The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15 James Hamilton

James Hamilton is Assistant Profes- Introduction particular, namely, the hypothesis that sor of Biblical Studies at Havard School The use of the OT in the New has been from start to fi nish, the OT is a messianic for Theological Studies, Southwestern much discussed, with some coming to document, written from a messianic per- Baptist Theological Seminary, Houston, the conclusion that, to put it simply, the spective, to sustain a messianic hope.5 Texas. He received his Ph.D. from The authors of the NT wrongly interpreted Adopting this perspective might go a long Southern Baptist Theological Seminary the OT.1 This being the case, their exege- way toward explaining why the NT seems and is an ordained Southern Baptist sis cannot be legitimately imitated today. to regard the whole of the OT as pointing minister. Dr. Hamilton is the author of nu- Those who come to this conclusion to and being fulfi lled in the one it presents merous scholarly articles, book reviews, are sometimes mystifi ed as to how the as the , of Nazareth. Fur- and the forthcoming God’s Indwelling authors of the NT could possibly see a ther, it might be in line with texts such as Presence: The Ministry of the Holy reference to the Messiah in texts the NT Luke 24:27, 44–45, which could indicate Spirit in the Old and New Testaments applies to him, at points even arguing that Jesus read the OT in precisely this (Broadman & Holman, 2006). that particular applications of OT texts way (cf. also Matt 5:17 and John 5:46).6 If to Jesus in the NT do not actually refer Jesus and the authors of the NT did read to him at all.2 Another argument against the OT in this way, they were apparently the imitation of apostolic use of the OT not alone. Craig Evans notes, “The saying is that their hermeneutical methods are of Rabbi Yohanan, though uttered in the not valid today.3 This means that while post-NT era, probably refl ects what was an understanding of the hermeneutical assumed by many in the fi rst century: milieu can help us make sense of what ‘Every prophet prophesied only for the the authors of the NT were doing, it does days of the Messiah’ (b. Ber. 34b).”7 not validate their method for us. Others The only way to verify such a hypoth- would agree with Moisés Silva’s objection esis is to test it against the data. The to this conclusion: “If we refuse to pattern evidence is, of course, disputed. I am not our exegesis after that of the apostles, we suggesting that we should look for “Jesus are in practice denying the authoritative under every rock” or in every detail of character of their scriptural interpreta- the description of the temple, a straw tion—and to do so is to strike at the very man which at times seems to be the only heart of the Christian faith.”4 thing conceivable to certain “OT only”8 It seems to me that certain presuppo- interpreters when they hear the kind of sitional starting points have the potential suggestion I am making. We need not to ameliorate every intellectual diffi culty abandon the discipline of looking care- with the way that the NT interprets the fully at what the texts actually say to see OT, regardless of the hermeneutical tools the OT as a messianic document.9 Nor is employed. I have in mind one thing in the objection that there is proportionally 30 very little about the messiah in the OT (3:16a); and, the relations between male necessarily devastating to this proposal, and female, which are necessary for the for it is always possible that a certain fea- seed to be born, will be strained (3:16b). ture is not everywhere named in the text Judgment falls on the man as well, as the because it is everywhere assumed.10 Still, ground from whose fruit the seed will be such suggestions are greatly strengthened fed is cursed, and in painful, sweaty toil by evidence. he will labor until he eventually returns A full s