Prooftext 1b: Genesis 3:15 – Seed of the Woman vs. Seed of the Serpent

[NASB] 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.

[AST] I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and her offspring.

He will pound your head, and you will bite his heel.

[EF] 15 I put enmity between you and the woman,

between your seed and her seed:

they will bruise you on the head,

you will bruise them in the heel.

There isn’t much difference between these translations except for some key words. When reading this prooftext out of its context, with information confined within the verse itself — this much can be deduced:

“I”
enmity
you vs. woman
“your offspring/seed” vs. “her offspring/seed”
[bruise-pound-smash] head/bruise-bite-bruise] heel.

Questions a reader should be asking:

Who is the “I” speaking to the “you”?
Who is the “woman”?
What brought on this enmity between “you” and “her”?
Who are: “offspring/seed”?
What’s with the conflict involving the seeds’ “head” and “heel”? Is that an even match?
Why is this verse being presented as a “prooftext” that Jesus is the “messiah” prophesied in the “Old Testament?”
Is he even in the situation, previously mentioned in the verses before or after this text?
Is he specifically referred to or even named, or simply alluded to?
How does one know the allusion is about him?

“Prooftext” is defined by the dictionary as—

“a passage of the Bible to which appeal is made in support of an argument or position in theology.”

Another definition:

“a verse or verses from the Bible that are used to prove or to substantiate a belief through the interpretation of that verse.”

Notice that both definitions connect the word with the Bible because no other book requires “prooftexts,” understandably.
Notice as well, that neither definition suggests that the interpretation is correct or true or absolute, simply that a prooftext is cited to firm up a belief, true or not.
Add to these that whenever a prooftext is presented, it is divorced from its original context presumably because when read in isolation, clueless readers tend to agree, trusting the interpreter to know more than they do; and even when some might bother to check out the context, they do so with a mindset already steeped in the theology that has made the connection [between prophecy and fulfillment] for them. They’re like sponges ready to soak up the information/teaching.

We can relate to this because we were among the sponges hungry for truth and lapping up as much as we could absorb within the limitation of our ignorant minds. Now that we’re older and definitely wiser and reasonably learned in the Scriptures, having checked out interpretations we used to believe, here we are— like nobodies daring to challenge prooftexts long upheld by the best of Christian minds.

Here’s a rule of thumb for any reader presented with a prooftext:

—pay attention to CONTEXT,

—for it is ultimately the deciding factor for the accurate reading and interpretation of the text.

And as explained repeatedly in previous articles, context includes—

verses before and after the text under scrutiny;
chapter context [what are the previous chapters about leading to the text, as well as the chapter that follows]
book context [in which book in Torah does it occur, or in the whole TNK]
and the context of the whole of Scripture, to make sure one little prooftext does not contradict the consistent teaching in the whole Word of God.

If the God of Truth desires to be known and understood by finite creatures with limited understanding and language problems, would He make His message so difficult for man to understand? Would He communicate in cryptic codes that only a few can grasp?

What does the Great Communicator YHWH Himself say in Deuteronomy 30:11-14:

For the commandment that I command you this day:

it is not too extraordinary for you,

it is not too far away!

It is not in the heavens

(for you) to say:

Who will go up for us to the heavens and get it for us

and have us hear it, that we may observe it?

And it is not across the sea,

(for you) to say:

Who will cross for us, across the sea, and get it for us

and have us hear it, that we may observe it?

Rather, near to you is the word, exceedingly,

in your mouth and in your heart, to observe it!

So where lies the problem? It must be with us! We are 21st century God-seekers trying to read and understand His original revelation in a book of antiquity, not in its original language but through flawed translations, in a language that has difficulty finding modern equivalents for ancient cultural and linguistic expressions.

While the core message is relevant to us, we forget to consider how the original recipients of the revelation understood it because we keep infusing our times, culture, thinking and religious orientation into our reading and interpretation of the original text. We also tend to accept hand-me-down traditional interpretations. Be honest, just how much bible text have we read compared to bible commentary? The answer is probably common to all bible students—more commentary than biblical text, why? Because we can more easily relate to the commentary written by people of our times; let them explain it to us, they’re the experts.

A word about Christian commentaries: keep in mind that Christians/Messianics believe in “progressive revelation,” i.e., the proposition that God did not reveal everything all at one time on Sinai; that instead, God spread out hints, cues, clues, all over His initial revelation.

If that were true, could God fault Israel for being blind to His ‘Christian’ plan of salvation so that gentiles could be grafted into “spiritual Israel” [this is all Pauline theology, read Romans please]. Could the Jews be blamed if they rejected Jesus as their long-awaited messiah? Progressive revelation is used to justify a strange way of interpreting the TNK which is virtually considered as Part I of the full revelation, unfinished, incomplete, to the detriment of the original recipients of that original revelation.

Now back to the biblical text under scrutiny here— what a great opportunity it presents for teaching the ABCs of READING any book, but specially the BOOK that is claimed to be the very Word of God. We will simply scrutinize this one verse and hopefully learn some do’s and don’ts when we approach Scripture. When we say “Scripture” we mean only within the confines of the TORAH, since everything else after is commentary.

Genesis 3:15 is the first prooftext in Christianity’s list of about 600+ messianic prophecies. If you google this verse, what will pop up are predominantly Christian interpretations; strangely, Jewish websites don’t even bother with this verse in their list of Christian prooftexts to counter; they probably consider this verse clear within its context, unlike others on the list.

First let us identify the “Who” in the isolated verse by reading the previous verses leading up to it — the immediate context. The location is the opening chapters of the first book of the TORAH. The first man and woman have violated the first ‘DO NOT’ commandment, partook and tasted the fruit from the forbidden tree. They had played ‘hide and seek’ with God as well as the ‘finger-pointing blame game’ and God had pronounced the judgment for each of the characters so far introduced.

There are 4 figures so far introduced at this point:

the Creator God,
the first man,
the first woman,
and a figure we cannot relate to in the natural created order: a walking talking serpent who interacts and converses with the woman.

So—

the “I” is Creator God;
the “you” is the serpent;
the “woman” is the only woman mentioned in context, Christians call her “Eve” while Everett Fox’s translation names her “Woman/Isha”.

Before we go to the “seed” or offspring, it is interesting to read the identification of the “woman” according to Catholic, Protestant-Evangelical, and Messianic interpretation. This will be the topic in the sequel — to be continued in Prooftext 1a.

Check out these related posts:

Source: Exodus/Shemoth 24 – "the sight of the Glory of YHVH (was) like a consuming fire" -- We gentiles living in this 21st century are able to experience that climactic moment [God appearing on Sinai] by reading and studying this portion of the TORAH. Indeed, we see YHWH not quite as dramatically as the mixed multitude did, but perhaps even better through these accounts recorded in Exodus. There is a saying that hindsight is 20/20 vision, i.e., we begin to see and understand the question marks in our past only later in our lives, as we mature and hopefully become wiser and more introspective about the meaning or seeming meaninglessness of happenings in history, whether personal, national, or universal. Søren Kierkegaard adds a twist to this: “Only 20:20 vision is hindsight. Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” As we endeavor to understand each portion in the TORAH of YHWH, much of it will seem irrelevant to our current situation but if we see beyond the time-bound cultural and religious situations and begin to understand what truly has not change—human nature and the Great Revelator who designed the perfect blueprint for living in peace, happily and contentedly with family, community, country and the nations, the unquestionable conclusion is: TORAH is relevant to ALL humankind, not just to Israel, to this very day.

Prooftext 1b: Genesis 3:15 – Seed of the Woman vs. Seed of the Serpent

Reader Comments

Join the Conversation... Cancel reply