How come the Blessed Mother will crush the serpent's head?

[kingsan]

Hello!

In Genesis 3:15 the Lord God said:** “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head and you will strike his heel.”** So how come the Church teaches that Mary will crush the serpent’s head when in reality it is the Lord Jesus who will crush the enemy’s head. Neither did Revelation say that Mary will defeat the enemy - the Dragon. I’m confused about this view on the Blessed Mother. Can anyone help me on this?

Thank you very much!

 

[bmullins]

Much of Catholic dogma is developed off the Douay Rheims (and vulgate) which were the translation(s) used by our church for many, many years.

[bibledrb]Genesis 3:15[/bibledrb]

Here is a good article on the subject:

She will Crush

 

[Fragile]

Fr. Larry Richards assured us it is indeed Christ who crushed the serpent’s head.

 

[Joe_5859]

The Hebrew pronoun used in Genesis 3:15 is actually ambiguous. At different points in Jewish history, it was used for different genders. That’s why some translations (like the Vulgate and those translations based off of it) use “she” while other modern translations use “he”.

For me, I find the ambiguity somewhat edifying on a personal level. Mary’s cooperation with her Son is so complete that we can really say that of both of them.

 

[MarcoPolo]

How can Mary crush the serpent’s head? A look at Genesis 3:15.

See also this thread for discussion of the Hebrew with varying opinions, especially posts 54 and after.

 

[Layp3rs0n]

It is interesting that one day at a book store I picked up the Torah and read that verse in Genesis. The translation from the Hebrew was indeed “she”.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Much of Catholic dogma is developed off the Douay Rheims (and vulgate) which were the translation(s) used by our church for many, many years.

[bibledrb]Genesis 3:15[/bibledrb]

Here is a good article on the subject:

She will Crush

Actually, if you check Jerome’s translation notes on Gen. 3:15, which can be found translated into English here:

amazon.com/Jeromes-Questions-Genesis-Christian-Studies/dp/0198263503/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1336145063&sr=8-2

you’ll see that “she will crush” was a later change to the Vulgate after Jerome, so the article has some significant problems as they attribute this wording to Jerome’s translation.

 

[mcrow]

So would it be correct to say that Mary is the mother of Jesus, Jesus crushes the head of the serpent, therefore Mary crushed the head of the serpent?

 

[beehumble]

So would it be correct to say that Mary is the mother of Jesus, Jesus crushes the head of the serpent, therefore Mary crushed the head of the serpent?

Yes, but not because of the human relationship, or else we could extend it to Saint Ann, Blessed Mary’s mother and on and on.

It is because she willingly conceived and gave her Son up for the world’s salvation, just as the Father willingly gave His Son up. (And of course Jesus gave Himself up, too.) Jesus worked with the Father and Holy Spirit for our salvation, and Blessed Mary worked directly with Them (The Holy Trinity) too, for all of us; her Fiat.

God bless you.

 

[mcrow]

Yes, but not because of the human relationship, or else we could extend it to Saint Ann, Blessed Mary’s mother and on and on.

It is because she willingly conceived and gave her Son up for the world’s salvation, just as the Father willingly gave His Son up. (And of course Jesus gave Himself up, too.) Jesus worked with the Father and Holy Spirit for our salvation, and Blessed Mary worked directly with Them (The Holy Trinity) too, for all of us; her Fiat.

God bless you.

Of course, Mary is an entirely different thing from a human aspect. I was just figuring that was assumed for these purposes but it’s good to point out to avoid problems.

 

[Byzman]

Actually, if you check Jerome’s translation notes on Gen. 3:15, which can be found translated into English here:

amazon.com/Jeromes-Questions-Genesis-Christian-Studies/dp/0198263503/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1336145063&sr=8-2

you’ll see that “she will crush” was a later change to the Vulgate after Jerome, so the article has some significant problems as they attribute this wording to Jerome’s translation.

Could you please specify what it says by providing a direct quote?

 

[Uzziah1]

Christ “struck at” the serpent’s head when His cross pierced the dust at SKULL Place. Satan “struck at” His heel when the nail pierced Christ’s feet.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Could you please specify what it says by providing a direct quote?

Actually, I don’t own the book and would have to go to the library and check it out. However, I can do that and provide you with the quote.

 

[TimothyH]

Hello!

In Genesis 3:15 the Lord God said:** “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head and you will strike his heel.”** So how come the Church teaches that Mary will crush the serpent’s head when in reality it is the Lord Jesus **who will **crush the enemy’s head. Neither did Revelation say that Mary will defeat the enemy - the Dragon. I’m confused about this view on the Blessed Mother. Can anyone help me on this?

Thank you very much!

Whomever did the crushing - he or she - for us it has already been done.

Christ’s passion, death and ressurection have crushed - past tense - Satan and given the means to defeat death to any of us who wish to accept it.

The crushing was a future event for Eve, but for us it occured two thousand years ago in Palestine.

-Tim-

 

[Byzman]

Actually, I don’t own the book and would have to go to the library and check it out. However, I can do that and provide you with the quote.

Well…you dont really have to go through all that hassle…it is a statement you made…that’s fine. The statement that I will make is that everyone pretty much agrees that in the Hebrew the phrase is quite ambiguous.

But the Latin Vulgate, translated by St. Jerome wasn’t the first to use “She” in this verse…Tertullian writing almost 200 years before St. Jerome uses “She” in regards to this verse.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.iii.i.vi.html?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=3&scrV=15#iii.iii.i.vi-p4.1

This also was wanting to the Christian woman, that she may add a grace to herself from the serpent! Is it thus that she will set her heel on the devil’s head”

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Well…you dont really have to go through all that hassle…it is a statement you made…that’s fine. The statement that I will make is that everyone pretty much agrees that in the Hebrew the phrase is quite ambiguous.

But the Latin Vulgate, translated by St. Jerome wasn’t the first to use “She” in this verse…Tertullian writing almost 200 years before St. Jerome uses “She” in regards to this verse.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.iii.i.vi.html?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=3&scrV=15#iii.iii.i.vi-p4.1

The Hebrew text that we refer to today is unambiguously masculine (ישופך); the verb is clearly masculine (you can go back and read old threads on this which are linked above). The only thing that is potentially up for grabs—and which really constitutes special pleading—is the accompanying independent pronoun. If you want to argue that the accompanying pronoun is “she” and not “he” as pointed by the Massoretes then you have to explain why there is subject and verb disagreement.

The other argument that’s usually made is that Jerome is looking at a different manuscript that is not Massoretic/proto-Massoretic. What I was saying is that this can’t be the case either based on Jerome’s translation notes. So perhaps there was a later rescencion of the Vulgate where Jerome’s translation was changed to conform with the tradition/manuscript that Tertullian is referring to?

 

[MarcoPolo]

you have to explain why there is subject and verb disagreement.

I thought I explained this in the other thread that if Jesus is the primary stomper of the devil’s head, that doesn’t preclude Mary or the Church or St. Michael, etc. from also delivering a blow. In other words, the technical grammar is not an obstacle to the idea that Mary has a profound place in smiting the serpent’s head.

A loose analogy: Let’s say a female general lead the Nazi army into Turkey. And someone said of Hitler: “He invaded Turkey.” That masculine grammar would not eliminate the potentiality of a woman’s role in the event.

 

[Byzman]

I thought I explained this in the other thread that if Jesus is the primary stomper of the devil’s head, that doesn’t preclude Mary or the Church or St. Michael, etc. from also delivering a blow. In other words, the technical grammar is not an obstacle to the idea that Mary has a profound place in smiting the serpent’s head.

A loose analogy: Let’s say a female general lead the Nazi army into Turkey. And someone said of Hitler: “He invaded Turkey.” That masculine grammar would not eliminate the potentiality of a woman’s role in the event.

This is why I like the translation of the NABRE…because here it is seen as a collective whole…this is truly the best understanding.

I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
They will strike at your head,
while you strike at their heel.

If someone tries to rule out the fact that Mary crushes the serpent’s head by her faith and by her fiat…than someone is actually doing more damage to the text by supporting their position of Mary not having a role in salvation.

I read your blog before on this very topic and you wrote really well defending our Lady in this regard…most especially when highlighting how Mary was “most blessed among women.” I truly think St. Luke knew that Mary had crushed the Serpent’s head by her fiat…and he showed it by drawing upon parallels from Scripture as he also did when referring to her as the New Ark.

 

[Byzman]

The Hebrew text that we refer to today is unambiguously masculine (ישופך); the verb is clearly masculine (you can go back and read old threads on this which are linked above). The only thing that is potentially up for grabs—and which really constitutes special pleading—is the accompanying independent pronoun. If you want to argue that the accompanying pronoun is “she” and not “he” as pointed by the Massoretes then you have to explain why there is subject and verb disagreement.

The other argument that’s usually made is that Jerome is looking at a different manuscript that is not Massoretic/proto-Massoretic. What I was saying is that this can’t be the case either based on Jerome’s translation notes. So perhaps there was a later rescencion of the Vulgate where Jerome’s translation was changed to conform with the tradition/manuscript that Tertullian is referring to?

Or Jerome saw it fit enough to use the feminine pronoun…because “loosely” translated… it was only the woman who was tricked by the serpent…so should not the woman always be at enmity and should it not be the woman who will finally strike the serpent to redeem herself back?

 

[Fragile]

I’m having a hard time w/this idea of “Mary’s fiat”, that somehow that fate of the world hung in the balance of her consent…