On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

A very bright, young parishioner recently reviewed our Fourth Sunday of Advent Gospel reading from Matthew 1:18-24 before Sunday Mass. In her review she actually read beyond the Lectionary and on to the final sentence of Matthew Chapter 1. This last sentence of the chapter caused her some very understandable consternation as it seems to imply at first blush that Joseph possibly had marital relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus, and this apparently logical interpretation cast doubt on her understanding of the Catholic Doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Here is the sentence from Matthew 1: 24-25: …“ When Joseph awoke; he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home. He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. “ [i]

She asked if I could explain this apparent contradiction, and while somewhat at a loss to come up with a satisfactory answer while at the same time greeting parishioners after Mass on Christmas Day, I decided to do some research into what I am sure is a question or concern on the minds of many of the faithful, yet too often goes unexplored.
The problem with the sentence centers on the word “Until”; which can imply to the reader that Joseph had relations with Mary after Jesus was born. This is certainly not in keeping with the Catholic and Orthodox Christian understanding of the passage. The simplest and perhaps best explanation is that in the context of the entire paragraph, the author is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus and uses this phrase to clearly reemphasize that main point. The use of the word “until” in our modern English translations by itself in the context of this single sentence does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

It is important to note that it is very easy to get caught up in the meaning of modern language translations as well as our very American bias for facts and measurable accuracy over what is often a more nuanced contextual meaning as was prominent in ancient texts. We must remember that we are reading at best a second or third hand translation of an ancient language when we read Sacred Scripture in English. This is why we can often get misled if we are unaware of the original textual meanings of the ancient languages and the contextual intention of the author at the time and place of the writing.
The English word ‘until’ (in scriptural ‘Koine Greek’ heos and hou) is often part of an idiomatic (i.e. stylized / colloquial /nuanced) expression. For example, I may say to an acquaintance upon our parting: “ Be well my friend, until we meet again.” This does not imply that after we meet again he or she should get sick! A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the ‘until’ is fulfilled. The word ‘until’ is used as both a preposition and a conjunction in modern English. In the case of my example it is used as a conjunction to join two clauses and it is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. So it is with Matthew 1:24-25. Here are other Biblical examples using ‘until’:

• 1 Corinthians 15:25: “For he [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” This does not imply Christ’s reign will end, when Lk 1:33 clearly says, "He will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end."
• Acts 25:21: "And when Paul appealed that he be held in custody for the Emperor’s decision, I ordered him held until I could send him to Caesar.”. This text does not mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was sent to Caesar. We know this was not the case and Paul was held in custody for a time while in Rome where he was executed.
• 1 Timothy 4:13: “Until I arrive, attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching.” This use of until as a preposition does not mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes.

Some literalist interpreters using a modernistic approach to read scripture, proffer Matthew 1: 24-25 as an example of a ‘proof text’ (a term rejected by scripture scholars) to propose that Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus was born. The many problems with this concept begin with the fact that the predominant body of early Church scholarship conflicts with it. The Early Church Fathers overwhelmingly promulgated the perpetual virginity of Mary, with the notable exception of the scholar Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225 A.D.), who taught the orthodox view of the virgin birth, but seems to have held a minority, heterodox viewpoint that Mary’s virginity was not likely after Jesus’ birth. Conversely, St. Irenaeus (c. A.D. 130 – 202) and a majority of his contemporaries taught perpetual virginity, along with other orthodox Marian themes which ultimately became Church doctrine. Overwhelming support for the doctrine of perpetual virginity by Church leaders was evident by the 3 ^rd and 4 ^th centuries.

Of particular note is the 2 ^nd Century ‘Protoevangelium of James’ (c. A.D. 150) which sheds some light on the early Church’s predominant belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. This early ‘extra-biblical’ text is important in that reveals the early Church’s thinking about the question of Mary’s virginity after the birth of Jesus. The writer of this text explains that Mary was a consecrated virgin who served in the Temple for a time until she reached physical maturity and then was ‘betrothed’ to Joseph who had children by a wife who had died. A man with a household in the community of that ancient culture would need a wife to tend to children and domestic tasks. Such ‘espousals’ were arranged affairs between the respective families with the blessing of the religious authorities. Joseph’s having children through a prior marriage also accounts for the reference in scripture (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3) to Jesus’ ‘brothers and sisters’. Some sources refer to these brothers and sisters as ‘kinsman’ or ‘cousins’, which is also plausible. However noted scripture scholar, Fr. Raymond Brown, disputes the ‘kinsman’ theory through an in-depth linguistic study of the ancient Aramaic and Greek in his work; “ The Birth of the Messiah: A study of the Infancy Narratives of Matthew and Luke” and also in “ The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus ”,[ii] Fr. Brown argues that the language used points to brothers and sisters as we understand the meaning today and not to kinsmen, arguably giving the ‘Protoevangelium of James’ greater weight in this discussion. Regardless of which theory is correct, the accounting for the nature and existence of step brothers and sisters, or perhaps cousins, also contributes to the question of perpetual virginity.

A search of various sources reveals a collection of some Early Church Fathers’ thoughts supporting the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Below are some of the most significant examples:

• Origen: “The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).”
• 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]).”
• 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]).”
• Epiphanius: “We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).”
• St. Jerome: “But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).”
• Didymus the Blind: “It helps us to understand the terms "firstborn" and "only begotten" when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin "until she brought forth her firstborn son" [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).”
• St. Ambrose of Milan: “Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388])”
• Pope St. 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, chat court of the eternal King (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).”

• St. Augustine: “In being born of a virgin who chose to remain a virgin even before she knew who was to be born other, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).”
• Leporius of Gaul (Theologian): “We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).”
• ST. Cyril of Alexandria: “The Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly He was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).”[iii]

We can establish a rather convincing argument that the Early Church Fathers overwhelmingly held to a doctrine of perpetual virginity, but what about the early Protestant reformers? Certainly the early Protestants who led a schism from the Church had to hold that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus, since so many modern Protestants hardly consider the significance of Mary in their Theology and Christology. Not so. Research into the early reformers regarding this question disclosed that Martin Luther believed Mary did not have other children and did not have any marital relations with Joseph. He used the term " Ever Virgin" to refer to Mary and the perpetual virginity of Mary was Luther's lifelong belief. Huldrych Zwingli, the Swiss Radical Reformer, directly supported perpetual virginity. The Anglican reformers of the 16th and 17th century also supported perpetual virginity on the basis of ancient Church teaching. The English Protestant reformers likewise supported the concept of perpetual virginity. French-born reformer John Calvin cautioned against " impious speculation" on the topic. He was more circumspect in his belief and left open the possibility of Mary having children after Jesus primarily on the scriptural references to Jesus’ brothers and sisters, despite the preponderance of ancient Church opinions on the topic. Calvin’s acceptance of the possibility of future children may be the root cause of the modern trend. However, in the 18th century, John Wesley, one of the founders of Methodism, supported the doctrine of perpetual virginity and wrote that: "... [Jesus was] born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. The challenge to the perpetual virginity of Mary is a modern innovation based on literal analysis of sparse Biblical language taken out of context.” [iv]