Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

1 Peter 5:5

Last week’s article covered Peter’s words to elders in 1 Peter 5:1-4. In verse 5, Peter addresses the rest of the church. First, who are they? Peter identifies us as “you who are younger.” This is not a subset of Christians under a certain age. Rather, “you who are younger” are those who are not “elders,” another age-related term denoting their spiritual maturity, wisdom and experience. Peter is now addressing the flock, those who are not shepherds but the sheep, not leaders but the led.

Second, what are they to do? Peter gives a clear command: “be subject to the elders.” That is, recognize their position of authority in the church, listen to their wisdom and submit to their instruction. This is the order God wants to see in a local congregation. Just as the elders have a responsibility to lead the church, the church has a responsibility to follow the leadership of the elders. The only way we can do this properly is if we have the right attitude, which is what Peter addresses next.

Third, how are they to do it? Peter’s second command informs how we follow the first command: we submit to the elders by “cloth[ing] [ourselves]… with humility toward one another.” Submission requires humility. We need to humble ourselves enough to allow someone else to exercise authority over us. This is difficult when the people we are in subjection to are not perfect and we don’t always agree with them. If we think we are best equipped to lead (the attitude of pride), this discontent can easily lead to rebellion and the upheaval of God’s ordained order. Within the context of the local church, when the elders make a decision that we may not like or personally agree with, humility requires us to realize a few things:

1. Elders usually have more wisdom than we do — Pride assumes we know more. Humility assumes they known more. Elders usually have more information on a given issue or situation. Having more information on an issue gives them a better perspective to make the best decision. Therefore, when elders make a decision, our initial reaction should not be to question their authority or write it off. Rather, we should trust that they probably know more than we do and assume they have prayed, studied and thought soberly about the issue. God says age and experience count in life. Elders are in the position they are in because they have proven themselves to be mature Christians (Heb. 13:7). Prideful fools refuse to listen to advice while the humble are eager to listen to the advice (Prov. 1:7; 10:8; 12:15). Therefore, when the elders make a decision or come to us with a concern, we should listen to them and trust their judgment.
2. Elders always have our best interest at heart — Elders want Christians to succeed in their faith. The burden of their calling is our spiritual wellbeing (Heb. 13:17). How we respond to them can make their job easier or harder, the difference between joy and sorrow. Pride assumes the worst in them and questions their intentions. Humility takes the posture of goodwill and realizes they always act in our best interest even when they admonish and correct us (1 Thess. 5:12-13). Pride refuses to listen to rebuke, but humility shows deference to the wise by listening to their instruction (Prov. 15:5; 17:10).
3. Elders sometimes lose their way — Is it possible that an elder or an eldership may be in error and in need of correction? Sure, no one is above the law, especially those who are in positions of authority. However, as is always the case, bringing a charge against another is extremely serious. Therefore, if it must be done, it must be done properly. Paul gives stipulations for this in 1 Timothy 5:19-21. Multiple witnesses are needed to verify the charge to ensure that the charge is legitimate and that the error is egregious enough to be reprimanded. In contrast to a society that accuses and slanders with abandon the church is deeply concerned with both justice and mercy. So while we have instructions on how to deal with leaders who have abused their position, Paul’s emphasis is in forbidding us from making baseless accusations against those in positions of authority. Pride looks for flaws and is quick to rebuke, whereas humility shows the utmost caution and grace in situations like this.

So, Christians are to practice Christ-like submission to the elders with a heart of humility. But why are they to do it? Peter explains with a quotation: “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” Peter grounds his instruction to church in the justice of God. If any of us (elders included) exhibit an attitude of pride and selfishness, we line up against God and should expect judgment. Therefore, the rule for everyone is to be humble. We’re all serving the Lord as forgiven sinners. So let us show the same patience and grace for each other that God has shown to us in Christ Jesus.

When shepherds practice Christ-like leadership by serving sacrificially and leading by example, and when members practice Christ-like submission by humbly following their lead, God will not only be glorified but he will bless the church with growth. At Dulles, we thank God for our shepherds, Tip and Craig. There is no denying their spiritual maturity, wisdom and love for God and the church. Let each member consider how they can make their burden of leadership a joy and not a hardship. Let us also consider how we are growing to become leaders ourselves.

1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.

1 Peter 5:1-4

How do we know what God wants a local church to look like? There is no church manual, per se, in the New Testament. Rather, the book of Acts records the spread of the gospel and the founding and development of local churches throughout the Roman Empire. We decipher God’s design by reading Acts and the Epistles written to such churches with an eye for certain characteristics. For example, Paul’s introduction to the Philippian church addresses “all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons” (Phil. 1:1). This text offers us insight into the makeup of a local church; it should consist of saints, overseers and deacons. We can cross-reference each one of these terms to learn more about them.

• “Saint” is a common term for God’s people, sanctified in Christ (1 Cor. 1:2). Far from being an exclusive term reserved only for some, “saint” applies to every person who is in Christ and set apart from the world for service unto God.
• “Overseer” is a term for the leaders of a local church who supervise its operation. Paul calls it an “office” within a church for which one must be qualified (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). The term is used synonymously with “elder,” a term descriptive not only of an overseer’s age but also of his wisdom and faith, and “shepherd” (from which the Latin ‘pastor’ is derived), one who guides, feeds and protects the flock of God’s people (Acts 20:17-35; 1 Pet. 5:1-5). Each one of these terms describes the same group of men but highlights a different aspect of their role as leaders.
• “Deacons,” when used in this context, are special servants within the church who minister to various needs (Acts 6:1-6). They too must be qualified (1 Tim. 3:8-13).

Taken together, these passages illustrate just how vital it is that every local church be organized with elders and deacons. Note that shortly after preaching the gospel to those in Galatia, Paul returned through the region and “appointed elders for them in every church” (Acts 14:23). Clearly God desires elders for “every church.”

Let’s consider the text of 1 Peter 5:1-5 to learn more about elders. Peter modestly addressed the elders as a “fellow elder” himself (1). Though he was an apostle, he also understood the work and challenges of being an elder from experience and could teach them sympathetically (Jn. 21:15-19). Also note that elders are to tend the flock “among” them (2). That is, elders are only to exercise authority over the church for which they were appointed to serve and not another—this nixes the practice of elders every overseeing multiple congregations at once. Whenever elders/overseers/shepherds are addressed in the New Testament, it is always in the plural, never the singular—this forbids there ever being a single leader or ‘head pastor’ of a congregation. And finally, in no way are elders to have any sense of possession over the church; the flock is not theirs but emphatically “the flock of God” (Acts 20:28).

Next, Peter tells them what they are to do (“shepherd the flock… exercise oversight”) and describes how they are to do it. He does this with both negative and positive language mainly focusing on their motives to warn them of the dangers of abusing their position. Jesus does much the same thing when he explains how leadership works in his kingdom—he focuses not on the exercise of their authority but the humility and restraint they are to show as leaders (Mt. 20:25-28). Elders are to lead:

• Not under compulsion, but willingly — There is a major difference between an elder who serves only because he has to (out of a sense of obligation or external pressure), and an elder who wants to because he understands how crucial the work is that he has been called to do. This doesn’t mean elders are always thrilled with the prospect of serving or that they ought to have some personal ambition to be a leader—this attitude would betray a real naiveté about the work. Rather, to be a Christ-like leader requires a sober willingness to do the work. No one should serve as an elder out of compulsion or be guilted into it against their will.
• Not for greedy gain, but eagerly — “Gain” probably refers to financial gain (1 Tim. 5:17-18). Elders can and should be financially supported by the church. Sometimes, out of necessity (as is the case at Dulles), elders serve without being paid. But Peter’s warning about “gain” extends beyond receiving money to include any selfish motive. Instead of serving only to promote himself or to profit in some way, he should serve “eagerly.” This is the opposite of self-promotion—he is to serve with the express intent of benefiting others. He is “eager” to jump in and help take care of others. He is “eager” to put the needs of the flock ahead of his own. This is the kind of Christ-like self-sacrifice that should motivate elders to lead.
• Not domineering, but as examples — This has to do with the style of leadership. Peter warns elders against abusing their position by leading in an overbearing, bossy way. Elders often face very difficult situations, obstinate attitudes, pushback or reluctance from members. The temptation is to respond to those challenges in a domineering way, to wield their authority and “lord it over them” (Mt. 20:25-28). Elders who resort to making threats to get members in line are “domineering.” Rather elders are to lead like shepherds, going on ahead of the flock. They must earn the respect of the flock before the flock will be willing to follow them.

Finally, Peter holds out the reward for elders who lead well: “when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.” (4) This is not a physical crown but the glory of being approved by God (Mt. 25:1). Part of the glory and joy of an elder’s job well done will be seeing all the Christians they have helped over the years in heaven with them. Next time, we will look at how Peter addresses the flock in v.5.

“13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 16:13-19

At a pivotal moment in his ministry, Jesus asked his disciples who they thought he was. The popular opinion of Jesus was positive but fell short of the mark. But what did Jesus’ closest followers think of him? Peter, speaking for the group as usual, boldly confesses, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (16).

The confession (16-17) — They knew he was much more than a mere prophet. He was the long awaited “Christ,” the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew “Messiah,” which means ‘anointed one.’ God anointed prophets, priests and kings to mark them out for special service to him, but he promised the Anointed One, par excellence, in places like Psalm 2:2 and Isaiah 61:1. This Supreme Anointed One was also “the son of God,” which could also be used to refer to the Lord’s ‘anointed’ king from the line of David (2 Sam. 7:14; Psa. 2:7; 89:27). Not only this, Peter confesses he was the son of the “living God,” distinguished Israel’s God from the myriad ‘dead’ gods of the pagans surrounding them at the various shrines and temples of Caesarea Philippi (1 Sam. 17:26; Psa. 42:2; Jer. 10:1).

Peter’s confession was bold, clear and full of conviction. He may not have understood all the implications of his confession yet but he was “blessed” because he came to this conclusion not by mere human insight but by means of divine revelation. Jesus says that his Father in heaven “revealed” it him. That is, Peter saw that the Father was bearing witness about Jesus (Jn. 5:30-47) and he drew the correct conclusion, something many others either could not or would not see (for example, Mt. 16:1-4).

The construction (18a) — When Jesus first met Peter, he changed his name (Jn. 1:41-42), something God did for key people at key moments in his redemptive plan (see Gen. 17:5, 15; 32:28). When God does this he is not just making a prediction of that person’s future but declaring what he can make of such a person. Here, Jesus changes his name from “Simon” (a Hebrew name derived from the verb “to hear”) to “Peter” (a Greek name which means “rock”), anticipating his future as a man of great strength and leadership in the church (see Acts 1-10). Jesus also promises to build his “church,” a word meaning an ‘assembly’ or ‘congregation’ of people.

The confusion (18a) — Upon what “rock” does Jesus promised to build his church? He makes a wordplay on Peter’s name. Semantically, “Peter” sounds similar to “rock” in Greek but they are two distinct words with slightly different meanings. “Peter” (petros) is masculine and is used to describe small stones or pebbles, whereas “rock” (petra) is feminine and is used to describe large, solid rocks. Therefore the foundation of Christ’s church can’t be “Peter” the apostle for then Jesus would have said, “You are petros and on you I will build my church.” Moreover, when the word “rock” was used figuratively in the Old Testament, it was never used of man but always of God (Psa. 18:2). When Peter later wrote about the church, he pictured it being built upon the cornerstone of Jesus, not himself (Acts 4:8-12; 1 Pet. 2:4-8). Paul does the same in his writing, naming Jesus as the church’s one foundation (1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 2:20). Therefore, the “rock” upon which Christ’s church is built is not Peter himself, as the Roman Catholic Church purports, but rather the confession Peter made about Jesus. Only Jesus can provide a solid enough foundation for his people (Mt. 7:24-27).

The continuation (18b-19) — Jesus also promises that no power can conquer his church or stop him from building it. The “gates of Hades” is a Greek idiom meaning death, akin to the Old Testament ‘Sheol.’ The Hadean realm was thought to be inescapable, but after Jesus defeated death in his resurrection he promises to liberate the dead who have turned to him in faith (Rev. 1:18; 1 Cor. 15:54-57; see Acts 2:24ff). Not only is the kingdom indestructible, it is also accessible. Jesus promises to give Peter the “keys of the kingdom,” that is, the authority to open its metaphorical gates to welcome people into it. This is precisely what Peter did in the book of Acts. Peter preached to many people, turning their hearts to Jesus. But there are two occasions which stand out: first, he is pictured as the lead voice on the day of Pentecost that initially preached the gospel and those first three thousand were saved (Acts 2); second, years later, the Lord chose Peter to be the first to preach to Gentiles, and Cornelius and his family were welcomed into the kingdom (Acts 10). Thus, Peter was the ‘key’ figure who escorted the lost into the early church to be saved.

Jesus also promised that “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Binding and loosing is more authoritative language. This means that Peter had the right to teach and enforce the truth for those in the kingdom (Acts 8:14-24). This authority was not exclusive to him but extended to the other apostles as well (Mt. 18:18; cf. Jn. 20:23). However, the authority to “bind” and “loose” does not extend beyond the apostles. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit and specially commissioned by Jesus to be leaders. Leaders in the church today are also delegated authority to govern the church, but in a much more limited way than the apostles. “Elders” or “shepherds” (Acts 20; 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1) are always subject to Jesus’ ultimate authority (1 Pet. 5:1-5) and can govern only through the proper application of God’s word (Acts 20:28, 32).

This passage teaches us many things about Jesus, Peter and the apostles. There are some wonderful promises and some much needed clarity about the church as well, especially amid the bewildering array of denominations on offer today. Let us do our best to ensure we are truly thinking, speaking and acting like the Lord’s church.

3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. 5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

1 Timothy 1:3-7

All was not well in Ephesus. Despite Paul’s warnings to the Ephesian elders years before (Acts 20:17-38), false teaching and disorder now plagued the church. A group of men were teaching myths based on speculations surrounding Old Testament texts (4). These men made “confident assertions” but were “without understanding” (7). Their claims were baseless and their teaching dangerous. It resulted in “vain discussions” (6) and “speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith” (4). The apostle entrusted his young protégé, Timothy, with the difficult task of silencing these teachers and stabilizing the church.

Paul gives the purpose for his command in verse 5: “The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.” The teaching of Paul’s opponents resulted in meaningless speculation. The goal of Paul’s “charge” that they stop their harmful teaching is “love.” Love is the greatest commandment (Mt. 22:34-40; Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14), and because “love rejoices with the truth” (1 Cor. 13:6), Paul cannot stand idly by while error is being taught to the detriment of the Ephesian church.

The heresy being taught at Ephesus, like those being taught at Corinth, was due to an absence of love. There may be an implicit warning for Timothy here as well. While correcting these men, he must remember to do so in an attitude of love lest he fall into the same trap (4:16; cf. 2 Tim. 2:23-26). Timothy must set an example of love before the congregation (4:12) and pursue love in all things (6:11). Let’s turn our attention to Paul’s threefold description of the sources of love. The reigning theme of all three is sincerity. For love to be love it must issue from “a pure heart, a clean conscience and a sincere faith.”

Love comes from a heart cleansed of sin — Whereas the opponents’ minds were “depraved” (6:5), Timothy must love from “a pure heart.” The false teachers were insincere “liars” (4:2), “deprived of the truth” (6:5) because they “persist in sin” (5:20). Timothy must live as one whose heart has been cleansed of sin. The concept of “purity” reminds us of Old Testament rituals of cleansing that made one fit for God’s service. David prayed that God would forgive his sin and create a “clean heart” within him (Psa. 51:10). For Timothy to be effective in his teaching, he must protect his heart from moral pollution.

Love comes from a conscience free from guilt — Whereas the opponents’ consciences were “seared” (4:2), Timothy must love from a “good conscience.” All humans possess a conscience (Rom. 2:13-14), that innate and universal knowledge that condemns wrong and commends right. It is our inner moral compass. However, if we disobey our conscience long enough, it can become “seared” (4:2). That is, through persistent sin, our conscience can become so burnt and desensitized that we can no longer distinguish between right from wrong. There may be a progression at work in those who “reject” (1:19), “sear” (4:2) and “defile” (Titus 1:15) their own consciences. When we ignore the truth of God’s word (“reject”), it has the effect of hardening our conscience (“sear”) until it becomes totally “defiled.” Therefore, Timothy must protect his conscience from guilt by living in such a way so as never to violate it (Rom. 14:20-23).

It should be noted that the conscience is not the ultimate judge of right and wrong. It serves only as a guide (1 Cor. 4:4) and can be either misinformed, as was Paul’s (Acts 26:9), or seared, as was those in Ephesus (1 Tim. 4:2).

Love comes from a faith devoid of hypocrisy — Whereas the opponents’ faith was corrupt (2 Tim. 3:8), Timothy must love from a “sincere faith.” Because the false teachers had destroyed their consciences, they made “shipwreck of their faith” (1:19). Paul lays bare their hypocrisy by pointing out that their true motive for teaching was making money (6:5, 10). Sometimes, Christians teach error but are sincere (like Apollos in Acts 18:24-28). They show their sincerity by taking correction humbly. However, those mentioned here are knowingly and deceptively teaching the church what is wrong. Usually we deceive others only after we have successfully deceived ourselves (2 Tim. 3:13). To counter this, Timothy must maintain a trust in God that is “sincere” (literally, ‘without hypocrisy’). He must be honest with himself and with God, as David was in Psalm 139:23-24: “Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting!”

These verses (1 Tim. 1:3-7) are sobering. They warn us that a church can go off the rails through poor leadership and speculative teaching. We may not all be evangelists like Timothy but we are all responsible for what kind of teaching and leadership we tolerate in the church. “If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.” (Mt. 15:14) To keep this from happening, we must continue to love “from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.”

¹ Then Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh-gilead, and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash, “Make a treaty with us, and we will serve you.” ² But Nahash the Ammonite said to them, “On this condition I will make a treaty with you, that I gouge out all your right eyes, and thus bring disgrace on all Israel.” ³ The elders of Jabesh said to him, “Give us seven days’ respite that we may send messengers through all the territory of Israel. Then, if there is no one to save us, we will give ourselves up to you.”

1 Samuel 11:1-3

Last week’s article explored the significance of the Hebrew word nachash, translated “serpent” in Genesis 3:1. Satan, appearing in serpentine form in the Garden, successfully deceived the first human couple, introducing sin and death into creation. But God promised to destroy evil at its source. The seed of woman would come to crush the serpent’s head, while the serpent would strike his heel in a mutual destruction (Gen. 3:15). As Christians, we know Jesus fulfills this promise at the cross, but ancient Israelites reading Genesis would be left wondering about the identity of the snake crusher.

Fast forward to Israel’s nascent kingdom with Saul as its king. The previous chapter ended with naysayers badmouthing him, “How can this man save us?” (1 Sam. 10:27) Chapter 11 provides the answer: Saul can save them by the power of God’s Spirit. A theme emerges when we see words related to “save/salvation” three times (3, 9, 13).

And against whom does Saul make his military debut? An Ammonite king whose name, “Nahash,” is the very same Hebrew word for “serpent” back in Genesis 3:1. Notice the words and actions of this snake king. He besieges Jabesh Gilead, a fortified town about twenty miles south of the Sea of Galilee near the banks of the Jordan. Nahash may have already been on a rampage conquering the Transjordan tribes. One of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Q4Sama) includes additional material before 1 Samuel 11:1:

“Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were 7,000 men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh Gilead. About a month later, Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh Gilead.”

This may explain the eagerness of Jabesh Gilead to make peace with Nahash (1). The conditions were clear. He would spare them but only if they gouged out their right eyes. This would render them unfit for military service, putting them forever in a position of subservience (the left eye would normally be covered up by the shield in battle leaving the right eye to sight the enemy; you can’t fight what you can’t see). But Nahash didn’t just want to cripple Jabesh Gilead’s soldiers. He wanted to heap “disgrace on all Israel” (2). His goal was not just dominance but humiliation. Add to this the pride of Nahash who, apparently, was so sure of himself that he allowed the elders’ request in verse 3 for a weeklong reprieve to look for a savior.

When the report of this comes to Gibeah “all the people wept loudly” (4). Saul comes in from the field and gets the news (5) and “the Spirit of God rushed upon Saul” (6). He dices up a pair of oxen, sends out the bloody parts to rile the troops (7), gathers his army (8), promises deliverance to Jabesh Gilead (9-10), splits his forces into three groups and crushes the snake king (11).

Did you hear the echoes of the book of Judges throughout the text? Notice the Spirit of God “rushing” upon Saul, just as he had Samson (6; also 10:6, 10). True, the Spirit equipped other judges (e.g. Jdg. 3:10; 6:34; 11:29) but the verb “rush” was only used in connection with Samson (Jdg. 14:6, 19; 15:14). Saul’s division of his troops into groups of three (11) reminds us of Gideon (Jdg. 7:16). His hacking up the oxen (7) reminds us of the slaughter of the concubine in Gibeah (Jdg. 19:27), but instead of dividing Israel and igniting a civil war, Saul’s actions unite Israel and result in victory over their enemy. Saul is the “savior” (3) that Israel needed at the time, a word used of several Judges (Jdg. 3:9, 15). The point is, God’s Spirit took hold of this shy farmer and turned him into a super-judge to save his people.

Sadly, though Nahash resembles the serpent from the Garden, Saul was not the promised snake crusher of Genesis 3:15. His victory over Nahash was decisive but later Saul would fall prey to “that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world.” (Rev. 12:9) Saul turned out to be a rebellious king that God would replace with a “man after his own heart” (13:14), a humble shepherd from Bethlehem. David served the Lord with great faith but he also fell prey to the ancient serpent. Another war with the Ammonites broke out but David, instead of defending his people against the enemy, took Bathsheba and murdered one his mighty men (2 Sam. 11).

It was not until the coming of Jesus, born of woman (Gal. 4:4) and descended from David (Rom. 1:3), that the crushing blow was delivered to the serpent’s head. Today, Christ’s people also participate and share in his victory over the serpent (Rom. 16:20). All praise to the snake crusher, King Jesus!