On The Perpetual Virginity Of Blessed Mary


Mark 6:3 says, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses, and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?"

Some Protestants might try to use this passage to say that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

However, there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples). The words that the Jews used in all those instances were "brother" or "sister".

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew.

If you look at Genesis 14:14 you will see that instead of "brother" the translator has chosen "kinsman" :
"When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan."

However in the original hebrew text it refers to Lot as his "brother." The translator translates it as brother because he knows that Lot is his nephew.

Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

Now let's look at John 19:26-27 "When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

Right before Jesus dies, it says that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to the beloved disciple, John.

However, after the father died, according to Jewish custom, it was the eldest son's job to take care of the mother. If Jesus had four "brothers" (and not cousins): James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude: he would not have gone against Jewish custom and appointed John to take care of his mother. If Mary had had any other sons, it would have been a grievous insult to them that John was entrusted with the care of their mother!

Now let's look at Mark 6:3 again: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses, and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?"

Compare that with Matthew 27:55-56:
"There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb'edee."

In the verse from Matthew it says that Mary the mother of James and Joseph were at the cross. These are the same James and Joseph (Joses was a hebrew synonym of Joseph) from Mark 6:3.

And there is no confusing Mary the mother of James and Joseph with Mary the mother of Jesus, because Matthew 27:55-56 says that Mary the mother of James and Joseph was looking on from afar. Mary, the mother of Jesus, we know was at the foot of the cross.

Now look at Acts 1:14-15, "[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers...the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty."

Here is John Martignoni's take on it:

"A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the "brothers" of Jesus. Let's see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus' mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let's say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument's sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus' brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! "

When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" (Luke 1:34).

From the Church’s earliest days, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.

Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask "how" she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the "normal" way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request.

A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.

I've gathered these passages and quotes for this post in response to comments left by Mark Horne on an article Al Kimel wrote on Pontifications responding to Horne's reasons why he is not a Catholic. In Horne's article he refers to Mary in a very crass and vulgar way. He also states in his comments on Pontifications that the Church Fathers were wrong about Mary...as if he is an authority to make such a statement!

For more information, I suggest reading The Perpetual Viriginity of Blessed Mary by St. Jerome.