Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mary: Mother of God?
What Does the Bible say? ^ | 01/11/2012 | Bro. Lev Humphries,

Posted on 01/11/2012 7:34:56 PM PST by RnMomof7

Mary: Mother of God?

This article is prompted by an ad in the Parade Magazine titled: "Mary Mother of God: What All Mankind Should Know." The offer was made for a free pamphlet entitled "Mary Mother of Jesus" with this explanation: "A clear, insightful pamphlet explains the importance of Mary and her role as Mother of God."

This is quite a claim, to say the least! Nowhere in the Bible is Mary said to be the mother of God. I touched on this subject in a series on "Mary Co-Redeemer with Christ" printed recently.

Question: If Mary is the Mother of God, Who, may I ask, is the Father of God? Does God have a Father, and if He does, Who is His Mother?

The phrase "Mother of God" originated in the Council of Ephesus, in the year 431 AD. It occurs in the Creed of Chalcedon, which was adopted by the council in 451 AD. This was the declaration given at that time: "Born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to the Manhood." The purpose of this statement originally was meant to emphasize the deity of Christ over against the teaching of the Nestorians whose teaching involved a dual-natured Jesus. Their teaching was that the person born of Mary was only a man who was then indwelt by God. The title "Mother of God" was used originally to counter this false doctrine. The doctrine now emphasizes the person of Mary rather than the deity of Jesus as God incarnate. Mary certainly did not give birth to God. In fact, Mary did not give birth to the divinity of Christ. Mary only gave birth to the humanity of Jesus. The only thing Jesus got from Mary was a body. Every Human Being has received a sinful nature from their parents with one exception: Jesus was not human. He was divine God in a flesh body. This is what Mary gave birth to. Read Hebrews 10:5 and Phil 2:5-11.

Please refer to Hebrews 10:5 where we see. "...Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."

The body of Jesus was prepared by God. In Matthew 1:18, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

The divine nature of Jesus existed from before eternity, and this cannot be said of Mary Jesus never called her "mother". He called her "woman".

This doctrine deifies Mary and humanizes Jesus. Mary is presented as stronger that Christ, more mature and more powerful that Christ. Listen to this statement by Rome: "He came to us through Mary, and we must go to Him through her." The Bible plainly states that God is the Creator of all things. It is a blasphemous attack on the eternity of God to ever teach that He has a mother. Mary had other children who were normal, physical, sinful human beings. In the case of Jesus Christ, "His human nature had no father and His divine nature had no mother."

It is probably no coincidence that this false doctrine surrounding Mary was born in Ephesus. Please read Acts 19:11-41 and see that Ephesus had a problem with goddess worship. Her name was Diana, Gk. Artemis. You will not have to study very deep to find the similarities between the goddess Diana and the Roman Catholic goddess, Mary. It should be noted that the Mary of the 1st century and the Mary of the 20th century are not the same. Mary of the 1st century was the virgin who gave birth to the Messiah. Mary of the 20th century is a goddess created by the Roman Catholic Church. A simple comparison of what the Bible teaches about Mary and what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about her will reveal two different Marys. Mary is not the "Mother of God." If she were she would be GOD! There is only one true, eternal God. He was not born of a woman. Any teaching on any subject should be backed up by the word of God. If it cannot be supported by Scriptures, it is false doctrine.

TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; Theology
KEYWORDS: blessedvirginmary; calvinismisdead; divinity; humanity; ignoranceisbliss; mariolatry; mary; motherofgod; nestorianheresy; nestorians; perpetualvirginity; theotokos
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,321-1,3401,341-1,3601,361-1,380 ... 1,741-1,751 next last
To: rzman21
Facts don’t matter to these folks.

I know. It's pretty sad but funny at the same time when they do everything they can to avoid the truth.

1,341 posted on 01/14/2012 9:13:30 PM PST by Al Hitan (Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1336 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; CynicalBear; caww; metmom; boatbums
In contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding many other of the ancients (whom Trent forbade disagreeing with, though she does) concur with.

While men can argue about the significance of the difference between the Greek (the language the Holy Spirit chose to express the New Testament revelation in) words “Petros” (Peter, or stone in Jn. 1:42) and “petra” (rock) in Mt. 16:18, and what the LORD might have said in Aramaic, it may be worth noting that the phrase “this stone” (“touton lithosis”), used to identify the cornerstone which is the foundation of the church, (Mt. 21:42) is only used of Christ as regarding a person. (Mt. 21:44)

1,342 posted on 01/14/2012 9:50:26 PM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1331 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; caww; smvoice; metmom; boatbums

Rome does not take a comprehensive dogmatic position on the end times beyond some basics, but here is some of what the Catechism teaches:

670 Since the Ascension God’s plan has entered into its fulfillment. We are already at “the last hour”.554 “Already the final age of the world is with us, and the renewal of the world is irrevocably under way; it is even now anticipated in a certain real way, for the Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real but imperfect.”555 Christ’s kingdom already manifests its presence through the miraculous signs that attend its proclamation by the Church.556

673 Since the Ascension Christ’s coming in glory has been imminent,566 even though “it is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority.”567. This eschatological coming could be accomplished at any moment, even if both it and the final trial that will precede it are “delayed”.568

674 The glorious Messiah’s coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by “all Israel”, for “a hardening has come upon part of Israel” in their “unbelief” toward Jesus.

The “full inclusion” of the Jews in the Messiah’s salvation, in the wake of “the full number of the Gentiles”,572 will enable the People of God to achieve “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”, in which “God may be all in all”.573

675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576

676 The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,577 especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.578 [fill in blank]

677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.579 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.580 God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.581

988 The Christian Creed - the profession of our faith in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and in God’s creative, saving, and sanctifying action - culminates in the proclamation of the resurrection of the dead on the last day and in life everlasting.

989 We firmly believe, and hence we hope that, just as Christ is truly risen from the dead and lives for ever, so after death the righteous will live for ever with the risen Christ and he will raise them up on the last day.534 Our resurrection, like his own, will be the work of the Most Holy Trinity:

1001 When? Definitively “at the last day,” “at the end of the world.”557 Indeed, the resurrection of the dead is closely associated with Christ’s Parousia:

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.558

1053 “We believe that the multitude of those gathered around Jesus and Mary in Paradise forms the Church of heaven, where in eternal blessedness they see God as he is and where they are also, to various degrees, associated with the holy angels in the divine governance exercised by Christ in glory, by interceding for us and helping our weakness by their fraternal concern” (Paul VI, CPG § 29).

► The Catholic bishop Arnulf of Orleans was the first to apply the 'man of sin' prophecy in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9 to the papacy.[7][26] The same interpretation was given by the Catholic abbot Joachim of Floris in 1190[7] and the archbishop Eberhard II in 1240. — EB Elliott, 'Horae Apocalypticae', volume IV, Appendix I, fifth edition, 1862; Leroy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, volume I (1950) pages 541-542

*Some Traditional Catholics believe that a pope was anti-Christ:

Fr. Herman Kramer was a Catholic priest who spent 30 years studying and writing a book on the Apocalypse. In his book, he wrote the following about St. Paul’s prophecy concerning the Antichrist sitting in the Temple of God.

“St. Paul says that Antichrist ‘sitteth in the temple of God’… This is not the ancient Temple of Jerusalem, nor a temple like it built by Antichrist, as some have thought, for then it would be his own temple… this temple is shown to be a Catholic Church, possibly one of the churches in Jerusalem or St. Peter’s in Rome, which is the largest church in the world and is in the full sense ‘The Temple of God.’" ( )

Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ… the Church will be in eclipse.”

►The Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Antichrist” indicates that St. Bernard believed that the Antichrist would be an antipope.

► According to the prophecy of St. Malachy, the last pope would be “the glory of the olive”, which is a phrase that has been associated with Pope Benedict XVI.

► Also,

"When the great ruler (the Great Monarch who is to rule Europe after the collapse of Communism) exterminates the Turks almost entirely, one of the remaining Mohammadans will be converted, become a priest bishop and cardinal, and when the new pope is elected (immediately before Antichrist) this cardinal will kill the pope before he is crowned, through jealousy, wishing to be pope himself; then when the other cardinals elect the next pope this cardinal will proclaim himself Anti-pope, and two-thirds of the Christians will go with him. He, as well as Anti-christ, are descendants of the tribe of Dan. - Yves Dupont (a staunch anti-communist, and a learned Catholic historian, September 1975 A.D.)

Roman Catholic theologian Father Hubert J. Richards agrees that the Revelation 12 woman refers to Israel. His book, What The Spirit Says to the Churches: A Key to the Apocalypse of John, carries the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church.13 Concerning the woman of Revelation 12, Father Richards writes:

The vision proper, then, begins with the figure of a Woman clothed with the sun and the stars. We think naturally enough of our Lady, to whom this description has traditionally been applied. After all, we say, of whom else could John be thinking when he speaks of the mother of the Messiah? However it is clear from the rest of the chapter that this interpretation will stand only if the verse is isolated: what follows has very little relevance to our Lady. Nor is it any honor to Mary to apply any and every text to her without thought....

Who then is she? The source to which John has turned for his imagery throughout this book is the Old Testament. There, the Woman, the bride of God who brings forth the Messiah, is Israel, the true Israel, the chosen people of God. It is quite certain that this is what is in John's mind when he begins his description with a quotation from Gen. 37:9-10, where the sun and moon and twelve stars represent the twelve-fold Israel.

This Woman will later be contrasted with the Harlot (the collective personality of Rome, opposed to the true Israel), and will be specified at the end of the book, again appearing in light and splendour for her marriage with the Lamb, as the twelve-gated Jerusalem which forms the new Israel. In fact the number twelve occurs so frequently in the Apocalypse in reference to Israel that it cannot have a different meaning here. All the early Fathers of the Church interpreted these verses as about the Israel of God.14 See

► Here are some of Catholic Ron Cote’s (catholicplanet) predictions for 2010

May 13th - Pope John Paul II canonized; perhaps also Pope Pius XII will be canonized on the same day.

At some point after the Miracle, and probably before the end of 2010, Pope Benedict XVI dies.

The next Pope is the one St. Malachy called ‘Peter the Roman’. But he does NOT take the name Pope Peter II. I believe that this Pope will be Cardinal Arinze and that he will take the name Pope Pius XIII. He will die a martyr in late 2012 or early 2013.

World War III begins in 2010, and lasts throughout most of the 2010’s.

I believe that this war begins with an attack on New York City; a nuclear bomb (not a missile; not a dirty bomb) sent by the Arab/Muslim nations of the Middle East and northern Africa. (

Prophesy is not much my (daniel1212) focus, but I tend to see the Lord coming for his own toward the end of the Tribulation, the faithful having been protected during it, during which God shall reverse the curse of blindness, the fullness of the Gentiles having entered in, with Jews believing then witnessing and entering into the Millennial reign of Christ, and so all Israel - the natural branches now granted repentance, and the “Israel of God” - shall be saved. Israel’s repentance is what i see Rm. 11 teaching.

The resurrected saints (resurrection of life: Jn. 5:29; first resurrection: Rv. 20:5) come with the Lord in judgment at Armageddon, (Jude. 1:14,15) and reign with Christ for a 1,00 years before the final war, and then judge angels as well as men (resurrection of damnation: Jn. 5:29; Rv. 20:12) ( )

1,343 posted on 01/14/2012 9:51:09 PM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1324 | View Replies]

"Mary: Mother of God?"

Well of course. Someone needs to read up on the facts.

1,344 posted on 01/14/2012 10:26:30 PM PST by NoRedTape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

....Must be a bunch of Romney Mo mo’s who don’t even know where Jesus was born.....and to whom.....

1,345 posted on 01/14/2012 10:37:55 PM PST by NoRedTape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1344 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; All
Since we are talking about what The Christ called Peter, let's not forget what Peter called Jesus when asked.

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Notice Peter called Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God, not God the Son. We have taken His title, The Christ, and made it His last name.

He told Peter it was not flesh and blood, man, but Jesus' Father in heaven who reveled that truth to Peter. 

Man renamed Jesus, God the Son, 100s of years later by in a council with a majority vote. They called all who would not go along with them heretics and kicked them out of their church.

We wouldn't be having the conversation this post is based on if not for that vote. Mary would be the virgin mother of the Son of God as she is in scripture. That is all that is needed for Jesus to be born without a sin nature. When she became the mother of God, all the other attributes had to be placed on her you all think are fine and dandy. We wouldn't be to talking about her statues and people praying to her. How much simpler things would be. We all would spend our time loving our Father in heaven with all our hearts and soul and strength as Jesus taught instead of sharing His time with Mary and/or a saint or saints. 

I only have one questions to the Catholics out there. Are you still going to claim Peter as your first Pope when he couldn't even get the trinity thingy right?

There were many post speaking to the nature of The Christ. To both Catholics and Christians I have this question;

"Do you think a righteous God could condemn His creation, Adam and us, if He couldn't prove Adam and us could live a sinless life?"

May God the Father lead us to His truth, BVB


1,346 posted on 01/14/2012 11:07:26 PM PST by Bobsvainbabblings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1328 | View Replies]

To: rzman21
As Carl Sagan explains:
Appeal to ignorance – the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., there is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist – and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe.

Carl Sagan...Was he one of your popes???

This is exactly the tactic that your religion uses with scripture...No wonder you are so familiar with it...

1,347 posted on 01/15/2012 2:30:36 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1330 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

1,348 posted on 01/15/2012 2:41:28 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1347 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; smvoice; GiovannaNicoletta
bishop of Rome

Was the first pope Simon Peter or Simon Magus?

1,349 posted on 01/15/2012 2:49:21 AM PST by marbren (I do not know but, Thank God, God knows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1324 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; All
Thank You Heavenly Father for this wise post about how the mystery of church and the age of grace was made known to the world.

Thank You for providing the entrance in by an intimate personal relationship with The Lord Jesus Christ and acceptance of the free gift of grace.


1,350 posted on 01/15/2012 3:10:20 AM PST by marbren (I do not know but, Thank God, God knows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1322 | View Replies]

To: Al Hitan
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (Petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Regardless of what you want to believe, Jesus built his church on Petra, NOT Petros...One is Jesus, the other is Peter...They are not the same...

1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock (Petra) that followed them: and that Rock (Petra) was Christ).

If the church was built on Peter then Peter would be the head of the church. However, Peter was not the head of the church in his day... Instead of having the disciples, apostles, and other believers call Peter pope, or Father Peter, or Holy Father Peter, Jesus said:

Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
Mat 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

"Call no man your father," could not refer to an earthly parent, but to the spiritual fathers... Jesus recommended our paying full respect to earthly parents when He quoted the commandment:

Mar 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

If Jesus delegated Peter as the head of the church, why did the other disciples argue among themselves as to who would be the greatest (Luke 9:46)???

If this decision had already been made by Christ, why should the others worry about it??? The other disciples would have submitted to the wish of their Master...

It's pretty obvious that no such appointment had been made by Jesus...

There is not a trace of evidence in the Bible that Peter was a pope...

What if historians who wrote about Abraham Lincoln never mentioned that he was a President of the United States??? Same situation...

If Peter was a 'pope', surely one of the writers of the bible would have mentioned it...Or even Peter himself in one of his letters...

The church in the days of the apostles did not recognize Peter as pope or the head of the church... Neither does the true church today.

1,351 posted on 01/15/2012 3:20:56 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1334 | View Replies]

To: marbren


1,352 posted on 01/15/2012 3:44:54 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1350 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

what would the prophetess think about you posting on the Sabbath?

i rest in my Sabbath, Jesus Christ. ( like all Christians have for 2,000 years )

1,353 posted on 01/15/2012 4:39:42 AM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1276 | View Replies]

To: Not gonna take it anymore

sorry, i don’t know how to post links. google his name, it’s the wikipedia article. it gives a more “balanced” presentation of his life.

1,354 posted on 01/15/2012 4:53:52 AM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1209 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; smvoice; metmom; boatbums

“Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would help the disciples remember everything.....”

some are rather selective about believing what Jesus promised. Jesus also promised to establish a Church and PROMISED the gates of hell would NOT prevail against it.

what does that promise mean? It means the Church would always be here, from 33ad to the end of the age. in addition, it means the Church can’t go “apostate” as Joseph Smith taught ( and judging by their posts, many unbelievers agree with )

so when it comes to the NT canon and any other doctrine, we can confidently look to what the Church teaches and believe it is true. WHY can we do this? Because Jesus PROMISED the Holy Spirit would be sent to lead the Church to all truth. Further, the Holy Spirit calls the Church the pillar of truth.

of course the natural man rejects all this, it is foolishness to him. he rejects Jesus Christ by rejecting his Church, and has a hatred for the Church. the natural man takes delight in being an accuser of the brethern. the natural man believes God is strong enough to preserve the written Word for 2,000 years, but is not strong enough to preserve His Body, the Church for that long. the natural man believes Satan has been able to preserve the Mormon Church for 200 years, but the Holy Spirit could not preserve the Church for 2,000 years. the natural man rejects Jesus Christ gave His authority to teach and baptize to the Church. the natural man only believes in the authority of the man in the mirror, this is the final authority to the natural man.

the natural man ( and woman ) is confused.

1,355 posted on 01/15/2012 5:07:36 AM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1199 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

i apologize, i am not good with the computer.

1,356 posted on 01/15/2012 5:08:39 AM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1162 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

This Mary thing just gets deeper and deeper into a fairyland story IMO.....saying she’s the mother of Christians takes it out there into the cultish arena and then some...BAd enough the mother of God...How they cannot see they’ve made an idol of her is stunning....I don’t see this will change rather I do think she’ll be worshipped all the more.. Should be shameful to have such obesssion, but then hot irons do sear.

1,357 posted on 01/15/2012 5:48:09 AM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1259 | View Replies]

The church is not a literal or physical building, but it is a spiritual building made up of those who have been quickened (made alive) in Christ (Eph. 2:5). The word "church" as it is used in the New Testament always means "an assembly, a company of people gathered together for a certain purpose." The word "church" is the translation of the Greek word EKKLĒSIA which is really made up of two Greek words: 1) EK which means "out, out of " and 2) KLĒSIS which means "a calling" (from the verb KALEŌ which means "to call"). If we put these two meanings together we have "a calling out." Therefore the term "church" (EKKLĒSIA) means "an assembly of called-out ones, a called-out assembly." SPIRITUAL ROCK
1,358 posted on 01/15/2012 6:06:11 AM PST by anglian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1357 | View Replies]

In 1 Cor. 10:1-4, Paul interprets the experience of the Israelites in the Exodus as a real, though anticipatory contact with the spiritual benefits of the redemption to be accomplished by Christ, when “they were all baptized into Moses,” “they all ate the spiritual food,” and “they all drank from the same spiritual drink.” Why? “Because they were drinking from the spiritual rock (petra) that accompanied (them); indeed, that rock was Christ” (v. 4).

1,359 posted on 01/15/2012 6:09:03 AM PST by anglian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1358 | View Replies]

To: anglian

Having a spiritual significance: supernatural, manifesting the power of the Divine Spirit; allegorically applied to Christ as fulfilling the type in the smitten rock in the desert, from which water miraculously burst forth to nourish the Israelites. A tradition current among the Jews affirms that this rock followed the people in their journeyings and gave forth a living stream for their supply. Paul made this ever-flowing rock a beautiful and accurate symbol of Christ: “The rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4).

Without the characterizing word “spiritual,” this figurative term, with the same significance, is common to the Scriptures; applied

(1) to Yahweh, God:

“Rock of his salvation,” “their rock is not as our Rock” (Deuteronomy 32:15,31); “Yahweh is my rock” (Psalms 18:2; compare Isaiah 26:4; 32:2; 1 Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 22:2);

(2) to the foundation-stone of Christian confession and testimony (Matthew 16:18; compare Ephesians 2:20; 1 Corinthians 3:11; 1 Peter 2:6-8), and thus to Christ Himself;

(3) in Christian hymnology to Jesus crucified and spear-pierced:

“Rock of ages, cleft for me.”

ALSO See —> Semantics of New Testament Greek

1,360 posted on 01/15/2012 6:09:16 AM PST by anglian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1359 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,321-1,3401,341-1,3601,361-1,380 ... 1,741-1,751 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson