Perpetual Virginity of Mary? Answering Protestant Objections

I address the three most common Protestant objections to the Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary and give additional biblical and historical support for the doctrine that both Catholics and Protestant Reformers agreed upon.

[doctorhackenbush]

Thank you for this video. It was a game changer for me about Mary. Mary simply has to be sacred if she carried the Lord Jesus.

[GizmoFromPizmo]

Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.

[ianmiller]

How do you respond to the “heos hou” argument made by Svendsen and others? I’m aware of Acts 25:21 usage of the phrase but doesn’t Svendsen argue that doesn’t help as the custody still changed?

[ashlevrier]

3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, [a] Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

[BornAgainRN]

1) You did not give a SCRIPTURAL reason for automatically eliminating uterine sibling as a meaning, like in your Genesis examples where Scripture DOES give us reasons for eliminating them as siblings, BECAUSE the text explains their relationship elsewhere. This is not the case for Jesus’ brothers & sisters.


2) The “other Mary” only mentions TWO sons with the same name, not the FOUR mentioned as Jesus’ brothers. There would be no reason for Matthew to arbitrarily only mention two of them, but not the other two, let alone not mention the sisters of Jesus.


3) Mary of Clopas is NOT a “relative” of Jesus’ mother. The “sister” of Jesus’ mother is Salome, not the other Mary. If you claim Mary of Clopas is Jesus’ mother’s sister, then you end up blending two different women: Salome the mother of James & John the sons of Zebedee with Mary of Clopas the mother of James & Joseph. Look closely at the women at the cross again in Matthew, Mark, & John. The only difference is Mary is AT the cross in John’s Gospel, which is why she is not mentioned in Matthew & Mark where the other THREE women at “looking on from afar.” So, James & Joseph the sons of the other Mary have the same NAMES as Jesus’ brothers, but they are not the same MEN.


4) The Protoevangelium of James is a FALSE Gospel claimed to be written by Jesus’ older step-brother James…who would have been DEAD for over a century. Hilary is writing in the mid-fourth century, who only represent FOUR people who embraced this much, MUCH later older-stepbrother theory, compared to THIRTY-FIVE ECFs who believed Joseph was a virgin when he was betrothed to Mary. Ergo, no older step-brothers. See my recent video I made with Catholic author, John David Lewis, where we explain why the older step-brother theory doesn’t work Scriputurally, linguistically, or historically:

5) Luther was also Catholic, which people tend to forget. So, you would expect him to embrace the PVM, since Mary was not his beef with Rome. So referencing Luther is a non-issue. Calvin REJECTED the PVM, but didn’t believe Matthew 1:25 proved it (which it did). Using Wesley & Augustine is irrelevant, since Reformers & other Protestants are not inspired, and therefore prone to error, unlike Scripture which is inspired & infallible, and doesn’t agree with Luther, Wesley, etc.


6) The argument from Matthew 1:25 isn’t the ENGLISH word “until” but the specific GREEK words “heos ho” which when used in the NT ALWAYS means a change in action. The examples you gave from the OT & the NT does “not” use “heos ho, ” but merely “heos” or a DIFFERENT Greek word translated “until.” Plus, if Matthew wished to convey Mary’s virginity continued after the birth of Jesus, he would not have needed to add the dependent & redundant clause “until (heos ho) she gave birth to a son.” It is only necessary if her virginity ended after the birth of Jesus.


7) Psalm 69:9 begins with the conjunction “for” which means it’s a continuous thought from v.8 which is about Jesus. Therefore, the same Jesus who had “zeal for your house” also had become a stranger to his BROTHERS, and alien to his MOTHER’S SONS. In Psalm 69:5, this isn’t talking about Jesus’ PERSONAL follies, since He had none, but the follies He took on from others who He died for, just as v.9-10 state that OUR reproaches became HIS reproach. Numerous verses in Psalm 69 are fulfilled by Jesus in the NT, not just v.8, because Psalm 69 IS a Messianic Psalm. You also did not give an explanation of “who” these “brothers, his mother’s sons” are. It can’t refer to the Psalmist himself BECAUSE of the conjunction “for” in the very next verse which connects v.8 to v.9. And, yes, the NT does talk about Jesus’ brothers having distain for Him, and well as not believing in Him.


8) When Jesus told John, “Behold your mother, ” John would have remembered Jesus saying this earlier in His ministry when He pointed to His disciples saying, “Behold my mother & brothers & sisters who do the will of God.” THAT is why Jesus entrusted Mary to John, because they were His TRUE family, unlike His unbelieving brothers who mocked Him. Jesus was not bound to “Jewish custom” which was not commanded in the OT Law. In fact, Jesus often mocked it. Plus, John’s Gospel doesn’t say how long Mary was in his home. It isn’t until later tradition from apocryphal sources that it claims for the rest of her life. But John’s Gospel does not even imply that.


9) Mary says, “How will this be since I am a virgin?” BECAUSE she was in the year-long betrothal period that does not involve sexual intercourse. Like you said, she understood her conception of Jesus could happen at ANY moment…including while she was still betrothed, which is why she asked…NOT because she had planned a “vow” of perpetual virginity. Luke 1:34 doesn’t even imply this. Also, when the angel INITIALLY revealed to Mary, the angel had NOT YET told her it would be by the Holy Spirit. He doesn’t reveal this to Mary until AFTER she asks “how will this be?”


10) A betrothal being equated with legally, binding marriage has nothing to do with whether Mary remained a virgin or not. So it is not relevant to the discussion.


11) The “vow” in Numbers is the vow the virgin’s FATHER, not the virgin herself. In context, the vow was to sacrifice the first thing that came through the door as a sacrificial offering, or “holocaust” to the Lord. Since the father’s daughter entered first, the “vow” was to sacrifice his daughter, not that she was to remain a virgin. So, the “vow” comparison to Numbers doesn’t work. Plus, there is not even a hint that Mary had “vowed” perpetual virginity in Luke 1:34. A “vow” must be read INTO the verse eisegetically.


12) Support for denying the PVM is actually EARLIER than the sources you gave, such as Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Victorinus of Pettau, and later Helvidius & Jovinianus, demonstrating both orthodox AND heretics rejected this belief very early on.


13) Lastly, Protestants don’t reject the PVM merely because “this is what CATHOLICISM teaches, ” but rather because SCRIPTURE doesn’t support it. In fact, much of your objections in your video were ADDRESSED in my brief 14 minute video. So I’m curious – did you actually WATCH it first, or did you just post your video link? And since my video was simply addressing SCRIPTURE on this topic, for a more in-depth explanation, see the discussion I had with my friend Geoff from “a Goy for Jesus” where he created time-stamps for specific arguments you can click & link directly to them:

So, the objections in your video don’t refute anything from my video, because they are easily addressed & rebutted….and have been for quite some time. Nor do they disprove the rejection of the PVM.

[Pete_B_]

Here's the main question to Marys perpetual virginity....why??? She was married so it's not a sin. Quite the opposite it was required for the marriage to consummate. The vow mentioned here is pure speculation.

[hanng]

This video has the burden of proof completely backwards. Everybody - including Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Lancelot Andrewes, even Karl Barth - believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The very man who invented the sola scriptura doctrine believed in it and evidently did not see a contradiction. From what I can tell, this slander of the Theotokos dates back only to maybe the 19th Century. So, if the guy who started Protestantism believed in it, and the guy who "reformed" Protestantism because it was apparently too Catholic, believed in it, perhaps it is today's Protestants who are in error. Did Luther and Calvin not read the Bible? Was Lancelot Andrewes, to whom we owe the majority of the King James Version, unfamiliar with Scripture? These latter-day interpreters who evidently only praise with their lips but refuse to follow the example of the very hipsters who came up with and believed in sola scriptura before it was mainstream are the ones that need to prove that Mary was not Ever-virgin because they are the ones introducing a novelty that contrary to what Christians had believed for at least 1800 years, slandering the Theotokos.

I guess Jesus, eternal God who chose to be incarnate as the perfect Man *wants* you guys to diss his mother. Is one's personal relationship with Jesus is so exclusive that those he loves, including the very woman who gave Him to us, have no place in that friendship. This doesn't sound like a perfect Son to me. Perhaps He is exempt form this sort of human emotional and familiar bond because was never Man, but only appeared that way, or perhaps God only entered him sometime later in his life (maybe when he was baptized by John) so he put away that human part of himself, or maybe there was no hypostatic union and instead Jesus was only of *similar* essence to humanity, not the same essence. Perhaps the Jews are right and Ezekiel 43:27-44:4 has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus of Nazareth, but instead the prophet was just brainstorming crowd control for tourism in Jerusalem after this Babylonian captivity thing finally ends.

It is not the orthodox who cultivate the catholic and apostolic faith that need to provide scriptural proof that Mary was aeiparthenos, but rather those who deny it need to show that there a tradition in conformity with such unbelief; otherwise, they should just be honest, admit that Protestantism has no intellectual legacy, or at least not one that stems from the Protestant reformers themselves, and that sola scriptura means believing whatever the hell you want so long as you can find a proof-text somewhere in the Bible.

[GizmoFromPizmo]

Why are you so disingenuous? If Mary is supreme then why does she not have her own priesthood (priestess-hood)? How angry do you think you make her by belittling her importance so?

Every apparition of Mary requests (demands?) a "chapel" (i.e. temple) be built in her honor.

Fatima - Sixth Apparition: 7) “I wish to tell you that I want a chapel built here in my honor. I am the Lady of the Rosary. Continue to pray the rosary every day. The war is going to end, and the soldiers will soon return to their homes.”

This is a COMMON request made by this spirit. And everywhere a chapel is built in her honor, it soon becomes a pilgrimage destination (tourism). No spirit of God has EVER made such a request. Search the scriptures. Not even God Himself commanded that a monument be built on the site where, in the burning bush, He spoke to Moses.

But Mary wants a chapel in her honor. She wants this kind of adulation and adoration.

Catholics pay lip service to this Queen of Heaven. She should have her own priesthood. I mean, Cybele had her own priestesses and Cybele was only a fake goddess. Is not Mary better than she?

[cherubwayne]

The teaching doesn’t sit right with me because it undermines her marriage with Joseph.

[frederickanderson]

The scripture does not apply the same logic as mother of God. God having a human mother, that from demi gods of ancient myths