The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Part 1 of 4)

     St. Joseph is nowhere mentioned during Jesus' ministry, least of all in places where you would expect it, so it is normally assumed that he had already passed away by then. Nevertheless, complications would have arisen if he had died while Jesus was still a teenager. Probably, therefore, Mary and Joseph were married for 20 to 25 years. Yet it is an article of faith in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, and accepted by many of the Reformers, that this marriage was never consummated, that it was completely sexless and, not only that, that this was a good thing, an act of piety. This doctrine is held with an emotion which is highly resistant to logic. Centuries of devotion to the Holy Mother has turned her, in the view of many, into an ethereal figure on a pedestal far above normal human experience. Along with centuries of the monastic adulation of celibacy, it means that idea of her being carnally touched by a man produces an almost visceral response that it is an attack on her sanctity. Anyone would think that a virtuous wife and mother is less holy than a virgin! Also, it is a teaching of their church, and their world would start to collapse if they at once admitted that the church might have got it wrong.

      Nevertheless, it has got it wrong.

      For a start, the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is not told in the Bible. So, even if there were some good extra-biblical evidence in its favour, why should we be required to believe it? To use an example, there is much stronger evidence that St. John moved to Ephesus in his old age and, as the sole surviving apostle, dominated the whole area until almost the end of the century. But since it is not mentioned in the Bible, no-one is required to believe it. Anyone who queried the tradition would be considered a bit silly, but not a heretic.

     So what does the Bible say on this matter? Matt.1:25 says that Joseph did not "know" Mary until she bore a son, the implication being that he did so afterwards.

      In Matt. 13:55-6 and Mark 6:3 we are told that Jesus had brothers called James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, along with some unnamed sisters. Jesus' brothers are also mentioned in Matt. 12:46/Mark 3:31-2/Luke 8:19-20 and John 2:12, where they were associated with his mother, and also John 7:3-5. They are also mentioned, along with his mother, in Acts 1:14, while St. Paul refers to them in 1 Cor. 9:5, and in Gal. 1:19 he calls James the Lord’s brother.

      The natural reading of these texts would imply that, after the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph settled down as a normal married couple. And why not? It was not forbidden of them, and marriage is just as noble and holy a calling as celibacy.

       The proponents of the doctrine therefore attempt to put special meanings on the words.

       "Until": it doesn't always imply change. If a man does not repent until he dies, he doesn't do so afterwards. True, but this is a special case. Under normal circumstances, that is not how either Greek or English operate. And if the author meant that Joseph never "knew" Mary the rest of his life, he could have said so.

        "Brother"" it does not always mean brother; it can mean any close relative, such as a cousin. This is simply not true! No matter how often this assertion is made, the word is not used that way, in either Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or English. Of course, since brotherhood is supposed to be the strongest of bonds, it is often used symbolically, but that can easily be recognized by context. 

       When Peter and Andrew are referred to as brothers (Matt. 4:18 and many other verses), we assume they had the same parents. Later, when Peter asks, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?” (Matt. 18:21) we assume it is a general question, and not that he is having a fight with Andrew. When St. Paul addresses his readers as brethren, we know he doesn't mean they had the same parents as him. More to the point, he doesn't mean they are cousins, nephews, uncles, or any other relative. The word is symbolic; everyone knows that except those who don't want to know.
       When Jesus was told that His mother and brothers were outside, he replied that His mother and brothers were those who heard the word of God and did it (Matt. 12:46/Mark 3:31-2/Luke 8:19-20). When a man's brothers are distinguished from his closest companions, we assume that they are blood relatives. When they are mentioned in connection with his mother, the assumption is that she is also their mother. These are the natural implications of the text.

       It must be emphasized that this verbal legerdemain in not exegesis i.e. exposition of the meaning of the text, but eisegesis, the reading into the text of an external idea. They assume that Mary was always a virgin, and then twist the words to fit the doctrine. They then introduce problems which do not exist.

• If Jesus had brothers, why did he commit His mother's care to His disciple, John? Because they were not present at the cross, but John was. This argument is a two-edged sword. If Jesus were an only child, who was taking care of His widowed mother during the three years he was roaming Galilee, when He had "no place to lay His head" (Matt. 8:20, Luke 9:58)? Since He knew He was going to die young, why did He wait till the very last minute to take the action?

• What did Mary mean when she said to the angel, "How will this be, since I do not know a man?" (Luke 1:34)? She would have assumed that Joseph would be the father. Unless, of course, she had made a vow of perpetual virginity. Seriously, this must be one of the silliest ideas ever invented. And it could only have been invented after the commencement of the monastic movement in the 4th century. Judaism knows nothing of vows of celibacy - not in the 21st century, not in the first. Even if it did, why would Mary make such a vow? She didn't know she was going to become the mother of God. And the bottom line is: nobody makes a vow of lifetime celibacy and then gets engaged to be married - or vice versa. No, we have only a summary of the conversation between Mary and Gabriel and, in any case, Semitic languages make little distinction between the present and future tenses. But the impression was that the conception was to take place then and there. That is how the church has usually understood it - which is why the Feast of the Annunciation is exactly nine months before Christmas. 

• Joseph wouldn't have dreamed of having sex with the holy vessel of God, the new living ark of the covenant. This is a modern attitude, which reflects on those making it. It adequately explains their own emotional resistance to the idea. But we should not assume that this was the attitude of the first Christians, nor that the couple themselves saw it that way. For a start, may I humbly suggest that if Mary held such an attitude about herself, it would imply a conceitedness incompatible with sanctity. As for Joseph, he would be aware of the teachings of the rabbis that sex is a duty a husband owes to his wife, as confirmed by that ex-rabbi, St. Paul (1 Cor. 7:3-5), and something about which modern couples need to be reminded.

      These objections may have some legitimacy if they were some good extra-biblical evidence for the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. Is there? In Part 2 we shall exam what the earliest Christian writers said.

       Also, Parts 3 and 4.