Catholic Sistas » perspective from the neck

Masthead header

Mary, Ever Virgin. Or Was She? (Part 2)

I love this time of year, when the liturgical calendar is heavily “Marian,” between the Nativity and the Solemnity of Mary that we celebrate on New Year’s Day. To further honor Our Blessed Mother, then, we’ll continue to explore the many reasons why the Catholic doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is not only Scriptural, but historical and logical, too.

More Scriptural NON-Evidence

In last week’s article, we showed why Scripture’s references to Christ’s “brothers and sisters” in no way proves Mary had children after Jesus. A deeper exploration of Scripture reinforces even more that Our Lord was her only biological child.

The problem begins when Christians interpret “brethren of the Lord” literally, with one of the most problematic Scriptures being Matthew 1:25:

“[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, translated in English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.”

The first problem is the word “until/till.” The natural inference, some say, is that Joseph and Mary lived together after she gave birth to Jesus as a normal married couple that had other children. Then, there’s that “firstborn” reference…why would Jesus be called the firstborn unless there were a second- or even third-born later on?

Again, we run into problems interpreting the word “until/till” using the modern, narrow meaning instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, “until/till” only means that some action didn’t happen up to a certain point; it doesn’t necessarily mean that the action did happen later, which is how we generally use the term today.

If we force the modern meaning onto Scripture, we end up with some ridiculous interpretations. In 2 Samuel 6:23, we’re told that “Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no children till the day of her death.” Are we to assume she had children after she died? Likewise, Deuteronomy 34:6 says that no one knew the location of Moses’ grave “until the present day.” But no one has known since that day either. There are more examples, but you get the idea–the word “till/until” doesn’t mean Mary had children after Jesus. Recent translations give a better sense: “He [Joseph] had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible).

But what about that reference to Mary’s “firstborn?” Again, how the ancient Jews used the term is not how we typically use it today. For the Jews, “firstborn” simply meant the child that opened the womb:

Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me.” (Ex. 13:2)

Now, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the sons of Israel instead of every firstborn, the first issue of the womb among the sons of Israel. So the Levites shall be Mine. (Num. 3:12)

Under Mosaic Law, the “firstborn” son was to be sanctified to the Lord. Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the “firstborn?” Of course not. The first male child of a marriage was termed “firstborn” even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.

There’s one last practical possibility for references to the Lord’s “brothers” that few people consider: they were children of Joseph, not Mary. We know nothing about Joseph’s life prior to his marriage to Mary. He could have been an older man who’d had children by a prior wife who’d died. His children from the previous marriage, then, would have been Christ’s half-brothers and sisters. Though there’s no hint of this in Scripture (or history, for that matter), it’s at least one possible reason why Jesus could have had siblings AND a virginal mother.

Possible Good Reasons for Celibacy

In our sex-drenched culture, which equates promiscuity with normalcy, of course a celibate marriage will be seen as “unnatural.”

Even once the Scriptural arguments have been blown apart, however, many Christians continue to object to Mary being a lifelong virgin. Mostly because they’re repulsed by the idea of a sexless marriage. It’s “unnatural,” they say.

Yes, Mary and Joseph’s celibate marriage would have been unusual, but certainly not as unusual as having a virgin give birth to a child. Or as unusual as having that child be God himself! The Holy Family wasn’t your average  family and we should stop expecting its members to behave like one. Mary and Joseph were the only two people in history charged with preparing God himself to save humanity and we’re surprised they’re not your typical married couple?

There’s also good evidence to suggest Mary had taken a vow of virginity prior to marrying Joseph. Consecrated virginity wasn’t common during first century Jews, but it existed. According to some early Christian documents such as the Protoevangelium of James (written about 60 years after Mary’s death), Mary was a consecrated virgin who had served in the temple as a weaver from a young age. Upon reaching puberty, however, her monthly cycle would have rendered her ceremonially “unclean” under Mosaic Law, making her unable to remain in the temple without defiling it.

Like other consecrated virgins who served the temple, Mary was entrusted to a male guardian who would protect her virtue. But since it was unlawful for a man to live with a woman he was not married to or related to, the virgin would be wed to the guardian and they would have no marital relations.

This scenario is really the only thing that makes sense of Mary’s exchange with the angel Gabriel at the Annunciation. When Gabriel told Mary she would conceive a son, she asked, “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?” (Luke 1:34). Mary obviously knew how babies are made and if she’d anticipated marrying Joseph and having children in the normal way, she would hardly have to ask “how,” since having children would be expected of her as a married woman. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and becoming a mother. (And under normal circumstances, there is!)

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume Mary wasn’t a consecrated virgin and that she married Joseph in the usual sense. Abstaining from sexual relations certainly has precedent in the Bible; not only did Moses have the Israelites abstain as he ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. 20:15), but priests of the temple were required to abstain during their time of service.

The Jews weren’t asked to sacrifice their marital rights because sex is dirty or wrong and they had to spiritually “clean up” before being in God’s presence. Instead, they were asked to sacrifice marital intimacy as tribute and preparation to being in the presence of Someone who is holiness Himself. The earliest Christians, or the Church fathers, saw parallels between the Old Testament practice and Mary’s perpetual virginity, which is why they compared her to the Eastern Gate in Ezekiel 44, which is inviolate because God himself has entered it. Just like the Ark of the Covenant, Mary had become the dwelling place of the Almighty. And only the high priest was allowed into that sacred space.

A last possible reason for their celibate marriage is that Christ’s conception would have created a unique legal and religious barrier to marital relations between Mary and Joseph. In 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 publicly and put her to death. Joseph, we know, initially chose the more merciful option.

When the angel told Joseph to take Mary into his house as a wife, the language the angel used did not describe marital relations: “…take her into your house.” 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 set her apart for God. We see a similar parallel today in consecrated nuns, who are “wed” to the Lord in a spousal relationship.

We can assume Mary told Joseph about Jesus’ conception. He may have been initially skeptical, but an angel assured him of Mary’s virtue and told him to take her as his wife. Joseph would have understood from these events that Mary was consecrated to God from that point on, even without a prior vow of virginity.

What Did the Earliest Christians Believe?

Not surprisingly, the earliest Christians unanimously believed Mary remained a virgin her entire life. Consider the controversy between the great Scripture scholar St. Jerome and Helvidius, writing around 380. Helvidius was the first to bring up the idea that “brothers of the Lord” were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth. St. Jerome at first declined to comment on Helvidius’ remarks because they were a “novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world.”

When he finally addressed the issue, St. Jerome was less than kind:

I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating.

Jerome’s eventual response, titled, “On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary,” cited not only the Scriptural arguments I’ve lain out here, but earlier Christian writers, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to refute Jerome and his theory faded into obscurity until recent times.

That’s right–the original Protestant, Martin Luther, staunchly defended Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Reformers Were On Board, Too

What surprises many Protestants is that in addition to the Church fathers, the most renowned Protestant Reformers also affirmed their belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity.  Martin Luther’s writings often defend Mary’s perpetual virginity. And while French Reformer John Calvin, father of Presbyterianism, never outright stated, “I believe Mary was a lifelong virgin,” he routinely brushed aside theories based on references to Mary’s “firstborn” and to “brothers of the Lord.” John Wesley, Methodist founding father, firmly confirmed his belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity when he said, “I believe…he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin” (Letters to a Roman Catholic).

It’s Just Plain Logical

But really, linguistic and historical evidence aside, it’s just plain logical that Mary remained a virgin her whole life and did not have other children. The Catholic Church reveres every person positively associated with Jesus Christ; we have jealously safeguarded the relics of the apostles and early Christian martyrs since the beginning. We profoundly honor the Lord’s mother, Mary, and his earthly father, Joseph. If Jesus did have half-brothers and sisters, it’s simply inexplicable why the Church would ignore siblings who came from the same womb and shared the same genetic material as He did. What would be the purpose of that?

So was Mary a lifelong virgin, then? Is the Pope Catholic?

Did you enjoy this article? Sign up now!

About Misty

Misty converted to Catholicism from atheism 13 years ago, just a week after becoming a mother to her first child. Prior to becoming a stay-at-home mom, she worked full-time as a magazine writer and editor. She has been married to her best friend for nearly 20 years and looks forward to many more decades by his side. Her days are now spent cooking, doing laundry, freelance writing, and homeschooling her five children. After spending so much of her life in spiritual darkness, she revels in the joy of being Catholic. Without a doubt, the Lord’s greatest gift to her has been saving her from a life without Him.

  • Alicia - Bravo! Coming from a small Church, I so long for this kind of fellowship and discussion with you all! Your points are very simply and logical, I have some great one to remember now when faced with this from other Christians. Keep up the good work!January 3, 2013 – 6:18 amReplyCancel

  • Gina Nakagawa - The “reformers” may have been “on board” with Mary’s perpetual Virginity, but it is their arrogance that got this ball rolling. The narrowness and misinformation has only grown with the passage of almost 500 years and the almost bacterial multiplication of Protestant “religions.”January 3, 2013 – 9:59 amReplyCancel

  • Susan M. - The issue of chaste or celibate marriage is an interesting one, Misty. So is the narrative of Mary’s early life, attested, as you point out, mostly in texts like the Protoevangelium. Chaste or celibate marriage was certainly not unknown either in late medieval or even the early modern period; it was a social phenomenon that tended to blur the edges of the boundaries between lay and clerical devotional practice. Like many early (and not so early) Christian practices, it was countercultural precisely because it was unnatural; it completely flew in the face of the fourteenth and fifteenth-century concept of marriage as principally validated by the production of heirs. Some may be persuaded by scriptural evidence, others will need a more affective experience of Mary to enter into the mystery of Mary’s life. I do struggle with the concept of perpetual virginity, yet it seems clear that Mary is exceptional and paradoxical in all respects.January 3, 2013 – 1:59 pmReplyCancel

  • Allison - My favorite is her answer to Gabriel. Had it been a “regular” marital plan she would have said, “Yep, figured on such since I’m betrothed and about to be married” (or along those lines!) ~ thank you for putting this together, Misty; such good work!January 7, 2013 – 4:39 amReplyCancel

Your email is never published or shared. Required fields are marked *

*

*

CommentLuv badge