Mary's Virginity - A Biblical Defense

Mary's Virginity - A Biblical Defense

The Catholic Church has long affirmed that Mary was a virgin for her whole life, never once breaking the vow. As stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

CCC 510

"Mary 'remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin' (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is 'the handmaid of the Lord' (Lk 1:38)."

And as Hippolytus of Rome said,

Against Beron and Helix: Fragment VIII  [A.D. 210]

“But the pious confession of the believer is that . . . the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, ever-virgin, by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in nature, but separate from wickedness. . . ”

However, this claim is very much attacked by Protestants and non-Christians for being unbiblical. In this article I will be responding to common objections to her perpetual virginity.

The Gospel of Mark and Jesus' Brothers

The verse often used is Mark 6:3-4. In this verse, a group of men are questioning Jesus as he preaches. It says,

Mark 6:3-4

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. And Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.'"

An important thing to note is that the Greek word for "brother", ἀδελφός (adelphos), and "sister", αδελφη (adelphe), is not always used for blood siblings, but can refer to cousins, nephews, or even fellow believers. An example of this would be Genesis 13:8, where Abraham and Lot are called brothers, but were actually uncle and nephew. So this argument is already off to a shaky start.

When objectors argue with this verse they will often point to Jesus' response in regards to relatives and his own household. The problem is that the Greek word for "relatives", συγγενεῦσιν (syngeneusin), is never used for blood siblings. It is reserved only for cousins or other relatives. Thus, Jesus' response is not evidence for Mary having other children.

When we look at the sentence structure of Jesus' response, however, we are led to believe the entire opposite. Let's look at the responses side by side:

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" (Mark 6:3)
"'A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.'" (Mark 6:4)

The people bring up first Jesus, then his brothers, then his sisters. Jesus responds with addressing a prophet being without honor first among his relatives, then in his own household. So Jesus' response is a direct mirroring of their statement. In other words, He is correlating "the carpenter" (Jesus) with "a prophet", "brothers" with "relatives", and "sisters" with "household".

In regards to brothers as relatives, we've already established that συγγενεῦσιν (syngeneusin) is never used for blood siblings. This rules out Jesus having brothers as siblings. In regards to sisters as part of the household, the divisions that Jesus is using here are the divisions of the families in Israel in the book of Numbers. This is a family division that is mandated by Moses to divide people according to whether they are brothers of a different mother or whether they're more distant. Those distant relatives are called household relatives (Numbers 1:1-2).

So Jesus, in his reply to the men saying he had brothers and sisters, affirms that the usage is in reference to other relatives. Not blood siblings. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states,

Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume One, pg 767

"The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these “brethren” are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Savior, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the “brethren” of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the same as the Symeon of Hegesippus, he also is a cousin, since this writer expressly states that he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the Lord, and the latter’s cousin."

This makes more sense when we read In John 19:26 where Jesus gives John the authority to care for his mother. This is strange because the law at the time is that Jesus would give his next eldest brother that authority, but because Jesus is the only child of Mary, he gave John that duty. This point is noted by Hilary of Poitiers,

Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]

“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate”

The Gospel of Matthew and "Until"

Another attack on Mary's perpetual virginity uses Matthew 1:20-25. It reads,

Matthew 1:20-25

"But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, 'Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.' All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

'Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel'

When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus."

The attack comes at verse 25 which states, "... but knew her not until she had given birth to a son." It seems it heavily implies that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until Christ was born, but then did afterward. The problem is, this verse is the fulfilling of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14, which is quoted. In the prophecy, it says that the virgin will conceive and bear a son. So it makes sense that, in order to fulfill the prophecy, Matthew would note that Mary remained a virgin when until gave birth to Jesus. Matthew's goal isn't to show Mary's perpetual virginity, but rather display that the prophecies had been fulfilled in accordance with the scriptures.

Second, the usage of the word "until" does not always imply that the action before the "until" was then done afterward the period of time given. For example,

1 Corinthians 15:23-25

"But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet."

This verses states that Christ will reign UNTIL he has put all enemies under his feet. Are we then to assume that Christ will cease to reign in heaven after the enemies are defeated? No, it is simply giving a time period of reigning just like Matthew is just giving a time period of Mary's virginity.

Conclusion

As we've seen, there is no sufficient scriptural evidence for Mary having multiple children. Rather, it would be quite unlikely considering the great distances she travels in the gospels. Therefore, the Catholic Church is right to affirm Mary's perpetual virginity up until her assumption and, at the very least, Protestants will have to be agnostic on the subject as Scripture doesn't state otherwise.