Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
$5.00
 |
 |
 |
The debate surrounding the proper interpretation and translation of Genesis 3:15 is not one of mere academic curiosity but of theological consequence. The text in question is universally recognized by conservative evangelical scholarship as the Protoevangelium, the first announcement of the Gospel—a direct prophecy of the coming Messiah who would ultimately destroy the works of the devil. The challenge raised against the masculine pronoun הוּא (hūʾ, “he”) by citing a litany of post-biblical and patristic sources does not withstand the weight of grammatical, textual, and theological scrutiny. This response will expose the methodological errors, theological fallacies, and historical misunderstandings behind the claim that Genesis 3:15 originally contained the feminine pronoun היא (hîʾ, “she”), and will reaffirm that the correct subject is a male, singular individual—Jesus Christ.
The Inspired Hebrew Text of Genesis 3:15: Masculine, Singular, and Specific
The critical issue at hand is what the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT)—the inspired and preserved source of the Old Testament—actually says. The Hebrew of Genesis 3:15 reads:
וְאֵיבָה אָשִׁית בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב
Transliteration: wĕʾēbāh ʾāšît bēnĕkā ûbēn hāʾiššāh ûbēn zarʿăkā ûbēn zarʿāh hūʾ yĕshūphkā rōʾš wĕʾattāh tĕshūphennû ʿāqēv
Literal Translation:
“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
The word הוּא (hūʾ) is a 3rd person masculine singular independent pronoun. It is unambiguously “he,” not “she” (which would be היא hîʾ). There is no variant reading in the Hebrew manuscript tradition that supports the notion that the original word was feminine. Even in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which provide some of the oldest known biblical manuscripts, Genesis 3:15 is entirely consistent with the Masoretic rendering. The Hebrew grammar is exact, direct, and undeniable.
It must be emphasized: Hebrew pronouns agree in gender and number with their antecedents. The claim that the Hebrew originally said hîʾ tĕshuphkā rōʾš (“she shall bruise your head”) is linguistically and textually baseless. No Hebrew manuscript, ancient or medieval, supports this. The challenge, by appealing to non-Hebrew traditions and mistranslations, undermines sola Scriptura and opens the door to doctrinal corruption rooted not in inspired Scripture, but in flawed human tradition.
 |
 |
 |
The Grammatical Structure Supports “He,” Not “She”
The antecedent of הוּא (hūʾ) in Genesis 3:15 is זרע (zeraʿ, “seed”). Though zeraʿ is grammatically masculine and sometimes used collectively, it is singular in this context and governs the pronoun that follows. There is no feminine noun antecedent that could possibly justify the substitution of היא (hîʾ).
The parallel structure in the verse confirms the singular individual male:
-
“He shall bruise your head” – masculine singular subject הוּא (hūʾ), masculine singular verb, directed at a second masculine singular object (the serpent).
-
“You shall bruise his heel” – masculine singular second person subject (the serpent), masculine singular object suffix -נּוּ (-nû, “his”).
The masculine singular subject and object constructions indicate a one-to-one, personal conflict—not a collective allegory, and certainly not a feminine subject.
Patristic and Apocryphal Witnesses: Misused and Misguided
The challenge resorts to citing numerous Church Fathers and apocryphal or devotional traditions—Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and others—to vindicate the feminine rendering. But this argument collapses under its own weight for three reasons:
First, the patristic authors were not writing in Hebrew and often relied on the Old Latin, Vulgate, or Septuagint. These are translations, not original sources. They reflect theological interpretations and manuscript transmission traditions that were prone to theological insertions—especially as Marian devotion escalated.
Second, many of the writers cited are speaking devotionally, not exegetically. Their interpretations are shaped by later doctrinal developments and allegorization, not careful grammatical analysis of the Hebrew text. For example, when Saint Bernard of Clairvaux or Ephrem the Syrian references Mary crushing the serpent, they are engaging in Mariological typology rooted in Church tradition, not grounded in the inspired Hebrew grammar.
Third, some early Christian writings were explicitly allegorical, a method wholly rejected by the Historical-Grammatical approach which honors the intended, literal meaning of the original text. Allegory was commonly used in Alexandrian exegesis, particularly by Origen and later by Augustine. But allegorizing the serpent, the woman, and the seed creates doctrinal chaos and violates the principle of sola Scriptura.
 |
 |
 |
The Vulgate’s “Ipsa” Is a Corruption, Not a Witness
The Latin Vulgate rendering “ipsa” (“she”) in ipsa conteret caput tuum (“she shall crush your head”) is grammatically unjustifiable based on the Hebrew. Jerome either introduced or adopted a gender switch based on theological motives or copyist error. The Latin masculine “ipse” would have properly represented הוּא (hūʾ). “Ipsa” reflects an interpretive rather than translational choice.
Even Roman Catholic scholars today admit that “ipsa” is likely not the correct rendering and that the passage refers to Christ, not Mary. The Nova Vulgata, the official Latin text of the Catholic Church since the 1970s, now reads ipse, not ipsa—a silent correction acknowledging the original error.
 |
 |
 |
The Septuagint: A Flawed and Incomplete Witness
Appeals to the Greek Septuagint (LXX) are also misapplied. While the LXX is useful for understanding certain interpretive tendencies of Hellenistic Jews, it is not an inspired text. The Septuagint translation of Genesis 3:15 reads ambiguously:
αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν, καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν
(autos sou tērēsei kephalēn, kai su tērēseis autou pternan)
“He will watch (or guard) your head, and you will watch his heel.”
Here, αὐτός (autos) is masculine singular—again affirming the masculine pronoun “he.” Any claim that the Septuagint supports “she” is contradicted by its extant Greek text. Origen’s variant “she” is explicitly marked as “others” and reflects interpretive gloss, not textual authority.
 |
 |
 |
Extrabiblical Traditions Do Not Alter Inspired Scripture
Invoking Ethiopic prayers to Mary, mystical writings, or even rabbinical reflections (like Maimonides) has no bearing on the inspired reading of the Hebrew Scriptures. These are not inspired texts, and they often reflect the theological agendas of their authors—whether mystical, liturgical, or polemical.
The inspired Word of God is not corrected or enhanced by late liturgies, devotional traditions, or religious poetry. To assert that these variant readings prove the original Hebrew said hîʾ is to abandon the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration and to replace divine revelation with human tradition.
 |
 |
 |
Christ, Not Mary, Is the Seed of the Woman
The theological context of Genesis 3:15 affirms that the “seed of the woman” is not the woman herself but a specific male descendant. This is the same seed promised to Abraham (Genesis 22:18), reiterated by the prophets (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6–7), and fulfilled in the New Testament:
-
Galatians 4:4: “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the law.”
-
1 John 3:8: “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.”
-
Hebrews 2:14: “That through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil.”
Mary is honored as the vessel through whom the Messiah came, but she is not the agent of Satan’s defeat. Christ alone fulfills the literal prophecy of Genesis 3:15. Any attempt to insert Mary into this prophecy is eisegesis—reading something into the text that is not there.
Conclusion: Fidelity to the Hebrew Text Is the Only Safe Path
The assertion that Genesis 3:15 originally said “she shall crush your head” is a doctrinal invention rooted in post-biblical tradition, not divine revelation. No Hebrew manuscript supports a feminine reading. The grammar of the inspired text demands a male singular subject—hūʾ, “he.” The serpent was not promised defeat at the hands of a woman, but at the hands of her seed—a male descendant who would be bruised but would ultimately destroy the adversary.
To deviate from this truth is to deny the clarity and authority of Scripture in favor of speculative and mystical traditions. The inspired Word of God in Genesis 3:15 stands as a testimony to the redemptive mission of Jesus Christ, the true and only Seed of the Woman who shall bruise the serpent’s head.
 |
 |
 |
You May Also Enjoy
About the Author
CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE
Again responding to another attack on the prophecy of Our Lady crushing Satan’s head, first claim: “The claim that the Hebrew originally said hîʾ tĕshuphkā rōʾš (“she shall bruise your head”) is linguistically and textually baseless. No Hebrew manuscript, ancient or medieval, supports this.”
Answer: My argument is based on Latin, Greek, Syriac, Ethiopic and Jewish Witnesses, where would they come from if not from the Hebrew? Do you not know that you’d have to believe in a conspiracy theory that all these translators didn’t know simple Hebrew grammar? The only logical answer would be that the Hebrew HAD She shall bruise, we just don’t have the manuscripts anymore.
Second claim: “The challenge resorts to citing numerous Church Fathers and apocryphal or devotional traditions—Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and others—to vindicate the feminine rendering. But this argument collapses under its own weight for three reasons: First, the patristic authors were not writing in Hebrew and often relied on the Old Latin, Vulgate, or Septuagint. These are translations, not original sources. They reflect theological interpretations and manuscript transmission traditions that were prone to theological insertions—especially as Marian devotion escalated.”
Answer: Again see what I wrote above in my response to the first claim.
Third Claim: “Second, many of the writers cited are speaking devotionally, not exegetically. Their interpretations are shaped by later doctrinal developments and allegorization, not careful grammatical analysis of the Hebrew text. For example, when Saint Bernard of Clairvaux or Ephrem the Syrian references Mary crushing the serpent, they are engaging in Mariological typology rooted in Church tradition, not grounded in the inspired Hebrew grammar.”
Answer: Firstly, I’m not saying they were doing careful analysis of the Hebrew text, again see my response to the first claim. You’re 100% correct in saying that these writers are speaking devotionally, but you must answer: Where did they get this idea of the Blessed Virgin Mary crushing the head of Satan if not from Genesis 3:15? Hesychius whom I cited says:
“Lo a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and they shall call His Name Emmanuel. Lo, a Virgin-! ‘ What Virgin? She who is the chosen of women, the elect of Virgins, the excellent ornament of our race, the boast of our day, who freed Eve from shame and Adam from threat, who cut off the boast of the dragon, when the smoke of desire and the word of soft pleasure hurt her not.”
He clearly connects Isaias 7:14 with Genesis 3:15 and says of Our Lady that she “cut off the boast of the dragon” the Dragon of course comes from Apocalypse 12 which is a clear allusion to Genesis 3:15.
Fourth Claim: “Appeals to the Greek Septuagint (LXX) are also misapplied. While the LXX is useful for understanding certain interpretive tendencies of Hellenistic Jews, it is not an inspired text. The Septuagint translation of Genesis 3:15 reads ambiguously: αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν, καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν
(autos sou tērēsei kephalēn, kai su tērēseis autou pternan)
“He will watch (or guard) your head, and you will watch his heel.” Here, αὐτός (autos) is masculine singular—again affirming the masculine pronoun “he.” Any claim that the Septuagint supports “she” is contradicted by its extant Greek text. Origen’s variant “she” is explicitly marked as “others” and reflects interpretive gloss, not textual authority.”
Answer: Just like with the Hebrew, again the Old Latin is probably the best ever witness to show Greek Copies had aute, if the Old Latin has she, the Septuagint also must’ve had She, and if the Septuagint had She, the Hebrew also must’ve had She. We also have the testimony of Josephus, Tertullian (who as I said clearly used Greek Copies and translated them into Latin), Hesychius and Chrysippus of Jerusalem. Can you explain to me what you mean by “Origen’s variant “she” is explicitly marked as “others” and reflects interpretive gloss, not textual authority.” What do you mean by Interpretive Gloss? He doesn’t say anything near to that, he says Others read She shall watch your head.
Fifth Claim: “Invoking Ethiopic prayers to Mary, mystical writings, or even rabbinical reflections (like Maimonides) has no bearing on the inspired reading of the Hebrew Scriptures. These are not inspired texts, and they often reflect the theological agendas of their authors—whether mystical, liturgical, or polemical.
The inspired Word of God is not corrected or enhanced by late liturgies, devotional traditions, or religious poetry. To assert that these variant readings prove the original Hebrew said hîʾ is to abandon the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration and to replace divine revelation with human tradition.”
Answer: I never said that they’re Inspired or that they correct the Bible. What I’m doing is clearly showing that the reading She is found in non Latin Witnesses which clearly show the Hebrew must’ve had She, lest you believe (as I said in my response to claim 1) that almost all these translators from whom these Writers got their copies from didn’t know Hebrew grammar.
Sixth claim: “The theological context of Genesis 3:15 affirms that the “seed of the woman” is not the woman herself but a specific male descendant.”
Answer: I never said the Blessed Virgin Mary is the seed of the Woman, the Seed is Christ which no Catholic denies, the Woman is the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Your entire response hinges on the assumption that the original Hebrew of Genesis 3:15 said hîʾ (“she”) instead of hūʾ (“he”), despite the fact that no known Hebrew manuscript, ancient or medieval, supports this reading. That’s not a minor oversight; it’s the collapse of your entire argument.
Claim 1: “My argument is based on Latin, Greek, Syriac, Ethiopic and Jewish Witnesses… The only logical answer would be that the Hebrew HAD ‘She shall bruise.’”
No, the only logical conclusion is that you are imposing tradition onto Scripture, not extracting doctrine from the text. What you’re appealing to is conflated translation traditions, devotional developments, and textual conjecture. Your statement requires me to believe that every single extant Hebrew manuscript, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Masoretic Text, and every Jewish textual tradition that preserved Genesis 3:15 in its original language, somehow erased this supposed hîʾ reading — and yet, not a trace of it remains in any manuscript, margin, variant, or commentary.
There’s no conspiracy. The simple reality is: the Hebrew text has always read hūʾ (הוּא) — masculine, singular, independent pronoun — “he.”
And that “he” is not Mary.
Claim 2: “See what I wrote above.”
Right, and what you wrote above is still based on a speculative reconstruction of a Hebrew text that never existed. You’re building an argument on translation layers, not the original. You might as well say, “The Latin says it, so the Hebrew must’ve said it.” That is not how textual authority works. Inspired Scripture is in the original languages — Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek — not Latin, Syriac, or Ethiopic.
You’re importing centuries-later liturgical reinterpretation into the text and calling it original exegesis. That’s the opposite of sound hermeneutics.
Claim 3: “Where did they get the idea of Mary crushing the head of Satan if not from Genesis 3:15?”
They got it from post-biblical tradition, not from Genesis 3:15. Your own answer admits this: the Church Fathers cited are speaking devotionally, not grammatically. That’s not evidence of a Hebrew reading; it’s evidence of how quickly theological imagination overtook careful exegesis.
As for Hesychius and the others — they are citing Isaiah 7:14, Revelation 12, and interpreting them allegorically and devotionally alongside Genesis 3:15. But none of them were doing grammatical exegesis of the Hebrew text. Their views don’t represent a transmission of a Hebrew reading, but a theological reading shaped by Mariology, centuries after the Hebrew text had already been fixed and preserved.
You asked, “Where did they get the idea?” They created it — not maliciously, but devotionally. They spiritually allegorized the woman of Genesis 3:15 into Mary, despite the fact that the grammar points to the seed, not the woman, as the one who crushes the serpent.
Claim 4: “If the Old Latin has ‘she,’ the Septuagint also must’ve had ‘she,’ and if the Septuagint had ‘she,’ the Hebrew must’ve had ‘she.’”
Absolutely false. That’s circular reasoning built on a faulty textual logic. Just because the Old Latin has “ipsa” does not mean the Greek had “αὐτή.” And even if the Greek did, that would still not prove the Hebrew did. Translation traditions do not correct or override the original inspired Hebrew.
The Septuagint we actually have — not a conjectured version — says αὐτός (masculine singular), not αὐτή (feminine). And as for Origen, your claim that he doesn’t offer a gloss is simply mistaken. Origen explicitly writes that “others” read “she shall bruise your head.” That is a gloss — he’s identifying an alternate reading, not endorsing it as authoritative. He doesn’t say the Hebrew says “she.” He’s reporting what others read — that’s a comment, not a textual witness.
“What do you mean by ‘interpretive gloss’?”
A gloss is an explanatory or interpretive addition to the text, often marginal or commentary-based, not part of the inspired wording. The “she shall bruise” reading was an interpretive addition rooted in Marian theology, not found in the Hebrew manuscript tradition. That’s what glossing is — not tampering necessarily, but adding devotional meaning beyond the text.
Origen’s comment shows that there was already variation in interpretation, but he doesn’t claim the Hebrew ever said “she.” You can’t pretend his mention of “others read she” means he’s citing Hebrew authority. He’s citing interpretive traditions — which is exactly the problem.
Claim 5: “I never said that they’re inspired… I’m clearly showing the reading ‘she’ is found in non-Latin witnesses…”
You’re claiming that because “she” shows up in enough early traditions, it must trace back to a Hebrew original — but that’s a logical fallacy: the appeal to majority. It doesn’t matter how many traditions say it; inspiration resides in the Hebrew Scriptures, not in how many later traditions quote or embellish them.
Your methodology undermines the sufficiency and authority of the Hebrew text. You’re arguing that liturgical traditions should overrule the inspired Word. That is a direct denial of verbal plenary inspiration and the preservation of Scripture. You’re trusting evolving tradition, I’m trusting the preserved text.
Claim 6: “I never said Mary is the seed. The seed is Christ… the woman is Mary.”
And this is where your argument falls apart grammatically and contextually. The woman in Genesis 3:15 is Eve, not Mary. You can’t import typology into the grammar of the text. Genesis 3 is narrative history, not prophetic typology. Your Marian interpretation depends entirely on the assumption that the woman is Mary, but there is zero textual basis for this.
In Genesis 3:15, the structure is this:
The serpent (Satan)
The woman (Eve)
The serpent’s seed
The woman’s seed (Christ)
The conflict is between the seed of the woman and the serpent, not the woman herself and the serpent. That’s why hūʾ is used — masculine singular — pointing to the seed, not the woman. Hebrew grammar does not allow for hîʾ here unless the woman is the subject — which she is not.
You admitted yourself: the seed is Christ. Then who bruises the serpent’s head? He does. Not “she.” Your argument collapses under the weight of its own inconsistency.
You’re building doctrine on speculation, not Scripture. You’re trusting tradition, not textual authority. You’re arguing for a phantom Hebrew reading that never existed, and trying to override the preserved Word of God with post-biblical devotionalism.
I stand with the inspired Hebrew text. It says hūʾ — “he.” Christ, not Mary, is the subject. Christ, not Mary, crushes the serpent. Christ, not Mary, fulfills the Protoevangelium. You’re reading back centuries of ecclesiastical embellishment into a text that already speaks clearly — and in doing so, you’re replacing divine revelation with human invention.
ROMAN CATHOLICISM: A Historical and Theological Refutation of a False Religion
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FB3BB65M
Again another response:
“Your entire response hinges on the assumption that the original Hebrew of Genesis 3:15 said hîʾ (“she”) instead of hūʾ (“he”), despite the fact that no known Hebrew manuscript, ancient or medieval, supports this reading. That’s not a minor oversight; it’s the collapse of your entire argument.”
Yeah, and I ask you a simple question, where would these Latin, Greek, Ethiopian and Syriac translators get She from if not from the Hebrew, yes or no do you believe that all these translators didn’t know simple Hebrew grammar?
“They got it from post-biblical tradition, not from Genesis 3:15. Your own answer admits this: the Church Fathers cited are speaking devotionally, not grammatically. That’s not evidence of a Hebrew reading; it’s evidence of how quickly theological imagination overtook careful exegesis. As for Hesychius and the others — they are citing Isaiah 7:14, Revelation 12, and interpreting them allegorically and devotionally alongside Genesis 3:15. But none of them were doing grammatical exegesis of the Hebrew text. Their views don’t represent a transmission of a Hebrew reading, but a theological reading shaped by Mariology, centuries after the Hebrew text had already been fixed and preserved. You asked, “Where did they get the idea?” They created it — not maliciously, but devotionally. They spiritually allegorized the woman of Genesis 3:15 into Mary, despite the fact that the grammar points to the seed, not the woman, as the one who crushes the serpent.”
It is evidence of a Hebrew Reading, you must answer why these Witnesses from different regions somehow agree with the reading She in Genesis 3:15 if this only came from one translation error? You need to believe that all these Translators somehow universally thought of mistranslating the Hebrew of Genesis 3:15 which is a conspiracy theory. I never said they knew Hebrew grammar, I use them because they’re witnesses to the reading She and that many different translators translated the Hebrew as She.
“Just because the Old Latin has “ipsa” does not mean the Greek had “αὐτή.” And even if the Greek did, that would still not prove the Hebrew did. Translation traditions do not correct or override the original inspired Hebrew. The Septuagint we actually have — not a conjectured version — says αὐτός (masculine singular), not αὐτή (feminine). And as for Origen, your claim that he doesn’t offer a gloss is simply mistaken. Origen explicitly writes that “others” read “she shall bruise your head.” That is a gloss — he’s identifying an alternate reading, not endorsing it as authoritative. He doesn’t say the Hebrew says “she.” He’s reporting what others read — that’s a comment, not a textual witness.”
Well The Old Latin existence of Ipsa, actually proves the Greek had it, the Old Latin is based on the Greek. And Origen isn’t my only witness for She, all I’m doing is saying Origen notes a textual variant where She exists.
“The woman in Genesis 3:15 is Eve, not Mary. You can’t import typology into the grammar of the text. Genesis 3 is narrative history, not prophetic typology. Your Marian interpretation depends entirely on the assumption that the woman is Mary, but there is zero textual basis for this.”
Well if the woman is Eve, you’ll have to believe that Eve’s seed fights against itself because according to the Bible every child of Eve is her seed (Genesis 4:25), why then does Jesus call the Jews children of the devil? Aren’t they at enmities?
Eve and her seed failed to crush the Devil, the Blessed Virgin and her seed Christ succeeded in crushing the devil. That’s the Catholic view and no Catholic denies that Christ crushes Satan.