A Biblical Case Against Mary’s Perpetual Virginity?
A main argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity is found in Matthew 1:24-25, where the word “until” is used. This argument suggests that Mary was a virgin up “until” she gave birth to Jesus, implying that her virginity was not a permanent state.
Advocates of this view argue that the term “until” indicates a transition in her status, which aligns with the idea that she could have had children after the birth of Christ.
Here is the passage:
“When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.”
We can see the passage uses the term “until,” which some would argue, implies a change in Mary’s status after the birth of Jesus, suggesting she was a virgin only up to that point. This indicates that her virginity was not a lifelong condition. Additionally, the verse does not mention her remaining a virgin after giving birth, leaving open the possibility that she had other children.
In the following sections, we’ll delve deeper into the nuances of this argument, examining how to respond to it. From a simplistic perspective, this seems worth exploring why the interpretation of “until” deserves a closer look.
Selective Interpretations for “Until”
Proponents of the argument that Mary was not a perpetual virgin or no longer remained a virgin until after Jesus’ birth have every right to stand by that position; however, applying the criteria elsewhere seems to produce different outcomes. For example:
- 1 Corinthians 15:25 says, “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.”
Does this mean Christ will cease to reign when his enemies are under his feet? Surely not.
2 Samuel 6:23: “And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to until the day of her death.”
Does this mean she had children after she died? Surely not.
- Acts 25:21: “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until I could send him to Caesar.”
Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Surely not.
- Acts 2:29: “Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us until this day.“
Does this mean David’s tomb disappeared after that day? Surely not.
- Matthew 28:20: “And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
Does this mean Christ will abandon us after the end of the age? Surely not.
- 1 Timothy 4:13: “Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.
Does Paul expect Timothy to stop these activities once he arrives? Surely not.
Clearly, “until” often marks a timeframe without implying a change afterward. But what if one insists that the Greek in Matthew 1:25 is different?
Okay, But the Greek Is Different?
Some will point out that the Greek words for “until” are different in the following texts above, and they would be correct to do so.
So, let’s clarify the meanings:
(heōs) – often denotes a span of time: “until,” but does not require change afterward.
(achri) – a synonym that likewise marks a time duration.
(heōs hou) – literally “until which,” sometimes used for added specificity.
But here’s the key: these words are often used interchangeably. By the Koine Greek period, many subtle differences had faded. The nuance between them had largely dropped out of usage. Both heōs and heōs hou were used to mark a time period, not necessarily a transition.
Even Greek Fathers, like St. John Chrysostom, who spoke Koine Greek natively, saw no implication in Matthew 1:25 that Mary’s virginity ended. He explicitly states this in his commentary, more on that below.
However, continuing on, some argue that Matthew 1:25 is unique because it uses the Greek phrase heōs hou, rather than simply heōs or achri, implying a stronger sense of change.
Addressing The Svendsen Argument
A well-known argument on this topic comes from Eric Svendsen, who claims that the use of heōs hou in Matthew 1:25 proves Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage after Jesus’ birth.
You can find this argument resurfaced in blogs like Beggars All.
Essentially, this claim paraphrased is, “In Matthew 1:25, the Greek heōs hou (‘until’) proves that Mary lost her virginity sometime after Jesus was born.”
On the surface level, this argument may seem strong but as bloggers like Da Pacem Domine have shown several examples that all use heōs hou, to disprove this claim. The follwing contain the exact construction in Matthew 1:25, including the previous quotation from Acts 25. And in none of these cases does it imply a change in state afterward.
As Da Pacem Domine notes in their post: “The Greek ‘heos hou’ in Matthew 1:25 disproves Mary’s Perpetual Virginity” All it takes is one counter-example to refute this claim, and we have several.
Psalm 72:7 (Septuagint)
“In his days shall righteousness spring up; and abundance of peace until [heōs hou] the moon be removed.”
So righteousness ends when the moon disappears? According to Svendsen’s logic—yes. In reality—no.4 Maccabees 7:1,3 (LXX)
“…he did not turn the rudder of religion until [heōs hou] he sailed into the haven of immortal victory.”
Did Eleazar abandon his faith afterward? Certainly not.
St. John Chrysostom’s Commentary
As previously mentioned, one important quote is from St. John Chrysostom (Homily on Matthew 5:5) which reads:
“He has here used the word till, not that you should suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform you that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. … it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times.”
Chrysostom, a Greek Father and scholar, explicitly rejects the idea that heōs hou implies change. He also equates it with Genesis 8:7, which uses just heōs, further showing there is no significant distinction.
Tim Staples and The Greek
Tim Staples, a Catholic Answers Apologist wrote the following in his article: The Case for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
“In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until” whereas … heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph “not having come together” would have ended after Jesus was born. The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning.” In his article, Tim Staples demonstrates further verses to prove how absurd this argument is.
Purgatory or Perpetual Virginity?
One last thing I’ve noticed while researching this topic is that the history of its use in the Reformation is intriguing.
For context, In 1519 Martin Luther debated at the University of Leipzig with Johan Eck, a leading Catholic theologian. The discussion centered on key issues such as the authority of Scripture, the nature of faith, and the doctrine of justification.
During their interaction, Eck challenged Luther on his views, particularly regarding the papacy and the Council of Trent. However, one thing that stands out in this debate is Martin Luther’s position on purgatory. Luther is famous for rejecting the idea of purgatory and leading the way for the Reformation. Martin Luther challenged the concept of purgatory by using Matthew 1:25 as a proof text.
In the debate, Eck had argued for the existence of purgatory by citing church fathers and several Scripture passages, one of which was Matthew 5, to support his claims. Luther countered by asserting that sins cannot be removed without an increase of grace, which contradicts the idea of purgatory as a place for punishment. He argued that just as “until” in Matthew 1:25 does not imply the end of Mary’s virginity, it also suggests that the grace necessary for salvation cannot be confined to a transitional state like purgatory.
In the book, “The Leipzig Debate in 1519: Leaves from the story of Luther’s life by Dau, W. H. T. (William Herman Theodore), we can see Martin Luther say the following:
“The termtill “,” he said, does not signify a terminus in Matt. 5:26, just as little as the same term in Matt. 1, 25 signifies the termination of the virginity of Mary.” (The Leipzig debate in 1519 : leaves from the story of Luther’s life Pg:177).
Quite simply, Luther believes “until” in Matthew 5:26 doesn’t prove the soul escapes purgatory, the same way “until” in Matthew 1:25 doesn’t prove Mary stopped being a virgin.
A Question To Think About.
One question that should be asked of a supporter of Mary’s perpetual virginity is:
Why is it that when you read Matthew 1:25—“Joseph knew her not until she had borne a son”—you argue that until doesn’t imply Mary ceased to be a virgin…but then turn around and use Matthew 5:26 to defend purgatory, where until supposedly does imply a change (release from imprisonment)?
One answer to this is that heōs and heōs hou are grammatically neutral. They simply mark a span of time like saying “during” or “up to”and do not inherently imply a change afterward. The context is what determines whether a change occurs. So looking at the verses,
Matthew 5:26: “You will not get out UNTIL you have paid the last penny.”
Here, release is clearly implied by the context; Jesus is describing a parable of justice. The debt is paid; the imprisonment ends. The heōs marks a completed condition within the story. The whole point of that sentence is to say something will happen after—you’ll get out after the debt is paid. That’s the setup: do this → then that. It’s a clear cause and effect.
Matthew 1:25: “He knew her not UNTIL she had borne a son.”
In this case, no change is implied. The phrase emphasizes that Mary was a virgin before and during Jesus’ birth—nothing is said or implied about afterward. That’s not a cause-and-effect setup. It’s just telling you what didn’t happen before Jesus was born. It doesn’t say anything about what happened next. Now, if Matthew really wanted to say they had intercourse after Jesus was born, he wouldn’t have left it vague.
Some will assume Matthew 1:25 means Mary had intercourse after Jesus was born because it says, “Joseph didn’t know her until she gave birth.” But that’s not how the sentence works. It’s just telling you what didn’t happen before, not what happened after.
If it were written like Matthew 5:26, which says “you won’t get out until you pay the last penny” (clearly meaning you will get out), it would’ve said something like: “Mary won’t sleep with Joseph until after giving birth”. But it doesn’t. In both verses, the surrounding context, not the word itself, determines whether something changes.
Ultimately, those who are against the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary have every right to believe so, and this post seeks to provide just one perspective. I look forward to any responses below.
