Eeny Meeny Miny Moe. Who Is the Craftiest to Go?

And God Saw That It Was Good (Ed, by F. Čapek), 2021

If today's exegetes often locate Gen 3 in the sapiential milieu, it is worth comparing this text with the narratives in 2Sam 13-17. Here wisdom appears in the context of manipulation and flattery, and the terms טוב and טוב ורע also serve this purpose (similar to the serpent in Gen 3!). This reality is not taken seriously enough by the modern emphasis on human freedom of choice over good and evil. The second part of this contribution confronts the exegetical results with ethical concepts of the 20th century, some of which praise human autonomy. In contrast, Bonhoeffer and Barth see the original sin in the human will to know good and evil.

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

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.

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

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.

The saying about the snake charmer in Qoh 10:11 at the end of that closes a series of cautions regarding the danger attendant upon routine activities (vv. 8-10) raises hermeneutical questions. This paper seeks to elucidate how this verse bridges the two units preceding and following it (vv. 8-10 and vv. 12-15) by suggesting a new understanding of the epithetsבלוא לחש and בעל הלשון. Analysis of the description of the “wicked” in Ps 58:4-5 and 140:4 and the איש לשון in 140:12 indicates that Qohelet represents the fool as a venomous snake. Verse 11 can thus be read as linking the two units by portraying the snake charmer both as a fool who fails to prevent his charge from biting and as the “wicked man” whose tongue spreads venom.

2009

As stated in the title, the purpose of this thesis is to determine the meaning of Genesis 14 in its canonical context. This perspective has been lacking in scholarship. While scholars past and present have focused on the understanding of shalem as Jerusalem and thus on the Melchizedek episode; this study, however, intends to demonstrate that the meaning is, in fact, connected to chapter 13. In light if this, an analyses of both the unity within the chapter as well as within the Genesis corpus will be examined. Additionally, the word shalem will be examined in order to determine whether an association with Jerusalem is certain. Finally, an alternative interpretation will be presented with the aim of opening up new avenues of thought.

Journal of Biblical Theology & Worldview, 2021

Scholars throughout the past century have engaged in debate regarding the meaning and significance of Genesis 3:15 and particularly the identity of the offspring of the woman. 2 One element of the verse that has received somewhat less attention is the meaning of the Hebrew word ‫,ׁשוף‬ often translated "bruise." The primary purpose of this paper is to determine how ‫ׁשוף‬ should be understood in Genesis 3:15 and to determine what exactly the serpent and the woman's offspring will do to one another. In arriving at this understanding of 3:15, three concerns will be addressed. The first concern is the English translation of the Hebrew term ‫.ׁשוף‬ The second matter is whether Genesis 3:15 expects either the serpent or the woman's offspring to be the victor in their conflict. The third concern is more specific, and it relates to whether Romans 16:20 is alluding to Genesis 3:15, though Paul uses συντρίβω, which means "to crush," instead of τηρέω, which means "to keep/guard," as the LXX does. If Genesis 3:15 is indeed "the foundation of the Old Testament" 3 and "the chief promise of the new covenant itself," 4 then it is critical to understand this part of the verse correctly. This study is necessary because of the continuing confusion regarding the term "bruise" in Genesis 3:15 and the lack of thorough treatment of the term in the scholarly literature. In modern English, the verb "to bruise" means "to injure by a blow which discolours the skin but does not lacerate it or break any bones; to cause to develop bruising." 5 C. John Collins, however, uses "bruise" as his default translation of ‫,ׁשוף‬ without discussing any alternative options. 6 He then argues that Romans 16:20 cannot refer to Genesis 3:15, since the latter "speaks of 'wounding' or 'bruising' rather than 'crushing.'" 7 Collins, though, does believe that Genesis 3:15 represents "a promise that God will 1 Jonathan Cheek completed his PhD in Theology from BJU Seminary in 2019. His dissertation was entitled "Genesis 3:15 as the Root of a Biblical Theology of the Church and the World: The Commencement, Continuation, and Culmination of the Enmity Between the Seeds." 2 See Jonathan M. Cheek, "Recent Developments in the Interpretation of the Seed of the Woman in Genesis 3:15,"