Answering Proof Texts Cited In Defense Of Baptismal Regeneration

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to rebut a number of proof texts cited for baptismal regeneration, which is the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation. Following are a handful of excerpts from a source alongside a critique:

          "Mark 16:16 – Jesus said “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved.” Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.”

          The act of baptism is associated with justification before God, but does not constitute that instance itself. Consider this reasoning from analogy: people can have experience driving a vehicle, but it does not follow that they acquire knowledge regarding its assembly. In the same vein, Mark 16:16 nowhere indicates that unbaptized Christians will be condemned by God. Baptism cannot be a condition for salvation because it is a work (Ephesians 2:8-9). As to the order of faith and baptism in Scripture, the latter always follows the former. For example, Matthew 28:19 says, "teach...and baptize..." Acts 2:38 says, "repent...and be baptized..."

          "John 3:3,5 – unless we are “born again” of water and Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The Greek word for the phrase “born again” is “anothen” which literally means “begotten from above.” See, for example, John 3:31 where “anothen” is so used. Baptism brings about salvation, not just a symbolism of our salvation."

          Andreas J. Kostenberger, in the book titled Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, page 435, notes that the phrase "born again" is rooted in Old Testament symbolism:

          "...Most likely this passage constitutes an allusion to Ezek. 36:25-27, which presages God's cleansing of human hearts with water and their inner transformation by his Spirit (cf. also Isa. 44:3-5; Jub. 1:23-25; see Schlatter 1948: 89; Carson 1991: 191-96, esp. 194-95; McCabe 1999; Cotterell 1985: 241; Kynes 1992, esp. 575). The notion of a new beginning and a decisive inner transformation of a person's life is found in other OT prophetic passages (e.g., Jer. 31:33-34; Ezek. 11:19-20). It is this spiritual reality of which Nicodemus, Israel's teacher, ought to have been aware but which he and, one may assume, his fellow Sanhedrin members-the personal pronouns in Jesus' statements "You must be born again" (3:7] and "You (people) do not accept our testimony" (3:11] are plural in the Greek) personally lacked."

          The motif of being washed spiritually was something known to the Qumran Community. Consider the following excerpt cited by Alex Deasley, The Shape of Qumran Theology, p. 232:

          "By the spirit of holiness which links him with his truth he is cleansed of all his sins. And by the spirit of uprightness and humility his sin is atoned. And by the compliance of his soul with all the laws of God his flesh is cleansed by being sprinkled with cleansing waters and being made holy with the waters of repentance. May he, then, steady his steps in order to walk with perfection on all the paths of God." (IQS III 7b-10a)

          David W. Pao, in the New International Version Zondervan Study Bible, says the following:

          "3:5 born of water and the Spirit. Parallel with "born again" (vv. 3,7) and "born of the Spirit" (v. 8), emphasizing a (single) Spirit-produced birth. This makes several interpretations unlikely: (1) that "born of water" refers to natural birth (no ancient sources picture natural birth as "from water," where "water" is the amniotic fluid that breaks before childbirth); (2) that "born of water” refers to Christian baptism (these words would have had no relevance to Nicodemus at the time): (3) that "born of water" refers to John's baptism (also, vv. 9-12 then do not logically follow); (4) that "the Spirit” refers to the Word of God (John's other metaphoric uses of "water" in this Gospel refer to Spirit-produced life [4:14; 7:3839], not to God's Word). The most plausible interpretation of "born of water and the Spirit" is the purifying and transforming new birth. Since Jesus expects Nicodemus to understand what he means (vv. 7, 10), the background to the concept is previous Scripture. Water in the OT often refers to renewal or cleansing, and the most significant OT connection bringing together water and spirit is Ezek 36:25-27, where water cleanses from impurity and the Spirit transforms hearts. So "born of water and the Spirit" signals a new birth that cleanses and transforms."

          "Acts 2:38 – Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual."

          In Acts 2:38, the Apostle Peter was calling upon his audience to identify themselves with Jesus Christ. In getting baptized, they identified themselves as being recipients of the grace and mercy of God. They aligned themselves with the cause of Christ. Baptism signifies His death and resurrection. It is a picture of an inner transformation of our hearts through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Another passage that has the same kind of imagery regarding baptism is 1 Corinthians 10:2. The Apostle Paul stated that the Israelites were baptized into Moses, meaning that they identified themselves with his mission and purpose. Baptism is not a condition for salvation, but an expression that one has been forgiven by God and granted citizenship into His kingdom. 

          "1 Cor. 6:11 – Paul says they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, in reference to baptism. The “washing” of baptism gives birth to sanctification and justification, which proves baptism is not just symbolic."

          The Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:11 does not refer to the ritual act of baptism, but to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 5:26 is another text that uses visually descriptive and figurative language regarding washing. 

          If Paul believed in baptismal regeneration, then it would have been illogical for him to have spoken the way he had at the beginning of his letter (1 Corinthians 1:14-17). He clearly separated the events of baptism and justification. Thus, Paul did not believe doing such diminished the importance of that ritual.

          "1 Peter 3:21 – Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah’s ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body)."

          The key to answering this argument lies in the phrase "...which corresponds to this" (or "The like figure...," Authorized Version). Just as Noah and his family had entered the ark to escape judgement from God on this world through floodwater, those who place their trust in Jesus Christ will be saved from eternal condemnation at the Final Judgement. He is the ark of our salvation. Baptism is a picture of the newness of life that we experience in Him. 1 Peter 3:21 says that it is not the ritual which purifies our consciences ("not as a removal of dirt from the body..."), but that which baptism represents, namely, our changed identity and newfound union in Christ. "How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!" (Hebrews 9:14)

Early Church Evidence Against Transubstantiation

"Now let us speak briefly concerning sacrifice itself. “Ivory,” says Plato, “is not a pure offering to God.” What then? Are embroidered and costly textures? Nay, rather nothing is a pure offering to God which can be corrupted or taken away secretly. But as he saw this, that nothing which was taken from a dead body ought to be offered to a living being, why did he not see that a corporeal offering ought not to be presented to an incorporeal being?...There are two things which ought to be offered, the gift and the sacrifice; the gift as a perpetual offering, the sacrifice for a time. But with those who by no means understand the nature of the Divine Being, a gift is anything which is wrought of gold or silver; likewise anything which is woven of purple and silk: a sacrifice is a victim, and as many things as are burnt upon the altar. But God does not make use either of the one or the other, because He is free from corruption, and that is altogether corruptible. Therefore, in each case, that which is incorporeal must be offered to God, for He accepts this. His offering is innocency of soul; His sacrifice praise and a hymn. For if God is not seen, He ought therefore to be worshipped with things which are not seen."

Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book VI, Chap. XXV

Answering Karlo Broussard's Typological Arguments For The Roman Catholic Eucharist

• Discussion:

          -Karlo Broussard wrote an article listing two reasons as to why he believes that we should accept the Roman Catholic view of the Lord's Supper as true. Following are a handful of excerpts from the author alongside with a critique:

          "If the Eucharist were just ordinary bread and wine with no miraculous element to it, then the new manna would be inferior to the old. But that’s a no-go when it comes to Biblical typology. The New Testament fulfillment must always be greater than the Old Testament type."

          Jesus Christ, the new manna, is superior to the manna given in the desert because the nourishment that He provides is life everlasting. The manna given to the Israelites was designated to satisfy physical hunger and was thus temporal. Christ is to be spiritually consumed by faith and not by literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

          "...If real blood was used for the ratifying ceremony of the Old Covenant, then how much more need there be real blood for the ratifying ceremony of the New Covenant, which is the Last Supper?"

          The "real" and "substantial" blood of the New Covenant was shed on the cross. The wine at the Last Supper simply pointed to that reality.

          The language of eating and drinking in a metaphorical sense would not have been unknown to Jews who were alive during the first century. For example, Ben Sira spoke of being fed with the bread of understanding and given the water of wisdom (Sirach 15:3). The Book of Proverbs employs similar imagery in the context of receiving instruction (Proverbs 9:5).

          The words of Jesus Christ regarding eating His flesh and drinking His blood can indeed be understood in a non-literal fashion. He Himself set forth precedent for understanding His words spoken during the Bread of Life Discourse figuratively, since He elsewhere spoke of receiving salvation in terms of food and drink (Matthew 5:6; John 7:37-38).

An Argument For The Trustworthiness Of The New Testament

        One factor that supports the integrity of the New Testament is that its authors distinguished between the words of Christ and their own words. Examples to illustrate this point would include Acts 20:35, 1 Corinthians 7:10-12, and 2 Corinthians 12:8-10. It can reasonably be inferred that the earliest disciples of Jesus Christ reported history honestly and did not simply invent details to support their own agendas.

A Commentary On John 8:56-59

[1.] Christ asserts Abraham's prospect of him, and respect to him: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad, v. 56. And by this he proves that he was not at all out of the way when he made himself greater than Abraham. Two things he here speaks of as instances of that patriarch's respect to the promised Messiah:—

First, The ambition he had to see his day: He rejoiced, eµgalliasto—he leaped at it. The word, though it commonly signifies rejoicing, must here signify a transport of desire rather than of joy, for otherwise the latter part of the verse would be a tautology; he saw it, and was glad. He reached out, or stretched himself forth, that he might see my day; as Zaccheus, that ran before, and climbed the tree, to see Jesus. The notices he had received of the Messiah to come had raised in him an expectation of something great, which he earnestly longed to know more of. The dark intimation of that which is considerable puts men upon enquiry, and makes them earnestly ask Who? and What? and Where? and When? and How? And thus the prophets of the Old Testament, having a general idea of a grace that should come, searched diligently (1 Pt. 1:10), and Abraham was as industrious herein as any of them. God told him of a land that he would give his posterity, and of the wealth and honour he designed them (Gen. 15:14); but he never leaped thus to see that day, as he did to see the day of the Son of man. He could not look with so much indifferency upon the promised seed as he did upon the promised land; in that he was, but to the other he could not be, contentedly a stranger. Note, Those who rightly know any thing of Christ cannot but be earnestly desirous to know more of him. Those who discern the dawning of the light of the Sun of righteousness cannot but wish to see his rising. The mystery of redemption is that which angels desire to look into, much more should we, who are more immediately concerned in it. Abraham desired to see Christ's day, though it was at a great distance; but this degenerate seed of his discerned not his day, nor bade it welcome when it came. The appearing of Christ, which gracious souls love and long for, carnal hearts dread and loathe.

Secondly, The satisfaction he had in what he did see of it: He saw it, and was glad. Observe here,

a. How God gratified the pious desire of Abraham; he longed to see Christ's day, and he saw it. Though he saw it not so plainly, and fully, and distinctly as we now see it under the gospel, yet he saw something of it, more afterwards than he did at first. Note, To him that has, and to him that asks, shall be given; to him that uses and improves what he has, and that desires and prays for more of the knowledge of Christ, God will give more. But how did Abraham see Christ's day? (a.) Some understand it of the sight he had of it in the other world. The separate soul of Abraham, when the veil of flesh was rent, saw the mysteries of the kingdom of God in heaven. Calvin mentions this sense of it, and does not much disallow it. Note, The longings of gracious souls after Jesus Christ will be fully satisfied when they come to heaven, and not till then. But, (b.) It is more commonly understood of some sight he had of Christ's day in this world. They that received not the promises, yet saw them afar off, Heb. 11:13. Balaam saw Christ, but not now, not nigh. There is room to conjecture that Abraham had some vision of Christ and his day, for his own private satisfaction, which is not, nor must be, recorded in his story, like that of Daniel's, which must be shut up, and sealed unto the time of the end, Dan. 12:4. Christ knew what Abraham saw better than Moses did. But there are divers things recorded in which Abraham saw more of that which he longed to see than he did when the promise was first made to him. He saw in Melchizedek one made like unto the Son of God, and a priest for ever; he saw an appearance of Jehovah, attended with two angels, in the plains of Mamre. In the prevalency of his intercession for Sodom he saw a specimen of Christ's intercession; in the casting out of Ishmael, and the establishment of the covenant with Isaac, he saw a figure of the gospel day, which is Christ's day; for these things were an allegory. In offering Isaac, and the ram instead of Isaac, he saw a double type of the great sacrifice; and his calling the place Jehovah-jireh—It shall be seen, intimates that he saw something more in it than others did, which time would produce; and in making his servant put his hand under his thigh, when he swore, he had a regard to the Messiah.

b. How Abraham entertained these discoveries of Christ's day, and bade them welcome: He saw, and was glad. He was glad of what he saw of God's favour to himself, and glad of what he foresaw of the mercy God had in store for the world. Perhaps this refers to Abraham's laughing when God assured him of a son by Sarah (Gen. 17:16, 17), for that was not a laughter of distrust as Sarah's but of joy; in that promise he saw Christ's day, and it filled him with joy unspeakable. Thus he embraced the promises. Note, A believing sight of Christ and his day will put gladness into the heart. No joy like the joy of faith; we are never acquainted with true pleasure till we are acquainted with Christ.

[2.] The Jews cavil at this, and reproach him for it (v. 57): Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Here, First, They suppose that if Abraham saw him and his day he also had seen Abraham, which yet was not a necessary innuendo, but this turn of his words would best serve to expose him; yet it was true that Christ had seen Abraham, and had talked with him as a man talks with his friend. Secondly, They suppose it a very absurd thing for him to pretend to have seen Abraham, who was dead so many ages before he was born. The state of the dead is an invisible state; but here they ran upon the old mistake, understanding that corporally which Christ spoke spiritually. Now this gave them occasion to despise his youth, and to upbraid him with it, as if he were but of yesterday, and knew nothing: Thou art not yet fifty years old. They might as well have said, Thou art not forty; for he was now but thirty-two or thirty-three years old. As to this, Irenaeus, one of the first fathers, with this passage supports the tradition which he says he had from some that had conversed with St. John, that our Saviour lived to be fifty years old, which he contends for, Advers. Haeres. lib. 2, cap. 39, 40. See what little credit is to be given to tradition; and, as to this here, the Jews spoke at random; some year they would mention, and therefore pitched upon one that they thought he was far enough short of; he did not look to be forty, but they were sure he could not be fifty, much less contemporary with Abraham. Old age is reckoned to begin at fifty (Num. 4:47), so that they meant no more than this, "Thou art not to be reckoned an old man; many of us are much thy seniors, and yet pretend not to have seen Abraham." Some think that his countenance was so altered, with grief and watching, that, together with the gravity of his aspect, it made him look like a man of fifty years old: his visage was so marred, Isa. 52:14.

[3.] Our Saviour gives an effectual answer to this cavil, by a solemn assertion of his own seniority even to Abraham himself (v. 58): "Verily, verily, I say unto you; I do not only say it in private to my own disciples, who will be sure to say as I say, but to you my enemies and persecutors; I say it to your faces, take it how you will: Before Abraham was, I am;" prin Abraam genesthai, egoµ eimi, Before Abraham was made or born, I am. The change of the word is observable, and bespeaks Abraham a creature, and himself the Creator; well therefore might he make himself greater than Abraham. Before Abraham he was, First, As God. I am, is the name of God (Ex. 3:14); it denotes his self-existence; he does not say, I was, but I am, for he is the first and the last, immutably the same (Rev. 1:8); thus he was not only before Abraham, but before all worlds, ch. 1:1; Prov. 8:23. Secondly, As Mediator. He was the appointed Messiah, long before Abraham; the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8), the channel of conveyance of light, life, and love from God to man. This supposes his divine nature, that he is the same in himself from eternity (Heb. 13:8), and that he is the same to man ever since the fall; he was made of God wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, to Adam, and Abel, and Enoch, and Noah, and Shem, and all the patriarchs that lived and died by faith in him before Abraham was born. Abraham was the root of the Jewish nation, the rock out of which they were hewn. If Christ was before Abraham, his doctrine and religion were no novelty, but were, in the substance of them, prior to Judaism, and ought to take place of it.

[4.] This great word ended the dispute abruptly, and put a period to it: they could bear to hear no more from him, and he needed to say no more to them, having witnessed this good confession, which was sufficient to support all his claims. One would think that Christ's discourse, in which shone so much both of grace and glory, should have captivated them all; but their inveterate prejudice against the holy spiritual doctrine and law of Christ, which were so contrary to their pride and worldliness, baffled all the methods of conviction. Now was fulfilled that prophecy (Mal. 3:1, 2), that when the messenger of the covenant should come to his temple they would not abide the day of his coming, because he would be like a refiner's fire. Observe here,

First, How they were enraged at Christ for what he said: They took up stones to cast at him, v. 59. Perhaps they looked upon him as a blasphemer, and such were indeed to be stoned (Lev. 24:16); but they must be first legally tried and convicted. Farewell justice and order if every man pretend to execute a law at his pleasure. Besides, they had said but just now that he was a distracted crack-brained man, and if so it was against all reason and equity to punish him as a malefactor for what he said. They took up stones. Dr. Lightfoot will tell you how they came to have stones so ready in the temple; they had workmen at this time repairing the temple, or making some additions, and the pieces of stone which they hewed off served for this purpose. See here the desperate power of sin and Satan in and over the children of disobedience. Who would think that ever there should be such wickedness as this in men, such an open and daring rebellion against one that undeniably proved himself to be the Son of God? Thus every one has a stone to throw at his holy religion, Acts 28:22.

Secondly, How he made his escape out of their hands. 1. He absconded; Jesus hid himself; ekrybeµ—he was hid, either by the crowd of those that wished well to him, to shelter him (he that ought to have been upon a throne, high and lifted up, is content to be lost in a crowd); or perhaps he concealed himself behind some of the walls or pillars of the temple (in the secret of his tabernacle he shall hide me, Ps. 27:5); or by a divine power, casting a mist before their eyes, he made himself invisible to them. When the wicked rise a man is hidden, a wise and good man, Prov. 28:12, 28. Not that Christ was afraid or ashamed to stand by what he had said, but his hour was not yet come, and he would countenance the flight of his ministers and people in times of persecution, when they are called to it. The Lord hid Jeremiah and Baruch, Jer. 36:26. 2. He departed, he went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, undiscovered, and so passed by. This was not a cowardly inglorious flight, nor such as argued either guilt or fear. It was foretold concerning him that he should not fail nor be discouraged, Isa. 42:4. But, (1.) It was an instance of his power over his enemies, and that they could do no more against him than he gave them leave to do; by which it appears that when afterwards he was taken in their pits he offered himself, ch. 10:18. They now thought they had made sure of him and yet he passed through the midst of them, either their eyes being blinded or their hands tied, and thus he left them to fume, like a lion disappointed of his prey. (2.) It was an instance of his prudent provision for his own safety, when he knew that his work was not done, nor his testimony finished; thus he gave an example to his own rule, When they persecute you in one city flee to another; nay, if occasion be, to a wilderness, for so Elijah did (1 Ki. 19:3, 4), and the woman, the church, Rev. 12:6. When they took up loose stones to throw at Christ, he could have commanded the fixed stones, which did cry out of the wall against them, to avenge his cause, or the earth to open and swallow them up; but he chose to accommodate himself to the state he was in, to make the example imitable by the prudence of his followers, without a miracle. (3.) It was a righteous deserting of those who (worse than the Gadarenes, who prayed him to depart) stoned him from among them. Christ will not long stay with those who bid him be gone. Christ did again visit the temple after this; as one loth to depart, he bade oft farewell; but at last he abandoned it for ever, and left it desolate. Christ now went through the midst of the Jews, and none of them courted his stay, nor stirred up himself to take hold of him, but were even content to let him go. Note, God never forsakes any till they have first provoked him to withdraw, and will have none of him. Calvin observes that these chief priests, when they had driven Christ out of the temple, valued themselves on the possession they kept of it: "But," says he, "those deceive themselves who are proud of a church or temple which Christ has forsaken." Longe falluntur, cum templum se habere putant Deo vacuum. When Christ left them it is said that he passed by silently and unobserved; pareµgen houtoµs, so that they were not aware of him. Note, Christ's departures from a church, or a particular soul, are often secret, and not soon taken notice of. As the kingdom of God comes not, so it goes not, with observation. See Jdg. 16:20. Samson wist not that the Lord was departed from him. Thus it was with these forsaken Jews, God left them, and they never missed him.

Excerpts taken from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible

Noting The Contrast Between Faith And Works Throughout The Pauline Epistles

• Paul's Epistle To The Romans:

          -A freely received gift and an earned wage are mutually exclusive concepts (Romans 4:4).

          -Justification in the sight of God is not earned as a result of what one has done, but is received with the empty hand of faith (Romans 4:5).

          -Abraham was declared righteous on the basis of his faith rather than his circumcision (Romans 4:9-12). Faith is contrasted with circumcision, which is a type of good work.

          -The promise of God to Abraham and his descendants comes not through the Law but by faith (Romans 4:13).
          -The promises of God to those who have faith would be made of no effect if righteousness came through the Law (Romans 4:14).

          -Faith is consistent with grace in order that the promises of God to Abraham and his descendants be brought to fulfillment (Romans 4:16). The Law brings forth condemnation (Romans 4:15).

• Paul's Epistle To The Galatians:

          -The Holy Spirit is received by faith and not by "works of the Law" or "the flesh" (Galatians 3:2-3).

          -Those who rely on faith, not the works of the Law, are regarded as children of Abraham in the sight of God (Galatians 3:6-9).

          -Dependence on works of the Law for salvation brings about a curse (Galatians 3:10-14).

          -The inheritance that we receive through the promises of God depends on His grace, not Law (Galatians 3:15-18).

• Paul's Epistle To The Ephesians:

          -We have been saved by grace through faith, not as a result of works (Ephesians 2:8-9).

• Paul's Epistle To The Philippians:

          -We serve God in the Spirit and place no confidence in the flesh (Philippians 3:3).

          -Even though the Apostle Paul could point to the deeds of the flesh that he performed in his days as a Pharisee (Philippians 3:4-6), he gave all that up for faith in Christ (Philippians 3:7).

          -Paul regarded his fleshly works done under the Law as rubbish in order that he be known by Jesus Christ (Philippians 3:8).

          -We receive righteousness from God on the basis of faith, not by deeds performed under the Law (Philippians 3:9).

• Paul's Second Epistle To Timothy:

          -We are saved and called to glorify God by His grace through our faith in Him and not because of our works (2 Timothy 1:9).

• Paul's Epistle To Titus:

          -We are saved by the grace and mercy of God, not on the basis of our works (Titus 3:5).

          -We become heirs having the confident expectation of eternal life on the basis of grace (Titus 3:7).

A Commentary On Shekinah Glory

Shechinah. This term is not found in the Bible. It was used by the later Jews, and borrowed by Christians from them, to express the visible majesty of the Divine Presence especially when resting or dwelling between cherubim on the mercy-seat in the Tabernacle and in the temple of Solomon; but not in Zerubbabel's temple, for it was one of the five particulars which the Jews reckon to have been wanting in the second Temple. The use of the term is first found in the Targums, where it a frequent periphrasis for God, considered as dwelling amongst the children of Israel, and is thus used, especially by Onkelos, to avoid ascribing corporeity to God Himself. In Ex. xxv. 8, where the Hebrew has "Let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them," Onkelos has, "I will make my Shechinah to among them." In xxix. 45, 46, for the Hebrew "I will dwell among the children of Israel," Onkelos has, "I will make my Shechinah to dwell," &c. In Ps. lxxiv. 2, "for this Mount Zion wherein thou hast dwelt," the Targum has "wherein thy Shechinah hath dwelt." In the description of the dedication of  Solomon's Temple (1 K. viii. 12, 13), the Targum of Jonathan runs thus: "The Lord is to make His Shechinah dwell in Jerusalem. I have built the house of the sanctuary for the house of thy Shechinah forever." And in 1 K. vi. 13, for the Heb. "I will dwell among the children of Israel," Jonathan has "I will make my Shechinah dwell." In Is. vi. 5, he has the combination, "the glory of the Shechinah of the King of ages the Lord of Hosts;" and in the next verse he paraphrases "from off the altar" by "from before His Shechinah on the throne of glory in the lofty heavens that are above the altar." Compare also Num. v. 3, xxxv. 34; Ps. lxviii. 17, 18, cxxxv. 21; Is. xxxiii. 5, lvii. 15; Joel iii. 17, 21, and numerous other passages. On the other hand, it should be noticed that the Targums never render "the cloud" or "the glory" by Shechinah. Hence, as regards the use of the word Shechinah in the Targums, it may be defined as a periphrasis for God whenever He is said to dwell on, Zion amongst Israel, or between the cherubims, and so on, in order as before said, to avoid the slightest approach to materialism. Our view of the Targumistic of the Shechinah would not be complete if we did not add, that though, as we have seen, the Jews reckoned the Shechinah among the marks of the divine favor which were wanting to the second Temple, they manifestly expected the return of the Shechinah in the days of the Messiah. Thus Hagg. i. 8, "Build the house, and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the Lord," is paraphrased by Jonathan, "I will cause my Shechinah to dwell in it in glory." Compare also Ez. xliii. 7, 9; Zech. ii. 10, viii. 3. As regards the visible manifestation of the Divine Presence dwelling amongst the Israelites, to which the term Shechinah has attached itself, the idea which the different accounts in Scripture convey is that of a most brilliant and glorious light, enveloped in a cloud, and usually concealed by the cloud, so that the cloud itself was for the most part alone visible; but on particular occasions, the glory appeared. The allusions in the NT to the Shechinah are not unfrequent. Thus in the account of the Nativity, the words, "Lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them and, the glory of the Lord shone round about them" (Luke ii. 9), followed by the apparition of "the multitude of the heavenly host," recall the appearance of the divine glory on Sinai, when "He shined forth from Paran, and came with ten thousands of saints" (Deut. xxxiii. 2; comp. Ps. lxviii. 17; Ezek. xliii. 2; Acts vii. 53; Heb ii. 2). The "God of glory" (Acts vii. 2, 55), the "cherubims of glory" (Heb ix. 5), "the glory" (Rom. ix. 4), and other like passages, are distinct references to the manifestations of the glory in the O.T. When we read in John i. 14, that "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory" or in 2 Cor. xii. 9, "that the power of Christ may rest upon me;" or in Rev. xxi. 3, "Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them,"-we have not only references to the Shechinah, but are distinctly taught to connect it with the incarnation and future coming of Messiah, as type with antitype. It should also be specially noticed that the attendance of angels is usually associated with the Shechinah. These are most frequently called (Ez. x., xi.) cherubim; but sometimes, as in Is. vi., seraphim (comp. Rev. iv. 7, 8). The predominant association, however, is with the cherubim, of which the golden cherubim on the mercy-seat were the representation.

William Smith, A Dictionary Of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History, p. 878-879

Hebrews 1:3 And The Deity Of Christ

        "And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." (Hebrews 1:3)

        This text is a very strong affirmation of the deity of Christ and is packed with meaning. The phrase "exact representation" can be illustrated using an ideal cut diamond as an analogy. The glory of Christ transcends the effulgence of even the most precious gems.

        God the Son possesses the same divine nature as God the Father. He has the same divine glory as God the Father. He is the wisdom of God. He is wisdom incarnate (1 Corinthians 1:24; 30; Colossians 2:3).

        The English Standard Version renders "exact representation" as "the exact imprint." No man or angel can rightfully have this kind of description applied to themselves.

        We know from the Old Testament that God will not give His glory to another (Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 42:8; 48:11). Thus, Christ is God. Some commentators believe that the author of Hebrews drew from the Wisdom of Solomon in asserting the divinity of Christ:

        "She is a breath of God's power—a pure and radiant stream of glory from the Almighty. Nothing that is defiled can ever steal its way into Wisdom. She is a reflection of eternal light, a perfect mirror of God's activity and goodness. " (Wisdom 7:25-26) 

        Wisdom is personified in the above excerpt. Wisdom is a prominent exhibition of the divine glory of God. This wisdom and glory shines forth in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Is Mary The Mother Of The Church?

        One of the Marian dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church is that Mary is our spiritual mother:

        "Everyone has a mother. Yes, the mother who gave them birth in the physical order of life. But Christian believers have another mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the spiritual order of grace. Jesus willed to give Mary as a mother to the early Church, when, from the cross, he looked at his mother and said, “Woman, behold, your son” (John 19:26). And to the beloved disciple, “Behold, your mother” (John 19:27)." (http://www.catholicdigest.com/faith/spirituality/mother-of-the-church/)

        The Apostle Paul tells us in Galatians 4:26 that the heavenly Jerusalem is the mother of the church:

        "But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother."

        In that same context, the virgin birth is alluded to and Mary is only described as a woman: 

        "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law." (Galatians 4:4)

        In his epistle to the Romans, Paul mentioned Rufus' mother and said that she had been a motherly figure to him: 

        "Greet Rufus, a choice man in the Lord, also his mother and mine." (Romans 16:13)

        If Mary is the mother of the church, then it would seem ironic and even disrespectful for him to say nothing in regards to her.

        The Apostle John says nothing about Mary in his letters to the churches and mentions her only twice in his gospel (the wedding at Cana and the crucifixion of Jesus). This is significant because he took Mary into his home after Jesus was crucified.

        John was the disciple who Jesus loved (John 21:20). He was present at His crucifixion. Because John believed Christ to be the Son of God, he was considered a part of the true family of God (Luke 8:21). Christ's blood brothers did not believe at that point in time and hence were not a part of His true family (John 7:5). That is why Christ handing His mother Mary to John for care rather than one of His blood brothers can be viewed as appropriate. In so doing, He was being faithful to both the letter and spirit of the Law.

        "The Fathers of the Church and early Christian writers did not so interpret the words of the dying Christ [John 19:25-27]. Development of the idea of Mary's spiritual motherhood was slow and did not enter the consciousnesses of the Church until medieval times. During those early centuries, the sacred text did not immediately convey the notion. Lengthy reflection was needed to reach it." (Michael O'Carroll, cited in Cult of the Virgin: Catholic Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary, Elliot Miller and Kenneth R. Samples, p. 44)

Early Church Evidence For Sola Fide

"Victorinus separates them [justification and sanctification] when he writes, "A man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith and the faith of Jesus Christ...It is faith alone that gives justification and sanctification."

Nathan Busenitz, Long Before Luther, p. 82