Does Ezekiel 37:19 Prophecy The Coming Of The Book Of Mormon?

          "Ezekiel saw in vision [Ezekiel 37:19] the coming together of the stick of Judah, and the stick of Joseph, signifying the Bible and the Book of Mormon...The Nephites were then of the tribes of Joseph, and their record or 'stick' is as truly represented by the Book of Mormon as is the 'stick' of Judah by the Bible." (The Articles Of Faith, p. 276, James E. Talmage)

          Citing Ezekiel 37:19 is ineffectual to serve the purposes of the Mormons. The passage itself is simply too vague. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses could appeal to this text to make the same argument in favor of the Watchtower Society and its magazine publications. Any group of people could appeal to this passage in the way that Mormons have done to support their claims.

          The only thing that Ezekiel recorded on to the stick was the phrase, "For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and all the house of Israel, his companions." (Ezekiel 37:16) That was all that God had told Ezekiel to write on the stick. Therefore, Mormons are wrong when they assert that the Book of Mormon was what was written on the stick by the prophet.

          In context, the Jewish people asked Ezekiel, ‘Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these?’ (Ezekiel 37:18). The joining of the two sticks represents the divided state of Israel. The northern kingdoms and the southern kingdoms constitute the nation of Judah. It is about them being reunited again (Ezekiel 37:21-22). The two sticks represent the union of two kingdoms, not two different religious books.

          Mormons impose 19th-century religious ideas onto an ancient Hebrew prophecy without historical or linguistic evidence. Further, the passage's original context pertains to the reunification of Israel's divided tribes, with no reference to religious texts or future scripture. This interpretive leap, therefore, undermines the legitimacy and historical accuracy of using Ezekiel's prophecy to validate the Book of Mormon.

Do Church Divisions Invalidate Sola Scriptura?

• Defining The Issues:

          -Sola Ecclesia is the Latin term that describes the Roman Catholic belief that the church, not Scripture, is the final authority in religious matters. The Church of Rome touts itself to be the true church established by Jesus Christ, who appointed the Apostle Peter as its first pope. Thus, Rome demands from its members complete and unquestioned submission to its authority. The bishops in harmony with the pope infallibly interpret the Scriptures in order to preserve unity and truth.
          -Consequently, the Church of Rome claims that Christians who rely on the Bible alone for teaching and correcting doctrinal error rather than the Magisterium will inevitably end up in a state of hopeless confusion. Irreconcilable doctrinal contradictions will exist for which there is no remedy but an infallible teaching authority. No one can know anything for sure because no one is infallible. Thus, the meaning of Scripture must be unpacked by an earthly organization.

          -The claim that we need an infallible interpreter of Scripture is essentially the same as saying that the Bible is too difficult for the average person to understand. Both ideas use the same logic in their premises in order to reach the same conclusion. If the basic message of Scripture is plain enough for us to grasp on our own, then why would we need an infallible interpreter in the first place? If Christ entrusted the preservation of His teaching to an infallible office, then why do we even have a Bible?

          -"...no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, hath held and doth hold," (Trent, Session 4, "Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books")

          - "Q. Are the doctrines of the Catholic Church then entirely independent of Scripture? A. They are; because she taught her doctrines, and they were believed by the early Christians before the New Testament was written—centuries, indeed, before the Bible was collected into its present form; and she would have done so, in precisely the same manner, had they never been written." (Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine, Michael Müller)

          -“...the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” (CCC # 82)

• Biblical Evidence For The Doctrine Of Perspicuity:

          -King Josiah came to repentance as a result of the Book of the Law being found in the temple and him reading its words (2 Kings 22:8-13). He did this on his own apart from an infallible interpreter of Scripture. Psalm 119:97-105 speaks of acquiring more wisdom than even teachers and elders after meditating upon the words of the Law. Paul states that we can understand the revelation of the gospel just by reading his epistle (Ephesians 3:3-5). He also said that the apostles did not write things his audience could not read or understand (2 Corinthians 1:13-14). 

          -With the exception of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus, all of the New Testament epistles were written to Christians in general (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1; Philemon 1:1-2; Colossians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; James 1:1-2; Revelation 1:3-4).
          -Calls to read and obey Scripture presuppose that we can understand what it says on our own (Acts 17:11; Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27; 2 Thessalonians 3:14).
          -The common people understood the teachings of Jesus Christ apart from an infallible interpreter of His words (Matthew 11:25; 13:51; Mark 12:37). There was never such a person sitting next to Him when He was teaching in front of the crowds. He oftentimes attracted the poor and uneducated. The point is that anyone with a humble and prayerful heart can understand what God desires for us, apart from a complex church hierarchy.

• We Cannot Understand Scripture Unless Someone Explains It To Us (Acts 8:28-38)?:

          -There are people with authority to teach in the church. In fact, the doctrine of perspicuity does not mean that all portions of Scripture are equally clear or easy to understand. We may very well need things explained to us at times. However, this text says nothing about the concept of teaching infallibly or that only an infallible interpretation of Scripture would suffice for the confused Eunuch.
          -The Eunuch was from far away (i.e. Ethiopia), and he had apparently not been given a chance to hear about the teachings of the gospel. Philip, who was at the right place at the right time by the power of the Holy Spirit, was given the opportunity to explain Isaiah 53. The Eunuch was confused simply because he did not know who the prophet Isaiah was referring to (v. 34). The gospel was not spread out back in the day, as it is today. That is what this text is about.

• No Prophecy Of Scripture Is Of Any Private Interpretation (2 Peter 1:20)?:

          -How can a person develop a biblical argument against the principle of Sola Scriptura by making a personal interpretation of a verse that allegedly condemns private interpretation of Scripture?
          -How can a person rely on prophecy or compare Scripture to a "light" (v. 19), if they have been forbidden to use it (v. 20)?
          -The context of 2 Peter 1:20-21 is not speaking of one's reading of Scripture, but rather concerns the origin of Scripture. No true prophecy was given to the prophet by his own interpretation. Prophecy originated directly from God. It is not a product of our imaginations.

• People Twisting The Scriptures To Their Own Destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16)?:

          -First of all, this text merely states that SOME things in Paul's epistles are hard to understand. It does not even specify which parts those are. This simply means that we need to pray and study Scripture more diligently.

          -This text says that people "twist the Scriptures to THEIR OWN destruction" (v. 16, emphasis added), which indicates that we are responsible for how we handle the Word of God.
          -2 Peter 3:15-16 is only speaking of the unfaithful and the unbelieving, not the humble and prayerful Christian.
          -Although the context of 2 Peter 3 would have been a great place to introduce the concept of an infallible teaching authority, it is not mentioned at all.

• Do We Need Some Special Authority In Order To Make Interpretations Of Scripture?:

          -Interpreting Scripture is not so much a matter of personal authority, but rather something God expects us to do. This does not mean that ministers in local congregations have no special authority to teach at all. Scripture is clear enough for readers to obtain truths related to salvation and godliness.

          -God does not require that we understand Him infallibly, since we are but finite creations. Further, we can have sufficient certainty behind the meaning of Scripture on our own. However, this is not to suggest that we can interpret biblical texts in any way that we desire. We should examine Scripture in its context, use our common sense, consult commentaries, etc.

• Reflections On Religious Division:

          -Jesus Christ desires unity in the church. His will is that we be one in the Spirit. Christ despises factions amongst His people, with the existence of such indicating carnality. Since truth is of utmost importance, it ought to be sought after and protected at all costs. However, we are imperfect beings, and things are not always clearly defined in Scripture.

          -There are scenarios in which division is necessary: “For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you” (1 Corinthians 11:19). Further, unity in and of itself does not guarantee truth or preservation of the gospel. Even if an infallible interpreter of Scripture would simplify matters for us, that does not mean God has given us one. That our interpretations can be wrong does not mean that they are always wrong or are prone to be so most of the time.

          -In a society with millions of people where freedom of speech and freedom of religion exists, there will inevitably be diversity of beliefs. That is simply a logical consequence of being in a free society. In order to obtain the organizational conformity that Rome requires, there would have to be coercion, threats, and intimidation involved. Otherwise, it is not humanly possible to obtain.

          -Essential doctrines that are clearly or repeatedly defined in Scripture would include the virgin birth, sinlessness of Christ, deity of Christ, the veracity of His miracles, the sinfulness of man, among other things. Doctrines that are of secondary importance would include women's head coverings, musical instruments in church, eschatology, modes of baptism, etc. 

• Is Roman Catholicism A Theologically Divided Body?:

          -While the Church of Rome may appear to be fairly unified because it is organized under the headship of the pope, the unity to which Catholics appeal is mostly exaggerated. There are significant theological differences among the Catholic laity, priests, scholars, theologians, and bishops. There are societies, movements, and orders forming within the chambers of Roman Catholicism. There are liberal and conservative Catholics. Although these divisions are hidden under the Roman Catholic hierarchy, theological differences still exist and merit our attention.
          -Many Roman Catholics are unlearned in regards to the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. Many flatly contradict official teachings on issues such as abortion, artificial birth control, the death penalty, homosexuality, on whether priests should be married, letting females join the priesthood, stem-cell research, and more. Roman Catholics are divided over creation versus evolution, the material sufficiency of Scripture, charismatic occurrences, whether practicing Jews and Muslims can be saved without conversion, and whether Mary is co-redemptrix. Catholic theologians are even divided over the interpretation of Vatican II documents.
          -Roman Catholicism is a group that is lead by a single human leader and occupies the same title all throughout its domain (i.e. "Roman Catholic"), whereas Protestantism is made up of individual churches with different labels. Protestantism is not an ecclesiastical structure like Rome. Therefore, it is misleading to compare both systems in this regard. Further, the principle of Sola Scriptura was never intended to bring about complete agreement of thought on every issue.

• Refuting The 33,000 Protestant Denominations Myth:

          -Scott Eric Alt, at the National Catholic Register, said in regard to the claim that there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations: “There are not—repeat with me—there are not 33,000 Protes­tant denom­i­na­tions. There are not any­where close to it. It is a myth that has taken hold by force of rep­e­ti­tion, and it gets cited and recited by reflex; but it is based on a source that, even Catholics will have to con­cede, relies on too loose a def­i­n­i­tion of the word “denom­i­na­tion.”…How­ever strong the temp­ta­tion some may have to char­ac­ter­ize any­thing not Catholic or Ortho­dox as “Protes­tant,” you can’t do that. All that tells Protes­tant apol­o­gists is that you don’t know what Protes­tantism is, or what its dis­tinc­tives are—and they would be right. And why would they take any­thing you say seriously after that? If you don’t know what Protes­tantism is, who are you to be talk­ing about its errors? Not only are Mor­mons, Jehovah’s Wit­nesses, One­ness Pen­te­costals, Uni­tar­i­ans, Pros­per­ity Gospel believ­ers (included among 23,600 Inde­pen­dents and Mar­gin­als) not Protes­tant, they are not even Chris­t­ian; they adhere to a false Chris­tol­ogy. Protes­tants and Catholics are in agree­ment about who Christ is; these other groups have other ideas.”

Refuting The Atheistic "God Of The Gaps" Argument

          Atheists depict belief in the existence of God as being nothing but a filler for things that science as of yet has been unable to answer. This objection to the idea of a higher power operates on the premise that it has been assumed on a priori basis the necessity of God's existence in all matters for which we currently posses inadequate knowledge. Science itself will be able to account for all things satisfactorily in the long run. However, there remains intelligent and reasonable arguments for the existence of God, which amount to more than simply assuming things based on incomplete data. They are not appeals to silence or based on a lack of knowledge.

           When arguments for the existence of God are made, they are based on inferences from foundational observations rooted firmly in science. Further, they are made in accordance with principles of elementary logic. More specifically, many of our collected evidences point to the existence of an external, greater reality. Philosophical proofs for the existence of God point beyond the scope of the natural world. Therefore, it is not all that exists. If the premises of such arguments are true, then their conclusions are not assumed but automatically follow. It does not matter how people feel or react to the validity of presented deductive arguments.

           The validity of each logical premise in various arguments for the existence of God is based on the validity of each scientific or philosophical point used in making them. For instance, the universe does have fine-tuning. The universe has a first cause. Biological structures have a degree of complexity that appears to have been designed. These are scientific facts, which must be dealt with. Theistic arguments do not simply assume the existence of God as a means of providing an explanation, but are logical deductions that are unpacked to get an intended point across.

          The secularism of today's scientific landscape is the polar opposite of what the learned men who came to the Americas from Europe upheld. The latter were primarily Puritans who held that God orchestrated world history in such a way, that He dictated the outcome of even the smallest occurrences. The uncovering of scientific laws seemed to contradict this view of divine sovereignty, opening the door to a view of God who is more distant and uninvolved with creation. The idea of a watchmaker who winds up a clock and lets it unwind fully illustrates this perception. The radical approach to science taken by the Puritans has since been thoroughly discredited, helping to lay the ideological groundwork for the world of science that exists today.

           

           A true scientist must be open to the possibility of many things, for they dedicate their lives to seeking answers. Scientists are to be focused on truth. Scientists are supposed to be about evidence. Those who reject the existence of God are very biased indeed. Science is about the study of the natural world, not searching for naturalistic explanations with the intent of ruling out the supernatural. The fact that science has discovered answers to a number of complicated questions, does not mean that it alone is sufficient to unravel all foundational questions which shape reality as we understand it.

A Biblical Theology Of Marriage And Divorce

        "And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?" (Matthew 19:4-5)

        People committed to matrimony are, in ideal circumstances, to remain united to each other for the remainder of their earthly lives. Exceptions to this rule would include the passing of a spouse (Romans 7:2-3), desertion by an unbelieving spouse (1 Corinthians 7:14-15), marital unfaithfulness (Matthew 19:9), and spousal abuse. If one of these conditions is met, then one is free to seek after a new spouse. It is within the framework of marriage that a man exercises his conjugal prerogatives (Genesis 1:28). It is within that context man discovers for himself a unique kind of love and companionship (Genesis 2:18). Spiros Zodhiates wrote that:

        "Biblical love is based on the spiritual relationship between a man and a woman before any relationship of the flesh. They who are spiritually joined together become one flesh that never separates. They who are attracted only by the physical appearance constantly live in the temptation of seeing someone else who many be more attractive. The possibility of steadfastness in a marriage that is based on looks and mere sexual satisfaction is very small indeed compared to the spiritual relationship based on agape, love that seeks not self-satisfaction primarily, but meeting the need of one’s partner. The satisfaction of meeting the need of another is far greater than the satisfaction of selfish procurement." (What About Divorce?, p. 72-73)

        In Romans 7:2-3, Paul explains that a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. However, if he dies, she is free to remarry without being guilty of adultery. This analogy is used to illustrate that believers are released from the Law's binding power through Christ's death, just as a widow is freed from her marital bond upon her husband's death. Therefore, the passage indicates that it is permissible for a widow to remarry, aligning with the broader theological point that Christians are freed from the Law's condemnation through their union with Christ. 

        In 1 Corinthians 7:14-15, Paul addresses the situation of believers married to unbelievers. He explains that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified through their believing partner, which means their children are also under a godly influence. However, if the unbelieving spouse chooses to leave the marriage, the believer is not bound in such circumstances and is free to let them go. This passage underscores that while a mixed-faith marriage can have a sanctifying effect on the family, the believer is not obligated to remain in the marriage if the unbelieving spouse departs. The Christian is thus granted freedom in such situations.

        In Matthew 19:9, Jesus states that anyone who divorces their spouse, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery. This verse allows for divorce in the case of sexual immorality, suggesting that remarriage is not adulterous in such circumstances. The passage highlights the sanctity and permanence of marriage, permitting divorce only in specific, severe cases. The exception clause suggests that while marriage is intended to be permanent, severe breaches like infidelity justify dissolution and subsequent remarriage.

        In the cultural and historical context of Jesus' time, Jewish law allowed for divorce on the grounds of serious marital unfaithfulness, such as adultery. This broader understanding of "porneia" included various forms of sexual immorality, which suggests that Jesus' audience would have interpreted His exception clause in Matthew 19:9 as permitting divorce in cases of adultery. Further, different Jewish sects had varied interpretations of permissible grounds for divorce, indicating a less rigid approach than the Roman Catholic Church's stance on the indissolubility of marriage. Thus, the view of "porneia" as solely referring to unlawful marriages does not fully align with the broader and more flexible understanding prevalent during Jesus' era.

        Marriage is intended to be the life-long dedication of one to a partner of the opposite sex. Thus, adultery is wrong for obvious reasons. It involves lying in that the promise of fidelity gets broken and unfair in that the wronged spouse is robbed of due benevolence. Adultery turns what was intended to be a permanent vow right on its own head. If fornication and adultery are morally permissible, then that undermines the purpose for which marriage exists. 

        As for eliminating temptation, that cannot be done perfectly because human nature is fallen and said proclivities will creep up on us from time to time. The best way to dampen down temptation is to identify with certainty its source and find ways to permanently remove or avoid it. Jesus Christ specifically taught that lusting is equivalent to actually committing adultery and fornication (Matthew 5:28-29). It is a form of idolatry (Colossians 3:5). However, being physically attracted to a member of the opposite sex is not wrong in and of itself. We were biologically hardwired to be that way.

        God absolutely despises divorce (Malachi 2:16). He regards it as evidence of faithlessness. Divorce was not a part of His original order of things. God only tolerated the termination of marriages because the hearts of men are hard (Matthew 19:8-9). He knew that our relationships could go sour. Therefore, if it be at all possible, it is best for arguing couples to seek reconciliation. That may entail a degree of compromise in either one or both parties. For instance, wives and children should never be placed into a situation that leaves them without sustenance to provide for their needs. Every situation is different and must be dealt with accordingly.

          Marriage is a sacred institution that calls for mutual commitment and love between spouses. The biblical teachings on marriage, such as in Ephesians 5, encourage believers to love and respect one another within the marriage relationship. These teachings can be interpreted in ways that recognize both distinct and shared responsibilities between husbands and wives. In the framework of a healthy marriage, spouses are encouraged to honor their unique roles while also supporting and valuing each other's contributions. Marriage involves personal accountability. It is based on commitment of the spouses to each other. The underlying principle of marriage is self-sacrifice.

        Marriage was instituted by God, so He has complete authority over it. Divorce could actually be seen as a grace in that it exists when no potential remedies work. This kind of a decision should never be taken lightly and only in sorrow. The best thing to do is marry somebody who shares a similar worldview. Even a person who claims to be a Christian may be a bad candidate for marriage (Matthew 7:21). Some people may have to wait a long time before finally getting married, like Isaac who was forty before he got married (Genesis 25:20). In fact, a person does not have to get married if he does not want to. Even Christ spoke of the celibate (Matthew 19:11-12).

Are All Sins Equal In Severity?

        It is true that all sins are worthy of condemnation because they are a violation of God's Law (Romans 6:23). All of them are unrighteous. All of them are an offense to God because they go against His very nature, which is holy. Any and all sin is sufficient to stop one from becoming a partaker in His kingdom. All sin can accurately be spoken of as mortal before Him. It is also true, however, that any and all sin can be forgiven because of Christ's work on the cross (Romans 5:20). The depths of His grace is deeper than the worst that we can do.

        God's Law does not exist outside Himself as do human laws to judges. It exhibits perfectly who He is in terms of His righteous and just qualities. God is the perfect moral standard of righteousness (Genesis 18:25). Sin, therefore, is not merely in opposition to some principle, but to God Himself. He is not changeable like human theories and rules. Sin merits eternal separation and death because He is holy, impartial, and equitable. It is an offense against God on a personal level. Sin goes against everything that He is.

        Some sins are indeed greater in severity than others (John 19:11; 1 John 5:15-17). That means God judges some with more harshness than others based on what they did during this life, while exercising mercy accordingly. He judges in a way that is both rigid and flexible. Ezekiel 8 speaks of certain acts as being more detestable to Him than others. There are different levels of severity in punishment for those in hell (Matthew 23:14; Luke 10:7-12; 12:47-48). God judges those who have greater knowledge of His truth more harshly (Hebrews 10:28-29; James 3:1-2). This should foster in us a deeper understanding of the gravity of various actions and the need for sincere repentance.

        That homosexual behavior, adultery, and bestiality were considered capital crimes in Israel shows God does indeed see some sins as more heinous than others in terms of earthly consequences. Unintentional sins could be atoned for in the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 4). The former types of sin were more grievous to God because they involve full consent in doing them. Thus, it can be said that He looks at people's motives, circumstances, and their ability to understand propositions in judging them. God is just in executing judgment.

         Some have quoted James 2:10-11 to support the notion that all sin is the same in terms of severity, but that notion is mistaken. Theft, for instance, is not said to carry the same weight of guilt and consequences as does murder. In fact, sympathy is extended to those who steal food to feed themselves (Proverbs 6:30). This passage merely says that if one commits sins such as theft and murder, then he has violated God's Law. In other words, there are multiple ways to break the Law of God. This is true even of various laws instituted by man.

Annihilation Refuted

• Introduction:

          -The teaching of annihilationism stands in stark contrast to the traditional Christian teaching of hell, which is eternal condemnation. The orthodox teaching is that the souls of unbelievers are sentenced to an eternity of misery and humiliation. They are separated from God because He is holy. They will be made to confess that He is Lord out of subjugation, not submission.
          -Annihilationism is the teaching that lost souls, fallen angels, and even Satan himself will eventually get destroyed or cease to exist. As for the duration of the divine sentence in this view, it is usually taught that unconverted souls cease to exist after the moment of physical death. Thus, there is no conscious afterlife for these people. Only the righteous will experience immortality.

• Annihilationism Minimizes The Seriousness Of Sin And Its Consequences:

          -If a person desires to continue acting in a sinful manner and dies in an unrepentant and unbelieving state, then he will have no serious concerns about any sort of future punishments. After all, a non-existent being cannot face judgment for sin by God. So there will ultimately be no punishment for any sins in this theological framework.

• Exegetical Problems For The Doctrine Of Annihilationism:

          -If annihilation is true, then why not also believe that our comfort and existence in heaven will last only for a short period of time? The word "eternal" is used to describe both "life" and "punishment" in Matthew 25:46, which puts advocates of annihilationism in a pickle. The same comments are equally applicable to Daniel 12:2.

          -In Revelation 14:9-11, the emphasis is on eternal torment, with the phrase “the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever.” This language suggests a continuous, ongoing state of suffering rather than a one-time act of destruction.

          -In Revelation 20:10, the imagery is of perpetual torment. The devil, the beast, and the false prophet are subjected to continuous suffering “day and night for ever and ever,” implying no end to their punishment.

          -Jude said that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah suffer "eternal fire" (Jude 7) which lasts "forever" (Jude 13) as an object lesson for the ungodly. That language has very specific implications, which do not sit well with annihilationism. The people of those cities were still suffering divine judgment at the time of this epistle being written.

• The Story Of The Rich Man And Lazarus Serves As Biblical Evidence That Souls Remain Conscious After Physical Death And That Unbelievers Do Not Cease To Exist (Luke 16:19-31):

           -Even if one does not interpret this story to be literal history, plenty of details exist to indicate conscious life after death with the moral lesson that unrighteous people will face judgment by God.

• On The Greek Term Kolasis In Matthew 25:26:

          -"κόλασις kólasis; gen. koláseōs, fem. noun from kolázō (2849), to punish. Punishment (Matt. 25:46), torment (1 John 4:18), distinguished from timōría (5098), punishment, which in Class. Gr. has the predominating thought of the vindictive character of the punishment which satisfies the inflicter’s sense of outraged justice in defending his own honor or that of the violated law. Kólasis, on the other hand, conveys the notion of punishment for the correction and bettering of the offender. It does not always, however, have this strict meaning in the NT. In Matt. 25:46, kólasis aiṓnios (166), eternal, does not refer to temporary corrective punishment and discipline, but has rather the meaning of timōría, punishment because of the violation of the eternal law of God." (Excerpt taken from the Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible, edited by Spiros Zodhiates)

• On The Greek Term Aionion:

          -Proponents of annihilationism correctly point out that the Greek word "aionion," which is translated into English as "eternal," does not always mean eternal. However, the New Testament clearly uses that word to describe the length of God's reign (Revelation 11:15), the nature of God (Romans 16:26, 1 Timothy 1:17), and our salvation (John 3:16). Those are things for which there is no end. Further, there is no better word in New Testament Greek to denote an eternal length of time than aionion itself. The concept of eternal conscious punishment in hell is indeed terrifying to hear about. Attempting to deny its existence is foolish to the utmost.

Does Luke 1:28 Support The Immaculate Conception Of Mary?

          "The Holy Spirit prepared Mary by his grace. It was fitting that the mother of him in whom "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" should herself be "full of grace." She was, by sheer grace, conceived without sin as the most humble of creatures, the most capable of welcoming the inexpressible gift of the Almighty. It was quite correct for the angel Gabriel to greet her as the "Daughter of Zion": "Rejoice." It is the thanksgiving of the whole People of God, and thus of the Church, which Mary in her canticle lifts up to the Father in the Holy Spirit while carrying within her the eternal Son." (CCC # 722).

          The best description that we get about Mary from Scripture is that she is "the Lord's servant" (Luke 1:38). Nothing much else is said of her elsewhere. It is unrealistic to go from describing Mary as being an instrument used by God to being a woman who was conceived without sin, ascended into heaven without physical death, and being exalted as the queen of heaven. There is nothing in this context allowing for the use of random titles to exalt Mary, offering prayers to her, building up statues of saints to bow down before, among other things. The context of Luke 1 contains no clear evidence that Mary holds a mediatory role between humanity and God or was intended to be venerated in the way that Catholics have done with her.

          The angel Gabriel’s greeting, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28, NRSV), underscores God's favor upon Mary as the chosen vessel for Jesus' incarnation. However, there is no indication that this favor confers an ongoing role for Mary beyond being the mother of Jesus. Moreover, the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55) emphasizes Mary's acknowledgment of her own humility and God's greatness. While she praises God for the honor given to her, the prayer's central focus is on God's mercy, justice, and faithfulness to His covenant. There is no suggestion that Mary sought or should receive adoration from others.

          The context of Luke 1 reveals important sayings of Elizabeth, Mary, and the Angel Gabriel. However, nothing is said about Mary being without sin. Further, we need to ask why Gabriel would announce the important message of Mary's birth so many years after the occasion took place (i.e. when she was already a fully grown woman)? Both the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and John the Baptist were proclaimed before their birth dates. It would be highly unusual to make a prophecy of an event after the fact that it has already happened. Luke chapter one centers around the conception of Jesus.

          In addition, the phrase "full of grace" is not found in our Greek manuscripts. It is derived from a faulty translation of Jerome in his fourth century Latin Vulgate. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church has derived its doctrine from a corrupted Latin translation, not the Greek original. Interestingly, modern-day Catholic translations of the Bible do not have the rendering "full of grace" in Luke 1:28. Examples of reputable texts omitting that term would include the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible. Consider this excerpt from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII, Page 378:

          "The words of Gabriel, “Hail, full of grace” (Lk. 1.28), have also been appealed to as a revelation of the Immaculate Conception, on the grounds that to be truly full of grace, Mary must have had it always. This interpretation, however, overlooks the fact that the Greek term κεχαριτωμένη [kecharitomene] is not nearly so explicit as the translation “full of grace” might suggest. It implies only that God’s favor has been lavished on Mary, without defining the degree of grace."

          Consider this excerpt from The Augsburg Confession: A Commentary, by Leif Grane, p. 209, which is thoroughly reasonable to add here:

          "She [Mary] does not seek her own enjoyment in the honor which God has permitted her to share, but keeps her spirit pure. In this way the Magnificat becomes a proclamation of God's own goodness toward poor and lowly mortals. It is God's grace toward Mary, who is unworthy, that we should praise. Mary does not desire that praise be directed toward her, for thereby God's grace is diminished. If one would honor her, one should regard her low estate and marvel at God's exceedingly abundant grace toward her. Thereupon one should praise God, who acts this way toward poor and wretched human beings, and so learn to depend of God oneself, when one is despised and degraded. By elevating Mary into a sublime being, one destroys the comfort which Mary's words can bring."

Examining The Catholic Rosary In Light Of Scripture

       One Roman Catholic legend is that Mary showed up before St. Dominic in 1208 at the church of Prouille and revealed the rosary beads to him. Catholic Priest William Saunders writes that, "the origins of the rosary are sketchy at best." Gregory the Great made popular a form of the Hail Mary Prayer. In response, many began praying this prayer in repetitions with stringed beads. However, Jesus declared unfit for use this kind of prayer:

        "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words."  (Matthew 6:6-7)

         For what other reason would the scribes and Pharisees pray the kind of prayer that Christ expressed disapproval of, other than heaping up words and phrases in an attempt to make their utterances more efficacious or more heard? The rosary consists of exactly these elements. The context of His teaching here is more than saying the same prayers repeatedly.

        Jesus Christ emphatically condemned this kind of prayer by calling it vain. It is uttered by pagans in their ecstasy and by legalists in their pride, but worthless before God. He already knows everything that we are going to pray about and our motives for doing so, even before anything is said. He knows everything that we need, even better than what we know ourselves.

         Further, more prayers are dedicated to Mary in the rosary than to God Himself in the process of it being cited. The praises given to God are outnumbered nine to one in favor of Mary. Hence, it does not take much to notice how such a prayer can diminish one's affection for God. Observe the utter contrast of Roman Catholic devotion to Mary in the rosary with words of devotion to God from the Psalms:

        "My soul, wait in silence for God only, for my hope is from Him. He only is my rock and my salvation, my stronghold; I shall not be shaken." (Psalm 62:5-6)

        This psalmist obviously would have rejected any concept of offering some lower form of religious devotion to someone other than God. He viewed his Creator as his one and only source of spiritual sustenance during hard times. 

        "Whom have I in heaven but You? And besides You, I desire nothing on earth." (Psalm 73:25)

        There is nothing in these words that would even remotely imply that using something like the rosary would be palatable for use in worship. No one ever prayed with beads in the Bible, a concept instituted by pagans long before Christianity began (making them even less appealing to devout Jews). For instance, the Hindus did so in prayers to their gods. The biggest problem for the rosary is that it involves prayer to someone other than God.

        Why do we need to know how many times that a prayer is said? Why is there an emphasis on the number of repetitions in citing the rosary? Are there consequences for saying too many or too little of a specific prayer? Does the rosary involve some sort of self-hypnosis technique? What is the significance of even using this relic if the repetition serves no purpose?

Is The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary Biblical?

• Introduction:

          -The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary and Joseph remained celibate after the birth of Jesus Christ, thereby indicating that He had no biological siblings. According to this belief, any relatives of Jesus mentioned in Scripture were either cousins or children from a previous marriage of Joseph. As for historical debates, Jerome countered Helvidius on three main points: 1.) the assumption of Joseph as Mary's husband, 2.) the identification of Jesus' "brothers" as cousins, and 3.) the view that celibacy holds moral superiority over marriage. This doctrine has been supported by many throughout history, both before and after the Protestant Reformation. Notable Protestant figures such as Martin Luther, Francis Turretin, and Richard Hooker upheld the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity.

• Matthew 1:18:

          -This passages says that Mary was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit before she and Joseph came together. This implies that their marriage had not been consummated at the time of Jesus' conception. When combined with Matthew 1:25, this would suggest that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations post-birth. Further, mentions of Jesus' brothers and sisters in the New Testament further support the idea that Mary had other children. Therefore, the perpetual virginity of Mary lacks biblical support and seems to be a later theological development. It is not based on a straightforward interpretation of the text.

• On The Meaning Of "Until" In Matthew 1:24-25:

          -The term "until" often indicates a change of condition following the specified event. Supporting examples from Scripture where "until" implies a change include Matthew 24:34 and Acts 20:11. This interpretation aligns with other New Testament references to Jesus' siblings (e.g. Matthew 12:46, Mark 6:3), which further challenge the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. The implication here is that she had other children after Jesus, thus marking a shift from a virgin to a mother of multiple children.

• Matthew 13:55-57 And Mark 6:3-4:

          -The context of these passages indicates the meaning of "brothers and sisters" to be natural family. In Matthew 13:55-57 and Mark 6:3-4, the Greek word for sisters (i.e. adelphe) is used. Further, that word is used in 1 Timothy 5:1-2 to mean natural sister born as to the same mother. The term used in various contexts suggests a natural familial relationship.
          -If this was a reference to more distinct relatives, then why did Matthew and Mark not use the Greek word "suggenes" (e.g. Luke 1:36; Luke 1:58)? The absence of this term in Matthew 13:55-57 and Mark 6:3-4 could be seen as an indication that the authors intended to convey a more immediate family relationship.

          -The New Testament occupies a separate Greek word for cousin, which is "anepsios" (e.g. Colossians 4:10). The New Testament never denotes the term "brother" to mean anything other than a literal brother in the context of family relations. If the terms brother and sister are not to be taken literally, then why should we understand Mary being called the mother of Jesus in that same way? 

• John's Gospel Records A Fulfilled Prophecy (John 2:15-17) From The Book Of Psalms (Psalm 69:8-9): 

          -The implication to be made here is that Christ had literal brothers and sisters from the womb of Mary. His brothers were said to not believe Him (John 7:1-10).

• Jesus Was Mary's Firstborn, Not Only Born (Luke 2:7):

          -The fact that the four gospels speak of brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ suggests that "firstborn" in this context means the first of many children. If Jesus were an only child, then it would not have been necessary to call Him the firstborn.

• Moving Past Virginity And Rethinking Mary's Role:

          -The Roman Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity places an unhealthy and undue focus on her sexuality. This obsession with virginity can perpetuate harmful attitudes toward sexuality, suggesting that purity and virtue are tied to sexual status. Such an emphasis can overshadow Mary's other significant qualities and contributions, reducing her identity to a single attribute. This focus may distort natural human experiences and relationships, perpetuating unrealistic standards within a religious context.

Refuting The Immaculate Conception Of Mary

• Introduction:

          -According to the Roman Catholic Church, Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin and she therefore led a sinless life. It is claimed that God had to work things out in this fashion so that Jesus Himself could be conceived without sin. The Roman Catholic Catechism says, "...The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin." (# 491)
          -As is usual with distinctively Roman Catholic dogmas, there is no unanimous consensus among the church fathers as to whether or not this teaching is biblical. Dr. Ron Rhodes says the following, "...it is a historical fact that a number of the early church fathers such as Origen, Basil, Hillary, John Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria believed that Mary had engaged in sins (such as vanity and ambition) in her life" (Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, p. 296). Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas also denied the dogma of Mary's immaculate conception.

• The Logic Of Mary's Immaculate Conception Undoes Itself:

          -If sinlessness is claimed for Mary so that she could be pure enough to bear Jesus Christ in her womb, then why should such not also be claimed for Mary's mother so that she could be pure enough to do the same with her? When and where did this process begin? Why not simply have Mary and Jesus born in a sinless environment? What made the conception of Jesus unique was the way in which He was conceived, not to whom He was conceived.

• Mary Was Not Ritually Clean, According To The Old Testament Levitical Law, Which Was Still In Effect When Christ Was A Baby:

          -If Mary was sinless, then why was she unclean and had to offer a sacrifice for sin (Luke 2:16; 21-24)? Ritual impurity in Leviticus 12, stemming from childbirth, symbolizes the transmission of original sin. While moral impurity pertains to ethical failures, ritual impurity is deeply rooted in the consequences of the fall, indicating that Mary was still subject to these post-Edenic conditions. This distinction underscores that ritual purification after childbirth is not merely a cultural practice, but a theological acknowledgment of humanity's inherent sinfulness.

• Mary Doubted God, Which Is A Sin Because It Calls Into Question His Goodness:

          -If Mary was undefiled by sin, then how does one account for the fact that she once thought her Son Jesus Christ to be mentally deranged (Mark 3:20-21; 3:31-35)? She was not trusting in God at that point in time, which constitutes a failure to live up to God's perfect moral standard.

• Mary Called God Her Savior Upon Hearing The News That She Was Going To Be Used By Him To Bring The Messiah Into The World (Luke 1:47-48):

          -These words uttered by Mary are precisely what one would expect of a sinner whose only hope is the mercy of God. The sense portrayed here is, not necessary graces given before birth to preserve one from the stains of sin, but grace needed to cover personal sin.

• Paul's Teaching That All Have Sinned And Fallen Short Of The Glory Of God:

          -All have broken God's Law (Romans 3:10-12; 23; 5:12), and nowhere is Mary spoken of as being an exception to the rule. All, therefore, are in need of an atonement sacrifice, which is Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:2; 1 John 3:5). There has been only one person tempted by Satan and successfully resisted sin throughout His entire life, and that is Christ (Hebrews 4:14-16). For this reason, people such as Adam and Eve, babies, and the mentally handicapped are not true exceptions to the rule "all have sinned." While the Scriptures explicitly teach the sinlessness of Jesus Christ, they are silent when it comes to Mary being without sin. Only Jesus was conceived without sin and led a morally perfect life.