We Catholics profess that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a virgin before birth, during birth, and after birth. We believe that she had only one Son, Jesus, who was conceived by the work and grace of the Holy Spirit.
Unlike ourselves and the Orthodox, Protestantism disagrees with this dogma of faith and believes that Mary had at least seven children, claiming to base this view on the Scriptures. The present chapter provides a summary, with the corresponding refutation, of the biblical arguments that Protestants commonly use in an attempt to justify their opinion.
Argument 1: The Bible speaks of the brothers of Jesus
Because the Bible speaks of the brothers of Jesus, Protestants interpret them as children of Mary. Let us look at the passages in question:
“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”[1]
“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? And they took offense at him.”[2]
“And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him.”[3]
“All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.”[4]
However, a careful analysis of these texts reveals that the matter is not so simple. This is because throughout all of Scripture it is common to find that the word “brother” is used in at least four contexts:
First Context: To denote blood brothers (children of the same mother or father)
“Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, ‘I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.’ And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground.”[5]
In the foregoing example, Cain is identified as the brother of Abel because they are both sons of Adam and Eve.
Second Context: To denote relatives or kinsmen
“Then Abram said to Lot, ‘Let there be no strife between you and me, and between your herdsmen and my herdsmen; for we are kinsmen.’”[6]
Here we see Abraham calling Lot his brother, when in reality Abraham is his uncle:
“These are the descendants of Terah. Terah was the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran was the father of Lot.”[7]
In another passage we see how the mother and brother of Rebekah call her “sister” (which is a way of saying “kinswoman”):
“But her brother and her mother said, ‘Let the maiden remain with us a while, at least ten days; after that she may go.’ But he said to them, ‘Do not delay me, since the LORD has prospered my way; let me go that I may go to my master.’ They said, ‘We will call the maiden, and ask her.’ And they called Rebekah, and said to her, ‘Will you go with this man?’ She said, ‘I will go.’ So they sent away Rebekah their sister and her nurse, and Abraham’s servant and his men. And they blessed Rebekah, and said to her, ‘Our sister, be the mother of thousands of ten thousands; and may your descendants possess the gate of those who hate them!’”[8]
In the New Testament, Philip is called the brother of Herod, when in reality he is his half-brother:
“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene.”[9]
Philip was the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem, while Herod was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace (his fourth wife). Although the Bible does not detail his genealogy and simply calls him his brother, it is known that they do not share the same mother, as attested by the detailed writings of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.
The same occurs with Laban, who calls Jacob his brother even though he is his uncle.[10]
Third Context: To denote members of the same people
“In those days, when Moses had grown up, he went out to his brethren and looked on their burdens; and he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his brethren.”[11]
This text narrates how Moses saw a Hebrew being beaten, and because he was of the same people he identifies him as one of his brothers.
Fourth Context: To denote spiritual brothers
“And he replied, ‘Who are my mother and my brothers?’ And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.’”[12]
In this text, carnal kinship is contrasted with spiritual kinship. The passage says in a few words that the family of Jesus is whoever does the will of God.
Another evidence that the word “brothers” by itself does not imply children of the same mother is found in several passages of the Old Testament:
“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or born abroad.”[13]
“If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a shameful thing…”[14]
“Cursed be he who lies with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.”[15]
There one observes how in Scripture being called someone’s brother does not necessarily imply being the child of the same parents, and that is why one must specify: “daughter of his mother” or “daughter of his father.”
This diversity in the use of the word “brother” is due to the fact that in Aramaic (which was the language of Jesus and his disciples) it was common to use the word “acha” = brother, to refer to close relatives. And although in Greek (the language in which the writings of the New Testament are found) there does exist an equivalent for cousin: “anepsios”, even so the word “adelphos” (brother in Greek) is frequently used with a broader meaning than that of blood brother, owing to the strong influence of the Aramaic and Hebrew languages in Scripture.
On the other hand, one cannot in any way overlook the supremely important Greek translation of the Bible, known as the “Septuagint” or “LXX.” This version from the second century before Christ, carefully elaborated and used by the Hellenized Jewish diaspora, develops a Greek with a strong Hebraic component. And in it, the word anepsios (cousin or relative in Greek) is barely used (only twice: Numbers 36:11 and Tobit 7:2), in favor of adelphos (brother).
The translators of the Septuagint did not hesitate to translate “acha” (Hebrew) as “adelphos” (Greek), even in cases where the relationship was not that of brothers born of the same father or the same mother.[16]
The Greek of the New Testament strives not to deviate even slightly from the Septuagint version, since it was widely read and even considered miraculous and inspired. This weighed heavily on Luke, a meticulous Hellenist.
If the brothers of Jesus were not necessarily the sons of Mary and could have been relatives, one must then ask whose sons they were.
As we have seen, according to Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 the brothers of Jesus are James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon.
If we begin by studying the mentions of James in the Scriptures (called Jacob in some translations), we will see that it is very probable that this James called “the brother of the Lord” was one of the Apostles. Saint Paul implies this in the letter to the Galatians:
“But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”[17]
Another evidence that he was one of the Apostles is that he is considered one of the pillars of the Church together with Peter and John, something that would have been difficult had he not been one of the Apostles:
“and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.”[18]
And of the Apostles called James (of whom there are two), neither is the son of Joseph the carpenter, for one is the son of Alphaeus and the other of Zebedee:
“The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus.”[19]
An argument I have often heard from Protestants consists in claiming that Paul would have called Apostles other men who did not belong to the group of the Twelve, and therefore it is possible that the brother of Jesus was another James who could also have been called an Apostle by Paul. They cite as an example the case of Andronicus and Junias, also called Apostles:
“Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.”[20]
This hypothesis, while viable, is doubtful in this context. When Paul refers to James as an Apostle, he is narrating the beginning of his ministry, when he went to meet Peter, and tells us that of the rest of “the Apostles” (the Twelve) he only met James. The context also makes it probable since Paul is speaking of the Apostles “before him”:
“But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”[21]
When Paul mentions that he saw James, he could not have been referring to the son of Zebedee and brother of John, since he was martyred around the year 44 A.D., as narrated in the book of Acts:
“About that time Herod the king laid violent hands upon some who belonged to the church. He killed James the brother of John with the sword.”[22]
Therefore, we are left with James the Less, who is the son of Alphaeus. In this regard many scholars think that his father Alphaeus is the same person as Clopas, as Father Daniel Gagnon argues:
“James is called the son of Alphaeus in Matthew 10:3, which seems to say either that he is a different James, or that Mary was the wife of Cleopas (CLOPAS in Greek) and of Alphaeus. But it is the same person, because the name Alphaeus in Aramaic is translated Cleopas (Clopas) in Greek, just as Saul in Hebrew is the same Apostle as Paul in Greek. Other examples: Matthew-Levi, Thaddaeus-Judas.”
This is quite logical since among the women who were at the foot of the cross, the mother of James the Less is another Mary, the wife of Clopas (Alphaeus):
“Among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”[23]
“But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”[24]
“There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.”[25]
From these three passages, though in different Gospels, the women who were at the foot of the cross are described precisely:
1) Mary Magdalene
2) Mary, the mother of James and Joseph and wife of Clopas (Alphaeus)
3) Salome, the sister of the mother of Jesus and mother of the sons of Zebedee.
Let us first clarify that here the mother of James and Joseph named Mary is not the mother of Jesus, since the latter does not go to the tomb whereas this Mary does go:
“And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.”[26]
Let us note then that this Mary, who is the mother of James, is also called the mother of Joseph (who is also called a brother of Jesus in Matthew 13:55).
In any case, if Alphaeus were not the same person as Clopas, it would only mean that there are three people named James: the son of Alphaeus, the son of Zebedee, and the son of Clopas; but in any case, note that none of them is the son of Mary the mother of Jesus, who was neither the wife of Alphaeus nor of Clopas.
Because of how common names were in that era, one might object that it is possible that the James and Joseph mentioned as brothers of Jesus in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 are not the same James and Joseph who are sons of Mary the wife of Clopas (Alphaeus). However, this would not only be a great coincidence but would also fail to harmonize with the way the Evangelists narrate the events. They are very careful to identify to whom they are referring, and for this reason they present James and Joseph as brothers of Jesus in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, and then present Mary, wife of Clopas, as their mother. In short, these men are identified first, and then that reference is used to identify Mary, wife of Clopas, as their mother. It would not be logical that after identifying these men, the Evangelists would identify Mary as the mother of a different James and Joseph, likewise called brothers, who had not been mentioned before.
Furthermore, we find that Judas, also called the brother of Jesus in Matthew 13:55, declares himself to be the brother of James in Jude 1:1:
“Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ.”
Additionally, there is also evidence pointing to the fact that Mary had no more children apart from Jesus.
Jesus is called by the Bible “the son of Mary”
“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? And they took offense at him.”[27]
The fact that Jesus is called in the singular “the son of Mary”, and not “one of the sons of Mary”, is indicative that he is her only son. It is also important to note that the text says Jesus is the son of Mary and separately says he is the brother of James, Simon, Judas, and Joseph. It never says that Mary is the mother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon.
Those called the brothers of Jesus in the Bible appear to be older than He
Another aspect that draws attention in the Gospel is that the brothers of Jesus always appear as older than Jesus in age, since they allow themselves to give him advice and scold him:
“So his brothers said to him, ‘Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works you are doing.’”[28]
“And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself.’”[29]
If Jesus had been the firstborn, this would have gone against Jewish and Eastern custom. Only older brothers were permitted to guide the rest of the family, but not the reverse. The eldest advised and gave orders to the younger.
Argument 2: Jesus is called the firstborn, therefore there were more children
Protestants maintain that the fact that Jesus was called the firstborn implies that other children were subsequently born. Those who use this argument hold that if Jesus were the only son of Mary he would be called the only-begotten rather than the firstborn, just as Jesus being the only Son of the Father is called his only-begotten in passages such as John 1:14; 1:18; 3:16; 3:18; and 1 John 4:9.
“and she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.”[30]
In the preceding text Jesus is called the firstborn of Mary, but in the following he is called the only-begotten of the Father:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”[31]
First of all it is important to clarify that the meaning of firstborn is “first-born” and does not imply the existence of other children. When a woman has her first child, that child is both her firstborn and her only-begotten at the same time. When one wishes to emphasize that a woman had only one child, the word “only-begotten” is normally used; but when one wishes to emphasize that he is the first born, the word “firstborn” is used. In Zechariah we can see how Christ (mentioned prophetically) is called firstborn and only-begotten at the same time:
“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born.”[32]
On the other hand, Christ Himself is called the Firstborn of the Father despite also being his only Son.
“And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’”[33]
Observe how Jesus is called firstborn not only of Mary but also of God the Father, not because of the existence of other sons, but because this word is also used to denote pre-eminence. Thus a firstborn son is a “consecrated son,” a “beloved son,” a “recipient of the blessings of the birthright.” Let us see the following passages that demonstrate this:
“He shall cry to me, ‘Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’ And I will make him the first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth.”[34]
Psalm 89 says that King David is called firstborn by God (he is the last of eight sons and is not the first king of the earth, yet he is the beloved king of Yahweh).
In the book of Genesis it is narrated that Jacob received the blessings of the birthright even though he was born after Esau:
“Jacob said, ‘Sell me your birthright now.’ Esau said, ‘I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?’”[35]
Ephraim is called “firstborn” in Jeremiah 31:9 even though he is the second son of Joseph in Genesis 41:52.
“With weeping they shall come, and with consolations I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble; for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born.”[36]
“The name of the second he called Ephraim, ‘For God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction.’”[37]
Jesus is the firstborn of the dead but not the first to die. He holds a special place by being the faithful witness unto death:
“and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood.”[38]
Israel is called the firstborn people by God (Exodus 4:22), but it is not the first people of the earth and yet it is the people consecrated by Him.
“and you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, Israel is my first-born son.’”[39]
Jesus is called the firstborn of Mary because according to the religious laws of the Jews he had to be consecrated:
“‘Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine.’”[40]
The Jews were not really concerned with knowing whether they would have another child or not; what concerned them was fulfilling the cultic law that established that every male firstborn would be consecrated to God, and so they called their first son the firstborn even without knowing whether they would have more children afterward.
Let us now study the last argument used to assert that the Virgin Mary had more children:
Argument 3: The Bible says that Joseph knew Mary, therefore they had sexual relations.
And here they cite Matthew 1:25:
“but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.”[41]
With that text Protestants understand that, while Joseph did not “know” Mary until the birth of Jesus, afterward he did, pretending that “to know” means to have sexual relations.
That the word “know” in the context mentioned refers to sexual relations is something that is not disputed. Protestants usually insist at length on proving this point, as if anyone reasonably sound in mind would deny it. The truth is that the said text can be used to prove that Jesus was born without the involvement of Joseph, but not to prove that after the birth of Jesus he did “know” her.
The Greek text uses here “heos” for the word “until.” There are many passages where this same word is used in which it is observed that it does not necessarily imply a subsequent change of state. Among these we can mention:
“Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done that of which I have spoken to you.”[42]
Here, God promises Jacob not to abandon him until he fulfills the promises he has made to him, but he is not saying that he will abandon him after fulfilling them. Why did the passage not simply limit itself to writing “I will not leave you”? Simply because emphasis was being placed on the fact that God would not abandon Jacob before fulfilling his promises, but it was not affirming that he would abandon him afterward. In the same way, in Matthew 1:25 the Evangelist was not affirming that Joseph knew Mary after she gave birth, but rather was emphasizing that Jesus was born without the involvement of Joseph.
Another clear example is seen in the following passage:
“and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”[43]
Does this mean that Jesus will not be with us after the end of the world? No; whoever wrote the text did not intend to say that, but rather to emphasize that the Lord will not abandon us until the end of the world.
In the following passage we see how it is stated that the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death.
“And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.”[44]
Why was it not simply written “she had no children”? Was it that Michal had children after she died? No, she had no children; the writer simply wished to place special emphasis on the fact that she had no more children.
Other examples:
“A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.’”[45]
“For David did not ascend into the heavens; but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.’”[46]
What does “heos” mean in this case? Does it mean that Jesus will no longer remain, nor will continue to remain, seated at the right hand of the Father after his enemies fall? What would the text say if we interpreted “heos” with a Protestant mindset? It would say that after the enemies of the Messiah fall, he will leave his place at the right hand of the Father.
Let us now pause here with the examples so as not to overwhelm with citations, but the reader can find other examples of the use of the word “until” (heos) without a subsequent change of state in Genesis 8:5 and 49:10; 1 Timothy 4:13 and 6:14; Romans 8:22; Philippians 1:5.
Additionally, one cannot ignore all the biblical evidence that favors the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Let us begin by noting the striking way in which the angel refers to Mary when speaking with Joseph:
“Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.’ And he rose and took the child and his mother by night, and departed to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt have I called my son.’”[47]
Let us note here a small detail. For everyone, since Mary is the wife of Joseph, she is considered his woman, and though she is so legally and is called that even before they lived together,[48] here the angel refers to her as the mother of the child.
To see this more clearly let us see how the angel refers to Lot and his wife in the Old Testament in a similar situation:
“As morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, ‘Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city.’”[49]
When the angels speak with Lot they say: “Take your wife and your daughters,” but with Joseph the angel says “Take the child and his mother,” which makes sense if Joseph married Mary solely to take care of her and the child.
Now, if Joseph knew Mary after Jesus was born, one must ask: When? One day after the purification? One year after the birth of Jesus? Two? Three perhaps? Let us consider:
During the exile of the Holy Family to Egypt, after the death of King Herod, an angel appeared to Joseph in dreams commanding him to return to Israel with Mary and the child[50]. Now, it is estimated that the Messiah was born in the year 747 from the founding of the Roman Empire, seven years before our Era; and King Herod the Great died in the spring of the year 750, that is, in 4 B.C. Therefore, is it not strange that after two to four years had passed — more than enough time for Joseph and Mary to have decided to have some of the “four brothers” and other “sisters” of the Lord[51] — is it not so? And yet the biblical text is very explicit in mentioning that the family of Jesus consists only of Joseph and Mary.
Let us read what the Bible says about the childhood of Jesus, specifically regarding the pilgrimage to Jerusalem:
“Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom; and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, but supposing him to be in the company they went a day’s journey, and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances; and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him. After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.”[52]
By this time Jesus was already twelve years old and no other children of Joseph and Mary are mentioned. Furthermore, the fact that Mary participated in the pilgrimage to Jerusalem every year is indicative that she had none, since women in such cases were exempt from the pilgrimage and remained dedicated to caring for young children. Is it possible that Mary could have traveled every year until Jesus was twelve if she had truly borne the four sons plus the three daughters that some wish to attribute to her? When then did Joseph “know” Mary? After Jesus was twelve years old?
Even later, we have another evidence that Joseph had no other children with Mary, for at the foot of the cross we read:
“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.”[53]
Jesus sees that his mother will be left alone and entrusts her to the care of John, the beloved disciple. But if Jesus had had other brothers, it would not have been necessary (nor lawful) for John to do so. In truth, if Jesus had had brothers, they would have been the ones who, according to Jewish custom, would have taken care of their mother, and not someone outside the family, even if he were “the beloved disciple.”
Additional biblical arguments
Mary implicitly mentions to the angel her intention to remain a Virgin
Let us read the account of the Annunciation in the Gospel of Luke:
“In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, ‘Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!’ But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be.
And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.’
And Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I have no husband?’ And the angel said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.’ And Mary said, ‘Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.’ And the angel departed from her.”[54]
Important to note that:
1) When the Virgin says “I have no husband” she is not referring to the past; if she were, she would have used the aorist (I have not known a man). Instead she uses the absolute present (I know not; in the sense of having no intention of knowing a man), which is an implicit reference to the vow of virginity.
2) It would be illogical for Mary to respond this way if she did not intend to remain a Virgin, since being betrothed to Joseph and receiving the announcement that she would conceive (in the future), the most natural thing would be for her to become pregnant. Despite this, Mary only understands that she will conceive when the angel explains to her that the Holy Spirit will descend upon her.
The Virginity of Mary, the Sign that Jesus is the Messiah
One of the signs that would identify Jesus as the Messiah is that his mother would be a virgin who would give birth:
“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”[55]
If Mary had had several children — that is, had lost her virginity — what guarantee would the Jews have had, years later, to believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, the son of the virgin? For they could have supposed that the story of his having been conceived by the Holy Spirit was false. That is why the sign matters. If Mary had only one son, the sign would remain that she was the virgin prophesied by Isaiah. And if she remained intact, without having relations with Joseph, the Jews could not deny that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, unless they denied that Jesus was her son.
Let us recall that those who would believe in Jesus would search the Scriptures to see whether all the prophecies and signs truly agreed:
“These Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”[56]
Mary, the New Ark of the Covenant
“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne.”[57]
The woman of chapter 12 of Revelation is none other than the Virgin Mary, for several reasons:
First: because she is mentioned as the new ark of the covenant. Recall that in the ancient ark dwelt the full presence of God, and now Mary is so because she bore in her womb the very Word of God, and the power of the Trinity overshadowed her:
“The angel said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.’”[58]
Second: because she appears with a crown of 12 stars — for she is queen of the 12 tribes of Israel and of the 12 Apostles of the Lamb. In the reign of David, whose heir Christ is, the queen was always the mother, who received the title of “Great Lady” or “Gebirah” and had a throne beside the king[59].
Third: because the woman is the one who gives birth to him who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron, who can be none other than Jesus Christ.
Just as the ancient ark of the covenant was most sacred because God dwelt within it, so it is with Mary, since she bore the incarnate Word in her womb. The ark of the covenant was so sacred that a man died instantly upon touching it. Why then suppose that Mary was touched by any man, when within her resided the fullness of divinity?
“And they carried the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab which was on the hill; and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, were driving the new cart with the ark of God; and Ahio went before the ark. And David and all the house of Israel were making merry before the Lord with all their might, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals. And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there because he put forth his hand to the ark; and he died there beside the ark of God.”[60]
Everything that touched God was most sacred, and the same happened with a gate through which God commanded that no man should ever again pass, because He had passed through it:
“Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. And he said to me, ‘This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.’”[61]
If God closed a mere gate because His greatness and magnificence had passed through it, why is it so difficult to understand that Mary — having been consecrated to the most sublime mission in history — would likewise have been consecrated to God? If the Jews feared even to look upon the ark of the covenant lest they die, would Joseph have dared to touch Mary when he knew that the living God had dwelt within her?
If the virgins who served in the temple were consecrated in perpetual virginity by reason of their mission, was not the mission of the Most Holy Virgin Mary far greater and more sacred?
Notes
- Matthew 13,55 ↩
- Mark 6,3 ↩
- Mark 3,31 ↩
- Acts 1,14 ↩
- Genesis 4,1-2 ↩
- Genesis 13,8 ↩
- Genesis 11,27 ↩
- Genesis 24,55-60 ↩
- Luke 3,1 ↩
- Genesis 29,15 ↩
- Exodus 2,11 ↩
- Mark 3,33-35 ↩
- Leviticus 18,9 ↩
- Leviticus 20,17 ↩
- Deuteronomy 27,22 ↩
- Genesis 13,8; 29,15; 1 Chronicles 15,4; ↩
- Galatians 1,19 ↩
- Galatians 2,9 ↩
- Matthew 10,2-3 ↩
- Romans 16,7 ↩
- Galatians 1,15-19 ↩
- Acts 12,1-2 ↩
- Matthew 27,56 ↩
- John 19,25 ↩
- Mark 15,40 ↩
- Mark 16,1 ↩
- Mark 6,3 ↩
- John 7,3 ↩
- Mark 3,21 ↩
- Luke 2,7 ↩
- John 3,16 ↩
- Zechariah 12,10 ↩
- Hebrews 1,6 ↩
- Psalm 89,27-28 ↩
- Genesis 25,31-32 ↩
- Jeremiah 31,9 ↩
- Genesis 41,52 ↩
- Revelation 1,5 ↩
- Exodus 4,22 ↩
- Exodus 13,2 ↩
- Matthew 1,25 ↩
- Genesis 28,15 ↩
- Matthew 28,20 ↩
- 2 Samuel 6,23 ↩
- Psalm 110,1 ↩
- Acts 2,34-35 ↩
- Matthew 2,13-15 ↩
- Matthew 1,20 ↩
- Genesis 19,15 ↩
- Matthew 2,19-20 ↩
- Matthew 13,55 ↩
- Luke 2,41-47 ↩
- John 19,26-27 ↩
- Luke 1,26-38 ↩
- Isaiah 7,14 ↩
- Acts 17,11 ↩
- Revelation 11,19; 12,1-5 ↩
- Luke 1,35 ↩
- 1 Kings 2,19 ↩
- 2 Samuel 6,3-7 ↩
- Ezekiel 44,1-2 ↩
