Reply to Martin Micron: Of Genesis 3, Verse 15

Micron reports in his writing that I said we should not understand the seed of the woman, Genesis 3, verse 15, in a fleshly sense, but in a spiritual sense only. To this I reply without reserve that the assertion is without foundation. For never in my life was it my intention to exclude Christ from this promise. For as deceived Eve was a literal woman, so also the deceitful serpent, through which the devil deceived her, was a literal serpent. For the Lord said, “Upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life,” Genesis 3, verse 14, something which the devil, who is a spirit, could not do. If we now are to understand the seed of the woman as a begetting seed, as Micron does, then the seed of the serpent must also be understood as a begetting seed, and the enmity would exist between these two alone; for the one seed must be after its own kind, since it bears the same name. In that sense only the literal serpent was overcome by Christ. Understand rightly what I write.

On the other hand, if the serpent is a spiritual serpent (as it indeed is), represented by the deceitful serpent, then the woman must also be a spiritual woman, represented by the deceived woman, and so, again, the seed must be after its own kind. For as the serpent is spiritual, so also its seed is spiritual, which is falsehood, John 8, verse 44, by which, alas, it begets such children as write such deceiving, lying, infamous and biased books as Micron and Herman have done in this instance.

In the same way, as the woman is spiritual, Ephesians 5, verse 25; Revelation 12, verse 6; Revelation 19, verse 7, so also her seed is spiritual, that is, the truth, by which (eternal glory be to God for his grace) she begets such children as walk in the truth, sincerely speak the truth, and for the sake of the truth willingly submit to death with yes and no.

And see, between these two, the children of truth and the children of falsehood, there is an eternal enmity. The seed of the woman overcomes, and that by sincere, firm faith, in Christian patience, by the Spirit and word of the Lord; yet it receives many stings in the heel from the conquered seed of the serpent. For their name is slandered, their doctrine is ridiculed, their life is hated to the death, their goods are stolen, their flesh is burned, and they are drowned; and they must expect to be bitten daily by the venomous, bloodguilty seed, as I in my weakness have experienced for more than twenty years.

See, if we understand it in the sense we have shown here, spiritual things remain spiritual, fleshly things fleshly, and the Scriptures remain unbroken. But the Lord keep me from excluding Christ from the promise by this. For I know, by the grace of the Lord, that Christ is the power, the beginning, means and end of the whole promise, and that he will remain so forever. For he is the spiritual husband of this spiritual woman, John 3, verse 6; Revelation 19, verse 7; Ephesians 5, verse 25. His Word is the seed of the woman, which Word he is himself, as he says, “Even the same that I said to you from the beginning,” John 8, verse 25. He spoke and taught the truth, and he is the truth, John 14, verse 6. He spoke and taught love, and he is love, First John 4, verse 8. In short, he spoke of wisdom, righteousness, holiness and deliverance, and he is himself Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification and Redemption, First Corinthians 1, verse 30. [Note 1]

He alone is the victorious Prince and triumphant Conqueror who was promised by those words, who has bruised the serpent’s head for us; and we also in him, through him, as Paul says, “In all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us,” Romans 8, verse 37; and, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me,” Philippians 4, verse 13; and, “Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” First John 5, verse 5.

Since it is clear from all this that Christ and his Spirit, word, wisdom, truth, righteousness, sanctification, peace, deliverance and all his other attributes can never be separated in power and truth, and since it is clear that where the one is, the other must be also, I will therefore leave it, not to the judgment of Micron and Herman, but to the judgment of the impartial reader, whether I exclude the man Christ, in whom our salvation is, from this promise, and say that it should be understood only spiritually, even though the allegory is spiritual in him, as Micron reports.

It has always been my understanding that by this he was promised to us from a woman, and I have said so in some of my books; yet Micron must misquote my writings in this way, as, alas, he often does. I would not know for what reason I should contradict it, since he is not here promised from a man but from a woman, Isaiah 7, verse 14, from a virgin; from which we must conclude that he was not to be the impure seed of mortal man, but the Son of the Most High.

* * * *

See, here you have our unanswerable reply, founded on the Scriptures, to all the unfounded, wordy, sophistical and powerless arguments which Micron and Herman bring forward in their writing about the seed of the woman.

I do not see why the godly women of whom he writes, and to whom he complains, should not submit to this, since I allow to their husbands and lords (whose honor all virtuous and honorable wives should gladly maintain), and to the women themselves, each in her own sphere, according to the measure of eternal truth, what their God the Lord has himself allowed them by his word and by the works of his creation, according to his divine pleasure.

I will not say anything about the shame Micron does to all honorable women by his unseasoned writing; I take no delight in scolding and upbraiding. It is enough for me to assert the foundation of our doctrine, to the praise of the Lord. He must now and then maliciously pierce me, so that he may embitter some hearts against me all the more, and make the truth still more hated and abhorred through our hated name.

Micron writes: Jesus Christ is called the Son of God on account of his eternal and ineffable generation of God the Father, according to his divine form. So he is also called the son of man on account of his being born in the fullness of time of a human being, of Mary, according to the flesh or human nature, Matthew, chapter 1. Hac ille. [Note 2]

Answer. Here I would faithfully and earnestly admonish the kind reader to consider my reply to Micron’s confession, and to judge it with a frank, impartial heart. I trust, by the grace of God, that if he does so he will discover the adulteration and deceit of our opponents with great clearness; and he will see, on the other hand, that the truth is with us.

In the first place, if we compare the spoken confession which he made to us with his confession in writing, he appears as slippery as an eel. For at the time of the discussion he confessed repeatedly before us all that the crucified Christ Jesus had no father, or no near father; and he still says so in different places in his writing. Nevertheless he now comes and writes, but without the truth, that they repeatedly confessed before us that the Son of God died for us. He repeats the same song, but he sings it to those without understanding, and to a somewhat better tune.

It would sound too much out of tune to forsake the crucified Christ Jesus so bluntly, and say that he had no Father, as he did before us.

In fact, I do not know what to say or think of this man. Now the man Christ is the Son of God, then again he is not; now God is his Father, then again he had no father. For he writes pointedly that the man Christ who died for us was begotten not of God but of the seed of Mary, and that he had no father. If, then, he is of her seed, and not begotten of God, and if he had no father, as he says, then it is plainly falsehood, lies and deceit to say that the Son of God died for us. If we take the best view of his meaning, he can be no more than an adopted or nominal Son, without truth, however much he may gloss the matter over. I will leave the impartial reader to consider whether this is simple and plain reasoning according to the truth, or an equivocal and dark argument of falsehood.

Now observe, first, his equivocation, together with the inconsistent, wavering, light-minded foundation of his doctrine, and his intolerable error in teaching that the crucified Christ Jesus was not God’s own true Son, but merely a nominal Son, as was heard. I do not see what greater blasphemy one could commit. Yet he is a good teacher and writer, and that because he has so finely, but falsely, portrayed the old heretic Menno.

* * * *

Thirdly, as long as they do not prove to us by the Scriptures that the Son of God is called the son of man, and the son of man the Son of God, because there was a union of the two, as they frequently assert without the Scripture, so long they miss the truth as often as they call the Son of God the son of man, and the son of man the Son of God. For the name is given, as Micron himself confesses, in truth and in fact; and the reader may consider how this assertion of his agrees with that. To mock man is disgraceful; but to mock God is too abominable and blasphemous.

Fourthly, as long as they do not prove to us by the Scriptures that such a union took place as they assert, so long it is the lies and deceit of the old serpent, since it is not according to Scripture. For it is clear that it is no union, as they call it, but a fearful division of the most holy and undivided person of Christ, by which he plainly makes two persons and sons in Christ, born of two different persons, at two different times, in two different forms; by which he robs the crucified Christ Jesus of his beloved Father, and the Father of his only begotten, beloved Son; makes the greater part of the most holy flesh of Christ of gentile origin; esteems the man Christ no higher than an adopted or nominal Son of God; points us to an unholy, sinful, accursed offering, to an impure seat of justice, High Priest, Savior, Mediator, Advocate and Christ, of the unholy, sinful, accursed and created flesh of Adam; in fact makes Mary both the father and mother of Christ; breaks and disputes the whole Scriptures, together with the ordinances of God concerning generation; and includes so many abominable inconsistencies in Christ that a feeling heart is pained by it when the matter is earnestly considered.

See, on such a foundation Micron has built his false doctrine of the union of the Son of God, which he teaches all through his book in so many smooth sentences and garbled Scriptures. It is easy to see what kind of abomination Babylon, the mother of whoredom, pours from her golden cup through her messengers and servants. Woe to those who drink of it; for she will so enchant them that they will become drunk and fall.

If we want the true understanding of how Christ is also the son of Abraham and David, and do not want to break or go beyond the Scriptures, then we must keep the ordinances of God in view. And since it is clear that the Scriptures do not in truth confess Christ Jesus to be the Son of Joseph, but the Son of God, it may easily be seen how, or in what manner, Christ is also the Son of Abraham and of David, and why he is so called in Scripture because of his human birth, as Paul says, “To Abraham and his seed (that is, his sons) were the promises made. He does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to your seed, which is Christ,” Galatians 3, verse 16; Romans 1, verse 3; Romans 9, verse 5; Second Timothy 2, verse 8.

In the same way we should also consider that both the evangelists, Matthew and Luke, trace the genealogy to Joseph, and not to Mary. Luke makes no mention at all of Mary, but says, “Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,” and so on, Luke 3, verse 23. Note what the evangelists mean. From this it is plain that they only show the line in which, according to the promise, he is born who is forever the Jehovah, Immanuel, Savior and Lord of the world.

For if such a man as Christ, who was to be the Deliverer of the whole world, as Christ Jesus is, had been begotten of human seed, as our opponents say he was, then the Scriptures would point to the one of whom he was begotten and from whom he originally came, and not to the one of whom he was not. For the Holy Spirit is a Spirit of truth, which teaches and instructs rightly. According to the foundation of the learned, our salvation would be tied not to the Scriptures but to an uncertain opinion. For it is clear that not a word is found in them which shows that Mary was of David’s line. Luke says that she was a cousin of Elisabeth, who was a daughter of Aaron, Luke 1, verses 5 and 36.

* * * *

Kind reader, understand me. I do not mean that Mary was not a daughter of David, but I say that the Scripture does not say so. But since our opponents found their whole structure on the ground that the man Christ was to be a natural seed and son of David, and that through Mary, they must have the sure testimony of the Holy Scriptures by which they can prove it to be as they assert, before one can accept such an important thing concerning the salvation of all the chosen. Since it is founded on mere presumption and not on the Scriptures, it may be that she was a daughter of David, and again it may be that she was not, since they did not follow one rule in regard to marriage, as may be seen from sacred history. And since it has nothing to do with the matter, and it was enough, according to the evangelists, that she was the wife of a son of David, so that the promise might be fulfilled in the line to which it was promised, as was frequently said, I do not in the least deny that she was a daughter of David. But they cannot bring forward a sure testimony of the Holy Scriptures, on which the foundation of eternal salvation should be built, to prove their doctrine.

* * * *

If they should say that it was to be a virgin, according to the word of the prophet, and that therefore it could not be of the seed of man, then I would answer in plain words that by this they pronounce their own sentence: that Christ was not the natural seed and son of Abraham and David, but their supernatural and promised seed. For he was not of one of Abraham’s and David’s sons, but of one of their daughters, who was a virgin and knew no man, but was betrothed to one of David’s sons; begotten of the ineffable, eternal Word of the almighty, great God, which she conceived by faith, John 1, verse 14. He is the first and only begotten, true Son of God on account of his eternal Father, and the promised, given and born son of Abraham, Judah and David on account of his mother, who was a daughter of Abraham and the wife of Joseph, the son of David, as was heard, Hebrews 1, verse 2; John 1, verse 14; John 3, verse 16; First John 4, verse 16.

I will now conclude all the passages of the Holy Scriptures which treat of the seed, fruit and branch of Abraham and David with the following remarks. The Savior, King, Prince, Conqueror and Prophet graciously promised to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah and David, Genesis 12, verse 3; Genesis 18, verse 18; Genesis 22, verse 18; Genesis 26, verse 4; Genesis 28, verse 14; Genesis 49, verse 20; Second Samuel 7, verse 12, was in due time born a true man of one of their daughters, according to the promise, Luke 2, verse 7. The kingdom and throne of David were promised to him beforehand by Isaiah, and again at his conception by the angel, when it had already been fulfilled in the letter, that he was to reign in it forever, Isaiah 9, verse 6; Luke 1, verse 29; and this kingdom and throne he did not receive literally but spiritually, for it had then already been fulfilled; his kingdom is eternal, Luke, chapter 19, and shall not be left to other people, Daniel 2, verse 44. He is acknowledged all through the Scriptures as the first and only begotten Son of God, which he could not be if he were begotten of impure human seed, as our opponents say, and not of God. And his house or temple which he builds is not a literal house of literal wood, stone, metal, gold and silver, as was the perishable house of Solomon, but it is built of living precious stones, of imperishable gold and silver, First Corinthians 3, verse 12, on the unchangeable foundation of the holy apostles and prophets, put together by the Holy Spirit, Ephesians 2, verse 19; First Peter 2, verses 4 and 19. Since all this is so, it is clear that the promise made to David should be understood in the old, literal form as fulfilled in Solomon, and in the new, spiritual being as fulfilled in Christ, First Kings 5, verse 5; Psalm 89, verse 37; Psalm 132, verse 11. For if we measure the genealogy of his blessed flesh most minutely in the line of David, we find that he was no more than the son of the daughter of David, while there is not a word in all the Scriptures to prove that she actually was one of David’s daughters. [Note 3]

See, such is the foundation of Micron’s strong argument, which he boasts the gates of hell will not prevail against; and doubtless they will not, for they would rather strengthen and help him in such a cause; it is the strongest fortress and shield of hell, as may be clearly seen in John. But it takes a heavenly gate to prevail against it: the strong Spirit and word of the Lord, against which neither the gates of hell nor the devil can prevail.

Whoever desires more information on this subject may examine our reply to John A’Lasco impartially, and by the grace of God he will find the true foundation and meaning of it.

And see, so our foundation and doctrine remain firm and invincible: that Jesus Christ is the only, firstborn and undivided Son of God, Hebrews 1, verse 6; John 1, verse 49; John 3, verse 16; First John 4, verse 9; Romans 8, verse 32, by whom he has created heaven and earth and the sea with their fullness, Genesis 1, verse 1; Psalm 33, verse 9; John 1, verse 1; Ephesians 3, verse 9; Colossians 1, verse 16; and that he is not the impure, sinful, accursed, earthly seed of Abraham and David, as our opponents philosophize it.

Truly, he is the new Melchisedec, the King of perfect righteousness and of eternal peace, whose Father, mother and generation, according to the true foundation of the Holy Scriptures, are unknown to the whole world; the glorious Prince and wise Lord, the peaceful Solomon, who is seated on the spiritual throne of his father David, prepared for him by his eternal Father in eternal glory, and who shall reign forever over the house and kingdom of Jacob, Isaiah 9, verses 6 and 7; Luke 1, verse 29. Consider whether we do not rightly teach you in accordance with the Scriptures. [Note 4]

Micron criticizes my sixth point, and remarks that my saying that, according to their doctrine, God’s Son did not die for us comes from a misconception on my part: that I do not, or will not, understand the union of the two natures, the divine and the human, into one person, Christ. And he says that in both discussions they repeatedly stated that God’s Son died for us.

To this I reply as follows. First, they cannot truthfully say that they stated even once during the discussion that the Son of God died for us. For they distinctly asserted all the time that the man Christ had no father, or, as Micron sometimes said, that he had no near father; and he repeats it in different places in his book, as anyone may read and see.

O dear Lord, what a terrible abomination, that mortal man and an earthly creature dares so boldly to lie against his own conscience, dares so lamentably to belittle the King of all honor, so unrestrainedly to deceive the poor souls, and to commit such great deceit and shame against the word of the Lord! Oh, that they could see what they are doing!

Secondly, I reply, as I did before him, that not a word can be found in all the Scriptures about this union of the two sons, of God’s Son and the son of man, in one person, Christ, which he generally and artfully calls two natures, and which he compares to the union of the body and soul of man.

That the body and soul of a living man are one person is as clear as the light of the sun.

But that such a man, body and soul, who is a perfect person, was so united into one with the Son of God, who is eternal; or that the eternal Son of God so united himself with the son of man (which two sons they call two natures, without Scripture), may be read in the flatteries of Micron, but we do not find it written in the Scriptures. You may further consider what kind of Christ they teach you by comparing this critique of ours with the Scriptures.

Thirdly, I say that if Micron desired to deal with his readers as a faithful teacher, he would not use such equivocal and dark reasoning, but would express and explain his foundation and meaning without any duplicity, and say that the eternal, immortal Son of God put on a temporal, mortal son, body and soul, of the flesh and blood of Mary, and that he has delivered us by this. For in this matter this is the proper meaning, sense and understanding of all their writing, flattering and teaching, as their public confession before us all clearly testified and implied, as was heard.

But now he deals unfaithfully. For he means two actual sons, of which one was divine and the other human, and calls them only two natures, so that the unsuspecting reader may not be offended at the harshness; yet a nature is only a property of the one who possesses it, and is not the one himself who possesses it. For when one sees a man, he does not say, That is a human nature, but, That is a man; for the property is not the being itself, but the being possesses the property. And if Christ had only the properties, namely the natures, and did not have the being itself, which is the substance, then he was neither God nor man; for the natures are not the being itself, but the being possesses the nature. Therefore it would become Micron to deal plainly, and not to deceive his readers and hearers with such incomprehensible, strange words, so that they might grasp the foundation of his doctrine and understand what he means. For we teach in such a way that it may be understood.

But it would offend the thoughtful reader to confess and teach so boldly that there are two Sons in Christ, and to say that the crucified Son was not God’s Son, but a sinful, accursed man of the sinful, accursed flesh or seed of Adam. And therefore they must arrange it so as to keep their honor and name with the world, and enjoy their salaries and liens at ease. [Note 5]

See, so we must, by the power of the Scriptures, lift the fine cloak of the Babylonian whore, which Micron and the preachers would keep down by their glosses, wrong explanations and adulterated Scriptures, since they live from her table; so that you may rightly observe and see their infamy, loathsome diseases, lumps and deadly leprosy (understand it spiritually), and so that you may, in the fear of your God, beware of it.

I readily admit, however, that Christ had two natures, but not in such a sense as Micron believes, but in a scriptural sense. In this way Peter writes to the church of God and says, You are partakers of the divine nature, Second Peter 1, verse 4; by which he clearly testifies that there are two natures in a Christian: the one, the human nature with which he is born of Adam; and the other, the divine nature, of which he partakes by faith, in the birth which is of God, by the Holy Spirit.

If, then, there are two natures in one Christian, as there truly are, why not in Christ? For since he is the only and true Son of God, having no other origin than God, he must also have the nature of the one of whom he is; this is too plain to be disputed. That he had the divine nature he has proved by these clear, visible attributes of a true divine nature: his perfect righteousness, truth, holiness, love and miracles.

As he had the divine nature, I say, on account of his divine origin, so he also had the unblemished, pure human nature (like the nature of Adam before the fall), and that by reason of his true humanity. For as truly as he was the Father’s almighty Word from everlasting, so truly also, in the fullness of time, he became a true, mortal man, capable of suffering, John 1, verse 14; First John 1, verse 1. And since he thus became a true man, he must also have had the property of a true man, which is a true human nature (though not corrupted), or else he would not have been a true man; this is beyond dispute. [Note 6]

Although the Scriptures say nothing about the two natures in Christ, yet I admit it with the above understanding; for I am sure that one cannot separate the nature from anything, any more than one can separate the light from the sun, the heat from the fire, and wetness from water.

That he had the true human nature as well as the divine, he has shown by the visible fruits of a real human nature: hungering, thirsting, being weary, sighing, weeping, suffering and death.

See, so I plainly confess, according to the style and ordinance of the holy, divine Scriptures, that there were two natures in the only, undivided person and Son of God, Christ; and not as Micron does, who without the Scriptures makes one Son of two sons, and one person of two persons, which he calls two natures, and which, according to his glosses, were born at two different times, of two different persons, in two different forms, and which several natures remained distinct and were incomprehensibly united into one person, Christ, according to his writing, without the Scriptures. Observe which of us points you to the Scriptures.

It is hardly necessary to reply to some Scriptures which he brings forward to try to prove that not the Son of God but the son of man suffered. Of these Scriptures, in my opinion, the strongest is where Peter says that Christ was “put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the Spirit,” First Peter 3, verse 18. For who ever suffered except in the flesh? Also, “Since then Christ has suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,” First Peter 4, verse 1. Note: Christians also suffer in the flesh, as Christ himself did, yet they are not one son composed of two sons, as Micron says Christ is.

Nobody can suffer otherwise than in the flesh, for Christ himself says, “Do not fear those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul,” Matthew 10, verse 28; Luke 12, verse 4. Again, to the murderer: “Today you shall be with me in paradise,” Luke 23, verse 43. His flesh hung on the cross and was afterward buried, from which it is very plain that this was said in regard to his immortal Spirit.

Again, Christ said, “Father, into your hands I commend my Spirit.” He did not cry, Father, into your hands I commend your Son, with whom I have been united into one person, and who was my Spirit. For one of three conclusions must be drawn from Micron’s writing. Either the indwelling Son of God, whom he generally calls the divine nature, and the son of Mary, whom he generally calls the human nature, must together have had one Spirit or soul, and he must have commended this Spirit into the hands of the Father; or that the two remained alive at the death of Christ: first, the immortal, eternal Son of God, which had dwelt in him; secondly, the Spirit or soul which he had received from Mary; or else the eternal Son of God must have become the Spirit of a mortal man, which had put on a dwelling place or tabernacle from Mary, which he offered for us, as was said in treating of the inconsistencies.

From this it follows that it is mere quicksand on which they build their doctrine of the two natures, or two sons, in Christ, after their manner; and that it can stand no better before the power of the divine word than stubble can stand before the fire. And so we firmly hold our ground that Jesus Christ is the only, undivided and true Son of God, and that he is not one Son composed of two different sons, as is the antichristian, false foundation and doctrine of our opponents.