Follow usTwitterFacebook


15 Aug 2016 Q&A No comments

Is faith necessary for adults to be baptized?

Full Question Is faith necessary for adults to be baptized? Answer Adults must have faith for baptism, but it need not be a fully developed faith. …

Read more

22 Oct 2015 News Vatican No comments

Notes on a rollicking hump day at the 2015 Synod of Bishops

Synods of Bishops may be many things under Pope Francis, but dull is certainly not among them. On Wednesday, the 2015 Synod of Bishops on the family heard th…

Read more

20 Oct 2015 Articles Comments (12)

Purgatory Described in Full

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines purgatory as a "purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven," which is experie…

Read more

18 Nov 2014 Q&A Comments (7)

How do we explain the necessity of Mary's immaculate conception?

Full Question How should one explain to a Protestant why it was necessary for Mary to be conceived without original sin but that it does not naturally foll…

Read more

29 Sep 2016 Articles Comments (1)

Three adorable videos to remind us what love is

Sometimes kids are the best examples of unconditional love. Kids are wonderful little people who are born to make connections with others, love unconditional…

Read more

14 Mar 2015 Q&A Comments (6)

What incentive do I have not to sin if I am already in the state of mortal sin?

Full Question It is my understanding that if someone dies in the state of mortal sin he will not go to heaven. What incentive do I have not to sin if I am …

Read more

20 May 2016 Articles Comments (4)

It May Be Real for You, but Not for Me

If you haven’t seen “College Kids Say the Darndest Things,” a recent video released by the Family Policy Institute of Washington (FPIW), check it out. You will …

Read more

25 Nov 2015 News USA No comments

Pope Francis appoints new bishop for Catholics nurtured in the Anglican Communion

Pope Francis   announced the appointment of the first Bishop of the ordinate of the chair of Peter, Msgr. Steven J. Lopes. The Ordinariate has more than 40 Roma…

Read more

11 Dec 2014 Q&A Comments (1)

How can a perfect God coexist with imperfection?

Full Question An atheist friend asked me, "If God is perfect, how can perfection coexist with imperfection (i.e. an imperfect universe)?" How should I resp…

Read more
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

More Reasons for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

In my last post, I gave an abbreviated version of three of the eight reasons I give for Mary’s perpetual virginity in my book, Behold Your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines. The com boxes lit up with questions so I thought I would provide three more abbreviated reasons in this post.

Reason Four: Mary was consecrated to the Father of her Son

As I said in my last post, Mary was also in a nuptial relationship with the Holy Spirit. The marriage between Mary and the Holy Spirit and that between Mary and Joseph are not incompatible, because they are of entirely different orders—like my own marriage to my wife, Valerie, does not contradict each of us having a truly nuptial relationship with the Lord.

However, unlike all Christians “nuptial” relationship with the Lord, in the case of Mary and the Holy Spirit, a child was conceived. “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). In a unique and unrepeatable fashion, the two orders intersect. Thus, Mary’s consecration to God for the purpose of the Incarnation brings with it biblical challenges.

In my last post, I mentioned how Joseph and Mary’s betrothal to each other was equal to a legal spousal contract, according to Scripture. The word for betrothed in Hebrew iskiddush, which is derived from the Hebrew word kadash, meaning “holy” or “consecrated.” This betrothal was considered a sacred event binding spouses to each other. It was because of this understanding of the sacredness of the bond of matrimony that adultery was considered such a serious sin. Marriage was a consecrated state. Desecrating this state by adultery left a woman defiled and was punishable by death or, in some circumstances, left her unfit to return to conjugal relations with her husband. (This seems odd to us today, but things were different among the ancient, tribal people with whom our Lord was dealing.)

The latter cases where a desecration of a marriage left women unfit to return to relations with their husbands are of particular interest to us now. We see an example of this in 2 Samuel. Absalom, one of David’s sons, tried to usurp the throne of his father by, among other things, sleeping with ten of David’s concubines:

Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father’s concubines, whom he has left to keep the house; and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself odious to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened.”. . . [A]nd Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel (16:21-22).

Later, when Absolam’s attempted coup d’état failed and he was killed, King David did not forget his concubines. Scripture tells us David “took the ten concubines, whom he had left to care for the house, and put them in a house under guard, and provided for them, but did not go in to them. So they were shut up until the day of their death, living as if in widowhood” (20:3).

David would not have conjugal relations with these ten concubines again because they were “defiled” by Absalom. But he did have the responsibility to care for them and protect them after Absalom’s death, because he (Absalom) could no longer care for them. And they were David’s concubines, so he had a real responsibility for their well being.

It is hard for us to fathom this in the twenty-first century. How could King David and St. Joseph have the responsibility to care for their wives but not be able to have conjugal relations with them? We have to understand this through the revelation given to us in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and Jeremiah 3:1 reveal to us that a woman who was divorced by her husband and then wedded to another could never return to her former husband even if her new husband were to die. Deuteronomy 24:4 declares:

Then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring guilt upon the land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance.

It was the sexual bond that was evidently the cause of the “defilement” in the relationship. Hence, King David could receive his concubines into his home after they were “defiled” by Absalom, but he could never have conjugal relations with them again.

In Jeremiah 3:1, God refers to this law when he speaks metaphorically of his relationship with Israel:

“If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another’s wife, will he return to her? Would not that land be greatly polluted? You have played the harlot with many lovers; and would you return to me?” says the Lord.

Very much rooted in this Old Testament understanding, the Talmud taught divorce to be mandatory in the case of an espoused woman who became pregnant by another. The espoused woman who conceived by another would then belong to that other and could never return to her former husband. The ancient rabbis said:

A woman made pregnant by a former husband and a woman who was giving suck to a child by another husband . . . do not receive the marriage contract. . . . A man should not marry a woman made pregnant by an earlier husband or giving suck to a child born to an earlier husband, and if she married under such conditions, he must put her away and never remarry her (Neusner, Babylonian Talmud, vol. 11, 123).

When we take into account the Old Testament background and ancient Hebrew culture, we understand Matthew 1 and the situation with the Holy Family. In Joseph’s mind, once she was pregnant, Mary would have belonged to the father of the child within her. His choices were either to expose her publicly and endanger her to mob violence or to do what we see he actually resolved to do in Matthew 1:19: divorce her quietly. But notice what Scripture tells us in verses 20 and 21:

But as [Joseph] considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”

When the angel told Joseph that Mary’s child was conceived of the Holy Spirit, he knew what was required of him. Just as we saw with King David in 2 Samuel 20:3, Joseph knew that he was to take his wife into his home and care for her, though he could never have conjugal relations with her. According to Scripture and ancient Jewish tradition, Mary belonged to the father of her child—the Holy Spirit. However, the Holy Spirit could not be the protector that Mary needed. The Holy Spirit could not sign legal documents and be Mary’s legal spouse. But Joseph was ready and willing—just man that he was—to care for Mary as his lawfully wedded spouse.

Reason Five: Mary is the Temple gate

In Ezekiel 44:1-2, the prophet was given a vision of the holiness of “the gate” of the temple, which would be fulfilled in the perpetual virginity of Mary:

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.”

No Christian would deny that in the New Testament Jesus is revealed to be the fulfillment of the temple. In John 2:19, when Jesus said, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up,” the Jews thought he was speaking of the enormous stone edifice that stood in Jerusalem. But, as John tells us two verses later, he was actually speaking of his own body. So if Christ is the prophetic temple of Ezekiel 44 into which God himself has entered for our salvation, who or what is this prophetic gate that is the conduit for God to enter into his temple?

Mary is the natural fulfillment. She is the gate through which not just a spiritual presence of God has passed but God in the flesh. How much more would the New Testament gate remain forever closed? St. Jerome commented on this text in the fourth century:

Only Christ opened the closed doors of the virginal womb, which continued to remain closed, however. This is the closed eastern gate, through which only the high priest may enter and exit and which nevertheless is always closed (Against the Pelagians, 2,4).

Reason Six: Mary is the untouchable Ark

According to multiple parallel texts in Scripture, Mary is depicted as the New Testament Ark of the Covenant. The encounter of Mary and Elizabeth in Luke 1:39-45, shortly after Mary conceived Jesus at the Annunciation, is clear evidence of this.

First, take note of Elizabeth’s exclamation when Mary entered her home and greeted her: “And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” This refers back to 2 Samuel 6:9 where the Old Testament “type” of Mary—the Ark of the Covenant—was carried into the presence of King David. He said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” The ark remained there three months. In a New Testament fulfillment of the type, Luke 1 records that Elizabeth gave Mary an identical greeting, and that Mary remained with Elizabeth for three months.

According to Hebrews 9:4, the Ark of the Covenant bore the Ten Commandments, a small amount of manna, and the staff of Aaron the high priest. All of these were types of our Lord. According to John 6:31-33, Jesus is the true manna. According to Hebrews 3:1, Jesus is our true high priest. In Hebrew, the Ten Commandments can be referred to as the ten words (dabar in Hebrew). Jesus is the word made flesh, according to John 1:14.

According to the Old Testament, no one except the high priest could touch the ark or even look inside it. If anyone else touched or looked inside the ark, the punishment was death. The Levites in charge of the ark knew all too well that their charge was to protect but that they could not look inside and they could not touch.

If this was the case for the Old Testament type, which, according to Hebrews 10:1, is no more than a shadow of the true New Testament fulfillment, then it would seem fitting that Mary would remain “untouched” by Joseph as well. When we understand this, we understand why great saints such as Jerome and Epiphanius would have been so indignant when they encountered the first heretics to posit even the possibility that Joseph could have had conjugal relations with Mary. This was absolutely foreign to the Christian consciousness of the first four centuries of the Christian era.

Perhaps in a future post, I will discuss the unanimity among the Fathers of the Church on this matter. For the first Christians, this was a no-brainer.

Written By Tim Staples



  1. Patrick Gannon Reply

    “Desecrating this state by adultery left a woman defiled and was punishable by death or, in some circumstances, left her unfit to return to conjugal relations with her husband. (This seems odd to us today, but things were different among the ancient, tribal people with whom our Lord was dealing.)”
    You’d think Jesus, if he was really God, would have said something about the immoral way in which women were treated, but alas, he even treated his mother with disrespect.
    The punishments all seem to be directed at the woman, and Jesus did not speak out against this immorality. The author seems to miss the point, that the purpose for these laws had to do with inheritance. A man’s property should go to his own sons, and if he even suspects that his wife has been unfaithful, he can try to force a miscarriage (abortion) (see Numbers 5).
    Of course anyone who has read the book knows that it refers to and mentions Jesus’ brothers and sisters. The Church wants us to believe these are his cousins, but the words are plain enough. In any event the idea of virgin birth was pretty much a requirement for gods of that time. A number of pagan gods and even Caesars were said to have been born of virgins, so of course Jesus had to be at least as good as any of them, and so it was written…

  2. Joe Fuliga Reply

    Virginity is not a higher state. Marriage and motherhood is the sacrament as this fulfill the intention of God in creating man and woman whom He commanded to “go and multiply.” For Mary to have many children is the is the more blessed state. Not virginity. This is especially a strong belief in Jewish culture. Psalm 127:3 says, “Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from Him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.” “For men and women marriage and a house filled with children were seen as a mark of God’s blessings” (Fr. John J Dietzen, Catholic Q & A: All You Want To Know About Catholicism: The Crossroad Publishing Company, New York, 2009), p. 87. Matthew 1:19 calls Joseph “her (Mary’s) husband.” Did she tell him in advance that she will marry him but that he could not have sex with her? That would be going against her marriage vow and against God’s law. If Joseph knew this, it would be likely that he would not marry her or he would either remain a bachelor or marry another woman. If Mary wanted to remain a virgin she could have refuse marrying Joseph and live with her child (Jesus) in her cousin Elizabeth’s hometown not in the house of Joseph in Nazareth. Matthew 1:25 says, so Joseph “took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.” The simple and natural meaning of “until” here could refer only to the fact that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus. That’s why Jesus is called the “first born son” of Mary. When Jesus was 12 years old (Luke 2:41) Joseph, Mary and Jesus “went to Jerusalem for the feast of the Passover.” On their way home Joseph and Mary found that Jesus was not with them. When they found Him, Mary said, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you” (Luke 2:48). “Then He went down to Nazareth with them.” (Luke 2:51). So Joseph must have lived with Mary his wife for at least 13 years (Perhaps more). Joseph and Mary lived as husband and wife in the same house in Nazareth and they did not have sex all those years? Did they made arrangement to have separate bedrooms to avoid sexual contact? Joseph might have as well remained unmarried. I don’t think it would be acceptable for Joseph to be married to Mary while the latter takes a vow to remain a virgin. Nowhere in Scriptures (the Word of God) is Mary addressed or referred to as “Virgin Mary” and especially not a virgin forever. I have a sneaking suspicion the Roman Catholics, especially among the clergy, who believe there is something inherently sinful about sex even in marriage. Matthew 12:46-50; 13: 55-56; Mark 6:3; John 2:12, 7:3, 5 seem to imply that Joseph was still alive when Jesus went about teaching and preaching for why would they even mention him if he was already dead? Luke 2:7 says that Mary “gave birth to her firstborn son” meaning Jesus. The natural and simple meaning of “firstborn son” clearly indicates that Mary had othe children after Jesus was born. Joseph could not have been very old when he married Mary. He traveled with his pregnant wife from Nazareth to Bethlehem and late from Bethlehem to Egypt (Matthew 2:19-23). Then from Egypt he and Mary traveled back to Israel and settled in Nazareth (Matthew 2:19-23). These travels don’t seem to show that Joseph was an old man. The Greek language in which the New Testament was written is an extremely precise language. There are Greek words which refer to a person’s brother or sister within a family and those the greek words used for Jesus’ brothers and sisters.

    1. Patrick Gannon Reply

      It’s worth mentioning that the whole reason for the concept of virginity is based on a mistranslation of the word “alma” in Isaiah, which means “young woman” and not “virgin” according to most scholars of the old languages. It was an invention by the authors of Matthew and Luke, who needed to get Jesus from his hometown to Bethlehem in order to be born to a virgin, so as to make the gospel stories fit the prophecy (that actually goes all the way back to a failed prophecy in Jeremiah). Interestingly two conflicting stories were invented to make this happen. The authors of Mark and John obviously didn’t buy into this scheme, and made no mention of it. The problem is that the authors of Matthew and Luke were using a Greek translation of Isaiah, and the original Hebrew word for “young woman” had been translated to the Greek word for “virgin,” thus the whole virginity issue was based on the slimmest of propositions.
      We do all understand the Church’s rationale for this virgin birth, right? For the RCC, sex indeed is bad. Few religions are as manic about what we do with our clothes off as that which houses the disordered, celibate, virgin clergy dressed in robes. Original sin is passed along by sex, thus sex must be bad. Jesus had to be born without original sin, so Bingo – virgin birth. Other pagan gods were similarly born of virgins, so it was almost required… but oops, some centuries later they learned that women contributed to the newborn. They thought in the early days that the male sperm created the new child and the woman just housed it. Upon learning that women contributed half the genetic material, which meant that Mary would have passed along original sin anyway, they decided that Mary was the only human to be conceived without original sin…. which begs the question, why couldn’t this explanation have been used for Jesus? Answer – they had already dug themselves into the whole virgin idea, and had no shovel to dig out. The problem is that in time, science catches up with you and you have to build Rube Goldberg explanations to justify the nonsense believed by poor, uneducated, scientifically ignorant people. So what did we end up with? A god who impregnates a virgin (young woman) without asking her consent, with Himself, in order to be born as Himself, so that He can sacrifice Himself in a horrifyingly bloody ritual, to Himself, in order to relieve us of a mythical condition (original sin), that He placed on us in the first place. Apparently this whole exercise only worked for those who believed, said and did the right things, and the rest of the billions still suffer the pains of Hell, because they were not relieved of original sin. Yahweh apparently wasn’t powerful enough to save everyone; just the select few who listen in fear, guilt and shame, to the disordered men in robes.
      In case nobody noticed, it’s 2016, and time to leave this stuff to the annals of pagan history, just like all the other pagan gods and myths.

Leave a Reply

  1. most read post
  2. Most Commented
  3. Choose Categories