It is no secret that Catholics hold the Blessed Virgin Mary in high esteem. Before I converted to Catholicism, I did not see the Catholic view of Mary as biblical or necessary. I believed misconceptions. However, I now understand that Mary, in her blessedness, always points to Jesus. In this article I will use scripture to answer the various common objections that other Christians tend to have about the Blessed Mother’s queenship and perpetual virginity.
Jesus’ Siblings
One of the four Marian Dogmas that Catholics believe about Mary is that she is a perpetual virgin. This, logically, would mean that Jesus didn’t have biological brothers and sisters from Mary and Joseph. One common objection put forth by other denominations is that Mary indeed did have other children with Joseph. They usually bring forth multiple biblical verses in an attempt to refute this dogma. We will look at some of them.
First, Mark 6:3 says “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?” Typically this verse is used to “prove” that Mary had other children. After all, the verse lists these people as his brothers and sisters! So it’s settled then, right?
Not quite. The Greek word for brothers used in the passage is adelphos (feminine adelphē). In scripture, this word isn’t always used to mean biological siblings. It is also meant as blood relatives belonging to the same ancestors (see Genesis 13:8). During this time period, it was common to see aunts, uncles, and cousins live together in what is referred to as the extended family model.
Let’s examine the names of the brethren that were listed in Mark 6:3. The passage first lists James and Joses as being the Lord’s brothers. However, they cannot be his biological brothers from Mary and Joseph because Matthew 4:21 tells us that Jesus saw these two brothers were the sons of Zebedee. The next two people listed as the Lord’s brothers are Jude and Simon. In Jude 1:1, Jude lists himself as the brother of James. This is not James, the son of Zebedee but James the son of Alpheus, who is also a brother to Simon (Matthew 10:3).
The Three Marys
Like many others, I have probably read the Bible many times without realizing that there are three Marys in the New Testament. Mary, the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not the only Marys in scripture. Mary, the wife of Cleopas, was also a central figure in the life of Jesus (Mark 15:40). She is mentioned in a number of places but notably at the foot of the cross with Mary, mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. When she is listed, she is listed distinct from Jesus’ mother Mary and is called “the mother of James and Joses.”
Matriarchs and the Israelites
In the Old Testament, when a woman was widowed, she went to live with her oldest son. If he died, she then went to be with the next oldest son, and so on. In Ruth’s case, her mother-in-law Naomi had lost both sons and went to live with her original family prior to her marriage.
In the New Testament, when Joseph died, Jesus then became the one who looked after Mary. However, when Jesus was on the cross He entrusted Mary to His apostle John, not to a younger brother (John 19:26-27). Instead, Mary went to live with John after the Crucifixion. If Jesus had had other brothers, why would He not allow Mary to live with the next oldest brother instead of the apostle John?
The Meaning of “Until”
Mary’s perpetual virginity is also usually contested using one tiny word from Matthew 1:25. The verse says “He (Joseph) had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.” People usually assume that because the word “until” is used, it necessitates that Joseph and Mary were intimate after Mary gave birth to Jesus. However, “until” isn’t always used in scripture the way we usually mean it today.
St. Jerome wrote about this very passage in his treatise Against Helvidius. In the tract, Jerome lists several examples of how “until” is used with a double meaning in scripture. He writes:
What does he mean then by saying, for he must reign till he has put all enemies under his feet? Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign? Of course His reign will then commence in its fullness when His enemies begin to be under His feet. David also in the fourth Song of Ascents speaks thus, Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until he have mercy upon us. Will the prophet, then, look unto the Lord until he obtains mercy, and when mercy is obtained will he turn his eyes down to the ground? (St. Jerome, Contra Helvidius)
When we say our marriage vows to our spouse we vow to love them “until death do us apart”. However, this does not mean that we will stop loving them once we die! Rather, the vow is focusing on our promise to cherish each other for the rest of our lives before we die.
Another biblical example of this is found in 2 Samuel 6:23, which mentions Michal, the wife of David who despised him for his joy in the Lord. The verse says “And so Saul’s daughter Michal was childless to the day of her death.” The verse doesn’t mean that after Michal died, she started having children. Rather, it’s emphasizing that she was never able to have kids throughout her life.
In the same way, when scripture says that Joseph knew not Mary until she gave birth to Jesus, the verse does not necessitate that they were intimate afterward but rather that she remained a virgin throughout her pregnancy with Jesus. It is meant to point to Jesus’ miraculous birth and divinity. It certainly cannot be used as a proof text against the perpetual virginity of Mary.
The Ark of the Covenant
You may be asking yourself how Mary’s virginity points to Jesus’s divinity. The answer lies within Old Testament typology of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark was an acacia wood chest plated with gold and decorated with two Cherubim facing each other the top.
Inside were three items that foreshadowed the coming of Christ including the tablets of the commandments, Aaron’s rod, and a bowl of manna. It was the manner in which the Lord chose to interact with the Israelites (Exodus 25).
The commandments reflect Christ in that they are the word of God, and foreshadow his crucifixion and sacrifice by being broken. The Rod is a symbol of Christ’s authority. Isaiah 11:1 demonstrates a prophecy about the coming messiah saying “But a shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse, and from his roots a bud shall blossom.” Aaron’s rod was also used to bring about the plagues upon Egypt. The plagues of Egypt are used by the prophets to describe God’s judgement.
The manna represents Christ’s ministry, message, and the Holy Eucharist. Just as the manna from Heaven sustained the Israelites, Jesus sustains us through a life of faith and the Eucharist.
Mary The New Ark
Because the Ark of the Covenant was the way in which God chose to dwell with the Israelites, it foreshadows Mary’s womb and the Incarnation. Mary was chosen by God as the conduit through which God became man and revealed Himself to us. She made it possible for the Incarnation of Christ to fulfill the Old Testament prefigurements of the Ark. To build on this symbolism, there are several similarities between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament.
When the Angel Gabriel appears to Mary in Luke 1, he tells her that the Most High will overshadow her in the same way God’s presence overshadowed the Holy of Holies in the Temple (Exodus 24). King David asks how the Ark of the Lord can come to him in 2 Samuel in the same way Elizabeth asks how can the mother of her Lord come to her (Luke 1:43).
The prophet John danced in Elizabeth’s womb in the same manner David danced before the Ark in 2 Samuel. In Luke 1:56 Mary stays with Elizabeth for three months the same way the Ark stayed with Obed-edom for 6 months (2 Samuel 6:11).
In Conclusion
When discussing Mary, it is important to understand that she always points to Jesus, and it brings her joy to do so. She is an example of the goodness of God and the many blessings He bestows on His children. Most importantly, she will always point to her divine Son and instruct us to do as He tells us (John 2:5) – just as she did.
Brianna, in my faith journey, I converted to Catholicism in order to keep unity in my marriage – thinking it didn’t matter what I was called as long as I have faith in Christ. Well, boy was I short sided! BIG TIME!!! Foundational pieces to a person’s faith MATTERS.
One such foundational piece is this topic “perpetual virginity of Mary”! Many theologians I have read – lets say a few theologians I have read concerning this topic from both sides of the argument. Your article was thorough and easy to follow — aligns with Scott Hahn’s and Trent Horn’s position. (Not sure who your sources were for this article.) Your article was easy to digest – making my position more solid. “The Old Testament is fulfilled in the New and the New is foretold in the Old.” (Something like that).
Thank you, Briana, for your article! It has helped me immensely in my faith journey!
I now this is an old blog – but understanding one’s faith is never old!:)
[…] https://www.ncregister.com/blog/biblical-evidence-for-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary%5B3%5D – https://catholicstand.com/a-defense-of-marys-perpetual-virginity/%5B4%5D – https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/was-jesus-an-only-child-0%5B5%5D – […]
Briana,
Now I’m encountering an argument from you that I have used in the past on other issues. For example, isn’t it odd that the Bible doesn’t contain anything about the Assumption of Mary? Since it is likely that Mary died before the writing of the books of the New Testament, isn’t it odd that such an astounding event was not mentioned by John, who cared for Mary?
Briana,
By the way, my first comments have not been posted despite 3 attempts.
I’m beginning to suspect censorship.
While reading your section about siblings, I thought about this section of Luke 2.
“41 Each year his parents went to Jerusalem for the feast of Passover, 42 and when he was twelve years old, they went up according to festival custom. 43 After they had completed its days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus remained behind in Jerusalem, but his parents did not know it. 44 Thinking that he was in the caravan, they journeyed for a day and looked for him among their relatives and acquaintances, 45 but not finding him, they returned to Jerusalem to look for him.”
If Jesus was their only son, why wouldn’t they make sure that he was with them? I remember losing sight of my son in a store when he was a youngster, and I was immediately in a panic.
Could it be that Joseph and Mary were busy with their other younger children?
Robert,
Thank you for your reply. Do you think it’s odd that no other children are listed on this journey? No other children are listed in these passages, which I think is actually a further proof of Jesus being their only child. Also, the reason is listed in verse 44. It says that Mary and Joseph believed that Jesus was in the caravan (Greek synodia). Oftentimes the Israelites traveled with large caravans filled with spices or other people, and it says that they assumed that he was in there. I don’t think I could come to the conclusion that she was busy with other children when the passage doesn’t mention other children and also it tells us why they didn’t notice.
Important message from Paul in 2 Timothy:
16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
Solemn Charge. 1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: 2 proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching. 3 For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers 4 and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.
[…] Virgin Mary: A Defense of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity – Briana Huddleston at Catholic Stand The Life of the Virgin – Fr. Edward Lee Looney at Ignitum […]
Hi Briana,
Thanks for the response. You reiterated my point in your first paragraph, and I think we agree on it. The Gospels that were included in the bible do not definitely state whether Jesus had siblings or whether Mary was ever-virgin. There are other gospels that were not included in the bible that do definitely state Jesus had siblings. While I think it would be reasonable to include those as historical evidence of early Christian beliefs, they were not included in the bible so I’m fine ignoring them. Either way, I think we agree the bible does not state whether Jesus had siblings. There are also plenty of possible explanations for why Jesus gave his mother to John. One is that he didn’t have brothers. He could’ve had only sisters, or Mary and Joseph could’ve had sex without conceiving children, or his brothers could’ve died or moved away and been unable to take care of her. There are plenty of explanations, and that Gospel passage -like all of the others – really doesn’t mean anything one way or the other. I’m not sure what scripture Moreno is (please let me know)? And again, this is some evidence that he had siblings and it can be found in some non-canonical gospels. Ultimately, the church didn’t declare Mary a perpetual virgin for hundreds of years after Christ died, and they made the declaration based on feelings toward sexuality at the time rather than any evidence that Mary was ever-virgin.
Mary did also not make a vow of virginity. You are adding a vow that didn’t exist. Again, the church didn’t declare this dogma until the year 649 even those those verses existed prior. This is because there was no vow of perpetual virginity made by Mary.
And to your last point, having sex with your spouse does not make you impure. That would not “defile” the ark. So again, why does the perpetual virginity of Mary matter? I never saw an answer to that question in your response. Thanks again for the response!
Hello Kyle,
Thanks for your response to my comment. So we do agree that scripture doesn’t definitively state that Jesus did or did not have siblings. Although I would argue that it’s highly unlikely based on further examination of the scriptures.
Now in regards to your examples of other gospels not included in scripture that say that Jesus did what would those be? The early church fluently believed that Mary was a Virgin. Although it wasn’t formally declared until later, it was widely believed by Christians as factual that she was ever Virgin. An example of this is St. Jerome’s against Helvidius, which was made sometime in the third or fourth century.
In regards to the John passage, a brother moving away would not affect the law. Mary would have still had to travel to where he was to go live with him. This is very evident as happening in the story of Naomi and Ruth. It would be unlikely for Jesus to have had a brother that died before he did without it being mentioned in any way in the gospels. The most likely and reasonable answer is that Jesus was Mary’s only child and this is why Jesus sent Mary to live with him.
Are you familiar with the protoevangelism (or gospel) of James? In this writing James writes that Mary took vows of virginity as a temple Virgin according to Jewish custom.
The word “Moreno” is a typo of “moreso” not a reference to a scriptural passage and last, I never said that having sex with your spouse makes you impure. However, if someone made vows to God and broke those vows, that would be more along the lines of what I am talking about.
The church has never had a negative view on sex and has always encouraged Gods commandment of be fruitful and multiply, and has multiple volumes of theological writings on conjugal love. The aspect of sex the church has a problem with is sinful sex.
Virginity is more righteous even than marriage, that is scripture. If the old ark was held in the highest regard, it makes sense that the womb that God dwelt in would be as well.
Did my full reply get deleted? If so, that is very disappointing. There was a lot in it.
My main point is that you contradict yourself. You say the church never has had a negative view of sex (which it definitely did), but then also that virginity is more virtuous than not. How in the world is that compatible or consistent?
If sex is not a negative, then the married life should not be less “virtuous” than being a virgin.
Kyle, thank you for your response!
Let’s consider this scenario. If I say that I like orange juice but I like fruit punch even more, does the fact that I like fruit punch more than orange juice mean that I despise orange juice? Certainly not. Similarly, scripture itself states that virginity is more blessed than marriage, but this doesn’t mean that God hates marriage does it?
Two things:
1. You didn’t comment on whether my original, more detailed response was censored. Was it?
2. Are you actually arguing that being a virgin is more virtuous than being married? And by married, I mean by the official definition of marriage (consummated). Unlike you, I am not saying that one is more virtuous than the other. I think people are free to choose their path based on their own preferences, and both options have an equal opportunity for virtue. Your example applies more to my stance than your own.
My post from this morning hasn’t appeared.
Do I need to redo it?
Hello Robert! It doesn’t seem like the post has appeared here. Maybe reposting it would be best!
The only unresolved aspect involves the one-sided assumption that Joseph, who wanted to be married and was betrothed for the purpose of conjugal life, was told by the angel in his dream that besides taking the heat for an early birth indicating pre-marital relations, that he was also expected to be celibate for life too, if Mary vowed chastity in marriage – unless he took more than one wife.
I think there’s plenty of grey area in between this premise and conclusion. It’s possible that Joseph chose to willingly sacrifice those expectations for Gods special plan. Considering that marriage is sacrifice, spouses aren’t always able to be intimate. For example, if one spouse becomes injured and is unable to share conjugal love with that partner, does this mean it’s a one sided assumption that the other partner loses everything if the partner willingly chooses to bear that cross til death due them apart and honor Gods will? How much more would someone be willing to sacrifice in order to be obedient to Gods will and help raise the incarnation of God?
Anything is possible, including the gray veil that was drawn over St Joseph’s life, in light
of the impossibly few details of his persona, was done out of discretion. In any case, speculating on the truth is about as relevant as what the weather might have been the morning he awoke from his dream.
To MYSTERIUM FIDEI –
If Joseph did not want to be intimate or was not able to be intimate, he should not have gotten married. This was made clear to me at my marriage prep retreat. It was clearly laid out that sex is required for marriage. If someone cannot have sex – i.e. they are impotent, a quadriplegic, cancer or a roadside bomb in Iraq caused them to lose their sex organ, etc – they cannot get married in the Catholic church. We were told that a priest who knows one party of couple is unable or unwilling to have sex cannot perform a Catholic marriage ceremony for that couple. By this standard, Joseph would not have been able to marry Mary if they were choosing to abstain from sex for life.
The gospels don’t definitively answer the question one way or the other (although I think it more likely Jesus had siblings based on what was written).
But stepping back, the larger question is: why does it matter? Absolutely nothing in the conclusion has anything to do with Mary not consummating her marriage to Joseph. And ultimately, Mary not consummating her marriage to Joseph has nothing to do with being holy or living out God’s commandments. There is nothing wrong or defiling about a married woman having sex with her spouse. So why does this teaching matter?
Kyle,
That is an interesting reply. Using your same argument against your own point of view, I would actually argue that there is nothing definitely written in scripture that says that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters, as the passage dealing with the Greek “adelphos” has already been dealt with and doesn’t prove that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters. In fact, the only way it would make sense for him to have blood brothers and sisters would be if there were replicas of sets of people named James, Joses, Simon and the like. This scenario is highly unlikely. I would like you to consider a question and answer it if you can. In the book of John when Mary is at the foot of the cross with the disciple John, why did Jesus give Mary to John to go and live with it Jesus had blood brothers? Wouldn’t that be an example of Jesus breaking Jewish law? (We know he never broke the law, so why would he do so here?) after all, there’s plenty of Old Testament examples that prove that when a woman becomes a widow she goes to live with her oldest son, when he dies she goes to live with the next oldest and so on and so forth. The question is, if Jesus had blood brothers, why would he bring shame to his “blood brother” by sending Mary to live with John? Lest he be telling the whole world that he is breaking law and doesn’t think this “blood brother” can take care of her. What is written in scripture Moreno vindicates that Jesus had no blood brothers and sisters more so than it proves that he does. There’s no evidence that he had any, so I don’t understand how one could come to that conclusion simply by what was written.
Next, to deal with your question about Mary, no it wouldn’t be a sin for her to have had sex with Joseph as a married spouse. The issue isn’t dealing with if it’s a sin or not. One of Gods commandments to mankind is be fruitful and multiply. There would have been nothing wrong with it, but the question is did she actually do it? There’s simply no biblical evidence to suggest that she did. Plain and simple. Again, on the contrary there is plenty of evidence to suggest that she didn’t, especially since she asked the Angel Gabriel how it would be possible that she would bear a child (in marriage) without knowing a man. We cannot say that this response meant that she only meant before she was married, because this message was delivered before she was pregnant. This response only makes sense if Mary had already previously taken vows of virginity before God and wouldn’t understand how she could bring forth a child while honoring those vows. If there were no vows given, she wouldn’t need to ask how it would be possible to bring forth a child to the Angel Gabriel.
Lastly, if Mary is the ark of the new covenant and the ark is pure in every sense, so is Mary. Looking forward to reading your response to the questions put forth!
Briana answered your question. Sex would make Mary “impure”. Sex, at least when women have it, defiles them. Interestingly no one ever cares about whether Jesus ever had sex or not.