“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3:15‬ ‭

Who is the offspring/seed of the Nachash? What is his name?

And when in history did these two offspring individuals (or groups) exert enmity toward each other?

(Is this זרעך singular, plural or both?)

At a minimum we know that Eve didn’t have any children yet, so it’s future tense, one can extrapolate that it’s future tense for the Nachash also given the context.

We also know that he/(they) is to be a physical offspring from the woman, and it’s in this context that the Nachash’s seed is also mentioned, hence it’s expected that this seed will be a physical offspring.

It’s not metaphorical language, i.e. any child born from woman is righteous and any unrighteous person has the Nachash as a father.

2 Answers 2


‘seed’ - ‘זֶרַע’ - zeraʻ, is always singular. This is ‘by design’. The first occurrence of the word helps explain why ....

GEN 1:11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.

Everything starts with seed. Whether natural, or spiritual. The first parable both explains the importance of ‘seed’, and the ‘spiritual connotations. (Matthew 13). And Jesus says in Mark 4 ...

MARK 4:13 And He said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?

This principle of ‘seed’ is crucial to understanding much. Importantly, the ‘word’ [of God] is ‘seed’. We [believers] are ‘born again’ by or through the word of God. Saved by the word!

But back to your Q, here is the concept of reproduction, and the reason for singularity ... “whose seed is in itself,

It ties in very tightly with the Hebrew concept of ‘oneness’ - ‘echad'’, hence the ‘singularity’ of ‘zera’’

Now to the second part of your answer - and up front, this view is not the traditional view, so I not only add this caution, but also expect reaction.

The ‘seed’ of the serpent is Adams offspring. Specifically Adam. Adam had ‘eaten’ from the tree, his spirit was dead. Adam was warned he would die the day he ate. Adam was separated from God. The result of what the serpent did would be passed on via Adam - to all. How does something, how does anything get ‘passed along’, or passed down? - via seed! And through this, via his ‘seed’, all are born in this state - separated from God.

Hence man needs the Word [seed] in order to be ‘born again’. To ‘re-create’ that which came from Adam, to that which comes by Christ.

It is Jesus who [can] reunites man back to his Father, back to God. He is the ‘first fruit’, and we can partake of his ‘seed’.

The enmity is clear, right from the start. Man naturally rebelling, resisting. Man needs to make a choice to deny ‘self’ and accept God. That battle Paul outlines in Romans 9. Between the old man, result of Adams ‘seed’, and the new man, born again from another seed.

Not sure whether you were also asking about the ‘seed of the women’. This is accepted by most to be referring to Jesus. Women have no seed, no ‘seed’ comes from them - hence the first [veiled] reference to a virgin birth. The virgin birth could not have occurred unless it was prophesied. And Isaiah does this. Prophecy is ‘Gods Word’. Because, as per the parable above, Gods Word is [the] seed. Jesus’s birth needed a seed, just like any birth - natural or supernatural!

  • Hmmm... your proposal in my mind doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. I see what you’re saying but it falls apart in the details. If the seed of Adam are the Nachash’s seed, then Abraham is a seed of Adam and therefore the Nachash’s. “and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.”” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭22:18‬ now the seed is Abraham’s but that would mean it’s Adam’s and therefore the Nachash’s, meaning Jesus was the seed of the Nachash. Doesn’t work. The Nachash is being spoken to not Adam and His seed [insert name] will have enmity with Jesus. Commented May 3, 2021 at 3:50
  • “Your offspring זרעך shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south, and in you and your offspring ובזרעך shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭28:14‬ I agree with you זרעך seems to function like the echad and depending on the context one can determine if it’s one single seed/offspring or referring to a multitude of “seeds”/“offsprings”. Obviously Paul makes the point the second seed is singular Gal3:16. Commented May 3, 2021 at 4:03
  • @Nihil Sine Deo You are saying offspring (descendants) are new seed’. They are not. There is only one seed - remember it’s singular. The ‘seed’ is ‘one’. Abraham is not a seed of Adam - he is the seed of Adam. And so are we when born into this world.
    – Dave
    Commented May 3, 2021 at 18:31
  • Ok, let’s agree on that point, when are you saying that Adam became the seed of the Nachash? Commented May 3, 2021 at 18:47
  • 1
    @Nihil Sine Deo Fair enough. Not meaning to continue arguing, but the ‘key’ is in Genesis 1 - that a ‘seed’, any seed produces “according to its kind”. When Adam ‘ate’, he became a different ‘kind’. He was a son of God (Luke 3:38) - until he ate. Then see Dottards response as to what he became. So from then, his ‘seed’ produced a ‘man’ separated from God. Jesus is a different ‘seed’ - one we can be reborn under.
    – Dave
    Commented May 3, 2021 at 20:45

The simplest answer here is as follows:

  • Acts 13:10 - and said, “O child of the devil and enemy of all righteousness, you are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery! Will you never stop perverting the straight ways of the Lord?
  • Matt 13:38, 39 - ... The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. ...
  • John 8:44 - You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out his desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, refusing to uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, because he is a liar and the father of lies.

But perhaps the most helpful is

  • Heb 2:14 - Now since the children have flesh and blood, He too shared in their humanity, so that by His death He might destroy him who holds the power of death, that is, the devil,

Thus, using the metaphor of biological inheritance (as Gen 3:15 does) we might say that we are all born children of the devil/evil one, or children of the flesh (Rom 8:5-10), or children of this world (Luke 16:8), children of wrath (Eph 2:3); and the purpose of salvation is to make us:

  • children of God, Phil 2:15, 1 John 3:10, Rom 8:21
  • children of the light, Eph 5:8, 12:36, 1 Thess 5:5, John 8:12,
  • children of promise, Rom 9:8, etc

That is, according to Heb 2:14, that which distinguishes children of the devil/wrath/flesh/world from the children of God/light/promise is whether the heart is converted to see and understand God.

  • I don’t see how you’ve answered the question because you’re mixing and forcing the text. Matt13 doesn’t speak about the woman and the Nachash but about Jesus and the Nachash, in this context, yes their children are spiritually their children. But the G3:15 speaks of the woman and a PHYSICAL seed and the Nachash and a physical seed. Also the enmity between the seeds is between Jesus and the Nachash, the seed and the seed and the woman and the Nachash. NOT between the seed of Jesus (🚫woman)and the seed of the Nachash. Your answer is far too liberal in its interpretation with too many 🕳 holes. Commented May 3, 2021 at 12:48
  • It might make sense to you but I still haven’t made sense of it, which means either I’m really thick, or someone is not explaining it right, or someone is wrong. (I did consider that parable problem is there is no woman in that parable) Commented May 3, 2021 at 18:49
  • 1
    Foundation is Christ. Explain Christ from the Scriptures. If you can’t then it’s not Christ or it’s not the Scripture or it’s neither. I’m engaging because I want to understand and not be ignorant but if you can’t explain it then it can’t be because my foundation, because Scripture is the foundation and I can read. And I’m open to being corrected Commented May 3, 2021 at 21:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.