Skip to main content


Stigmata of St. Francis
Q: 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 – Satan disguises himself as an angel of light and so do his servants.

How do we know if its from GOD or from the Devil? There are many miracles, strange events that take place across the world, i have read your post about Wondering Signs and wonders but i am still confused, i am not able to get a clear picture on how to distinguish which and what is right!!

For example:

STIGMATA - it's not mentioned in the bible, anyone receiving these marks or anything related to it or is it mentioned anywhere?..i don't remember coming across anything like that in bible.

There are quite few strange signs that is going around this world.

And i agree and stick with your point, anything that deviates from god and his words isn't genuine.

But what about stigmata?

A: If I am understanding your question correctly, you have read through P. Scott's post on Signs and Wonders. You agree that God's Word is the tool that we are to use to distinguish between genuine supernatural works of God and false signs which have their origin in the kingdom of darkness. However, the exact process of how to use God's Word to distinguish, particularly as it relates to stigmata, is where you'd like some direction.

Regarding the methodology, I think that P. Scott did a good job. He presented the purpose of signs and wonders throughout the Scriptures and showed that the best defense against false signs and wonders is a thorough understanding of the fullness of God's written word: the Bible. Unfortunately, there are no shortcuts to this process.

If you want to get to know the content of the Bible the best thing you can do is read, read, read! And when you are finished, start over and read it some more.

It's impossible for us to give a shortcut to gaining a more thorough knowledge of the Scriptures here. What we can do is try and work through an examination of stigmata in particular as it relates to the revealed Word of God as an exercise in our shared faith that the Bible is our source of truth. It is able to help us make sound judgments on these types of issues.

In the case of stigmata, we are fortunate that this particular sign seems to manifest itself in a particular segment of the "Christian" population: members of the Roman Catholic Church. As a result, we are able to gain an understanding of the purpose of stigmata from their perspective:

"...the substance of this grace [of stigmata] consists of pity for Christ, participation in His sufferings, sorrows, and for the same end--the expiation of the sins unceasingly committed in the world." (The full article on stigmata is available here.)

According to their understanding, this sign is a grace given to certain individuals to produce "pity for Christ." It allows the individual to "participate in His sufferings, [and] sorrows." The resulting effect (or "end") is actually expiating (or atoning for) sins.

This interpretation of the phenomena contributes to their official teaching that the Church (of Rome) is the dispenser of the "Treasury of Merit" to the world. The Roman Catholic teaching on Indulgences is worth reading in its entirety. It was a huge factor in contributing to the Protestant Reformation according to Luther's 95 Theses.

Essential to these claims of Rome are that the "merits of the saints" (read: the good works of followers of Christ) are added to the infinite merits of Christ's work. These merits are distributed by the Church to those who need it. Therefore, the suffering of people like St. Francis with the stigmata accrues "merits" that can then be distributed through the Roman Church to "expiate" sins. The Roman Catholic understanding of suffering as "purging" venial sins (as opposed to "mortal" sins which require Hell fire) is associated with this view. It points to the need for the unbiblical and imaginary place called Purgatory.

Indulgences, according to Rome, can lessen or even eliminate the need to spend time in Purgatory. Venial sins can be "purged" through suffering in the present life according to this view.

Unfortunately, all of this contributes to the false gospel of Rome. As a "sign" that contributes to this false gospel, I can confidently assert that stigmata is a false sign. It is very possibly still of supernatural origin. But that origin is not from God.

Some will object. They will state that stigmata is, in fact, a biblical sign. That St. Francis was not the first to participate in this "grace" in the 12th-13th century. If you read the Wikipedia page (which, contrary to popular opinion is not usually the best source of information) on stigmata you'll see that the first name listed under "Notable stigmatics" is Saint Paul the Apostle!

The Apostle Paul
Saint Paul the Apostle? A stigmatic?

According to some interpretations, Paul expressed that he participated in the "grace" of stigmata:

Finally, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus. (Galatians 6:17, NIV)

This verse is a very important one to consider because the Greek word which is translated "marks" is stigmata.

If we simply transcribe that original word instead of translating it, the verse reads as follows:

"...for I bear on my body the stigmata of Jesus."

Of course, as Paul was using this word originally, it did not have the same connotations as it does today. It is a mistake to assume that our current, modern usage of a word is the same as their usage. Language changes over time. We have certain connotations that are associated with "stigmata" as a result of cases like Francis of Assisi, Padre Pio, and Hollywood movies. These things were not in Paul's mind as he originally wrote what we read in Galatians 6:17.

So how was this word used in Paul's day and time?

Stigmata in Paul's contemporary usage literally meant "mark" or "brand." In their culture, masters of slaves would often "brand" their slaves to denote ownership. This practice also occurred in some religious rites. This practice was common and "natural" in his day. So why should we assume that he is referring to some supernatural, miraculous sign?

Paul experienced severe beatings and trials as a result of his following Jesus. Read through 2 Corinthians 11:23-29. Notice that these physical trials follow his self-identification as a "servant" or "slave" of Christ in 11:23. These events would have likely left significant marks on Paul's physical body. They were the result of his service to Jesus. Why should we assume that these stigmata are supernaturally imposed when Paul would have had plenty of natural scars associated with his service to the Lord?

Nothing in the text indicates that Paul experienced a supernatural event in his flesh. In fact, the idea of followers of Christ suffering to "expiate" sin is contrary to clear biblical teaching. Quoting from the Roman Catholic version (NAB):
For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. (1 Peter 3:18, NAB)

The idea of "adding" to the infinite merits of Christ's work is absurd scripturally, theologically, philosophically, and mathematically. Adding to "infinity" doesn't increase it! If the Scriptures tell Christ suffered for sins once for all, why would others need to suffer for sins too, in order to add to the infinite merits of Christ? This is needless suffering!

To conclude, examining the Scriptural teaching regarding the plan of salvation leads me to conclude that occurrences of the stigmata in the church of Rome are false signs. They serve to lend credibility to the false gospel of works-based righteousness. They detract from the completed work of Jesus Christ through His death, burial, resurrection and exaltation. They also create needless human suffering. As a result, I conclude that stigmata (in our modern sense of the term) are a false sign which either have their origin in the kingdom of darkness as a supernatural sign or that these marks have a natural explanation (e.g. they are fraudulent hoaxes or the result of some other physical, emotional or mental disorder).


Popular Posts

Prayer vs. Petition

Q: What's the difference between prayer and petition? Phil 4:6 for example.

A: An excellent word study question! When attempting to study words from the text it is necessary to analyze the word being studied in the original language (in this case Greek) as attempting to look up the words in English will often produce erroneous results.

For example, in English the word petition has within its range of meanings things that are certainly not within the scope of meanings for the Greek word (i.e. “a sheet that is signed to demonstrate agreement with some principle or desire for some social action to be taken” is part of the range of “petition” but not of the Greek deesis from which “petition” is translated).

The word most commonly translated as “prayer” in our English Bibles is proseuche, which appears 36 times in the New Testament (NT) in one form or another (for the purposes of this study, we are only examining the usage of these words as nouns – the verbal forms will not be included…

Christianity Isn't Moralism

Do this. Don't do that.

Shop here. Don't shop there.

This is acceptable. That is an abomination.

Don't get me wrong. Christianity does have a moral code. That's undeniable.

And that moral code is not popular. Not by a long shot. The Bible is clear that the moral code is contrary to the flesh. By definition it goes against the grain of fallen human nature.

But Christianity isn't moralism.

The moral code is not the end. It's only a diagnostic. The Bible calls for rebels against the King of heaven and earth to be reconciled to Him through His Son, Jesus the Christ. The Bible calls for people to turn from their rebellion and live for Him. This means that we stop pursuing the various lusts and impulses of our flesh. It means we start living in obedience to our King. We live for the glory of His name.

The diagnostic helps us to see that we are off track. But living according to some external sort of rules is not the end goal. That was the mistake the Pharisees made. Yo…

Christ Died For Our Sins

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures
(1 Corinthians 15:3)
The truth of the gospel includes this important phrase: Christ died for our sins.

You've probably heard it before. Many times.

Sometimes familiarity leads to a diminished sense of importance. The more you hear about something the more ordinary it may seem. Common. Ho-hum. Boring.

But this truth is anything but common.

Another difficulty arises with this truth. Beyond being common. It may happen in your ears without you even realizing it.

When the truth is declared that Christ died for our sins, you may think you hear the truth. But what you really hear is a diminished version. A partial truth.

Instead of hearing that Christ died for our sins you may hear a slightly different version of this truth. You might hear this: Jesus died for your sins.

Do you see the difference? You should.

These statements are similar. Both may very well be true…

Hallowed Be Thy Name

Growing up, I said the Our Father prayer a lot.

A lot. Multiple times a day.It was part of my religious tradition. Most of the time, I mumbled it as quickly as I could.

For what it's worth, my Dad tried to help me understand that mumbling the prayer without understanding what it really meant wasn't the goal. He wanted me to understand it. He wanted me to mean it.

I remember sitting with him in the car one afternoon while we went through every phrase. He did his best to explain to me what the terms meant. Why we would say these things. Why it mattered.

It didn't take.

Although I became better equipped to describe the meaning of the phrases, I still mumbled them as fast as I could so I could move on to the next part of my day.

Fast forward many years. After being born-again by the grace of God I started to read my Bible. I desired to know God and His Word. I remember when I stumbled upon Jesus teaching the disciples to pray the Lord's prayer in Matthew 6. I was both excit…

Self-Centered Theology

I have a problem.

Maybe you do, too.

I bet you can at least relate.

I'm self-centered.

By nature, I think from my perspective. Often, more often than I'd usually like to admit, I pursue my agenda.

I like to do, what I like to do, when I like to do it, where I like to do it, how I like to do it, and with whomever I like to do it.

I think you do, too.

Sometimes we are good at hiding this self-centeredness. I believe that it is possible to have genuinely altruistic moments. Moments where we put others self-interest above our own well-being. Sometimes powerful emotions like love, hate, and disgust, can cause us to act contrary to our self-centered notions.


As Christians, we are given the gift of God's grace through His Son, Jesus Christ. We receive this gift when we repent of our self-centered ways and trust in Christ alone. In the noise that is "Christianity" - if you take the time to really listen - you will often hear a false gospel that appeals to the …