During the last few hundred years, it has become in vogue for some
Protestant Christians to not only question the virginity of Mary, but to
actually oppose it openly and militantly. Many traditional Protestants have
gone the way of doubting the virginity of Mary altogether, relegating it to an
early Christian myth. Meanwhile most of the more contemporary Evangelical
Christians firmly adhere to the virginity of Mary during Christ’s conception on
up to his birth, but vigorously deny her virginity thereafter. This article
will demonstrate why both assumptions are wrong.
The former assumption, that Mary’s virginity is a myth, lacks all
historical evidence. It is simply an assumption based entirely on Modernist
doubt. I suppose if one wants to build one’s faith on Modernist doubt, have at
it. In time however, it won’t be long before one is questioning everything else
in the gospel, then ultimately the gospel itself. Thus the progression of
Modernism in Christianity has always been from denial of little things, to the
denial of big things, and on to the denial of everything. If this is the path
one finds one’s self on, don’t let me stop you. This blog is about real
history, real science and real tradition. If these things are a problem for
you, there is nothing I can do. So maybe you should simply move on. If however,
you’re interested in real history, and what we really know about Mary and
Jesus’ brothers through the only records that tell about them (Scripture and
early tradition) then this blog is for you.
When we look at characters in the Bible, holy men and women of God, we
need to understand that everything we know about them comes from two sources.
The first source is the writings of Holy Scripture itself. The second source is
the writings of the early Christians, that while they may not be infallible
like Scripture, they do give us a clear image of what the early Christians
believed. My father always taught me that the best way to understand history is
to go to what he called “original source documentation.” What does that mean?
It means going to the writings of the people who lived closest to the
historical event. Fortunately for us, the early Christians were prolific
writers, and some of their stuff has survived to this very day, was translated
into English, digitized and can now be read in historical archives in libraries
and on the Internet. Outside of these records we have no knowledge of what the
early Christians believed or how they interpreted the Scriptures. That’s right,
outside of these writings, we have nothing. That’s it. If you want to know what
the early Christians thought, then you can read it in their own words. If you’re
not interested in their writings, or are apt to dismiss them, then you’ll have
to deal with the fact that you have no information about the early Christians
and therefore you know virtually nothing about them.
Many of today’s Evangelical Christians usually fall into this trap, but
often enough, they are completely oblivious to it. The common Evangelical
narrative goes something like this…
Mary was a virgin when the Angel Gabriel announced the birth of Christ
to her. She remained a virgin all through her pregnancy and Joseph did not have
intercourse with her. Then after Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph had sex. We
know this because the Bible tells us that she only remained a virgin “until”
she gave birth to Jesus, implying that she ceased to be a virgin after. The
Bible also makes references to the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus Christ,
even naming some of them. Therefore, we know, based on the Bible Alone, that
Mary ceased to be a virgin after the birth of Jesus, had normal sexual
relations with Joseph, and produced a number of younger siblings of Jesus
Christ.
— Typical Protestant Narrative
Okay, there are several problems with this narrative, but before I
demonstrate that I want to emphasize that this is an extremely popular
narrative which is almost universally accepted in Protestantism (both
traditional and Evangelical). Now some traditional Protestants have ceased to
believe in the virgin birth altogether, but the Evangelicals vigorously defend
that, at least insofar as Mary remaining a virgin prior to the birth of Jesus.
The Evangelicals almost universally subscribe to the narrative above. Aside
from a small group if high-church Anglicans, and perhaps a few traditional
Lutherans, almost every Protestant in the world accepts the above narrative as
Biblical and historical truth. So with that said, lets look at all the Biblical
“evidence” Protestants use to support the idea that Mary had sex sometime after
the birth of Jesus Christ.
The first Biblical citation comes from the Gospel according to Matthew
in reference to the relationship between Joseph and Mary…
“but [Joseph] had no marital relations with her until she
had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.” — Matthew 1:25
Here Evangelicals like to put an emphasis on the word “until,” implying
that because this word is used, it means that Mary’s condition as a virgin
changed after the fact. However, there is a serious linguistic problem with
this understanding, both with the English word “until” and with the Greek word
it was translated from – heos. Neither in
English nor in Greek, does the word “until” (heos) always imply
that something changed after it’s used. Most of the time it does, but not all
of the time. For example, 2nd Samuel 6:23 says: “And
Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her
death.” So does that mean that Michal had children after her
death? Probably not. Matthew 22:44 says: “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit
at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.’” So
does that mean the Lord (Jesus the Son) will not sit by our Lord’s (God the
Father’s) right hand after he puts his enemies under his feet? We have some
significant theological problems if it does mean that. For the Father and the
Son are two Persons of the blessed Trinity. How can the Son no longer sit at
the right hand of the Father? 1st Corinthians 15:25 says that Jesus “must reign until he has put all his enemies
under his feet.” Does this mean the Jesus will no longer reign
after he has put his enemies under his feet? Again, we’ve got some serious
theological problems if it does. Jesus is God. How can he not reign after a
certain event happens? 2nd Corinthians 1:13 says: “For we write to you nothing other than what you can read and also
understand; I hope you will understand until the end.”So
does that mean the apostle hopes we will not understand after the end — meaning
the end of the world and the last judgement? Are we to conclude that based on
this usage of the word “until” the Apostle Paul only wants us to understand
things until Jesus comes back, and then after that he hopes we don’t understand
any more? From this you can begin to see how ridiculous things get when we
impose a strict single-sense meaning on the word “until” (heos). Granted, the word “until” usually means that
something changes after a certain point, but it doesn’t always mean that. It
can’t. So to use the argument that Mary had sex after the birth of Jesus
because the word “until” (heos) is used
in Matthew 1:25 is a mistake. The usage of that word alone proves nothing —
neither in English nor in Greek. It simply means that Joseph did not have sex
with Mary before or after she was found to be with child. It says nothing — and
I mean nothing — about what happened thereafter. Sorry that’s just English (and
Greek).
Another objection is commonly raised because of the way some English
Bibles translate Matthew 1:25 as “And he did not know her until
she brought forth herfirstborn son.” The assumption
here is that because the verse says “firstborn,” there must have been a
second-born, and a third-born, and so on. Now that does sound logical in the
modern English usage of the word. However, we are not talking about a modern
people here, nor a modern culture, nor a modern linguistic usage of the term
“firstborn.” In ancient Jewish culture the term “firstborn” was a legal term.
It literally meant the child that opened the womb. This was important for
inheritance reasons, as the legal firstborn son (not daughter but son) was
always the one designated to receive the inheritance from his father (Exodus
13:2, Exodus 34:20, Numbers 3:12). What this meant is that the son who was born
first was called the “firstborn” regardless if there was ever a second or a
third. He was called “firstborn” immediately, even if the mother died in
childbirth and never gave birth to a second or third child. The term
“firstborn” was a legal term in ancient Jewish culture, and that is how the
term is used here in this passage. It in no way means that a second or third
child must follow. That is ancient Jewish law. Feel free to look it up, or
check with a local rabbi.
Now there are multiple references to the brothers or sisters of Jesus
Christ. These are as follows… Matthew 12:46; Matthew 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark
6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12; John 7:3-10; Acts 1:14 & 1st Corinthians 9:5.
Of course, this leads many to believe that this is irrefutable proof that Jesus
had younger siblings. However, there is a problem here, and this has to do with
language. While the New Testament manuscripts we have available to us today
were written in Greek, that is not the native language Jesus and his apostles
spoke. They all spoke Aramaic, which is a Semitic language very similar to
Hebrew. Very few people speak it today, but at the time of Christ, it was very
popular and widespread throughout the region. Aramaic is a primitive language
and lacks words for some fine details that are taken for granted in Greek,
Latin and even English. For example; Aramaic has no word for “wrist.” In fact,
the wrist is just considered part of the hand. This is why the Scriptures say
that Jesus was pierced through the “hands” at his crucifixion, even though
modern medical science tells us it would be impossible for the hands to support
the weight of his body. Medical examination of the Shroud of Turin, which is
believed to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, shows the image of a man
crucified through his wrists. Most archaeologists agree that the nails were
commonly placed through the wrist during Roman crucifixions. Yet to people who
spoke Aramaic at that time, they would have said the nails were placed through
the “hands” because the wrist was considered part of the hand. Likewise, a
similar situation exists in the usage of the words “brothers” and “sisters” in
the Aramaic language. The problem being that like ancient Hebrew, the Aramaic
language had no words for cousins, aunts, uncles and step-siblings. They were
all simply referred to as “brothers” and “sisters.” There is no way that any of
these verses cited above can prove that Jesus had siblings through Mary. Sorry,
that’s just the nature of Aramaic. In fact, the Scriptures themselves
demonstrate exactly what I’m talking about here, referring to two completely
different mothers for some of those named “brothers” of our Lord (Matthew 27:56
compare to John 19:25). Now granted, the New Testament manuscripts we use today
were written in Greek, not Aramaic, but they were written by Aramaic-speaking
people, and based on the example I just provided, it is obvious their Aramaic
manner of speech carried over into their Greek writings. Besides that, there is
considerable evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in
Aramaic before it was translated into Greek.
So I’ve demonstrated here, using the Bible fully in its linguistic and
cultural context, that every passage Evangelicals commonly use, to “prove” that
Mary had more children after Jesus, is nothing more than an assumption that has
no real Scriptural backing. However, there is a passage of Scripture that
completely backs the idea that Jesus did not have younger siblings. Throughout
the gospels it becomes clear that Mary is under the care of Jesus. Now this
would be unheard of if Joseph were still alive. Many early writings indicate
that Joseph died when Jesus was in his early teens, and this would indicate why
she would fall under the care of her son from that point on. Remember, under
Jewish law at that time, women had no rights. So a woman was forced to always
live under the care of a man. First a woman is raised by her father. Then she
goes under the care of her husband. Then presumably, if she is fortunate, she
will bear sons, and if her husband dies before she does, she will pass to the
care of her eldest son, unless he is unable, then to the next eldest, and so
on. As Jesus was dying on the cross, he gave care of his mother to his disciple
John rather than to the next male sibling in line as Jewish custom would
require (John 19:26-27). Are we to believe that Jesus broke Jewish custom
immediately before he died? No! The fact that he gave the care of his mother to
somebody who was clearly not his younger sibling brother indicates that he had
no sibling brothers.
Now that we’ve examined the Biblical record, let’s take a look at what
the early Christians had to say about this matter in their own writings. There
was a small book written in about AD 120 called the Protoevangelium
of James. This book has been recognized as an ancient account of
early Christians beliefs concerning the lives of Mary and Joseph. The book
records that Saint Anne (Mary’s mother) was childless. So following the example
of the Prophet Samuel’s mother in the Old Testament (1st Samuel 1:11), she
promised to God that if he would give her a child, she would dedicate him/her
at an early age to serve in the Temple as a virgin. Both boys and girls served
in the Temple as virgins since the earliest days of ancient Israel. In fact,
the Old Testament records an incident wherein some of these female Temple
virgins were defiled by the sons of the high priest (1st Samuel 2:22).
The Protoevangelium
of James tells us that Mary was dedicated by her mother Anne,
to lifelong service in the Temple as a virgin. However, it was common for such
virgins to be entrusted to a guardian to safeguard their virginity. This was
done by marrying them to elderly widowers who already had children by their now
deceased wives. The guardians were to take these virgins into their homes as
their wives. Their sole duty was to guard their virginity. By being legally
married to them, it prevented any younger men from daring to try to win their
affections. In exchange, the elderly guardian would gain for himself a
housekeeper, cook and companion. This practice was well known in first century
Judaism. Because of the number of virgins serving in the Temple, their presence
in Jerusalem was only required during certain times of the year. This allowed
them to live in remote villages spread throughout the Holy Land for most of the
year, only making occasional trips to Jerusalem during high feasts twice a
year, and occasionally as needed.
The Protoevangelium of James tells us that Mary served in the
Temple constantly as a young girl, from the time her mother dedicated her, at
about the age of 3 years. Mary was raised in the Temple by the priests and
scribes, and the Protoevangelium of James records that she danced for the
Lord and made all therein joyful. The high priest, Zachariah (the husband of
her cousin Elizabeth), raised her as his own daughter. After the age of 12
years, it was decided that she should be married to a guardian, as this was the
custom. So some years later, a number of widowers were selected as possible
candidates, and Joseph of Nazareth was one of them. Joseph was an elderly
widower, probably in his late forties or early fifties, who already had a
number of sons and daughters by his previous marriage. Joseph was selected to
become Mary’s guardian-husband, and this is the commonly understood reason why
the Scriptures record the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus Christ. They were
his older step-brothers and step-sisters through Joseph. Now this makes
Biblical sense because in John 7:3-10 these “brothers” of Jesus (presumably
older step-brothers) speak down to Jesus, telling him what to do, and did not
believe in him. In ancient Semitic culture it would have been unheard of for a
younger sibling to speak to the oldest this way. Indeed, if these “brothers”
were younger siblings through Mary, they would have been totally out of line
here, defying everything in their culture, and Jesus could have (indeed should
have) scolded them for not respecting their elder sibling. However, when we
plug this verse into the context of the Protoevangelium
of James, it all makes sense. These were Jesus’ older step-brothers
through Joseph who were talking down to him. This clears up a lot of other
mysteries as well. Joseph apparently died when Jesus was about twelve years
old. This would have certainly been catastrophic, and mentioned in the
Scriptures, if Joseph were a young man. However, Joseph was already an elderly
man (by first century standards) at the time he was betrothed to Mary.
Therefore, his death twelve to thirteen years later, would not have come as a
shock to anyone, needing no mention in Scripture.
It was Jewish custom at that time for a betrothed couple to live
together for one year before the wedding ceremony. (The wedding ceremony itself
was a feast or party that could last as long as a week!) Such a living
arrangement was designed to help the couple determine if they were really
suitable for marriage. In other words, could they live with each other? Or did
they have irreconcilable differences? Again, virtually all betrothed couples did
this. During this one-year betrothal period, the couple would live in the same
house, but sleep in separate rooms. Usually an older woman (such as an aunt or
grandmother, etc.) would be appointed to live in the house with them as a
chaperone. It was presumed that if the trio could manage to live together
peacefully for a year, then a normal marriage between the man and the woman, in
which just the two lived together, would be easy. All of this may seem strange
to us today, but when we consider how many modern marriages end in divorce, the
ancient Jewish betrothal period starts to make a lot of sense. So, we can begin
to see the magnitude of the scandal when we read in the gospels that Mary was
found to be with child (pregnant) during the customary betrothal period!
Now, stop and consider this situation please. Mary is just a 13 to 16
year-old girl, and Joseph is an elderly widower in his late 40s to early 50s.
Mary is a Temple virgin consecrated to lifelong prayer and service to the Lord.
Joseph was selected to be her guardian-husband. His sole responsibility was to
protect and preserve her virginity. Now we begin to see the magnitude of the
scandal! This was truly a mess, and it explains why the Scriptures tell us that
Joseph, being a righteous man, sought to have her shipped off quietly to some
secluded location. However, we know the rest of the story. The angel came to
Joseph in a dream and told him not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife, for
the child she bore was from God.
The Protoevangelium of James goes on to tell us the rest of
the story. Mary’s pregnancy eventually reached the point where it could not be
hidden any more. A tribunal was held in which the two were brought before a Temple
priest and accused of fornication. A test was given to them, to see if their
story was true, and when it was determined that they did not lie, the priest
refused to condemn them. They returned home and were married privately some
time later.
Certainly the whole affair was a stain on Joseph’s reputation. One can
only imagine what his older children must have thought, and based on what we
see written in John 7:3-10 and Mark 3:21, they obviously didn’t think very
highly of Jesus at first. The Protoevangelium
of James is a beautiful document, and gives a very ornate and
mystical vision of the period between the birth of Mary and the birth of
Christ. It is not Scripture. However, the text (written in about AD 120) gives
us a very clear picture of what early Christians believed and accepted as
history. It is, in fact, the only historical record we have concerning the
lives of these Biblical characters during this time period. To reject it is to
confess we know nothing, and one opinion is just as good as another. While not
elevating the text to the level of Scripture, the early Church saw it is highly
important and gave it an honored place in the early Christian patrimony. This
is reflected in the words of subsequent Christian writers…
“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”
— Origen, Commentary on Matthew 2:17 (A.D. 248)
“Therefore let those who deny
that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also
that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin.”
— Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362)
“The Son of God…was born
perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.”
— Epiphanius, Well Anchored Man, 120 (A.D. 374)
“The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God
ever ceased to be a virgin”
— Basil, Homily In Sanctum Christi, generationem, 5 (A.D. 379)
