Waring Offspring (3:14-15)
Exploring Genesis • Sermon • Submitted
0 ratings
· 33 viewsNotes
Transcript
Introduction
Introduction
“The Hatfields and McCoys. Mere mention of their names stirs up visions of a lawless and unrelenting family feud. It evokes gun-toting vigilantes hell-bent on defending their kinfolk, igniting bitter grudges that would span generations.”[1] Two families. Hatfields led by “Devil Anse” and the McCoys led by “Old Ranel.” Arguably, in 1878, the feud began when Randolph McCoy accused Floyd Hatfield of stealing his pig. A Hatfield presided over the case, and a Hatfield played the role of key witness. Of course, the case was dropped. Two years later this key witness was killed by a McCoy who was as well acquitted.
Only months later, a Hatfield impregnated a McCoy who he would quickly abandon to marry her first cousin.
Just a couple years later, in 1882, three McCoy sons fought two of Devil Anse’s brothers and eventually stabbed and shot one of them in the back. The Hatfields beat the authorities to these three McCoys and ended up tying them to some bushes and shooting all three. Somehow, even though the authorities determined the Hatfields should be prosecuted, they were not and the McCoys were outraged that the Hatfields walked free – once again.
Motivated by a desire to end the McCoys once and for all, a group of Hatfields determined to go and kill Randolph and his entire family. They failed to kill Randolph but did kill his son and daughter and badly beat his wife.
A few days later, a bounty hunter chased down two of this group, killing one. He eventually caught nine of the family members and hauled them all off to jail, where eight of them would spend their lives and one would be hung.
I would imagine whenever a Hatfield walked near a McCoy, both felt a certain uneasiness if not outright rage and contempt. Each family constantly and irritatingly pressed down upon the other. And it all started because of a pig – maybe.
And yet, a weightier family feud began one day when a woman ate a piece of fruit. From that day, the offspring of Eve would be at constant battle with the offspring of Satan. The battle would be unrelenting. There would be significant moments in this family feud; however, these two families would constantly sense the pressure and the animosity from the other. [Read Genesis 3:14-15.]
Clarification on participants.
Clarification on participants.
The serpent and Satan: visible and invisible participants. (1) Some believe the entire interpretation is meant for the snake and should hold no messianic significance.[2] (2) Some of the early church fathers interpreted the text allegorically and understood each of the elements to be condemnation singularly on Satan. [3] (2) Others have seen the curse applying to both the serpent and Satan. Anecdotally,[4] some conclude God addresses the serpent in verse fourteen and Satan in verse 15. However, while the emphasis does seem to shift, God directs all his statements to both the serpent and to Satan. [5] As has already been discussed, we hold to a literal interpretation of this story. We believe this event actually happened. Adam and Eve were two real people who lived in an actual garden and were tempted by an actual serpent. We also believe Satan was the primary force behind this deception. In Romans, Paul references this condemnation and reveals the serpent to be Satan (Rom 16:20), and John also identifies the serpent as Satan (Rev 12:9).
Therefore, there are two recipients to this curse – both the serpent (physical and visible instrument of deception) and Satan (spiritual and invisible power behind deception).
Dual fulfillment and transition of emphasis. Due the conclusion of two recipients, let me propose God intends to direct both verses (14-15) to both the serpent and Satan. Even though each aspect impacts both the serpent and Satan, the emphasis does appear to shift from the serpent to Satan.[6]
For instance, verse fourteen emphasizes the visible curse on the snake and his humiliation of living in the dust, however, this curse and humiliation as well extend to Satan. Similarly, verse fifteen emphasizes the enmity between the seed of woman and the seed of Satan; however, this enmity as well physically exists between humanity and actual serpents. In general, mankind dislikes snakes. Maybe God has given mankind a constant reminder of the conflict between mankind and Satan in that every time we cringe at the presence of a serpent we are reminded to cringe at our conflict with Satan.
Two seeds. In verse fifteen, God addresses the seed of Satan and the seed of the woman. Moses writes, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Gen 3:15).
We will consider these phrases in more depth as we work through the text. Suffice it to say, not only are two actors discussed in these two verses (ie. the serpent and Satan), but also this curse extends to their offspring. Specifically, the curse drastically impacts the relationship between Satan’s offspring and Eve’s offspring.
In the previous discussion, I have shown my entire hand as to the intent of the passage. However, let us take a few more minutes to see the four dimensions of God’s curse on the serpent and Satan.
Humiliation Bestowed on Satanic Offspring (3:14)
Humiliation Bestowed on Satanic Offspring (3:14)
Curse with no questions. Unlike the man and woman, God does not question the serpent. First, God’s questioning intends to draw to repentance and the serpent had no ability or need to repent. Secondly, Satan had already fallen, and repentance was not made available to him. God had no need to question Satan.[7]
Additionally, note that a curse is only declared on the serpent/Satan and not the woman or man. God curses both Satan and the instrument Satan used to corrupt mankind.
Eat Dust. God curses the serpent, and the curse first consists of the serpent being relegated to crawl on his belly in the dirt. God likely created the serpent to move in some form other than crawling on its belly – otherwise the curse “on your belly you shall go” would not have been significant. Additionally, the statement “dust you shall eat” likely indicates something other than what the serpent would physically eat. We know that the serpent eats things other than the dirt.
Therefore, the serpent crawling in the dirt and eating dust references something other than just a physical positioning (although it includes the serpent’s physical position). Rather, God humiliated the serpent, and more importantly, God humiliated Satan.
Being assigned to eat the dust clearly delineates a position of humiliation. At least three times throughout the Old Testament, authors use the phrase “lick the dust” to refer to a group of people or person defeating and humiliating another group. The psalmist writes, “May desert tribes bow down before him, and his enemies lick the dust!” (Psalm 72:9). Isaiah writes, “Kings shall be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers. With their faces to the ground they shall bow down to you, and lick the dust of your feet. Then you will know that I am the Lord; those who wait for me shall not be put to shame” (Isa 49:23). And finally, Micah writes of humiliated nations, “they shall lick the dust like a serpent, like the crawling things of the earth; they shall come trembling out of their strongholds; they shall turn in dread to the Lord our God, and they shall be in fear of you” (Micah 7:17).
The serpent was literally, physically condemned to crawl in the dirt. In so doing, God offers mankind a constant reminder of the moment in which Satan led mankind into sin and the moment in which God initially humiliated Satan and would continue to humiliate Satan.
Perpetual Conflict Initiated with Satanic Offspring (3:15)
Perpetual Conflict Initiated with Satanic Offspring (3:15)
Within verse fifteen, God declares the perpetual conflict between Satan’s offspring and Eve’s offspring. Moses writes, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Gen 3:15).
Bruise. Let me acknowledge two potential challenges in the second half of the verse. Let us take the easiest first. First, you may notice, in looking at different versions, that some translators use a word other than bruise and that some also use two different words – such as crush and strike or break and bruise or crush and bite.
it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel (KJV).
he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel (ESV, NASB, CJB, RSV).
He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel (HCSB, NLT).
he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel (NIV).
He shal breake thine head, & thou shalt bruise his heele (GEN).
her offspring will attack your head, and you will attack her offspring’s heel (NET).
Her offspring will crush your head, and you will bite her offspring’s heel (GNB).
she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel (DR, Wycliffe’s version also used “she”).
The Hebrew word for these two terms is the same and should be translated the same.[8] The versions that use the same word throughout the verse offer a better option. Likely, translators attempted to translate meaning or interpretation motivated by a desire to emphasize that Eve’s offspring would hurt the serpent more than the serpent would hurt Eve. Also, even though “bruise” is an accurate translation, the word likely seems soft to the modern reader. A bruise is not all that bothersome. I am hoping Eve’s offspring hurts Satan a bit more than just a bruise on his head. As a result, you may notice that some translators have used words such as “crush” or “strike” or “attack.”
Perpetual conflict. Additionally, this bruising consists of repeated and ongoing attacks – not a onetime event. Maybe like me, you have assumed that the bruise on the heel consisted of the piercing of Jesus’ feet on the cross. However, consistently, commentators see a much broader application or implication to both bruises.[9] At this point, a conflict began between Eve and Satan, between Eve’s offspring and Satan’s offspring – a conflict that would span all time until Christ would eventually return to annihilate once and for all Satan and all those who chose to follow him.
This passage unlikely points to a singular moment when Satan would hurt Christ (his death) and Christ would crush Satan (through his death and resurrection). The battle between Satan and Eve’s offspring began immediately and would continue after Christ’s death and resurrection. In Romans, Paul acknowledges that the church plays a role in this fulfillment when he writes, “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (Rom 16:20). Additionally, we know that Satan is not ultimately cast down/crushed until Jesus’ return – discussed in Revelation. [10]
Her offspring. A second challenge presents itself. You may as well notice, in the various translations, differences in pronouns in the second half of the verse. Some translators have chosen “he,” others chose “her offspring,” and even a couple chose “her.”
I have understood the “he” to be a singular masculine noun – specifically Jesus Christ – who is the best of Eve’s offspring. Jesus, as Eve’s offspring, will come and crush the serpent’s head as he defeats sin and death on the cross and through his resurrection.[11]
However, in so doing, we “violently distort” the collective noun in the previous phrases.
Calvin. Gladly would I give my suffrage in support of their opinion, but that I regard the word seed as too violently distorted by them; for who will concede that a collective noun is to be understood of one man only? Further, as the perpetuity of the contest is noted, so victory is promised to the human race through a continual succession of ages.[12]
The NET Bible and Good News Bible likely offer the best option in this verse as they translate the beginning of verse fifteen as “her offspring will attack your head, and you will attack her offspring’s heel” (Gen 3:15a NET). The crushing of the serpent’s head not only occurs when Jesus comes (which is clearly part of this) but occurs throughout all time as the people of God follow God and live in perpetual conflict with Satan and his offspring.
When righteous Noah obeys God and builds an ark and saves a remnant of mankind, Satan is suppressed. When Abraham believes God and follows his directions, Satan’s plan is foiled. When Moses obeys God and delivers the people of Israel, Satan feels the pressure of God’s people. When Jesus dies for the sins of the world, Satan is immensely destroyed. However, the church (the people of God) continues to be transformed by God and walk with him. In so doing, Satan’s head continues to be crushed (Rom 16:20). Ultimately, the day will come when Jesus returns and utterly and eternally annihilates Satan and crushes him.
Jesus addresses Satan’s offspring when he confronts the religious leaders. Jesus says, “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:44). More starkly, Jesus directly connects these religious leaders to the serpent when he says, “You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?” (Matt 23:33). Additionally, when Jesus explains the parable of the weeds, he acknowledges “The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one” (Matt 13:38).
Therefore, I would propose that the NET Bible offers the most helpful translation. “And I will put hostility between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring; her offspring will attack your head, and you will attack her offspring’s heel” (Gen 3:15).
Conclusion
Conclusion
Ultimately God’s people win and the climax of this victory came when Christ defeated Satan, sin, and death on the cross and through his resurrection. However, the battle continues. Hence, Paul urges God’s people to put on the whole armor of God.
Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. (Eph 6:11–13).
God obviously had in mind Jesus’ future earthly work and the even more distant ultimate defeat of Satan (in Revelation). God knows all things and He full well knew his plan. However, the emphasis in this passage seems more about the daily battle that Satan would have with God’s people rather than only two significant future events. Therefore, consider a few closing thoughts:
1. Do not be surprised at the perpetual attack of Satan in your life or the regular animosity of those who don’t follow God. Expect to be assaulted.
2. Glory in the marvelous work of Christ on the cross, but don’t limit your understanding of our spiritual battle to that most important of moments.
3. Therefore, put on the whole armor of God. Every day is a spiritual battle. Since the dawn of time and the initial fall, everyday has been immersed in Satan’s ongoing efforts to thwart God’s purpose in his people. And each day, as the people of God have walked with him and obeyed him, Satan has been consistently crushed. Keep up the work!
4. God intended to encourage Adam with the condemnation on both the serpent and Satan. This encouragement extends to every believer.
Anna Marie Van Schurman:
God wants to snatch from the devil’s jaws that weak and hapless prey, and turn the Serpent’s guile and power into shame and dismay. God pronounces over him a curse filled with hell’s own fire and gives a sign to that animal of his wrath and ire: God wants no peace between the woman and the Serpent or its seed, but the seed of this woman will, at the last, crush its head indeed. Behold, from the mouth of God now comes that promise, that great word in which the new covenant between God and mortals is heard! How earth and hell and heaven did then stand here astounded while God’s voice rumbled and curses from heaven resounded! Here a wonderful light shines forth from God’s gracious throne: the devil’s highest punishment yields our highest crown. Satan is condemned, God lifts up the human race to live now without end in God’s almighty grace through that wonderful covenant that the Lord did provide by the Son of man’s death— the Son of God at God’s own side! No greater work of love could God’s grace anoint, wherein God’s virtues meet in a single point.[13]
Resources for Bible Study
Resources for Bible Study
Tremper Longman III, How to Read Genesis (Westmont, IL: IVP Academic, 2005). (Chapter 10: Section – Genesis 3:15: The Protoevangelium)
Hengstenberg, E. W. Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions. Translated by Theodore Meyer. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1858. (“The Protoevangelium,” pgs. 4-20)
Additional Quotes
Additional Quotes
Martin. 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 B.C. Of course, such an interpretative translation by the LXX does not mean that this is the correct understanding of the Hebrew text. Rather this LXX translation is further evidence of the intensification of messianic expectations among the Jews in the centuries immediately preceding the birth of Jesus.[14]
Calvin. This passage affords too clear a proof of the great ignorance, dulness, and carelessness, which have prevailed among all the learned men of the Papacy. The feminine gender has crept in instead of the masculine or neuter. There has been none among them who would consult the Hebrew or Greek codices, or who would even compare the Latin copies with each other. Therefore, by a common error, this most corrupt reading has been received. Then, a profane exposition of it has been invented, by applying to the mother of Christ what is said concerning her seed.[15]
Ambrose. there is discord between the serpent and the woman. Evil is at the base of discord; thus evil has not been taken away. Indeed, it has been reserved for the serpent, that he might watch for the woman’s heel and the heel of her seed, so as to do harm and infuse his poison. Therefore let us not walk in earthly things, and the serpent will not be able to harm us.[16]
Calvin. I interpret this simply to mean that there should always be the hostile strife between the human race and serpents, which is now apparent; for, by a secret feeling of nature, man abhors them….We must now make a transition from the serpent to the author of this mischief himself; and that not only in the way of comparison, for there truly is a literal anagogy; because God has not so vented his anger upon the outward instrument as to spare the devil, with whom lay all the blame….I therefore conclude, that God here chiefly assails Satan under the name of the serpent, and hurls against him the lightning of his judgment. This he does for a twofold reason: first, that men may learn to beware of Satan as of a most deadly enemy; then, that they may contend against him with the assured confidence of victory.[17]
Wolfgang Musculus. The simple and proper meaning of words is to be retained, so that the woman is still Eve; the woman’s seed is her offspring, the human race; it should be a genuine and natural serpent that misled the woman; the serpent’s seed is its offspring as well. The enmity between the serpent and the woman and between the seed of them both may be recognized as the enmity that even now endures between mortals and that cursed beast. At the same time, following Chrysostom, one may see in these certain things a certain image of Satan, the enemy of the human race, who used this serpent as an instrument of his evil.[18]
Augustine. There is no mention now of that condemnation of the devil which is reserved for the last judgment, that one the Lord speaks when he says, “Depart into the eternal fire, which has been prepared for the devil and his angels”; rather it mentions that punishment of his against which we must be on guard. For his punishment is that he has in his power those who despise the command of God.[19]
Footnotes
Footnotes
[1]“The Hatfield & “McCoy Feud,” History Channel, n.d., https://www.history.com/shows/hatfields-and-mccoys/articles/the-hatfield-mccoy-feud
[2]“This verse is one of the most famous cruxes of Scripture. Interpreters fall into two categories: those who see in the decree a messianic import and those who see nothing of the kind. The more conservative and traditional writers (e.g., Schaeffer, Leupold, Vos, Kidner, Aalders, and Stigers) opt for the first approach, but the bulk of authors in the critical camp (e.g., Skinner, von Rad, Speiser, Vawter, and Westermann) fail to see any promise of a Messiah in this verse and agree that far too much has been read into it.” [Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, 197.] Josephus also appears to consider this entire passage as directed to the serpent. He writes, “He also deprived the serpent of speech, out of indignation at his malicious disposition towards Adam…” (Ant. I.1.50) [Josephus, The Works of Josephus: Complete & Unabridged, 30.] “Westermann disagrees with those who understand Gen 3:15 to be a reference to Christ. He argues that “seed” (zera') should be understood collectively as a reference to the entire line of the serpent’s and woman’s descendants. He views this aspect of the curse as pointing to humanity’s relationship with animals generally.” [Mangum, Custis, and Widder, Genesis 1-11, Ge 3:1-24.]
[3]“Neither do we approve the views of those fathers who allegorically apply these words to the devil, that he goes upon his belly when he tempts us to gluttony and lechery (of which the belly is the instrument), and he eats earth by having power over earthly-minded people—for after this manner, the whole story may likewise be allegorized.” [George, Timothy, Scott M. Manetsch, and John L. Thompson, Genesis 1-11, vol. 1, Reformation Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012), 155–56.]
[4]I did not find any commentators who proposed God directed verse fourteen to the serpent and verse fifteen to Satan. However, my personal experience seems to indicate that and a couple of people I discussed this with also had previously understood the text that way. This may be a common understanding for the average lay person.
[5] “If we do not look beyond the serpent, these words have in them something incomprehensible, inasmuch as the serpent is destitute of that responsibility which alone could justify so severe a sentence.” [E. W. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, trans. Theodore Meyer, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1858), 14.]
“If there could be any doubt that the language addressed to the serpent involved a two-fold meaning—a reference to the spiritual as identified with the natural serpent—it must be removed by these words, which bear a far deeper significance than at first sight they seem to contain.” [Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments, Vol. 1: Genesis-Deuteronomy(London; Glasgow: William Collins, Sons, & Company, Limited, n.d.), 57.]
[6]“Wherefore, many explain this whole passage allegorically, and plausible are the subtleties which they adduce for this purpose. But when all things are more accurately weighed, readers endued with sound judgment will easily perceive that the language is of a mixed character; for God so addresses the serpent that the last clause belongs to the devil.” [ John Calvin and John King, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis(Logos Bible Software, 2010), 165–66.]
[7] Calvin. “He does not interrogate the serpent as he had done the man and the woman; because, in the animal itself there was no sense of sin, and because, to the devil he would hold out no hope of pardon.” [Calvin and King, 165.]
Johannes Brenz. “there was naturally no need to interrogate Satan, who had previously been judged and condemned when he sinned in heaven…. Let us also note that the things said against the serpent would pertain to the external and bodily serpent … in such a manner that they would look above all to Satan, who was using the serpent as his tool.” [George, Timothy, Manetsch, and Thompson, Genesis 1-11, 1:153.] Johannes Brenz (1499-1570) was a German theologian and Reformer of the Duchy of Wurttemberg.
[8] Hamilton. “Presumably we should translate the verb the same way both times, there being no evidence in the Hebrew text to support divergent readings (cf. AV, RSV, NAB, NEB, Speiser). It seems unwise to translate the first šûp̄ as “crush” and the second as “strike at,” as is done in NIV and JB. For this creates the impression that the blow struck at the serpent is fatal—its head is crushed—while the blow unleashed by the serpent against the woman’s seed is painful but not lethal—it comes away with a bruised heel. Such a shift in translation is not only artificial, but it forces on the text a focus that is not there…. . In order to maintain the duplication of the Hebrew verb, whatever English equivalent one decides on must be used twice. We have already suggested a reason why “crush” would not be appropriate. strike at covers adequately the reciprocal moves of the woman’s seed and the serpent’s seed against each other rather than something like: ‘He shall lie in wait for your head’ and ‘you shall lie in wait for his heel.’” [Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, 197–98.]
[9] Wenham. “The imperfect verb is iterative. It implies repeated attacks by both sides to injure the other. It declares lifelong mutual hostility between mankind and the serpent race. Of more moment for interpretation is the question whether one side will eventually prove victorious in the battle, or whether the contest will be never-ending.” [Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 1:80.]
Walton. “Given the repetition of the verb and the potentially mortal nature of both attacks, it becomes difficult to understand the verse as suggesting an eventual outcome to the struggle. Instead, both sides are exchanging potentially mortal blows of equal threat to the part of the body most vulnerable to their attack. The verse is depicting a continual, unresolved conflict between humans and the representatives of evil.” [John H Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 226.]
[10] Hamilton. “Taken in the context of the otand the fulfillment of promise, the verse finds a partial unfolding at Calvary. It is, however, not until Rev 20 that the implications of the verse reach their climax (cf. also Rom 16:20).” [Victor P. Hamilton, “2349 שׁוּף,” Harris, Jr, and Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 912.]
[11]I, in large part, draw this interpretation from the translation choices of modern translators. There are three variants – he, it, and she. Arguably, the desire to retain “she” flows from Mariology.
“The fact is also well known that the LXX chose to render the Hebrew pronoun hu3 with autos, making it a masculine, whereas the Hebrew does not demand anything more than a neuter. The Vulgate, on the other hand, rendered this same pronoun with the feminine ipsa, thus giving support to a mario-logical understanding.” [Marten Hendrik Woudstra, “Recent Translations of Genesis 3:15,” Calvin Theological Journal 6, no. 2 (November 1971): 195.]
The translation “her offspring” appears contextually correct but does include translated words not in the Hebrew. The use of “he” changes “offspring” to a singular masculine – likely attempting to translate the messianic fulfillment into the passage. Notice the varied translation options.
it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel (KJV). he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel (ESV, NASB, CJB, RSV). He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel (HCSB, NLT). he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel (NIV). He shal breake thine head, & thou shalt bruise his heele (GEN). her offspring will attack your head, and you will attack her offspring’s heel (NET). Her offspring will crush your head, and you will bite her offspring’s heel (GNB). she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel (DR, Wycliffe’s version also used “she”).
“Grammatically [rw is masculine, but actually it is a collective noun of which the natural gender is neuter. The proper translation in English of aWh would be either "it" or "they" (meaning "the descendents of Eve").” [Raymond Albert Martin, “Earliest Messianic Interpretation of Genesis 3:15,” Journal of Biblical Literature 84, no. 4 (December 1965): 425.]
This interpretation finds notable supporters. For instance, the Theological Wordbook appears to hold this interpretation. “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.” … 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.” [Walter C. Kaiser, “582 זָרַע,” Harris, Jr, and Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 253.]
[12] Calvin and King, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, 170.
“one might, while retaining something of the "offspring" notion, understand the two "seeds" to stand for two "races," two "communities," each marked by a moral quality. These communities are headed up by two distinct principals, the one principal being the woman, the other the serpent, each of which had just been set at enmity with the other by God himself. Upon this view both of these "seeds" could be found among the children of men. This would then alleviate the difficulty of having to take the word literally in the one instance and figuratively in the other.” [Woudstra, “Recent Translations of Genesis 3:15,” 198.]
“We may also understand by the seed of the woman, all the elect, and by the seed of the serpent, all the wicked, who are the sons of the devil, … between whom (the elect and the wicked) there shall be perpetual enmity” [George, Timothy, Manetsch, and Thompson, Genesis 1-11, 1:158.]
[13] George, Timothy, Manetsch, and Thompson, Genesis 1-11, 1:158.
[14] Martin, “Earliest Messianic Interpretation of Genesis 3:15,” 427.
[15] Calvin and King, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, 170.
[16] Andrew Louth and Marco Conti, Genesis 1-11, ACCS (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 90.
[17] Calvin and King, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, 167–69.
[18] George, Timothy, Manetsch, and Thompson, Genesis 1-11, 1:156.
[19] Augustine of Hippo, Saint Augustine: On Genesis: Two Books on Genesis Against the Manichees; and, on the Literal Interpretation of Genesis: An Unfinished Book, ed. Thomas P. Halton, trans. Roland J. Teske, vol. 84, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1991), 121–22.