Galatians 3:15-18 – Preliminary Thoughts on Seed and Seeds
I want to make a few quick notes on this passage right after studying through Martyn’s Galatians commentary notes on it. This is a passage that has troubled many because in verse 16 Paul makes a major issue of the singular “seed,” thus pointing the passage directly at Christ. Now if one reads the passage in its original context, “seed” is a collective, referring to all of Abraham’s descendants, and thus the meaning is precisely the opposite of what Paul claims.
I didn’t use this passage in my essay Was Paul an Exegete? but I certainly could have. In that essay I concluded that in the modern sense of searching out the original historical meaning, Paul was not, and didn’t try to be an exegete. I would add here that Paul is quite open about how he sees Jesus as the Messiah breathing new life into texts.
There are several key points from this passage that I want to tentatively connect. Paul claims that:
- God established the promises
- The promises were for the seed, singular, Christ
- Nobody other than the one who makes a will/covenant can modify it
- The law could not modify or set aside the promise that preceded it. This involves the argument that the law was given by angels, but that goes beyond what I’m discussing right now.
- Eventually the promise meets its fulfillment in Christ
Now Martyn, commenting on these verses indicates that the law is not, according to this passage, another step in salvation history, but rather that the giving of the promise, and finally the act of God in bringing reconciliation through Jesus are both punctiliar events. He does not see the law as another step or another way of implementing the promise (pp. 337-352).
The Jewish view, which in part would have been incorporated by the teachers who opposed Paul in Galatia, makes the Torah a single whole. There are not separate entities in it of “promise” and “law” and there certainly would not be a covenant without there also being a law. Sirach 44:19-21 represents Abraham as law observant, and presents God’s promise as depending on Abraham’s faithfulness in fulfilling the requirements. So Paul is hear creating a substantial difference in view between these historical events. The giving of the promise occurs before the giving of the law, and even though it comes from that same portion of scripture, the Pentateuch or Torah, it is not part of the same law. The law, given at Sinai, is something separate and different, and cannot in Paul’s view alter the original promise, nor is it an organic part of that promise.
Gentiles are not being brought into Israel through the covenant at Sinai. Rather, they are being brought into God’s promise, incidentally given to Abraham, a promise that is superior to and unalterable by that law.
My preliminary suggestion here is that this relates closely to what I have pointed out in my article Structural Typology and the Tabernacle, where I suggest that God’s original intent was to dwell with his people (Exodus 19:6), but that because of fear they required a separation (Exodus 20:19). The Tabernacle, far from representing God’s presence, in many ways represents God’s absence. Peter sees the fulfillment of this goal and promise of God in Jesus and the church (1 Peter 2:9).
Where I would differ from Martyn, I think, on salvation history is that the law is indeed a step in salvation history. There may be two punctiliar acts, between which the law is a parenthesis (Martyn), but that parenthesis is an essential one, tuned to human needs. There is still salvation history, but that history is not a continuous march of progress, but rather it takes detours as God deals with people as he finds them and leads them in the direction he wants them to go.
In this sense one can also see “seed” as an inspired “breathing-in” by Paul, through the Holy Spirit, of new meaning into the word and form, because in Jesus all the promises given to Abraham were fulfilled in one man (singular) for everyone (very plural). The spiritual application trumps the historical exegesis.