Walter M. Wolfe (February 7, 1906) on His Understanding of the Manifesto of 1890

  

The CHAIRMAN. What was said to you, if anything, in addition to what you say Smith declared to you, by anyone else in relation to the effect of the manifesto?

 

Mr. WOLFE. I can not quite any definite statements. I can simply give the prevailing sentiment among the people. I believe the opinion is that the manifesto does absolutely apply to the State of Utah, but that outside of the United States, or in States where there is no law against polygamy, the manifesto is inapplicable. That is my understanding of the interpretation of it, from conversations. (Testimony of Walter M. Wolfe, February 7, 1906, repr. Proceedings Before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests Against the Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, A Senator from the State of Utah to Hold His Seat, 4 vols. [Washington: Government Printing Office, 1906], 4:14)

 

Arie W. Zwiep on John 20:17

  

Jn 20:17 The command μή μου άπτου ('don't cling to me') seems to imply that Mary had seized Jesus' feet (cf. Mt 28:9 αί δέ προσελθούσαι έκράτησαν αύτου τους πόδας and the interpretative gloss και προσέδραμεν άψασθαι αυτου in the present verse) or was about to do so'. The point is not that Jesus did not allow Mary to touch him (for whatever reason) or that he regarded an act of proskynesis inappropriate for someone who failed to grasp the meaning of the new relationship that he had entered into through the resurrection. Nor is a contrast in view with Jesus' invitation to Thomas to examine the wounds caused by the nails and the spear-thrust (v.27). The issue is that Mary should not 'cling' to Jesus, not 'hold on' to him. The phrase μή μου άπτου can best be connected with πορεύου δέ πρός τους άδελφούς μου κλτ., 'don't cling to me ... but (δε) go to my disciples'. Mary seems to misunderstand the present occasion as the fulfilment of Jesus' promise of his abiding presence and does not realise that Jesus would be present through the Spirit (Jn 14:15-31; 16:5- 33). This could only be realised after his άνάβασις (= Jesus' return to the Father through passion-resurrection-ascension = his glorification/exaltation) had come to completion (7:39; 16:7). If we take the larger Johannine context into consideration (the connection ascension-giving of the Spirit) and follow the Johannine understanding of Jesus' άνάβασις as a description of Jesus' entire passage to the Father through passion, death, resurrection and ascension, Jn 20:17 seems to make good sense. Jesus motivates his appeal not to hold on to him by stating that he has not yet ascended: ούπω γάρ άναβέβηκα (as in 3:13 perfect tense!) πρός τον πατέρα, that is, his άνάβασις has not yet reached completion, for the Spirit has not yet been given. But this will not take long: άναβαίνω (present tense, expressing imminence) πρός τον πατέρα κτλ.

 

In line with the Johannine use of the word, Jesus' άνάβασις cannot be equated with the ascension event in Acts 15 and it would be futile to look for a gap in Jn 20 where the Lukan ascension story would fit in. It is, of course, assumed that somewhere in the process of ‘going to the Father’ Jesus will depart from the earth, but the theological outlook of the Fourth Evangelist makes it impossible to make a sharp differentiation between death, resurrection, exaltation, and so on. The entire course of events constitutes the ‘house’ of the Son of Man; the entire sequence of events starting from the crucifixion is Jesus’ αναβασις to the Father. (Arie W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology [Supplements to Novum Testamentum; 87; Leiden: Brill, 1997], 137-38)

 

Arie W. Zwiep on John 3:13

  

The only other time that the perfect tense of αναβαινω is used in the NT writings is in Jn 20:17 (‘I have not yet ascended’!), so that it is reasonable to assume a connection. Since the katabasis-anabasis pattern is typical of the Fourth Gospel )on our verse the descent seems to precede the ascent as well), we are to explain the verse from the perspective of the Evangelist, in other words, we have here a description from a post-Easter viewpoint, when Jesus’s αναβασις (= his return to the Father through passion-resurrection-ascension) had already become a fait accompli. (Arie W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology [Supplements to Novum Testamentum; 87; Leiden: Brill, 1997], 135)

 

Mormonism & Freemasonry feat. Eirik Scoville

 

Mormonism & Freemasonry feat. Eirik Scoville | May 2026 Gospel Scholar Zoom Conference

Tertullian on the Female Interpretation of Genesis 3:15 and Likening it to Christian Women

  

Sed et lapillos istos, qui cum auro superbiam jungunt, quid aliud interpretor quam lapillos et calculos, ejusdem terræ minutalia; nec tamen aut fundamentis demandandis, aut parietibus moliendis, aut fastigiis sustinendis, aut tectis densaudis necessaria? Solum hunc mulierum stuporem ædificare noverunt, quia tarde teruntur, ut niteant, et subdole substruuntur, ut floreant, et anxie forantur, ut pendeant, et auro lenocinium mutuum præstant. Sed si quid de mari Britannico aut Indico ambitu piscatur, conchæ genus est, non dico conchylii aut ostreo, sed nec peloride gratius de sapore. Ad hoc enim conchas noverim maris poma. Quod si concha illa aliquid intrinsecus pustulat, vitium ejus magis debet esse, quam gloriæ. Et licet margaritum vocetur, non aliud tamen intelligendum, quam conchæ illius aliqua dura et rotunda verruca. Aiunt et de frontibus draconum gemmas erui, sicut et in piscium cerebris lapidositas quædam est. Hoc quoque deerit christianæ, ut de serpente cultior fiat. Sic calcabit diaboli caput, dum de capite ejus, cervicibus suis aut ipsi capiti ornamenta struit? (Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, 1.6 [Migne, PL 1:1310-11])

 

Here is an English translation:

 

(1) But how shall I explain those precious little stones which share their glory with gold, other than to say that they are only little stones and pebbles and tiny little bits of the selfsame earth? They certainly are not required for laying foundations or for building up walls or supporting pediments or giving compactness to roofs; the only building they seem to erect is this silly admiration of women. They are cautiously cut that they may shine, they are cunningly set that they may glitter, they are carefully pierced so as to hang properly and render to gold a meretricious service in return. (2) Moreover, whatever love of display fishes up from the seas around Britain or India is merely a kind of shellfish, and its taste is no better than that of the giant mussel. Now, there is no reason why I should not approve of shellfish as the fruit of the sea. If, however, this shellfish produces some sort of growth inside of it, this should be considered a fault rather than a cause for glory. And even though we call this thing a pearl, it certainly must be seen to be nothing else but a hard and round lump inside a shellfish.

 

There is a tradition that gems also come from the foreheads of dragons, just as we sometimes find a certain stony substance in the brains of fish. (3) This would indeed crown it all: the Christian woman in need of something from the serpent to add to her grace. It is probably in this way that she is going to tread upon the serpent’s head while around her neck or even on top of her own head she carries ornaments that come from the head of the Devil! (Tertullian, Disciplinary, Moral, and Ascetical Works [trans. Rudolph Arbesmann, Emily Joseph Daly, and Edwin A. Quain; The Fathers of the Church 40; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1959], 124-25)

 

Tertullian follows the feminine interpretation of Gen 3:15, applying it to Christian women (christianae, a feminine plural).

John Bergsma and Brant Pitre on Genesis 3:15

  

Who Will Crush the Serpent’s Head?

 

Most modern English translations of Genesis 3:15 read, “He shall crush your head”, referring to the “seed of the Woman”, understood to be Jesus Christ. However, the Douay-Rheims and Vulgate read, “She shall crush your head”, which has always been understood as a reference to the Blessed Virgin. This has often been depicted in iconography. The difficulty probably lies in the fact that the Hebrew male and female pronouns are written similarly and easily confused: St. Jerome’s Hebrew text evidently had a feminine pronoun in this place. The stronger linguistic case, however, can be made for an original masculine pronoun. Theologically, there is no difficulty, since it is true that both the seed (Jesus Christ) and the woman (the Virgin Mary) crush the head of the serpent: the woman crushes the head by means of her seed. (John Bergsma and Brant Pitre, A Catholic Introduction to the Bible, 2 vols. [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2018], 1:107, emphasis in bold added)

 

Bede (d. 735) Following the Ipsa ("She") Reading of Genesis 3:15

  

Ipsa conteret caput tuum, et insidiaberis calcaneo eius. Mulier conterit caput serpentis, cum Ecclesia sancta insidias diaboli et suasiones venenosas in ipso mox initio deprehensas abigit, et quasi conculcans ad nihilum deducit. Conterit caput serpentis, cum superbiae, per quam Eva decepta est, saepe sub potenti manu Dei humiliando resistit: initium enim omnis peccati superbia. Et serpens insidiatur calcaneo mulieris, quia circuiens Ecclesiam diabolus velut leo rugiens quaerit quem devoret, quomodo gressus bonae nostrae actionis evertat. Insidiatur calcaneo, cum in fine vitae praesentis nos rapere satagit. Calcaneo namque qui finis est corporis, non immerito finis vitae nostrae designatur, quod utrumque ipsa quoque serpentis conditio figurate denuntiat, qui conteri solet ab omnibus qui possunt, et ipse ferientis hominum vestigiis insidiari non desinit. (Bede, Hexaemeron on Genesis, Book I [Migne, PL 91:58])

 

She shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for her heel.” The woman crushes the serpent’s head when the holy Church drives away the devil’s snares and poisonous suggestions, detected right at the outset, and, as it were trampling them down, reduces them to nothing. She crushes the serpent’s head when she resists pride—the pride by which Eve was deceived—often humbling herself beneath the mighty hand of God; for pride is the beginning of all sin. And the serpent lies in wait for the woman’s heel, because the devil, going around the Church like a roaring lion, seeks whom he may devour and how he may overthrow the steps of our good conduct. He lies in wait for the heel when he strives to seize us at the end of this present life. For since the heel is the end of the body, it not unfittingly signifies the end of our life; and this is figuratively declared by the very condition of the serpent itself, which is commonly crushed by all who can do so, yet does not cease to lurk among the footprints of those who strike it.