August Dillmann in his work, Genesis critically and exegetically expounded… concedes that Genesis 3:15 is not the
protevangelium. His main argument is that the language regarding the serpent
bruising the heel, and the man crushing its head is not conducive to God
indicating victory. He feels this is more of man and beast throughout the ages
being at war with each other or with sin, rather than a prediction of Christ’s
defeat of Satan at the Cross. He goes on to say if the serpent bites at the
man’s heel it will actually kill him and not bruise.
Marten H. Woudstra in Recent
Translations of Genesis 3:15 brings to light three views with regards to
how words are translated to come to the conclusion that, Genesis 3:15, is the
protevangelium. The author seeks to identify how certain words used in
conjunction with the serpent (zera), seed (hu), and what happens to the serpent
(shaph) to bring clarification as to whether or not this passage is referring
to a future victory of Christ on the Cross over satan. Outlined are varying
rationales in grammar that appease the many views regarding these words, but it
is the word shaph which is usually translated “crush” that is considered
most. The author presents the idea that for all intents and purposes the word
should be translated to “strike at.” That being said, if the man is to strike
at the head of the serpent it is an indication of an ongoing enmity rather than
a clear cut end to it at Christ’s death. He defeated satan’s ability to steal
life form man if he chooses to receive Christ, but it doesn’t mean the devil is
out for the count. Still, it is deemed the protevangelium because God is
establishing truth of Christ.
A short article called The Protoevangelium of Salvation makes very clear that, Genesis 3:15,
is the protevangelium. The article cites many verses of Scripture from the New
Testament that lead back to the passage in question, and much of what it states
is true. The one point I believe that is used to drive the whole piece home is “this will be the victory bought at the
price of the sacrifice of the cross ("and you shall bruise his heel.").”
the article goes on to state that in this verse is found the first mention of
Christ as “the new Adam.” Much is gleaned from this verse and used to
promulgate God’s goodness and foretelling of His great plan of redemption very
early on in Scripture.
To
the first source, I can understand his point but I believe he is placing too
much on the literal in his thought processing. To say that a serpent can kill a
man is not incorrect but the fact is not all snakes have poison. To the second
source, I can see how translating a word a certain way changes the entire
dynamic of a passage and so context is truly important. It is true that
although Christ defeated what Satan can do to man, if man makes a decision for
Him, but to say that Satan is completely defeated at the time of the Cross is
out of sorts. Satan has and will have still, a great deal of power to cause major
havoc in this world. To the last source, although almost everything stated I
agree with, I cannot wrap my head around the idea that because the serpent
bruised the heel of her offspring that it means Christ death on the Cross. To
equate the bruised heel of a man to what Christ endured on the Cross is almost
insulting. I believe the verse is indicative of the enmity between man and sin
throughout the ages. It is a part of a list of consequences man has to endure
due to the fall.
Bibliography
Dillmann, August. Genesis
critically and exegetically expounded…vol.1:158-162, http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015060452490;view=1up;seq=178;q1=protevangelium;start=1;size=10;page=search;61;72;num=162
(accessed October 8, 2012).
Woudstra, H. Marten. 1971. Recent
Translations of Genesis 3:15, Calvin Theological Journal 6:194-203, http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Woudstra_Gen3_15_CTJ.pdf
(accessed October 8, 2012).
No comments:
Post a Comment