A biblical case against praying to marry, and the Saints

Praying to the Saints and to Mary: A Biblical Case Against a Practice Foreign to Scripture

The New Testament consistently presents a simple, direct pattern of prayer. Jesus taught His disciples to address the Father, and He taught them to come in His name. The apostles followed that pattern without exception. Nowhere do they instruct believers to petition departed saints or the mother of Jesus. The practice of praying to the saints or to Mary is therefore not a development of apostolic teaching; it is a departure from it. It rests on assumptions Scripture never makes and, in key respects, contradicts what Scripture does say.

The Pattern Christ Established

When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray, He began, “Our Father in heaven” (Matthew 6:9). He did not begin with Mary, Abraham, or any other righteous figure. In the Upper Room He repeatedly directed prayer to the Father in His own name:

1. “Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (John 14:13).
2. “In that day you will ask me nothing. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you” (John 16:23).

The apostolic letters continue the same trajectory. Believers are told to approach the throne of grace with confidence because they have a great high priest, Jesus the Son of God (Hebrews 4:14–16). They are told there is “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). No secondary mediators are introduced. The consistent model is prayer directed to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit.

If Christ is the sole mediator, and if He has opened the way into the Most Holy Place by His own blood (Hebrews 10:19–22), then the notion that we need additional heavenly intercessors who must be petitioned first is a functional denial of the sufficiency of His mediation.

The Dead Do Not Hear Us

Scripture is not silent about the condition of the dead with respect to the living. Ecclesiastes 9:5–6 states that “the dead know nothing… their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.” Isaiah 8:19 rebukes those who “inquire of the dead on behalf of the living” and asks, “Should not a people inquire of their God?” Deuteronomy 18:10–12 places consulting the dead among the abominations that Israel was forbidden to practice.

These texts do not describe an intermediate state of heightened awareness in which the departed can receive millions of simultaneous petitions from earth. They describe a decisive break in ordinary communication. The living are directed to the living God, not to the departed.

The common reply that “asking a saint in heaven to pray for me is no different from asking a living Christian to pray for me” collapses under this biblical data. A living brother or sister can hear the request because he or she is still under the sun, still possesses ordinary human faculties, and can respond in ordinary time. A departed believer is not under the sun in that sense. Scripture gives no warrant for treating the two situations as equivalent. To insist they are the same is to import an assumption the text never grants.

Examining the Positive Arguments Offered for the Practice

Several passages are regularly pressed into service. None of them, when read in context, support praying to the departed.

The “cloud of witnesses” (Hebrews 12:1).

The witnesses of Hebrews 11 are presented as examples of faith whose lives testify to the faithfulness of God. They are not portrayed as conscious hearers of present-day prayers. The force of the metaphor is motivational: run the race with endurance because of the testimony they left. It is not instructional: therefore address petitions to them.

The incense and the prayers of the saints (Revelation 5:8; 8:3–4).

These visions show the prayers of the saints ascending before God, sometimes associated with incense. In the New Testament the term “saints” most often designates living believers (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1, etc.). Even if the scenes include the prayers of the departed, the text never depicts believers on earth directing those prayers to the departed so that the departed may then relay them. The direction of prayer remains Godward.

The Transfiguration (Matthew 17; Mark 9; Luke 9).

Moses and Elijah appear and speak with Jesus. This is a unique, theophanic event in which the Son of God is glorified and the Law and the Prophets are shown to point to Him. It is not a template for ordinary Christian prayer, nor does it authorize believers to initiate conversation with the dead.

Mary’s unique role.

Mary is called “favored” and “blessed among women” (Luke 1:28, 42). She is the mother of the Lord according to the flesh. Yet her own recorded words consistently point away from herself to her Son: “Do whatever he tells you” (John 2:5). The New Testament never records a single instance of anyone praying to her, nor does it ever present her as a mediatrix of grace or a special intercessor to whom petitions should be addressed. To elevate her to that role is to go beyond what is written.

Idolatry and the Dilution of Exclusive Worship

The first commandment requires exclusive allegiance to the Lord. When petitions that properly belong to God are routinely directed to creatures—however exalted those creatures may be—the practical effect is a division of trust and dependence. The heart that learns to lean on Mary or on a favorite saint for daily help is a heart that is not resting solely on the finished work and living intercession of Christ. Scripture calls such divided loyalty idolatry, whether or not the practitioner intends formal worship of the creature.

The practice also bears the marks of the surrounding pagan world in which it developed. Ancient Mediterranean religions regularly sought the favor of deified heroes and ancestral spirits. The early church was repeatedly warned against syncretism. The later formalization of the cult of the saints and the development of Marian devotion represent a failure to maintain that boundary.

Conclusion

Christ taught us to pray to the Father in His name. The apostles practiced and taught the same. Scripture forbids consultation with the dead and presents the departed as no longer sharing in the affairs of those under the sun. The arguments advanced in favor of praying to saints or to Mary require reading into the text ideas the text does not contain and equating situations Scripture distinguishes. The practice is therefore not a legitimate development of biblical religion; it is a departure from it. Believers are invited to come boldly to the throne of grace through the one Mediator God has appointed. That is both sufficient and commanded.

Neither June or Gentile, Unity and Christ does not mean uniformity

Neither Jew nor Greek: Unity, Distinction, and the Future of Israel

One of the most frequently cited verses in discussions of Christian identity is Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The statement is glorious. In Christ, the barriers that once divided humanity in terms of access to God and standing before Him have been removed. Justification is by faith alone, and every believer—regardless of ethnicity, social status, or sex—is an heir of the promise given to Abraham.

Yet a serious misunderstanding arises when this verse is pressed beyond its context. Some conclude that because believers are “one in Christ,” every distinction God has established between groups or between the sexes has been abolished in every respect. From that premise it is sometimes argued that God no longer has any distinct purpose for ethnic Israel, and that the church has simply replaced the nation in the unfolding of God’s plan. The claim is that unity in Christ requires uniformity of destiny, and therefore the Old Testament promises made to Israel must be reinterpreted as exclusively spiritual promises now fulfilled in the church.

This conclusion does not follow from the text, and it creates unnecessary tension with the rest of Scripture.

Unity Does Not Mean Uniformity

Paul’s point in Galatians 3 is soteriological and covenantal. He is defending the truth that the blessing of Abraham comes to the Gentiles by faith, not by becoming Jews under the law (Gal 3:7–14, 26–29). In the realm of justification and inheritance, there is no favored class. The same gospel saves the Jew and the Greek. That is the unity he proclaims.

But unity of standing before God does not erase every other distinction God Himself has made. The apostle who wrote Galatians 3:28 also wrote Romans 9–11. There he insists that God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew (Rom 11:1–2), that a partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (Rom 11:25), and that “all Israel will be saved” when the Deliverer comes from Zion (Rom 11:26–27). He can hold both truths without contradiction: there is no distinction in the way of salvation, and yet God retains a distinct future purpose for the people to whom He made irrevocable promises (Rom 11:29).

The same logic applies to the statement “there is no male and female.” Paul is not abolishing the created order or the consequences of the Fall. Genesis 3 still stands. The pain of childbirth, the toil of work “by the sweat of your brow,” and the relational tensions that followed the entrance of sin remain realities in a fallen world. The New Testament continues to recognize the distinction between male and female in marriage, in the life of the church, and in the created design itself (1 Cor 11; Eph 5; 1 Tim 2). Unity in Christ does not flatten every creational or covenantal category God has established.

Distinctions and Covenant Faithfulness

If the ongoing effects of the Fall remain in force even after Galatians 3:28, then the ongoing distinction between Jew and Gentile in God’s redemptive plan is not an anomaly. God pronounced blessings and curses in the garden; those realities persist. God also made specific, unilateral promises to Abraham concerning his physical descendants and the land (Gen 12, 15, 17). He confirmed those promises with an oath (Heb 6:13–18). He later bound Himself by covenant to David regarding a throne and a kingdom (2 Sam 7). The New Covenant itself is first announced in terms of the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jer 31:31–34).

To claim that the unity of Jew and Gentile in the body of Christ requires God to set aside these promises is to force a false choice. Scripture never presents the church’s inclusion as the cancellation of Israel’s future. Rather, the Gentiles are grafted into the rich root of the olive tree (Rom 11:17–24). The natural branches that were broken off because of unbelief can be grafted in again. The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

No Eschatological Conflict

There is therefore no eschatological conflict in affirming a future for ethnic and national Israel that is still distinct from the church. The one new man in Christ (Eph 2:15) does not erase the integrity of God’s word across redemptive history. God is not required to renege on the promises He made throughout the Old Testament in order to secure the unity of believers in the present age. His faithfulness to Israel is of a piece with His faithfulness to every believer who trusts in Christ. The same God who cannot lie to the church cannot lie to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Unity in Christ is real and precious. It is the ground of our shared identity and our shared inheritance. But it is not uniformity of plan or purpose in every respect. The distinctions God has made—creational, covenantal, and redemptive-historical—remain under His sovereign administration. The future He has outlined for Israel in the prophets and confirmed in the apostles is not a threat to the gospel. It is a further display of the same steadfast love and faithfulness that save sinners from every nation and make them one in His Son.

Before Abraham Was, I Am

Understanding Jesus’ Claim in John 8:58

One of the most striking moments in the Gospel of John occurs when Jesus tells the Pharisees, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). The reaction is immediate and violent: they pick up stones to kill Him. Why did this short statement provoke such a response? And how does it relate to the name God revealed to Moses at the burning bush?

The Words Themselves

In the Greek text of John, Jesus uses the phrase ἐγώ εἰμι (ego eimi), which simply means “I am.” This is the same two-word expression that appears in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) when God speaks of Himself. At the burning bush, God says to Moses, “I am who I am” (Exodus 3:14), and the Greek renders the key part as ego eimi. Even more frequently, the phrase appears in Isaiah and Deuteronomy when God declares, “I am He” — a solemn assertion of His unique, eternal identity.

Yet ego eimi was also ordinary language. Jews in Jesus’ day used it the way we use “I am” or “It is I.” A person might say “I am a teacher” or “I am the one you are looking for.” In John 9:9, the man born blind says ego eimi simply meaning “I am he” (the one who was healed). The disciples in the boat hear Jesus say the same words and understand them as “It is I; do not be afraid” (John 6:20).

So the words themselves were not forbidden or automatically divine. What made Jesus’ statement explosive was the way He used them.

The Absolute Claim

Notice the careful wording in John 8:58. Jesus does not say, “Before Abraham was, I was.” He does not say, “Before Abraham was, I existed.” He uses the present tense: “Before Abraham was [came into being], I am.”

The Greek creates a deliberate contrast. Abraham “became” or “came into existence” (genesthai). Jesus simply “is” (eimi). The statement reaches back before Abraham’s birth and asserts an ongoing, continuous existence that has no beginning. This is not a claim about longevity or preexistence in some limited sense. It is a claim to the kind of eternal being that belongs to God alone.

The Old Testament Background

Two streams of Old Testament language flow into this moment.

First is the revelation at the burning bush: “I AM WHO I AM… Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you’” (Exodus 3:14). God identifies Himself by His self-existence. He is not defined by anything outside Himself.

Second, and perhaps even more directly relevant to the ears of Jesus’ hearers, are the repeated declarations in Isaiah and Deuteronomy where God says “I am He” (ani hu in Hebrew). In these passages God asserts that He alone is the eternal One, the first and the last, the only Savior, the One who was and is and will be. No other being may rightly claim this identity.

When Jesus stands in the temple courts and says, “Before Abraham was, I am,” He is drawing on this rich background. He is not merely claiming to have lived before Abraham. He is identifying Himself with the God who revealed Himself to Moses and who declared through Isaiah, “I am He.”

Why the Stones?

The Jewish leaders understood exactly what Jesus was saying. Their reaction was not a misunderstanding. Under the Law, claiming the unique identity of God was blasphemy, and blasphemy was punishable by stoning (Leviticus 24:16). They did not pick up stones because Jesus claimed to be a great prophet, or even the Messiah. They picked up stones because they heard a man place Himself on the same plane of eternal existence as the God of Israel.

A Clear Distinction

It is important to hold two truths together.

On one hand, the phrase “I am” was ordinary speech. Jews used it every day without claiming to be God. The mere appearance of the words does not automatically equal a divine claim.

On the other hand, context and grammar matter. When the same words are used absolutely — without a predicate — and joined to a statement of existence that precedes and transcends Abraham, the meaning shifts. The ordinary language is pressed into the service of an extraordinary claim. That is what happened in John 8:58.

What This Means

Jesus did not leave His identity ambiguous. In this single sentence He asserted that His existence is not derived, not created, and not limited by time. He stands before Abraham not as one more figure in the long line of God’s servants, but as the One who simply is — the same One who spoke from the bush and who declared through the prophets, “I am He.”

The stones that were lifted that day testify that the claim was understood. The question that remains for every reader is whether the claim is true.

Romans 11 and it's obvious an undeniable Eschatological significance

I have recently had an interesting conversation concerning Romans 11 with a postmillennial friend from my church who made the claim (or words to that effect) that the chapter has nothing to do with eschatology, and that the only reason anyone sees eschatological significance in it is because a futurist premillennial position forces them to inject that meaning into the text. I reject that notion.

Romans 11 is thoroughly eschatological. The claim that it has “nothing to do with eschatology,” and that any future-oriented reading is merely the product of a preconceived futurist premillennial system, does not withstand careful examination of the text itself or the testimony of many careful readers of Scripture across centuries.

Paul is not merely discussing present soteriology or the mechanics of individual salvation. He is unfolding the climax of God’s redemptive plan for ethnic Israel as a people, set within the larger drama of the ages that culminates in the return of Christ and the consummation of history.

The Text Itself Demands a Future Orientation

Romans 11 answers the question of whether God has permanently rejected His people Israel (11:1). Paul’s emphatic “By no means!” is developed through several lines of argument that move beyond the present remnant to a future corporate turning.

1. A temporary, partial hardening with a clear terminus.
   
2. “A partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (11:25). The Greek construction (ἄχρι οὗ) marks a temporal limit. The hardening is neither total nor permanent. It has a divinely appointed end point tied to the completion of God’s purpose among the nations. Once that “fullness” arrives, something decisive follows for Israel.
3. “And in this way all Israel will be saved” (11:26).
   
4. The “all Israel” of verse 26 stands in deliberate contrast to the partial hardening of verse 25 and the remnant of earlier verses. Paul has already spoken of Israel’s “full inclusion” (11:12) and their “acceptance” that will mean “life from the dead” (11:15). These are not descriptions of the present remnant; they point to a future reversal on a national scale. The parallel structure is unmistakable: present rejection → Gentile blessing; future acceptance → even greater blessing described in resurrection language.
5. The Deliverer from Zion.
   
6. Paul immediately anchors the promise in Scripture: “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob” (11:26, citing Isaiah 59:20–21 and related texts). This is not a description of the first advent or the ongoing conversion of individual Jews. It is language of the Messiah’s decisive intervention to remove the nation’s ungodliness and establish the new-covenant forgiveness promised in Jeremiah 31. The removal of sins is presented as a future covenant act for “them” (Israel).
7. The irrevocable gifts and calling (11:29).
   
8. God’s commitments to the patriarchs and to the nation are not revoked by Israel’s present unbelief. The gifts (including the covenants, the promises, and the land-related hopes of the Old Testament) and the calling remain. This is the theological foundation for expecting a future national fulfillment rather than a permanent redefinition or cancellation of those promises.

Taken together, these elements form a coherent eschatological sequence: the present age of Gentile fullness under partial Jewish hardening, followed by the lifting of that hardening, the national turning of Israel to the Messiah, and the resulting climactic blessing that Paul describes as “life from the dead.” This is not a forced insertion of a system; it is the plain sense of the argument.

The Testimony of Faithful Teachers

This reading is not the invention of modern dispensationalism. Careful students of Scripture long before the rise of that system saw the same future for ethnic Israel in Romans 11.

J. C. Ryle treated Romans 11:26 as “one of the great unfulfilled prophecies of Scripture.” He insisted that “Israel shall be saved” means the Jewish nation and people, not the Gentiles (who are contrasted in the preceding verse) and not merely a small elect remnant. Ryle wrote that the Jews “shall ultimately be gathered again as a separate nation, restored to their own land, and converted to the faith of Christ,” citing Romans 11:25–26 among other texts. He regarded the future salvation of Israel as a people, their return to the land, and their national conversion as “clearly and plainly revealed.”

Charles Spurgeon repeatedly affirmed both a political/national restoration of the Jews to their land and a spiritual conversion of the tribes of Israel. Preaching on the restoration and conversion of the Jews, he declared that the literal sense of the relevant prophecies must not be spiritualized away: both the two and the ten tribes are to be restored to their own land, and a king is to rule over them. He linked this national restoration to the coming of the fullness of the Gentiles and the dawn of millennial blessing. Spurgeon saw “all Israel shall be saved” as pointing to a future corporate turning of the nation, not merely the ongoing salvation of a remnant. He insisted that the covenant made with Abraham is not revoked and that heaven and earth shall pass away before the chosen nation is blotted out.

John MacArthur has consistently taught that “all Israel” in Romans 11:26 refers to national Israel in the future. After the fullness of the Gentiles, God will sovereignly save the nation. This occurs in connection with the Tribulation judgments that purge the rebellious element, the repentance described in Zechariah 12–13 (they look on the One they have pierced), and the establishment of the kingdom promised in the Old Testament. MacArthur emphasizes that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable; God has not cast away His people. The church has not replaced Israel or inherited every promise in a purely spiritualized sense. Romans 11 stands as a clear witness that God still has a distinct future for ethnic Israel.

Teachers in the same stream, such as Mike Riccardi, continue to expound the same trajectory: God’s refining judgment on the nation, the future outpouring of the Spirit of grace and supplication, national mourning over the pierced Messiah, and the opening of a fountain for sin and impurity—leading into the restored favor of God toward His ancient people.

These men were not reading a modern system into the text. They were following the temporal markers, the contrast between remnant and fullness, the Old Testament quotations about the Deliverer and the removal of ungodliness from Jacob, and the explicit affirmation that God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable.

Why the Postmillennial Dismissal Fails

Many historic postmillennialists themselves expected a future large-scale conversion of the Jewish people as part of the triumph of the gospel before the end. That expectation is itself an eschatological reading of Romans 11. To claim the chapter has “nothing to do with eschatology” is to flatten the “until,” the “fullness,” the “life from the dead,” and the coming of the Deliverer into a purely present description of how individual Jews are saved throughout the age. That reading does not do justice to the mystery Paul discloses or to the climax he anticipates.

Romans 11 is not an optional appendix to Paul’s gospel. It is the apostle’s Spirit-inspired explanation of how God’s faithfulness to ethnic Israel fits within the climax of redemptive history. The partial hardening is temporary. The fullness of the Gentiles has a terminus. Then all Israel will be saved by the same Deliverer who banishes ungodliness from Jacob. The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. This is not the injection of a system. It is the plain teaching of the text, confirmed by the careful reading of men who loved the Scriptures and refused to spiritualize away the promises God made to the fathers.

The God who keeps covenant with Israel is the same God who will bring history to its appointed end in the glory of His Son. Romans 11 stands as a luminous testimony to both realities.

My Position on Theonomic Reconstructionism and Postmillennialism

I reject both Theonomic Reconstructionism (Christian Reconstructionism) and postmillennial eschatology. These systems do not align with the clear teaching of Scripture regarding the nature of Christ’s kingdom, the mission of the church, the relationship between the covenants, and the course of this present age. My convictions on these matters are the same as those long held and clearly taught by John MacArthur and others who stand in the same stream of biblical exposition.

The Kingdom of God Is Not of This World

I believe Jesus meant exactly what He said when He told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting” (John 18:36). The kingdom Christ is building is not advanced by political power, cultural dominance, or the reconstruction of civil society according to Mosaic judicial law. As MacArthur has stated:

“Nothing that happens in any nation, whether it’s a communist nation, a Muslim nation, or a quote-unquote quasi-Christian nation, or an atheistic nation, nothing in that nation—politically, socially—has anything to do with the advancement of the Kingdom of God. Because the Kingdom of God is separate from that system.”

I fully agree. The idea that the church’s success is measured by its ability to gain influence or reshape the structures of earthly kingdoms is alien to the New Testament. God is building His church by the Spirit through the preaching of the gospel. The gates of hell will not prevail against it—but that promise is not a guarantee of cultural or political triumph in this age.

The Church’s Mission Is Gospel Proclamation, Not Cultural Reconstruction

I believe the Great Commission is a call to make disciples of all nations by baptizing them and teaching them to observe all that Christ commanded. It is not a mandate to take dominion over civil institutions or to impose the judicial laws of old-covenant Israel on modern governments. Theonomic Reconstructionism confuses these categories. It treats the civil case laws given to theocratic Israel as the abiding standard for Gentile nations today. I reject that view.

Old Testament Israel was a unique nation under a unique covenant. The ceremonial and civil aspects of the Mosaic law were bound to that particular administration and have been fulfilled and set aside in Christ. While God’s moral law remains binding and reveals His holy character, the specific judicial penalties and civil structures of Israel are not a blueprint for the church or for modern states. To insist otherwise collapses the distinction between the old covenant people of God and the multinational body of Christ in this age.

Postmillennial Optimism Contradicts Biblical Prophecy

I am a premillennialist. I believe Christ will return before the millennium to establish His kingdom in power and glory, fulfill the unconditional promises made to national Israel, and reign for a thousand years. Postmillennialism expects the opposite: a gradual, progressive Christianization of the world that produces a golden age of righteousness before Christ returns. I find that expectation incompatible with the teaching of Jesus, Paul, and John.

Scripture describes this present age as one that moves toward increasing apostasy, lawlessness, and hostility to the truth. The end of human history is not the church triumphant reigning over the kingdoms of this world. As MacArthur has put it, things are going to get worse, not better, and the hope of the believer is the appearing of Christ, not the success of Christian cultural efforts. He has said plainly:

“We don’t win down here, we lose… You were a postmillennialist, you thought we were just going to go waltzing into the Kingdom if you took over the world? No, we lose here.”

That sobering realism matches what I see in the New Testament and in the world around us.

Faithfulness Until the King Returns

I care deeply about righteousness, justice, and the moral condition of the culture. Believers are called to live as salt and light, to seek the welfare of the cities where God has placed them, and to speak the truth without fear. Civil government is ordained by God to restrain evil and reward good (Romans 13). But the church is not the state, and the state is not the church. Confusing those spheres, or pinning our hope on the reconstruction of society under biblical law, distracts from the primary mission Christ has given us.

My confidence is not in the gradual triumph of Christian influence. My confidence is in the gospel of Jesus Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit to regenerate sinners, and the certain return of the King who will set all things right. Until that day, I am called to preach the Word, make disciples, and remain faithful—regardless of whether the culture around me improves or deteriorates.

This is what I believe. It is the same conviction that John MacArthur and like-minded shepherds have labored to guard and proclaim from the Scriptures for decades. I stand with them.