In Gal 3:16 Paul puts forward his case of Jesus being the fulfillment to God’s promises, and his argument consists of the grammar of Genesis. The Hebrew word zera’ isn’t plural, so it refers to Christ.

Thing is, I haven’t found any cases of zera’ being plural, anywhere. It looks like a mass noun, like the word seed is in English.

So what should I make of Paul’s argument?

Hi Danni

Not being a scholar of Greek and Hebrew makes it a trifle difficult for me , but could you provide a Hebrew dictionary definition of the word?

Our copy of the New Bible Commentary Revised agrees that the singular interpretation of the word “seed” is not in Genesis, but it is not excluded either.

There are other words that exist only in plural, such as damim, a / the word for blood.

I know nothing about Hebrew so you can take what I say with a grain of salt but are you sure your not making the mistake of applying the meaning of the english word ‘offspring’ or ‘seed’ to the Hebrew word ‘zera’.
In english the words ‘offspring’ and ‘seed’ can be plural and singular, in case of the Hebrew word ‘zera’ it may just be singular, in which case the plural of ‘zera’ could be a completely different word.
Further the use of a plural can depend on the structure of the sentence, i.e. “I have a seed” (singular), “I have seed” (plural).

But as I said, I haven’t a clue.

David, here’s a listing, hope it helps.

Michael, offspring is neither singular nor plural, it’s a mass or non-count noun, and I think it’s the same with zera’. However as an example when it’s used in a plural sense, Gen 15:13 has the word zera’, and then uses plural pronouns in the phrases and verses that follow.

Dannii Willis - 08 December 2007 02:11 PM

So what should I make of Paul’s argument?

I generally give him the benefit of the doubt ;-)

Mike

I thought quoting the passage might be a help at this point:

Galatians 3:16 (ESV)
Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 

Now since the ESV is less interpretative in it’s translations than the NIV I am assuming is also more accurate.

At no point in Genesis is word “offsprings” used; it is always “offspring”. The word is always used in the sense of more than one, and often in terms of being a multitude.

However, since Paul is thoroughly expert in the OT we must assume he knows what he is talking about.

Putting the quote in a wider context, we see:

Galatians 3:15-19 (ESV)
To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.  [16] Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.  [17] This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.  [18] For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
[19] Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 

Perhaps it is to be understood in the same way we understand Genesis 3:15:

Genesis 3:15 (ESV)
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”

The fact that a word that has the meaning of “ a number of” is here being used to refer to one only indicates that it could be used is such a way, and we need to look a more widely to understand it.

Genesis 12:2-3 (ESV)
And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. [3] I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

We understand this verse to be referring to Christ. Paul is telling us that the promise to Abraham into this context. This does not, however, explain his wording “And to offsprings”, since it is never used.

I did a Google search on Gal. 3:16 and found this page:

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-1/msg00066.html.

I am not recommending it, I am just pointing it out.

I know what the passage means (and don’t disagree!) I just think it very strange that the argument Paul uses is about a bit of hypothetical bad grammar. Gen 3 may also refer to Jesus but the Jews wouldn’t have thought so when they first read it, and you wouldn’t use it as an example explain the purpose and fulfillment of the covenants. Well I certainly wouldn’t! Honestly it seems like a very weak argument to me, and I’d like to try to understand why Paul would use it rather than a stronger argument that isn’t about grammar.

I did a Google search on Gal. 3:16 and found this page:

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-1/msg00066.html

I am not recommending it, I am just pointing it out.

Oooo I like that, it makes a lot of sense. And it throws questions at BT, bonus!

Dannii, you could do with a copy of Carson and Beale’s Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. It will soon be available in Australia, but if you want it now, you would need to source it from Amazon or somewhere.

But any reasonable size commentary should also deal with such an issue.

I think you’ll find that investigation reveals that the NT writers were not shonky exegetes.

Greg Beale’s Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? is also a useful book to have and think through.

Mmm, I’m generally not too keen on commentaries, especially expensive ones.

Dannii Willis - 08 December 2007 05:55 PM

I know what the passage means (and don’t disagree!) I just think it very strange that the argument Paul uses is about a bit of hypothetical bad grammar. Gen 3 may also refer to Jesus but the Jews wouldn’t have thought so when they first read it, and you wouldn’t use it as an example explain the purpose and fulfillment of the covenants. Well I certainly wouldn’t! Honestly it seems like a very weak argument to me, and I’d like to try to understand why Paul would use it rather than a stronger argument that isn’t about grammar.

My apologies if you thought I thought that you didn’t understand the verse....

How the Jews understood it is part of the problem. They thought that as the physical descendants of Abraham they possessed the promise, for which Jesus rebukes them.

The way Abraham understood it is not clear to us either.

Perhaps Paul is making clear what the verse actually means rather than what we assume it means. I realise that this is a simple thing to say, but since we know that all the covenants are about Christ, we work from a different perspective.

Hmm I’m sure they all did misunderstand a lot of the OT. But I don’t see how this verse helps. To a Jew who knew their Hebrew grammar well I’m sure it would make even less sense than it does to me.

A thought, could Paul be working from the Septuagint in this situation?

And… I don’t believe all covenants are about Christ.

If you want a cheap source of good commentaries, Dannii, you can’t go past The Expositor’s Bible Commentary CD ROM. A new edition is also being progressively released, but it is not nearly near complete yet.

Dannii Willis - 08 December 2007 06:28 PM

Hmm I’m sure they all did misunderstand a lot of the OT. But I don’t see how this verse helps. To a Jew who knew their Hebrew grammar well I’m sure it would make even less sense than it does to me.

A thought, could Paul be working from the Septuagint in this situation?

And… I don’t believe all covenants are about Christ.

So which covenants aren’t about Christ?

Dave M, there is one type of covenant I’d be interested in, and that’s one that tries to help us understand the ANE culture more fully. Any ideas?

Dave A, at the least, Noah’s and Phinehas’ covenants don’t seem to be about Christ to me.

(Haha, just realised I was talking to two Davids, so I’ll have to use last names!)

Dannii Willis - 08 December 2007 06:49 PM

Dave A, at the least, Noah’s and Phinehas’ covenants don’t seem to be about Christ to me.

Please explain.