c






 





One of the roots of the messianic promise, in pre-patriarchal times, is the text of Gen 3:15 ± the
record of the Fall. This is the text of God¶s curse on the serpent after the incident in the Garden.
The NAB translation reads: ³I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your
offspring and hers. He will strike at your head while you strike at his heal.´ Bible scholars refer
to this account as the Yahwist account of creation. A literal rendering of the sacred writer¶s
intention would be ³they will strike « at their heals´ since the Hebrew word xr¾z² (zeh-rah) is a
collective noun meaning µdescendants¶ though it occurs in the singular - descendant. For St.
Jerome, ³He´ (awh), in the passage, has sometimes been used to refer to Christ in Christian
tradition, even though the literal reference is to the human descendants of eve, who will regard
snakes as enemies (Brown, R., et al. (eds), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, London:
Geoffrey Chapman, 1989). Until the rise of historical critical method, therefore, traditional
Hebrew and Christian exegesis see this passage as the first promise of a µredeemer¶ figure or
Messiah to fallen humankind, i.e. the O


. The woman¶s offspring was identical
with Jesus Christ. As such they did not restrict messianic expectations only to text where the
word j¾yvimš (mashiah - messiah) appear. This interpretation could be seen in the commentary
of Adam Clark on this text. For him not only does the text point to Christ, it also immediately
points to his virginal conception and the suffering which the redeemer was to undergo ± ³«
while you strike at his heel´(Clark, A., Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. I, The Ages
Digital Library Commentaries, Books For the Ages, Ages Software, Albany, U.S.A., Version
1.0., 1997) A similar opinion is also decipherable from the commentary of Matthew Henry on
this text ( Henry, M., Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. I The Ages Digital Library
Commentaries, Books For the Ages, Ages Software, Albany, U.S.A., Version 1.0., 1997).
Today, in theological circles, such argumentation is no longer academically taken too seriously.

There is thus the debate as to whether a Christological understanding could follow from this
verse. Proponents of the contrary opinion thus aver that the writer of this section ± the Yahwist ±
could not have had such an advanced idea of mesianism in mind and this is not only because
scholarship has uncovered the genre or literary form of that part of Genesis, but more because of
the erroneous soteriology such an identification presumed; that is, the attempt to see the
Incarnation as a remedial effort necessitated by the Fall. In spite of this attempt at a messianic
reading or interpretation of this pre-monarchical text, the general notion is that Israel¶s messianic
ideology did not predate the established monarchy even though it presumes it. Hence W. Beuken
asserts that ³it is assumed that the term Yahweh¶s anointed is a product of the theological
foundation of the Davidic monarchy as it came into being under Solomon. It is of course based
on the tradition of the anointing of David and his descendants as kings.´(Beuken, W., ³Did Israel
need the Messiah?´ in ID et al. (eds.), Messianism through History, Concilium, 1993, p. 3).
None of the Old Testament (henceforth OT) messianic texts speak explicitly of an eschatological
messiah, not even our text of consideration. These texts are more or less series of promises and
not simply predictions or independent prognostications of some eschatological event. For many
modern scholars, Israelite messianism grew out of beliefs associated with their nation¶s kingship
± i.e. when actual reality and the careers of particular historical Israelite kings proved more and
more disappointing, the ³messianic´ kingship ideology was projected on the future. As such,
reading this text in the light of the incarnation and messiahship of Jesus Christ is thus described
by many scholars as a Christian biblico-theological messianic agenda/development and falls
within the ambient of a the development of Christology, i.e. in the bid to demonstrate biblically
the fact of Jesus¶ messiahship as deriving ultimately from or having been prophesied in OT data.
For scholars ³the belief in the messiah is one of the four gifts which the people of Israel have left
as an inheritance to the entire world´ (J. Klausner) and this belief was fulfilled in the coming of
Jesus Christ. (Bruce, F.F.). Christ is the Son of Man who has derived dominion from the ancient
of days, who had smitten the Serpent to death for his people¶s transgression and borne the sin of
many so that the divine purpose may be accomplished.

Consequently many have described Judaism as a religion in waiting ± that presupposed

Christianity. The OT thus becomes a Christian book/scripture as it shed light on Jesus. The
context of the divine promise that the offspring of Eve will crush the head of the serpent (Gen 3:
15), offers hope of a future victory, a redeemer, now seen in the character of Jesus. Nevertheless,
we can hardly call the OT a book about Jesus. In it, Jesus is not identified as such.

ß  
 , u
 


 u