,
the Protoevangelium is where we get the tradition that Mary was
consecrated for service in the temple as a young girl, which would mean a
life of perpetual virginity. Indeed, the classic text indicates that Mary’s
being entrusted to Joseph was for the purpose of protecting her virginity.
At the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D., Mary was officially
given the title “Ever-virgin.” A century later, Pope Martin I clarified that by
this the Church’s means to say that Mary was a virgin before, during, and
after Christ’s birth (ante partum, in partu, et post partum). This is a crucial
point—the virgin birth is essentially unchallenged among Christians. The
question of whether Mary remained a virgin is where many Protestants
disagree with the Catholic Church.
Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin (at least early in his career),
and other early Protestant figures all recognized that the perpetual
virginity of Mary is taught in the Bible. Unfortunately, over the centuries
since the Reformation, their theological descendants have lost their way in
this regard. Today, few Protestants recognize the truth, let alone the
Biblical basis, of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Again, I’m not trying to prove the case here with an appeal to a wide
variety of authorities. I offer this very brief survey of the Church’s history
on the question to show the Church often and unequivocally defended
the doctrine as true because its truth matters, and that its denial is a
relatively recent development in Church history.
Second, Mary’s perpetual virginity matters because its truth has
implications that matter to all of us; namely,  points beyond her life to the
world that is to come, a world in which there will be no more marriage
and we will all be as Mary was. “For in the resurrection they neither marry
nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven,” Jesus told the
Sadducees (Matt. 22:30). Mary’s virginity is a prefigurement of heaven, the
reward for those who say to God, with Mary, “Thy will be done.”
Third, Mary’s perpetual virginity is one of many of her attributes that make
her a beautiful symbol of the Church, as the virgin bride of Christ and the
fruitful mother of Christians. St. Ambrose wrote, “Fittingly is [Mary]
espoused, but Virgin because she prefigures the Church which is
undefiled yet wed. A Virgin conceived of the Spirit, a Virgin brings us forth
without travail” (On Luke 2.6-7).
Fourth is the related point that Mary’s perpetual virginity says a great
deal about her relationship with all of us. When Christ was dying on the
cross, he said to John “behold your mother” and to Mary “behold your son”
(John 19:26-27). The Church has always recognized in this not simply a son
providing for his mother’s care after his death, but Christ’s giving of his
mother to each and every one of us—she is our mother, too. This would
have made no sense if Mary had other children, since they would have
been tasked with her care after Jesus’ death. And that should matter to all
Christians.
Quoting Lumen Gentium, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that
“Christ’s birth ‘did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified
it.” (CCC 499) And this point deserves special notice: the virgin birth was
not simply a neat trick, a miracle used to “wow” people, something to
indicate that something special occurred. It was a clear indicator that Mary
was set aside (and set herself aside, by her fiat) for service to God,
conforming her will with the will of God. She was set apart by her virginity,
and her virginity was sanctified by Our Lord in his birth.
The virgin birth—and Mary’s perpetual virginity—are signs of Mary’s total
consecration to God, single-minded service to him, and utter
abandonment to his will. Through the centuries, Christians of all stripes
have defended this teaching, sometimes vehemently in the face of
opposition. And the fact of her perpetual virginity matters because she
was given to all of us as our spiritual mother, symbol of the Church. All
Christians would do well to turn to Our Lady, and see in her perpetual
virginity a sign of God’s providence.
LINK: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-marys-
perpetual-virginity-matters

“HOW TO EXPLAIN THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

OF MARY”
“I’ve never understood why Catholics claim that Mary was a virgin
her entire life. The Bible says that Jesus had brothers. Matthew 13:55
settles the matter for me: ‘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? And are not all his sisters with us?’”
In answering any biblical objection to the faith, step number one is putting
the other at ease by agreeing that if a teaching contradicts Scripture, the
teaching must be wrong.Next, examine the biblical evidence. In the case
of Mary’s perpetual virginity, the key to explaining Matthew 13:55 is
understanding the Greek word for “brethren” (adelphoi) and its feminine
counterpart (adelphe). If the Greek words used in this passage connote
only siblings, then the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is
false.However, the word adelphoi has a much broader meaning. It may
refer to male relatives that one is not a descendant of and that are not
descendant from one (such as a blood brother, step-brother, nephew,
uncle, cousin, etc.) or non-relatives such as neighbors, fellow workers, co-
religionists, and friends.
Because of this broad usage, we can be sure that the 120 “brothers” in
Acts 1:15 did not have the same mother. Neither did Lot and his uncle
Abraham, who were called “brothers” (Gen. 11:26-28, 29:15).
The reason relatives were called brothers or sisters was because in
Hebrew, there was no word for cousin, nephew, or uncle. So the person
was referred to as simply a “brother.” Linguistically, this was far easier
than calling the person the son of a mother’s sister. Since the New
Testament was written in a dialect of Greek that was heavily influenced by
the Semitic culture, many of the Hebrew idioms (like “brother” having
multiple meanings) intrude into the Greek text. So, the fact that Jesus
had adelphoi does not mean that Mary had other children.
“But there was a Greek word for cousin, anepsios. If the brothers of
the Lord were really his cousins, why wasn’t that word used?”
Here is a common misconception to be on the lookout for: “Catholics
teach that the brothers were actually cousins.” That’s not the Catholic
position. In fact, we can’t tell if any of the “brothers” were cousins. All the
Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary. They could have
been children of Joseph from a prior marriage. But the specific word for
cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55
unless all the “brothers” were cousins. If even one of them was not a
cousin, the more general term ” adelphoi” covers the situation. Even if all
of them were cousins, the term “brother” could still be used by Matthew to
appropriately describe them.These things were taken for granted by the
early Christians, who were familiar with the biblical languages and who
knew that Mary was a lifelong virgin. In A.D. 380, Helvidius proposed that
Mary had other children because of the “brothers” in Matthew 13:55. He
was rebutted by Jerome, who was arguably the greatest biblical scholar of
the day. The Protestant reformer John Calvin seconded Jerome: “Helvidius
has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons,
because mention is made in some passages to the brothers of Christ”
[quoted by Bernard Leeming, Protestants and Our Lady, 9]. Martin Luther
agreed with Calvin that Mary was always a virgin, as did Ulrich Zwingli: “I
esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin
Mary” [E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., 456].
“But Matthew 1:25 states that Joseph had no relations with
Mary until she bore a son. Wouldn’t that imply that he knew her
afterward?”
Before you move on to this objection, notice that the verse in question has
changed. You have presented scriptural and historical evidence to support
the Church’s interpretation. If the person that you are speaking with
leaves Matthew 13:55 to rest, it may be a sign that he sees the
incompleteness of the “brethren of the Lord” argument. This is a good
sign, so follow his lead—so long as the conversation stays on topic.
Zealous Protestants will have any number of objections to the faith, and, if
you hope to make any progress, take only one topic at a time.Now, does
Matthew’s use of “until” mean what your friend says it does? Not
necessarily. The Greek word for “until” (heos) does not imply that Mary had
marital relations after the birth of Christ. In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that
Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child “until” the day of her death.
(Rest assured that she didn’t have any children after that day, either.)
Hebrews 1:13 and 1 Timothy 4:13 are similar examples.When we interpret
any passage, we must consider what the author was trying to say.
Matthew’s intent here is not to explain what happened after the birth of
Christ. He is only concerned with the fact that Joseph and Mary had no
relations before then. It is the virgin birth, not later siblings, that Matthew
is concerned with.
“What about Psalm 69:8? It prophesied that Mary would have
children when it says in regard to Jesus, ‘I have been a stranger to my
brethren, an alien to my mother’s sons.’”
If your friend takes this Psalm to be a literal prophecy of Christ, he runs
into bigger problems. Look three verses earlier, “O God, thou knowest
my folly; the wrongs I have done are not hidden from thee” (emphasis
added). Since Jesus did no wrong and had no follies, it seems clear we
shouldn’t take this passage literally.The prophecy in verse 8 is fulfilled by
the fact that Jesus was rejected by his own relatives (Mark 3:21). Besides, if
the “brethren” of the Lord were Joseph’s children from a prior marriage,
though they were not Mary’s biological children, legally they would be
considered her sons.
“But how could an unconsummated marriage have been a valid one
for Mary and Joseph? It would be so unnatural.”
At the end of a wedding, the minister announces that the couple has
become man and wife. They exchanged vows, and so they are married—
without having consummated the marriage yet. When the marriage is
consummated, the marriage—which was already valid—becomes
indissoluble. So Joseph and Mary’s marriage was a real marriage, even if it
was never consummated.In regard to it not being natural, the prophet
Isaiah said that God’s ways are not like our ways (Is. 55:8–9). When the
Second Person of the Trinity is in your wife’s womb, you can expect to
have a different marriage than most folks!
“But it’s not a sin for a married couple to have marital relations.”
True, ordinarily. But even in the Old Testament God asked married
couples to refrain from intercourse for various reasons. For example, the
priests of the temple had to refrain from intimacy with their wives during
the time of their service. Likewise, Moses had the Israelites abstain from
intercourse as he ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. 20:15). There is a theme here
of refraining from marital rights because of the presence of something
very holy.The Church Fathers knew that there was something greater than
the temple in Mary’s womb, comparing it to the Eastern Gate mentioned
in Ezekiel 44: “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no
one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it;
therefore it shall remain shut.” Mary had become the dwelling place of the
Almighty, like the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament.Now, if Uzzah
was struck dead for touching the Ark (2 Sam. 6:6–8), should it be
surprising that Joseph understood that Mary was a vessel consecrated to
God alone? The idea that Joseph assumed normal marital relations with
Mary after the birth of Christ was an irreverence that even the Protestant
reformers rejected.
Interestingly, according to Jewish law, if a man was betrothed to a woman
and she became pregnant from another, he could never have relations
with her. The man had to put her away privately or condemn her in public
and put her to death. Joseph chose the more merciful option.
Then, the angel told him to lead her into the house as a wife (paralambano
gunaika), but the language that describes marital relations is not used
here. It was used, however, in Luke 1:35: “The Holy Spirit will come upon
you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” To
“overshadow” a woman was a euphemism for having a marital
relationship, as was the phrase “to lay one’s power” over a woman. The
Holy Spirit had espoused Mary, and she had been consecrated, set apart
for God.
Also, it appears that Mary had made a vow of virginity. When the angel
said that she would conceive and bear a son, she asked, “How can this be,
since I do not know man?” She knew how babies were made, and she was
about to be married. “How can this be?” would seem like a pretty silly
question unless she had made a prior vow of virginity.
“Why is she betrothed to Joseph if she made a vow of virginity?”
Consecrated virginity was not common among first century Jews, but it did
exist. According to some early Christian documents, such as
the Protoevangelium of James  (written around A.D. 120), Mary was a
consecrated virgin. As such, when she reached puberty, her monthly cycle
would render her ceremonially unclean and thus unable to dwell in the
temple without defiling it under the Mosaic Law. At this time, she would
be entrusted to a male guardian. However, since it was forbidden for a
man to live with a woman he was not married or related to, the virgin
would be wed to the guardian, and they would have no marital relations.
LINK: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-explain-
the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary