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. (Gen 3:15)
I was asked by someone about the "seed" (singular) of the serpent. Here are some random notes I put together on it as I was in a rush. Hopefully will be helpful to some people.
The notes to this phrase from the NET Bible reads thusly:
40 tn The Hebrew word translated "hostility" is derived from the root אֵיב ('ev, "to be hostile, to be an adversary [or enemy]"). The curse announces that there will be continuing hostility between the serpent and the woman. The serpent will now live in a "battle zone," as it were.
41 sn The Hebrew word translated "offspring" is a collective singular. The text anticipates the ongoing struggle between human beings (the woman's offspring) and deadly poisonous snakes (the serpent's offspring). An ancient Jewish interpretation of the passage states: "He made the serpent, cause of the deceit, press the earth with belly and flank, having bitterly driven him out. He aroused a dire enmity between them. The one guards his head to save it, the other his heel, for death is at hand in the proximity of men and malignant poisonous snakes." See Sib. Or. 1:59–64. For a similar interpretation see Josephus, Ant. 1.1.4 (1.50-51).
The text from the Sibylline Oracle:
59 Thus he spoke; and he made a crawling snake, the author of deceit,
60 to press the ground on belly and on side,
61 driving him out severely. He sent dire enmity
62 between them. The one is on the look-out for his head,
63 to preserve it, but man his heel; for death is surely present
64 in reach of evil-plotting vipers and of men.
The Antiquities of the Jews text from Josephus reads as follows:
50 He also deprived the serpent of speech, out of indignation at his malicious disposition toward Adam. Besides this, he inserted poison under his tongue, and made him an enemy to men; and suggested to them that they should direct their strokes against his head, that being the place wherein lay his mischievous designs toward men, and it being easiest to take vengeance on him that way: and when he had deprived him of the use of his feet, he made him to go rolling all along, and dragging himself upon the ground.
51 And when God had appointed these penalties for them, he moved Adam and Eve out of the garden into another place.
Here are some commentaries on Gen 3:15 and the seed of the serpent:
A new etiological motif enters in here which forms a link with the foregoing narrative. The sentence is only very loosely joined with the curse formula in v. 14*; it could be quite independent of it. Enmity is introduced in v. 15*; v. 15b* tells what it consists in. Apart from the present passage the noun איבה occurs only in Num 35:21*, 22* and Ezek 25:15*; 35:5*. The two Ezekiel passages use the word with the same meaning as here: never-ending or perpetul enmity from long ago. The purpose is to describe the phenomenon that enmity exists not merely in a determined situation but has grown to a continual state, something like an institution. This is an indirect way of saying something important about the relationship of humans to the animals. Such enmity as a state or institution does not exist between humans and the animals, not even the wild animals; it exists only between humans and the serpent; this goes back to a curse (W. Schottroff offers examples from ancient oriental curse formulas).
The meaning of “all the days of your life” in v. 14* (i.e., as long as there are serpents) is given in 15ai* with the mention of the descendants of both parties. The parallelism makes it clear that “seed” refers to a line of descendants and not to an individual.
The enmity will work itself out by humans and the serpent continually (the imperf. in 15b* is to be understood iteratively) trying to kill each other; the person by crushing the head of the serpent, the serpent by biting the person on the foot from behind. This two-sided approach is expressed in Hebrew by a wordplay in which both actions are expressed by the same word שׁוף. The verb occurs only once more, in Job 9:17* (the text of Ps 139:11* is uncertain); it has the same meaning as in Gen 3:15*, “He would crush me with a tempest,” M. Pope, AncB; or “in the storm he snaps after me” G. Fohrer. In both places the word is to be understood as a by-form of שׁאף (so KBL and the majority of interpreters). For the other side of the word-play, “It will crush your head,” a verb שׁוף meaning “crush, trample under foot,” is used; it occurs only here in the Old Testament, but has an equivalent with the same meaning in Akkadian, šāpu (KBL). Other scholars understand it in the same sense in all four places. Th.C. Vriezen: “The general meaning ‘to overpower’suits all four places”; P.P. Saydon (“The Conative Imperfect in Hebrew,” VT 12 [1962] 124–126): “The correct translation is, ‘He will attack you in the head, and you will try to attack him in the heel’,” (similarly G.R. Driver). This explanation is improbable because, in spite of the external similarity of the constructions, the two actions are different, corresponding to the different bodily forms of the parties.--Westermann, C. (1994). A Continental Commentary: Genesis 1–11 (pp. 259–260). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Interpretations of Genesis 3:15
As part of the curse on the serpent, God introduces enmity between the serpent and its “seed” and the woman and her “seed.” The final line of the curse states, “he will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel” (Gen 3:15). This passage has traditionally been viewed as a reference to Christ (the “seed” of the woman). In this view, Christ’s defeat of Satan (Rom 16:20; Rev 20:2) is the fulfillment of “he will bruise your head.” The reference to bruising the heel of the woman’s seed is seen by some as a reference to the death of Christ.
Some scholars caution against reading Gen 3:15 as a messianic prophecy. They argue that the passage should be examined as it would have been understood to its original audience. Some in this camp take the curse of Gen 3:15 literally as an explanation for people’s fear of snakes. The bruising of the head and heel then refers to snakes being limited to biting people’s heels (compare the curse of Gen 3:14—“on your belly you shall go”), while people can step on the heads of snakes. Others view the curse as a figurative description of humanity’s ongoing struggle with evil.
• Mathews examines how Gen 3:15 has been understood throughout the Christian tradition. He highlights nt passages that point to the “seed” of the woman or identify the serpent or its descendants.
“Genesis 3:15 in Christian Tradition” The New American Commentary: Genesis 1–11:26
• Kidner sees strong nt support for viewing Gen 3:15 as the first hint of the gospel message. He views the “seed” of the woman to be both individual and collective, as Jesus summed up humankind in Himself.
“The Protevangelium” Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary
• Waltke shows that “seed” (zera') can refer to an immediate descendant, a group of descendants, or a distant offspring. He argues that the “seed” of the serpent refers to natural humanity that is now in rebellion against God.
“Commentary on Genesis 3:15” Genesis: A Commentary
• Walton views the curse of Gen 3:15 as a reference to the ongoing struggle between evil and humanity. He argues that there is no specific biblical identification of Christ as the “seed” in Gen 3:15. He points out that this view does not deny Christ’s victory over Satan, but merely emphasizes the author’s intention.
“Victory?” The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis
• Westermann disagrees with those who understand Gen 3:15 to be a reference to Christ. He argues that “seed” (zera') should be understood collectively as a reference to the entire line of the serpent’s and woman’s descendants. He views this aspect of the curse as pointing to humanity’s relationship with animals generally.
“Genesis 3:15 as Protoevangelium” Continental Commentary Series: Genesis 1–11--Mangum, D., Custis, M., & Widder, W. (2012). Genesis 1–11 (Ge 3:1–24). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
|
14, 15. The curse on the serpent is legible, partly in its degraded form and habits (14), and partly in the deadly feud between it and the human race (15).—14. on thy belly, etc.] The assumption undoubtedly is that originally the serpent moved erect, but not necessarily that its organism was changed (e.g. by cutting off its legs, etc. Rabb.). As a matter of fact most snakes have the power of erecting a considerable part of their bodies; and in mythological representations the serpent often appears in the upright position (Ben.). The idea probably is that this was its original posture: how it was maintained was perhaps not reflected upon.—dust shalt thou eat] Cf. Mic. 7:17, Is. 65:25. It is a prosaic explanation to say that the serpent, crawling on the ground, inadvertently swallows a good deal of dust (Boch. Hieroz. iii. 245; Di. al.); and a mere metaphor for humiliation (like Ass. ti-ka-lu ip-ra; KIB, v. 232 f.) is too weak a sense for this passage. Probably it is a piece of ancient superstition, like the Arabian notion that the ǧinn eat dirt (We. Heid. 150).—all the days of thy life] i.e. each serpent as long as it lives, and the race of serpents as long as it lasts. It is not so certain as most comm. seem to think that these words exclude the demonic character of the serpent. It is true that the punishment of a morally irresponsible agent was recognised in Hebrew jurisprudence (9:5, Ex. 21:28f., Lv. 20:15f.). But it is quite possible that here (as in v. 15) the archetypal serpent is conceived as re-embodied in all his progeny, as acting and suffering in each member of the species.—15. The serpent’s attempt to establish unholy fellowship with the woman is punished by implacable and undying enmity between them.—thy seed and her seed] The whole brood of serpents, and the whole race of men.—He shall bruise thee on the head, etc.] In the first clause the subj. (הוּא) is the ‘seed’ of the woman individualised (or collectively), in the second (אַתָּה) it is the serpent himself, acting through his ‘seed.’ The current reading of V (ipsa) may have been prompted by a feeling that the proper antithesis to the serpent is the woman herself. The general meaning of the sentence is clear: in the war between men and serpents the former will crush the head of the foe, while the latter can only wound in the heel. The difficulty is in the vb. שׁוּף, which in the sense ‘bruise’ is inappropriate to the serpent’s mode of attack. We may speak of a serpent striking a man (as in Lat. feriri a serpente), but hardly of bruising. Hence many comm. (following G al.) take the vb. as a by-form of שָׁאַף (strictly ‘pant’), in the sense of ‘be eager for,’ ‘aim at’ (Ges. Ew. Di. al.); while others (Gu. al.) suppose that by paronomasia the word means ‘bruise’ in the first clause, and ‘aim at’ in the second. But it may be questioned whether this idea is not even less suitable than the other (Dri.). A perfectly satisfactory interpretation cannot be given (v.i.).
The Messianic interpretation of the ‘seed of the woman’ appears in TJ and Targ. Jer., where the v. is explained of the Jewish community and its victory over the devil “in the days of King Messiah.” The reference to the person of Christ was taught by Irenæus, but was never so generally accepted in the Church as the kindred idea that the serpent is the instrument of Satan. Mediæval exegetes, relying on the ipsa of the Vulg., applied the expression directly to the Virgin Mary; and even Luther, while rejecting this reference, recognised an allusion to the virgin birth of Christ. In Protestant theology this view gave way to the more reasonable view of Calvin, that the passage is a promise of victory over the devil to mankind, united in Christ its divine Head. That even this goes beyond the original meaning of the v. is admitted by most modern expositors; and indeed it is doubtful if, from the standpoint of strict historical exegesis, the passage can be regarded as in any sense a Protevangelium. Di. (with whom Dri. substantially agrees) finds in the words the idea of man’s vocation to ceaseless moral warfare with the ‘serpent-brood’ of sinful thoughts, and an implicit promise of the ultimate destruction of the evil power. That interpretation, however, is open to several objections. (1) A message of hope and encouragement in the midst of a series of curses and punishments is not to be assumed unless it be clearly implied in the language. It would be out of harmony with the tone not only of the Paradise story, but of the Yahwistic sections of chs. 1–11 as a whole: it is not till we come to the patriarchal history that the “note of promise and of hope” is firmly struck. (2) To the mind of the narrator, the serpent is no more a symbol of the power of evil or of temptation than he is an incarnation of the devil. He is himself an evil creature, perhaps a demonic creature transmitting his demonic character to his progeny, but there is no hint that he represents a principle of evil apart from himself. (3) No victory is promised to either party, but only perpetual warfare between them: the order of the clauses making it specially hard to suppose that the victory of man was contemplated. Di. admits that no such assurance is expressed; but finds it in the general tenor of the passage: “a conflict ordained by God cannot be without prospect of success.” But that is really to beg the whole question in dispute. If it be said that the words, being part of the sentence on the serpent, must mean that he is ultimately to be defeated, it may be answered that the curse on the serpent is the enmity established between him and the human race, and that the feud between them is simply the manifestation and proof of that antagonism.—It is thus possible that in its primary intention the oracle reflects the protest of ethical religion against the unnatural fascination of snake-worship. It is psychologically true that the instinctive feelings which lie at the root of the worship of serpents are closely akin to the hatred and loathing which the repulsive reptile excites in the healthy human mind; and the transformation of a once sacred animal into an object of aversion is a not infrequent phenomenon in the history of religion (see Gres. l.c. 360). The essence of the temptation is that the serpent-demon has tampered with the religious instinct in man by posing as his good genius, and insinuating distrust of the goodness of God; and his punishment is to find himself at eternal war with the race whom he has seduced from their allegiance to their Creator. And that is very much the light in which serpent-worship must have appeared to a believer in the holy and righteous God of the OT.—The conjecture of Gu., that originally the ‘seed of the woman’ and the ‘seed of the serpent’ may have been mythological personages (cf. ATLO2, 217 f.), even if confirmed by Assyriology, would have little bearing on the thought of the biblical narrator.
|
|
Skinner, J., 1851-1925. (1910). A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (pp. 78–82). New York: Scribner.
