Who Bruises The Head Of The Serpent In Genesis 3:15?

• Introduction:

          -There are many Roman Catholic images of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, standing with her foot on the head of a serpent. These portraits exist because throughout church history, Roman Catholics have traditionally interpreted Genesis 3:15 to mean that she has enmity with the devil. They believe that since Mary was immaculately conceived, and therefore sinless, that she must be the figure who stands in direct contradiction to the snares of the devil.
          -Many Catholics reason that Mary must be the paragon of holiness, whereas Satan is the ultimate source of evil. Genesis 3:15 has oftentimes been connected with the dogma of Mary's immaculate conception, the teaching that she was born without sin. However, the traditional Catholic interpretation of this passage is groundless and stems from a romanticized view of Mary.

• Consider The Words Of The New Catholic Encyclopedia In Regards To Genesis 3:15:

          -"Much confusion has resulted from the fact that the second half of this verse was inaccurately translated in the Vulgate to read, “She shall crush your head.” This translation, which has strongly affected the traditional representations of the Blessed Virgin, is today generally recognized to be a mistake for “it [or “he,” i.e., the seed of the woman] shall crush...”, and consequently can no longer be cited in favor of the Immaculate Conception." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII, page 378)

• The New American Bible Revised Edition Has This Footnote On Genesis 3:15:

          -"[3:15] They will strike…at their heel: the antecedent for “they” and “their” is the collective noun “offspring,” i.e., all the descendants of the woman. Christian tradition has seen in this passage, however, more than unending hostility between snakes and human beings. The snake was identified with the devil (Wis 2:24; Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seemed implied in the verse. Because “the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8), the passage was understood as the first promise of a redeemer for fallen humankind, the protoevangelium. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. A.D. 130–200), in his Against Heresies 5.21.1, followed by several other Fathers of the Church, interpreted the verse as referring to Christ, and cited Gal 3:19 and 4:4 to support the reference. Another interpretive translation is ipsa, “she,” and is reflected in Jerome’s Vulgate. “She” was thought to refer to Mary, the mother of the messiah. In Christian art Mary is sometimes depicted with her foot on the head of the serpent."

• Exegetical Problems For The Roman Catholic Interpretation Of Genesis 3:15:

          -What does it mean to have enmity? It means to be hostile, filled with hatred, or to stand in a position of opposition to someone or something else. Not only would the devil possess enmity towards the "seed of the woman" spoken of in Genesis 3:15, but he also hates all of God's people (Romans 16:20; James 4:4). So, if we accept the Genesis text as being a reference to Mary, and the mere existence of enmity proves that Mary is sinless, then would this not mean that all Christians are free from sin in the same sense, as well?

• Who Bruises The Head Of The Serpent?:

          -It is the Lord Jesus Christ who crushes the head of the serpent. It is He who stands in direct opposition to Satan. It is Jesus Christ who is infinitely more powerful than Satan himself. Christ was born of a woman. He is the savior of those who believe on Him, whereas Satan is the father of all lies. Both figures are opposed to each other in every way, but it is Christ who has overcome him. This is the meaning of the woman's seed crushing the head of the serpent. Giving Mary or anybody else a position of sinlessness injures the uniqueness of Christ in relation to mankind.

Luke 22:32 Does Not Support Papal Supremacy

• Defining The Issues:

          -The Roman Catholic Church interprets Luke 22:32—where Jesus says to Peter, “I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers”—as a divine guarantee of Peter’s doctrinal infallibility. This verse is often cited as a foundational proof-text for the dogma of papal infallibility, which asserts that the pope, as Peter’s successor, is preserved from error when teaching on matters of faith and morals. The purpose of this article is to critically examine this interpretation and demonstrate that Luke 22:32, when read in its full context, offers no support for such a claim.

• How Roman Catholicism Interprets Luke 22:32:

          -Roman Catholic apologists argue that Jesus’ prayer for Peter’s faith to remain steadfast is a divine promise that Peter—and by extension, the papacy—is supernaturally protected from doctrinal error. This interpretation is used to support the notion that Peter was uniquely chosen to be the spiritual leader of the church, and that his successors inherit this divine protection.

• The Context Is Restoration, Not Coronation:

          -Jesus’ words in Luke 22:32 are spoken in anticipation of Peter’s imminent failure—his threefold denial of Christ (vv. 33–34). The prayer is not a declaration of Peter’s strength, but a plea for his restoration after a profound lapse in faith, The phrase “when you have turned again” (Greek: ἐπιστρέψας) clearly indicates that Peter would fall and need to repent. 

• Peter’s Role Is Pastoral, Not Supreme:

          -Jesus instructs Peter to “strengthen your brothers,” a charge that reflects pastoral care, not hierarchical authority. Further, this duty is not unique to Peter. All church leaders are called to edify and encourage the body of Christ (1 Thessalonians 5:11; Hebrews 10:24–25). The New Testament consistently portrays leadership as service, not domination.

• The Broader Context Contradicts Papal Supremacy:

          -Just prior to Jesus’ prayer, the disciples were engaged in a dispute over who would be the greatest (Luke 22:24–27). Jesus rebukes their ambition and teaches that true greatness lies in servanthood: “Let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.”
          -In Luke 22:29–30, Jesus promises that all twelve apostles will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. This collective honor contradicts the idea that Peter alone was elevated above the others.

• Jesus Prays For Peter’s Faith Not To Fail, Not For His Doctrinal Infallibility:

          -The Greek word for “fail” (ἐκλείπῃ) refers to a complete collapse, not momentary weakness. Jesus is praying for Peter’s ultimate perseverance, not his immunity from error. This prayer is deeply personal and pastoral. It reflects Christ’s mercy and foreknowledge, not a theological blueprint for ecclesiastical hierarchy.
          -Peter’s denial of Christ is one of the most well-known failures in the New Testament (Luke 22:54–62). His restoration is marked by repentance and humility, not elevation to supremacy. If Luke 22:32 were a declaration of papal authority, it would be incongruous with the surrounding narrative, which emphasizes Peter’s weakness and need for grace.

          -Roman Catholic apologists turn the meaning of this passage on its head by using it to support a doctrine that contradicts its context. The idea that Peter was granted infallibility in this moment ignores the fact that he was about to commit a grievous error. The passage is about Christ’s mercy and Peter’s restoration—not about ecclesiastical power or doctrinal perfection.

• What Does Luke 22:32 Really Mean?

          -Luke 22:32 is a prayer for Peter’s perseverance in faith, not a declaration of papal infallibility. The passage anticipates Peter’s denial and emphasizes his need for restoration. Jesus’ command to “strengthen your brothers” is a pastoral charge shared by all church leaders. The surrounding context—marked by disputes over greatness and Christ’s rebuke of ambition—offers no support for the idea that Peter was elevated above the other apostles. Roman Catholic interpretations of this verse impose a theological framework that is foreign to the text itself.

John 21:15-17 Does Not Support Papal Supremacy

• Defining The Issues:

          -The Roman Catholic Church interprets Jesus’ words to Peter—“feed my sheep”—as a divine commissioning that elevates Peter above the other apostles and establishes him as the supreme shepherd of the Church. This passage, found in John 21:15–17, is frequently cited to support the doctrine of papal primacy and apostolic succession. According to Catholic teaching, Peter’s pastoral charge is unique and authoritative, and this authority is believed to have been passed down to the bishops of Rome, culminating in the office of the pope. The purpose of this article is to examine the Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage and evaluate its theological and exegetical validity.

• How Roman Catholicism Interprets “Feed My Sheep”:

          -Roman Catholic apologists argue that Jesus’ thrice-repeated command to Peter—“feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep”—constitutes a formal and exclusive commissioning of Peter as the “Chief Shepherd” of the Church.
          -This interpretation is used to justify the papacy’s claim to universal jurisdiction over Christendom, asserting that Peter was appointed as the visible head of the Church on earth.

• A Refutation Of Papal Claims Based On John 21:15–17:

          -Acts 20:28 clearly states that all elders (bishops) are charged with shepherding the Church of God: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock… to feed the church of God.” The pastoral duty of nourishing the flock is not exclusive to Peter. It is a shared responsibility among all who are called to spiritual leadership.
          -In 1 Peter 5:1–5, Peter refers to himself as a “fellow elder” and exhorts other elders to “shepherd the flock of God… not as being lords over those entrusted to you.” He explicitly identifies Christ as the “Chief Shepherd” (v. 4), reserving that title for Jesus alone. Peter’s humility and refusal to claim superiority over other leaders contradict the notion that he saw himself as the supreme head of the Church.
          -John 10:11–16 presents Jesus as the “Good Shepherd” who lays down His life for the sheep. He alone possesses divine authority over the flock. 1 Peter 2:25 refers to Christ as the “Shepherd and Bishop of your souls,” emphasizing His unique role in guiding and protecting believers. The New Testament never applies the title “Chief Shepherd” to Peter or any other apostle. To do so would be to usurp a title that belongs exclusively to Christ.

• The True Focus Of John 21:15–17 Is Restoration, Not Coronation:

          -The passage recounts Peter’s threefold affirmation of love for Christ, which mirrors his earlier threefold denial (Matthew 26:69–75). Jesus’ repetition of the question “Do you love me?” is a tender act of restoration, not a formal elevation to ecclesiastical supremacy.

          -There is no indication of celebration, ceremony, or institutional appointment. The tone is intimate and personal, not hierarchical. If this were a moment of coronation, we would expect clear signs of joy, recognition from other apostles, or a declaration of Peter’s new status—none of which are present.

• Peter’s Role in Acts: Prominent, But Not Supreme:

          -While the Book of Acts showcases Peter's significant contributions to spreading the gospel, no biblical evidence supports the notion that he was granted supremacy over the church. Referring to the pope as the “Good Shepherd” constitutes outright blasphemy against our Lord Jesus Christ, as such a title belongs solely to Him. Assigning this honor to a human diminishes the divine majesty of Christ and robs Him of the glory that is rightfully His.

The Early Church Fathers On The Meaning Of "Upon This Rock" (Matthew 16:18)

• Defining The Issues:

          -The Roman Catholic Church treats Matthew 16:18-19 as though it decisively proves the truthfulness of its claims to being given the fullness of divine truth. It is claimed that Jesus Christ made Peter the Church of Rome's foundation and any spiritual gifts bestowed on him were passed on to succeeding popes of future generations. Thus, we see the reason that adherents fight so vigorously to protect their understanding of the meaning of the "rock" figure in Matthew 16:18-19. However, the church fathers were far from unanimous on accepting the "rock" metaphor found in that passage as being the Apostle Peter himself. This article contains excerpts from various church fathers, which have been taken from this article.

          -"18. Thou art Peter] Gk. Petros Aramaic, Kephas. Jesus had given Peter this name at their first interview (John 1:42). Peter had now realised his character, and Jesus solemnly confirmed the honourable title. And upon this rock] Gk. petra. As the Gk. word here is different, most ancient commentators deny that Peter is the rock. The Roman Catholic Launoy reckons that seventeen Fathers regard Peter as the rock; forty-four regard Peter’s confession as the rock; sixteen regard Christ Himself as the rock; while eight are of opinion that the Church is built on all the apostles." (The One Volume Bible Commentary, edited by John R. Dummelow)

• Basil of Seleucia:

          -"You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever." (Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297)

• Cyril of Alexandria:

          -"When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immovable faith of the disciple.” (Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2)

• Origen:

          -“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11)

• Augustine of Hippo:

          -"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer." (John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327)

• Bede:

          -"You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name." (Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156.)

• Eusebius:

          -"Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that the 'world' is actually the Church of God, and that its 'foundation' is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: 'Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' and elsewhere: 'The rock, moreover, was Christ. For as the Apostle indicates with these words: 'No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus." (Commentary on the Psalms, M.P.G., Vol. 23, Col. 173,176)

• Cassiodorus:

          -"It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord." (Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455)

• Catholic Apologists Misrepresent The Historical Record:

          -Catholics often argue that the Roman Catholic Church employs a threefold application in its interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19 to harmonize patristic writings, claiming these approaches affirm Peter’s primacy, his successors’ authority, and a Christ-centered foundation. While this framework attempts to synthesize diverse perspectives, it relies on an interpretive flexibility that lacks textual and historical consistency. For instance, Church Fathers who emphasize Christ or Peter’s confession as the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 are frequently recontextualized to fit the Catholic paradigm, even when their writings explicitly reject the idea of Peter's personal primacy or any succession tied to him.
          -Moreover, this interpretive system presumes a continuity of interpretation that is not evidenced within early ecclesiastical thought. Instead, the varied understandings of the "rock" among the Church Fathers indicate that these interpretations arose independently, reflecting theological diversity rather than a cohesive framework. The Roman Catholic argument also inadvertently undermines its own position by conceding that no singular interpretation dominates the tradition. This plurality of views fundamentally weakens the claim that Matthew 16:18–19 unequivocally supports the Roman Catholic Church’s assertions to having been given apostolic authority.

          -The appeal to a threefold reading conflates theological nuance with institutional necessity. By asserting that Peter, his confession, and Christ are all simultaneously the "rock," Catholic apologists attempt to preserve doctrinal coherence while sidestepping the historical reality that many patristic voices did not affirm Peter’s unique ecclesial role. This interpretive elasticity may serve apologetic aims, but it dilutes the clarity of the text and obscures the original intent of its earliest interpreters. The result is a theological construct that retroactively imposes unity where the historical record reveals fragmentation.

          -By allowing multiple, even contradictory, meanings to coexist within a single passage, this approach undermines the clarity and authority of Scripture itself. If Peter, his confession, and Christ are all simultaneously the "rock," then the interpretive boundaries become so elastic that virtually any theological claim could be retrofitted into the text. This not only weakens the exegetical rigor of Catholic hermeneutics but also opens the door to doctrinal circularity—where tradition is used to interpret Scripture, and Scripture is then cited to validate tradition. Such a model blurs the distinction between historical exegesis and theological assertion, making it difficult to discern whether the text is being interpreted or simply appropriated to serve institutional aims.

Christ's Power And Human Weakness

        "but He said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.' I will rather boast more gladly of my weaknesses, in order that the power of Christ may dwell with me." (2 Corinthians 12:9)

         God's divine grace manifests itself and covers us more abundantly during times of our struggles and trials. His strength compliments our inherent weakness. His sufficiency fulfills what is lacking in us. The power of Christ sustains us in the midst of our suffering.

        In the surrounding context of 2 Corinthians 12:9, the Apostle Paul was telling the church at Corinth how God did not accept his petition to remove his distress. Rather, He sustained him as he grieved about Satan irritating him after he had received personal revelation that he was not allowed to communicate to other men (v. 7).

        Thus, we see that the Lord allows us to undergo times of trouble to deepen our reliance on Him and to draw us closer to His presence. These challenging seasons provide opportunities for us to experience His faithfulness and for His power to shine through our limitations. Through perseverance in faith, we grow in intimacy with God and learn to rest in His sufficiency.

        We need to trust in God and rely on His grace, not matter our circumstances. We may not feel like God is working at all in our present condition, but His grace remains sufficient for us. We can confidently proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord because He is faithful and trustworthy. He is with us, even during times of hardship (v. 10).

Isaiah 22:20-22 And Papal Supremacy

Introduction:

Roman Catholics often defend Papal authority by comparing Isaiah 22:20-22 and Matthew 16:19. Both passages reference "keys" and involve figures with significant authority, such as Eliakim in the Old Testament and Peter in the New Testament. The similarities in language, such as "opening and shutting" or "binding and loosing," are used to argue that Eliakim prefigures Peter, whom Jesus appointed as the supreme leader of His church.

This article critically evaluates this typological argument, presenting several reasons why the comparison fails.

Key Points Against the Catholic Interpretation:

1.) The Bible mentions various keys across its books (Judges 3:25; Luke 11:52; Revelation 1:18), none of which are exclusively tied to Peter. Isaiah 22 does not demand a connection to Matthew 16, as the symbolism of keys is used in different contexts to signify distinct forms of authority or responsibility.

2.) Isaiah 22 deals with the dismissal of Shebna due to his pride and the appointment of Eliakim as a steward under King Hezekiah. This was a political role second only to the king. However, Peter’s appointment by Jesus did not involve replacing another figure or serving under a monarch. This contextual disparity makes the typology untenable.

3.) Isaiah 22:25 predicts the eventual fall of Eliakim, stating that he will be "cut down." If this passage were a prophecy about Peter's role as the first pope, it would imply the fall of the papacy, contradicting Roman Catholic teachings about its perpetual and infallible nature.

4.) The name "Eliakim," meaning "God will raise up," aligns more closely with Jesus Christ than Peter. Jesus is the one who inherits David’s throne and possesses the key of David (Revelation 3:7). The singular key in Isaiah pertains to Israel's lineage, while the plural "keys" in Matthew refer to the broader mission of the church.

5.) Eliakim’s position as steward was political and administrative, focused on managing the royal household of David within the historical context of Israel. Peter’s role, on the other hand, was spiritual and evangelical, leading the early church and spreading the Gospel. The nature of their authority was fundamentally different, weakening the argument that Isaiah 22 directly foreshadows Peter’s position.

6.) In Isaiah 22:23-25, Eliakim is metaphorically described as a "peg driven into a firm place," symbolizing stability and reliability. However, the passage concludes with the peg being removed and falling, leading to the collapse of everything attached to it. This imagery signifies that Eliakim's authority, while significant, was neither permanent nor infallible. If the Catholic interpretation equates Eliakim with Peter and Isaiah 22 with the establishment of the papacy, the "falling peg" undermines the concept of Papal infallibility and the perpetual nature of papal authority. Such a typological connection would inherently contradict Catholic teaching, making the interpretation inconsistent with its own doctrinal claims.

7.) While the concept of keys represents authority in both Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16, biblical symbolism is not static. It evolves to fit the context of the narrative. In Isaiah, the key symbolizes Eliakim's administrative authority over the kingdom of Judah, tied to the earthly lineage of David. However, in Matthew, the keys symbolize Peter's spiritual authority to guide the Church, representing a broader mission transcending earthly governance. This evolution in the symbolic meaning of keys highlights the need to interpret them within their specific context, rather than drawing direct typological connections. Such variability in symbolism suggests that the authority given to Eliakim and Peter serves different purposes, undermining the argument for a predictive relationship between the two figures.

Addressing The Roman Catholic Misinterpretation Of Matthew 16:18-19

• Defining The Issues:

          -The meaning of the "rock" of Matthew 16:18-19 has been disputed among Roman Catholic and non-Catholic scholars alike. Literally volumes of books over the years have been written to defend various interpretations of this symbol. In fact, the three most prominent views on the identity of this "rock" are that it is representative of Jesus Christ Himself, the Apostle Peter's bold confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, and Peter himself. However, the Roman Catholic Church has made significant claims regarding the meaning of this figure in Matthew 16:18-19 in relation to its inflated views of its own authority and apostolic tradition. Quite simply, the purpose of this article is to present and critique the Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage.

• How The Roman Catholic Church Interprets The Rock Of Matthew 16:18-19:

          -Roman Catholics argue that because the Apostle Peter is the rock of which Jesus Christ spoke, their church is built on him. It is for that reason that the Roman Catholic Church touts itself as being the one, true, original church founded by Him. Roman Catholicism maintains that 1.) Christ granted Peter special primacy over His entire church and 2.) that this apostle passed his unique position of spiritual authority to the Roman bishops who would succeed him in later generations (CCC #881-882). Consequently, it is claimed that the doctrines of the Church of Rome have been infallibly preserved throughout the centuries.

• On The Greek Words Petros And Petra:

          -The words "petros" and "petra" are used in the Greek text of Matthew 16:18. Thus, the passage reads, "You are Peter (i.e. "petros") and upon this rock (i.e. "petra") I will build my church." While "petros" means a piece of rock (which is masculine), "petra" means a mass of rock (which is feminine). Why are two different words occupied in this passage? While this factor does not definitively rule out the Apostle Peter being the rock on which the church is built, this point is not without significance. It may suggest that something other than the Apostle Peter was meant to serve as the foundation upon which the Christian church stands.

• The Rock Of Matthew 16:18-19 Is Not Peter Himself, But His Confession Of Faith:

          -The "rock" mentioned in Matthew 16:18 is Peter's confession of faith (Matthew 16:16). This interpretation best fits the context of Matthews 16, which is about the spread of the gospel and the identity of the Messiah (Matthew 16:13-18). It is upon our confession of faith that the church stands. Thus, our doctrine and practice of should be in accordance with the teaching of Jesus Christ. In Matthew 16:16-18, the words "it" and "this" are referring to the Apostle Peter's statement identifying the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, the church is built on the revelation that Christ is the promised Jewish Messiah. As far as the interpretation of the rock being Christ Himself is concerned, that is unlikely in this context because He is described as a builder rather than a foundation.

• Why Would Jesus Call The First Pope Satan?:

          -Another major obstacle to the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19 is found just a few verses later, when Jesus rebukes Peter with the words, “Get thee behind me, Satan” (Matthew 16:23). This confrontation occurs immediately after Peter attempts to dissuade Christ from going to the cross, revealing a fundamental misunderstanding of God's redemptive plan. If Peter were truly the infallible foundation of the church, then it is difficult to reconcile such a severe rebuke from the Lord Himself. Christ does not merely correct Peter—He identifies him with Satan, the adversary. Roman Catholic apologists often try to sidestep this text, yet the juxtaposition of Peter being called the “rock” and then “Satan” within the same chapter underscores the inconsistency of building an entire ecclesiastical hierarchy on one man’s unstable spiritual footing.

• Answering The Catholic Aramaic And Greek Word Gender Argument On Matthew 16:18:

          -"When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros." (https://www.catholic.com/tract/peter-and-the-papacy)
          -If Jesus had to change the gender from feminine to masculine in order to address Peter, then all that really tells us is that (1) rock is usually feminine and (2) Peter is a male. The Greek word has a gender. It had that gender long before the authors of the New Testament associated the term with the foundation of the church.
          -The Greek New Testament does use the Aramaic Cephas in reference to Peter (1 Corinthians 15:5; Galatians 2:14). It is also true that if Matthew wanted to tell us that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built, he could have used petros twice in the same sentence (i.e. "you are petros and upon this petros I will build my church"). However, two separate terms are used in Matthew 16:18.
          -Aramaic was not as advanced a language as the other Semitic languages. It did not have an extremely rich or complex vocabulary. It could not utilize two different words in Matthew 16:18 as does Greek. Thus, the usage of kepha in Aramaic twice is not due to some unique primacy bestowed on the Apostle Peter by Christ, but to limitations in that language.
          -The New Testament does apply the feminine petra to the man Jesus Christ (Romans 9:33; 1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:8). Further, there are no Aramaic manuscript copies of Matthew, which means any discussion of such involves speculation.

• The Meaning Of The Keys, Binding, And Loosing:

          -The "keys" represent the authority to proclaim the salvation of converts and the condemnation of sinners (Luke 10:16). The keys are knowledge of the kingdom of God (Matthew 23:13; Luke 11:52). The door of salvation is opened to those who accept the message of the gospel (Acts 14:27; Revelation 1:5), whereas the door of eternal condemnation is opened for those who reject the salvific message of the gospel. The mission of the church is to preach the gospel to the world (Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-18; Luke 24:45-49). 

          -In the Book of Acts, converts such as Paul and Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit. They rejoiced as a result of hearing the proclamation of eternal salvation. Notice how Christ instructed His original disciples to shake the dust off their feet when they encountered cities who rejected them for preaching the gospel message (Matthew 10:14-15; Mark 6:11; Acts 13:51). This is a perfect way of applying the principle of "loosing," or announcing the condemnation of sinners. 

          -Today, we serve as ambassadors for Christ by performing the ministry of reconciliation through preaching the gospel (2 Corinthians 5:17-21). Christians have been authorized to declare the terms of forgiveness as provided by the gospel: holding fast by faith in Jesus Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). The power of the keys was not possessed by the Apostle Peter alone, and nowhere does the Scripture passage in question even hint at such that interpretation. In fact, that same authority was given to all of the apostles (Matthew 18:18).

          -"What is the power of binding and loosing? These disciples immediately recognized the background of its meaning. If you were a Jew, living at the time of Christ, and you had done something that you thought could be a violation of the Mosaic Law, you would have to take your problem to the ruling elders. They would have debated your case; then they would have come to one of two conclusions. They would have either bound or loosed you. If they had bound you, this meant that you had violated the Mosaic Law and that you were obligated to pay the penalty-sacrifice and/or restitution. If they had loosed you, this meant that you had not violated the Mosaic Law. No sacrifice was necessary. These ruling elders were simply declaring what had already been legislated by Moses" (Was the Church Established by Peter?, Robert Gromacki, cited by Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, p. 109-110)

• The Evidence For Peter Being The First Pope Is Entirely Lacking:

          -In regards to the broader context of the New Testament, it never mentions the one-head bishop structure that is found in the modern Church of Rome. Further, nowhere is the Apostle Peter said to have passed on apostolic authority to a designated successor. In Scripture, he does not act in the dictatorial manner that popes have done. Although Peter can rightly be accredited as playing a vital role in the spread of the gospel, we never see him acting as "Prince of the Apostles."

• Even If The Apostle Peter Were The Rock Of Matthew 16:18, That Fact Would Still Not Grant The Pope Universal Jurisdiction Over Christendom: 

          -The establishment of some sort of authoritative office with successors is nowhere present in Matthew 16. Roman Catholics are placing too much weight on this passage by reading ideas into it where such notions are absent. Further, even if Peter were the rock of Matthew 16:18, that would still not make Peter the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. There are scholars who hold to that view, yet reject the claims to authority made by the papacy.

The Glorious Light Of The Gospel

        "Rather, we have renounced shameful, hidden things; not acting deceitfully or falsifying the word of God, but by the open declaration of the truth we commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. And even though our gospel is veiled, it is veiled for those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they may not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2-4)

        The gospel is not unintelligible nonsense, but rather is lucid and powerful. It transforms the hearts and minds of people. The gospel points lost people in the direction of reconciliation with God through the man Jesus Christ. The proclamation of the gospel contains no falsehood or deception. This divine revelation from God is the way to holiness.

        However, there are many people in this world who still vehemently reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Those who do not repent will perish. Satan, the god of this world, has blinded the minds of unbelievers. People are lost, not because the truth of the gospel is inaccessible, but because they have anchored themselves against God.

        In order to inherit the kingdom of God, we must be born again. That means our hearts must be renewed through the supernatural indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We must repent of our sins and place our trust in the work of Jesus Christ. The gospel of His glory is a light which shines on those who have faith. We must share it with others.

Roman Catholic Mary Worship

        Following are excerpts from a Roman Catholic devotional prayer book titled "Devotions in Honor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help," p. 38-39, containing idolatrous prayers to Mary from Alphonsus Liguori:

        "Come then to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In my hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants, take me under thy protection and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing not from my sins because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them nor from the devils because thou art more powerful than all Hell together nor even Jesus my Judge Himself, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear that in the hour of temptation I may neglect to call on thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me then the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance and grace always to have recourse to thee O Mother of Perpetual Help."

        "Most Holy and Immaculate Virgin and My Mother Mary, to thee, who are the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the World, the Advocate, the Hope and the Refuge of Sinners I have recourse today, I who am the most miserable of all. I render thee my most humble homage O Great Queen and I thank thee for the graces thou hast obtained for me until now and in particular for having saved me from Hell which I have so often deserved. I love thee, o most amiable Lady; and for the love which I bear thee, I promise to serve thee always and to do all in my power to make others also love thee. I place in thee all my opes and I confide my salvation to thy care."

        "Most Holy and Immaculate Virgin! O my Mother! Thou who art the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the world, the advocate, hope, and refuge of sinners! I, the most wretched among them, now come to thee. I worship thee, great Queen, and give thee thanks for the many favors thou hast bestowed on my in the past; most of all do I thank thee for having saved me from hell, which I had so often deserved. I love thee, Lady most worthy of all love, and, by the love which I bear thee, I promise ever in the future to serve thee, and to do what in me lies to win others to thy love. In thee I put all my trust, all my hope of salvation. Receive me as thy servant, and cover me with the mantle of thy protection, thou who art the Mother of mercy! And since thou hast so much power with God, deliver me from all temptations, or at least obtain for me the grace ever to overcome them. From thee I ask a true love of Jesus Christ, and the grace of a happy death. O my Mother! By thy love for God I beseech thee to be at all times my helper, but above all at the last moment of my life. Leave me not until thou seest me safe in heaven, there for endless ages to bless thee and sing thy praises. Such is my hope. Amen."

Morality And Evolutionary Psychology

        Modern day atheists are prone to argue that human morality has developed as a result of the process called natural selection. It is claimed that our moral standards are simply genetic chemical compounds that are shaped according to evolutionary needs. In other words, the formation of human morality is supposedly prompted by the conditions of current physical surroundings, in the same sense that the physical components of the body adapt to environmental changes. The naturalistic worldview maintains that our morals have developed by mere chance. In short, evolutionists claim that continually changing behavioral patterns are what morality consists of. Adherents of this so-called new science called evolutionary psychology believe that everything regarding the human personality can be explained adequately by evolutionary forces.

        It is illogical to the highest degree to equate morality with physical adaptations that evolve in response to environmental conditions. If our moral codes were determined individually by our chromosomal makeup, then how could we reward or condemn the actions of other people? If no distinction is made between mankind and the animal kingdom, then why should we be disgusted when people engage in acts of bestiality? Why not love our pets rather than friends and relatives? Why not act uncivilized as do wild animals? Why even wear clothing? If morality evolves, then that means things we deem moral today may be evil in the future and visa versa. These so-called evolutionary explanations are simply imaginary, subjective, hypothetical constructs. It is not coherent philosophy because it is not consonant with the reality of our nature. Evolutionary Theory cannot account for how or why we ought to be moral beings.

        While proponents of evolutionary psychology claim that moral behavior observed in social animals demonstrates morality's evolutionary origins, such examples fail to address the unique intellectual and spiritual dimensions of human morality. Acts of cooperation or altruism among animals are better understood as instinctual behaviors aimed at survival rather than conscious decisions guided by an understanding of good or evil. Human imagination, while a remarkable faculty, can also mislead us by causing us to project complex moral reasoning onto animal actions where none truly exists. Further, the argument that morality functions as a cooperative strategy necessary for survival does not account for the existence of moral codes that transcend self-interest or immediate societal benefit. For instance, individuals who sacrifice their lives for abstract principles or the well-being of unrelated strangers defy any evolutionary imperative tied strictly to survival or reproduction. Such actions, far from being explained by materialistic forces, point toward the presence of objective moral laws grounded in a transcendent source.

        We know that moral laws are not concrete objects, but rather abstract realities that can only be grasped through mental perception. Moral laws are intangible entities. They are not chemical or biological. Moral laws are spiritual and intellectual propositions that are communicated from the mind of one individual to another. Moral laws have been internally inscribed into our hearts by God (whether a person has the mental capacity to understand them is a separate issue). They enable us to formulate rational distinctions between good and evil or different degrees between either category. Not only do human beings naturally feel obligated to obey these moral codes, but we also feel guilty when we choose to violate them. Lastly, it is important to note that exterior conduct in and of itself does not prescribe us with a pattern of sound morality to follow, but rather offers us a description of various moral patterns. The objective moral standard referred to here governs our behavior because it judges whether it is good or bad.

        The evolutionary worldview, by definition, fails to give account for the existence of transcendent moral laws. We must not adhere to the "survival of the fittest" worldview, for it is utterly cruel and selfish. The inherent self-centered design of the Evolutionary Theory opens the door to much persecution and discrimination of the lower-class, minority groups of our society. Not only does evolution leave absolutely no room for objective reasons for protecting the vulnerable, but the notion of natural selection is also totally indifferent to the suffering, weak people of this world. Why should we do good to others? The fact that we are able to choose acting in a morally sound manner is beside the point. Society can still adopt the abhorrent lifestyles. If there are no objective moral standards existing for us to abide by, then why should we not choose to act evil? What is evil? Why should we really care what other people think? If we educate our children into believing that they are nothing but animals, then they will also behave in that fashion.

        If, on the other hand, there exists objective moral laws that are transcendent to the laws of nature, then it logically follows from the premise of the argument that there must also be a supernatural Law Giver. It follows that we can differentiate between good and evil. It follows that we actually have purpose in this life. It follows that life has objective value and meaning. These things can only exist, if a supernatural Law Giver inscribed them into the innermost part of our being, the soul. Morality is the foundation for all building blocks in life. Evolution only seeks to explain it away. Truth establishes all principles which form the basis of morality, and only through God that we can have such things. If naturalists continue on chiseling the concept of personhood in accordance with their materialistic philosophy, then they will inevitably be rendering our unique characteristics to mere projections of the human mind. The deconstruction of reality is a very dangerous thing.