Introduction , chapters in Genesis are mythical, '

Ute messianic interpretation of , ' anci~m 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 his~oric conviction that Genesis 3:15 is the protoevangelium, ~he 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 th~ 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 obedie~e.

In "her seed," a direct and exclusive reference to Jesus Christ isgramIl,\aticaily inappropriate.3l

"Commencing with Gen. 3:15, th~ 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 welU3 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 th~ 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." Ac~ordingly, 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 Satan.~ 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 h~e 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 ~nesis 36. Th~oughout 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 zer~, 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 a~d 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 Ge~esis 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 ~o .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?"13 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 Ch"l~edon 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 sugg~t 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 ~tan 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 ()fdiso~dience, 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 obedient.~q He has been cast out 12: 10 'could aiSo be, mentioned of heaven andb,ol,md on earth, h~.:e, celebfl\tmg~' it dqesSatim's but he exerts some lnfiuence here, ejection' from h~aven, and end of ' in the hearts and ltves of the ~is 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 Gen~ 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 h~ory 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, No~, 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 ~iow 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 ~ftei crushing itS head, For ~its,ne";es puI4ate " " their l~t, the SIlake still wiggles

, _ I • . ' '.

and squinns. It poses a potential thre~t 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!' , wigg!~}lg,around, defeate,d ~ut still pqtentially dangerol1S to those

. ). _ .' '. , . ' .' I' , . ' ,( ," .,

whq come,too close. It is, l:>.eyond the sCope of this' paPer to' develop . this hl gr~aterdet1;lil, butvyeniust

, .. ' i l" , . ' I

say tj1at this IS tl].e exa~, ' . , " presentation ~f 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 tha~we 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 , TH;Ec~9VNSEL pf<;:halcedon 'AugustlSept~ber, 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 l~r .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, w~ 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 def~t him. Though his identity was then'

· unknown, God's people were tanght to long for his appearing an,d 1mxiously await subsequen~ 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 ~ ,A1igustlSeptember, 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 , sal~ation 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.

282 Corinthians 11:3; Revelatio!,! 12:9; 20:2

"'Woudstra, op. cit, p. 198.

"'Matthew 3:7;John 8:44; Ephesians 2:2; 1 John 3:8-1 0

"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