n the two other passages where the word
[Hebrew: wvP] occurs (Ps. cxxxix. 11 [compare my commentary on that
passage] and Job ix. 17), it undeniably signifies: "to crush," "to
bruise." This signification, therefore, which is confirmed by the
Chaldee Paraphrast, and which Paul also follows in Rom. xvi. 20
([Greek: suntripsei], whilst the LXX. have [Greek: teresei]), must here
also be retained. It is only in appearance that, in the second passage
referred to, the signification "to crush" seems to be inappropriate;
for there, "to crush" is used in the sense of "to destroy," "to
annihilate," just as in Jonah iv. 7, "to strike" is used of the sting
of an insect, because its effect is similar to that produced by a
stroke. The words [Hebrew: raw] and [Hebrew: eqb] are a second
accusative governed by the verb, whereby the place of the action is
more distinctly marked out. That by "head" and "heel"--a _majus_ and a
_minus_--a victory of mankind over the seed of the serpent should be
signified, was seen by _Calvin_, who says, "Meanwhile we see how
graciously the Lord deals even in the punishment of men, inasmuch as He
does not give the serpent power to do more than wound the heel, while
to man is given the power of wounding its head. For the words 'head'
and 'heel' point out only what is superior and what is inferior." That
these words are by no means intended to describe the mutual antipathy
between men and serpents, is rendered evident by the consideration,
that, if such were the intention, no special punishment would be
denounced against the serpent, while, according to the context, such
denunciation is certainly designed by the writer. The words treat of
the punishment of the serpent; it is only in ver. 16 that the sentence
against man is proclaimed. It is true that the bite of a serpent is
dangerous when it is applied even to the heel, for the poison thence
penetrates the whole body; but to this fact in natural history there is
here [Pg 27] no allusion, nor is the _biting_ of the serpent at all the
point here in question. The contrast between head and heel is simply
that which exists between the noble and less noble parts,--those parts
of which the injury is commonly curable or incurable. The objection:
"The serpent creeps, man walks upright; if then an enmity exists
between them, how can it be otherwise than that man wounds its head,
and that it wounds his heel?" entirely overlooks the consideration,
that, according to ver. 1