Is Genesis 3:15 Really the Protoevangelium?

Technorati Tags: Jesus,gospel,first gospel,Christianty

Before we can attempt to answer the question of whether or not Genesis 3:15 is really the protoevangelium, we must first define what is “protoevangelium”. The protoevangelium is the first gospel, or the first mention of the good news of a redeemer. This topic is highly debated between the dozen or so commentaries I consulted, it is split closely down the middle with many commentators leaning to the answer that yes this is the protoevangelium.

The strongest proponent against this verse not being the protevangelium, had to be John Walton. Walton says, “If we are going to take the text at face value, even on a canonical scale, we must conclude that 3:15 describes only the ongoing struggle between evil (represented by the serpent and all representatives of evil that succeed it) and humanity generation through generation.” (Walton 2001, 235-36) In light of his own argument Walton has somehow ignored the use of the words he and his in the verse. While he concentrated extensively on the grammatical use of the word “seed”, he did not really mention the fact that the word he (hu in the Hebrew) is used in a singular fashion. The word (hu) translated he is used in the Old Testament 1258 times and of those it is translated he 516. So it is a strong indication that this verse could be pointing towards one man in particular.

Bruce Waltke in his commentary on Genesis makes a very insightful point, “”Offspring” renders zera “seed”, which is used commonly as a figure for descendants. Like the English word, zera can refer to an immediate descendant (Gen 4:25, 15:3), a distant offspring, or a large group of descendants… Since the woman’s seed struggles against the serpent’s seed, we infer that it has a collective sense. But since only the head of the serpent is represented as crushed, we expect an individual to deliver the fatal blow and be struck uniquely on his heel.” (Waltke 2001, 93)

This explanation makes great sense to many of us, because we have sat in Sunday school classes or heard sermons referring to the seed of Abraham as being the whole nation of Israel. However when we hear things in the same verse, that are explained an a singular sense it tends to be a little confusing, unless we put in light of Christ defeating Satan on the cross. Warren Wiersbee explains how this verse is fulfilled at the cross, “At the cross, Satan “bruised” Christ’s heel, but because of His death and resurrection, Christ crushed Satan’s head and won complete victory over him (Eph. 1:17-23; Col. 2:14-15).” (Wiersbe 2007, 29)

A slightly alternate view that has been offered is that of John MacArthur, he speaks of Jesus winning the battle against Satan and the role we as believers play in it. MacArthur says, “Believers should recognize that they participate in the crushing of Satan because, along with the Savior and because of His finished work on the cross, they also are the woman’s seed.” (MacArthur 2005, 18)

In light of all the differing viewpoints, this writer believes that Genesis 3:15 is the protoevangelium. In the New Testament we can find several allusions back to the verse in Genesis (Rom. 16:20, Heb.2:14; Gal. 4:4). Mark Driscoll in his book Vintage Jesus gives us a little more insight into why this verse points to Christ through the virgin birth. Driscoll says, “God promises that Jesus would be born from a woman. This is unusual because the rest of Scripture speaks of children being born from their father. Here however, no father is mentioned for Jesus, which implies the he would not have a biological earthly father.” (Driscoll and Breshears 2007, 90) Understanding how birth is described in Israel normally following the father’s line gives us a greater understanding of how this verse can point to the coming Christ.

Looking at all of the different factors we have been provided I am fully confident in saying that this verse is the Protoevangelium.

Driscoll, Mark, and Gerry Breshears. Vintage Jesus. Wheaton,IL: Crossway Books, 2007.

MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Bible Commentary. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2005.

Waltke, Bruce K. Genesis- A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001.

Walton, John H. The NIV Application Commentary on Genesis. Grand Rapids,MI: Zondervan, 2001.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Wiersbe Bible Commentary. Colorado Springs,CO: David C. Cook, 2007.

The "Desire" of Eve

Desire, in our culture it has so many different connotations. What exactly was the desire (tswqh) of Eve in Genesis 3:16? In its original Hebrew form the word tswqh is only used three times in the Old Testament twice in genesis and once in the Song of Songs. While several of the commentators agree that the desire being referred to here correlates directly to the reference also being made in Genesis 4:7. John MacArthur says it this way, “Sin has turned the harmonious system of God-ordained roles into distasteful struggles of self-will. Lifelong companions, husbands and wives, will need God’s help in getting along as a result. The woman’s desire will be to lord it over her husband, but the husband will rule by divine design (Eph. 5:22-25).” (MacArthur 2005, 18) After reading what John MacArthur had to say as well as several other commentators who share his same view point it made sense. Because, for anyone of us who has been married for any length of time can recognize the struggles that play out in our homes due to our sin natures.

However I would be doing a disservice if I did not share the rest of my findings. John H. Walton in his commentary on Genesis not only compares the two references found in Genesis he also analyzes the reference in Song of Songs. Walton says, “Song of Songs refers to the male sexual drive, a basic instinct. Genesis 4:7 refers to the basic driving instinct of sin, which is to deprave. In 3:16, then, since the context has already addressed the issue of reproduction that can easily be identified as a basic instinct of a woman…The answer is found in the woman’s instinct, her desire is to have children. The text sees that a desire as “for [her] husband” because such a desire cannot be fulfilled without his cooperation.” (Walton 2001, 228)

Both men make extremely valid points; and while I feel they each carry some truth with them. I must admit I lean more towards the view of John MacArthur, because Paul writes to us in Ephesians 5:22 “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” ^[1] Reminding wives that since the curse they must be mindful to follow the lead of their husbands, and not fight fro control.

MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Bible Commentary. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2005.

Walton, John H. The NIV Application Commentary on Genesis. Grand Rapids,MI: Zondervan, 2001.

---

^[1] The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Eph 5:22.

A Brief Look at Being Made in God’s Image

When you hear someone say, “We are made in the image of God.” What do you envision? Is it something like a portly person sitting around with your legs folded, spouting off pithy statements? For others they may feel that being made in the image of God, we have somehow been endowed with super powers, making us capable of doing anything. However, I don’t believe that is what the Bible is trying to tell us at all.

As good students of Scripture we have to learn to take things in their context. From our context there are at least two ways that we can understand what this text is trying to tell us. First God created everything and is in control of everything. Please take note the when God made the animals of the land and the birds of the air, or the fish of the sea they were after own kind. Therefore by creating man to rule in dominion over creation, he made us in his own image to act as his viceroys on earth.

Another way the phrase could be looked at is when God speaks of creating us, it specifically refers to man and woman being one in different forms as God himself is. John Sailhamer in is commentary on Genesis makes a good statement about this, “Following this clue the divine plurality expressed in v.26 is seen as an anticipation of the human plurality of the man and woman, thus casting the human relationship between man and woman in the role of reflecting God’s own personal relationship with himself.” (Sailhamer 1981, 38)

After delving into this study I would agree with both options I have presented, we are both viceroys in charge of what the Lord has given us and also as man and woman we are the greatest example of his plurality that can be witnessed on earth. And as far as the creation account explaining the relationship to the woman to the man, God looked at everything else he had created and saw that it was good, but it was not good for man to be alone. So he then created woman after man to give him a companion or a help mate. It was not a sub-serviant role because we are told that he created them male and female. She is there to help complete and fulfill man since Adam was made from the ground and Eve (woman) came from his flesh. “Then the man said,“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” (Genesis 2:23, ESV)

Sailhamer, John H. The Expositor's Bible Commentary- Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981.

I AM The Bread Of Life ~ Jesus

Imagine ancient Israel in early spring time, the air is slightly chilled but not cold. There has been talk of a man in Jerusalem who is a great healer; he has healed a nobleman’s son without ever touching him. The controversy that surrounds this man is incredible; the Jews are getting upset with him because he healed a lame man on the Sabbath. Now his name can be heard amongst the chatter, it is Jesus of Nazareth. He has left Jerusalem, he is getting closer to home, nearing the Sea of Galilee (also known as the Sea of Tiberias). There is a huge crowd following him, it’s hard to make out how many people are there, but there are at least five thousand men. And some of these men have been following Jesus since he left Jerusalem; others have joined in the journey from their respective towns. They have brought no food and are getting hungry; some of these men have not eaten for as much as three days according some estimates.

Out of this large crowd Andrew locates one young boy who has five loaves of bread and two fish. Bear in mind these are not loaves of bread as we think of them; they are more like dinner rolls and the fish are small like young mackerel. The child willingly gives what he has to the Lord, and Jesus blesses it giving thanks to the Father. All the people who were there ate their fill; and when they were done Jesus told his disciples to pick up the leftovers so that none maybe lost. Shortly after this Jesus went by himself up the mountain not wanting the people to try and forcibly make him their king. That night after feeding the five thousand; the disciples got into the boat to cross the sea and go home to Capernaum, Jesus was not with them, he was still on the mountain. They had gotten roughly three or four miles out and the sea began to get rough, and in the distance they could see a figure, it was Jesus walking on the water.

The next morning the crowds came looking for Jesus and could not find him or his disciples they headed across the sea to Capernaum. Upon finding him they ask him “Why have you come here?” He replies saying “You have not come looking for me because I did miracles but because you had your fill of the loaves.” (Jn 6:26 paraphrased) He continues telling them not to work for food that will perish, but they should seek that which will endure until eternal life. Jesus continues in a conversation with the crowd about how they need the bread of God, and the people ask for him to give them this bread always (Jn 6:34)

To their request “Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.^[1]” This is a very powerful statement to be made by any man. In a small discourse that takes place prior to this statement Jesus and this group were discussing the provision of God through Moses. That while in the wilderness with no major food source, readily available for a large multitude of people (the Israelite nation), God provided manna and water for those people. Dr. Towns says of the manna, “Manna was one of several types of Christ in the Old Testament. Given to Israel originally as their bread in the wilderness, God stopped providing it only after the nation crossed the Jordan River and began eating the grain of the land. It was widely known as “the bread from heaven.”” (Towns 2002, 63)

Asaph wrote of the great provision of heaven in the psalms, “and he rained down on them manna to eat and gave them the grain of heaven.”[2] With this verse in particular he is speaking of the manna, while throughout the rest of the psalm he is referring to the people questioning God; and God displaying his power. As an example, most people in today’s society can go all day and not eat a single slice of bread or anything like it. In ancient Israel meat was a luxury that was not always available. Leon Morris states it this way, “We should bear in mind that for the ancients bread was the principal element in the normal diet. People did not have available the variety of foods that we take for granted, and bread could stand for prosperity (Deut. 8:9; Prov. 12:11,etc) and the lack of it for adversity (Lam 1:11).” (Morris 1989, 110-11) Now take a look at how God showed himself to the widow through Elijah and the bread she was willing to be generous with (1 Kings 17:8-16). God again provided for the physical needs of his prophet and showed his power to a gentile.

While the revealing of God in the Old Testament through Christ statement, “I am the bread of life” may be a bit of a challenge, there is great joy to be found in its meaning. Even though the nation of Israel wondered for forty years in the wilderness, God continually provided for them physically. They did not really have to believe in who God was; all they had to do was be considered as part of the nation of Israel and receive the blessed gift of the manna (or bread of heaven). However, Jesus was making a great distinction between how Moses helped them receive the physical blessing, and how he was the ultimate spiritual blessing. Tenney puts it this way, “Jesus informed the people that Moses did not give them the real spiritual bread…. Jesus did not mean that the manna had no food value; he meant it was not the means of sustaining spiritual life. He claimed to be the genuine and only source of spiritual nourishment.” (Tenney 1981, 75)

Amazingly the crowd the Lord was speaking with was either unwilling or incapable of understanding that Lord was not referring to actual bread but to himself. He speaks to them in such a way that anyone could begin to understand, he is no longer referring to a physical provision, but the greatest spiritual provision we could ever ask for. While bread provides the sustenance needed for the body, Christ himself provides nourishment for the soul. Warren Wiersbe makes a great case for this by saying, “Also, God gave the manna in the past, but the Father is now giving the true bread in the person of Jesus Christ. The past event is finished, but the present spiritual experience goes on!

Then Jesus clearly identified what the bread is: He is the true Living Bread that came down from heaven. But He came, not only for Israel but for the whole world. And He came, not just to sustain life, but to give life! Seven times in this sermon, our Lord referred to His “coming down from heaven” (John 6:33, 38, 41–42, 50–51, 58), a statement that declared Him to be God. The Old Testament manna was but a type of the “true bread,” the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Wiersbe 2007, 250)

Jesus’ statement that he is the bread of life is powerful, because he not only says it once he repeats it to his audience in a slightly different fashion to be able to make an even stronger impact. Just as Mr. Wiersbe, Dr. Towns mentions the fact of Christ speaking of coming down out of heaven. Dr. Towns says this of the bread of heaven, “The genuine bread of God from heaven is that which gives life….John Chrysostom, one of the church fathers, contrasted manna with Christ, noting that while manna brought nourishment (trophe), it failed to give life (zoe). Christ is the bread of everlasting life.” (Towns 2002, 63)

For the Jews to hear these statements not once, but twice it had to infuriate them. Because they understand that God is the author and sustainer of life and outside of him there is no life. To drive home the point that life is not found on earth but given from heaven John Calvin has this to say, “He frequently mentions his coming down from heaven, because spiritual incorruptible life will not be found in this world, the fashion which passes away and vanishes, but only in the heavenly kingdom of God.” (Calvin 2005, 261) So in Christ saying, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”^[3] His listeners must be thinking to themselves, “This man is crazy the Law prohibits us from drinking blood or even eating meat with blood still in it.” For the Jews the power of life was found in the blood that is the primary reason they would not embalm. However, Christ was not telling them to be cannibals; he was telling them that they would perish if they did not accept his redemptive work on the cross.

Just like the Christians of the first century, believers of every generation since have heard these words and made the active choice to eat of “the bread of life.” Jesus has kept his word and provided for his people.

Bibliography

Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries. Vol. 22. 22 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005.

MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Bible Commentary. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2005.

Morris, Leon. Jesus is the Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1989.

Tenney, Merrill C. The Expositor's Bible Commentary - John. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 9. 12 vols. Grand Rapids,MI: Zondervan, 1981.

Towns, Elmer. John Believe and Live. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2002.

Walvoord, John F, Roy B. Zuck, and Dallas Theological Seminary. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Exposition of the Scripture. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983.

Wiersbe, Warren W. The Wiersbe Bible Commentary. Colorado Springs,CO: David C. Cook, 2007.

---

^[1] The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Jn 6:35.

[2] The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ps 78:24

^[3] The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Jn 6:53.

 

Technorati Tags: I am statements of Jesus,bread of life,gospel of John,Christianity,eternal life,diety of Jesus

The Resurrection is the Greatest Sign

If you want to truly call yourself a student of the Bible I see no way you can get around the fact that the resurrection of Jesus is the greatest sign of the gospel. Even though this is not a sign Jesus does himself it is a sign acted out upon him by the Holy Spirit through the guidance of the Father. We can easily validate this as being the greatest sign that Christ chose to give us, because he tells us so. In chapter two of John’s gospel he has just cleansed the temple and the Jews wanted an explanation. “So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” ¹⁹ Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” ²⁰ The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” ²¹ But he was speaking about the temple of his body. ²² When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.” ^[1] He made sure to give them sign that was beyond adequate.

The Jews were always looking for Jesus to provide a sign of some sort for the things he was doing or to prove he was the Messiah (or Christ). Warren Wiersbe sums it up well by saying, “Often, during His ministry, the leaders asked Jesus to give them a sign; and He refused to do so, except for the sign of Jonah (Matt. 12:39ff). The “sign of Jonah” is death, burial, and resurrection.”^[2] This sign is even greater than the rest; it shows the culmination of his power. Sadly however some commentators chose not to recognize his resurrection as a great sign. While some struggle with believing Jesus is as powerful as he claimed to be. As believers we can trust that as Leon Morris says, “He is such a great person that even death gives place to him.” (Morris 1989, 118) Meaning that death has no control over Jesus, he told his disciples that even though he will lay down his life he has the power to take it back up again.(Jn 10:17)

One major thing we have to remember, while we may regret the fact that Jesus had to die such a brutal death on our behalf, if he had not died he could not have risen to be by the Father’s side. The great gift we receive by his death and resurrection is His Holy Spirit as Dr. Towns states, “But in the center of hatred, Jesus reminds them that they will be sustained by the Holy Spirit’s presence.” (Towns 2002, 159). His resurrection continues to be a sign, strengthening us today and giving us hope for the future.

Bibliography

Morris, Leon. Jesus is the Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1989.

Towns, Elmer. John Believe and Live. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2002.

---

^[1] The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Jn 2:18–22.

^[2] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1996), Jn 2:12.

Technorati Tags: Christ,Jesus,Resurrection,Christianity,Signs and miracles in the gospel,God,Gospel