The Seed of the Woman? The Surprising Logic of Redemptive History

[Arial]

That still doesn't follow, for me. As I understand it—and, again, this may be a difference between our perspectives—the pactum salutis was an eternal, intratrinitarian covenant, which means nothing of the covenant of redemption would be promised to man. It is strictly between the Godhead.

There is the covenant of redemption between the Godhead on the one hand, which grounds the covenant of grace between the triune God and the elect on the other hand. According to Berkhof, this distinct framing is followed by the majority of Reformed theologians, from Turretin to Witsius and Vos to Bavinck, and so on (i.e., even by us supralapsarians).

It is also worth highlighting the difference between the covenant of redemption and the plan of redemption. The covenant of redemption is the eternal, intratrinitarian agreement concerning the redemption of the elect (the foundation), while the plan of redemption is the historical unfolding of that agreement (the execution), which includes both the prelapsarian covenant of works and the postlapsarian covenant of grace.

Christ, as Mediator—whose office is not merely to redeem but to mediate the entire relationship between God and man according to the terms of the covenants—fulfills the covenant of redemption by accomplishing the redemption of the elect, satisfies the covenant of works on their behalf through his active and passive obedience, and administers the covenant of grace by granting to his people the benefits of his finished work through union with himself. And all of this is the plan of redemption unfolding in history.

I agree with what you say and I also agree that what appears to be a difference is just a difference of perspective.

It is just that I see the Bible from the point of cursing the serpent and making a covenant promise (the pactum salutis: pact of salvation) as marking the beginning of the story of redemption as it plays out in our history. Therefore, keeping the entire Bible one story, that story in all its parts.

So my perspective is related to keeping the entire Bible in all its parts the story of the intratrinitarian Covenant of Redemption playing out in our history, for interpretive purposes. Rather than chopping it up into separate units as Dispensationalism does.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, that is an old argument, but is it true? Is way lineage was reckoned by ancient Hebrews even relevant? Does it have anything to do with God's thinking at the time He first spoke those words to Adam and Eve?

The "Jewishness" of the child is reckoned through the mother (you know factually who she is) and headship and inheritance is reckoned through the father.

Yes, that is all old arguments but it has nothing to do with God's thinking when God first spoke those words.

This is why Mary's lineage was important to list in Scripture, Jesus' Jewish identity came legally from her, not Joseph. Jesus would be legally Joseph's adopted son, which gives Jesus full inheritance rights under Jewish law and all the patrilineal inheritance benefits from Joseph.

No, it is not. That's another old argument and the truth is no one knows for sure why the two lineages different are provided. The reason no one knows for sure is because the text itself does not explain it.

The question is not, "What did Hebrews or Jews think was the measure of descendancy?" They question is "What did God think was the measure?" Since enormous problems arise if we think God used an ovum of sinful Mary it is not exegetically rational to think God was speaking to a sinful woman about His begetting a sinless son from another sinful woman. Even if we consider the fact the Genesis 3 text was likely only oral tradition until Moses was inspired to put it to write it down (thereby precluding any and all oral variations that might have existed at the time) we cannot measure the words of God by Hebrew thought (the thinking of sinful Hebrews). There are definitely times when culture is important and necessary to understanding the text (such as when the Samaritans are mentioned, or ancient adages are used), but this is not one of them. There was no established Hebrew culture in Genesis 3.