The Case for Mary (’s Perpetual Virginity)

One point of contention which still divides Christians is the perpetual virginity of Mary (that is, in Latin, the doctrine of semper virgo). The Virgin Birth is well enough established in Holy Scripture and a proper benchmark of orthodox Christian doctrine; but did Mary remain a virgin following the birth of her first son, Jesus Christ?

The Roman Catholic Church, along with the varied Orthodox churches (those that conform to the standard of orthodoxy set by the Seven Ecumenical Councils, as well as those that fail to recognize either the Third or Fourth or both as accurately conveying “Tradition”) consider the perpetual virginity of Mary a point of dogma. The Lutheran Confessions take for granted Mary’s perpetual virginity. Notwithstanding an explicit reference to “the holy ever-virgin Mary” (semper virgo) in the Smalcald Articles (1537), Part I, par. 4, though, many Lutheran bodies do not treat this clause as doctrinally binding (a regrettable number of modern Lutheran theologians would rather not even consider it tenable). The Confessional literature of most other Christian traditions say nothing either for or against Mary’s perpetual virginity, with the noteworthy exception of the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), Ch. XI.

This pastor, with no violence whatsoever to my reason or conscience, firmly believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. In the hope of making a persuasive defense of my personal position (as well as that of Bl. Dr. Martin Luther and several venerable Fathers of the Church), I entreat the good reader to judge the case patiently and in light of the following defense.

Scriptural Witness

Whether affirming or denying Mary’s perpetual virginity, it is of first importance to take stock of the Scriptural evidence (or lack thereof).

The most commonly presented “evidence” brought to bear against is the temporal clause in the Gospel of Matthew: “When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until (εως ου) she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.” (Matt 1:24-25) The question is whether or not the preposition “until” necessarily implies that Joseph did proceed to “know” Mary after Jesus’ birth. Martin Chemnitz (Lutheran bishop affectionately referred to as the “second Martin”) “shows that εως ου, donec, priusquam, which mean ‘until then’ or its equivalent, do not declare that the things that did not take place ‘till then’ did occur at a later time.” (For this quote I owe a debt to Francis J. Pieper [Chr. Dogm. II.309]). Chemnitz calls into witness several cases, most notably I Sam 15:35: “And Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death”; and by way of course Matt 28:20: “And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Does Jesus mean to say that he will not be with his Church after the end of earthly history? The term “until” cannot be said to establish a fact in and of itself.

Another objection is raised over the term “firstborn son” applied to Jesus in the account of Jesus’ birth: “And she gave birth to her firstborn son” (Luke 2:7). However, like the preceding, this term does not of necessity imply that Mary bore other children after Jesus. The context of St. Luke’s account of Jesus’ presentation at the Temple (Luke 2:22-38) makes the point much more clear: “first born son” (literally, “male who first opens the womb,” properly rendered by the ESV) “shall be called holy to the Lord.” “Firstborn” is a legal term which comes to bear in both secular and, under the Torah, religious law among the Jews.

Furthermore, there is the application of the term uniquely to Jesus Christ in Col 1:15: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” Without delving too deeply into the complexities of Trinitarian theology and orthodox Christology, “firstborn” as it refers to Christ’s divine nature cannot imply that God has other sons; he is clearly identified as the “only” and “only-begotten” in the Gospel of John (John 1:14; 3:16). The same may well apply to Christ’s human nature. “Firstborn” does not exclude “only son.” Another case is when God calls the nation of Israel “my firstborn son” (Exod 4:22). Again, without need to redress the foibles of Dispensationalism, it cannot be observed when God at a later time in history called another nation into being as his “son”. Neither of these word studies settles the case. 

Of much more serious accounting is the “evidence” borne by the Gospels’ mention of Jesus’ so-called “bothers”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude, as well as some “sisters” who sadly go unnamed (Matt 13:53-57; 20:20; Mark 3:31-35; John 7:3-10; Acts 1:14). Supposing that Jesus’ mother Mary and her husband Joseph assumed normal marital relations after Jesus’ birth, these may easily be reckoned his half-brothers and half-sisters. Well enough… however, it may be said with equal conviction that these are stepbrothers brought in from a previous marriage on the part of Joseph. Lending credence to this alternate view is the likelihood that Joseph was deceased before Jesus reached adulthood. In any event, Jesus is, again, designated by Luke as the first male opening Mary’s womb (Luke 2:23). The latter possibility establishes that Mary’s perpetual virginity is easily defensible on Scriptural grounds.

Still, a little investigative work confined to the Scriptural data recommends a third alternative: that these near relatives of Jesus were neither step siblings nor biological children of Mary, but first cousins.

Beginning with what can be established with some level of conviction about them: 

At least two prominent figures in the Apostolic community bore the name of James (that is, Jacob). There is St. James the Greater, son of Zebedee and brother of St. John the Evangelist (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:17). They are nicknamed by Jesus the “Sons of Thunder” (βοανεργες). It is assumed that James was the elder of the two brothers, as in all but one instance his name is mentioned before John’s.

Of primary interest, however, is another James who assumed a leadership rôle in the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:1-21; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11). St. James of Jerusalem is commonly identified as the author of the Epistle of James (Jas 1:1). Throughout the Book of Acts – significantly composed by St. Luke around the same time as the Gospel bearing his name, of which is it a “sequel” of sorts (Acts 1:1-2) – he is simply known as “James” without any moniker. (It is also interesting that, in the formal list of the surviving Apostles in Acts 1:13, John’s name is listed before that of his brother James; could this be because the other James had risen to more prominence, equal to John, eclipsing John’s elder brother?) In any case, there is one instance where Luke singles out a certain figure in the resurrection account by her relation to a well-known James: “Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles” (Luke 24:10). St. Paul mentions James “the Lord’s brother” for the first time in writing Galatians 1:19 but everywhere else, similar to Luke, simply assumes his audience to know which James to whom he is referring (I Cor 15:7). 

According to some ancient traditions, the bishop of Jerusalem is the same as another of Jesus’ disciples, known as St. James the Lesser in distinction to St. James the Greater. He is the son of a certain Alphaeus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:10; Acts 1:13). Naturally, however, this excludes the possibility that he was a brother of Jesus, as Paul identifies one “pillar” (Gal 1:19; 2:9) of the Apostolic community. Although those surviving among the “apostles” remained in Jerusalem after the Greater James’ execution (Acts 8:1-2), there is no explicit mention of the Lesser James’ activity. Interestingly enough, his moniker “the Lesser” is owing exclusively to St. Mark; he refers to the son of a myrrh bearing woman named Mary as “James the younger” or “the less” (του μικρου) (Mark 15:40). Tradition, however, must bow to the witness of Scripture in this and all departments. As will be shown further down, this James seems more likely to be James of Jerusalem, the “brother of the Lord” – and therefore reasonably grouped with the “brothers of Jesus” singled out in Mark 6:3 and Matt 13:55.

By way of contrast to James of Jerusalem, precious little can be certain about the others: Joseph, Simon, and Jude. The author of the Epistle of Jude must have been a member of the Apostolic community on a level with Mark and James. He introduces himself as “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1). It is not only possible but likely that Jude is one of Jesus’ “brothers” who were gathered with the Twelve Apostles and the Blessed Virgin Mary in Acts 1:14. One must look for a formal list of Jesus’ “brothers” in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Mark records the people of Nazareth, Jesus’ hometown, saying: “’Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters all here with us?’ And they took offense at him.” (Mark 6:3) (“Jude” is of course a variant of the name “Judas,” favoured by English translators probably to avoid confusion with Judas Iscariot. “Joses” is a Hellenization of the Hebrew name “Joseph.”) Within the New Testament canon, only from here and in Jude 1 do we know a pair of brothers named James and Jude.

Under light of the foregoing, the exegetical case whittles down to one single question:

Who is James’ mother?

To reiterate, Luke’s resurrection narrative, he identifies James as the son of a certain Mary (Luke 24:10) about whom little else is known. This James we can confidently say is not St. James the Greater, one of the twelve Apostles along with his brother St. John. As shown above, the most reasonable alternative is James of Jerusalem.

Matthew distinguishes this same Mary, “the mother of James and Joseph” from “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt 27:56). Mark’s account of Jesus’ crucifixion seems to complement Matthew’s – it mentions a certain “Salome” as being present along with Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, “the mother of James the younger and of Joses” (Mark 15:40). It seems reasonable to believe that Salome is the “mother of the sons of Zebedee”. Similar to Luke, in Mark’s Resurrection account, Mary is “the mother of James”; and Salome is with her bringing spices to the anoint Jesus’ body. Returning to the Mary who went with Salome and Mary Magdalene: she has two sons named James and Joses (the Hellenized version of Joseph).

Are this James and Jude, then, the same as those mentioned in Mark and Matthew? The fact that Joses/Joseph is named second in each list of Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3; Matt 13:55) Luke seems to indicate that he was not the oldest. One would reason given the custom of the day that St. Joseph, Mary’s betrothed, would have named his elder son after himself if any. Instead, the eldest seems to be James (that is, Jacob). (Something could be made of the fact that Joseph’s father and was named Jacob [Matt 1:16]. At least in Matthew. According to Luke’s genealogy, Joseph’s father was named “Heli.” The easiest way for accounting for this discrepancy is that Heli and Jacob were brothers, both sons of Matthan or Matthas; and that, observing the law of Levirate marriage [Deut 25:5-10], either one or the other would have assumed the rôle of Joseph’s father predeceased by his brother. One may safely assume that Matthew follows Mosaic law which stipulated that the first son borne of a Levirate marriage “shall continue the name of his dead brother”; while Luke, the physician, would take more interest in Joseph’s biological father. This would suggest that Jacob was Joseph’s legal father, but Heli the one he grew up with. Of course this is all speculative.)

The possibility exists that James, Joseph, Simeon, and Jude might not have been sons of Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father, but his first cousins. Still today in Eastern world cultures, it is common for extended families to live under the same roof. (Especially so in a village such as Nazareth, which some estimate would have comprised of around 200 residents!) It should also be said. While there is scant evidence to support the oft-made argument that “brothers” in New Testament Greek could apply to “cousins,” I see no firm reason to dismiss it either. In the absence of a clear case on either side, all one has to fall back on is the most likely identity of James and Jude.

St. John, like Matthew and Mark, takes account of the women who were present at Jesus’ crucifixion. He mentions Mary the mother of Jesus “and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas (Μαρια η του Κλωπα), and Mary Magdalene.” (John 19:25) Supposing that Mary the wife of Clopas is the same as Mary’s sister, she is Jesus’ aunt. We may reasonably assume the same Mary the wife of Clopas would have also been one of the myrrh bearers. This being the case, Mary the mother of James and Joseph is Jesus’ aunt and the latter two his first cousins.

It is interesting to note that, after Jesus’ resurrection, one of the “disciples” he appeared to on the road to Emmaus is named Cleopas (Luke 24:18). None of Jesus’ Twelve Disciples is ever listed under the name “Cleopas” (which is another spelling of Clopas.) (“Silas” is an abbreviation of “Silvanus.” St. Silvanus, a companion whom St. Paul mentions in his letters to the Thessalonians [I Thess 1:1; II Thess 1:1], is called “Silas” by Luke [Acts 16-7]. Peter is alternately called “Simon” [Matt 16:17; John 21:15-17] and “Simeon” [Acts 15:14].) It cannot be confirmed whether this Cleopas is the same as Jesus’ uncle by marriage. However, the latter possibility – that Clopas was a follower of Jesus – does bring to mind another consideration that has been brought into the debate.

John makes mention of Jesus’ “brothers” in connection with the Feast of Booths (John 7:3-10). He associates them with the unbelieving Jews with the comment: “For not even his brothers believed in him.” Keep in mind this is all John has to say about Jesus’ “brothers.”

Now, one need not rely on the longstanding tradition and general likelihood that the Gospel of John was written toward the end of the first century A.D. Paul, writing in his Epistle to the Galatians some time around the year 50, refers to John along with Cephas (Peter) and James as “pillars” of the Apostolic community in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9). Paul makes much of the fact that he didn’t meet formally with the community until somewhere north of “fourteen years” following his conversion (v. 1). Some time prior to this James the Greater, John’s older brother, had been murdered by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2). No mention is made of John himself being martyred on the same occasion. Neither is he mentioned as having a role in the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem described in Acts 15; but however long John was both alive and remained at Jerusalem, he must have had association with the other James (the bishop of Jerusalem). All this is to say that:

John knew James as a believer in Christ.

One notices throughout the Gospel of John that he often disrupts his narrative, adding commentary as he sees relevant. In chapter twenty-one, for example, Jesus’ discourse with Simon Peter [John 21:18-19] more ore less explicitly alludes to Peter’s death by crucifixion which occurred during the later reign of Nero Caesar in the 60s. While John is eager to show Peter’s repentance and reinstatement as an apostle, he makes no mention of any of Jesus’ “brothers” having a conversion experience. Why is this relevant?

Jesus, while he was dying on the cross, entrusted his mother Mary to the care of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26-27). (The disciple whom Jesus loved is generally assumed to be John speaking in the third person.) Whatever the case, though, John’s depiction of Jesus’ “brothers” (ch. 9) precludes them from being this “disciple.” It appears evident that Joseph, Mary’s betrothed, had died and left her widowed. John makes no mention of him at all; neither does Mark (who almost exclusively relies on Peter’s recollections but shows no meaningful association with Mary). Both Jewish and Roman custom would have dictated that Mary be taken care of either by one of her biological sons or sons-in-law. That is, supposing she had any, Jesus excepted.

As a general rule John does not show Jesus flouting Jewish custom. One notable exception to this is his interaction with the woman of Samaria (4:1-42). Setting aside exegetical subtleties, plainly, one of John’s purposes behind recording this encounter seems to be that “many Samaritans from that town believed in (Jesus) because of the woman’s testimony” (v. 39). The woman at the well’s testimony clearly parallels Mary Magdalene announcing Jesus’ resurrection to his disciples (20:18). The other two cases of Jesus departing from Jewish custom have to do with the Torah itself and making unmistakeable theological claims about himself. 1) Jesus heals a man on the Sabbath day (ch. 5) in the interest of showing he is God. 2) Jesus claims to be the “bread of life” (6:22-59) all the while repeatedly entreating his followers to eat his “body” and drink his “blood”. It is no stretch to say that Jesus radically reinterpreted the episode where God fed the Israelites with manna (Exod 16; Neh 9:15). He also seemed to challenge the Levitical law against drinking blood (Lev 17:10-12). In both these cases, a clear point is being established. By way of contrast, there is no discernible reason why Jesus would commend Mary to a man outside of the family in the existence of alternatives.

The objection is raised to this that Jesus desired for his mother to enter a believing household. Perhaps, perhaps not. That argument, however, is self-refuting. As pointed out above, John does not record any conversion experience on the part of Jesus’ brothers, either before or after his resurrection. Yet he associated with James of Jerusalem as a fellow believer (practically speaking, in terms of church organization as a bishop, one rung higher than himself). Again, Paul records that Jesus appeared to James after his resurrection (I Cor 15:7).

Did Jesus appear to James toward the end of proving himself to be what he claimed to be? There is nothing to suggest this. In every case, Jesus appears to those who already recognized him to be the Messiah: his women followers, his eleven disciples (the only idea of which they needed further convincing was his bodily resurrection [John 20:24-29]), and “then to James, then to all the apostles.” It is interesting that Paul in this passage differentiates the Twelve Disciples from the “apostles”. Be this as it may, James is reckoned among their number. Members of the Apostolic community consisted solely of those who had believed in Jesus prior to his resurrection. Paul singles himself out as the exception: “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” (vv. 8-9). Unlike the others, Jesus did not appear bodily to Paul (or Saul) but in a “voice” “from heaven” (Acts 9:3-4). The notion that James came to the radical realization of his “brother’s” true identity as the Son of God may make good cinema, but sadly has no Scriptural support. From the grand perspective, it is apparent that James did in fact believe in Jesus. In any event, John never lists him among Jesus’ “brothers”; and neither Matthew nor Mark, who do, refrain from saying that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him. In these Gospels, his brothers are taken together with Jesus’ mother Mary – who (notwithstanding Jesus’ rhetorical statement that “whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” [Matt 13:50]) certainly did believe and follow him all along. The same could easily be said about James and Jude.

Even if such were not the case, the fact remains that James did become a lifelong “servant” (Jas 1:1) of Jesus Christ. Our Lord would certainly not have lacked the foresight that his “brother” James would tow his Messianic line shortly after his resurrection! There is no ground for the objection that Jesus would have excluded one of his half-brothers from his familial duties for being a hardened nonbeliever.

Everything said hitherto points toward the likelihood that James was not a biological half-brother, or even older stepbrother, of Jesus, but a first cousin. Which in turn allows for the possibility that Mary remained a virgin in perpetuity.

In summary:

1. When it is said that Joseph “knew her not until she had given birth to a son” (Matt 1:25), the preposition “until” does not necessarily imply that they engaged in physical relations afterward. Much less does the term “firstborn” (Luke 2:7) as applied to Jesus.
2. While the Gospels and St. Paul (Gal 1:19) make mention of Jesus having “brothers” and “sisters” (αδελφοι), these need not be assumed to be biological children of Mary and Joseph. 

Resting on these certain premises, the following points may be speculated:

1. The most well-known James in the Apostolic Community was St. James of Jerusalem.
2. This James was likely the “brother” of St. Jude (Jude 1) though never claimed to be a brother but rather a “servant” of Jesus Christ (Jas 1:1).
3. This James was also likely the son of Mary and Clopas, aunt and uncle to Jesus (Luke 24:10), in which case he also had a brother named Joseph (Matt 27:56; Mark 15:40).
4. This James being a first cousin to Jesus, his probable brothers Joseph, Jude, (and presumably also Simon along with Jesus’ “sisters”) would be also. 
5. When Jesus commended his mother Mary to the care of St. John (John 19:26-27), he cannot reasonably be assumed to exclude any blood relation on grounds that they did not (or, at least, could never hope to) belong to the household of faith.

Yes, it need be recognized my argument belongs to the realm of conjecture. But so do the counter arguments. Although the canonical Scriptures do not clearly indicate the perpetual virginity of Mary, even without recourse to extracanonical Marian dogma and traditions there is more than a faint possibility.

Therefore let it be resolved that tender consciences sleep well who wish to take the semper virgo seriously.

Soon in coming is an accounting of doctrinal literature on the subject. Stay tuned!

Father Heide