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
