The Great Struggle
Thoughts on Genesis 3:15
by Philip du Nard
Genesis 3:15 states, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”
Thus the stage is set for the ages long struggle between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, between good and evil, between Christ and Satan. What appears foolish to the world is reality to believers
The context reveals that this declaration by God was pronounced in the aftermath of the serpent successfully tempting Eve to eat of the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden
Among those who believe that the redeemed race of Israel is to be found among the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic and Celtic peoples, there are some who believe that the serpent was a non-Adamic human being that sexually seduced Eve. Even though Genesis 4:1 states, “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord,” they believe that the serpent was the father of Cain. Furthermore, they believe that Cain’s descendants survived the Noahic flood, being local in nature, and live among us as a distinct group of people. Thus, they consider the seed of the serpent to be biological in nature, with spiritual implications, of course. They are quite dogmatic about this.
Even if Genesis 4:1 did not definitively settle the paternity of Cain—and I believe that it does—what they are setting forth would be highly speculative. In Genesis 34 where Dinah, the daughter of Jacob is taken advantage of by Shechem the son of Hamor, it is evident that sexual activity took place. Similarly, in chapter 38 when Tamar deceived Judah into thinking she was a harlot, there was no beating around the bush as to what took place here. But no such language is encountered in Genesis 3.
Once again, it’s the contention about what is literal and what is symbolic language in the Scriptures. They scoff at the notion of a literal serpent, fruit, or tree being involved but insist that the seed referred to must be literal.
I believe this teaching is wrong and brings unnecessary reproach on the Anglo-Israel truth.
Thoughts on Genesis 3:15
by Philip du Nard
Genesis 3:15 states, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”
Thus the stage is set for the ages long struggle between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, between good and evil, between Christ and Satan. What appears foolish to the world is reality to believers
The context reveals that this declaration by God was pronounced in the aftermath of the serpent successfully tempting Eve to eat of the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden
Among those who believe that the redeemed race of Israel is to be found among the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic and Celtic peoples, there are some who believe that the serpent was a non-Adamic human being that sexually seduced Eve. Even though Genesis 4:1 states, “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord,” they believe that the serpent was the father of Cain. Furthermore, they believe that Cain’s descendants survived the Noahic flood, being local in nature, and live among us as a distinct group of people. Thus, they consider the seed of the serpent to be biological in nature, with spiritual implications, of course. They are quite dogmatic about this.
Even if Genesis 4:1 did not definitively settle the paternity of Cain—and I believe that it does—what they are setting forth would be highly speculative. In Genesis 34 where Dinah, the daughter of Jacob is taken advantage of by Shechem the son of Hamor, it is evident that sexual activity took place. Similarly, in chapter 38 when Tamar deceived Judah into thinking she was a harlot, there was no beating around the bush as to what took place here. But no such language is encountered in Genesis 3.
Once again, it’s the contention about what is literal and what is symbolic language in the Scriptures. They scoff at the notion of a literal serpent, fruit, or tree being involved but insist that the seed referred to must be literal.
I believe this teaching is wrong and brings unnecessary reproach on the Anglo-Israel truth.