Throughout Christian history, few theological discussions have sparked as much scholarly debate as the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. At the heart of this discourse lies an intriguing exchange between Mary and the angel Gabriel, where Mary’s response seems to indicate a vow of perpetual virginity.
Although the broader topic of Mary’s perpetual virginity encompasses numerous theological arguments and counterarguments, this analysis will focus specifically on the evidence from Luke’s Gospel that suggests Mary’s prior commitment to lifelong virginity.
To set this up, we can start at verse 28 of Luke 1. Here, Gabriel starts his exchange with Mary by calling her “full of grace,” or “highly favored,” depending on how we translate the Greek. This greeting is significant, as it establishes Mary’s unique status even before the announcement of her divine motherhood.
The Greek term used here, kecharitōmenē, is a perfect passive participle, indicating a state of being that was already completed and continuing, suggesting Mary’s special preparation for her role in salvation history. This greeting is likewise unusual when we recognize that Gabriel calls Mary this as if it is her name. Instead of saying something like, “Hello, person who is full of grace,” he actually says, “Hello, Full-of-Grace.” Some have argued that this could mean that Mary was without sin. If Mary was and is so full of grace that the angel calls Mary this as her name, perhaps she was given so much grace that she never even had original sin.
After this, the angel tells Mary that she will conceive a son, and that she needs to name him Jesus. Other translations say Mary will get pregnant with a son. This would mean that Mary was not pregnant at this time. The future tense used in this announcement is crucial to understanding Mary’s subsequent response.
In Luke 1:34, Mary says something that literally translates to “How can this be, for I know not man?” This sentence by itself could be understood in a variety of different ways, and different Bible translations have different translations.
For instance, many translations, such as the NIV and ESV, translate this sentence to something like, “How can this be, for I am a virgin?” However, as I just explained, this analysis doesn’t make much sense. The angel tells Mary that she will get pregnant (in the future), and for Mary to respond in a confused way because she is currently a virgin doesn’t work. A current state of virginity does not mean that she could not conceive a child in the future.
Other translations like the RSV translate this sentence to mean something like, “How can this be, for I have no husband?” This is a little bit better, but I would argue that even if you were engaged, not having sex, but planning to do so when you got married, you would not be surprised at this message. You would likely be surprised at the angel coming to see you, but you would not be surprised at the message itself. After all, the message makes sense, given your scenario. You would just view the message as something that would happen after you got married.
Likewise, if Mary responded by saying she is not currently married, the angel Gabriel’s response is telling. Instead of saying something like “This will happen after your marriage to Joseph,” as would make sense if that were Mary’s question, the angel Gabriel explains the miraculous nature of the conception through the Holy Spirit. This response suggests that both Mary and Gabriel understood that the natural means of conception were not part of Mary’s future.
However, Mary was surprised. We have to ask why. To me, it would be similar to prophesying, “You will do calculus” to a dock worker on his deathbed. He would likely respond in disbelief, because calculus has no place in his life experience or future plans. However, for someone like me, who uses it every day for my career, someone saying that to me would not be surprising whatsoever. Mary is more like the dock worker than the mathematician.
When we examine the entire exchange between Mary and Gabriel in Luke 1, several elements point to Mary’s prior vow of perpetual virginity. First, Mary’s question about a future pregnancy makes logical sense only if she had no intention of ever engaging in relations that could lead to conception. Second, Gabriel’s response—explaining the miraculous conception, rather than referring to her future marriage—suggests he understood her commitment to virginity.
The question of Mary’s perpetual virginity involves many theological arguments. But the evidence from this specific exchange in Luke’s Gospel provides compelling support for understanding Mary as having made a prior commitment to lifelong virginity.