The Virgin Mary Was Not a Virgin—At Least Not in the Way We Think Today
- So Am I Books
- Jun 1
- 6 min read
Updated: Jun 10
The phrase “Virgin Mary” is perhaps one of the most familiar titles in Christian theology, etched into the creeds, prayers, and traditions of millions. It’s often taken for granted that “virgin” refers to Mary’s biological state—specifically, that she had never engaged in sexual intercourse before the birth of Yahawashi commonly known as Jesus. This interpretation has persisted for centuries and forms the cornerstone of doctrines like the Virgin Birth and the perpetual virginity of Mary.
But what if that understanding isn’t entirely accurate—at least not in the way ancient audiences would have understood it? What if our modern assumptions about virginity are imposing meanings onto ancient texts that weren’t originally there? In this article, we’ll explore the linguistic, cultural, and theological dimensions of Mary’s so-called virginity, and how our modern notions may be obscuring the original intent of the biblical narratives.
1. The Hebrew Word ‘Almah’ and Its Greek Translation
Much of the confusion begins with language. The prophecy in Isaiah 7:14, often quoted in the context of Jesus' birth, reads:
“Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
This verse is central to the claim that Mary gave birth while still a virgin. However, the Hebrew word translated as “virgin” is ‘almah’—and it's crucial to emphasize that this term more accurately means “young woman of marriageable age.” It does not explicitly mean “a woman who has never had sexual intercourse.”
This distinction is significant. Ancient Hebrew had a more precise word for a virgin in the biological sense: ‘betulah’. If Isaiah had meant to stress virginity as we understand it today, he could have used that word. But he didn’t. Instead, he used almah, which emphasizes youth and reproductive potential, not sexual history.
When the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek in the Septuagint around the 3rd century BCE, almah was rendered as ‘parthenos’—a Greek term more commonly understood to mean a literal virgin. But even this is more nuanced than it seems. Parthenos could also be used poetically or symbolically, and wasn’t always meant to denote strict biological virginity.
This linguistic evolution, from almah to parthenos to “virgin,” is what lays the groundwork for the later Christian interpretation that Mary gave birth without any sexual activity.
2. The Cultural Context: What ‘Virginity’ Meant in Ancient Times
It’s crucial to recognize that modern Western ideas about virginity—tied to physical proofs like an intact hymen or the complete absence of sexual experience—are largely foreign to the ancient world.
In ancient Israelite culture, virginity was not primarily a biological category, but a social one. A young woman who was unmarried was presumed to be a virgin. Virginity was about status and honor, not anatomy. A woman’s purity was tied to family reputation and legal marital arrangements, especially regarding inheritance and legitimacy.
Thus, calling Mary a "virgin" in the Gospels could have had more to do with affirming her social and moral standing—as a young, respectable, unmarried Israelite woman—than making a statement about her physical body.
It’s also important to consider that the Gospel authors were not modern gynecologists or legal scholars. They were storytellers, theologians, and evangelists who drew heavily from Israelite scriptures and cultural archetypes. In that symbolic context, Mary’s virginity functions more as a sign of divine intervention and purity than as a literal anatomical claim.
Sex itself was viewed as something that defiled a person ritually and morally—something only appropriate within the narrow confines of heterosexual marriage and primarily for procreation. In this sense, emphasizing Mary’s virginity served to highlight that Jesus' birth was untainted by what was culturally perceived as sinful or impure.
3. The Theological Motive: Virginity as a Symbol and the Seed of David Problem
If we assume that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, several scrutinous arguments arise, particularly concerning Jesus' claim to be the "Son of David" and His fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. Here are some of the key challenges that emerge from this assumption:
The Davidic Lineage ProblemThe Messiah was prophesied to come from the "seed" of David (2 Samuel 7:12–16, Psalm 132:11), meaning He must be a direct biological descendant. If Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not through Joseph’s seed, how could He rightfully claim Davidic lineage?
The Greek Word for "Seed" (Sperma) in ProphecyThe word "seed" (σπέρμα sperma) in texts like 2 Samuel 7:12 or Romans 1:3 implies physical descent. Since Jesus did not come from Joseph’s sperm, He wouldn’t qualify as David’s seed. Mary’s lineage is sometimes cited, but “seed” in Israelite thought passes through the male.
The Problem of Male Lineage in Israelite TraditionIsraelite genealogy traced lineage through the father. If Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ biological father, then Jesus could not claim Davidic descent through Mary alone..
The Challenge of Fulfillment in Romans 1:3 & 2 Timothy 2:8 Paul states Jesus was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3). Without a biological father from David’s line, how can this be true?
The Curse of Jeconiah, Jesus’ Davidic Lineage, and the New Covenant
A common objection regarding Jesus’ Messiahship involves the curse pronounced on King Jeconiah (also called Jehoiachin) in Jeremiah 22:30, which states:
“Write this man childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.”
Since Joseph’s genealogy (Matthew 1:1-16) traces Jesus’ legal lineage through Jeconiah, critics argue that this curse disqualifies Jesus from David’s throne and messianic legitimacy.
However, the biblical and theological context offers clarity on why this curse does not affect Jesus’ identity or mission:
1. Jesus Never Sat on David’s Earthly Throne
Jesus Himself said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36), indicating that His kingship was spiritual rather than political. The curse against Jeconiah concerned earthly reign over Judah—a monarchy that ended with the Babylonian exile. Jesus did not claim or fulfill the role of an earthly king sitting on David’s throne during His earthly ministry.
2. The Curse Marked the End of the Davidic Monarchy in Judah
Jeremiah 22:8-9 explains the reason for the curse: Judah forsook God’s covenant and worshiped other gods, resulting in the cessation of their monarchy. The curse was therefore not aimed at the Messiah Himself but served as a judgment on Jeconiah’s royal line and the historical monarchy. The Davidic throne was effectively vacant at the time of Jesus.
3. The New Covenant Supersedes the Old
Jeremiah 31:31 promises a New Covenant that God will establish with Israel and Judah. Christian theology understands Jesus as the inaugurator of this New Covenant, one that renders previous curses and limitations obsolete. Thus, the curse on Jeconiah’s seed is no longer binding in this new spiritual order.
4. The Resurrection and Divine Oath Fulfill the Davidic Promise
In Acts 2:29-34, Peter explains that David foresaw the resurrection of the Messiah, the “fruit of his loins,” who would sit on his throne at God's right hand. This shows the fulfillment of the promise to David despite the earthly curse:
“Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne...” (Acts 2:30, KJV)
This resurrection kingship is the ultimate fulfillment, transcending earthly restrictions.
5. Biblical Affirmations of Jesus as the Seed of David
Multiple New Testament passages confirm Jesus’ Davidic descent “according to the flesh”:
Romans 1:3: Jesus was “made of the seed of David according to the flesh.”
Hebrews 2:16-17: Jesus “took on him the seed of Abraham” and was made “like unto his brethren.”
Acts 13:23: God raised up Jesus “of the seed of David according to the flesh.”
2 Timothy 2:8: Remember Jesus Christ “of the seed of David.”
These affirmations indicate that Jesus fulfills the Messianic prophecies regarding lineage, both legally and biologically.
6. Understanding Israelite Genealogies and Marriage Customs
The genealogical listings and Israelite marriage customs (cf. Deuteronomy 22:13-22; Genesis 29:21; Judges 15:1) emphasize family lines and legal standing, not always strict biological paternity as understood today. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke serve different theological purposes but together affirm Jesus as true Israelite Messiah from David’s house.
4. The Problem With Modern Interpretations
In the modern world, especially in Western culture, virginity has taken on meanings and values that are deeply personal, medicalized, and even politicized. Virginity is often tied to ideas of modesty, morality, and sexual worth—especially for women.
When we impose these modern concepts onto ancient texts, we risk misreading them entirely. We turn symbolic theology into biological literalism, and in doing so, we misunderstand both the text and the culture that produced it.
5. What Does It Really Mean to Call Mary a Virgin?
So, was Mary a virgin in the modern sense? No. At least, that’s not what the original texts are trying to convey. Instead, Mary’s "virginity" is best understood as a theological symbol—a statement about God’s initiative in salvation history, not about Mary’s anatomy.
In Mary’s case, her true power wasn’t in her womb, but in her yes—her willingness to participate in God’s plan, even when it defied convention. That’s a legacy worth honoring, virgin or not.
Sources and References:
Hebrew Bible (Isaiah 7:14)
Septuagint Translation
Matthew 1:23, Luke 1
Galatians 4:4
Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah
Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium
Spong, John Shelby. Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus
