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

• Discussion:

          -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 supposedly immaculately conceived (and therefore sinless), that she must be the figure who stands in direct contradiction to the traits of the devil.
          -Many Catholics reason that Mary must be the paragon of holiness, whereas the devil is the ultimate source of evil. Genesis 3:15 has oftentimes been connected with the immaculate conception of Mary. Thus, the purpose of this article is to explain how the mainstream Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage is in error and has in fact been rejected by Roman Catholic biblical scholarship.

• 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:

          -To have "enmity" means to be hostile, filled with hatred, or to stand in a position of opposition. Not only would the devil possess enmity towards the "seed of the woman" that is mentioned 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 the devil. It is Jesus Christ who is infinitely more powerful than the devil himself. Jesus Christ was born of a woman. Christ 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 the power of Satan. This is the meaning of the woman's seed crushing the head of the serpent. However, giving Mary or anybody else a position of sinlessness harms the uniqueness of Christ in relation to mankind.

Could Solar Eclipses Be Evidence For God?

Solar eclipses are a spectacular sight to behold. But they have also contributed significantly to scientific discovery. The sun’s corona, the star’s outer atmosphere, becomes observable only during a solar eclipse. This has allowed scientists to conduct experiments during solar eclipses, and this has enabled researchers to use spectroscopes to discern the spectra of stars.

In 1919, a solar eclipse led to the confirmation of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity that he had proposed three years earlier. If Einstein's theory was right, starlight should bend as it passes the sun. Researchers, one group led by Arthur Eddington and Edwin Cottingham on Principle Island off the West African coast and another group in Brazil led by Andrew Cromellin and Charles Davidson, set out to determine the changes in the position of stars in the sky near the sun relative to their position before and after the eclipse. Their data ultimately confirmed Einstein’s theory of general relativity. These results have been borne out by subsequent experiments conducted during solar eclipses.

Examining ancient records of solar eclipses at known places and times has also enabled scientists to elucidate the Earth’s past rotation rate. This has even allowed historians to translate ancient calendar systems into a modern calendar system.

It is clear, then, that solar eclipses have played an important part in the scientific endeavour. Is it merely an uncanny fortuitous state of affairs that the one planet in our solar system on which there are observers also happens to be the one planet with perfect solar eclipses that appear to provide optimal conditions for scientific discovery?

In their book The Privileged Planet, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and philosopher Jay W. Richards elaborate on this and many other uncanny coincidences that suggest that there is significant overlap between the conditions necessary for habitability and those that are conducive to measurability.

While this striking phenomenon does not by any means clinch the design hypothesis, it certainly adds to a growing cumulative body of data that suggests that our Universe was designed for intelligent life.

https://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/Could-solar-eclipses-be-evidence-for-God

Things Required For Honest Self-Examination

          "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" (2 Corinthians 13:5)

          If one intends to examine and prove himself, then that requires him being engaged in honest reflection. One must objectively evaluate findings regarding personal status with God. We must hate every false way or thing that stands in opposition to Him. Truth must be our top priority.

          The ability to engage in self-examination is affected by the standard of truth used in the analysis of oneself. Conscience is a valuable instrument, but liable to error. Divine revelation is infallible. Therefore, it takes precedence over conscience in spiritual discernment.

          The purposes of self-examination are seeking spiritual purity, forgiveness from God, and verifying whether one's conversion is even genuine. What does it mean to be in the faith? It entails upholding sound theology. It entails living in obedience to God.

Luke 22:32 Does Not Support Papal Supremacy

• Introduction:

          -The Roman Catholic Church interprets Luke 22:32, in which Christ prayed that the Apostle Peter's faith failed not and for him to strengthen the faith of the other disciples, to be a promise that he would be preserved from error in doctrinal matters. In other words, the Church of Rome uses this Bible verse to support its dogma of papal infallibility.

• A Refutation Of Papal Argument From Luke 22:32:

          -It is true that Satan wishes to destroy the church of God. It is also true Jesus prayed that the Apostle Peter would not cease to remain faithful and to be a source of strength for the other disciples. However, this was only done because Christ knew that Peter was going to deny him three times (v. 33-34). Consequently, the Lord wanted him to be restored and forgiven for his miserable failure to stand up for the truth of the gospel (v. 31-32). Now this, of course, would be a very encouraging message for the other apostles to learn. 

          -Luke 22:32 is speaking of the time when the Apostle Peter repents of his errors. This text is about Peter's faults, not about receiving praise, rewards, or being promoted to a position of supremacy. This passage of Scripture is about the unfathomable love, kindness, and mercy of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Roman Catholic apologists are altogether missing the point of Luke 22:32 when they cite it as a papal proof-text. They turn the meaning of this passage on its head.
          -To make an argument for the authority of the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of Luke 22:32 is unwarranted, for the context contains elements that are injurious to modern-day claims of Peter being appointed by the Lord Jesus Christ as its first pope. Most notably, the disciples had a dispute among themselves as to who would be regarded as the greatest (Luke 22:24-27). In fact, Christ said that all twelve apostles were going to be seated on twelve thrones (Luke 22:29-30). There is nothing in the context of Luke 22 even hinting that the Apostle Peter would be singled out for the reason of being a recipient of special honor. All church leaders have been called to "strengthen the brethren." One does not need to be bestowed some gift of infallibility in order to fulfill that duty.

John 21:15-17 Does Not Support Papal Supremacy

• Introduction:

          -The Roman Catholic Church interprets the words of Jesus Christ ("feed my sheep") which were directed specifically to the Apostle Peter  to mean that he was given an exclusive position of primacy in caring for the household of God, which is the church. The Papacy maintains that Christ conferred to Peter a distinctive, greater position of episcopal authority which he allegedly passed on to the Roman bishops of future generations. The text of John 21:15-17 has been used by Roman Catholic apologists to support the idea that the pope has been appointed by Christ to serve in the office of "Chief Shepherd."

• A Refutation Of Papal Argument From John 21:15-17:

          -All bishops have been commissioned by the apostles to care for the church of God (Acts 20:28). The Apostle Peter was not the only one who was obligated to nourish the "flock." Thus, the text of John 21:15-17 does not guarantee a unique position of supremacy to Peter.
          -The Apostle Peter forbade people from becoming lords over God's heritage (1 Peter 5:1-5). In fact, Christ identified Himself as being the "Chief Shepherd" (John 10:10-16). The Apostle Peter himself called Christ the "Shepherd and Bishop of our souls" (1 Peter 2:25). There is only one Chief Shepherd over the household of God. Scripture never records Christ reserving this title for Peter or him being addressed by that title. Thus, this title cannot rightfully be applied to anybody who claims to be a representative of Jesus Christ here on earth or descendant of the Apostle Peter.
          -This passage is not about inheriting a position of special primacy. John 21:15-17 simply records a threefold confession of faith articulated by Peter for the three times that he denied knowing Jesus Christ (Matthew 26:33-34). This passage shows us an utter failure on Peter's part. It therefore makes no sense to view this text as one that exalts him in any fashion. If this text is about Peter being promoted to a higher position by Christ, then how come we do not see anywhere the usual reaction of a person getting exalted by a superior (rejoicing and excitement)?

          -Although we know from the Book of Acts that the Apostle Peter played a significant role in preaching the gospel, we have no biblical evidence suggesting that he was given a position of supremacy over the church. To call the pope the "Good Shepherd" is outright blasphemy against our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, for the occupation of such a title by a mere man robs Him of the honor that only He deserves.

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 Rome's adherents fight so vigorously to protect their understanding of the meaning of the "rock" as found 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. Following are excerpts from various church fathers, which were originally taken from this article.

• The Roman Catholic Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick Once Stated:

          -“If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by the rock should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.” (Speech of archbishop Kenkick, p. 109; An inside view of the Vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon)

• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:

          -"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, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):

          -“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, sermon:

          -"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

• Even The Catechism Of The Roman Catholic Church Does Not Condemn The Interpretation Of The "Rock" In Matthew 16:18 As Being A Reference To Peter's Confession Of Faith:

          -"Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe and confess about Jesus: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16:16). On the rock of this faith, confessed by Saint Peter, Christ has built his Church (cf. Mt 16, 18; Saint Leo the Great, Sermons, 4, 3: PL 54, 151; 51, 1: PL 54, 309B; 62 , 2: PL 54, 350C-351A; 83, 3: PL 54, 432A)" (CCC # 424)

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 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 dilemmas.

        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 for the sake of refining our character. We can build up our spiritual strength for times of infirmity through the persistent resistance of temptation and continued obedience to God.

        We need to trust in God. We must rely on His grace. We may not feel like God is working at all in bad circumstances, but His grace is 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 argue in defense of Papal authority by noting the similarity of language structure in Matthew 16:19 and Isaiah 22:20-22. First of all, both of these passages make reference to a "key." Secondly, the text of Isaiah has a prime minister figure. Thirdly, there is similar wording of the actions of "opening and shutting" and "binding and loosing" found in both Isaiah 22:20-22 and Matthew 16:19. Catholics thus argue that this scenario prefigures Jesus Christ giving the Apostle Peter supremacy over His entire church. The logic of this alleged typology is based on a comparison of Peter to Eliakim, who was given the key to the house of David (Isaiah 20:22).

• Answering The Roman Catholic Typological Argument:

          1.) The Bible mentions a number of different sets of "keys" (Judges 3:25; Luke 11:52; Revelation 1:18; etc.). In fact, there is nothing in the context of Isaiah 22 demanding that it be paralleled with Matthew 16.
          2.) The context of this passage is about a male figure named Shebna (Isaiah 22:15). His position of authority was being revoked from him as a result of his pride. Shebna's position, which was only secondary to King Hezekiah, was being given to Eliakim. However, the Apostle Peter never replaced anybody.
          3.) If Isaiah 22:20-22 was a prophecy about the Apostle Peter being appointed as the first pope, then how would Roman Catholics explain Isaiah 22:25? The Apostle Peter was never removed or cut down. The interpretation of this prophetic passage from the Book of Isaiah is not applicable to the Roman Catholic Church because it would only prophecy the fall of the Papacy. This is inconsistent with the claims of modern-day Roman Catholic dogma, for it teaches the infallible preservation of Roman tradition.
          4.) The name of "Eliakim" literally means "God will raise up." It is a typology of Jesus Christ, not the Apostle Peter. Jesus is the one who will inherit the glorious, everlasting throne of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Isaiah 22:23; Isaiah 9:6-7). He possesses the key of David (Revelation 3:7), which pertains to the promises of King David's throne. It is about the establishment and fulfillment of his kingdom. The phrase "house of David" is used within the context of his ancestral lineage. While the singular key of the household of David is pertinent to Israel (Isaiah 22:21-22), the plural keys of the kingdom of heaven are pertinent to the work of the church (Matthew 16:13-20).