Konzern de derecho

When commentators discuss the anticipatory nature of the OT, they often identify Genesis 3:15 as the first promise of deliverance in the Bible. In this passage, God announces to the serpent, “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.” From this passage, many commentators affirm the hope of

14_{Kaiser, Messiah, 16. Other possible terms include: “Son of David” (2 Sam 7:12–16; Mark 12:35), “Son of}

Man” (Dan 7:13–14; Mark 10:45), “Lion of the tribe of Judah” (Gen 49:9; Rev 5:5), and “Lamb of God” (John 1:29; Rev 7:17).

15_{The concept of Jesus as “Christ” (}Χριστός_{) must not be limited strictly to the OT term “Messiah” ( ַחי ִשׁ ָמ).} 16For example, see Westermann’s extensive three volume commentary on Genesis. Writing about this com-

mentary, T. Desmond Alexander states unapprovingly, “Discussion of the Messiah or messianic age is restricted to three passages: 3:15, 9:20 and 48:8–12” (“Messianic Ideology in the Book of Genesis,” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts, ed. Phillip F. Satterthwaite, Richard S. Hess, and Gordon J. Wen- ham [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995], 20). Rejecting a messianic reading of 3:15 and 48:8–12, Claus Westermann only allows 9:20 to refer vaguely to the “Messianic era” (Genesis 1–11, trans. John J. Scullion [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984], 487).

a coming “seed,” a concept that is ultimately developed further in the rest of the OT as the hope of a coming Messiah. For example, Kaiser states,

Genesis 3:15 has commonly been called the protoevangelium (the “first gospel”) because it was the original proclamation of the promise of God’s plan for the whole world ... it gave our first parents a glimpse ... of the person and mission of the one who was going to be the central figure in the unfolding drama of the redemption of the world. The “seed/offspring” mentioned in this verse became the root from which the tree of the OT promise of a Messiah grew.18

Quite a few biblical scholars agree with this point. For example, Aalders writes, “Genesis 3:15 has been rightly called ... the ‘protevangelium,’ the first proclamation of the gospel of grace.”19 Kidner asserts,

“There is good New Testament authority for seeing here the protevangelium, the first glimmer of the gospel.”20 Additionally, DeRouchie and Meyer claim that “Genesis 3:15 provides a ‘seed-bed’ of Messianic

hope.”21 As such, Genesis 3:15 is frequently cited as the first anticipatory promise in the OT. However,

this assessment of Genesis 3:15 as a Messianic promise is by no means unanimous.

Many other scholars firmly argue for the opposing viewpoint, namely that Genesis 3:15 does not offer any hope of a coming Redeemer, but rather simply describes a struggle in the “animal kingdom,” a struggle between humans and serpents.22 As such, these individuals claim that there is no semblance

of a promise given. For example, Barr insists that “there is no Protevangelium here, no promise of a future struggle with evil, no promise of final salvation.”23 Additionally, Preuss states, “Any interpretation

[of Genesis 3:15] as a ‘protevangelium’ is out of the question.”24 These scholars claim that there is no

prophetic element to Genesis 3:15 whatsoever. As such, they argue that in order to see any future cosmic struggle between a coming “seed” and the serpent, one must read back into this passage later portions of Scripture. In essence, this perspective asserts that in order to view Genesis 3:15 as a promise, one must alter its original meaning in such a way that effectively distorts it beyond recognition.

18Kaiser, Messiah, 37–38.

19_{G. Charles Aalders, Genesis, trans. William Heynen, Bible Student’s Commentary 1 (Grand Rapids: Zonder-}

van, 1981), 107.

20_{Derek Kidner, Genesis, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 1 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,}

1978), 71.

21_{Jason S. DeRouchie and Jason C. Meyer, “Christ or Family as the ‘Seed’ of Promise? An Evaluation of N. T.}

Wright on Galatians 3:16,” SBJT 14.3 (2010): 39.

22_{Sigmund Mowinckel asserts, “It is quite a general statement about mankind, and serpents, and the struggle}

between them which continues as long as the earth [exists]. The poisonous serpent strikes at man’s foot whenever he is unfortunate enough to come too near to it; and always and everywhere man tries to crush the serpent’s head when he has the chance” (He That Cometh [Oxford: Blackwell, 1959], 11; quoted in Alexander, Messianic Ideology, 29).

23James Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 115.

24_{H. D. Preuss, “zāra‘; zera‘,” in TDOT 4:150. Interestingly though, in this same article, Preuss recognizes the}

theme of “seed” as an important motif traced through Genesis: “The substantive zera‘ ... plays an important role in the patriarchal narratives ... where it appears primarily in the promises made to the patriarchs” (151).

Skinner claims that a messianic application of Genesis 3:15 “is not justified in grammar.”25 Additionally,

Vawter asserts that this “interpretation, which became extremely popular during the Middle Ages and has penetrated many ecclesiastical documents ... we owe to the allegorizing of early Christian writers.”26

Von Rad agrees, “The exegesis of the early church which found a messianic prophecy here, a reference to a final victory of the woman’s seed (Protevangelium), does not agree with the sense of the passage.”27

Therefore, those in the non-anticipatory camp claim that there is no legitimate basis to view this verse as the protoevangelium. As such, they assume that those in the early church allegorized this OT text in order to fit it into their Christocentric worldview.

Yet on the contrary, when one examines Genesis 1–3 in context, the hope of the protoevangelium

emerges completely apart from an appeal to allegory. Ultimately, by applying the grammatical-historical method of interpretation to Genesis 3:15, an anticipatory understanding emerges as the most viable option.28 Once this understanding emerges, and interpreters develop the OT’s anticipatory expectation,

they can properly understand the patriarchal hope of “seed,” ultimately pointing to the hope of a coming Redeemer.