The Seed in Genesis 3:15


I wrote about Genesis 3:15 several years ago based on a discussion I had with a friend who does not believe that this verse contains the proto-evangelion, the first telling of the gospel.  To believe that in Genesis 3:15 God is giving the gospel to Adam and Eve, is also to believe that Eves's seed is Jesus Christ.  Because this belief can have important implications to ones' theology, I decided to analyze the verse and other places in Scripture to determine how strong the case is for Jesus being the seed foretold by God Himself.

Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.”

 Introduction

The second part of the curse of the serpent is found in Genesis 3:15.  Is God simply cursing snakes and making an etiological statement about why humans find snakes so scary?  Or is He talking about something deeper?

One way to understand the verse is to see it as referring to the snake and the woman and their physical descendants alone.  With this understanding God introduces enmity (conflict, strife, violence, harm, fighting) between Eve and the snake and this conflict will continue throughout the future between humans and snakes.  The last two phrases “He shall bruise you… you shall bruise him…” further defines the conflict in light of the previous curse of the snake in verse 14 to make him crawl on his belly on the ground.

Within this interpretation is the belief that “seed” is always plural in nature.  Even though “seed” is singular it is commonly used with a plural meaning in mind.  Then that plural understanding is applied to “He” and “you” at the end of the verse.  This interpretation does not follow normal grammatical rules.  Following normal grammar “He” would refer to a single son that comes from Eve and “you” would refer to the original serpent/snake.  Taking words and grammar at face value is very important when trying to understand the Bible.  Only in special cases should we conclude that the plain meaning of words or grammar is superseded by an alternative understanding.

There are cases in Genesis where a predictive statement is made to a specific person like Abraham, Isaac or Jacob but the prediction applies to the descendants of the person but not the person directly spoken to.  Plain grammar would lead us to believe that the predictions applied to the person spoken to, but later in the narrative we see the predictions fulfilled in the lives of his descendants or in one of his descendants.  The key here is that there is scripture explicitly describing the fulfillment of the prediction to descendants in a way that excludes the involvement of the ancestor.  We can’t know that a prediction is fulfilled only to descendants by looking at the normal occurrences of life or the natural order.

The basis for believing that the last two phrases pertain strictly to snakes and humans must come from applying our understanding of natural order or our current life experiences to the curse.  There is no specific scripture that later explains how this curse cannot or does not apply to the serpent himself or a specific, meaning one, descendant of Eve.  Believing that the curse only relates generally to snakes and humans does not contradict scripture but it is not required by it either.


Who is the Serpent?

Since the curse in Genesis 3:15 is to the serpent, it is important that we understand who exactly this is that tempted Eve to sin.  Is he simply a snake?  If so, then the curse obviously should pertain only to snakes.  What if the identity of the serpent is more complicated than that?  How would we even know that?  There is nothing in Genesis that identifies the serpent as being anything other than an animal in the Garden of Eden.  However, it is curious that he is talking and tempting Eve to sin.  What kind of animal does that?  If we are relying on our everyday life experiences to understand this passage, how can we conclude that a literal snake is talking to Eve?  It hints that something much more sinister is happening.

The actions of the serpent in Genesis give us a hint that something more than an animal is in the Garden with Eve.  If all we had was Genesis to identify the serpent we couldn’t know exactly what was going on.  However, in Revelation, the apostle John clearly identifies what was going on in the garden.

Revelation 12

7 And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war, 8 and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying,

 

Revelation 20

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

 

The serpent of old.  Where else in the Bible does that phrase take us?  It should direct your mind from the last book all the way back to the first.  Somehow Satan was using the serpent as his agent to tempt Eve!  It wasn’t simply a snake talking to Eve.  It was Satan questioning God’s word, authority, and love.  It was Satan tempting Eve to turn away from God to trust him.

Knowing that Satan is the serpent of old has to affect how we understand Genesis 3:15.  God was not merely cursing a snake.  He was also cursing Satan.  He had to be!  Why would God curse an unintelligent, inarticulate animal while letting Satan escape with no consequence?  He had to intervene.  Eve had just trusted the words of Satan over God.  That is why He adds enmity to their relationship.  There was no enmity until then.  God in His mercy ends Eve’s and Adam’s friendship with Satan.  Where there was just previously trust and obedience, God adds conflict and suspicion.

With that understanding how we interpret “her seed”, “your seed”, “He”, and “you” changes.  “Her seed” and “your seed” can reasonably have a dual meaning.  It can refer to snakes and humans on one hand and refer to the spiritual reality on the other.  After the curses, God makes clothes for Adam and Eve made out of animal skins.  Their nakedness was covered by the death of an animal, much like the animals that were sacrificed in the Mosaic covenant to cover the sin of the people.  God’s relationship to mankind had been broken but seems to be restored.

With that in mind, the children of Eve who lived in that restored relationship with God would be “her seed”.  Satan does not have physical children.  However, the apostle John in 1 John 3:10 states that there are “children of the devil”, those who do not practice righteousness.  “Your seed” could refer to those who live in a broken relationship to God.  The text doesn’t require this interpretation but it is just as plausible to believe in a dual meaning including this idea than it is to believe it is limited to only snakes and humans.


Pronouns and Pronominal Suffixes

Is there any way to decide whether “her seed” is intended to be plural or singular?  If it is plural, then the most plausible interpretation is to also interpret “He” as plural and conclude that God is only cursing snakes, not Satan.  If “He” is singular then the curse is toward the serpent and Satan and involved Eve and one of her descendants.

The Hebrew word for seed, zerah, is used multiple times in the book of Genesis.  Studying how zerah is used in other parts of Genesis could illumine our understanding of how it is used in Genesis 3.  It is also helpful to pay attention to what pronouns are used to refer to zerah.  Does Moses ever use a plural pronoun for zerah?  Are the pronouns always singular or always plural?  Does it depend on which passage you are reading?  Comparing what pronouns are used for zerah in Genesis 3:15, Genesis 22:18, and Genesis 15:12 will help us reach a conclusion.

Before we start with the verses, it is important to know how pronouns are written in Hebrew.  There are stand-alone pronouns like we have in English.  There are also pronominal suffixes that are added to the end of words that function as pronouns as well.  The table below lists Hebrew pronominal suffixes.  Most pronouns for zerah are in the form of a pronominal suffix, so the information in this table is crucial.

Pronominal Suffix Table from “Basics Of Biblical Hebrew”


The most relevant pronominal suffixes to this discussion are 2nd person male singular, 3rd person male singular and 3rd person male plural.

Genesis 3:15







 

First, we will look at Genesis 3:15 to see how the author uses pronouns for zerah.  Each time God describes what one seed will do to the other the author writes out the subject of the verb using stand-alone pronouns for ”He” and “You”, shown circled in red above.  In Hebrew as well as other languages the subject of the verb is incorporated into the verb itself.  Adding “He” and “You” to the beginning of the verb is unnecessary.  Many times, though not all, the purpose of including the stand-alone pronoun is to emphasize something about the subject.  The emphasis can be the use of the specific name of the subject or a descriptive noun.  Here the emphasis is most likely the number and gender of the subject, which is male and singular in both cases.

Also two pronominal suffixes highlighted by blue circles are used to refer to the same people.  The first suffix is identifiable as 2nd person male singular from the table in the previous page.  The second suffix isn’t as easily identified.  At face value it looks like a 1st person plural pronoun but I have not found an English translation that translates the word as “you shall bruise us”.  Usually it is translated “you shall bruise him” to agree with the number of the other references to the seed.  This could be because this particular verb does not follow the normal rules for adding pronominal suffixes or it could be that translators are prioritizing context/interpretation over grammar.  Either way, the grammar of this passage points to the seed of the serpent and the seed of Eve being singular in nature.

A second point is made by thinking through the possibility that the straight forward grammatical statement of “you shall bruise us” is what the author intended.  If so, how can that be understood in the context of God the Father declaring curses?  It would indicate that He in fact will be bruised in some way by the serpent’s seed.  Continuing down this logical path, it would be more likely that God is referring to Satan bruising the triune God (and specifically God the Son), than it would be to believe that God is saying that snakes are going to hurt Him physically somehow.

To gain more confidence in what God is saying in Genesis 3:15, we need to know how pronoun usage in this passage compares to pronoun usage in other verses where the noun zerah occurs.  Are all pronouns of zerah singular even when the obvious meaning is plural, i.e. for descendants?  Can we conclude that the number of the pronouns of zerah is indicative of how many seeds are being discussed?  Genesis 22:18 and Genesis 15:12 are typical examples of how the author uses pronouns for zerah in Genesis which can help answers those questions.

Genesis 22:18


In this story, Abraham proves his obedience to God by being willing to sacrifice his son Isaac.  After God provides Abraham the alternate sacrifice of a ram, God makes several statements about Abraham’s seed.  The author of Genesis again uses the word zerah and associates it with a pronominal suffix, circled in blue.  The second statement in v. 17 about the seed promises “your seed shall possess the gate of his enemies”.  The context from the first statement in v. 17, “I will multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens”, points to zerah being plural in interpretation though not in grammar.

At the same time, it is not a promise that can be applied to Abraham’s descendants in a straight forward manner.  Through history, Abraham’s descendants have in fact defeated enemies, but they have also been defeated, enslaved and deported multiple times.  The promise is fulfilled in Abraham’s descendants in some way though in no permanent sense.  At the same time, the statement can also be fulfilled through Jesus’ millennial rule on the earth.  At the very least a dual understanding of zerah as plural descendants and one specific descendant sounds reasonable.

In v. 18, God says “in your seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed.”  The statement echoes what God said to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, “in you all the families of the earth will be blessed”.  Furthermore, Galatians 3:8 and 16 associate Genesis 12:3 and 22:18 to Jesus.  According to Paul, these statements are communicating the gospel to Abraham.  The blessing to come through Abraham and his seed is salvation through Jesus.  Paul then identifies Abraham’s seed as Jesus in Galatians 3:16. 

Galatians 3:16

Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.

Paul is not commenting specifically on Genesis 3 or Eve’s seed, however he is identifying Jesus as Abraham’s seed within the narrative of his life in Genesis 12 – 25.  God makes promises to Abraham and his seed or about his seed in the following verses:  12:7, 13:15-16, 15:5-18, 16:10, 17:7-19, 21:12-13, and 22:17-18.  One cannot assert that God is referring to Jesus each time He mentions Abraham’s seed in the verses listed here, but according to Paul there must be multiple cases in those verses where God is making promises to Abraham about Jesus.  The most obvious case would be in Genesis 22:17-18, which we have discussed in this section.  Though Galatians 22 does not apply to the occurrence of zerah in Genesis 3:15 directly, it does establish that the author Moses used zerah to refer to Jesus and that zerah is meant to be a singular noun at times.

The one thing we haven’t seen is plural pronouns being used to refer to zerah which would verify that the pronoun number can identify the intended number of zerah in Genesis and specifically in chapter 3.  That leads us to our last example, Genesis 15:12-14. 

Genesis 15:12-14

In Genesis 15:13, God is making statements about what will happen to Abraham’s zerah.  The context in the chapter indicates that zerah is plural and means descendants.  The statements clearly refer to Abraham’s descendants living in Egypt and includes how long they will be enslaved and oppressed there.  There is not any part of this statement that leads one to believe that zerah means a singular person or Jesus specifically.  Do the pronouns for zerah match the plural indication of the context?  If so, that is evidence that the number of the pronoun helps identify what the interpreted number of zerah should be.

Circled in blue are the subject suffixes of verbs for which zerah is the subject.  Circled in red are pronouns that refer back to zerah in verse 13.  In each case the subject suffixes and pronouns are plural.  Here is a clear example where Moses matches the pronoun number to the number of zerah in the passage, which in turn tells us that when Moses intends zerah to be singular he uses singular pronouns, pronominal suffixes, and subject suffixes.

 

 

Conclusion

Listed below is a series of observations that were established.

  1. Pronouns, verbs, and pronominal suffixes for zerah in Genesis 3 are singular
  2. Grammatically, the serpent and Eve’s seed are singular
  3. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 identifies the serpent as Satan
  4. In Genesis 15 where zerah is clearly plural all the pronouns and verb subject suffixes are plural demonstrating the significant level of precision Moses uses when adding pronouns to zerah.
  5. Pronouns, verbs, and pronominal suffixes are singular in Genesis 22 which is a possible case where zerah is singular.
  6. Zerah in Genesis 22:18 very likely can be a reference to Jesus based on Paul’s statements in Galatians 3 about the seed of Abraham and God preaching the gospel to Abraham.
  7. Galatians 3:16 requires that more than one usage of zerah in Genesis 12-25 refers to Jesus.
Stacking these observations together produces a reasonable argument for claiming that Eve’s seed is singular in Genesis 3:15.  Furthermore, based on the action her seed performs on Satan in this passage and the fact that Jesus is called the seed in other parts of Genesis, it is reasonable to identify the woman’s seed in Genesis 3:15 as Jesus.  It is also reasonable to understand God’s curse to the serpent in Genesis 3 to be a statement to Satan of the judgment and punishment he will receive from Jesus for deceiving Eve.  Therefore there is strong evidence to believe that God first preached the gospel to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most Popular:

The Ethics Of Liberty - State Relationships Internal & External

Image
  The Ethics Of Liberty by Murray Rothbard Citizens' Relationship To The State In previous chapters Rothbard wrote about the illegitimacy of the state and inconsistencies found in the narratives supporting its existence.  However, the fact remains that states exist and will for the foreseeable future.  The next two chapters focus on how those ruled by the state should act and how states should interact with one another. To start, the state exists on the basis of aggression.  Not only does it set up a monopoly on the use of violence, placing limits on the natural right of self defense, it funds itself by taking money from the citizenry by force (i.e. taxation).  Therefore, as an illegitimate organization, individuals have no obligation to obey it.  In fact taking over government owned property, refusing to pay taxes, and lying to the state can be morally justified if you aren't committing a property crime against another private citizen.  Everything th...
Read more

Christians, Nations, And Their Relations

Image
Christians are having a lively debate discussing what kind of relationship they should have with the state or with the nations in which they live.  On one side you have those who claim that the only nation a Christian belongs to is their spiritu al nation, the universal church.  They minimize familial, social, and ethnic connections.  To them, nationalism of any type should be avoided because it leads to arrogance if not aggression against other nations.  To them, a Christian’s identity is made up solely by their direct relationship to God, their participation in the great commission, and their affiliation with the church.  They say that they have more in common with another Christian who lives on the other side of the world than their next door neighbor who does not believe. On the other side are those who call for Christians to enact laws in the land of their birth and enforce them strictly.  They support political leaders who are willing to coerce nonbel...
Read more

The Church And State In Romans 13

The proper relationship of the Church to the State has been discussed for centuries. Reading through history you can see the actual relationship has evolved over time. When the Church first started, the Roman State was their adversary with chronic and acute persecutions. From the time Constantine made Christianity the official religion of his empire through the Reformation, the relationship could roughly be characterized as a series of alliances. By the time the United States of America was founded, the relationship was no longer an alliance. In theory, churches were free to conduct their business without disturbance by the State, but the State no longer supported a particular religion or denomination. The purpose of this situation was to promote peace between the increasing number of different groups within Christianity and between each of them and the State. However, through the 20th Century to today, the government and culture has become more and more secular. The safeg...
Read more

Human Life Straddles Two Realities

Image
  Human beings were created in the image of God.  Classical philosophers stated that the human ability to reason was the key to understanding what that meant.  After hundreds of years of searching the bounds of reason, philosophers became frustrated.  Following reason alone did not produce the solutions they sought.  As a result, during the 17th century some philosophers in the West started to emphasize emotion.  Our intellectual and political elites have walked us down this other path for another couple of hundred years.  Society in the 21 Century has reached the end of that journey.  It has lead us to a place of confusion, division, and despair. I propose that the problem is both efforts considered only one aspect of  the human soul and neglected the other.  God demonstrates both reason and emotion in the Bible.  As His image, both constitute our substance.  We live simultaneously in two worlds, the objective and subjective....
Read more

Private Property In Israel

Image
One of the major themes in the Bible is God’s redemption of the nation of Israel.  God made a promise of land to the sons of Abraham, but generations later his descendants were enslaved in Egypt.  From Exodus to Joshua, you see the activity of God to bring them out of that slavery and into a new land that He had promised them long ago.  He promised them freedom.  On Mount Sinai God gave Moses the laws He wanted the nation of Israel to live by, so that they could experience freedom.  Previously, I focused on the laws against charging usury (interest) to the poor who needed to borrow money for necessities.  Now, I would like to look at another economic aspect of the Mosaic law, the establishment of private property. First, we will look at the books of Joshua and Leviticus to understand how land was distributed and who in effect had ownership.  Then we can think about why private property was so important to accomplishing God’s goals for Israel.  As ...
Read more

The Ethics Of Liberty - Children And Rights

Image
  I have to admit up front, this chapter contains my biggest disagreement with Rothbard so far.  In "Children And Rights", he starts with discussing the rights of parents to abort and neglect their children before partially redeeming himself by focusing his searchlight back onto government's aggression against children and parents. He starts the chapter describing his philosophy on abortion.  I disagree out of the gate.  Uncharacteristically he provides no logical or natural law basis for his foundation.  Instead, he throws out an assertion and starts applying his normal deduction atop this faulty starting point.                 "[with] birth as the beginning of a live human being possessing natural rights...                     While birth is indeed the proper line of demarcation, the usual formation makes           ...
Read more