Genesis 3:15 “And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel. This is the first prophecy of the coming of Christ. Not only is this a prophecy of his birth, but it is a prophecy of his work.”
God has never had an afterthought. He has never been surprised. He has never had to change his mind. All events in the scope of time eternal are to Him as the present moment is to us.
With those thoughts in mind, consider the majesty of God’s plan for mankind, and how He not only humbled Himself to the point of giving His one and only Son to die for your sins and mine, but that He told the world about these plans hundreds of years before they would be fulfilled. Some 70 major prophesies and over 200 others describe the coming of Christ in staggering detail.
To the people of Israel, this plan was so clear that they eagerly awaited the coming of the Savior, the Messiah who would deliver men and women throughout the world from the clutches of sin. The plan was outlined in a way that provided mankind with an exact address in time. Only one Man in all of recorded history could possibly fulfill all those specific requirements. According to historian Peter Stoner, the chance that any one man could fulfill the eight most significant prophesies alone is one in 1017. That’s 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. It’s equivalent to a blindfolded person finding one marked silver dollar in a pile covering the state of Texas to a depth of two feet! The chance that any one person could fulfill 48 of the prophesies is one in 10157 (one followed by 157 zeros).
Here are some of the most significant prophesies concerning the birth of the Messiah, with a principle and application attached to each one. We suggest that you study them one at a time, giving yourself an opportunity to digest the information provided before moving on to the next.
GOD’S GREATEST GIFT
Part 1
"And I will put enmity"
The context of this verse is the fall of Adam and Eve. God is speaking to the serpent who is a personification of Satan. God desires no coalition between himself and Satan. The two are mutually exclusive.
"Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed."
God draws a distinction between "your seed" (Satan’s seed) and "her Seed" (Jesus). "Her Seed" refers to the humanity (incarnation) of Christ. Notice that this passage does not say that the "Seed" was of Adam. This is an inference of the virgin birth. The New Testament calls Jesus the "Seed" (Galatians 3:16).
"He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."
God is predicting the defeat of Satan by the coming of Christ, the Messiah. God is drawing the battle lines between himself and Satan.
"He shall bruise your head" is a mortal wound. The power of Satan is crushed by the cross of Christ.
Yet even at the moment of the first fall, God promises a solution to their sin. At the fall Satan bruised the heel of Jesus. Sin was the cause of Christ going to the cross. At the cross Christ will crush Satan’s head. One is a non-lethal and the other a lethal act. At the cross Jesus dealt Satan a fatal blow. There he paid for the penalty of sin fully.
Christ not only paid for the sins of the world on the cross but he defeated Satan there (Colossians 2:14,15). Satan was executed at the cross.
"And you shall bruise His heel" refers to the death of Christ. Whether this refers literally to the heels of Jesus pressed against the cross, is not important. Jesus was bruised at the cross (Isaiah 53:10).
PRINCIPLE: The birth of Christ set up the possibility of Christ fully paying for sin by the death of his body on the cross.
APPLICATION: Christ fully paid for our sins on the cross. We are free from suffering for them by ourselves.
Indeed Christ did pay the price of sin for the world when He was slain on the cross, and bruised the head of Satan. But how in that verse, Genesis 3:15, does the word “seed” have two meanings? How does it imply for the woman a physical posterity and for the Devil, that Wicked One, a spiritual posterity?
“Seed” is the same for both persons in the verse. This can be seen by the murder of Abel by Cain. In the Gospel, Christ refers to the blood of all the righteous who were slain to the account of the seed of the Wicked One, Satan. In that same verse, the Messiah, the Son of God, includes Abel-who was slain by Cain. This means Cain was the seed of Satan.
Again, Eve, in Genesis 4: 25, 26, said that God had appointed her “another” seed INSTEAD of Abel. If Cain were of her and Adam, why was there an obvious hole or cavity in their family when Abel was MURDERED?
Andy, God is the speaker to the serpent in verses 14-15. God said that there would be a perpetual struggle between satanic forces and mankind. This struggle would be between Satan and the woman’s offspring (seed). The offspring of Satan is anyone who serves his kingdom and have him as their father (Jn 8:44). “Seed” in this context is used metaphorically. The terms “head” and “heel” demonstrate this metaphorical usage. Satan will attack the non-vulnerable part of the body (the heel); God will attack the most vulnerable part of the body (a fatal blow to the head). Satan will finally and fully be defeated. In one case God talks about the physical manifestation of Satan and then in the next case he talks about his spiritual kingdom and purpose. There was a switch to the Devil himself in verse 15.
This interpretation is known as the “protevangelium” (the first Messiah reference) as far back as Chrysostom, Augustine, and Jerome.
In your words, the word ’seed’ has two different meanings in the same verse when they are used in the same context. One denotes physical ‘Posterity’ and the other Spiritual ‘Posterity’. When the Bible was translated into the English (I speak of the KJV-which I use), the word ’seed’ for the Devil and the woman is the same word. Same Meaning.
But what of Genesis 4: 25? It clearly implies that Eve KNEW Cain was not Adam’s and her offspring (SEED). She said that Seth replaced Cain by the word “instead”. Also in the New Testament it is read that Cain was of that Wicked One. The parable of the Sower also shows this: “while man (or Adam) slept, the wicked sowed the evil seed-the tares”. The word Seed means “fruit”, “POSTERITY”, “to bear”. This is Physical seed.
Think of it this way: Angels are physical; We see that by knowing that Satan and his angels fought Michael and his angels, and lost. (Revelation). Their place was no longer found in Heaven-they were cast down to earth. This is where Genesis 6 comes into play. The “Sons of God” are indeed the fallen angels. We know this by Job. They presented themselves before the LORD. In Peter, he testifies that they were bound in chains, awaiting judgment.
While I believe there is a literal seed or offspring of Satan on the earth today, I also comply that the Christian fights against Demonic power present in the world’s music, Most Television, Pornography, and many other avenues of life-including people that are possessed of them. (Ephesians 6:12).
In order to contend with the LORD of hosts, Satan had to create a COUNTERFEIT PEOPLE on the earth. He started with Eve.
Sorry, I noticed a discrepancy in my writing. Eve said that Seth replaced Abel, and not Cain. Please forgive me.
Andy, I mean to convey that “seed” carries a collective sense. In that sense both words for “seed” have the same idea. The word “seed” carries the idea in a semantic sense of “offspring.” It is true that all non-believers are in Satanic seed family (1 Jn 3:10-12). See my commentary there.
See my commentary on Jude on the fallen angels of Genesis 6.
The reference to Ge 4:25 simply refers to another offspring of Eve. The word “instead” is תַּחַת which means “corresponding to.” Seth corresponded to Able.
Read my commentary in Matthew on the parable of the Sower and the use of “seed” there.
I cannot readily read ‘your’ commentary on those verses. Please explain to me your opinion on Jude and Genesis 6 and Job concerning the fallen angels.
I have the fancy that you are “spiritualizing” the meaning of the word “seed” in Gen. 3:15. I take it literally because it is supported by Scripture elsewhere. The Bible does not contradict itself, but is the SAME Message cover to cover.
Andy, all you have to do is go to on the right column go to “Select book” for a book of the Bible, then “Select a passage.” For example, select Jude and then go to Jude 6. That passage agrees with your position if I understand it correctly.
Every Hebrew and Greek word has both literal and metaphorical meanings. Metaphorical meaning is not spiritualizing. Both seed/offspring refers to the progeny/family.
Yes, I know how to use the tools on the website, thanks.
I think this is pointless because if a student or person doesn’t get it right in Genesis, that person won’t be right in the rest of the Bible all the way to Revelation.
I was looking for Psalms and Romans and other books for analysis of your commentaries on their verses, but was shocked to find they weren’t available. In fact, I found this verse accidentally by a Google search.
You see in this day, being a Real Christian-that is, following God’s law to the letter, and having sound doctrine-is not popular today.
Christ did say that the world would hate those who were as Him.
Also, Mt. 7:13,14 definitely shows us who the Remnant of Christ is in the world today. (In conjunction, Rev. 12:17.)
You need to show the whole Bible. Oh, and think on Jeremiah 23:1. The LORD is serious.
Andy, of the hundreds of blogs on this website, yours is one of the most ludicrous. First, this passage is not a central passage. Your interpretation may indeed be right but mine may be right as well. There is not enough information in the text. Second, to claim that because I do not have Romans in these studies that I don’t proclaim the whole counsel of God is the of the most illogical things I have ever heard. It has taken over a decade to put up 6000 pages of information on this site. In fact, Romans is on the schedule to be published here. I have the book of Galatians, the parallel book to Romans, on the site (over 300 studies). Third, you are extremely reckless in charging others with lack of doctrine. If you were to study this site, you would find detailed exposition, extensive doctrinal analysis. Just because someone does not take your interpretation on a given verse, they are unfaithful to the Lord.
I was not aware that those books were in the process of being put up. I apologize for assuming they were never going to be.
Beliefs can vary in so many ways among Christians. I understand that. I just thirst for Truth.
I don’t want you to think I’m charging you with a crime, but rather, feeling my way around with a knowledgable Christian. Thanks.
In Genesis 3:16-24 we read the punishment of Adam and Eve for their sin. In verse 16, Eve is punished by multiplied sorrow and conception, and her desire would be to her husband.
Adam, who had a chance at refusing to take part in the sin, hearkened to his wife, thus surrendering headship and more importantly agreeing to sin with her.
Right here, a verse came to mind: Galatians 6:7,8: Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Adam and Eve were rewarded (punished) according to their trespass.
Eve’s punishment was sorrow and more conception Because she lay with Lucifer, who in Ezekiel 28 was said to be very beautiful(17), very “pleasant to the eyes”. Thus, Eve’s statement: “I have gotten a man from the LORD.” She mistook Satan for God because he appeared as an angel of light.
As the transgression, so the punishment.
Therefore, Eve’s punishment was because of the adultery she committed.
Do we really think that eating an apple would evoke such terrible consequences such as death?
Eve, and all women following, would have a desire to their husband (meaning that women want their husband to love them) because Eve left her Adam and committed adultery.
By this act, she conceived seed (progeny) by Lucifer or Satan. This was Cain. (1 Jn. 3:11,12; St. Jn. 8:44).
In John 8:44, it must be physical, tangible seed or offspring because Christ says that Satan was a murderer from the beginning. But it was Cain that did the murdering, right? Jesus Christ knew who the False Jews were. He pointed them out as the Synagogue of Satan: Physical Offspring-the Canaanite, Amorite and the Edomite.
When Israel came out of Egypt, why did God command that they should kill everyone living in the land He promised them? Why not CONVERT them?
These are honest questions. And they need Honest answers.
Matthew 23:33-35 also shed light on these false Jews. First, they are called Serpents and a generation of vipers, and second, Christ says that they slew Abel!
Did the seed of Judah, who was of Jacob and Leah, kill Abel? No, but it was the seed of the Dragon, Serpent, that Wicked One, who murdered Abel. These references to the same event prove that it is a Physical wrestling or Fight of two seeds.
I don’t know for sure on this point here, but do you think the Sons of God in Genesis 6 were the fallen angels that were simply copying Satan?
When Solomon was building the temple, the Cherubims he had made were very tall. If angels were that tall, and they mixed with man, the offspring would be Giants, I’d imagine.
What do you believe?
Andy, on your post of 7:34pm, there is no evidence whatsoever that Eve lay with Satan. After all, he appeared as a snake! Your interpretation is what we call extrapolation–you bring something out of the text where there is no evidence.
Andy, I believe that the extraordinary creatures in Genesis 6 were fallen angels. See Jude 6. However, no one has a final answer on that question. All interpreters view that passage as very difficult.
There is no evidence whatsoever that angels are the same size of the Cherubim in the temple. They were merely symbols of holy angels that protect the Holy of Holies.
There is no scholar, credible interpreter of Scriptures that hold to your skewed interpretation of Scripture about Eve committing adultery with Satan, etc.
So eating an apple was the infraction?
The giants were very tall several generations down the line. Those tall genes had to come from somewhere. Nature, as it reflects God, would have it that because giants were produced, say by the angels and man, that genetics would be relevant in the angels. Thus the tall gene would be from them.
That is all IF the Angels did come down and marry the daughters of men.
Andy, yes, eating the apple was the sin; that is what the Bible says, not some conjecture pulled out of the air. Adam also participated in that sin. Did he commit adultery with the snake!? The giants came from intermarriage with fallen angels (apparently according to Jude 6).
Andy, I am afraid you are using very poor interpretative principles. You interpolate much of your thinking on Scripture rather than let Scripture speak for itself. This is what is called eisegesis, not exegesis. For a doctrine to be true, the Word of God must declare it.
Adam and Eve’s punishment show what they did. It’s veiled language. The apple isn’t mentioned either. See Proverbs 30:20.
“Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she EATETH, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.”
Eve ATE the fruit. (Gen. 3:6).
In verse 2 of Gen. 3, Eve replied to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: (3) But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye TOUCH (Hebrew Naga, meaning “lay the hand upon”; euphem., To lie with a woman”) it, lest year ye die. Concerning the word Touch, see 1 Cor. 7:1. “…It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
This is all the same concept: some sort of sexual intercourse is happening in all three verses-Proverbs 30:20, Gen. 3:6, and 1 Cor. 7:1.
That is not a “skewed” interpretation of scripture. That is an unadulterated, pure, and clean interpretation. I would appreciate it if you would lay off on the derogatory comments concerning my views.
Let’s keep this productive.
Eve COULD eat the apple and any other fruit because we read in 3:2, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.” She put difference between those trees and the “tree” in the midst of the garden. She could not eat of it nor Touch it. This is a big difference.
*When it says Adam also ATE of the fruit, this means he and Eve were involved afterwards. I believe Gen. 4:1 is a reference to this exact time in their lives.
Oh, by the way, it is Very Possible that a woman can have 2 children in two different wombs within her. I saw this thing happen with a woman on the news just a couple weeks ago.
Andy, your interpretations are so far off the mark that I should not bother responding to you. Your interpretations impose your ideas on Scripture. There is no biblical evidence for them. Zero! In hermeneutics, your interpretations would be rejected out of hand. They are not worthy of comment. To impose ideas on Scripture violates the Word of God and misrepresents what the Word of God has to say. My comments are derogatory only in the sense that your views are so off the mark from any credible interpreter that they need to be exposed for what they are.
Grant, I admire your patience with Andy but was glad when you finally told him how bizarre his interpretations are!
I admire Grant’s patience,too. I enjoyed the debate that took place between the two of us. I only wish that he disproved what I said instead of attacking my views.
I would like to address Andy Coleman’s posting from October 22, 2009 at 12:00 pm.
Andy, I understand where you are coming from when you asked the question, “So eating an apple was the infraction?”
In Genesis 3:5, the serpent said, “…your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God…” The way I see it, the sin wasn’t necessary the act of eating an “apple”, rather, the sin was that Adam and Eve wanted to be like God. It’s an issue of the heart.
There are sins that are easy to identify. For example, murder and adultery. The Bible clearly states that these two acts are sin.
Matthew 5:21 – “…You shall not commit murder and whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.”
Here the sin is a physical act. It’s interesting to see what the following verse has to say.
Matthew 5:22 – “…everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court…”
Here the sin isn’t a physical act, rather, it’s really an issue of the heart. It’s surprising how God considers murder equally as sinful as hating or being angry with another individual.
Here’s another example.
Matthew 5:27 – “You have heard that it was said, you shall not commit adultery; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Here, the Bible talks about a physical act (sleeping with another man’s wife) as sin, but the Bible also considers looking at another person lustfully as sin too – again, an issue of the heart.
In conclusion, Adam and Eve’s sin was that they wanted to be like God. In our hearts, only two things can exist and they are mutually exclusive: 1)God or 2)everything else but God. There is no God and ____. When the serpent tempted Adam and Eve, the allure of becoming like God over took their hearts. This effectively threw God out of the their hearts, and the thought of becoming like God became their idol.
Michael, the question, “Was eating the apple the infraction?” was rhetorical. All the information I provided afterwards and beforehand show my opinion of it all. I Still Have NOT been proven wrong; the responses have not answered my arguments, but have simply attacked my person and views.
That to me is a clear sign of where the truth lies in this thread.
It is interesting to know that before I was lead to this site I held the same views as you Andy Coleman, insomuch that after reading this discussion between you and Grant and hearing both side I would still hold to my original belief.
Andy, what I would say to you is despite the point which Grant so effect-fully brought out he will also need to understand that because in his view that there are no given proof so far found that doesn’t mean that it is not true. It bring to my mind in the context of Mett.23: 34 show how these learned men who were or should have been followers of Jesus Christ but was not willing to open their hearts and minds to the fact that they don’t have the complete holy spirit/ comforter, who he would have lead and teach them how to identify the same person whom in their view is not to be worship as our savor. But rather they turn with their hart harden and fulfill the plan that Jesus would be crucified.
It was to today before I even know of this site I was showing this same point of Eve to someone and how Eve gave away that which was not hers to give to another, he came with smooth and seductive word which lower her into his trap. (satan/natas) The TARP was to construct his kingdom like unto that which he knows, which is the kingdom of heaven, the structuring of different personnel because it is the only kingdom that he know about.
So yes, Andy, I agree with you on the matter and we now have see this part of that which many refuse to accept to be also true, despite they read it in their own bible. But My advise to them is the comforter, The Holy Spirit, His purpose is to teach us the truth, lead us (if we want to be lead) in the truth and to bring back to our remembrance the spoken words of Jehovah God
Thank you, Chris. You are right about importance of the Holy Spirit’s guidance in a believer’s life. He convicts of sin, sanctifies us, and guides us to truth-as you have pointed out already.
It is ridiculous and foolish to assert that within one word, such as ’seed,’ there are two meanings, one physical and one spiritual (or figurative). Let me show why this method of interpretation is so dumb.
If ’seed’ can be figurative as well as physical, then the following verses (a select group among many) are thrown into question: Num. 24:7;Jer. 31:27;Is. 14:20,21;Ps. 89:4,29;St. Jn 8:44;Rev. 2:9,3:9.
Psalm 89:4. “Thy seed will I establish forever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.” Since ’seed’ is literal, this means not only that David’s descendants would survive and ALWAYS be around, but ALSO that his throne would ALWAYS be around. This throne is literal too, and it is in Great Britain.
Jeremiah 31:27. “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD (Jehovah), that I will SOW the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the SEED of man, and with the SEED of beast.” ANY GOOD BIBLE STUDENT knows that the word ’sow’ means to ‘cohabitate,’ and that this verse is saying that God’s people-all twelve tribes-NOT JUST JUDAH, would be living AMONGST the seed (posterity) of man (Adam) and the seed (posterity) of beast (pre-Adamite beings). This MUST be LITERAL!!! I say ‘Pre-Adamite beings’, because, God is NOT stupid: He wouldn’t inspire the writer to say that Israel would be living amongst cattle and horses, etc….! There is a distinction here, just like in Jonah 3:7,8.
Isaiah 14:20,21. “Thou (Satan) shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy PEOPLE: the SEED of EVILDOERS shall never be renowned. Prepare slaughter for his (Satan’s) CHILDREN for the iniquity of their FATHERS; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.” THIS IS LITERAL. Chapter 14 is talking of Satan or Lucifer. See also Ezekiel 28.
This is his seed…the same people Jesus Christ spoke to in John 8:44 and Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.
There is obviously danger in getting bogged down in a discussion about whether or not Eve “lay with the serpent”. Such a discussion takes the focus away from the clear information God provides us with in this verse. Since the fall, both the serpent and the woman have “seed”, meaning progeny. How this progeny is produced by the serpent we are not told. But that the prophesied progeny (starting with Cain) exists and manifests in many evil ways is evidenced by the innumerable references in Scripture to “the wicked”, “the ungodly”, “the workers for iniquity”, “enemies”, “sons of belial” etc. (not to mention the clear earthly manifestation of such progeny throughout history). Ps58.3 confirms that this progeny is formed in the womb, so it is physical, as well as spiritual.
Leaving aside the question of what happened between Eve and the serpent, one can only agree with Andy Coleman regarding the fact that there is Satanic progeny on this earth. This information is foundational in the “protoevangelium”; it should therefore be foundational in our teaching of the Gospel. Why is virtually no mention made of the existence of this irremediably evil progeny in Christian circles these days? And when the subject is raised as here, why is it dismissed as bizarre or irrelevant?
Is this discussion over, or could we pursue examination of how the existence and activity of this wicked progeny all around us should influence our thinking, our theology, our actions and our reaction to events? I would be most interested in your further views on topic.
John Paul, good statements. Good questions, too! I will continue this discussion if you want because it’s a great opportunity for learning.
This is true: Satan and his demons Can possess people and use habitual sin in a person to bind them in it. They make “strongholds” through evil music, pornographic images (whether they be still photos or movie pictures), and lustful thinking and practices. Pride, anger and other such sins creep in on EVEN a Believing Christian. We must be ware!
But also, it is very true that Satan seduced Eve and produced Cain (which name means, “from a different source”). Notice that Adam’s genealogy does not include Cain. Cain’s genealogy is SEPARATE from Adam’s. Our Lord’s interactions with them in the gospels can not be ignored. He knew who they were and He told us how to deal with them (Matt. 13). The Epistles also mention them.
“Seed” (zeraʿ) is a critical term in the whole of Genesis and the Pentateuch. It first occurs in a literal sense in the creation account (1:11–12, 29), but here it is metaphorical and takes on programmatic significance. Of its fifty-nine occurrences in Genesis, the majority are found in the patriarchal narratives (47x), where the focal concern lies with the genealogical lineage of the chosen family.207 The patriarchal accounts explain what is only introduced in 3:15. The creation blessing (1:28), which was jeopardized by the couple’s disobedience, is particularized through the Hebrew fathers, who will be instrumental in its realization. Chapter 3’s oracle implies a hope for the human family that despite their sin there will be a fulfillment of the blessing through progeny as foreseen at creation (1:26–28). This hope for the appointed “seed” is unveiled progressively by the offspring of Eve through Seth (“another seed,” 4:26; his genealogy, 5:1–32), through Noah’s offspring (9:9), and the seed of Abraham first described in 12:7 (with 12:1–3).208 Moreover, this promise points to the Mosaic community, which defined itself as the offspring promised to Abraham (e.g., Exod 32:11–14; Deut 11:8–12).
Also this hostility finds immediate expression between wicked Cain and his brother Abel (4:8). God’s forewarning of Cain that “sin is crouching at your door” (4:7) may be an allusion to the struggle that 3:15 envisions. But the adversary wins the first battle when Cain yields to sin and murders the woman’s seed, Abel. This strife between the elect line and the cursed is again envisioned in Noah’s curse and blessing (9:24–27). It also foreshadows the tension between the patriarchs and the nations as they experience an uneasy coexistence in Canaan and Egypt (e.g., chap. 38). For later Israel this hostility comes to full fury when Egypt instigates a purge of Hebrew children, from which baby Moses is delivered, and climaxes with God’s tenth plague against Pharaoh’s firstborn. It also anticipates Moses’ wars and the hostility Israel faces as it migrates to the land of Canaan.
Christian tradition has referred to 3:15 as the protevangelium since it has been taken as the prototype for the Christian gospel. Historically interpreters have differed about whether “her seed” refers to an individual or is a collective singular indicating all humanity. The LXX version may be the earliest attested interpretation of “seed” as an individual. It translates the Hebrew zeraʿ (“seed”) with the Greek sperma, a neuter noun. The expected antecedent pronoun is “it [auto] will crush your head,” but the Greek has “he” (autos), which suggests that the translators interpreted “seed” as an individual.209 The Targums, Jewish pseudepigrapha, and later rabbinic commentators, however, generally viewed the “seed” as collective for humankind. Christian interpreters showed a mixed opinion.210 Justin and Irenaeus interpreted the woman of 3:15 as the virgin Mary by drawing a parallel with Eve. Greek Fathers, such as Chrysostom, viewed 3:15 as a depiction of the struggle between Satan and humanity. Still others interpreted “seed” as the church. Among the Latin Fathers, Augustine with others allegorized or moralized the verse, indicating a collective use. Others saw in it a specific reference to the virgin birth. This was aided by some Old Latin texts and the Vulgate, which had the feminine pronoun “she [ipsa] shall crush” rather than the masculine. It was Ambrose who first quoted 3:15 as not “her seed” but “the woman’s seed.” Among the Reformers, Luther took “her seed” as reference to both humanity in general and Christ in particular;211 Calvin demurred such a view and applied it as a collective, not to all humanity but rather to the church under the headship of Christ, which would prove victorious (quoting Rom 16:20).212
Our passage provides for this mature reflection that points to Christ as the vindicator of the woman (cp. Rom 16:20). There may be an allusion to our passage in Gal 4:4, which speaks of God’s Son as “born of a woman.”213 Specifically, Paul identified Christ as the “seed” ultimately intended in the promissory blessing to Abraham (Gal 3:16), and Abraham’s believing offspring includes the church (Rom 4:13, 16–18; Gal 3:8). This is further developed in John’s Gospel, where the spiritual dimension is at the forefront. Jesus alluded to our verse when he indicted the Pharisees as children of the “devil” because of their spiritual apostasy (John 8:44), contrary to their claims to be the offspring of righteous Abraham (8:39). John used similar imagery when he contrasted God’s “seed” and those who are “of the devil” (1 John 3:7–10). This is heightened by his appeal to Cain’s murder of righteous Abel as paradigmatic of one “who belonged to the evil one” (3:11–15). Finally, the Apocalypse describes the “red dragon,” who is identified as “that ancient serpent” (Rev 12:9), opposing the believing community (i.e., the woman) and plotting the destruction of her child (i.e., the Messiah). Ultimately, “that ancient serpent” is destroyed by God for its deception of the nations (Rev 20:2, 7–10).
The “offspring” (literally, “seed”) mentioned in this verse became the “ ‘mother prophecy’ that gave birth to all the rest of the promises” (Kaiser).2 The messianic significance of this is that “he [Christ/Messiah] shall bruise your [Satan’s] head, and you [Satan] shall bruise his [Messiah’s] heel.” And more, this significance was understood some three hundred years before Christ, when the Jewish translators of the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament, interpreted the word “seed” ( “offspring” in the ESV) as a single individual—“he shall bruise your head.” The Septuagint translators, totally free from Christian controversy, understood the seed of the woman to be a future individual who would deal a crushing blow to the serpent. Today’s scholarship supports the Septuagint rendering that God’s curse predicted that an individual man would engage the snake in combat and win.3
So what we have here (right after the fall!) is what the second-century A.D. fathers Justin Martyr and Irenaeus called the “first gospel” (protoevangelium). Genesis 3:15 promised that one was coming who would defeat the serpent who had perpetrated the fall. Here is the gospel in paradise just lost! God cursed Satan and in the process proclaimed victory through his Son, the second Adam, who crushed Satan by his great work on the cross.
Thus we see, amidst the inconsolable bleakness and despair of the fall and the divine curses, a curse that radiates the first light of the gospel. A mighty deliverer is coming. That is good news!
Seed preserved. How God preserved the line of the Deliverer is a marvel of primeval history. Adam had, of course, listened closely to God’s oracle to the serpent. He understood that one of Eve’s offspring would bruise the head of the snake. Thus Adam “called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living” (3:20). Eve means “life.” Hope of a Deliverer welled in the primeval couple. And then when Eve gave birth to her first son, Cain, she said, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD” (4:1). Eve’s words were an implicit declaration of faith. Adam had believed the promise of 3:15 and named her “Life.” And now the young mother of life praised God with a freshly charged faith for her newborn son, a man just like Adam. Later the birth of Abel again buoyed the couple’s hopes of an offspring who would conquer the serpent.
But all was not well. A dark shadow moved over the sons. And as life faded from murdered Abel’s eyes, darkness enveloped humanity. With Abel’s death and Cain’s degeneration there was no heir, no seed who would challenge, much less strike the head of the serpent. Cainite civilization went “the way of Cain” (Jude 11), as epitomized by the brutal song of Lamech. Darkness had gone to midnight. Exponential violence became a way of life.
But amidst the couple’s violent, seedless night there flashed light—“And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, ‘God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him’ ” (4:25). Eve’s faith shined here because her term “another offspring” referenced the promise of 3:15—that her seed would crush the snake’s head. How sweet it was for the mother of all living to hold the promised baby Seth in her arms. And the grace of God was effectual because Seth and his family called on the name of the Lord in worship (cf. 4:26). Their hope was that one day a child would come through Seth’s descendants who would crush the snake.
Both Cainite and Sethite lines multiplied. The apex of the long-lived Sethite patriarchs was righteous Enoch who “walked with God, and he was not, for God took him” (5:24). However, despite the elevating example of Enoch, wicked Cainite civilization increased in dominance over the Sethites. And universal depravity covered civilization so that man’s mind became “only evil continually” (6:5).
So it came about that the hope of a godly line was reduced to a single pinpoint in all humanity—one man. Only one of Seth’s descendants remained untarnished: “Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God” (6:9). When the flood was over, Noah and his three sons remained as the only hope for the promise of Genesis 3:15.
But the promise was hardly safe! Noah’s subsequent drunken display demonstrated the danger for all to see (cf. 9:20–23). And the danger was further confirmed by Ham’s leering delight in his father’s folly. Divine judgment followed as Noah cursed the descendants of Ham’s youngest son Canaan, the father of the infamous Canaanites. If Shem and Japheth had followed Ham in his sin, the Sethite line would have been vitiated. Instead, the two covered their father’s nakedness. And Noah’s oracle to Shem was, “Blessed be the LORD [Yahweh], the God of Shem” (9:26). Noah’s blessing and affirmation that Yahweh was “the God of Shem” indicates that Shem was already in special relationship with God. And the grand fact is that it was through Shem that the godly line of Adam’s son Seth would go on to be extended to the great patriarch Abraham (cf. 11:10–26).
The primeval preservations of God’s promise to Eve of a Deliverer-offspring who would bruise the head of Satan astound us. The promise appeared to be finished with Cain’s murder of Abel. But then came baby Seth, and people “called on the name of the LORD” (4:26). Seth’s line, however, became all but buried by the demonized Cainite civilization. But God answered with righteous Noah and the flood. Noah and his three sons and their spouses were all that survived. And then the promised line was narrowed to Shem (the Semites). Finally, the promise of Genesis 3:15 was given to one man, father Abraham. It was through his seed that Messiah would come, and he would crush the head of Satan. What we must see here is that all pre-flood history is tied together by a singular concern—the preservation of the promise to Eve of a descendant who would do battle with Satan and would be wounded before crushing him. Thus we have the genesis of the great messianic hope of the Bible—the arrow that points us to Jesus Christ.
Observe, too, that although in the first clause the seed of the serpent is opposed to the seed of the woman, in the second it is not over the seed of the serpent but over the serpent itself that the victory is said to be gained. It, i.e., the seed of the woman will crush thy head, and thou (not thy seed) wilt crush its heel. Thus the seed of the serpent is hidden behind the unity of the serpent, or rather of the foe who, through the serpent, has done such injury to man. This foe is Satan, who incessantly opposes the seed of the woman and bruises its heel, but is eventually to be trodden under its feet. It does not follow from this, however, apart from other considerations, that by the seed of the woman we are to understand one solitary person, one individual only. As the woman is the mother of all living (v. 20), her seed, to which the victory over the serpent and its seed is promised, must be the human race. But if a direct and exclusive reference to Christ appears to be exegetically untenable, the allusion in the word to Christ is by no means precluded in consequence. In itself the idea of זֶרַע, the seed, is an indefinite one, since the posterity of a man may consist of a whole tribe or of one son only (Gen. 4:25; 21:12, 13), and on the other hand, an entire tribe may be reduced to one single descendant and become extinct in him. The question, therefore, who is to be understood by the “seed” which is to crush the serpent’s head, can only be answered from the history of the human race. But a point of much greater importance comes into consideration here. Against the natural serpent the conflict may be carried on by the whole human race, by all who are born of a woman, but not against Satan. As he is a fore who can only be met with spiritual weapons, none can encounter him successfully but such as possess and make use of spiritual arms. Hence the idea of the “seed” is modified by the nature of the foe. If we look at the natural development of the human race, Eve bore three sons, but only one of them, viz., Seth, was really the seed by whom the human family was preserved through the flood and perpetuated in Noah: so, again, of the three sons of Noah, Shem, the blessed of Jehovah, from whom Abraham descended, was the only one in whose seed all nations were to be blessed, and that not through Ishmael, but through Isaac alone. Through these constantly repeated acts of divine selection, which were not arbitrary exclusions, but were rendered necessary by differences in the spiritual condition of the individuals concerned, the “seed,” to which the victory over Satan was promised, was spiritually or ethically determined, and ceased to be co-extensive with physical descent. This spiritual seed culminated in Christ, in whom the Adamitic family terminated, henceforward to be renewed by Christ as the second Adam, and restored by Him to its original exaltation and likeness to God. In this sense Christ is the seed of the woman, who tramples Satan under His feet, not as an individual, but as the head both of the posterity of the woman which kept the promise and maintained the conflict with the old serpent before His advent, and also of all those who are gathered out of all nations, are united to Him by faith, and formed into one body of which He is the head (Rom. 16:20). On the other hand, all who have not regarded and preserved the promise, have fallen into the power of the old serpent, and are to be regarded as the seed of the serpent, whose head will be trodden under foot (Matt. 23:33; John 8:44; 1 John 3:8). If then the promise culminates in Christ, the fact that the victory over the serpent is promised to the posterity of the woman, not of the man, acquires this deeper significance, that as it was through the woman that the craft of the devil brought sin and death into the world, so it is also through the woman that the grace of God will give to the fallen human race the conqueror of sin, of death, and of the devil. And even if the words had reference first of all to the fact that the woman had been led astray by the serpent, yet in the fact that the destroyer of the serpent was born of a woman (without a human father) they were fulfilled in a way which showed that the promise must have proceeded from that Being, who secured its fulfilment not only in its essential force, but even in its apparently casual form.
The long-term effects of sin then started to appear. The serpent was condemned to crawl and to constant warfare with mankind, the woman’s offspring (15). In that her offspring will crush the snake’s head, the latter will come off worse in the long battle. Thus, though this was a judgment on the snake, it was at the same time a promise to man. It has, therefore, traditionally been seen by Jews and Christians, as the first hint of a saviour for mankind, and 3:15 is often called the ‘protevangelion’ the ‘first gospel’. Allusions to it in the NT include Rom. 16:20; Heb. 2:14; Rev. 12. Within Genesis the promise to Abraham that ‘through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed’ (22:18) starts to make the vague promise of 3:15 more specific. It is also notable that this first judgment on sin is tinged with hope, something that recurs throughout Scripture (cf. 6:5–8), as God’s mercy outweighs his wrath (cf. Ex. 20:5–6).
“between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed” There has been much discussion among commentators about this verse. In context it seems to refer to the children of the evil one (cf. Matt. 13:38; John 8:44) and the children of the Messiah. But because the next verse uses the SINGULAR form “he” and “you” it seems to refer to the tension between God and the evil one symbolized in the redemptive work of the coming Messiah. It is obvious that Adam and Eve did not understand the ramification of this, nor probably did Moses, although Moses recognized in Deut. 18:18 that a prophet greater than he was coming. I think that it probably does have an allusion to the virgin birth, though this was surely unknown to the original human author, but known to the divine author. As mankind fell through the impulsiveness of the woman, mankind will be redeemed through the obedience of a woman in the supernatural conception of the Messiah by the Holy Spirit. The Vulgate changes the “he” in the next phrase to “she,” which is totally inappropriate, but it may catch the gist of the fuller significance.
As this prophecy is not fully understood until its historical fulfillment in the virgin birth of Jesus, the same is to be said about the interpretation of Gen. 1 and 2. History reveals the fallenness of prophetic revelation as the continuing study of our earth shows the fullness of God’s creative acts! There is no conflict, just more complete knowledge on mankind’s part as to God’s activities!
3:15 But verse 15 switches to the Devil himself. This verse is known as the protevangelium, meaning “The First Gospel.” It predicts the perpetual hostility between Satan and the woman (representing all mankind), and between Satan’s seed (his agents) and her Seed (the Messiah). The woman’s Seed would crush the Devil’s head, a mortal wound spelling utter defeat. This wound was administered at Calvary when the Savior decisively triumphed over the Devil. Satan, in turn, would bruise the Messiah’s heel. The heel wound here speaks of suffering and even of physical death, but not of ultimate defeat. So Christ suffered on the cross, and even died, but He arose from the dead, victorious over sin, hell, and Satan. The fact that He is called the woman’s Seed may contain a suggestion of His virgin birth. Note the kindness of God in promising the Messiah before pronouncing sentence in the following verses.
How far the phrase, “the seed of the woman,” as here used, should be limited to the Messiah personally, is not very clear. The prophet Micah probably refers to this first prediction. Foretelling that “out of Bethlehem-Ephratah he is to come forth, who is to be ruler in Israel, and whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting,” he adds, that deliverance is not to be “until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth;”—intimating that it is of “the seed of the woman” he has been speaking (Micah v. 2–3). And the apostle’s argument would seem to apply here: “He saith, not seeds, as if there were many, but one seed, which is Christ” (Gal. iii. 16). Undoubtedly it is Christ who is principally pointed out; though, at the same time, as the seed of the serpent may have a wider signification, denoting all of his party among men (Matt. iii. 7; John viii. 41); so, also, the seed of the woman may be held to mean all who take part with the Lord, and are one with him in his holy war. At all events, this condemnation of their tempter opened a door of hope to our race; his defeat could scarcely fail to imply their deliverance.
But, it may be asked, what means this indirect mode of conveying such an assurance of mercy? Why does God speak to the serpent, and not to our first parents themselves? May it not be partly to intimate that the main and chief end of God, in the dispensation of grace, in his own glory? “I do not this for your sakes,” else I would address myself to you; “but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned” (Ezek. xxxvi. 22–23). It is not because they have deserved any thing at his hand, nor is it merely out of compassion to them, that he interferes. But it concerns his honour that the adversary should not triumph; for his own name’s sake he must needs be glorified in the overthrow of the great enemy, who has apparently frustrated the chief end of his creation of the world. And does not this view render the assurance of mercy to our race even more strong emphatic than if it were immediately given to themselves? It humbles our first parents, and us in them; and yet it encourages them and us. They blamed the serpent, and now the serpent is judged. They even charged God foolishly; as if it were his fault that the devil beguiled them; and now they see that so far from God being, in any sense, accessory to the temptation, his glory is thereby so assailed that it can be vindicated only in the instant condemnation, and final destruction, of the tempter who has prevailed over them.
All this, however, will be better understood when it is seen, in the end of time, what is the purpose of God in first exposing our nature to trial at Satan’s hand, and them making that very nature the instrument of Satan’s more terrible ruin. Meantime it is plain that it is in part, at least, for the settlement of God’s controversy with Satan, that our race and our world are spared; the fall and recovery of mankind being made subservient to the completion of God’s purpose of wrath against a previous host of rebels, whose malignity was thus to be more fully brought out, that in their utter and eternal misery, God’s righteous severity might be more signally glorified.
Also, the serpent is told that he is to be on the losing side of a battle between the seed of the woman and himself. In this eventual showdown, his head will be crushed by the seed of the woman. Is the “seed” collective or singular? The Hebrew allows for either, but the Septuagint has “he.” (The Latin Vulgate even has “she”!) Not without good reason many have referred to Genesis 3:15 as the protoevangelium, “the first good news.” An as-yet-unidentified seed of the woman will engage the serpent in combat and emerge victorious. It is likely that Eve does not comprehend this word. But the snake is not left in the dark—he is to be cursed, a crawler, and crushed.
Yet the greater curse upon the serpent is upon that old serpent, the devil. To Satan the Lord God promises, I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Here is the initial messianic prophecy of the Bible. “The traditional Christian interpretation … is that it is the first direct expression of the gospel. It recognizes the essential conflict between Satan and the Lord and indicates that this conflict also will involve the people of God and the followers of Satan (cf. Jn 8:44; Acts 13:10; I Jn 3:10). The seed of the woman is a clear reference to the Messiah, the Lord Jesus (cf. Gal 3:16,19; Rev 12:1–5), who came ‘to destroy the works of the devil’ (Heb 2:14; I Jn 3:8). The protevangelium prophesied that Christ would deliver a death blow to Satan but in so doing would suffer death himself” (Davis, p. 93). The Hebrew word for “seed” is a collective noun in the singular sense. Thus it may refer to only one person or sometimes to many individuals (Gen 22:17 and the culmination of this promise with reference to Christ in Gal 3:16). All of this should be understood in the light of the New Testament’s total revelation of the ramifications of this prophecy. Certainly, Adam and Eve were not aware of any of this future revelation.
3:15 enmity between you and the woman: This is not just about snakes; it is about the enemy of our souls, Satan. your seed and her Seed: The language is ambiguous but still contains the promise of a child. The term seed is exceedingly important. It may be translated offspring (15:3) or descendants (15:5, 13, 18). The term may refer to an individual (Gal. 3:16) or a group of people. This means, among other things, that Eve would live, at least for a while. The Seed of the woman is the Promised One, the coming Messiah of Israel. Seed continues to be used throughout the Bible as a messianic term (Num. 24:7; Is. 6:13). The meaning of the phrase your seed as it applies to the serpent is uncertain (John 8:37–47). The reference is ultimately to Satan. your head: This is sometimes called the “first gospel” because these words, as indirect as they are, promise the Coming One whom we know to be the Lord Jesus, the Messiah. The Lord was showing mercy even as He judged (4:15). Bruise His heel speaks of a serious injury, but it is contrasted with the bruising of the head—the defeat—of the serpent’s seed. When Jesus went to the Cross, He was bruised in His heel. That is, He suffered a terrible but temporary injury (John 12:31; Col. 2:15). In His resurrection, He defeated His enemy. From that moment on, Satan has lived on borrowed time. He is already defeated; only the announcement of victory needs to be given (Rom. 16:20).
The “seed” of the Serpent must include all the followers of the Evil One (cf. John 8:44). There is a unique allusion in “her Seed,” the first announcement of the virgin birth, for biologically in conception the seed or sperm is delivered by the man; but in the miraculous conception of the Messiah, the seed was the woman’s, the result of her being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit (Gal. 4:4). Jesus Christ, then, as the “Seed” of the woman, will ultimately defeat Satan and his “seed.” The phrases “bruise your head” and “bruise His heel” reveal suffering for both sides, but the final wounds to the Serpent are ultimately devastating, while the victory most certainly comes for the descendants of Eve. The Savior was “bruised for our [man’s] iniquities” (Is. 53:5), but His sufferings and death are now history. A bruised “heel” may be nursed until healed, but the crushing of the “head” means certain death. In the atonement and promised return of Christ, Satan’s head is crushed (cf. 9:13, note; Rev. 20:2, 3).
3:15 This predicted battle between the serpent and the woman would not be a literal confrontation in the garden. The language is figurative, indicating the life-and-death struggle between the adversary and the human family borne by the woman. Like the word “sheep” in English, the word “seed” in Hebrew is both singular and plural, meaning either descendants without number, taken as a whole, or one particular descendant. The passage incorporates both meanings by referring to the ongoing opposition to the people of God by their enemies and by predicting the rise of a particular seed, Jesus Christ, who will destroy the serpent in the end (Rm 16:20; Rv 12:9–10).
: → זרע; MHb.; Gezer 1-2 (seedtime), Lach. 5:10 (?, KAI 2:196); Ph., Yaud. זרע; Arm. (→ BArm., Mnd. MdD 167b זירא, DISO 80) זְרַע, JArm.gt(?) also דְּרַע; Arb. zarʿ, Eth. Tigr. Wb. 496b zarʾ, Akk. zēru: זָֽרַע, cs. זֶרַע and זְרַע (BL 573 ×), זַרְעוֹ, זַרְעֵיכֶם: seed: —1. זֶרַע הַשָּׂדֶה seed of the field Gn 4724, seedtime Gn 822 Lv 265; a) seed: tree Gn 111, shrub Gn 129, coriander Ex 1631, זֶ׳ אֱמֶת (vine) of the right kind Jr 221; b) seed for sowing Gn 4719 Lv 1137 2616 2716 Dt 229 מְקוֹם זֶ׳ land suitable for sowing Nu 205 שְׂדֵה זֶ׳ seed-land Ezk 175, cj. Jr 359, זַרְעֵיכֶם your seed-fields 1S 815, בֵּית זֶרַע (EgArm. Driver Arm. Docs. 8:2; JArm.) a piece of seed-land 1K 1832, ז׳ חֹמֶר a homer of seed Is 510 מֶשֶׁךְ זֶ׳ bag of seed Ps 1266 זֶ׳ yield of seed Jb 3912; —2. of man and beast: זֶ׳ אָדָם and זֶ׳ בְּהֵמָה seed Jr 3127, זֶ׳ אֲנָשִׁים human seed, son 1S 111, זֶ׳ = offspring of אִשָּׁה and נָחָשׁ Gn 315, עוֹף 73; שִׁכְבַת זֶ׳ emission of seed Lv 1516; —3. offspring, descendants (MHb.2 JArm.b): a) coll.: SirM VI 11-13 (= 4411), הַזֹּאת מִן־הָאִשָּׁה 1S 220, זַרְעָהּ (= הָאִשָּׁה) Gn 315; שָׂם זֶ׳ לְ 1S 220, נָתַן זֶ׳ לְ Gn 153 Ru 412; זַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ 2S 712 Gn 99 your descendants after you; זַרְעֲךָ of Abraham Gn 127-2C 207 (21 ×), זַרְעֵךְ of הָגָר Gn 1610, זַרְעֲכֶם (of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) Ex 3213 Dt 18 1015 119 Jr 3326, (of David, 9 ×) 2S 712; זֶ׳ יִשְׂרָאֵל 2K 1720 (7 ×) זֶ׳ בֵּית יִשׂ׳ Jr 238 Ezk 4422, זֶ׳ בֵּית יַעֲקֹב Ezk 205 זֶ׳ with קֹדֶשׁ Is 613, with הַקֹּדֶשׁ Ezr 92, with שֶׁקֶר Is 574, with מְרֵעִים 14 1420, with רְשָׁעִים Ps 3728 Jb 218, with אֱלֹהִים Mal 215, with הַמֶּלֶךְ 1K 1114, with הַמַּמְלָכָה 2K 111 2C 2210, with הַמְּלוּכָה 2K 2525 Jr 411 Ezk 1713 Da 13; זֶ׳ זַרְעֲךָ descendants of your descendants Is 5921; רָאָה זֶ׳ to see (i.e. to have) descendants Is 5310, זֶ׳ אֵין לָהּ she has no children Lv 2213; חִיָּה זֶ׳ מִן to obtain / wish for children from Gn 1932.34, הֵקִים זֶ׳ לְ provide offspring for Gn 388, with נָתַן 389; הָיָה הַזֶּ׳ לְ are the offspring of 389; תִּתֵּן שְׁכָבְתְּךָ לְזֶ׳ אֶל have sexual intercourse and produce children Lv 1820; b) (individual) descendant (MHb.2) זֶ׳ אַחֵר Gn 425; ? 1S 111 and 2S 712; —4. descent Ezr 259 Neh 761; —Is 5310 cj. I זֶרַח (Gressmann Messias 305); Zech 812 rd. אֶזְרְעָה שָׁלוֹם; Mal 23 rd. הַזְּרֹעַ; Ps 2231 cj. זַרְעִי, alt. זְרֹעוֹ with וְכַבְּדוּן; 3726 rd. וְזִכְרוֹ.
†זֶ֫רַע S2233 TWOT582a GK2446 n.m. Dt. 28:38 sowing, seed, offspring (NH id., Aramaic זְרַע, ܙܪܰܥ (zraʿ); Ph. זרע; Zinj. id.; Arabic زَرْعٌ (zarʿun) 2 Ethiopic ዘርእ (zarʾ) Assyrian zêru, cultivated land, BelserBAS ii. 130, cf. Arabic زَرْعَةٌ (zarʿatun))—abs. ז׳ Gn 47:23 +; זָ֑רַע Gn 1:29 +; cstr. זֶרַע Is 5:10 +; זְרַע־ Nu 11:7; sf. זַרְעִי 1 S 20:42; 24:22; זַרְעֲךָ Dt 11:10 +; זַרְעֶ֑ךָ Ec 11:6 +, etc.; pl. sf. זַרְעֵיכֶם 1 S 8:15;— 1. lit.: a a sowing לְז׳ הַשָּׂדֶה Gn 47:24 (J; + אָכְלְכֶם; otherwise Lv 27:16 b, v. infr. 2 c); לאֹ מְקוֹם ז׳ Nu 20:5 no place for sowing (JE; + וּתְאֵנָה וְנֶפֶן וְרִמּוֹן); cf. שְׂדֵה ז׳ Ez 17:5 a field suitable for sowing; hence b. sowing as regularly recurring at its season Gn 8:22 (J; || קָצִיר, + קֹר וָחֹם וְקַיִץ וָחֹרֶף וְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה), Lv 26:5 (H; || דַּיִשׁ, בָּצִיר;—cf. Am 9:13 infr. 2 a). 2. seed: a. lit., sown, to raise crops for food, usually corn (wheat, barley, etc.) Gn 47:19, 23 (J; cf. v 14 f.), Nu 24:7 (JE); נָתַן ז׳ לַזֹּרֵעַ Is 55:10 (|| לֶחֶם), Dt 28:38 (ז׳ רַב), Lv 26:16 (H; c. זָרַע), 27:16a, ז׳ חֹמֶר שְׂעֹרִים v 16b (both P), cf. Is 5:10. b. fig., of idolatry of Judah Is 17:11 (|| קציר); of fortunes of Zion מֶשֶׁךְ הַזּ׳ ψ 126:6 the dropping of seed, i.e. the proper quantity for sowing (opp. אֲלֻמֹּת); Je 35:7 (c. זָרַע, || כֶּרֶם לֹא תִטָּ֔עוּ), cf. v 9 (|| כרם, שׂדה); מְטַר ז׳ Is 30:23 (c. זָרַע || לֶחֶם תְּבוּאַת הָאֲדָמָה); also Dt 11:10 (c. זָרַע), Ec 11:6 (c. id.); ז׳ זֵדוּעַ Lv 11:37, cf. v 38 (both P); as yielding the crop תְּבוּאַת זַרְעֶ֑ךָ Dt 14:22 the product of thy seed, cf. d infr.; וְנִגַּשׁ חוֹרֵשׁ בַּקּוֹצֵר וְדֹרֵךְ עֲנָבִים בְּמשֵׁךְ הַזּ׳ Am 9:13, in fig. of rapid and plentiful growth in the coming time; ז׳ הָאָרֶץ producing a vine Ez 17:5, of growth and prosperity of Isr.; הַזּ׳ Mal 2:3, read perhaps הַזְּרֹעַ (cf. VB). c. seed as product; the manna is comp. with ז׳ גַּד, coriander seed in Nu 11:7 (JE), Ex 16:31 (P); seed of herbs and trees Gn 1:11(×2), 12(×2), 29(×2) (all P). Especially d. seed as 3, so (although not quite clearly) Dt 22:9 (c. זָרַע; || תְּבוּאַת הַכָּ֑רֶם); pl. 1 S 8:15 (perhaps better arable lands, cf. supr. As zêru; || כרמים), ז׳ הָאָרֶץ Lv 27:30 (|| פְּרִי־עֵץ; otherwise Gn 47:24, cf. supr. 1 a); ז׳ שִׁחֹר Is 23:3 (|| קְצִיר יְאוֹר); הַעוֹד הַזּ׳ בַּמְּגוּרָה Hg 2:19 (|| גֶּפֶן, תְּאֵנָה, רִמּוֹן, עֵץ הַזַּיִת); יָשִׁו֯ב זַרְעֶ֑ךָ וְגָרְנְךָ יֶאֱסֹף Jb 39:12 (of harvest); so perhaps כְּבֵית סָאתַיִם ז׳ 1 K 18:32. e. זֶרַע הַשָּׁלוֹם הַגֶּפֶן Zc 8:12, read perhaps הַזּ׳ שׁלוֹם the crop is security ( = secure), so S Or al.; > Ew Hi al. who transl. ז׳ הַשּׁ׳ the growth of peace, making הַגֶּפֶן appos.—Vbs. used c. ז׳ in these senses are:—usually זָרַע Gn 1:11 Lv 26:16 Je 35:7 +; הִפְרִיחַ Is 17:11; נָתַן בְּ = plant, sow Ez 17:5; נָתַן yield Is 55:10; מָשַׁךְ Am 9:13. 3. seed = semen virile, וְנִזְרְעָה זָ֑רַע Nu 5:28, and she shall be made pregnant with seed; usually שִׁכְבַת־ז׳, flow of semen Lv 22:4 (H), Lv 15:16, 32 (P; all c. תֵּצֵא) 15:17 (P; c. הָיָה); as acc. modi שׁכב את־אִשָּׁה שׁ׳ ז׳ Lv 19:20 (H), 15:18 Nu 5:13 (both P); so also נתן שְׁכָבְתּוֹ לְזרע Lv 18:20 (לְ genitiv.); cf. ז׳ אָדָם וז׳ בְּהֵמָה Je 31:27 (as 2nd acc. after זָרַע q.v. 3 b). 4. seed = off spring: a. rarely of animals, coll. Gn 3:15; 7:3 (both J). Usually b. of mankind, coll. = descendants, posterity; seed of the woman Gn 3:15 (J); seed of the patriarchs (especially Abr.) 12:17; 13:15, 16(×2); 16:10; 22:17(×2), 18; 24:7; 26:3, 4(×3), 24; 28:13, 14(×2); 32:13 (all J), 15:13, 18 Ex 32:13(×2); 33:1 (all JE), Gn 21:12 Jos 24:3 (both E; in both promised seed of Abr. restricted to line of Isaac), Dt 11:9; 34:4 Ne 9:8; = a son as involving posterity Gn 15:3, 5 (JE) cf. infr.; phr. זַרְעָם אַחֲרֵיהֶם Dt 1:8, cf. 4:37; 10:15, so P, Gn 17:7(×2), 8, 9, 10, 19; 35:12; 48:4; זַרְעֲךָ אִתָּךְ Gn 28:4 (P; cf. Nu 18:19); v. also infr. c. c. seed ( = posterity) of other individuals Gn 21:13 (E; of Ishmael) 24:60; 48:19 (both J), Nu 14:24 (JE), Lv 21:21; 22:3, 4 (all H), Nu 17:5 (P), 1 S 20:42(×2) 24:22 2 S 4:8 1 K 2:33(×2) 11:39 2 K 5:27 Je 29:32 Ez 43:19 Jb 5:25 (|| צֶאֱצָאֶיךָ), 21:8 (|| id.); especially of seed of David as anointed to reign ψ 18:51 = 2 S 22:51 (|| לִמְשִׁיחוֹ), as sitting on throne Je 33:21, cf. v 22, 26, ψ 89:5, 30, 37; of Jehoiachin Je 22:28, 30, Jehoiakim 36:31 (cf. v 30); of child (son) as involving posterity Gn 38:8, 9(×2) (of Er’s seed by Onan), 48:11 (all J), cf. 19:32, 34 (J), 2 S 7:12 Ru 4:12 Lv 21:15 (H); phr. זַרְעָם אַחֲרֵיהֶם of seed of Noah and his sons Gn 9:9; of Aaron Ex 28:43; of Phinehas Nu 25:13 (all P); of David 1 Ch 17:11; לְזַרְעוֹ לְדֹרֹתָם Ex 30:21 (P), cf. Lv 21:17 (H; both of Aaron), v. also b supr. ז׳, of seed of righteous, especially ψψ:—ψ 25:13; 37:25, 26; 69:37; 102:29 (|| בָּנִים), 112:2 (|| דּוֹר ישׁרים), cf. 22:31 (on text v. Che); of wicked ψ 21:11; 37:28. d. specif. of a particular child (son) ז׳ אַחֵר Gn 4:25 (J); ז׳ אֲנָשִׁים 1 S 1:11; of children Lv 18:21; 20:2, 3, 4; 22:13 (all H), 1 S 2:20 (cf. בָּנִים, בָּנוֹת v 21); children and grandchildren Gn 46:6, 7 (P). e. = family Gn 17:12 (P; cf. Assyrian zêr bit abišu Asrb.Annals iii. 10); note especially of royal family ז׳ הַמֶּלֶךְ 1 K 11:14; ז׳ הַמַּמְלָכָה 2 K 11:1 = 2 Ch 22:10; ז׳ הַמְּלוּכָה 2 K 25:25 = Je 41:1, Ez 17:13 Dn 1:3; = pedigree בית אבותם וְזַרְעָם Ezr 2:59 = Ne 7:61; = one’s nation, as of same blood Est 10:3 (|| עַם).—Some vbs. used c. ז׳ in these senses are:—נָתַן, God subj. Gn 15:3 Ru 4:12 (sq. מִן of woman); שִׂים 1 S 2:20; c. man as subj. נתן Gn 38:9; הֵקִים v 8; חִיָּה ז׳, keep alive, or give life to, of animals Gn 7:3; of woman 19:32, 34 (sq. מִן of man). f. especially as name for people of Isr., seed of Abr. Is 41:8 2 Ch 20:7 (|| עַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל), Je 33:26 ψ 105:6 (|| בְּנֵי יעקב); of Isr. or Jacob 2 K 17:20 Ne 9:2 (|| בני ישׂראל v 1), Is 43:5; 45:19, 25 Je 31:36, 37; 33:26 ψ 22:24(×2) 1 Ch 16:13 (|| בני יעקב); so ז׳ בֵּית ישׂראל Je 23:8 Ez 44:22 (S G codd. Co del. בית); ז׳ בית יעקב Ez 20:5; in Est. ז׳ הַיְהוּדִים Est 6:13; so of Edom (seed of Esau) Je 49:10, cf. מִזֶּרע מָדַי Dn 9:1. g. seed of Isr. (or Jacob, or the people), is used also, by (later) prophets, of future generations, in addressing the people:—Dt 28:46, 59; 30:6, 19; 31:21, cf. Nu 18:19 (P; לְזַרְעֲךָ אִתָּ֑ךְ, || וּלְבָנֶיךָ וְלִבְנוֹתֶיךָ), Je 30:10 = 46:27 (Jacob and Isr. here = people), ψ 106:27; || צֶאֱצָא(יך) Is 44:3 (Jacob and Jeshurun), 48:19, cf. 61:9; also Je 7:15 Is 54:3; 66:22 (|| שִׁמְכֶם); מִפִּי וַרְעֲךָ וּמִפִּי זֶרַע זַרְעֲךָ Is 59:21; of Jews (יהודים) Est 9:27, 28, 31. 5. seed as marked by moral quality = persons (or community) of such a quality; transition to this through such cases as those of ז׳ בְּרוּכֵי י׳ Is 65:23 (|| צֶאֱצָאִים), cf. 61:9; 65:9; ז׳ הַקֹּדֶשׁ Ezr 9:2 (of Isr.), cf. Is 53:10; note, in good sense ז׳ צַדִּיקִים Pr 11:21 (opp. רַע); ז׳ אֱמֶת Je 2:21 (|| שׂוֹרֵק); ז׳ אלהים Mal 2:15;—ז׳ קֹדֶשׁ Is 6:13 is a gloss;—in bad sense ז׳ מְרֵעִים Is 1:4 2 (|| גּוֹי־חֹטֵא, עַם כֶּבֶד עָוֹן, בָּנִים מַשְׁחִיתִים), 14:20; ז׳ מְנָאֵף 57:3 (|| בני עֹנֲנָה); ז׳־שָׁ֑קֶר v 4 (|| יִלְדֵי־פֶשַׁע).
זֶרַע const. id.; once זְרַע Nu. 11:7, with suff. זַרְעִי, pl. with suff. זַרְעֵיכֶם (1 Sa. 8:15).
(1) prop. sowing; hence seedtime, the time of sowing, i.e. winter, Gen. 8:22; Lev. 26:5; also, a planting, Isa. 17:11 (compare the root No. 3).
(2) seed, that which is scattered, whether of plants, trees, or grain, Gen. 1:11, 12, 29; 47:23; Lev. 26:16; Deu. 22:9; Ecc. 11:6; hence that which springs from seed sown, harvest, field of grain, 1 Sa. 8:15; the produce of fields, Job 39:12; Isa. 23:3.
(3) semen virile, Lev. 15:16, seq.; 18:21; 19:20 (comp. the verb, NIPHAL, No. 3; HIPHIL, No. 2); hence—(a) offspring, progeny, descendants, Gen. 3:15; 13:16; 15:5, 13; 17:7, 10; 21:13, etc.; also of one son (when an only one, the passage therefore, Gen. 3:15, is not to be thus explained, as is done by polemical theologians), Gen. 4:25. 1 Sa. 1:11, זֶרַע אֲנָשִׁים “male offspring.” [The remark upon Gen. 3:15 is intended apparently to contradict its application to the Lord Jesus Christ and his redemption, as if he could not be the seed of the woman; in reply it will here suffice to remark, that in the very passage cited, immediately after Gen. 4:25, it is clear that זֶרַע is used of one son, namely, Seth, when he was not an only one, because Cain was yet alive; and further, this seed of the woman was to bruise the head of the tempter, “thy head,” which can in no sense apply to any but Christ individually, who became incarnate, “that by means of death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil.”] זֶרַע זַרְעֶךָ the offspring of thy offspring, i.e. thy descendants, Isa. 59:21.—(b) stock, race, family; זֶרַע יִשְׂרָאֵל Psa. 22:24. זֶרַע הַמֶּלֶךְ, ז׳ הַמַּמְלָכָה the royal race, 2 Ki. 11:1; 1 Ki. 11:14.—(c) a race of men, as זֶרַע קֹדֶשׁ Isa. 6:13; זֶרַע בְּרוּכֵי יְיָ Isa. 65:23; and in an evil sense, זֶרַע מְרֵעִים Isa. 1:4; זֶרַע שֶׁקֶר Isa. 57:4; comp. Hebr. פִּרְחָח, Gr. γέννημα, Matt. 3:17; Germ. Brut, French race.
[“(4) a planting, what is planted, Isa. 17:11. Also, a sprout, a shoot, Eze. 17:5. See the root in Kal No. 3.”]
זְרַע Ch. id. Dan. 2:43.
זֵרֹעִים & זֵרְעֹנִים m. pl. vegetables, herbs, vegetable food, such as is eaten in a half fast; opposed to flesh and more delicate food, Dan. 1:12, 16 (Ch. and Talmud. Syr. ܙܰܪܥܘܽܢܙܳ id.).
זֶרַע: זָֽרַע; cs. זֶרַע & זְרַע, sf. זַרְעוֹ; pl. sf. זַרְעֵיכֶם: seed: — 1. in genl. zeraʿ haśśādeh seed of the field Gn 47:22; zeraʿ = seedtime Gn 8:22; a) specific kinds of seed: of tree Gn 1:11, shrub 1:29, coriander Ex 16:31; zeraʿ ʾemet (vine) of good sort Je 2:21; b) seed (for sowing) Gn 47:19; meqôm zeraʿ place fit for sowing; bêt zeraʿ a portion of sown land 1K 18:32; — 2. of men & animals: zeraʿ ʾādām & zeraʿ behēmâ seed Je 31:27, zeraʿ ʾanāšîm = son 1S 1:11; zeraʿ = descendants of ʾiššâ & nāḥāš Gn 3:15, ʿôf 7:3; šikbat zeraʿ ejaculation of semen Lv 15:16; — 3. offspring, descendants: a) sg. coll. 1S 2:20; oft. of patriarchs, Gn 12:7 & c, & David 2S 7:12; rāʾâ zeraʿ see offspring = have offspr Is 53:10; many phrases, e.g. zeraʿ ʾên lāh she has no children Lv 22:13, hēqîm zeraʿ le supply offspring for him Gn 38:8; b) single offspring, zeraʿ ʾaḥēr Gn 4:25; — 4. origin, descent Ezr 2:59 Ne 7:61.
2446 זֶרַע (zě∙rǎʿ): n.masc.; ≡ Str 2233; TWOT 582a—1. LN 3.35 seed, i.e., a kernel part of a plant that propagates the species (Ge 1:11); 2. LN 8.70–8.77 semen, i.e., the product of the male genitals (Lev 15:16); 3. LN 9.41–9.45 child, i.e., one that is the direct offspring (Ge 15:3); 4. LN 10.14–10.48 offspring, descendant, posterity, i.e., one that is related more than one generation removed (Ge 3:15); 5. LN 11.90–11.95 family, clan, i.e., an extended family group based on a common ancestor (Ge 19:32, 34); 6. LN 11.12–11.54 race, i.e., a very extended family line based on many different criteria, with a focus on religious ties (Ezr 9:2); 7. LN 67.163–67.200 unit: יוֹם (yôm) … זֶרַע (zě∙rǎʿ) planting time, i.e., a time seed is placed in the ground (Ge 8:22); 8. LN 1.95–1.98 unit: שָׂדֶה זֶרַע (śā∙ḏě(h) zě∙rǎʿ) a fertile field, i.e., a cultivated field suitable for sowing (Eze 17:5), note: for MT text at Isa 9:19[EB 20], see 2432; 9. LN 23.61–23.65 unit: נָתַן שְׁכֹבֶת לְ־ זֶרַע (nā∙ṯǎn šeḵō∙ḇěṯ l- zě∙rǎʿ) have sexual relations (Lev 18:20); 10. LN 23.46–23.60 unit: שִׁכְבָה זֶרַע (šiḵ∙ḇā(h) zě∙rǎʿ) have sexual relations (Lev 19:20; Nu 5:13); 11. LN 43 unit: מָשַׁךְ זֶרַע (mā∙šǎḵ zě∙rǎʿ) planter, i.e., a farm worker that scatters the seed for sowing (Am 9:13)
זֵרֹעַ (zē∙rōaʿ) BDB: see 2447
zera˓ (זֶֶרַע, 2233), “seed; sowing; seedtime; harvest; offspring; descendant(s); posterity.” This word occurs about 228 times in biblical Hebrew and in all periods. It has cognates in Aramaic, Phoenician, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Akkadian.
Zera˓ refers to the process of scattering seed, or “sowing.” This is the emphasis in Gen. 47:24: “And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food.…” Num. 20:5 should be rendered: “It [the wilderness] is not a place of sowing [NASB, “grain”] or figs or vines or pomegranates, nor is there water to drink.” Ezek. 17:5 should be rendered: “He also took some of the seed of the land and planted it in a field [suitable for] sowing” (NASB, “in a fertile field”). A closely related emphasis occurs in passages such as Gen. 8:22, where the word represents “sowing” as a regularly recurring activity: “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat … shall not cease.”
Zera˓ frequently means “seed.” There are several nuances under this emphasis, the first being what is sown to raise crops for food. The Egyptians told Joseph: “Buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate” (Gen. 47:19). The word represents the product of a plant: “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed [food], and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself …” (Gen. 1:11-the first biblical appearance). In this and other contexts zera˓ specifically refers to “grain seed,” or “edible seed” (cf. Lev. 27:30). This may be the meaning of the word in 1 Sam. 8:15: “And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards.…” However, it is possible that here the word refers to arable land, as does its Akkadian cognate. In other contexts the word represents an entire “crop or harvest”: “For the seed [harvest] shall be prosperous; the vine shall give her fruit, and the ground shall give her increase, and the heavens shall give their dew …” (Zech. 8:12). In Isa. 23:3 zera˓ and the usual Hebrew word for “harvest” (gatsir) are in synonymous parallelism.
Zera˓ sometimes means “semen,” or a man’s “seed”: “And if any man’s seed of copulation go out from him [if he has a seminal emission] …” (Lev. 15:16). A beast’s “semen” can also be indicated by this word (Jer. 31:27). Zera˓ often means “offspring.” Only rarely is this nuance applied to animals: “And I will put enmity between thee [the devil] and the woman [Eve], and between thy seed and her seed …” (Gen. 3:15). This verse uses the word in several senses. The first appearance means both the descendants of the snake and those of the spiritual being who used the snake (evil men). The second appearance of the word refers to all the descendants of the woman and ultimately to a particular descendant (Christ). In Gen. 4:25 zera˓ appears not as a collective noun but refers to a particular and immediate “offspring”; upon the birth of Seth, Eve said: “God … hath appointed me another seed [offspring].…” Gen. 46:6 uses the word (in the singular) of one’s entire family including children and grandchildren (cf. Gen. 17:12). One’s larger family, including all immediate relatives, is included in the word in passages such as 1 Kings 11:14. The word is used of an entire nation of people in Esth. 10:3.
Zera˓ is used of groups and individuals marked by a common moral quality. This usage was already seen in Gen. 3:15. Isa. 65:23 mentions the “seed” of the blessed of God. The Messiah or Suffering Servant will see His “offspring,” or those who believe in and follow Him (Isa. 53:10). We also read about the followers of the righteous (Prov. 11:21), the faithful “seed” (Jer. 2:21), and godly “offspring.” In each case this word represents those who are united by being typified by the modifier of zera˓ Several other passages exhibit the same nuance except that zera˓ is modified by an undesirable quality.
זֶרַע (zeraʿ). Sowing, seed, offspring. This noun is used 224 times. Its usages fall into four basic semantic categories:1. The time of sowing, seedtime; 2. the seed as that which is scattered or as the product of what is sown; 3. the seed as semen and 4. the Seed as the offspring in the promised line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob or in other groups separate from this people of promise.
The primary meaning comes from the realm of agriculture. Seedtime or sowing, as over against the time of harvest, will recur according to a promised pattern which God guaranteed to Noah after the flood (Gen 8:22; cf. Lev 26:5). This sowing or planting takes place in the fields (Ezk 17:5) and thereby accords well with the Akkadian zēru “cultivated land.” The seed itself which is planted in these fields has the same name (Gen 47:19, 23; Lev 11:37–38; Num 24:7; Deut 28:38; Isa 55:10; Amos 9:13). The product produced has the same designation (e.g. the seed of the herbs and trees in Gen 1:11–12, 29 or the seed that is gathered into the barn in Job 39:12; cf. Deut 14:22; Isa 23:3). Thus, the whole agricultural cycle is practically summed up in the word zeraʿ; from the act of sowing to the seed planted, to the harvest taken. zeraʿ is used figuratively in referring to Judah’s idolatry (Isa 17:11). They are planting “pleasant plants” along with “strange slips.” This refers either to the Ugaritic nʿmn of the Tammuz-Adonis cult or to the folly of planting thorns and thistles and expecting a crop of flowers or vegetables.
zeraʿ refers to semen in Num 5:28, “she shall be made pregnant with seed.” Frequently it occurs in the expression “flow of semen” (Lev 15:16, 15:32, 22:4). It is also used as the accusative of mode and translated euphemistically as “lying carnally with a woman” (Lev 15:18; 18:20; Num 5:13). Note the same use in the promise of Jer 31:27. The Lord will sow the houses of Israel and Judah with the seed of man and the seed of beast in the latter days.
The most important theological usage is found in the fourth category. Commencing with Gen 3:15, the word “seed” is regularly used as a collective noun in the singular (never plural). This technical term is an important aspect of the promise doctrine, for Hebrew never uses the plural of this root to refer to “posterity” or “offspring.” The Aramaic targums pluralize the term occasionally, e.g. the Targum of Gen 4:10, but the Aramaic also limits itself to the singular in the passages dealing with the promised line. Thus the word designates the whole line of descendants as a unit, yet it is deliberately flexible enough to denote either one person who epitomizes the whole group (i.e. the man of promise and ultimately Christ), or the many persons in that whole line of natural and/or spiritual descendants.
Precisely so in Gen 3:15. One such seed is the line of the woman as contrasted with the opposing seed which is the line of Satan’s followers. And then surprisingly the text announces a male descendant who will ultimately win a crushing victory over Satan himself.
This promise to Eve was enlarged and made more specific in the Abrahamic Covenant. God would grant a land and a numerous offspring through Abraham’s son Isaac and his offspring: Gen 12:7; 13:15–16; 15:13,18; 16:10; 17:7–10,12,19; 22:17–18; 24:7; 26:3–4,24; 28:4,13–14; 32:13; 35:12; 48:4. This whole line builds and the promise continues in Ex 32:13; 33:1; Deut 1:8; 11:9; 34:4; Josh 24:3.
The same can be said for David and his offspring. The promise is continued in II Sam 7:12; made parallel to the term “Messiah” in Ps 18:50 [H 5] (see II Sam 22:51); and repeated in Ethan’s commentary on the Davidic covenant of II Sam 7 in Ps 89:4, 29, 36 [H 5, 30, 37].
This corporate solidarity found in the seed of Eve, Abraham, and David receives theological comment in Isa 41:8; 43:5; 44:3; 45:19,25; 48:19; 53:10; 54:3; 59:21; 61:9; 65:9; 66:22; Jer 31:36–37; 33:26; II Chr 20:7.
Thank you Andy, it will be interesting to see where this discussion takes us.
While agreeing with your comments about possession, would it not be correct to say that this is a completely different topic? The possibility of deliverance and expulsion of possessing spirits points to this being a temporary condition. The same cannot be said of sonship – this cannot be healed, repented of, expelled etc. A son “of the wicked one” (Mk13.38) is born and dies such. Tare cannot become wheat or wheat tare.
The numerous references to demonic progeny in Scripture combined with the evidence of its manifestation in human form since the fall give much cause for study and reflection, irrespective of how this progeny began. It would be helpful if we could discuss the nature and manifestation of this progeny down the ages to our times without getting involved in speculation about when, how and if (at all) Eve “lay with the serpent”.
It will take me time to absorb Grant’s latest informative post and word study but, at first glance, it seems to confirm the very specific meaning of “seed” as referring to progeny, issue, descendancy, offspring, posterity, etc.
Grant: I give my thanks for your in-depth analysis of the word ’seed’ and its meanings. It is very helpful; but also after reading it I see that you have only confirmed what I believe and have stated several times already in this forum. That is, that Satan seduced Eve in the garden of Eden and fathered Cain. I say this because no matter how you cut it, ’seed’ (Heb. zera) means descendants, offspring, progeny. If one simply follows the story from the Fall, it is clear that the Bible is the book of Adam, the children of God, and the struggle between good and evil.
The language of Genesis 3 is typical English of 17th century England. We still use some of this language today. For example, here’s some lyrices from a recent country song entitled “You’re still Young Enough to Know Better” (Guy Penrod-Breathe Deep album): ‘Your innocence is on the line, and you’re headed for that FRUIT OUT ON THE VINE. Temptation, in your reach…but when you taste before its time it’s bitter-sweet.’ This is the same connotation. Now I know that this is NOT Scripture by any means, and isn’t even inspired, but it goes to show the Point and Meaning behind the words.
The tree was pleasant to Eve’s eyes…and a tree to be DESIRED to make one wise….she ATE the fruit. “Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she EATETH, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness” (Proverbs 30:20). Must I say more? Look at the Wickedness of the Cainite civilization-you pointed it out-in Genesis 4.
Notice also that knowledge of Jehovah followed Seth’s line. Cain’s descendants did not call on the name of the LORD. They did like to copy Adam’s names, though. They like to BE LIKE Adam-but they aren’t Adam. IDENTITY CRISIS? This reminds me of Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. 2:9:”I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the BLASPHEMY of THEM which say THEY are JEWS, and are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan.” 3:9:”Behold, I will make THEM of the Synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make THEM to come and worship before thy (TRUE Israel) feet, and to know that I have loved thee (TRUE Israel).” Who is the father of lies? Satan. Jesus Christ our Lord said this TOO, “Ye are of YOUR Father (PROGENITOR) the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and ABODE NOT IN THE TRUTH, because there is NO TRUTH in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his OWN: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” Verse 38: Christ: “I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with YOUR FATHER.” 39: “They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40: “But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41:”Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him (Interesting Reply to Christ), We be not born of FORNICATION; we have one Father, even God.”
Fornication? This is quite a reply….verse 47:”He that is of God heareth God’s words (i.e. Adamites-children of God): ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” They were not “planted” by the Almighty. They were the tares planted “while men slept” by the “enemy”, which is Satan.
Andy, I agree that Grant’s study (which seems to be a collection of various commentaries) only goes to strengthen the understanding one must have of the Biblical term “seed” as meaning physical and/or spiritual progeny, which can be singular or collective. The scriptural context must then be relied on to help us distinguish which of these alternatives is valid in any passage where “seed” appears.
Of the terrible consequences of the fall, the one least commented on is this: that there would be two progenies on this earth one the woman’s, the other the serpent’s. Both would be proceeding out of the woman’s womb, as demonstrated shortly after the fall by the appearance of Cain.
That humanity is composed of these two mutually antagonistic (in the spiritual not racial sense) strands is clear from many Biblical passages and finds confirmation in the parable of the wheat and tares. Would anyone know of Patristic or later church writings that comment on this ??
My first question is, How come it is “so Impossible” for Satan to have literal seed on the earth when the Bible clearly declares in detail Adam and Eve’s genealogy in one column (and onward to the end of the book) and Cain’s in another column which is completely separate from Adam and Eve’s? Why does Eve’s seed have literal meaning but the “serpent’s” seed “can not”? I see double-mindedness here.
I think it is a racial meaning. When Jehovah led Israel out of Egypt in to the Promised Land He clearly ordered the complete and utter destruction of the Canaanitish peoples inhabiting that land. Is this not ethnic cleansing? I suppose that if race had no importance at all, then Jehovah (which is Jesus Christ) would have commanded the Israelites to Convert them. We see this Did NOT happen, though. Why?
What about Ezra and Nehemiah and the Israelites who married “strange wives”? Instead of divorcing and leaving them and the Offspring, Why not convert them? If religion is completely Color Blind, how come these devout men ordered separation and repentance, and not conversion? How come Jehovah-Jesus Christ ordered Destruction instead of Conversion? Sincerely, I would really like to know.
The idea that Satan could* have fathered Cain is very possible. We know that the fallen angels in Genesis 6 did this act Wholesale. From these unions came the giants or Nephilim. Jude 6 and II Peter 2:4 confirm the angels that sinned. Revelation 12 confirms that Satan drew a third part of the angelic host to his cause.
Justin Martyr believed that angels begat children from mortals. See “Second Apology of Justin” from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, page 190. The Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch, both of which appear in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament by Charles, published by Oxford at the Clarendon Press, also confirm this.
We know what “enmity” in Genesis 3:15 means. Cain killed Abel. He slew him out of envy (Proverbs 27:4). Cain hated Abel. The first bloodshed was noted by Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:33-35 when He declared: “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes (Christ sent them-He is Jehovah): and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.” Why did Jesus Christ use the word ’serpents’ when referring to some of the scribes and pharisees in Matthew 23? Why did He ask them if they could escape the damnation of hell? Did He indicate that salvation history had by-passed the Seed of the Serpent? Why did he indict these people with the blood of the righteous beginning with Abel? Why did Jesus Christ trace the bloodshed of these serpents all the way back to Abel? Did Jesus Christ confirm a physical genetic link between the serpents of Matthew 23 and Cain, the Seed of the Serpent in Genesis?
From a secular perspective, consider these folks that Say they are Jews. Of Cain’s curses, one of them was that he and his seed were to be Vagabonds, right (Genesis 4:12)? These “Jews” over in Israel (since 1948) have been country-to-country feeding off these nations’ economies (they are very good with money). It was only in the 20th Century, I believe, that Judaism was allowed back in to Spain after a 400+ year ban made by King Ferdinand and Isabella. They fought the same enemy this Hitler of the mid-20th century “Persecuted” (though Jews were killed in WWII, I don’t believe 6 million Jews were killed, let alone were even in existance at the time as Census records alone disprove it; but also, Stalin’s Slaughter of just-how-many-Ukrainians goes unnoticed and the awful bombing of Dresden is either Ignored or “justified”. My grandmother witnessed Hitler’s command to the Jews to leave their money and leave the country-he didn’t just round up 6 million people and gas them all. IMPOSSIBLE.)
An analysis of the word “man” is revealing in consideration of this topic. In Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, the Hebrew word for “man” in Genesis 1:26,27 and 2:7 is #120 aw-dawm (i.e. Ruddy, to shew blood in the face) But, in Genesis 4:1, “man” is #376 iysh or eesh, which means a male person. There is a clear difference here in the identities of the two boys born to Eve. Twins they were, but two different fathers they had.
What about Eve’s interesting remark, “I have gotten a man from the LORD (JEHOVAH)”? Remember these words of Paul, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety”(I Tim. 2:14,15). Eve was deceived. Satan appeared as an angel of light (II Corinthians 11:14) to her, and put his spurious seed in her. Eve spoke sincerely. She thought she was visited by an angel of the LORD.
The Biblical evidence (including in Jesus’ teaching) for the existence of two irremediably antagonistic strands in humanity, one of demonic, the other of divine origin, is clearly beyond dispute. So is the evidence in human history; especially in our times when the antagonism is being displayed with ever increasing intensity.
Trying to prove the validity of this evidence to those who dispute it is really a waste of time. It can only lead to interminable debates such as those over infant baptism, predestination, the timing of the rapture, the millennium, etc., etc..
A more fruitful area of discussion would be the following: assuming that there are two strands (one divine, one demonic) of humanity on earth, how should this affect the witness of the church, the body of Christ, in the world? Would our proclamation of the Gospel and of God’s law be different if we really believed in the co-existence of predestined wheat and unredeemable tares ?
John, I think I understand what you are saying, but I must be honest, you seem to be vague in your last comment. Could you explain it further, please?
How will it effect our proclamation of the Gospel, of the Kingdom, of God’s Law, if we know our earthly audience is a mixture of the “children of the kingdom” and “children of the wicked one” (Mt13:39)? The former predestined to salvation, the latter with their father to another place.
Sorry, that should have been Mt13:38
The Bible is a story of one specific people within the race of men and their relationship to God Almighty. Jesus Christ is the cornerstone, the pinnacle, the climax, the featured character in this story. He is the Hero. When one treads scripture from Genesis to Revelation with an open mind it becomes clear that the book is about one people from beginning to end: Israel. When it comes to the Promises given to Abraham of salvation, it’s as easy as “In Isaac shall thy seed be called” (Gen. 17:19,21; 21:12; Romans 9:7,8; also Romans 9:4,5). One people have carried the message of salvation and because of their multiplicity (in the past), have spread it all over the globe. Christianity has always been the voice the sheep hear. (Matthew 15:24)
Mr. Paul,
We live our lives as Christians under the banner of Jesus Christ. We may recognize the seed of the serpent, and we may not. They can be “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” This should not hinder us from doing what we can to spread the Gospel of Peace to other Israelites (not “Jews”) around us. We have to occupy till Christ comes.