Genesis 3:14-15


…13Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” 14The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; 15And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.

Im having trouble with this, from the verse, God appears to be very upset at Satan for doing this (tempting adam and eve in such a way), but isnt it true Satan can ONLY do what God allows him to do, when it comes to interaction with humans?

Why would God be so upset and punish him when God allowed him to do this in the first place?

I also do not understand 15, how is enmity put between Satan and Eve, how could Satan have a ‘seed’?


The NABRE gives some interpretation:


God permitting something to happen is different than God wanting or commanding something to happen. He permits us to sin, but he does not want us to sin.



Gen 3:14-15

Ver. 14. Cursed. This curse falls upon the natural serpent, as the instrument of the devil; who is also cursed at the same time by the Holy Ghost. What was natural to the serpent and to man in a state of innocence, (as to creep, &c. to submit to the dominion of the husband, &c.) becomes a punishment after the fall. (St. Chrysostom) — There was no enmity, before, between man and any of God’s creatures; nor were they noxious to him. (Tirinus) — The devil seems now to crawl, because he no longer aspires after God and heavenly things, but aims at wickedness and mean deceit. (Menochius)

Ver. 15. She shall crush. Ipsa, the woman: so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz. the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head. (Challoner) — The Hebrew text, as Bellarmine observes, is ambiguous: He mentions one copy which had ipsa instead of ipsum; and so it is even printed in the Hebrew interlineary edition, 1572, by Plantin, under the inspection of Boderianus. Whether the Jewish editions ought to have more weight with Christians, or whether all the other manuscripts conspire against this reading, let others inquire. The fathers who have cited the old Italic version, taken from the Septuagint agree with the Vulgate, which is followed by almost all the Latins; and hence we may argue with probability, that the Septuagint and the Hebrew formerly acknowledged ipsa, which now moves the indignation of Protestants so much, as if we intended by it to give any divine honour to the blessed Virgin Mary. We believe, however, with St. Epiphanius, that “it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin, than to glorify her above measure.” We know that all the power of the mother of God is derived from the merits of her Son. “We crush,” says St. Gregory, Mor. 1. 38, “the serpent’s head, when we extirpate from our heart the beginnings of temptation, and then he lays snares for our heel, because he opposes the end of a good action with greater craft and power.” The serpent may hiss and threaten; he cannot hurt, if we resist him. (Haydock
edited 4 space


John 8:44, Jesus is speaking – “You are of your father the devil . . .”


The “man of lawlessness” or the Anti-Christ
is really the “seed” of satan that Christ
will crush at the end of time by His Second
Coming!! Rev. chaps.13-19


Hi, Mike!

…“seed” refers to descendants in the term of followers; St Paul was never married but he speaks of bringing others to the Faith and he recognizes them as his offspring; interestingly enough, at one point he augments this understanding:

19 My little children, of whom I am in [size=]labour again[/size], until Christ be formed in you. (Galatians 4:19)

St. Paul is not condoning fluidity of gender; he is using imagery to demonstrate how deeply he feels for those whom he has brought into the Faith.

…free to interact does not mean freedom to do as one pleases… St. Paul says that to him (as a Christian) all things are possible but not all things edify.

We are free to interact but not free to destroy (engender death).

Satan has the freedom to place/offer/seduce man with temptations but he has not the authority to take the life/soul/spirit.

Satan chose to seduce man–he used his freedom to procure death; hence, God cannot accept Satan’s choice.

Maran atha!




Thanks and GBY


God created Adam, Even and the serpent with imperfections. As a result of the imperfection, it was ridiculously easy to sin and they sinned.


So my Catholic friend,

GOD made a mistake in creating A @ E in HIS image? [Genesis 1:26-27]:shrug:



The only “imperfection” that they had was freewill (including the serpent/satan). The freedom to choose to love is a perfection and not an imperfection.


Hi, Bob!

…so basically you are saying that China and all those other manufacturers who purposefully cut corners and produce defective merchandise, as well as all those people who choose the culture of death and those who purposefully murder, torture, abuse, and destroy are only guilty of emulating God’s callousness?

[FONT=“Palatino Linotype”][size=]Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!



Not what I said!

I said God created Adam & Eve with imperfections.

They were either prideful, naive, stupid, or fearful. These are all imperfections. Either which way, the software crashed and God said “throw the computer out” instead of fixing the software.

Free will is not an imperfection. However, free will is lessened or eliminated through imperfections.


They’re not emulating God’s callousness. I never said God was that.

God wrote buggy software, and lo and behold, it crashes! Look at all the errors, defects, bugs ----> SIN.


Hi, Bob!

…from the above, this post, and the original post to which I’ve responded you are stating just that, though you may not see it.

…in your terms;

A computer wiz created a system… knew that it was defective (much like the pharmaceutical industry’s death built into their “meds”), and then thought to himself–‘hey, if it crashes… well there’s none that can prove me wrong!’

This of course is complete callousness. Knowing that what has been produced is defective and passing it off as “good” cannot but scream: Callousness!

[FONT=“Palatino Linotype”][size=]Merry Christmas!
Maran atha!





And the ONLY way for God to “fix the computer” was to NOT create man in His Image.

If God takes away OUR freewill, we no longer emulate God:thumbsup:



While we have nothing to compare with Adam and Eve, we do have something to compare with satan and the other fallen angels, namely the angels that did not sin. Angels have free will also. What imperfection did the fallen angels have that the good angels did not have?

We must remember that Adam and Eve did not have concupiscence as we do now that makes it easy for us to sin. What imperfection did they have that made it easy for them to sin?


They had to have had some form of concupiscence. Compare Gen. 3:6 with I John 2:16 – Eve “saw that the tree was good for food” (lust of the flesh), “that it was pleasant to the eyes” (lust of the eyes), “and a tree desirable to make one wise” (pride of life).


Knowing that that the “tree was good for food” is simply an acknowledgement of what the trees were good for. Getting from that “lust of the flesh” is a very big stretch.

Seeing something that is “pleasing to the eyes” in no way makes it lust of the eyes. If that were the case, it would be “lusting” every time we see a beautiful sunset.

And it is in no way sinful to obtain knowledge or to become wise. The Bible many times encourages us to seek wisdom for this is a good desire. But this wisdom is always portrayed as coming from God.

This is not concupiscence. These are all good desires in accord with our human nature.


Not when fulfilling those desires involves disobeying a direct order from God. If it walks like concupiscence and quacks like concupiscence . . .

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit