INTRODUCTION

0.1 The Text and a Translation

‫ ְואֵיבָה ָאשִׁית‬15a And enmity I will set

‫בֵינְָך ּובֵין ָה ִׁאשָה‬ b between you and the woman
‫ּובֵין ז ְַרעֲָך ּובֵין ז ְַרעָּה‬ c and between your offspring and her offspring.
‫הּוא י ְשּופְָך ר ֹאש‬ d As for him, he will strike you on the head;
‫שּופּנּו ָעקֵב‬
ֶ֫ ְ‫ ְו ַא ָתה ת‬e as for you, you will strike him on the heel.
0.2 Purpose and Method of the Study
Gen 3:15 has been commonly known as the “first gospel” (or “Protoevangelium,”
also spelled “Protevangelium”) since the time of Martin Luther, who gave it this title in a
gloss of his Bible translation in 1522, and who also called it the last judgment. Before
him Irenaeus had used a similar, two-fold description, calling it an implied promise of
salvation, as well as the same thing as “depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire”
(Matt 25:41). The designation used in the title, “the curse on the serpent” is descriptive of
the verse’s content, while being neutral as to its implications. There can be no
disagreement that Gen 3:15 is a curse on the serpent who led Adam and Eve into sin, but
there is considerable disagreement even among those who share the view of Scripture
held by Irenaeus and Luther as to the relationship of Gen 3:15 to biblical theology. The
title also indicates a hermeneutical approach which is more biblical-theological than
systematic-theological, and which concentrates first on the development of its
interpretation in Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament. I will therefore not begin by
trying to “prove” the meaning of Gen 3:15 from New Testament passages commonly
related to it, such as Rom 16:20 (“the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your
feet”), Revelation 12 (where the dragon, called “the ancient serpent,” persecutes the
offspring of the woman), or Gal 3:16 (where Paul seems to say that the seed of Abraham,
which is often equated with the seed of the woman, is just one person, Christ). “Curse on
the serpent” is a title of convenience as well, since a fuller and more precise description
would be “the second part of the curse on the serpent and its offspring” (the first part
being v. 14). Even this title would not fully explain its content since it does not indicate
the involvement of the woman and her offspring in the curse. The reader should therefore
bear in mind that “the curse on the serpent” is a convenient shorthand description of Gen
3:15.
0.3 The Theological Importance of Gen 3:15
It would be difficult to find a verse with a more widely divergent estimate as to
its importance in biblical theology. Luther regarded it as the first Gospel in the greatest
possible sense: the Gospel was not vaguely present but was well understood by Adam
and Eve, who demonstrated this faith, as did other saints of old. It implied even the
teaching of the incarnation of the divine Messiah and his virgin birth, though the latter
implication escaped Adam and Eve. On the other hand, the verse is today widely
interpreted as merely part of a minor nature aetiology in a wider aetiological (and
mythical) narrative, with little or no importance for biblical theology, and whose
fulfillment is found only in the common experience of mankind’s relationship to snakes.
0.4 Hermeneutical Considerations
These are the two opposite theological positions, which generally overlap two
opposite hermeneutical positions on Gen 3:15. These opposite positions are based on
whether the interpreter sees the literal meaning as the predominant one (if not the only
one), or whether he sees a figurative meaning as the predominant one (if not the only
one). Most of the “figurative” interpreters acknowledge the literal meaning as well as the
figurative, and many of the “literal” interpreters likewise allow for some identity of the
snake that goes beyond the natural in the narrative, such as the view that the snake is
symbolic of evil present in the creation. Since different interpreters mean different things
by the adjective “literal,” I will state here that by “literal” I mean the meaning that is
suggested by the ordinary meaning of words. That is, in the case of a literal interpretation
of Gen 3:15, we have a prediction which involves only an actual (natural, physical) snake
and its offspring, Eve and her offspring (the human race), and the hostile relationship
between them which exists in nature. The literal interpretation in this case is perhaps
better called the “naturalistic” interpretation. In this definition I do not overlook the fact
that the ordinary meaning of “seed” as “offspring” when referring to humans and (rarely)
to animals (Gen 3:15; 7:3), is itself a figure of speech, and is not the “literal” meaning
according to some definitions of “literal,” since human beings and animals are not actual
seeds. Under “figurative” I group together various legitimate and illegitimate (in my
view) means of interpretation which derive meaning from texts by going beyond what the
literal (or ordinary) meaning of the words suggests. These means of interpretation range
from symbolic or spiritual interpretation, to sensus plenior, and to allegory. Christians
have generally tended towards the predominantly figurative interpretation, while differing
in details of interpretation. Rabbinical interpretation, though sharing the Christian belief
that God actually did pronounce the curse on the serpent as recorded in Genesis, and that
he is the author of Scripture, has tended toward the predominantly naturalistic view, as
have those who regard the story in Genesis 3 as a myth.
The naturalistic meaning is straightforward and the exposition of it obviously
does not require a dissertation. Nor would the passage have much significance for biblical
theology or hermeneutics. Figurative interpretation is not so straightforward, however,
and brings up other hermeneutical issues. The main issue is one of certainty of figurative
meaning. If one allows figurative meanings for the serpent and its offspring, and the
woman and her offspring, as well as for the nature of the struggle between them and its
outcome, how can one arrive at certainty in his conclusions? This question is most
pressing for the use of allegory, in which the symbolic meaning suggested by the
interpreter is arbitrary, ad hoc, and imposed from without, for example from a
philosophical or theological system, rather than derived from the text itself. The
allegorical method of interpretation is now generally in disrepute, and will not be
defended here. But this judgment only brings up another question: how does one
distinguish allegorical interpretation from other, legitimate, figurative interpretation? I
have already implied that legitimate figurative interpretation must be suggested by the
text itself, but this raises the question of how far away from the text under consideration
can we go and still consider ourselves in the same text? Here again, one’s view of
Scripture and its authorship will affect how this question is answered. I hope that the
examination of how Gen 3:15 is interpreted elsewhere in Scripture will be a case study in
arriving at certainty in figurative or symbolic interpretation. Other issues are the
legitamacy of sensus plenior as opposed to the idea of strictly grammatico-historical
exegesis, and the role of historical experience (particularly as recorded in Scripture) in
interpretation.
Allowing for the possibility of figurative interpretation, then, the issues for the
interpretation of Gen 3:15 are the identity of the four parties involved (the serpent and its
offspring, and the woman and her offspring), the nature of the conflict between them, and
its outcome. The answers to these questions are necessary to determine whether the
passage is an implied promise to humanity, or to part of it, with eschatological and/or
messianic implications: indeed, whether it is in fact the “Protoevangelium.” In addition,
there are more conventional interpretive issues involved, such as the meaning of the
words used. ‫אֵיבָה‬, “enmity,” and ‫“ שּוף‬strike,” “bruise,” “crush,” are comparatively rare
words (4 and 1 or 2 occurrences outside of Gen 3:15, respectively), although the root ‫איב‬
is common due to the frequent use of the word ‫אֹוי ֵב‬, “enemy.” There is also doubt as to
whether or not ‫ שּוף‬means the same thing when done by the serpent to the heel of the
woman’s seed as when done by the woman’s seed to the serpent’s head. Other passages
that interpret Gen 3:15 may confirm or alter the generally accepted definition of these
words, and help decide whether ‫ שּוף‬is used in one sense or two. The word ‫“( ֶ֫ז ַרע‬seed”) is
very common in the Old Testament, as is its Greek equivalent σπέρμα in the LXX and the
New Testament. Both are collectives, but can also refer to one individual. Some have
argued on the basis of Gal 3:16 that an individual sense is required for the seed of the
woman in Gen 3:15, and our task will include an evaluation of this argument. In addition,
“seed” is used in other senses besides that of “offspring,” such as semen virile, or moral
kind, and its appearance in Gen 3:15 in connection with a woman has at times been taken
to imply a miraculous origin for the woman’s offspring (i.e., a virgin birth).
The division of the verse into five lines shown on page 1 will be used
consistently throughout, except for the highly embellished Palestinian Tarums, and in
quotations from other authors, where cross reference to the five part division will be
made, if necessary for clarity. The verse may also be divided into two main parts; Gen
3:15a-c being the portion describing the enmity, and Gen 3:15d-e being the portion
describing the struggle, conflict, or battle.
Chap. I summarizes the extra-biblical history of interpretation of Gen 3:15,
showing not only the range of interpretations given, but also the change in predominant
opinion over time. A certain amount of repetition is involved in this chapter since I am
not following a topical approach, but rather giving the views of various interpreters. One
may wish to read the summary sections (§§ 1.2.4, 1.3, 1.4.15, 1.5.4, 1.6.8, 1.7.2, and
1.10, along with selections from §§ 1.8 and 1.9), and then refer back to this chapter as
necessary in the following chapters. Chaps. II-VII follow a biblical-theological
(canonical-chronological) approach to the interpretation of Gen 3:15, thus starting with
an examination of the initial interpretation of Gen 3:15 in its immediate context; i.e.,
when first heard by Adam and Eve, and when first read by an Israelite in its canonical
form (chap. II). We then examine the first fulfillments of the predicted enmity and battle,
and discuss what implications they have for the initial interpretations (chap. III); in many
respects, this is the most important chapter of the dissertation, as all subsequent chapters
depend heavily on it. In chap. IV we see that in the rest of the book of Genesis, patterns
of fulfillment of the enmity portion of Gen 3:15 develop; this pattern continues into the
book of Exodus (chap. V), which also develops a pattern of fulfillment of the battle
portion of Gen 3:15. These patterns continue into the history of Israel (chap. VI), and
reach their culmination in the New Testament (chap. VII).1 We will see that it is these
patterns of fulfillment which allow us to arrive at certainty in figurative interpretation,
and avoid the error of allegorizing, or reading Christian doctrine into the text.

1
Michael Fishbane refers to such patterns as “typologies of an historical nature,” a kind of inner-biblical
interpretation (Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel [Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1985], 358-68). The
patterns expounded in this dissertation cover considerably more Scriptural ground than those identified by
Fishbane.
 CHAPTER I

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS3:15

Because of the sheer volume of material available, it is necessary to be selective

in the use of material from the time of the earlier Church fathers to the present; the goal is
to give representative interpretations from all perspectives.
1.1 Studies on the History of Interpretation of Gen 3:15
Tibor (Tiburtius) Gallus has produced an article and seven books on the history
of interpretation of Gen 3:15. The article and the first three volumes are in Latin and
cover the mariological interpretation of Gen 3:15 up to the issue of the doctrine of
immaculate conception (1854), and are not referred to here. The next three volumes are in
German and cover the Protestant (principally Lutheran) interpretation of the woman’s
seed up to the present time.2 Hundreds of interpreters are quoted or summarized; lengthy
Latin sources are quoted in the notes while a German translation or synopsis is provided
in the text; or archaic German is translated into or summarized in modern German. The
third of this German series contains Gallus’ synopsis, and his answers to the objections
against the individual-christological interpretation of the woman’s seed. The seventh
volume, also in German, focuses on the identity of the woman, and combines a summary
of the history of interpretation with Gallus’ own arguments for the mariological
interpretation of the passage.3
Dominic Unger contributed an article and a book on the subject. The article is on
the mariological (or, marian) interpretation among the Church fathers. 4 The book (which
preceded the article) is more comprehensive, dealing both with the history of
interpretation from the first Church fathers up to the 12th century, as well as his own
analysis and argumentation. A “Bibliographical Appendix” covering the years 1840-1952
lists 334 works by Roman Catholic scholars, most of which are annotated with the
authors’ conclusions.5 I have used Unger’s translations for patristic works for which I
could not find an English edition, except that I have changed his expression “The-
Woman” which he uses in his translations to “the woman.”
That Gallus and Unger are Roman Catholic scholars is indicative of the
importance of Gen 3:15 for Roman Catholic theology, in which it is an important

2
Tibor Gallus, „Der Nachkomme der Frau“ (Gen 3, 15) in der Altlutheranischen Schriftauslegung: Erster
Band, Luther, Zwingli und Calvin (Klagenfurt: Carinthia, 1964); Zweiter Band, von den Zeitgenossen Luthers
bis zur Aufklärungszeit (Klagenfurt: Carinthia, 1973); ibid., „Der Nachkomme der Frau“ (Gen 3, 15) in der
Evangelischen Schriftauslegung: Dritter Band, von der Aufklärungszeit bis in die Gegenwart (Klagenfurt:
Carinthia, 1976).

3
Tibor Gallus, Die „Frau“ in Gen 3, 15 (Klagenfurt: Carinthia, 1979).

4
Dominic J. Unger, “Patristic Interpretation of the Protoevangelium,” Marian Studies 1 (1961): 111-64.

5
Dominic J. Unger, The First-Gospel: Genesis 3:15 (St. Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan Institute, 1954);
hereafter abbreviated as FG.

5
scriptural basis for the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary. The verse’s
importance for Protestant theology, however, reached its zenith with Luther and 17th
century Lutheran theologians, and is of comparatively little importance today. H.
Cazelles writes in his study of the contemporary exegesis of Gen 3:15 that he consulted
the Scripture index of H. H. Rowley’s The Old Testament and Modern Study in order to
find out what Protestant scholars had written about Gen 3:15, and found no reference to
the verse.6 While one might not be surprised at this omission in a general work such as
Rowley’s, I have had the same experience examining many works on Old Testament
theology, where such references would be more expected.
Johann Michl (another Roman Catholic) contributed a two part article which
begins with the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and concludes with early Christian
interpretation (but with little detail after Irenaeus), including the New Testament
interpretation.7 Protestant Jack Lewis covers this same ground more briefly, with more
material from the first millennium (paralleling Michl with some additions), and adds
some material from the reformers, and a few modern commentaries. 8 Charles Feinberg’s
article on the virgin birth in the Old Testament is primarily a survey of the views of about
15 interpreters of Gen 3:15, mostly from Hengstenberg to the present.9
Ken Schurb contributed an essay on the difference between Luther and Calvin on
the exegesis of Gen 3:15, and the conflict between their successors Hunnius and Pareus.10
1.2 Early Jewish Interpretation
1.2.1 Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
The Life of Adam and Eve in Latin (Adam and Eve) and Greek (Apocalypse of
Moses) versions contain some allusions to the passage and/or its interpretation. In Adam
and Eve 33:3 Adam says “The devil . . . deceived your mother.” In Apoc. Mos. 16:5 the
devil incited the serpent: “Do not fear; only become my vessel, and I will speak a word
through your mouth by which you will be able to deceive him.” Gen 3:15 is quoted in
Apoc. Mos. 26:4, agreeing with the LXX in the use of τηρέω (watch) for Hebrew ‫שּוף‬. In
Adam and Eve 37:1 a serpent bites Seth and wounds him, but he does not die; in Apoc.
Mos. 10:1 it is a wild beast who attacks Seth. This episode may be (at least in Adam and

6
Henri Cazelles, “Genèse III, 15. Exégèse contemporaine,” La Nouvelle Eve 3 (1957): 91-99; 91.

7
Johann Michl, “Der Weibessame (Gen 3, 15) in spätjüdischer und frühchristlicher Auffassung,” Bib 33
(1952): 371-401, 476-505.

8
Jack P. Lewis, “The Woman’s Seed (Gen 3:15),” JETS 34 (1991): 299-319.

9
Charles L. Feinberg, “The Virgin Birth in the Old Testament,” BSac 117 (1960): 313-24.

10
Ken Schurb, “Sixteenth-Century Lutheran-Calvinist Conflict on the Protevangelium,” Concordia
Theological Quarterly 54 (1990): 25-47. Schurb notes that as was typical of other Lutheran-Calvinist
differences, “Lutheranism has taken a dimmer view of Calvinism than Calvinism has taken of it.”

6
Eve) a fulfillment of the enmity predicted in Gen 3:15 (viewed literally), and might thus
be evidence of a collective interpretation of the seed of the woman. 11
There is a possible spiritual interpretation of Cain’s seed in 1 Enoch 22:7, where
Abel’s spirit, in the underworld, “(continues to) sue him until all of (Cain’s) seed is
exterminated from the face of the earth, and his seed has disintegrated from among the
seed of the people.”12 This statement could reflect an understanding of Cain’s seed as the
cursed seed of the serpent, but again, there is no certain allusion, and in any case the
literal seed of Cain might be all that is meant, since his offspring did perish in the flood.
The messianic title “son of man” in the Ethiopic 1 Enoch is often found as “son
of the offspring of the mother of all living” (62:7, 9, 14; 63:11; 69:27; 70:1; and 71:17).13
Since the “mother of all the living” is Eve, Strack and Billerbeck take this expression as
an interpretation of Dan 7:17 (son of man) based on Gen 3:15, therefore reflecting a pre-
Christian messianic interpretation of Gen 3:15.14 Michl agreed that the Enoch expression
may be influenced by Gen 3:15 but says that does not prove that the seed of the woman is
an individual.15 Mowinckel, noting that in the Ethiopic New Testament, “Son of the
offspring of the mother of the living” is “the regular rendering of the term ‘the Son of
Man’ as applied to Jesus,” argues that it would have been natural for the translator to
render ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπού from Enoch with “the expression which he knew from his
Ethiopic New Testament.”16
In summary, there is no evidence in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha of an
individual, messianic interpretation of the seed of the woman. Some citations are
consistent with a collective interpretation of both seeds, but nothing certain can be stated.
The serpent is taken either as the devil, or as his mouthpiece.
1.2.2 The Dead Sea Scrolls
1QS iv:16-17, speaking of the two ethical classes of people (the good and the
evil), says “For God has set them apart until the last time, having put an eternal enmity
between their (two) classes.” P. Wernberg-Møller notes that the expression “eternal

11
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City: Doubleday, 1985), 2.272-
73, 277, 285. In addition, Jub. 3:23 says “The LORD cursed the serpent, and he was angry with it forever”
(ibid., 2.60), but the curse itself is not related, and there is no clue as to its interpretation.

12
Ibid., 1.25.

13
Ibid., 1.43, 44, 49, 50.

14
Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Das Evangelium Nach Matthäus (Str-B; Munich: C. H. Beck’sche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1956), 1.958.

15
Michl, “Weibessame,” 385.

16
Sigmund O. P. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (New York: Abingdon, 1954), 362. McNamara agrees:
“Scarcely any argument, then, can be based on the presence of the expression in the Ethiopic version of
Enoch” (Martin McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, [AnBib 27;
Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1966], 221, n. 92).

7
enmity” is taken from Ezek 25:15; 35:5 (enmity between Israel and the Philistines and
Edomites), but says that “Considering the close affinity of the whole essay to Gen. 1 ff, it
is reasonable to assume that our author, by using this phrase, also alludes to Gen. iii 15,
in which passage he appears to have seen an allusion to the irreconcilabilty of the two
opposite classes of mankind.”17
1.2.3 The LXX and Targums
Other examples of early Jewish interpretation are found in the early Greek
translations (such as the LXX) and Aramaic paraphrases of Gen 3:15 (the Targums).
Samaritan Tg. alone has no expansion on the MT. In rendering ‫שּוף‬, the same word is
used for the serpent’s action as for that of the woman’s seed, though different words are
used in different manuscripts; the equally obscure ‫“( קפן‬bruise;” MS 3 of the Shechem
Synagogue) and the general word ‫“( קשי‬press heavily;” MS Or 7562, British Museum),
which give the idea of attack rather than merely prepare to attack, or hate. 18
Comparison of the MT Gen 3:15 with the LXX and Tg. Onqelos versions shows
that the LXX follows MT fairly closely, Onqelos less so; and that the LXX and Onqelos
appear to be related to each other.
Tg. Onqelos19
‫שּוֵי‬
ַ ‫ ּודְ בָבּו ֲא‬15a And I will put enmity
‫ֵבנְָך ּובֵין אִׁיתְ תָא‬ b between you and the woman,
‫ּובֵין ְבנְָך ּובֵין ְבנַהָא‬ c and between your children and her children;
‫הּוא יְהֵי דְ כִׁיר מָא דַ ֲע ַב ְדתְ לֵיּה‬ He will remember what you did to him in the beginning,
‫ִׁמ ְלקַדְ מִׁין‬ d

‫ְו ַא ְת ְתהֵי נָטַר לֵיּה לְסֹופָא‬ e and you will preserve (your hatred) for him to the end.

LXX
15a καὶ ἔχ́θραν θήσω And enmity I will set,
̀͂
b ἀνὰ μέσον σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῆ γυναικός between you and the woman,
c καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματός σοῦ καὶ ἀνὰ and between your seed and her seed.
μέσον τοῦ σπέρματός αὐτῆς
d αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν, As for him, he will watch your head
e καὶ σὺ τηρ́σεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν as for you, you will watch his heel.

17
P. Wernberg-Møller, The Manual of Discipline: Translated and Annotated with an Introduction (Studies
on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, Vol. 1; ed. J. Van Der Ploeg; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 27, 84-85,
n. 62.

18
Abraham Tal, The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition (3 vols.; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv
University, 1980), 1.10-11; 3.81.

19
Text from CAL, with vocalization modified to the Tiberian system.

8
 The relationship between LXX and Onqelos is noteworthy in the use of similar
words to translate ‫ ;שּוף‬LXX uses τηρέω (watch, keep) in both cases, while Onqelos uses
‫( נטר‬keep) for the second use, and an expansion of ‫ נטר‬for the first use (‫ ;דכר‬keep in mind,
i.e., remember, with variant ‫)נטר‬.
The LXX translates the masculine singular Hebrew pronoun ‫( הּוא‬referring to the
woman’s seed) with the Greek masculine singular pronoun αὐτός, which agrees with the
Hebrew but not with its Greek antecedent σπέρμα which is neuter, thus requiring αὐτό. R.
A. Martin studied the 103 cases of ‫ הּוא‬in the LXX Genesis, and found that there are no
cases analogous to Gen 3:15. In eight cases the LXX changed the gender to feminine or
neuter “due to the requirements of the Greek idiom.” Gen 3:15 is the only case where
the LXX literalistically translates the Hebrew masculine pronoun with the masculine
Greek pronoun αὐτός, although the Greek idiom would require the neuter pronoun αὐτό.
... In none of the instances where the translator has translated literally does he do violence
to agreement in Greek between the pronoun and its antecedent, except here in Gen 3 15.
It seems unlikely that this is mere coincidence or oversight. ... Most likely ... the
20
translator has in this way indicated his messianic understanding of this verse.
The LXX rendering of Gen 3:15 is therefore “evidence of the intensification of messianic
expectations among the Jews in the centuries immediately preceding the birth of Jesus.”21
Michl noted that the reading αὐτός could be a result of dittography, but that it is
unanimously attested in the extant manuscripts, and that it is also attested twice by Philo
who used the masculine pronoun for allegorical purposes; it is therefore not likely to be
of Christian origin.22 Further against the Christian origin of the reading (not to mention an
individual interpretation) is the fact that the earliest complete citation of Gen 3:15 by a
Church father corrects the LXX to read αὐτό.23
Michl noted that αὐτός is also used to refer back to σπέρμα in 2 Sam 7:12-13,
another passage with potential messianic implications, for David’s seed. Also, in several
passages ‫ ֶ֫ז ַרע‬is translated by υἱός, which leads Michl to suggest that when the translator
read ‫ ֶ֫ז ַרע‬he often thought ‫בֵן‬.24 He leaves open the question whether this “son” may be
collective, and whether such a meaning could apply to Gen 3:15.25 The suggestion that
reading “seed” the translator thought “son” or “sons” would have more weight in
explaining the LXX version if the translator had translated ‫ ֶ֫ז ַרע‬with υἱός instead of σπέρμα
in Gen 3:15c. But Michl has good reason to hold out for the possibility of a collective,

20
R. A. Martin, “The Earliest Messianic Interpretation of Genesis 3 15,” JBL 84 (1965): 426-27.

21
Ibid., 427.

22
Allegorical Interpretation 3.65, 188; (Philo I [LCL], 344, 428); Michl, “Weibessame,” 373.

23
Theophilus, Ad Autolycus 2.21; ANF 2.103; PG, 6.1084A-1085D. αὐτός is found as a variant reading; PG,
6.1085, note.

24
Michl “Weibessame,” 374-75; 1 Kgs 5:19; 8:19; 1 Chr 22:9; 28:6.

25
Ibid., 375.

9
based on the evident relationship between the LXX and Tg. Onqelos due to their similar
mis-rendering of ‫ שּוף‬by τηρέω and by ‫נטר‬. The Syro-Palestinian translation of Gen 3:15,
itself a translation of the LXX, translates τηρέω with nṭr, the same word used in Tg.
Onqelos. Onqelos also uses the masculine pronoun in Gen 3:15d, which is the same as
the Hebrew but is noteworthy since the Targum has translated “seed” in both instances in
Gen 3:15c by the plural “sons.”26 If therefore the Aramaic translator could write “sons” in
Gen 3:15c, and then refer back to “sons” with ‫ הּוא‬in Gen 3:15d, it is not inconceivable
that αὐτός in the LXX is a collective for “sons,” rather than an individual or messianic
interpretation of the identity of the seed of the woman. The alternative would be to
suppose that Tg. Onqelos takes “seed” as a collective in the first part of the verse, but
singular in the second. This seems unlikely, however, since the enmity in Tg. Onq. Gen
3:15d-e goes from the beginning to end of time (an interpretation of head and heel).
Vorster denied that the case of 2 Sam 7:12-13 is similar to Gen 3:15 as stated by
Michl, noting that the pronoun in v. 13 refers to an individual person: “The translator had
no other choice but to render hw’ by autos.”27 Vorster therefore agrees with Martin that
the LXX represents a messianic understanding of Gen 3:15.
But the fact that ‫ שּוף‬is rendered “watch” in the LXX Gen 3:15d is problematic for
the view that the LXX translation is “messianic.” The problem is that, although the
pronoun referring to “seed” is masculine singular, the activity described (watching the
serpent’s head) is not obviously messianic. Some of those who advocate the view that the
LXX is messianic do not address this problem. Martin does not mention it at all. Vorster
seems to forget that he noted the LXX translation of ‫ שּוף‬by τηρέω, for three paragraphs
later he says “the messianic interpretation is connected to an individual in the LXX. The
Messiah will crush the serpent finally.”28 Michl, on the other hand, thinks it quite strange
that if the individual seed in the LXX was thought to be the Messiah, the Targums would
show no trace of this interpretation, and regards the LXX as not clear enough to be called
a messianic interpretation.29 I have not found anyone prior to Zwingli who saw a
messianic interpretation in the LXX use of αὐτός.
The reason for the use of τηρέω in the LXX is not obvious. A. Schulz noted that
‫ שּוף‬is translated by καταπατέω (trample, press down, etc.) in Ps 139 (138):11, and by
ἐκτρίβω (destroy) in Job 9:17. ‫שַאף‬ ָ in some cases was translated as a by-form of ‫שּוף‬
(agreeing with other versions and modern lexicons); thus, καταπατέω in Ps 56:2-3 (1-2;
LXX; 55:1-2); 57:4 (3; LXX 56:3); πατέω in Amos 2:7, and ἐκτρίβω in Amos 8:4. Aquila
30

26
Although the yodh is missing there is no ambiguity between singular and plural due to the lack of vowels
in the Aramaic since the plural stem is ‫בן‬, and the singular stem is ‫)בר‬.

27
W. S. Vorster, “The Messianic Interpretation of Gen 3:15: A Methodological Problem,” Ou Testamentiese
Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika 15s (1972): 110-11.

28
Ibid., 113.

29
Michl, “Weibessame,” 377.

30
Alfons Schulz, “Nachlese zu Gn 3, 15,” BZ 24 (1938/39): 353.

10
translated ‫ שּוף‬in Gen 3:15 with προστρίβω (a rare word not found in the LXX, meaning
“press against”), and Symmachus with θλίβω (press hard).31 It would be surprising,
therefore, if the general meaning of ‫שּוף‬/‫ שאף‬was unknown to the translator of Gen 3:15 (a
fact which makes the individual/messianic interpretation of the LXX less likely). But ‫שַאף‬ ָ
also has another translation in the LXX (as in other versions, and listed under a different
root than ‫שּוף‬/‫ שאף‬in the lexicons); to gasp after, long for, etc. Schulz suggests that the
LXX translator understood the two meanings of ‫ שאף‬to be used for ‫ שּוף‬in Gen 3:15, but
that he wanted to use the same Greek word, resulting in a clumsy imitation of the Hebrew
pun.32 Two meanings are needed since it does not make sense to describe the snake as
crushing the man’s heel. Besides Psalm 56 having ‫ שאף‬twice as the action of the wicked
(vv. 2, 3), it also has the expression ‫“( ֲע ֵקבַי יִׁש ְֶ֫מ ֹרּו‬they watch my heels;” v. 7), which could
be taken as another link with, or a clue to the translation of, Gen 3:15. Schulz notes that
though ‫ שמר‬is translated with φυλάσσω in Ps 56:7 (6; LXX, 55:6; τὴν πτέρναν μου
φυλάξουσι), it is often elsewhere translated with τηρέω, the word used in Gen 3:15. In
Psalm 57 (56) there is another occurrence of ‫ שאף‬as the action of the wicked (v. 4 [3]),
and a complaint that they lay a snare “for my footsteps” (v. 7 [6]; ‫) ִׁל ְפ ָעמַי‬. This time, the
translator took “trample” as the appropriate meaning of ‫שאף‬. Interestingly, in the next
Psalm the wicked are compared to snakes (v. 5 [4]). It seems reasonable, therefore, to
suggest that the translator of Gen 3:15 chose to translate ‫ שּוף‬in Gen 3:15e as a similar
context to Ps 56:7, with the sense “lie in wait for,” so that the meaning of τηρέω in Gen
3:15e is that the serpent will lie in wait for, or, in general, persecute the seed of the
woman (which is how the Church fathers took it). The sense “lie in wait” may have also
been suggested by the fact that the Hebrew word “enmity” is found in Num 35:21-22 in
connection with “ambush” (LXX ἔνεδρον). The connection between the LXX of Gen 3:15
and these psalms (in Hebrew, and perhaps Aramaic) may indicate that the seed of the
serpent was understood to be wicked men. Presumably, “he will watch/keep/guard your
head” is also to be interpreted as some expression of enmity towards the snake. If Schulz
is correct, the translator traded the difficulty in the Hebrew (Gen 3:15e, “you will crush
his heel”) for a difficulty in the Greek (Gen 3:15d, “he will watch your head”). The result
is that instead of having a prediction of the enmity, followed by the battle resulting from
the enmity, in the LXX there is a prediction of enmity followed by a paraphrase of that
prediction; only the preparation for battle, but not the battle itself.33
One other implication may be involved in connecting the translation of Gen 3:15
with the psalms cited above; these psalms all begin in the LXX with the title “for the end”
(εἰς τὸ τέλος; for ‫) ַל ְמנַ ֵצ ַח‬, which possibly implied to the translator, as well as to some
readers, some eschatological meaning.

31
Septuaginta vol. I, Genesis, ed. John William Wevers (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 93,
note on v. 15.

32
“G hat allerdings das Wortspiel nachzuahmen gesucht — aber es fragt sich, ob mit Geschick” (Schulz,
“Gn 3, 15,” 354).

33
Ibid., 354.

11
 In conclusion, the view that the LXX gives a “messianic” interpretation of Gen
3:15 rests entirely on the use of αὐτός instead of αὐτό, and is contra-indicated by the fact
that (1) there is no clearly messianic activity on the part of the seed of the woman in the
LXX; (2) no decisive outcome of the conflict is described; (3) the LXX is probably related
to or in the same tradition as (though earlier than) Tg. Onqelos, which uses the singular
‫ הּוא‬but does not give an individual interpretation of the woman’s seed, or a messianic
interpretation of the passage, even though the passage is given some eschatological
application.
Tg. Onqelos follows the MT for the first part of the verse (15a-c); for the second
part (15d-e) it reads, “They will remember what you did to them in ancient times, and
you will preserve (your hatred) for them to the end (of time)” (see above). The singular
pronoun ‫הּוא‬, verb ‫ יְהֵי‬and preposition ‫ לֵּה‬are used for the woman’s seed, but the use of
“sons” in the first part of the verse shows that this usage is collective, 34 or else the
collective and individual are put side by side. The latter might also be suggested by the
fact that “he” in the beginning is an individual, presumably, Adam. Possibly Tg. Onqelos
suggests here the unique role of an individual at “the end.” Grossfeld explains Tg. Onq.
Gen 3:15d-e as follows:
this Targum paraphrase revolves around the Hebrew root šwp – “bruise” which was
understood as the root šʾp – “long for,” and rendered by the somewhat related roots of “to
remember” and “to guard/sustain (in one’s heart).” The Hebrew words for “head” and
“heel” are translated into their secondary meaning “beginning (of time)” and “end (of
35
time)” referring to the creation and the Messianic era.
The “end” may have also been suggested by the similarity between ‫ סֹוף‬and ‫שּוף‬.
A different explanation for the Tg. Onqelos translation of ‫ שּוף‬was given by
Aberbach & Grossfeld:
TO evidently associates the Hebrew root ‫ שוף‬with ‫“ – נשף‬to hiss” – an action characteristic
of the serpent when aroused to anger and hate and about to strike. The connection
36
between ‫ נשף‬and hatred emerges in some Midrashic passages.
The connection between ‫ שּוף‬and ‫ נָשַף‬was made by Rashi, as we shall see, but it seems
unlikely that the LXX and Tg. Onqelos arrived at the rendering “watch, keep” for ‫ שּוף‬by
two completely different and independent routes. The path from ‫ שּוף‬to “watch” is more
traceable in the case of Schulz’s explanation for the LXX through Psalms 56–57 and
Grossfeld’s later explanation for Tg. Onqelos, which are consistent with each other, than
for Aberbach’s and Grossfeld’s earlier explanation for Tg. Onqelos. The Hebrew ‫ נטר‬does
have the sense which Grossfeld suggests in the Aramaic, with the object (wrath, enmity)

34
Ibid., n. 12, n. 13.

35
Bernard Grossfeld, The Targum Onkelos to Genesis (vol. 6, The Aramaic Bible; Wilmington, DE: Michael
Glazier, 1988), 47, n. 9.

36
Moses Aberbach and Bernard Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis: A Critical Analysis Together with
an English Translation of the Text (New York: Ktav, 1982), 36-37, n. 14; passages cited and explained are
Gen. Rab. 16.4, and Esth. Rab. Proem 5 (sic., 3).

12
implied or stated elsewhere in the context (Jer3:5, 12; esp. Nah1:2, ‫וְנֹוטֵר הּוא לְאֹיְבָיו‬,37 and
Ps 103:9, where ‫ נטר‬is parallel to ‫)ריב‬. In Gen 3:15d, Tg. Onqelos and the LXX appear to
be very close, if we assume (as seems to me likely) that τηρέω is being used with the
same negative connotation as ‫ נטר‬in the MT of Nah 1:2.
The Palestinian Tgs. contain considerable expansions on MT in the second part
of the verse, and also show some influence from Tg. Onqelos (or the tradition that
produced it).

Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan38
‫ ודבבו אשוי‬15a And I will put enmity
‫בינך ובין איתתא‬ b between you and the woman,
‫בין זרעית בנך‬ c between the offspring of your children
‫ובין זרעית בנהא‬ and the offspring of her children.
‫ויהי כד יהוון בניהא דאיתתא‬ d And when the children of the woman
‫נטרין מצוותא דאורייא‬ keep the commandments of the Law,
‫יהוון מכוונין‬ they will take aim
‫ומחיין יתך על רישך‬ and strike you on your head.
‫וכד שבקין מצוות‬ e But when they forsake the commandments
‫דאורייתא תהוי מתכווין‬ of the Law you will take aim
‫ונכית יתהון בעיקביהון‬ and wound them on their heels.
‫ברם להון יהי אסו‬ f For them, however, there will be a remedy;
‫ולך לא יהי אסו‬ but for you there will be no remedy;
‫ועתידין הינון למיעבד שפיותא‬ and they are to make peace
‫בעוקבא ביומי מלכא משיחא‬ in the end, in the days of the King Messiah.

Tg. Neofiti39
‫ ובעל דבבו אשוי‬15a And I will put enmity
‫בינך ובין איתתה‬ b between you and the woman
‫ובין בניך ובין בנה‬ c and between your sons and her sons.

37
In Nah 1:2, T. Longman translates ‫נֹוטֵר‬, “rages,” based on the context (Tremper Longman III, “Nahum,” in
The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, ed. Thomas Edward McComiskey [Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1993], 787-88).

38
Text from CAL. Translation from Michael J. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (vol. 1B, The
Aramaic Bible; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 27-28.

39
Text from Alejandro Diez Macho, Neophyti I: Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana (vol. 1;
Madrid and Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1968), 17. Translation from Martin
McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis (vol. 1A, The Aramaic Bible; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,
1992), 61.

13
 ‫ ויהוי כד יהוון בניה‬d And it will come about that when her sons
‫נטרין אורייתא ועבדין פקודייה‬ observe the Law and do the commandments
]‫יהוון מתכוונין לך ומחיי[ן‬ they will aim at you and smite you
‫לראשך וקטלין יתך‬ on your head and kill you.
‫ וכד יהוון שבקין פקודי‬e But when they forsake the commandments
‫דאוריתא תהוי מתכוין ונכת יתיה‬ of the Law you will aim and bite him
‫בעקבה וממרע יתיה‬ on his heel, and make him ill.
‫ ברם לבריה יהוי אסו‬f For her sons, however, there will be a remedy,
‫ולך הויה לא יהוי אסו‬ but for you, O serpent, there will not be a remedy,
‫דעתידין אינון מעבד שפיותיה‬ since they are to make appeasement
‫בעוקבה ביומא דמלכא משיחא‬ in the end, in the day of King Messiah.
These Targums use ‫ נטר‬in a different way than in Tg. Onqelos. Like Tg. Onqelos, they
imply a continuous fulfillment of the verse over time, but add that the outcome of the
struggle is dependent on whether or not the woman’s sons keep (‫“ )נטר‬the
commandments of the law,” and the struggle will have a conclusion in the messianic age.
‫ ָעקֵב‬is first translated, then allegorized as the end of time. ‫ שּוף‬is apparently taken with a
double meaning: “watch, keep” of LXX and Tg. Onqelos, expanded to mean keeping the
Law, and “strike,” which is also expanded to include “aim” (unless aim is derived from
the idea of watching). “Bite” in Tg. Neof. 1 Gen 3:15e may reflect an interpretation based
on the derivation of the verb from the root ‫נשף‬, “blow,” taken as “hiss” (see above under
Onqelos), extended to “bite” (cf. Rashi, below). The idea of making peace with the
serpent, Maher says, has no rabbinic parallel, and is contrary to Gen. Rab. 20.5, which
says that in the messianic age, all will be healed except the serpent and the Gibeonite. 40
McNamara’s translation of the similar portion of Tg. Neofiti avoids this problem.41
Several features of the Palestinian rendering of this passage are of interest to us.
(1) The sons of the woman are described as prevailing when they keep the law. Such a
description is fitting for Israel, so that we see here an apparent equation of the seed of the
woman with the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. McNamara noted that similar
language is used to describe the seed of the woman (Christians) in John’s vision of
Revelation12. The dragon, already identified as “the serpent of old,” “went off to make
war against the rest of [the woman’s] offspring – those who obey God’s commandments
and hold to the testimony of Jesus” (Rev12:9, 17).42 Along with this collective
interpretation for both the enmity and victory, multiple fulfillments are implied, with the
outcome conditional. (2) The curse is taken as a conditional promise of victory, and the
Palestinian Tgs. are therefore the first evidence of such an interpretation outside of the

40
Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, 28, n. 28.

41
Maher’s observation seems to assume that “they are to make peace” means the serpent and the sons of the
woman make peace, an idea which would seem to contradict the statement that there will be no remedy for
the serpent.

42
McNamara, New Testament and Palestinian Targum, 221-22.

14
Bible.43 (3)There is evidently no messianic interpretation of Gen 3:15 in extant rabbinic
writings, even though the Palestinian Tgs. put the fulfillment of it “in the day(s) of (the)
King Messiah.”44 The point of interest here is that instead of a further development of a
messianic understanding of Gen 3:15 by the Rabbis in the Christian era, there was
evidently a drawing away from such an understanding. (4)This passage interprets the
seed of the woman collectively, yet places its ultimate working out in the messianic age;
therefore we should not make a simple equation between “messianic interpretation of
Gen 3:15” and “individual interpretation of the woman’s seed.” While it is possibly true
that an individual interpretation of the seed is based on a messianic understanding (as
some see in the LXX), a messianic connection of the verse does not necessarily imply an
individual interpretation of the seed. (5)The context, implying a long term struggle whose
outcome depends on whether or not the woman’s seed keeps the law, infers that the
serpent is to be understood in a sense beyond the literal.45 (6)Continuing the trend begun
in Tg. Onqelos, “the Messianic interpretation of the PT is connected with ‫עקב‬, ‘the heel’,
not with ‘the seed’. ‫ עקב‬is first rendered literally and then taken in its transferred sense of
‘final period, end of the days’ which is considered to be Messianic times. 46
Tg. Neof. Gen 3:15 generally agrees with Pseudo-Jonathan, with some
interesting differences. The expression for enmity is not the usual ‫דְ בָבּו‬, but ‫ְבעֵל דְ בָבּו‬
(found also in the Peshitta and the Fragmentary Tg. Paris manuscript), which is an idiom
for “enemy.”47 The same expression is found in Tg. Neof. Num 35:21-22, so its use here
is not particularly remarkable. Still, there is a certain resemblance to the name of the arch
enemy Beelzebub (less so to Beelzebul), zayin in the Hebrew being often found in
Aramaic cognates as daleth (not that I am suggesting such a relationship here), and could
therefore be a way of identifying the snake with Satan.48
Tg. Neofiti adds that after the woman’s seed who keeps the law aims at
and smites the snake, they will kill him; but when they (plural) forsake the law the

43
That is, assuming that the comparison to Rev 12:17 indicates a first century or earlier origin for the
tradition preserved in the Palestinian Tgs. (see also next note).

44
McNamara says “I have been unable to find a Messianic interpretation of Gn 3,15 in rabbinic sources,”
and therefore the paraphrase found in Pal. Tgs. Gen 3:15 is “probably a very old one and, considered in itself,
has every chance of being pre-Christian” (New Testament and Palestinian Targum, 220-21).

45
So McNamara, ibid., 220.

46
Ibid., 219-20.

47
McNamara, Targum Neofiti: Genesis, 61, n. 11; Klein, Fragment-Targums, 2.7, 46.

48
Peggy L. Day argues that it is on the basis of this word play that Beelzebub/ul became identified with
Satan. She finds support for this position (which she traces back to E. K. A. Riehm, 1893) in the fact that ‫בעל‬
‫ דבבא‬originated in Aramaic as an Akkadian loan word meaning “accuser in court,” which parallels the
meaning of Hebrew ‫שטָן‬ ָ (An Adversary in Heaven: śāṭān in the Hebrew Bible [HSM; no. 43; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1988], 152-159).

15
snake will bite him (‫ ;יתיה‬singular) on his heel and make him sick. Nothing
messianic is to be inferred, of course, by the switch from plural to singular, since
here it is him who is bitten after forsaking the law that is singular.49 This addition
makes it explicit that the snake’s attack is less injurious to the woman’s seed (he
is made ill) than that on the snake (he is killed).
The Fragmentary Tgs. most closely follow Neofiti (only the Paris manuscript has
15a-c; it has the expression ‫)בעל דבבו‬. Both traditions contain the phrase ‫– בסוף עקב יומייא‬
“in the final end of days,” prior to “in the days of Messiah the King,” where ‫ סוף‬may be
an interpretation of ‫שּוף‬. They also follow Neofiti in adding that the snake will be killed.
The long lasting struggle in which the snake is killed whenever God’s people are
obedient, yet is still present in the days of King Messiah when there will be no remedy
for him, is further evidence that the snake is taken as a figure for Satan.50
1.2.4 Philo and Josephus
In Allegorical Interpretation 3.187 Philo explains that the masculine pronoun
αὐτός is surprising since God has been talking about the woman. He explains, “He has
left off speaking about the woman and passed on to her seed and origin; but the mind is
the origin of sense; and mind is masculine, in speaking of which we should use the
pronouns ‘he’ and ‘his’ and so on.” He also explains that “watch” has two meanings:
“one like ‘shall guard and preserve,’ the other equivalent to ‘shall watch for to
destroy.’”51
In Antiquities of the Jews 1.50-51, Josephus gives a completely naturalistic
interpretation of Gen 3:14-15.52
1.2.5 Summary of Early Jewish Interpretation of Gen 3:15
The Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, and Philo give no messianic
connection to Gen 3:15. Interpretations of the two seeds are strictly naturalistic
(Josephus), philosophical allegorical (Philo), and figurative for the righteous and the
wicked (The Manual of Discipline, and possibly some of the Pseudepigrapha).
Samaritan Tg. follows the MT so closely that it offers no clue as to its
interpretation. The LXX translation in its use of τηρέω may reflect an early form of the
tradition later reflected in Tg. Onqelos and further developed in the Palestinian Tgs.
Since in these Targums the singular is occasionally used for the woman’s seed, which in
context is also clearly plural, we should be cautious about assuming that the LXX reading
is “messianic” just because it uses the masculine singular pronoun in “he will watch your
head.” The targumic tradition (possibly excepting Samaritan Tg., which does not go

49
McNamara, New Testament and Palestinian Targum, 219.

50
Michael L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums to the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources (2 vols.;
AnBib 76; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), 2.7, 46, 91, 127. McNamara notes that Tg. Neof. Gen 3:15
has various marginal readings “almost verbatim as P” (Targum Neofiti: Genesis, 61, apparatus n. u).

51
Philo I (LCL), 429-30. LSJ is unaware of this meaning; it may reflect Jewish usage based on ‫נטר‬.

52
Josephus IV, Jewish Antiquities, Books I-IV (LCL), 23, 25.

16
beyond translating) sees the verse as applying throughout history, to the end times, and
the Palestinian Tgs. specifically state that time to be the days of the Messiah. This
eschatological sense is derived from a figurative (or allegorical) understanding of “heel,”
the end of the body, meaning the end of time, just as “head” means beginning, and
possibly also from the similarity of ‫ סֹוף‬to ‫שּוף‬. Outside of the LXX, the only possible
inference of a singular understanding of the woman’s seed is in Tg. Onqelos and would
have to be seen not as exclusively singular, but as side by side with the collective. The
Palestinian Tgs. describe the woman’s seed with terms similar to those used to describe
the woman’s seed in Revelation12, suggesting that John intended us to understand the
seed of the woman in Gen 3:15 as the Church. Also in common with Revelation 12, the
ancient serpent is more than a snake; probably the devil.
As for the nature of the struggle, Tg. Onqelos agrees with the LXX in departing
from the literal meaning of ‫שּוף‬, but this may not be an entirely deliberate departure from
the literal, but one influenced by the difficulty of translating ‫ שּוף‬consistently in Gen 3:15,
and/or the guessing of another meaning from another passage. The Palestinian Tgs. are
more literal in rendering ‫ שּוף‬but also add a moral description of the woman’s seed. The
New Testament is most like the Palestinian Tgs. in correcting the LXX τηρέω to συντρίβω
to describe the serpent’s fate (if Rom16:20 is a reference to Gen 3:15), and in the moral
description of the woman’s seed (Rev12:17).
1.3 Later Jewish Interpretation
Here we consider the Midrashim and some of the medieval Rabbis (and one from
the 19th century). Like the fall narrative in general, the curse on the serpent was
embellished in Jewish legend. Up to ten punishments were decreed for the serpent:
The mouth of the serpent was closed, and his power of speech taken away; his hands and
feet were hacked off; the earth was given him as food; he must suffer great pain in
sloughing his skin; enmity is to exist between him and man; if he eats the choicest viands,
or drinks the sweetest beverages, they all change into dust in his mouth; the pregnancy of
the female serpent lasts seven years; men shall seek to kill him as soon as they catch sight
of him; even in the future world, where all beings will be blessed, he will not escape the
punishment decreed for him; he will vanish from out of the Holy Land if Israel walks in
53
the ways of God.
The second part of Gen 3:15; “He will strike you on the head” shows up as “men shall
seek to kill him as soon as they catch sight of him.” These embellishments presume a
completely naturalistic interpretation, although the snake would continue to be some sort
of symbol of evil, which vanishes from the land of a completely obedient Israel. A moral
lesson (measure for measure) was also made of the punishments: the serpent was made to
be king over the animals, made of upright posture, and made to eat the same food as man;
he was not satisfied with any of these, so was cursed above all animals, made to crawl on
his belly and to eat dust. He further sought the death of Adam in order to espouse his
wife, for which enmity is decreed between him and the woman.54 Another Midrash says
53
Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1925), 1.77-78.
Sources and variations (leprousy was sometimes counted as one of the ten punishments) are cited in 5.100, n.
83.

54
Ibid., 1.78; 5.101, n. 84.

17
that the serpent “is man’s Evil Inclination” which must be crushed with the head (of the
Academy of Torah): “Only with Torah can the serpent (the Evil Inclination) be crushed.
Conversely, the serpent can slay a man only through the heal, that is to say, when one
transgresses and tramples God’s commandments under his heel.”55
Ginzberg cites Pirqe R. El. which “gives the downfall of Sammael and his host as
the first penalty of the serpent, in agreement with the view of this Midrash, according to
which the real seducer was Satan (= Sammael), who made use of the serpent.” 56
Such an identification of the serpent is also found in a work outside classical
Rabbinic tradition, the Zohar, “the fundamental book of Jewish Cabbalism . . . the
premier text-book of medieval Jewish mysticism,” which said that the mixed multitude
which went up from Egypt with Israel (Exod 12:38) “are the offspring of the original
serpent that beguiled Eve,” and variously calls the serpent a literal serpent, evil tempter,
Samael’s mount, Satan, and angel of death.57 The medieval Zohar Chadash called the
wicked “‫( בְנֹוי דְ נָחָש ַהקַדְ מֹנִׁי‬sons of the ancient serpent), who has slain Adam and all his
posterity” (‫)דִׁ ְקטִׁיל לְָאדָ ם ּו ְלכָל ב ְִׁרי ָין דְ ַאתְ י ָין ִׁמּנֵיּה‬, which Tholuck compared to John 8:44, where
Jesus says his persecutors are of their father the devil, who was a murderer from the
beginning.58 The expression is also consistent with the description “ancient serpent”
found in Rev 12:9; 20:2.
Rashi explains the reason for thinking that the serpent wanted to marry Eve: the
narrative of temptation immediately follows mention of the nakedness of Adam and Eve,
which therefore implies that the serpent was motivated by lust for Eve. “Your sole
intention was that Adam should die by eating it first and that you should then take Eve
for yourself . . . therefore ‘I shall put enmity.’” Gur Aryeh (commentator on Rashi)
explained: the strategy presumes Eve would follow the custom of giving her husband the
food first, and would abstain after seeing him die. Rashi did not see an advantage for the
man in this struggle: “even at that spot [the heel] you [serpent] will kill him,” and he said
that ‫ שּוף‬as the action of the snake was derived from ‫נָשַף‬, “blow,” from the sound that a
snake makes before it bites.59

55
Midrash Hane‘lam Zohar B’reshith 19, cited in Menahem M. Kasher, Encyclopedia of Biblical
Interpretation: Genesis, trans. Harry Freedman (New York: American Biblical Encyclopedia Society, 1953),
1.132. Kasher also lists interpretations such as those cited by Ginzberg, above.

56
Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 5.100, n. 83.

57
Harry Spaulding and Maurice Simon, Zohar (5 vols.; London: Soncino Press, 1956), 1. ix, 108, 133-34.

58
August Tholuck, Commentary on the Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Smith, English & Co., 1859), 236, n.
1. The citation is from Yitro 39, available online:
https://www.sefaria.org/Zohar_Chadash,_Yitro.39?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en (accessed 22 January 2018).

59
M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann, Pentateuch With Targum Onkelos, Haphtorah and Rashi’s
Commentary: Genesis (New York: Hebrew Publishing Co., 1965), 12, 15. Gur Aryeh cited in A. J.
Rosenberg, The Book of Genesis: A New English Translation of the Text, Rashi, and a Commentary Digest
(Judaica Press Books of the Bible; New York: Judaica Press, 1993), 1.56.

18
 Nachmanides disagreed that the struggle was mutually harmful: “This means
man will have an advantage over you [the serpent] in the enmity between him and you for
he will bruise your head but you will bruise him only in his heel, with which he will
crush your brain.”60 Hirsch made a moral lesson of this advantage: “Man is given greater
strength over his lusts, than these have over him. Man can stamp his lusts on the head,
they can at the most catch him on his heel.” He said that the curse’s primary purpose is
not punishment of the snake but education of mankind; “the strong antipathy implanted in
mankind towards snakes may be meant to bring home to his mind that it was ‘animal
wisdom’ that led him astray, and to remind him of the gulf that separates Man from
animal.” Hirsch took ‫ שּוף‬as the sudden darting of the snake which catches one off
guard.61
Rabbinic interpretation is conspicuous for its difference from what we would
expect based on the readings found in at least some of the Targums. Instead of a further
development of messianic or eschatological ideas connected with Gen 3:15, there seems
to be a drawing away from them, to the naturalistic interpretation expressed in Josephus
and most of the Midrashim. The verse is interpreted naturalistically and used allegorically
for moral lessons.
1.4 The Church Fathers to the Reformation
1.4.1 Justin Martyr, Apologist (d. ca. 165)
Justin Martyr is the first Church father to leave us a record of his understanding
of Gen 3:15. In his Dialogue With Trypho he alludes to the verse six times (91:4; 94:1;
100:5-6; 102:3; 103:5; 112:2). The reference in 91:4 is in the context of proving to
Trypho (a Jew) that the cross is an Old Testament symbol. A type and sign of a cross was
set up by Moses on which to hang the bronze serpent he made (Num 21:8-9), which was
meant to save those who believed in the judgment of the serpent (who was cursed from
the beginning) through him who would be crucified. Justin then refers to the serpent’s
judgment (missing in LXX): “Isaiah tells us that he shall be put to death as an enemy by
the mighty sword, which is Christ,”62 thus equating the serpent of temptation with
Leviathan the dragon whose judgment is predicted in Isa27:1. This interpretation is
probably derived from the equation of the dragon with the “ancient serpent” in
Revelation 12 and 20, and from the fact that Leviathan in the LXX is translated “dragon.”
The substance of this passage is repeated in 112:2.63 In both passages he argues the
symbolic significance of the bronze serpent which Moses made in the wilderness from

60
Charles B. Chavel, Ramban (Nachmanides): Commentary on the Torah: Genesis (New York: Shilo
Publishing House, 1971), 84.

61
Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Pentateuch Translated and Explained (2nd. ed.; London: L. Honig & Sons,
1963), 1.81-82.

62
ANF, 1.245.

63
Ibid., 1.255. In 94:1 Justin made up for the lack of a decisive defeat of the serpent in the LXX by taking the
bronze serpent incident as a sign that the serpent’s power would be broken. He also identified the serpent’s
fangs as “wicked deeds, idolatries, and other unrighteous acts” (ibid., 1.246).

19
the fact that Moses, who himself gave the law against making images, here makes an
image and raises it up. This means that the bronze serpent really represents Christ.
In 100:5-6 he makes an analogy between Eve’s temptation by the serpent, and the
annunciation to Mary by Gabriel of the birth of Christ:
For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent,
brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when
the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would
come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her. ... And by her has
He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God
destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works
64
deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.
Justin does not say here that Gen 3:15 is a prediction of Mary fulfilled in Luke1:26-38,
but only uses two texts to make an analogy. Mary corresponds to Eve; Gabriel
corresponds to the serpent (a fallen angel). He also speaks of angels and men who
become like the serpent, possibly indicating his understanding of the identity of the “seed
of the serpent” as both fallen angels and wicked men.
In 102:3 Justin makes a passing reference to the serpent; God could have
removed the serpent from existence at the beginning, “rather than have said, ‘And I will
put enmity between him and the woman, and between his seed and her seed.’” The rest of
the verse is not quoted. This citation comes in an exposition of Psalm 22, as does that of
103:5, where he discusses the identity of the lion (v.14): “Or He meant the devil by the
lion roaring against Him: whom Moses calls the serpent, but in Job and Zechariah he is
called devil, and by Jesus is addressed as Satan.” Justin goes on to give a Samaritan
Aramaic etymology of Satan (Satanas), which consists of “apostate” (sata) and “snake”
(nas; i.e., ‫ נָחָש‬without the middle guttural).65
Justin is clearer about the identity of the serpent and his seed than about the
identity of the woman’s seed. He does not make any argument from the masculine
singular αὐτός in the Greek text to identify the woman’s seed as an individual, and he
does not make any reference to the crushing of the snake’s head (an idea, as we have
seen, which is not in the LXX). Rather, he derives the judgment on the snake from
Isa27:1, where Leviathan is called a snake whom God will slay with his sword, and from
the equation of the serpent in Isa27:1 with that of Gen 3:15, who is the devil, and the
New Testament teaching that Christ destroys the works of the devil (as depicted by the
bronze serpent incident); Christ is therefore the sword, the instrument of Leviathan’s
destruction. There is therefore no clear answer to the question, “who is the seed of the
woman?” in Justin’s writings. He speaks both of Christ’s victory and the victory he
obtains for those who repent of their sins.
1.4.2 Irenaus, Bishop of Lyons (d. ca. 200)

64
Ibid., 1.249.

65
ANF, 1.250-51, and A. Lukyn Williams, Justin Martyr: The Dialogue With Trypho, Translation,
Introduction, and Notes (Translations of Christian Literature, Series I – Greek Texts; London: MacMillan,
1930), 216, nn.5, 6.

20
 Irenaeus alludes to Gen 3:15 or expounds on it in his Against Heresies in much
the same way as did Justin. In 3.22.4, Irenaeus, like Justin, listed analogies between Eve
and Mary, but not on the basis of Luke 1:26-38. His analogy was based on his thesis that
the events of the Fall had an antidotal recapitulation in the work of Christ. Mary’s role is
given more prominence than in Justin’s analogy: “And thus also it was that the knot of
Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had
bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” In 5.19.1 he
again makes analogies between Eve and Mary, giving a prominent role to Mary: “And
thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by
a virgin.” The context indicates that this rescue is attributed to Mary because she was
obedient to the annunciation, thus giving birth to Christ, who is the one who actually
rescues us, but there is no identification of Mary as “the woman.” He goes on to say that
the “harmlessness of the dove” is the recapitulation of “the coming of the serpent.”66
In 3.23.3 Irenaeus indicates that the fact that Adam himself was not cursed, but
only the serpent, implies his salvation. He then quotes the first part of the curse on the
serpent (Gen 3:14), and says it is “the same thing” as “depart from me, ye cursed, into
everlasting fire, which my Father hath prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt
25:41), and those who persevere in wickedness (who act like Cain) shall also incur the
serpent’s curse on themselves, perhaps implying that the serpent’s seed includes wicked
people, as well as fallen angels. Further on he speaks of the serpent as “impeding the
steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head;” Irenaeus then
quotes Ps 91:13 (“Thou shalt tread upon the asp and the basilisk; thou shalt trample down
the lion and the dragon”) to speak of the serpent’s judgment (again, necessitated by the
LXX deficiency). He must not mean all men, however, because he has earlier spoken of
those who incur the serpent’s curse and partake of his fate. Either he views the woman’s
seed as only the righteous, or he views the woman’s seed as a designation of the human
race, and the verse is fulfilled because part of that race (the redeemed) partake of the
enmity and the victory. In either case, he assigns to Christ a special status, as the one who
conquers on behalf of the many. In 3.23.8 Irenaeus says “heretics and apostates from the
truth . . . show themselves patrons of the serpent and of death,” possibly indicating that
the serpent’s seed includes heretics.67
In 4.40.3, he quotes Gen 3:15, following the LXX, and then says, “The Lord
summed up in Himself this enmity, when he was made man from a woman, and trod
upon his [the serpent’s] head.”68 Unger calls this “a concise but complete interpretation of
the First-Gospel in a Christological and Mariological sense.”69 However, since it is clear
66
ANF, 1.455, 457. Eve was considered a virgin by Irenaeus because the fact that Adam and Eve were naked
and not ashamed shows that they were children (see ibid., 1.455, n. 4).

67
Ibid., 1.456-58. The heresy that Irenaeus speaks of, is Tatian’s teaching that Adam and Eve were not
themselves redeemed from their fall.

68
Ibid., 1.524.

69
Unger, Patristic Interpretation, 122.

21
that Irenaeus interpreted the seed of the woman collectively in both the enmity and
victory, this passage might simply mean that the incarnation made Jesus also and pre-
eminently “seed of the woman,” in which capacity he experienced the enmity spoken of
in the verse (another recapitulation), and also conquered. Irenaeus goes on in the first
three sections of the next chapter to expound the fact that though the wicked are by nature
(i.e., by act of creation) children of God, they are by imitation children of the devil, and
only those “who believe in Him and do His will” are sons of God (4.41.2). 70 It would be
natural to assume that Irenaeus here is explaining how it is that not all men are the seed of
the woman but rather some are the seed of the serpent; that the two seeds of Gen 3:15 are
the children of God and the children of the devil. But again, he does not explicitly make
this equation.
Finally, in 5.21.1 he again quotes Gen 3:15, and connects it to Gal 3:19 (the seed
who should come) and Gal 4:4:
He who should be born of a woman, [namely] from the Virgin, after the likeness of
Adam, was preached as keeping watch for the head of the serpent. This is the seed of
which the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians, “that the law of works was
established until the seed should come to whom the promise was made.” This fact is
exhibited in a still clearer light in the same Epistle, where he thus speaks: “But when the
fullness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman.” For indeed, the
enemy would not have been fairly vanquished, unless it had been a man [born] of a
71
woman who conquered him.
If all we had to go by in determining Irenaeus’ interpretation of Gen 3:15 was this
section, we might conclude with Unger that he identified the woman’s seed as Christ
alone.72 This probably explains why Unger discussed it first in his article even though
chronologically it is last. But such a conclusion is at variance with what Irenaeus wrote
elsewhere. More likely, this section shows us how Irenaeus considered Christ to be the
seed of the woman par excellence and therefore may be singled out in the exposition of
Gen 3:15 in a canonical approach to interpretation. He probably could not resist noting
the similarity in language and concept between the prediction of the woman’s seed, and
Paul’s mention of the seed who was to come, and his description of Jesus as “of a
woman.” But that is not the same as teaching the exclusively christological and
mariological meaning of Gen 3:15 as the original intent of the passage.
1.4.3 Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. 214)
Clement, after mentioning the death brought to Eve by the devil, evidently
alludes to Gen 3:15 when he says that “One and the same, too, is our helper and
vindicator, the Lord, who from the beginning foretold salvation in prophecy.” 73 Clement
is close to calling Gen 3:15 the first gospel here; as a promise of salvation, not
specifically the promise of an incarnate divine savior.
70
ANF, 1.525.

71
Ibid., 1.548-49.

72
Unger, Patristic Interpretation, 120.

73
Cohortatio ad gentes, 1 (FG, 104; PG, 8.64A).

22
1.4.4 Origen (d. 254)
In a sermon on Gen 46:3-4 Origen refers to the conflict of Gen 3:15 as a war,
making a clearly collective interpretation, beginning with Cain and Abel: “God did not
leave them to themselves when they had been placed in this war, but He is always with
them. He is pleased with Abel but reproves Cain.”74 A similar interpretation is found in a
sermon on Josh 10:21, ascribing our victory to Jesus: “Let us then pray that our feet may
be such, so beautiful, so strong, that they can trample on the Serpent’s head that he
cannot bite our heel (Gen 3:15). ... So you see that whoever fights under Jesus [Joshua],
ought to return safe from battle.”75 In a sermon on Jer 20:8, Origen connects the enmity
predicted in Gen 3:15 to the reproach suffered by Jeremiah: “it must needs be that the
friendship of Christ should generate enmities against the Serpent, and the friendship of
the Serpent bring forth enmities against Christ.”76 Origen seems to consistently identify
the woman’s seed as the Church, both in enmity and in victory.
1.4.5 Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (d. 258)
Cyprian wrote, “That this should be the sign of His nativity, that He should be
born of a virgin – man and God – a son of man and a Son of God.”77 Cyprian then quotes
Isa7:10-15, and comments: “This seed God had foretold would proceed from the woman
that should trample on the head of the devil. In Genesis: ‘Then God said unto the
serpent,’” etc.78 If Cyprian were only talking about the virgin birth, we might conclude
that he cites Gen 3:15 as a prophecy of it. But Cyprian is also demonstrating the human
nature of Christ, “a son of man,” which, if the woman’s seed is an individual, Gen 3:15
would seem to prove. But we have elsewhere in Cyprian evidence of a collective
interpretation. In an exhortation based on Eph 6:12-17, he says: “Let our feet be shod
with the teaching of the Gospel and armed so that, when the serpent begins to be
trampled upon and crushed by us, he may not be able to bite and throw us down.” 79 The
allusion to Gen 3:15 seems clear enough; for Cyprian, the enmity and victory predicted in
that passage are still being fulfilled in his own day, in the Church. Similarly, in a letter he
describes the victorious suffering of one Celerinus: “and although his feet were bound

74
Homilae in Genesim, 15.5 (FG, 107; PG, 12.245A).

75
Homilae in librum Jesu Nave, 12.2 (FG, 106-07; PG, 12.888A-B). Basil the Great also spoke of the
enmity of Gen 3:15 as war: “the Lord established for us a war against him [Satan], that when the war had
been won through obedience, we might triumph over the enemy” (Quod Deus non est auctor malorum 8-9
[FG, 110-11; PG, 31.348-352]).

76
Homilae in Jeremiam, 19.7 (FG, 105; PG, 13.516D - 517A).

77
ANF, 5.515, 519.

78
Ibid., 5.519 (treatise to Quirinius, Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 2.9).

79
Saint Cyprian Letters (1-81), trans. Rose Bernard Donna (vol. 51, The Fathers of the Church, A New
Translation; Washington: The Catholic University of America, 1964), 170 (“to the people of Thibaris,” letter
58, 9).

23
with cords, the helmeted serpent was both crushed and conquered” (because he did not
deny his faith under torture).80 These collective interpretations of the woman’s seed make
doubtful the characterization of Cyprian’s interpretation of Gen 3:15 as strictly individual
and christological (therefore mariological), and predictive of the virgin birth.
1.4.6 Serapion, Bishop of Thumis (Egypt; d. after 359)
Serapion left us perhaps the earliest extant argument for the virgin birth being
predicted in Gen 3:15: “But a woman does not have seed, only man does. How then was
it said of the woman? Is it clear that it was said of Christ whom the undefiled Virgin
brought forth without seed? Certainly, He is a singular seed, not seeds in the plural.”81
1.4.7 Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386)
To justify his exhortation, “let us hate them who are worthy of hatred; let us turn
away from them from whom God turns away,” Cyril quotes Ps 139:21, and goes on: “For
there is also an enmity which is right, according as it is written, I will put enmity between
thee and her seed [sic] for friendship with the serpent works enmity with God, and
death.”82 This passing reference may be evidence of a collective interpretation of the
woman’s seed as the Church (at least in Gen 3:15a-c), but this interpretation is not made
explicit.
1.4.8 Optatus of Mileva (d. before 400)
Optatus explains the massacre of infants in Bethlehem as another instance of the
enmity set in the beginning:
In the very beginning of the world enmity began with the waylaying Devil. It was when
God’s sentence had set both seeds against each other in hostile rivalry. He said, “I will
put enmity between thy seed and the woman’s seed; she (ipsa) shall observe thy head,
and thou shalt observe her heel” (Gen.3:15). This enmity . . . sheds holy blood from the
83
beginning. Soon after, the just Abel is murdered by his brother (Gen. 4).
If the murder of Abel by Cain is considered the first instance of “both seeds against each
other in hostile rivalry” then both seeds are collective; at least in the enmity portion of the
curse. A collective interpretation does not appear to be consistent if “she” is Mary; some
fathers saw “she” as the Church.
1.4.9 John Chrysostom (d. 407)
In a sermon on Genesis 3 Chrysostom speaks of the punishment of the visible
serpent, and the enmity between snakes and mankind (i.e., a naturalistic interpretation),
then says that what is said in Gen 3:15 “must be taken much more of the intellectual

80
Ibid., 100 (“to the Priests and People;” letter 39, 2).

81
FG, 111 (Catena in Genesim); source is cited as from Gallus (Tiburtius Gallus, S. J., Interpretatio
Mariologica Protoevangelii [Gen. 3:15], Tempore postpatristico usque ad Concilium Tridentium [Rome:
n.p., 1949], 24), who says it was found “by A. Lippomanus (Paris 1546).”

82
“Catechetical Lectures,” 16.10; NPNF2, 7.117.

83
In Natale Infantium qui pro Domino occisi sunt, 5; FG, 173-74; Unger cites source for text as A. Wilmart,
RevScRel 2 (1922), 271-302; 283. Apparently there is some doubt concerning the author of the sermon; see
FG, 173, n. 166.

24
serpent [the Devil]. For him, too, God humiliated and made subject under our feet and
gave us the power to tread on his head” (quoting Luke 10:19). 84 He connects the curse
with Luke 10:19 in another sermon, where he also relates it to Rom 16:20, and then says:
No longer, as previously, [is it true that] “He will observe your head, and you will
observe his heel.” No, the victory is complete, the triumph perfect, the defeat of the
enemy, the slaughter and destruction is total. Eve made you subject to man; but I will
85
make you equal ... to the very angels.
Before they were Christians (being offspring of the serpent), they were subject to
(righteous) man (offspring of the woman), but now they are equal to angels; a figurative
collective interpretation of both seeds as the righteous and the wicked.
1.4.10 Jerome (d. 419/20)
The translator of the Vg said that a better translation (than the OL) of Gen 3:15
would be “He will crush your head, and you will crush his heel” (ipse conteret caput
tuum, et tu conteres eius calcaneum). He goes on to say that our steps, too, are impeded
by the serpent, then quotes Rom 16:20.86 This is at least a collective application to
Christians of both the enmity and victory, if not a collective interpretation of the
woman’s seed as the Church (or Christ and the Church). In a commentary on Isaiah
(58:12), he says that the serpent who is said to bite one who breaks through a wall (Eccl
10:8) is the same one “who deceived Eve in paradise, who [Eve] because she had
destroyed God’s precept, exposed herself to its bites, and heard from the Lord: ‘Thou
shalt observe his head, and he (ille-coluber) shall observe thy heel.’”87 The text of Gen
3:15 is changed somewhat, since Eve is addressed, not the serpent. The implication that
Eve is the woman in Gen 3:15 is clear, but Unger suggests that Eve could actually be
addressed here because she is part of the seed, but the woman is Mary, or that the verse is
accommodated to Eve.88 Another collective interpretation is made in his commentary on
Ezekiel, speaking of the waters which “reach to the ankles, which are near the soles and
heel, which are exposed to the bites of the serpent” he quotes Gen 3:15 the same way he
did in the Isaiah commentary.89
Jerome translated Gen 3:15 in the Vg differently than in his Quaestiones
hebraicae. For ‫ הּוא‬he translated ipsa (she) in Gen 3:15d, and for ‫ שּוף‬he used conterere
only for the first instance, and used insidiaberis (lie in wait) for the second. The OL used
observare twice, but Jerome’s terms had already appeared in other fathers’ writings, as

84
Homilae in Genesim, 17.7 (FG, 123; PG, 53.143).

85
In Genesim, Sermo 5.2-3 (FG, 124; PG, 54.602).

86
Hebraicarum Quaestionum in Genesim, 3:15 (PL, 23.991).

87
In Isaiam, 16, 58:12 (FG, 175; PL, 24.572).

88
FG, 176-77.

89
In Ezechielem, 14.47:3 (FG, 177; PL, 25.469B).

25
had ipsa. Tradition, therefore, probably explains why he translated against his better
knowledge in a way that supported the hyper-mariological sense of Gen 3:15, which must
therefore have been current for some time (or else like others, he takes ipsa of the
Church). I use the term “hyper-mariological” to distinguish from the mariological
interpretation, in which Mary is said to be “the woman” predicted in Gen 3:15. The
hyper-mariological interpretation goes beyond this to elevate Mary from her place
alongside the rest of the saints, even “blessed among women,” to a role as co-redeemer
with Christ, in which she crushes the serpent in a way that other believers do not.
1.4.11 Augustine (d. 430)
Commenting on Ps 36:12-13 (11-12; let not the foot of pride approach me . . .
there the workers of iniquity have fallen), he quotes Gen 3:15d-e following OL (using
“watch;” observabit) and interprets the serpent’s watching as watching for an opportunity
occasioned by pride to make us fall (a spiritual interpretation). Our watching his head
means to be on guard for the beginning of all sin, pride (an allegorical interpretation of
head as beginning; not of time, but of pride).90 That the seed of the woman is interpreted
collectively is clear. He makes a similar allegorical interpretation in comments on Ps 49:6
(5), which he cites as “And wherefore shall I fear in the evil day? The iniquity of my heel
shall compass me” (cf. the MT; ‫)עֲֹון ֲע ֵקבַי‬, and says that “Our flesh is an Eve within us.”91
Commenting on Ps 74:13-14 (“Thou hast broken in pieces the heads of the
dragons [Hebrew, ‫ ]תַ ּנִׁנִׁים‬in the water, Thou hast broken the head of the dragon [Hebrew,
Leviathan]; Thou hast given him for a morsel to the Ethiopian peoples [Hebrew, ‫ְלעָם‬
‫)] ְל ִׁציִׁים‬,” he equates the breaking of dragons’ heads with the deliverance of Gentiles from
“demons’ pride, wherewith the Gentiles were possessed.” In v. 14, where “dragon” is
singular, the devil is indicated, chief over the rest of the dragons (demons). The serpent’s
head is again interpreted allegorically; as the beginning of all sin, pride. Eve is the
woman of Gen 3:15, and the seed of the woman is the Church.92
In Against the Manichees, Augustine struggles with the question of why the
enmity was set between the devil and the woman, as opposed to the man.
The seed of the devil signifies perverse suggestion, and the seed of the woman the fruit of
the good work by which one resists such perverse suggestion. Thus he watches the foot of
the woman so that, if ever it should slip in that forbidden pleasure, he might seize her.

90
NPNF1, 8.91.

91
Ibid., 8.170. It is significant that Vg ipsa is taken as Eve, not Mary, and allegorized. Similarly, Erasmus
wrote in his Handbook of the Christian Soldier that we must understand the woman in Gen 3:15 to be “the
carnal part of man. For this is our Eve, through whom the most crafty serpent lures our mind to death-bearing
pleasures.” Quick reaction to the beginning of temptation allows the Christian soldier to hiss the serpent
away, “crushing straightway the head of the plague-bearing serpent. For he is never either easily or
completely conquered” (Erasmus, Enchiridion, in Advocates of Reform: From Wyclif to Erasmus, ed.
Matthew Spinka [LCC 14; ; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953], 297, 363).

92
NPNF1, 8.346.

26
 And she watches his head so that she may exclude him in the very beginning of his evil
93
temptation.
The enmity here again seems to be remaining sin in the Christian. The woman is the
Church, and her seed good works. He later said of this interpretation, “if there is anything
that we might have said more carefully and properly, may God help us that we might
accomplish it.”94
1.4.12 Syrian Fathers on Genesis
A ca. 900 Syriac MS of a commentary on difficult texts in Genesis, which was
drawn from interpretations of earlier Syrian fathers, such as Theodore of Mopsuestia and
Ephrem of Syria, implies that the appearance of the serpent was not real, but visionary.
The description of the serpent as an animal in Gen 3:1 is analogous to Gen 18:1;
“Abraham saw three men according to his understanding, although they were not men.”
The cunning spoken of is therefore the cunning of Satan, and v. 14 of the curse therefore
“hints allegorically at the fall of Satan the accuser.” The enmity of v. 15 means, “that
there is a great battle” between the seeds “throughout all their generations.” Concerning
the head and heel,
this is a figure for the judgement upon Satan, how much lower than us God has placed
him. As for us, if we desire the good, through mighty deeds are we able to smite him; but
he on the other hand is able to smite us, since he guards our heels i.e. our way, which is
95
our deeds; even as “the iniquity of my heels doth encompass me.”
The use of “us” means that the seed of the woman is interpreted collectively; either of
people in general or the Church. The battle is described in much the same way as the
Palestinian Tgs., except that there is no resolution in the days of the Messiah. The
quotation from Ps 49:6 (5) is reminiscent of Augustine, without Eve as our flesh.
1.4.13 Abbot Rupert of Deutz (d. 1135)
Rupert said that the virgin birth was taught in the curse on the serpent: “For about
what seed is this said except about the one that is Christ. He, really, alone is the seed of
woman in such wise that He is not also the seed of man,” and said the lying in wait for
his heel meant that he was attacked at the end of his life. 96 In another work he identified
the woman as Mary principally, but also all elect women, and the woman’s seed as
principally Christ, but also all elect men, and the serpent’s seed as the wicked, the
children of the devil, based on John 8:44.97 In his commentary on Rev 12:3 he said that

93
Saint Augustine on Genesis, 2.18.28, trans. Roland J. Teske (vol. 84, The Fathers of the Church: A New
Translation; Washington: The Catholic University of America, 1991), 123.

94
De Genesi ad litteram, 11.36 (FG, 191; PL, 34.449-50). John Cassian gave a similar interpretation of the
serpent’s head as the beginning of sin, while he saw the heel as the end of our lives (Institutes, 2.18.28
[NPNF2, 11.231]).

95
Abraham Levene, The Early Syrian Fathers on Genesis: From a Syrian MS. on the Pentateuch in the
Mingana Collection; the first 18 chapters of the MS. edited with introduction, translation, and notes; and
including a study in comparative exegesis (London: Taylor’s Foreign Press, 1951), 24, 77-78.

96
In Genesim 2.19 (FG, 214-15; PL, 167.304D).

27
the woman clothed in the sun was the sign of the whole Church, whose greatest member
was Mary.98
1.4.14 Nicholas Lyra (d. ca. 1349)
Nicholas, who knew Hebrew and studied Rashi, offered 3 interpretations of Gen
3:15 in his commentary on Genesis: (1) the allegorical interpretation of Augustine,
Cassius, etc., (2) the christological and mariological interpretation of “other holy
interpreters,” and (3) the naturalistic interpretation, which he rejects on the grounds that
God would not talk to an unreasonable animal, the snake did not sin, and it never walked
upright.99
1.4.15 Summary of Christian Interpretation to the Reformation
Gen 3:15, although not quoted explicitly in the New Testament, became the
object of interest for the Church fathers probably because Revelation 12 and 20 identified
the dragon as the devil and Satan, the “ancient serpent” (presumably the serpent of
Genesis 3). Thus the identity of the serpent is not an issue with the fathers, and a
prediction of enmity between the devil and the woman’s seed would naturally lead to
relate the conflict to New Testament experience, even if the LXX (and the OL, translated
from it) gave no clear description of the battle or its outcome, but implied merely the idea
of lying in wait. The disadvantage of not knowing Hebrew or having a good translation
was overcome from the very beginning by finding other Old Testament passages to speak
of the serpent’s defeat, consistent with New Testament teaching that Christ had defeated
the devil. These were then related back to Gen 3:15, and the conflict explained in
Christian terms, whether individually (concerning Christ) or collectively (concerning the
Church). A connection between the serpent and the dragon Leviathan in Isa 27:1 and Ps
74:13-14 was also sometimes made, again, beginning with Justin.
Except for uniformity in identifying the serpent as the devil (usually, his
instrument), the fathers arrived at varying conclusions. Generally, when the fathers make
an application of the verse to Christians, consistent with a collective interpretation of the
woman’s seed, they do not say, in so many words, “the seed of the woman in Gen 3:15 is
the Church.” Neither do they say, when applying the passage to Christ, “the seed of the
woman is Christ and Christ alone.” I have no desire to prove one way or the other what
the predominant Church tradition has been; this tradition is of most importance for
Roman Catholics, since the papal bull announcing the doctrine of Mary’s immaculate
conception appealed to the early Church teaching concerning Gen 3:15 as referring
“clearly and openly” to Jesus Christ and “His most blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary.” 100
The mariological interpretation (i.e., Mary is “the woman” in the prophecy) is logically
97
De Victoria Verbi Dei, 2.17 (FG, 216-17; PL, 169.1256D-1257B).

98
In Apoc. 12:3 (FG, 216; PL, 169.1042).

99
From Gallus’ summary (Luther, Zwingli, und Calvin), 26-31; his source is Biblia Sacra cum Glossa
Ordinaria et Postilla Nicolai Lyrani (Duaci, 1617), I.103-04.

100
FG, vii. The bull was issued by Pius IX in 1854. Gen 3:15 is used to teach Mary’s complete victory over
sin. It is also important for other mariological doctrines such as the co-redemption, and the assumption.

28
dependent on the exclusively individual interpretation of the woman’s seed: if the seed is
properly taken as a collective (not just by application), then Mary cannot be the woman
(except as an anti-type of Eve).
The woman’s seed was taken variously as Christ, the Church, or mankind. The
woman was also taken as the Church, or Eve, or Mary. Comparatively less interest was
taken in identifying the serpent’s seed, which was identified as demons, wicked people,
or both. A few fathers recognized themselves as of the serpent’s seed before their
conversion to Christ, thus it is the natural state of mankind without the new birth. Those
who took the two seeds as collective for the Christians and the world sometimes applied
the fulfillment of Gen 3:15 to all of human history, beginning with Cain’s murder of
Abel, and enduring martyrdom could be described as defeating the serpent in terms of
Gen 3:15.
Augustine made the conflict between two seeds into a battle with remaining sin
in the believer. Probably most would label this interpretation as allegorical, since he
assumes that a conflict that he knows of elsewhere is spoken of here, and does not derive
his interpretation from the context. We do not see in the Church fathers any discussion
with respect to Gen 3:15 on how to determine figurative meaning legitimately, or what
constitutes proper exegesis. John Chrysostom, representative of the Alexandrian school
of exegesis, begins with the naturalistic interpretation, then justifies the figurative as the
more significant one, on the basis of Luke 10:19 and Rom 16:20. This procedure raises
the question, what did Gen 3:15 mean to Old Testament believers? Is Chrysostom’s
figurative meaning any more valid or acceptable than Augustine’s?
From the Church fathers, then, we have a wide range of opinion, but little that
would help us answer the question raised in the introduction, namely, how one arrives at
figurative meaning with any degree of certainty.
1.5 The Reformation Period: Luther, Calvin, Zwingli
1.5.1 Martin Luther
The great leader of the reformation was also the leading expositor of Gen 3:15 up
to his time. Gallus divides Luther’s exposition of Gen 3:15 into three phases.101 The first
phase is prior to Luther’s learning of Greek and Hebrew (1520), and his sources are the
Vg and Nicholas Lyra, and he still esteems the allegorical method of interpretation, and
gives quite varying interpretations. In this first phase, Luther contributed a unique
interpretation of the Vg feminine ipsa (she; Gen 3:15d) as the humanity of Christ.102 He
later (1520) spoke of the woman to come who would bruise the serpent, going beyond the
earlier hyper-mariological interpretation which usually qualified Mary’s role as being
accomplished through Jesus.103 He identified the seed of the serpent as sin, and the seed

101
Gallus, Luther, Zwingli und Calvin, 25, 37, 87.

102
Martin Luther, “Psalm 56,” in First Lectures on the Psalms I, LWA, 10.262 (from 1513-15).

103
Martin Luther, “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” in Word and Sacrament II, LWA, 36.39.

29
of the woman as the word of God in the Church. 104 The serpent’s head could be
interpreted as bad passions.105 He also clearly identified the woman’s seed as Christians,
rejecting his earlier interpretation. For Ps 112:2 (“His seed shall be mighty upon earth”),
he says, “This is the seed spoken of in Gen 3:15. ... And these are the seed and children
and descendants of Christ, about whom Is. 53:10 says: ‘If He shall lay down His life for
sin, He will see a long-lived seed’; and Ps. 22:30-31, ‘A seed serving him shall be
declared to the Lord.’”106 We may summarize the first phase of Luther’s interpretation as
overlapping basically the whole spectrum of interpretation found in the fathers before
him.
The second phase covers 1521-1535, in which, after learning Hebrew, he rejects
the Vg ipsa and insidiaberis (“you will lurk,” Gen 3:15e), for ipse (he) and conterere
(crush). He also adopted a strictly individual and christological interpretation of the
woman’s seed, and apparently lost interest in identifying the serpent’s seed. In his 1521
sermon guide written during his exile in Wartburg, he translated Gen 3:15d-e “He is to
crush your head and you will crush the soles of his feet” and related this promise to Eve’s
statement at the birth of Cain (Gen 4:1), which he paraphrased, “This will undoubtedly be
that man, the seed, who is to fight against the serpent.”107 Luther went on to make an
application to Christians:
Likewise in all Christians he [the devil] crushes their soles, thus violating and killing
their lives and works; their faith, the head, he must leave alone, and through the head
[Christ] their work and life are brought back. But, the devil’s feet remain; his strength
108
and fury continue to rage.
It is important to understand that to Luther in his second and third phases of
interpretation, Christ alone is the seed of the woman, and Christians are involved in both
the enmity and victory of Gen 3:15 because of our relationship to Christ, not because we
are named there. Perhaps the clearest application of the victory of Gen 3:15 was made in
his interpretation of Ps 91:13:
Thus we shall again be the pope’s masters and tread him underfoot, as Psalm 91 says,
“You will tread on the lion and the adder, the young lion and the serpent you will trample
under foot.” And that we shall do by the power and with the help of the woman’s seed,
who has crushed and still crushes the serpent’s head, although we must run the risk that
109
he, in turn, will bite us in the heel.

104
Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans: Glosses and Scholia, 6:10, LWA, 25.314 (from 1515-16). This idea
is based on the parable of the sower where the seed is the word of God, and “she” is the Church.

105
Martin Luther, “Ps 101,” in First Lectures on the Psalms II, LWA, 11.294 (from 1513-15).

106
Ibid., 385.

107
Martin Luther, “The Gospel for the Sunday After Christmas,” in Sermons II, LWA 52.127-28.

108
Ibid., 128.

109
Martin Luther, “On the Councils and the Church,” in Church and Ministry II, LWA 41.178.

30
“That we shall do” is to step on the serpent’s head, as indicated in Psalm 91. Irenaeus
related Psalm 91 to Gen 3:15 in order to show that the outcome of the battle (not
indicated in the LXX) would be victory. Luther obviously did not need Psalm 91 for that
purpose, since he now understood Hebrew. But in his individual interpretation, the
victory is only that of the one seed, Christ. So his use of Psalm 91 in connection with Gen
3:15 is evidently for the purpose of showing that Christians also partake of the victory
that is promised there (even though they are not the seed spoken of). This point is worth
noting because Ken Schurb says (quoting this passage), “Luther did not cast Christians
themselves in the role of defeating the devil.”110 It seems clear that Luther’s statement
that we run the risk of being bitten in the heel implies that Christians are themselves
stepping on the snake’s head as mentioned in Gen 3:15, not just Psalm 91.
Luther’s third phase represents his most extensive comments on Gen 3:15 found
in his Lectures on Genesis and his Treatise on the Last Words of David, which features
his unique interpretation of Gen 4:1. Luther’s Lectures on Genesis were delivered in
Wittenberg beginning June, 1535. While lecturing on Gen 3:14, a plague broke out in
Wittenberg, apparently interrupting his lectures for several months, until January,
1936.111
Gen 3:14-15 “contains whatever is excellent in all Scripture.” V. 14 “is entirely
in figurative language; God is speaking with the serpent, and yet it is certain that the
serpent does not understand these words. . . . God is not speaking to an irrational nature
but to an intelligent nature.” The punishment of the snake as a result of Satan’s sin is
comparable to the punishment of the animals who perished in the flood due to mankind’s
sin. “Yet, in a figurative sense, Satan’s punishment is meant by the punishment of the
serpent.”112
Speaking of passages like Gen 3:15 which are problematic due to the mixture of
figurative and literal meanings Luther wonders why the “fathers and bishops” before him
“did not devote themselves with greater zeal to the elucidation of passages of this kind.”
He speculates that this neglect was due to “the affairs of office” which “involved them
too deeply.” He does not excuse, however, “the villainy of the more recent ones.” He
then condemns the change of pronouns in the Latin as a falsification of the passage; “with
obvious malice they twisted this passage into a reference to the Blessed Virgin.” Lyra
was a good man, but he yielded “too much to the authority of the fathers. And so he
allows himself to become involved through St. Augustine in a most absurd allegory.” A
lengthy condemnation of this allegory follows.
Luther then amplifies on the serpent:
The serpent is a real serpent, but one that has been entered and taken over by Satan, who
is speaking through the serpent. . . . What God is saying to the serpent, the serpent . . . did
not understand; but Satan did, and he was the one whom God had especially in mind.
Thus I adhere simply to the historical and literal meaning.

110
Schurb, “Sixteenth-Century Conflict,” 28.

111
Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., in introduction to Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis Chapters 1-5, LWA 1.ix.

112
Ibid., 183.

31
 . . . God is dealing with Satan, who is hidden within the serpent; the verdict of
113
the Last Judgment is here announced to him.
Thus the curse is not only the first gospel, but also the “Last Judgment.” Here Luther
sounds like Irenaeus. Luther adds that the grotesque physical change in the serpent is
analogous to the change in man’s natural endowments because of Adam’s sin. 114 But he
disagrees with Lyra and Augustine that “we should allegorically apply to Satan those
statements which fit well with the nature of the serpent. . . . The serpent bears only its
bodily punishment, while for Satan ... another judgment has been prepared.” It is v. 15
which “pertains properly to the devil.”115
He then expounds v. 15a-c: the curse on the serpent is a comfort to Adam and
Eve, both because they hear the serpent being cursed, and because they themselves are
not cursed; in fact they are drawn up in battle against their condemned enemy by Christ,
the woman’s seed; they enjoy full forgiveness of sins and are set free from Hell; the gift
of procreation is made sacred as it is by it that victory over Satan will come, “for here
Moses is no longer dealing with a natural serpent; he is speaking of the devil, whose head
is death and sin.116
For the most part, Luther repeats in his Genesis lectures what he has expounded
in his post-1520 sermons. We note too, that he continues to make an application of the
enmity and victory to Christians, as if he held to a collective interpretation of the seed.
We also see here the point which is a hermeneutical issue in the current debate over Gen
3:15: whether a curse can properly be seen as a ground of hope. In Luther’s view, it
clearly is: “this comfort springs from the fact that God does not curse Adam and Eve as
He curses the serpent.”
He begins the exposition of Gen 3:15d-e by again blasting the hyper-mariological
interpretation found in the Latin translations, which even carried away “Lyra, who was
not unfamiliar with the Hebrew language.” Mary should be given due honor (“Among all
the women of the world she has this privilege from God, that as a virgin she gave birth to
the Son of God”), but it is idolatry to suggest that she has destroyed the power of Satan
by giving birth to Christ (if that were true, the same could be said of all her predecessors).
Gen 3:15d-e are a promise and a threat, but the identity of the woman giving birth to the
savior is not known so that Satan is mocked by God and he becomes afraid of all women
as potential bearers of the Messiah, and persecutes the people of God in order to prevent
his birth. Satan suspects all women, not simply virgins, because the idea of the virgin
birth was not made clear until Isa 7:14. But many Old Testament saints did not
understand that he would be born of a virgin; they were satisfied with the general

113
Ibid., 183-86. Luther’s use of the word “literal” for his interpretation illustrates why I prefer the term
“strictly naturalistic” to describe the interpretation which sees the serpent of Gen 3:14-15 as an animal snake,
and nothing more.

114
Ibid., 186-87.

115
Ibid., 188.

116
Ibid., 189-91.

32
knowledge that he would be born and be victorious over Satan, and by this knowledge
and faith they were saved. When Jesus was born, the enmity of the devil was manifest
through Herod who tried to destroy him, and was constant until the cross, and now that
Christ is at the right hand of God, Satan is filled with wrath against the Church. 117 So
again we see a collective application of the object of Satan’s enmity being made.
Luther said that children born in Old Testament times could not in truth be called
the woman’s seed, which sounds like he believes that a virgin birth is predicted in Gen
3:15. Such an interpretation would contradict what he taught elsewhere, however, and
would leave unexplained how Adam and Eve did not so understand the promise. In fact
Luther acknowledged that “the woman’s seed” would seem to designate “all individuals
in general,” but in fact God “is speaking of only one individual, of the Seed of Mary, who
is a mother without union with a male.” Gen 3:15 is thus “an amazing instance of
synecdoche.” It is not grammar but experience which leads to the identification of the
promised seed as Christ; the insufficiency of human nature to accomplish that which is
promised in Gen 3:15 is the basis of the inference of Christ. Both Adam and Eve gave
evidence of their understanding of and faith in the first gospel. Adam named his wife
“Eve” because he was marvelously enlightened after receiving the Holy Spirit, and the
name “Eve” was an outward indication of his faith.118
Likewise Gen 4:1 demonstrates the faith of both of them. Adam understood Gen
3:15 as reaffirming the command to be fruitful and multiply: “The blessing, ‘Increase and
multiply” (Gen. 1:28), had not been withdrawn, but had been reaffirmed in the promise of
the Seed who would crush the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15).” Eve calls Cain a “man” (Gen
4:1) instead of a son because “she had something greater in mind about him, as though
Cain would be the man who would crush the head of the serpent. For this reason she does
not simply call him a man, but “the man of the Lord.”119
Luther says that Seth “is the first to whom was passed on the promise given to his
parents in Paradise,” as is shown by the fact that Seth is the first one whom Moses calls a
son (Gen 4:25). That she recalls the murder of Abel when Seth was born “is also proof
that there was bitter enmity between these two churches and that Eve had both observed
and suffered many indignities from the Cainites.” His use of “enmity” here could be
another collective application of the two seeds, but Luther does not explicitly say this. He
elaborates on the two churches shown in Genesis 4: “it is [Moses’] purpose to maintain a
distinction between the two churches, the one being the righteous one, which has the
promises of the future life but in this life is afflicted and poor, the other being the ungodly
one, which prospers in this life and is rich.” That Eve calls Seth another seed in place of
Abel, rather than in place of Cain, is evidence of her piety.
She prefers the slain Abel to Cain, although Cain was her first-born. It is, therefore, the
outstanding glory not only of her faith but also of her obedience that she is not provoked
at the judgment of God but herself changes her own judgment. ...

117
Ibid., 192-95.

118
Ibid., 195-97, 220.

119
Ibid., 237, 241-43.

33
 She herself also excommunicates the excommunicated Cain and sends him away
with all his descendants. . . .
Thus we have in Seth a new generation, which is born and exists as a result of the
promise that the Seed of the woman should crush the serpent’s head.120 In this most
extensive treatment of Gen 3:15, Luther is concerned again and again with the individual-
christological interpretation of the woman’s seed, and the importance that the promise
had for the Old Testament saints. He scarcely discusses “the woman,” and never
mentions the seed of the serpent. He repeats much that was in his earlier works.
In 1543 Luther completed his study of 2 Sam 23:1-7. The fuller title explains his
purpose: On the Divinity of Christ on the Basis of the Last Words of David. This treatise
was brought on by the need to defend the Christological exegesis of the Old Testament
both against Jewish interpreters and against their Christian pupils. Luther acknowledged
that he himself had followed the lead of the rabbis too closely in his translation of the
Hebrew Bible and even in his interpretation of it, and now he set about to vindicate the
121
Christian explanation of its Messianic prophecies and confessions.
In the course of his exposition of 2 Sam 23:1, in which he sees David express his faith in
the “Messiah of the God of Jacob,” Luther digresses to a discussion of Gen 3:15, in
which he again connected Gen 4:1 to his understanding of the promise, but in a new way,
which strengthened his insistence that the seed of the woman was an individual, God
incarnate:
According to Gen. 4:1, when Eve had given birth to Cain, she perhaps supposed that
because he was the first man born on earth he would be the foremost, and she assumed
that he was to be the Seed of the woman and that she was to be that woman, or mother.
122
This prompted her to exclaim: “I have the Man, the Lord.”
This new translation of Gen 4:1 is derived by taking the preposition ‫ את‬as the direct
object marker. Thus “the Lord” is the co-object of the verb, and explains “a man.” He
further says,
‫ ִׁאיש‬, when used alone and without the accompanying word for woman, does not simply
designate a male, ... but an ideal and outstanding man. ... Eve means to say here: “I have
borne a son, who will develop into a real man, yes, he is the Man, God Himself, who will
do it, crush the serpent, as God assured us.”
Acknowledging the uniqueness of his translation, he says,
If it pleases no one else, it is sufficient that it pleases me. . . . The fact that this little word
means “the” and denotes the accusative case has been demonstrated, authenticated, and
admitted by all Hebraists, Jews and Christians, in all grammars. However, that it could
also mean ad, de, or cum, from, with, or by, has not yet been proved and indeed never
will be proved.

120
Ibid., 324-26. Luther believed that a long time elapsed between Abel’s murder and the birth of Seth.

121
Martin Luther, “Treatise on the Last Words of David,” in LWA, 15.xi.*who is this quoting?*

122
Ibid., 315-19.

34
Thus Enoch and Noah did not walk “with” God, which doesn’t make sense (after all,
where did they go with God?). Instead, they “walked God,” which means they lived a life
in imitation of God.123
1.5.2 John Calvin
John Calvin referred to Gen 3:15 three times in his Institutes of the Christian
Religion. Under the section “Assurance of Victory” in the chapter “The Knowledge of
God the Creator,” he said that since the promise of crushing Satan’s head belongs to all
believers, they may be wounded but never conquered or overwhelmed by him.124 Under
“the witness of the prophets to immortality” in the chapter “The Knowledge of God the
Redeemer” (2.10.20), he calls Gen 3:15 the “first promise of salvation” which “glowed
like a feeble spark” and grew in the progress of revelation until “Christ, the Sun of
Righteousness, fully illumined the whole earth.”125 In chap. 13, under “Against the
opponents of Christ’s true manhood” (2.13.2) he says of Gen 3:15:
For the statement there concerns not only Christ but the whole of mankind. Since we
must acquire victory through Christ, God declares in general terms that the woman’s
offspring is to prevail over the devil. Hence it follows that Christ was begotten of
mankind, for in addressing Eve it was God’s intention to raise her hope that she should
126
not be overwhelmed with despair.
In his Genesis commentary he begins by interpreting Gen 3:15 naturalistically: “I
interpret this simply to mean that there should always be the hostile strife between the
human race and serpents, which is now apparent; for, by a secret feeling of nature, man
abhors them.127 Since in v. 14 Calvin has identified the snake as merely the instrument of
the devil, who is the primary object of the curse, and since he identifies Satan as the one
whose head is to be crushed (see below), the apparent naturalistic interpretation of Gen
3:15 which he gives here must apply only to the enmity portion of the curse. He had
applied a similar method (identifying different portions of the verse as being addressed to
different parties) in interpreting v. 14: “God so addresses the serpent that the last clause
belongs to the devil.”128 The sight of the serpent reminds us of the fall, but mercy is
evident in that the serpent can only reach our heel while his head is subject to wounds:
For in the terms head and heel there is a distinction between the superior and the inferior.
And thus God leaves some remains of dominion to man; because he so places the mutual

123
Ibid., 319-21, 323. Even in Gen 39:2, (the Lord was with Joseph) ‫ את‬is the sign of the accusative, though
Luther admitted one had to use “with” in the German translation.

124
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.14.18 (LCC, 20.177).

125
Ibid., 446.

126
Ibid., 478.

127
John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses, Called Genesis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1948), 167.

128
Ibid, 166.

35
 disposition to injure each other, that yet their condition should not be equal, but man
129
should be superior in the conflict.
Calvin goes on to say that Jerome was wrong to translate ‫ שּוף‬in two different ways; the
word means the same thing both times (bruise, or strike), the difference being related
only to the head and heel. The word was chosen, however, to allude to the name of the
serpent, which is called in Hebrew ‫שפיפון‬. But here there is a transition from the snake to
the real author of the mischief, Satan; Calvin calls this an anagogy. If only the serpent
were being addressed, then men would remain slaves of Satan, who would trample on
their heads.
Wherefore, that God might revive the fainting minds of men, and restore them when
oppressed by despair, it became necessary to promise them, in their posterity, victory
over Satan, through whose wiles they had been ruined. This, then, was the only salutary
medicine which could recover the lost, and restore life to the dead. I therefore conclude,
that God here chiefly assails Satan under the name of the serpent, and hurls against him
the lightning of his judgment. This he does for a two-fold reason: first, that men may
learn to beware of Satan as of a most deadly enemy; then, that they may contend against
130
him with the assured confidence of victory.
Calvin goes on to say that while the majority of mankind follow Satan, still, Satan is their
enemy. The mention of enmity between the respective offspring means that the conflict is
to all generations, as widely as the human race is propagated. The woman is mentioned,
since she was the one deceived, and had particular need of consolation. 131 Calvin may be
here contradicting his earlier statement that the enmity was “simply” that which exists
between men and snakes; now he places Satan in the enmity portion of the passage as
well.
Next Calvin expounds “It shall bruise,” beginning with a condemnation of the Vg
and those who blindly followed it and used it; “a profane exposition of it has been
invented, by applying to the mother of Christ what is said concerning her seed.” 132 Calvin
here writes as if he accepts both the mariological identification of the woman, and the
christological-individual identification of her seed (i.e., the Lutheran interpretation).
However we must reject this interpretation of Calvin (perhaps he quoted the Lutheran
criticism of the Vg without thinking about the fact that he disagreed with the Lutheran
interpretation of Gen 3:15), for he has just identified the woman as Eve, and he goes on
to explicitly reject the individual interpretation:
other interpreters take the seed for Christ, without controversy; as if it were said, that
some one would arise from the seed of the woman who should wound the serpent’s head.
Gladly would I give my suffrage in support of their opinion, but that I regard the word
seed as too violently distorted by them; for who will concede that a collective noun is to

129
Ibid., 167-68.

130
Ibid., 168-69. In a note the editor explains the anagogy: “The meaning of Calvin is, that there was an
intentional transition from the serpent to the spiritual being who made use of it” ( n. 5).

131
Ibid., 169-70.

132
Ibid., 170.

36
 be understood of one man only? [*apply to his interpretation of Gal 3:16]*Further, as the
perpetuity of the contest is noted, so victory is promised to the human race through a
continual succession of ages. I explain, therefore, the seed to mean the posterity of the
133
woman generally.
As Luther said the murder of Abel caused Eve to change her interpretation of the
first gospel, so Calvin views history as an aid in interpreting Gen 3:15, to arrive at the
conclusion that the victory must be obtained by one only; Christ: “experience teaches that
not all the sons of Adam by far, arise as conquerors of the devil, we must necessarily
come to one head, that we may find to whom the victory belongs. So Paul, from the seed
of Abraham, leads us to Christ” (Gal 3:16). The sense is then that the human race (the
Church under Christ) would eventually be victorious, and this is what Paul refers to in
Rom 16:20; “the power of bruising Satan is imparted to faithful men, and thus this
blessing is the common property of the whole Church.” 134 Apparently, then, Calvin
identified the woman’s seed in Gen 3:15c (the enmity portion) as the whole human race,
but in Gen 3:15d (the victory portion) limits the race to Christ and those who belong to
him, the Church.
1.5.3 Ulrich Zwingli
In his Commentary on True and False Religion (1525), Zwingli bases an
individual-christological interpretation on the singular pronoun ‫הּוא‬, and the singular
direct object suffix in ‫שּופּנּו‬
ֶ֫ ‫ ְת‬as the translators of the LXX understood “that there was a
mystery underlying these words, and therefore refused to change the gender of the
words” and the singular means that “we see it openly foretold in these words of God that
from the woman sometime should proceed the seed which should bruise the head of the
serpent, i.e., the Devil; and that, on the other hand, the Devil would try to hurt his heel,”
the heel being the human nature of Christ. Zwingli goes on to relate Gen 3:15 to the
promise of a seed to Abraham, as mentioned by Paul in Gal 3:16 (though he does not
mention the argument from the singular).135
In an essay “On Original Sin” (1526), he refers to Gen 3:15 as a promise of
salvation, and, like Luther, interpreted Gen 4:1 and 5:28-29 as evidence of faith in that
promise, and the erroneous expectation of its imminent fulfillment.136
In his Explanations on Genesis (1527), Zwingli identifies the curse of the snake
in v. 14 as entirely the devil’s punishment: as the snake crawls on his belly on the ground
and eats dust, so the devil is cast down to earth, banished from heaven, and tears at mortal
man. He identifies the seed of the serpent as those who listen to and obey the devil (based

133
Ibid.

134
Ibid., 171.

135
Commentary on True and False Religion: Zwingli, ed. Samuel McCauley Jackson and Clarence Nevin
Heller (Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1981), 107-08. The opinion of the LXX translators could be given
weight because of the legend about its inspired origin.

136
Zwingli: On Providence and Other Essays, ed. William John Hinke (Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press,
1983), 17-18. Original date 1526.

37
on John 8:44, “You are of your father the devil”). The serpent’s victory over the woman
will be undone through a woman; through her (singular) seed, which will crush his head
(his power and dominion).137
1.5.4 Summary of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli
While Luther called Gen 3:15 the first gospel, Calvin called it the first promise of
salvation; to the one it was the promise of a savior, to the other a promise of salvation.
Both agreed that it was taken by the Old Testament faithful as a promise, and that it gave
them hope; though Luther went into much more detail about this aspect. Luther identified
the woman as Mary, her seed as Christ (only), but by implication what is said of Christ
applies to the Church as well. Calvin identified the woman as Eve, her seed as mankind
(a meaning which Luther admitted was the expected one) in the case of the enmity
predicted, but, in the case of the victory predicted, Christ and the Church. Both identified
the serpent as merely an instrument which was used by Satan. Neither identified Satan’s
seed, an omission which is particularly striking in Luther, since he commented on the
passage so extensively and gave it such a place of importance in biblical theology. Luther
identified the serpent’s head as the devil’s power, while Calvin said that the head/heel
contrast shows that the woman’s seed will be superior. Both assigned a role to historical
experience (as related in Scripture) to the interpretation of Gen 3:15. With respect to the
nature of the victory, Calvin viewed it as a general promise of victory over the devil
which applies to this life (believers may be wounded but will recover), and specifically to
Christ’s victory over the devil. Luther interpreted the victory christologically, as that
which was accomplished at the cross, and which by implication includes believers. There
the devil was defeated, though his body still quivers with remaining destructive force.
Calvin’s exposition is not entirely consistent, and appears poorly thought out at times, as
when he criticizes the Vg in terms which presuppose a mariological and christological-
individual interpretation, and when he apparently shifts from a naturalistic to a figurative
interpretation of the enmity portion of the curse.
In terms of the application of Gen 3:15 to believers, one wonders what is the
difference between Calvin and Luther that provoked such sharp disagreement between
Lutherans and Calvinists, since Luther’s individual interpretation contained a collective
application to believers, and Calvin identified Christ as the one who would gain victory
for the seed? Ken Schurb pointed out that the difference between them is sharpest when
we consider the question of the knowledge of the first gospel by Adam and Eve:
The contrast between Calvin’s view and Luther’s, as set forth in their respective
commentaries, becomes most apparent when one considers intentionality. Luther thought
God intended in Genesis 3:15 to predict the coming of one person, the Seed. Calvin could
say that God wanted to predict victory, but the details of the report were sketchy. It stood
to reason that God Himself would have to intervene; hence, the verse had an indirect
Messianic character. But Calvin arrived at this Messianic significance in part because of a
lesson learned from the experience of generations who failed in the struggle with Satan.

137
Gallus, Luther, Calvin, und Zwingli, 149-50. The Latin is found in Corpus Reformatorum C, XIII, 28-29
(Farrago annotationeum in Genesim [Tiguri, 1527], 37-38).

38
 Calvin gave no indication that Adam and Eve, who lacked such experience as they stood
138
naked before God, could have come to the Messianic meaning.
Even here, however, Luther had to admit that Adam and Eve did not know everything;
specifically they did not know about the virgin birth. Commenting on this, Luther
sounded much like Calvin: “with this general knowledge they were satisfied, and they
were saved even though they did not know how He would have to be conceived and born.
This had to be reserved for the New Testament as a clearer light.”139
Zwingli’s interpretation of Gen 3:15 adheres closely to that of Luther, while also
introducing a number of unique features (the use of the LXX αὐτός, the relation of the
promise to Gal 3:16, the identification of the serpent’s seed as the wicked, and the
application of v. 14 entirely to the devil), some of which he may have read in the fathers.
We shall see that these contributions are found repeated (some more than others) in the
writings of later Lutheran theologians.
1.6 Other Reformers, and Post-Reformation Interpreters
1.6.1 Philip Melanchthon
In the foreword of his Loci Communes (1555), Melanchthon said that after the
Fall Adam and Eve were “consoled with the promise of God’s Son: ‘the seed of the
woman will tread on the head of the serpent.’” The giving of this promise marks the
reconstitution of the Church and gave Adam and Eve the knowledge that they were
received by God.140
1.6.2 Heinrich Bullinger
Bullinger’s work Antiquissima fides et vera Religio was translated into English
by Myles Coverdale, who published it as The Old Faith in 1547. In Chapter 3, “The First
and Right Foundation of Our Holy Faith,” Bullinger said that God did not ask the serpent
anything, as he had of Adam and Eve, because the serpent as animal does not speak, and
the serpent as devil had no truth; therefore he rightly cursed him. The first part of the
verse (v. 14) applies to the animal snake; v. 15 to Satan. As the devil used a woman to
destroy men, so God would use a woman to bear a child which would break his head
(power, kingdom, sin, damnation, death), though his human nature would be trodden
down and bitten as he takes on the curse and damnation.141 He then calls this the “first
promise, and the first sure evangelion,” and expounded every word: “seed” is used to
indicate Christ’s true humanity and true body; “of the woman” is given because of the
virgin birth; further, the definite article is used to indicate “some special woman” (who is
then connected with Isa 7:14), rather than the demonstrative which would indicate Eve.
The heel indicates the lowest part of man; here, the flesh of Christ. The seed is individual,

138
Schurb, “Lutheran-Calvinist Conflict,” 31.

139
Lectures on Genesis, Chapters 1-5 (LWA, 1.194).

140
Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine, ed. Clyde L. Manschreck (New York: Oxford University, 1965),
xlvi-xlvii.

141
Writings and Translations of Myles Coverdale, Bishop of Exeter; The Old Faith, ed. George Pearson;
(The Parker Society Edition; Cambridge: The University Press, 1854), 19-20.

39
but what is spoken of him is also true of Christians with respect both to the enmity and
the victory. “Yet shall he be trodden down through Christ and his faithful” (he then
quotes Rom 16:20). Bullinger then makes an application similar to the moral allegory of
Augustine and others.142
In the next chapter, “Of the First Faithful Christian, Adam and Eve,” he explains
the enmity again, almost as if he held to a collective interpretation of the seed; “that is, he
would endue us, which are the seed, that is to say, the children of Adam, if we believe,
with another heart and power; that we might become enemies unto the devil’s works,
resist his suggestion, and hold ourselves fast by the blessed Seed.” Like Luther, Bullinger
interpreted the renaming of Adam’s wife as evidence of his faith in the first Gospel.143
1.6.3 Dietrich Philips
In his Enchiridion, which became to Mennonitism what Melanchthon’s Loci
communes became to Lutheranism, Philips said that the church began in heaven with the
angels, where also the first falling away took place; Adam and Eve’s fall was therefore
the second, and was induced by the first. Gen 3:15 is “the first restoration of corrupted
man, and the renewal of him in the divine image.” The woman’s seed is principally Jesus
Christ, who is called such because he is according to the flesh, born of a woman, and who
is “the Crusher and Conqueror of the crooked old serpent.” Gen 3:15 “was the first
preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” which led to the rebirth of Adam and Eve.144
Up to this point Philips sounds almost thoroughly Lutheran. He goes on,
however, to say that even though “Jesus is the true promised seed of the woman,” “all
believers are the seed of the spiritual Eve, just as the unbelievers are the seed of the
crooked old serpent, and that in a spiritual sense,” and the first manifestation of the
enmity between them is the murder of Abel by Cain, a fact which “is a clear
representation and testimony that from that time on there were two kinds of people ... on
earth, namely, ... God’s children and the devil’s children, God’s congregation and the
synagogue or assembly ... of Satan.” These two camps continued until the flood, when all
flesh except Noah and his family was annihilated. The congregation of Satan began
again, however, after the flood, in Ham, and the conflict was renewed, and continues to
this day.145
1.6.4 English Reformers
The influence of Luther, Zwingli, and Bullinger is evident in the English
reformation, where we see a consistently individual christological interpretation of the
woman’s seed in the first gospel. William Tyndale said “Christ is this woman’s seed: he
it is that hath trodden under foot the devil’s head, that is to say, sin, death, hell, and all his
142
Ibid., 21-23; “All they which put their trust in the blessed Seed, take upon them the kind of the Seed, and
hate the kind of the serpent, that is to say, sin and blasphemy” (p. 23).

143
Ibid., 24-25.

144
Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers: Documents Illustrative of the Radical Reformation, ed. George
Hunston Williams (LCC, Ichthus Edition; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957), 228-30.

145
Ibid., 230-33.

40
power.”146 He went on to connect Gen 3:15 with Gen 22:18 and Gal 3:16. Thomas Becon
said “for what other thing is it to tread down the head of the serpent, than to vanquish and
subdue him, to make his power frustrate and of no strength, yea, and to set those again at
liberty which before were his bond prisoners?” The effect of the promise on those who
believed was that “so soon as they believed [they] were delivered out of captivity, set at
liberty again, and made the sons of God through the faith that they had in God’s
promise.”147 John Hooper followed the individual-christological interpretation of Gen
3:15 and used the verse to prove that Christ took his humanity from the substance of a
woman, that Mary was not simply a vehicle for bringing him into the world.148
A catechism produced under King Edward VI, representing the sense of the
Church of England, asks what hope had Adam and Eve after they fell, for which the
answer is: “He then cursed the serpent, threatening him, that the time should one day
come, when the Seed of the woman should break his head.” The serpent’s head is the
tyranny of the devil; the woman’s seed, as indicated in Gal 3:16, is Jesus Christ. 149
Similar words are found in Nowell’s Catechism, ca. 1570, the official catechism of the
Anglican Church under Queen Elizabeth and used to assist with her plans of reform. The
curse on the serpent is the hope of salvation and deliverance, the seed is Jesus Christ
alone, the serpent’s head has the venom and represents the devil’s tyranny, etc. 150
James Pilkington in a commentary on Nehemiah 4:11 compared the actions of
Nehemiah’s opponents to the seed of the serpent, without actually calling them such. He
said they had two of the properties of the serpent: first, they craftily watch for an
opportunity to overthrow man; secondly, they are murderers.151
1.6.5 Lutheran Interpretation after Luther

146
“A Pathway into the Holy Scripture,” Doctrinal Treatises and Introduction to Different Portions of the
Holy Scriptures, ed. Henry Walter (The Parker Society Edition; Cambridge: The University Press, 1848), 10.

147
“David’s Harp,” The Early Works of Thomas Becon, Being the Treatises Published by Him in the reign of
King Henry VIII, ed. John Ayre (The Parker Society Edition; Cambridge: The University Press, 1843), 296.
He said similar things in “The New-Year’s Gift,” and asked, “who is this seed of the woman? Is it not Jesus
Christ, the gift of God?” (ibid., 313).

148
“A Lesson of the Incarnation of Christ;” Later Writings of Bishop Hooper Together With His Letters and
Other Pieces, ed. Charles Nevinson (The Parker Society Edition; Cambridge: The University Press, 1852), 5-
6.

149
“A Short Catechism;” The Two Liturgies, A.D. 1549, and A.D. 1552: With Other Documents Set Forth in
the Reign of King Edward VI, ed. Joseph Ketley (The Parker Society Edition; Cambridge: The University
Press, 1844), xi, 503.

150
Alexander Nowell, A Catechism Written in Latin, ed. G. E. Corrie (The Parker Society Edition;
Cambridge: The University Press, 1853), vii, 150-51.

151
An Exposition Upon Nehemiah; The Works of James Pilkington, ed. James Scholefield (The Parker
Society Edition; Cambridge: The University Press, 1842), 418-19.

41
 Gallus provided quotes or summaries (translated into German) of some seventy
Lutheran theologians in his second volume on early Lutheran interpretation, which covers
the time from Luther to the enlightenment. Another 23 authors are catalogued whose
writings on Gen 3:15 were not long enough to be worth considering.152 In these writings,
many of Luther’s themes recur repeatedly, often amplified with Zwingli’s contributions,
and occasionally, with those of the Calvinist David Pareus: (1) The importance of Gen
3:15 as the first gospel, relating it to other promise passages in Genesis; and especially
the argument that if it were not a gospel, it would lead to the absurd result that Adam and
Eve, and the whole world before Abraham would not have had any gospel to believe in
and be saved by. E.g., “Gott ist der erste Prophet und Evangelist. Diese Weissagung ist
der Ursprung und die Quelle aller Weissagungen, und alle Propheten sind Ausleger dieser
Weissagung.”153 “Gen 3, 15 ist wie ein unerschöpfliches Meer, aus dem alle Flüsse
hervorquellen (Eccl 1, 7); so strömen aus dieser Verheißung alle Glaubenslehren hervor,
die in den Hl. Schriften enthalten sind.”154 That Gen 3:15 is a proto-gospel is proved:
Aus den absurden Dingen, die man folgern müßte, wenn dies nicht eine Verheißung vom
Messias wäre. Einesteils hätten dann weder die Stammeltern noch die Väter des ersten
Zeitalters vor der Sintflut irgendein von Moses berichtetes offensichtliches Evangelium
gehabt, andernteils wäre, obschon zwar Adam und Eva und natürlich auch der Schlange
von Gott Strafe angekündigt wurde, über Satan, den Urheber der verhängnisvollen
155
Verführung, keine Strafe verhängt worden. Beides ist jedoch ganz absurd.
Points (2) through (5) are dependent on (1): (2) The seed of the woman is Christ and only
Christ. Gal 3:16 is repeatedly used to prove this, as well as the arguments used by Luther,
and sometimes the reading of the LXX. Another argument was made from Gen 3:15 itself:
the woman’s seed is in combat with an individual (the devil), and therefore must be an
individual.156 Johann Müller said that no man would be so foolish as to intentionally step
on a snake’s head (a suicidal act); only Christ would do this, knowing he would die. 157
Though the seed of the woman is Christ alone, various interpreters made an application
of the verse (as Luther had done) to all believers.158 (3) The virgin birth of Christ is
152
Gallus, Altlutheranischen Schriftauslegung II, 163.

153
Ibid., 24, from Petrus Becker (Artopoeus), Ex libro Geneseos (Basileae, 1546), 291.

154
Ibid., 82, from Thomas Lang(ius), ΠΡΩΤΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ sive Orthodoxa et dilucida enodatio Dicti Gen.
III. vers. 15 (Wittebergae, 1651), 244.

155
Ibid., 104, from Michael Walther, Officina Biblica noviter adaperta (Wittebergae, 1668), 590.

156
Ibid., 79-80, 102, from Lorenz Rhetius, Evangelium Primum . . . De Semine Mulieris (Gedani, 1638), 19,
n. 40; and Johann Kunad, Disputatio Theologica de Inimicitiis inter Serpentum et Mulierem, ad Locum
Classicum Gen 3, 15 adornata (Lipsiae, 1662), 13.

157
Ibid., 132, from Johann Müller, Judaismus oder Jüdenthum, das ist ausführlicher Bericht von des
jüdischen Volks Unglauben, Blindheit und Verstockung (Hamburg, 1707), 86.

158
Ibid., 51-52, 60-62, 72.

42
implied in the fact that the seed is the woman’s. (4) The incarnation of God in the
woman’s seed is implied by the fact that mere humanity is not able to defeat the devil.
While Luther thought that his interpretation of Gen 4:1 might please no one else, his
successors were quite pleased with it, and used it to show that Eve understood that the
woman’s seed would be divine. Though no one followed Luther in arguing that te' was
always the sign of the accusative and could not mean “with,” many thought that it was
the accusative marker in Eve’s statement in Gen 4:1, and Johann Müller argued
extensively that it could not mean “with” in Gen 4:1 since it is used with an active verb,
and always marks the accusative when it stands between two nouns, and since it marks
the accusative eight other times in the context; not to mention the fact that Tg. Pseudo-
Jonathan took it as accusative. Additionally, “with the help of” would be expressed with
the preposition ‫ ְל‬.159 (5) Gen 3:15 predicts the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ.
(6) Calvin’s collective interpretation is attacked as against the apostles and orthodoxy and
Calvin is called a judaizer or a synagogue employee (see next section). (7) While Luther
in his second phase did not identify the seed of the serpent, his successors identified it
variously, using the same three alternatives as were found in the Church fathers: the
demons under Satan,160 or (with Zwingli), wicked people,161 or both.162
1.6.6 Lutheran Criticisms of Calvin
In 1593 the Lutheran Aegidius Hunnius published a polemic Calvinus Judaizans
(Calvin the Judaizer) against Calvin’s expositions of key passages such as Gen 3:15
which Hunnius thought drastically weakened the Christian hermeneutical position as
opposed to that of Arians and Jews, particularly in the Old Testament. Calvinist David
Pareus defended Calvin then and in his 1609 commentary on Genesis (Hunnius died in
1603), and Hunnius responded to Pareus’s initial defense with Antipareus in 1594 and
Antipareus Alter in 1599.163 Hunnius stressed that the Calvinist position would imply that
the ancient world had no clear gospel, and that Calvin’s view actually supported the Jews,
who interpreted the passage in a strictly naturalistic sense. Pareus affirmed the
naturalistic sense in the first part of v. 15, but then indicated that the clue to an individual
interpretation for the second part of v. 15, and the clue that the literal meaning was not all
that was intended, was found in the singular pronoun “he” in Gen 3:15d. Hunnius
sarcastically criticized Calvin for contradicting Gal 3:16: “Listen, apostle Paul, after so
many years one has been found in the midst of the Christian Church who might drive a

159
Ibid., 135-36 from Müller, Judaismus oder Jüdenthum, 102-04.

160
Ibid., 22, 90, 95.

161
Ibid., 31, 63, 66, 106, 114.

162
Ibid., 128.

163
Schurb, “Lutheran-Calvinist Conflict,” 31. Schurb’s sources are Aegidus Hunnius, Calvinus Judaizans,
Opera Latina, Tomus Secundus (Frankfurt-am-Main: Impensis Iohan. Iacobi Porsij Bibliopolae, 1608), col.
636f; David Pareus, Commentarius in Genesin, Opera Theologica Exegetica, Pars Secunda (Frankfurt: John
Rose, 1647).

43
note of absurdity against your exposition, in which you most clearly explain the
collective noun ‘seed’ concerning the one man Jesus Christ.” Pareus responded that
“seed” was frequently a collective and in fact the “seed of the serpent” was a collective
for demons and the wicked (John 8:44; 1 John 3:8, 10), and this seed is opposed to the
woman’s seed; the woman’s seed consists of those who are not of the serpent’s seed
(otherwise there would be no enmity after Eve until Christ); only in the second part of the
verse does seed denote a particular individual from that seed. Here Pareus disagrees with
Calvin, by saying that the elect only are the woman’s seed, and in taking the enmity
beyond the naturalistic interpretation. Pareus appears to be the first interpreter to
explicitly identify the woman’s seed in Gen 3:15a-c as the Church, and in Gen 3:15d-e as
Christ alone (though such a view would solve some apparent contradictions in the fathers,
no one stated it explicitly). Pareus gave 8 reasons for the singular interpretation: (1) the
use of the pronoun “he” instead of the repetition of “her seed;” (2) the LXX reading; (3)
the opponent in Gen 3:15d-e is an individual; (4) the verse suggests individual combat;
(5) divine strength is required to crush Satan’s reign; (6) Christ is spoken of as “seed” in
Gal 3:16 and 1 Chr 17:11 (which does not refer to Solomon); (7) Ps 110:6; 68:22 (21)
show that it is Christ who breaks the power of Satan; (8) the New Testament shows the
fulfillment of the promise in Christ alone (1 John 3:8, John 12:31; 14:30, Luke 10:18, 1
Cor 15:54-55, Heb 2:14, Rev 20:2). Pareus further defended Calvin against the charge of
judaizing by pointing to many of the fathers who interpreted the seed collectively, and
differentiating Calvin’s position from that of the Jews, who obviously disagreed that the
verse leads (by logic and experience) to Christ. He also pointed to Luther’s own
admission that the seed means all men in general. Pareus went on to say that though the
woman’s seed in the second part of the curse is Christ, all Christians are involved in the
victory described there, appealing to the relationship between Christ and the Church, the
fact that Christ has seed (Isa 53:10), and Rom 16:20. 164 Schurb notes that Hunnius
considered Gal 3:16 of decisive weight: “the testimony of Galatians 3:16 settled the
matter for him.” He answered the appeal to Rom 16:20 by saying that there it says God
would subdue Satan, not the Church.165
Pareus’s defense of Calvin did not stop others after Hunnius from attacking both
of them along the same lines. Gallus notes that Albert Grawer says Pareus’s book
defending Calvin’s orthodoxy is full of contradictions, and that Calvin contradicts all
orthodox theologians, not to mention Paul and Moses; Christophorus Helvicus says
Calvin’s opinion that the seed is collective contradicts Gal 3:16, and is disproved by the
case of Seth in Gen 4:25; Daniel Cramer likewise took Gal 3:16 as a sufficient argument
against Calvin; Justus Feuerborn cites Beza and Masson as defending Calvin’s view,
Martyr and Bucanus as having been persuaded by Hunnius; Heinrich Friedlieb lumps
Calvin in with Socinians, Jews, and papists as those who distort the excellent testimony
of Gen 3:15, and says Calvin almost sounds like a synagogue employee; B. Johann
Hülsemann said that the best Calvinists (Junius, Tremellius, Pelargus, Pareus, Rivetus)
164
Schurb, “Lutheran-Calvinist Conflict,” 33-38; Hunnius, Calvinus, col. 654-55. Pareus, Commentarius,
102-04.

165
Schurb, “Lutheran-Calvinist Conflict,” 41-42.

44
and the Belgians take the literal sense as an individual; Michael Walther similarly says
that this prophecy has been abused by those outside the Church (the Jews) and inside
(certain fathers, popes, and the judaizing Calvin, who understands Scripture as if he was
synagogue trained, and whose argumentation is foolish and absurd), and admits that a
proper application of Gen 3:15 sees the Church involved in the enmity, though this is not
the proper sense of Scripture; and August Pfeiffer argued against the literal interpretation
of the enmity by Cornelius a Lapide, Calvin, Mercerus, Grotius, et al.166
1.6.7 Lutheran Controversies with Jewish Scholars
When Luther paraphrases the serpent’s attack on the heel as “bite” rather than
“crush,” he may be indebted to Rashi, who so translated it. By and large, the Lutherans’
dealings with the Jews were polemical, and they were not sympathetic with the
naturalistic approach of the Rabbis. Johann Müller (d. 1725) listed a number of rabbinic
arguments against the messianic sense of Gen 3:15, which I have found in Gallus. A.
Ezra says that a natural snake must be in view since the devil does not crawl on his belly,
to which Müller replies that the natural snake is a mere tool of the devil, and the natural
snake’s punishment is a symbol of the devil’s punishment. He mentioned elsewhere that a
mere snake is an unreasoning animal, which cannot talk, and that this snake talks of
divine matters and outwits people made in God’s image. Further, the snake as mere
animal was a creature under man’s dominion and was created good (Gen 1:28), and
therefore could not by itself oppose man and lead him into evil. Also, for leading the
human race into damnation, crawling on the belly and eating dust are a very small
punishment. Finally, the devil is called a snake and sin is called snake’s poison often in
the Old Testament. Müller also says that various Rabbis have admitted that Satan spoke
through the snake. Isaac ben Abraham says that if Gen 3:15 applied to Christ, Christ
should not have been killed instead of the devil, who remains very much alive. Müller
said that the crushing of the serpent’s head cannot be taken literally since the devil is a
spirit; it means that his empire and force are taken away. The death of Jesus therefore was
not the crushing of Jesus’ head, because he lives and has taken away the devil’s power.
Lusitanus wrote that if it were the devil who deceived Eve, Moses would not have
ascribed it to the snake. Müller responds that there are many things Moses does not
mention, such as the creation of the angels, or their fall. Further, Moses writes as an
historian, not an interpreter, and describes things from the point of view of Eve, who did
not know that the devil was speaking through the snake. Even Paul, who certainly knew
that the devil was involved, says the serpent deceived Eve (2 Cor 11:3). Lusitanus further
wrote that the devil does not have offspring since he is spiritual, therefore the devil
cannot be in view. Müller responded that the devil does not have descendants; seed here
indicates those who are morally like the devil (demons). Lusitanus further said that if it
was really the devil who deceived Eve, then he would have been punished instead of the
snake. Müller responds again that what is said to the natural snake in v. 15 is figurative
for the devil’s punishment. Finally, Müller mentions a general Jewish objection that
“seed” or even “seed of the woman” does not designate anything extraordinary, citing
Gen 4:25 (Seth), and Isa 57:3 (adulterous seed). Müller responds that Seth is in fact a

166
Gallus, Altlutheranischen Schriftauslegung II, 54, 59, 69, 84, 99-100, 101, 117-18, 126.

45
woman’s seed, but the woman is married so nothing is remarkable; the same does not
apply to Mary; further, “we do not take our proof only and exclusively from the little
word seed, but from the whole text and all the circumstances of the saying about the
‘woman’s seed.’”167
Müller also notes that there was a large disagreement with the Jews over Gen 4:1,
and it was in this context that Müller listed his arguments (mentioned above) for why ‫את‬
must be taken as the sign of the accusative in Gen 4:1. Müller says a Rabbi agreed with
him in private conversation that the accusative was the correct reading, but said that Eve
was quite wrong in this interpretation.168
1.6.8 Other Non-Lutheran Interpreters, 16th and 17th Centuries
Of the many listed by Gallus, two will be mentioned here because of unique
contributions to the debate. Samuel Maresius (d. 1673), German Reformed theologian,
called Gen 3:15 a “covenant of grace” (der Bund der Gnade) which was put in place
immediately after the fall. Christ is the seed of the woman, who comes into the world as a
result of this promise, not as a result of the blessing given in Gen 1:28.169
Wilhelm Momma (d. 1677), 17th century German Calvinist theologian, said the
snake was a real snake, but something more, since it is similar to God, knowing about
good and evil, and life and death; it is hateful and hostile to God, and of course snakes
cannot talk. His seed refers to both demons and wicked men (Rev 12:7; Matt 25:41). The
woman’s seed, like the serpent’s, is collective, and refers to those who are born of God
(John 1:13). The seed which crushes the serpent’s head, however, must be divine, since
his work is divine. So the whole woman’s seed includes Christ and those saved by him. It
follows, if he is to free us from sin and death, he must himself be free from sin, therefore
born of a virgin.170
1.6.9 Summary of Post-Reformation History of Interpretation
Based on the views of Luther and Zwingli, as opposed to Calvin, it was perhaps
predictable that the individual-christological interpretation of Gen 3:15 would become
dominant in Protestantism, although as we have seen, the collective interpretation
continued to be found. The view of Pareus may be seen as something of a synthesis of
these two views, although it was a synthesis that did not satisfy Lutherans, who continued
to argue against Calvin’s orthodoxy with respect to his Old Testament interpretation; thus
167
“Nehmen wir unseren Beweis nicht einzig und allein aus dem Wörtchen Same, sondern aus dem ganzen
Text und allen Umständen desselben, wo vom „Weibessamen“ die Rede ist;” Gallus, Altlutheranischen
Schriftauslegung II, 129-34, from Müller, Judaismus oder Jüdenthum, 78-90. For R. Isaac ben Abraham
Müller cites the source as Chissuk Haemuna lib. 1. cap. 21, and for Rabbi Lusitanus as Colloqu. Mittelburg.
fol. 148.

168
Gallus, Altlutheranischen Schriftauslegung II, 130, 134-37; Müller, Judaismus oder Jüdenthum, 81, 100-
05.

169
Ibid., 16; from Samuel maresius, Systema theologicum cum annotationibus (Groningae, 1673), 277, 488-
89.

170
Ibid., 19-20; from Wilhelm Momma, De varia conditione et Statu Ecclesiae Dei sub Triplici Oeconomia;
Patriarchum, ac Testamenti Veteris, et denique Novi, Tomus Prior (Amstelodami, 1683), 10-13.

46
the interpretation of Gen 3:15 was made an issue of loyalty to the gospel. While both of
these interpretations were found in the fathers, we did not see any argument over them. In
the post-Reformation period, we see such arguments are a significant part of the
discussion. Meanwhile, for better or worse, some of the interpretations found in the
fathers are no longer found in the sons of the Reformers. Surprisingly, the connection
between the dragon of Revelation and the Old Testament dragon figure was not followed
up on. Little emphasis was placed on the Old Testament understanding and application of
Gen 3:15, even by those who maintained a collective interpretation.
Luther should receive the credit (or blame) for introducing debate over the
interpretation of Gen 3:15 and for focusing that debate on some issues to the exclusion of
others, such as the identity of the serpent’s seed. While Luther magnified the importance
of Gen 3:15 more than any interpreter before him, the only Old Testament role he saw for
it was as an object of faith; only in the New Testament was there fulfillment. Ironically,
the focus on Luther’s interpretation may have contributed to the abandonment of Gen
3:15 as anything but a nature aetiology.
1.7 Transition From Orthodoxy to Rationalism
1.7.1 Introduction
Gallus traces the shift from a figurative theological interpretation to a naturalistic
interpretation of the curse on the serpent to the rationalism which prevailed more and
more from the time of the enlightenment.171 With rationalism came the idea that the Bible
was the product of human endeavor rather than divine revelation, and was to be studied
as such; similarly, religion was an expression of human thought, to be studied as a
sociological phenomenon. The New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament was
not considered authoritative, and Moses was replaced by the anonymous Yahwist as the
author of the passage we are considering (originally an independent tale, then part of J,
before being part of Genesis). Dogmatic exegesis was replaced by scientific exegesis; it
follows that the views of those writing in the past (including the apostles) were pre-
scientific, and their arguments not worthy of great attention; those maintaining such
arguments today are historical curiosities.
While Gallus is probably correct in his assessment of rationalism’s effect on
biblical interpretation, we will see that interpreters of this period did not necessarily reject
the New Testament interpretation of Gen 3:15; in many cases they appealed to the lack of
New Testament citation of Gen 3:15 as evidence against its significance. In part, then,
they were reacting against Lutheran orthodoxy, claiming to interpret Scripture properly.
Our procedure here will be to summarize a few of these 18th and 19th century
theologians, again with Gallus as primary source, then move into the next period
beginning with Hengstenberg. Although these names are largely forgotten, their
arguments are cited here because of our interest in the debate over the determination of
figurative meaning in Scripture, and a desire to see what arguments were successful in
changing the predominant interpretation of Gen 3:15. Though there continued to be
defenders of the Lutheran or Calvinist positions, only a few will be listed here.
1.7.2 From Semler to Schumann

171
Gallus, Gen 3, 15 in der evangelischen Schriftauslegung, 112-13.

47
 Johann Semler (d. 1791) expressed doubts that Gen 3:15 referred to Christ
because neither Christ nor Paul refer to it; Paul especially in Romans 5 should have made
some mention of it if it had something to do with the beginnings of God’s grace, or in
Galatians 3 where he speaks much of Abraham’s seed, but not the woman’s. Gen 3:15
has the quality of Protoevangelium only by venerable repetition of many interpreters of
the past, not by investigation of the literal and historical sense.172
Gotthilf Zachariä, according to Gallus composer of the first Biblical Theology,
noted that he was on dangerous ground departing from the usual explanation of Gen 3:15,
but said that it is certain that God speaks there only of that which is visible and pertains to
earthly life. The idea of the devil being in the snake is completely unproven and
improbable, an arbitrary explanation. The woman can be no other than Eve. The seed of
the serpent cannot be demons because they are not produced by any generation process; it
cannot be the wicked among men, because although such are called children of Satan,
they are never called his seed. The interpretation of the snake’s attack as the crucifixion
of Jesus is likewise completely arbitrary, without exegetical foundation. Gen 3:15 has no
theological consequences, as evidenced by the fact that it is not quoted in the New
Testament. There are plenty of other messianic predictions in the Old Testament which
give comfort and hope – this is not one of them. The argument that a naturalistic
interpretation would make the passage insignificant is not decisive – the interpreter’s task
is to find out what God said, not what he should have said. Eve knows nothing about a
devil, and only visible things are mentioned, so how can the conclusion that this is a
messianic saying be right? The arguments must be determinative, not the number and
respect of interpreters on one side.
Gen 3:15 does give some general hope and consolation, because God shows his
indignation at the cause of human misfortune, and punishes it. But it could only be a first
gospel if God had given a clear explanation of Gen 3:15 to Adam and Eve. Such would
be the subject of a worthy essay, but Zachariä is unable to undertake it.173
Johann Döderlein said that the oldest prophecy is in Gen 22:18, and it is neither
explicit or clear. There is no trace of a messianic reference in Gen 3:15. He objects that
there is no knowledge of evil spirits in the mosaic tradition, and that the woman’s seed
cannot be just one if opposed to the collective serpent’s seed.174
Johann Crüger (d. 1800) preferred not to decide whether the snake refers here to
the devil. He said that the interpretation of Gen 3:15 as a protoevangelium is ingenious

172
Gallus, Gen 3, 15 in der evangelischen Schriftauslegung, 28; from Johann Salomon Semler, Institutio ad
Doctrinam Christianum: liberaliter discenduam Auditorum usui destinata (Halae Magdeburgicae, 1774),
369-70.

173
Ibid., 28-32; from Gotthilf Traugott Zachariä, Biblische Theologie: oder Untersuchung des biblischen
Grundes der vornehmsten theologischen Lehren, zweiter Teil (Tübingen, 1780), 261-279.

174
Ibid., 33; from Johann Christoph Döderlein (d. 1792), Institutio Christiani in captibus religionis nostris
temporibus accomodata, Pars Posterior (Norinbergae et Altdorf, 1787), 183-84.

48
and edifying, but that Moses thought this way is as improbable as that Virgil and the
Sibylines prophesied of Christ.175
Wilhelm Hufnagel (d. 1830) said that the idea of an evil spirit in Genesis 3 comes
from ignorance of the ancient world – such ideas could only have come to Israelites from
the time of their exile. It is not legitimate to look for the first gospel in Gen 3:15: no
prophet, evangelist, or apostle, nor Jesus himself appeals to Gen 3:15.176
Daniel von Cölln (d. 1833) called Genesis 3 a myth, as it contains a typical
feature of myths, a talking animal. The purpose of the story is to prevent snake worship;
there is no view of an evil spirit here, since the doctrine of Satan is unknown in the time
of Moses. It exercises no further influence on Hebrew religion.177
Christian Kühnöl (d. 1841) noted that the older explanation of Gen 3:15 as
protoevangelium was an arbitrary, allegorical explanation by well meaning theologians;
the free thinking recently undertaken has raised insoluble difficulties with such an
explanation. First, that the devil is the tempter cannot be proven; Paul says the snake
seduced Eve (2 Cor 11:3); Rev 12:9 is not a conclusive reference to Genesis 3; John 8:44
only talks of the mentality (not the deeds) of the devil, and how the persecutors of Jesus
have the same mentality. Secondly, though seed can refer to an individual, it does not
follow that such is the case here. The view of the seed of the serpent as wicked men
requires a double meaning for seed (once real, once unreal), and is against all rules of
exegesis. The seed of the serpent is the brood of snakes, and the woman’s seed must
likewise be a collective. Finally, there is no New Testament verification of Gen 3:15 as a
Protoevangelium.178
Friedrich Schröder said that Adam and Eve initially only knew of the tool (the
snake), not the author of the temptation. They could only have grasped the outer shell of
this prophecy (which has the quality of a riddle), not the kernel, which would only speak
of a victory over an animal. But their hearts would longingly be led to higher, spiritual
blessings, and experience and further meditation would lead them away from the
naturalistic interpretation to an understanding of the promised triumph over the empire of
darkness.179
Heinrich Hävernick (d. 1845) said others had erred either by finding too much or
too little in Gen 3:15. The woman’s seed is not an individual but a line of descent in

175
Ibid., 34; from Johann Daniel Crüger, Real-Übersetzung der Eilf ersten Capital des Ersten Buchs Mose
(Berlin, 1784), 81-82, 92.

176
Ibid., 36; from Wilhelm Friedrich Hufnagel, Handbuch der biblischen Theologie, Zweiter Teil (Erlangen,
1789), 165-71.

177
Ibid., 37; from Daniel Georg Konrad von Cölln, Biblische Theologie: Erster Band, Der Sündenfall (ed. D.
Schulz; Leipzig, 1836), 225-231.

178
Ibid., 39-40; from Christian Gottlieb Kühnöl, Messianische Weissagungen des Alten Testamentes
(Leipzig, 1792), 1-4.

179
Ibid., 40-42; from Friedrich Wilhelm Julius Schröder, Das erste Buch Mose (Berlin, 1844), 51-56.

49
Genesis which leads to the accomplishment of God’s goals. The two seeds are both parts
of humanity; they are ethically determined.180
Ad. Schumann said that the view that a Protoevangelium is contained in Gen
3:15 is a product of theological fantasies which dissolve into nothing before a scientific
investigation. No one discerns the life and work of the Savior in Gen 3:15 unless he has
carried such an understanding in with him; of decisive weight is that the New Testament
nowhere uses Gen 3:15 for such purposes. The Jews knew nothing of demonology until
they learned of it from the Persians during the exile; this knowledge is read back into the
fall narrative to see Satan there. Rev 12:9 only shows that Jews came to believe that
Satan was behind the snake in Genesis 3, but this is not the original sense of the Jehovist.
One must find the historical-grammatical sense of the words, instead of fitting the
passage into dogmatic presuppositions.
1.8 Recent Commentaries and Theological Studies
In this section we deal with commentaries on Genesis, Old Testament theologies
and studies in messianic prophecy, from Hengstenberg to the present.
1.8.1 E. W. Hengstenberg
In the first edition of his Christology of the Old Testament, Hengstenberg
explained why the supernatural cause behind the fall is not mentioned:
The author related the circumstances as they appeared to our first parents, and ignorant as
they were of the invisible cause, they must have ascribed a high degree of cunning to the
serpent from the part which he acted. Moses states this fact with the design of leading his
181
more intelligent readers to a right solution of the problem.
The remaining material is taken from the latest edition. He interpreted the woman’s seed
collectively as all of those who are righteous, but said that the passage was still rightly
called the protevangelium. It is “the first Messianic prediction” which “is also the most
indefinite,” saying that the only thing definite is that victory is promised, with no hint that
it is to be accomplished by an individual. Further information comes as Seth, then
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah are designated as bearers or fulfillers of this promise
(Gen 49:10).182
Hengstenberg takes as his first task the identification of the tempter. He notes
that a real serpent is indicated by the comparison to other animals, but that it is without
scriptural precedent for an animal to act independently (even if other cultures viewed
such a thing as possible) based on the great gulf between humans in God’s image and
animals in Scripture. He further observes that the serpent incites to evil and is himself
evil whereas everything mentioned in the creation account was good, and that in the New
Testament Satan tempted the second Adam, and Jesus refers to Satan as a murderer from

180
Ibid., 43-44; from Heinrich Andreas Christian Hävernick, Vorlesungen über die Theologie des A. T. (ed.
Heinr. Aug. Hahn; 2nd ed; Frankfurt and Erlangen, 1863), 148-49.

181
Ernst William Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary on the Predictions of
the Messiah by the Prophets, (Alexandria: William M. Morrison, 1836), 31.

182
Ernst William Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary on the Messianic
Predictions (2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1956), 1.11-12.

50
the beginning (John 8:44; even if he refers to Cain, the murder could not be attributed to
Satan unless he were the author of the Fall, thus the serpent). And in the curse itself, “a
higher reference to an invisible author of the temptation shines clearly through the lower
reference to the visible one.” He also draws attention to the Persian Zendavesta where the
evil god Ahriman in the form of a serpent induces the first men to rebel against God. 183
The designation of the persecutors of Jesus as “of your father the devil” agrees
with the Zohar Chadash (see § 1.3) which calls the wicked the children of the ancient
serpent, and is therefore evidence that the seed of the serpent is to be identified with
wicked men. Similarly in the parable of the wheat and tares the tares are the children of
the wicked one who sowed them, and Jesus referred to the scribes and Pharisees as
snakes, etc. Hengstenberg argues for the possibility that even in Genesis a demonic spirit
could be presumed to be behind the narrative, based on the antiquity of the book of Job (a
discussion of Satan being in the first chapter), the existence of evil spirits presumed in Isa
13:21; 34:14 (he compares the latter to Rev 18:2), and the figure of the scapegoat
(Leviticus 16). The animal snake, therefore, is “doomed to be the visible representative of
the kingdom of darkness, and of its head, to whom it had served as instrument,” and the
punishments of the animal snake are all tokens of the judgment against Satan, and this
judgment is alluded to in Mic 7:17 (the enemies of Israel will lick dust like the serpent),
Isa 49:23 and Ps 52:9 (the enemies lick the dust of the feet), and Isa 65:25 (the serpent’s
food will still be dust).184
In v. 15, Hengstenberg takes ‫ שּוף‬as from the same root in both cases, with the
sense “crush” in the first use (based on the occurrences in Job 9:7 and Ps 139:11, and on
Rom 16:20); and in the second use with the sense of “destroy,” “annihilate,” a derived
sense which he compares to Jonah 4:7 where an insect (sic, ‫ )תֹו ֶַ֫לעַת‬bite is described with
the word “strike” (‫)וַתַ ְך‬. He agrees with Calvin that “head” and “heel” are “a majus and a
minus” signifying victory for humankind; they “are a second accusative governed by the
verb, whereby the place of the action is more distinctly marked out,” and form a contrast
between a part of the body in which a wound is curable, and a part in which it is not
(there is no allusion to poison in Gen 3:15). Further indications of a victory are: the curse
is strictly on the serpent; if man’s ruin were in view, it would also be a curse on him, but
the curses affecting him do not begin until v. 16; and, the inability to attack a man
anywhere but the heel is part of the serpent’s cursed degradation (v. 14) – if he could still
destroy him, then the curse would be of no effect. “This plain connection between ver. 15
and 14 is evidently overlooked by those who hold the opinion, that this mutual enmity is
pernicious equally to man and serpent.”185
He defends the collective view of the woman’s seed as referring only to the
righteous, rather than all of humanity. True, the wicked are also the offspring of the
woman, physically, but they have excommunicated themselves by aligning themselves

183
Ibid., 14-17.

184
Ibid., 18-25.

185
Ibid., 26-27.

51
with the enemy of humanity, and thus spiritually are the serpent’s offspring, rather than
the woman’s. As an example, in Gen 21:12, Isaac “is declared to be the true descendant
of Abraham,” excluding the other sons (he does not discuss v. 13, where Ishmael is also
said to be Abraham’s seed). Those excluded are the serpent’s offspring, which also
includes Satan’s angels (Matt 25:41 and Rev 12:7-9). That the serpent’s seed is collective
is further evidence that the woman’s seed is a collective, too, as is also indicated in Pal.
Tg. Gen 3:15 and Rom 16:20. The passage still “justly bears the name of the
Protevangelium,” though
it is only in general terms, indeed, that the future victory of the kingdom of light over that
of darkness is foretold, and not the person of the redeemer who should lead in the
warfare, and bestow the strength which should be necessary for maintaining it. Anything
beyond this we are not even entitled to expect at the first beginnings of the human
186
race.
The fact that singular (collective) words are used to describe the woman’s seed “is not a
matter of chance,” however, as it depends on the unity which exists between humanity
and Christ, “who comprehends within Himself the whole human race.” Likewise, the fact
that the seed is said to be of the woman, rather than of man, has deeper significance. 187
1.8.2 K. F. Keil
Keil said that the punishment on the serpent was a symbol of the punishment on
the evil spirit which used it, and that it is meaningless unless we understand that its shape
was altered; he quotes Hengstenberg on the significance for us: “the serpent still keeps
the revolting image of Satan perpetually before the eye” (citing Isa 65:25), in order “to
prefigure the fate of the real tempter, for whom there is no deliverance,” thus the literal
meaning is that there will be enmity between the human race and the serpent race. He
argues for the sense of “crush” in both instances of ‫שּוף‬, saying it is well attested from
Aramaic, Syriac, and Rabbinic usage, and agrees with Rom 16:20. The intent of both
parties is to destroy the other; the difference, following Calvin, Hengstenberg, et al., is
communicated by the head and heel as superior and inferior. Eventual human triumph is
also suggested by Gen 1:28, where Adam is commissioned to rule over the animals. But
this is further evidence that the curse involves a higher being; if it dealt only with an
animal, it would be redundant with Gen 1:28.188
We are not to understand the woman’s seed to be an individual, but rather the
entire human race, but the question of who would crush the serpent’s (Satan’s) head can
only be answered from human history. That history as recorded in Scripture shows a
selection process going on, such as when Seth alone was the seed of Adam and Eve by
which the human race was preserved. The seed which was promised victory,

186
Ibid., 27-29.

187
Ibid., 29-30. This significance cannot be entirely explained by the fact that the woman is mentioned as
the instrument of the curse because she was the first deceived..

188
Karl Friedrich Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: Volume I, The Pentateuch (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 98-100.

52
 was spiritually or ethically determined, and ceased to be co-extensive with physical
descent. This spiritual seed culminated in Christ, in whom the Adamitic family
terminated, henceforward to be renewed by Christ as the second Adam, and restored by
Him to its original exaltation and likeness to God. In this sense Christ is the seed of the
woman, who tramples Satan under His feet, not as an individual, but as the head both of
189
the posterity of the woman which kept the promise and maintained the conflict.
Those who defected from this promise, and who fell under the power of the old serpent,
are regarded as his seed, as shown in Matt 23:33; John 8:44; 1 John 3:8. The virgin birth
is not predicted by Gen 3:15, but the fact that the promise culminates in Christ causes the
prediction of victory to acquire a deeper significance, which is apparent in the virgin
birth.190
1.8.3 J. H. Kurtz
Kurtz saw Gen 3:15 as “the first announcement of salvation upon which faith
might be exercised, or against which unbelief might harden itself.” As it contains a
promise to Adam and Eve, it is “rightly designated as the proto-evangelium or first
announcement of salvation.” Kurtz said that they would have reflected on the things that
had occurred, and concluded that an evil spiritual agency had been at work, and that this
explanation of the fall would have been passed on in tradition along with that of the fall,
though it was “mixed up and defaced” by “heathen legend.” This being’s doom is
pronounced in the curse on the serpent, following “a long protracted contest, the final
issue of which ... is not doubtful” because victory will be secured by the Leader of
humanity for us. The narrative was written down without reference to the evil spiritual
being who was the author of the fall because of a desire
to present it in all its plainness, and without the addition of any gloss or comment. In fact,
the sacred record faithfully presents the recollections and perceptions of the first man as
preserved by tradition. ... So soon as man had commenced to reflect on this event, he
must have gathered from it the existence of a spiritual being opposed to God. For this he
191
did not require the aid of a special instruction or revelation.
In appearance the curse applies only to the natural snake, but in reality, it was
pronounced for our sake, as a promise of victory for all humankind over the author of
sin.192 Kurtz’s interpretation of the woman’s seed is thus collective, as the whole human
race, with a special role for Christ in the victory. He does not identify the seed of the
serpent.
1.8.4 Franz Delitzsch

189
Ibid., 101-102.

190
Ibid., 102.

191
Johann Heinrich Kurtz, History of the Old Covenant (3 vols.; Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blakiston, 1859),
1.xlvi-liii, 79.

192
Ibid., 79.

53
 Gallus calls Delitzsch the last great defender of the individual-christological view
of Gen 3:15.193 Similarly, Westermann says “the last weighty exegesis of Gen 3:15 as
Protoevangelium is that of F. Delitzsch.”194 Westermann uses the term in the Lutheran
sense, and it would not be an accurate characterization in the wider sense, as we shall see.
Delitzsch discusses Gen 3:15 in his Genesis commentary, in Messianic
Prophecies (from lectures delivered in winter 1879-80) and in Old Testament History of
Redemption (from lectures delivered in summer 1880). Delitzsch described three
concentric circles of prediction (Old Testament) and fulfillment (New Testament). In the
prediction phase, there is a narrowing down as the promise first identifies the savior as
Seed of woman, savior of humankind; then Seed of the patriarchs, blessing to the nations;
finally, Seed of David, salvation and glory of Israel. This narrowing down is reversed in
the New Testament as Jesus is first Seed of David, seeking the lost sheep of Israel; then
the Seed of Abraham who is a blessing to the nations through the apostolic preaching;
finally, as Son of man over a new human race. Of Gen 3:15 he says “The entire decree of
redemption is prefigured in this original word of promise so far as we only maintain, that
the serpent as a seducer is intended, and that the curse, which falls upon it, has a
background with reference to the author of the seducement.”195 The human conflict with
snakes is only a “natural picture” of the more significant conflict of humans with Satan
and his seed (the wicked). The promise of victory is first of all for humankind, but since
the victory is primarily over the tempter, “we may consequently infer that the seed of the
woman will culminate in One.” The passage is however a riddle (a figure used by
Philippi) which only begins to be solved in later Israelite prophecy, and is finally solved
in the coming of Christ. Delitzsch argues for the sense of “crush” for ‫ שּוף‬based on the use
of the double accusative, which he says is only used for “verbs signifying a hostile
meeting.” He also says that the Babylonian myth of Tiamat (who is “called preeminently
aibu (‫ )אֹי ֵב‬and named exactly as in the Apocalypse ṣiru maḥru tihâmat ὁ ὄφις ἀρχαῖος”),
like the Iranian tradition of Ahriman, retains “true reminiscences and rational thoughts
respecting the origin of evil although in a mythical garb.”196
In his Old Testament History of Redemption Delitzsch says “Man himself,
however, is not cursed, but in the midst of the curse that dawn of the promise rises upon
him.” Gen 3:15 indicates that “the end of the creation of man, in spite of the fall, is not to
remain unfulfilled. ... The Man of salvation is not yet named, but He is the centre of the
collective he, the individualization of the human race.” The naming of Eve indicates
Adam’s faith in this promise, and the covering of Adam and Eve by God is a prefiguring
of his atoning grace.197
193
Gallus, Gen 3, 15 in der evangelische Schriftauslegung, 27.

194
Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 260.

195
Franz Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1880), 26-28.

196
Ibid., 29. I have been unable to find the source for this designation of Tiamat.

197
Franz Delitzsch, Old Testament History of Redemption (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1881), 26-26.

54
 In his commentary, he argues more extensively for the meaning of conterere for
‫ שּוף‬in both cases and translates “bruise,” seeing in it the promise of victory. With respect
to the virgin birth, the passage does not predict it but “is designed by its form also to
concur with its fulfilment” because Jesus is seed of the woman in a miraculous manner.198
1.8.5 August Dillmann
Dillmann interpreted the curse naturalistically. He derives the sense “seek to
come at” for both instances of ‫ שּוף‬from the meaning “pant,” etc., of one root ‫שאף‬. He
rejects any messianic inference in the passage because a snake’s bite is just as fatal as the
trampling of the head, and the verse only speaks of enmity, not victory. However,
Dillmann infers from the fact that “a struggle ordained of God cannot be without prospect
of success” that there is a general promise of victory for the woman’s posterity (including
Christ) over the serpent, which means the destruction of the evil power. “It is easy to
understand that by the gospel a new light was reflected on the serpent of ver. 1, and also
upon this contest with the serpent; but we cannot with reason affirm that the author was
already illuminated by this light.”199
1.8.6 C. A. Briggs
Gen 3:15 is the second passage Briggs discusses under the heading “Primitive
Messianic Ideas,” the first being Gen 1:26-28, which, though not specifically messianic,
is “the divine plan for mankind – the divinely-appointed goal of its history,” and is “the
condition and framework of all prophecy.” Similarly Gen 3:15 is “the Magna Charta of
human history” with which Adam and Eve leave Paradise. “The protevangelium is a
divine blessing wrapt in judgments. It predicts the ultimate victory of the seed of the
woman over the serpent, after a conflict in which both parties will be wounded.” 200
The serpent’s “intelligence, conception, speech, and knowledge higher than that
of the man or the woman” show it to be more than an animal; it is an evil spirit which
assumed the snake form, just as God had assumed human form. Gen 3:15 predicts that it
will inflict wounds “in secret and in treachery, behind the back” whereas the man will
openly crush him to dust. “Seed” is generic for the two races; the serpent’s race includes
all those derived from him (snakes, demons, and evil men called children of the devil by
Jesus), while the woman’s seed includes humans who oppose the forces of evil. Also,
“there are those who by birthright belong to the seed of the woman who become by
apostasy the children of the serpent. There are also those who are won as trophies of
grace from the seed of the serpent and are adopted into the seed of redemption. These two

198
Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis (2 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1899), 1. 61-64.
Similarly H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, Volume I, Chapters 1-19 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965), 162-
69.

199
August Dillman, Genesis: Critically and Exegetically Expounded (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1897), 156-
61. Gallus quotes from an earlier edition (1886) in which he rejected the view that the serpent of Gen 3:15
could be related to either the Persian Ahriman or the Babylonian Tiamat on the grounds that the biblical
serpent is said to be a mere creature (Gen 3, 15 in der evangelischen Schriftauslegung, 72-73).

200
Charles Augustus Briggs, Messianic Prophecy: The Prediction of the Fulfilment of Redemption Through
the Messiah (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1886), 71.

55
great forces are in conflict throughout history.” In the second part of the verse, it is
implied by the fact that the original foe is vanquished that the seed here culminates in one
individual champion, a second Adam, the head of the race. It is the head/heel contrast
which suggests victory, as the idea of poison in the serpent’s bite is not there, but, “If any
one should prefer to think that the victory is gained by the death of the victor, he will not
cause any other difficulty to the Messianic fulfilment than that it seems unlikely that the
first prediction should be so precise.”201
1.8.7 Hermann Gunkel
The curses are, to the narrator, the main thing; Yahweh has uttered a curse, and
its effects linger on into the present. But the last one, concerning the man, is the most
important, and the curse on the serpent is the least. It is to be understood as a naturalistic
aetiology, which answers the question of why humans so loathe snakes, and why the
snake crawls on its belly, and (in the opinion of the Hebrews) eats dust. The narrator has
not thought of describing the previous form or diet of the snake; he merely sees in its
present form the curse of God. It is totally clear that for the narrator the snake is an
animal and nothing more; Satan does not crawl on his belly. Because the snake and
woman once allied themselves together against God, Yahweh has condemned them to
perpetual enmity. Each fights in the best way it can, striking head or heel, as the case may
be.202
Gunkel thinks there is a pun on ‫שּוף‬, with the two meanings snap (schnappen),
and crush, stamp out (zertreten). In v. 15 it is clear as well that only a snake is in view;
the two seeds are snakes and humanity. As for why such a trivial, childish motif should
be found alongside such profound themes as the curses in vv. 16-19, Gunkel says it is
typical for paradise histories; but it is also possible that the conflict between snake and
man reflects the remnants of a myth such as that of the Greek Hydra. The interpretation
of this passage as a Protoevangelium is an allegorical interpretation which lingers on to
this day.203
1.8.8 S. R. Driver
Driver followed the moralistic interpretation of the enmity and said that it is
evident that in Gen 3:15 the serpent is the representative of “evil thoughts and
suggestions,” the “power of evil,” or “symbolizes the power of temptation.” ‫ שּוף‬is to be
translated “bruise” in both cases; the second use is improper, but was used so that the
same word could be used in both instances. The passage is, no doubt, the Protevangelium,
“but we must not read into the words more than they contain.” It is not a promise of
victory, but only perpetual antagonism in a prolonged and continuous conflict. Only by
the inference (quoting Dillmann) from the fact that this conflict is ordained by God does
it point to the ultimate triumph over the opponent. Although the verse was fulfilled in a

201
Ibid., 72-77.

202
Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966; orig. 1902), 20-21.

203
Ibid., 21. In the notes (p. 20) Gunkel says Gressmann called his attention to the paronomasia. Paul Haupt
notes that he had pointed out the possibility of a word-play in 1883 and several times since (Paul Haupt, “The
Curse on the Serpent,” JBL 35 [1916], 155).

56
special way “by Him who was in a special sense the ‘seed’ of the woman ... who
overcame once and for all the power of the Evil One,” it should not be so interpreted to
exclude the general, less important triumphs of individuals over sin throughout history. 204
1.8.9 W. O. E. Oesterly
Oesterly viewed the narrative of the fall and the flood as extensions of the
“Tehom myth” of a “primeval cruel monster who was identified with the principle of
‘evil,’ i.e., harmfulness” which is found as an echo in various Old Testament places, such
as the creation account of Genesis 1. The fact that “the whole presentation of the Serpent
is so emphatically alien to the idea of his being one of ‘the beasts of the field,’” leads him
to think that the description of him as a mere creature was added to a story originally
about a dragon figure like Tiamat trying to take revenge on God for his defeat in the
primeval battle by raising up humans as a rival to God; further evidence for this being
that Adam is expelled not for sin, but as a matter of prudence on God’s part because now
he could become equal to the gods by eating from the tree of life.205 Oesterly does not fit
the curse on the serpent into his discussion, or explain why it is not relevant, an omission
which seems quite striking. His only mention of Gen 3:15 is in another chapter, where he
says it indicates that the monster Tehom was “well able to injure men.”206 It seems that a
curse on Tehom with the striking of the skull would be of interest, since Tiamat’s skull is
crushed in Enuma elish.
1.8.10 John Skinner
In his ICC commentary Skinner says that the naturalistic terms of v. 14 do not
necessarily exclude the possibility that the serpent is viewed as a demonic character, and
that it is viewed as being punished in “each member of the species.” Skinner says that
Calvin’s view of a general promise of victory for humankind over the devil is more
reasonable than Luther’s view, but “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.” He rejects Dillman’s view based on the fact that there is no clear
expression of hope or victory in the context (he thinks Dillman has begged the question
in dispute by saying a conflict ordained by God must have prospect of success), and that
the serpent, while he may be an evil, even demonic creature, is such only in himself, and
does not represent any external power in the mind of the narrator. He thinks the purpose
of the curse may be to protest against “the unnatural fascination of snake worship.”207
1.8.11 Otto Procksch

204
Samuel Rolles Driver, The Book of Genesis (Westminster Commentaries; London: Methuen & Co.,
1904), 47-48, 57.

205
W. O. E. Oesterly, The Evolution of the Messianic Idea: A Study in Comparative Religion (New York: E.
P. Dutton, 1908), x, 76-79.

206
Ibid., 178.

207
John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1930),
79-81.

57
 The Hebrew does not justify an individual (therefore messianic) interpretation of
the woman’s seed. The picture given in Gen 3:15d-e is one where both combatants die
together; the man is bitten fatally as he steps on the serpent’s head. There is no
suggestion here that the human race will prevail against that of the serpents. ‫ שּוף‬in the
first instance means “crushing” or “stepping,” and in the second, “snap.” The question of
whether the snake is an animal or a demon is wrong; the snake as an animal consists in
something demonic. Therefore the early Church view of the “ancient snake” (Rev 12:9;
20:2) is basically right. Gunkel’s aetiological explanation is trivial, so much so that he
wondered whether a mythical demon originally stood in the narrative. Skinner’s view of a
rejection of serpent worship is to be rejected as well, since nothing in the context refers to
such practice.208
1.8.12 Eduard König
König interprets the woman’s seed as a collective, since it is not individualized,
as in 4:25. The meaning of ‫ שּוף‬is partly “press down, crush” and partly “destroy,” and
these are the two meanings in Gen 3:15d-e, as is consistent with LXX Ps 139:11, and
Aramaic and Syriac usage.209 König finds several expressions of hope in the “dismal
painting of Genesis 3.” These are, first, the fact that there is a delay in execution of the
death threat spoken against Adam and Eve for eating the fruit. König cites Jub. 4:30 as
explaining this delay based on the fact that 1000 years is like a day to God (Ps 90:4);
Adam lived not quite 1000 years, therefore died on “the day” that he ate. 210 The second
reason for hope that König sees is that God equipped Adam and Eve with clothes when
he expelled them from paradise. Thirdly, victory over the snake is implied in the fact that
the snake’s head is crushed. This announcement is therefore “the oldest expression of a
tendency towards redemption in Old Testament religion,” although it is still only an
indirect reference to the messianic age, since the woman’s seed is collective.211
In a book on messianic prophecy König said that it would be a misuse of the
analogy of faith to equate Satan with the serpent of Genesis 3 based on the New
Testament. There is no evidence that the narrator of Genesis 3 wanted to express this
idea, and later insights should not be read back into this text. Gen 3:15 indicates that
those who were initially overcome will be victorious; many heros are included under the
generic term “woman’s seed.” The kind of salvation predicted is first of all physical, but
it represents moral good and is fully realized only in a renewed partnership of God and

208
Otto Procksch, Die Genesis: übersetzt und erklärt (Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung,
1924), 34-35.

209
Eduard König, Die Genesis (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1925), 248-49.

210
Actually, it appears that this explanation is in Psalm 90 itself; for the expression “1000 years in your sight
are as a day gone by” immediately follows a paraphrase of Gen 3:19, “to dust you shall return” (Ps 90:3;
“Return to dust, O sons of men”), thus answering the hypothetical question of why Adam and Eve did not die
immediately upon eating the fruit, as threatened.

211
König, Genesis, 276 (including n. 2), 277; “Diese Ankündigung ist der älteste Ausdruck der
Erlösungstendenz der alttestamentlichen Religion.”

58
humans. To all who participate in this salvation it is the first Gospel. König also thinks
that the designation of Jesus as Son of Man hints indirectly at Gen 3:15 (but directly at
Dan 7:13), and is used by him to describe himself as the one who would defeat the world
at enmity with God.212
1.8.13 Paul Joüon
Joüon said that the word “snake” could be translated “reptile” in Gen 3:14, so
that the reader would not be confused by the fact that snakes as such always went on their
bellies; but the translation “dragon” would have the additional advantage of signifying a
supernatural being, perhaps even with wings. The Hebrew ‫ נָחָש‬has a wider semantic
range than the word “serpent,” which Jerome recognized when he translated it by
“draconem” in Exod 7:15, and John uses “snake” and “dragon” indifferently in
Revelation 12. That the curse in Gen 3:14 is literal is implied by the emphatic word order,
“dust shall you eat.” There was an actual change in the body of the “dragon;” the snake is
a physically degraded form of the dragon.213
1.8.14 Benno Jacob
Jacob said that v. 1 proves that the snake cannot be the devil or his disguise,
although it could be symbolic of the evil inclination, which creeps up, apparently
harmless but full of deadly poison. The account is allegorical, as the snake represents the
human tendency towards lust and malice. We are not to understand that the snake once
walked upright, since that would imply God is correcting his own work; the snake’s
posture and diet henceforth will point to its curse. The preposition ‫ ִׁמן‬in v. 14 is to be
understood as “among,” as in Exod 19:5 (a treasured possession among all the peoples);
Deut 33:24 (blessed among sons is Asher); Judg 5:24 (blessed among women is Jael).
The snake’s punishment is measure for measure; the serpent, whose nature is to eat the
most disgusting matter, seduced the woman to eat the forbidden fruit. The sense “crush”
for ‫ שּוף‬is difficult in v. 15, since a snake could not do anything after its head is crushed,
but Delitszch’s point about the double accusative requiring the sense of bodily contact is
valid.214
1.8.15 Paul Humbert
Humbert interprets the curse naturalistically, and notes a translation by Kurt
Sethe of § 284 of the Pyramid Texts: “Geschlagen worden ist der Tausendfuss von dem
Hausbewohner, geschlagen worden ist der Hausbewohner von dem Tausendfuss,” which
he explains, “der giftige Tausendfuss (Scolopendra) ist geschlagen, d.i. verschlagen
worden von dem Hausbewohner, den er stechen wollte, und umgekehrt dieser von ihm
getötet worden.” Humbert agrees that this is the same idea expressed in Gen 3:15; a

212
Taken from summary by Gallus, Gen 3:15 in der evangelischen Schriftauslegung , 84-85. Gallus cites the
source as Die messianischen Weissagungen des Alten Testaments (Stuttgart: n.p., 1925), 82-89, 312-13.

213
Paul Joüon, “«Le Grand Dragon, l’Ancien Serpent»: Apoc. 12,9 et Genèse 3,14,” RSR 17 (1927), 444-46.

214
Benno Jacob, Das Erste Buch der Tora: Genesis (Berlin: Schocken, 1934), 101-02; 112-15.

59
hopeless and endless struggle to death, which therefore naturally has no messianic
significance. Similarly all of the curses in vv. 14-19 leave no hope.215
1.8.16 Walther Zimmerli
Zimmerli admits the possibility that there is a story with a mythical, demonic
snake behind Genesis 3, but says any trace of it has been removed; likewise he rejects the
possibility that the snake has any connection with Satan. The description of him in v. 1
prevents us from viewing him as anything but an animal snake. The question of how
something in God’s good creation can be evil and the source of evil for humankind, is left
as a riddle, unanswered. To answer the riddle would simply provide an excuse for the
man; something or someone to blame his sin on.216
The curse of the snake makes it a hideous, repulsive creature; when seeing it
crawling through the dust one sees an example of what happens to those cursed by God,
such as the nations who will lick dust like the serpent (Mic 7:17). Further, God
establishes enmity in what had been a godless friendship. A careful reading of the text
forbids finding a promise of Christ there as the seed of the woman, or Satan as the
serpent. Nor is there any intimation of a final victory for the woman’s offspring; rather
each generation only faces the same enmity, and Gen 9:2 speaks along somewhat similar
lines for the other animals. Christians naturally see the picture of a dragon or snake as
symbolic of Satan, as seen in Rev 12:9; 20:2, but one must go to other texts beside Gen
3:15 to find the promise of victory over him.217
1.8.17 Geerhardus Vos
Vos says that the insistence by some that the serpent of the temptation was
merely an animal is the opposite extreme of the view which holds the entire account as
allegorical. Against it is the fact that Scripture opposes the pantheizing confusion of
humans and animals; both a real serpent and a demonic power which made use of it were
present, and a close analogy is found in the Gospels where demons speak through those
possessed by them. The Old Testament does not speak anywhere of this fact, because
“the fall is seldom referred to,” and because the whole subject of evil spirits, etc., “is long
kept in darkness.”218
Vos discusses Gen 3:14-19 under the heading “The Content of the First
Redemptive Special Revelation,” using the term “redemption” by anticipation, since “it
does not occur until the Mosaic period.” The passage comprises “both justice and grace.”

215
Paul Humbert, Études sur le Récit du Paradis et de la Chute dans la Genèse (Neuchatel: Secrétariat de
l’Université, 1940), 76. Pyramid text citation is given as Kurt Sethe, Übersetzung und Kommentar zu den
Altägyptischen Pyramidentexten, t. II, p. 192. 193.

216
Walther Zimmerli, 1 Mose 1-11: die Urgeschichte (Zürcher Bibelkommentar; Zürich: Zwingli Verlag,
1943), 162-64.

217
Ibid., 170-72. In his Old Testament theology, Zimmerli says, “Gen. 9:2-3, even without any mention of
the serpent, recalls 3:15” (Old Testament Theology in Outline [Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1978], 174).

218
Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1948),
44.

60
“The justice is shown in the penal character of the three curses pronounced; the grace for
mankind lies implicitly in the curse upon the Tempter.” The special revelation contained
in this passage is joined to the general revelation which produced “the feeling of shame
and fear ... in fallen man.” As for the curse on the serpent, in it “lies a promise of victory
over the serpent and his seed. His being condemned to go on his belly enables the
woman’s seed to bruise his head, whilst the serpent can only bruise the heel of the seed of
the woman.” Vos prefers the meaning of “bruise” for ‫שּוף‬, noting that “both in Greek and
Aramaic the words for ‘beating’ and ‘striking’ are used of bites and stings.”219
Vos objects to a metaphorical identification of the serpent’s seed as wicked men,
since then some who are actually the seed of the woman would be called the seed of the
serpent. Rather than solve this problem as Hengstenberg did by saying that the wicked do
not deserve the name seed of the woman, “it seems more plausible to seek the seed of the
serpent outside of the human race. The power of evil is a collective power, a kingdom of
evil, of which Satan is the head.” The seed of the serpent is therefore the evil spirits who
derive from Satan their nature. Since the seed of the serpent is collective, so must be the
seed of the woman: “Out of the human race a fatal blow will come which shall crush the
head of the serpent.” There is a shift in contrast from the first half of the verse to the
second: in the first the two seeds are contrasted, but in the second it is the seed of the
woman and the serpent.
This suggests that as at the climax of the struggle the serpent’s seed will be represented
by the serpent, in the same manner the woman’s seed may find representation in a single
person; we are not warranted, however, in seeking an exclusively personal reference to
the Messiah here, as though He alone were meant by “the woman’s seed.” O. T.
Revelation approaches the concept of a personal Messiah very gradually. It sufficed for
fallen man to know that through His divine power and grace God would bring out of the
220
human race victory over the serpent.
1.8.18 Umberto Cassuto
Cassuto affirmed the naturalistic identity of the snake, but acknowledged that
“this interpretation also encounters difficulties” (animals do not talk, do not aim to
morally destroy humans, do not know the hidden purpose of God). One might think that
the serpent is a land version of the dragon associated with the sea, an independent entity
hostile to God; but the Torah completely rejects that idea, as is shown in the creation
account which studiously avoids the mythical, stressing the fact of the dragons of the sea
being good animals made by God. The serpent is here stressed to be only an animal, so
that we know it is only symbolic of evil; it is not actually an evil being at enmity with
God. It is therefore necessary to allegorize the speech of the serpent; the serpent
represents the cunning in Eve, the dialogue only takes place in the woman’s mind. The
animal serpent does not speak and has no knowledge of the divine prohibition; only the
woman does. The word play between “naked” (‫ ;עֲרּומִׁים‬2:25) and “cunning” (‫ ;עָרּום‬3:1)

219
Ibid., 52-54.

220
Ibid., 53-55.

61
means that although the human pair was ignorant of good and evil, they were not lacking
in cunning.221
Cassuto had an answer quite different from Bullinger for why God does not ask
any question of the serpent, as he had of Adam and Eve. Bullinger said that the serpent as
animal does not speak, and the serpent as devil had no truth. Cassuto said that the serpent
is pictured as silent because of a desire to refute popular beliefs about “the serpent and
the monsters as sovereign entities that rise in revolt against the Creator and oppose His
will. Here, too, it is implied that the serpent is only an ordinary creature. He quotes Gen.
Rab. 19.1 about the serpent going from cunning above all to cursed above all, and says
there is a play on the assonance between the two words ‫ עָרּום‬and ‫ָארּור‬. The serpent
symbolizes evil, “and shall be a warning to men of the consequence of wickedness.
Whatever goes on its belly is accounted an abomination (Lev. xi 42).” The penalty of
eating dust is measure for measure, since the temptation pertained to eating. But there
may be a further echo (literary only) of the tradition of the subjugation of the primeval
serpent, since this figure is used also of Israel’s enemies (Ps 72:9; Isa 49:23; Mic 7:17).
The serpent is the man’s enemy, however, not God’s, as v. 15 shows. There may be “also
a parable concerning the principle of evil,” which lies in wait for its victim, who should
hasten to crush its skull and thus be saved from it, “even as it was said to Cain in regard
to sin: its desire is for you, but you will be able to master it.” Cassuto takes the first
instance of ‫ שּוף‬as “tread upon or crush,” and the second as “to crave, desire,” from the
by-form ‫שאף‬.222
1.8.19 Sigmund Mowinckel
Mowinckel adopts the generally held view of those who take the “historical
approach to theology” that Gen 3:15 “is a quite general statement about mankind, and
serpents, and the struggle between them which continues as long as the earth exists.” He
thinks that the “Christian homiletical application” made by Procksch is “in itself
justifiable.” Mowinckel was somehow under the impression that “the interpretation of the
seed of the woman, in Gen. iii, 15, as the Messiah is derived from the Targums and
Jewish theology.”223
1.8.20 Gerhard von Rad
“The serpent which now enters the narrative is marked as one of God’s created
animals (ch. 2.19). In the narrator’s mind it is scarcely an embodiment of a ‘demonic’
power and certainly not of Satan.” The snake is only mentioned in passing, kept “in a
scarcely definable incognito,” in order to keep the focus on man and his guilt. The curses
in vv. 14-19 are all to be understood aetiologically, to answer pressing questions man has
about his current condition; but one must go beyond this:
The narrator uses not only the commonplace language of every day, but a language that
also figuratively depicts the most intellectual matters. Thus by serpent he understands not

221
Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part I, From Adam to Noah, Genesis I-VI8
(Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1961; orig. 1951), 139-43.

222
Ibid., 158-61.

223
Ibid., 283.

62
 only the zoological species ... but at the same time, in a kind of spiritual clearheadedness,
he sees in it an evil being that has assumed form, that is inexplicably present within our
created world, and that has singled out man, lies in wait for him, and everywhere fights a
224
battle with him for life and death.
Von Rad seems to be in tension with himself here, saying both that the serpent is not the
“embodiment of a demonic power,” yet that he is “an evil being that has assumed form.”
Gen 3:15 is not a protoevangelium, and the picture given in Gen 3:15d-e is not of
individual combat but of a generic and completely hopeless struggle between species:
Wherever man and serpent meet, the meeting always involves life and death. ... The
terrible point of this curse is the hopelessness of this struggle in which both will ruin each
other. The exegesis of the early church does not agree with the sense of the passage, quite
apart from the fact that the word “seed” may not be construed personally but only quite
225
generally with the meaning “posterity.”
Von Rad is in tension with himself on another point, as well. He says above that both
parties “will ruin each other;” yet he also noted that one party to this struggle was not
cursed. His comment on v. 16 begins, “the woman and the man are not cursed (it is
unthinking to speak of their malediction).”226 If part of the curse is the ruination of the
serpent, and yet the implication is that man and woman are ruined as well, then it would
seem to be an implied curse on them as well, a view which he calls “unthinking.”
1.8.21 Bruce Vawter
Vawter argues that the only possible interpretation of the serpent is that which
sees in it the fallen angel Satan, since it is presented as a rational being of great craftiness
and ability to outwit humans. The author probably chose the form of the snake to
represent Satan because of serpent-worship which was common among Canaanites and
other Gentile peoples. The first part of the curse on the serpent (v. 14) is to be understood
as entirely figurative for the humiliating judgment on Satan. “The sense of the divine
condemnation of the serpent is, then, a prophecy of Satan’s defeat. It is the corollary of
mankind’s hope.”227
Further revelation by degrees indicated that this victory would be won by a single
person, Jesus Christ; because God is the ultimate author this is the intended meaning,
even though the human author was unaware of it. By the woman and her seed he meant
Eve and the human race; “but as the final fulfillment of the prophecy of the ‘seed’ is
verified only in Christ, so ‘the woman’ who bore the seed is finally fulfilled in the
Blessed Virgin.”228

224
Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961; German ed. 1956),
86, 89-90.

225
Ibid., 90.

226
Ibid.

227
Bruce Vawter, A Path Through Genesis (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1956), 64, 67.

228
Ibid., 68-69.

63
1.8.22 Claus Westermann
On the identity of the serpent, Westermann discusses the study of Th. C. Vriezen,
who says that the serpent is viewed as an animal of life and wisdom, and belongs to the
realm of magic, and is connected to a serpent cult adopted from Canaan and presumed in
Numbers 21 and 2 Kings 18:4. He agrees that “this explanation agrees with the data of
the narrative,” but rejects it (along with the view that it represents “the oriental-heathen
pattern of thought”) because the snake is described as an animal created by God: “the
narrator emphasizes explicitly by means of the relative clause that the serpent is not
outside the circle of those already mentioned in the narrative; it is one of the animals
created by God.” For the same reason he denies that the serpent is a being at enmity with
God; also because the text says nothing of such enmity. The fact that his words are
directed against God does not disprove this, for “this does not become the theme of the
narrative.” The snake’s role in the temptation is inexplicable, as is the origin of evil itself
(agreeing with Zimmerli, von Rad).229
Westermann says that the punishments in vv. 14-19 (which are poetic in form)
were missing in an older form of Genesis 2-3, as is indicated by parallels between this
narrative and Ezekiel 28, and (following W. H. Schmidt) the fact that the extra
punishments in vv. 14-19 bear no direct relation to the offense committed, but rather
“describe factually the present state of existence of serpent, woman and man which by
way of after-thought are explained as punishments.” He denies therefore that the curses
are the high point of, or central to, the narrative (contra Gunkel, von Rad).230
V. 15 is aetiological, as it explains why there is a perpetual enmity (“all the days
of your life” means as long as there are snakes) between snakes and humankind which
does not exist in the case of other animals. The parallelism between the offspring of both
parties in v. 15 makes it clear that “seed” does not refer to an individual. The enmity
appears when men and snakes try to kill each other. ‫ שּוף‬means “crush” for the action by
the woman’s seed, and “snap at” for the snake (as a by-form of ‫)שאף‬.231
Gen 3:15 is not the protoevangelium: “the explanation of Gen 3:15 as a promise
has been abandoned almost without exception.” The two main reasons for this are that ‫ֶ֫ז ַרע‬
is undoubtedly collective, and secondly, from a form-critical point of view, “it is not
possible that such a form [pronouncement of a punishment or curse] has either promise or
prophecy as its primary or even its secondary meaning.” For this pronouncement he
offers no supporting evidence, and refers to none. Westermann seems unaware of the
view of Hengstenberg, for example, that the woman’s seed is a collective for all who are
righteous, yet the passage is still a protoevangelium or at least some kind of promise. He
likewise rejects the “ethical” view of Dillman, Procksch, Vriezen, and von Rad, that the
snake embodies the power of evil against which humankind struggles. He affirms the

229
Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 237-39.

230
Ibid., 256-57.

231
Ibid., 259-60.

64
view of Holzinger that the reference to the snake’s offspring proves that it is a mere
animal.232
1.8.23 Walter Kaiser
Kaiser says Gen 3:15 “is of seminal importance.” The question whether “he” in
Gen 3:15d is singular or collective “is misdirected, especially if the divine intention
deliberately wished to designate the collective notion which included a personal unity in
a single person who was to obtain victory for the whole group he represented.” He agrees
with Martin that the LXX αὐτός is based on a messianic understanding of the verse, with
which Kaiser agrees: the pronoun “he” is “no doubt a representative person of the human
race” (especially if Luther’s interpretation of Gen 4:1 is correct). For the outcome of the
battle, the lethal blow to the head is to be contrasted with a nip to the heel.233
1.8.24 Gordon Wenham
Wenham divides Gen 3:15 into six lines (splitting Gen 3:15c into two parts),
“four two-beat lines and two three-beat lines.” He notes that the saying appears, on the
surface, to be a “mere etiology” about literal snakes and humankind. But elements in the
story are highly symbolic, ambiguous, and subtle (such as the dialogue between the snake
and the woman). The serpent here “symbolizes sin, death, and the power of evil,” so that
the curse predicts a long term struggle between good and evil. The triumph of humans is
implied by the fact that only the snake is cursed, and by the man’s tactical superiority in
the battle. “Such an interpretation fits in well with 4:7 where Cain is warned of sin
lurking to catch him, but is promised victory if he resists.” A messianic interpretation
may be justified on the basis of further revelation as a sensus plenior, but this was
probably not the narrator’s own understanding. Wenham translates ‫ שּוף‬in both cases as
“batter.”234
1.8.25 Nahum Sarna
Sarna takes the naturalistic interpretation, but says “the imprecation may also
carry anti-pagan undertones, as if to say that the serpent is neither a fertility symbol, as in
Canaan, nor a protective emblem, as among Egyptian royalty, but a hostile object of
aversion.”235
1.8.26 Victor Hamilton
Hamilton prefers the translation “strike at” for both instances of ‫שּוף‬, and thinks
that “seed” should be translated with an equivalent collective such as “offspring” or
“posterity” which can indicate an individual as well. He says “we may want to be
cautious about calling this verse a messianic prophecy. At the same time we should be
hesitant to surrender the time-honored expression for this verse – the protevangelium,
‘the first good news.’” It is good news whether “seed” is individual or collective, and it

232
Ibid., 260-61.

233
Walter C. Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 35-37, 79.

234
Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC; Waco: Word Books, 1987), 79-81.

235
Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (JPSTC; New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 27.

65
contains both judgment and promise. He is most comfortable with LaSor’s view of sensus
plenior, cited below.236
1.8.27 Gerard Van Groningen
Groningen takes the definition of curse in its etymological sense of “bind,” with
application both to the animal snake and to Satan. Royal victory is promised to the
woman’s seed, while humiliating and crushing defeat is the adversary’s fate. It is not
incorrect to refer to the passage as a protevangelium, and Eve’s statement in Gen 4:1
shows that she considered the seed to be an individual (possibly divine if te' marks the
accusative), but the individual interpretation does not come from Gen 3:15 itself, though
it does set forth a messianic task, and implies a substitutionary work done on behalf of
others.
The flood illustrates one aspect of the messianic task: to execute judgment (crush
the head of the serpent’s seed), while the existence on the ark for a year illustrates the
bruising of the heel of the woman’s seed. The call of Abram sets apart the two races as
clearly as Gen 3:15 by saying all people would be either blessed or cursed because of
him. Ps 110:5 speaks of shattering the heads [sic; see v. 6] of the kings of the earth, as
predicted in Gen 3:15 and Num 24:16-19. The suffering yet victorious Servant in Isaiah
53 is to be identified with the woman’s victorious seed whose heel is bruised. Gen 3:15
looks to the future, thus is eschatological.237
1.8.28 Meredith Kline
Kline says that the absence of the word “covenant” from the first three chapters
of Genesis does not preclude considering God’s relationship to humans in those chapters
under the covenant concept. That Genesis 1-2 may be considered covenantal is shown by
the fact that the post-diluvian re-ordering of the world, spoken of as a covenant with
Noah, is a “reinstituting of original creation arrangements.” This is a covenant of law,
whereas Gen 3:15 should be viewed from a systematic-theological point of view “as the
earliest disclosure of the ‘Covenant of Grace.’”238 He put a turn on Paul’s question “is the
law opposed to the promises of God?” (Gal 3:21), noting that in Genesis 1-3, the promise
comes second; “Was the covenant of law established by God at the beginning (Gen. 1 and
2) made of no effect by the subsequent introduction of the promise (Gen. 3:15)? ... ‘God
forbid.’”239 In another work Kline said that Mal 3:21 (4:3), “Then you will trample down
the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet,” is an allusion to Gen 3:15,
just as the theme of the day of the Lord in Malachi 3-4 is traced back ultimately to Gen
3:8.240
236
Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 199-
200, and n. 20.

237
Ibid., 120, 135, 396, 617, 629.

238
Meredith G. Kline, By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and
Baptism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 26-27.

239
Ibid., 30.

240
Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit (Hamilton, MA: n.p., 1980), 117, n. 71.
66
 Kline’s most extensive comments on Gen 3:15 are in his Kingdom Prologue (“a
biblico-theological analysis of the foundational revelation contained in the book of
Genesis”).241 Kline agrees that Gen 3:15 is the first gospel, as well as the last judgment,
but says that Gen 3:16-19 indicate a postponement of that judgment, thus instituting
common grace: “The world order continued. The sun was not darkened; the heavens did
not pass away; the earth was not consumed. Man was not totally abandoned to the power
of sin and the devil; he was not cast into outer darkness.” Kline rejects the naturalistic
aetiological view, pointing to the mythological stories of the internationally known figure
of the dragon as God’s enemy, saying that they are mythicized versions of Genesis 3, as
perverted and changed by the nations, but which attest “to reverberations in the ancient
memory of man of the supernatural dimensions of the primordial event and prophecy.” 242
Gen 3:14 is a figurative depiction of the curse “as a humiliating degradation of
the utmost degree and of perpetual duration,” and v. 15 is an exposition of this judgment.
The enmity springs from the renewal of the image of God in Eve, “the reverse side, the
repentance side, of her renewed (now saving) faith in the Lord.” Her seed consists of
those who are like her in having this enmity toward the evil one, those who are the elect
of God, while the serpent’s seed must therefore be reprobate men who persist in their
devil-likeness. Gen 3:15 is a declaration of holy war, instituted to prevent Satan’s peace
from settling over the earth.243
Gen 3:15d-e depicts “a climactic battle in the holy war” and must be understood
as a decisive victory over the evil one because of the relationship of v. 15 to v. 14
mentioned above. Here the seed is an individual, opposed to the “you” (not the visible
serpent, who will have long since passed from the scene, but Satan, who will still be on
the scene).
The all-decisive battle is a judgment ordeal by combat, fought by a champion from each
of the opposing armies. Mention of a wound to be suffered by the champion of the
woman’s army does not throw in doubt the decisive victory he was to gain for them. As
an historical exposition of the absolute defeat of the devil affirmed in the curse of verse
14, verse 15 must reinforce that idea and such is certainly the intention of the contrast
drawn between the blow inflicted on the heel of the woman’s seed and the blow delivered
244
to the head of the serpent.
That this is a contest between champions implies that the respective armies share in the
victory and the defeat. This partly collective, partly individual interpretation of the
woman’s seed is confirmed by Revelation 12, which portrays the individual seed as the

241
Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue (Hamilton, MA: n.p., 1993), 1. Genesis is prologue (historical
preamble) to the establishment of the old covenant under Moses (ibid).

242
Ibid., 95, 92. In particular, Gen 3:15 was mythologized into the Babylonian creation account (167).

243
Ibid., 82-83.

244
Ibid., 83.

67
Messiah, the federal head in a new administration of God’s kingdom, and champion of
the rest of the woman’s seed, who brings them salvation.245
To this point we see the thought of especially Pareus (perhaps also Irenaeus) in
identifying the woman’s seed collectively and individually in the two parts of the verse.
He also follows Luther in interpreting Gen 3:20 as witness to Adam’s faith in this
promise: “Adam declared his confessional ‘Amen’ to the Genesis 3:15 promise of
restoration from death to life ... by naming the woman ‘Life.’” Eve’s naming of Seth
(Gen 4:25) is likewise evidence of her faith in the promise, since the verb she uses (God
has appointed for me) is the same one God uses in Gen 3:15a (I will set). The clothing of
Adam and Eve with skins (‫ )עֹור‬has a fuller significance because it continues the word-
play between “naked” and “shrewd” (Gen 2:25; 3:1, 7, 10-11); the skins are “the
antithetical counterpart of the image of the devil” and “are to be understood as symbols
of adornment with the glory of the image of God.”246
Kline goes farther than Van Groningen in how he sees Gen 3:15d fulfilled in the
Old Testament. Though the final victory in this holy war is obtained by Jesus against
Satan, precursors to this event are found in the flood of Noah, the drowning of Pharaoh’s
army in the Red Sea, and Joshua’s conquest of Canaan, all of which involve the
destruction of the wicked seed; the conquered Canaanites, representative of the serpent’s
seed, are “crushed under the heel of the redeemed people of the Lord.” These are only
token fulfillments, however, “typological act[s] of judgment pointing to the Final
Judgment.”247
The two seeds are found again after the flood, as the serpent’s seed is manifested
by the reaction of Noah’s sons to his nakedness. Ham, like the serpent in Genesis 3,
“maliciously aggravates the shame of his drunken father’s nakedness (Gen 9:20-23),”
whereas Shem and Japheth are like the Lord in Genesis 3 by providing garments to cover
his nakedness. Noah’s curse on Canaan, and his blessing of Shem and Japheth (Gen 9:25-
27) are to be understood as the outworking of the two spiritual seeds of Gen 3:15 in the
post-flood world. In the patriarchal era, the seed of the woman, the seed of promise,
becomes the seed of Abraham.248
1.9 Recent Special Studies in Gen 3:15
Included in this section are authors who did exegetical studies devoted to Gen
3:15 as a whole, or some aspect of it (except that studies on word meanings will be
discussed in the next chapter), as well as authors cited above who wrote works on the
history of interpretation of Gen 3:15, and who also gave their own analysis on the

245
Ibid., 89.

246
Ibid., 93, 119. He compares this episode to the use of animal skins for the tabernacle coverings.

247
Ibid., 174, 163. “Token” is not Kline’s word. I mean by token fulfillment one which follows the pattern
of the prediction (thus typological) but which is only partial, thus having symbolic significance for the future
complete fulfillment. Kline also calls the flood a “sign” of the final judgment (p. 150).

248
Ibid., 150, 161, 165, 205.

68
exegesis of the passage or its interpretation in the Bible. Martin’s essay has been
sufficiently discussed in § 1.2.2.
1.9.1 Johann Michl
As part of his historical survey of interpretation, Michl included the biblical
interpretation. He says there is no obvious allusion to Gen 3:15 in the Old Testament,
even in the latest books, and the same applies to the New Testament, and he defends this
view by discussing various passages that have been taken as references to Gen 3:15.
Jesus calls Mary “woman” in John 2:4; 19:26. This, however, was certainly not
considered as remarkable by the ancients, and no one took notice of it before the 16th
century when both Catholics and Lutherans began to see a deeper reference here to the
protevangelium.249 Since the address as “woman” is understandable as a custom of the
times, no significance should be placed on it.
Paul’s expression “made (born) of a woman” in Gal 4:4 (γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός)
corresponds exactly to the Rabbinic expression ‫ י ְלּוד ִׁאשָה‬which is simply a way of saying
that someone is a member of the human race. Consequently, the significance of its use in
this passage is the same as in Heb 2:17; Paul is stressing that Jesus is fully human and
under the Law.250
Rom 16:20 is a possible allusion to Gen 3:15, if Paul followed the Palestinian
Tg. reading of “crush”* instead of the LXX. If so, he betrays no hint of an individual-
christological interpretation. However, Rom 16:20 is only remotely similar to Gen 3:15,
and the thought could have been derived from passages such as Luke 10:19.251
Michl notes that a number of interpreters have seen the imagery in Revelation 12,
of a woman, her child who will rule all nations, the rest of her seed, and a hostile dragon
who is called the old serpent, and enmity between them, to be based on Gen 3:15. Michl
discusses whether these similarities are a result of merely borrowing an image (which
would have no theological implications), or whether the Apocalypse presents the events
of Revelation 12 as a fulfillment of Gen 3:15. The woman of Revelation 12 is not the
same as Eve; she is a heavenly figure; in all probability signifying true Israel; therefore
the picture given in Revelation 12 is not presented as a fulfillment of Gen 3:15, but must
only be a utilization of it. In any case, here again there is no individual-christological
interpretation.252
1.9.2 Jack Lewis
Like Michl, Lewis surveyed some of the biblical material in his historical study,
and his conclusions follow Michl’s closely. He says “no further attention is given to 3:15
either in Genesis or in any other OT book,” and “neither Jesus nor his disciples cite Gen
249
Michl, “Weibessame,” 373, 390-91. Michl quotes the Protestant Georg Major (died 1574) and the Jesuit
Alfonso Salmerón (died 1585).

250
Ibid., 393-94. ‫שה‬ָ ִׁ‫ י ְלּוד א‬is not strictly Rabbinic, as it appears in Job 14:1; 15:14; 25:4 (I thank Gary
Rendsburg for this observation).

251
Ibid., 395-96.

252
Ibid., 396-401.

69
3:15.” The phrase “born of woman” does not indicate anything miraculous since it is a
common description of humanity. Paul possibly alludes to Gen 3:15 in Rom 16:20, but
his wording is not like the LXX and could be influenced by Luke 10:19 and the imagery
of subduing enemies under the foot. He notes that some have conjectured that Gen 3:15 is
behind the imagery of the woman and her child in Revelation 12, but does not cite any of
the evidence for this, or interact with it, which is surprising since he is apparently closely
following Michl here.253
1.9.3 Tibor Gallus
Gallus gave his own views on the identity of the woman’s seed in his third
German volume. He argues generally against the post-enlightenment view of Scripture as
a purely human product based on long oral tradition and the view of Genesis 2-3 as myth,
and specifically against the view of Westermann and Schottroff that Gen 3:14-19 are not
original to the narrative, and against the naturalistic aetiological view. That verses 14-15
could be considered a naturalistic aetiology does not mean that that is the true meaning
(why is there no explanation for the camel’s hump?) – in fact, they are a
heilsgeschichtlichen aetiology. That vv. 14-19 are original is evident from the fact that
death was the threatened punishment for violating God’s command, and this threat is
referred to and carried out in these verses.
There have been so many different interpretations of Gen 3:15 because there are
so many different principles of interpretation. Gallus’ first exegetical principle is that
Genesis 2-3 reports historical realities. His second is that Gen 3:15 is figurative, and the
main evidence for this is that the serpent cannot be considered to be a mere animal. He
notes that the comparative in Gen 3:1 does not actually say that the snake is an animal
because it says that it was “wiser than all of the animals” rather than “wiser than all of the
other animals.” That the snake is cunning and talks shows it is not a mere animal; that it
uses a lying tactic against the woman is sufficient to show that it is used by a demonic
spirit. If the designation of the tempter as “snake” is figurative, so might the designation
of the “woman” be taken as someone other than Eve; one must look at the rest of the
Bible for the answer. God speaks as if he is setting enmity between Eve and the animal
snake; actually he wants to punish the devil through a different enmity by another
woman. Gallus uses the same arguments for the individual-christological identification of
the woman’s seed as Luther and his early successors, but gives more prominence than
they did to the mariological interpretation which depends on it. Against Westermann’s
statement that a pronouncement of judgment cannot be a promise, he states that if the
judgment consists in the defeat of the one who is judged, then it can be a promise for the
one who has the victory. Gen 3:15 is not referred to before the New Testament because it
is spoken figuratively, and the meaning is unknown before New Testament times (though
Gallus agrees with Luther’s interpretation of Gen 4:1).254
1.9.4 Dominic Unger

253
Lewis, The Woman’s Seed, 300, 303.

254
Gallus, Evangelischen Schriftauslegung Gen 3, 15, 111-61.

70
 Unger argues primarily from the tradition of the Church fathers and official
Catholic Church teaching, especially papal bulls, for identifying the woman in Gen 3:15
as exclusively Mary and her seed as exclusively Christ. In interpreting the fathers he lays
great stress on the Eve-Mary antithesis; Eve is the “total opposite” of Mary. The serpent’s
seed consists of demons (based on Rev 12:7), as well as sinners (John 8:44, etc.), rather
than either group by itself, or sin, or the Antichrist. The serpent is crushed by Mary at her
immaculate conception (when the enmity began), and by Christ at his incarnation, and by
both at Golgotha, though the battle continues even now.255
Unger argues for the singular meaning of the woman’s seed because seed as a
collective is never referred to by a singular separate pronoun, whereas there are two cases
where a separate plural pronoun is used for the collective (Isa 61:9; Ezek 20:5). Also,
when a possessive or object suffix refers back to seed, in 12 out of 14 cases it is plural
when seed is collective. Gal 3:16 excludes the collective sense from the promised seed.
Revelation 12 associates with the dragon (the serpent of Genesis 3) a very special woman
and a male child, and these must therefore be the woman and her seed of Gen 3:15.256
1.9.5 Walter Wifall
Walter Wifall cites the opinion of “recent critical scholarship” such as that
expressed by Westermann, von Rad, and Skinner that Gen 3:15 is not a protoevangelium,
and Wifall sees “no support . . . for the traditional singular reference of the ‘seed’ to the
‘Messiah’; for identifying the ‘serpent’ with the later Jewish idea of ‘Satan’; or for
interpreting the passage as a blessing or a promise rather than as a curse.” However,
Wifall connects Gen 3:15 to the concept of messianism as held to by the myth-ritual
school, which is oriented to “an elaborate king ideology” rather than an “eschatological
messianism,” which did not arise until “the catastrophes of Israelite and Jewish history
gradually shifted the emphasis from the historical and national to the eschatological and
apocalyptic.” Genesis 2-11 as a whole has been connected with “the Davidic covenant
and the ‘Court History of David,’” the latter being a model for construction of the former;
being connected with the royal ideology; therefore, these chapters as a whole can be
viewed as “messianic” in the royal ideological sense. Wifall applies this approach to Gen
3:15 in particular, and suggests that it is the Yahwist’s Urzeit version of 2 Sam 7:12,
where God promises David he will raise up his seed after him and establish his kingdom..
Psalm 89 and 2 Samuel 22 speak of David’s seed enduring forever; Ps 89:11 mentions
God’s crushing of Rahab, as David and his seed will do to their enemies (Ps 89:24; 2 Sam
22:37-43). The serpent’s humiliation is likewise historically fulfilled when the king’s
enemies bow down and lick the dust (Ps 72:9). Likewise, outside of Israel the picture of
foes being trod upon by their victors is common (as Haspecker and Lohfink also
mentioned). Wifall agrees with Westermann for a denominative meaning of ‫ שּוף‬from
Akkadian šêpu, “foot,” and speculates that it had the same dual meaning that the English
verb “foot” once had: “to tread upon” and “to seize” (however, it only meant “seize”

255
Unger, FG, 24-62.

256
Ibid., 237-40, 265.

71
when the foot of a bird of prey was doing the seizing, a meaning obviously unsuitable to
Gen 3:15).257
Gen 3:15 is therefore not a direct prediction of the Messiah, but seen with Israel’s
royal ideology as a background, which is most clearly demonstrated by Paul in 1
Corinthians 15 (he must reign until he pits all enemies under his feet) and John in
Revelation 12 (where the seed has become Christ and the Church), Irenaeus’
interpretation of it is vindicated.258
1.9.6 Manfred Görg
In a literary and form-critical study, Görg expressed the opinion that Gen 3:14-15
is an insertion in the text of Genesis 3 which was made in connection with Hezekiah’s
religious reform, of which the destruction of the bronze serpent played a part (2 Kgs 18:4;
Num 21:4-9). That the curse is not original is shown by the fact that no internal
connection between Gen 3:14-15 and the rest of the chapter can be recognized; there is
no mention of an upright snake in the previous verses. Also, curses do not belong in an
aetiological narrative, and v. 16a is an added introduction to the punishment on the
woman (v. 13a was obviously the original introduction), necessitated by the insertion of
Gen 3:14-15. It is also problematic to introduce enmity in this curse, since enmity already
existed on the part of the snake towards the woman. The enmity in Gen 3:15 must be
something new. Therefore Görg looks in Israel’s history to find the beginning of this
enmity towards, or breaking off of friendship with, the snake. Thus the connection with
Hezekiah’s reform.259
Görg argues for an Egyptian derivation of the root ‫שּוף‬, saying that there is no
satisfactory Semitic derivation. He notes that Akkadian šapu with the meaning “mit
Füssen treten” is only postulated on the basis of the noun šēpu, “foot.” He does not
discuss other attempts to relate ‫ שּוף‬to other Semitic languages, but says they have not
been successful. A satisfactory derivation, however, is found in Egyptian ḫf, or the
reduplicated ḫfḫf, which is also found as šp, and špšp, and has the general meaning of
damage, or demolish, which would apply well to the action of destroying a statue. Görg
says it corresponds well with the Hebrew ‫ כתת‬used to describe what Hezekiah did to the
bronze snake, and postulates that this snake was a large bronze statue of an upright cobra,
after the Egyptian manner, perhaps with wings. This supposition makes the meaning of
Gen 3:15 transparent: Egyptian religious influence, symbolized by the cobra, was a threat
to Israelite faith. This snake was friendly with and deceived a “woman” (Pharaoh’s
daughter, who became Solomon’s wife), who was used for the downfall of man
(Solomon). This woman is a prototype of the foreign woman, who is seen again in
Hezekiah’s mother Abi (2 Kgs 18:2; cf. 2 Chr 29:1, Abijah), whom Görg detects in a
leading opposition role early in Hezekiah’s reign. Hezekiah is therefore the seed of the
woman, who destroys the snake statue in fulfillment of Gen 3:15. As for the action of the
257
Walter Wifall, “Gen 3:15 – A Protevangelium?” CBQ 36 (1974): 361-64. See n. 22, p. 364.

258
Ibid., 364-65.

259
Manfred Görg, “Das Wort zur Schlange (Gen 3,14f): Gedanken zum sogenannten Protoevangelium,” BN
19 (1982), 122-131.

72
snake against the man’s heel; the opposition of head and heel alone would not indicate a
fatal as opposed to a non-fatal injury, since as others have pointed out, a snake bite is no
less life destroying than the crushing carried out by the man. The fact that the snake is
pictured as still attacking after its head is crushed (Gen 3:15e follows Gen 3:15d)
indicates the figurative meaning of the picture, and shows that even when Nehushtan is
smashed, the snake remains a menace. Egypt is the continuation of the seduction force of
the snake, as is clear from Isa 27:1, where the three chaos figures (as Gunkel enumerated
them) possibly stand for Egypt, as Rahab does elsewhere. Only later readers ignorant of
the original historical circumstances could see in this passage, therefore, a
protoevangelium, although one could connect Jesus to it by viewing him as another
Hezekiah.260
1.9.7 Knut Holter
Holter criticizes the view of von Rad who says we should ignore what the serpent
is and concentrate on what it says; it is hard to imagine J using the loaded word ‫נָחָש‬
without any symbolical meaning. He suggests that this symbolical meaning is present as
representing Israel’s neighbors/enemies, and the account is written as a somewhat
disguised “criticism against the open internationalism in Solomon’s foreign policy.” This
symbolic meaning is more likely than that which sees the serpent as symbolic of pagan
religions, because the snake is viewed as something made by God; he made the nations,
even though they are Israel’s enemies, but he did not make snake worship. Animals are
used to describe peoples elsewhere in J (Genesis 49), and in particular, snakes are used to
describe Assyria in Isa 14:29; Egypt in Jer 46:22, and probably enemies preparing an
invasion in Jer 8:17 (though literal snakes might also be in view). These texts show that it
would be natural for the serpent in Gen 3:15 to metaphorically represent Israel’s enemies.
That verse describes a prolonged contest as indicated by the reference to offspring and
the imperfect (iterative) verbs. The collective usages of the expression “ancient enmity”
in Ezek 25:15; 35:5 to apply to Israel’s political enemies (Philistia and Edom) shows that
the word in Gen 3:15 can have political connotations. Holter thinks that Görg has erred
by focussing on Egypt to the exclusion of the other nations around Israel in applying Gen
3:15 to the history of Israel.261
1.9.8 Josef Haspecker & Norbert Lohfink
As the title of their article suggests (“Gn 3,15: ,weil du ihm nach der Ferse
schnappst’”), Haspecker & Norbert Lohfink argue that Gen 3:15e is not a prediction of
what the snake will do to humans in the future so much as the justification for the curse;
it is the Begründungssatz for why the snake’s head should be crushed. Gen 3:15d-e
therefore is not so much a picture of a battle that will take place as a judicial sentence.
The authors note that we could take the initial waw joining Gen 3:15e to Gen
3:15d (‫ ) ְואַתָ ה‬as an adversative which makes the last clause subordinate to the first.
Combining this with the inchoative gives the idea, “he will crush your head, while you
will only try (and fail) to bite, etc.” This translation, by subordinating the last clause, does
260
Ibid., 132-39.

261
Knut Holter, “The Serpent in Eden as a Symbol of Israel’s Political Enemies: A Yahwistic Criticism of
the Solomonic Foreign Policy?”, SJOT 1 (1990), 106-12.

73
not digress from the curse but rather intensifies it, making the failure of the snake to
inflict mortal damage part of his curse, and thus it reinforces the human salvation sense.
The main problem for this translation, however, is that it requires the insinuation of the
word “only” and the inchoative sense. If we ask what in the context would give this
insinuation, the only answer is that which other interpreters have given; namely the
head/heel antithesis, which suffers from the fact that a wound from the snake in the heel
may be fatal.262
Haspecker and Lohfink therefore propose understanding the initial waw in Gen
3:15e as introducing a causal clause (GKC § 158a; Gesenius notes that as a rule,
however, a causal clause is introduced with a causal preposition), “because,” which
makes Gen 3:15e an explanation statement put at the end of the curse, explaining the guilt
of the snake. In this interpretation, the curse begins and ends with such an explanation:
“because you have done this” (v. 14), and “because you attack(ed) his heel.” It also
presents the curse more as a judicial pronouncement than as a graphic image of a battle
between a man and a snake.263
The authors note that usually an explanation statement uses the perfect tense,
although the imperfect is possible, citing GKC § 158d; Deut 7:12; 8:20; 1 Kgs 8:33 (sic,
1 Kgs 8:35). As Gesenius notes, however, all these passages are in the context of a
conditional future, where the punishments may be avoided, so they cannot provide a
precedent for Gen 3:15. The authors argue, however, that in Gen 3:15e the waw is not
strictly causal, but also comparative, as it introduces the idea of measure for measure.
The English “as,” meaning both “because” and “like,” would suggest this dual sense
better than the German “weil.”264
The authors then discuss four areas of comparison material which they believe
make the case for the sense of “weil;” retaliation thought; a Ugaritic text; form critical
studies; and ancient pictorial depictions. The retaliatory idea expressed in Gen 9:6, “he
who sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed,” is expressed also in Gen 3:15 if
translated “he will crush your head, because/like you tried to snap after his heel.”265
The authors also draw attention to a line in the Ugaritic epic of Aqhat, where El
speaks to the goddess Anat after she demands revenge on Danel’s son Aqhat for
scornfully refusing to sell her his bow and arrow which were made by Kothar-wa- Ḫasis.
El gives her permission, and says, dṯ·ydṯ·mʿqbk, which they translate, “Zertreten, zertreten

262
Josef Haspecker and Norbert Lohfink, “Gn 3,15: ,weil du ihm nach der Ferse schnappst,’” Scholastik 36
(1961), 359-60.

263
Ibid., 360-61.

264
Ibid., 361.

265
Ibid., 362-63; ANET, 500.

74
soll werden, wer dir nachstellt.” Driver translates, “He who hinders you shall be utterly
struck down,” while Coogan translates “Whoever slanders you will be crushed.”266
Gen 3:15 follows Westermann’s prophetic judgment announcement type,
similarly to Gen 3:17-19; 4:10-12; 49:66-67; Deut 28:15-46, where there is given
punishment, and reason for the punishment. Applied to Gen 3:15, the punishment is “he
will crush your head,” and the reason is, “you snapped after his heel.” Further, it is
typical in these prophetic judgments for there to be a verbal association between guilt and
punishment; for example “eat” in Gen 3:17, and this common feature explains the double
use of ‫ שּוף‬in Gen 3:15.267
At this point, the authors raise two form-critical problems with their
interpretation: judgment comes before the explanation, and the use of the imperfect (they
could have added a third, syntactical problem, namely that the causal sense which they
find in the waw is “as a rule” conveyed with a causal preposition). These exceptional uses
are not impossible, but also are not normal. To reduce the number of deviations from the
expected pattern, they propose that in fact the imperfect has a present/future connotation:
the snake will continue to waylay humans (as the prediction of enmity implies), because
it is its nature to do so; therefore the punishment to be inflicted is not only for the original
offense, but for all of those which will be committed in the future.268
Finally, Haspecker and Lohfink draw attention to ancient depictions of battle and
victory. If the background for Gen 3:15 was the primeval fight between God and the
dragon, that would seem to argue for a non-causal translation of Gen 3:15e. Such a
background is at most a foil for Gen 3:15, however, because a battle takes place with
weapons, not a foot. The crushing of the head is either the end of the fight, or a victory
gesture over a dead body. Such a gesture is seen, for example, in Enuma elish where
Marduk tramples Tiamat’s dead body, and Naram-Sin of Akkad who is depicted after a
victory standing on two dead bodies. These and other examples suggest that Gen 3:15 is a
picture of complete victory, rather than of a battle.269
1.9.9 Edouard Lipinski
Lipinski cites biblical and comparative material which illuminates the
humiliation of the curse. The three fates of the serpent (crawling on the belly, eating dust,
and having the head crushed) are all images of the conquered enemy or at least
expressive of deep humiliation. Crawling on the belly is shown to be an abomination in
Lev 11:42; a vassal king (of Tyre) writes to his superior (Pharaoh Akhenaton) that he lies
on his belly before him; a bas-relief shows a Syrian crawling on his stomach and

266
J. C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends (2nd ed.; original ed. by G. R. Driver; Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1977), 111 (Aqhat 18.i.19); Michael David Coogan, Stories From Ancient Canaan (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1978), 38.

267
Ibid., 365-67. Other examples given are, 1 Sam 15:23; 2 Sam 12:12; 1 Kgs 21:19; 2 Chr 12:5; 24:20; Hos
4:5-6.

268
Ibid., 369.

269
Ibid., 371.

75
imploring the grace of the king’s servant. To eat (or lick) dust is an expression of
humility for the snake or for men, in Isa 49:23; 65:12; Mi 7:17; Ps 72:9; and in the Epic
of Gilgamesh, the Descent of Ishtar, and the Pyramid Texts. The crushing of the head is
also an image of victory over an enemy from neo-Sumerian times; an Assyrian text, in
particular, says “as that of a snake, I have [struck] your head with my foot.”270
All of these parallels show that Gen 3:14-15 is a picture of victory for humankind
over the snake, confirming Haspecker’s and Lohfink’s thesis. Lipinski disagrees with the
explanation of these authors, however, for Gen 3:15e. Possibly prompted by Rashi,
Lipinski repoints ‫שּופּנּו‬
ֶ֫ ְ‫ ת‬as ‫שֹופּנּו‬
ֶ֫ ִׁ‫ ת‬from ‫נשף‬, with the meaning “spit at” for the snake’s
injection of venom. He finds support for this in Job 9:17-18, where he also repoints the
verb ‫שּוף‬, in which God is compared to a venomous snake who spits at Job in the storm,
and leaves him without breath (describing the phenomenon of dispnoea, paralysis of the
thoracic muscles, which is the result of the snake’s venom). Gen 3:15 therefore depicts
alternately victories and defeats for humanity, and is just a naturalistic aetiology. The lex
talion aspect of the passage mentioned by Haspecker and Lohfink is more properly
expressed by the humiliation of the snake as punishment for making Adam and Eve know
their nakedness. He regards the eschatological and messianic interpretations of Gen 3:15
as invalid reinterpretations of the text in the Christian era.271
1.9.10 Stephen Kempf
Kempf studied Gen 3:14-19 from a discourse grammar point of view. He does
not focus on the meaning of Gen 3:15, but his study is of interest in light of the view of
some that these verses are not original to the narrative. He concludes that these verses are
both the grammatical peak and the climax of the discourse. This conclusion indicates that
the whole chapter speaks of the origin of sin and a real fall which affects the future of the
human race, not just an example of what can happen to anyone.
Gen 3:8-21 is a complex dialogue, consisting of the setting (v. 8), six
conversational exchanges (vv. 9-19), and a closure (vv. 20-21). The exchanges (vv. 9-19)
are “an abeyance paragraph” in which the main exchange is held in abeyance until the
subdialogue is resolved (the initial interrogation of the man is held in abeyance by his
implication of the woman, and in turn by her implication of the serpent, and then by the
judgments on the serpent and the woman). The dialogue is “complex” because the man
and woman do not simply answer the questions asked of them, but try to shift the focus
away from themselves. In vv. 14-19 the Lord takes control of the dialogue, not allowing
any further input from those addressed.272
Gen 3:14-15 are the fourth of the six exchanges. Gen 3:15 is an “Hortatory
Paraphrase Paragraph” consisting of a thesis (the enmity portion; I will cause you and the
woman to be enemies), and an antithetical paragraph (the battle portion). Kempf says that
the “cursed are you” formula is the strongest of decrees issued by an authority, so that the

270
Edouard Lipinski, “Etudes sur des textes «messianiques» de l’Ancien Testament,” Sem 20 (1970), 42-44.

271
Ibid., 45-47.

272
Stephen Kempf, “Genesis 3:14-19: Climax of the Discourse?” JOTT 6 (1993), 358-59.

76
passive participle must be considered equal to the imperative (“the highest ranking form
on the prominence scale of hortatory discourse”); likewise the “imperfect verbs are
employed as mitigated imperatives.” He considers Gen 3:15d-e to be chiastic in structure
(relating “he” to “heel” and “head” to “you”), whereas most interpreters would probably
see these as parallel contrastive, relating “he” to “you,” and “head” to “heel.”273
Kempf lists eight features which mark vv. 14-19 as the grammatical peak of
Genesis 2-3: (1) there we see the “longest and most detailed account of the ideological
and psychological view of the central character” (the Lord); (2) the verses speak to the
future of humankind, including to the readers of the narrative; (3) it is the most complex
part of the narrative, analytically; (4) rhetorical underlining (paraphrase of previously
made points); (5) the phenomenon of the “crowded stage” in which all of the characters
appear together at once; (6) heightened vividness; “each of the exchanges is left
unresolved until the announcements of judgment” (vv. 14-19); (7) change of pace from
“the long paraphrase paragraph in Gen. 3:17b-e to the short sentence in Gen. 3:17f:
‘Cursed is the ground;’” (8) poetic style.274
Gen 3:14-19 is also the climax of the discourse because “it points to the
resolution of the narrative problem.” The problem is that the prohibition against eating
the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was violated. “Almost all of
God’s direct discourse in Genesis 2-3 constructs a verbal context for inferring
punishment” (quoting Susan Lanser). Just as God’s pronounced word in Genesis 1 comes
to pass, so does the penalty for disobedience, and the announcement of this penalty
releases the tension introduced with the command in Gen 2:17. Identifying these verses
as the climax helps answer questions interpreters have raised: God did tell the truth about
man’s fate if he disobeyed; the death penalty was instituted. The whole narrative is about
the origin of sin and describes a real fall.275
1.9.11 William LaSor
LaSor affirms the importance of the “grammatico-historical method” of exegesis
for determining “as precisely as is humanly possible, given the data available to us in our
day, what the passage [of Scripture] meant to those who first heard or read the passage.”
However if the passage means nothing more to us than it did to the original hearers, “then
it has only an antiquarian interest. It is not the word of God to us. At most, it may be the
meeting-ground where God confronts us, but the confrontation is in the existential
moment, and not in the written word.” There is “the ‘something more’ that was given by
God in the divine inspiration, that makes the message equally valid as the word of God to
succeeding generations.” This “something more” is the sensus plenior, and it is a

273
Ibid., 358-59, 362, 365. Francis I. Andersen says the primary contrast is between the two pronouns,
although “head” versus “heel” is contrastive as well (The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew [Paris: Mouton, 1974],
150).

274
Kempf, “Genesis 3:14-19,” 368-70.

275
Ibid., 370-75.

77
complex problem to determine if the derivation of the fuller sense is in fact the word of
God, rather than “just some pet idea of mine that I am imposing on Scripture.”276
LaSor sees the sensus plenior as the third level of meaning in Scripture. The first
level is the literal, which includes figures of speech, and is that which is arrived at by
grammatico-historical exegesis. The spiritual meaning is the second level, and is defined
as “the timeless truth in a given passage of Scripture.” Some examples show the
difference between the literal and spiritual meanings. The literal meaning of Gen 12:4 is
that a certain male named Abram left a place called Haran at the advanced age of 75. In
Hos 11:3 (Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk), “the literal meaning is something
more than the sum of words.” The speaker is the God of Israel; Ephraim is the northern
kingdom, or more likely Israel and Judah. Learning to walk may mean that the Lord had
given Israel the necessary training for a young nation to survive, “or it may apply
specifically to the revealed will in the Torah.” Interpreters may differ, “but something
like this is the literal meaning.”
The context of Gen 12:4 “is God’s sovereign election,” and the spiritual meaning
of that verse is “that a man of faith responds in obedience to God’s call, regardless of
time or circumstances.” For Hos 11:3 the spiritual lesson is that the Lord’s “sovereign
choice is based on his love, and His revelation of His will to His people arises out of that
love and looks for a response of loving obedience.” When we arrive at these spiritual
meanings, however,
we have something far different, or far less, than the New Testament writers found in the
Old Testament. We may have valuable spiritual truths that can be built into a system of
biblical theology, but we do not seem to have anything that approaches the significance
277
of the words of our Lord when He spoke of the Scriptures being “fulfilled.”
There is therefore a third level of meaning, called sensus plenior, or “the fuller
sense.” LaSor uses Raymond Brown’s definition as a starting point:
The sensus plenior is that additional, deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly
intended by the human author, which is seen to exist in the words of a Biblical text (or
group of texts, or even a whole book) when they are studied in the light of further
278
revelation or development in the understanding of revelation.
LaSor notes the surface validity of the objection that grammatico-historical exegesis is
frustrated if we cannot discover the meaning intended by the author, which must be the
case if the fuller sense is not intended (at least clearly) by the human author. However
LaSor says Scripture requires us to understand that in prophecy, there is and must be a
fuller sense, which is implied in the very concept of prophecy.279 This fuller sense, then,
276
William Sanford LaSor, “Prophecy, Inspiration, and Sensus Plenior,” TB 29 (1978), 50-51.

277
Ibid., 51-53.

278
Ibid., 54. Source for Brown is The Sensus Plenior of Sacred Scripture (S.T.D. diss.; Baltimore: St.
Mary’s University, 1955), 92. Other articles by Brown are “The History and Development of the Theory of a
Sensus Plenior,” CBQ 15 (1953), 141-62; and “The Sensus Plenior in the Last Ten Years,” CBQ 25 (1963),
262-285.

279
Ibid., 54-55.

78
“can be discovered by attempting to relate the situation [in which the prophecy is given]
and the prophecy to the on-going redemptive purpose of God.” This relationship between
prophecy and the on-going history of redemption is the controlling factor which avoids
the use of the fuller sense as a means of reading subjective meanings or personal
preferences into Scripture interpretation.280
LaSor then discusses Gen 3:15 as his first example of the fuller sense. It is
ridiculous to suggest the passage is explaining why women hate snakes. The immediate
context (Gen 3:14-19) speaks of future generations as well as judgments, while the larger
context “tells of the satanic origin of the temptation (using the word ‘satanic’ in its basic
meaning of opposed to God’s revealed will),” and of “the ultimate triumph over the
serpent.” In the fuller sense, “I do not find the expression “the seed of the woman” to be a
prophecy of the Virgin Mary or the Virgin Birth, but I do find the fullness of meaning in
some as-yet-unspecified member of the human race who would destroy the satanic
serpent, thus playing a key role in God’s redemptive plan. In that sense, the passage is
indeed the first enunciation of the good news.”281
1.10 Summary of Recent Interpretations of Gen 3:15
Hengstenberg and Kline (first and last in § 1.8) seem to be the two greatest
defenders of the last 200 years of the view of Gen 3:15 as a proto-Gospel, though neither
would defend the Lutheran view of Gen 3:15. This difference from Luther does not mark
a retreat, however, since their views for the most part are found in interpreters from Justin
to Pareus. Kline is practically unique in finding Old Testament fulfillments of Gen 3:15d-
e, but even here his interpretations are consistent with some of the church fathers who
connected the Old Testament dragon figure with the serpent of Genesis 3.
The modern period shows the same basic range of opinions regarding Gen 3:15
as has been evident since the beginning. The major difference in interpretation in the past
was that between Jews, who gave a predominantly naturalistic interpretation, and
Christians, who consistently regarded it as figurative, and of at least some importance as
a promise of salvation. Today the major difference would probably be between
rationalists and conservatives (evangelicals or Catholics), although as we have seen from
the WBC and NICOT commentaries, and Lewis’s essay published by JETS, the latter do
not necessarily give Gen 3:15 much more importance than the former.
The history of interpretation of Gen 3:15 would not give confidence to anyone
hoping to build a consensus of interpretation. If anything, the range of interpretation
today is wider than ever. The essays of Wifall, Görg, and Holter, however, have taken
some steps away from the rationalistic naturalistic interpretation in the direction of the
figurative collective interpretation of Justin, Hengstenberg, Kline, etc., since they find a
figurative interpretation of the woman’s seed as Israel, and of the serpent’s seed as the
national enemies of Israel to be reasonable. Similarly, Haspecker and Lohfink and
Lipinski have drawn attention to some comparative material which points in the same
direction. We will see that the basis for such an interpretation is much stronger than these

280
Ibid., 55-56.

281
Ibid., 56-57.

79
authors have indicated, and we will see that in fact the apostles base the New Testament
interpretation of Gen 3:15 on just such an Old Testament understanding of Gen 3:15.

80
 CHAPTER II

INITIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF GENESIS3:15

2.1 Introduction
We now turn to a more detailed examination of how Gen 3:15 has been
interpreted in the Bible itself. Since we will be following a chronological (i.e., biblical-
theological) approach, we begin with the interpretation of Gen 3:15 that might have been
made from information available to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden; the initial
interpretation of Adam and Eve. This is admittedly a somewhat speculative endeavor, but
speculation is reduced if one finds evidence in the text itself for this initial interpretation,
as others (especially Luther) have claimed to find. The next step will be to discuss what
the initial interpretation might be for the first “implied readers” of the narrative, namely,
the typical Israelite fellow countryman of the author. The reason for distinguishing the
interpretation of Adam and Eve from that of the initial readers of Genesis 3 is that
Genesis 3 records information in narrative form apart from the spoken dialogue which
may (or may not) give additional clues to interpretation. While identification of the first
implied readers depends on one’s views concerning the date and authorship of Genesis 3
as it has come down to us, I think it makes little difference, in terms of what these readers
would be able to understand, whether one places these readers in the time of Moses (the
present author’s view), or at the time when most scholars view the J document as coming
together. We will not be dealing with any hypothetical literary prehistory of Genesis 3 in
this dissertation, although I assume that the material in it was handed down in some form
from our first parents.
2.2 Initial Interpretation of Adam and Eve
2.2.1 Gen 3:15 Examined by Itself
In this section, we deal primarily with the meaning of the words involved in the
second part of the curse on the serpent. We discuss these as Hebrew words, and therefore
examine the whole Old Testament and comparative material as necessary for their
understanding, while keeping in mind that they must be a translation of what Adam and
Eve heard, therefore not the exact words themselves.
As for the identity of the tempter, those who have argued that the serpent was a
mere instrument of the devil explained the description of him in Gen 3:1 as an animal to
be a statement of appearances. That he was a most clever animal is how he appeared to
Adam and Eve, who, in their child-like innocence, could not have known that there was a
satanic spirit speaking through the snake. The description of him as a mere animal, then,
is not the opinion of the author of those words, but a description of how he appeared to
Adam and Eve. We will discuss later whether there is precedent for such use of language
of appearances by biblical narrators, but for now we note that in this view, the arguments
that there was more than an animal involved are arguments from hindsight, or further
revelation. This being the case, it must be true that the first interpretation of the curse on
the serpent would be a naturalistic interpretation. The serpent is a mere animal, and his
offspring are future generations of snakes. The woman can be no other than Eve, and her
offspring is the human race. The conflict between them is generic (i.e., commonly and

81
repeatedly occurring between different members of each race) and enduring, and is to be
taken literally.
M. Woudstra objected that animals are never said to have “offspring,” thus v. 15
itself would be against the naturalistic interpretation. He objected against the one
example (besides Gen 3:15) given in BDB (Gen 7:3; male and female animals come on
the ark in order “to keep alive seed on the earth”) because the animals in question did not
have any offspring at that time. He prefers the translation “to keep their kind alive.”282
But the fact that they keep their kind alive by producing offspring in the future would
seem to make this objection invalid. The same use of “seed” for preservation of future
posterity is seen in the case of Lot’s oldest daughter, who suggested that she and her
sister make Lot drunk so that they could lie with him “and keep alive from our father
offspring” (Gen 19:32, 34). Obviously the human “kind” is not in view here, but Lot’s
posterity, or offspring. In any case, the question is whether the expression “seed of the
serpent” would be unintelligible to Adam and Eve in a naturalistic interpretation; such a
view seems unlikely. In any case, we do not know the exact words spoken to Adam and
Eve, since biblical Hebrew was not spoken in the Garden of Eden, so ‫ ֶ֫ז ַרע‬is a translation,
and the nuances of the Hebrew probably should not be stressed.
On the meaning of the word ‫( ֶ֫ז ַרע‬offspring, seed), we must also address the
argument that a virgin birth is somehow implied. Two kinds of arguments have been
advanced for this view. The first, offered by a few commentators, takes “seed” as semen
virile. Since women do not have this seed, “seed of the woman” suggests the miraculous.
This view seems very poorly thought out. If the seed is semen virile, then “seed of the
woman” suggests nonsense, not the miraculous, like “egg of the man.” As Hamilton says,
it is “an oxymoron if there ever was one.”283 It does not suggest offspring at all, therefore
not a virgin birth. A second argument acknowledges that seed means offspring, but “seed
of the woman” is to be read “seed of the woman only, without participation of man.”
Other passages which refer to a woman’s seed (Gen 4:25; 16:10; 24:60) do not suggest a
virgin birth because in each of these cases the involvement of a man is implied. Similarly,
Luther appeared in some passages to take “seed” as semen virile, but his
acknowledgement that “seed of the woman” means all her offspring in general shows that
he is really relying on the fact that it is an unusual expression, not that it by itself suggests
the miraculous. He overstated how unusual it was, by saying that Gen 3:15 was the only
place it was found. To take “her seed” in Gen 3:15 as “her seed, produced without the
involvement of man” is an assumption, not a translation. Even Luther did not maintain
that Adam and Eve held to this view. In fact he may have wanted to, but he could not,
since in his view, Eve regarded Cain her first-born as God incarnate in fulfillment of Gen
3:15 (as proved by Gen 4:1), and of course she knew that he was not the product of a
virgin birth. The weakness in this second argument is shown in the fact that historically it
has developed completely into an argument from hindsight, as expressed by, e.g.,
Delitzsch, and others, who acknowledge that the concept of the woman’s seed does not

282
Marten H. Woudstra, “Recent Translations of Genesis 3:15,” CTJ 6 (1971): 195-96; BDB, 283.

283
Hamilton, Genesis 1-17, 199.

82
suggest the virgin birth, but the phrase was designed to coincide with it. But if that were
the case, what are we to infer from the expression “seed of Abraham” and “seed of
David”? Perhaps the weakest part of the argument is that it depends on identifying the
woman as the mother of Jesus, not Eve, and therefore on an exclusively individual
interpretation for the woman’s seed.
Another issue involved in interpreting “seed” is whether Gen 3:15 itself gives
any indication that the seed of the woman must be an individual. Luther said that only
God could do the work described there (crushing Satan), therefore the seed must be God
incarnate, therefore an individual. Adam was marvelously enlightened by God to
understand this fact, and Gen 4:1 is the proof of it. The flaw in this argument is that
God’s help in defeating the serpent does not require (in terms of Gen 3:15 itself) his
incarnation. As for Gen 4:1, we will see there is a more convincing way to refer that
passage to Gen 3:15. A second argument for an individual seed is that Gen 3:15 is a
picture of single combat (e.g., Pareus, Kline), with “he” (the “seed”) opposed to “you”
(the serpent). The serpent is an individual, therefore the seed is as well. Logically,
however, one could argue just as easily that because seed is collective, “you” also is
collective, standing for the serpent and his offspring, and that the picture is one of
generic, repeated combat, not single combat. In any case, Pareus and Kline do not try to
show that Adam and Eve understood the verse this way. A third, similar, argument
advanced for seeing an individual seed comes from noting the shift in balance in the
verse. Vos noted (see § 1.8.17) that in Gen 3:15b we read of the snake and the woman (a,
a'); in Gen 3:15c we read of the two seeds (b, b'); but in Gen 3:15d-e, we read of the
snake and the woman’s seed (a, b'). Where “the woman” is expected, we find the pronoun
“him” instead, which takes the focus off of the woman as head of the race (and thus off of
the present), and places it on some one of her descendants in the future. This shift in
emphasis is an interesting aspect of the verse. For now, we will note that there are other
explanations. Not all who have noticed this shift made an argument for an individual
from it (e.g., Vorster).284 Again, one could argue that although the focus does shift from
the woman, it does not necessarily go to an individual; the collective “you” for the
serpent and his seed would partially restore the balance if the woman’s seed were
collective. One could explain the shift in focus away from the woman by the view that
fighting snakes will be the man’s role, not the woman’s (generically speaking). Finally, to
use the argument consistently, one would have to say that the woman’s seed is collective
in the first case (agreeing with that of the serpent), but singular in the second (agreeing
with “you”), or that “he” does not really have “seed” as an antecedent. If “seed” is not the
antecedent, then Gen 3:15 is in fact a riddle, as some have argued, perhaps pointing to an
unspecified individual as opposed to the collective seed in the first part of the verse. But
if it is a riddle, then the meaning could not be clear to Adam and Eve. For the initial
interpretation, then, the collective meaning of ‫ ֶ֫ז ַרע‬as offspring in general, taken literally,
not morally, seems certain.
Another word-based objection to a naturalistic interpretation is that animals are
never in the rest of Scripture at enmity with humans. Only rational beings can be at
284
Vorster says that since this is a curse on the serpent itself, “you” is found in Gen 3:15d rather than “your
seed” (“Messianic Interpretation of Gen 3:15,” 114-15).

83
enmity. But this cannot be an argument against a naturalistic initial interpretation, since it
is an argument from hindsight. This snake apparently was rational, and was at enmity
with humans; the curse would suggest a continuation of this same enmity; the difference
being (as many commentators have noted), that now men will be aware of it and fight
back.
The meaning of the word “enmity” is not generally considered problematic
because, even though it only occurs four times outside of Gen 3:15 (Num 35:21-22; Ezek
25:15; 35:5), the word is associated with the very common word “enemy” (‫)אֹוי ֵב‬, and its
general meaning is presumably clear; it is that state which exists between enemies. S.
Rosenbaum argued instead that it has a very specific technical and legal meaning in
Israelite homicide law. Passages such as Exod 21:12-14; Num 35:6-34; Deut 4:42; 19:4-
13; Josh 20:5 distinguish between involuntary manslaughter and premeditated murder.
The Numbers passage is the longest of these, where we also find the term for enmity used
in Gen 3:15. Rosenbaum notes that enmity seems to be distinguished from common
hatred because the latter “is twice qualified by the expression mitmol silsom [sic; hatred
beforehand] while ’eyvah is not.” He suggests therefore that enmity is “a different kind of
antipathy than that which arises in the daily course of human events.” This antipathy is
one of rivalry, where the antagonist seeks to obtain something that belongs to his victim,
or sees his victim as a threat to his position. As examples, he cites the verbal use of the
root in Exod 23:22 where God says he will have enmity towards Israel’s enemies, helping
them to dispossess the Canaanites; and 1 Sam 18:29, where Saul becomes David’s
constant enemy. The use of this word cannot mean that Saul hates David; in fact he loves
him (1 Sam 16:21). Instead, it expresses the fact that Saul and David are rivals. “Personal
affection takes a backseat to reasons of state.” Likewise the use of enmity in Ezekiel is in
the context of national rivalry over land between Israel and the Philistines and
Edomites.285
Applying the meaning of “rivalry” or “a state of permanent belligerancy” to Gen
3:15, we can see that the reason for such a punishment is not because the serpent
deceived Eve; the punishment of enmity for deceit would hardly correspond to the
principle of “measure for measure.” Rather, the reason is
broadly speaking, the real fruit of that deception which took place in Eden was murder.
By robbing Adam and Eve of immortality the snake and its descendants are the murderers
of our ancestors and, by extension, of ourselves as well. Any human death, whatever the
286
apparent cause, is another crime to be laid at the den of the serpent.
We note first that Rosenbaum overlooks the fact that in Numbers 35 enmity is
used synonymously with hatred. “If with hatred (‫שנְָאה‬ ִׁ ‫ ) ְב‬he shoves someone or knowingly
throws something at him, or with enmity (‫ ) ְבאֵיבָה‬strikes him so that he dies” (vv. 20-21).
Similarly for the collective enmity of Edom against Israel in Ezek 35:5, v. 11 expands on
the meaning of it, using the words “anger,” “jealousy,” and “hatred” (‫ַאף‬, ‫ ִׁקנְָאה‬, and ‫שנְָאה‬
ִׁ ).
Similarly v. 6 indicates that it is not a dispassionate seeking of Israel’s land for

285
Stanley N. Rosenbaum, “Israelite Homicide Law and the Term ‘Enmity’ in Genesis 3:15,” Journal of
Law and Religion 2 (1984): 145-50.

286
Ibid., 147, 150.

84
themselves, but a love of bloodshed, that motivated Edom. Likewise the “ancient enmity”
on the part of the Philistines (Ezek 25:15) is exercised with “malice of the soul” ( ‫שָאט‬ ְ
‫)ב ְֶ֫נפש‬. As for Saul and David, the fact that Saul loved David in 1 Samuel 16 does not
mean he cannot hate him in 1 Samuel 18. Saul changed his outlook toward David in some
way, according to Rosenbaum; why not his attitude as well? In any case, if there were a
“technical” definition of enmity, it would not necessarily come into play in Gen 3:15,
especially as understood by Adam and Eve. Enmity is simply that state which exists
between enemies.
The meaning of the word ‫ שּוף‬is less clear. We have noted the ancient
translations, which range from watch (LXX), keep/remember (Tg. Onqelos),
strike/wound/kill (Palestinian Tgs.), crush (Vg, Aquila), lie in wait (Vg), as well as more
recent interpretations such as Hengstenberg’s argument that the double accusative
requires a verb that involves bodily contact, like “strike” (‫)נכה‬, and more modern versions
of Vg’s view that there are two roots (‫ שּוף‬/ ‫ )שאף‬or at least two meanings involved (such
as crush/snap at). We will cite here some recent specialized studies in this area.
P. Haupt related ‫ שּוף‬in Gen 3:15 to an Akkadian denominative verb “crush” from
šêpu, “foot.” He also noted the Targum rendering of Hebrew ‫( דכא‬crush; piel) in Ps 94:5
with Aramaic ‫שּוף‬, and that the same Hebrew verb is used for crushing under foot in Lam
3:34. In Gen 3:15, however, Haupt says ‫ שּוף‬does not mean to “tread under foot” but “to
tread on the heels of, i. e. to track, stalk, hunt down, waylay, seek to injure, persecute.”
Thus the Vg insidiaberis for the second use is essentially correct. Haupt thinks the
meaning of “persecute” fits both cases of ‫ שּוף‬in Gen 3:15, also in the two other Old
Testament cases. Job 9:17 he translates “he would pursue me with a storm,” and Ps
139:11 “if I thought that darkness would stalk me.” The problem with the double
accusative is eliminated by removing “head” and “heel” from the verse: “They will
persecute thee, thou wilt persecute them.” The meaning is naturalistic.287
G. R. Driver notes that the Old Testament occurrences of ‫ שּוף‬are “insufficient to
establish its precise meaning.” He examines the post-Biblical Hebrew usage and notes
that ‫ שּוף‬and ¹pv are “more or less interchangeable,” with the general meaning of “rub,”
“polish,” “crush” (‫)שּוף‬, and “rubbed,” “ground down,” and figuratively, “bowed down”
(‫ ;)שפף‬and that ‫ שּוף‬in particular “is used of trampling things under foot: e.g., ‫נישוף ברגלי‬
‫‘ אדם וברגלי בהמה‬it (sc. filth) is trampled down by the feet of men and by the feet of
cattle.’” He rejects this meaning for Gen 3:15 since it is unsuitable in its second use there.
He notes that in Syriac the same two roots are confused, and says “the underlying idea is
clearly that of friction, whether caused by rubbing or polishing or by crawling on the
ground.” For šwp he gives examples of the sense rub (transitive and intransitive), drag,
and crawl, or creep. One sense in Arabic suggests a cloud skimming over the earth.288
Driver applies these meanings to the four Old Testament cases of ‫שּוף‬: in Gen
3:15 he takes the Syriac meaning and says “it means ‘rubbed’, ‘abraded’ or ‘grazed’

287
Haupt, “Curse on the Serpent,” 155-61. CAD suggests “march” as the meaning of the Akkadian verb, but
adds a question mark (p. 17:2.307). Similarly W. von Soden suggests “‘schreiten’?”, to walk, step (AHW,
1215) for the denominative.

288
Gordon R. Driver, “Some Hebrew Verbs, Nouns, and Pronouns,” JTS 30 (1928-29): 375-76.

85
rather than ‘bruised’, which implies a blow,” giving the translation, “it shall graze thy
head and thou shalt graze its heel.” In Ps 139:11 and Job 9:17 he takes the Arabic
meaning: “surely the darkness shall sweep close over me” and “for He (sc. God)
sweepeth close over me in the tempest.”289
A. Schulz’s study has been mentioned already in connection with the LXX
translation of Gen 3:15; he thinks there are two homonyms used here, agreeing with the
two roots ‫“ ;שאף‬crush,” and “snap after,” and this pun cannot be translated. Schulz agreed
with König that the LXX translation of Ps 139:11 with καταπατεῖν is essentially correct,
understandable in a figurative sense; “depressing darkness.”290
A. Guillaume discusses Gen 3:15 as an instance of paronomasia. Noting Driver’s
rejection of the meaning “crush” as unsuitable in the second use, he says “what is
imperatively demanded is a verb which would express not only the action of man and
snake, but also, if one is right in finding a double entente here, would bring those actions
into the orbit, and take up the notion, of enmity.” He finds such a meaning from the
Arabic noun sometimes spelled šafah (as if from šwf) and related verb. The verb means
either to hate or to fester (as of a wound), while the noun means “enmity” or “festering
wound.” The idea of Gen 3:15 would then be that both parties “inflict swelling and
festering wounds” on each other. For the first instance, the crushing of the head would be
suggested; for the second, a poisonous bite is implied, since that is what gives the
swelling and festering wound.291
The paronomasia would be “in the equivalence of ‫ אֵיבָה‬and ‫שּוף‬, which hints at its
cognate accusative ‫שפָה‬ָ ; ‘wound’ and ‘enmity’.” It is thus like Samson’s riddle in which
the double meaning “lion” and “honey” are found in the word ‫ארי‬, but ‫ דבש‬is written the
second time, just as ‫ אֵיבָה‬appears instead of ‫שפָה‬
ָ ; in Gen 3:15. Guillaume harmonizes his
proposed understanding of ‫ שּוף‬in Gen 3:15 with the second root ‫ שּוף‬given the meaning of
“crush,” “trample on” in BDB, by translating five cases with the verb “hate” (Ps 56:2, 3;
57:4; Amos 8:4; Ezek 36:3; in this last case the LXX translates with μισέω). The
remaining case where the meaning “trample upon” is found is Amos 2:7: “They trample
upon the heads of the poor, as upon the dust of the ground,” which he says “as it stands
the verse cannot be translated without misgiving.”292
Wolfram von Soden said that ‫ שּוף‬cannot be explained by relating it to an
Akkadian verb. Although the difference between crushing the head and biting the heel
might suggest there are two homonyms in Gen 3:15, also in Job 9:17; Ps 139:11, von
Soden says there is no interchange of middle waw and middle aleph fientive verbs in

289
Ibid., 377.

290
Schulz, “Gn 3,15,” 353-55.

291
A. Guillaume, “Paronomasia in the Old Testament,” JSS 9 (1964): 286-87.

292
Ibid., 287-88.

86
Hebrew, so ‫ שּוף‬should not be compared to ‫שאף‬. He thinks that one can translate all four
instances of ‫ שּוף‬with “hart angreifen,” attack hard, assail hard.293
To see whether ‫ שּוף‬could be used in the same sense in both cases in Gen 3:15, as
Hengstenberg, von Soden, and others suggest, we might study the semantic range of
some “attack” words that involve bodily contact; as Hengstenberg already noted, the very
common hkn, “smite, strike,” can be used for a worm eating a plant; thus “bite” may be
involved. We might also look at ‫ דכא‬/ ‫דכה‬, following Haupt’s observation of the Aramaic
rendering of this verb with ‫שּוף‬. But ‫ דכא‬/ ‫ דכה‬consistently has the specific meaning to
crush or be crushed or broken, with the figurative meaning of oppress(ed) or contrite.
There are other words, however, which are sometimes translated “crush,” which also
have a more general meaning of wound or attack.
Augustine saw the crushing of Leviathan’s heads in Ps 74:13, 14 as a fulfillment
of Gen 3:15 in his moralistic interpretation. The verbs used there are ‫( שבר‬break) and ‫רצץ‬
(crush; both are piel). Besides Ps 74:14, ‫ רצץ‬is used of crushing Abimelech’s skull in
Judg 9:53.294 The word is also used figuratively for infliction of distress and oppression
(e.g., 2 Chr 16:10). Significantly for our purposes, it is also used in the general meaning
of attack, as seen in its use for the mutual attacks made by the unborn children Esau and
Jacob against each other. The children prefigured their personal animosity, as well as that
between the nations descended from them, by striking each other in the womb (Gen
25:22-23; the hithpolel is used). As they both were born without injury, the meaning of
“crush” is unsuitable, but the violent nature of the attacks is suggested by Rebekah’s
concern because of them. These attacks continued through the birth process itself, as
Jacob seized the heel of his brother. The range in meaning of ‫ רצץ‬therefore suggests the
possibility that ‫ שּוף‬could be used in Gen 3:15 to indicate the strike of a snake’s fangs
against the heel of a man (a bite), as well as the strike of a man’s foot against the head of
a snake (crushing it).
The range of meaning of the verb ‫ מחץ‬is also instructive. This word is used 14
times in the Old Testament, and in at least three of these cases it expresses the crushing of
the head: Num 24:17 (prophecy of a star from Jacob crushing the foreheads of Moab, and
the skulls of the sons of Seth); Judg 5:26 (piercing Sisera’s temple with a tent peg); and
Ps 68:22 (God will crush the heads of his enemies). Hab 3:13 and Ps 110:6 also speak of
crushing the head but there some interpret “head” as rulers. This word is also used in a
more general sense of attack, or wound. In Num 24:8 it is used for attacking (or piercing)
with arrows, so this word meaning “crush” could conceivably be used for the piercing
attack of a snake’s fangs against the heel (see also Deut 32:39, “I wound, I also heal;”
similarly Job 5:18).
I therefore disagree with those who say that the meaning of “strike” is unsuitable
in Gen 3:15d because it is not suitable in Gen 3:15e, and agree with interpreters such as
Hengstenberg and von Soden who say that the general meaning of attack (with contact) is
implied, and that such a use is suitable for an animal’s bite. The use of the double

293
Wolfram von Soden, “Zum hebräischen Wörterbuch,” UF 13 (1981): 160-61.

294
“The very peculiar form ‫( ”וַתֶָ֫ ִׁרץ‬hiphil) is used here; (GKC § 67p).

87
accusative seems to also indicate this general meaning of attack, rather than the specific
meaning of crush: “he will strike you on the head” (with crushing implied) makes better
sense than “he will crush you on the head.” The single accusative (which would be, “he
will crush your head”) is used in the passages cited above where ‫ רצץ‬and ‫ מחץ‬indicate the
crushing of the head directly. The word “strike” is an appropriate English word to use
since it not only indicates an attack, but bodily contact as well (thus satisfying the “place
of action” function of the second accusative mentioned by Hengstenberg), and it is an
appropriate word to describe a snake’s attack. It also has figurative uses, but other words
would have to be used to make sense of ‫ שּוף‬in Ps 139:11 (“press upon me”) and Job 9:17
(“buffet me”). The difference in meaning of the verb in Gen 3:15d-e, then, may be based
not on the verb itself, but on the subject of the verb and the part of the body that is struck.
It is rather striking that the contention of Hengstenberg that the second accusative
is used to specify the place of action of the verb has been unanswered, and in fact
unaddressed, by those who argue for meanings such as “lie in wait,” or “snap after,” or
“strike at” (which applies to a hit or a miss), except for Haupt, who simply eliminates
head and heel from the text. Gesenius says the use of the second accusative in Gen 3:15
“more closely determines the nearer object by indicating the part or member specially
affected by the action” and cites as examples Ps 3:8 (strike my enemies on the cheek),
Gen 37:21 (let us not smite him in the life [‫]נפש‬, ֶ֫ i.e., kill him), Deut 22:26 (slays him in
the life [‫)]נפש‬,
ֶ֫ 2 Sam 3:27 (he struck him on the 5th rib), Jer 2:16 (they have shaved you
on the head), and Deut 33:11 (strike on the loins those who rise against him).295 Spurrell
calls head and heel “accusatives of nearer definition” and says “the double accusative
after the rendering ‘lie in wait for’ is difficult,” and, “the only meaning which can be
philologically defended is ‘crush.’”296
We will postpone further consideration of the meaning of ‫ שּוף‬until we establish
other passages as fulfillments of or allusions to Gen 3:15; meanwhile, we will tentatively
use the translation “strike” as in “strike a blow.”
We next turn to the question of whether anything in v. 15 by itself indicates that
this part of the curse is a blessing, or promise of victory to Adam and Eve, or to their
offspring. In part this would depend on what weight one would attach to the fact that v.
15 is the first intimation that Adam and Eve will not immediately die as one would expect
based on the threat “on the day you eat of it you shall die.” God’s second question to
Adam (Gen 3:11) would recall this threat to Adam’s mind. When Eve hears of the future
enmity between herself and the serpent, it is the first clue she has that she will not
immediately die, and when Adam hears “her offspring,” it is his first indication that he
will not die that day. Thus the single word (in Hebrew) “her offspring” is Adam’s first
clue that the the day of his offence is not the day of his literal death; he shall survive and
produce offspring. We might add that this single word is also the serpent’s first clue that
he has not been successful in bringing about the end of the human race in the very
beginning; instead, that race will be his downfall.
295
GKC § 117ll. The SP for Deut 33:11 has “loins” in the construct state, in agreement with the view that
the MT form is due to enclitic mem, in which case the verse is not an example of the double accusative.

296
G. J. Spurrell, Notes on the Text of the Book of Genesis (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1986), 42-43.

88
 In part also this question of whether there is hope in Gen 3:15 itself would seem
to depend on whether one focusses on the head-heel antithesis mentioned by Calvin,
Hengstenberg, Kline, and others to show man’s superiority in the conflict, or on the fact
that the snake has the same ability to ruin his opponent as the man has (Rashi, von Rad
and others). Consequently we will turn to contextual arguments, beginning with the
relationship of v. 15 to v. 14, which tells us that this is a curse on the serpent.
2.2.2 Relationship of Gen 3:15 to Gen 3:14
The condemnation of the snake to crawl on his belly and eat dust, as Lipinski and
others have shown, and as one would logically conclude even without the comparative
material, is a curse of abject humiliation. V. 15 is a continuation of the curse; the
conjunction at the start of the verse introduces another punishment, some have said a
heightening of punishment; the reversal of the usual word order makes enmity the
emphatic word in the first clause. This enmity which results in the battle scene described
in the second part of the verse (whether generic, collective, or individual), is therefore a
continuation of the curse. If the outcome of this enmity is that both parties are destroyed,
then it would seem to be a logical necessity to conclude that man himself (not just his
circumstances, as in vv. 16-19) also is cursed in this verse. Man gains a reprieve, but he
(or, generically, many) will survive only to destroy the snake and to be destroyed by it.
So when von Rad says “the terrible point of this curse is the hopelessness of this struggle
in which both will ruin each other,” and yet points out that “the woman and the man are
not cursed (it is unthinking to speak of their malediction),” he holds two mutually
contradictory views of the curse. If it is not a curse on man (as von Rad correctly points
out), then it is a curse only on the enemy of man. If it is a curse on the enemy of man,
then logic and common sense dictate that it is a blessing to man. As is stated so well in
the Talmud, “From the blessing of the righteous you can infer the curse for the wicked
and from the curse of the wicked you may infer the blessing for the righteous;” 297 thus a
curse pronounced on the wicked one implies a blessing to his enemy, if he is righteous.
We recall here Westermann’s form-critical pronouncement about curses or
announcements of punishment: “it is not possible that such a form has either promise or
prophecy as its primary or even its secondary meaning.” The question is whether the
scientific findings of form critics should be allowed to nullify common sense. If
Westermann’s view were true, Balak should not have cared whether Balaam blessed or
cursed Israel, but he said, “come and curse these people ... perhaps then I will be able to
defeat them” (Num 22:6). It seems that Balak was not aware of this strict form-critical
limit on the implied meaning of curses, for he thought that a curse on his enemies might
help him prevail over them. Similarly, if the enemy of man is cursed in Gen 3:15, might
we not expect that man may prevail over him in combat? When Balaam finishes his first
oracle, blessing Israel without mentioning any curse on Moab at all, Balak says “what
have you done to me?” (Num 23:11); following the same line of reasoning, Gen 3:15 is of
benefit to those not cursed. When Balaam predicted that a star from Jacob, a scepter from
Israel, would crush the foreheads of Moab (Num 24:17), was it not a prophecy and a
promise to Israel as well as a curse on Moab? If not, why would Israelites have cared to

297
B. Yoma 38b (The Babylonian Talmud, vol. 5: Yoma [London: Soncino, 1938], 180).

89
preserve the account at all? Westermann’s pronouncement must therefore be rejected.
The problem with viewing the curse on the serpent as a promise to man is not form-
critical; rather, the problem is explaining how the curse is a promise if man himself is
bitten by the snake. Even if he survives, he is going to die one day anyway (v. 19).
Hengstenberg and Kline stressed that the ability of the snake to only strike at the
heel is part of the curse, part of the serpent’s degradation to only crawl on his belly;
therefore to argue that the snake-bite in the curse is fatal is to argue that the curse is
ineffective against the snake. One might respond that it is this degradation that allows
man to crush his head; but man too is still destroyed (so we are back to von Rad; both
destroy each other). The argument that the limitation to striking the heel is part of the
curse and so the serpent’s bite would not be fatal therefore only has merit if joined with
the idea that a curse on one’s enemy is a blessing to man. It seems to me that this
combination of arguments is decisive for the view of Hengstenberg and Kline: the serpent
is cursed so that he crawls on his belly; when he attacks man, he cannot reach his vital
organs, whereas man can deliver a fatal blow. Hengstenberg solved the problem of the
fatal nature of the snake’s attack by saying that there is no mention of poison here. While
this is true, and it is true that the word for snake is generic and does specifically imply a
poisonous snake, it is also true that it would not seem to be of any great advantage that a
non-poisonous snake could only strike the heel. The possibility that man might die from a
snake’s bite therefore introduces an element of paradox into the picture, which we will
explore further. P. Saydon’s argument that ‫ שּוף‬in Gen 3:15e is a conative imperfect is a
possible solution to the paradox,298 although one could object that the symmetry of Gen
3:15d-e would suggest that ‫ י ְשּופְָך‬and ‫שּופּנּו‬
ֶ֫ ְ‫ ]ת‬should be understood in the same sense (so
Lipinski, responding to Haspecker and Lohfink). The view of Haspecker and Lohfink that
the initial waw in Gen 3:15e should be translated “because” is another possible solution,
but it suffers from a combination of improbabilities; that an explanatory particle like ‫כִׁי‬
(as in v. 14) is usually used to express the idea “because,” and that an explanation for the
curse usually precedes the curse (or punishment), and in fact has already been given
(“because you have done this;” see § 1.9.8).
The same line of reasoning which sees a curse on the serpent as a blessing to man
helps us understand the enmity established by God. It is not an enmity by which God
intends to destroy both parties, as is the case where a shrewd leader incites his enemies
against each other so that they may be destroyed without any effort on his part. Rather
this is an enmity by which he intends to destroy the cursed one, which is not man, but the
serpent. Man’s enmity against the serpent is part of the curse against the serpent, and
therefore a blessing to man. Therefore the condition of enmity between man and the
serpent implies the condition of peace between man and God.
2.2.3 Relationship of Gen 3:15 to Gen 3:16-24

298
“The correct translation is: ‘he will attack you in the head, and you will try to attack him in the heel.’ In
other words, the woman’s seed will completely defeat the serpent, while the serpent will only try, but in vain,
to bite the heel of his adversary’” (P. P. Saydon, “The Conative Imperfect in Hebrew,” VT 12 [1952]: 126).

90
 One commentator says there is no hope in any portion of the curses (von Rad; §
1.8.20); another says there is hope in every verse (Brueggeman).299 The difference may
reflect in part a different view of hope. It cannot be denied that vv. 16-19, which predict
the affliction of woman and man with trouble and futility, and finally, death (evidently
the opposite of hope), also presume that Adam and Eve will continue to live instead of
facing immediate execution which they might well have expected to (and the snake might
have hoped would) come to pass. As the proverb says, “while there is life, there is hope.”
Further, as already mentioned, neither Adam nor Eve is here cursed, which implies at
least that they are in a better state than their enemy the snake. God’s concern for them is
implied in his clothing of their nakedness, and Adam’s naming of his wife “Eve”
(because she became the mother of all the living), which some interpreters think is out of
place,300 certainly looks to the future, and suggests (as Luther and Kline say) a frame of
mind in which he has put the best interpretation that he could on the curses; she will bear
in sorrow, but she will bear children, and childbirth is related to the defeat of the serpent.
Further, in clothing Adam and Eve, there would seem to be more significance than the
fact that the pair would require protective clothing (against thorns, for example) after
being expelled from paradise. For the recognition of their nakedness, and the shame
resulting from it, were the work of the serpent. When God clothes them, therefore, he is
reversing, to some extent, the results of their fall, and he is showing them that their own
efforts to do so are inferior and insufficient. This is the most significant implication from
this act of clothing, and it is a further sign that the serpent will not succeed in his goal of
the annihilation of man. Some commentators have gone further than this to suggest that
Adam and Eve also learned the rudimentary knowledge of substitutionary atonement
from the fact that an animal had to die for them to be clothed, and point to Abel as having
learned this lesson, while Cain did not; this view will be discussed later. Kline may be
right that there is a complex word-play with “skins” and “naked” and “shrewd” being
developed (§ 1.8.28), but I do not see any more implications from such a word-play than
are already there by the thematic association of clothing and nakedness.
2.2.4 Relationship of Gen 3:15 to Gen 1:28
Luther, Keil and some others noted that Gen 3:15 has some implications for the
question of whether God’s purpose for the human race expressed in Gen 1:28 will be
fulfilled. This verse, often called the “cultural mandate,” or “creation mandate,” or
“dominion covenant,” commands Adam and Eve (or more properly, blesses them) to “be
fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea,

299
Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (IBC; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 49-50. Brueggemann does not discuss
Gen 3:15, however.

300
E.g., Skinner: “The naming of the woman can hardly have come in between the sentence and its
execution, or before there was any experience of motherhood to suggest it” (Genesis, 85). But the text does
not say Adam named Eve precisely at that moment; it mentions that he named her Eve, and tells why (thus
relating it to the previous verses). Also, A. J. Williams: “The position of Gen 3 20 in its present context seems
to be highly inappropriate in that it seems to have a more positive view of the position of the woman in the
narrative than the events of the previous verses would entail” (“The Relationship of Genesis 3 20 to the
Serpent,” ZAW 89 [1977]: 357). The “positive view” is justified because vv. 15-19 indicate continued life, not
immediate death, for Adam and Eve, and it speaks of their future generations.

91
and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that creeps on the earth.” While
this verse mentions only the animals of the fifth day of creation, v. 26 indicates that all of
the animals are in view. The word “subdue” (‫“ ) ָכבַש‬is evidently related to Akkadian kaba
su ‘to tread down,’ and Arabic kabasa ‘to knead, stamp, press’ ... In the OT it means ‘to
make to serve, by force if necessary.’”301 The Bible associates walking, or “treading,”
with the idea of possession of the promised land.302 The word is also used of subduing the
enemies of Israel, with the enemies as the object of the verb, or, more frequently, the land
(same as “earth” in Gen 1:28) is said to be subdued before the Lord and before Israel. 303
The verb is also used for bringing into bondage as slaves (Jer 34:11, 16; Neh 5:5 [bis]).
The idea of “tread upon” is reinforced by the related noun ‫כבש‬,ֶ֫ “footstool.”304 The verb
“rule” (‫)רדָ ה‬
ָ also seems to have some connection with the idea of treading upon
(Akkadian, Arabic), though this connection only shows up once in the Old Testament
(Joel 4:13 [3:13]; treading the winepress).305 Its use in Gen 1:28 is in the absence of
moral enemies, since the creation of God is good, so Gen 1:28 would indicate “that
creation will not do man’s bidding gladly or easily and that man must now bring creation
into submission by main strength.”306 But the fall of man and the curse on the serpent
introduces abiding moral enmity into the world. The picture of a man stepping on the
head of a snake evoked by Gen 3:15, subduing “with force,” thus suggests the fulfillment,
in a modified way, of the creation mandate. This allusion to Gen 1:28 is therefore another
indication that Gen 3:15 could be taken as a promise by Adam and Eve. Also, since Gen
1:28 is a “blessing,” an association of Gen 3:15 with that passage would confirm the
interpretation of the curse on the serpent as a blessing to Adam and Eve, and their
offspring.
I am aware that the procedure of interpreting a J passage in light of a P passage
seems naive and pre-critical to adherents of the usual source critical division of Genesis.
Our exposition of Gen 3:15 will develop considerable evidence in favor of this procedure
of ignoring classical source criticism. In any case, our interest in Gen 3:15 includes the
New Testament interpretation, and the apostles obviously viewed Genesis 3 and Genesis
1 as from the same source; as we shall see, their interpretation seems to depend on this
relationship between Gen 3:15 and Gen 1:28. We will also see evidence below from the
so-called J document that Genesis 1 was part of Adam’s and Eve’s canon (therefore it is

301
J. Oswalt, TWOT, § 951 (p. 430). Similarly S. Wagner, TDOT, 7.56-57. BDB notes Aramaic ‫ ְכבַש‬, “tread
down, beat or make a path, subdue” (p. 460).

302
First in Gen 13:17, perhaps typologically connected to Deut 11:24; Josh 1:3; 14:9.

303
Num 32:22, 29; Josh 18:1; 2 Sam 8:11; Zech 9:15; 1 Chr 22:18.

304
BDB, 461.

305
W. White, TWOT, § 2121 (p. 833).

306
J. Oswalt, TWOT, § 951 (p. 430).

92
legitimate to examine Genesis 1 as part of the canonical context for their initial
interpretation of Gen 3:15).
2.2.5 Relationship of Gen 3:15 to Genesis 1
Gen 3:15 has in common with the creation account in Genesis 1 the idea of
separation. There the creation of the inanimate universe, the work of the first three days,
is presented as a series of separations: light from darkness, the waters above from the
waters below, and the dry land from the seas.307 The three pairs only add up to five
components since the waters below and the seas are the same or at least overlap
considerably. The first two separations in Genesis 1 are expressed with the active verb
“separate” and the preposition “between,” with God of course as subject; . . . ‫ בֵין‬. . . ‫ַויַבְדֵ ל‬
‫( ּובֵין‬vv. 4, 7). The first and third separations of the components of the universe are
indicated another way also; by the use of “indirect objects in chiasmus.” 308 After stating
that God created light and separated light and darkness, he named them “day” and
“night.” After saying that he named the light “day,” we find a waw disjunctive and a
change in word order: ‫( ַויִׁק ְָרא אֱֹלהִׁים לָאֹור יֹום ְול ֶַ֫ח ֹשְך ק ָָרא ֶָ֫ליְלָה‬v. 5; “God called the light
‘day,’ while the darkness he called ‘night’”). “Chiasmus” refers to the change in word
order from the first half of the sentence (verb, indirect object, direct object) to the second
half (indirect object, verb, direct object). The subject in this case “does double duty for
both clauses.”309
This syntax is not found for the second day’s work, perhaps because the waters
below are not to be named until the third day, where the chiasmus of indirect objects is
found again: ‫שה ֶ֫ארץ ּו ְל ִׁמ ְקוֵה ַה ֶַ֫מי ִׁם ק ָָרא יַמִׁים‬
ָ ‫( ַויִׁק ְָרא אֱֹלהִׁים ַלי ַ ָב‬v. 10; “God called the dry land
‘earth,’ while the gathering of the waters he called ‘seas’”). Thus for the first separation
(light from darkness) both the active verb with the preposition and the chiastic syntax are
used to express the separation; for the second separation (waters above from the waters
below), only the active verb with preposition is used; for the third separation (dry land
from the seas), only the chiastic syntax is used. The separation of light and darkness is
expressed again for the fourth day, where the separation of the primeval light and
darkness is carried on by the sun, moon, and stars which we observe to this day. The
second separation has a unique feature, namely that there is a specific created thing (the
firmament, named “sky”) which maintains the separation.
In Gen 3:15a-c God declared that he would make another separation; divinely
placed enmity, like the firmament, will separate the serpent and the woman, and their
respective offspring. The two separations announced in Gen 3:15 (serpent opposed to
woman, offspring opposed to offspring), like the first two in Genesis 1, are also
expressed with an active verb (“set”) and the preposition “between,” again obviously

307
“With the description of creation as a series of separations, P is part of a tradition that reaches back into
the distant past and across the whole face of the earth. ... Common to him and the tradition is an
understanding of the world in which a state of separation and so of order are basic to its existence”
(Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 121).

308
Andersen, Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, 129 (§ 9.4.5).

309
Ibid.

93
with God as subject: ‫ ּובֵין‬. . . ‫ ּובֵין‬. . . ‫ ְואֵיבָה ָאשִׁית בֵינְָך ּובֵין‬.310 We will see the use of
chiasmus in syntax as well, when the new creation is brought about.
If Gen 3:15 is spoken in “creation language,” it is another reason to take it as a
promise, and it suggests again that God is going to somehow fulfill his original purpose
expressed in the creation mandate. In the naturalistic interpretation of Gen 3:15, the new
creation would presumably be the literal offspring of the woman. Evidence for such an
interpretation is found in Gen 4:1. As we saw in chap. I, this verse was a key proof for
Luther that Adam and Eve were wonderfully enlightened by God to understand that Gen
3:15 was a promise of an individual seed, God himself incarnate; no one else could
accomplish the saving task predicted there. He took ‫ את‬in Gen 4:1 as the mark of the
accusative, making the Lord the second direct object, modifying “man.” Thus he
translated ‫ ָקנִׁיתִׁ י אִׁיש את־י ְהוָה‬as “I have received a man, even the Lord.” Thus, as unlikely
as it seems that Adam and Eve could have such New Testament insight, Luther thought
that Gen 4:1 is proof of it. In favor of Luther’s interpretation is that the competing
translations were grammatically problematic because of the difficulty in translating ‫את‬.
Westermann notes that “none of the ancient versions uses the simple equivalent ‫= את‬
with; they must have sensed the difficulty.”311 The LXX translated ‫ את־י ְהוָה‬with διὰ τοῦ
Θεοῦ (through God); and the Vg, per Dominum; similarly Tgs. Onqelos and Neofiti, ‫מִׁן‬
‫( קֳדָ ם‬as though from Hebrew ‫) ֵמאֵת‬, and Samaritan Tg., ‫מִׁן‬. The problem with the simple
equivalency is that it implies co-action, making God the co-subject of the verb. The
problem is seen when we translate the verse with God as co-subject; “I, along with the
Lord, have received a man.” But God does not receive children along with the parents.
God gives the child (Gen 17:16, and many others). The translation “I have received a man
with the help of the Lord” is a paraphrase that shifts the idea of co-action to help in an
action. For Eve to express the idea that she had received God’s help she would say that
the Lord was with her (yTiai hwhy) when she received, not that she had received with the
Lord.
Westermann lists other types of solutions to the problem that have been
proposed, including those of Luther and Tg. Onqelos. 1. ‫ את‬is not the preposition (“man
of the sign of [‫ ]א ֹת‬Yahweh;” pointing to v. 15), or is not original (‫ את יהוה‬is a gloss). 2. “I
will win my husband again. Yahweh is with me” (‫) ִׁאתִׁ י יהוה‬. 3. Luther’s earlier
interpretation: ‫ אִׁיש את־יהוה‬is a man bound to God; a man of God. 4. Luther’s latest view
of ‫ את‬as the accusative marker, used to argue for a mythological background to the story:
Cain is regarded as a son of God. 5. ‫ את‬is understood as (or emended to) ‫“ ; ֵמאֵת‬I have
received a man from the Lord.” 6. ‫ את יהוה‬is emended to a verb (several possibilities). 7.
‫ את‬means “in the sight of.” 8. ‫ את‬is used in the sense “together with,” “as well as,” “in the
class of.”312
310
One can also understand the idea of creation to be in the verb ‫ ָאשִׁית‬, both because the verb often has the
idea of making something, or someone into something, and because when God says he will set enmity, he
obviously is not picking it up from somewhere else and putting it in between the snake and the woman. BDB,
1011; see 1 Kgs 11:34; Isa 5:6; 26:1; Jer 22:6; Ps 104:20, etc.

311
Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 291.

312
Ibid.
94
 R. Borger argued for the meaning of #5 above (without emendation) based on the
Akkadian preposition itti (“with”), etymologically related to the Hebrew ‫את‬, which is
found in the idiom šâmu itti (to “buy from”), common in contracts. A personal name is
found with this idiom which expresses the idea that the child is bought from God (itti ili).
A similar proper name occurs with another preposition meaning “with,” ištu. Borger
speculates that the “price” paid for the child was a difficult childbirth, which he says
would fit in excellently with Eve’s penalty predicted in Gen 3:16.313 Hamilton follows
Borger’s suggestion and finds support for it in the parallelism of ‫ מִׁן‬and ‫ את‬in Gen
49:25.314 R. Althann noted Gen 49:25 and a few other cases where ‫ את‬may have a
separative connotation.315
While this proposal is attractive because it does not require any emendation, it is
somewhat speculative for Gen 4:1. Borger notes that the expression “buy from” with itti
literally means “buy at,” and only idiomatically can mean to buy from. The same idiom is
not found in Hebrew, a fact which he speculates is due to the relatively small number of
examples (but zero out of 17 examples does not help his case). 316 The meaning of buying
a child from God through a difficult labor is also speculative in both the Akkadian and
Hebrew, and nothing is said in Genesis 4 of a difficult labor. The example of Gen 49:25
is problematic for a number of reasons. First, the text is doubtful.317 Second, it is not clear
that ‫ מִׁן‬in the first word means “from.” Finally, even if the two are in “parallel,” they do
not necessarily mean the same thing.
Westermann includes Skinner in #8 above, though his nuance was slightly
different; “along with;” i.e., the idea of co-action. Skinner pointed out that the preposition
is not really problematic if we take the verb ‫ ָקנָה‬in the sense of “create,” and the
preposition with the idea of co-action: “If we adopt the other meaning of ‫ ָקנָה‬, the
construction is perfectly natural: I have created (or produced) a man with (the
cooperation of) Yahwe.”318 The context shows we must take Skinner’s term “cooperation”
literally, as “co-action,” “along with,” or else he would just be paraphrasing the idea
“with the help of,” which he rejects. He cites Rashi’s paraphrase of Eve’s sentiment:
“When he created me and my husband he created us alone, but in this case we are
associated with him,” as well as a Babylonian parallel where Aruru (Ishtar) together with

313
R. Borger, “GEN. iv 1,” VT 9 (1959): 85-86.

314
Hamilton, Genesis 1-17, 221.

315
Robert Althann, “Does ’et (’aet-) sometimes signify ›from‹ in the Hebrew Bible?”, ZAW 103 (1991):
121-24.

316
Borger, “GEN. vi 1,” 86. To “buy from” is expressed with ‫ קנה‬plus ‫ מן‬in Gen 25:10; 33:19; 39:1; 49:30;
50:13; Lev 25:14, 15, 44, 45; 27:24; Josh 24:32; 2 Sam 24:21, 24; 1 Kgs 16:24; Jer 32:9; Ruth 4:5, 9. None of
these examples invlove a parent “buying” their child.

317
A few mss. read ‫ ֵאל‬, as does SP, and as LXX and Syriac presume, if strictly translations (BHS, 85).

318
Skinner, Genesis, 102.

95
Marduk (lit. “with him;” it-ti-šu) created the seed of mankind.319 It remains to be
established that co-action is one of the ideas expressed by ‫ את‬in Hebrew. BDB lists one of
the uses of the similar preposition ‫ עִׁם‬as “actions done jointly with another,” (Gen 21:10,
inherit; 26:28, make a covenant; Josh 22:8 and Isa 53:12, divide spoil),320 but does not list
such a category for ‫את‬. No examples are given of co-action with God, but this idea can be
seen in 1 Sam 14:45 and Dan 11:39, the two examples given in BDB for the idea “with
the help of” (mistakenly, as noted by Skinner, since the preposition “denotes association
in the same act, and therefore does not go beyond the sense ‘along with’”).321 1 Sam
14:45 reads “Should Jonathan die, who has brought about (‫ ) ָעשָה‬this great salvation in
Israel? May it not be! As the Lord lives, not a hair from his head will fall to the ground,
for it is with (‫ )עִׁם‬God that he has acted (‫ ) ָעשָה‬today.” The word order indicates that “with
God” receives the emphasis. The actions Jonathan has taken are not mere human actions;
he has done them with God. To kill him for what he did would be to indict God as well,
since Jonathan was acting as his accomplice. Although one could argue that the
translation “with the help of” has the same implication, it is a confusing paraphrase that
does not necessarily suggest the idea of action “along with.”
The question then comes up, whether ‫ את‬is used with this same idea of co-action
as ‫עִׁם‬. That it can be would follow from the essential equivalency with ‫עִׁם‬, as Dillmann
argued; so also H. D. Preuss:
In the history of languages, it is extraordinary when two different words belonging to the
same chronological period of a language have the same meanings. Yet the OT reflects no
essential difference in the meanings or uses of ʾeth and ʿim either as to the historical
322
periods when they occur or as to the genres in which they appear.
In addition, the sense “along with” as co-action is a natural extension of the spatial sense
“alongside of.”323 Finally, two examples can be given, where the idea of co-action seems
to be included along with the literal spatial sense: in Exod 18:22 Jethro tells Moses to
appoint subordinate judges so that they might bear the burden of judging along with him
(‫שאּו אִׁתָ ְך‬
ְ ָ‫) ְונ‬, and in Num 8:26 retired Levites are allowed to assist their brother Levites in
fulfilling an obligation (‫ ; ְוש ֵֵרת את־אחָיו‬he may minister with his brothers).

319
Ibid; Rosenbaum and Silbermann, Rashi, Genesis, 17.

320
BDB, 767.

321
Skinner, Genesis, 102.

322
Horst Dietrich Preuss, TDOT, 1.449; Dillmann, Genesis, 183. Preuss does not discuss the idea of co-
action for either preposition. He notes that it is very rare in the ancient Near East to express the idea of the
Deity being with man, except in the Old Testament, “where it expresses a basic element in the Yahweh faith”
(TDOT, 1.451), an idea which is relevant to Gen 4:1, the first instance of the name Yhwh being used in
speech.

323
Bruce Waltke cites Judg 4:11 as an example, saying it is closely related to the idea of making gods
“besides me” in Exod 20:23 (Bruce K. Waltke and Michael O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew
Sysntax [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990], § 11.2.4a [p. 195]).

96
 Besides the translation of ‫ את‬and ‫ ָקנָה‬there is another problem in this short phrase,
namely, why Eve calls her new-born “a man” (‫ )אִׁיש‬instead of a child, or son (solution #2
above avoids this problem by translating “husband,” but it requires emending the
consonantal text). Dillmann supported the meaning of generic male child by comparing
Gen 4:1 to the use of ‫ ֶ֫גבר‬in Job 3:3 (“Let the day of my birth perish, the night in which it
was said, ‘a man is born.’”), and ‫ ֶ֫ז ַרע ֲאנָשִׁים‬as in 1 Sam 1:11 (Hannah: “give to your maid-
servant a male child”).324 Skinner agreed that the use of ‫ ֶ֫גבר‬in Job 3:3 showed that the use
of ‫ אִׁיש‬in Gen 4:1 was not a serious problem.325 Cassuto solved all three problems by
adopting solution #8 above for the meaning of ‫את‬, taking “create” for the meaning of ‫ ָקנָה‬,
and following Rashi in relating Eve’s birth of Cain to the creation of man by God, thus
explaining her use of ‫אִׁיש‬. Cassuto understands her statement to be a boast that her giving
birth to a man makes her a creator like God: “I have created a man equally with the
Lord.”
The first woman, in her joy at giving birth to her first son, boasts of her
generative power, which approximates in her estimation to the Divine creative
power. The Lord formed the first man (ii 7), and I have formed the second man.
... [literally, ‘I have created a man with the Lord’]: I stand together [i.e. equally]
326
WITH HIM in the rank of creators.”
Cassuto demonstrated in detail the appropriateness of the translation “create” for ‫ ָקנָה‬,
citing Ugaritic and Biblical material (the former was unavailable to Skinner, and of
course Rashi). The Ugaritic roots qny and knn are used by the gods to describe the action
of El, their father, who made them; likewise we find the Hebrew cognates in Deut 32:6
(along with ‫ ) ָעשָה‬for the creation of Israel with God as father. In Ps 139:13 ‫ ָקנָה‬is used
with ‫שכְַך‬
ָ (weave) for God’s creating the psalmist in the womb. That Hebrews would use
the same verb for the Lord’s creative acts as the Canaanites used for El is proven by Gen
14:19, 22, where both Melchizedek and Abram use the same expression “creator (‫ )קֹנֵה‬of
heaven and earth.” Cassuto suggests that possibly “create” is the “original and primary
meaning of the root in the ancient Canaanite tongue, and from it developed the
connotation to acquire, just as the verb ‫ ָעשָה‬... is often used in this sense” (citing Gen
12:5 as an example).327
The problem with Cassuto’s interpretation is that it does not really use ‫ את‬to
express co-action: instead he sees it as expressing an action in imitation of God.
Westermann thinks Cassuto’s solution is the best but points out that we would expect the
preposition ‫“( ְכ‬like”) to be used if Eve was really comparing what she did to what the
Lord did.328 I would solve this problem by retaining Cassuto’s literal translation, similar
324
Dillmann, Genesis, 183.

325
Skinner, Genesis, 103.

326
Cassuto, Genesis, I, 199-202; esp. p. 201.

327
Ibid., 200-201.

328
Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 292.

97
to Skinner’s (“I have created a man with the Lord”), which expresses the idea of co-
action by both Eve and God in the birth of Cain. Perhaps the strongest argument for the
meaning of “create” in Eve’s statement is not that the verb can mean “create,” but that it
removes the problem with translating the preposition ‫את‬.
I would also remove the connotation of boasting inferred by Cassuto by
explaining Eve’s statement as evidence of her faith in a naturalistic interpretation of Gen
3:15 as a promise of a new creation consisting of her offspring, the first being Cain. She
is not boasting of her God-likeness in the act of creation, but recognizing her part (so she
thinks) in the fulfillment of the promise of a new creation.
I would explain (with Wenham) the use of ‫ אִׁיש‬not as an allusion to Gen 2:7, the
creation of man out of the dust, but rather to Gen 2:22-23, the creation of woman out of
the man.329 There, ‫ ִׁאשָה‬came out of ‫ ;אִׁיש‬here, ‫ אִׁיש‬comes out of ‫ ִׁאשָה‬. ‫ אִׁיש‬is thus generic
male, as ‫ ֶ֫גבר‬in the example from Job 3:3, and Eve is expressing exactly the sentiment of
Paul in 1 Cor 11:12, “For as woman came from man (ἡ γυνὴ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρός), so also man
(ὁ ἀνήρ) is born of woman.” Note also John 16:21; when a woman gives birth to a child
(γεννήσῃ τὸ παιδίον), she forgets her pain due to the joy that a human being is born
(ἐγεννήθη ἄνθρωπος). We have then another strong argument for the translation of ‫ ָקנָה‬by
“create,” namely, that such a meaning also helps explain the use of ‫ אִׁיש‬by relating Gen
4:1 to a creation context in the previous chapter.
It is true that the allusion to Gen 2:22-23 is sufficient to explain the use of the
word “create” as well as “man” for the birth of Cain; it is not necessary to get the idea of
creation from Gen 3:15, and therefore Gen 4:1 is not proof of the interpretation of Gen
3:15 as the promise of a new creation. Again, as mentioned under the discussion of Gen
1:28, it would seem naive and pre-critical to some to explain the interpretation of Gen
3:15 in light of Genesis 1; referring to Gen 2:22-23 does not have the same problem. In
our exposition of Genesis 4 (chap. III) we will see further evidence relating Gen 4:1 to
Gen 3:15, making it more likely that the name Cain is related to that verse, rather than to
the creation of Eve from Adam. Other chapters will give further evidence for Gen 3:15
being understood as a promise of creation.
2.2.6 Summary of Initial Interpretation of Adam and Eve
The single word (in Hebrew) “her seed” is the first sign that Adam will not die
and the human race end as might be expected (by both Adam and the snake). That the
enemy of Adam and Eve is cursed would logically imply a blessing to them, an idea
which is reinforced by comparing the curse to the blessing found in Gen 1:28. Assuming
their familiarity with the basic content of Genesis 1-2, including the idea of creation as a
series of separations, Adam and Eve would have further reason to view Gen 3:15 as a
promise, as it is spoken in “creation language.” Evidence for such an interpretation by
Eve is found in Gen 4:1. This verse also gives evidence of a naturalistic interpretation:
the woman’s seed is the human race, so the enmity will exist between the human race and
snakes. The fact that this enemy is cursed lets them crush his head, and prevents them
from being wounded in their vital organs, thus the verse would seem to be a general

329
Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 101.

98
promise of victory for them, in spite of the fact that they are then told that one day they
will die.
2.3 Initial Interpretation of the “Implied Reader”
In this section we are concerned exclusively with the question of the identity of
the tempter, based on the narrative material in Genesis 3 and the general cultural
background of the pre-exilic Israelites.
2.3.1 Issues Involved
Three main issues are involved in the question of whether the description of the
serpent in Gen 3:1 requires us to understand the serpent in Genesis 3 as an animal and
nothing more, or whether the animal snake could be seen as a vehicle, or tool, for an evil
supernatural being. This question is not involved in the initial interpretation of Adam and
Eve since it is a statement of the narrator. But the question would be involved in the
initial interpretation of the implied reader of Genesis 3. For the sake of argument, we will
define this implied reader generally as a pre-exilic Israelite. The issues are, first, what are
the implications of the inconsistencies between the description of the snake as an animal
(therefore part of God’s good creation, irrational, and inferior to man in terms of spiritual
and divine matters) and his behavior in the temptation (evil, rational, and superior to man
in knowledge of divine affairs). Secondly, there is the question whether Gen 3:1 can be
understood as using the “language of appearances,” describing how the “serpent”
appeared to Adam and Eve, and not describing the whole picture. Finally, if the picture of
the snake as mere animal is problematic, the question is raised as to whether there is any
clue to the solution in Genesis 3 itself.
2.3.2 Inconsistencies Between Description and Action
The word ‫ עָרּום‬is used to describe the serpent in Gen 3:1, and in this quality he is
compared to “all the beasts of the field which the Lord God made.” The word itself does
not have a negative connotation; one may be “wise” to do good or “shrewd, crafty” to do
evil (cf. the use of ‫ ָחכָם‬in 2 Sam 13:3 for Jonadab). In Proverbs it is used to denote one
who is prudent. The verbal form is used by Saul to describe David’s ability to elude
capture (1 Sam 23:22); this reference to survival skills is the closest the root comes to a
sense appropriate for describing animals outside of Gen 3:1. To describe an animal as
having the ability to act in a manner necessary to getting what it wants would seem to be
appropriate, although it is not clear why the snake should be singled out in such a way as
superior to the other animals. The description of him as “more crafty than all the beasts of
the field” is often (following Gen. Rab. 19.1 and others) compared to the beginning of the
curse; “you are more cursed than all the beasts of the field,” so this is a story about how
the snake goes from being most crafty to most cursed. But many have objected to a
comparative sense for ‫ מִׁן‬in v. 14 because it implies that all of the other animals are
cursed as well.330 Still, vv. 1 and 14 seem to imply that the serpent is a mere animal.
By itself, the description of an animal as “prudent, shrewd, crafty” is not
problematic. Four creatures are described as small yet exceedingly wise (‫ ) ָחכָם‬in Prov
30:24-28; ants which store up food in the summer, conies which make their homes in the
crags, locusts which advance in perfect formation without a king telling them what to do,

330
For a discussion of the various views, see Unger, FG, 11-14. Unger opts for a spatial sense, “among.”

99
and lizards which elude capture so well that they can live in kings’ palaces. So the
serpent could be described as prudent or crafty in the sense of its ability to provide for
itself; to stalk its prey, elude capture, hide and wait for an opportune moment, strike a
swift and deadly blow, etc. The descriptions of animals in Prov 30:24-28 as wise might
explain such a description of the snake in Gen 3:1, but only apart from the rest of the
chapter. It could be seen as the estimate of Adam prompted by his observation of the
various creatures, including the parade of creatures which came before him so that he
might name them (Gen 2:19), which implies that he learned something of their
characteristics. But none of the characteristics of the snake which could justify the
description of it as “shrewd” in the sense that an animal can be shrewd would imply that
the snake is rational or can seduce the woman to do evil.
Although Gen 3:1 compares the snake to the animals which God had made, it is
clear that in the rest of the narrative a comparison is made with Adam and Eve. This
comparison is first made by a word play between “shrewd” (‫ )עָרּום‬in 3:1 and “naked” (the
plural of ‫ )עָרֹום‬in the previous verse. The nakedness of Adam and Eve, and their lack of
shame from it, points to their child-like innocence (Irenaeus thought in fact it meant they
were children). It is this innocence that allowed them to be duped by the shrewd snake
introduced in 3:1. Because they were nude, they were victims of the shrewd. The
craftiness of the snake in this narrative has nothing to do with its animal abilities, but its
ability to corrupt man and alienate him from God. As Cassuto pointed out, this word play
is intentional as indicated by the fact that the spelling of “naked” in Gen 3:7, 10, 11 is
‫( עֵרֹום‬or the plural form), whereas in Gen 2:25 the alternate spelling (‫ ;עֲרּומִׁים‬with the waw
added as if to make it look more like ‫ )עֲרּומִׁים‬is chosen to agree more closely with the
word “shrewd.”331 So while Gen 3:1 compares the snake with the other animals, it also
invites us to compare him with Adam and Eve; this comparison shows the description of
him as an animal to be inconsistent with the description of the animals that God had
made. For in Gen 1:31; everything God had made was very good; and Gen 1:28 shows
that man alone is created in the image of God, and he is charged with dominion over the
animals.332
We saw in § 1.8.18 that Cassuto made a different use of the word play. He
allegorized the role of the serpent to make it the cunning within Eve; the word play shows
that although the human pair was ignorant of good and evil, they were not lacking in
cunning. But this verse does not indicate such an interpretation; only if one has already
concluded that the serpent is the cunning within Eve could Gen 3:1 be found to refer to
Eve and not the snake. Cassuto’s allegorical interpretation seems plainly refuted by his
naturalistic interpretation of the curse. If the animal snake had no role in the temptation,
why was it cursed? How could God be talking to the snake when he said “because you
have done this,” if the snake did not do anything? What the word play actually does, seen

331
Cassuto, Genesis I, 143-44.

332
M. Kline takes the purpose of the word-play to be to show how Adam and Eve are like the serpent
(Kingdom Prologue, 81). But as their nakedness signifies their child-like innocence before they became like
the serpent, I do not see how it could at the same time indicate how they were (or would became) like the
serpent.

100
in the light of the following narrative, is to set the serpent apart from the animals, and
even man, in his rational and evil nature, his knowledge of good and evil, and of the
secret things of God. The comparison to the animals is therefore ironic, because it is, in
light of the implied comparison to man, and in light of the following narrative, self
refuting; it refutes the natural inference that by comparing the serpent to the animals, it is
an animal and nothing more. The serpent was more shrewd than all the animals which the
Lord God had made. Question: How shrewd is the serpent? Answer: More shrewd than
naked man. Question: How can that be? Answer: It is not a mere animal which the Lord
God made. Gallus is correct to point out that Gen 3:1 does not actually say that the
serpent is an animal, since it does not say he was more crafty than the other animals.
When the psalmist says that he is more prudent (‫ )השכיל‬than all of his teachers (Ps
119:99), he does not imply thereby that he is a teacher himself. It is the word ‫ נָחָש‬itself,
not the comparitive, that suggests that the snake was one of the animals. As we shall see,
however, Israelites were quite aware of a “serpent” which was not an animal at all.
2.3.3 The Language of Appearances
We mention here by way of example Hengstenberg’s statement of the language
of appearance as a solution to the problem of the inconsistencies cited above:
The author related the circumstances as they appeared to our first parents, and ignorant as
they were of the invisible cause, they must have ascribed a high degree of cunning to the
serpent from the part which he acted. Moses states this fact with the design of leading his
more intelligent readers to a right solution of the problem (see § 1.8.1).
The Syrian Fathers’ commentary on Genesis cited Gen 18:1 as analogous to Gen
3:1 to argue that the appearance of the serpent was visionary, not real (§ 1.4.12). While I
would not press the analogy that far, Genesis 18 is an example where humans were
deceived by the appearance of spiritual beings, whose identity only gradually dawned on
those with whom they were dealing. In that case, Abraham looked up and saw three men
standing by him; yet the truth gradually unfolds that two of these “men” are angels and
one is the Lord himself. This truth does not begin to come clear until the “men” start to
behave in a supernatural manner; e.g., in v. 10 where one of them says that he will return
at the turn of the year, and Sarah will have a son. Then when Sarah laughs to herself, he
shows that he can read her mind, and here the narrator first calls him Yhwh as he rebukes
her, “why did Sarah laugh?” and says, “is anything too difficult for the Lord?” (vv. 13-
14). In vv. 17-19 he deliberates with the other two and says that he is the one who chose
Abraham. Finally, in 19:1 the other two are identified as angels. It is true that there are
some differences between Genesis 3 and 18; in the latter there is an introductory
statement that this was an appearance of the Lord (18:1), whereas no similar statement is
found in Gen 3:1. However, Gen 18:1 does not explain why there are three men if this is
an appearance of the Lord; only later is this explained. The opening statement in 18:1
may be explained by another difference between the two chapters, if in chapter 3 there
was an actual snake involved, whereas in chapter 18 there are no actual “men;” only the
appearance of human bodies which may vanish at any time. Similarly with other
appearances of angels, or the angel of the Lord, as “men.” They are first taken for human
strangers (or in one case a burning bush), then sooner or later reveal themselves by word
or deed to be the Lord’s messengers, or the angel of the Lord himself (e.g., Gen 32:25-31;
Exod 3:2ff; Josh 5:13-15; Judg 6:11-23, esp. vv. 17-22; 13:3-23 [here the man’s
appearance is according to Manoah’s wife “awesome like the appearance of the angel of
101
God,” yet he tells Manoah he is the “man” who appeared to his wife earlier, and Manoah
does not know he is the angel of the Lord until he consumes his sacrifice in fire, v. 20]).
In some of these cases, there is no introductory statement that an appearance of the Lord,
or his angel, follows (Gen 32:25; Josh 5:13), rather his presence is revealed in the course
of the narrative.
That angels disguise themselves as men and are taken for men is commonplace in
the Old Testament, but such disguises are not identical to the case of animal possession
by an evil spirit presumed in the argument from appearances, so they do not prove this
argument. They are still valid as analogies, however, and the objection that no clue to the
identity of a supernatural tempter is given could be answered by finding such clues in
Genesis 3 itself.
2.3.4 The Cherubim and the Identity of the Tempter
The inconsistencies pointed to above between the description of the snake as an
animal and his behavior in Genesis 3 focus on who it is not. It is not a mere animal. Are
there any positive clues to show us who it is? The “snake” is unlike an animal because it
knows of good and evil, and of divine affairs; therefore it is like God himself, and unlike
man in his innocence, before his fall. Who else in the created universe has such
attributes? We see a clue when God says, “behold, the man has become like one of us,
knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:22). Possibly, God could refer to himself in the plural,
the plural of majesty, or honorific plural,333 but one would expect “like us” (‫ ;)כ ֶָ֫מֹונּו‬he
would hardly use the expression “like one of us” (‫ )כְַאחַד מ ִֶׁ֫מּנּו‬to mean “like me.” Most
interpreters see in the expression the idea of God addressing his heavenly court.334 “They
have become like ‘one of us,’ that is, like the heavenly beings, i.e. God and the angels.”335
The phrase implies the presence of other created beings who are like God, in knowing
good and evil, but not part of the creation mentioned in Genesis 1. The correctness of this
interpretation is reinforced when some of these beings are introduced just two verses
later, where it is said that God stationed the Cherubim to the east of the Garden of Eden,
to guard the way to the tree of life. Before the fall, then, those who know good and evil
are God himself, the Cherubim, and the serpent; not man. So we might conclude that the
identity of the tempter is revealed after all. By way of contrast, he is an anti-Cherub, or
evil version of a Cherub. Instead of serving God, as do the Cherubim, he opposes him.
Instead of holy and good, he is evil and unclean; morally detestable, just as that which
crawls on its belly is physically detestable (Lev 11:42).
333
For discussion (though not with reference to this verse), see Waltke, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, § 7.4.3 (pp.
122-24).

334
According to Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 272. Westermann himself thinks the question is made void by
the history of the motif which is simply “concerned with the point of contact between the divine and the
human in the area of wisdom and knowledge” (ibid., 273).

335
Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 85. Hamilton resists this interpretation, thinking it has polytheistic connotations.
He thinks the use of the plural to refer to oneself does not really require explanation; he sees God only
deliberating with himself. Again, I would note that such a view might explain “like us,” but not “like one of
us.” On Gen 1:26 he understands the plural as a clue to the plurality within the Godhead (Genesis 1-17, 134,
208-09).

102
 By way of excursus, we will turn next to the Book of Isaiah, where I believe the
same kind of demonstration is given; namely, Isaiah shows the Seraphim to be the
opposite of the serpent of the temptation, thus identifying that serpent. While a passage in
Isaiah might seem to have nothing to do with the initial interpretation of the Genesis 3
narrative, the purpose of this excursus is to show that the kind of interpretation I am
suggesting for the significance of the Cherubim in Genesis 3 has a more detailed parallel
elsewhere, and this fact tends to make this interpretation more plausible.
2.3.5 The Seraphim and the Identity of the Tempter
The Seraphim who are part of God’s heavenly court in Isaiah 6 are often
compared to the Cherubim mentioned in Gen 3:24 and elsewhere in the Old Testament.
Both words are transliterations of the Hebrew. The difference is that the word Cherubim
(or the singular Cherub) is always transliterated; partly from tradition (since the LXX),
and partly because the meaning of the word is obscure.336 In the case of Seraphim,
however, the meaning is not obscure; everywhere else in the Old Testament where this
word appears, it refers to venomous snakes; sometimes by itself (Num 21:8, the bronze
model Moses is to make of the snakes biting the Israelites; Isa 14:29 and 30:6; flying, or
“darting,” snakes),337 and sometimes in apposition to ‫נָחָש‬, the common word for snake
(Num 21:6, ‫ ַהּנְ ָחשִׁים ַהש ְָרפִׁים‬, venomous snakes sent to bite the Israelites; Deut 8:15, ‫נָחָש‬
‫ ;ש ָָרף‬venomous snakes that Israel encountered in the wilderness, along with scorpions).
Since the verb ‫ ש ָָרף‬means to burn, the noun is thought to mean venomous snakes because
of the burning sensation of a poisonous bite. The meaning of venomous snake seems so
out of place in Isaiah 6, however, that the word is usually transliterated. Some deny that it
is related to the meaning of snake, instead relating it to the light associated with burning;
these are shining beings. Others affirm the sense of venomous serpents and relate the
picture of Isaiah 6 to the figure of the rearing cobra (uraeus), sometimes appearing with
wings, symbol of royalty for the Pharaoh and the gods. 338 John Day combined these two
views and distinguished between form and function; the Seraphim “are winged serpents
(uraei) with an ultimately Egyptian origin as regards form but could symbolize the clouds
on which Yahweh rode in the manner of the Canaanite god Baal (cf. Ps. xviii 11),” and

336
R. Laird Harris says that derivation from the Akkadian cognate which means “to bless, praise, adore” is
suitable; he notes that the Seraphs of Isaiah 6 “seem to be similar creatures” (TWOT, § 1036; p. 454-55).

337
“Flying” snakes, like flying squirrels, do not have wings and do not fly, but rather can glide from trees for
some distance because of their ability to spread out their body to form an airfoil. It is a mistake therefore to
assume that Isaiah supposed that the flying snakes he mentions have wings; “Isaiah clearly conceives of a
saraph as capable of flying, therefore of having wings” (Karen Randolph Joines, Serpent Symbolism in the
Old Testament: A Linguistic, Archaeological, and Literary Study [Haddonfield, NJ: Haddonfield House,
1974], 43-44.

338
Joines, Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament, 42-54; “The Seraphim are probably winged serpents
drawn from Egyptian royal and sacral symbolism. In Egypt winged serpents represent sacral sovereingty
whether of the pharaoh or of the gods” (p. 43). She mentions the finding of “winged, erect uraei ... found on
the throne of an Egyptian monarch” (p. 49; the monarch is Tut-Ankh-Amen, 14th century B.C.). The great
difference is that in Isaiah 6 the Seraphim are agents of redemption; a motif absent from the Egyptian
material. Joines explains “the faith of Isaiah makes them also to be agents of purification” (p. 54).

103
“in function the seraphim may be regarded as personifications of the lightning having a
Canaanite origin with analogies in Baal’s lightning servants.”339 I propose to take another
course, however, and relate these serpents to their opposite in Scripture: namely, the
serpent in the Garden of Eden.
The Seraphim (‫ )ש ְָרפִׁים‬of Isaiah 6:2, 6 are members of God’s court appearing in
the temple (v.1), who call to one another, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts” (v. 3),
and one of them flies to Isaiah and announces to him the atonement for his sins, as he
touches a coal from the altar to his lips (vv. 6-7). Comparison of these creatures to the
serpent of Genesis 3 yields rather detailed points of contact that are most suggestive. In
both passages, the serpents speak, and by their speech show knowledge of both human
and divine affairs, as would be expected from those who are privy to the divine council.
There the similarities end, but the contrasts are equally suggestive. Morally, the serpent in
the Garden is the agent of the corruption and death of mankind through fruit which is
eaten. The serpents of Isaiah’s call in contrast act as the agents of Isaiah’s purification,
atonement, and life through burning coals which touch Isaiah’s lips. As holy beings, they
call God holy. The Genesis3 serpent, being a liar, calls God a liar. While he is insolent,
the Seraphim cover their faces in the presence of God (v. 2).
Physically, the cursed serpent must crawl on his belly because he has no feet or
wings with which to walk or fly. But the holy serpents of the divine council have feet,
wings, and hands. They do not crawl on their bellies, but stand on their feet or fly (vv.
2,6).
The similarities and contrasts between the Seraphim of Isaiah’s call and the
serpent of the Garden of Eden can be summarized in a table as below:
characteristic Genesis 3 Serpent Seraphim of Isaiah 6

difference from speaks, shows knowledge of speak, show knowledge of

natural serpents divine and human affairs divine and human affairs
view of God he is a liar he is holy, holy, holy
attitude to God brazen, insolent cover their faces
relation to man agent of corruption, death agent of purification, life
instrument used fruit which is eaten burning coal which touches
lips
physical attribute after curse, must crawl on belly, having feet, hands, and wings,
being without feet or wings can stand or fly
The picture of the flying serpents of Isaiah 6 therefore implies that the serpent of
Genesis3 is an evil, cursed version of the majestic members of the divine council seen by
Isaiah, who perhaps is shown what the evil serpent in the Garden once was. The kind of
interpretation suggested here for Isaiah 6 is really only a more detailed comparison, but

339
John Day, “Echoes of Baal’s Seven Thunders and Lightnings in Psalm XXIX and Habakkuk III 9 and the
Identity of the Seraphim in Isaiah VI,” VT 29 (1979): 149-50.

104
of the same kind, as I suggested for the Cherubim of Genesis 3, and consequently, it
tends to confirm that interpretation. Also compare God’s speaking of “us” in both
passages and the phrase “one of the Seraphim” with “one of us” (Isa 6:8, 6; Gen 3:22).
It is usually thought that the equation of the Serpent of Genesis 3 with Satan, a
member of the heavenly court, is a much later development. Speaking of the serpent of
the Garden, Joines said:
[it] is not the embodiment of the Satan, for the Old Testament knows of no such being
until after the Babylonian Exile some four centuries after the Yahwist’s edition of
Genesis 3. When the Satan does emerge, he is a member of the Heavenly Court; in
340
contrast, the serpent is a creature of the dust (emphasis added).
This view would seem to be invalidated by the implications of the Seraphim in Isaiah’s
call, and the Cherubim in Genesis 3, both members of the heavenly court to whom the
serpent forms a contrast, or evil version.
2.3.6 The “Dragon” and the Identity of the Tempter
Another issue with the initial interpretation of the narrative (as opposed to the
initial interpretation of the curse by Adam and Eve), is whether the image of the crushing
of the snake’s head would lead an Israelite reader to an identification of the serpent with
the internationally known figure of the dragon who opposes God, is sometimes called a
serpent, and is said to have his head(s) crushed.341 This possibility is assumed by those
authors noted in chap. I who have made the connection between the dragon figure and the
snake in Genesis 3, or who have posited a mythological background to the story in which
the snake was not an animal but a supernatural foe of God, or who say that the nations
embellished the serpent of Genesis 3 into a many-headed dragon. Such a connection is
also indicated by the fact that other Old Testament passages which introduce the figure of
the dragon, sometimes called “serpent” (‫ ;נָחָש‬the same word used throughout Genesis 3),
do so without explanation, as though the figure was well understood to the audience. We
will briefly survey here the Old Testament passages where the supernatural serpent is
depicted as God’s enemy, in order to show what information would have been available
to the implied reader of Gen 3:1, 15; later we will take up the subject again to compare
the Biblical passages with the comparative material, and to see if there is any relationship
between these passages and Gen 3:15.
Leviathan:
In Isa27:1, the dragon is twice called ‫( ִׁל ְוי ָתָ ן‬i.e., Leviathan), who is further
described as ‫נָ ָחש ָב ִׁר ַח‬, ‫נָחָש ֲע ַקלָתֹון‬, and ‫“( הַתַ ּנִׁין אֲשר ַבי ָם‬on that day the Lord will visit with
his sword – the fierce, great, and powerful one – Leviathan the evil (or primeval) serpent;
Leviathan the crooked serpent; and he will slay the dragon who is in the sea”). The two
descriptions of Leviathan are almost identical to those found in Ugaritic myths to
describe the dragon ltn (UT 67:I:1-3; ktmḫṣ · ltn · bṯn · brḥ / tkly · bṯn · ʿqltn · / šlyṭ · d ·

340
Joines, Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament, 26-27.

341
The serpent-dragon figure is known from at least the third millenium BC (see below), so we can safely
assume he was known to the implied reader of Genesis 3, whenever he is placed.

105
šbʿt · rʾšm; “for all that you smote Leviathan the slippery serpent (and) made an end of
the wriggling serpent, the tyrant with seven heads”).342
The meaning of ‘qltn (corresponding to Hebrew ‫ ) ֲע ַקלָתֹון‬seems clearly to be
“crooked,” or “twisted.” M. Wakeman advocated such a translation to preserve both the
physical and moral connotation; two out of three instances of the root ‫ עקל‬outside of Isa
27:1 signify moral crookedness (Hab 1:4; Ps 125:5; Judg 5:6 refers to winding paths or
back roads), and the same may be said of the dragon.343
For the other adjective describing the dragon, brḥ (‫) ָב ִׁר ַח‬, the meaning is not so
clear. Many translators use an adjective derived from the idea of flight (the usual Hebrew
meaning of ‫ ;ברח‬qal); thus “fleeing,” “fleeting,” etc. W. F. Albright took the Arabic and
Hebrew basic sense of the root to be “to pass,” and related it to past time, translating it
“primeval.” Albright also cites an Egyptian cognate expression which he said means “of
old.”344 T. H. Gaster said that the Egyptian does not mean “primeval,” but simply
“before, previously,”345 while C. Rabin said that the Arabic meaning “past” was “derived
and rather rare” and that “a past serpent is hardly the same as a primeval serpent,” 346
although one could argue from analogy to the Hebrew ‫קדם‬,ֶ֫ which can be used for the
relatively recent past as well as for primeval times (Job 29:2; “months of old”). Rabin
postulates two basic meanings of the root in Semitic languages; “to twist,” and “to be
hairless, smooth, bright.” He prefers the translation “convulsive” or “tortuous” for Isa
27:1 on the basis of the first of these common Semitic meanings and his belief that the
constellation Draco is in view in Job 26:13 (the other occurrence of ‫ ;ב ִָׁר ַח‬besides Isa
27:1), and notes that this translation agrees with the Tg. and Vg in Job.347 Albright
responded briefly to Gaster and Rabin and pointed to the expression ʿnt · brḥ · pʿlmh / ʿnt
· pdr · dr in the Ugaritic Aqhat story, where brḥ occurs between the words “now,” and
“forever,” and thus might reasonably be said to have some reference to past time; he also
noted that such a translation would agree with the designation “ancient serpent” used in
Rev 12:9; 20:2.348 The context, however, concerns the immediate and future

342
Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 68.

343
Mary K. Wakeman, God’s Battle with the Monster: A Study in Biblical Imagery (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1973), 64, n. 1.

344
William F. Albright, “Are the Ephod and the Teraphim Mentioned in Ugaritic Literature?” BASOR 83
(Oct 1941): 39-40, n. 5. Mitchell Dahood also adopts this translation (Psalms II: 51-100 (AB; Garden City:
Doubleday, 1968), 205.

345
Theodor H. Gaster, “Folklore Motifs in Canaanite Myth,” JRAS (1944): 47.

346
C. Rabin, “BĀRIAḤ,” JTS 47 (1946): 38.

347
Ibid., 39-41.

348
William F. Albright, “The Psalm of Habakkuk,” in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy Presented to T. H.
Robinson, H. H. Rowley, ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950), 2, n. 9. Albright mentions C. L. Feinberg as
calling attention to the similarity with Rev 12:9; 20:2 if brḥ means “primeval” (ibid.).
106
consequences for the murder of Aqhat, which would seem to make the sense “now and
forever” (but not past) preferable. Gibson translates, “Be a fugitive now and evermore, /
now and to all generations.”349 Conceivably there is a pun involved with a common
expression meaning “now, then, and forever.”
C. Gordon suggested the translation “evil serpent,” following a suggestion by I.
Yasin that ‫ ב ִָׁר ַח‬is related to Arabic barḥ (“evil,” “harm,” or “great pain”).350 Rabin
disagrees that the Arabic evidence cited for this meaning is a likely explanation for the
Bible, although he seems to have provided some of his own, in documenting the idea that
“the basic idea of twisting is never far absent. Another group of meanings implies
‘twisting’ off the right path. One shouts barḥā on seeing a shot going amiss.”351 This
brings to mind the common verb for “sin” in Hebrew (‫ ) ָחטָא‬which has the literal meaning
“to miss a mark or a way,” which can be seen in Judg 20:16 (those who can sling a stone
at a hair and not miss).352
Further support for the translation “evil” comes from an Eblaite-Sumerian
bilingual text discussed by A. Archi, where Sumerian šà-ḫul-gig = Eblaite ba-rí-ù/um,
which Archi renders “mauvais amour,” and relates to Arabic bariḥ, “de mauvais augere”
and Ugaritic and Hebrew brḥ.353 E. Zurro cited Archi’s article to support his finding of a
“Janus parallelism” in Job 9:25, hinging on two meanings of the verb ‫“( ב ַָרח‬flee” and “be
evil”). In such parallelism, one of the two meanings parallels what precedes it, while the
other meaning parallels what follows; thus Job says, “My days are swifter than a runner,
they flee/they are evil (‫ ;)ב ְָרחּו‬they see no good.”354 That this evidence is in Job adds to the
probability that ‫ נָחָש ב ִָׁר ַח‬means “evil serpent,” since this phrase is also found in Job 26:13,
where the serpent’s name is Rahab (see below).
J. Gamberoni is skeptical of Rabin’s “alleged common Semitic original
meanings” and wonders if the meaning of the word was still remembered in biblical
tradition.355 Possibly, the adjective “ancient” applied to the serpent-dragon in Rev 12:9;

349
Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 119 (Aqhat; 19:154, 157, 167).

350
Izz-al-Din Al-Yasin, The Lexical Relation Between Ugaritic and Arabic (Shelton Semitic Monograph
Series, 1; New York: Shelton College, 1952), 45 (on p. 152, however, Yasin translates the relevant Ugaritic
text “mischievous serpent”). Cyrus H. Gordon, “Near East Seals in Princeton and Philadelphia,” Or 22
(1953): 243-44.

351
Rabin, “BĀRIAḤ” 39.

352
G. H. Livingstone, TWOT, § 638 (p. 277).

353
A. Archi, “Les Textes lexicaux bilingues d’Ebla,” SEb 2 (1980): 81-89; 87. Archi follows CAD in
relating the Sumerian šà-h̬ul to Akkadian lumum libbi (“grief, sorrow, distress, anger;” CAD, 9.250).

354
Eduardo Zurro, “Disemia de brḥ y paralelismo bifronte en Job 9,25,” Bib 62 (1981): 546-47. I thank Gary
Rendsburg for drawing my attention to this article.

355
J. Gamberoni, TDOT, 2.252.**add article title; and to bibliography

107
20:2 may reflect another tradition of the meaning of ‫ב ִָׁר ַח‬, agreeing with Albright’s
suggestion. In fact, one could view “The great dragon ... the serpent of old ... who
deceives” (Rev 12:9) as a Targum-like paraphrase of Isa 27:1: “Leviathan, serpent of old,
crooked serpent,” taking “crooked” metaphorically (especially since this dragon has
seven heads and is master of “the beast” who has seven heads and lives in the sea; Rev
13:1). Favoring the translation “twisted” is that a snake may be said to be twisted or
winding, an idea which also underlies the meaning of the Hebrew root ‫ לוי‬which is
probably the basis for the name Leviathan.356 But if the name and both adjectives mean
“twisted, crooked, winding,” and serve to emphasize the physical shape of the dragon,
then it seems strange that as depicted on seals, the dragon is not physically twisted at all -
if the adjectives and name all mean “twisted,” they must be figurative for the dragon’s
moral character.357 On balance, the evidence at present seems to favor the translation
“evil serpent,” though an Egyptian connection is also possible. In another chapter, we
will discuss the Egyptian figure of Apophis, who is depicted as a huge serpent with
numerous coils; thus the description of Leviathan as “crooked serpent” may owe
something to very early Egyptian material of which we are unaware.358
Ps 74:13-14 describes God’s breaking (‫שבֵר‬ ִׁ ) the heads of dragons (‫)תַ ּנִׁינִׁים‬359 on
the waters, and the crushing (‫)רצֵץ‬ ִׁ of the heads of Leviathan. Job wishes Leviathan
would swallow the day of his birth (3:8).
Rahab:
Isa 51:9 calls the Lord the one who, in days of old, “cut in pieces Rahab ( ‫ַה ַמח ְֶ֫צבת‬
‫)רהַב‬
ֶַ֫ and pierced the dragon” (‫ְחֹוללת תַ ּנִׁין‬ֶ֫ ‫ )מ‬and dried up the sea to make a path for the
redeemed to cross over.360 Ps 89:11(10) says “It was you who crushed (‫ )דִׁ כֵא‬like a slain
one, Rahab; with your strong arm you scattered your enemies.” Job 26:12 says God by
his power stirred up (‫)רגַע‬ ָ the sea, and by his understanding shattered (‫ ) ָמחַץ‬Rahab, who,
like Leviathan, is ‫( נָחָש ב ִָׁר ַח‬v. 13). In Job 9:13 Rahab’s “helpers” cower before God.
Tannîn:
In addition to the passages cited above, ‫( תַ ּנִׁין‬tannîn, “serpent, dragon”) is used
without the names Rahab or Leviathan to refer to the dragon in Job 7:12 (“Am I Sea [‫]י ָם‬,
356
John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea (New York: Cambridge, 1985), 5.

357
ANEP, pls. 671, 691.

358
For depiction of Apophis (many prefer the spelling Apep) see, for example, George Hart, A Dictionary of
Egyptian Gods and Goddesses (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986), 31. Albright’s case would
obviously be helped by finding Egyptian brḥ as “primeval” applied to Apophis or some other deity.

359
The plural form is sometimes explained as a misunderstanding of enclitic mem; if so, “dragon” is
singular, parallel with Leviathan (so Wakeman, God’s Battle, 68, n. 5). Dahood puts the final mem with the
next word (Psalms II, 206).

360
Many interpreters see a sharp transition between vv. 9 & 10, seeing v. 9 as a pre-creation event. Rahab in
this interpretation is the personification of “the primordial chaos of the sea which Yahweh overcame” (Joines,
Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament, 9-10; following Hermann Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit
und Endzeit [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1895], 32; and others).

108
or ‫תַ ּנִׁין‬, that you put me under guard?”). With a slightly different spelling, in Ezekiel there
are two references to Pharaoh as ‫( תַ ּנִׁים‬Ezek 29:3, 32:2),361 and in Jeremiah a reference to
Nebuchadnezzar as “like the ‫ ”תַ ּנִׁין‬who “has swallowed us” (Jer 51:34).362 The Canaanite
figure Yam (Sea) may be a serpent or dragon, though in the Ugaritic myths he is never
called such or pictured with many heads; like Ltn he is Baal’s opponent. The extent to
which he is referred to in the Hebrew Bible is debated. In addition to the Job 7:12
passage, Ps 74:13 (with ‫ תַ ּנִׁין‬in context) has been cited as a passage in which the dragon
Yam is indicated, while others see a reference to the Red Sea. This passage is discussed
in detail in another chapter. Unlike Leviathan, we do not see “Sea” described in the Bible
with his Ugaritic titles (Prince Sea, Judge River), and the appearance of “sea” in the same
context as the dragon may be explained by the fact that the sea is the home of the dragon
(as Isa 27:1). Though the Ugaritic Sea (Yam) is not called a dragon, and is (like Baal) one
of the gods, sons of El, G. Rendsburg argues that the battle between Baal and Yam seems
to be the same as that pictured on the Tell Asmar seal from about 1000 years earlier. The
Tell Asmar seal, dated at 2180-2360 BC, depicts a seven-headed fiery dragon under
divine attack, with four of its heads slain.363 Pritchard describes the dragon as being under
attack by two gods (the seal shows one attacking the heads, one attacking the back). But
Rendsburg argues that the seal is an example of “continuous narrative in one illustration;”
two sequential scenes are shown in which one god attacks the back, then the head.
Rendsburg relates this sequence to the Ugaritic story of Baal attacking Yam. 364 From an
earlier (i.e., Sumerian) period at Tell Asmar, a seal impression with a seven headed snake
under divine attack was found, and H. Frankfort argued for the equivalence of this figure
with the later seven headed dragon.365
The possibility that Yam, a son of El, could also be viewed as a dragon figure
finds support in the comparison of the Egyptian god Seth and the demonic serpent
Apophis. H. Te Velde says that whether fighting Apophis or protecting the sun-god Re,
Seth is called an evil being; he is anti-social and homosexual, murderer of his brother,
and “the god who brings about abortion.”366 Even though a foe of Apophis, Seth was also
361
Elsewhere ‫ תַ ּנִׁים‬is the plural of ‫תַ ן‬, “jackals,” though the kethib of Lam 4:3 has ‫ ;תנן‬the context favors the
qere. Here the form must be singular agreeing with the adjective and verb.

362
The reference is either a comparison to literal snakes swallowing their prey, or to the dragon figure. ‫ תַ ּנִׁין‬is
used as often for one as for the other.

363
ANEP, 221 (pl. 691).

364
Gary A. Rendsburg, “UT 68 and the Tell Asmar Seal,” Or 53 (1984): 4:448-452.

365
H. Frankfort, “Early Dynastic Sculptered Maceheads,” AnOr 12: 105-21. Frankfort says both seals were
found in connection with the same temple; he also argues that a seven headed snake on a macehead in the
Copenhagen museum represents the same figure (ibid., 119-21); this macehead is also mentioned by
Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation (2nd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1951), 108, n. 81, and fig. 15 (back of book).

366
H. Te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 29, 31, 40, 101.

109
identified with him: “Set ... became for later Egyptians the personification of evil. He was
identified with Apophis, the serpent of wickedness, against whom the sun-god wages
perpetual war.”367 We may add that the fact that gods, i.e., members of the heavenly
court, are associated with demonic functions in rather ancient myths refutes Joines’ claim
(cited above) that Israelites could only know of a Satan figure from the time of the exile.
δράκων (dragon) is the LXX translation of the Hebrew ‫ תַ ּנִׁין‬and Leviathan in these
passages. It is also used 13 times in Rev12:3-17; 13:2,4, 11; 16:13; 20:2 to refer to the
seven-headed ten-horned dragon, who is twice pointedly referred to as “that ancient
serpent (ὄφις) called the devil or Satan” (12:9; 20:2; he is also called ὄφις in 12:14, 15).
These passages, along with the comparative material, will be discussed in another
chapter. For now, we note that the figure of a supernatural serpent, or dragon, who is at
enmity with God, was well known to the Hebrews and used without hesitation or
introduction. This knowledge could have helped the implied reader of Genesis to resolve
the inconsistencies apparent between the description of the snake as an animal, and his
actions as a rational, evil being. As for the objection that the dragon figure is God’s
enemy, whereas the serpent of Genesis 3 is the enemy of man, we saw above that the
enemies of Israel are compared to (or called) the dragon, and it is only logical to conclude
that the enemy of the one who is made in God’s image is also the enemy of God.
2.3.7 Conclusions
We can see that the initial interpretation of the first implied readers of Genesis 3
could be quite different than that of Adam and Eve themselves. The naturalistic
interpretation would have a certain amount of momentum based on the appearance of the
snake to be a mere animal, and the statement apparently to that effect in Gen 3:1.
Considerable evidence can be seen on reflection (subsequent interpretations) as pointing
to a supernaturalistic interpretation of the serpent; as Kurtz said, “So soon as man had
commenced to reflect on this event, he must have gathered from it the existence of a
spiritual being opposed to God. For this he did not require the aid of a special instruction
or revelation” (§ 1.8.3). More of this evidence would be available to the implied reader
than to Adam and Eve. But the implications for such an identification would not be
obvious. If the serpent were actually an evil angel, a moral opposite to the Cherubim and
Seraphim, what would his offspring be? And how would the conflict manifest itself in the
future? To these questions we turn next.

367
A. H. Sayce, The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), 162. Sayce
also notes the role of Apophis in the trials of the deceased in the Book of the Dead, which describes “how the
soul ... can pass in safety ‘over the back of the serpent Apophis, the wicked’” (p. 187).

110
 CHAPTER III

INITIAL FULFILLMENTS OF GENESIS3:15

3.1 Introduction
Nothing explains a prophecy like its fulfillment. We saw in chap. I that a
significant minority of interpreters throughout the history of interpretation of Gen 3:15
have understood both seeds collectively and figuratively, as the righteous and the wicked.
A smaller number of these from Optatus to Origen to Dietrich Philips to the present
identified the conflict between Cain and Abel as the first fulfillment of the enmity
predicted in the curse, therefore identifying the two brothers as the first representatives of
the two seeds at enmity. We shall see in this chapter that the evidence for such a view is
considerable, and that this understanding provides a major key to the interpretation of the
passage.
3.2 First Fulfillment of the Enmity of Gen 3:15
In Gen 3:15 God says he will put enmity between the serpent and the woman,
and between their respective offspring. In Genesis 4, God puts enmity between Cain and
Abel by approving of Abel and his offering, while disapproving of Cain and his offering.
That enmity is the proper word to describe the relationship between Cain and Abel after
this rejection is evident from Cain’s action – he murdered his brother. We saw that this
same word “enmity,” paralleled with such words as hatred, envy, and jealousy, is twice
used in the law of Moses (Num 35:21-22) to describe the condition which makes
homicide a premeditated murder and therefore makes the murderer worthy of death.
There is obviously no question that the murder of Abel was premeditated; “with enmity.”
Identifying the enmity which occurs in Genesis 4 as the enmity predicted in Gen 3:15 is
the key to identifying the two seeds which are at enmity, with the result that the initial
interpretation of Gen 3:15 by Adam and Eve, the naturalistic interpretation, is
overthrown. Otherwise, we must assume that some amazing coincidence has placed
Genesis 4, an episode of enmity, after Gen 3:15, its prediction. By further coincidence,
the naturalistic interpretation (though correct) is never referred to again.
The two seeds therefore are not snakes and humans, but two kinds of humans – in
fact, here, brothers, so those who argued for a definition of seed as moral or ethical kind
are correct. One kind is approved of God, righteous; the other disapproved, wicked.
Besides the evidence from the enmity itself, we see that in the narrative, Cain is modelled
after the serpent, while Abel is shown to be the woman’s seed.
3.3 Cain and Abel, the Two Seeds of Gen 3:15
3.3.1 Cain, Seed of the Serpent
While perhaps most commentators see the murder of Abel by Cain as an
evidence of the “intensification” of sin in the early world, such a view only compares
Cain’s actions in Genesis 4 with those of his natural parents in Genesis 3. It overlooks the
fact that Cain’s sins are already exemplified in Genesis 3, not by Adam and Eve, but by
the serpent. So the point is not simply that sin grows and the effects of the fall become
more terrible, but rather that the behavior of the serpent of Genesis 3 is carried on by his
spiritual offspring, Cain. Three areas of comparison show Cain clearly like the serpent,
but unlike Adam and Eve: (1) lying; (2) murdering; (3) being cursed.

111
 The serpent lied to the woman about God’s command and the consequences of
transgressing it (Gen 3:1, 4). Cain lied when God asked him “where is Abel your
brother?” (Gen 4:9). Cain is thus like the serpent, but unlike his natural parents, who,
though trying to mitigate their sin, still answered God’s questions truthfully (Gen 3:9-13).
The serpent is a murderer because with deceptive words he induced the woman to take an
action which he had reason to believe would be immediately fatal. 368 Cain is likewise a
murderer, using deceptive words to accomplish his goal (Gen 4:8). Again, he is like the
serpent, but unlike his natural parents. Cain is cursed by God (Gen 4:11), like the serpent
but unlike his natural parents.369 So in these three ways Cain is modelled after the serpent.
It is only in physical matters that he is more like his physical parents (his physical
appearance as a man, his farming profession). We can probably not imagine the shock
with which Adam and Eve realized that the one they thought was the first example of
God’s new creation, the woman’s seed, the first born over all creation, was actually the
offspring of their cursed enemy.
Genesis 4 itself has an answer to the objection that a moral or ethical definition
of the seed violates all rules of scientific exegesis, as Kühnöl said (§ 1.7.2). At the end of
the chapter, the word “father” is used twice in an unusual way; to indicate one who
originates certain practices or invents something. Jabal is “the father of those who live in
tents and raise livestock,” and his brother Jubal is “the father of all who play the harp and
lute” (Gen 4:20-21). As “father” is used twice this way at the end of the chapter (it could
have been used a third time, to describe Tubal-Cain in v. 22), so the serpent is in two
ways the father of Cain. The serpent originated the two practices of lying and murdering;
he is the father of lies and a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44), and Cain is his
spiritual or moral son.370 The implications of this identification for the naturalistic
interpretation of the serpent are obvious. If Genesis 4 shows the offspring of the serpent
mentioned in Gen 3:15 to be a human being, not a snake, then the strictly naturalistic
interpretation of the serpent in the curse, which we have already suggested there is reason
to doubt from the events of the fall (available for Adam and Eve’s reflection) and from

368
Here I agree with Rosenbaum (except for his naturalistic interpretation) about the extent of the serpent’s
guilt: “By robbing Adam and Eve of immortality the snake and its descendants are the murderers of our
ancestors, and, by extension, of ourselves as well. Any human death, whatever the apparent cause, is another
crime to be laid at the den of the serpent” (Rosenbaum, “Israelite homicide Law,” 150).

369
“After sin so dominated Cain that he killed Abel, the LORD cursed Cain even as he had earlier cursed his
spiritual father, the Serpent” (Bruce K. Waltke, “Cain and His Offering,” WTJ 48 [1986]: 370).

370
Michael J. Maher says that Tg. Ps. J. Gen 4:1 is “the earliest text that explicitly identifies Sammael as the
father of Cain” (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Genesis, 31, n. 2). According to Maher, the reason for this
identification is that Gen 5:3 says that Seth was in the image and likeness of Adam, but this was not said
about Cain. No doubt some of the correspondences between Cain and the serpent mentioned here also played
a role in identifying Cain’s father as the devil. The great mistake made by such legends (Maher lists the
sources in the note cited above) is in assuming that the parentage being spoken of is Cain’s physical
parentage. The text could not be clearer that Adam is Cain’s father. A. Goldbérg (who also traces these
legends in an article) said that it was easy to make Cain the son of the devil on the basis of the account in
Genesis 6 of the “sons of God” marrying the daughters of men and having children (A. Goldbérg, “Kain:
Sohn des Menschen oder Sohn der Schlange?”, Judaica 24 [1969]: 206).

112
the narrative about it (available for the reader’s reflection) is rejected by the immediate
(or at least near) context of Gen 3:15 itself.371
In addition to Genesis 4 portraying Cain as the seed of the serpent, we can cite
other Old Testament passages which compare the wicked to serpents, or their wickedness
to snake’s venom, just as other Old Testament passages show how the idea of the serpent
as a supernatural enemy of God was well known to the Israelites (see § 2.3.6).
Comparisons of the wicked to serpents could be in part dependent on Gen 3:15; at the
least they show how the implied reader could have been helped to the conclusion
suggested here. Some of this material has already been mentioned under the description
of K. Holter’s views (§ 1.9.7).
‫נָחָש‬, the generic Hebrew word for snake, is the most common Old Testament
serpent word and the only one used to describe the serpent in the Fall narrative (used five
times; vv. 1, 2, 4, 13, & 14); it is found 26 other times in the Old Testament. Other
Hebrew words for serpents are (alphabetically), ‫( אפְעה‬3 occurrences), ‫( ִׁל ְוי ָתָ ן‬Leviathan;
6x), ‫( ַעכְשּוב‬1x), ‫( ֶ֫פתן‬6x, only poetry), ‫( ֶ֫צפַע‬1x), ‫( ִׁצפְעֹונִׁי‬4x), ‫( ֶַ֫רהַב‬Rahab; 7x), ‫( ש ָָרף‬7x),
‫שפִׁיפֹון‬ ְ (1x; this is the word from which Calvin explained the use of ‫ שּוף‬in Gen 3:15), and
‫( תַ ּנִׁין‬14x). Snakes may also be among the “crawling things (‫ )זֹחֵל‬of the ground/dust”
(Deut 32:24; Mic 7:17). Leviathan and Rahab (as discussed in § 2.3.6) are proper nouns
associated with ‫תַ ּנִׁין‬, usually a sea creature, supernatural or natural (except that ‫ ֶַ֫רהַב‬is
found once in the plural in Ps 40:5), while the rest are common nouns. ‫י ָם‬, the common
word for “sea,” is also in Ugaritic myths another proper noun associated with or at least
probably based on, the supernatural ‫תַ ּנִׁין‬. Aside from ‫י ָם‬, all of the words listed above
appear in parallel with the generic ‫ נָחָש‬except ‫אפְעה‬, which is found in parallel with three
other words which do appear in parallel with ‫פתן( נָחָש‬,ֶ֫ ‫ש ָָרף‬, and ‫שפִׁיפֹון‬ ְ ). ‫( ש ָָרף‬discussed in
§ 2.3.5) is thought to be so named from the burning sensation of its bite; therefore most
probably denotes a venomous snake. This seems especially likely from the fact that the
word sometimes is used in apposition to ‫ נָחָש‬to further modify it; “snakes, venomous
ones” (Num 21:6; Deut 8:15). This fact further implies that ‫ נָחָש‬need not be a venomous
snake. Notably absent from the list of serpent words is the common Semitic ḥiwwâ.
Because of the interchangeability of the different serpent words, we will consider all the
passages referring to snakes of any sort as of interest to our study.
Men or peoples are compared to snakes or their wickedness to snake venom in
Gen 49:17 (the tribe of Dan is ‫ נָחָש‬and ‫שפִׁיפֹון‬ ְ , which bites the heel of the horse); Deut
32:33 (‫תַ ּנִׁין‬, ‫ ֶ֫;פתן‬their wine is the venom of serpents, the poison of cobras); Isa14:29 (‫נָחָש‬,
‫צפַע‬,ֶ֫ and ‫ ;ש ָָרף‬Ahaz and Hezekiah as snakes attacking the Philistines); 59:5 (‫אפְעה‬, ‫; ִׁצפְעֹונִׁי‬
the wicked hatch eggs of snakes); Jer 46:22 (Egypt is like the ‫)נָחָש‬, Mic 7:17 (‫נָחָש‬, ‫;זֹחֵל‬
nations share the serpent’s humiliation of Gen 3:14), Ps 58:5 (‫נָחָש‬, ‫ ֶ֫;פתן‬the venom of the
wicked is like the venom of a snake or a cobra), and 140:4 (‫נָחָש‬, ‫ ; ַעכְשּוב‬they sharpen their
tongues like a serpent’s, the poison of vipers is on their lips; this verse is quoted in Rom
3:13, using ἀσπίς for ‫) ַעכְשּוב‬. Ps 40:5 says “blessed is the man who makes the Lord his
trust, who does not look to the ‫ר ָהבִׁים‬,ְ to those who turn aside to false gods.”

371
According to the generally accepted source criticism, the two passages are from the same primary source
document, although Genesis 4 is often said to have two or three separate sources, and is often said to have
been originally independent of Genesis 3. More will be said on this later in our study.

113
 This usage continues in the New Testament, as four times the Scribes, Pharisees,
hypocrites,