Why doesn't God say to Adam?

[exiled]

Why is it that God does not say to Adam, “I will put enmity between you and the serpent, between your seed and his seed.” Continuing on with the crushing of the serpent’s head, and the striking at the heel?
Mary was a descendent of both Adam and Eve, so it would not have been inappropriate.
For Catholics this is easy, as we accept Mary as the new Eve. For protestants, I think this is a problem.
Any thoughts?

 

[puzzleannie]

Why is it that God does not say to Adam, “I will put enmity between you and the serpent, between your seed and his seed.” Continuing on with the crushing of the serpent’s head, and the striking at the heel?
Mary was a descendent of both Adam and Eve, so it would not have been inappropriate.
For Catholics this is easy, as we accept Mary as the new Eve. For protestants, I think this is a problem.
Any thoughts?

protestants have a problem with the Word of God, the Almighty, the Creator of the Universe, the Omnipotent? Not if they are bible Christians, as they claim to be, they don’t.

 

[exiled]

Uh, no, I didn’t say protestants had a problem with the Word of God. I said that I thought that this passage is significant, and I asked for opinions.
My fellow Catholics may say I am in error, and that this is not a point towards Mary as Gen 3:16 is.
And if I may clarify, it was not Eve to whom God was speaking, it was Satan. (I’m sure you all picked up on that) But the question remains, why did God not say that the enmity would be between Satan and man, and that the seed that crushes would come from him?

 

[wjp984]

perhaps because a snake can be deadly and they generally bite you on the heel. A human will want to defend him or herself and kill the snake, doing so by smashing its head. Their are mythical explanations for many things in the Bible. This one explains why there is this fear of snakes for good reason.

 

[Zooey]

It’s a prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ. Jesus was born of a woman–Mary–but not of any man.
Prophetically, then, saying the “seed of the woman” points to this fact.

 

[exiled]

But God could still have used Adam/man in the prophecy because Mary was a descendent of both A and E. The virgin part was certainly handled quite explicitly later in the OT, so I’m still left curious.
As a Catholic I think this is easily answered by our belief that Mary is the second Eve, as Jesus us the second Adam. Eve got the ball rolling, so to speak, with the fall, but Adam is the one who effected it. Mary got the ball rolling re: our salvation, but Christ effected it.
So, I guess I don’t think the virgin birth is the answer (although I’m not saying it’s not). Do you think there is anything to what I said? That the prophecy of the virgin would have remained intact if the words had been spoken to Adam, combined with other passages foretelling the same?