From
http://bible.org/article/plain-sens...rpretive-singularity-galatians-3-and-romans-4
At first glance, Gal 3.16 seems to be an example of careful grammatical exegesis; Paul observes and interprets the minutia of the text, stopping to parse a single word in the Biblical text: “But to Abraham the promises were spoken, and to his
seed. [and] it does not say ‘and to
seeds’ as if [they were spoken] to many, but as if [spoken] to one [recipient], ‘and to your
seed,’ who is Christ.”
8 After a cursory reading, one might assume that this text serves as a template for grammatical exegesis, but further consideration reveals complication in Paul’s argument. When considering the blessings YHWH vowed to Abraham in Genesis, singularity does not seem to be the most natural reading. In fact, much of the content in these promises revolves around the extreme plurality of the seed (that they will be as plentiful as the dust of the earth (Gen 13.14) and more numerous than the stars of heaven (Gen 15.5). Further lexical study demonstrates that the singular form is not as acutely descriptive as Paul may have let on.
9 Later he will even use a singular form of seed (
σπέρμα in 3.29) as predicate nominative with a pural antecedent,
10 and so seems very familiar with this term’s collective usage.
So far, there are two levels of tension for this test case. Galatians 3.16 presents its own interpretive hurdles. Even if the reader overcomes those, he must accept the compounding effect presented by Paul’s development of the Abrahamic seed in Rom 4.13-18. Here Paul uses the same language to refer (plurally) to believers without any mention of the seed’s singularity. Exegetes, who move beyond the assumption that Paul is simply paying attention to textual detail, acknowledge the difficulty and offer a variety of solutions as grids for understanding Paul’s use of the OT.
One potential option lies in identifying Paul’s source text for his quotation. Most references to Abraham’s seed in Genesis are immediately preceded or followed by plural pronouns or other referents for which the
seed serves as antecedent, seeming to make plain the term’s collective sense in the context.
11 Gen 22.18 emerges from the promises in Genesis fitting for a singular referent and works well theologically as looking forward to Christ’s redeeming the Gentiles. In the context of Gen 22, it is much easier to find an individual referent in verse 18. Verses 16 and 17 still deal with the multiplication of Abraham’s seed, but in verse 18, the seed is named as the agent of blessing for the nations, a unique statement among YHWH’s promises concerning Abraham’s seed. It parallels the original promises of Gen 12.2, 3, in which Abraham is said to be a blessing for others and it is in him that all the families of the earth will be blessed.
12
F. F. Bruce finds textual difficulty in attributing Gal 3.16 to Gen 22.18 directly (as will be discussed in greater detail below). To remedy this and still recognize the content of Gen 22.18, he views Paul’s language as other than direct quotation from any Genesis text, but as more closely approximating a thematic allusion referencing the agent of blessing concept in Gen 22.18. He concedes direct quotation as a possibility given Paul’s attention to textual detail as a premise for the argument, but seems to identify the citation as
τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ (rather than
τῷ σπέρματι σοῦ) relegating the quotation to the earlier portion of the verse.
13 By doing this he is able to keep it in line with Gen 22.18 (as well as Sir 44.12). Mary’s language in the Magnificat (cf. Luke 1.55) lends biblical warrant to see this general thematic usage of “Abraham’s seed” as a technical Messianic reference in the first century.
14
One final, plausible resolution is a corporate solidarity model:
15 that Paul is using Christ here as the personal Messiah with a view to his organic union to the redeemed people of God, reminiscent of his use of
ἐν Χριστῷ language throughout his epistles or his development of the
σῶμα Χριστοῦ themes of in Eph 4 and 5. This argument is closely tied to and supported by Paul’s own corporate use of
σπέρμα in 3.29. This option preserves both the singular and corporate senses of the term without pitting the two verses against one another.
16 Augustine argued the legitimacy of this interpretive scheme in the late fourth century: “we need not be in a difficulty when a transition is made from the head to the body.”
17 If Paul is using the language to refer to body and head as Augustine suggests, then there is no reason for the individual sense to war against the corporate, because the two are so closely tied to one another.
