Bible Scholars: Please explain 'seed' in genesis 3:15

[yellowbicycle]

“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”

I understand the Catholic interpretation of the verse overall, and that the seed here is Jesus.
Okay, got that.
What i don’t understand is why the word ‘seed’ was used.
Isn’t seed normally referring to the man? How can a woman have a seed? Was it even known at the time that a woman produced an ovum? How did the ancient people understand this passage - what did they think the word ‘seed’ meant?
And, what’s the serpent’s seed supposed to mean here?

 

[tobinatorstark]

“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”

I understand the Catholic interpretation of the verse overall, and that the seed here is Jesus.
Okay, got that.
What i don’t understand is why the word ‘seed’ was used.
Isn’t seed normally referring to the man? How can a woman have a seed? Was it even known at the time that a woman produced an ovum? How did the ancient people understand this passage - what did they think the word ‘seed’ meant?
And, what’s the serpent’s seed supposed to mean here?

From the Douay-Rheims

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

and the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 15. She shall crush. Ipsa, the woman: so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz. the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head. (Challoner) — The Hebrew text, as Bellarmine observes, is ambiguous: He mentions one copy which had ipsa instead of ipsum; and so it is even printed in the Hebrew interlineary edition, 1572, by Plantin, under the inspection of Boderianus. Whether the Jewish editions ought to have more weight with Christians, or whether all the other manuscripts conspire against this reading, let others inquire. The fathers who have cited the old Italic version, taken from the Septuagint agree with the Vulgate, which is followed by almost all the Latins; and hence we may argue with probability, that the Septuagint and the Hebrew formerly acknowledged ipsa, which now moves the indignation of Protestants so much, as if we intended by it to give any divine honour to the blessed Virgin. We believe, however, with St. Epiphanius, that “it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin, than to glorify her above measure.” We know that all the power of the mother of God is derived from the merits of her Son. We are no otherwise concerned about the retaining of ipsa, she, in this place, that in as much as we have yet no certain reason to suspect its being genuine. As some words have been corrected in the Vulgate since the Council of Trent by Sixtus V. and others, by Clement VIII. so, if, upon stricter search, it be found that it, and not she, is the true reading, we shall not hesitate to admit the correction: but we must wait in the mean time respectfully, till our superiors determine. (Haydock) Kemnitzius certainly advanced a step too far, when he said that all the ancient fathers read ipsum. Victor, Avitus, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, &c. mentioned in the Douay Bible, will convict him of falsehood. Christ crushed the serpent’s head by his death, suffering himself to be wounded in the heel. His blessed mother crushed him likewise, by her co-operation in the mystery of the Incarnation; and by rejecting, with horror, the very first suggestions of the enemy, to commit even the smallest sin. (St. Bernard, ser. 2, on Missus est.) “We crush,” says St. Gregory, Mor. 1. 38, “the serpent’s head, when we extirpate from our heart the beginnings of temptation, and then he lays snares for our heel, because he opposes the end of a good action with greater craft and power.” The serpent may hiss and threaten; he cannot hurt, if we resist him. (Haydock)

 

[yellowbicycle]

Thank you Tobinatorstark!
For the record, when I googled the passage and tried to find info on ‘seed’ I ended up finding documents on how the ancient egyptians cured ‘womb pain’ in women (turns out you use the liver of an a**. Who knew? )
But this still leaves me to wonder, why the word ‘seed’?
Was it meant to infer that the crusher of the serpent would come from the woman? Why seed and not offspring? I guess I just get the feeling that we are supposed to infer something ELSE in addition to offspring from the word seed.
Is it suggesting that there would be a virgin birth?

 

[John7]

And, what’s the serpent’s seed supposed to mean here?

This is how I understand it so far (not a scholar, sorry)

The serpent is the devil (see Rev. 12.9). The devil’s seed is his offspring. His offspring would call him father as in John 8:44-45 (DR)

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. But if I say the truth, you believe me not

I believe (but still not quite sure here) that those whose father is the devil are all those outside of Christ. The devil and his children do not stand in the truth which is Jesus himself (John 14.6). To stand in the truth is to stand in/with Jesus, to be a Christian. The devil’s/serpent’s seed/children don’t believe in Christ and his words, which makes Jesus out to be a liar because if you don’t believe in him then you don’t believe in the truth but instead believe a lie, effectively saying ‘the truth is a lie’ which is itself a lie, which is what the devil does and is, a liar. The devil’s seed are unbelievers outside of Christ.
(I hope I made sense)

 

[COPLAND_3]

Seed in this passage is from the Hebrew word zara’ which can be translated in various ways to fit the context, and here it is meant in the way of conception. Obviously the world of biology has articulated the terminology it in a specific way that has developed.

 

[Luke65]

Is it suggesting that there would be a virgin birth?

You got it, yellowbicycle. This is the only place in the Bible that refers to a “seed” of a woman. And its not an incredible coincidence that Jesus Christ is the only Person in the Bible who was born of a virgin - the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is definitely hinting at the Virgin Birth, but it was probably only seen in hindsight - though, perhaps after Isaiah’s Virgin prophecy.

 

[Cathoholic]

Yellowbicycle, You stated:

“Bible Scholars: Please explain ‘seed’ in genesis 3:15

“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”

I understand the Catholic interpretation of the verse overall, and that the seed here is Jesus.

Okay, got that.
What I don’t understand is why the word ‘seed’ was used.
Isn’t seed normally referring to the man? How can a woman have a seed? Was it even known at the time that a woman produced an ovum? How did the ancient people understand this passage - what did they think the word ‘seed’ meant?
And, what’s the serpent’s seed supposed to mean here?”

Well here goes.

I am not a Bible scholar either but here is my understanding of your question “What I don’t understand is why the word ‘seed’ was used. Isn’t seed normally referring to the man? How can a woman have a seed?”

You are correct in your understanding of “seed”. I don’t know the Hebrew/Aramaic word used here, but the Greek version of the Old Testament here, the word for “seed” is transliterated as “spermatos”.

Why use the word “spermatos” for the Woman, or as you said “How can a woman have a seed?

I think (don’t know but think) that Holy Spirit inspired Moses to write that because of two reasons that are evident to me and it is tied up in the typology here.

Remember Old Testament “types” are fulfilled in the New Testament or paraphrasing St. Augustine the New Testament is found in the Old Testament and the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New (c.f. CCC 122 & 128-130 – esp. regarding footnote107).
St. Paul matter of factly refers to this typology in Romans 5. . . .

ROMANS 5:14 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses,
even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam,
who was a type of the one who was to come.

Jesus undoubtedly refers to this typology in Luke 24.

LUKE 24:13-16, 25-27 13 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, 14 and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. . . . 25 And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

See also Hebrews 1:1 and Hebrews 10:1 for a reference to typology.

Now back to Genesis 3.

GENESIS 3:14-15 14 The LORD God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle,
and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”

The “type” of the Woman in Genesis 3:15 is the Mother of the seed that crushes the head of Satan.

I will not try to defend this in this thread as it is not necessary to your question but will assume you accept the Blessed Virgin Mary as being the Woman of Genesis (I also believe secondarily it refers to the spotless bride of Christ, the Church, but I will not defend that here either).

So primarily this reference to “The Woman” refers to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Now let’s look at why Moses (writing Genesis) would prophetically refer to Mary’s “seed” or “spermatos”.

Remember Jesus is truly God but He took on flesh and thus is also truly man. Jesus Christ is true God and true man (worth repeating).

In His Divinity He is, was, and always will be. In His humanity He took upon himself flesh (one Divine Person in two natures - human and Divine).

But what (who) is the source of Jesus’ flesh?

Well certainly He “was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit”.

But did the Holy Spirit use the flesh of the Woman at all in our Lord Jesus’ conception?

St. Paul in Galatians 4:4 suggests that is exactly what happened.

GALATIANS 4:4a (Douay Rheims Version - Catholic Bible) 4 But when the fulness of time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, …

And even the Protestant King James Bible says here that Jesus was . . .
“made of a woman” in Galatians 4:4!

But does the Catholic Church affirm this interpretation? I believe it does. . . . (see next post)

 

[Cathoholic]

But does the Catholic Church affirm this interpretation? I believe it does.

Let’s look at the Vatican II documents for a moment.

LUMEN GENTIUM Section 52a 52. Wishing in his supreme goodness and wisdom to effect the redemption of the world, “when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman . . . that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Gal. 4:4). “He for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnated by the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary.”[1] . . .

LUMEN GENTIUM Section 55b . . . . After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion and the new plan of salvation is established, when the Son of God has taken human nature from her, that he might in the mysteries of his flesh free man from sin.

See also The Catechism of The Catholic Church (CCC) #488.

Was Jesus Holy, Sacred Body made from sinful, defiled, and corrupted flesh?
No!

Jesus Holy, Sacred Body was taken from Immaculate flesh. The Immaculate flesh of Mary was used as this instrument by The Holy Spirit.

If Adam is a type of Jesus and Adam came into the world sinless from a pure and undefiled world, wouldn’t it be appropriate for Jesus, the fulfillment of Adam to
come into the world sinless from a pure and undefiled Woman.

The fulfillment of a type is always greater than the type.

Jesus is greater (infinitely so) than Adam.

If Eve was made from undefiled flesh (Adam’s rib), and Eve came into the world pure and sinless, wouldn’t it be appropriate for the “New Eve”, Mary to come into the world
Pure and sinless?

(But then wouldn’t Mary have to come from undefiled flesh too? - If you asked this question you are getting into the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception which is beyond the scope of this thread).

And listen to some quotes of the ancient Church Fathers . . . .

Listen to St. Justin the Martyr in the 100’s A.D.!

St. Justin the Martyr:
“We know that He, before all creatures, proceeded from the Father
by His power and will . . .
. . . and by means of the Virgin became man, that by what way the disobedience arising from the serpent had its beginning, by that way also it might have an undoing.
For Eve, being a virgin and undefiled, conceiving the word that was from the serpent,
brought forth disobedience and death;
but the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy,
when the Angel told her the good tidings,
that the Spirit of the Lord should come upon her
and the power of the Highest overshadow her,
and therefore the Holy One that was born of her
was Son of God, answered, 'Be it to me according to Thy word.”
- St. Justin to Tryph. 100. St. Justin died in 165 A.D.

Listen to Tertullian who lived in the 200’s A.D. . . .

“God recovered His image and likeness, which the devil had seized,
by a rival operation.
For into Eve, as yet a virgin, had crept the word which was the framer of death.
Equally into a virgin was to be introduced the Word of God which was
the builder up of life;
that, what by that sex (gender) had gone into perdition,
by the same sex (gender) might be brought back to salvation.
Eve had believed the serpent;
Mary believed Gabriel;
the fault which the one committed by believing,
the other by believing has blotted out.”
Tertullian. De Carn.Christ. 17. Tertullian Died in 240 A.D.

Listen to St. Ephrem who lived in the 300’s A.D. . . .

. . . Mary and Eve, two people without guilt, two simple people, were
identical. Later, however, one became the cause of our death,
the other the cause of our life. (4)
St. Ephrem. St. Ephrem died in 373 A.D.

Incidentally, when St. Ephrem talks about Mary being the cause of our salvation, contextually, he is referring to the instrumental cause, not the efficient cause (efficient cause is the “cause” in the ultimate sense). Other Saints and Fathers discussed the Blessed Virgin Mary in those terms as well.

As to “the seed of the serpent”, we all (Jew or Greek, slave or free) come into this world devoid of the sanctifying grace Adam and Eve were created with or to enter Heaven with. Therefore we NEED a Messiah (we got that Messiah in Jesus) and we need the graces from the Messiah applied to us. Again, we do not have the grace needed by our fallen human nature to enter Heaven. An infinite account needs to be paid to win this grace (the doctrine of original sin – beyond the scope of this discussion). That’s WHY the sacrifice of bulls and goats account for fulfilling a prescription, but these things were only a shadow of what we needed - a sacrifice that atones for sin in a complete way.

Also we do not have an Immaculate Conception such as the Blessed Virgin had in Her singular privilege. But even the Blessed Virgin needed to be saved from sin - She was saved by preservation, we are saved by redemption and salvation.

We are all born children of Satan in a sense. That is one reason why Jesus tells the Pharisees in John 8:44 their father is the devil. Interestingly Jesus did this right after they attacked the Blessed Virgin Mary (John 8:41) as well as attack Him.

We of course need to be “born again” or born “of water and the Spirit” as John 3 tells us. This is alluding to Baptism (again not appropriate to develop this on the current thread).

So in summary the “seed of the Woman” (Jesus) is referred to as such because He has taken His human flesh from Her.

The “seed of the serpent” is our fallen nature devoid of the sanctifying grace necessary for Heaven. That’s WHY St. Justin probably states (above) "For Eve, being a virgin and undefiled, conceiving the word that was from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death;

Hopefully this is an answer to your questions.

 

[yellowbicycle]

Honestly, it was more answer than I could have ever hoped for! Thank you for taking the time - you’ve given me alot to digest!!

 

[marymol]

Excellent discussion - esp. to come across how much the early Church Fathers dwelt on / were reveled these truths !

The phrase that esp. caught attention was how ’ the word crept in’ and there we know how much science too The Word contains and even how the creeping snake is used as the symbol of evil !

That one little word 'seed ’ also is a good support , as already posted above , for the Dogma of Immaculate Conception - the unique role of Bl.Mother , even physically ,as was in the case of the First Eve !

Every little good seed of God’s Word , to augment our faith - truly to be thanksful for !