Here is an assignment that I recently completed for Liberty University. Exegesis of Old Testament Messianic prophecy is not really my strong suit. But I'm mainly just summarizing other's positions on the matter. Genesis 3:15: Properly a Protevangelium? Three parties receive a curse pronounced upon them by God as reported in Genesis chapter 3: the serpent (or Satan), Eve and Adam, in that order. All parties are responsible to God for disobeying Him. Adam and Eve violated a specific commandment of God whereas the serpent does not seem to have violated an express command (Gen. 2:16, 17). In legal parlance, one might refer to the serpent as an accessory to a crime, or more forcefully, as an agent provocateur, or one who instigates someone to commit a crime who otherwise would likely be deterred by a future punishment-scenario. The serpent (Satan) appears to receive the harshest sentence of the three parties and the one most open to theological interpretation. The question which lurks in the background of the study of the Gospel and its Old Testament roots is as follows: Does the reference to him who "will strike" the head of the serpent and to the serpent, reciprocally, striking his "heel" properly take itself to be the first statement of the Good News or gospel (Gen. 3:15; NRSV)? On the one hand, the most immediate and obvious meaning of the text has to do with the relationship between the progeny of Eve and the serpent. It does seem to be a hermeneutical disadvantage to import theological baggage from the New Testament soteriology and impose it on the text. On the other hand, some external theological content seems required since we do not normally see snakes going round and having chats with people and asking them if God's Word is really true (Gen. 3:1). Additionally, the curse is quite strong for an animal considering that animals obey instincts more mechanically than humans do. One proposal that takes the account quite mythically, perhaps as early man's attempt to explain conflicts between animals and humans is from expert on Semitic literary encounters, Harold Bloom (Rosenberg & Bloom 1990). Bloom, who accepts the four-source theory (J, E, P and D) and regards it as probable that the 'J' source is feminine, holds that the harshness of the serpent's sentence may have mislead both Christian and Gnostic adherents to read the serpent as either Satan or "weirdly" as a liberator, respectively (p. 185). Bloom does not really address problems with the "serpent is a serpent is a serpent" idea, such as why J's Yahweh would be speaking to and cursing a snake except to offer in passing that it is a "children's story" (p. 186). Bloom's rendition of 3:15 via Hebrew translator, David Rosenberg is as follows: "'Since you did this,' said Yahweh to the snake, 'you are bound apart from flocks, from any creature of the field, bound to the ground, crawling by your smooth belly: dirt you shall taste from first day to last. I make you enemy to woman, enmity bound between your seed and hers. As you strike his heel, he shall strike your head.'" (p. 64) Walvoord (1969) has no fear in reading Genesis 3:15 as not only Messianic prophecy and a personification of Satan in the serpent (p. 83), but holds that it would be predictive of a virgin birth of the coming Messiah (p. 57). He attempts to trace the line from Eve to Mary through several references in Genesis (3:15; 4:25; 6-9; 12:1-3; 17:19; 28:14; 49:10) and one reference in II Samuel (7:12-13). At this point, Walvoord determines that the New Testament genealogies contained in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are needed (p. 83). While he openly calls 3:15 a "protevangelium," it is somewhat difficult to decipher if Walvoord would maintain that reconstructing perfect and unbroken genealogies is necessary for one to know 3:15 is in fact a "protevangelium." Controversial and defrocked theologian, Hans Kung (1976), does not emphatically uphold or deny Genesis 3:15 as a protevangelium. However, he holds that the Eve-to-Mary connection is "typological," not historical. As many scholars who have studied the Jesus of History and the Jesus of Faith as discrete entities, Kung performs a similar dissection for the Mary of Roman Catholic Faith and the Mary of History, questioning whether a virgin birth is really necessary for Jesus to be both God and man in one being: Although the virgin birth cannot be understood as a historical- biological event, it can be regarded as a meaningful symbol at least for that time. It would symbolize the fact that, with Jesus who closes and surpasses the Old Covenant, God has made a truly new beginning...(p. 456). There has truly been an impressive amount of scholarly study performed on this passage, analyzing and synthesizing the meaning of God's curse on the serpent within the larger whole of the Christian theology. It is a blessed reality that believers can call upon the name of Jesus as someone who has overcome the "serpent" so that we may have power over spirits of darkness (Ephesians 6:12). Due to its literary genre as an imprecation or curse, I would not agree that Genesis 3:15 is, properly speaking, a protevangelium, at least in the New Testament sense of kerygma. I do, however, feel that it contains a veiled messianic reference and does provide hope that Satan's domain was from the "get-go" of human history, indeed, limited by the much-anticipated person and work of Jesus Christ. References: Kung, Hans. 1976. On Being a Christian. New York: Doubleday & Company. The Life with God Bible (NRSV). 2005. New York: HarperCollins. Rosenberg, David and Harold Bloom. 1990. The Book of J. New York: Grove Weidenfeld. Walvoord, John F. 1969. Jesus Christ our Lord. Chicago, IL.: Moody Press.

With enough creativity, anything can be.
Where in the text does it say that the serpent is Satan? This idea of the serpent being Satan has been read in much later after the development of the "Satan" character. Many scholars (and I agree) think the serpent represents one of the competing gods.
Tell that to any woman who has given birth!
Again we have this HUGE theological problem of God punishing all serpents (or snakes) for the act of "Satan" who simply, allegedly, appeared as a serpent. That's like the police going out on Halloween night and throwing all kids dressed up as prisoners in prison.


You can take any story where future revenge is implicitly or explicitly implied and call it a Protevangelium. I am sorry, but in doing this, especially with Gen, appears to be a desperate attempt to find validation for the Gospels where none exists.

So can we now conclude that you are in fact a theist? You believe there are other gods?

I dont think it could have been anyone else but Satan.
Then it would also be unfair to curse the ground because of mans sin...

I don't know Bo, but if God is you can ask Him if you get a chance. Maybe even Satan will tell you he was that snake or the other gods you believe exist might say it was them...

Just using a bit of bad sarcasm mate, no worries. Its a tricky one isn't it. I will wait and let Jesus tell me all about it someday...I have a hope remember...

No Karl. Gods in a story does not in any way translate to gods in real life.

I hear you. but if you say schollars believe this you agree with them it is not satan but other gods? Even if theese people believe it as truth you agree with them but dont believe it is true?..ok

anyways...

This is the first time ever I hear that it was not satan. I dont believe there are any other god so again all talk talk talk and were going to have to agree to disagree.

...that devil must really be good if he can even get some to think it wasn't him here.

Karl,

I am not sure what you are trying to say. When scholars say that the serpent character in Genesis most likely represented another god, they are not saying that they believe in many gods and are polytheists. If I say I think Darth Vader was good all along, it does not mean that I think Darth Vader is real. I know you think the Bible is an infallible history book, but you are among the vast minority that hold this belief.

If you dare, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_%28symbolism%29 . You will see that serpents played a large role in mythology and ancient religions, long before the Genesis account was recorded.

The serpent on Genesis is a character in an fictional story -- not a real talking snake possessed by Satan.

And just for the record, the Darth Vader character was played by the actor David Prowse -- he is not real either.

Bo, Regarding creative interpretation of the "evangelium" here, I chose to delimit by literary genre. But I think that it does stand as a messianic reference at least. I believe that we have to see a character or animating principle behind the serpent. We don't normally have talking serpents in the Bible. When we find an exception to a norm, we have to ask "why?" Or at least it's a reasonable question. You talk about the HUGE theological problem of the punishment of serpents. I'm not so sure about that portion. In fact, you mention that the curse for the woman in childbirth is not really a picnic. For all we know, snakes may have had to "slither" in a post-Fallen world anyway. I agree with you that many O.T. Accounts of a coming judgment could be called a "protevangelium" or first form of the gospel but it should probably be limited to texts where there is a distinct promise involved of deliverance from curse or judgment. Otherwise, no "good news" or gospel. As far as finding validation for the gospels, I think that a careful evaluation has to be made of how the Gospel writers utilize what might be referred to as Messianic prophecy. Blessings, Adam

We don't normally have talking serpents in the Bible. When we find an exception to a norm, we have to ask "why?" Or at least it's a reasonable question.

OK, now we need to think as to what the possible answers are to that "why" question. Here are just some: a) Talking animals / creatures is a major and common element of mythology and similar literature b) Talking animals / creatures are a key element of fables c) There really was a talking serpent and the writing cricket who was there witnessing the historical event wrote everything down
Ok, with the exception of the literate cricket, on what grounds do you think "c" is the most probable answer? Remember, the Bible is a collection of writings from many authors over centuries -- it is not a single book where we would be surprised to find many different literary genres. In other words, we might find historical accounts about wars and kings in one book and poetry in another book, so why is it so hard to believe that one book would contain mythology?

Bo, Yes, we have the basic distinction between mythological accounts and historical accounts. What makes Genesis interesting here on this score is that we don't have this continued reference to animals talking later in Genesis. Why would the compiler/editor have that play so key a role early on and then drop it (not characteristic at all of fables)? Some have suggested what's called the "framework hypothesis" which treats Genesis 1 -- 11 as poetical in nature. There are some indications from the text, however, including use of the Hebrew waw, implying consequential events in a narrative flow. And we do have multi-cultural confirmation of creation -- judgment -- flood accounts from other civilizations. So I think that points to a fundamental historicity. Blessings, Adam

What makes Genesis interesting here on this score is that we don't have this continued reference to animals talking later in Genesis. We have a talking ass in Numbers 22-30. Besides talking animals, there are many other elements that are characteristic of fables and mythology that are present in the majority of the books of the Bible. Why would the compiler/editor have that play so key a role early on and then drop it (not characteristic at all of fables)? Are you suggesting there was a single complier of the Bible? Just like it was written, the compilers, redactors, editors, copyists, etc. we just as numerous and spanning over centuries. There are some indications from the text, however, including use of the Hebrew waw, implying consequential events in a narrative flow. I am not sure what you are saying here. Do consequential events in a narrative flow indicate historical fact? Cannot this flow be present in fiction? Even so, would the presence of literary technique used mostly in fiction be enough evidence to validate the story as fact? And we do have multi-cultural confirmation of creation -- judgment -- flood accounts from other civilizations. So I think that points to a fundamental historicity. Once again, you lost me. Recurring literary themes are indicators of historical fact? The creation - judgment - flood stories in all cultures are widely different in many ways. Side note on flood stories, remember that ancient people did not have satellite imagery. A local flood of their village was "worldwide" from their perspective.

Hey Guys,

Again, this makes me think about what this dude say:

" After many excavations in the Middle East, archaeologists have found Ancient writings called "cuneiform" writings that date back all the way to 3500 B.C. Adam was still alive at that time, and so writing could have gone back even farther. So Adam could have composed his EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF THE GARDEN OF EDEN!"

www.british-israel.ca/Genesis.htm

Sure Karl. I will accept that Adam could have written his own story in Genesis. But by way of equal evidence, you must accept that the serpent could have been GLUTOR from the planet NEBULON, in the TWOFARK galaxy, sent to earth by the evil galactic emperor FILLYDIGS, who became evil from a lifetime of the other PLUTORKEANS making fun of his name.

Good Morning Karl,

About that link, thewww.british-israel.ca/Genesis.htm

After reading quit a bit on that site, I realized that it was a religion. At first, I thought it was a church, a church of God, which would be a pentecostal religion.

After checking it out and their beliefs, I stopped reading. I hope that you will do the same and see what all other faiths say about it. I think I checked it out through Wikipedia.

Hahaha, you sure have a way with words. But I accept the serpent being that devil.

Thank you Linda I will look into that. Where did you do that online study, here?

Yes Karl, if you click the link to the home page, on the right hand side, they have a link to a study corse. It is the same site, by Peter Salemi.

Why do people only accept the creation myth of the OT as truth? But not others, is this because they managed to write it down or that it was written down then lasted to a time when people could read it and it says it is true? Ever wondered if any other fanciful and illogical creation myths which were also written, are older and hold many of the same theme's might have be true instead?

how about the babylinian derived from the sumer creation myth which out dates the old testiment description by about 2 centuries.

This poem was written in the 12th century BC, but the myths on which it was based date back to ancient Sumer. The most complete text was found on seven clay tablets. Part of it, Tablet IV tells of the great battle between the sky god Marduk and the earth goddess Tiamat.(mimiking the war between god and the fallen angels)

or the Sumer one which is older by about 900 years and holds a striking resemblance to the Genesis myth: The Epic of Creation begins with: "THE FIRST TABLET When in the height heaven was not named, And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name, And the primeval Apsu, who begat them, And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both Their waters were mingled together, And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen; When of the gods none had been called into being, And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained; Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven, Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being... Ages increased,..." But as we well know the bible leaves out all the nasty bits about "other gods" and instead attributes everything to one god.