Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: csm9a!japplega@csm9a.uucp (Joe Applegate) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: typology in Genesis (3:15) Message-ID: Date: 28 Jun 89 05:04:32 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Colorado School of Mines Lines: 69 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [This is a response to a posting by Michael Siemon on Gen 3:15 "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 head." Michael argues that both the view that this refers to Mary and the view that it refers to Christ are legitimate uses of the passage, but that one must realize that these are creative uses of the passage and that the original meaning of the text could not have meant either. On the first point, that either typological use is legitimate: --clh] I actually will agree with this, since Mary was indeed the woman through which the prophetic seed did come... however, nothing in this passage elevates Mary to the position of redeemer, which after all is the work of bruising (crushing in the KJV) the head of the serpent. The word in question as I have pointed out in t.p.m. is daya which is not a personal pronoun but the word for "seed". No plausible interpretation can make the seed of the woman and the woman the same entity! And that is the nature of the dispute which continues in t.p.m.! [Michael argues that we can see Christ as the "seed" only by a typological argument. I.e. that in its original historical context the passage cannot have referred to Christ. >Because the actual text refers to the (collective and neuter) seed and >NOT to any individual. And the verbs are in a form that indicate not one >future action but on-going, iterated action citing a commentary by Westermann. --clh] Actually the word is not in the plural... it is the modern rabbinical interpretation that casts this as collective... This is not so clear in the writings of pre-Messianic rabban who hotly disputed whether this passage was Messianic or refered to the position of Israel as the promised seed. [quote from Michael omitted here --clh] And now finally we get to the gist of the matter... your contention is that this promise could not have possibly been taken as pointing to a Messianic redeemer by the author and by I would assume by our parents Adam and Eve... But my contention is that even they understood the significance of this promise... that God would provide through the seed of the woman a redeemer who would break the bondage of sin that their rebellion had placed upon their and their descendants head. To support that contention let us look at Genesis 4:1 "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD" Adam and Eve were not ignorant... they had no doubt seen the reproductive nature of the beasts of the field... to assume that they did not know where a child came from is rediculous... but Eve thought that this was the promised seed that would crush the head of the serpent, how sad that he was the first murderer instead! I will admit that they and possibly even Moses (the Author) did not fully realise the necessity that the seed be obtained by a virgin birth, lest it be the seed of the man, BUT the necessity of faith was in the promise of the redeemer not in the specifics of his birth. And it is this faith that saved the old testament saints, faith in the comming of haMeshiach to liberate them from the law of sin and death, and to lead their captivity captive. Seeing as how even Eve recognised the redemptive nature of this promise that accompanied the curse, why do you assume that this is a typology invented by later, Christian writers? - Joe Applegate - ======================STANDARD DISCLAIMER============================ All views and opinions are my own and do not represent the views or opinions of the Colorado School of Mines, whatever they might be. =====================================================================