If you are a non-Jewish xian, please read the following before proceeding. If you are puzzled about the use of certain terms or terminology (Yoshke, Xianity, etc..), please refer to this.
Genesis 3:15, sometimes referred to as Protoevangelium, is the first in a long list of verses claimed to be prophecies foretelling the coming of Yoshke and the details of his life according to the Gospels. It holds a particular place in Catholic doctrine due to their interpretation of the verse being specifically about Mary, putting them at odds with the majority of the Xian world on that subject.
Is there any basis to support their claims? Let’s investigate:
The Verse:
Genesis 3:15
וְאֵיבָ֣ה אָשִׁ֗ית בֵּֽינְךָ֙ וּבֵ֣ין הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וּבֵ֥ין זַֽרְעֲךָ֖ וּבֵ֣ין זַרְעָ֑הּ ה֚וּא יְשֽׁוּפְךָ֣ רֹ֔אשׁ וְאַתָּ֖ה תְּשׁוּפֶ֥נּוּ עָקֵֽב
“And I shall place hatred between you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He will crush your head, and you will bite his heel."
Claims:
First prophecy about the coming Messiah and his virgin birth.
The Messiah will crush the serpent's head.
Mary, not Eve, is the subject of this prophecy.
Mary is the one who will crush the serpent's head or is a partner in said crushing.
This verse was considered a messianic prophecy by Jews in the 2nd Temple era and beyond, but later, Rabbis obfuscated sources to rob the verse of its messianic meaning.
Sources:
Matthew 1:18-20, Luke 1:31, Galatians 4:4
Hebrews 2:14
Catholic dogma
Latin Vulgate's rendition of Genesis 3:15
Non-existent
Why it’s wrong:
This verse is not a reference to the Messiah, and there is no reference to a virgin birth, neither here nor in all of Scriptures.
The Hebrew term זרע, often translated as 'seed,' explicitly means offspring in this context and is likewise used regarding other women.
Nowhere in the Messianic requirements does it state that the Messiah will "crush the head of the serpent."
The idea that the verse refers to Mary arose as part of a doctrine eventually rejected by the Xian world at large.
The idea of Mary as the one who crushes the serpent's head comes from a 4th-century Latin mistranslation that even the Vatican acknowledges as wrong.
No Rabbinic writings ever considered that verse to be about the Messiah or a prophecy, and the quotes are either mistranslated or outright fabrications.
Prophecy regarding the Messiah?
Let us examine the verse in context: Following the exhortations of the serpent, Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and then convinced her husband to eat from it too. Then, filled with shame, they clothed themselves and hid. G-d called out to them, rhetorically asking what they had done. Adam blamed his wife, while Eve claimed the serpent was responsible. At this point, G-d cursed all three, saying:
Genesis 3:14-19
14. And the L-rd G-d said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed be you more than all the cattle and more than all the beasts of the field; you shall walk on your belly, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life. 15 And I shall place hatred between you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He will crush your head, and you will bite his heel." 16. To the woman He said, "I shall surely increase your sorrow and your pregnancy; in pain you shall bear children. And to your husband will be your desire, and he will rule over you." 17. And to man He said, "Because you listened to your wife, and you ate from the tree from which I commanded you saying, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed be the ground for your sake; with toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life. 18 And it will cause thorns and thistles to grow for you, and you shall eat the herbs of the field. 19 With the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, until you return to the ground, for you were taken therefrom, for dust you are, and to dust you will return.
While it has often been advanced by Xian theologists that Jews during the Second Temple period and beyond also viewed this verse as part of a prophecy regarding the coming of the Messiah, there has never been any evidence presented to demonstrate that this ever was the case. In the whole corpus of Jewish writings, Genesis 3:15, being a prophecy about the coming of the Messiah, is never even alluded to as such and constitutes wishful thinking at best from those making these claims, if not outright fabrication.
Just as this verse was never interpreted in Jewish eschatology as part of the prophecies regarding the Messiah, the doctrine of the virgin birth similarly never appeared anywhere in Scriptures, Rabbinical texts, or Jewish hermeneutics as a whole regarding the Messiah. (A thorough refutations of the idea of a Messiah born of a virgin birth will be covered in the commentary of Isaiah 7:14; see there)
The assertions regarding this verse exemplify the problem with the so-called 'proofs' of the Messianic credentials of Yoshke brought forth by missionaries. Rather than honestly examining the prophecies regarding the advent of the Messiah and whether Yoshke fulfilled them, they begin with the conclusion that he was and then attempt to justify it using Scriptures retroactively.
An honest examination of this passage in context clearly shows it is not a messianic prophecy. Nothing in the verses alludes to this being such a prophecy. It makes no contextual sense whatsoever, as it is a curse part of a longer list of curses being enumerated against Adam, Eve, and the serpent.
Throughout Tanach, the verses describing the coming of the Messiah and prophecies of the Messianic era are not alluded to coyly. Instead, they bluntly declare what he will accomplish, the tribulations that will accompany his arrival, and some of the significant worldly, natural, and supernatural upheavals that will be witnessed consequently. Not only are the verses concerning the Messiah and Messianic age self-evident (inasmuch as this is what they refer to), but they also tend to repeat themselves in one form or another for emphasis.
The simple fact of the matter is, nowhere in all of Tanach does it ever say that one of the accomplishments of the Messiah will be to "crush the serpent's head." Furthermore, the verse clearly states that the "seed" of Eve would not be crushing the serpent itself but instead would be crushing the serpent's seed. If, following the Xian claim, the snake represents Satan, then who is the offspring of Satan? Even if we were to say that this refers to the final battle between Yoshke and the Antichrist as described in the Book of Revelation, it would be impossible to claim that Yoshke already fulfilled that prophecy, seeing as, according to them, the Antichrist has yet to come. Certainly, the same can be said of Satan, whom they say Yoshke will also fight in the Book of Revelation.
Yet Xian, and especially Catholic, doctrine regarding this verse states that Yoshke crushed the head of Satan at the crucifixion through his death. The origin for this idea seems to develop from early eastern Xian non-canonical sources (prominent amongst them the Cave of Treasures and the Kitab al-Magall), who hold that the serpent's head was crushed at the Golgotha. The Golgotha is described as a skull-shaped hill at the center of the earth where they claim Shem and Melchizedek placed the body of Adam. However, no such claim is made in the Gospels or other writings considered canonical by the Xian world. It also goes against the Jewish view on the subject, whereas Adam and Eve are both interred in the Cave of Patriarchs in Hebron alongside the Patriarchs, the canonical sources for this belief predating the Xian writings by centuries.
Even the Gospels and early Xian writings seem to refute this idea. According to Paul in Romans 16:20, the verse is in no way about Yoshke but rather the Xian believers as a whole, while G-d Himself will be the one to crush the head of the serpent, and that prophecy has yet to be fulfilled. Addressing the Xian community and urging them to follow the doctrines of Xianity as they were being expounded by himself and others, he declared:
Romans 16:18-20
For those who are such don't serve [Yoshke], but their own belly; and by their smooth and flattering speech, they deceive the hearts of the innocent. 19 For your obedience has become known to all. I rejoice therefore over you. But I desire to have you wise in that which is good, but innocent in that which is evil. 20 And the God of Peace will quickly crush Satan under your feet.
"Under your feet." It is doubtlessly evident that Paul did not interpret this as a Messianic prophecy but rather as an exhortation to the followers of Yoshke to follow what was considered proper behavior, to reject evil, and then that G-d would crush Satan under their feet. Ironically, the interpretation of this verse from Paul is more in line with the Jewish understanding of the verse than with the claim of later missionaries who formed and perpetuated the Protoevangelium doctrine.
Paul's perception also deprives the theory that Second Temple-era Jews all recognized this verse as part of a prophecy regarding the advent of the Messiah of any substance. Not only would Paul not have interpreted the verse differently had this been a reference to a Messiah born of a virgin, but surely it would have been quoted elsewhere as proof of the Messianic credentials of Yoshke in the Gospels and Xian canon, as its writers bring up other verses. Why would they eschew a prophecy recognized by Jews and non-Jews alike at the time as heralding the coming of a Messiah born of a virgin birth to instead support themselves with other proofs far vaguer or less inclusive?
Is the "seed of a woman" a reference to the virgin birth?
While the main refutation of the virgin birth will be covered in a later article, we still need to address the claims that this verse a direct reference to it due to the virgin birth’s unique place in the catalog of Xian dogmas.
As pointed out earlier, the idea that this refers to a future prophecy rather than a direct curse addressed to the Snake and Eve is undoubtedly erroneous. It is impossible to honestly read the text and see it as anything but a curse addressed to the woman and the snake. As a matter of fact, it is so blatantly obvious to anyone reading the verse in context that it begs the question: Why would early Xian theologists feel the need to twist this verse into prophecy regarding Yoshke and the virgin birth?
Quite simply, it arose from both a need to support a verse from Galatians with a prior Scriptural basis and, in the case of Catholics, to harmonize their theology with a mistranslation in the Latin Vulgate.
Galatians 4:4
But when the appropriate time had come, God sent out his son, born of a woman, born under the law.
Due to erroneously translating the 'young woman' of Isaiah 7:14 as 'virgin' and the subsequent embrace of the idea of the virgin birth by the writers of the Gospels and early Xians, it became imperative to find other verses to support and give credence to this new theology in the face of Jewish opposition and their claim of lack of Scriptural basis for it. Thus the attempt by early Xian theologists to twist this verse and make it out to be a Messianic prophecy.
The most common argument raised by missionaries & Xian apologetics concerning the language of the verse itself is that "Since a woman has eggs, not seed, this refers to a virgin birth. No other woman than Eve is told about her "seed", no other woman than Mary gave birth as a virgin, and throughout all of the Old Testament, only men are counted in terms of genealogies." None of these claims bear scrutiny, however.
The Hebrew term used in this verse, generally translated as seed, is זרע. Quite often, and rightfully so, translators will use the term offspring rather than seed for better contextual use. This translation is often used even by Xian themselves, usually in other verses using the same language. The idea that "Women do not have seed, only eggs" can only stand when manipulating the English language but doesn't hold as true within the verse itself. While the term "seed" can, in fact, refer specifically to masculine participation in the gestation process, it is also used in other places to describe women giving birth as well:
Leviticus 12:2
דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר אִשָּׁה֙ כִּ֣י תַזְרִ֔יעַ וְיָֽלְדָ֖ה זָכָ֑ר וְטָֽמְאָה֙ שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֔ים כִּימֵ֛י נִדַּ֥ת דְּוֹתָ֖הּ תִּטְמָֽא
Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, she shall be unclean for seven days; as [in] the days of her menstrual flow, she shall be unclean.
תַזְרִ֔יעַ, from the root זרע, is used regarding a woman giving birth. Claims that this could only apply to a man, therefore making the language regarding the woman in Genesis 3:15 unique, is patently wrong. Individual women are also told about their offspring using the term זרע throughout all of Tanach. For example:
Genesis 16:10
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לָהּ֙ מַלְאַ֣ךְ יְהֹוָ֔ה הַרְבָּ֥ה אַרְבֶּ֖ה אֶת־זַרְעֵ֑ךְ וְלֹ֥א יִסָּפֵ֖ר מֵרֹֽב
And the angel of the Lord said to her, "I will greatly multiply your seed, and it will not be counted for abundance."
Genesis 24:60
וַיְבָֽרְכ֤וּ אֶת־רִבְקָה֙ וַיֹּ֣אמְרוּ לָ֔הּ אֲחֹתֵ֕נוּ אַ֥תְּ הֲיִ֖י לְאַלְפֵ֣י רְבָבָ֑ה וְיִירַ֣שׁ זַרְעֵ֔ךְ אֵ֖ת שַׁ֥עַר שֽׂנְאָֽיו
And they blessed Rebecca and said to her, "Our sister, may you become thousands of myriads, and may your seed inherit the cities of their enemies."
Isaiah to the "barren woman" in 54:3
כִּי־יָמִ֥ין וּשְׂמֹ֖אול תִּפְרֹ֑צִי וְזַרְעֵךְ֙ גּוֹיִ֣ם יִירָ֔שׁ וְעָרִ֥ים נְשַׁמּ֖וֹת יוֹשִֽׁיב
For right and left shall you prevail, and your seed shall inherit nations and repeople desolate cities.
In all three instances, the term זַרְעֵ֑ךְ, meaning 'your seed’ (from the root זרע), is used. Three different women and three uses of "seed" by Scriptures to specifically address them & their future children. The theory that this verse is a prophecy about a virgin birth or that the language therein is unique does not hold up.
Eve or Mary?
To support their virgin birth dogma, the Catholic Church went further and declared that the woman in our verse was not Eve but, Mary herself; furthermore, she was the one who would crush the serpent.
It is, in fact, often ignored by modern non-Catholic apologetics discussing this verse that the early Xians believed that Mary was the one who would be the one crushing the serpent. Many Xian translations, such as the Douay-Rheims Bible or the New Jerusalem Edition, render the passage as such:
"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and they see and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."
While most of the Xian world has moved from this translation and correctly declared it erroneous, most in the Catholic Church still cling to this as the proper reading of the text. This is because early copyists of the Vulgate and the early Church Fathers made a grammatical error, forgetting to switch back from the feminine ipsa to the masculine ipse when the subject of verse changed. The original Vulgate followed the Hebrew text, however, and the early translations neither rendered the ending of the verse feminine. Only later did copies of the Vulgate begin to appear with the feminine ipsa as the subject of the latter section of the verse.
Inability to read and understand Hebrew most likely allowed this error to stand as valid for centuries before the Church started to address the problems with this translation. Even so, having integrated the mistranslation of this verse so profoundly in its dogmatic core over the centuries, the only avenue left was to try and reconcile it with the actual text rather than admitting error and correcting hundreds of years of false teachings.
The most likely explanation for this faulty translation is that it sprang up due to a copyist error, much like the concept of virgin birth itself. Copyists' errors have plagued the Xian world, leading to quite literally tens of thousands of variances between the different texts of the Gospels. The most likely culprit behind these errors is a general inability to understand Biblical Hebrew and the over-reliance on Latin by the vast majority of Xians then and now.
The idea that Mary was the one who would trample the snake took a life of its own as a result. Like many Catholic or Xian doctrines and dogmas, what began as a minor misconception soon developed into a full-blown theology that lives on to this day. Not only in Catholic theology itself, but the image of Mary crushing the head of the serpent also became a basis of popular Catholic art for centuries.
The common defense for the Vulgate reading of Eve (or Mary) being the one crushing the serpent's head is that today's Hebrew text has been corrupted, and the authentic way to read the text is "she" per the Vulgate. Notwithstanding the fact that this was never part of Xian beliefs until the 4th century, numerous Torah scrolls predating the advent of Xianity and the original Septuagint itself show this claim to be utterly baseless. Most damning evidence being that the early version of the Vulgate itself did not have such a translation; it only came to be accepted when so many copies of the Vulgate had already been disseminated after the errors had crept in that it became the popular belief.
The verse in the original Hebrew reads:
וְאֵיבָ֣ה אָשִׁ֗ית בֵּֽינְךָ֙ וּבֵ֣ין הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וּבֵ֥ין זַֽרְעֲךָ֖ וּבֵ֣ין זַרְעָ֑הּ ה֚וּא יְשֽׁוּפְךָ֣ רֹ֔אשׁ וְאַתָּ֖ה תְּשׁוּפֶ֥נּוּ עָקֵֽב
The latter pronoun in the verse, הוא, is undoubtedly masculine and not feminine. The verb itself is in accordance with the masculine and not the feminine form. Therefore, the meaning of the verse can only be that the descendants of Eve, not Eve herself, would be the ones crushing the head of the snake. Even the modern Catholic Encyclopedia ultimately agrees that "The translation "she" from the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century and cannot be defended critically," falling back on their primary interpretation that Mary is the woman addressed in the verse and that Yoshke is the one who tramples.
Even the modern revised Latin version of the Vulgate (the Nova Vulgata), authorized by the Vatican, corrected the error and changed it from ipsa to ipse. It does not stop many today from clinging to the erroneous translation still.
Apologetics will go as far as saying that this is, in fact, correct; because while Yoshke was the one who crushed the head of the serpent, Mary can also be considered as being a partner in the crushing, having done so indirectly by giving birth to Yoshke. This contention has been a staple of Catholic commentaries on the verse, such as Bishop Challoner's footnote regarding this verse "The sense [of those two different readings of Gen. 3:15] is the same: for it is by her seed […] that the woman crushes the serpent's head."
While the most likely explanation for this is a scribe's error, it would be foolish to discount the possibility of willful manipulation of the text to further the theological grounds laid by the school of Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr before him. Both claimed that it wasn't Eve who was the subject of the address in Genesis 3:15; instead, this was a prophecy about Mary. While Irenaeus's word came to be considered authentic by the Church on this particular topic, the majority of the doctrines and theories he expounded ended up ignored and rejected by the rest of the Xian world as a whole, even the Catholic Church itself.
Amongst his rejected ideas, he claimed that Yoshke did not die at the age of 33 but kept his ministry for nearly 20 years until he reached at least the age of 45. He also posited that the crucifixion could not have occurred earlier than 42 CE. Whether his school of thought regarding this verse influenced the copyists into making such changes or the Church fell back on his writings once confronted with this problem is uncertain. Justin Martyr likewise posited many teachings that would be seen today as heresies or simply wrong. Most of his teachings were not made canonical, aside from his views on Mary and a handful of other subjects.
That is not to say that, whilst admitting error and how critically untenable such a translation is, the Catholic Church acknowledged its mistake. The new liturgy of the Roman Rite, promulgated at Vatican II, retains the reading "She will crush your head" and is also used for the 'Mass on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception." In his dogmatic bull Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius XII repeated those claims as central to Catholicism, as did Pope John Paul in his Redemptoris Mater and Mulieris Dignitatem. Old habits die hard.
A one-letter difference (ipsa to ipse) not only led to the mistaken belief of a virgin birth being prophesied in Genesis 3:15, but it also led to the creation of a particular teaching that led to hatred, persecution, and attacks against Jews throughout centuries. Known as the "Seed of the Serpent," this theory surmises that Eve had relations with the snake/Satan, and from that union eventually came the Jews. This is why Jews hate Yoshke, reject their promised Messiah, and otherwise falsify their own Scriptures; it originates from their demonic bloodline.
While not as widespread nowadays, it is still used by openly racist movements such as the white nationalist Xian Identity, and propagated by certain smaller Baptist sects, amongst others. Influences of this belief can also be detected in the writings of conspiracy theorists about hidden reptilian races and so on.
Recognized by Jews as a Messianic verse?
Another tool of the missionaries regarding this (and many other verses) consists of either cherry-picking, mistranslating, or outright fabricating what they claim to be Rabbinical sources supporting their claims that this verse was widely seen as messianic in nature in the past. Only due to an outright desire to reject Yoshke did the Rabbis willfully stop teaching the verses as such in order not to have to accept him as their Messiah. This is why modern Jews are in the dark regarding the real meaning of those verses. Even discounting the racist trope of Jews as the wicked Pharisees who cannot accept the idea that the Messiah already came (though we pray to G-d three times a day to hasten his coming), far more egregious are the outright distortions of our own writings they claim to further their messianic claims.
Sadly, even supposed 'scholars' also fall into that trap. In his Exposition of Genesis, H.C. Leupold declared, "The Jewish church, according to the Targum, regarded this passage as Messianic from a very early day." Many to this day parrot those claims, especially in the messianic Judaism branch of the Evangelical Baptist movement, always prone to cherry-pick sources they believe can be used to convert Jews by giving themselves an air of Jewish legitimacy.
Five 'proofs' from Rabbinical writings are usually brought forward to show that Jews always understood those verses as messianic. These are Targum Jonathan, Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan (more accurately known as Targum Yerushalmi, as it will be hereafter referred to), from the commentary of Rabbi David Kimchi (more commonly referred to as the Radak, as he will be referred to hereafter), Bereishit Rabbah and Ruth Rabbah.
Let us begin with the Targumim. As both of the translations are extremely similar and have the exact meaning, therefore I will only quote the Yerushalmi:
Targum Yerushalmi on Genesis 3:15
וּדְבָבוּ אֵישַׁוֵי בֵּינָךְ וּבֵין אִתְּתָא בֵּין זַרְעֲיַת בְנָךְ וּבֵין זַרְעֲיַת בְּנָהָא וִיהֵי כַּד יְהוֹן בְּנָהָא דְאִתָּא נַטְרִין מִצְוָתָא דְאוֹרַיְיתָא יֶהֱוְיַן מְכַוְונִין וּמַחְיָין יָתָךְ עַל רֵישָׁךְ וְכַד שַׁבְקִין מִצְוָותָא דְאוֹרַיְיתָא תֶּהֱוֵי מִתְכַוֵין וּנְכִית יַתְהוֹן בְּעִקְבֵהוֹן בְּרַם לְהוֹן יְהֵא אָסוּ וְלָךְ לָא יְהֵי אָסוּ וַעֲתִידִין אִינוּן לְמֶעֱבַד שְׁפִיוּתָא בְּעִיקְבָא בְּיוֹמֵי מַלְכָּא מְשִׁיחָא
"And it shall be that when the sons of the woman study the Torah diligently and obey its injunctions, they will direct themselves to smite you on the head and slay you; but when the sons of the woman forsake the commandments of the Torah and do not obey its injunctions, you will direct yourself to bite them on the heel and afflict them. However, there will be a remedy for the sons of the woman, but for you, serpent, there will be no remedy. They shall make peace with one another in the end, in the very end of days, in the days of the King Messiah."
Merely because a Rabbi or commentator mentions the Messiah in connection with a verse does not mean the verse itself is part of a messianic prophecy. It should be evident through any honest reading of this verse that the Targumim are saying that if Jews are firm in following the Laws given by G-d to Moses, they will successfully crush the serpent's head, and if not, it will bite them at the heel. It is unmistakable here that those doing the crushing are the faithful followers of Jewish Law throughout history, not a single man, Messiah or not. As for the ending regarding the King Messiah, the Targum are referring to the prophetic verses that clearly state that at the end of days, man will be rid of the 'evil inclination' (the snake) as stated in Zechariah 13:3 or Ezekiel 36:25.
Notice also that, at the end of days, the "seed" or offsprings of the woman make peace with the "seed" of the snake rather than destroy it. The Xian understanding of the verse also comes from a misunderstanding of who the snake in the Garden was, who Satan is and what his role is in Creation. A separate article will be written on this subject later, G-d willing.
Another oft-quoted passage in missionary materials comes from the Radak:
Radak on Genesis 3:15
As Thou wentest forth for the salvation of Thy people by the hand of The Messiah the Son of David, who shall wound Satan, the head, the king and prince of the house of the wicked.
The problem is that this quote does not exist! Here is his actual commentary:
Radak on Genesis 3:15
ואיבה אשית, אתה הראת עצמך שהיית אוהב אותה וחשבת לפי דבריך לייעץ אותה מאהבה אני אהפך האהבה לאיבה, ובין זרעך ובין זרעה, לא אמר הנה כל ימי חייך. כי האיבה תסור בימות המשיח כמו שאמר ושעשע יונק על חור פתן (שם י"א ח'). הוא ישופך ראש, כשימצאך יכך לעולם בראשך כשיוכל לך. ואתה תשופנו עקב, כי תלך על גחון ולא תוכל לו אלא בעקבו שתכנו בו בנשיכה. ישופך תשופנו, ענין מכה וכתיתה, וכן אשר בשערה ישופנו (איוב ט' י"ו) ובנסתר נדרש כל זה
ואיבה אשית, you, the serpent, made the woman feel as if you had her best interests at heart, as if you loved her; and as if your advice to her was motivated by love; I, G-d, will turn this love into hostility. בין זרעך ובין זרעה, between your offspring and between her offspring. The hostility between the serpent and the human species will not be an unalterable condition of life, seeing that in the Messianic era this enmity will be resolved and as we know from Isaiah 11:8 in those days an infant will suckle at its mother’s breast next to a snake’s lair without worrying.
הוא ישופך ראש, when he finds you he will smash your head whenever he is able to, whereas ואתה תשופנו עקב, when you slither along the ground on your belly and are unable to harm him higher up, you will bite his heel. The words ישופך and תשופנו describe inflicting of injury and smashing respectively, as we know from Job 9,17 אשר בשערה ישופני, "for he crushes me for a hair." [with minimal provocation. Ed.] All of these verses are dealt with by the kabbalah, the interpretation of the text along mystical lines.
Aside from the non-existent passage quoted in his name earlier, the Radak here states something diametrically opposite to the Xian claims. He points out that the curse is not eternal and that the enmity between mankind and the snake will end in the Messianic era. The Radak is referring to the same prophecies I listed earlier, which describe how, with the coming of the Messiah, the evil inclination will stop ruling over man. This will not be the Messiah's doing, but G-d Himself will remove it from man's heart. Thus, the phrasing "in the Messianic era" rather than at the hand (or foot) of the Messiah himself.
The irony of using the Radak's commentary to support themselves is lost on many missionaries. Throughout his lifetime, he was very active in Jewish-Christian religious debates. He also wrote a commentary on Psalms specifically to showcase the fallacies and errors of Christian doctrine and their misinterpretation of Jewish texts, including the very idea of a virgin birth.
Finally, the last two commonly misquoted passage comes from the Midrashic works Ruth Rabbah and Bereishit Rabbah.
Missionaries like to quote this passage:
Ruth Rabbah 8:1
R. Huna said: It is written "For G-d has appointed me another seed," that is, seed from another place, referring to the king Messiah.
Yet a simple reading of the actual text shows that this is not at all an accurate reproduction of the text.
Ruth Rabbah 8:1
רַבִּי הוּנָא אוֹמֵר כְּתִיב (בראשית ד, כה): כִּי שָׁת לִי אֱלֹהִים זֶרַע אַחֵר, זֶרַע הַבָּא מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, וְאֵיזֶה זֶה, זֶה מֶלֶךְ הַמָּשִׁיחַ.
Rabbi Huna says: It is written: "The Lord has provided me another [aḥer] offspring" (Genesis 4:25), an offspring that comes from another [aḥer] place, and who is this? It is the messianic king.
First, the subject of the exposition here is not the term 'seed' but rather 'אַחֵר,' which means 'another.' Second, they are not discussing Genesis 3:15; they are talking about Genesis 4:25. Third, this is specifically about how the Messiah will descend from the line of Seth, Adam's third son, after Cain and Abel. If you read the material prior or afterward, it is clear that this has nothing to do with Genesis 3:15, Yoshke, Mary, virgin birth, snakes, etc.
Unsurprisingly, the meaning of Bereishit Rabbah's quotation (often quoted by missionaries as Midrash Rabbah) is also distorted beyond recognition:
Bereishit Rabbah 23:5
"And she called his name Seth: "For G-d hath appointed me another seed" etc. Rabbi Tanchuma said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel: That arising from another source would be this seed, the King Messiah, instead of Abel, for Cain killed him. It was for this sin against Abel that Cain was killed. It was as if two trees were standing near each other, and a wind uprooted one of them, which fell upon the other and uprooted it too. Similarly, you read "Instead of Abel, for he slew Cain."
Once again, the real text of Bereishit Rabbah makes it very clear that we are not discussing anything they claim we are. Even in their own mangled quotation, the teaching of Rabbi Shmuel that is being taught by Rabbi Tanchuma to his students simply means that through Seth humanity would now descend, and therefore the Messiah as well. During the Flood, all of the descendants of Cain were drowned; only Noah and his family, all descendants from Seth, were saved. This is not in any way related to their claims regarding Genesis 3:15 in any way either.
Finally, there are two historical sources that disprove the idea that Genesis 3:15 was accepted as messianic in the Second Temple Era. The first is that, in his Antiquities of the Jews (1:1:4), Josephus discusses this very verse and in no way interprets it as anything but a literal curse addressed to the woman and the snake. Philo (although far from a representative source of mainstream Jewish thought of its era) likewise does not discuss the verse as anything messianic. These two men lived in the very era when missionaries claim it was the widespread belief of Jews, and prior to any attempts by the Pharisees to hide the true meaning of these verses to keep Jews away from Yoshke. The fact that neither mentions even in passing any messianic connotations regarding Genesis 3:15 is the final nail in this claim’s already tightly shut coffin.
In conclusion, any honest examination of the text and various sources brought forth by missionaries does not in any way validate the idea that Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy about the coming of the Messiah, supports the concept of a virgin birth, that Mary is the one crushing the serpent, or that at any time in history Jews considered said verse to be prophetic and related to the Messiah.