WeOrthodox
EN UA
Eastern Orthodoxy Daily He/Who/Is with Timothy Instagram

Answering the objection to Mary's perpetual virginity

The speaker addresses the claim that Jesus' brothers named in Scripture disprove Mary's perpetual virginity. He begins with the objection: the Gospels name four brothers and imply at least two sisters, which would mean seven children in total. In response, he points to Mary's question to Gabriel, "How can this be since I do not know a man", as evidence of a prior commitment to virginity rather than an ordinary marital expectation.

At the crucifixion, Jesus entrusts Mary to John's care, an action that only makes sense if she had no other biological sons to assume that responsibility. The speaker then turns to biblical typology: Luke presents Mary as the Ark of the Covenant overshadowed by the Spirit, and the early Church applied Ezekiel's prophecy of the closed eastern gate to her as a type of the ever-virgin Theotokos.

Historically, Irenaeus in the second century calls Mary the new Eve whose obedience loosed Eve's knot, and by the fourth century perpetual virginity was universally confessed in East and West. The doctrine was retained even by the Reformers. Finally, he notes that the Greek word "adelphoi" used for Jesus' brothers does not require a biological relationship to Mary.

Key moments

  1. 0:00 The objection states that Scripture names four brothers of Jesus and implies at least two sisters, totaling seven children, which would make the doctrine of perpetual virginity false.
  2. 0:31 Mary's response to Gabriel, "How can this be since I do not know a man," signals a prior vow of virginity, not a normal marital expectation.
  3. 0:31 At the crucifixion Jesus gives Mary to John's care, which only makes sense if she had no other biological sons to assume that responsibility.
  4. 1:03 Luke portrays Mary as the Ark of the Covenant overshadowed by the Spirit, and the early church applied Ezekiel's closed eastern gate to her as a type of the ever-virgin Theotokos.
  5. 1:35 Irenaeus in the second century calls Mary the new Eve whose obedience loosed Eve's knot, and by the fourth century perpetual virginity was universally received in East and West.
  6. 1:35 The Reformers also kept this doctrine, and the Greek word "adelphoi" used for Jesus' brothers does not necessitate biological sons of Mary.
18 opinions in the discussion 18 participants, 1 replies to each other The opinion with the most support The Bible also calls Jesus the son of Joseph, so following PAM's reasoning that would make Jesus Joseph's biological son. Read the discussion
93 comments at the source Original on Instagram

Discussion · 18

Opinions are anonymous retellings of real comments from the original discussion. The same colour marks the same participant.

Log in Log in or sign up to join the discussion.

  • opinion#3474

    The Bible also calls Jesus the son of Joseph, so following PAM's reasoning that would make Jesus Joseph's biological son.

  • opinion#3473

    PAM got torn apart over a thousand years ago already by St. Jerome in Against Helvidius

    • opinion#3475

      Funny how the only other time Pam comes up is when someone's cooking.

  • opinion#3464

    Even Martin Luther agreed with the doctrine of perpetual virginity

  • opinion#3472

    It's ironic that he calls the doctrine of her perpetual virginity heresy when the earliest members of the church declared that not believing it was the heresy

  • opinion#3471

    And why would John the Beloved take care of her after the Crucifixion?🤦‍♂️

  • opinion#3466

    I never understand the Protestant angle of trying to "dismantle" thousands of years of church history and tradition.

  • opinion#3469

    🗣️ Calling us heretics is ironic. Is he speaking from authority?

  • opinion#3465

    My heart broke when I realized I'd been denying our Mother my entire Protestant life. Now that I see it, I'm baffled at how determined Protestants are to dishonor and dismiss the Theotokos. She is my Mother and I'll defend her just like Jesus did. Men have lost their hands for trying to desecrate her.

  • opinion#3467

    lol rich, a heretic calling us heretics. Let's go through it. "Brothers of the Lord": the Greek adelphos covers kinsmen, not just siblings. Abraham calls Lot his brother (Gen 14) and Lot was his nephew. Look at who these "brothers" are. James and Joses are sons of a different Mary who stood at the cross (Mt 27:56, Mk 15:40), and John 19:25 names her as Mary the wife of Clopas. Nowhere is anyone called a son of Mary except Christ. "Until" in Matthew 1:25: heos says nothing about what happens after. Michal had no child until the day of her death (2 Kingdoms 6:23) and didn't have one after. "I am with you always, even to the end of the age" doesn't mean He leaves afterward. You're reading an English assumption into Greek. "Firstborn" is a legal title for the child who opens the womb (Ex 13:2), given at birth before any second child could exist. An only son is still the firstborn. From the cross He gives His mother to John (Jn 19:26-27). If she had other sons, that would insult them and violate Jewish custom. He does it because there was no one else 👀 Luke 1:34: a betrothed woman told she'll conceive asks "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" That question only makes sense if she intended to remain a virgin, as the uploader said. Otherwise the obvious answer is: after the wedding. The Church: ever-virgin (aeiparthenos) is the consistent witness of the Fathers, from…

  • opinion#3462

    Joseph had other kids since he was much older. Not Mother Mary!☦️☦️☦️☦️☦️☦️☦️

  • opinion#3460

    When would she even have had these children? There's no mention of them when Jesus is 12 and they take Him to the temple. Did they just leave their younger kids at home? lol

  • opinion#3470

    He had "siblings" through Joseph, no? Who was not a young man like the papists depict. He was widowed and his "marriage" to the Theotokos was one of a protector, not a husband. Fr. Peter Heers did a great stream on this, I'll have to rewatch it.

  • opinion#3463

    PAM will sadly always ignore historical context and literary definitions. The old Greek bibles literally use the word for "brethren" with the cousins conjugation. Add to that that Joseph was in a previous marriage that gave him multiple children, and remarried after his first wife died. There's a famous quote from a Catholic cardinal that still applies: "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant"... (and to become orthodox ☝️☦️)

  • opinion#3458

    Perhaps the strongest counter to the claim that Mary had other children is John 19:26-27, along with a close look at the women at the Cross in Matthew 27:55-56. As Christ dies, He entrusts His Mother to St. John. Under Jewish custom, a mother's care fell to the second born if the firstborn died, and if she had no other child she had to care for herself. So if Mary had other biological children, why didn't Jesus hand her over to the second born? Joseph's sons clearly didn't feel obliged to care for their stepmother, otherwise one of them would have stepped up in St. John's place.

  • opinion#3461

    A lot of Protestant errors come down to taking non-normative processes or general truths and applying them universally to every single person. "Romans 3:23 says all have sinned, so Mary must have sinned." "The thief on the cross wasn't baptized, so baptism isn't necessary for salvation." But if we were consistent with that reasoning it would create contradictions in the Bible. Hebrews 9:27 says every man dies once, yet Elijah and Enoch never died, and Lazarus died twice. Is that a contradiction, or is Hebrews 9 just describing the normal way men pass to the afterlife...

  • opinion#3459

    There's also Saint Papas, a second century saint who knew the apostle John. He said James, Jude, Joseph and all those others were children of the other Mary, who was the Virgin's cousin. And we can take this as really solid evidence that she had no other children, because he knew that apostle, and John was the one who took charge of caring for Mary when Christ died.

  • opinion#3468

    I don't know a lot about this but I have a good argument I heard before: some say if Mary didn't have intercourse with Joseph it would violate the mosaic law. But that doesn't add up, because Christ spared the guilty woman caught in adultery. Christ is the fulfillment and Mary is the new eve