Mary: Ever Virgin
By Janina Leone
One of the most common objections against Catholic doctrine and against the Blessed Virgin Mary is the dogma of her Perpetual Virginity. Modern day Protestants automatically use Matthew 13:55-56 and Matthew 1:24-25 to show that Jesus had brothers and that this indeed means that Mary went on to have other children other than Jesus.
It should go without saying that the first Protestants believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Many Lutherans, Anglicans, and early Protestant churches taught this doctrine. The Protestant Revolt against the Catholic Church began in 1517 by a Catholic monk named Martin Luther, who was excommunicated and led a revolt against the Church. Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, and a handful of others were the leaders of the Protestant Revolution, and yet it is worth mentioning that they also held to the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary:
Martin Luther:
“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. […] Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.” (Sermons on John)
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. (Luther’s Works, vol. 45:212-213 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew [1523] )
John Calvin:
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called “first-born”; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)
Under the word “brethren” the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3] )
This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. — Calv Comm Matt 1.25
Huldrych Zwingli:
“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424)
This shows that the first Protestant Reformers believed in the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity, but since the Protestant’s were in protest against the Church, which 1 Timothy 3:15 refers to as the pillar and foundation of truth, they led many souls away from truth, and now modern protestants have no clue that this was ever taught for the first 1500 years of Christianity and reject it. Let’s examine the verses used to reject this dogma by modern day Protestants:
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 son: and he called his name Jesus.
Matthew 13:55-56 is a verse commonly privately interpreted to mean that Jesus had siblings, since it says “his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas”. To refer to them as “Brethren” is a Hebrew practice which refers to cousins and relatives. For example, in Genesis 13:8, Abraham was Lot’s uncle, but calls him brother. Jesus also tells us to call each other brother in Matthew 23:8, and it is clear we are not all related.
Jesus is called Mary’s firstborn son in Matthew 1:24-25, which modern day Protestants believe to mean this implies there was a second born. The firstborn child was always given to the first son which was a Jewish custom. This does not mean the mother would always go on to have other children. If she had one son, he was called the firstborn.
“And he knew her till she brought forth her firstborn son” is often privately interpreted to mean that Joseph did not have marital relations with Mary “until after” she gave birth to Jesus, and then they consummated their marriage. This is not the case. The word till does not automatically imply this. The Bible says in Genesis 8:7 that a raven went forth from the ark “and did not return till the waters were dried upon the earth” yet the raven never returned. “Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.” 1 Timothy 4:13…would this mean that Timothy would cease to preach once Paul arrived? 2 Samuel 6:23, 1 Kings 15:35, and 1 Corinthians 15:25 are a few more examples of the use of the word until in Scripture.
Lastly, “his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas” (Matthew 13:55-56) has confused modern Protestants into believing this must list his siblings. Lets examine this further. The Bible allows us to see the maternity of those listed to another woman named Mary, but not the Virgin Mary, Mother of Christ. The gospel of Matthew mentions James and Joseph as the brethren of Jesus, and St. Mark lists who was at Jesus’ Crucifixion:
Matthew 27:55-56 And there were there many women afar off, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”
Mark 15:40-41 And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome: Who also when he was in Galilee followed him, and ministered to him, and many other women that came up with him to Jerusalem.
John 19:25-27 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen. When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.
St. John the Beloved, who stood at the cross of Jesus Christ, shows us who stood there with him and it is clear that Mary of Cleophas is Mary the mother of James and Joseph. If the Virgin Mary had other children, Jesus would have allowed his own mother to live with her other sons, but instead we see in John 19 that “from that hour, the disciple (John) took her to his own). It would have been objectively odd for any Jewish woman to go live with anyone other than her own family had she had other children to live with. We know according to Sacred Tradition that St. Joseph foster father of Jesus had already passed away. John’s own mother, Salome, was also present at the Crucifixion according to Mark 15.
There are notably two James’s that were apostles of Jesus. One was James, son of Zebedee:
Mark 10:35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”
There is also James son of Alpheus:
And going up into a mountain, he called unto him whom he would himself: and they came to him. And he made that twelve should be with him, and that he might send them to preach. And he gave them power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils. And to Simon he gave the name Peter: And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he named them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: And Andrew and Philip, and Bartholomew and Matthew, and Thomas and James of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the Cananean: And Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. And they come to a house, and the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.
Neither James listed is the son of Joseph. One could attempt superficially to argue that it was neither one of these James’s, but we know that cannot be, because Galatians 1:18-19 says: “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.” This verse shows us that it was an apostle, and yet he is called a brother, but we know the two apostles named James were not born of Joseph.
Mary: Spouse of the Holy Spirit
In Luke 1, Mary becomes the spouse of the Holy Spirit:
And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end. And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
“And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee.” Joseph was Jesus’ foster father and earthly protector of Mary and Jesus, and they are known as the Holy Family. If Mary had been perceived to have a baby out of wedlock without having an earthly visible spouse, she would have been in very serious danger, as she would have been firstly looked at as disgraceful by society. Also, as Matthew 1 shows the genealogy of Jesus, Joseph was a successor of David. Since Jesus was to be the son of David and king of Israel, then he had to succeed from David’s bloodline (2 Sm 7:14, Heb 1:5, Apoc 19:16). Even though Joseph was only Jesus’ foster father, this still made it possible.
As we see above in Luke 1, Mary and Joseph were already espoused. They were already married. Mary as we see above says “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” Mary made a vow of her virginity. According to Sacred Tradition, Mary was consecrated to God in the temple by her mother St. Anne when she was just a child. We also see they were already married which is why it says in Matthew 1:19 "that Joseph wanted to divorce her quietly”. Many argue that there is no way Joseph would ever consent to marrying a woman who would not consummate their marriage, but Joseph was a saint. Also, once something was consecrated to God and the Holy Spirit, it could not be defiled. James Cardinal Gibbons explains it like this:
“Now of all who have participated in the ministry of the Redemption, there is none who filed any position so exalted, so sacred, as is the incommunicable office of Mother of Jesus; and there is no one, consequently, that needed so high a degree of holiness as she did. For, if God thus sanctified His prophets and Apostles as being destined to be the bearers of the Word of life, how much more sanctified must Mary have been, who was to bear the Lord and “Author of life.” (Acts 3:15). If John was so holy because he was chosen as the pioneer to prepare the way of the Lord, how much more holy was she who ushered Him into the world. If holiness became John’s mother, surely a greater holiness became the mother of John’s Master. If God said to His Priests of old” “Be ye clean, you that carry vessels of the Lord” (Is 3:11). . . . . . .
There is a propriety which suggests itself to every Christian in Mary’s remaining a Virgin after the birth of Jesus, for, as Bishop Bull of the Protestant Episcopal Church of England remarks, “It cannot with decency be imagined that the most holy vessel which was once consecrated to be a receptacle of the Deity should be afterwards desecrated and profaned by human use.”
According to Sacred Tradition and the early Christians:
St. Hippolytus of Rome:
“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. . . ” (Against Beron and Helix: Fragment VIII [A.D. 210]
St. Athanasius:
“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
St. Hilary of Poitiers
“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” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).
Pope Siricius I:
“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).
