This section contains the key to the significance of the story of the Fall. It is the first example of a frequently recurring motive of the Genesis narratives, the idea, viz., that the more perplexing facts in the history of men and peoples are the working out of a doom or ‘weird’ pronounced of old under divine inspiration, or (as in this case) by the Almighty Himself: see 4¹⁵ 821 ff. 925 ff. 16¹² 2727 ff. 39 f. 4819 ff., chapter 49; compare Numbers 23 f., Deuteronomy 33. Here certain fixed adverse conditions of the universal human lot are traced back to a primæval curse uttered by Yahwe in consequence of man’s first transgression. See, further, page 95 below.—The form of the oracles is poetic; but the structure is irregular, and no definite metrical scheme can be made out.
14, 15. The curse on the serpent is legible, partly in its degraded form and habits (¹⁴), and partly in the deadly feud between it and the human race (¹⁵).—14. on thy belly, etc.] The assumption undoubtedly is that originally the serpent moved erect, but not necessarily that its organism was changed (e.g. by cutting off its legs, etc. Rabbis). As a matter of fact most snakes have the power of erecting a considerable part of their bodies; and in mythological representations the serpent often appears in the upright position (Bennett). The idea probably is that this was its original posture: how it was maintained was perhaps not reflected upon.—dust shalt thou eat] Compare Micah 7¹⁷, Isaiah 65²⁵. It is a prosaic explanation to say that the serpent, crawling on the ground, inadvertently swallows a good deal of dust (Bochart Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ iii. 245; Dillmann, al.); and a mere metaphor for humiliation (like Assyrian ti-ka-lu ip-ra; Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, v. 232 f.) is too weak a sense for this passage. Probably it is a piece of ancient superstition, like the Arabian notion that the ǧinn eat dirt (Wellhausen Reste arabischen Heidentums 150).—all the days of thy life] i.e. each serpent as long as it lives, and the race of serpents as long as it lasts. It is not so certain as most commentaries seem to think that these words exclude the demonic character of the serpent. It is true that the punishment of a morally irresponsible agent was recognised in Hebrew jurisprudence (9⁵, Exodus 2128 f., Leviticus 2015 f.). But it is quite possible that here (as in verse ¹⁵) the archetypal serpent is conceived as re-embodied in all his progeny, as acting and suffering in each member of the species.—15. The serpent’s attempt to establish unholy fellowship with the woman is punished by implacable and undying enmity between them.¹—thy seed and her seed] The whole brood of serpents, and the whole race of men.—He shall bruise thee on the head, etc.] In the first clause the subject (הוּא) is the ‘seed’ of the woman individualised (or collectively), in the second (אַתָּה) it is the serpent himself, acting through his ‘seed.’ The current reading of Vulgate (ipsa) may have been prompted by a feeling that the proper antithesis to the serpent is the woman herself. The general meaning of the sentence is clear: in the war between men and serpents the former will crush the head of the foe, while the latter can only wound in the heel. The difficulty is in the verb שׁוּף, which in the sense ‘bruise’ is inappropriate to the serpent’s mode of attack. We may speak of a serpent striking a man (as in Latin feriri a serpente), but hardly of bruising. Hence many commentaries (following LXX al.) take the verb as a by-form of שָׁאַף (strictly ‘pant’), in the sense of ‘be eager for,’ ‘aim at’ (Gesenius, Ewald, Dillmann, al.); while others (Gunkel al.) suppose that by paronomasia the word means ‘bruise’ in the first clause, and ‘aim at’ in the second. But it may be questioned whether this idea is not even less suitable than the other (Driver). A perfectly satisfactory interpretation cannot be given (v.i.).
The Messianic interpretation of the ‘seed of the woman’ appears in TargumJonathan and Targum Jerome, where the verse is explained of the Jewish community and its victory over the devil “in the days of King Messiah.” The reference to the person of Christ was taught by Irenæus, but was never so generally accepted in the Church as the kindred idea that the serpent is the instrument of Satan. Mediæval exegetes, relying on the ipsa of the Vulgate, applied the expression directly to the Virgin Mary; and even Luther, while rejecting this reference, recognised an allusion to the virgin birth of Christ. In Protestant theology this view gave way to the more reasonable view of Calvin, that the passage is a promise of victory over the devil to mankind, united in Christ its divine Head. That even this goes beyond the original meaning of the verse is admitted by most modern expositors; and indeed it is doubtful if, from the standpoint of strict historical exegesis, the passage can be regarded as in any sense a Protevangelium. Dillmann (with whom Driver substantially agrees) finds in the words the idea of man’s vocation to ceaseless moral warfare with the ‘serpent-brood’ of sinful thoughts, and an implicit promise of the ultimate destruction of the evil power. That interpretation, however, is open to several objections. (1) A message of hope and encouragement in the midst of a series of curses and punishments is not to be assumed unless it be clearly implied in the language. It would be out of harmony with the tone not only of the Paradise story, but of the Yahwistic sections of chapters 1–11 as a whole: it is not till we come to the patriarchal history that the “note of promise and of hope” is firmly struck. (2) To the mind of the narrator, the serpent is no more a symbol of the power of evil or of temptation than he is an incarnation of the devil. He is himself an evil creature, perhaps a demonic creature transmitting his demonic character to his progeny, but there is no hint that he represents a principle of evil apart from himself. (3) No victory is promised to either party, but only perpetual warfare between them: the order of the clauses making it specially hard to suppose that the victory of man was contemplated. Dillmann admits that no such assurance is expressed; but finds it in the general tenor of the passage: “a conflict ordained by God cannot be without prospect of success.” But that is really to beg the whole question in dispute. If it be said that the words, being part of the sentence on the serpent, must mean that he is ultimately to be defeated, it may be answered that the curse on the serpent is the enmity established between him and the human race, and that the feud between them is simply the manifestation and proof of that antagonism.—It is thus possible that in its primary intention the oracle reflects the protest of ethical religion against the unnatural fascination of snake-worship. It is psychologically true that the instinctive feelings which lie at the root of the worship of serpents are closely akin to the hatred and loathing which the repulsive reptile excites in the healthy human mind; and the transformation of a once sacred animal into an object of aversion is a not infrequent phenomenon in the history of religion (see Gressman l.c. 360). The essence of the temptation is that the serpent-demon has tampered with the religious instinct in man by posing as his good genius, and insinuating distrust of the goodness of God; and his punishment is to find himself at eternal war with the race whom he has seduced from their allegiance to their Creator. And that is very much the light in which serpent-worship must have appeared to a believer in the holy and righteous God of the Old Testament.—The conjecture of Gunkel, that originally the ‘seed of the woman’ and the ‘seed of the serpent’ may have been mythological personages (compare Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 217 f.), even if confirmed by Assyriology, would have little bearing on the thought of the biblical narrator.
14. מכל] On this use of מן (= e numero), see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 w, and compare Exodus 19⁵, Deuteronomy 14² 33²⁴, Judges 5²⁴ etc. Stade’s argument (Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xvii. 209) for deleting מכל הבהמה ו, on the ground that the serpent belongs to the category of חית השדה but not to בהמה, is logical, but hardly convincing.—גחון] Probably from √ גחן (Aramaic) = ‘curve’ or ‘bend’ (Delitzsch, Brown-Driver-Briggs), occurs again only Leviticus 11⁴², of reptiles. Vulgate renders pectus, LXX combines στῆθος and κοιλία.—15. זֶרַע] in the sense of ‘offspring,’ is nearly always collective. In a few cases where it is used of an individual child (425 ? 21¹³, 1 Samuel 1¹¹) it denotes the immediate offspring as the pledge of posterity, never a remote descendant (see Nöldeke Archiv für Religionswissenschaft., viii. 164 ff.). The Messianic application therefore is not justified in grammar.—הוא] the rendering ipsa (Vulgate) is said not to be found in the Fathers before Ambrose and Augustine (Zapletal, ATliches, 19). Jerome at all events knew that ipse should be read.—ישופך ... תשופנו] The form שוף recurs only Job 9¹⁷, Psalms 139¹¹, and, in both, text and meaning are doubtful. In Aramaic and New Hebrew the √ (ע״ו or ע״ע) has the primary sense of ‘rub,’ hence ‘wear down by rubbing’ = ‘crush’; in Syriac it also means to crawl. There are a few examples of a tendency of ע״ו verbs to strengthen themselves by insertion of א (König i. 439), and it is often supposed that in certain passages (Ezekiel 36³, Amos 2⁷ 8⁴, Psalms 562. 3 57⁴) שׁוף is disguised under the by-form שׁאף. But the only places where the assumption is at all necessary are Amos 2⁷ 8⁴, where the א may be simply mater lectionis for the â of the participle (compare וְקָאם, Hosea 10¹⁴); in the other cases the proper sense of שָׁאַף ‘pant’ or metaphor ‘long for’) suffices. The reverse process (substitution of שוף for שאף) is much less likely; and the only possible instance would be Job 9¹⁷, which is too uncertain to count for anything. There is thus not much ground for supposing a confusion in this verse; and Delitzsch points out that verbs of hostile endeavour, as distinct from hostile achievement הכּה, רצח, etc.), are never construed with double accusative. The gain in sense is so doubtful that it is better to adhere to the meaning ‘crush.’ The old versions felt the difficulty and ambiguity. The idea of crushing is represented by Aquila προστρίψει, Symmachus θλίψει, LXXCodex Coislinianus τρίψει (see Field) and Jerome (Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim) conterere; ‘pant after’ by LXXA al. τηρήσει[ς] (if not a mistake for τρήσει[ς] or τειρήσει[ς]). A double sense is given by Vulgate conteret ... insidiaberis, and perhaps Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) ... (‡ Syriac word); while TargumOnkelos paraphrases: הוא יהא דכיר מה דעבדת ליה מלקדמין ואת תהי נטר ליה לסופא.
16. The doom of the woman: consisting in the hardships incident to her sex, and social position in the East. The pains of childbirth, and the desire which makes her the willing slave of the man, impressed the ancient mind as at once mysterious and unnatural; therefore to be accounted for by a curse imposed on woman from the beginning.—I will multiply, etc.] More strictly, ‘I will cause thee to have much suffering and pregnancy’ (see Davidson § 3, R. (2)). It is, of course, not an intensification of pain to which she is already subject that is meant.—For הֵרֹנַךְ, LXX read some word meaning ‘groaning’ (v.i.); but to prefer this reading on the ground that Hebrew women esteemed frequent pregnancy a blessing (Gunkel) makes a too general statement. It is better (with Holzinger) to assume a hendiadys: ‘the pain of thy conception’ (as in the explanatory clause which follows).—in pain ... children] The pangs of childbirth are proverbial in Old Testament for the extremity of human anguish (Isaiah 21³ 13⁸, Micah 4⁹, Psalms 48⁶, and often: Exodus 1¹⁹ cannot be cited to the contrary).—to thy husband ... desire] It is quite unnecessary to give up the rare but expressive תְּשׁוּקָה of the Hebrew for the weaker תְּשׁוּבָה of LXX, etc. (v.i.). It is not, however, implied that the woman’s sexual desire is stronger than the man’s (Knobel, Gunkel); the point rather is that by the instincts of her nature she shall be bound to the hard conditions of her lot, both the ever-recurring pains of child-bearing, and subjection to the man.—while he (on his part) shall rule over thee] The idea of tyrannous exercise of power does not lie in the verb; but it means that the woman is wholly subject to the man, and so liable to the arbitrary treatment sanctioned by the marriage customs of the East. It is noteworthy that to the writer this is not the ideal relation of the sexes (compare 218. 23). There is here certainly no trace of the matriarchate or of polyandry (see on 2²⁴).
16. אל] Read וְאֶל־, with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå.—הרבה ארבה] So 16¹⁰ 22¹⁷. On the irregular form of infinitive absolute, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 ff.—עצבון] (3¹⁷) 5²⁹† [Yahwist]). LXX λύπας (= עַצְּבוֹתֵךְ ?).—והרנך] (√ הרה): The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch והריונך (Ruth 4¹³, Hosea 9¹¹). Olshausen (Monatsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin., 1870, 380) conjecture בְּהריונך, to avoid the harsh use of וְ. LXX τὸν στεναγμόν σου probably = הגיונך; יְגוֹנַךְ (‘sorrow’) has also been suggested (Gunkel); and צָרָתֵךְ (Dillmann, Holzinger, al.). The other versions follow Massoretic Text.—בעצב] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch בעצבון; LXX likewise repeats ἐν λύπαις.—תשוקה] Probably connected with Arabic šauḳ, ‘ardent desire’ (Rahlfs “עָנִי und עָנָו,” page 71); compare שקק, Isaiah 29⁸, Psalms 107⁹. Aquila συνάφεια, Symmachus ὁρμή. Although it recurs only 4⁷ and Canticles 7¹¹, it is found in New Hebrew and should not be suspected. LXX ἡ ἀποστροφή σου and Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) point to the reading תְּשׁוּבָתֵךְ, preferred by many, and defended by Nestle (Marginalien und Materialien, 6) as a technical expression for the relation here indicated, on the basis of LXX’s text of 2 Samuel 17³. His parallel between the return of the woman to her source (the man) and the return of the man to his source (the ground, verse ¹⁹) is perhaps fanciful.
17–19. The man’s sentence.—The hard, unremitting toil of the husbandman, wringing a bare subsistence from the grudging and intractable ground, is the standing evidence of a divine curse, resting, not, indeed, on man himself, but on the earth for his sake. Originally, it had provided him with all kinds of fruit good for food,—and this is the ideal state of things; now it yields nothing spontaneously but thorns and briars; bread to eat can only be extorted in the sweat of the brow,—and this is a curse: formerly man had been a gardener, now he is a fellaḥ. It does not appear that death itself is part of the curse. The name death is avoided; and the fact is referred to as part of the natural order of things,—the inevitable ‘return’ of man to the ground whence he was taken. The question whether man would have lived for ever if he had not sinned is one to which the narrative furnishes no answer (Gunkel).—17. And to the man] v.i. The sentence is introduced by a formal recital of the offence.—Cursed is the ground] As exceptional fertility was ascribed to a divine blessing (27²⁸ etc.), and exceptional barrenness to a curse (Isaiah 24⁶, Jeremiah 23¹⁰), so the relative unproductiveness of the whole earth in comparison with man’s expectations and ideals is here regarded as the permanent effect of a curse.—in suffering (bodily fatigue and mental anxiety) shalt thou eat [of] it] See 5²⁹. The ‘laborious work’ of the husbandman is referred to in Sirach 7¹⁵; but this is not the prevailing feeling of the Old Testament; and the remark of Knobel, that “agriculture was to the Hebrew a divine institution, but at the same time a heavy burden,” needs qualification. It is well to be reminded that “ancient Israel did not live constantly in the joy of the harvest festival” (Gunkel); but none the less it would be a mistake to suppose that it lived habitually in the mood of this passage.—18. the herb of the field] See on 1¹¹. The creation of this order of vegetation has not been recorded by Yahwist. Are we to suppose that it comes into existence simply in consequence of the earth’s diminished productivity caused by the curse? It seems implied at all events that the earth will not yield even this, except under the compulsion of human labour (see 2⁵).—19. in the sweat of thy brow, etc.] A more expressive repetition of the thought of 17bβ. The phrase eat bread may mean ‘earn a livelihood’ (Amos 7¹²), but here it must be understood literally as the immediate reward of man’s toil.—till thou return, etc.] hardly means more than ‘all the days of thy life’ (in verse ¹⁷). It is not a threat of death as the punishment of sin, and we have no right to say (with Dillmann) that verses 16–19 are simply an expansion of the sentence of 2¹⁷. That man was by nature immortal is not taught in this passage; and since the Tree of Life in verse ²² belongs to another recension, there is no evidence that the main narrative regarded even endless life as within man’s reach. The connexion of the closing words is rather with 2⁷: man was taken from the ground, and in the natural course will return to it again.—and to dust, etc.] Compare Job 10⁹ 34¹⁵, Psalms 90³ 146⁴, Ecclesiastes 3²⁰ 12⁷ etc.: ἐκ γαίας βλαστὼν γαῖα πάλιν γέγονα.
The arrangement of the clauses in 17–19 is not very natural, and the repeated variations of the same idea have suggested the hypothesis of textual corruption or fusion of sources. In Jubilees iii. 25 the passage is quoted in an abridged form, the line ‘Cursed ... sake’ being immediately followed by ‘Thorns ... to thee,’ and 18b, being omitted. This is, of course, a much smoother reading, and leaves out nothing essential; but 17b is guaranteed by 5²⁹. Holzinger rejects 18b, and to avoid the repetition of אכל proposes תעבדנה instead of תאכלנה in ¹⁷. Gunkel is satisfied with verse 17 f. as they stand, but assigns 19aα (to לחם) and 19b to another source (Yahwistʲ), as doublets respectively of 17bβ and 19aβ. This is perhaps on the whole the most satisfactory analysis.—The poetic structure of the verses, which might be expected to clear up a question of this kind, is too obscure to afford any guidance. Sievers, e.g. (II. 10 f.) finds nothing, except in verse ¹⁹, to distinguish the rhythm from that of the narrative in which it is embedded, and all attempts at strophic arrangement are only tentative.
17. Point וְלָאדם; there is no conceivable reason why אדם should be a proper name here (compare 2²⁰ 3²¹).—לאמר ... ממנו] LXX reads τούτου μόνου (see verse ¹¹) μὴ φαγεῖν, ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἔφαγες.—בעבורך] LXX (ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις σου), Symmachus, Vulgate read בַּֽעֲבָדֶךָ, Theodotion ἐν τῇ παραβάσει σου (בְּעָבְרְךָ). The phrase is characteristic of Yahwist; out of 22 instances in the Hexateuch, only about 3 can be assigned to Elohist (none to Priestly-Code).—תאכלנה] The government of direct accusative seems harsh, but is not unexampled: see Jeremiah 36¹⁶.—18. LXX omits initial וְ: so Vulgate Jubilees.—קוץ ודרדר] Hosea 10⁸; דרדר occurs nowhere else in Old Testament. It is still used in Syria (dardār) as a general name for thistles.—19. זעה] (√ יזע, waḏa‛a) is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον; compare יָזַע, Ezekiel 44¹⁸.—לחם] LXX Jubilees לחמך.