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.
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.
“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.”
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.”
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.
Esau-Edom is the main face of Satan’s seed in the earth as put forth in scripture. These are those mentioned in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 (which scriptures no one yet has dealt with), who call themselves Jews, BUT ARE NOT (Praise God for the clarity for our time!). The “Jews” or Israelis, are not Israelitish at all (they have no great nation nor “company of nations”–Genesis 17:4-6, 15, 16).
Here is the Truth*: The “Jews” are usurpers, inhabiting the land of Israel, as prophecy shows. Ezekiel 35:9, 10: “I will make thee perpetual desolations, and thy cities shall not return: and ye shall know that I am the LORD. Because thou (Mount Seir, or Esau-Edom) hast said, These two nations (the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel) and these two countries shall be mine, and we will possess it; whereas the LORD was there…” The JEWS are LIARS, DECEIVERS, MURDERERS, and have no connection to God, His Real people Israel, and His Word.
PROVE THIS WRONG.
That Satan or Lucifer has REAL SEED, POSTERITY, CHILDREN in the earth TODAY is illustrated by YET ANOTHER PASSAGE in the prophets. This time*, in 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*** 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*****.”
If you get acquainted with truthful, honest history, you will find that the “persecuted Jew” is good at handling money and at establishing cities through Big Business.
What did Cain do? He went and built a city (Genesis 4:16). Don’t forget either, that the LORD set a MARK upon Cain (Gen. 4:15), and that Cain and his posterity would be FUGITIVES (GYPSIES, KHAZARS, ETC.) and VAGABONDS in the earth, and that they can’t cultivate a Garden*. Cain also predicted his posterity’s persecution when he said that “every one that findeth me shall slay me” (Gen. 4:14).
Hear ye the Word of the Lord.
So who fulfills all of Israel’s descriptions as given in God’s Word? The answer is one: Anglo-Saxons, Scandinavians, Germanians—in general, the Western European, Caucasian stock of peoples that took Christianity and spread it across the world. Who would have thought???? IT’s just so unbelievable. NOT.
Andy, you are showing signs of being cultic in your thinking. Your convoluted reasoning from Scripture is truly amazing. Adding to Scripture is a great danger. God makes unqualified statements about this.
If you are in British Isralism, you are in a cult.
I almost laughed at your comment, Grant. Let’s see, you accuse me of wresting scripture and twisting it when I have posted the MOST Verses from the BROADEST SPECTRUM of the BIBLE. The TRUTH is, Grant, you have nothing to answer, Biblically, on this issue.
Once again, Grant attacks me, “Andy”, but can not prove my statements wrong—not even from the Bible, let alone from reasoning.
Every sane mind will acknowledge this point.
And, I am not in British Israelism, because I am not baptized into some sect; but, rather, I believe a Christian is baptized into Jesus Christ. The Church is under Christ Jesus, so I am baptized into Him. My beliefs reflect British Israelism in many ways, but I am not in the sect.
Andy, the onus of proof is upon the person who makes the assertion (Aristotelian logic). You do not prove from Scripture the assertions you make. Your arguments are filled with inferential logic and pretexting of Scripture (not taking the context in view). One true sign of a cultic view of Scripture is pretexting. Your view of Scripture is outside the norms of those who seriously study the Bible. What you are doing in terms of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) is interpolation of Scripture.
Regarding your assault on the Jews–God says “I will bless them that bless you and curse them that curse you.” You may be under a curse from God.
Grant, my assertion has been proven, and that more than once in this thread. All you can do is attack my character (and has Grant met me? No, Grant knows everything, so he doesn’t need to meet me).
Again, no answer to my assertions from the Bible. I will gladly change my outlook and beliefs if you all can show me from the Bible that this is wrong.
Grant, perhaps you should consider God’s warning to pastors who “destroy and scatter the sheep” of His pasture (Jeremiah 23:1). And after that, ponder Isaiah 56:10-12.
To everyone else: Study up, and don’t let your pastor take advantage of you.
Andy, I think you are getting paranoid. The above blog has nothing to do with your character but with your capacity to interpret Scripture. You have not proven your assertions but appeal to pretexting. On principles of hermeneutics, your use of Scripture is cultic in fashion.
Oh, now I’m “paranoid.” No, to you I haven’t proven my assertions because your mind is closed to understanding the scriptures I have brought forth. To those who follow all the scriptures I’ve given from both the Old and New Testaments, and who give them an honest analysis, I think they will find that what I have been saying here in this thread is true.
It’s common sense, really. If you’re a real Christian, your faith is based out of God’s word–His Holy Bible (KJV). Therefore, if you can show from God’s Perfect Word that some precept, doctrine, etc. is true by providing sufficient scriptures which say so, then it is true. I have done exactly this, and have not been answered yet.
Andy, you are completely missing the point. You have not proven your assertions. It is impossible to argue against something that is not asserted from the text. Since you do not show your views from the text, you are pretexting and interpolating your views into the text. This is adding to Scripture. The Scriptures you use are completely unrelated to the facts of what you are trying to prove.
“The Scriptures you use are completely unrelated to the facts of what you are trying to prove.” The Bible is one continuous book. The Old testament and New agree with each other. The verses I have used establish a stable foundation of Interpretation. For example, I John 3:12 has much to do with Genesis 3:15. I use the whole Bible, not just one verse, to establish this argument. A well-rounded knowledge of all scripture is of even greater importance for Genesis 3 because it is Veiled Language.
What in the world does your point have to do with 1 Jn 3:12? This is just another example of your horrible interpretation. Note: http://versebyversecommentary.com/2001/06/06/1-john-312/
I want to say, “Duh” to that, but it is that Cain is the son of Satan. I say this because in one verse you can not have a spiritual “seed” (of Satan) and a physical “seed.” Either make both physical or both spiritual. You’re the horrible interpreter.
Andy, this is utterly inconceivable that you use an interpolation to explain your interpretation. Where does it say anywhere in the Bible that Cain is the physical seed of Satan!? Nowhere. You cannot assert it because it is not there. The onus of proof of this is on you, the person who makes the assertion. However, you can’t assert it because it is not there.
Listen to this everybody! Grant’s own mind is better than the Bible. Grant, I have said enough on this topic, and I see I am just restating what I have thoroughly said already. You have no answer and before the judge your defense is lacking. If all you can do is make some case that I have not proven my point when all I have done is post scripture after scripture to illustrate my point, then I know that my time here is about to end. I’m convinced you’re unconvincable.
Andy, you cannot answer the issue of your interpolation. Your last blog is gobbledygook in the factuality of your answer. No matter how many times I ask you to prove your point, you don’t do it because you can’t do it. You appeal to vacuous generalities hoping that somehow you can appeal to the authority of your subjective interpretations.
Let me interpret for Grant.
Because Grant has no defense against the truth, he simply denies that I’ve proven anything (even though he hasn’t answered my assertions). He is trying to keep the focus on me so that his inability to prove my assertions wrong goes under the radar.
Where is your scriptural backing, preacher? Where is it? By the Bible, you are a liar.
Facts, Andy, facts. You have not given them. I am focusing on your proof which you have not given. Like many cults, they change the subject from the facts to other subjects just like you just did.
Alright, Grant. Teach me, O great wise one. Give me an example of a fact.
Give me one statement from Scripture where Satan had physical sex.
And you show me how “seed” happens to have two separate meanings in Genesis 3:15.
Hi All!
Just a note from your sister in Christ! You may remember me from a few months ago when I jumped in this thread for a couple of days. I get emails with comments on this post and fight back responding cuz its like talking to a brick wall! Andy, Grant makes very valid points and I feel does well to back up what he shares. My real concern here is for Lottie.
Lottie if you are still in on this thread I just want to appoligize. This is not a very good example of what it means to be a christian. If I may recommend something to you it would be this, get on your knees and ask Jesus to show you how much He loves you! And then start reading the new testament especially the Gospels, matthew mark luke and john. Learn more about Jesus and what He did for you personally on the cross and how much He loves and wants a relationship with you.
To Andy and Grant, I believe you men mean well but you are allowing the enemy to use and distract you from the mission. Get back to the basics in fact it might not hurt either of you to do what I recommended to Lottie.
And Lottie please know I am praying for you and may Jesus awaked your heart to His passionate love for you!
Elizabeth, thank you for your blog. Lottie is the very reason I decided to expose Andy’s cultic interpretations. A new Christian does not have the foundation to distinguish between the things that differ. The Bible is replete with challenges to false doctrine. Every 2nd epistle in the New Testament does this, all of the gospels (Jesus confronts religion more than anyone), the book of Jude, much of the book of Revelation, all of the prophets, and the Tora–all of these books confront false doctrine. There is something more than relationships in Scripture.
For months I left Andy’s ideas stand for others to see how weak they were but once Lottie joined the blog on this verse, then I felt I had to expose his false doctrine.
Thanks for your love and concern for Lottie.
Hi Grant!
I understand what you are saying and I totally agree. Solid doctrine is VERY important! I appreciate what you are trying to do here and am glad that you have stood up and taken this discussion back over.
Andy please don’t be offended by what I am about to say but I think you need to go find another playground to play on your false doctrine is not welcome here anymore. And YOU NOT GRANT are the one who should be in fear and trembling.
Andy has made some good points about the seed of the serpent which need to be answered. I registered here some months back to follow the Gen 3.15 thread and am sorry to see it descend into the kind of bickering we have witnessed. As teachers (and I have been teaching the Bible for over 20 years) I believe we must be very patient with the genuine seekers for truth and avoid the kind of ad hominem attacks we have seen. Any “seed of the serpent” discussion deserves better. Yet it always seems to raise the temperature – is that surprising in view of the final destination of the topic’s main actor?
Grant is generously sharing his knowledge of God’s Word with us all. My request to him is the following: the Gen3.15 “seed of the woman” can be traced and explained in the Bible all the way through to the Book of Revelation; Andy has done some work, which Grant rejects, on tracing the “seed of the serpent” through Scripture; if Andy is wrong, and as a first step in a correct analysis of what “seed of the serpent” means and is, would Grant please give us the Scripture references which trace the “seed of the serpent” through the Bible.
Elizabeth, thanks for your comments. I believe your insights are right on. Education is not an issue for me when it comes to understanding the Bible. Most people can understand the Bible by using context. Some of the people who have made great impact on me did not have extensive education. Learning from life advances many people into higher understandings of life and Scripture.
John Paul. Ad Hominem argument is the attempt to avoid the premise of a person arguing against another. My problem with Andy’s premise is that he does not show it (the premise) from Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture is there a statement that shows Cain or his offspring were the result of Satan having physical sex. The Bible often charges Israel with spiritual adultery by worshiping other gods.
I do not argue that there are no children of the Devil. Jesus charged religious leaders that their father was the Devil (Jn 8:44). He was their father in a spiritual sense and in their teaching. In Acts 13:9 Paul charged Elymas with being a child of the devil. These children of the Devil are spiritual children of the Devil. Note my treatment of 1 Jn 3:4-12 http://versebyversecommentary.com/2001/05/15/1-john-34/
Grant, amen brother! Very well put.
Grant, thank you for explaining your position. I may have missed it but cannot remember Andy stressing a supposed physical relationship between Satan and Eve. His main point is not about about sexual intercourse between the two at all. His main point is that there is a physical seed of Satan mentionned throughout Scripture. You obviously agree since you confirm that the Devil has children here on earth. Satan’s children are not diembodied entities. You must therefore agree with Andy that there is a physical seed of Satan on earth. You both seem to be in agreement on his main point. My question is: what is the fuss all about? Please explain where you disagree with him.
John Paul, no, I do not believe that Satan has a physical progeny but fallen spiritual children as you should have seen in my studies in 1 John 3. If you mean that children are born with sin capacity, then I do believe that. God told Adam if he sinned “dying you will die.” In other words, Adam died spiritually (Ro 5:12) and we die in him because we have that sin capacity. Later Adam would actually physically die.
Andy also believes in 1) antisemitism and 2) something similar to British Israelism (a cult).