Isaiah foretold the virgin birth:[1] “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” Immanuel means God is with us.
He further foretold the birth of Jesus:[2] “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
Mother Mary was the first to find out that the Lord would be born when the angel Gabriel appeared to her. He greeted her with a word unique in the New Testament: “Chaire Kecharitomene,” which is translated as “hail, fully graced,” calling attention to her special place among women as the fully graced mother of God.
Catholics and Protestants have divergent views on Mother Mary. Protestants in high churches, such as the Lutheran or Anglican churches, usually affirm Mary’s perpetual virginity. Those in low churches, such as the Baptist church, usually do not. They believe Mary was a virgin at Jesus’ conception but that she had normal marital relationships with Joseph following Jesus’ birth. They cite Romans 3:23 to say that all on the earth aside from Jesus have sinned. Catholics believe she took a pledge of virginity into the marriage and was not the mother of any children aside from Jesus. After Gabriel’s annunciation, Mary responded with “How can this be, since I know not man?” Since she was a young woman betrothed to Joseph, she would know how it could be. Furthermore, if Jesus had brothers, he would have been obligated by Jewish law to pass down care of His mother to his next eldest brother. Rather, he passed the care on to John the apostle.
Brant Pitre is a Catholic who draws from the early church fathers to note Mary’s role as the new Eve. Jesus’ reference to Mary as “woman” at the wedding at Cana and at the foot of the cross is similar to the initial reference to Eve as “woman” in Genesis. [3] In the book of Genesis and prior to committing the first sin, Eve was only known as “the woman.” It is not until she sinned that she was given her name (which is only mentioned once). So a woman brought sin into the world and bound us to the earth, while the second Eve made way for Jesus to free us from the binds of our sins through her sacred and sinless vessel.
Pitre further draws parallels between the Ark of the Covenant from Exodus with Mary as the Ark of the Covenant by noting that the Holy Spirit overshadowed the Tabernacle which contained the Ark in Exodus 40:34-35 and also overshadowed Mary at the annunciation in Luke 1:35.[4] After Jesus ascended, the Holy Spirit overshadowed believers.[5] The Holy Spirit has overshadowed and will overshadow all of us when we so desire.
Luke 2:7 referred to Jesus as Mary’s “first-born” son, which could imply there were others, yet Paul referenced Jesus as the first-born of all creation in Colossians 1:15. Matthew 1:25 states that Joseph didn’t consummate the marriage until the birth of Jesus, yet the Greek word for until, heos, does not necessitate a change in condition. If it did, Jesus would not be with us after the end of time, as He said he would be with us until the end of time. Paul instructed married couples not to deprive one another of sex unless both agree – but only for “a time” so as not to be tempted.[6] But to assume that Mary and Joseph are like any other normal couples is to fail to grasp the immense blessing God gave them with Jesus. They likely wouldn’t have the kinds of temptations normal couples have.
Joseph had a brother named Clopas who also had a wife named Mary[7] and this Mary was the mother of James and Joseph.[8] Clopas may have also been called Alphaeus, as James was also identified as the son of Alphaeus.[9] Jesus’ sisters were never named, but Mark and Matthew named James, Joseph, Judas/Jude, and Simon as Jesus’ brothers. These are likely listed in their birth order.
In the 3rd book of his Church History, Eusebius stated: “They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Savior. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.”
St. Jerome believed Mother Mary took a lifelong vow of virginity. He argued in The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius that the Greek word “adelphios,” which was used to reference Jesus’ brothers, could be applied to cousins as well. Protestants would argue that the gospel authors could have used the Greek word for cousin, “xaderfos,” yet there is no equivalent word in Hebrew or Aramaic, so adelphios may have been more easily translated. St. Jerome also believed that James, the son of Alphaeus, was the same as James, the Lord’s brother.[10] Helvidius believed the brothers and sisters were of Joseph and Mary.
In summary, Protestants and Catholics differ on whether Mary is a perpetual virgin. Her perpetual virginity is one of four Catholic dogmas. While some of the Protestant arguments seem compelling at first blush, it seems clear to me that the Catholic responses and arguments for Mother Mary’s perpetual virginity far outweigh them. I endorse the position of the saints rather than the heretics. In other words, I support the beliefs of Saints Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Jerome, and Ambrose rather than their heretical counterparts (Helvidius Tertullian, Jovinian, and Victorinus of Pettau).
[1] Isaiah 7:14
[2] Isaiah 9:6
[3] Pitre, B. (2018). Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary: Unveiling the Mother of the Messiah. New York: Crown Publishing Group.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Luke 1:35; 9:34
[6] 1 Corinthians 7
[7] John 19:25
[8] Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40
[9] Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13
[10] Galatians 1:19
Christian Apologist 
Thanks for this great insight. I have a brother in law who is a devout Catholic. This is a big stumbling block. For some reason he picks on this as an issue to try to create arguments. Thanks for speaking the truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I tried to look at both sides as fairly as possible, but I couldn’t reconcile the Catholic side with Scripture. So I had to come to the conclusion of 3 people named James. Plus, the earliest sources didn’t claim perpetual virginity as far as I can see.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for your objectivity! Blessings.
LikeLike
There is one argument you missed. I wrote a post from the Catholic perspective if you are interested. https://thecatholicofhonor.wordpress.com/2020/05/17/a-biblical-defense-of-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-2/ Still, I think you did well at presenting both sides fairly. I tried to do that myself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I also may have finally found my Protestant equivalent apologetics blogger, besides your outnumbering me in followers at a ratio of sixty-eight to one. Both of us have long lists of sources, which is something a lot of bloggers don’t do at any rate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m an academic so it’s a hard habit to break! I was also raised a Catholic (and now call myself a Baptist), so I tend to believe Mary isn’t given enough attention by Protestants. You may note I also blogged on Mary’s miracles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://christian-apologist.com/2017/08/19/something-about-mary-the-miracles-of-our-lady/
LikeLiked by 1 person
The term “first born” meant many things but it ultimately referred to the first male son who “opened the womb”. It did not however imply that there were other children. It also was a reference to the son who was to receive the inheritance and who would rule over the family. It was a term associated with authority and blessing. Let’s look at a few examples.
Ex. 13: 2-15
Read more: http://m.whatistruth.webnode.com/apologetics-topics/mary/was-jesus-the-first-born-of-many-children/
Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:
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?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
LikeLike
I’m sorry Stephanie, but with all due respect, it is simply incorrect to say that the Catholic approach somehow “far outweighs” the arguments against Mary’s perpetual virignity. Men would have to make exegetical jumps of leaps and bounds to reach the conclusion that she never had any children after Jesus, and for no objectively good reason either, which makes the teaching all the more strange. In fact, the evidence against the perpetual virginity of Mary is so compelling as to make it almost impossible to be true:
https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2017/03/is-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-biblical.html
Labeling someone a heretic over their view of Mary’s virginity seems disproportionate, and frankly, it reflects a level of spiritual rigidity and immaturity that even the early church fathers were not immune to. It’s a reminder that theological maturity isn’t always synonymous with historical authority.
Call me dense if you will, but how this teaching became ingrained in the minds of men early on is simply beyond me.
LikeLike
I originally held your view when I posted this blog a few years ago. I returned it to it a few days ago to see what I thought and to reconcile that with what I’ve studied and learned since then. I believe all of the dogmas about Mother Mary and have complete respect for the 2000-year-old church that Christ built upon Peter against which the gates of Hades will not prevail. Numerous early saints affirmed Mary’s perpetual virginity. Aside from that, Jesus would have been breaking Jewish law by giving the care of His mom to someone other than his blood brothers. He gave the care to St. John. Why? Because He had cousins, not brothers.
LikeLike
I appreciate your devotion to Church tradition and the saints who helped shape its theology. That said, having spent a fair amount of time studying church history, I’ve come to recognize that not all doctrines developed in a vacuum of apostolic clarity. Some, like the perpetual virginity of Mary, seem to have emerged more from theological idealism and evolving ecclesial sentiment than from the plain witness of Scripture.
The biblical references to Jesus’ brothers and sisters are not easily dismissed. The linguistic gymnastics required to reinterpret adelphoi as “cousins” or “step-siblings” lack textual support and seem more like retroactive harmonization than honest exegesis. And while tradition has its place, it cannot override the cumulative weight of Scripture and historical context.
I don’t mean to diminish the value of tradition, but when the evidence consistently points in another direction, it’s worth asking whether certain beliefs were shaped more by theological aspiration than apostolic instruction. That’s not a rejection of Rome’s legacy, but a sober reminder that reverence should never eclipse reasoned inquiry—especially when the stakes involve labeling dissenters as heretical for holding views that, frankly, align more closely with the biblical record.
As for the claim that Jesus would have been “breaking Jewish law” by entrusting Mary to someone outside His family—it’s a weak argument. Jesus routinely challenged conventional interpretations of Jewish law when they conflicted with deeper spiritual truths. Healing on the Sabbath, touching the unclean, and dining with sinners were all seen as violations by some, yet none constituted sin. Moreover, there’s no clear Torah command requiring a dying son to entrust his mother to a biological sibling. The assumption that Jesus had no brothers based on this act is circular and speculative at best.
Thanks again for the dialogue—these conversations are vital for deepening our understanding and sharpening our faith.
LikeLike
Hi there – It’s not a non-serious Jewish law that Jesus would be violating by giving care of His mother over to John – it’s a violation of the commandment to honor our mothers and fathers. A basic Jewish tenet of that honor is caring for our parents when they get old. Giving care to a non-family member when one has brothers and sisters would make it so the brothers and sisters weren’t doing their jobs.
LikeLike
Um, the text shows Jesus was estranged from his family and that they regarded him as a nut in need of control. That’s what Jesus passed care of his mother to his new family, the disciples, in line with the social rules of the day. And there’s some thought that John was Jesus’ cousin, but that’s more of a bonus.
LikeLike
Please say you’re joking.
LikeLike
While the commandment to “honor your father and mother” (Exodus 20:12) is foundational in Jewish ethics, interpreting Jesus’ act of entrusting Mary to John as a violation of that commandment is a theological stretch. The assumption that only biological children can fulfill this duty is not supported by Scripture or Jewish law in such rigid terms.
In fact, Jesus consistently redefined family in spiritual terms, emphasizing discipleship and obedience to God over blood relations. In Mark 3:33–35, He says, “Who are my mother and my brothers?… Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” This radical reorientation of familial bonds is central to His ministry.
Moreover, Jesus’ own family did not believe in Him during His ministry (John 7:5) and even tried to restrain Him, thinking He was “out of His mind” (Mark 3:21). These are not fringe interpretations—they reflect the consensus of mainstream biblical scholarship, which recognizes that Jesus experienced real tension with His family. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the plain reading of the text and the historical context in which it was written.
So when I referenced Jesus’ estrangement from His family, I wasn’t joking—I was referencing well-supported, widely accepted scholarly conclusions. Dismissing that perspective with “Please say you’re joking” doesn’t engage the argument; it sidesteps it. If we’re serious about theological inquiry, we need to be willing to wrestle with the text honestly, even when it challenges long-held assumptions.
There’s also no explicit Torah command requiring a dying son to assign care of his mother to a biological sibling. Jewish law emphasizes honoring and caring for parents, but it does not prescribe the mechanics of how that care must be arranged—especially in cases of familial estrangement or spiritual realignment.
Finally, John was not just any disciple—he was “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 19:26–27), and his closeness to Jesus likely made him the most trusted person to care for Mary. If anything, this act reflects Jesus’ deep concern for Mary’s well-being, not a breach of divine law.
LikeLike