The Threefold Sentence And The Seed Of The Woman

By S. Lewis Johnson, Jr.

Lewis Johnson served as a teaching elder and regularly ministered the Word at Believers Chapel in Dallas for more than thirty years. At that time he was a guest speaker at conferences in Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Australia, Jamaica, and Europe. During his academic career he held professorships in New Testament and Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He also served as visiting Professor of New Testament at Grace Theological Seminary and as visiting Professor of Systematic Theology at Tyndale Theological Seminary in Amsterdam, Netherlands. At the time of his death in January 2004 he was Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at Dallas Seminary. Both MP3 files and printed notes of Dr. Johnson’s sermons and theological lectures may be downloaded from the web site of the SLJ Institute «www.sljinstitute.net».

An Exposition Of Genesis 3:14-19 [1]

Introduction

In one of his books W. H. Griffith Thomas imagines a stranger who has never seen the New Testament coming into possession of a copy of the Old Testament. [2] He opens the book at Genesis and begins to read. From Genesis 3:15 he learns that someone is coming who will fatally wound the serpent, crushing the serpent’s head. Reading on he finds the promise repeated and enlarged in Genesis 9, 12, 49, and throughout the Old Testament. It is clear from the fullness of Isaiah’s references that the Seed is a personal redeemer. Reaching Malachi’s last chapter, however, he sees that the promises have not been realized. Thus he has become conscious that the Old Testament is a book of unfulfilled promises.

Turning back and starting again at Genesis, he concentrates on the themes of sacrifices, offerings, and feasts, lingering over Genesis 4, Exodus 12, the book of Leviticus, and the history of Israel’s worship. Coming again to the last book, he still has found very little clarification of the meaning of it all. Thus he is now conscious that the Old Testament is a book of unexplained ceremonies.

Once more he turns to Genesis and, concentrating on the many descriptions of the personal communion of the Old Testament saints with the Lord (Yahweh), he revels in the yearnings of the Old Testament men and women for fellowship with the living God. Particularly is he moved by Job’s longing and David’s cries for the experience of the presence of God. But again, when he finishes the book, there is no complete realization of their pantings after God. Thus he is now conscious of the fact that the Old Testament is a book of unsatisfied longings.

Now Dr. Thomas imagines that the stranger is given a New Testament. He begins to read, and beginning with the very first chapter he comes to the clauses “that it might be fulfilled” (Matt. 1:22; 2:15, 17; 4:14, etc.), and soon he discovers that the things he failed to discover in the Old Testament are found in the New. The little book explains the big book! He finds out that Jesus is the prophet who, in his life, fulfills the promises; the priest who, in his death, explains the priesthood, sacrifices, and feasts; and the king who, in his resurrection, satisfies the longings of the saints of God. [3]

In his resurrection life the Lord Jesus opened the Old Testament Scriptures to the two disciples on the Emmaus road, and Luke wrote, “Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, he explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures” (Luke 24:27). He was the preacher, the text, and the sermon, and never was there such a Bible conference.

Our series of studies will follow, in a limited way of course, our Lord’s methodology, and we shall seek to expound the Old Testament’s anticipation of the Messiah, the Coming One, who will in his representative suffering save his people.

Of course we cannot handle all of the passages that portray him. As he himself said, that would mean a treatment of all the Scriptures. We shall, therefore, concentrate on some of the important texts, and the first is Genesis 3:14-19, which contains the protevangelium, or the first message of saving good news. [4]

To put it simply, the Bible claims that man was created holy, being in the image of God, that he disobeyed God and failed his probation, and that he became by that what we now see him to be: a creature in moral wreck and ruin. Even the greatest of men fall into this category. Robert South, an old theologian and preacher (1634-1716), put it this way: “An Aristotle was but the rubbish of an Adam, and Athens but the rudiments of an Eden.” [5] And Pascal (1623-1662) affirmed the same, though in different words, declaring that man was “the pride and refuse of the universe.” [6]

After their fall, instead of coming forward in repentance, confession, and crying for redemption, Adam and Eve tried to cover up their evil. This cover-up, or hypocritical excuse-making, was itself the work of sin, manifesting itself sub specie boni. [7] Ultimately men will wrap themselves in the vesture of the apostles with the mantle of the Messiah himself, an epitome of cunning subterfuge (cf. 2 Cor. 11:13-15; 2 Thess. 2:4). [8]

To take sin lightly is to put oneself in the position of needing Anselm’s ancient rebuke: “You have not yet considered what a great burden sin is.” [9] This is what we see so plainly in the Genesis account of the fall of man, and it is most enlightening to see the divine response to the sin of the Edenic characters. It is to this that we now turn, and immediately we discover that God pronounces a threefold sentence upon the leading figures in the Edenic catastrophe.

The Sentence Upon The Serpent, Verses 14-15

The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your life; and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.”

Adam and Eve have been running in the age-old path of self-vindication (vv. 10– 13), and God brings it to an end in judgment. The serpent’s judgment comes first, although after the fall itself God addressed the man first, then the woman, and finally the serpent. The order of address may indicate the Lord’s view of responsibility in the fall, man having primary responsibility, the woman secondary, and the serpent tertiary accountability.

The order of sentencing is the reverse, and the serpent’s judgment is announced in these terms, “The LORD God said to the serpent, ‘Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your life; and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise [or crush] you on the head, and you shall bruise [or crush] him on the heel’” (vv. 14-15). In the original text the prose of the preceding verses at this point has given way to rhythmic Hebrew poetry (cf. 2:23).

To summarize the judgment, we might say that the serpent is cursed and Satan is to be crushed. The one who was crafty (cf. v. 1, עָרוּם, ʿārûm) [10] is now cursed (v. 14, אָרוּר, ʾārûr). [11] That the serpent is to be taken symbolically in the narrative seems plain for several reasons. For one thing, the word plays about the snake suggest it (he is “crafty,” v. 1, and “cursed,” v. 14). Further, verse 15 in the clause about enmity “between your seed and her seed,” followed by the reference specifically to the serpent’s future end, definitely attributes to the snake a length of life that is foreign to animals. In other words, after many generations of conflict, the snake’s head will be crushed. His defeat, therefore, is set at the conclusion of long warfare. The snake, then, must represent another figure. Later revelation makes it plain that Satan is meant (cf. Rom. 16:20; Rev. 12:9). Our repugnance manifested to the reptile kingdom, especially by women, is itself a subtle symbol of the horror of sin and iniquity. [12]

That the serpent should go upon its belly seems to be intended as a part of the curse, but opinions differ on that point. [13] The punishment, namely, that it should be cursed above the other animals [14] and go upon its belly, does seem to correspond to the crime. It had contended with the woman in defiance of the Edenic order established in the creation, becoming the instrument of the fall. Thus it must from this time go upon its belly. “Dust you will eat all the days of your life.” In other words, an enduring degradation is its lot (cf. Isa. 65:25). [15] The crawling, too, is symbolic of the tempter’s debasement (cf. 9:13). In the Levitical cultus, crawling things are “detestable” (cf. Lev. 11:42). Delitzsch points out that the serpent is the only animal having a bony skeleton that goes upon its belly. [16]

The word “enmity” (אֵיבָה, ʾêbāh) [17] bears emphasis in the original text and, since ultimately the serpent points on to Satan himself as we have seen, sets forth the serpent as an adversary. That is, in fact, the meaning of the term Satan, the real adversary who attacks and opposes the woman’s seed.

The final words of the fifteenth verse contain what has for centuries been called the protevangelium, or the first preaching of the gospel. Contained within the words “he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel” is the essence of that which finds its fulfillment on the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I have a friend and former student, a professor of systematic theology at an evangelical seminary for many years, who has often said that Genesis 3:15 has nothing to do with the conflict between Satan, the Son of God, and God’s elect people. He has said that all it has to do with is men, women, and snakes! But this text is no trivial statement about snakes and humans; it is, rather, a deeply symbolic picture of the struggle between Satan and the Son of God over his people and ultimately over the cosmic systems. This is the interpretation that Christian church has believed and taught historically. [18]

A great deal of discussion has raged around the meaning of the term “seed” (זֶךֶרע, zeraʿ) in verse 15. [19] Without entering into a lengthy treatment of the matter, let me note that the term is used of Abraham and his seed later (cf. 12:1-3). That is, it is both a collective term, inclusive of a body of descendants (cf. 12:3; 13:16; 15:13), and an individual term, referring to a single descendant (cf. 4:25; 1 Sam. 1:11). Thus the promise that the seed of the woman shall be at odds with the seed of the serpent refers to the history of the two seeds and the continual hostility between the Evil one and the elect of God (cf. Matt. 23:33; John 8:44; 1 John 3:8). It also refers to the individual Seed, the Lord Jesus. The word seed is indefinite in itself, for it may refer to a posterity consisting of one son only (cf. Gen. 4:25), or of a whole tribe (21:12-13). The identity of the seed may be solved only by the history of the race and the outworking of the elective processes of God (cf. Rom. 9:6-13, etc.).

Note that the location of the clause “and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed” comes before the clauses that refer to the fatal defeat of the serpent, indicating that the defeat of Satan will come only after a long warfare. That warfare is told in part by the remainder of the Old Testament, which contains many incidents that describe details of the struggle in the long history from Eden to Calvary.

The personal pronoun “he” (v. 15, NASB; RSV; NIV; NKJV; NRSV; ESV) is not required by the Hebrew, but it is much more likely to be right in view of the context and the New Testament (cf. Rom. 16:20). [20] It has strong pre-Christian support in the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, which has “he himself,” [21] the intensive pronoun. [22]

The move from the collective sense of “seed” to an individual sense is clearly made. First, notice that the “you” in “he shall crush you on the head” is personal, which implies that the “him” in “you shall crush him on the heel” is also personal. Second, one should notice the narrowing down of the reference here. In the first clause the seed of the serpent is opposed to the seed of the woman, but in the second it is not over the seed of the serpent but over the serpent itself (“shall crush you on the head”), that the victory is to be won. Keil wrote, “It, i.e. the seed of the woman will crush thy head, and thou (not thy seed) wilt crush its heel.” [23] And third, the words “head” and “heel” imply an individual, for a collective seed can hardly be said to have a head and a heel.

Many commentators see an allusion here to the virgin birth of Christ. The fact that the victorious seed is said to be the seed of the woman may not prove that a reference to the virgin birth is intended, but it is certainly compatible with the virgin birth (cf. Isa. 7:14). Had an allusion to the virgin birth not been intended, it would have been more natural for Moses to relate the seed to the father according to Hebrew custom.

The word rendered “crush” (שׁוּף, s ̌ûp̄; AV, “bruise”) means just that. [24] In the case of the head it must indicate a final and fatal crushing. In the case of the seed’s heel, while some might think that the rendering of it here by bruise might be more fitting, [25] the sense of “crush” may suggest a bit more vividly the depth of the penal and atoning sufferings of the woman’s seed. At any rate, the crushing or bruising of the heel of the woman’s seed would speak of a serious wounding but not a complete and fatal defeat.

It should be evident by now that this is all a broad and beautiful reference to the struggle of our Lord with the Evil One, which climaxed at the cross of Calvary. There he was bruised for our iniquities, accomplishing our atonement by his representation of us under the penal judgment of God upon sin. There the serpent was crushed, his works nullified and destroyed, by the blood shed for the redeemed (cf. Isa. 53:5; Col. 2:15; Heb. 2:14-15; 1 John 3:8).

In the present time we, his people, await the final consummation of the victory at the second advent, for let us not forget that our Lord was the representative of his people, their covenantal head, and that what he did at Calvary he did for all who are his. That his work is representative is seen clearly in Paul’s triumphant statement to the Romans, which includes them in the victory Christ won by blood and cross: “The God of peace will soon crush (συντρίψει) Satan under your feet” (Rom. 16:20). [26]

It is certainly striking also that the first presentation of atonement in the Bible has its termination upon Satan. The emphasis of the New Testament includes this, but perhaps more commonly locates the termination of the work upon God, whose holy and righteous claims against man are satisfied by the Son’s sacrifice (cf. Rom. 3:21-26).

I must not conclude the section without citing the impressive words of Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890):

This first prophecy of redemption is not only the most general and most indefinite; it is also, when regarded in the light of its fulfillment, the most comprehensive and the most profound. “General, indefinite, obscure as the primeval age to which it belongs,” says Drechsler, “it lies marvelously and sacredly on the threshold of the lost paradise like an awe-inspiring sphinx before the ruins of a mysterious temple;” and the Son of the Virgin was the first—we add—to solve by fulfilling it the enigma of this sphinx, which had been too difficult for all the saints and prophets. [27]

We might add the words of Martens: “Destruction of evil powers implies, especially in that setting, a return to conditions of paradise.” [28]

The Sentence Upon The Woman, Verse 16

To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

The sentence upon the woman is a threefold one, and the first aspect of the sentence has to do with pain, especially pain in childbearing. The statement does not mean that pain would have been the normal thing for women in childbirth, for the term “multiply” (רָבָה, rābāh) does not always have a narrow mathematical sense. [29] It does indicate that pain in childbirth is a reminder of the fall in Eden. How often this is overlooked in our society! She who sought sweet delights in the forbidden fruit of the tree finds pain instead.

Second, her yearning desire shall be toward her husband. “It is not merely sexual yearning,” the Lutheran commentator Leupold contends. “It includes the attraction that woman experiences for man which she cannot root from her nature. Independent feminists may seek to banish it, but it persists in cropping out.” [30] The fact that many of today’s feminists are lesbians probably further reveals the rebellion against the Word of God which characterizes a significant number of them. [31]

The noun translated here by “desire” (תְּשׁוּקָה, tés ̌ûqāh) which comes from a verb (שׁוּק, s ̌ûq) meaning “to run” refers to a violent craving for a thing. [32] Von Rad spoke of it as a “compulsive drive.” [33] It is now normal, although it may take the perverted form of nymphomania. [34] Thus she who acted independently of man finds continual attraction to him her unavoidable lot. [35]

Third, she who sought to control him and lead him into sin becomes the one controlled. He shall bear the rule; that is now fixed. Subordination within equality was intended from the beginning as a voluntary thing, but now subordination becomes a burden. Kidner notes, “While even pagan marriage can rise far above this, the pull of sin is always toward it.” [36]

The Sentence Upon The Man, Verses 17-19

Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field; by the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Physical Judgment, Verses 17-18

The curse upon man, which incidentally seems to be more upon man’s realm than upon man himself, follows. The cursing of the ground leads to a life of toil and weakness. Autonomous man is shown his limits. The chains of time clank on the man who reached out for eternity. The fantasy after which he lusted, to be “like God” (cf. v. 5), turns out to be sorrow, sweat, and dust. The curse (cf. Rom. 8:18-22), the bondage of corruption, he is told, is “because of you” (cf. v. 17).

Adam [37] is given an essentially twofold punishment. In the first place the ground is cursed, resulting in labor, frustration, and perspiration. The man is to be continually reminded of his disobedience.

In the second place death will come to the man and his seed. It is not immediate, for a time is given for repentance. But all things shall gradually disintegrate toward disorder and death. The creation becomes subject to vanity and futility, the biblical wording for the Second Law of Thermodynamics— namely, that all systems, left to themselves, tend to become disordered (cf. Rom. 8:20; Heb. 1:10-12). Thus the fall finds its evidences in mechanical engineering. The things made are now being unmade, and the ultimate cause is the sin of man and the curse of God. In the eighteenth verse is evidence that man will never subdue the earth in his present condition. “‘Thorns and thistles’ are eloquent signs of nature untamed and encroaching.” [38]

Moral Judgment, Verse 19

“For you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” Formed from dust, disobedient man shall return to it. The self-depravation of Adam resulted from just one sin. But this one sin changed the chief end of the creature from God to self, and the chief end controls the whole stream of moral action directed to it. Further, sin provokes God’s righteous anger and withdrawal of his favor, and induces guilt, fear of judgment, and then hostility to God (cf. v. 8). Further sin follows and leads one along the slippery downhill path to the lake of fire. What an awful thing sin is! The resulting state is hopelessness, unless relief and deliverance aref found elsewhere.

“The other truth is,” Thornwell eloquently points out, “that as the state into which one sin (italics mine) introduces us is hopeless, the punishment must be endless. If we must continue to sin, we must continue to die. The deeper we plunge in guilt, the deeper we sink in death. This truth seems to be shadowed forth in the very nature of the fear which enters into the constitution of remorse. A guilty conscience dreads the future; it is always looking for a wrath to come. Even in our endless state, when we shall have entered upon the experience of penal fires, there will always be, in the prospective apprehension of guilt, a revelation of still deeper woe. The future will always be blacker than the present—the night ahead more appalling than aught behind. Hell will be thick darkness, waxing blacker and blacker and blacker, for ever!” [39]

“Sin, of itself,” Dabney warned, “kills the spiritual life of the soul.” [40]

Conclusion

“The sting of death is sin,” Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 15:56. The sting, he means, is in sin, not in death. It is by sin that death acquires power over us. [41] That is essentially the problem of modern man; he is a sinner in a disintegrating, chaotic order which he cannot escape. The only escape lies in the relief that comes from pardoned sin. The only source of that, however, is in the Son of God, and men refuse to come to him because of sin. So they live on in the death of separation from the creating and redeeming God and in the shadows of the eternal death to come, the wages of sin that are sure to be paid.

We are like men living in the shadows of a majestic mountain peak, a Fujiyama, or a Matterhorn, or a Rainier, which is always there. And so it is with us: the death we are approaching stands like the landmark of Fujiyama (or some other great peak) above the landscape or our life and makes life a “being unto death,” as Helmut Thielecke has said. [42] We realize that we have only a limitedntime upon this earth. Why do we use calendars and clocks, except to record the passing days and years? Our ancestors are gone, and we shall follow them. Even the physician who labors to preserve life lives in the shadow of his own approaching death, eventually surrenders, and is snatched away. Cocky, unconcerned, indifferent man, so rebellious in his self-confidence and in his pursuit of material things and physical comforts, is finally seized by a sovereign God who is the Father of Jesus Christ and hurled back into the eternity of another existence. His “being unto death” reaches its climax in the fateful and all-embracing experience of death! [43]

There is only one remedy for the sting of sin, and it is found in the Seed of the Woman, the recoverer of creation from its fall and judgment and the purchaser by blood of that creation and his people (cf. Rev. 5:1-14). The “Man of Sorrows” has borne the “crown of thorns,” has overcome Satan, and has carried the giant’s head to the right hand of God, where there shall be no longer any curse (Rev. 22:3; cf. 1 Sam. 17:51, 54). He now offers pardon, release, and life to the prisoners in the pit. Embrace him! Embrace him, rest in him for time and eternity.

Notes

1. This is article one in a twelve-part series, “Anticipations of the Messiah in the Old Testament.”
2. W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology, rev. ed. (London: Church Book Room Press, 1963), 136.
3. Thomas wrote, “Jesus Christ the Prophet fulfills (in His life) the prophecies; Jesus Christ the Priest explains (in His death) the ceremonies; and Jesus Christ the King satisfies (in His resurrection [and Second Advent]) the longings. And so ‘Jesus, my Prophet, Priest, and King’ is the key of the lock, the perfect explanation of the Old Testament and the justification of all its spiritual teaching” (The Principles of Theology, 136).
4. The word protevangelium (literally, the protogospel [or “first gospel”]) refers to “the first announcement of the redemption to be effected in and through Christ, given figuratively to Adam and Eve in the words of God to the serpent” (Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985], 251).
5. Robert South, “Of the Creation of Man in the Image of God,” in Sermons Preached Upon Several Occasions (Philadelphia: Sorin and Ball, 1844), 21-33 (esp. 25).
6. Blaise Pascal, Pensées, trans. W. F. Trotter [New York: Modern Library, 1941], § 434, p. 143.
7. The Latin phrase sub specie boni may be translated, “under the appearance of good.”
8. Editor’s note: Dr. Johnson’s point is that the behavior of Adam and Eve in covering themselves with leaves and hypocrisy is mimicked in New Testament times by false apostles and ultimately the “man of lawlessness” who will seek to pass himself off as God.
9. Anselm of Canterbury, Why God Became Man 1.21, trans. Joseph M. Colleran (Albany, NY: Magi, 1969), 108.
10. Cf. BDB, s.v. “עָרוּם,” 791.
11. Cf. BDB, s.v. “אָרַר,” 76.
12. Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis, trans. David G. Preston (Downers Grove: IVP, 1984), 180; cf. Edward J. Young, Genesis 3: A Devotional and Expository Study (London: Banner of Truth, 1966), 97-99.
13. Blocher, In the Beginning, 179.
14. The statement, “You are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field” “would imply that the animal world shared the serpent’s guilt” (E. A. Speiser, Genesis, AncB [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964], 24).
15. “Likewise the eating of dust is not necessarily to be understood as referring to the serpent’s food, but is a phrase expressing the deepest degradation” (Young, Genesis 3, 98).
16. Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis, trans. Sophia Taylor (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899), 1:161.
17. Cf. BDB, s.v. “אֵיבָה,” 33.
18. As Westermann noted, “From the time of Irenaeus [c. AD 130-200], Christian tradition has understood the passage as a prophecy about Christ (and Mary). The ‘seed of the woman’ was referred to one individual descendant who crushed the head of the serpent, whose seed was also an individual in the person of the devil (Satan), who is locked in deadly struggle with ‘the seed of the woman,’ and who eventually succumbs to it. This explanation runs from Irenaeus right through the history of exegesis in both Catholic and evangelical tradition” (Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11, trans. John J. Scullion [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984], 260-61). The view has been abandoned by liberal scholarship. Cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 102, in ANF, 1:250; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.21, in ANF, 1:548.
19. Cf. BDB, s.v. “זֶרַע,” 282; also see: Walter C. Kaiser, “זָרַע,” TWOT, 1:252-53; Victor P. Hamilton, “זָרַע,” NIDOTTE, 1:1151-52; H. D. Preuss, “זָרַע,” TDOT, 4:143-162; Gottfried Quell and Siegfried Schulz, “σπέρμα,” TDNT, 7:536-47 (esp. 538-42 and 545).
20. Derek Kidner, Genesis, TOTC (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 71.
21. The Greek pronoun is αὐτός. The Latin Vulgate in an error known even to the great Catholic interpreter, Jerome, mistranslated the pronoun byipsa, which means “she herself,” instead of by ipse, meaning “he himself.” The passage then referred to the Virgin Mary as the conqueror of Satan! Cf. Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis, 1:164, n. 1.
22. “It is true that the Hebrew word translated is the masculine singular personal pronoun הוּא, but this is required by the fact that Hebrew employs grammatical gender (in contrast to English which employs natural gender). The antecedent of הוּא in Hebrew is זֶךֶרע (seed). Grammatically זֶךֶרע is masculine, but actually it is a collective noun of which the natural gender is neuter. The proper translation in English of הוּא would be either “it” [KJV] or “they” [REB] (meaning ‘the descendents of Eve’). The translation of the RSV [‘he’], however, would be a correct rendering of the Septuagint, for the LXX also translated the Hebrew masculine pronoun with a masculine pronominal form αὐτός. This is again surprising, but for a different reason. This pronoun in the LXX refers back to the word ‘seed’ (σπέρμα), which is grammatically neuter in Greek. Why should the LXX translator use the masculine form of the pronoun αὐτός rather than the distinctly neuter form αὐτό?… The most likely explanation for the use of αὐτός in Gen. 3:15 to refer back to σπέρμα is that the translator has in this way indicated his messianic understanding of this verse. If the above explanation is correct, the LXX becomes thereby the earliest evidence of an individual messianic interpretation of Gen. 3:15 to be dated in the 3rd or 2nd century BC…. This LXX translation is further evidence of the intensification of messianic expectations among the Jews in the centuries immediately preceding the birth of Jesus” (R. A. Martin, “The Earliest Messianic Interpretation of Genesis 3:15,” JBL 84 [Dec., 1965], 425-27).
23. C. F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch, by C. F. Keil, trans. James Martin (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1864; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), 1:101.
24. Cornelius Van Dam, “שׁוּף,” NIDOTTE, 4:66-68 (esp. 67). Although the Hebrew verb in both clauses is the same, Westermann argues for a word play: “He shall crush your head, and you shall snap at his heel.” “In spite of the external similarity of the constructions, the two actions are different, corresponding to the different bodily forms of the parties” (Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 259-60). Most modern scholars, however, prefer to keep the same meaning of the verb in both clauses (cf. Gordon J. Wenham,Genesis 1-15 [Waco, TX: Word, 1987], 80). The NIV and Darby translate “crush,” while other versions translate “bruise” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB, ESV). The NRSV and REB have “strike,” and the NET has “attack.”
25. Cf. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (1942; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967), 1:166-67.
26. In Romans 16:20 the verb συντρίβω has the sense “to annihilate, to crush.” Cf. BDAG, s.v. “συντρίβω,” 976.
27. Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis, 1:165-65. In a footnote (164, n. 2) Delitzsch provides documentation proving that the ancient Jews agreed with the messianic interpretation of Genesis 3:15.
28. Elmer A. Martens, God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 131.
29. “God does not mean that there were already sufferings in the former dispensation. He is simply saying that henceforth they will be abundant” (Blocher, In the Beginning, 180-81, n. 16).
30. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, 1:172.
31. In a letter to Christian Century (March 7, 1984, p. 252) Virginia Mollenkott wrote, “I am beginning to wonder whether indeed Christianity is patriarchal to its very core. If so, count me out…. Some of us may be forced to leave Christianity in order to participate in Jesus’ discipleship of equals.” Clark Pinnock said in response, “Apparently her commitment to feminism transcends her commitment even to Christian faith” (“Biblical Authority and the Issues in Question,” in Women, Authority, and the Bible, ed., Alvera Mickelsen [Downers Grove; InterVarsity Press, 1986], 51).
32. Keil, The Pentateuch, in K&D, 1:103.
33. Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed., trans. John H. Marks (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 93.
34. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, 1:172; cf. Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 80.
35. There are four commonly held views of the woman’s desire [תְּשׁוּקָה] in Genesis 3:16: (1) The view adopted in this essay is that תְּשׁוּקָה refers to “the desire that makes her the willing slave of man” [John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, ICC (New York: Scribner’s, 1910), 82]. It is that “immense, clinging, psychological dependence on man” [Gini Andrews, Your Half of the Apple: God and the Single Girl (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 51]. Vos includes in this view the woman’s desire for the man’s protection [Clarence J. Vos, Woman in Old Testament Worship (Delft, Netherlands: Vereinigde Drukkerijen Judels & Brinkman, n.d.), 24]. Keil calls the woman’s punishment “a desire bordering upon disease” [Keil, The Pentateuch, in K&D, 1:103]. (2) The second view is that תְּשׁוּקָה is to be equated with sexual desire [cf. Song of Solomon 7:10]. According to this view the woman’s sexual craving for her husband “will be so strong that to satisfy it she will be ready to face all the pains and sorrows of childbearing.” The woman still desires marital intercourse though the result, conceiving and bearing children, brings pain [David R. Mace, Hebrew Marriage: A Sociological Study (London: Epworth, 1953), 196]. (3) The third view modifies the harshness of the first. The woman will “not be free and at her own command, but subject to the authority of her husband and dependent upon his will” [John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, trans. John King [1847; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989], 1:172]. Eve’s female descendents will be subservient to their husbands [U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 165; Young, Genesis 3, 127]. “Just where the woman finds her fulfillment in life, her honor and her joy, namely in her relationship to her husband and as mother of her children, there too she finds that it is not pure bliss, but pain, burden, humiliation and subordination” [Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 263]. [4] The fourth view, first suggested by Foh, has had a significant impact upon subsequent commentators. The Hebrew word תְּשׁוּקָה, she argued, conveys the thought of a desire to possess or control. Since it is used shortly afterwards for sin crouching at Cain’s door [Gen. 4:7], she concluded that the reference is to the desire to dominate. Woman, rejecting the creation order, will want to dominate her husband, but he will have to dominate her. In short, verse 16 describes a struggle for mastery between the sexes [Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire,” WThJ 37 (Spring, 1975): 376-83; cf. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC (Waco: Word, 1987), 81-82; Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 201-202; Kenneth A. Matthews, Genesis 1:1-11:26, NAC (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1996), 251; Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 94].
36. Kidner, Genesis, 71.
37. Some have argued that the word Adam (אָדָם, a`d`m) is probably used here (3:17) for the first time as a proper name. In previous uses the proper translation is “man” (1:26; 2:5; 2:20) or “the man” (1:27; 2:7, 8, 15, 16, 18, 19 [twice], 20, 21, 22 [twice], 23, 25; 3:8, 9, 12). It should be noted that there is significant difference of opinion among modern English versions as to where the proper name “Adam” first appears: (1) 2:19 [KJV, NKJV, NLT]; (2) 2:20 [Darby, NIV, NASB, NET, ESV]; (3) 3:17 [ASV, RSV, HCSB]; (4) 3:21 [NEB, TEV]; (5) 4:25 [JB, REB, NRSV]. Proponents of 2:20; 3:17; 3:21; or 4:25 each note that אָדָם lacks the definite article in their choice of a verse, and in the Hebrew language of the Old Testament proper names rarely, if ever, take the definite article. Genesis 2:20 is the first verse where אָדָם lacks the article and could be translated “Adam.” Genesis 2:5 is excluded as an option because of the construction [איִ˜æוַאָדָם ] which requires the translation, “and there was no man.” In favor of Genesis 4:25 is the fact that אָדָם appears absolutely, lacking both the article and a prepositional prefix. Cf. Victor P. Hamilton, “אָדָם,” NIDOTTE, 1:262-66 (esp. 263-64).
38. Kidner, Genesis, 72.
39. James Henley Thornwell, “The Pollution and Guilt of Sin,” in The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, eds., John B. Adger and John L. Girardeau (1875; reprint ed., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), 1:400-424 (esp. 414-15). Anyone who reads this fine section in Thornwell will perceive my great indebtedness to this remarkable South Carolina Reformed theologian.
40. Robert L. Dabney, Lectures in Systematic Theology (1878; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 313.
41. Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 2d ed., ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914), 378.
42. Helmut Thielicke, How the World Began: Man in the First Chapters of the Bible, trans. John W. Doberstein (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1961), 176-77.
43. Thielicke, How the World Began, 176-77.