You are on page 1of 10

Introduction , chapters in Genesis are mythical, '

Ute messianic interpretation of , stoties meant to explain


Genesis 3:15 is very old, Though the ,origins of man and his
Irenaeus is the first known author predicament in the world
of the Chrtstian era to make an The above approaches to
explicit connection between the Genesis 3:15 must be rejected;
seed promise and Jesus Christ, they are evidence ofa "wooden
both the Septuagint and the head and a cold hean. ". They
Jewish targums (Ps,:!., Neofta Frg.) proceed from unbelieving
view the passage messianically.' ptinciples of biblical criticism and
This position has been largely interpretation which are not
abandone<;l. by commentators and derived from Scrtpture but from .
theologians who embrace higher insupponable worldviews, which
crttical principles of biblical if followed,would destroy not
interpretation. In his only Chrtstianity, but also the
commentary, von Rad
adopts what has become an
accepted maxim, that ihe
passage is anaetiological
explanation of man's natural
animosity toward snakes,
He later affirms that the
passage serves the larger
purpose of explaining man's
hopeless struggle against eviF He foundations of rationality and
denies any messianic sense.
3
predication. The qUestion
Eissfeldt similarly views the remains: is Genesis 3: 15
passage as an "aetiological animal messianic, and if so, in what sense
saga:' and he later adds that the and to,what degree? Does it set
verse is a good example of a "lay fonh the ultimate triumph of the
saying" which teaches that a good church through the victory ,
deed is repaid with a blessing and obtained by one ultimate seed of .
an evil one with a curse.' the woman, Jesus Chrtst? The
Brueggeman.takes an existential brief answer must be that the
approach to the text and writes ancient people of God saw in the
that "it is rather a story about the statement the promise of a Savior
struggle God has in responding to upon whom they believed in
the facts of human life. When the order to obtain life and
facts warrant death, God insists on salvation.'o From Genesis 4: I, we
life for his creatures. " , WifaU , learn thai Eve initially interpreted
summarizes these .two leading, Cain's binh li$ the fulfilhnent of
modem approaches when he the promise and viewed c:mn as
writes that "Genesis 3:15 must be the promised deliverer." At the
'demythologized'as an expression same time, it is the conviction of
of man's existential predicament the writer that Genesis 3:15 does
in this world, or can be viewed as not contain a fully developed view
an aetiologtcal myth which of the Messiah's person and work.
attempts to explain thenamral While redemptive'in sCope, the
hostility between mankind and reference to the Messiah is obscure
the serpent,"7 Either way, the and will reqUire subsequent
events recorded in these early revelation and historical
.. THE COUNSEL of Chakedon August/September, 1998
development for clarification and
specificity, Yet at this dark point '
in history,' God intervenes and ,
promises salvation to fallen man.
Satan will not triumph over God.
His doom is certain. The church,
the godly line of the woman, will
be victorious in history.
Moreover, as the seed promise
approaches realization, it becomes
increasingly clear that the One
who will achieve victory over
Satan in history is one ultimate
seed of the woman, a leading
representative of her line, Jesus of
Nazareth.
A Brief Overview oj the
. Scope oj this Paper
The church's
conviction that Genesis
3:15 is the protoevangelium,
first annunciation of
the good news of salvation
in Ch.rist, is correct, in my
estimation" provided we do not
read more into the text than is
warranted by
ltistorical-grammatical exegesisot
close our minds agafust light
afforded to us through subsequent
revelation. In an effort to
determine in what sense Genesis
3: 15 is mesSianic, the verse will be
analyzed exegetically with primary
emph.asis upon the context and
the three key words in the
passage: zera (seed), hu' (he),
shuph (bruise). I will conclude the
paper by considertng possible ...
allusions to Genesis 3: 15 in
subsequent revelation with a
consideration of its probable
instances in New Testament
literature.
An Exegetical Analysis oj
Genesis 3:15
A Context oj CurSing
. Before we descend to the
particulars of the verse, it is
important to note that its context
is the pronouncement of God's
curse upon Satan.1' The devil in
the form of a snake is cursed
above all the beasts of the field,
and his destiny is one of perpetual
degradation and defeat (v. 14).
His defeat is cenain for Almighty
God takes the initiative and
performs for man what he cannot
do for himself; he creates hostility
between the serpent and his seed
and the woman and hers." God
will not, in other words, allow sin
and Satan to hold sway over fallen
man. They will be restrained,
fought against, and eventually
defeated. This hostility will
produce incredible antagonism
between good and evil, the
righteous and the rebellious.
"HOStility," therefore, is the
leading thought in v. 15. It is a
strong expression sigrtifying "the
hatred with which a hostile act is
perpetrated. "1< ' The imperfect
verb implies repeated attacks and
aggression between the two
parties." "God wants man to
continue in undying opposition to
this evil one and He arouses the
enmity himself. "16 If this divinely
imposed antagonism were the
only reason why this passage has
been historically designated as the
protoevangelium, it would be
suffident, Almighty God has by
sovereign grace intervened to
produce within redeemed man a
deep-seated hostility toward sin
and Satan. Herein tests the
promise of Satan's eventual defeat
and man's gradous deliverance
from the dominion of sin." As
Boice wrote, "God makes sin
miserable and sets up an
antagonism between ourselves
and Satan which modifies the
hold of sin and makes it possible
for us to hear God's.loving voice,
even in OUT misery."
18
The context of cursing is
essential to a proper
understanding of verse 15. God is
not here promising a draw, as if
history will proceed interminably,
with Satan biting and being bitten,
but neither party gaining the
upper hand. As Wenham has
written in his recent commentary,
"On the other hand, it must be
remembered that this is a curse on
the serpent, and something less
than a draw would be expected."l9
Woudstra is incorrect, therefore,
when he suggests that God is
declaring "a condition which
would prevail from the beginning
of history to its very end."'o On
the contrary, it is Satan's defeat in
history by the godly line of the
woman and its ultimate
representative which is clearly
indicated by the hostility
introduced at the outset of verse
15. The curse on the serpent is a .
promise of victory for redeemed
humanity.2l It is not a curse upon
Satan if he is allowed to harass
men continually throughout the
course of human history without
ever being defeated in his
purposes. The curse is that God
will frustrate Satan's attempts by
causing men, whom Satan
purposed to turn against God, to
hate him, and actively campaign
through grace for his defeat and
subjugation. This hostility will
continlie unril Satan is defeated
and the seed of the woman
victorious.
The Two Seeds
Whether or not we adopt a
direct messianic reference to the
woman's seed, it is not difficult to
conceive how "seed" can be used
with reference to woman:
offspring, descendants, children.
It is true that the use of zera with
a feminine possessive pronoun is
rare in the Old Testament, but if
some of the early Christian writers
would have noticed its presence
(e.g., Genesis 16: 10; 24:60), they
may have avoided the error of
seeing in "her seed" a reference to
the Virgin Birth of Christ.
22
. Lewis
correctly observes that "to say that
the passage is messianic does not
necessarily imply that it is
virgin-birth messianic."" We
must not ignore the fact, however,
that man's victory over Satan will
be achieved through the
instrumentality of a woman, i.e.,
one born of her. Chilton observes
that this is a theme which is
illustrated throughout Scripture
and reaches its climax in the
imagery of Revelation 12."
The "seed" of the serpent
presents other difficulties,
however, and one's view of the
serpent will largely determine how
"seed" is interpreted. It should be
noted that zera is used very rarely
with reference to the offspnng of
animals. B.D.B. lists only two
possibilities: here and Genesis 7:3.
There it is said that Noah took the
animals Into the ark to keep their
zera alive. While this is generally
translated offspring, it might be
better rendered "kind." For
properly speaking, the animals
were not taken into the ark to
keep their "offspling" alive, for
these were not yet born. Rather, it
was to perpetuate the species
du1ing the period of time in
which the earth was inundated
with flood waters. It is
inappropriate, therefore, to appeal
to Gen. 7:3 to prove that zem can
occasionally be used of the
offspring of animals.25 If that is
the author'S jntended meaning,
this would be the only instance of
it in the entire Old Testament.
Etymologically, in my opinion, we
are led away from the view that
"your seed" means the whole line
of snakes, and in this connection,
August/September, 1998 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 5
the ;ietiological interpretation of
Genesis 3:15 is proven untenable.
We are, moreover, unavoidably :
faced with a demonic force behind
the speaking serpent. The
serpent's approach, actions,
words, and goals all demonstrate
the presence of a definite personal
being who is hostile toward the
authority ofjehovah and desires
to cause the woman w doubt and
disobey God's command.'8God's
response to the serpent verifies
that this is a 'rational; terribly evil
being with whom we are
confronted. The New Testament
abundantly confirms this
interpretation.
21
Satan deceived
Eve and is the snake or serpent
who was present in the Garden.'"
How then should we take the
"seed" of Satan? Do demons have
offspring? The Scriptures
nowhere countenances such a
hypothesis. Thus, with reference
w Satan, zera must have a
non-literal reference.
2
Further
consultation with B.D.B reveals
another use ofzera which is
highly appropriate in this context:
persons or a community marked
by a certain moral q1Ilility: ;We are
confronted, therefore, with Satan
as thehead of a cominuitity or
line of evildoers, who will engage
in constant hostility against the
woman and her seed.
3
To
simplify, we might say that "your
seed" refers to all those evil men
who db not fearGdd, do not
embrace his promise of
deliverance from sin, and refuse to
surrenderthemselves to him in
love, worship, ,and
In "her seed," a direct and
exclusive reference to Jesus Christ
isgramIl,\aticaily inappropriate.
3l
"Commencing with Gen. 3:15,
word 'seed' is regularly used as a
collective noun in the singular."32
Since these two seeds are placed
antithetically, if one is to be taken
asa collective, the other should be
as welU
3
Another f\lcwr
mitigating against an exclusive
reference to a personal Messiah is
the fact that in the majority of
cases where zera refers to a
specific child, it is to an
immediate offspring rather to
a distant relative.3+ Moreover, as,
Young has pointed out, a clear..cut
representation of the Messiah at
this earliest point in redemptive
history would be somewhat
strange." both these
seeds should at this point be taken
in the collective sense of lines or
communities of followers which
are represented by eve and
More specifically, these
two lines are hostile factions, the
one redeemed by God to hate the
serpent and war against his
wicked followers, and the other in ,
league with the devil who exist to
do his bidding and persecute the
godly line, of the woman. God is
promising that the hostility
will continue unabated until
victory ,is won by the wom;in and
her descendants.
37
We might say
that human history from the ;
Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:15) to
its termination is intended by God
to, be the unfolding of the total
warfare between these two lines.
This interpretation is well
supponed by the developing
theme of Genesis.' As the book
progresses. ,there is a focusing in
on the seed of the woman, the
godly line of Eve, as that family
through whom the promised
salvation would extend to an the
families of the earth. This line
culminates in chapter 12 in me
seed of Abraham, and it is with
his family th<J,t Moses is '
exclusively concerned.in the
Pentateuch after the toledoth of
6 :{; TIlE COUNSEL Qf Chalcedon AugustlSeptember, 1998
Esau in 36.
the old covenant period, the seed
promise, covenant of grace, is
largely confined to the children of
Israel. Accordingly, the rem<linder
of Old Testamen1 revelation is '
occupied primarily with that one
godly line through whom the
Messiah is to be born, the seed of
the woman, the Jewish people.
That seed or line increasingly
combats the ungodly line of Satan,
the world in rebellion against God
,and his moral order.
Does this interpretation of the
seed oCthe woman wholly exclude
a reference to the Messiah? Apan
from the additional light that the
latter half of verse 15 will shed on
the promise, we mnst not forget
that Jesus Christ 'is everywhere in
Scripture pomayed as the seed of
promise par excellence, the one
ultimate member of the godly line
of the woman who has dealt Satan
a death, blow. In other words,
subsequent revelation when
interpreted according to
historical-grammatical methods of
exegesis provides us with a clear
understan<jing of who this '
ultimate seed is. As long as we ; ,
;:tdoptthat interpretative
approach, I am not opposed to
LaSor'sutilization of this passage
as ,art example of a sensus plenlor:
"I do find 'the fullness of the
meaning in some
as-yet-unspecified member of the
human race who would destroy
the Satanic serpent, thus playing a
key role in God's redemptive plan,
In that sense, the passage is
indeed the first enundation 0 f the
good news. 39 While the teXt
before us does not have more than
one meaning, the fullness of its
singular meaning must await
additional revelation from God for
its total saving significance to be
apprehended. I would certainly
prefer, however, in order to avoid
some of the subjectivism which
often accompanies the sensus
plenior approach to Scrtptural
interpretation, to view the one
meaning of the text in a typical
fashion. The unfolding of histolY
and revelation will reveal the
identity of the seed of the woman
who will crush Satan's head and
thereby give specificity to the
promise.
The ReJerent oj the Pronoun
We must not stop our
investigations here, however, for
the Hebrew pronoun increases
our understanding of how this
great battle will play out upon the
field of human history. Hu' (it or
he) is a masculine singular
independent personal pronoun
and refers back to seed, a
masculine noun. Por this reason,
many translate it he. The ASV and
RSV are two notable examples.
The LXX translators also adopted
a masculine reading of the
pronoun. Their decision is
remarkable since the Greek word
for seed, spenna, is a neuter noun,
and the translators could (should)
have followed it with the available
neuter form of the pronoun. They
did not, however, and chose the
masculine autos instead Manin
notes that in the 103 instances of
hu'in Genesis, 3: 5 is the only
instance in which the LXX
translators have done violence to
the agreement between the
pronoun and its antecedent."
This is far more than a
coincidence. As Kaiser has
commented, "What is more
imponant, in other insl<lnces
where the same type of choice
between literalness and agreement
of the antecedent and its pronoun
occurred in GeneSiS, the translator
declined the opponunity to
translate literally."" This makes
the LXX translation an important
histortcal pointer to the jewish
conception of GeneSis 3: 15 in the
third and second century B.C. It
is "evidence of the intensification
of messianic expectations among
the jews in the centuries
immediately preceding the birth
ofJesus .... ,
There is another potential
interpretive option available to us.
Since hu' refers back to z e r ~ and
we have already demonstrated
that the latter should be taken in a
collective sense, it can also be
defended as a potential translation
of the pronoun." We must
remember that whereas English
employs the natural gender,
Hebrew employs a grammatical
gender agreeing with its masculine
antecedent zeTa. Accordingly, the
Kingjames and Dutch New
Version retain it. It goes without
saying that the Vulgate's
employment of she is
grammaticaUy and contextually
out of the question. It indicates a
precommitment to find here a
reference to the Virgin Mary.
In my opinion, whether one
adopts the masculine (he) or
neuter (it) reading for hu', he is
unaVOidably faced with the reality
that Moses significantly narrows
down the scope ofthe battle to
two singular combatants or
representatives of the two lines .....
As Woudstra has written,
"something of the personal next to
the collective does playa role in
this passage."" It is true that this
comes across clearer with a
masculine reading but a broadly
messianic interpretation is
unimpaired either way. Even as
the ungodly line finds itself
represented by one leader, Satan,
so the godly line will be
represented by the same, an
unidentified, Singular leader. The
case for a singular unity amid the
plurality of the two lines is gre;:ltly
strengthened by Moses' use of the
masculine singular suffix, shal\
bruise him. As mentioned earlier,
Eve certainly expected deliverance
to come from a singular deliverer,
and in all likelihood, mistakenly
viewed Cain as the seed of
promise. A compartson of
Genesis 4: 1 and 4:2 reveals the
presence of a double accusative of
identity in both instances. Eve
thought the man she had .
delivered was "Jehovah," probably
the seed of promise, an amazing
display of this godly woman's
faith. For these reasons, it is a
most unlikely translation of the
pronoun in question. He is
consistent with the grammar of
the passage, the hope of the early
church, and the conviction of the
LXX translators. It is also
vindicated by the subsequent
revelation ofthis Deliverer in the
person of the Lord Jesus Chrtst.
The hostility set in place by
God will reach fever pitch in the
total battle in which these two will
engage at some point in the
future. Whoever this individli:H
was, and it is here I believe that
the faith of the godly in those
earliest days of human existence
began to attach itself to the idea of
a deliverer or messiah from sin
and Satan, he is the center of the
circle of the collective, ... the
"individualization of the human
race. "47 While the collective seed
may not be flexible enough to
include both an entire line of
descendants and one distant
representative:" when combined
with the pronoun, Moses certainly
gives concentric circles of
meaning.' The battle will rage.
throughout the entire lines
represented by the two seeds, and
it will culminate in a terrible
August/September, 1998 TIlE COUNSEL of ChaIcedon 'I' 7
conflict between the two leaders
of the two lines. I fitinly agree
with DeIit:<Sch when he WIOle that
"the seed of the woman would "
also be concentrated and
culminate in the unity of a person,
one in whom the antagonism
would be eithallced to its extreme
tension, the shffering encountered
in the conflict with the tempter
increased to the uttermost, and his
overthrow completed by utter
deprivation of power. 5.
We remain a long way at this
point from naming who this
person Will be. It is only revealed
here that out of the collective line
or seed of the woman; an
individual Will appear in whom
the hostilities with Satan and the
ungodly line will reach a climax
resolution . . As Hengstenberg
wrote, "But still the future
triumph ofthe ktngddm oflight
over the ktngdom of darkness is
announced only in general forms.
The'persOn of the Redeemer, who
is the leader in the conflict, and
supplies his people with all their
strength to maintain it, is not here
revealed,"" This ambiguity is
consistent, of course, with the
early stages of redemptive history
at which we find ourselves in
3. The revelation given
was sufficient to create and
sust:a!n faith in. one wh0 would
deliver fallen man from the grips
of sin and Satan, yet it was .
obscure en!?ughto hold men in a
constant state' of .uncertainty with
regard to the time pfhis
appearance and. the exact manner
in which he would conquer the
serpent; L\lther summarizeS both
these aspect!; in his commentary
and adds an interesting spin on
the agitated state to which Saran
was consigned by the fonn 0 f the
promise.
The promise and threat (In this
text) are both clear and obscure.
It left the devil in the dark'about
what weiman should give binh to
the Seed of the Woman, so that he
had to think of every womah as
(possibly) becoming' the mother of
the blessed Seed (Christ). On the
other hand,it gave our first
parents so great faith that from
that very hour they expected the
SaViour.52
The Stgniftcance of the Verb
Though the translation of the ,
Hebrew verb shuph (bruise) is
. somewhat problematic the
diffiCult t!1'egetical work must be
done or else we willnot fully,
understand the nature of the curse
pronollnced by Jehovah Upon the
shake. The verb is used only
.other times in the OT, and that in
highly poetical passages: job 9;17
where it carries the'sense of "to .
crush" and Psalm 139:11 where
"to cover" or possibly "to crush"
seems to expresS the author's
intent, The tranSlation difficulty
lies in the fact that the same word
is used in both phrases of Genesis
3:15 to descnbe the actions of
both coIiIbatants. "What' though
is meant by 'bruising' or
'crushing?' That such would
'describe the action of a man with
a sttake is obvious but would it
equally describe the thrust ora
sttake's bite at a )llan'sheel?"1
3
It
was because of this perceived
difficulty that the Vulgate used
two differeilt verbs, contererf, "to
crush," to describe what the
woman's Seed would do the
serpent, and insidiarl, "to lie in
wait," for what the serpent would
do the woman's seed.
Various interpreiati ve options
are currently given. 'Wenham
suggests that "etymology makes
little difference to the
understanding of this passage."'"
8 f TIlE COUNSEl. of f August/September, 1998
The important thing about shuph
is that it implies "lifelong mutual
hostility between manktnd and
the serpent race."
55
BecaUSe the
context of the passage is God's
curse upon the serpent, he
believes that "something less than
a draw should be expected."
"Once admitted that the serpent
symbolizes sin, death, and the
power of evil, it becomes much
more likely that the curse
envisages a long struggle between
good and evil, with IIl@ktnd
eventually triumphing.:"
Hamilton, on the other hand, does
not see any resolution to the
hostilities offered in the text. He
insists that whatever meaning we'
attach to the verb, we must use it
in both instances. He opts fot .
"strike at" as the best translation.
It is describing the "reciprocal
moves of the woman's seed and
the serpent's seed against each
, other."" Wouldstra rejects the
, notion that we can opt for "crush"
'in the first instance and "bruise"
in the secpnd. If we interpret the
passage in these terms, then it
would that ChI\St h '
knocked out Satan at the cross, a
position he qmnot accept for
historical (eschatological) reasons,
I would suggest. He too prefers
the .notion of "strike at," for it
sustains the parallelism in the
passage and agrees with its
emphasis, which he insists is not
upon the victory gained in the
conflict "but on the, fact of the
conflict itself and on the way in
which this conflict was to express
itself as long as it lasted.""
Contrary to Wenham, I do
believe that etymology is helpful,
for it does at least point out the
general direction in which our
interpretation should proceed. I
am more than willing to adopt the
usual "crush" fonhe blow
directed against the serpent and
"bruise" or "strike at" with respect
to the blow given by the serpent.
"The Hebrew language is fond of
using a play on words and this is
obviously what we have here, with
the euphonious repetition of the
word 'crush:"" When used with
reference to a snake, the
somewhat flexible shuph should be
translated in a manner consistent
with that creature's capability to
inflict pain or destruction, i.e., to
strike out against with its fangs
and deliver its poison. This is
essentially what the translators
have done in Psalm 139: 11. How
does darkness "crush" a man?
The best answer is that it covers
or surrounds him, and this is how
the translators have rendered it.
This is the manner in which we
should proceed here. The
deliverer will shuph the serpent by
crushing his head; the serpent will
shuph the deliverer by striking at
his heel. Thus, Hamilton is guilty
of a forced exegesis when he
demands an exact parallelism of
the verb sense in this passage,'"
especially since the context allows
for and suggests a slight variation.
While "strike at" is not at all
inappropriate to describe Satan's
attack upon the seed of the
woman, Woudstra and Hamilton'S
insistence that this exact nuance
of the verb be adopted in both
instances is due more to their
misapprehension to the true scope
and promise of this passage rather
than to grammatical
considerations. The hostility God
is introducing is a curse upon
Satan which guarantees his defeat
in history by a coming individual
of promise. "Strike at" is
acceptable with respect to him
only if one views the subsequent
history of these two warring
factions as a continual striking at
one another, with neither side
being a clear winner until the very
end. This is an eschatological
outlook which I believe to be
incompatible with divine
revelation and utterly inconsistent
with the present context of
cursing.
Moreover, we should recognize
that the "same word is used in
connection with both the head
and the heel, to show that on both
sides the intention is to destroy
the opponent."" These two
combatants are engaged in mortal
combat, each seeking to overcome
and annihilate his opponent.
Though the intention of both is
the same, the outcome of the
conflict will prove disastrous to
Satan and his hordes. He will war
against God's people and deliver a
terrible blow to the seed of
promise. Yet in the process, he
will receive a mortal blow to the
head by the ultimate seed of the
woman. "What is meant is that
the seed of the woman will deliver
a capital blow, whereas the
serpent for his part will deliver a
lesser blow:'" Aalders suggests
this sense is indicated by the word
order of the sentence, with Satan's
strike being given a secondary
position to indicate "that the final
triumph would be on the part of
the seed of the woman while in
the process of gaining that victory
that seed of the woman would be
wounded by the serpent. ".3 This
is jehovah's curse upon him, one
which promises salvation and
victory for the people of God and
the defeat of Satan. As Leupold
wrote, "So in every positive way
the victory is guaranteed to the
seed of the woman. The struggle
is not to be interminable. It does
end in complete defeat of the
serpent. ....
Woudstra's objection to this
interpretation must be carefully
considered. He writes,
In this connection it can easily
be seen that if "crush" were to be
chosen for what would happen to
the head of the serpent and if this
crushing blow were to be linked
with Christ's victory over the devil
at the cross, then, in terms of this
passage at least, the enmity of
which it speaks could no longer
be exercised. One of the
combatants would have been
knocked out. Yet, as was noted, it
was this enmity and its mutual
expression in terms of the Hebrew
verb shuph that was made to stand
out in this passage.'
In response, it cannot be
forgotten that this is jehovah's
curse upon Satan predicting his
defeat in history by a coming
conqueror. The enmity which the
text emphasizes will result in the
victory of grace and salvation and
the demise and defeat of Satan
and his kingdom. Moreover, it is
not necessarily true that if the
cross of Christ is viewed as the
promised blow, then the conflict
between the two seeds has
reached its conclusion in that
event. The New Testament must
be allowed to speak here, for it is
a matter of chief importance for
our faith.66 Christ viewed not
only his life's purpose but the
focal point of redemptive history
to be the blow he would deliver to
~ t n by his death on the cross
and subsequent resurrection and
ascension. jesus stated that his
lifting up from the earth on the
cross would be the judgment of
the world and signal the casting out
of the prince of the world.
7
Hebrews 2: 14 teaches that the
purpose of the incarnation was the
destruction of the devil and the.
deliverance of the people of God
from the fear of death. The
August/September, 1998 t- TIlE COUNSEL of Chalcedon t- 9
apostle John follows this ,up by work in the sons
stressing tha,t the Son of GQ<l was, ' but, he wi)lbe crushedunde.r the
manifested in order to destrqy the : foot of believers who are wise and
works of the devil.'" Revelation He has been cast out
12: 10 'could aiSo be, mentioned of heaven andb,ol,md on earth,
it dqesSatim's but he exerts some lnfiuence here,
ejection' from and end of ' in the hearts and ltves of the
pqwer to cOlidemnand accuse wicked.7l He wiU not stop ,
thq),eople Qf God, as a possible ' "wiggling" pn,\il he is castinto the
New testament alltision to lake of fire ,ilt the end of human
C):{5: , , ' history and consummation of
According to Scripture, then, ChriSt'S 1diigdo!'IJ.: Throul\hout ' ,
thiS period, he and his followers
the only. blow in human are still at'war with <::hrist and his
which bas rendered Satan a '
defeated foe anti established the , . annies, but they are in a radiCally
different poSition dfpower and '
victory of grace,aJ;!d whiCh, infiuence, because of
therefore, could be the fulfillment
Christ, theii: defeat in' and
of Genesis 3:15, is that given to ,
, throughd1jth1lman history is
Satan by ,tl),e,Lprd]esus Christ at
his first advent. Does this mean ' guaranteed by the deatli
that SaraIl' does not exist any whiCh Christ has delivered to
longer as, '!fl enemy or that the Satan.
hostil,i,\}, between the two seed has
ceased? It is\mportant to pay ,
careful attention to the imagery of
Genesis 3: 15 in answering that " ,'
. J :. ; r I
question. ,Anyqne who bas ever ,
crushed a Sl)ljke's head knows that
it is necessary to stay, out of the ' '
snake's way even crushing itS
head, For puI4ate " "
their the SIlake still wiggles
, _ I . ' '.
and squinns. It poses a potential
until those neive endings
sense tl).eir laSt.' In the Same way;"
Christ lias delivered"the death
blowtoSata'n: at the cross, To use
MoseS' words, he has crUshed
satari's head. Yet, Satan is stil!' ,
defeate,d still
pqtentially dangerol1S to those
. ). _.' '. , . ' .' I' , . ' ,( ," .,
whq come,too close. It is, l:>.eyond
the sCope of this' paPer to' develop .
this hl butvyeniust
, .. ' i l" , . ' I
say tj1at this IS tl].e ' . , "
presentation Satanafterthe .
death ,')l1d resurrection of Chn,;;t as
given ip.the,New Testll-ment, Jie
walks aboudike a roarlnglion,
but believer;s who reSiSt hirjt in ,
faith will defeat him.' l'\e d,oes .
Summary
The purpose of Genesis 3:15 is
to declare that Satan's program for
histo'ry ,will not be snccessful. He
will gather about himself a great
number of followers who will
share his commitment to human
autonomya.nd rebellioii against
Jehovah. Thathordewlll.make
War against another line or group
in human history .. the godly line
of the woman which we may
generally' characterize as those
who embrace this promise of
deliverance from sin, and
anxiously hope for the deliverance
here promised . . ' It is in this way
should interpret the two
seeds, i.e" two opposing lines ot
groups who are defined by
radically different moral qualities.
God wjll introduce terrible and
repeated hostility between these
two seeds which will continue
until it comes to itS fiercest
expression in two leading
individ1lllls. ,There. is definitely a
singularity within the plurality of
Genesiq:l5, a narrowing down
10 , pf<;:halcedon 1998.
or focusing of the confiict to
opposing, single representatives pf
the two lines. These two will lock
in a fierce battle to the death. The
; representative .of the godlY.line, ,
which subsequent revelation .
shows to be theLord]esus Chtist,
will ,infilet a death blow upon
Satan, who in the process of the
confiict, will strike a .but .
nonetheless painful blow upon
him . .
The announcement of this
promise, though somewhat vague
, and obscure, and the day of this
, final confiict utterly unknown,
a marvelous revelation to the
faith of Adam, Eve, and the early
representatives of.tbe godly line.
Itshowed them that Satan the
originating source of evil in the
world and that they must view
him as a great enemy to be warred
against and hated. Though they
luld rebelled against Jehovah and
given in to Satan's lies, God's
mercy was greater than aU their
sin, God was not going to allovy
sin to,have absolUte dominion .
over all men. Rather, he would
graciously intervene and 'cause
certain elements of mail to love
God and hate Satan. As time went
on and world conditions grew
bleak, this promiSe was doubtless
held up as a great source of
encouragement to them because
there would be a day of great
reversal. A singular champion
would come fonh who would
et:lgage il1 hand to hand cqmbat
with the serpent and him.
Though his identity was then'
unknown, God's people were
tanght to long for his appearing
an,d 1mxiously await
revelation from God concerning
his person and work. Until then,
God's people must persevere in.
obeying the known Will of God,
and "settle do\\'O to wait until it
might please the sovereign Ruler
to bring to pass what He here
definitely promised. "72 It is in this
sense that Genesis 3:15 has been
lightly designated the first
annunciation of the good news,
the protoevangeltum. The
following quotation from Irving's
Preface to Ben Ezra, quoted in full
by Fairbairn, wonderfully
summarizes the foundational
nature of this promise, as offering
the hope of salvation and
restoration to recently fallen man,
as well as its introductory nature,
as being the first instance of the
promise, which must await a fuller
revelation from God as the histolY
of his dealings with men unfold.
There is such a soft, sweet, and
silent development of this one
seed sown in paradise, and which
in its growth doth change the
earth into paradise again,
reproducing that kind of
blessedness which the world was
then deprived of, that this alone
has ever to thoughtful men
marked revelation as a divine
work, comprehending the
restitution, regeneration and
complete blessedness of man and
his habitation. Like the stately
branching oak, which begins in an
acorn, and of which the end and
purpose it, to generate an acorn,
while during the progress ofits
stately growth, it covers every
beast of the earth with its londly
shade, and nestles every bird of
heaven in its ample branches; so
this promise was sown in the soil
of a perfect and perfectly blessed
state, while man still dwelt in
paradise, and its end is to produce
perfectly blessed men, dwelling in
paradise again; while, during all
the ages of its growth, it should
bless the immortal spirits of men
with salvation, and its leaves be
for the healing of the nations."
Subsequent Allusions to Genesis
3:15 in Divine Revelation
Various writers have
commented upon the fact that
none of the New Testament
writers seem to utilize Genesis
3: 15 in making their case that
Christ was the Messiah promised
in the Old Testament. They use
lhis to support their view that
Genesis 3: 15 should not be taken
in a messianic sense. Pieters
locates the reason for this
omission in that fact the promise
is not "Messianic in form,' though
it is in "essence.'" HengSlenberg
wrote that the reason the New
Testament writers did not
distinctly refer the prophecy to
Jesus was because "it contains no
direct reference to the person of
the Messiah.'" While it is true
that a direct reference to Genesis
3: 15 in the New Testament as
fulfilled messianic prophecy is
lacking, both the Old and New
Testament utilize some of the
imagery and build upon the
salvific expectations found in the
verse, and it is to a brief
consideration of a few leading
instances to which we will now
tum.
The defeat of the wicked is
sometimes described as "licking
the dust. '7. This calls to mind the
curse upon the serpent found in
Genesis 3: 14 and carried to
completion in the God-imposed
hostility of v. 15. I mention these
references because of their
relationship to the two seeds
which are fully set fOlth in v. 15.
The enemies of God, the seed of
the serpent, have a destiny of
defeat in human history which is
metaphorically deSCribed along
the lines of God's curse upon their
leader. In a moving prophecy of
the church's victory, God
promises that all her enemies will
"lick the dust of her feet. "77
Jehovah promises that the nations
will "lick the dust" of the church's
feet because he will do a great
work of salvation and restoration
in her. 7. This imagery is used
messianically in Psalm 72:9.
Satan's followers share in the
defeat and curse promised to their
leader.
The clearest potential reference
to Genesis 3: 15 in Scripture is
located in Romans 16:20: "And
the God of peace shall bruise
Satan under your feet shortly"
eASV). There is a remarkable
parallelism between Paul and
Moses in this verse. Both view
history as a great conflict between
two opposing groups and
worldviews. On the one hand,
there is evil and its great leader,
Satan. God and goodness are on
the other. It has been suggested
that Paul has Nero in mind as the
great enemy of God which was
then threatening the church. The
pagan Roman order was the seed
of the serpent at that point in
human history which was
threatening the church. This
battle has a definite winner. Satan
is a real but a cursed and defeated
foe. Believers, because of their
union with Christ and
participation in his victory over
sin and Satan, may expect to see
Satan and evil defeated as they are
wise concerning what is good and
simple concerning what is evil.
The imagery of trampling
underfoot clearly recalls Genesis
3: 15, and I believe the Apostle
had it in mind. If this thesis is
cortect, the New Testament
writers and believers saw in
Genesis 3: 15 not only an
explanation forthe hostility
between good and evil in the
world, but viewed the curse upon
Satan as holding forth the promise
August/September, 1998 t- THE COUNSEL of Cllalcedon 11
of victory for God's faithful people
in every age. With the coming of
the Messiah, moreover, the One
who appeared to destroy the devil,
God's people have even more
reason to expect their faithfulness '
to God and his law order to result
in the subjugation of Satan and
the defeat of the wicked.
Some commentators have seen
in Revelation 12 an allusion to
Genesis 3: 15. Pieters writes, "The
twelfth chapter of the book of
Revelation is, in my judgment, a
dramatization of this promise . ,.
In his commentary on Revelation,
he argues that Genesis 3: 15 is not
quoted as Messianic in the New
Testament because it is reserved
specifically for Revelation 12."0
The similarities are striking. In
both passages we see a
to-the-death struggle depicted
between the woman and the
serpent. Even as the woman was
deceived by the serpent in the
beginning, so God has willed her
to be the instrument through
which sin's dominion will be
broken and Satan defeated. It is
clear from v. 9 that this serPent is '
none other than Satan, and he is
specifically identified as the
instigator of the deception that
plunged the entire world in sin
and ruin. His doom is certain,
' John writes, for the woman has
now come to give birth. The child
born of her, whom we know to be
the Lord Jesus Christ, will rule the
nations' and desttoy Satan and his
evil hordes. John certainly
utilized the imagery of Genesis
3:15 when he penned this
glorious passage and may have
viewed the birth and victory of the
Messiah as its proper fulfillment.
Conclusion
The modem theologian's
refusal to see in Genesis 3: 15
anything beyond man's hatred of
snakes and simple folk or lay
sayings betrays his disavowal of
two fundamentals of the Christian
faith: predictive prophesy and the
unity of Scripture, Regardless of
this apostasy, the passage before
us definitely records God's
verbatim curse upon Satan for
deceiving mankind into sin and
rebellion against God. That curse '
is the principle which controls
and directs human history from
the Fall.to Calvary, until the
promise reaches its fulfillment in
Jesus Christ. ' From Calvary to
Christ's Return, that curse is
turned into victory as the battle
progressively wimesses the victory
of the woman's seed and the
defeat of Satan's. Historically; we ,
see the development of two
antithetical lines, followers of God
and followers of Satan,
theonomists and autonomists, the
church ,and the world. The
hostility which God has
introduced between these two
groups is the result of the
principle of grace he implants into
the heartS of his elect. He does '
not allow Original and actual sin
to dominate them, but out of his
free mercy and grace, rescues
them from their depravity and
causes them to love him and hate
Satan. Moses prediCts, moreover;
that the battle will ultimately
come down to two leading
antagonists, a Deliverer and Satan.
It is nbt ne<;essary for us to find a
specific reference to a personal
Messiah here in order to view the
passage as broadly mesSianic, the
protoevangelium. Subsequent
revelation will make his identity
and specific mission clear, But
there is coming a day, Moses
promises, in which the battk will
reach a resolution. ,The head of
Satan will be crushed by the work
of the Deliverer. He will be bitten
12 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 1998
or struck in the conflict, but the
wound he inflicts upon Satan ,will
be incurable. It will result in the
destruction of Satan arid the ,
of God's people. This
latter group, the seed of the
woman, has based theirhdpe of
deliverance from sin's guilt and
penalty upon this promise from
the beginning,as we can see from
Eve's bold testimony of faith.
They have lived in constant
expectation of a child of promise
who would save the world from
sin. The promise was reiterated
and expanded to Abraham, David,
Isaiah, and throughout the minor
prophets. Mary, Zacharias, and
Simeon all heralded Jesus' arrival
as the fulfillmem of all the .
promises God had made to his
people. Their affirtnations of faith
in and joyous reception ofjesus of
Nazareth as the child of promise
forever wimess to the unity of
Scripture in itS expectation of life
and salvation through the
Messiah, There is and always has
been only one name under heaven
given among men whereby we
must be saved. We must receive
him by faith and submit to his
Lordship or we will share in the
consequences of that original
apostasy and God's curse upon
Satan and his followers. n
'H.C. leupold, Exposition of
Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, [1942]
1982), p, 170, .
'Gerhard von Rad, Genesis .
<Philadelphia; Westminster, 1972),
pp.92-93.
'Ibid., p. 90.
,'Otto EisSfeldt, The Old Testament:
An Introduction (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, [1965]1974), p, 39.
'Ibid" p, 75,
' Walter Brueggeman, Genesis'
(Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), p. 50.
'Walter Wifall, Catholic Bible
Quarterly 36 (1974), p. 361.
'Herman Gunkel, The Legends oj
Genesis (New York: Schocken, 1964),
p.17.
9Albertus Pieters, Notes on Genesis
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943), pp.
87.
lOLeupold, op. cit, p. 164.
"Edward Mack, The Christ oj the .
Old Testament (Richmond:
Presbyterian Com. of Publication,
1933), p. 46.
"Anthony Hoekema, Created in
God's Image (Grand Rapids: .
Eerdmans, 1986), p. 134.
"Young,op. cit, p. 112.
"R. Laird Harris, Gleason L.
Archer, and Bruce Waltke, TheolOgical
Wordbook oJ the Old Testament vol. 1
(Chicago: Moody, 1980), p. 36.
Hereafter, TWOT with the number
indicating the entry.
"Gordon]. Wenham, Word
Biblical Cammenlary: Genesis 1-15 vol.
1 (Waco: Word Books, 1987), p. 80.
"Leupold, op. cit, p. 165 . .
"Jack Scott, God's Plan UnJolded
Oackson: np, 1976), p. 14.
"James Montgomery Boice,
Genesis: An Expositional Cammentary
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), p.
107.
'"Wenham, op. cit, p. 80.
10Marten Woudstra, "Recent
I ranslations of Genesis 3: 15," Calvin
Theological Journal 612 (1971), p. 202.
"Roben letham, The Work oj
Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity,
1993), p. 150.
22Jack lewis, "The Woman's Seed,"
Journal oj the Evangelical Theological
Socie!)! 3413 (1991), p. 299.
"Ibid., p. 319.
"David Chilton, Days oj Vengeance
(Ft. Worth: Dominion Press, 1987),
pp.298-99.
"Woudstra, op. cit, p. 197.
"G. e. Aalders, Gene>is Irans.
William Heynen (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1981), p. 107.
"E. W. Hengstenberg, Christology
oj the Old Testament (Grand Rapids:
Kregel, 1970), p. 16.
28
2 Corinthians 11:3; Revelatio!,!
12:9; 20:2
"'Woudstra, op. cit, p. 198.
"'Matthew 3:7;John 8:44;
Ephesians 2:2; 1 John 3:8-10
"Leupold, op. cit, p. 166.
"TWOT 582.
"Lewis, op. cit, p. 299.
"Victor Hamilton, The Book oj
Genesis: The New International
Cammentary on the Old T ",lament 2
vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1990), p. 198.
"Op. cit, p. 114.
"John Calvin, Cammen!aries on the
Pi,.,t fuok oj Mases Called Genesis
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), p. 169f.
"Franz Delitzsch, Old Testament
History oj Redemption (Peabody:
Hendrickson, (1881) 1988), p. 28.
"I.D.Alexander, "Genealogies,
Seed and the Compositional Unity of
Genesis," Tyndale Bulletin 44/2 (1993),
p.267.
"'W. S. LaSor, "Prophecy,
Inspiration, and Sensus Plenior,"
Tyndale Bulletin 29 (1978), pp. 56,7.
<OR.A. Martin, "The Earliest
Messianic Interpretation of Genesis
3: 15: Journal oj Biblical Literature 84
(1965), p. 427.
"Walter Kaiser, Toward an Old
Testament Theology (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1978), p. 37.
"Martin, op. cit, p. 427.
"Woudstra, op. cit, p. 199.
"Aalders, op. cit, p. 107.
"Ibid.
"Leupold, op. cit, p. 167.
"Delitzsch, Old Testament History,
p.27.
"Hamilton, op. cit, p. 199.
"'Leupold, op. cit, p. 168.
"'Franz Delitzsch, A New
Commentary on Genesis (Minneapolis:
Klock 1St Klock, (1888) 1978), pp.
163,4.
'lHengstenbe,g, op. cit, p. 22.
"Martin Luther, Commentary on
Genesis trans. J. T. Mueller (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1958), pp. 80,81.
"TWOT 2349.
"Wenham, op. cit, p. SO.
"Ibid.
"Ibid.
"Hamilton, op. cit, p. 198.
"Woudstra, op. cit, p. 200.
"Aalders, op. cit, p. 106.
"Hamilton, op, cit., p. 198.
61e. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch,
Commentary on the Old Testament
(Peabody: Hendrickson, (19861
1989), p. 100.
"E.]. Young, op. cit, p. 117.
"Aalders, op. cit., p. 106.
"Leupold, op. ciL, p. 167.
"Woudstra, op. cit, p. 201.
"F. F. Bruce, New Testament
Development oj Old Testament Themes
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), p.
11.
"John 12:31-33
"lJohn 3:8
'"James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:9
70Ephesians 2:1; Romans 16:20
"Matthew 12:29; Luke 10:18;
Revelation 12:10; 20:1-3
"Leupold, op. cit, p. 168.
"Quoted in Patrick Fairbairn,
Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Baker,
(18651/976), pp. 179-180.
"Pieters,op. cit, p. 88.
"Hengstenberg, op. cit, p. 23.
"Psalm 72:9; Isaiah 49:23; Micah
7:17
HIsaiah 49:23
"Micah 7:17
7!'Pieters, op. cit, p. 88.
"'Albertus Pieters, Studies in the
Revelation oj St John (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1954), p. 152.
AugustlSept.,uber, 1998 TIlE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 13

You might also like