Fulfillment of Gen 3:15

[mikew]

Are there other places where the fulfillment of Gen 3:15 has been described?

Mar 15:22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.

Jhn 19:17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called [the place] of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

The serpents heads was crushed; the serpent being defeated at Calvary.

That is an interesting idea. I have wondered if there was a significance to the reference about the skull. There does appear to be some sense of prophetic meaning by the association of the Gen 3:15 mention of "bruising your head" (speaking to Satan) with the name "place of a skull." The funny thing is that there is no prophetic fulfillment in just the place being called "place of a skull" but it certainly portended what Christ was doing.

Now I should say that I was actually asking if there are some other discussions or writings or websites that describe the first century (or subsequent) fulfillment of Gen 3:15? Paul put the fulfillment of the bruising of Satan's head at a time future of the writing of Rom 16:20.

One part of Gen 3:15 that also is a bit unclear is about the bruising of the heal of Jesus. I have seen this possibly as being the death on the cross -- that this was then Satan's interest -- but was only of a temporary effect.

[RND]

That is an interesting idea. I have wondered if there was a significance to the reference about the skull. There does appear to be some sense of prophetic meaning by the association of the Gen 3:15 mention of "bruising your head" (speaking to Satan) with the name "place of a skull." The funny thing is that there is no prophetic fulfillment in just the place being called "place of a skull" but it certainly portended what Christ was doing.

Now I should say that I was actually asking if there are some other discussions or writings or websites that describe the first century (or subsequent) fulfillment of Gen 3:15? Paul put the fulfillment of the bruising of Satan's head at a time future of the writing of Rom 16:20.

Paul was specifically speaking to those he was addressing in his epistle:

Rom 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you. Amen.

Satan was defeated at the cross. That is not to say he was taken out of the way.

One part of Gen 3:15 that also is a bit unclear is about the bruising of the heal of Jesus. I have seen this possibly as being the death on the cross -- that this was then Satan's interest -- but was only of a temporary effect.

There is a great deal of symbolism in bruising the heal of Christ. Have you ever considered why God desires people only to eat animals that split the hoof?

[mikew]

...snip...

Now I should say that I was actually asking if there are some other discussions or writings or websites that describe the first century (or subsequent) fulfillment of Gen 3:15? Paul put the fulfillment of the bruising of Satan's head at a time future of the writing of Rom 16:20.

Paul was specifically speaking to those he was addressing in his epistle:

Rom 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you. Amen.

Satan was defeated at the cross. That is not to say he was taken out of the way.

If what you are saying is true, then Gen 3:15 had no specific meaning but was used only to establish a theme that would go on endlessly.

[RND]

If what you are saying is true, then Gen 3:15 had no specific meaning but was used only to establish a theme that would go on endlessly.

That's an odd statement. As I stated Genesis 3, and particularly verse 15, has many different meanings, not just one singular meaning. The woman's 'seed' is definitely a prophesy for the coming Messiah. But it is obvious, I think, that Satan was defeated at the cross with the death of Christ not specifically at his birth.

Also, I don't see that Satan's power to deceive the nations was taken away as much as a solution to the controversy was offered at the cross. The controversy between the goodness of God and the lies of the serpent was ended when the Messiah said, "It is finished."

[mikew]

I was actually talking about the idea that if a prophecy is seen as having just many fulfillments, then it would no longer be prophecy. It would be just an observation about cyclic events.

So it doesn't make sense to say that Satan then has to be bruised on the head over and over again.

I'm responding in part with the focus of some who say "Satan" merely means "adversary" so that there are always adversaries. (So I'm sort of arguing now against people not currently responding on this topic.) Again, the problem would be that Gen 3:15 would have no specific meaning if this and that adversary were bruised on the head -- there would be no end and no direct application of the prophecy.

So, based on this, and on more criteria, it is only reasonable to say that since Paul was showing Satan being bruised on the head as a future event, then the fulfillment of that part of Gen 3:15 was a future event.

[RND]

I was actually talking about the idea that if a prophecy is seen as having just many fulfillments, then it would no longer be prophecy. It would be just an observation about cyclic events.

So it doesn't make sense to say that Satan then has to be bruised on the head over and over again.

When Moses wrote Genesis it was indeed a prophecy of events to come. Before that, when what was actually happening in the garden was coming to pass, it was indeed prophecy. When prophecy comes true it is reality, and yet it is still reality.

I'm responding in part with the focus of some who say "Satan" merely means "adversary" so that there are always adversaries. (So I'm sort of arguing now against people not currently responding on this topic.) Again, the problem would be that Gen 3:15 would have no specific meaning if this and that adversary were bruised on the head -- there would be no end and no direct application of the prophecy.

I didn't see this argument made.

So, based on this, and on more criteria, it is only reasonable to say that since Paul was showing Satan being bruised on the head as a future event, then the fulfillment of that part of Gen 3:15 was a future event.

I understand the point your making. But Satan is "bruised" by the "seed" of the "woman." That happened once and for all at the cross. Now it is the "Peace of God" that allows those of the "seed" to bruise the head of the Adversary and be "lifted up."

[psychohmike]

Is it possible that the satan that Paul is referring to in Romans is like the use of Jesus in speaking to Peter?..."Step aside satan!"

Paul said it would happen shortly...And the brood of vipers that Jesus said was going to be judged was, shortly there after.

Pmike

[mikew]

Is it possible that the satan that Paul is referring to in Romans is like the use of Jesus in speaking to Peter?..."Step aside satan!"

I would say that Paul's quoting of Gen 3:15 verbiage is quite different from Jesus rebuking Peter.
In the case of Jesus' rebuke, we don't see Peter's head crushed. But more importantly, this was just sharp words to a stubborn fisherman to get him on track as one of Jesus' disciples.

The bruising of Satan's head, especially in being quoted again in Rom 16:20, most certainly has overtones of the binding of Satan, seen in Rev 20. There was an element of political rule implied by the reference to the head. It should remember that this was a time approaching great eschatological events.
The words in Rom 16:20 were spoken for encouragement of the believers. To be most successful, it made sense to refer to a prophecy upon which they could fix their hope.

Paul said it would happen shortly...And the brood of vipers that Jesus said was going to be judged was, shortly there after.

Pmike

I would agree with your mention of two prophetic events being fulfilled shortly, from the perspective of the Romans. The one of significance to the Romans was about Satan's rulership -- this seems to be about political rule, and likely included the Roman rulership. And such is the reason that the Romans could be interested in the fulfillment of Gen 3:15

The other prophetic event was about the seed of the serpent. One problem I have been hearing on discussions recently is that people weren't distinguishing between Satan and his seed. The seed were shown to be those listening to Jesus, John 8:44, yet following the doctrine of the Pharisees. The seed is not the same entity as their father, the devil. Neither was this part of Gen 3:15 (that is, the part about the seed) mentioned in Rom 16:20.

Additionally it should be noted that all the power of that judgment and sentence of Gen 3:15 would be made void of significance if there was no real event expected regarding Satan. It would be odd if that time, being the time of the Messiah, simply continued with an unending series of adversaries rather than God dealing with a person named Satan (not speaking of a person as him being a man, but he seemed to be among the beasts of the field, though also seemingly invisible to us). And this person was also identified in Revelation as not just being "Satan" or adversary, but also identified as being the serpent or the dragon -- these are terms that weren't to my knowledge, at least, applied to any old adversaries.