The "Woman" of Genesis 3:15

  • Thread starter Thread starter CutlerB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CutlerB

Guest
Hi there,

I have just come across the Verse of Genesis 3:15 that lists a “woman”, “seed” and the Devil. I’ve read about the interpretation that this “woman” is Mary, but somehow I don’t really understand it. Who is the Woman spoken of? Is it not Eve, as the context would imply?

Maybe you can make it easier to understand.
 
CutlerB said:
Hi there,

I have just come across the Verse of Genesis 3:15 that lists a “woman”, “seed” and the Devil. I’ve read about the interpretation that this “woman” is Mary, but somehow I don’t really understand it. Who is the Woman spoken of? Is it not Eve, as the context would imply?

Maybe you can make it easier to understand.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is interpreted as such.
As with all prophecies, the interpretation is more important than the literal meaning.
As with woman came sin to the world, with another came Life.
Were not the the “yes” of Mary, we would not have Jesus Christ.
So, with Adam, as for a Man came death and damnation to the Earth, as through another Man, Jesus Christ, came Like.
That is the common interpretation in the RCC
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
Yes, it is interpreted as such.
As with all prophecies, the interpretation is more important than the literal meaning.
As with woman came sin to the world, with another came Life.
Were not the the “yes” of Mary, we would not have Jesus Christ.
So, with Adam, as for a Man came death and damnation to the Earth, as through another Man, Jesus Christ, came Like.
That is the common interpretation in the RCC
Click to expand...
Ah, so you mean there are some kind of “multiple layers” of a verse sometimes? That would make sense, thanks!
 
CutlerB said:
Hi there,

I have just come across the Verse of Genesis 3:15 that lists a “woman”, “seed” and the Devil. I’ve read about the interpretation that this “woman” is Mary, but somehow I don’t really understand it. Who is the Woman spoken of? Is it not Eve, as the context would imply?

Maybe you can make it easier to understand.
Click to expand...
Mary is looked on as the ‘new Eve’ for her obedience. Read the Catechism 410 - 411 which refers to this passage.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#410
 
OK, there’s one little thing I noticed. Would one really say Christ was stricken in the heel by the serpent on the Cross? I mean, striking the heel is not that lethal.

And one more: In Romans chapter 16 verse 20 it says that God will crush Satan eventually. Isn’t Mary often depicted as crushing Satan? Maybe I am confusing the two instances, though.
 
Literally, the woman is Eve, her seed is all humanity, the serpent is a serpent, its seed is all serpent-kind.

Spiritually, the woman refers to the Old Testament Church, to Mary, and to the New Testament Church, her seed refers to the righteous of the Old Testament, to Jesus Christ, and to Christians, the serpent refers to the Devil, his seed refers to all demons and to all human evil-doers.
 
I think that at that time it was believed that the seed came from the man and grew in the woman, e.g. Hebrews 7:9
9 One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, 10 for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.
Click to expand...
I think this is the only occasion that the seed of a woman is mentioned. It would seem to be fulfilled in the Virgin conception of Jesus.
 
Actually, the latest greatest Greek science of the time thought that both men and women produced seed, but that men’s seed was stronger and more important. (I won’t go into detail about their reasons, except to say it was a mucus thing. And they were groping to explain the DNA contributions by both partners, without knowing about DNA.) Women also provided the earth for the seeds to grow in (ie, the womb).

However, the important comment for the Bible was that poetically, it’s female trees that grow seeds. Male trees just have pollen. So in the literal poetic sense, it makes more sense to talk about women with seeds and fruit than men having seed at all.

It’s one of those language idiom things we don’t think about. 🙂
 
CutlerB said:
Ah, so you mean there are some kind of “multiple layers” of a verse sometimes? That would make sense, thanks!
Click to expand...
Even in talking, above all in women!
A colleague was saying one day at Faculty: “Hey, it is so cold!”
And I replied: “No, I do not feel cold at all!”
Moments later: “Brrr, it is really cold!”
And I said: “Maybe we are different, you feel the cold more than I”
Finally she showed the hidden layer of meaning: “Would you mind to close that window, please?”

Women do it all the time and men are at a loss…
 
CutlerB said:
Hi there,

I have just come across the Verse of Genesis 3:15 that lists a “woman”, “seed” and the Devil. I’ve read about the interpretation that this “woman” is Mary, but somehow I don’t really understand it. Who is the Woman spoken of? Is it not Eve, as the context would imply?

Maybe you can make it easier to understand.
Click to expand...
The battle is shown in
Rev 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born…
…17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

And in

Matt2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him…
…16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.
 
panevino said:
The battle is shown in
Rev 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born…
…17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

And in

Matt2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him…
…16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.
Click to expand...
Great, thank you! 🙂
 
If Gen 3:15 refers to Mary then so does Gen 3:16. However that verse says that she will bear children (plural) in pain. Catholic doctrine says that Mary only gave birth to one child and there is a small-t tradition that says that Jesus passed through her hymen and that she experienced no pain. I have to conclude that Gen 3:15 does not refer to Mary.
 
it’s called typology. relating an OT person to the NT manifestation of same.
 
itullian said:
it’s called typology. relating an OT person to the NT manifestation of same.
Click to expand...
Types require some degree of similarity. Other than both being women, I don’t see any similarity between what the text says about the woman in this passage and what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary.
 
garysibio said:
If Gen 3:15 refers to Mary then so does Gen 3:16. However that verse says that she will bear children (plural) in pain. Catholic doctrine says that Mary only gave birth to one child and there is a small-t tradition that says that Jesus passed through her hymen and that she experienced no pain. I have to conclude that Gen 3:15 does not refer to Mary.
Click to expand...
Please read that passage more carefully.

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 3:16[/BIBLEDRB]

The penalty for original sin includes a multiplication in childbearing pain–NOT the establishment of childbearing pain.

If you’ve taken Algebra 1301 then you know that multiplication (X) requires there to be some pre-existing quantity to be multiplied. (Anything times zero is still zero.) In other words, childbearing pain existed before original sin, but original sin made it far worse. Thus, Mary would have had pain in childbearing, but that doesn’t mean She wasn’t immaculately concieved.

Leave Mary alone or you will wind up losing sight of Her Son.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top