The Curse on the Serpent

A history of interpretation followed by a biblico-theological study of the development of the verse's meaning in both Testaments.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research), 1997

Gen 3:15, the second half of the curse on the serpent, pronounced in the Garden of Eden, has been interpreted in a number of quite different ways, and the predominant position and interests of interpreters have changed over time, as documented in chap. I. Martin Luther considered it as containing whatever is excellent in Scripture, a direct prophecy of Christ and his work, and Luther's view predominated in the Church for some time. Today it is more often considered a minor nature aetiology explaining why there is animosity between snakes and humans. Between these views is that which sees the woman's seed as collective, and the verse as a general promise of victory over the demonic serpent. Roman Catholics have also been interested in the verse for their doctrines of Mary, whom they identify with the woman mentioned in the verse. This dissertation attempts to answer the question of how this curse is interpreted in Scripture itself. The verse is examined from narrow to ever widening contexts, beginning with the viewpoint of Adam & Eve, who would likely have initially understood the curse naturalistically. From their limited body of revelation, two other factors would enter into their interpretation: (1) the verse alludes to the creation (or cultural) mandate of Gen 1:28, and is thus a promise that that mandate will be accomplished by the woman's seed. (2) The verse is patterned after the series of separations that make up the account of the first three days of creation, and thus implies that the fulfillment of Gen 3:15 is brought about by a new creation. Taken literally, this seed would be the human race, and Gen 4:1 contains Eve's witness to this interpretation of a promised new creation. From the wider perspective of the implied reader of Genesis 3, certain features at the beginning and end of the chapter (comparisons between the snake and Adam and Eve, and between the snake and the Cherubim) give reason to doubt the mere animal identity of the tempter, and point to the internationally known figure of the dragon. This raises the question, if the tempter is not a snake, what is the seed of the serpent? In Genesis 4 the murder of Abel by his brother Cain is understood as the first fulfillment of the predicted enmity, which overthrows the literal interpretation of the two seeds; Cain is shown to iii be modelled after the serpent, thus his seed, while Abel and Seth are shown to be the woman's seed. Also, since the victory appeared to be on the wrong side (Abel murdered, Cain protected for life), and the fulfillment of the cultural mandate is found in Cain's descendants, not Seth's, an eschatological interpretation is indicated; Gen 3:15 is not fully fulfilled in the "here-and-now." The alternative is to suppose that God is on the side of the wicked (Lamech's interpretation). Beside the fulfillment of enmity, the flood of Noah can be viewed as a token fulfillment of "he will strike you on the head" in the destruction of the serpent's seed, and the recreation of the world. The identification of the two seeds as righteous and wicked humanity instead of snakes and humans has several implications: (1) the new creation is not physical, but spiritual, for the two seeds are physically of the same source. (2) The progenitors of the two seeds are also not literally the snake and the woman; therefore the stated progenitors are actually figureheads for the true, unidentified, spiritual progenitors. (3) The ultimate fulfillment of the creation mandate (Gen 1:28) involves not only rule over the animals and the physical creation, but subjugation of the wicked. The Cain/Abel pattern of enmity is prominent in the book of Genesis, being repeated with varying features but which allude in various ways back to the Cain and Abel pattern in the sons of Abraham (Ishmael/Isaac), Isaac (Jacob/Esau), and Jacob (Joseph/10 of his brothers). The patriarchs seem to be presented as "new Adam" figures, but are also modelled like the first Adam in that both seeds of Gen 3:15 are among their offspring, and "fall" narratives such as Genesis 16 consciously allude to Genesis 3 where the first Adam fell; these factors reinforce the view that the patriarchs are figureheads of the righteous seed. The enmity continues on a national scale, between Egypt and Israel, in the book of Exodus. Creation symbolism is used in the Exodus narrative to identify Israel as the new creation promised in Gen 3:15, and later Scripture celebrates the Exodus as a fulfillment of the promise to crush the serpent's head and bring about a new creation (Ps 74:12-17, where the serpent is Leviathan; Isa 51:9-10 and Ps 89:10-13, where the serpent is Rahab). Likewise the conquest is seen as crushing the serpent's head in Hab 3:13-14, and David and iv Solomon bring about the greatest extent of fulfillment in the Old Testament. However, as Abraham et al. were only figureheads for the father of the righteous seed, Israel is likewise seen as only a figure for the righteous seed; in reality, Israel more resembles the wicked seed. Though the serpent was crushed in the exodus, he must be crushed in the future (Isa 27:1). There will be a divine child (Isa 9:5-6), who is the true progenitor of the righteous seed (Isa 53:10). The Old Testament therefore looks forward to the true, ultimate fulfillment of Gen 3:15. Fulfillments of Gen 3:15 continue in the New Testament period: the enmity between the wicked and the righteous continues, and is explained by Jesus in terms consistent with our exposition of Gen 3:15 from the Old Testament, including his identification of the two progenitors (John 8:38-47, 58). The enmity experienced by Christ on earth is in the Cain/Abel pattern, and this aids our understanding of the New Testament use of typology in terms of messianic fulfillments. Two New Testament passages directly allude to Gen 3:15. In Rom 16:20, the victory promised is yet future, and will involve the Church, which is thus the "seed of the woman" of Gen 3:15. In Rev 12:1-17, the dragon (the old serpent) pursues a symbolic "woman" and her offspring, who are characterized in much the same way as the Palestinian Tgs. describe the woman's seed in Gen 3:15. The context of John 3:14 makes it probable that the bronze serpent is also taken as a symbol of the cursed serpent of Gen 3:15. Finally, while there is no quote of Gen 3:15 in Ephesians 2, the whole chapter seems to be based on the Old Testament exposition of it as presented in this dissertation. Gal 3:16 appears to contradict the rest of Scripture (including Paul's writings), identifying the seed with Christ alone, but this verse can be read as stating not that the promised seed is Christ, but that it is Christ's. v

The symbol of a serpent or snake played important roles in religious and cultural life of ancient Egypt, Canaan, Mesopotamia and Greece. The serpent was a symbol of evil power and chaos from the underworld as well as a symbol of fertility, life and healing. In this manner of research's aim to enumerate the using word in holy bible and to find out the variety of snakes mentioned in holy bible. Method of this study was; collection of data from sources of holy bible scripts and grouping the data and presentation of data finally analysis data with simple descriptive statistical way. Results of this research were snake "Actions"were 198 instances, "Cobra"mentioned 6 instances, "Serpent" mentioned were 43 instances, "Snake" mentioned were 44 instances, "Snakes" mentioned were 28 instances and "Viper" mentioned were 10 instances in holy bible respectively.

We posit that the Biblical Serpent in the Genesis is neither literal nor metaphorical but allegorical and actually refers to Time. Once we understand the Serpent as the Time, other concepts like the Forbidden Fruit, Nakedness and the Curse revel their true meaning.

This paper analyzes Gen. 3:14-15 and proves that the fall was instigated by the acts of the serpent: Satan was the one that used the look of the snake to deceive Eve. But the first family was not left without hope in a sinful world: a special offspring was promised. Strong textual evidence highlights that a masculine descendent was waited for: this is the protoevanghelium.

This a draft of a paper in progress on the interpretation of Gen 3:15.

The Septuagint: Multilateral Focus on the Text, 2024

The translation of שֶׁרֶץ by ἑρπετόν in LXX Gen 1:20 has often been taken as an odd choice and a sign that the translator of Genesis got off to an awkward start. However, this judgement is based on an understanding that the denotation of ἑρπετόν is restricted to snakes and reptiles. A closer look shows that there is a significant degree of referential flexibility to ἑρπετόν and that it does not line up as well with modern animal classifications as previous treatments have understood. In fact, this use of ἑρπετόν in Gen 1:20 shows the translators making a subtle move and participating in the wider Greek literary tradition.

Journal of Biblical Literature, 2015

This article argues that the snake in Gen 3 is best understood within a cultural context that included Mesopotamian ophiomancy. Reading the snake in Gen 3 in this context leads to understanding Hebrew טוב ורע as meaning “good fortune and ill fortune.” The article reviews ophiomancy as reflected in omen series Šumma Ālu ina mēlê šakin and other Mesopotamian omen and ritual texts. Of the hundreds of snake omens, forty some deal with the ominous behavior of snakes acting in the presence of a man and a woman. These omens provide instructive parallels for the interaction of the snake in Gen 3 and the first couple. They also provide evidence for the cultural context of the snake’s role as a communicator of YHWH’s mind if not YHWH’s will. With several well-attested examples of polysemy and alliteration in Gen 2–3, ancient authors and readers no doubt perceived an unstated relationship between (“snake”) and (“divination”). Hebrew טוב and רע have overlapping semantic ranges with Akkadian damqu and lemuttu. Good fortune and ill fortune are within those overlapping ranges. Scholars have long noted parallels between Gen 2–3 and other Mesopotamian traditions, most notably Gilgamesh and Adapa.