Clarify translation of Gen 3:15

[HereticAmI]

They did not use auto – they could have. The word sperma is not gender specified; it is a word ending in tau, and I have noted examples of τδθ words exhibiting all genders. It takes on the gender of the definite article which preceeds it. That gender can, in fact, be masculine or neuter for they are the same spelling. what it can’t be is feminine.
It is common practice in greek to use the female genitive of a male in order to denote relationship between people of opposite sexes – in Genesis 3:15 that exists where God speaks of the offspring of Eve (neuter or masculine τ-ου σπερμα-τ-ος αυτ-ης).

The antecedant does not guarantee neuter in this case. It could be male; and the subject is explicitly male. So, one would be constrained to assume that gender agreement would favor male where του is written.

I don’t have this word zera in my lexicon; I have zarah – do you have a link to something which explains it and shows these gender issues, as my research is different, but I am not an expert at Hebrew — or perhaps you have a Hebrew font?
When I see zerah – it says Sunrise.

Thanks.

strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/2233.htm

biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=02233&version=kjv

For two examples of zera’, meaning a plural offspring see:

Leviticus 22:13
1 Samuel 2:20-21

And from a comment on another site:

"In the LXX and in the NT SPERMA has two meanings (corresponding to Hebrew zera’):

1. Seed of a plant
2. Offspring

In sense 1 it may be used in plural, e.g. Mat 13:32, Mrk 4:31, and 1 Co 15:58. Gal 3:16 is a special play on words of sense 2, where Paul interprets the singular use of SPERMA to refer to ONE descendant rather than a group of descendants, even though the Hebrew Zera’ can refer to both a singular offspring and a group of descendants. This is prophetic argumentation, or Jewish contemporary logic, not modern logic."

Sorry, almost forgot, in the OT, the context usually makes clear whether *zera’ *is singular or plural. Usually, when singular, the person being referred to is made clear in the text. For an example of *zera’ *as singular, see Genesis 4:25. “Seed” clearly refers to a single individual, Seth.

Also, for hu meaning the plural, they, and not, he, please see also:

Exodus 1:6,10 “all that generation” (ha’dor ha’hu); “they too” (gam hu)]

Just as in Exodus 1, we would take hu as the plural, they, and take zera’ as plural as well, and so as I wrote, And I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your offspring and her offspring, they will strike your head and you will strike their heel.

Truly lastly, here is an interesting read:

tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_1997_48_1_07_Collins_Gen3_15WomansSeed.DOC

 

[Huiou_Theou]

strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/2233.htm

Ahhhh that explains it. Strongs uses a different transliteration – I have more trouble with Strongs definitions being inadequate than any other.

"In the LXX and in the NT SPERMA has two meanings (corresponding to Hebrew zera’):

1. Seed of a plant
2. Offspring

I would think it has three meanings, see:
Leviticus 15:16
טז וְאִישׁ, כִּי-תֵצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת-זָרַע–וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם אֶת-כָּל-בְּשָׂרוֹ, וְטָמֵא
עַד-הָעָרֶב.

Also, for hu meaning the plural, they, and not, he, please see also:

Exodus 1:6,10 “all that generation” (ha’dor ha’hu); “they too” (gam hu)]

In the Greek the definite article is feminine there and singular – the ending on generation is alpha, which all points to this being a collective. eg: one generation. a group of people in a specific span of years.
The Hebrew, too, ought to be a singular this – not plural.
In the last link you post, the same point is made.

Perhaps you should read it again?

tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_1997_48_1_07_Collins_Gen3_15WomansSeed.DOC

 

[anmparod]

Regarding What woman has sperma?

I think the formation of Latin, Greek and Hebrew predates the modern biological knowledge of human reproduction. I don’t believe it was known until quite a bit later that women actually produced eggs that are then fertilized during intercourse. So the reference to a women’s ‘sperma’ has to be to her progeny or potential offspring and not to an actual ova.

PeterK, I fully agree with you. I guess my point was that it would have been very unusual for a Hebrew author to refer to a child as “her seed,” as opposed to “his seed”; but since the modern world isn’t generally familiar with ancient Hebraic idioms, I was offering sperma as a modern example of the peculiarity of the statement. But you are right to point out that that particular linguistic peculiarity was not intended by the author, so I guess it was a poor parallel.

But I was basically just trying to explain that the Toledoth (genealogies) are always focused on the males of a family line, so the mention of “her seed” seems out-of-sync with the rest of Hebraic culture (although not altogether unheard of).

I don’t know if that clarifies things or makes the waters even muddier, but I tried!

 

[anmparod]

Huiou Theou,

Whether the Hebrews would have referred to Perez as Tamar’s seed or Judah’s seed was not the point I was trying to make. My point was that the promise was not just dependent upon the man, but every bit as much through the woman. And sometimes God used seemingly unconventional circumstances to bring the right man and woman together before Christ’s particular family line could be achieved.

You may be right about the gender of zarah (“zerah” in that particular verse, I think). It has been about seven years since I last translated that chapter of Genesis, so I’ll have to go look up my notes again, I suppose. I seemed to remember that zarah–while having the appearance of a feminine noun–was actually irregular. But I could be wrong; like I said, I’m a little rusty in my ancient Hebrew. If you’ve got a good lexicon, then I’ll defer to it. My lexicon of choice is the Brown-Driver-Briggs (although it does contain a few minor misprints here and there, at least in the edition I was using seven years ago).

It may be that [Tamar] was under obligation to bring forth a son in honor of the deceased Er – and therefore by marrying another, or whoring, she became liable. Again, the two are one flesh may be seen as terminated upon sexual intercourse with another after death. Judah, on the other hand may not have considered it at all sinful that he had fornicated – but the cloak and staff – the items of a shepherd – recall that Judah is the one who was responsible for throwing Joseph in the pit, planning to kill him, and tricking his father by the blood of a kid with Joesph’s cloak. He also is the one who refused to fulfill the promise of raising up a child to his firstborn – Er – by denying her the third son in marriage by a lie.

The Levirate marriage custom to which you are referring was a responsibility that fell upon the men in the family, and the right of the widow. It was the responsibility of the next single brother in line to take his brother’s widow as his wife, in order to conceive a son that would be legally regarded as the deceased’s own. If the brother were to refuse, the widow would publicly denounce him before all the elders, and the brother’s family would be forever shamed. It was not the widow’s fault if the brother or next-of-kin should refuse to take her (although widows had precious few legal rights without a man to care for them, so I would imagine that any woman would be hard-pressed to give up on finding a go’el (“redeemer”) who would help her to conceive a child).

In the case of Tamar, she was Er’s widow, and then was taken by Onan, as the marriage custom demanded; but by “spilling his seed on the ground,” Onan refused to allow Tamar to conceive (and implicitly refused to honor the Levirate custom), so God killed him. By law, Shelah was now required to marry Tamar. But Judah insisted that he was too young, so he promised Tamar that she could marry Shelah when he was more mature, so that Er could have a son to his name. That, of course, did not happen. But Tamar was determined to force her father-in-law to honor his promise that she would have a son for Er. Thus, she seduced him by posing as a temple prostitute (a distinctly pagan practice, but Judah didn’t seem to mind). By taking Judah’s staff and seal, Tamar was gathering proof of his identity, as both items would have been clearly marked with the mark of the House from whence the owner came. (The parallels you make between these items and the episode with Joseph are fascinating, although I wonder if that might be reading a little much into the text. The seal and cord, for instance, were not the same thing as a cloak, and staves were not specific to shepherds alone.) She used these as leverage against Judah when he tried to have her killed for “playing the harlot,” for she knew that these items would clearly identify him as the father. This is why Judah understands that Tamar was in the right, because she was simply taking from Judah what he had promised her to begin with–her rights as a widow through the Levirate custom, and a child for her deceased husband.

The conditional necessity I see for Ruth is one of genetics. Jesus, as we know him, came into the world as a descendant of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz and Ruth. In fact, the whole story of Ruth is all about the fulfillment of the Levirate marriage custom. Naomi’s sons had all died, so her husband had no heir. She was too old to have children, so Ruth–her daughter-in-law–had to take on the responsibility of finding a go’el who would redeem their family line by providing an heir. Boaz graciously accepts that role. What is important to remember is that Boaz’s firstborn would not have been his own, but would have been legally regarded as Elimelech’s heir (cf. Ruth 4:14). Ruth was the only one who could conceive a child for his line–thus, she was necessary. What is truly interesting to me, though, is that the Toledoth of Christ’s genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew refers to Obed as the son of Boaz, which would not have been technically correct. Genealogies were supposed to be traced through the legal ancestor, not the biological one. At any rate, Scripture contains a great many paradoxes. The fatherhood of Boaz is just one of them, so I try not to think too much about it.

It is true that the prophecy was made to a woman; Eve; Which highlights the feminine role in bearing children; but do you see more than that or just a correlation?

All I can say is that I believe that the Woman plays a crucial role in salvation history, and I do believe that God meant it to be so. Christ refers to Mary as Woman in the Gospels to show how she is connected to Him, just as Eve was connected to Adam. The Church Fathers said as much, and I am inclined to agree with them.

 

[PJM]

=Don NY I was told that Gen 3:15 was always translated as “she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”(D-R translation) until Luther changed it to “he” and “his”. Is this true? What is the word in the original language, is it gender neutral? Why would Luther change it, didn’t he have a great devotion to Mary?

***Douey Rheims Bible about 350 AD

***15 “She shall crush”, 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. ******

King James Bible about 1650 AD

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

From the RSV Catholic Bible

**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." **

So we can see that the ORGINAL LATIN BIBLE used for about 1,300 years and USED BY LUTHER was altered, but remains TRUE in the Present Catholic Bible.

Hmmm I wonder why?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The Levirate marriage custom to which you are referring was a responsibility that fell upon the men in the family, and the right of the widow.

This is before the time of Moses.
Referring to it a “Levirate” is anacronistic – for there is no law.

At the time we are looking, there is the covenant of Abraham (circumcision) – there is divorce (eg: Hagar because of the mocking son). There is the command placed on the children by Isaac, to marry only within the family lines. These things would all be codified by Moses in the future; but at this point, the penalties that Moses imposed would not have applied.

Consider, though, if this was only an issue of the woman’s right – then why did it matter at all to Judah that Tamar had played the harlot?
Judah’s wife was a pagan – and Onan’s practice likely follows from what he was taught by a wicked mother. So, what is Judah’s angle?

She used these as leverage against Judah when he tried to have her killed for “playing the harlot,” for she knew that these items would clearly identify him as the father.

But there is not a Mosaic law to make him guilty of anything at this time – he is the one who makes the law for his family. So, the only thing that is between him and his act – is a guilty conscience based on some kind of family tradition – not external law.

I don’t even know if Tamar was an israelite prior to marriage – as there is no geneology. What we do know, is that she is the first wife of a Man who had the promise. From Genesis 3:15 on down, the promise travels by the first wife – trace it carefully. Leah not Rachel, etc.

What was in Judah’s mind is an interesting question, because it would reflect his understanding of Genesis 3:15 – which was mostly oral tradition in his day.

 

[anmparod]

This is before the time of Moses. Referring to it as “Levirate” is anacronistic – for there is no law.

Well, yes and no. “Levirate” is not the same as “Levitical.” The term comes from the Latin word levir, which means “husband’s brother.” Therefore, I wouldn’t say that just using the term is anacronistic… But, yes–the practice was mandated in the book of Deuteronomy. From my personal studies of the Hebrew Bible–the book of Genesis especially–I have found that the Scriptures contain many anacronisms. I would identify this as one example.

The way that the ancient Hebrews looked at history is different from the way we see it. In some sense, to attempt to read the Hebrew Bible in perfectly chronological terms is anacronistic in itself, because we are projecting our own literary expectations onto that of an older culture.

Consider, though, if this was only an issue of the woman’s right – then why did it matter at all to Judah that Tamar had played the harlot?

I would take this as another example of anacronism, where the author imposes the Mosaic law upon the characters. Tamar’s harlotry would anger Judah because she was essentially promised to Shelah, although Judah was dragging his feet in letting them marry.

Judah’s wife was a pagan – and Onan’s practice likely follows from what he was taught by a wicked mother. So, what is Judah’s angle?

I don’t know that we are supposed to really know what Judah’s “angle” was. I think the idea is more or less that Judah–a Hebrew–has become corrupted by paganism in his life. Therefore, he doesn’t act in upright ways. The reasons for his acting contrary to God’s Law are unimportant, so long as the cause of his corruption is clear.

But there is not a Mosaic law to make him guilty of anything at this time – he is the one who makes the law for his family. So, the only thing that is between him and his act – is a guilty conscience based on some kind of family tradition – not external law.

I see your point. But again, this assumes that the stories in Genesis were all objectively chronological and purely historical. That is not characteristic of the ancient Hebraic mindset, in my opinion.

I don’t even know if Tamar was an Israelite prior to marriage – as there is no genealogy. What we do know, is that she is the first wife of a Man who had the promise. From Genesis 3:15 on down, the promise travels by the first wife – trace it carefully. Leah not Rachel, etc.

So, to you, a son “has the promise” when he is the child of his father’s first wife? This would work for Er, but not for Perez (unless you were willing to concede that the Levirate marriage custom was indeed being employed as an anacronism by the author).

What was in Judah’s mind is an interesting question, because it would reflect his understanding of Genesis 3:15 – which was mostly oral tradition in his day.

Presumably, yes. Some of the stories in the early chapters of Genesis may even have come after his day, either wholly or in part (especially if the author/scribe really did use anacronisms).

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Well, yes and no. “Levirate” is not the same as “Levitical.” The term comes from the Latin word levir, which means “husband’s brother.”

I missed that one – I thought it was Levi – rate.
OK, a small change of thinking is required.

I have found that the Scriptures contain many anacronisms. I would identify this as one example.

Perhaps it is, and perhaps not. The point I was trying to draw attention to is that the Patriarch’s themselves are a source of tradition. What the patriarchs instituted (covenant) is inherited by the younger generation. Thus, the Law of Moses – I see – as collecting and interpreting the commands and relationships entered into by the fathers.

vis.
John 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

So that the Law of Moses is seen as a codification of Law laid down before his time. Levirate law is not restricted to the Jews – it is in fact practiced by many of the Pagan cultures – usually the logic rests on the fact that the woman was paid for by the deceased brother (or his family). See the wording of Gen 38:11

It is this, then, which would be the basis of Judah’s anger – ownership of the woman and the property which she inherited from Er. And, therefore, I think there is a problem with interpreting everything the Pagans did as necessarily corrupt. Judah is the source of the tradition within Judaism.

Also, Judah sold his brother into slavery – a brother he did not own.
And again, Judah was taking sheep to market – presumably wearing the same shepherds attire that goes with herding at the time he fornicated. The story has many resonances with other events in the OT.

attempt to read the Hebrew Bible in perfectly chronological terms is anacronistic in itself,

I do not disagree with you – but I still see that the law grew from actions which preceeded it. The sacrifice of Cain and Abel is very instructive in the way it precisely matches the inheritance of Levi not being the land, but cities – and that the sacrifice of birds is considered wrong if done in a way which uses the same word as God says to Cain about the sacrifice(S) he made. For scripture does not say what the other items were.
Abraham, too, did not cut up the birds – seemingly knowing the same law long before the Levites were instructed on this one issue.

That is not characteristic of the ancient Hebraic mindset, in my opinion.

I am not sure, I do see your point here – but I think it would need a little more fleshing out. There ARE anachronisms, but how do you seperate them out from a commentary highlighting the reason a later law came into being?

So, to you, a son “has the promise” when he is the child of his father’s first wife? This would work for Er, but not for Perez (unless you were willing to concede that the Levirate marriage custom was indeed being employed as an anacronism by the author).

I am saying that the first wife is the one who is favored with God’s blessing. If it were strictly and only the firstborn – then with Cain the promise would have been lost. But the scriptures indicate the blessing went with Seth (a child of the first wife) to whom the promise was given. It would be possible, (though not certain) that the promise would have been inherited by Tamar EVEN IF she had a child by a non-Jew after marrying Er.

Regarding Perez (the breach) – there is a double first birth there; only the hand of the other brother was out first. So, who is the firstborn in God’s eyes – are they not both in the same womb at the same time?

Some of the stories in the early chapters of Genesis may even have come after his day, either wholly or in part (especially if the author/scribe really did use anacronisms).

In Genesis 3:15 the visual play is between a woman and a serpent. Many of the modern Jews attempt to explain it away on the basis of enmnity between man and snake – but there is a universal pagan issue from this whole time period which flies in the face of that interpretation.

Non poisonous snakes were used regularly in sexual rites with respect to the fertility god(s). They are phallic in nature and many writers of the early centuries comment on some of these rites – for snakes lay many eggs and were seen as magical sources of fertility/virulence. The Egyptians, too, would put a serpent on the crown as an image of their godliness. This sign propagates as a common thread through most of the pagan religions in the area – even to the point where in Babylon (many years later) the serpent was the “sign” above the harlot’s door. It is a very apt symbol of the devil and the sexual harlotry (second wives and so forth) which Genesis 3:15 is speaking of the triumph over. The virginity of Mary also echoes with a retort to the same issue.

What I am encouraging is to look at how God chose to propagate the promise; It is in accord with the idea of the wife being the flesh of the first husband – and Eve says first of Cain (I have gotten a man) in response to God’s promise; then when Cain proves unsatisfactory – she says it of Seth who is to replace Cain who is spiritually dead.
Note Cain’s line is the one who starts polygamy. And so forth…

Eve knew – Something to chew on…

 

[mysticalrose7]

One remarkable aspect of these two incidents is that I believe in Scripture they are also the only two women other than Mary (Luke 1:42 ) to whom the words “Blessed are you among women” are spoken–Jael in Judges 5:24 and Judith in Judith 13:18.

Good point; Jael and Judith are thus both antitypes of Our Lady - even as King David is an antitype of the Messiah, the Son of David.

Another passage I don’t think anyone here has mentioned is Romans 16:20, where St. Paul tells the Church at Rome: “the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.”

The whole Church will someday partake in that same victory over the ancient serpent. So it’s fitting to depict Mary, the member of the Church who already enjoys that full victory, with the serpent under her feet regardless of how one interprets Gen 3:15.

 

[mysticalrose7]

Or are they types of Our Lord and Our Lady? I keep confusing type and antitype. lol

 

[chosen_people]

I was told that Gen 3:15 was always translated as “she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”(D-R translation) until Luther changed it to “he” and “his”. Is this true? What is the word in the original language, is it gender neutral? Why would Luther change it, didn’t he have a great devotion to Mary?

Original text:
וְאֵיבָה אָשִׁית, בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה, וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ, וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ: הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ, וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב

notice the masculine singular male pronoun

english translation:

and I will put enmity between thee (masc. singular - snake is a masc. gender word) and the woman, and between thy ( masc. singular) and her seed; it (masc. singular for he or it) shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Her seed or offspring refers to all of her offspring (see for example and compare the use of this term in Bereshit (Genesis) 16:9). It is therefore not referring to a single individual but to humanity. The male singular pronoun in the Hebrew is therefore man or mankind. The you or thee is the snake as we learn from reading the previous passage.

It’s not just the Catholics changing the pronoun to a female pronoun or the ignoring of the use of a similar expression in the same book in a relatively nearby chapter and giving it a completely different context and meaning that doesn’t fit with its meaning in the other passage. It is impossible to understand the Tanach, the holy scriptures of the Jewish people, without understanding its context in Judaism. Take the first word of the Tanach - Bereishit which is usually translated into english as “in the beginning”. A gentile trying to understand this without understanding the Jewish concept of the eternal God who always was is and will be (the unpronounceable name of God is made up of these three verbs) would mistakenly come to the conclusion that there was a beginning to God. The Jew of course understands that the reference is to when God began to create the heavens and the earth. The interpretation here by Catholics of Bereishit 3:15 is similar to a religion that believes that God came into existence at the time of the creation of the world and pointing to the word “in the beginning” to justify their contention (of course the list is long - the wind or spirit (רוח) of God upon the waters becomes “the holy spirit”. The enmity of the snake somehow becomes Jesus and Mary; the three men (אנשים) in Bereishit 18:1 become the “holy trinity”). It’s like interpreting the Koran to show that Islam is incorrect and that the Koran proves Christianity.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Original text:
וְאֵיבָה אָשִׁית, בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה, וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ, וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ: הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ, וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב

notice the masculine singular male pronoun

You mean the highlighted brown? between the green?
Oh…shoot.

Her seed or offspring refers to all of her offspring (see for example and compare the use of this term in Bereshit (Genesis) 16:9).

I think you mean 16:10 – which is the one I pointed out earlier; but I see now that I mislabeled it feminine; For in my distraction, I thought it referred back to Hagar;

וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה, הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת-זַרְעֵךְ, וְלֹא יִסָּפֵר, מֵרֹב. Genesis 16:10

But your interpretation still has a problem;
It is obvious that when God says multiply in Hebrew – that he is referring to the descendants of Hagar; But it is not obvious that the singular there (in Hebrew) is referring to all the descendants. eg: Hagar has a singe male seed, Ishmael, at this time.
God is going to multiply that one seed – just as God multiplied the singular wife, Eve and the One man, Adam.
Scripture speaks of the whole people Israel as the name of one person. Thus, in the one seed, Jacob/Israel – the whole nation is called. It is a collective, but it can also refer to a single man (who was multiplied).

The point I brought up in the Greek – is that the grammar is different – a masculine pronoun is improper for a collective. It is extremely unusual where a single female is concerned; and would be unusual for even “mankind” as a collective – though it is possible that the translator made a mistake. The issue, there, is that it was translated by Hebrews/Jews and therefore it indicates the kind of thought your people had in the past. (At least those in search of proselytes). I could support your claim with respect to Hagar; for in the Greek there is a specific definite article “the” which is neuter. That is convoluted Grammar for a single man; Ishmael – Just as in Genesis, having a male pronoun is convoluted for the whole of the human race descended from Eve.
In the text; Eve certainly understood it in the singular; hence the naming of Seth as a replacement for Cain – the first failure. The burden to show a definite plurality rests with you – though I could accept that as possible in the way I mentioned;

It is impossible to understand the Tanach, the holy scriptures of the Jewish people, without understanding its context in Judaism. Take the first word of the Tanach - Bereishit which is usually translated into english as “in the beginning”. A gentile trying to understand this without understanding the Jewish concept of the eternal God

Many Catholics are of Gentile origin; they do understand the eternal nature of God – and his continual creation. But, I am not sure this is the “Jewish concept” for it is Trinitarian. Some Christians even reasoned to the eternal existence of God without basing it on scripture, but only philosophy.
The words of scripture were originally revealed to Hebrews – but the scriptures themselves witness to the slow & changing understanding of the people who met him.

With respect to the Koran; The Christian arguments made with respect to it are to show the error of the interpretation – Not just to show possible alternate interpretations; but to show convincing evidence of one interpretation being superior to the other – or one interpretation being clearly in error or ignorance.

The same type of apologetic works both ways between Jews and Christians – so how does your analogy affect the interpretation of Genesis 3:16 in some definitive way?

 

[blue62626]

GEN 3;15 is Gods plan B.BECOUSE ADAM AND EVE FELL GOD TOLD SATIN I WILL MAKE ENEMY OF THE WOMAN(MARY)AVA IS EVE SPELLED BACKWARS IN GREEK)WITH SATIN.AND HER SEED JESUS SHALL CRUSH YOUR SEED HEAD WITH HIS HEAL (ANTI CHRIST).JUST THAT SIMPLE GOD PLAN B FOR HE SO LOVED US PRASE BE JESUS MARY PRAY FOR US

 

[Geremia]

From the Haydock commentary of the Douay-Rheims’s correct rendition of “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.”:

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)

Note the Douay-Rheims gives the only correct English translation out of all the Catholic and Protestant bibles!

 

[adriancombe]

DonNY,
This won’t answer the Luther question but you may find it interesting that G3.15 is referenced at least three times in the OT and this at least sheds some light on how the OT authors understood the verse.

G3.15 is the first forward looking verse in the entire OT. It definitely looks forward to a future ongoing historical situation or event. This verse was clearly understood as prophetic by the writers of subsequent OT books which contain explicit graphic references to G3.15. Episodes containing one individual head-striking another individual at their heel become a ‘type’ for a definitive expression of the victory of the good over the evil. This episodic paper trail leads to a reference to Christ.

In Judges, Sisera, the general of the Canaanite King’s army, is going to be routed by Barak’s Israelite forces. It is told to Barak that the glory of this victory will go to a woman, ‘the Lord will have Sisera fall into the power of a woman.’ The evil Sisera, the stronger force, goes to meet Barak and is routed as the Lord promised, however, Sisera escapes on foot and arrives at the tent of Jael, wife of the Kenite Heber. Jael lulls Sisera into a false sense of safety then while he is asleep, lying on the ground, she drives a tent stake though his head. Notice he would be lying down on his belly putting his head heal-height. She, of course, strikes his head.

Next we have Judith and Holofernes, a more familiar episode. The military forces of evil Holofernes are threatening the Israelites and all looks lost. Judith charms her way into his company gets him drunk and while he is lying on the ground cuts of his head. *“Then with all her might she struck him twice in the neck and cut off his head.” *
Notice he would be lying down on his belly putting his head heal-height. She, of course, strikes his head. Even though she strikes his neck it’s all about the head.

Of course there is David, who for some reason, after he has slain Goliath - by striking him in the head - is compelled, while Goliath is dead lying on the ground, to cut off his head.
Notice Goliath would be lying down on his belly putting his head heal-height. David then cuts off his head.

I don’t think it is a coincidence that these three retellings concerning decisive events in the history of the survival Israel all have as their climax the ‘evil one’ on his belly at heel-height and the ‘victorious one’ striking the head of that evil one in some manner.

It’s hard to image Israelites hearing these episodes and not seeing a connection to G3.15. It’s also not a stretch to see in the continued historical replaying of G3.15 that the idea of an ultimate victory would finally emerge where-in the head of the ‘ultimate evil-one’ would receive its final fatal strike from the ‘ultimate victorious-one’. The ultimate victorious-one would of course be the Messiah.

The G3.15 template was still prevalent in Christ’s time and was used in a malicious way by Herod’s wife when she had John the Baptist beheaded. Few recognize she was mocking the prophetic tradition of the Israelites who followed John the Baptist by killing John in the manner that the evil one is to be killed in G3.15. Doing so in essence publicly declared that she was the one one in the right who was now crushing the head of the evil one - John. This would have been a humiliating and troubling sacrilege to John’s faithful companions.

The NT authors did not miss the significance of the G3.15 prophecy and its connection to the passion of Jesus. It is interesting and no coincidence that we are reminded that the place where Jesus is crucified is called Golgatha and further reminded that this word means ‘the place of the skull’. Why the hyper-detail for a certain place’s name and it’s correct translation? Well, if Jesus is on the cross then Golgatha, or ‘the skull’ is under his feet or heels. Further, regardless of how one believes the real cross was actually constructed, to stand upright the base of the cross would penetrate the surface somehow thus striking and penetrating ‘this skull’ of Golgatha in some manner.

So through this trail of Biblical episodes we can see some prevalent OT understandings regarding G3.15. The pronouns were understood in all of these situations as singular not communal, an evil individual is vanquished by a virtuous individual. The actions of individual don’t just count, they are critical. (What a democratic idea.) The seed of the woman can be female or male. Jael, Judith, David.

The NT writers see Christ’s crucifixion as the ultimate fulfillment of G3.15.

Hope this helped,

Peter

Thank you so much for this!

 

[adriancombe]

I was told that Gen 3:15 was always translated as “she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”(D-R translation) until Luther changed it to “he” and “his”. Is this true? What is the word in the original language, is it gender neutral? Why would Luther change it, didn’t he have a great devotion to Mary?

PeterK has a great post explaining this in the light of later biblical passages here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5922961&posted=1#post5922961

 

[nordskoven]

Sarah raised up what was legally her seed to Abraham through her HANDMAID, Hagar. A handmaid’s child, a surrogate mother, has full sonship rights and mother and child may never be expelled from the household. Hence the import of Our Lady agreeing as the HANDMAID of the Lord, vesting Christ with full Sonship to the Father. Sarah, wishing to expel Hagar from the household for what has the connotation of her and her son’s sexual mockery, must change her status to that of SERVANT. The Lord honors Hagar’s child under Sarah in sending an angel to save mother and child; and blessing his lineage to thrive; but also prophesying Abraham’s lineage by Hagar would be ever-warlike with all men’s hands against them. This was no divorce situation as we would think of it. Sarah the Priestess by Savinah Teubal explains the Hebrew law with Sarah as “EN” or “Woman of Grace” i.e., queen, the one who defined kingship and the reason so many rulers wanted Sarah’s hand. Please note for the record it was Teubal’s publisher who changed the title to “Priestess” when her book is wholly devoted to explaining the status of the Woman & Seed with the woman as “EN” literally “grace.” “Full of Grace” means Our Lady fulfills EN-ship, queenship. Men always acted as priests to atone for the Sin of Adam–not the “Sin of Adam and Eve.”

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Sarah raised up what was legally her seed to Abraham through her HANDMAID, Hagar. A handmaid’s child, a surrogate mother, has full sonship rights and mother and child may never be expelled from the household. Hence the import of Our Lady agreeing as the HANDMAID of the Lord, vesting Christ with full Sonship to the Father. Sarah, wishing to expel Hagar from the household for what has the connotation of her and her son’s sexual mockery, must change her status to that of SERVANT. …This was no divorce situation as we would think of it. Sarah the Priestess by Savinah Teubal explains the Hebrew law with Sarah as “EN” or “Woman of Grace” i.e., queen, the one who defined kingship and the reason so many rulers wanted Sarah’s hand. "

Very observant, though Sarah mans “princess” and therefore “queen” – at the time of her being sought as wife in Egypt, she was Sari. The name had not yet changed.
In this thread the idea of Hagar was brought up for the grammatical construction of her “seed”; As to divorce, I have pointed out the Jewish understanding of what happens between Hagar and Abraham as divorce in other threads. Lit: loosing to one’s self, or sending away.

Search my back posts if you want a fuller discussion of it and appropriate places to post a further discussion / arguments. Also, look up “Divorce” in the Jewish encyclopedia, online – they cite Hagar. Although not a modern conception of “Divorce”, I would like to point out that Jesus explains the law of divorce in this way, it is NEVER permitted without sin EXCEPT in the case of pornea. Hagar, as surrogate, is pornea – she is made to be a sort of prostitute. This is exactly the case of Divorce which Jesus envisions in the writings of Matthew – when the one divorced is not the true wife, and is therefore sent away. as an aside: Priests and Divorce were different than the non sanctified Israelites … a point of interest since the priesthood of all believers is now in effect within the Catholic church; and a greater pointing out of the common divorce being allowed on account of “sin”.

 

[Josh128]

Check this thread for all you need to know regarding the translations/controversies surrounding this passage.

chnetwork.org/forum/scripture/genesis-315-‘ipsa’-lt-help!!/

Cheers!

 

[nordskoven]

Adam was vested with an ultimate authority as steward of life on Earth, this done before Woman was created as “helpmate.” “Helpmate” is a term that connotes lifesaver, in this context, one in a catalytic way: not entering into the reaction but effecting the end as in one who brings water to a man dying of thirst. So the Virgin Mary brought the Lord but wasn’t the Savior per se. The word translated as “helpmate” is a powerful term used elsewhere of the Lord, and the woman is “refined” after her creation from Adam’s tissue. Women were not shorted in God’s eyes as the Lord always has the superior being help the inferior one. Sacred Matrism was instituted after Sacred Patrism.

The Shining One, the Serpent, Lucifer, effects Adam’s betrayal of his ultimate authority via the “Sin of Adam.” Sin and death did come into the world, but Adam repents and answers the Lord when He calls to him. The Lord questions Adam as to why he sinned and he blams the woman, the Lord’s gift. Woman is questioned and said she was lied to, the first lie on Earth–garbage in, garbage out. In cursing Lucifer and his seed with the Woman & Seed, a vesting of ultimate authority is now given to the Woman, and derivatively, through her to her Seed. “Seed” is a collective term which nicely defines the Body of Christ for Catholics. One man standing for all, as David did versus Goliath, the collective, corporate authority vested in one man. King David’s illicit census bringing the Angel of Death on his people until he repents and offers sacrifice is also a manifestation of corporate authority.

Kingship was a foreign system much maligned by the Creator yet the people cried for a king and were given one. This is important in indicating a radically different system of leadership by patriarchs and matriarchs ruling their realms, with men as pre-eminent stewards unto death. This system was battered in ancient times and world-wide under the so-called “Patriarchal Revolution” that probably accompanied Earth upheavels in Peleg’s time. The Woman & Seed system couldn’t be exterminated but was expropriated, and the males upholding the remnant system were persecuted, landmarks with women’s visages thrown down because land was inherited through the woman, and women were turned into temple prostitutes and their children alienated from them or killed outright, as with Sargon the Great, son of an EN. WWSD? What Would Satan Do? For crying out loud God cursed Lucifer and his seed with the Woman & Seed. He’d attack women and children as is happening today with denatured marriage and abortion.

The Woman, and through her, her Seed, was given a different power and authority from Adam’s, to crush the head of the Father of Lies and Murder. This is a separate authority that intertwines with Adam’s authority. Simply, everybody on Earth has a mandate from the Most High. Christ, for example, acted as Steward of Life unto death under the mandate to and through Adam; and as Seed of the Woman in crushing the head of the Serpent in conquering sin and death unto life.

The Hebrews retrained the powerful observance of power and authority and eminence given to the Woman & Seed. “Why was Jesus Jewish?” Father William G. Most asks, and it is because His mother was Jewish. One’s lineage was counted through one’s mother. So strong was this observance that Sarah and Abraham were not considered brother and sister as having different mothers! The Lord’s granting of a blessing of fruitfulness to Abraham’s children by Hagar are to restore that somewhat imbalanced second-class status of the husband. Yet it is Sarah’s seed via Abraham that is the Lord’s avenue of promise. And it is the matristic system that the Lord validates in giving the inheritance to the youngest born, with the patristic system separately giving legacies to the eldest.

When the Archangel Gabriel says that the Virgin Mary is “blessed among women” he is raising up all women, and through them their seed, to ratify God’s bestowal of this power and authority to fight the Luciferic rebellion. This was in ancient times as dreadful a fight as it is today. There is a separate mandate of authority given to and through the Woman to her Seed. That is the chief idea and the gender bending Genesis 3:15 neutrality and collective terminoogy shows the strength and breadth of this deriving from the Woman and through her to her Seed.