Galatians Journal: Chapter 3, verse 16

Galatians 3:16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.

“The promises” specifically “spoken to Abraham” – these would have been well known to Paul’s audience, particularly the Jews. What were these “promises?”

In Genesis 13:16, God promises that Abraham’s offspring will be like the dust of the earth; that is, their number will be vast and immeasurable. Abraham also receives the promise of the possession of the land of Canaan – the “promised land.” (Genesis 12:7; 13:14-15; 15:7, 18-21; and 17:8) God promises that all the peoples of the earth will be blessed through Abraham (Genesis 12:3; 18:18) or his offspring (Genesis 22:18). Its pretty obvious by looking at this list that the emphasis was on this side of heaven – that is, the here and now, particularly regarding the promised land. This is what Jewish tradition focused on as well. The promise involving descendants was also viewed quite literally – combining the concept of countless descendants and blessing via offspring, the Jews clung to the concept that one LITERALLY needed to be “part of the family” in order to participate in these promises. Of course, the Jews of the early first century took this too far, and made blood-kin connections the centerpiece of their identity. In addition, though, in Romans 4:13, Paul sums up the promises made to Abraham as him being the “heir of the world.” This was a popular concept in Jewish tradition. The Hebrew word for “land” in places like Genesis 12:7 can also be translated as “earth” or “world.” So the Jews understood the promise of Canaan to Abraham as a larger metaphor for Abraham and his descendants inheriting the world to come. Thus, in the Jewish mindset, even heaven would be populated by a single ethnic group. Paul is about to correct this notion.

“Seed” verses “seeds.” The argument Paul uses to prove otherwise is ingenious, and has a distinctively Jewish bent. Paul argues his case the same way the rabbis and the Pharisees of that time did (as a former Pharisee, I suppose Paul had a lot of practice, and this would have impressed the Judiazers). That is, Paul focuses on a grammatical issue, a peculiarity that really isn’t that peculiar. Just like in the English language, the Hebrew word for “seed” or “offspring” (the word used in Genesis 12:7, 13:15 and 24:7 could be translated both ways) could convey either a singular or plural meaning. This was a common debate technique among the learned rabbis – i.e. “sons of Israel” meant either only men, or could include all of the people of Israel, men AND women, depending on what the rabbis needed the text to mean. The Judiazers, of course, were in the habit of twisting scripture like this to prove the heresy they were promoting to prove it was true. Is Paul “twisting” scripture? Not really. But Paul is using this technique to sort of “one up” his opponents – to give them a taste of their own medicine. Paul uses “seed” in a singular sense – a meaning that makes sense, and is logical, but when taken in the context of the Genesis references to Abraham doesn’t seem to fit. But Paul already knows on other grounds that Jesus is the ultimate end to the promise made to Abraham. Most Jews understood the “seed” to apply to all of Israel – indeed, Paul also uses the plural concept of “seed” in other letters (Romans 9:7 and 11:1) He even uses “seed” in its plural sense in Galatians 3:29, when he says the Galatians are all “Abraham’s seed.” How do we make sense of this then?

1) Combined with other promises made in Scripture – to Moses, to David, to the prophets, as well as Abraham – we see that Jesus is the epitome, the ultimate fulfillment of this promise. The focus needs to be on Jesus here, and not on ourselves.

2) Paul says the emphasis needs to be on “one person – Christ.” Again, the emphasis on everything in this book is RELATIONSHIP. Its not what you do, or what you know, its WHO you know. A personal, intimate relationship with Jesus is the key.

3) By placing the focus on the singular, on Jesus alone as the source of salvation, and taking the emphasis off of a plurality of people – the nation – ethnic issues become irrelevant. If God meant a singular meaning – one seed – when he made the promise, and through that one seed would bless the whole earth, then the need to be part of Abraham’s blood line is removed. Tie this back to the argument Paul made in Galatians 3:6-9, and we put this notion completely to death. Culture, national origin, ethnicity, social status, custom, even denomination or the concept of “good taste” are absolutely meaningless (see Galatians 3:28). It is only in the singular “seed” – only in Jesus – that we have access to God and completeness.

4) In keeping with the “legal” concept of a last will and testament (introduced in Galatians 3:15) Paul would have expected his audience to understand that under the customs of that time, a last will and testament would often stipulate that property be left first to one heir, and then to another after the first heir’s death. (Indeed, this is a common estate planning tool today!). In keeping with the legal theme, its logical to move to the concept of a promise meant for a singular “seed” – one person, who dies, and then the promise is left to someone else. So the concept is understandable from a strictly legal perspective – Christ was the heir of the promise. He died, and we all became heirs. (Using a “legal” argument also helped strengthen Paul’s premise in the eyes of people who relied on "the law").