Snakebite

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.”

(Gen 3:15).

i) This is, of course, a very famous passage. One interpretive issue is to explore the picturesque metaphor. The meaning of the word that's translated "bruised" in the ESV is disputed. It's a very rare word in Biblical usage, and its other two occurrences aren't very clarifying. 

Given the Hebrew parallelism, some scholars argue that it should be rendered the same way in both clauses. That might well be the case.

On the other hand, it's possible that the Hebrew word has more than one sense, and trades on that fact so that it carries a different, and appropriate, nuance, in each clause. 

ii) However, the interpretation doesn't necessary turn on how we define that one word. Even if we had no idea what it meant, the overall word picture supplies the gist of the meaning. The reader is expected to visualize the snake hurting the man and the man hurting the snake. What are the likely scenarios?

iii) There are roughly two kinds of snakes: venomous and nonvenomous. 

There are roughly two kinds of nonvenomous snakes: those harmless to man and those dangerous to man. 

iv) Clearly, the passages envisions a snake that's dangerous to man. So that rules out innocuous, nonvenomous species–leaving either venomous snakes or large constrictors. 

Nonvenomous snakes dangerous to man are large constrictors. Constrictors bite, though not to envenomate, but to get a lock on the victim, so that they can then encoil the victim. However, I don't think that's a likely candidate for this passage:

a) To my knowledge, Jews in OT times would be unfamiliar with large constrictors. 

b) The image of biting a man's heel, or a man stomping on a snake's head, seems less congruous in the case of a large constrictor. 

c) Keep in mind, too, that the original audience for Genesis consisted of emancipated slaves from Egypt who wandered in the Sinai. They'd be familiar with black cobras, Egyptian cobras, carpet vipers, and sand vipers. 

v) Assuming it's a venomous snake, I think there are roughly two possible scenarios in view:

a) The snake strikes the man's heel and the man strikes the snake with a long stick. 

b) The snake strikes the man's heel and the man stomps on the snake.

Trying to kill a snake with a long stick is the smart way to dispatch a snake. The stick keeps you out of striking range. 

However, if it's the stick rather than the heel that does the damage, then it's unclear why the passage mentions the heel. Reference to the heel naturally conjures up the image of stepping on a snake. And that's a common way of getting bitten. As a rule, trying to kill a venomous snake by crushing its head with your foot would be a good way of getting bitten.

So, if the imagery is consistent, this isn't a case of attacking the snake, but inadvertently stepping on it. And one is bitten in the process of stepping on it. Stepping on it injures both the snake and the man. Action and reaction. The snake doesn't necessarily die instantly. And even dead snakes can reflexively envenomate you.

I assume your back must be turned to a snake (or at least be sideways) for the snake to bite your heel. If you're facing a snake, it can't bite you in the heel. 

Likewise, if you're facing a snake, and it's either attacking or defending itself, I think it would strike higher than the heel. 

So it seems to me that the imagery suggests accidentally stepping on a snake. A one-time event. 

Again, there's the danger of overinterpreting the implied imagery. 

It's easy to step on venomous snakes, both because they are often nocturnal, so you can't see them at night, and because their skin is camouflaged, so that you can't see them in daylight. So perhaps the intended image is of a man who steps on the head of a snake. Although that's fatal to the snake, when the man lifts his foot, the dying snake, or dead snake, reflexively bites the raised heel, that's just above or ahead of the snake. At this point the snake is inches behind (or below) his foot, but within striking distance.

It's possible that this analysis carries the imagery too far. Perhaps it was never meant to be that precise. But then again, perhaps the reader is expected to envision the complete scene which that image provokes. And, indeed, I assume the original audience had enough experience with snakes, personally or by word-of-mouth, that they'd have a vivid mental image of the encounter. 

vi) It's often said that a head injury is fatal whereas a "bruised heel" is not life-threatening. But a bite from a venomous snake (unless it's a dry bite) is usually fatal. The more so given the toxicity of the venomous species known to the original audience, and the absence of antivenom. 

vii) Although it would be risky to press the imagery, it's literally true that what Jesus suffered wasn't merely harmful, but deadly. Metaphorically speaking, he died of snakebite. 

Strictly speaking, Satan can't be killed. To be killed, you must be alive. But angels aren't living organisms in the biological sense. They can't die. 

Yet they can suffer. Not only is it possible to suffer psychologically, but if human experience is any analogy, mental states can include simulated physical pain. You can feel pain in a nightmare. 

Death can be an escape from physical pain. Ironically, Satan's natural immunity to death or physical injury leaves him vulnerable to far more fearful, punitive suffering. 

viii) I take for granted that Gen 3:15 is prophetic and messianic. That's not just a question of treating the passage in isolation, but tracking that unfolding motif in the rest of the Pentateuch.