Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 64:2 (Jun 2021)
Article: Recent Developments In The Interpretation Of The Seed Of The Woman In Genesis 3:15
Author: Jonathan Cheek

JETS 64:2 (June 2021) p. 215

Recent Developments In The Interpretation Of The Seed Of The Woman In Genesis 3:15

Jonathan Cheek*

^* Jonathan Cheek, Ph.D., Bob Jones University, resides in Taylors, South Carolina. He may be contacted at [email protected].

Abstract: From the late nineteenth century through the 1980s, a lack of strong exegetical support for a messianic understanding of Genesis 3:15 (the “protevangelium”) led to a number of exegetical and theological treatments of the verse downplaying the messianic significance of the verse and favoring a collective view of the seed of the woman and often a naturalistic view of the serpent. Since the early 1990s, though, scholars have provided significant exegetical and theological arguments to support an understanding of the seed of the woman as an individual who will engage in warfare with the serpent. These developments have brought about something of a renaissance in the interpretation of Genesis 3:15 among evangelical scholars. This article will survey and evaluate the most significant issues and developments in the interpretation of the seed of the woman over the past thirty years.

Key words: Messiah, messianic prophecies, Genesis 3, protevangelium, seed, prophecy, Christ in the Old Testament, biblical theology, progressive revelation, Pentateuch

Throughout the history of the church, Genesis 3:15 has generally been understood as a protevangelium to some extent, and many Christian interpreters have understood the verse as the first messianic prophecy. Others, not identifying the seed of the woman as an individual, still understand 3:15 as a protevangelium declaring the defeat of the serpent and its seed through the collective seed of the woman—the church. The historical-critical method, arising from eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Enlightenment rationalism, however, led interpreters to abandon the protevangelium view altogether and to adhere to a naturalistic view of the passage.1 By the late twentieth century, the weight of scholarly opinion opposed the concept of 3:15 as protevangelium.

In 1984, Claus Westermann stated that “the explanation of 3:15 as a promise has been abandoned almost without exception.”2 In support of this idea, Westermann asserted that the most recent “weighty exegesis of You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe