Galatians 3:16

ὅς. ὅ is read by Dgr*Fgr**, quod Irenint. Tert. Ambrosiaster Aug. οὗ Fgr*G.

16. The verse shows (a) the antiquity of the διαθήκη; it was given to Abraham: (b) its character; it consisted of promises: (c) the truths underlying its form; (α) it was not limited to Abraham personally but extended to his seed; (β) and in fact the word “seed” strictly interpreted indicated a reference to one person, i.e. Christ.

αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι. Plural, because the one promise was often repeated, Genesis 12:7; Genesis 13:15; Genesis 13:17; Genesis 17:7-10; Genesis 22:18; Genesis 24:7. Of these Genesis 17:7-10 seems to be most in St Paul’s mind because the word διαθήκη occurs there.

κ. τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ. The διαθ. was not determined by Abraham’s own life. It extends to his descendants. St Paul does not here discuss who these are, partly because he has already shown that they who are of faith are his sons in the truest sense, Galatians 3:7, but chiefly because the words suggest to him another thought that is even further-reaching.

οὐ λἑγει, i.e. Scripture. So λέγει, Romans 15:10 (where it serves as a change of expression from γέγραπται); Ephesians 4:8 and perhaps even Galatians 5:14.

Καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν, ἀλλʼ ὡς ἐφʼ ἑνός Καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου. The plural is used of persons in Daniel 11:31 (Theodotion) καί σπέρματα ἐξ αὐτοῦ�, where it is a harsh rendering of a wrongly vocalised Hebrew term (zerô‘im as though zerâ‘im). In 4Ma 18:1 (ὦ τῶν Ἀβραμιαίων σπερμάτων�) the plural seems to regard Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as so many “Abrahamic seeds.” Plato, Laws, p. 853 c, is also quoted. But, practically speaking, the plural either of the Greek or of the Hebrew word could not be used of human progeny. The Apostle knew this and more Rabbinico calls attention to the fact that a word was chosen which (whether perforce or not makes no difference) was in fact employed in the singular. There is, he says, a spiritual meaning in this: all Abraham’s descendants are summed up in one, I say one Person, even Christ. See note at the end of this chapter.

An illustration has been drawn from Philo, who, in his explanation of the allegorical meaning of the promise, Genesis 17:16 (εὐλογήσω δὲ αὐτήν, καὶ δώσω σοι ἐξ αὐτῆς τέκνον), lays stress on the singular τἑκνον instead of τέκνα, as signifying τὸ καλόν in, apparently, its ideal (De Mut. Nom., 26 §§ 145 sqq.). But this is really an interpretation of the fact “one child” rather than of the verbal form per se.

But precisely similar in principle to St Paul’s words is the reverse argument of the force of the plural demey (bloods) instead of the singular dăm (blood) in Genesis 4:10. This means, it is said, Abel’s own blood and the blood of his descendants; or that Abel’s blood was cast on the trees and on the stones (Mishna, Sanhedrin IV. 5 = T. B. Sanhedr. 37 a). Even more similar is the insistence on the singular rish‘a (“wickedness”) in Deuteronomy 25:2 instead of the impossible plural resha‘ôth (“wickednesses”), T. B. Kethuboth, 37 a. (These references are due to Surenhusius, Biblos Catallages, pp. 85 sq.) It may also be worth mentioning that “seed” in Genesis 4:25 is said to refer to Messiah in Bereshith R., Parasha XXIII. 7, and in Genesis 19:32 in Bereshith R., Parasha LI. 10, while the Targum of Isaiah 53:10 renders “he shall see (his) seed” by “they shall see the kingdom of their Messiah.” Observe particularly that Christ is mentioned here not as He through whom the blessing is obtained, but as He to whom the promise was given, i.e. He is regarded as the recipient of the promise. If so it is evident that others, whether Jews or Gentiles, can receive it only in Him. They who are “of works” and not “of faith” on Christ lose all share in the promise.