Sermon Tone Analysis

At the head of the pronouncement against the serpent is the cause for the ensuing judgment.197

“You have done this” echoes the question God put to the woman (v.

13).

There is a clear tie between the serpent’s actions and the punishment that follows.

God does not render judgment arbitrarily or capriciously.

Moreover, there is a correspondence between the nature of the judgment and the crime committed.

As the cleverness of the serpent distinguishes it from the other animals (3:1), the “curse” for that trickery distinguishes the serpent from them as well.

In the stream of the narrative’s focus on blessing, this pronouncement stands out as the first occurrence of divine “curse.”

Its root (ʾārar) appears fifty-five times in the Old Testament, predominantly in the Pentateuch with eight occurrences in Genesis.198

It is important particularly to the listed curses and blessings regarding Israel’s covenant (Deut 27–28).

“Curse” conveys the idea of imprecation where verbal or written utterances invoke misery against a person or thing.

The word ʾālâ (“curse”) commonly is used for such imprecations, whereas ʾārar often indicates a decree or pronouncement against someone by an authority.

Only God can actually impose this decree, and thus it supposes, even if spoken by a man, that the power carrying out the malediction can come only from deity (as Noah’s curse, 9:25).

“Cursed” (ʾārûr), as found here and in v. 17, is the typical way of introducing a decree of doom (also 4:11; 9:25; cf.

27:29; Deut 27:15–26; 28:16–20).199

The serpent’s punishment has three aspects: (1) consignment to crawling on its belly, (2) the eating of dust “all the days of your life” (v.

14), and (3) its ultimate destruction by the wounded “seed” of the woman (v.

15).

Several elements in the oracle echo the temptation (3:1–5).

“Cursed” (ʾārûr) is another wordplay on the earlier “crafty” (ʿārûm; cf.

3:1).

Both verses describe the serpent’s distinction within the animal world.

Ill-use of his shrewdness resulted in divine censure.

“Eating” dust reflects Eve’s temptation to “eat” of the tree and the couple’s subsequent fall by eating.

Also the retaliation of the woman’s seed over against the viper’s offspring (v.

15) answers the snake’s first triumph.

His triumph will not be the last word.

These punishments are related to the snake’s life of humiliation and subjugation in the natural world.

God’s condemnation is not directed against the reptile per se but the adversary that it represents.

While some Jewish interpreters surmised that the serpent must have originally been four-legged, there is no compelling reason for this conclusion.200

It is enough to describe the present characteristics of the snake, which indicate by themselves the disgrace of the beast.

As mentioned earlier (v.

1), the food laws of the Mosaic covenant declare that animals whose locomotion is on the ground are abhorred as unclean and to be avoided (Lev 11:42).201

Eating dust is a common figure for personal humiliation elsewhere in Scripture.202

Moreover, by “dust” there is an anticipation of God’s pronouncement of Adam’s death (3:19).

The reptile is responsible for the demise of the man, who returns to the “dust,” and as the serpent’s diet it will be a perpetual reminder of its crime.

“All the days of your life” speaks to the ultimate end of the serpent and its offspring.

“Your life” (ḥayyêkâ) may be an allusion to the snake’s false promise, “You will surely not die” (v.

4), made to Eve, who ironically is later recognized as the source of “all the living” (ḥay; 3:20).

Hence, the snake brought about his own death by his treachery, but ultimately Eve through her seed will outlive her adversary.

3:15 The curse upon the serpent includes its final destruction by the descendant of the woman.

This animosity is at the instigation of God.

The serpent was instrumental in the undoing of the woman, and in turn the woman will ultimately bring down the serpent through her offspring.

At one level the hostility between serpent and woman reflects the universal enmity people have for such reptiles and therefore serves as a prototype.

However, this is no etiology designed to explain why man abhors snakes since the verse indicates there is a future history for the serpent and the woman.

That future history of antagonism is not delineated here, yet the conclusion of the matter is made explicit: the serpent has a limited life expectancy that will come to a violent end.

“Enmity” has the intensity of hostility experienced among nations in warfare (e.g., Ezek 25:15; 35:5) and the level of animosity that results in murder (e.g., Num 35:21).

The language of the passage indicates a life-and-death struggle between combatants.

“Crush” and “strike” translate the same Hebrew verb šûp (AV, “bruise”)203 and describe the combatants’ parallel action, but the location of the blow distinguishes the severity and success of the attack.

The impact delivered by the offspring of the woman “at the head” is mortal, while the serpent will deliver a blow only “at the heel.”

Continuing the imagery of the snake, the strike at the human heel is appropriate for a serpent since it slithers along the ground, while the human foot stomps the head of the vile creature.

“Between you [serpent]” has the singular pronoun (as elsewhere in the verse), meaning that this hostility begins with the beast and the woman as individuals.

Yet their experience is shared by their offspring too; the serpent and woman are distinct from their offspring yet also one and the same with them.

Here we have the common case where an individual represents many.204

Eve and her adversary are the progenitors of a lifelong struggle that will persist until a climactic moment when the woman’s offspring will achieve the upper hand.

This continuum of experience between parent and offspring is seen by the parallelism of the verse (v.

15b//15c): “between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring.”205

Moreover, “offspring” is the rendering of the Hebrew term for “seed” (zeraʿ), which may refer to an individual or to a group.

It is ambiguous by itself since it may be singular, referring to a specific child (e.g., 4:25), or a singular collective indicating a plural progeny (e.g., 12:7; Isa 41:8).

Modern versions show this by their diverse renderings, proposing singular or plural translations for the following pronouns.206

“Seed” is a resourceful term for speaking of all human history while at the same time permitting a reference to a specific individual descendant.

This explains why the individual offspring of the woman (“he,” “his heel”) can be said to do battle with the progenitor serpent (“your head,” “you”) in v. 15d and 15e.

“Seed” (zeraʿ) is a critical term in the whole of Genesis and the Pentateuch.

It first occurs in a literal sense in the creation account (1:11–12, 29), but here it is metaphorical and takes on programmatic significance.

Of its fifty-nine occurrences in Genesis, the majority are found in the patriarchal narratives (47×), where the focal concern lies with the genealogical lineage of the chosen family.207

The patriarchal accounts explain what is only introduced in 3:15.

The creation blessing (1:28), which was jeopardized by the couple’s disobedience, is particularized through the Hebrew fathers, who will be instrumental in its realization.

Chapter 3’s oracle implies a hope for the human family that despite their sin there will be a fulfillment of the blessing through progeny as foreseen at creation (1:26–28).

This hope for the appointed “seed” is unveiled progressively by the offspring of Eve through Seth (“another seed,” 4:26; his genealogy, 5:1–32), through Noah’s offspring (9:9), and the seed of Abraham first described in 12:7 (with 12:1–3).208

Moreover, this promise points to the Mosaic community, which defined itself as the offspring promised to Abraham (e.g., Exod 32:11–14; Deut 11:8–12).

Also this hostility finds immediate expression between wicked Cain and his brother Abel (4:8).

God’s forewarning of Cain that “sin is crouching at your door” (4:7) may be an allusion to the struggle that 3:15 envisions.

But the adversary wins the first battle when Cain yields to sin and murders the woman’s seed, Abel.

This strife between the elect line and the cursed is again envisioned in Noah’s curse and blessing (9:24–27).

It also foreshadows the tension between the patriarchs and the nations as they experience an uneasy coexistence in Canaan and Egypt (e.g., chap.

38).

For later Israel this hostility comes to full fury when Egypt instigates a purge of Hebrew children, from which baby Moses is delivered, and climaxes with God’s tenth plague against Pharaoh’s firstborn.

It also anticipates Moses’ wars and the hostility Israel faces as it migrates to the land of Canaan.

Christian tradition has referred to 3:15 as the protevangelium since it has been taken as the prototype for the Christian gospel.

Historically interpreters have differed about whether “her seed” refers to an individual or is a collective singular indicating all humanity.

The LXX version may be the earliest attested interpretation of “seed” as an individual.

It translates the Hebrew zeraʿ (“seed”) with the Greek sperma, a neuter noun.

The expected antecedent pronoun is “it [auto] will crush your head,” but the Greek has “he” (autos), which suggests that the translators interpreted “seed” as an individual.209

The Targums, Jewish pseudepigrapha, and later rabbinic commentators, however, generally viewed the “seed” as collective for humankind.

Christian interpreters showed a mixed opinion.210

Justin and Irenaeus interpreted the woman of 3:15 as the virgin Mary by drawing a parallel with Eve.

Greek Fathers, such as Chrysostom, viewed 3:15 as a depiction of the struggle between Satan and humanity.

Still others interpreted “seed” as the church.

Among the Latin Fathers, Augustine with others allegorized or moralized the verse, indicating a collective use.

Others saw in it a specific reference to the virgin birth.

This was aided by some Old Latin texts and the Vulgate, which had the feminine pronoun “she [ipsa] shall crush” rather than the masculine.

It was Ambrose who first quoted 3:15 as not “her seed” but “the woman’s seed.”

Among the Reformers, Luther took “her seed” as reference to both humanity in general and Christ in particular;211 Calvin demurred such a view and applied it as a collective, not to all humanity but rather to the church under the headship of Christ, which would prove victorious (quoting Rom 16:20).212

Our passage provides for this mature reflection that points to Christ as the vindicator of the woman (cp.

Rom 16:20).

There may be an allusion to our passage in Gal 4:4, which speaks of God’s Son as “born of a woman.”213

Specifically, Paul identified Christ as the “seed” ultimately intended in the promissory blessing to Abraham (Gal 3:16), and Abraham’s believing offspring includes the church (Rom 4:13, 16–18; Gal 3:8).

This is further developed in John’s Gospel, where the spiritual dimension is at the forefront.

Jesus alluded to our verse when he indicted the Pharisees as children of the “devil” because of their spiritual apostasy (John 8:44), contrary to their claims to be the offspring of righteous Abraham (8:39).

John used similar imagery when he contrasted God’s “seed” and those who are “of the devil” (1 John 3:7–10).

This is heightened by his appeal to Cain’s murder of righteous Abel as paradigmatic of one “who belonged to the evil one” (3:11–15).

Finally, the Apocalypse describes the “red dragon,” who is identified as “that ancient serpent” (Rev 12:9), opposing the believing community (i.e., the woman) and plotting the destruction of her child (i.e., the Messiah).

Ultimately, “that ancient serpent” is destroyed by God for its deception of the nations (Rev 20:2, 7–10).

3:16 Unlike the penalties announced against the serpent and the man (i.e., “the ground,” v. 17), there is no occurrence of “curse” related to the woman’s suffering.