PDA

View Full Version : Prophesies of Jesus/Messiah in the OT



Dolphan7
04-23-2009, 12:59 PM
1) My great grandfathers bones are still missing as are the majority of humanities. it is really a weak argument.

2) I am happy to start whenever you want, but as the OT doesn't actually mention Jesus, I think the burden is upon you to produce those statements. So please, start with one. I am game. [Edit: I am primarily interested in addressing the argument that there are 300+ references that are fulfilled in the person of Jesus thus proving the divinity of the text and not bashing Christian inspired readings of the OT]I am glad you clarified your stance. I hope you aren't basing your argument on the fact that the name "Jesus" isn't in the OT. If that is the case, I agree. End of discussion. If you are claiming that the approximately 300 prophesies of the coming messiah don't refer to the coming messiah....and that Jesus Christ didn't fulfill them......that I would like to see. Whether or not you believe Jesus fulfilled those prophesies is for another debate for another day. Several have been listed in this thread already. Pick one.

From as far back as Genesis God speaks of a deliverer of justice. Gen 3:15
Born of a virgin, Micah 5:2
In Bethlehem, Isaiah 7:14


Oh and no one cares about the bones of humanity.....what is important...and is the point...is that Jesus Christ claimed to be God, predicted his death burial and resurrection, and actually accomplished it...being witnessed by over 500 people after he rose and which the NT records for us. If that didn't happen, where are the bones? Where is the tomb of Jesus with the bones still in them? Why would the NT writers falsify this event? It doesn't matter that there are people whose bones are not found, they didn't make the claims Jesus did. That is the point.

Marino613
04-23-2009, 06:43 PM
I am glad you clarified your stance. I hope you aren't basing your argument on the fact that the name "Jesus" isn't in the OT. If that is the case, I agree. End of discussion. If you are claiming that the approximately 300 prophesies of the coming messiah don't refer to the coming messiah....and that Jesus Christ didn't fulfill them......that I would like to see. Whether or not you believe Jesus fulfilled those prophesies is for another debate for another day. Several have been listed in this thread already. Pick one.

From as far back as Genesis God speaks of a deliverer of justice. Gen 3:15
Born of a virgin, Micah 5:2
In Bethlehem, Isaiah 7:14


Oh and no one cares about the bones of humanity.....what is important...and is the point...is that Jesus Christ claimed to be God, predicted his death burial and resurrection, and actually accomplished it...being witnessed by over 500 people after he rose and which the NT records for us. If that didn't happen, where are the bones? Where is the tomb of Jesus with the bones still in them? Why would the NT writers falsify this event? It doesn't matter that there are people whose bones are not found, they didn't make the claims Jesus did. That is the point.

I will get to the verses in depth soon (I am at work now), but you made a typo right? Micah and Isaiah are reversed I believe.

Dolphan7
04-23-2009, 07:37 PM
I will get to the verses in depth soon (I am at work now), but you made a typo right? Micah and Isaiah are reversed I believe.
Yes I reversed them.

Virgin birth Isaiah 7:14
Born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2

Marino613
04-24-2009, 01:33 AM
I am glad you clarified your stance. I hope you aren't basing your argument on the fact that the name "Jesus" isn't in the OT. If that is the case, I agree. End of discussion. If you are claiming that the approximately 300 prophesies of the coming messiah don't refer to the coming messiah....and that Jesus Christ didn't fulfill them......that I would like to see. Whether or not you believe Jesus fulfilled those prophesies is for another debate for another day. Several have been listed in this thread already. Pick one.

From as far back as Genesis God speaks of a deliverer of justice. Gen 3:15
Born of a virgin, Micah 5:2
In Bethlehem, Isaiah 7:14


Oh and no one cares about the bones of humanity.....what is important...and is the point...is that Jesus Christ claimed to be God, predicted his death burial and resurrection, and actually accomplished it...being witnessed by over 500 people after he rose and which the NT records for us. If that didn't happen, where are the bones? Where is the tomb of Jesus with the bones still in them? Why would the NT writers falsify this event? It doesn't matter that there are people whose bones are not found, they didn't make the claims Jesus did. That is the point.

I will get to the last paragraph, namely the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses, at a later stage. I am too exhausted from work and parenting to answer multiple points at once anymore so I ask that we hold off on exploring that point till later.


My disagreement is to the use of 300+ alleged references to Jesus in the OT as a type of statistical evidence for the Bible, an idea presented repeatedly in these threads, as when you wrote earlier


There is no way one earthly man could ever purposely fulfill every one of the over 300 prophesies about Jesus Christ. It would be impossible, unless he were indeed the real deal. And he is!

I believe many if not most of the sources are not sufficiently about Jesus to be compelling.

For brevity's sake do you mind if we take this one source at a time? I have a day job :)

The Genesis source -
טו וְאֵיבָה אָשִׁית, בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה, וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ, וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ: הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ, וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב.

My Translation (Feel free to compare to other translations both Christian, Jewish and Academic).

And I will place enmity between you [the snake] and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: He will bruise your head and you will bruise their* heel.

* (the verb ends in nu and not no which would indicate plural 'their' even though the parallelism in the verse should be singular 'his')

The simple meaning of the verse seems to be that human beings and snakes won't get along. I assume there is a Christian metaphorical interpretation (revelations comes to mind, although I am not an expert) ? From where I am standing this isn't a messianic prophesy at all. Moreover, despite the use of the singular "your seed" and "her seed", it seems most plainly to be speaking about people and not an individual, Jesus or otherwise.

[One more thing: I am really mostly familiar with the Hebrew Bible rather than with the Old Testament. There is a different order and not all the books in the Christian Cannon (like Maccabees) are there. I used OT for brevity's sake]

Dolphan7
04-25-2009, 01:14 AM
I will get to the last paragraph, namely the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses, at a later stage. I am too exhausted from work and parenting to answer multiple points at once anymore so I ask that we hold off on exploring that point till later.


My disagreement is to the use of 300+ alleged references to Jesus in the OT as a type of statistical evidence for the Bible, an idea presented repeatedly in these threads, as when you wrote earlier



I believe many if not most of the sources are not sufficiently about Jesus to be compelling.

For brevity's sake do you mind if we take this one source at a time? I have a day job :)

The Genesis source -
טו וְאֵיבָה אָשִׁית, בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה, וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ, וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ: הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ, וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב.

My Translation (Feel free to compare to other translations both Christian, Jewish and Academic).

And I will place enmity between you [the snake] and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: He will bruise your head and you will bruise their* heel.

* (the verb ends in nu and not no which would indicate plural 'their' even though the parallelism in the verse should be singular 'his')

The simple meaning of the verse seems to be that human beings and snakes won't get along. I assume there is a Christian metaphorical interpretation (revelations comes to mind, although I am not an expert) ? From where I am standing this isn't a messianic prophesy at all. Moreover, despite the use of the singular "your seed" and "her seed", it seems most plainly to be speaking about people and not an individual, Jesus or otherwise.

[One more thing: I am really mostly familiar with the Hebrew Bible rather than with the Old Testament. There is a different order and not all the books in the Christian Cannon (like Maccabees) are there. I used OT for brevity's sake]First off I think it worth noting that you are taking the Jewish position that Jesus was not the Messiah. This is evident in your sole use of the Hebrew Bible and it's obvious denial of Jesus. With this I have no argument - I agree - The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah. And they don't consider this verse to be a messianic prophesy. I agree with that as well. But since the Jews seem to have missed the boat on the Messiah in the first century, it isn't hard to suggest they also missed this verse as well. But whether they did or not is not relevant.

Secondly the Christian Cannon you refer to is actually the Catholic Cannon. The Christian Cannon includes the same books as the Tanakh.

The main disagreement with this verse as it applies to the Messiah is that descendants are from the mans seed, not the woman's. And this is true throughout most of the bible. Genealogies mostly use the father to son descendant. So it makes sense that this is not referring to the messiah because the woman could not pass on her seed according to custom. But...it makes much more sense when we read Matthew and find that Jesus was a descendant of David through his mother Mary, who was also in the line of David, thus the seed of Eve's offspring in Gen 3:15 does indeed come true.

The whole point of Gen 3 is that Adam and Eve brought sin into the world. Satan disguised as a serpent or snake tricked them. God handed down judgment first to satan, then upon both Adam and Eve. In verse 14-15 he foretells that satan will attempt to defeat Jesus during his earthly life, but will be utterly defeated by Jesus upon his resurrection. A bruise on the heel is not deadly, but a blow to the head most assuredly is. God had already set in motion a plan of salvation. This was a defining moment in biblical history. It is of major significance. The first man and woman disobeyed God and chose sin over God, bringing sin into the word, causing pain and suffering and punishment. It is a major milestone in mans relationship to God.

And the implication from the Jewish belief is that "Other than that, this verse describes the general notion that people will have a dislike for snakes and hit them in the head, while snakes will bite people in their feet."

Does that make sense to you?

Secondly God curses the snake and says that he will eat dust forever. Snakes don't eat dust. God wasn't cursing snakes, but Satan himself. So the implication that this verse is talking about snakes and that people don't like them is rather absurd if you ask me. Makes no sense.

No the whole point God was making was that because satan caused Eve to sin, God made her descendants and her offspring in constant battle with satan and his minions, One commentary I read stated " As long as there are godly men this side of heaven and wicked men this side of hell". One of her offspring, Jesus would one day defeat Satan and cure the sin that was brought into the world by her. I love how God does that. God had to punish them, but at the same time he gives them a plan of salvation and that salvation would come through their very own offspring. How cool.

How was this fulfilled? By Jesus. He was the offspring of Eve through David and then Mary. He died, fulfilling the perfect sacrifice for sin, defeating satan by undoing what he caused and what he lives for - which is our death and eternal suffering in hell. Through Jesus we defeat that death, we can be free from the consequences of sin and have eternal life with God.

Marino613
04-27-2009, 01:26 AM
I wrote a three page essay: Maybe I need to get a life? Oh well...:foundout:

Anyway, I will divide the post into a few parts to make it more manageable to reply to.

First, thanks for the clarification of the difference between the canons. You learn something new everyday.

To clarify again, as I am responding to the notion that the Bible may be proven by the 300 references in the Tanakh prophesying Jesus, using the Tanakh itself in Hebrew/Aramaic is the appropriate way to verify its validity. The NT by assuming Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God can’t be used as legitimate context in this conversation. That is not to downplay the Christological interpretations of the OT in the NT, but to recognize that we are discussing precisely whether these NT interpretations amongst other later readings are correct.

A note on THE Jewish interpretation method:
There is rarely anything called THE Jewish interpretation of a text. The Jewish tradition recognizes that things work on multiple levels in the bible. This is true in human poetry and story telling, where double entendres and the like appear all the time in the great stories of the masters – all the more so in the work they attribute to God. The Jewish tradition recognizes that the same passages have meanings in the “p’shat” – simple meaning as well as deeper meanings, but the simple have relevance and are meant to teach something.

Indeed in the case of the snake in genesis, there are those (like R’ Abraham Ibn Ezra in his commentary) who interpret it literally. Snakes walked upright, talked, were the shrewdest of animals and were cursed. Yet the Baylonian Talmud, which is also cited by many classical Jewish commentaries (for example R’ Ovadiah S’forno) states regarding the snake, “He is Satan, he is the evil inclination”. Now Satan in Judaism at least outside of certain Jewish esoteric sects is not the same as Satan in Christianity. The "evil" inclination is seen as an essential part of creation in rabbinic narrative theology. There is even a story about how the rabbis asked God to remove the evil inclination and God did so, but people stopped having children, planting crops, building buildings, etc. While there is dispute amongst Jews as to the meaning of Satan and Evil inclination, the soteriological endgame has more to do with harmonizing humanity's baser self-centered inclinations and divine will rather than defeating it.

The Simple Meaning (Or at least that it could still be talking about snakes and not Satan)

First, I am quite aware that the text cries out for deeper interpretation, but as I am simply trying to argue against "the 300", I thought the simple meaning would be enough. I concede that I need to defend it more, and present alternative readings to challenge the notion in this case. Indeed, I think the meaning of the snake is deeper and close to the notion of Satan but not the same. Nor do I believe it is about a messianic time.

The simple meaning still is a defensible read for the following reasons:


Does that make sense to you?- Why judge the value of the text explaining enmity between snakes and people anymore than judge its descriptions of who invented musical instruments? People do have an aversion to snakes and this provides a foundation for explaining it. If God wrote the book, then perhaps we need faith that we will know why it is important later. If people wrote it, well people often tried to explain things in the world through myth.
-As to the problem of Snakes not eating dust, does Satan eat dust either or crawl on his belly? I know the answer is that it is metaphorical speech, but this can easily be read as poetic while still maintaining its literal character as speaking about snakes. As Sarna describes it, snakes crawl on their bellies with their tongues flicking out grazing the dusty ground. Not that they feed off of dust but that crawling on their belly will involve them "eating" dust. It is just emphasizing the curse of becoming a belly crawler.
-The snake is described as the shrewdest “מִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה, אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים” (Gen 3:1) “of all the beasts of the field made by the Lord God”. Earlier in Gen 2:19 te text writes “וַיִּצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, כָּל-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כָּל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם”, “The Lord God fashioned from the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the sky”. The description of the snake is as one of the animals and not as something other than that.
-The snake is expected to procreate, like a living being. Thus it has seed. While I suppose you could claim this is the anti-christ (like Damian with the number of the beast... oh it's just three 9s!), but it is very simple to say this is an animal that procreates.
-Snake bites can be deadly and at least extremely painful. The meaning of bruising the head is that human beings would attack from above as upright creatures, and the meaning of the heel is that snakes would attack from below as cursed belly crawling creatures, but they would both have the chance to kill the other. Again it is somewhat poetic. I would ask on this, did Jesus hit Satan in the head? Did Satan hit Jesus in the heel? I know you don’t think that either, but if you read it metaphorically it still makes sense for snakes and people.

Now I believe there is a deeper meaning here as well but one need not go there to make the argument that this isn’t a clear reference to Jesus. Personally, I believe the literal meaning is still very important to getting the deeper meaning, but I also think this story was written in mythological style and that the historicity of the account is less important than its message.

Marino613
04-27-2009, 01:31 AM
PART II
Seed and Lineage


The main disagreement with this verse as it applies to the Messiah is that descendants are from the mans seed, not the woman's. And this is true throughout most of the bible. Genealogies mostly use the father to son descendant. So it makes sense that this is not referring to the messiah because the woman could not pass on her seed according to custom. But...it makes much more sense when we read Matthew and find that Jesus was a descendant of David through his mother Mary, who was also in the line of David, thus the seed of Eve's offspring in Gen 3:15 does indeed come true. That isn’t my disagreement with the verse applying to Jesus. Nor do I believe it is that common a disagreement amongst those who reject it as prophesying Jesus. There are several instances in the Tanakh where women are told they will have “seed”. For example Gen 16:10 וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה, הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת-זַרְעֵךְ, וְלֹא יִסָּפֵר, מֵרֹב. “The Angel of the Lord said to her [Hagar], I will vastly multiply your seed and it will be uncountable in its multitude.” Gen 24:60 also has Rebecca’s seed. There are other sources as well.
No, the main disagreement can best be exemplified by the Hagar example. It isn’t a singular seed in that case, but rather the whole Ishmaelite multitudes. Now it is personified by the person Ishmael in the next verse but is clearly referring to a whole nation. There are several examples where seed is singular but refers to masses (Abraham in Gen 15:5 for example).

Despite the use of the singular in the verse, it is quite common to refer to people’s descendents in the singular, and to characterize masses as an individual “. This verse is talking about the children of the mother of life, of humanity and not a single offspring.

Is this a messianic prophecy?


In verse 14-15 he foretells that satan will attempt to defeat Jesus during his earthly life, but will be utterly defeated by Jesus upon his resurrection. A bruise on the heel is not deadly, but a blow to the head most assuredly is. God had already set in motion a plan of salvation. This was a defining moment in biblical history.
God had to punish them, but at the same time he gives them a plan of salvation and that salvation would come through their very own offspring. How cool.
If I understand you correctly, the crux of the messianic aspect of this argument is that the verse indicates victory in the very description of the conflict. The women’s “seed” gets a Mortal Kombat style finishing blow while the snake only gets to nip at the heel.

I already dealt with this above in my “could it be a snake thing” section. This is a snake we are talking about. Snakes can be poisonous and in some cases deadly poisonous. So, even if you assume this is not about literal snakes, the metaphor still allows for each side to have an edge in the conflict. It doesn’t speak about an end to the conflict, at least not in this verse. I much prefer the lines where you stated:


because satan caused Eve to sin, God made her descendants and her offspring in constant battle with satan and his minions, One commentary I read stated " As long as there are godly men this side of heaven and wicked men this side of hell". Actually, it seems to me you want your ‘forbidden fruit’ and to eat it too. If the metaphor is one of an uneven finishing blow then it should just be about the Messiah. If the metaphor is about “constant battle” then there should be much more evenness in the fight.

While I believe one could still finagle a drawn out conflict with a final blow into the verse, it isn’t a strong read. The more likely read is just drawn out conflict with no indication of a finale, at least not in this passage.

Did Jesus fulfill this prophecy?

Even if we assume that this is a messianic prophecy, was this actually demonstrably fulfilled by Jesus? I believe even Christianity believes that Satan is active in the world messing with our souls, making people like me not accept the Bible, etc. This verse cannot stand as part of a proof of the divinity of the text because of its prophetic power if we don’t yet see that the prophecy has been fulfilled. You can accept the teachings of Chrsitians, and may even have very good reason to do so (eyewitnesses or some other such argument), but you can't say this is proof because you need other proof to know who it is talking about.

Marino613
04-27-2009, 01:45 AM
PART III
Anyway, I could write more, but I think I got a lot of points across already: namely, it could easily still be about snakes, even if it isn't it is more likely just about humanity at the very least, it doesn't speak about an end game, and Jesus didn't clearly fulfill it anyway. I accept that there are probably alternate Christian answers to these questions, but I don't think this verse can be used to bolster a statistical argument on behalf of the bible as this passage is too open to other more plausible alternative.

As to my own intepretation I think the story is deeply symbolic and does touch on the idea of the deceitfulness of our own desires and ego. This does draw an association to Satan in the Tanakh, but isn't an identification per se as I don't see textual evidence beyond that one similarity.

I haven't worked this out but I am inspired but some Jewish readings of this text. The snake is the symbol precisely because it crawls on its belly. For all the animals on land, it has no legs or arms. Human beings are the exact opposite, they walk upright. Keep in mind in the story of the garden has adam being alone and God's first answer is to make animals from the ground (including snakes). Notably, they are made from the same place Adam comes from, but none of them are the appropriate fit for him. The biblical story notes that human beings share much in common with animals by nature, but we also share things in common with God. We are made in God's image, we name things, we work the field and are partners in the creative process. The battle with the snake is between our baser egotistical-instinctual natures as our nature to be in the image of God. The snake is the "shrewdest", that is the most compelling aspect of our animal nature but is ultimately quintessential of animalness, having no upright posture at all. [Edit: To add, the snake goes after the woman. There may be a hint of jealousy as the shrewdest of the failed partners tries to take down the chosen partner. That the snake who is so deeply identified with the ground and lowliness is going after the woman who was made from an image of God directly by tempting her with an ironic spite to become more like God -- which appeals to her, she "sees the fruit of the tree that it was good" (the hebrew is exactly the same only in feminine as "and the lord saw the llight that it was good") may explain a lot in the story]

Other interesting tidbits culled mostly from Jonathan Sarna's comments on the JPS Torah commentary is that snakes were seen as mysterious divine entitities in Ancient Near Eastern cultures. Genesis humbles the levantine snake myth by making it shrewd but still a being created by god and only the smartest animal and still not as important as humanity.

[Finheaven Member request: D7, if you want to continue debating the bible with me, it may make sense as a mod to take the last few posts specifically about jesus in the OT and make a new thread with it. Maybe titled "Jesus in the OT". I know this is getting way off topic.]

Dolphan7
04-29-2009, 09:08 PM
Ok from what I gather from reading your posts is that you are taking the simplest explanation as the truest explanation, yet you also admit that more meaning can be inferred from this same text, and you also agree that it has some sort of reference to satan. You are all over the board here.

This verse does not refer to an actual snake. Snakes don't talk. It is a Serpent! In Genesis 3:1 it refers to "The" Serpent as more crafty than any beast God created to roam the fields. This is in contrast to all the created beasts of the field, not inclusive.


GE 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”God has singled out this serpent as unique and different than any other creature, and as punishment for his hand in the fall, is cursed specifically more than and above all the other creatures.


GE 3:14 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;On your belly you will go. This is the lowest form of degradation. The Hebrew uses the word crawl. To crawl, or grovel. Humiliated. To be in submission to an authority (in this case God, and there after man). They are detestable, to be reviled, hated, scorned.

And dust you will eat all your days. This isn't meant to be food, as we know snakes eat bugs and rodents and water snakes eat fish and other aquatic food sources. It simply means the serpent will live in the dust of defeat. The often used metaphor "another one bites thre dust" symbolizes defeat. The serpent caused Eve to sin. God stepped in. Being the soverign God that he is, he had the authority to hand out just punishments to the disobedient. The serpent was defeated in that sense, but ultimately would be utterly defeated by the seed of the very woman he caused to sin in the first place.

This is a very real event that happened. Real people (Adam and Eve) and real creatures (serpent). Real conversations, real disobedience, and real punishments.


The reference to the snake being jealous or envious of Eve actually points to the existence of emotion, which snakes don't have, but which this serpent most assuredly had.

Now verses 14-15 are prophetic verses in that they portray a future event or events.


GE 3:14 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;
GE 3:15 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.”Enmity is ill will toward another as in an enemy. It refers to a mutual hatred. Constant hostility. I don't know any snakes that show hatred and hostility and things of that nature, but I do know a certain serpent who would live all his days devising ways to take mankind down the wrong path. Not because he wants to leads us in a better way, but because he hates us so much for being created in God's image and likeness and being God's children, and having that plan of salvation to defeat Satan by accepting God's gift in the form of Jesus Christ. Satan was defeated on the cross. By dying for our sins, the sin that Adam and Eve brought into the world, we are now free from the curse that was placed on us, the very curse satan had a hand in and enjoyed every minute of. That defeat on the cross was the deadly blow to the head. The bruise on the heel refers to the spikes that went through Jesus feet on the cross, or it could simply mean that in all his days satan will strive to make Jesus fail in his mission, but in the end only able to cause this bruise of the flesh.

nuttie_buddie
05-27-2009, 12:29 AM
Ok from what I gather from reading your posts is that you are taking the simplest explanation as the truest explanation, yet you also admit that more meaning can be inferred from this same text, and you also agree that it has some sort of reference to satan. You are all over the board here.

This verse does not refer to an actual snake. Snakes don't talk. It is a Serpent! In Genesis 3:1 it refers to "The" Serpent as more crafty than any beast God created to roam the fields. This is in contrast to all the created beasts of the field, not inclusive.
God has singled out this serpent as unique and different than any other creature, and as punishment for his hand in the fall, is cursed specifically more than and above all the other creatures.
On your belly you will go. This is the lowest form of degradation. The Hebrew uses the word crawl. To crawl, or grovel. Humiliated. To be in submission to an authority (in this case God, and there after man). They are detestable, to be reviled, hated, scorned.

And dust you will eat all your days. This isn't meant to be food, as we know snakes eat bugs and rodents and water snakes eat fish and other aquatic food sources. It simply means the serpent will live in the dust of defeat. The often used metaphor "another one bites thre dust" symbolizes defeat. The serpent caused Eve to sin. God stepped in. Being the soverign God that he is, he had the authority to hand out just punishments to the disobedient. The serpent was defeated in that sense, but ultimately would be utterly defeated by the seed of the very woman he caused to sin in the first place.

This is a very real event that happened. Real people (Adam and Eve) and real creatures (serpent). Real conversations, real disobedience, and real punishments.


The reference to the snake being jealous or envious of Eve actually points to the existence of emotion, which snakes don't have, but which this serpent most assuredly had.

Now verses 14-15 are prophetic verses in that they portray a future event or events.

Enmity is ill will toward another as in an enemy. It refers to a mutual hatred. Constant hostility. I don't know any snakes that show hatred and hostility and things of that nature, but I do know a certain serpent who would live all his days devising ways to take mankind down the wrong path. Not because he wants to leads us in a better way, but because he hates us so much for being created in God's image and likeness and being God's children, and having that plan of salvation to defeat Satan by accepting God's gift in the form of Jesus Christ. Satan was defeated on the cross. By dying for our sins, the sin that Adam and Eve brought into the world, we are now free from the curse that was placed on us, the very curse satan had a hand in and enjoyed every minute of. That defeat on the cross was the deadly blow to the head. The bruise on the heel refers to the spikes that went through Jesus feet on the cross, or it could simply mean that in all his days satan will strive to make Jesus fail in his mission, but in the end only able to cause this bruise of the flesh.
where is the bruise in the heel part...:confused:

Dolphan7
05-27-2009, 02:00 AM
where is the bruise in the heel part...:confused:

GE 3:15 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.”

nuttie_buddie
05-27-2009, 02:10 AM
GE 3:15 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.”

lol....no when was that fulfilled or how...

Dolphan7
06-17-2009, 12:56 AM
lol....no when was that fulfilled or how...Jesus fulfilled this on the cross. By dying willingly and sacrificially, and thus atoning for our sins, he has defeated satan. That act alone undid the work satan did in the Garden of Eden. Satan helped bring sin into the world by tricking Adam and Eve, Jesus conquered that sin and atoned for it. Now there is a clear path to salvation from that sin.

Sorry it took so long to respond. I must have missed this.