CAPÍTULO IV: LEGISLACIÓN COMPARADA DE LOS GRUPOS ECONÓMICOS
4.1.2. Konzern de hecho
In Genesis chapters one and two, God creates the heavens and the earth (1:1). As he progressively creates different features of the universe, the text records that after each day, “God saw that it was good” (1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). In his new creation, God freely dwells with his people—Adam and Eve—in an unspoiled earth (cf. 3:8–9). Yet into this perfect world, the serpent tempts Adam and Eve, and they sin against God by eating from the forbidden tree (2:17; 3:6). As a result, the universe plummets into chaos. In 3:14–19, the Lord describes the curse brought upon the world: “Cursed is the ground because of you ... for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (3:17b, 19b).
However, into this seemingly hopeless situation, God declares to the serpent in the presence of Adam and Eve, “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” (3:15). Here, God promises Adam and Eve “seed” or “offspring” who will one day bruise the serpent’s head.29 Although some may 25John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 2nd ed., ICC 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1994), 79.
26Bruce Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading (New York: Doubleday, 1977), 83, emphasis added. Likewise,
Hermann Gunkel labels the messianic view of Genesis 3:15 as “allegorical interpretation.” Gunkel goes further, claiming the account of Adam and Eve is a “myth [which] belongs to the category of myths and fairy tales very common in antiquity and among primitive peoples” (Genesis, trans. Mark E. Biddle [Macon, GA: Mercer Univer- sity Press, 1997], 21).
27Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 93, emphasis added.
28Jason S. DeRouchie–4 refers to this anticipatory theme as the “future longing and persevering trust” (228),
the “forward-looking, hope-filled theme of progressive productivity under the blessing of God” (240), and the expectation of a “single king in the line of promise who will perfectly reflect, resemble, and represent God and who will definitively overcome all evil, thus restoring right order to God’s kingdom for the fame of his name” (247) (“The Blessing-Commission, the Promised Offspring, and the Toledot Structure of Genesis,” JETS 56 [2013]: 219–47).
29While this pronouncement is given directly to the serpent, it is Eve’s “seed” that has a direct role in bringing
think it odd that the promise refers to the woman’s “seed,” given the context in which the serpent had just deceived Eve—and thereby brought the curse upon all creation—it seems quite fitting that her
“seed” should be responsible to bring punishment. However, this punishment will not be accomplished without both sides sustaining injury in the process. While Walton points to the repetition of the verb
ףושׁ
(“bruise”) to assert that the verse gives no hint of the victor’s identity nor of the eventual outcome, his argumentation seems at best tenuous.30 Quite simply, for a human toףושׁ
(“strike”; or contextually“crush”) the head of a serpent implies a mortal blow, while for a serpent to
ףושׁ
(“strike”; or contextually “bite”) the heel of a human, at most suggests a potentially mortal blow. As such, it seems best to conclude that in this conflict, it is the “seed” of woman who will claim victory over the serpent. At this point, it is necessary to determine the identity of the serpent as well as the identity of the “seed.”From the context, it is apparent that this serpent is no ordinary snake.31 When Genesis 3:1 first
introduces the serpent, the text states, “Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.” Due to its supernatural ability to speak (and thereby tempt), even Adam and Eve would have likely recognized a difference between it and a natural snake. As such, although Adam and Eve may not have been able to identify the serpent as “Satan,” they would have been able to notice its abnormality among the rest of the animals. Commenting on this concept, Alexander states, “While the author of Genesis stops well short of identifying the serpent as Satan, it is clear that the serpent acts against God.… The serpent is more than an ordinary snake.”32 In similar fashion, when
developing the identity of the serpent, Collins describes it as the “mouthpiece of a Dark Power” and concludes by referring to it as the “Evil One.”33 At the very least, based on the context, the text presents
the serpent as the “crafty” or “diabolical” one (3:1), as the serpent’s tempting—and Adam and Eve’s subsequent disobedience—ultimately undoes all that God had previously declared good (cf. 1:31). Although the text does not explicitly call the serpent the “evil one,” it does seem to be a fitting title, as through its tempting, the curse is brought upon creation. Again, while this evil one will attack the “seed” of woman, ultimately the “seed” of woman will be victorious.
ment, it can be said that they, too, are participants in this promise, albeit indirectly.
30John Walton writes, “While it is true that a strike to the head would appear more devastating than a strike to
the heel, a serpent’s strike to the heel is another matter altogether. While not all snakes were poisonous, the threat provided by some, in the haste to protect oneself, attaches itself to all snakes … an attack by any snake was viewed as a potentially mortal blow” (Genesis, NIV Application Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001]. 226). He concludes, “The verse is depicting a continual, unresolved conflict between humans and the representatives of evil” (ibid.). However, Walton’s view seems unsustainable, as he seems to base his entire theory upon the possible allusion to a poisonous snake. Even he acknowledges, “Of thirty-six species of snake known to the area, the viper (vipera palaestinae) is the only poisonous snake” (ibid.). To assume that the serpent of this verse is poisonous merely because one species of poisonous snake existed in the general region, seems far too speculative.
31Those coming from a naturalistic perspective will likely disagree. For example, Westermann lists several
possible identities of the serpent. When commenting on the standard conservative perspective (that the serpent is Satan in disguise), he claims that it “has been abandoned in modern exegesis” (Genesis 1–11, 237). Gunkel refers to this account as a “myth” (Genesis, 21).
32T. Desmond Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology (Grand Rap-
ids: Kregel, 2008), 104, emphasis added.
33C. John Collins, Genesis 1–4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R
Publishing, 2006), 156, 176. Additionally, Kidner aptly summarizes this in that while Genesis presents the serpent as an evil individual, “only the New Testament ... unmask[s] the figure of Satan behind the serpent” (Genesis, 70–71).
Who then, is the “seed” of woman? In light of the serpent’s identity, the “seed” of woman is the one who will attack and be victorious over the serpent, the evil one. While the “seed” of woman will suffer a great wound (“bruised on the heel”), he will be the one to destroy (“bruise the head” or “crush the skull” of) the serpent. The Hebrew term ע ַר ֶ֫ז can refer to either “seed” (plural—as in descendants) or “seed” (singular—as in descendant). It is because of this flexibility of usage that many commentators take differing interpretations of this passage. For example, by taking this as a strictly collective promise, some rule out the possibility of any messianic relevance. For Westermann, the primary reason that Genesis 3:15 cannot be considered as protoevangelium is that “seed” must be understood collectively rather than singularly. Additionally, he claims that it is “not possible that such a form has either promise or prophecy as its primary or even as its secondary meaning.”34 Barr calls Westermann’s assertion a
“crushing rebuttal of all such suggestions.”35 Yet one must consider if this really is a crushing rebuttal at
all. Although it is true that “seed” (