Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 3:16

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 3:16” utilice nuestra app.

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

16. ‘Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed’.

and his seed ] These words are emphatic. Had the promise been made to Abraham only, it would have determined with his own life. But it was the precious heritage of his descendants, not disannulled or superseded by the law given on Mount Sinai.

the promises ] Used, as in Rom 9:4, of that group of promises made to the patriarchs, which were regarded by their descendants as their title deeds to the land of Israel and all the privileges of the chosen race. But here with special reference to Gen 13:15; Gen 17:7-8. At first sight these two promises seem to refer only to the land. But they include far more. The chief blessing promised is contained in the words, “I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee and I will be their God.” Comp. Heb 11:16. It is interesting to notice how this promise was appropriated by the seed. On the Cross He cried, ‘My God, My God.’ After His resurrection He said, ‘I ascend to My God, and your God’.

made ] Lit. ‘ spoken ’, as in R.V. They were made orally, not, like the law, written on tables of stone.

He saith not ] Rather, ‘it (the promise) saith not’. It does not run, ‘And to thy seeds’, &c. This clause is parenthetical, illustrative of, but not necessary to the argument.

Exception has been taken to the emphasis which St Paul attaches to the use of the singular ‘seed’, on the ground that in the Hebrew the plural ‘seeds’ would not bear the sense which he seems to attribute to it, viz. several lines of descent. The same may be said of our own language, in which ‘seeds’ can only mean grains, or kinds of grain not lines of human descent. But, without insisting on the fact that in Hellenistic Greek (which St Paul was writing), the plural, no less than the singular, is employed in the sense here required, we may observe that the import of the passage is not dependent on rigid conformity to linguistic usage. The Apostle pauses to point out, that, though the promise was given to Abraham’s seed, yet it was restricted to one line. The descendants of Hagar and Keturah and the posterity of Esau were not included in the covenant. Similarly in Rom 9:7-8, we read, “Neither because they are a seed (i.e. one of the lines of descendants) of Abraham, are they all children, but (so ran the promise), In Isaac shall thy seed be called”, i.e. the title of ‘seed’ par excellence to thee shall be in the line of Isaac.

but as of one ] One line of descent, the spiritual seed, who are gathered up into and blessed in their One Head and Representative.

which is Christ ] Which is Messiah. The seed to Whom the promise was made is the seed of the woman (Gen 3:15), the second Adam, Who is at once the Saviour and the Head of the body. It is only as we are in Him, united to Him by living faith, that we are in the bond of the covenant, the true seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise, partakers of the blessing justification, life, glory.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Now to Abraham and his seed – To him and his posterity.

Were the promises made – The promise here referred to was that which is recorded in Gen 22:17-18. In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.

He saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one … – He does not use the plural term, as if the promise extended to many persons, but he speaks in the singular number, as if only one was intended; and that one must be the Messiah. Such is Pauls interpretation; such is evidently the sentiment which he intends to convey, and the argument which he intends to urge. He designs evidently to be understood as affirming that in the use of the singular number sperma (seed), instead of the plural spermata (seeds), there is a fair ground of argument to demonstrate that the promise related to Christ or the Messiah, and to him primarily if not exclusively. Now no one probably ever read this passage without feeling a difficulty, and without asking himself whether this argument is sound, and is worthy a man of candor, and especially of an inspired man. Some of the difficulties in the passage are these:

(1) The promise referred to in Genesis seems to have related to the posterity of Abraham at large, without any particular reference to an individual. It is to his seed; his descendants; to all his seed or posterity. Such would be the fair and natural interpretation should it be read by hundreds or thousands of persons who had never heard of the interpretation here put upon it by Paul.

(2) The argument of the apostle seems to proceed on the supposition that the word seed sperma, that is, posterity, here cannot refer to more than one person. If it had, says he, it would be in the plural number. But the fact is, that the word is often used to denote posterity at large; to refer to descendants without limitation, just as the word posterity is with us; and it is a fact, moreover, that the word is not used in the plural at all to denote a posterity, the singular form being constantly employed for that purpose.

Anyone who will open Tromms Concordance to the Septuagint, or Schmids Concordance on the New Testament will see the most ample confirmation of this remark. Indeed the plural form of the word is never used except in this place in Galatians. The difficulty, therefore, is, that the remark here of Paul appears to be a trick of argument, or a quibble more worthy of a trifling Jewish Rabbi, than of a serious reasoner or an inspired man. I have stated this difficulty freely, just as I suppose it has struck hundreds of minds, because I do not wish to shrink from any real difficulty in examining the Bible, but to see whether it can be fairly met. In meeting it, expositors have resorted to various explanations, most of them, as it seems to me, unsatisfactory, and it is not necessary to detail them. Dr. Burner, Doddridge, and some others suppose that the apostle means to say that the promises made to Abraham were not only appropriated to one class of his descendants, that is, to those by Isaac, but that they centered in one illustrious person, through whom all the rest are made partakers of the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant.

This Doddridge admits the apostle says in bad Greek, but still he supposes that this is the true exposition. Noessett and Rosenmuller suppose that by the word sperma (seed) here is not meant the Messiah, but Christians in general; the body of believers. But this is evidently in contradiction of the apostle, who expressly affirms that Christ was intended. It is also liable to another objection that is fatal to the opinion. The very point of the argument of the apostle is, that the singular and not the plural form of the word is used, and that therefore an individual, and not a collective body or a number of individuals, is intended. But according to this interpretation the reference is, in fact, to a numerous body of individuals, to the whole body of Christians. Jerome affirms that the apostle made use of a false argument, which, although it might appear well enough to the stupid Galatians, would not be approved by wise or learned men – Chandler. Borger endeavors to show that this was in accordance with the mode of speaking and writing among the Hebrews, and especially that the Jewish Rabbis were accustomed to draw an argument like this from the singular number, and that the Hebrew word zera seed is often used by them in this manner; see his remarks as quoted by Bloomfield in loc.

But the objection to this is, that though this might be common, yet it is not the less a quibble on the word, for certainly the very puerile reasoning of the Jewish Rabbis is no good authority on which to vindicate the authority of an apostle. Locke and Clarke suppose that this refers to Christ as the spiritual head of the mystical body, and to all believers in him. LeClerc supposes that it is an allegorical kind of argument, that was suited to convince the Jews only, who were accustomed to this kind of reasoning. I do not know but this solution may be satisfactory to many minds, and that it is capable of vindication, since it is not easy to say how far it is proper to make use of methods of argument used by an adversary in order to convince them. The argumentum a.d. hominem is certainly allowable to a certain extent, when designed to show the legitimate tendency of the principles advanced by an opponent.

But here there is no evidence that Paul was reasoning with an adversary. He was showing the Galatians, not the Jews, what was the truth, and justice to the character of the apostle requires us to suppose that he would make use of only such arguments as are in accordance with the eternal principles of truth, and such as may be seen to he true in all countries and at all times. The question then is, whether the argument of the apostle here drawn from the use of the singular word spermata (seed), is one that can be seen to be sound? or is it a mere quibble, as Jerome and LeClerc suppose? or is it to be left to be presumed to have had a force which we cannot now trace? for this is possible. Socrates and Plato may have used arguments of a subtile nature, based on some nice distinctions of words which were perfectly sound, but which we, from our necessary ignorance of the delicate shades of meaning in the language, cannot now understand. Perhaps the following remarks may show that there is real force and propriety in the position which the apostle takes here. If not, then I confess my inability to explain the passage.

(1) There can be no reasonable objection to the opinion that the promise originally made to Abraham included the Messiah; and the promised blessings were to descend through him. This is so often affirmed in the New Testament, that to deny it would be to deny the repeated declarations of the sacred writers, and to make war on the whole structure of the Bible; see particularly Rom. 4; compare Joh 8:56. If this general principle be admitted, it will remove much perplexity from the controversy.

(2) The promise made to Abraham Gen 22:18, and in thy seed zera, Septuagint en to spermati sou), where the words both in Hebrew and in Greek are in the singular number) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, cannot refer to all the seed or the posterity of Abraham taken collectively. He had two sons, Isaac by Rebecca, and Ishmael by Hagar, besides numerous descendants by Keturah; Gen 25:1 ff. Through a large part of these no particular blessings descended on the human family, and there is no sense in which all the families of the earth are particularly blessed in them. On any supposition, therefore, there must have been some limitation of the promise; or the word seed was intended to include only some portion of his descendants, whether a particular branch or an individual, does not yet appear. It must have referred to a part only of the posterity of Abraham, but to what part is to be learned only by subsequent revelations.

(3) It was the intention of God to confine the blessing to one branch of the family, to Isaac and his descendants. The special promised blessing was to be through him, and not through the family of Ishmael. This intention is often expressed, Gen 17:19-21; Gen 21:12; Gen 25:11; compare Rom 9:7; Heb 11:18. Thus, the original promise of a blessing through the posterity of Abraham became somewhat narrowed down, so as to show that there was to be a limitation of the promise to a particular portion of his posterity.

(4) If the promise had referred to the two branches of the family; if it had been intended to include Ishmael as well as Isaac, then some term would have been used that would have expressed this. So unlike were Isaac and Ishmael; so different in the circumstances of their birth and their future life; so dissimilar were the prophecies respecting them, that it might be said that their descendants were two races of people; and in Scripture the race of Ishmael ceased to be spoken of as the descendants or the posterity of Abraham. There was a sense in which the posterity of Isaac was regarded as the seed or posterity of Abraham in which the descendants of Ishmael were not; and the term sperma or seed therefore properly designated the posterity of Isaac. It might be said, then, that the promise to thy seed did not refer to the two races, as if he had said spermata, seeds, but to one sperma, the seed of Abraham, by way of eminence.

(5) This promise was subsequently narrowed down still more, so as to include only one portion of the descendants of Isaac. Thus it was limited to the posterity of Jacob, Esau being excluded; subsequently the special blessing was promised to the family of Judah, one of the twelve sons of Jacob Gen 49:10; in subsequent times it was still further narrowed down or limited to the family of Jesse; then to that of David; then to that of Solomon, until it terminated in the Messiah. The original intention of the promise was that there should be a limitation, and that limitation was made from age to age, until it terminated in the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. By being thus narrowed down from age to age, and limited by successive revelations, it was shown that the Messiah was eminently intended, which is what Paul says here. The promise was indeed at first general, and the term used was of the most general nature; but it was shown from time to time that God intended that it should be applied only to one branch or portion of the family of Abraham; and that limitation was finally so made as to terminate in the Messiah. This I take to be the meaning of this very difficult passage of scripture; and though it may not be thought that all the perplexities are removed by these remarks, yet I trust they will be seen to be so far removed as that it will appear that there is real force in the argument of the apostle, and that it is not a mere trick of argument, or a quibble unworthy of him as an apostle and a man.

(Whatever may be thought of this solution of thee difficulty, the author has certainly given more than due prominence to the objections that are supposed to lie against the apostles argument. Whatever license a writer in the American Biblical Repository, or such like work, might take, it certainly is not wise in a commentary intended for Sunday Schools to affirm, that the great difficulty of the passage is that the remark here of Paul appears to be a trick of argument, or a quibble more worthy of a trifling Jewish Rabbi than of a serious reasoner and an inspired man, and then to exhibit such a formidable array of objection, and behind it a defense comparatively feeble, accompanied with the acknowledgment that if that be not sufficient the author can do no more! These objections, moreover, are not only stated fairly but strongly, and something more than strongly; so that while in the end the authority of the apostle is apparently vindicated, the effect is such, that the reader, unaccustomed to such treatment of inspired men, is tempted to exclaim, non tali auxillo, nec defensoribus istis, tempus eget Indeed we are surprised that, with Bloomfield and Burger before him, the author should ever have made some of the assertions which are set down under this text.

As to objection first, it does not matter what interpretation hundreds and thousands of persons would naturally put on the passage in Genesis, since the authority of an inspired apostle must be allowed to settle its meaning against them all. The second objection affirms, that the word sperma is not used in the plural at all to denote a posterity, on which Bloomfield thus remarks, it has been denied that the word zera is ever used in the plural, except to denote the seeds of vegetables. And the same assertion has been made respecting sperma. But the former position merely extends to the Old Testament, which only contains a fragment and small part of the Hebrew language. So that it cannot be proved that zera was never used in the plural to denote sons, races. As to the latter assertion it is unfounded; for though sperma is used in the singular as a noun of multitude, to denote several children, yet it is sometimes used in the plural to signify several sons of the same family; as in Soph. OEd. Col. 599, ges emes apelathen Pros emautou spermaton.

The elaborate Latin Note of Borger, part of which is quoted in Bloomfield, will give complete satisfaction to the student who may wish thoroughly to examine this place. He maintains:

1. That though the argument of the apostle may not be founded exactly on the use of the singular number, yet the absurdity at his application of the passage in Genesis to the Messiah, would have been obvious if, instead of the singular the plural had been used, si non spermatos sed spermaton mentio fuisset facta; from which he justly concludes, that at all events numerum cum hac explicatione non pugnare.

2. The word zera is in certain places understood of one man only (de uno homine) and therefore may be so here.

3. The apostle, arguing with Jews, employs an argument to which they were accustomed to attach importance; for they laid great stress on the respective use of the singular and plural number; which argument. indeed, would be liable to the objections stated against it by Mr. Barnes, if the thing to be proven rested entirely on this ground, and had not, besides, its foundation in the actual truth of the case. If the singular number in this place really had that force attached to it which the apostle declares, and if the Jews were influenced in other matters by arguments of this kind, it was certainly both lawful and wise to reason with them after their own fashion.

4. What is still more to the point, the Jewish writers themselves frequently use the word zera, not only of one man, but especially of the Messiah, non tantum de uno homine, sed imprimis etiam de Messia exponere solent.

On the whole, the objections against the reasoning on this passage are raised in defiance of apostolical interpretation. But, as has been well observed, the apostle, to say nothing of his inspiration, might be supposed to be better qualified to decide on a point of this kind, than any modern philologist – Bloomfield in loco.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Gal 3:16

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made.

The great promise

The promise was twofold.

I. A lower or temporal blessing:

II. A higher or spiritual blessing.

III. The two are intermingled. The spiritual could not have come without the temporal, nor the temporal without the spiritual. (Christian Age.)

The promise was fulfilled in the benefits the world has received from–

I. The industry, wealth, genius, and morality of the Jewish people.

II. The scriptures, the monotheism and religious spirit of the Jews.

III. The Messiah who was Abrahams seed. (Todd.)

The promises

Some of the promises are like the almond tree–they blossom hastily in the very earliest spring; but there are others which resemble the mulberry tree–they are very slow in putting forth their leaves. Then what is a man to do, if he has a mulberry tree promise which is late in blossoming? Why, he is to wait till it does. If the vision tarry, wait for it till it come, and the appointed time will surely bring it. (Spurstow.)

Seed and seeds

The singular form denotes Christs individuality, while its collective force suggests the representative character of His human nature. (Canon Liddon.)

The Paradisiacal promise that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpents head was from the first understood of some deliverer. It was so understood when Cain was named as the expected restorer (Gen 4:1); so again when Noah was expected to be one that shall comfort us (Gen 5:29). During the long ages that followed, this promise must have been the stay of every devout and God-fearing soul. It survived the terrible judgment of the flood; it passed into the expectation of the better part of every nation. It was surely not wanting in the family of Shem, nor in the race of Eber; and when Abraham was called to be the father of a chosen nation, and it was promised that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed, he must have understood by it that the long-expected Redeemer, the seed of the woman, was to be born of his posterity. So the promise was understood as it was localized successively in the tribe of Judah and in the family of David. And the later prophets never waver in the idea that it was to be accomplished by a Person, whose birthplace at Bethlehem is distinctly announced by Micah. He was then an individual, not a multitude. To express this in English we should say; it was not to seeds as of many; but as of One, and to thy seed, which is Christ, without any reference to the intrinsic etymological value of the singular and plural. Similarly, St. Paul uses these words, not arguing from the force of the singular in the promise, but from the whole idea and understanding of that promise which he simply explains by the singular and plural in Greek. (Professor Gardiner.)

The promises are given to believers

Where is thy casket of promises? Bring it out. Open the jar of jewels. Pour out the golden ingot, stamped with the image and superscription of heavens King. Count over the diamonds that flash in thy hand like stars. Compute the worth, of that single jewel, Ask and ye shall receive , or that other ruby, All things shall work together for good to them that love God. Bring forth that royal Koh-i-noor, He that believeth shall be saved. Then remember who it is that gave them, and to what an unworthy sinner, and tell me if they are not exceeding great and precious. When Caesar once gave a man a great reward, he exclaimed, This is too great a gift for me to receive.–But, said Caesar, it is not too great a gift for me to give. So the smallest promise in thy casket is too much for thee to deserve: yet tile most magnificent promise is not too great for the King of kings to bestow. God scorns to act meanly and stingily by His children; and how must He scorn us often when we put Him off with such contemptible stinginess of deeds or donations! (C. H. Spurgeon.)

But some may object, and say, Is the law opposed to the older promise? Clearly not; for it is powerless to do that which the Faith alone could do, give life. For if the law could have given spiritual life it would have conferred righteousness. But this the law does not pretend to do, since it does but declare all to be under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. In the Epistle, then, for this day the apostle shows:–

1. That the faith in Christ, the promise made by God to Abraham and to his seed, was prior to the law of Moses.

2. That the original promise made to Abraham is more excellent in itself, and attended by more glorious circumstances, than the law of Moses.

3. That the completion, the perfection of the law itself is the faith in Christ. The covenant made by God with Abraham is here called the promises, because these promises are the instruments, as it were, by which the inheritance is conferred. These are promises, for the pledge of future possession and of future blessing was not made once only, but was often repeated; neither was one blessing only promised,–but many,–things in earth, Canaan in its fertility; things in heaven, peace, and rest, and abundant joy. All the good things of God were comprised in these promises to Abraham and his seed. The reasons why the covenant is spoken of as promises are:–

1. Because it chiefly consists of promises of Gods gifts.

2. Because the covenant was revealed to Abraham in promises of blessings to be afterwards given. (W. Denton, M. A.)

The great promise

The best commentary on this whole passage is perhaps to be found in St. Pauls own words: All the promises of God in Him are yea, and in Him amen, to the glory of God by us. Christ is the foundation and the accomplisher of every good thing that God has decreed for man: in Him alone is enjoyment or blessing to be obtained. When creations fair beauty was marred by the dark shadow of sin, the voice of prophecy rang forth with promise of future deliverance; but the promise was, in reality, a promise to Christ. Later on, when one race was singled out for special notice and peculiar privilege, their faith was sustained by a great inspiring promise; but again, that promise was centred in Christ–In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. With grammatical and logical accuracy, the apostle proves the point he is arguing. He shows that the true explanation of the singular number being used where the plural might have been expected, is to be found in the fact that God was speaking of one collective seed according to the spirit. The Inheritor of the promise made to Abraham was Christ: not Christ as an individual merely, but Christ the anointed Head and Representative of His people–Christ the Elder Brother in a united family-Christ and all who are incorporated with Him in that spiritual Body which includes Abraham and all the faithful of every age and race. For ye are all one man in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed, heirs according to promise. Having made it clear that the gospel of Jesus Christ, believed and received, puts men in possession of the inheritance promised to Abraham, St, Paul goes on (in verse 17) to deal with the question that naturally rises to the mind: What relation, then, does the law of Moses bear to the promise made to Abraham? To this he replies, that whatever the law does it cannot for a moment be supposed to abrogate and annul the promise which existed so long before it: it was not a codicil, cancelling or limiting the promissory document of earlier date. Totally distinct and separate are the ideas involved in law and promise respectively: the one is a gift, the other a contract. If in the wise ordering of Gods providence they both come into play, there must be arranged for each its proper place and function–neither trespassing upon the domain of the other. And this is just what has been arranged. The Covenant of Promise and the law of Moses, so far from being opposed to one another, are parallel lines which gradually converge until they meet in Christ. (J. Henry Burn, B. D.)

Epistle for the thirteenth Sunday after Trinity

The covenant of God with Abraham an everlasting covenant with the good.

1. Establishment, character of the same in itself.

(1) It is truly Divine, inviolable.

(2) It had reference, as to its contents, to all men and their redemption through Christ.

2. The continuance of the same even under the law.

(1) The law cannot abrogate the covenant of grace.

(2) On the other hand, the law is meant as a dispensation on account of sin, to prepare the way for the perfect dispensation of the covenant.

3. The perfecting of the same by Christianity.

(1) Necessity of this covenant even according to the law.

(2) The condition of the same is faith in Christ. (Heubner.)

The great promise

Here we are carried back to a promise made to Abraham four thousand years ago, which is declared to be full of vital importance still. This shows the Bible is one book, and may not be treated as a collection of fragments to be accepted or rejected at pleasure. The passage is similar to many in St. Pauls writings. In his view the Old Testament is full of half-fulfilled expectations, and the fact that they were only half-fulfilled is in itself a prophecy of a truer and more perfect fulfilment to come. He sees in them all a looking forward to Christ, who came to fulfil the law, the prophets, the types, the promises, and all the hitherto unrealized expectations of men. Taking advantage of the fact that the noun used to particularize the descendants of Abraham is, according to Hebrew usage, in the singular number, he shows that this is no mere verbal accident, but that as a matter of fact the children of Abraham are all summed up in One Man, even in Christ, and that upon Him came spiritually all the promises which had generally been supposed to apply to the Jewish nation collectively. Christ is the nation in its highest aspect, and for the fulfilment of its noblest end. Since, then, Christians are in Christ–part of Him–the promise is theirs also.

(1) The Promiser. God. The unchangeable; the unerring; He who is Love. One and the same at all times and to all people.

(2) The promise.

(a) Inheritance in Gods chosen country. A type of the better country we are now seeking.

(b) To be a blessing to others.

High privilege. The gift is conferred on us, in order that we may hand it on. We have not truly received Christ, unless we are seeking to minister Him.

(3) The conditions of the promise. We must be in Christ. He is the heir; we can only share in His inheritance, by becoming one with Him. (Canon Vernon Hutton.)

The promise really made to Christ

This comment of St. Paul has given rise to much discussion. It has been urged that the stress of the argument rests on a grammatical error; that, as the plural of the word here rendered is only used to signify grain or crops, the sacred writer could not under any circumstances have said seeds as of many. The answer to this objection is, that St. Paul is not laying stress on the particular word used, but on the fact that a singular noun of some kind, a collective term, is employed, where a plural (such as or ) might have been substituted. Avoiding the technical terms of grammar, he could not express his meaning more simply than by the opposition, not to thy seeds, but to thy seed. A plural substantive would be inconsistent with the interpretation given; the singular collective noun, if it admits of plurality, at the same time involves the idea of unity. The question therefore is no longer one of grammatical accuracy, but of theological interpretation. Is this a legitimate sense to assign to the seed of Abraham? Doubtless by the seed of Abraham was meant in the first instance the Jewish people, as by the inheritance was meant the land of Canaan; but in accordance with the analogy of Old Testament types and symbols, the term involves two secondary meanings:

(1) With a true spiritual instinct, though the conception embodied itself at times in strangely grotesque and artificial forms; even the Rabbinical writers saw that the Christ was the true seed of Abraham. In Him the race was summed up, as it were. In Him it fulfilled its purpose and became a blessing to the whole earth. Without Him its separate existence as a peculiar people had no meaning. Thus He was not only the representative, but the embodiment of the race. In this way the people of Israel is the type of Christ; and in the New Testament parallels are sought in the career of the one to the life of the other. In this sense St. Paul uses the seed of Abraham here. But

(2) according to the analogy of interpretation of the Old Testament in the New, the spiritual takes the place of the natural; the Israel after the flesh becomes the Israel after the spirit; the Jewish nation denotes the Christian Church. So St. Paul interprets the seed of Abraham (Rom 4:18; Rom 9:7; and above, verse 7. These two interpretations are not opposed to each other; they are not independent of each other. Without Christ the Christian people have no existence. He is the source of their spiritual life. They are one in Him. By this link St. Paul at the close of the chapter (verses 28, 29) connects together the two senses of the seed of Abraham, dwelling once more on the unity of the seed–ye are all one man in Christ; and if ye are part of Christ, then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to promise. (Bishop Lightfoot.)

The difference between a promise and a law

A promise gives: a law takes. A promise bestows something on others: a law demands something from others. Suppose some great king to promise vast riches and possessions to all his faithful subjects. And suppose that, seeing those subjects to be proud and headstrong, and to need humbling and curbing, the same king after a time made laws which he ordered them to obey. Which should we say the subjects owed their riches and possessions to–the kings laws, or the kings promise? We could all see it would be to the promise. So it is with the riches and possession which we, the subjects of the heavenly King, look for. (Bishop Walsham How.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 16. Now to Abraham and his seed] The promise of salvation by faith was made to Abraham and his posterity.

He saith not, And to seeds] It was one particular kind of posterity which was intended: but as of one-which is Christ; i.e. to the spiritual head, and all believers in him, who are children of Abraham, because they are believers, Ga 3:7. But why does the apostle say, not of seeds, as of many? To this it is answered, that Abraham possessed in his family two seeds, one natural, viz. the members of his own household; and the other spiritual, those who were like himself because of their faith. The promises were not of a temporal nature; had they been so, they would have belonged to his natural seed; but they did not, therefore they must have belonged to the spiritual posterity. And as we know that promises of justification, c., could not properly be made to Christ in himself, hence we must conclude his members to be here intended, and the word Christ is put here for Christians. It is from Christ that the grace flows which constitutes Christians. Christians are those who believe after the example of Abraham they therefore are the spiritual seed. Christ, working in and by these, makes them the light and salt of the world; and through them, under and by Christ, are all the nations of the earth blessed. This appears to be the most consistent interpretation, though every thing must be understood of Christ in the first instance, and then of Christians only through him.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made; the promises, Gen 12:3; 22:18; in the one of which places it is said: In thee; in the other: In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. He saith, promises, either because of the repetition of the same promises, or taking in also other promises.

He saith not: And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ: some may object against the apostles conclusion, that the promise respected only one, and that was Christ; because God said not seeds, as of many, but seed; whereas the term seed is a noun of multitude, and signifieth more than one; besides that the Hebrew word, which is used Gen 22:18, admitteth not the plural number. But it is answered, that though the word translated seed admitteth not the plural number, yet had God intended more than one, he could have expressed it by words signifying children, or generations, &c.

Secondly, that the term seed, though a noun of multitude, yet is often applied to a single person; as Gen 3:15, where it also signifieth Christ; Seth is called another seed, Gen 4:25; and so in many other places. Some think that by seed he meaneth believers, and so interpret it of Christ mystical; and that the scope of the apostle in this place is to prove, that both the Jews and Gentiles were to be justified the same way; because they were justified in force and by virtue of the promise, which was not made to many, but to one church, which was to consist both of Jews and Gentiles, for (according to the prophecy of Caiaphas, Joh 11:52) Christ died, that he might gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. The promises made to Abraham, were but the exhibition of the eternal covenant of grace, made between the Father and his Son Christ Jesus (who was in it both the Mediator and Surety); which covenant was promulgated, as to Adam and Noah, so to Abraham, in these words: In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be called, that is, in Christ. From whence the apostle proveth, that there is no justification by the works of the law, but in and by Christ, and the exercise of faith in him.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

16. This verse is parenthetical.The covenant of promise was not “spoken” (so Greekfor “made”) to Abraham alone, but “to Abraham and hisseed”; to the latter especially; and this means Christ (and thatwhich is inseparable from Him, the literal Israel, and thespiritual, His body, the Church). Christ not having come when thelaw was given, the covenant could not have been then fulfilled, butawaited the coming of Him, the Seed, to whom it was spoken.

promisesplural,because the same promise was often repeated (Gen 12:3;Gen 12:7; Gen 15:5;Gen 15:18; Gen 17:7;Gen 22:18), and because itinvolved many things; earthly blessings to the literal children ofAbraham in Canaan, and spiritual and heavenly blessings to hisspiritual children; but both promised to Christ, “the Seed”and representative Head of the literal and spiritual Israel alike. Inthe spiritual seed there is no distinction of Jew or Greek;but to the literal seed, the promises still in part remain to befulfilled (Ro 11:26). Thecovenant was not made with “many” seeds (which if there hadbeen, a pretext might exist for supposing there was one seed beforethe law, another under the law; and that those sprung from one seed,say the Jewish, are admitted on different terms, and with a higherdegree of acceptability, than those sprung from the Gentile seed),but with the one seed; therefore, the promise that in Him “allthe families of the earth shall be blessed” (Ge12:3), joins in this one Seed, Christ, Jew and Gentile, as fellowheirs on the same terms of acceptability, namely, by grace throughfaith (Ro 4:13); not to some bypromise, to others by the law, but to all alike, circumcised anduncircumcised, constituting but one seed in Christ (Ro4:16). The law, on the other hand, contemplates the Jews andGentiles as distinct seeds. God makes a covenant, but it is one ofpromise; whereas the law is a covenant of works. Whereas the lawbrings in a mediator, a third party (Gal 3:19;Gal 3:20), God makes His covenantof promise with the one seed, Christ (Ge17:7), and embraces others only as they are identified with, andrepresented by, Christ.

one . . . Christnot inthe exclusive sense, the man Christ Jesus, but “Christ”(Jesus is not added, which would limit the meaning), includingHis people who are part of Himself, the Second Adam,and Head of redeemed humanity. Gal 3:28;Gal 3:29 prove this, “Ye areall ONE in Christ Jesus”(Jesus is added here as the person is indicated). “And ifye be Christ’s, ye are Abraham’s SEED,heirs according to the promise.“

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made,…. The promises design the promises of the covenant of grace mentioned in the next verse, which are exceeding great and precious, better than those of any other covenant; and which are all yea and amen in Christ, and are chiefly of a spiritual nature; though all the temporal blessings of God’s people come to them in a covenant way, and by virtue of the promise; for godliness has the promise of this life, that God will verily feed them, withhold no good thing from them proper for them, sanctify all their afflictions, support under them, and never leave nor forsake them: but the promises here intended principally are such as these, that God will be their God, and they shall be his people, the promise of Christ as a Saviour and Redeemer of them; of the Spirit as their sanctifier, and the applier of all grace unto them; of justification by Christ’s righteousness, and pardon by his blood; of adoption through free rich grace; of perseverance in grace, and of the eternal inheritance: now these promises were made, , “were said unto”, or spoken of, to Abraham and his seed; that is, they were discovered, made manifest, and applied to Abraham, the father of many nations; and were declared to belong to him and his spiritual seed, even all that believe, whether Jews or Gentiles; for the apostle is not speaking of the original make and constitution of the covenant of grace and its promises, which were made from all eternity; the grand promise of life was made before the world began, and Christ was set up as Mediator from everlasting, before ever the earth was, which suppose a covenant in which this promise was granted, and of which Christ was the Mediator as early; it was made long before Abraham, or any of his spiritual seed, were in being; nor was it made with any single person, any mere creature, Abraham, or any other, but with Christ, as the head and representative of the whole election of grace: but what is here treated of is, the declaration and manifestation of the covenant, and its promises to Abraham; which was frequently done, as upon the call of him out of the land of Chaldea, upon his parting with Lot, when he was grown old, and when Eliezer his servant was like to be his heir, and just before the giving of him the covenant of circumcision, and again upon the offering up of his son Isaac:

he saith not unto seeds, as of many; in the plural number, as if Jews and Gentiles were in a different manner his spiritual seed:

but as of one; using the singular number:

and to thy seed, which is Christ; meaning not Christ personal, though he was of the seed of Abraham, a son of his, as was promised; but the covenant and the promises were not now made with, and to Christ, as personally considered, this was done in eternity; but Christ mystical, the church, which is the body of Christ, of which he is the head, and is called by his name, 1Co 12:12 and designs all Abraham’s spiritual seed, both Jews and Gentiles; who are all one in Christ, and so Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise; hence there is no room for the objection of the Jew to the apostle’s application of this passage to Christ c, that the Scripture speaks not of any particular person, but of seed in a general and collective sense, of a large and numerous offspring; since the apostle designs such a seed by Christ, as numerous as the stars of the sky, and the sand on the sea shore, even all believers in all nations, Abraham is the father of; though did the apostle mean Christ particularly, and personally considered, there are instances to be given, where the word “seed” is used, not in a collective sense, but of a single person, as in Ge 4:25. Nor has the Jew d any reason to charge him with a mistake, in observing that the word is not in the plural, but in the singular number, when it is the manner of the Hebrew language to speak of seed only in the singular number; but this is false, the word is used in the plural number, and so might have been here, had it been necessary, as in 1Sa 8:15 concerning seed sown in the earth, from whence the metaphor is here taken. The first tract in the Jews’ Misna, or oral law, is called, , “seeds”; and the word, even as spoken of the posterity of men, is used in the plural number in their Talmud e; where they say,

“pecuniary judgments are not as capital ones; in pecuniary judgments, a man gives his money, and it atones for him; in capital judgments, his blood, and the blood , “of his seeds”, or posterity, hang on him to the end of the world; for we so find in Cain, who slew his brother; as it is said, “the bloods of thy brother crieth”; it is not said, the blood of thy brother, but the bloods of thy brother, his blood, and the blood , “of his seeds”.”

c Chizzuk Emuna, par. 1. c. 13. p. 134. d Ib. par. 2. c. 90. p. 468. e T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 37. 1.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

But as of one (‘ ‘ ). But as in the case of one.

Which is Christ ( ). Masculine relative agreeing with though is neuter. But the promise to Abraham uses as a collective substantive and applies to all believers (both Jews and Gentiles) as Paul has shown in verses 7-14, and as of course he knew full well Here Paul uses a rabbinical refinement which is yet intelligible. The people of Israel were a type of the Messiah and he gathers up the promise in its special application to Christ. He does not say that Christ is specifically referred to in Ge 13:15 or 17:7f.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

The course of thought is as follows. The main point is that the promises to Abraham continue to hold for Christian believers (verse 17). It might be objected that the law made these promises void. After stating that a human covenant is not invalidated or added to by any one, he would argue from this analogy that a covenant of God is not annulled by the law which came afterwards. But before reaching this point, he must call attention to the fact that the promises were given, not to Abraham only, but to his descendants. Hence it follows that the covenant was not a mere temporary contract, made to last only up to the time of the law. Even a man’s covenant remains uncancelled and without additions. Similarly, God ‘s covenant – promises to Abraham remain valid; and this is made certain by the fact that the promises were given not only to Abraham but to his seed; and since the singular, seed, is used, and not seeds, it is evident that Christ is meant.

The promises [ ] . Comp. Rom 9:4. The promise was given on several occasions. 61 Were made [] . Rend. were spoken.

To his seed [ ] . Emphatic, as making for his conclusion in verse 17. There can be no disannulling by the law of a promise made not only to Abraham, but to his seed.

Not – to seeds [ – ] . He means that there is significance in the singular form of expression, as pointing to the fact that one descendant (seed) is intended – Christ. With regard to this line of argument it is to be said,

1. The original promise referred to the posterity of Abraham generally, and therefore applies to Christ individually only as representing these : as gathering up into one all who should be incorporated with him.

2. The original word for seed in the O. T., wherever it means progeny, is used in the singular, whether the progeny consists of one or many. In the plural it means grains of seed, as 1Sa 8:15. It is evident that Paul ‘s argument at this point betrays traces of his rabbinical education (see Schoettgen, Horae Hebraicae, Volume 1, page 736), and can have no logical force for nineteenth century readers. Even Luther says : “Zum stiche zu schwach.” 62 Of many [ ] . Apparently a unique instance of the use of ejpi with the genitive after a verb of speaking. The sense appears in the familiar phrase “to speak upon a subject,” many being conceived as the basis on which the speaking rests. Similarly ejf’ eJnov of one.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made,” (to de Abraam errethesan hai epangelliai kai to spermati autou) “Now, the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed,” Gen 13:15; Rom 11:26. This is generally termed the Abrahamic Covenant. God made this to Abraham and his seed, Gen 13:3; Gen 13:7; Gen 15:7.

2) “He saith not,” (ou legei) “It says not,” of flesh-will-offspring of Abraham, either thru Ishmael or his six sons by Keturah, Gen 25:2; Gen 25:7. The promised redeemer was neither thru Hagar nor Keturah’s sons by Abraham, but Sarah.

3) “And to seeds, as of many;” (kai tois spermasin, hos epi pollon) “and to the seeds, as concerning many,” as of the many offspring of Ishmael and Keturah’s six sons by Abraham, though salvation was offered to all, Act 10:43; See also God’s offer and call to all the ends of the earth to look to Him, Isa 45:22.

4) “But as of one,” (all’ hos eph’ henos) “but as concerning one;” As Abraham gave “all that he had to Isaac,” (Gen 25:5) the heir of promise, Heb 1:2, then gave gifts to sons of his concubines, so God gave His only begotten Son to Abraham and his line thru Sara, yet the Savior’s blessings extend to all believers, to every whosoever will, Joh 3:14-16.

5) “And to thy seed, which is Christ,” (kai to spermati sou, hos estin Christos) “and to your seed, who is Christ,” of the fleshly line of Abraham thru his son, Isaac; so that redemption to the whole world was provided by or thru one: First, thru the one son (Isaac) of Abraham and Sarah, and Second, thru the only begotten Son (the one) of God, Gen 22:18; Rom 9:7; Rom 9:9.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

16. Now to Abraham, and his seed. Before pursuing his argument, he introduces an observation about the substance of the covenant, that it rests on Christ alone. But if Christ be the foundation of the bargain, it follows that it is of free grace; and this too is the meaning of the word promise. As the law has respect to men and to their works, so the promise has respect to the grace of God and to faith.

He saith not, And to seeds. To prove that in this place God speaks of Christ, he calls attention to the singular number as denoting some particular seed. I have often been astonished that Christians, when they saw this passage so perversely tortured by the Jews, did not make a more determined resistance; for all pass it slightly as if it were an indisputed territory. And yet there is much plausibility in their objection. Since the word seed is a collective noun, Paul appears to reason inconclusively, when he contends that a single individual is denoted by this word, under which all the descendants of Abraham are comprehended in a passage already quoted, “In multiplying I will multiply thy seed, זרע ( zerang,) or זרעך ( zargnacha,) as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore.” (Gen 22:17.) Having, as they imagine, detected the fallacy of the argument, they treat us with haughty triumph.

I am the more surprised that our own writers should have been silent on this head, as we have abundant means of repelling their slander. Among Abraham’s own sons a division began, for one of the sons was cut off from the family. “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” (Gen 21:12.) Consequently Ishmael is not included in the reckoning. Let us come a step lower. Do the Jews allow that the posterity of Esau are the blessed seed? nay, it will be maintained that their father, though the first-born, was struck off. And how many nations have sprung from the stock of Abraham who have no share in this “calling?” The twelve patriarchs, at length, formed twelve heads, not because they were descended from the line of Abraham, but because they had been appointed by a particular election of God. Since the ten tribes were carried away, (Hos 9:17,) how many thousands have so degenerated that they no longer hold a name among the seed of Abraham? Lastly, a trial was made of the tribe of Judah, that the real succession to the blessing might be transmitted among a small people. And this had been predicted by Isaiah,

“

Though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return.” (Isa 10:22.)

Hitherto I have said nothing which the Jews themselves do not acknowledge. Let them answer me then; how comes it that the thirteen tribes sprung from the twelve patriarchs were the seed of Abraham, in preference to Ishmaelites and Edomites? Why do they exclusively glory in that name, and set aside the others as a spurious seed? They will, no doubt, boast that they have obtained it by their own merit; but Scripture, on the contrary, asserts that all depends on the calling of God; for we must constantly return to the privilege conveyed in these words, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” (Gen 21:12.) The uninterrupted succession to this privilege must have been in force until Christ; for, in the person of David, the Lord afterwards brought back by recovery, as we might say, the promise which had been made to Abraham. In proving, therefore, that this prediction applies to a single individual, Paul does not make his argument rest on the use of the singular number. He merely shews that the word seed must denote one who was not only descended from Abraham according to the flesh, but had been likewise appointed for this purpose by the calling of God. If the Jews deny this, they will only make themselves ridiculous by their obstinacy.

But as Paul likewise argues from these words, that a covenant had been made in Christ, or to Christ, let us inquire into the force of that expression,

“

In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” (Gen 22:18.)

The Jews taunt the apostle with making a comparison, as if the seed of Abraham were to be quoted as an example in all disastrous omens and prayers; while, on the contrary, to curse in Sodom or Israel is to employ the name of Sodom or Israel in forms of cursing. This, I own, is sometimes the case, but not always; for to bless one’s self in God has quite a different meaning, as the Jews themselves admit. Since, therefore, the phrase is ambiguous, denoting sometimes a cause and sometimes a comparison, wherever, it occurs, it must be explained by the context. We have ascertained, then, that we are all cursed by nature, and that the blessing of Abraham has been promised to all nations. Do all indiscriminately reach it? Certainly not, but those only who are “gathered” (Isa 66:8) to the Messiah; for when, under His government and direction, they are collected into one body, they then become one people. Whoever then, laying disputing aside, shall inquire into the truth, will readily acknowledge that the words here signify not a mere comparison but a cause; and hence it follows that Paul had good ground for saying, that the covenant was made in Christ, or in reference to Christ.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(16) A parenthetical explanation of the true object of the promise. That promise was shown by its wording to have reference to the Messiah. It did not speak of seeds, but of seednot of descendants, but of descendant. And the Messiah is, par excellence, the descendant of Abraham.

The object of this parenthesis is to prove a point which the Judaising opponents of the Apostle would not contestviz., that the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham was reserved for that Messianic dispensation to which they themselves belonged. The Law therefore intervened, between the promise and its fulfilment, but, inasmuch as it was itself later than the promise, could not alter the terms of its fulfilment. If the promise had been fulfilled before the giving of the Law, and if the Messianic dispensation to which the Apostle and his readers belonged was not a fulfilment of the promise, then the Law might have had something to do with it: the restrictions of the Law might have come in to limit and contract the promise: the Gentiles might have been saddled with the obligations of the Jews. But it was not so.

To Abraham and his seed were the promises made.It was expressly stated that the promises were given to Abraham and his seed. The exact terms are worth noting.

The quotation appears to be made from Gen. 13:15, or Gen. 17:8. The word promise is put in the plural because the promise to Abraham was several times repeatedto Abraham first, and, after him, to the other patriarchs. The object of the promise, as recorded in the Book of Genesis, was, in the first instance, the possession of the land of Canaan; but St. Paul here, as elsewhere, gives it a spiritual application.

He saith not.The he is not expressed. We must supply either God or the promise given by Godit says, as in quotations from an authoritative document.

And to seeds, as of many; but as of one.The argument of the Apostle turns upon the use, both in the Hebrew and in the LXX., of a singular instead of a plural noun. Both in the Hebrew and in the LXX., however, the noun, though singular, is collective. It meant, in the first instance at least, not any one individual, but the posterity of Abraham as a whole. The Apostle refers it to Christ and the spiritual Israel (i.e., the Church, of which He is the Head), on the same principle on which, throughout the New Testament, the history of the chosen people under the old covenant is taken as a type of the Christian dispensation. We may compare Mat. 2:15, where an allusion to the exodus of Israel from Egypt is treated as a type of the return of the Holy Family from their flight into Egypt. Such passages are not to be regarded as arguments possessing a permanent logical validity (which would be to apply the rigid canons of Western logic to a case for which they are unsuitable), but rather as marked illustrations of the organic unity which the apostolic writers recognised in the pre-Christian and Christian dispensations. Not only had both the same Author, and formed part of the same scheme, but they were actually the counterparts one of the other. The events which characterised the earlier dispensation had their analogiessometimes spiritual, sometimes literalin the later.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

16. To Abraham promises made In Genesis xv the covenant was made by God with Abraham, under the regular forms and ceremonies of a contract or treaty, to give him the inheritance of Canaan.

To seeds, as of many To this many difficulties are raised. For, first, it is plain that the singular Seed is used as a noun of multitude, and so is of many. It is so used in Gen 17:4-5, and by Paul himself, Gal 3:29. Second, the plural, seeds, is never used to signify posterity, but only in the literal vegetable sense. To this we may reply, first, that Paul’s statement, that the Seed is Christ, or Messiah, is literally true. For it was in the Seed, Christ, that really and truly the nations were to be blessed, and by the Jewish race only secondarily and from him. So to him the inheritance and the promise, Gal 3:19, were truly given, and to the tribes only as means for his appearance. So that the apostle’s limitation of the Seed to him has a primal truth. Next it is to be noted that all Paul says is, that the singular form of the word Seed enables us congruously to read this limitation of the term to Christ into the text of the promise. If it were plural, seeds, or any equivalent term, as children, or, descendants, this could not be done. The very fact that Paul so soon as Gal 3:29 uses the singular, seed, as equivalent to heirs, shows that he does not mean that the plural form is necessary to a plural meaning.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He does not say ‘and to seeds’, as of many, but as of one, ‘And to your seed’, which is Christ.’

Notice also, he says, that the covenant is made with Abraham and ‘his seed’ (Gen 12:7; Gen 13:15; Gen 24:7). Then he reminds them that the word for ‘seed’ is a singular collective noun, and can mean one (e.g. Gen 4:25) or many, but even when referring to the many it means the many seen as one. We can see from this, therefore, that God deliberately avoided a word that could be used in the plural and chose a collective noun (that is what Paul was saying by his seemingly inaccurate grammar). And that was because in this case, while God had a collective seed in mind, He also had a final single seed in mind. He had in mind the Messiah (Christ) as ‘the seed of Abraham’ who would bring blessing to the world.

This argument is not quite as unreasonable as some have suggested. To Paul the whole human race could be summed up in one man (Rom 5:19). In the same way, he suggests, Abraham would also think of his descendants as one seed. Thus the ‘children of Israel’ called themselves ‘Israel’ because they were the seed of ‘Israel’ (i.e. of Jacob – in theory if not in fact).

Actually, humanly (but not grammatically) speaking, there were ‘seeds’ because Isaac alone became the bearer of the covenant seed (Gen 17:19), while the seed of Ishmael, (while included later in a wider covenant), was excluded. So what a collective noun means is the summing up of everything in one example, and as we see this could be narrowed down. For regularly one man could represent the whole. Thus when David fought against Goliath as Israel’s champion it was not just he who fought, it was as though the whole of Israel fought with him. And when Goliath was beaten the Philistines recognised that in their champion’s defeat they too had been beaten, and they fled. The many were summed up in the one, and this was how the participants actually saw it. Isaiah uses this idea with regard to the Servant. The Servant was initially Abraham (Isa 41:1-8), and then the seed of Abraham (Isa 41:8 and regularly), and then because of the unfaithfulness of the whole the faithful of the seed of Abraham, his true seed (Isa 49:3), who was to ‘raise up the tribes of Jacob’ (Isa 49:1-6), and finally it was the One Who was par excellence the seed of Abraham, the One Who gave Himself for the sins of His sheep (Isaiah 53). The one became the many, and then became the One, all incorporated in the one seed, the seed of Abraham.

So Paul saw Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of all that Israel was called to do. He was God’s Champion, God’s seed. The children of Israel were one seed, but they failed. However, from that one seed would come one man, God’s Messiah, and through Him, and through those of the seed who would follow Him, would go God’s blessing to the nations. In ancient thinking one man could represent a nation, and a nation could be represented in one man. That is what Paul is saying here.

And again in Daniel 7 Israel is like ‘a son of man’ in comparison with the four wild beasts. It is ‘human’ rather than being ‘beastly’. But this ‘son of man’ also comes before God to receive his kingdom in a way which clearly represents one who stands for the many (Gal 3:13-14). Their representative and king receives the kingdom (Dan 7:13-14), and in him they receive it too (Dan 7:27). This sums up Paul’s argument as well. It is misrepresenting it to say that it is just playing with grammar.

Comparison may be made with the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent in Gen 3:15. The seed of the woman certainly represented mankind and the seed of the serpent the snakes that would be the curse of mankind. But behind the serpent lay a deadlier, mysterious foe. And he too, far more importantly, would be defeated by the seed of the woman, and we could add like Paul, ‘and that seed was Christ’. Indeed the defeat of that Serpent by Christ is one of the themes of the Book of Revelation.

So what Paul is signifying here is that it in the end it is to the one seed of Abraham that the promises were given, the One Seed Who represented the collective seed and in Whom they were summed up, just as the Servant is the One Man and is yet the many (Act 13:47, for example, represents Christian preachers as the Servant). This included both past seed (Rom 3:25) and future seed. It is all summed up in Christ. For Paul certainly intends us to see that the promises of Abraham include the church of Christ as well as Christ Himself, although received through the One (compare Gal 3:29 where he says so). That is the whole purpose of his argument.

Note that the whole argument also assumes that the church is now the seed of Abraham, the true ‘Israel of God’.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Gal 3:16. He saith not, And to seeds, That is, The promises made to Abraham were not appropriated to one line of his descendants,that is, to those by Isaac; but centred in one illustrious Person, with regard to whom the rest are made partakers of the great blessing exhibited in the Abrahamic covenant, that is to say, all the faithful saints of God.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Gal 3:16 . This verse is usually considered as minor proposition to Gal 3:15 , so that Gal 3:15-17 contain a complete syllogism, which is, however, interrupted by the exegetical gloss . . ., and is then resumed by in Gal 3:17 (see Morus, Koppe, Rckert, Schott, de Wette, Hilgenfeld). But against this view it may be urged, (1) that the minor proposition in Gal 3:16 must necessarily, in a logical point of view, as corresponding to the emphatic in Gal 3:15 , bring into prominence the divine character of the promises, and must have been expressed in some such form as .; and (2) that the explanation as to , so carefully and emphatically brought in (not merely “allusive,” Hilgenfeld), would be here entirely aimless and irrelevant, because it would be devoid of all reference to and influence on the argument. The train of ideas is really as follows (comp. also Wieseler):

After Paul has stated in Gal 3:15 that even a man’s legally valid covenant is not invalidated or provided with additions by any one, he cannot immediately link on the conclusion intended to be deduced from this, viz. that a valid covenant of God is not annulled by the law coming afterwards; but he must first bring forward the circumstance which, in the case in question, has an essential bearing on this proof, that the promises under discussion were issued not to Abraham only, but at the same time to his descendants also , that is, to Christ . From this essential circumstance it is, in fact, clear that that covenant was not to be a mere temporary contract, simply made to last up to the time of the law. Accordingly, the purport of Gal 3:15-17 is this: “Even a man’s covenant legally completed remains uncancelled and without addition (Gal 3:15 ). But the circumstance which conditions and renders incontestable the conclusion to be thence deduced is, that the promises were spoken not merely to Abraham, but also to his seed, by which, as is clear from the singular , is meant Christ (Gal 3:16 ). And now to complete my conclusion drawn from what I have said in Gal 3:15-16 what I mean is this: A covenant previously made with legal validity by God is not rendered invalid by the law, which came into existence so long afterwards” (Gal 3:17 ).

. . ] The emphasis is laid on , the point which is here brought into prominence as the further specific foundation of the proof to be adduced. This element essential to the proof lies in the destination of Christ as the organ of fulfilment; in the case of a promise which had been given not merely to the ancestor himself, but also to Christ, the fulfiller, it was not at all possible to conceive an by the law. Comp. also Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr . p. 204. The passage of the O.T. to which Paul refers in , is considered by most expositors, following Tertullian ( de carne Christi , 22) and Chrysostom, to be Gen 22:18 : . But, from the words . . . which follow, it is evident that Paul was thinking of a passage in which is expressly written. Hence (with Estius and Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Buhl) the passages Gen 13:15 ; Gen 17:8 , are rather to be assumed as those referred to, a view confirmed by the expression in Gal 3:18 . [134] Comp. Rom 4:13 .

[135] ] they were spoken , that is, given , as some min., Eusebius and Theophylact, actually read . The datives simply state to whom the promises were spoken, not: in reference to whom (so Matthias), an interpretation which was the less likely to occur to the reader, well acquainted as he was with the fact that the promise was spoken directly to Abraham, who at the same time represented his .

] in the plural : for the promise in question was given on several occasions and under various modifications, even as regards the contents; and indeed Paul himself here refers to a place and form of promise different from that mentioned above in Gal 3:8 . In he finds that Christ is meant; hence he adds the following gloss (Midrasch): . . ., in which the singular form of the expression is asserted by him to be significant, and the conclusion is thence drawn that only one descendant (not: only one class of descendants, namely the spiritual children of Abraham, as, following Augustine, Cameron and others, Olshausen and Tholuck, d. A. T. im neuen T . p. 65 ff. Exo 6 , also Jatho, hold) is intended, namely Christ . That this inference is purely rabbinical (Surenhusius, . p. 84 f.; Schoettgen, Hor . p. 736; Dpke, Hermeneut . I. p. 176 ff.), and without objective force as a proof, is evident from the fact that in the original text is written, and this, in every passage in the O.T. where it expresses the idea of progenies , is used in the singular (in 1Sa 8:15 , are segetes vestrae ), whether the posterity consists of many or of one only ( Gen 4:25 ; 1Sa 1:11 ; Targ. Psa 18:26 , where Isaac is called Abraham’s [136] ). Also the later Hebrew and Chaldee usage of the plural form in the sense of progenies (see Geiger in the Zeitschr. d. morgenl. Gesellsch. 1858, p. 307 ff.) does not depend, any more than the Greek use of (Soph. O.C . 606. 1277; O.R . 1246; Aesch. Eum . 909), on the circumstance that, in contradistinction, the singular is to be understood . Comp, 4Ma 18:1 : , . The classical use of is analogous (comp. on Joh 1:13 ). Moreover, the original sense of these promises, and also the of the LXX., undoubtedly apply to the posterity of Abraham generally : hence it is only in so far as Christ is the theocratic culmination, the goal and crown of this series of descendants, that the promises were spoken to Him; but to discover this reference in the singular was a mere feat of the rabbinical subtlety, which was still retained by the apostle from his youthful culture as a characteristic element of his national training, without detriment to the Holy Spirit which he had, and to the revelations which had been vouchsafed to him. Every attempt to show that Paul has not here allowed himself any rabbinical interpretation of this sort (see among recent expositors, particularly Philippi in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1855, p. 519 ff.: comp. also Hengstenberg, Christol . I. p. 50 f.; Tholuck, l.c ., and Hofmann) is incompatible with the language itself, and conflicts with the express ; which clearly shows that we are not to understand with , nor with (Hofmann, Buhl), but that the contrast between many persons and one person is the point expressed. But the truth itself, which the gloss of the apostle is intended to serve, is entirely independent of this gloss, and rests upon the Messianic tenor of the promises in question, not on the singular .

] sc . , which is derived from the historical reference of the previous , so well known to the reader. Comp. Eph 4:8 ; Eph 5:14 .

] as referring to many individuals , in such a manner that He intends and desires to express a plurality of persons. On , upon , that is, in reference to , with the genitive along with verbs of speaking, see Heindorf, ad Plat. Charm , p. 62; Bernhardy, p. 248; Ast. Lex. Plat . I. p. 767.

] which , denoting a single individual, is Christ . The feebly attested reading is a mistaken grammatical alteration; for how often does the gender of the relative correspond by attraction to the predicative substantive! See Khner, II. p. 505. is the personal Christ Jesus , not, as some, following Irenaeus ( Haer . v. 32. 2) and Augustine ( ad iii. 29, Opp . IV. p. 384), have explained it: Christ and His church (Beza, Gomarus, Crell, Drusius, Hammond, Locke, and others; also Tholuck, Olshausen, Philippi l.c ., Hofmann), or the church alone (Calvin, Clericus, Bengel, Ernesti, Dderlein, Nsselt, and others). Such a mystical sense of must necessarily have been suggested by the context (as in 1Co 12:12 ); here, however, the very contrast between and is decidedly against it. See also Gal 3:19 ; Gal 3:22 ; Gal 3:24 ; Gal 3:27-28 . Gal 3:29 also is against , and not in favour of, this explanation; because the inference of this verse depends on the very fact that Christ Himself is the . (see on Gal 3:29 ). The whole explanation is a very superfluous device, the mistaken ingenuity of which (especially in the case of Tholuck and Hofmann) appears in striking contrast to the clear literal tenor of the passage. [137] It is not, however, Christ in His pre-human existence, in so far as He according to the Spirit already bore sway in the patriarchs (1Co 10:1 ff.), who is here referred to, because it is only as the that He can be the descendant of Abraham (Mat 1:1 ; Rom 1:3 ). Comp. Gal 3:19 .

[134] The correct view is found even in Origen, Comment. in Ep. ad Rom 4:4 , Opp . iv. p. 532: “Ipse enim (apostolus) haec de Christo dicta esse interpretatur, cum dixit: ‘Scriptum est, tibi dabo terram hanc et semini tuo . Non dixit: et seminibus, tanquam in multis, sed semini tuo, tanquam in uno, qui est Christus.’ ” Comp. also p. 618, and Homil . 9 in Genes. Opp . II. p. 85; and earlier, Irenaeus, Haer . v. 32. 2; later, especially Jerome.

[135] As to this form, which has preponderant attestation (Lachm., Tisch.), comp. on Rom 9:12 ; Khner, I. p. 810, Exo 2 .

[136] In the so-called Protevangelium also, Gen 3:15 , the LXX. translators have referred to an individual (to a son); for they translate, . But it does not thence follow that this subject was the Messiah, to whom the , correctly understood by the LXX., but wrongly by the Vulgate (conteret), is not suitable. The Messianic reference of the passage lies in the enmity against the serpent here established as the expression of a moral idea, the final victorious issue of which was the subject-matter of the Messianic hope, and was brought about through the work of the Messiah. Comp. Hengstenberg, Christol. I. p. 26 ff.; Ewald, Jahrb. II. p. 160 f.; also Schultz, alttest, Theol. I. p. 466 f.

[137] Tholuck holds that in ver. 16 Paul desired to show that the promises could not possibly extend to “the posterity of Abraham in every sense ,” and that consequently the natural posterity was not included; that the singular points rather to a definite posterity, namely the believing . The latter are taken along with Christ as an unity, and, partly as the spiritual successors of the patriarch, partly in their oneness with the great Scion proceeding from his family, they constitute the descendants of Abraham. But in this case Paul, instead of , must at least have written ; instead of , ; and instead of , he must have written . According to Hofmann, in loc . (not quite the same in his Schriftbew . II. 1, p. 107 f.), Paul, following the analogy of Gen 4:25 and thinking in of several posterities by the side of each other , lays stress on the oneness of Abraham’s posterity expressed in the singular , the expression in the singular serving him only as the shortest means (?) for asserting a fact testified to by Scripture generally; but, on the other hand, he has, by means of estimating this unit of posterity in the light of the history of redemption , been able, and indeed obliged, to interpret as referring to Christ , the promised Saviour, without thereby maintaining that this expression in the singular could signify only an individual, and not a race of many members . But in this way everything which we are expected to read in the plain words is imported into them, and artificially imposed upon them, by the expositor. Besides, in Gen 4:25 means nothing more than another son .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Ver. 16. Which is Christ ] Mystical Christ, that is, whole Christ; for he accounts not himself complete without his members, who are therefore called his fulness, Eph 1:23 . Caput et corpus, unus est Christus, saith Augustine, the head and members make but one Christ.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

16 .] This verse is not, as commonly supposed, the minor proposition of the syllegism, applying to Abraham’s case the general truth enounced in Gal 3:15 ; for had it been so, (1) we should certainly find contrasted with the before, and (2) the parenthesis would be a mere irrelevant digression. This minor proposition does not follow till Gal 3:17 . What is now said, in a parenthetical and subsidiary manner, is this: The covenant was not merely nor principally made with Abraham, but with Abraham and HIS SEED, and that seed referred, not to the Jewish people, but to CHRIST. The covenant then was not fulfilled, but awaiting its fulfilment, and He to whom it was made was yet to appear, when the law was given.

. ] because the promise was many times repeated: e.g. Gen 12:7 ; Gen 15:5 ; Gen 15:18 ; Gen 17:7-8 ; Gen 22:18 .

. . . ] These words, on which, from what follows, the stress of the whole argument rests, are probably meant to be a formal quotation. If so, the promises quoted must be Gen 13:15 ; Gen 17:8 (Jowett supposes xxi. 12, but qu.?), where the words occur as here.

] viz. He who gave the promises God. ., ] of many, of one , as E. V. Plato has very nearly this usage, (de diis) , Legg. p. 662 d. See also Rep. 524 e. Cf. Ellic.’s note.

] The central point of the Apostle’s argument is this: The seed to whom the promises were made, was Christ. To confirm this position, see Gen 22:17-18 , where the collective of Gal 3:17 is summed up in the individual of Gal 3:18 , he alleges a philological distinction, recognized by the Rabbinical schools (see Wetst. and Schttgen ad loc.). This has created considerable difficulty: and all sorts of attempts have been made to evade the argument, or to escape standing committed to the distinction. Jerome (ad loc.), curiously and characteristically, applies the to this distinction especially, and thinks that the Apostle used it as adapted to the calibre of those to whom he was writing: “Galatis, quos paulo ante stultos dixerat, factus est stultus.” The Roman-Catholic Windischmann, one of the ablest and most sensible of modern expositors, says, “Our recent masters of theology have taken up the objection, which is as old as Jerome, and forgetting that Paul knew Hebrew better than themselves, have severely blamed him for urging the singular here, and thus justifying the application to Christ, seeing that the word , which occurs here in the Hebrew text, has no plural (Wind. is not accurate here: the plur. is found 1Sa 8:15 , in the sense of ‘grains of wheat’), and so could not be used. Yet they are good enough to assume, that Paul had no fraudulent intent, and only followed the arbitrary exegesis of the Jews of his time (Rckert). The argument of the Apostle does not depend on the grammatical form, by which Paul here only puts forth his meaning in Greek, but on this, that the Spirit of God in the promise to Abraham and the passage of Scripture relating that promise, has chosen a word which implies a collective unity, and that the promise was not given to Abraham and his children . Against the prejudice of the carnal Jews, who held that the promise applied to the plurality of them, the individual descendants of the Patriarch, as such, the Apostle maintains the truth, that only the Unity, Christ, with those who are incorporated in Him, has part in the inheritance.” On these remarks I would observe, (1) that the Apostle’s argument is independent of his philology: (2) that his philological distinction must not be pressed to mean more than he himself intended by it: (3) that the collective and individual meanings of are both undoubted, and must have been evident to the Apostle himself, from, what follows, Gal 3:29 . We are now in a position to interpret the words . Meyer says ‘ is the personal Christ Jesus, not, as has been held (after Aug.), Christ and His Church.’ This remark is true, and untrue. . certainly does not mean ‘Christ and His Church:’ but if it imports only the personal Christ Jesus, why is it not so expressed, ? For the word does not here occur in passing, but is the predicate of a very definite and important proposition. The fact is, that we must place ourselves in St. Paul’s position with regard to the idea of Christ, before we can appreciate all he meant by this word here. Christians are, not by a figure, but really, the BODY OF CHRIST: Christ contains His people, and the mention even of the personal Christ would bring with it, in the Apostle’s mind, the inclusion of His believing people. This seed is, CHRIST: not merely in the narrower sense, the man Christ Jesus, but Christ the Seed, Christ the Second Adam, Christ the Head of the Body. And that this is so, is plain from Gal 3:28-29 , which are the key to : where he says, (notice here carefully inserted, where the Person is indicated). , , . So that while it is necessary for the form of the argument here, to express Him to whom the promises were made, and not the aggregate of his people, afterwards to be identified with Him (but not here in view), yet the Apostle has introduced His name in a form not circumscribing His Personality, but leaving room for the inclusion of His mystical Body.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Gal 3:16 . The clause is quoted from God’s promises to Abraham in Gen 13:15 ; Gen 17:8 with only the necessary change of the second person into . The original promise was limited to the possession of the promised land, but was coupled with a perpetual covenant between God and the seed of Abraham: I will be their God, Thou shalt keep my covenant, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations . Hence Hebrew prophecy imported into it the idea of a spiritual inheritance, and the Epistle adopts this interpretation without hesitation. , sc. . As the clause in question was quoted from an utterance of God, it was not necessary to specify the subject of . : And to his seeds, i.e. , families. This contrast between the many families and the one chosen family is more than mere verbal criticism: it contains the germ of that doctrine of continuous divine election within the stock of Abraham which is developed in the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. For Abraham had many children after the flesh; and the exclusion of Ishmael, Dedan, Midian, Esau in patriarchal times in favour of Isaac and of Jacob established the principle which culminated in the rejection of the Jewish nation in favour of Christ. This conception of a continuous holy family linking Christ with Abraham runs through the next section of the Epistle; just as and here mean . and . , so in Gal 3:20 means and in Gal 3:22 . In like manner Christ is contemplated, not by Himself alone as constituting in the unity of His person the chosen seed, but as a new centre out of whom the family of God branched forth afresh. He became in a far higher sense than Isaac or Jacob a new head of the chosen family: for all Abraham’s children after the flesh that received Him not were shut out from the blessing, while all who believed in Him became by faith sons of Abraham and members of the true family of God. The whole Church of Christ are in short regarded as one with Christ one in life and spirit, for they are members of His body and partake of His spirit ( cf. Gal 3:28-29 ).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

made = spoken, See Gen 21:12,

of. Greek. epi. App-104.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

16.] This verse is not, as commonly supposed, the minor proposition of the syllegism, applying to Abrahams case the general truth enounced in Gal 3:15; for had it been so, (1) we should certainly find contrasted with the before, and (2) the parenthesis would be a mere irrelevant digression. This minor proposition does not follow till Gal 3:17. What is now said, in a parenthetical and subsidiary manner, is this: The covenant was not merely nor principally made with Abraham, but with Abraham and HIS SEED, and that seed referred, not to the Jewish people, but to CHRIST. The covenant then was not fulfilled, but awaiting its fulfilment, and He to whom it was made was yet to appear, when the law was given.

.] because the promise was many times repeated: e.g. Gen 12:7; Gen 15:5; Gen 15:18; Gen 17:7-8; Gen 22:18.

. . .] These words, on which, from what follows, the stress of the whole argument rests, are probably meant to be a formal quotation. If so, the promises quoted must be Gen 13:15; Gen 17:8 (Jowett supposes xxi. 12, but qu.?), where the words occur as here.

] viz. He who gave the promises-God. ., ] of many, of one, as E. V. Plato has very nearly this usage, (de diis) , Legg. p. 662 d. See also Rep. 524 e. Cf. Ellic.s note.

] The central point of the Apostles argument is this: The seed to whom the promises were made, was Christ. To confirm this position,-see Gen 22:17-18, where the collective of Gal 3:17 is summed up in the individual of Gal 3:18, he alleges a philological distinction, recognized by the Rabbinical schools (see Wetst. and Schttgen ad loc.). This has created considerable difficulty: and all sorts of attempts have been made to evade the argument, or to escape standing committed to the distinction. Jerome (ad loc.), curiously and characteristically, applies the to this distinction especially, and thinks that the Apostle used it as adapted to the calibre of those to whom he was writing: Galatis, quos paulo ante stultos dixerat, factus est stultus. The Roman-Catholic Windischmann, one of the ablest and most sensible of modern expositors, says, Our recent masters of theology have taken up the objection, which is as old as Jerome, and forgetting that Paul knew Hebrew better than themselves, have severely blamed him for urging the singular here, and thus justifying the application to Christ, seeing that the word , which occurs here in the Hebrew text, has no plural (Wind. is not accurate here: the plur. is found 1Sa 8:15, in the sense of grains of wheat), and so could not be used. Yet they are good enough to assume, that Paul had no fraudulent intent, and only followed the arbitrary exegesis of the Jews of his time (Rckert). The argument of the Apostle does not depend on the grammatical form, by which Paul here only puts forth his meaning in Greek,-but on this, that the Spirit of God in the promise to Abraham and the passage of Scripture relating that promise, has chosen a word which implies a collective unity, and that the promise was not given to Abraham and his children. Against the prejudice of the carnal Jews, who held that the promise applied to the plurality of them, the individual descendants of the Patriarch, as such,-the Apostle maintains the truth, that only the Unity, Christ, with those who are incorporated in Him, has part in the inheritance. On these remarks I would observe, (1) that the Apostles argument is independent of his philology: (2) that his philological distinction must not be pressed to mean more than he himself intended by it: (3) that the collective and individual meanings of are both undoubted, and must have been evident to the Apostle himself, from, what follows, Gal 3:29. We are now in a position to interpret the words . Meyer says is the personal Christ Jesus, not, as has been held (after Aug.), Christ and His Church. This remark is true, and untrue. . certainly does not mean Christ and His Church: but if it imports only the personal Christ Jesus, why is it not so expressed, ? For the word does not here occur in passing, but is the predicate of a very definite and important proposition. The fact is, that we must place ourselves in St. Pauls position with regard to the idea of Christ, before we can appreciate all he meant by this word here. Christians are, not by a figure, but really, the BODY OF CHRIST: Christ contains His people, and the mention even of the personal Christ would bring with it, in the Apostles mind, the inclusion of His believing people. This seed is, CHRIST: not merely in the narrower sense, the man Christ Jesus, but Christ the Seed, Christ the Second Adam, Christ the Head of the Body. And that this is so, is plain from Gal 3:28-29, which are the key to : where he says, (notice here carefully inserted, where the Person is indicated). , , . So that while it is necessary for the form of the argument here, to express Him to whom the promises were made, and not the aggregate of his people, afterwards to be identified with Him (but not here in view), yet the Apostle has introduced His name in a form not circumscribing His Personality, but leaving room for the inclusion of His mystical Body.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Gal 3:16. , were spoken) a weighty expression.- , the promises) In the plural; the promise frequently repeated [Gal 3:17-18]: and it was twofold, of things on earth and things in heaven; of the land of Canaan, and of the world, and of all the good things of God, Rom 4:13. But the law was given once for all.-, and) Gen 13:15; Gen 12:7; Gen 15:18; Gen 17:8.-, He says) God.- , as of many) as if there was one seed before the law, another under the law.- , as of one) See how Paul draws a conclusion of great weight from the grammatical accident, number; and this is the more wonderful, because is never put in the plural, unless in 1Sa 8:15, where it however denotes lands, not seeds. Indeed, in the LXX. Int. the force of the singular number is more apparent. Moreover, Paul has not here determined that seed denotes one single offspring alone, and that seeds, and they alone [i.e. that it is the plural alone, which must], signify a numerous offspring: for seed in the singular very often implies a multitude; but he means to say this, that there is one seed, i.e. one posterity, one family, one race of the sons of Abraham, to all of whom the inheritance falls by promise, [after Moses, as well as before Moses; of the uncircumcision not less than of the circumcision.-V. g.] not to some by promise, to others by the law, Rom 4:16. But you will do well to distinguish between the promise of the blessing and the promise of the inheritance of the world or of the earth; in the former, not in the latter, the appellation, seed, has regard to Christ. For the blessing is accomplished in Abraham, not by or in himself (per se), inasmuch as he died before the Gentiles obtained the blessing, but inasmuch as he has the seed; and it is accomplished in the seed of Abraham, not because that seed is innumerable; for Abraham himself did not bless, but received the blessing; how much less can his posterity bless, who only receive with him the blessing by faith. Therefore the blessing is accomplished in Christ, who is the one Seed most excellent and most desired, who in and by Himself bestows the blessing. But yet, because all the posterity of Abraham are akin to Him [Christ], therefore, the blessing is said to be accomplished in the seed of Abraham in common, but to come to the Gentiles, Gal 3:14. The promise of the earth, and therefore of the inheritance, was given to Abraham and his seed, i.e. to his numerous posterity, Gal 3:19; Gal 3:22, not, however, to Christ, but in relation to Christ [in Christum, until Christ should come, Gal 3:19; with a view to Christ, Gal 3:24, , and Gal 3:17 in Rec. Text].- , who is Christ) , who, is not to be restrictedly referred to the expression, to the seed, but to the whole of the foregoing words in this sense: [all of which God says in reference to Christ] that which God says is wholly in reference to [with a view to] Christ.[23] [i.e. to Abraham and his seed belong the promises, or, in other words, the blessing promised in Christ.-V. g.] For Christ upholds all the promises, 2Co 1:20. In Greek and Latin the gender of the pronoun often corresponds to the substantive that follows. Cic. Ignes qu (attracted to the gender of sidera, instead of that of ignes) sidera vocatis. [So here , attracted to the gender of , instead of , referring to the whole antecedent discourse.]

[23] Beng. seems to take , who or which, i.e. as the subject of the whole previous discussion, and of all the promises, just mentioned, which God has made, is Christ.-ED.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Gal 3:16

Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed.-The promise made to Abraham and his seed was the basis of the covenant that God made with Abraham and his seed, and confirmed with an oath.

He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.-The promise was: And the angel of Jehovah called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen 22:15-18). The promise was of the increase of the family referred to all his seed. But the final outcome of the promise-In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed-was the spiritual and everlasting blessing and referred to Christ alone, and then through him to all the spiritual family of Abraham who shall be blessed in him. Abraham did not understand the meaning and reach of these promises. He expected temporal blessings to all his family. When God restricted these promises to the promised child of Sarah, Abraham said unto God, Oh that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Nay, but Sarah thy wife shall bear a son; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.’ (Gen 17:18-20). God promised a large family and temporal blessings to Ishmael, but the everlasting covenant was made with Isaac and his seed. (Gen 26:3). He repeats the promises of Abraham to Isaac. (Gen 28:13-14). This everlasting promise was repeated to Jacob and his seed after him, excluding Esau, then to Davids line. The promise was restricted as time progressed until possibly for the first time it is told by Paul that the promise continued in one seed, not seeds as of many, but one-Jesus Christ. And in him all the families of the earth may find a blessing.

This much may be said of all the promises of God. When they fail as pertaining to earthly and temporal blessings, they find full and everlasting fulfillment in the spiritual blessings. Canaan was to be the earthly inheritance to the children of Israel. This promise failed as a temporal good because they sinned and transgressed the covenant they made with God. But fleshly Israel and earthly Canaan typified spiritual Israel and heavenly Canaan. So this promise finds its complete and everlasting fulfillment in these great spiritual antitypes. So the real covenant with Abraham is fulfilled in Christ.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

to: Gal 3:8, Gen 12:3, Gen 12:7, Gen 13:15, Gen 13:16, Gen 15:5, Gen 17:7, Gen 17:8, Gen 21:12, Gen 22:17, Gen 22:18, Gen 26:3, Gen 26:4, Gen 28:13, Gen 28:14, Gen 49:10

which: Gal 3:27-29, Rom 12:5, 1Co 12:12, 1Co 12:27, Eph 4:15, Eph 4:16, Eph 5:29, Eph 5:30, Eph 5:32, Col 2:19, Col 3:11

Reciprocal: Exo 12:40 – four hundred Psa 18:50 – to his Isa 6:13 – so the holy Zec 11:10 – that Mat 1:1 – the son of Abraham Luk 1:55 – General Act 3:25 – And in Act 13:32 – how Rom 4:13 – through the 2Co 1:20 – all Gal 3:14 – through Gal 3:18 – but Gal 3:19 – till Gal 3:29 – Abraham’s Eph 2:12 – the covenants Tit 3:5 – by works Heb 2:16 – the seed Heb 7:6 – had Heb 8:6 – upon Heb 11:33 – obtained 2Pe 1:4 – are given

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Gal 3:16. , -Now to Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed. The non-Attic form has the support of the best MSS., as A, B, C, D, F, , etc.; Lobeck, Phrynichus, p. 441; Buttmann, vol. ii. p. 121. It is needless and irrelevant on the part of Schott, De Wette, and Hilgenfeld, to make Gal 3:15-17 a syllogism, and this verse the minor premiss. A more definite contrast must in that case have been expressed, and the parenthetical and explanatory clause would destroy the symmetry. The minor premiss is in Gal 3:17, and this verse is rather a subsidiary illustration of some points or words in the covenant, the validity of which he is just going to prove. Thus-

1. The plural is not one promise, but many, or the promise repeated in varying terms: Gen 12:3; Gen 13:15; Gen 15:18; Gen 17:8; Gen 22:16-18. The arrangement of the words gives the emphasis to by severing it from .

2. The promises were spoken not to Abraham only, but to Abraham and his Seed. This Seed he explains to be Christ, so that until the Seed came, the promise was not fulfilled; it was still a divine promise awaiting its fulfilment when the law was given, and could not therefore be set aside by it, or be clogged with new clauses. The force of the argument lies in this, that the seed is not Abraham’s natural progeny, to which Canaan had been given, but Christ, who did not come into the world till the fulness of time. The simple dative, not that of relation, is here employed, and the meaning is not, for Abraham and his seed (Matthias, Vmel), nor through or in reference to Abraham and his seed (Brown), but the Seed is characterized as the party to whom the promises were uttered or given.

3. The point of the argument then is the quotation , the very words employed by God. For he explains-

, , , -He saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, And TO THY SEED, which is Christ. The is plainly a part of the quotation, which must be taken either from Gen 13:15 or from Gen 17:8, and therefore not from Gen 22:18, as Tertullian and many after him have supposed. The apostle now explains the meaning and the unipersonal reference of the singular . , referring back to , probably in this instance not impersonal (Lightfoot), for is emphatically implied in the context and in . He who spoke the promises used this phrase, And to thy seed. In the two clauses with the genitive has some trace of its local meaning, on-the utterance of God in the promise rests not on many, but on one-like scribere super. Winer, 47, 9. There are several instances in classical Greek. Ast, Lex. Plat. sub voce. , AElian, Var. Hist. 1.31; Plato, Charmides, 155, D; and Stallbaum’s modification of Heindorf’s note, which, however, is not applicable here, vol. 2.132-3; Diodor. Sic. 1.12. For the attraction in , which has not for its antecedent (Beza), see Winer, 24, 3; Mar 15:16; 1Ti 3:15.

The apostle’s argument is, that the singular signifies what the plural could not have suggested. This plural is indeed found in 4Ma 17:1, ; but this use is not so natural. Comp. in poetry, AEschylus, Supp. 290; Sophocles, OEdip. 1275. The Hebrew term , H2446 is used in the plural, with quite a different meaning, to signify grains of seed, 1Sa 8:15, and in Dan 1:12, where it is rendered pulse in our version. On this account the plural could not have been employed in such a promise, and therefore the apostle’s argument from it would be void. The plural, however, is used in Chaldee in the sense of posterity; and the apostle’s inference only implies, that had a plural been employed in the promise, his reasoning could not have been sustained. It is also true, on the other hand, that may have a plural signification, as in Rom 4:18; Rom 9:7, where the apostle’s argument depends on it, as also in Gal 3:29 of this chapter. The singular , H2446 denotes a man’s offspring as a collective unit, not its separate individuals but in their related oneness, the organic unity of the branches with the root. In the promise made to Abraham, however, the singular term is not a collective unity, but has an unipersonal sense which no plural form could have borne, such as ,. The singular form thus gives a ground for the interpretation which he advances. The Septuagint had already given a similar personal meaning to – , Gen 3:15. That seed is Christ-not Jesus in individual humanity, but the Messiah so promised. The posterity of Abraham was embodied in Him; He was its summation and crown. It would never have existed but for Him, nor could its mission to bless all nations be fulfilled but in Him. For Him was Abraham chosen, and Canaan promised and conferred. In typical fore-union with Him was the old economy organized, and its testimony to Him was the soul of prophecy. The seed of Abraham blessed the world by the circulation of its oracles in a Greek translation, its code being a protest against polytheism, against atheism – the negation of the Infinite, and against pantheism-the absorption of the finite,-a vindication of the dignity of man as made in God’s image, and of the majesty of law as based on His authority; while it made a special providence a matter of daily experience, and disclosed the harmony of mercy with the equity and purity of divine legislation. Babylon, Egypt, and Phoenicia had contributed to the education of humanity, which was also mightily advanced by the genius of Greece and the legislation of Rome. But Judaism diffused a higher form of truth: it taught religion-the knowledge and worship of that God who was in Christ, in whom all the spiritual seed are comprehended, in whom they were chosen, and in whom they have died, been raised, and enthroned in the heavenly places. In the Old Testament there are glimpses of the same truth; for the servant of Jehovah is sometimes the Messiah in person, sometimes Israel either national or spiritual, and sometimes Messiah combining in Himself and identified with the theocratic people. Messiah was the Lord’s servant, and so was Israel; their service, either individual or collective, had its root and acceptance in Him. Israel was God’s son, His first-born-closely related to Him, reflecting His image, and doing His will among the nations; and Messiah’s relations and functions are described in similar language. In this way Moses, in his time, bore the reproach of Christ; and in the Gospel of Matthew (Mat 2:15) a prophetic utterance regarding the chosen people is said to be fulfilled in the child Jesus-Out of Egypt have I called my son. Hos 11:1. The same truth is more vividly brought out in the New Testament-the identity of Christ and Christ’s. Why persecutest thou me? said Jesus to the persecutor. The apostle fills up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in his flesh for His body’s sake, and he says, The sufferings of Christ abound in us; and again, For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. Act 9:4; 1Co 12:12; 2Co 1:5; Heb 11:26. See under Eph 1:23 and Col 1:24.

The meaning is not, Christ and His church (Augustine, Beza, Matthies, Jatho); nor the church under a special aspect, as Bengel and Ernesti; but Christ Himself, embodying at the same time His church-the Head with its members in organic unity.

Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians

Gal 3:16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. This states the first instance that the promise of Christ was ever made to any human individual, notwithstanding a popular notion to the contrary. The reader should see the comments on Gen 3:14-15, in volume 1 of the Old Testament Commentary. Seed is a word that may be used in either a singular or plural sense, hence Paul settles which meaning he is attaching to it here by saying not seeds, as of many; but as of one. He further specifies the one seed meant by the words thy seed, to which the apostle adds which is Christ. Thus we have the interesting information that when God made the promise to Abraham of universal blessings through his seed (Christ), He made the same promise to that Seed who was then with the Creator in Heaven. This sheds light on Heb 10:5-7, which represents the attitude of Jesus when he left Heaven and came to the earth. He already knew (having been told at the same time that Abraham was) that He was to come into the world to bless “all nations,” and He was submissive to his Father’s will. That is why he said, “I come to do thy will, 0 God.”

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Gal 3:16 introduces the new idea that the covenant of promise was not made with Abraham only, but with his whole seed which centres in Christ, and was therefore still waiting its fulfilment at the time when the law was given; so that it could not be abolished by the law. The emphasis lies on the words: and to his seed, which look beyond the law of Moses and to Christs coming.

And to thy seed, Gen 13:15; Gen 17:8 : And I will give unto thee, and thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. The promised inheritance refers evidently in its next and literal sense to the land of Canaan, but in its deeper spiritual sense to the kingdom of Christ. The seed of Abraham comprehends, therefore, not only the Israelites under Moses and Joshua, but above all Christ and his people as the true spiritual Israel who enter into that heavenly rest, of which the rest of the earthly Canaan was only an imperfect type (comp. Heb 4:8).

He saith not, And to seeds as of many, but as of one, And to thy seed. There arises a difficulty here from the stress which Paul lays on the singular of the word seed inasmuch as this is a collective noun in Hebrew (sera) as well as in the Greek (sperma), and modern languages, and includes the whole posterity. It is singular in form, but plural in meaning. The plural (seraim, spermata) occurs in the sense of grains of wheat or grains of seed (or crop, produce of the field, 1Sa 8:15), but never in the sense of offspring or posterity. Hence it has been said that Paul, after the manner of man (Gal 3:15), accommodates himself merely to the prevailing rabbinical method of interpretation, or (as St. Jerome thought) to the capacity of the foolish Galatians. Luther remarks: My dear brother Paul, this argument wont stick. But Paul under stood Hebrew and Greek as well as his ancient and modern interpreters, and he himself uses the word sperma, offspring, in the sense of plurality (Rom 4:18; Rom 9:7), and the plural spermata in the sense of various kinds of grain (1Co 15:38). He reads as it were between the lines of the text. It is not a question of grammar, but of spiritual meaning. The grammatical form (sperma and spermata) serves merely as a vehicle of his idea for the Greek reader. The main point is that the collective word seed is used instead of children or descendants, and that this word seed denotes an organic unity of true spiritual Abrahamites, and not all the carnal descendants of Abraham, as the Jews imagined (comp. Gal 3:28-29; Rom 4:16; Rom 4:18; Rom 9:8). The promise refers to Christ par excellence, and to all those and only those who are truly members of His body and united to Him by a living faith. If all the single descendants of Abraham as such were meant, the children of Hagar and Ketura, and subsequently Esau with his posterity would have to be included also; and yet they are plainly excluded. We must, therefore, look to the believing posterity, which is comprehended in Christ as the living head, the same Christ, in whom as the true seed of Abraham, God had promised to bless all the nations of the earth (Gen 22:18; Gen 26:4; Gen 18:14.)

Which is Christ, i.e., Christ, not as a single individual, but as the head of the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who filleth all in all (Eph 1:23). In Him the whole spiritual race of Abraham is summed up, and in Him it fulfilled its mission to the whole world. He is the representative and embodiment of all true Israelites, and without Him the Jewish people has no meaning. The seed includes, therefore, all true believers who are vitally united to Christ. The key to the passage is in Gal 3:28-29 : Ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed, heirs according to the promise. Comp. 1Co 12:12 : As the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Gal 3:16. Now to Abraham, &c. To apply this to the case before us. The promises relating to the justification of believers, and the blessings consequent thereon, were made first by God to Abraham and his seed, who are expressly mentioned as making a party with him in the covenant. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many As if the promises belonged to all his seed, both natural and spiritual, or to several kinds of seed; but as of one The apostle having affirmed, (Gal 3:15,) that, according to the customs of men, none but the parties themselves can set aside or alter a covenant that is ratified, he observes, in this verse, that the promises in the covenant with Abraham were made to him and his seed; to him, Gen 12:3; In thee shall all the families, or tribes, of the earth be blessed: to his seed, Gen 22:18; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Now, since by the oath, which God sware to Abraham, after he had laid Isaac on the altar, both promises were ratified, the apostle reasons justly, when he affirms that both promises must be fulfilled. And having shown, (Gal 3:9,) that the promise to Abraham, to bless all the families of the earth in him, means their being blessed as Abraham had been, not with justification through the law of Moses, as the Jews affirmed, but with justification by faith, he proceeds, in this passage, to consider the promise made to Abrahams seed, that in it likewise all the nations of the earth should be blessed. And from the words of the promise, which are not, And in thy seeds, but, And in thy seed, he argues that the seed in which the nations of the earth should be blessed, is not Abrahams seed in general, but one of his seed in particular, namely, Christ; who, by dying for all nations, hath delivered them from the curse of the law, that the blessing of justification by faith might come on believers of all nations, through Christ, as was promised to Abraham and to Christ. To this argument it hath been objected, that the word seed was never used by the Hebrews in the plural number, except to denote the seeds of vegetables, Dan 1:12. To this it may be answered, That, notwithstanding the Hebrews commonly used the word seed collectively, to denote a multitude of children, they used it likewise for a single person, and especially a son, Gen 3:15; I will put enmity between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. And Eve, speaking of Seth, says, (Gen 4:25,) God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. The word seed being thus applied to denote a single person, as well as a multitude, is ambiguous, and therefore the Jews could not certainly know that they were to be instruments of blessing the nations, unless it had been said, And in thy seeds, or sons. And from the apostles argument, we may presume the word was used in the plural, to denote either a multitude or a diversity of children. In this sense, Eve had two seeds in her two sons, as is evident from her calling Seth another seed. So likewise Abraham had two seeds in Isaac and Ishmael. See Gen 21:12-13. Now, because God termed Ishmael Abrahams seed, perhaps Ishmaels descendants affirmed that they also were the seed of Abraham in which the nations were to be blessed. And if the Jewish doctors confuted their claim, by observing, that in the promise it is not said, in seeds, that is, in sons, as God would have said, if he had meant both Ishmael and Isaac, but in thy seed, the apostle might, with propriety, turn their own argument against themselves, especially as the Jews were one of the nations of the earth that were to be blessed in Abrahams seed. Lastly, to use the word seed for a single person was highly proper in the covenant with Abraham, wherein God declared his gracious purpose of saving mankind; because that term leads us back to the original promise, that the seed, or son of the woman, should bruise the serpents head. Macknight. Which is Christ In Christ, and in no other of Abrahams seed, have all the nations of the earth been blessed. They have not been blessed in Isaac, although it was said of him, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. Neither have they all been blessed in Abrahams posterity collectively as a nation; nor in any individual of his posterity, except in Christ alone. He therefore is the only seed of Abraham spoken of in the promise, as the apostle expressly assures us. Besides, Peter, long before Paul became a Christian, gave the same interpretation of this promise, as we see Act 3:25.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. [Gen 13:15; Gen 17:8]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Verse 16

And to seeds, as of many. There has been great diversity of opinion in respect to this passage. The argument would seem to be, that the seed of Abraham, in whose favor the promise was made, was regarded as one community, to be saved on one common principle, so that all, whether they lived before the law, or during the continuance of the law, or under the gospel, constitute but one seed, to be saved in one way; and that way must be by faith.–Which is Christ; the whole body of believers in Christ. The word Christ is used in a similar sense in 1 Corinthians 12:12, and in other places.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

(Some passages of interest in the Old Testament are in Gen 12:7; Gen 13:15; Gen 17:7; Gen 24:7.)

The Net Bible translates the verse as follows: “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his descendant. Scripture does not say, “and to the descendants,” referring to many, but ” and to your descendant ,” referring to one, who is Christ.” This makes it easier to see what Paul is saying, not that the King James doesn’t give this same thought, it just is not as easily seen by some readers – in my opinion of course.

The Net Bible lists the following passages to show that the singular was the terminology that God used when He spoke to Abraham and indeed they do show this. Gen 12:7; Gen 13:15; Gen 17:7; Gen 24:7.

This verse is a part of the next verses and all present an argument to the Judaizers which again prove them to be false teachers. My how uncomfortable they must have been when this letter was read.

I must also wonder if some of them didn’t see the pure logic and correctness of Paul’s arguments and repent of their false doctrine. They would have to have been quite hardened to the Spirit to reject what Paul was saying.

So, was the promise for or to Christ might be the question that is raised. Since many preachers tell us that all nations will be blessed by the promise to Abraham, and this passage states that the seed is Christ, then was the blessing Christ that was to the nation or was Christ to be blessed because he was Abrahams seed?

We need to link to this passage the information given in Gen 17:4 “As for me, behold, my covenant [is] with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.” He would father nations. This is mentioned in other Genesis texts as well. Add to this, Gen 18:17 “And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; 18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?” and we see clearly that the nations would be blessed through Abraham, but that the seed was Christ. I think some preachers probably are a little sloppy in their use of these passages – myself included. The seed of Abraham is blessed, but the seed proper is more to the point, Christ.

Abraham, by the way means “father of a multitude.” You and I are a part of a multitude of spiritual kids. Actually the term “seed” is the word sperma which literally relates to the seed that is placed in the ground in the hope of germination and a plant to follow, and as has been indicated previously is in the singular.

One might wonder if the “seed” thought of the promise wasn’t related to the fact that the Jewish law required brothers to raise up seed for a dead brother that had not. This might well relate to the thought of spilling seed on the ground being wrong. These laws related to the possibilities of the line to the “seed” Christ.

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson

3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, {18} which is {l} Christ.

(18) He puts forth the sum of the seventh argument, that is, that both the Jews and the Gentiles grow together in one body of the seed of Abraham, in Christ alone, so that all are one in Christ, as it is afterward declared in Gal 3:28 .

(l) Paul does not speak of Christ’s person, but of two peoples, who grew together in one, in Christ.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles