UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> attn: 770 the protoevangelium...


10/19/09 10:11 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17418
 
Hi 770, how goes it? I was curious as to how you, the Jews historically and how Jews today (not reform or conservative) view the following:

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Genesis 3:15).
10/19/09 3:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 952
I'm in Cali right now and will be in Curacau later this week.  My books are all at home so I'll have to check into their opinions later.  I can say Judaism probably probably has several meanings to this.  Some will dissect the context some will pull associations from the root words and implications.  I think we went over this once before and it's a key line in Christianity.  Some of the oldest opinions I have are Onkelos and from the Mechilta.  Maybe there is some good midrash.  The older of an accepted opinion I can find might be somewhat different then an accepted opinion of today.  I'd like to find a pre-Christian comment on the line to get more accurate.  That would probably be Midrash.  Anyway, I can't answer this well right now but will keep it in mind and post some of what I find.  

Best-
10/19/09 3:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17419
no problem. No trap :-)

Interested in just your opinion too.
10/27/09 9:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 957
The oldest interpretation I have is Targum Onkelos.  I remember you posted this line before so along with commentaries I have I'd like to get your take on it.  It seems to be some central truth to your ideology.  Well, I think you'll theorize it's a prophetic statement but my interpretations keep it in context with the Biblical story and its greater implications as to why its there.  Anyway...

"I will put enmity between you and the women, and between your offspring and her offspring.  He will always remember what you did to him in ancient times: and you will watch for him - to the end (of time)."

Between you and the women.  Rashi explains that the snake went to the woman first because it n=knew that she had the power to persuade her husband to eat the fruit of the tree.  The snake's goal.  Rashi says. was to "marry: the woman.  Offspring.  Onkelos clarifies Scripture's metaphor "seed" twice.  He...You.  Our targumist retains the singular form for these words even though the text refers to the plural - humans and reptiles.  He will always remember what you did to him in ancient times; and you will watch for him - to the end (of  time).  "He will strike your head and you will strike his heel."  The targumist transforms the literal meaning of the biblical statement and understands taht it is a metaphor intended to teach humanity to conquer their base behavior.  the words "head" and "heel" are taken to signify "beginning" and "end."  Onkelos is telling us that humans should remember this story, remember where they were mislead, and always to act to avoid their evil inclinations.   The targumist suggests that the base drive within everyone, embodied in the metaphor of the snake, will be present at every moment of life until death.  The Targum is not addressing the issue of whether humans are born with an evil inclinations.  Maimonides (in the eight chapters of the Introduction to Mishnah Avot, called Shemonah Perakim) states that the evil inclination is developed by bad habbits.  Rashi renders the biblical yeshufkha as "pounded," based on the Aramaic translation in Deuteronomy 9:21, which uses the root shuf to describe Mose' destruction of the Golden Calf.  The targumist translates the word in our verse as teshufenu, which resembles yeshufkha phonetically, but has the root nashaf, as "hiss" - the sound that a snake emanates before it strikes.  

I have other interpretations but I'd like to hear what you have to say before I continue with others.   




10/28/09 9:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 965
Robert Sacks wrote a book based on the teachings of Leo Strauss called A Commentary on Genesis...

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

There is something ominous about the order of this sentence since the serpent is the last to strike.  The first clause seems to imply that man is capable of conquering or at least dealing with whatever adverse forces there are which the serpent represents, but the last clause suggests that no such solution can ever achieve permanence, that the same problems will arise again and will have to be dealt with continually.  At the same time there is no indication that Man is incapable of dealing with these problems as they arise.  The root of the Hebrew word for heel means to follow or to come after.  Its use here may be to reiterate the notion expressed in the first part of the verse - that each new generation must face the problems again from the beginning.
10/30/09 9:47 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17467
sorry, clammed at work. will get back to you.
10/30/09 12:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 1953
770mdm - Robert Sacks wrote a book based on the teachings of Leo Strauss called A Commentary on Genesis...

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

There is something ominous about the order of this sentence since the serpent is the last to strike.  The first clause seems to imply that man is capable of conquering or at least dealing with whatever adverse forces there are which the serpent represents, but the last clause suggests that no such solution can ever achieve permanence, that the same problems will arise again and will have to be dealt with continually.  At the same time there is no indication that Man is incapable of dealing with these problems as they arise.  The root of the Hebrew word for heel means to follow or to come after.  Its use here may be to reiterate the notion expressed in the first part of the verse - that each new generation must face the problems again from the beginning.
Wow, This...this is very interesting! I hope y'all don't mind if I join in?

Once you remove the Christian context from the passage it reads entirely differently, imo. The Christian interpretation (in my understanding) is that both the crushing of the serpent's head and the bruising of the heel occurs at the crucifixion. When you read it with preconceived ideas, there is no reason to question that interpretation, it fits perfectly. 

But leaving preconceived ideas at the door (cover?) the passage seems to have a deep and profound meaning. Very interesing, thanks for posting this!  
11/1/09 5:15 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17469
sure Grakman, jump in.

770, I cannot help but read Genesis 3:15 in the context of messianic expectations and messianic fufillment.

Jesus appealed directly to the Law and the Prophets as those being which "testified of Him". So as a Christian I'm constantly looking to see how the Law and the Prophets testify of Him.

The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel wrote:

"if the woman's offspring observes the Law they will be in a position to crush the serpent's head: 'and they will finally make peace in the days of the Messiah-King'

Also Rabbi David Kimchi, "As thou wentest forth for the salvation of they people by the hand of the Messiah, the Son of David, who shall wound the head of Satan, the head, the king and prince of the house of the wicked."

Midrash Rabbah 23 states, "Rabbi Tanchuma said in the name of Rabbi Samuel, Eve had respect to that Seed, which is coming from another place. And who is this? This is messiah the King."


Gen 3:15 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 a Christian perspective, I notice first that God references "Seed" of the woman. With Adam standing right next to her, he does not refer to the seed of Adam. I have googled that particular phrase (in light of a paternalistic society that emphasized the seed being literally of the man.

I cannot find such a unique phrase. Additional to that, her SEED shall do something that the most unique man and woman who ever lived could not do. He will destroy the head and authority of evil. He will bruise and break the head of evil personified.

I do not believe that a "mere" man could do this as the most perfect sinless man and woman were not able in the most perfect environment able to overcome the temptor. All of the great prophets and kings who since lived, every great man of God eventually, somewhere, somehow, failed (or sinned). So a seed of woman is coming that is unique. He will destroy the head and authority of satan and I believe that here we have a promise of the 1) unique birth of Messiah 2) the sinless nature of Messiah and 3) the divine nature of the Messiah-after all, only God can ultimately destroy satan.

The other interesting piece of this is that Satan personified in the serpent shall bruse and crush the heel of the SEED. Granted we see a very practical fufillment when Jesus was 'wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities...'. The 'chastisment of our peace was upon Him and by His stripes we are healed'.

He was pierced literally through His feet when He died and as such His feet from top to bottom, His arches, His heel would have been bruised and crushed.

But more so then that...also refers to the "hinder parts" or the base, the rear, the posterior.

The inferior, base, subordinate, inferior, lesser, back side of the Messiah would be bruised.

It is His divine nature that would conquer evil (because only God can ultimately smash the temptor) but His base nature, His hinder parts, His HUMANITY would be bruised and crushed.

If Jesus is truly the God man -God manifest in flesh- then His divine nature crushed the head of the serpent when He allowed Himself as atonement for all men but His "hee" was bruised and crushed. His humanity was bruised and broken through this cosmic battle.

Well, that's my perspective :-)
11/2/09 11:18 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11/02/09 11:59 AM
Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 978
 Rooster: I cannot help but read Genesis 3:15 in the context of messianic expectations and messianic fufillment.

Me: How can you not read the line in context of the story being told?  If this was Only Messianic How are you differentiating what's contextual and what's prophetic?  Besides at this point in Torah why wouldn't Moses be the Messiah your looking for?  It's contextual and he fits the bill contextually closer then Jesus and so does Joshua for that matter. 

Rooster: I notice first that God references "Seed" of the woman. With Adam standing right next to her, he does not refer to the seed of Adam.

Me: Interesting but both Adam and Eve and both their seeds are included here not just hers:
"And I will put emnity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."  He's talking to Adam and identifying his seed and her seed. 

re-constructed in other words:
"And I will put hostility between Adam & Eve and between Adam's children and Eve's male children.  hostility will bruise Adam's children's authority and Adam's children will bruise Eve's male childrens evil."   

My take is this:  This doesn't sound like a single culminating messianic figure.  More like how politics gets played out in todays political arena.  More like how the "Left" would be G-ds Voice but the 'Right" would be G-ds will.  (The only way I've been able to reconcile how it is the "lefts" ideaology actually exists in the light of what is Right and Wrong.) 

Adam's male children would be G-ds will, the future Authority the Right wing: 
Eve's male children would be G-ds voice, the future voice of the unseeting of Authority the Left wing:

Rooster: The other interesting piece of this is that Satan personified in the serpent shall bruse and crush the heel of the SEED. Granted we see a very practical fufillment when Jesus was 'wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities...'. The 'chastisment of our peace was upon Him and by His stripes we are healed'.

Me: The Text doesn't articulate that the Serpant is Saten that's speculation.  I contend the Serpant IS Adam (also speculative but I think more plausible).  In that I see that if Adam or if Adams Children or better yet if Authority itself becomes the serpant then it will be in hostile war within itself. 

Our persceptions both in context and predictive are so far away from each other I see the present and you see Jesus.  I see context and you see in relation to Jesus.  I think you see:
Her seed = Jesus
His wounds for our transgressions is a stretch. 

I see:
His seed as G-ds righteousness which can consume itself with hostility towards both itself and others
Her seed as another voice of G-ds will which will challenge authority but apt to be saturated in self-rightous non-relevant behavior.

I'm at work so can't concentrate fully on this.  So I'm writing then re-reading & editing etc...











   
11/2/09 12:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17481
770: How can you not read the line in context of the story being told?

me: well, as Christians, we believe that the entirety of the law and prophets has messianic overtones. So this is considered part of the context to us.

770: If this was Only Messianic How are you differentiating what's contextual and what's prophetic?

me: well, contextually, it's a son that is coming...a future son...so contextually it is prophetic, no?

you: Besides at this point in Torah why wouldn't Moses be the Messiah your looking for?

me: because Moses neither completely conquered sin in his own life and only provided a temporary way to deal with the sins of the nation and individuals through the oblations and sacrifices. A practice that Israel doesn't even do anymore.

It's contextual and he fits the bill contextually closer then Jesus and so does Joshua for that matter.

me: not to us :-) Remember that we believe that as great as Moses and Joshua were (and they were great, great men) they were types of the Messiah but not the fufillment. If they were, there would be no need for any further story. Israel would be redeemed and Messiah would be ruling. In fact, most Jewish sages, rabbi's etc. were/are looking for a Son of David, not Moses or Joshua as Messiah. You will not find any post Moses/Joshua rabbi's, sages pointing at Moses and/or Joshua as that Son of David (of course David not being born yet).

We believe Jesus as the greater Deliverer because He was SINLESS. He was the one who frees us from Spiritual Egypt, and through His Red Sea, Egypt can be buried. Physical redemption is important, and desirous. But spiritual redemption (liberated from the power of sin) is a greater deliverance.

770: "And I will put emnity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." He's talking to Adam and identifying his seed and her seed.

me: actually no. He's talking to the serpent and Eve. I don't know of any jewish or christian scholar who says that the conflict is between the seed of a man and the seed of a woman and they shall go around brusing each others heads and heels. This doesn't even make sense bro.

The conflict is good and evil, the serpent and not only mankind, but a particular SEED of a woman. If you have other ancient interpretations that say otherwise, I'd be happy to look at them.

770: The Text doesn't articulate that the Serpant is Saten that's speculation. I contend the Serpant IS Adam (also speculative but I think more plausible). In that I see that if Adam or if Adams Children or better yet if Authority itself becomes the serpant then it will be in hostile war within itself.

me: ?

Adam blames the woman. The woman says:

Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What [is] this [that] thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

So God curses the serpent.

To Adam he says:

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree...

God curses distinctly Adam, Eve and the serpent. The serpent tricks eve and then Eve talked her husband into eating it. Adam can't be both.

Also, I think it's interesting to note that Eve seems to perceive this as future and messianic. When she has Cain, she calls him Cain

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

I see her exclaiming in wonder that she has a man from the Lord and might this be the child of wonder, the future seed, the one who will bring them back to paradise (alas no).

I mean, ask Adam, Eve or Cain how man is made and each gives a different and wonderful answer. Adam was made of the earth, Eve from his side and cain from the miracle of natural birth. Wow.

so Cain is this special child, this man child and she seems to exclaim that this is the man she has acquired from God.

Also in Revelations, which is part of Christian canon, written by the Jewish apostle John, he also identifies the serpent with Satan.

We hold these writings to also be sacred and believe the Jewish writers understood the context of the law and prophets and were applying their own commentaries to them; inspired by the God of Israel. So John identifies the serpent with Satan.

more...
11/2/09 12:12 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 980
 It is strange that the text says his seed & her seed.  If everyone comes from them does this mean that they procreate with their great great great grandchildren?  Adams seed is from Adam and whom he procreates with and Eves seed is with whom she procreates with? 
11/2/09 12:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17482
770: Our persceptions both in context and predictive are so far away from each other I see the present and you see Jesus. I see context and you see in relation to Jesus. I think you see:
Her seed = Jesus

me: correct :-) That's why I'm a Christian :-) but I believe in giving ear to the Jewish interpretations because that's who Jesus and the apostles were.


770: His wounds for our transgressions is a stretch.

me: well, I meant that in relation to his heel being bruised and other prophetic, messianic prophecies:

(my caps are yelling, just a bold pursuant to my points)

Isaiah 53

("Our Rabbis affirm with one voice that the prophet is speaking of King Messiah", Rabbi Moishe Al-Shekh, 16th century CE) See also Targum Jonathon ben Uzziel (on Isa. 52:13), Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 98a, 98b; Midrash Konen Bet HaMidrash 2:29-30; Zohar 2:212a; Pesitka Rabbati, Piska 36:142

Isaiah 53:1-12

[1] Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

[2] He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

[3] He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

[4] Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

[5] But HE was PIERCED for OUR TRANSGRESSIONS, he was CRUSHED for OUR INIQUITIES ; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by HIS WOUNDS WE ARE HEALED.

[6]We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

[7] He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

[8] By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

[9] He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

[10] Yet it was the LORD's will TO CRUSH HIM and CAUSE HIM TO SUFFER and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

[11] After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life(1) and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will BEAR THEIR INIQUITIES

[12] Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he POURED OUT unto DEATH , and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
11/2/09 2:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 982
I went to the bookstore and tried looking up your quote:

Midrash Rabbah 23 states, "Rabbi Tanchuma said in the name of Rabbi Samuel, Eve had respect to that Seed, which is coming from another place. And who is this? This is messiah the King."

I couldn't find it.  I only had so much time during lunch but going to try and borrow my Rabbi's addition.  I didn't buy it because it's like $300 for the set.  Anyway, doesn't mean it's not there as I may have missed it but is this something you got off the net?  Or do you have access to this copy? 

Anyway I'll read your post but I just wanted to let you in on that...

11/2/09 7:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17486
net. If not true, my deepest apolgies. I can try to refind the quote.
11/2/09 9:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11/02/09 9:33 PM
Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 985
I'm quoting from the Baal Haturim: 

UhKAve: The Heel.  (The masoretic note, Gimmel, means that) this word appears three times in the Tenach:  (i) here: "and you will bruise him on the heel: (ii) (Even my ally in who I trusted...) has raised his heel to trample me (Psalms 41:10) and (iii) in Jacob's blessing to the tribe of Gad, and he will cut down at the heel (Gen 49:10).  This alludes to our Sages' statement regarding the serpent:  Alas that a great servant was lost from the household.  Thus, even my (would-be) ally... has raised his heel to trample me.
  The Sages have also said regarding the blessings that Jacob gave to his sons:  Although Jacob compared Judah to a lion and Naphtali to a hind (and other sons to other beasts), nevertheless, (at the end of his blessing,) he blessed them (all) with one blessing, as it is written, each accorting to his appropriate blessing he blessed them (49:28), which teaches that he extended to all of them the ferocity of a lion (which he had given to Judah), and the speed of a hind (which he had given Naphtali).  And so, just as he had blessed Dan with the qualities of a serpent (Gen 49:17), so did he bless Gad with those same qualities, as alluded to by the word UhKave.

Me: As strange as Gen 3:15 is it's not necessarily by itself.  It's mentioned and can be connected to other passages in Torah and Tenach.


  
11/2/09 9:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11/02/09 9:54 PM
Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 986
 You know reading the previous sentence along with this one the theme really changes:

14: Gd says to the Serpent, "Because you did this, cursed are you more than all the livestock and all the wild beasts.  On your belly you shall crawl, and dust you shall eat, all the days of your life.
15: I will plant hatred between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring.  He will strike you in the head, and you will strike him in the heel." 

Your RIGHT Gd, here, is rebuking the Eve and The Serpent!  Your offspring meaning the Serpents?  and her offspring meaning her male children from Adam!  

And in the anti-delivian period before the flood there are two families or two lines one was basically good from the line of Seth and a worse one from the line of Cain.  It seems like the battle between these two families are never ending.  Hence the need for the Flood because nothing could get reconciled with no law or order.  

 
 
11/3/09 10:26 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 1971
 It seems more of a stretch to me to think he meant the lines of Seth and Cain warring against each other rather than Satan, especially when you consider that Satan is referred to as the 'serpent of old' in other places in Scripture (the NT.)
11/3/09 11:54 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 989

I think the NT has nothing to do with Torah.  Torah validates itself.  If you read OT with NT eye glasses you'll see things Torah didn't intend for you to see because it should be the other way around, if anything.  My reasoning isn't anything official but personal observation.  More official obersvations will say G-d is talking to Adam and Eve not the Serpent and Eve.  What do you see?  How do you reason otherwise if you disagree?

Gen 3:15 seems to indicate a release of competing forces, essentially, and the two blood lines are a knee jerk perception I'm looking at.  Their feuds or the feuds of those generations lead to the Flood, the global catastrophy that wiped out everything on earth.  I just thought to present a personal idea in hopes to either have it expounded upon, validated or challenged.. or just rejected.  Thoughts?

Maybe I'll post some stuff on these two blood lines.  It shouldn't be much of a stretch considering the Flood happened right after them.

11/3/09 8:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 993
 Rooster:  Here is what Midrash Rabbah says...

 R. Levi said : In the Messianic age all will be healed save the serpent and the Gibeonite; the serpent, as it is : the Gibeonite:  And they that serve the city, out of all the tribes of Israel, shall till it (Ezek. XLIII, 19), which means, all the tribes of Israel shall make them serve.
  R. Issi and R. Hoshaya in he name of R. Hiyya the Elder said four things:  The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him (the serpent):  "I made thee that thou shouldest be king over all cattle and beasts, but thou wouldst not have it; therefore, MORE CURSED ART THOU, etc.:  I made the that thou shouldest go upright like man, but thou wouldst not: hence, UPON THY BELLY SHALT THOU GO:  I made the that thou shouldest eat the food of man, but thou wouldst not: hence, AND I WILL PUT AN ENMITY BETWEEN THEE AND THE WOMAN.'  Thus what he desired was not given him, and what he posssessed was taken from him.  And we find the same in the case of Cain, Korach, Balaam, Doeg, Gehazi, Absalom, Adonijah, Uzziah, and Haman;  what they desired was not given to them, and what theypossed was taken from them.

This is the 3rd Edition Copyright 1983
Soncino Press

It's possible your verse is was not included in my edition because it's too controversial?  I'd be interested to see the copy you got your info from.  I'd really like to see if my edition plucked it out or if your source wasn't so truthful.  Post the link where you got your source maybe I'm on the wrong page many times a passage about one thing will refer to an earlier passage etc...  Anyway I'd like to track this down.  Cool?
11/4/09 5:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17488
been travelling and will try to work through these.

770: It is strange that the text says his seed & her seed. If everyone comes from them does this mean that they procreate with their great great great grandchildren? Adams seed is from Adam and whom he procreates with and Eves seed is with whom she procreates with?

me: it doesn't say his and her seed. It refers to the "seed of the woman". And yes, everyone is one family, one blood and we procreate with our most distant relatives typically.

770: Your RIGHT Gd, here, is rebuking the Eve and The Serpent! Your offspring meaning the Serpents? and her offspring meaning her male children from Adam!

me: except that a very strange phrase is given. "...and between thy seed and HER SEED..."

For a paternalistic society, the proper phrase would have been "his seed". women don't have seed. Only men do. I believe this is a foreshadowing of the divine birth of Jesus that Christians believe in.

770: think the NT has nothing to do with Torah. Torah validates itself. If you read OT with NT eye glasses you'll see things Torah didn't intend for you to see because it should be the other way around, if anything.


me: 770, that's only true if you are a Jew or denies Jesus. However, as Christians, we recognize that Jews wrote the NT, and Jesus and His apostles did 2 things 1) they appealed to the OT in order to validate the claims, ministry, etc. of Jesus and they 2) referred to the OT consistently to help the readers understand the context of what they were writing to in regards to following Jesus as a disciple.

So, it makes no sense to read the OT to a Christian and disregard the application and context of the authors of the NT and their claims.

you: My reasoning isn't anything official but personal observation. More official obersvations will say G-d is talking to Adam and Eve not the Serpent and Eve. What do you see? How do you reason otherwise if you disagree?

me: because he speaks directly to the erpent and curses the serpent. So the serpent is spoken to directly.


770: It's possible your verse is was not included in my edition because it's too controversial? I'd be interested to see the copy you got your info from. I'd really like to see if my edition plucked it out or if your source wasn't so truthful. Post the link where you got your source maybe I'm on the wrong page many times a passage about one thing will refer to an earlier passage etc... Anyway I'd like to track this down. Cool?

me: I will my friend. I've been in 2 days of meetings in TX and I'm sitting in an airport waiting to board.
11/4/09 8:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 994
 Have a safe flight.  
11/5/09 9:52 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 996
Rooster: it doesn't say his and her seed. It refers to the "seed of the woman". And yes, everyone is one family, one blood and we procreate with our most distant relatives typically.

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Genesis 3:15).

Me: Who is thy then?  G-d is talking to Eve but is the other person Adam or the serpant?  From the sentence before it, it sounds like Gd is addressing Eve and the Serpant?

Rooster: For a paternalistic society, the proper phrase would have been "his seed". women don't have seed. Only men do. I believe this is a foreshadowing of the divine birth of Jesus that Christians believe in.

Me:  I think contemporary Jewish thought would articululate that it was Adam and Eve G-d was talking to in this sentence.  For me, I wonder if he was addressing the serpent and Eve.  I think Adam and the Serpent are the same person.  Just as G-d split the "Adam" to creat Adam and Eve G-d split Adam the man from Righteous Adam and the Serpent.  So maybe G-d is addressing the offspring the Serpent has with Eve ... Cains line and the offspring Adam has with Eve ... Abel's then Seth's line. 

Rooster:  So, it makes no sense to read the OT to a Christian and disregard the application and context of the authors of the NT and their claims.

Me:  Is there a difference between the way Jefferson saw the US Constitution and the way Obama reads it?  This may be a weak analogy I know.  I mean to say that reading the text according to how it's meant to be read and how it was understood by those in the desert are more valid ways of reading it and understanding it then those who've come after them. 

Rooster: because he speaks directly to the erpent and curses the serpent. So the serpent is spoken to directly.

Me: Can you list the verses in order on how you're understanding this?
11/6/09 12:00 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17493
Adam blames the woman. The woman says:

Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What [is] this [that] thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

So God curses the serpent.

To Adam he says:

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree...

God curses distinctly Adam, Eve and the serpent. The serpent tricks eve and then Eve talked her husband into eating it. Adam can't be both.

Also, I think it's interesting to note that Eve seems to perceive this as future and messianic. When she has Cain, she calls him Cain

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

I see her exclaiming in wonder that she has a man from the Lord and might this be the child of wonder, the future seed, the one who will bring them back to paradise (alas no).


770: Is there a difference between the way Jefferson saw the US Constitution and the way Obama reads it? This may be a weak analogy I know. I mean to say that reading the text according to how it's meant to be read and how it was understood by those in the desert are more valid ways of reading it and understanding it then those who've come after them.

me: oh man, are you comparing Christians to Obama? That's a sin man! :-) I mean he holds the ideals of the founders in contempt. I believe in the OT as the word of God and the Jews as God's children through the promises to father abraham.
11/6/09 11:54 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1000
You jump from 3:13 then say G-d rebukes the snake and in 3:17 he talks to Adam...  I'm reading 3:13 through 3:17 straight through.  Read it through and feel the flow of what's being said here without jumping around...

Try reading this without my notes then with my notes...
 13. And the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent enticed me, and I ate."

14.
And the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed be you more than all the cattle and more than all the beasts of the field; you shall walk on your belly, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life.

It seems like G-ds still talking to the Serpent here...

15.
And I shall place hatred between you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He will crush your head, and you will bite his heel."

G-d is stilll talking to the serpent but now he's finished talking to him about whats going to become of him now hes telling him what will become of him and Eve.  You being the serpent and the woman being Eve.  Your seed would be the serpents seed with Eve and Her seed would be the seed she has with Adam. 
There's a Kabbalistic assertian presented in a writting called the Tanya (I'd have to look up where Tanya gleans this from) that says what ever your thinking about at the moment of conception will have a direct impact on the child.  The evil between the serpent and Eve came Cain but the holiness Adam came Abel and Seth.  Hence the idea Adam and Eve acted hedonistic in the Garden of Eden.  

Now G-d shifts from talking to the Serpent to talking to Eve directly again...
16.
To the woman He said, "I shall surely increase your sorrow and your pregnancy; in pain you shall bear children. And to your husband will be your desire, and he will rule over you."

17.
And to man He said, "Because you listened to your wife, and you ate from the tree from which I commanded you saying, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed be the ground for your sake; with toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life.

18. And it will cause thorns and thistles to grow for you, and you shall eat the herbs of the field.
I'd think you'd link this line to your reasoning more so then 3:15...  Didn't Jesus wear thorns and thistles during his crucifixion?   
11/6/09 8:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17506
Hi 770 correct, Jesus wore the thorns and thistles. So in affect he took on our curse. He was crowned with our curses.

Good call :-)

I think we'll agree to disagree on this being "tainted" by our particular lenses. Which is ok, I appreciate your line of reasoning from a strictly Jewish perspective (well, mine is to but a different "branch" of judaism).

What did you think about Isaiah 53?

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.