Correct. "You will strike his heel" is just as much a strike as "he will strike your head." Both of these attacks can be considered a mortal blow of equal threat to a part of the body vulnerable to attack.

Nonetheless, we can't look at the text in purely a snake vs. humanity scenario. What is happening in Gn. 3 is primarily of spiritual import: moral and spiritual deceit ending in the loss of the presence of God. Part of the curse pertains to spiritual changes, and part to natural evidences of that. There is symbolism through the text.

Since the serpent was most likely a spiritual being and not a snake, the enmity is not just fear of snakes, and the striking is not just physical contact. The "offspring" of the serpent most likely points not to baby snakes but rather to the resulting evil. The "offspring" of the woman are likely generation after generation of human history. This term ("offspring") is a collective noun that typically takes singular pronouns standing in its place. Therefore, when the text says that "he" will crush your head, grammar cannot determine whether this is a reference to the corporate seed (plural) or one representative (singular) from among the descendants. Though the text is probably not primarily a prophecy about Christ, the allusion to Christ in the term is by no means excluded.

Since the serpent was probably a spiritual being, the enmity is possibly spiritual in nature, and spiritual conflict is possibly being referred to as the spiritual battle between God and good vs. deceit and evil. This battle can only be waged with spiritual weapons.

Though this verse is not necessarily a prophecy about Christ (to which I originally and readily agreed), it is still true that the spiritual seed culminated in Christ (Romans 5) and the zenith of this spiritual conflict took place on the Cross. As I originally said, "we want to be very cautious about calling the verse a messianic prophecy. At the same time we should be reluctant to desert that interpretation out of hand."

>The promise angle is that some unspecified human(s) will one day (or every day) be detrimental to the serpent's posterity.

Well put. Of course the snakes will be detrimental to the woman's posterity as well.

You're possibly right. Not much debate here. Neither Jesus nor his disciples cite this text. The NT never speaks of Jesus trampling the serpent. So we want to be very cautious about calling the verse a messianic prophecy. At the same time we should be reluctant to desert that interpretation out of hand. What God says here is both a judgment and a promise. The promise angle is that some unspecified human(s) will one day (or every day) be detrimental to the serpent's posterity.

The text specifies mutual strikes (both "crush" and "strike" are the same term) but doesn't say who will win. The point is ongoing conflict.

Just for the record, [i]The Fragmentary Targum, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan[/i], and [i]Targum Neofiti[/i] all read the text messianically.

[quote]The Lord God said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this... I will put hostility between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring; her offspring will attack your head, and you will attack her offspring's heel.' [/quote](Genesis 3:15 NET)

Thesis: Genesis 3:15 was not intended by its author as a prediction of Satan's ultimate defeat by Christ. Nor did early Christians understand it as such.

Early Christian interpretation

Early Christians probably did not see in Genesis 3:15 a reference to Christ for the following reasons.

1. They never directly quote the text. Potential allusions to it in Luke 10:19 and Romans 16:20 are better explained with reference to LXX Psalm 91:13 which reads: "Over the asp and basilisk you will tread (ἐπιβαίνω), and you will trample (καταπατέω) the lion and the serpent (δράκων)." Unlike Genesis 3:15, only this verse in Psalm 91 makes mention of stepping upon snakes—a feature common to Luke 10:19 and Romans 16:20. Further, the word "strike/attack" (שׁוּף) in the Hebrew text of Genesis 3:15 does not imply the use of the man's foot as both the man and the snake lash out (שׁוּף) at each other. One could just as easily envision here the man striking the snake with a stick (cf. Isaiah 14:29, 27:1). So since it lacks the implication of "treading upon" the snake in Genesis 3:15, we should prefer Psalm 91:13 as the subtext for Luke 10:19 and Romans 16:20.

2. The LXX, the primary source of the scriptures for the early Christians, makes no mention of striking in Genesis 3:15 at all. Instead, the translators have man and snake "watch out" (τηρέω) for each other. Jews who read the Septuagint therefore had little reason to see in Genesis 3:15 a reference to the serpent's eventual destruction. What was in mind was rather an unending war between humans and snakes—a clear reference to a natural reality.

Hebrew Context

The author of Genesis 3:14-19 had in mind a perpetual struggle between man and snake, not an ultimate defeat of the snake.

1. Genesis 3:15, like verses 14-19, represents a curse, not a prophecy. The man will labor to produce food from the ground; the woman will produce fruit from her womb in pain; man and wife will struggle against each other (cf. verse 16 in NET and ESV). Each of these curses introduces constant conflict into the lives of the characters. So like the man and the woman, man and snake will also struggle against each other. With eternal enmity, they will exchange blows forevermore. No glimmer of hope, whether for the snake's defeat or for an eventual truce, is offered.