Pt. 1: Refuting the Catholic Myths of Mary – Perpetual Virginity

Here is the post I referenced, along with the specific claims made by Dr. Marshall, which, in this series, I will thoroughly examine and evaluate in light of both Scripture and church history, providing an analysis to ensure a basic understanding.

Why is this Important?

It’s easy to think these issues aren’t that significant, but they’re like a small crack in your home’s concrete slab. It may not seem nefarious at a glance, but when you see how that small crack spreads into a network of fractures that compromise the foundation of your house, it becomes a serious problem. For Protestants, refuting these Marian doctrines is crucial to preserving the foundation of the Gospel, including the reliability, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture, maintaining a Christ-centered theology, upholding the doctrine of Original Sin, emphasizing Christ as the sole mediator for redemption, and ensuring that church tradition does not supersede the authority of the Word of God.

Additionally, the Roman Catholic Church takes the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity very seriously. Rejecting or failing to affirm this doctrine can result in excommunication from the Church, which, in their view, means being denied the Eucharist and ultimately jeopardizing one’s salvation. Therefore, this is not a minor theological issue, but a significant matter with profound implications within the Catholic faith.¹

Now, I appreciate Dr. Marshall’s citation of Scripture and his wording in his first point, which states, “Mary is the human mother of God the Son. (Luke 1:43).” Honestly, I don’t have a problem with this language, so I won’t be addressing this issue in this series. In this article, I will address his second claim, “Mary is Ever-Virgin. She and Joseph never had relations or children. She also experienced zero pain in giving birth to Jesus Christ. (Second Council of Constantinople in AD 553 and at the Lateran Synod of AD 649).” In articles two and three, I will address his subsequent claims.

1. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary asserts that Mary remained a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus. However, a careful examination of Scripture, historical context, and theological reasoning reveals significant flaws in this doctrine.

Scriptural Evidence of Jesus’ Siblings

One of the most compelling arguments against the perpetual virginity of Mary is the clear biblical evidence that Jesus had brothers and sisters. In Matthew 13:55-56, the people of Nazareth ask, “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?” This passage clearly indicates that Jesus had siblings, born to Mary after Jesus.

Furthermore, the New Testament provides specific references to James, who is described as the “brother of the Lord” (Galatians 1:19). Acts 1:14 also says, “All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.” The Greek word used here for “brother” is ἀδελφός (adelphos), which has several definitions, including “A brother, a member of the same religious community, especially a fellow Christian.” This is the consistently used term throughout the New Testament to refer to a biological brother. In fact, Matthew 4:18 uses the same word to refer to the biological brotherhood of the Apostle Peter and Andrew: “While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers (ἀδελφούς), Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother (ἀδελφόν), casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.” Matthew 4:21 also uses this word to reference the biological relationship between the Apostle James and John, stating, “And going on from there he saw two other brothers (ἀδελφούς), James the son of Zebedee and John his brother (ἀδελφόν), in the boat with Zebedee, their father, mending their nets, and he called them.” This usage of biological brothers is also used in Matthew 1:2, Mark 1:16, Mark 3:17, Luke 6:14, John 1:40-41, John 6:8, John 20:17, Acts 12:2, and Mark 6:17.

This usage isn’t limited to the Gospels and the Book of Acts; it continues in the epistles, too. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 9:5, states, “Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers (ἀδελφοὶ) of the Lord and Cephas?” Galatians 1:19 adds, “But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother (ἀδελφόν).”

Some Catholics strongly argue that the term “brothers”(ἀδελφοὶ), when used in reference to Jesus, means “spiritual brothers” or “disciples.” However, John 2:12 refutes that interpretation, as the Apostle clearly distinguishes between Jesus’ biological brothers and His disciples: “After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there for a few days.” Rather, this wording upholds the proper and normative way to list groups of people, starting with the closest family relationships first, followed by others. This ordering highlights the distinction between Jesus’ biological family—His mother and brothers—and His disciples, reinforcing that the term “brothers” in this context refers to His actual siblings rather than spiritual brothers or disciples.

Lastly, Luke 2:7 states: “And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.” Luke, known for his careful attention to detail in his Gospel, specifically uses the term “firstborn” (Greek: πρωτότοκος, prototokos). He does not say, “one and only son” (Greek: μονογενής monogenēs), which was a biblical description used by John and available to Luke had Jesus truly been Mary’s one and only Son. Yes, the term “firstborn” emphasizes Jesus’ preeminence, but it also suggests that He was not Mary’s only child (her firstborn son). In other words, Luke is not speaking as Paul does to the theological preeminence in Romans 8:29 or Colossians 1:15 but to a familial focus on historical realities. Namely, when Luke wrote this, he knew that Mary had other children after Jesus.

The Greek Term for Brothers, Relatives, and Cousins

Some Roman Catholic apologists argue that the Greek word ἀδελφός (adelphos) could refer to cousins or close relatives rather than biological brothers. However, this argument is flawed. The Greek language has a specific word for cousin, ἀνεψιός (anepsios), which is used in Colossians 4:10: “Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin (ἀνεψιός) of Barnabas.” It also has a word for relative or kinsman (συγγενής (syngenēs), which is used in Luke 1:36, Luke 2:44, and Luke 1:61. If the gospel writers had intended to convey that Jesus’ siblings were actually cousins or relatives, they could have easily used ἀνεψιός (cousins) or συγγενής (relatives).

The truth is, there is not one instance in Scripture where the word adelphos (brother) is used to describe cousins or other blood relatives.

Scripture consistently distinguishes relational bonds. In Luke 14:12, where Jesus teaches generosity, it says: “He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers (adelphos) or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid.” This is important because it demonstrates that the Scriptures are not foreign to making relational distinctions when needed (see also Luke 21:16). Luke also demonstrates his precision in distinguishing familial language when speaking of Joseph as the father of Jesus, saying, “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph…” (Luke 3:23).

Therefore, the consistent use of ἀδελφός (adelphos) throughout the New Testament proves that these were indeed Jesus’ biological siblings. To claim that every other use of this term (adelphos) by multiple apostles meant something different only when speaking of Jesus’ relations—suggesting it refers to “cousins” or “relatives” instead of “biological brothers”—is a radically inconsistent way to interpret Scripture. This approach disrupts the systematic and coherent nature of biblical theology, where terms are used consistently to convey clear meanings. We would never apply those same principles of interpretation to other familial terms such as “father,” “mother,” or “son” because the opportunity for heresy would be astronomical.

Interpreting this term differently only to uphold a doctrine never mentioned in Scripture is not only unwarranted but also dangerous. It undermines the integrity of the Apostles and the coherency of the inspired Word of God.

Matthew 1:25 and the Greek Term for “Until”

Another critical passage that challenges the doctrine of perpetual virginity is Matthew 1:25, which states, “but [Joseph] knew her not until she had given birth to a son.” The Greek word for “until” (ἕως οὗ) in this context suggests a change in state following the event described. Catholics like to argue the meaning of the word “until.” But “a change in state following the event described” is the only way Matthew used that Greek phrase (ἕως οὗ) in his Gospel. So, the natural reading of this verse implies that Joseph did not have marital relations with Mary before Jesus was born, but the use of “until” (heōs) implies that normal marital relations were the outcome.

This view of marital relations between Joseph and Mary upholds God’s design for marriage as laid out in the creation account, where God commands, “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). This command was given in a state of sinlessness, showing that sexual union between a husband and wife is not only not sinful but is a part of God’s good and perfect design for humanity.

The Apostle Paul reinforces this in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, where he instructs married couples not to deprive each other of physical intimacy, except by mutual consent for a time of prayer. Paul’s teaching makes it clear that marital relations are a vital part of the marriage covenant. To withhold sex in marriage, outside of the agreed-upon time for prayer, would actually be considered sinful because it denies the partner their rightful covenant access and undermines the unity and purpose of the marriage.

Ultimately, the belief that Joseph and Mary had a regular marital relationship after Jesus’ birth aligns with the biblical view that sex within marriage is not sinful but rather a God-given gift meant to be embraced fully within their covenant union.

The Argument of Jesus Entrusting Mary to John

Roman Catholics often argue that Jesus entrusted Mary to the Apostle John at the crucifixion (John 19:26-27) because He had no other siblings to care for her. However, this reasoning overlooks important cultural and theological contexts. John 7:5 explicitly states that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in Him during His ministry. It is highly plausible that Jesus entrusted Mary to John not because He lacked biological siblings, but because those siblings were not believers at the time.

Moreover, Jesus’ close relationship with John, the “disciple whom He loved,” is well-documented. Jesus’ decision to entrust Mary to John reflects a deeper spiritual bond and the principle that spiritual family can take precedence over biological ties, especially when the latter are unbelieving. This is consistent with Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 12:48-50, where He states, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?… whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Additionally, in the cultural context of the time, it was not uncommon for a person to entrust a family member to someone outside of immediate kin, especially if that person was deemed more capable or trustworthy in providing care. Jesus’ decision to entrust Mary to John, an apostle who was well-equipped spiritually and practically, fits within this cultural practice.²

The Historical Development of This Doctrine

Contrary to popular belief within Roman Catholicism, the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity was not universally held by the early church. In fact, early Christian writings indicate that this belief was not remotely a standard doctrine during the first few centuries of the church.

The earliest references to Mary in the writings of the Church Fathers do not mention perpetual virginity at all. For example, Tertullian (c. 160–225 AD), one of the early Church Fathers, explicitly refuted the idea of perpetual virginity. He affirmed that Mary had other children with Joseph, thus directly contradicting the notion that she remained a virgin throughout her life.³

It wasn’t until the late 4th century that the doctrine began to gain more acceptance. Ambrose of Milan, Jerome, and Augustine of Hippo were the key figures who promoted this belief. Jerome, in particular, was a strong proponent of Mary’s perpetual virginity and argued against those who believed that Mary had other children. However, Jerome’s defense of the doctrine was tied to his broader agenda of elevating virginity as a superior spiritual state, a theme he pursued in his writings on asceticism and celibacy.⁴ The Council of Constantinople in 553 AD and the Lateran Synod in 649 AD (mentioned by Dr. Marshall) eventually formalized the doctrine within the broader church, reflecting a growing emphasis on Marian devotion and the veneration of virginity within the ecclesiastical hierarchy. By this time, the doctrine had become entrenched within the developing Mariology of the Roman Catholic Church.⁵ But this was only possible because the general public was illiterate and had no access to the Scriptures to verify these claims. This is why the Reformation of the 16th century was so closely tied to the advent of the printing press and the rise of early scholasticism, which enabled more people to read and engage with the Scriptures themselves. As we know, the result of access to the Scriptures was a mass revelation of inconsistency between the Bible and the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine.

In conclusion, the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary does not hold up under biblical scrutiny. Scripture clearly indicates that Mary had other children after Jesus, that the term “brother” used in the New Testament refers to biological siblings, and that Jesus’ decision to entrust Mary to John was based on spiritual, not biological, considerations. We do not modify the natural and systematic interpretation of the biblical text to justify a doctrine that emerges hundreds of years after the Scriptures have been written. As Christians committed to the authority of Scripture, it is vital to reject doctrines that lack biblical support and theological inconsistency and to maintain a clear focus on the gospel of Christ, who alone is our Savior and mediator.

If you’re looking for a great audio and ebook resource that discusses these issues further, consider reading “The Fatal Faith: How Roman Catholicism Leads Souls to Destruction” by Thomas Watson, which is available in the Relearn App.

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church – Paragraph 499. ↩︎
2. Keener, Craig S. “The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament.” InterVarsity Press, 1993
   ↩︎
3. Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, Chapter 7, c. 160-225 AD. Tertullian argued against the perpetual virginity of Mary by pointing to scriptural evidence that she had other children. ↩︎
4. Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, Against Helvidius. Jerome’s defense of Mary’s perpetual virginity was largely tied to his broader promotion of asceticism and celibacy. ↩︎
5. Second Council of Constantinople, 553 AD; Lateran Synod, 649 AD. These councils were pivotal in formalizing the doctrine of perpetual virginity within the church. ↩︎