Mary: What the Bible Really Says

The Scriptures present Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a humble and faithful servant of God. She is rightly honored for her willingness to bear the Son of God (Luke 1:38). However, over the centuries, the Roman Catholic Church has elevated her role far beyond what the Bible itself affirms. Central to this exaltation is the doctrine of her perpetual virginity–the claim that Mary remained a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ.

This teaching has spawned a wide range of associated beliefs: the veneration of Mary as "ever-virgin," her being set forth as the model of celibate holiness, and the development of Marian practices that often obscure Christ Himself. Yet, the biblical and historical basis for such claims is remarkably thin, resting primarily on the interpretation of a single Greek word (adelphos, "brother"), which can mean either a literal sibling or a cousin depending on context.

When Jesus returned to His hometown of Nazareth, the people were astonished at His teaching and miracles. Their reaction is recorded in Mark 6:3-4:

³Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. ⁴Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household.”

At face value, this passage identifies Jesus as the eldest son in a normal Jewish family. The people of Nazareth knew Him as a carpenter, the son of Mary. They named four of His brothers and referred to "sisters" in the plural–meaning at least two. Taken together, this suggests a family of at least seven children: Jesus, four brothers, and two or more sisters. This interpretation is supported elsewhere in Scripture: Matthew 13:55-56 repeats the list of brothers and mentions sisters; John 7:3-5 records that His brothers did not believe in Him during His ministry; Acts 1:14 shows His brothers later among the believers after the resurrection; Galatians 1:19 mentions James, "the Lord's brother," as a leader in the Jerusalem church. These references strongly support the natural reading: Mary and Joseph, after the birth of Jesus, had other children who were the Lord's half-siblings.

Despite this clear evidence, the Catholic Church insists that Mary had no other children and remained perpetually a virgin. To maintain this position, they argue that the word adelphos ("brother") can also mean cousin or close kin; that early church tradition testifies the "brothers" were Joseph's children from a previous marriage or cousins; that Mary's unique role as the "Mother of God" necessitates her perpetual virginity as a sign of holiness and total dedication; and that the authority of Sacred Tradition and Church decrees confirms the doctrine regardless of Scripture's silence. But when measured against the biblical evidence, these arguments collapse.

The perpetual virginity doctrine did not come from the apostles or the New Testament. Its roots lie in the second century and beyond: The Protoevangelium of James (c. AD 150), an apocryphal gospel, first asserted that Joseph was an elderly widower with children from a prior marriage, thereby making Jesus' "brothers" step-siblings. Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine in later centuries defended the teaching, often more from theological motives than from Scripture. By the Council of the Lateran (AD 649), Mary's perpetual virginity was canonized as dogma. Why did this idea gain traction? Two cultural and theological pressures: the growing exaltation of virginity and celibacy in Greco-Roman Christianity, and the desire to honor Mary by separating her completely from ordinary family life, making her an untouchable "Ark of the Covenant" figure.

From an apologetic standpoint, several points show the weakness of the Catholic argument. Textual evidence opposes it: Matthew 1:25 states that Joseph "kept her a virgin until (heōs) she gave birth." The natural implication is that after Jesus' birth, normal marital relations followed. Luke 2:7 calls Jesus Mary's "firstborn son" (prōtotokos), a term usually reserved when more children are expected. The word adelphos does not rescue the doctrine: while it can mean cousin, the context of Mark 6 and Matthew 13 clearly implies siblings. Silence is not support: no text says Mary remained a virgin after Jesus' birth. Tradition is secondary to Scripture: even if early church leaders promoted the idea, their testimony cannot override the inspired Word of God.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is not an isolated idea. It has fueled a whole trajectory of Marian theology that diverts honor away from Christ: Mary as "Queen of Heaven" and intercessor; prayers directed to Mary rather than through Christ (I Timothy 2:5); Marian feasts, shrines, and devotions that eclipse the centrality of the gospel; the teaching that celibacy is inherently holier than marriage, which contradicts Paul's instructions in I Timothy 4:1-3 and Hebrews 13:4. What began as an overzealous desire to honor Mary has led to practices that blur the line between biblical reverence and unbiblical veneration.

From a biblical apologetic perspective, the case is clear: the natural reading of the New Testament is that Jesus was the eldest of several children in a normal family. Mary was honored by God not because of perpetual virginity, but because of her faith, obedience, and humility (Luke 1:38, Luke 1:48). Jesus alone is exalted as Savior, Mediator, and Lord (Acts 4:12; I Timothy 2:5). Catholics argue that tradition and ecclesiastical authority secure the doctrine. But Protestants hold firmly to the principle of sola Scriptura: the Bible alone is the ultimate authority for faith and practice. By that measure, the perpetual virginity of Mary collapses as a man-made tradition.

Mary was indeed blessed among women (Luke 1:42). She was chosen to bear the Messiah, and for this we rightly honor her. But to elevate her beyond what Scripture reveals is to dishonor both her and her Son. The Roman Catholic claim of Mary's perpetual virginity rests not on the solid foundation of the Word of God but on the shifting sands of tradition, linguistic ambiguity, and theological speculation. In contrast, the Bible gives us a clear and beautiful picture: Jesus, the Son of God, born into a real human family, who was rejected by His own townspeople because they could not see past His ordinary background. In this way, Mary's true greatness is preserved–not in perpetual virginity or mystical exaltation, but in her example of humble faith. And our worship remains rightly directed, not to Mary, but to the One she bore: Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior.