When Serpent Literally Bruised?
Firmly believing, like yourself, in the literal serpent and the literal seed of the woman, when did they bruise each other if as you insist, the two characters lived about 4,000 years apart.
Please remember that the allegorical understanding depends upon the literal meaning. Please also bear in mind that the question relates only to when the literal bruising took place -according to the Bible.
W.I., USA
The question assumes a literal application must exist for Genesis 3:15. On the surface that appears a reasonable assumption as the serpent and women are literal, verses 14 and 16 are literal and there tends to be a literal enmity between many women and serpents. Furthermore, the Hebrew words for “woman,” “serpent,” “head” and “heel” are ordinary terms, not suggesting any allegorical meaning.
But the Hebrew word for “bruise” is unusual: it is shuph which means, “to gape, i.e. snap at; fig. to overwhelm” according to Strong’ s Concordance, and “to gape upon, hence to lie in wait for any thing or to attack, to fall upon any one” according to Gesenius’ Lexicon. The idea is of a clearly planned and deliberate attempt to bring harm. While such deliberate attempt against humans may be true of some snakes, their reaction generally is to flee from people. Anytime a scripture statement1is not literally true, the phrasing points to an allegorical meaning.
In addition, the idea expressed is unevenly presented: while the two families are opposed with the serpent opposing the woman and “thy seed” being at enmity with “her seed,” it is the serpent itself and the “seed” of the woman which do final combat. The natural pairing would be the serpent vs. the woman or the seed of the serpent vs. the seed of the woman. Since that serpent in the garden would soon be dead, such an anomaly would likely suggest an allegorical meaning to Adam and Eve and certainly to all who would follow.
With careful reading and thoughtful common sense, there are thus key pointers to take this promise allegorically without expecting some primary literal fulfillment.
Would scripture mix literal and figurative?
Does Scripture do this? Does it mix symbolic language into the midst of a literal narrative? Do allegorical phrases sometimes have no literal fulfillment at all?
Consider Genesis 2:22-24 and note the mix of literal and figurative. There was a literal occurrence — God made woman from a rib of man — but note how quickly the language becomes allegorical: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh…” Adam’s statement was not a literal fact — only one of his ribs had been used, not “bones” and no “flesh” — so immediately the reader knows the words have symbolic significance. In this case, verse 24 immediately explains the permanent closeness of the marriage relationship is signified by Adam’s statement.
This is not the same literary technique as hyperbole, simile or parable. It is a mixture of literal and figurative which must be sorted out by careful reading and common sense. Most times we encounter this form of speech, however, we probably understand it with relative ease.
For example: Isaiah 42:2-3 says that Christ “shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench…” The first part is a literal description of Christ’s preaching techniques as he tried to stop people from publicizing his miracles of healing. The second part is obviously figurative in respect to his not enforcing his teachings at his first appearance. Clearly the words do not require that he literally not touch reeds that were bruised or flax that was smoking. There is a mixture of literal and figurative phrases and there is no primary literal fulfillment of the figurative language.
Isaiah 65:17-20 speaks of kingdom conditions in a mixture of literal and figurative terms: “I create new heavens and a new earth…I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy…There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days…” Careful Bible reading and common sense tell us there is no requirement that the universe be remade before these changes can occur. New “heavens” is being used figuratively and is not speaking of new sun and stars. But Jerusalem refers to the literal city. There is thus a mix of figurative and literal terms with no literal fulfillment of the allegorical allusions.
Thus we see no reason to insist that the literal serpent who deceived Eve be at some point literally slain by the Lord Jesus. The passage in question is an example of literal language shifting into allegorical and back to literal, which is not uncommon in scripture.
(An interesting point has been suggested which readers may wish to ponder that in a way comes close to a literal fulfillment. There is reason to believe that the skull of Goliath — an embodiment of the serpent — was buried at the place where Jesus was crucified. If this were so, it allows the possibility that the cross to which the Lord was impaled, when thrust into the ground, crushed Goliath’s skull while bruising the Lord.)
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One