Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Gary Dikeman" <grbike AT sbcglobal.net>]

So far no one has proven that the "seed" of the serpent of Genesis 3:15 does 
not exist. Perhaps we should focus more on the subject "seed" so that we 
might reach a conclusion. The real question at this point is whether the 
Hebrew word zera is meant to convey the idea of offspring, or at least 
whether or not this is the sole intent of the word as used here. The answer 
to this question depends on several other considerations. The first 
consideration concerns the parties to the conflict which is here foretold. 
The narrator of Genesis 3 clearly suggests the presence of an actual 
"serpent". If we stay within the confines of the book of Genesis he compares 
this "serpent" with all the other beasts of the field which YHWH had made. 
Focusing on this aspect first of all, the question should be faced: does the 
word zera indicate "offspring".

The Lexicon informs us that the Old Testament uses zera very infrequently for 
the offspring of animals. One instance listed is Gen. 7:3, but this passage 
is hardly a convincing illustration of the point at issue. The purpose for 
taking the animals into the ark was not actually to keep their offspring 
alive. This offspring was not yet present at the time these words were 
spoken. How could it have been kept alive in the ark? Some modern 
translations have sensed this problem and have avoided the word "seed" or 
"offspring" altogether at this point: RSV, "to keep their kind alive"; JB, 
"to propagate their kind." I believe that an appeal to Gen. 7:3 to prove that 
zera occasionally is used as "offspring" in the case of animals is not a 
strong one.

Another point to be considered is whether the story of the fall suggests the 
presence of more than a mere animal. If the story does suggest the presence 
of demonic force acting behind and through the serpent, how does this affect 
the question of the meaning of zera? As to the presence of a force other than 
a mere animal in man's temptation, I believe that as one reads Genesis 3 one 
does indeed become conscious of such a force. There is a diabolical subtlety 
in the serpent's suggestions which points to a sinister background to his 
words. As such this poses no great problem. It only points to the complexity 
of the meaning of zera: literal "offspring" in the case of the woman as well 
as the serpent. 


If we step outside the confines of the book of Genesis; the word zera which 
plays a definite role at this point, one can find a definition given by the 
Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon of 1828: semen virile; children, posterity; a 
child; a race, tribe, people. Passages listed include Prov. 11:21; Jer. 2:21; 
Mal. 2:15; Is. 1:4; cf. Is. 65:23; 61:9; 65:9. Newer translations have 
captured this aspect of the word zera quite admirably. Thus Prov. 11:21b is 
rendered by JB as follows: "but the race of the virtuous will come to no 
harm" (lit.: the zera of the virtuous). RSV renders the same phrase simply: 
"but those who are righteous will be delivered." Similarly JB translates Is. 
65:23 as follows: "for they will be a race blessed by Yahweh, and their 
children with them." This passage makes quite clear that the word zera may be 
distinguished from "offspring" (ASV renders: "for they are the seed of the 
blessed of Jehovah, and their offspring with them").

If this meaning of zera would play any role at all in Gen.3:15 then one 
might, while retaining something of the "offspring" notion, understand the 
two "seeds" to stand for two "races," two "communities," each marked by a 
moral quality. These communities are headed up by two distinct principals, 
the one principal being the woman, the other the serpent, each of which had 
just been set at enmity with the other by YHWH himself. Upon this view both 
of these "seeds" could be found among the children of men. This would then 
alleviate the difficulty of having to take the word literally in the one 
instance and figuratively in the other.

The Greek word for "seed" (sperma) being a neuter, the Septuagint could have 
followed this up with a neuter (auto). Apparently it felt the personal 
reference at this point to be strong enough to choose autos instead. And, 
indeed, something of the personal next to the collective does play a role in 
this passage.

Since zera, whether taken as "community," "race," or as "offspring," involves 
a plurality, the translation "they" can certainly be defended. It need not 
detract from the broadly messianic understanding of the passage. 

If we continue to remain within the confines of the book of Genesis the 
"serpent" can not be identified as anything other than a pre-Adamic being 
capable of producing offspring.

G. Dikeman

Houston, TX