Galatians 3:16 and Genesis

[BrandonCorley]

I recently read through about half of Brandon Adams article in JIRBS on Galatians (I intend to read the rest tomorrow). Noting that he follows John Collins in seeing Gal. 3:16 as referring to Gen. 22:18 (which I agree with), there's still the issue that the verse is a composite citation along with Gen. 13:15 and/or Gen. 17:8.

Now, while Gen. 22:18 refers directly to the anti type, Christ, the mediator of the New Covenant, and 13:15 refers to the typical land promise of the old covenant, is it correct to see Paul as combining both 22:18 and 13:15 because 13:15 is two-level typology referring to the New Creation? (would this fit with the same thing Adams was getting at in footnote 39?)

In other words, am I correct in seeing the reason that Paul combines the citations as being that in 22:18, we have a direct reference to Christ blessing the world, and in 13:15 we have a typological reference to Christ inheriting the New Creation? This is how I understand the verse and was hoping I could get some thoughts here.

 

[BrandonCorley]

Also @brandonadams what do you think is the best commentary/commentaries on Galatians 3? Thanks!

 

[brandonadams]

Were you able to finish that section of the article? I thought I addressed the issue of 13:15. In my opinion Paul is not combining 13:15 and 22:18 into a composite, but is rather contrasting them.

 

[brandonadams]

Yet others have objected that Paul cannot be quoting Genesis 22:18
because that text does not contain καὶ (“and to”) whereas Paul’s
quotation does (“and to your offspring”).19 Therefore Paul must be
referring to Genesis 13:15 and/or 17:8, which Paul interprets
typologically or spiritually. Collins argues this does not matter
because Paul is merely alluding to 22:18 (and 3:8 is a composite).
While this is somewhat true, I think a stronger point is that Paul is
making an intra-Abrahamic argument contrasting the different
promises by comparing the seed to whom they refer. Paul
acknowledges that the first two promises, particularly the land
promise, were made to Abraham’s carnal offspring. “I will give to you
and your offspring after you the land” (Gen. 17:8; 13:15). But 22:18 (the
specific promise to which Paul has been referring since 3:8) “does not
say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many, but referring to one, ‘And
to your offspring” (Gal. 3:16). Thus, the promise to bless all nations in
Abraham’s offspring does not refer to the Jews, even though the
promise of the land did, and therefore it is not a requirement that one
live like a Jew in order to receive that promised blessing (unlike the
land promise, which did require circumcision; Josh. 5:1-12; Gen. 17:14;
Exod. 4:24-26). In other words, Paul is expounding upon the
dichotomous nature of the Abrahamic covenant. (p. 85-6)

Let me know if that doesn't make sense and I can try to clarify.

 

[brandonadams]

Also @brandonadams what do you think is the best commentary/commentaries on Galatians 3? Thanks!

Part of why I wrote the article is that I could not find a commentary that I thought did a great job of expounding Galatians 3 from a 1689 Fed perspective. So I'd refer to whatever portions of citations I reference in the article, in addition to Gordon's book and my essay.

 

[BrandonCorley]

Let me know if that doesn't make sense and I can try to clarify.

Yes, I was assuming that when you said,

Yet others have objected that Paul cannot be quoting Genesis 22:18
because that text does not contain καὶ (“and to”) whereas Paul’s
quotation does (“and to your offspring”).19 Therefore Paul must be referring to Genesis 13:15 and/or 17:8, which Paul interprets
typologically or spiritually. Collins argues this does not matter
because Paul is merely alluding to 22:18 (and 3:8 is a composite).
While this is somewhat true, I think a stronger point is that Paul is
making an intra-Abrahamic argument contrasting the different
promises by comparing the seed to whom they refer.

You were agreeing with Collins about the composite citation, but simply adding on another argument in support of a reference to 22:18.

If you aren't actually following Collins in seeing it as composite, then why does Paul include "and" if he is referring to Gen. 22:18?

Is not a simple solution that Paul is using a composite citation like he does in Gal. 3:8 as Collins suggests?

 

[brandonadams]

Sorry for the lack of clarity (had to be extremely brief in my comments in the essay). Collins' comment about Gal 3:8 refers to it being a composite of Gen 12:3; 18:18; and 22:18.

With regards to Gal 3:16 I believe Paul includes "and" because he is specifically comparing 22:18 (the third promise) with 13:8 and 17:8 (the second promise). He is grammatically structuring the two promises the same way in order to bring out the contrast: one promise is made to numerous seed while the other is not.

So with regards to "and to," Collins waves it off and says it doesn't matter because Paul is just loosely quoting Gen 22:18 (as a composite including 12:3 and 18:18), whereas I argue it was intentional on Paul's part and part of his argument.

Is not a simple solution that Paul is using a composite citation like he does in Gal. 3:8 as Collins suggests?

No, because those specific texts in Genesis grammatically refer to seed plural, not seed singular (unlike 22:18).

This post elaborates more fully than I could in the essay https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/03/18/galatians-316/

 

[BrandonCorley]

Sorry for the lack of clarity (had to be extremely brief in my comments in the essay). Collins' comment about Gal 3:8 refers to it being a composite of Gen 12:3; 18:18; and 22:18.

With regards to Gal 3:16 I believe Paul includes "and" because he is specifically comparing 22:18 (the third promise) with 13:8 and 17:8 (the second promise). He is grammatically structuring the two promises the same way in order to bring out the contrast: one promise is made to numerous seed while the other is not.

So with regards to "and to," Collins waves it off and says it doesn't matter because Paul is just loosely quoting Gen 22:18 (as a composite including 12:3 and 18:18), whereas I argue it was intentional on Paul's part and part of his argument.

No, because those specific texts in Genesis grammatically refer to seed plural, not seed singular (unlike 22:18).

This post elaborates more fully than I could in the essay https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/03/18/galatians-316/

Ohhh okay, that makes so much sense now, thank you!

I'm still trying to work everything out in my mind and I'm reading your blog post right now, but to be clear, it is agreed on by all that 3:8 is composite, correct?

 

[brandonadams]

It's been a while since I've read the different commentaries, so I can't remember if all agree on 3:8 being composite or not. But it makes sense to me that it is.

 

[BrandonCorley]

N

Ohhh okay, that makes so much sense now, thank you!

I'm still trying to work everything out in my mind and I'm reading your blog post right now, but to be clear, it is agreed on by all that 3:8 is composite, correct?

Nvm, I read your post which gives a clear "yes" to this (in the sense that it is both your and Collins' interpretation; I don't mean every commentator agrees, of course).

Thanks again, I think I understand now. By the way, would you be willing to consider making an interpretative paraphrase of the chapter? I think that would be really helpful in helping others understand it as a whole.

 

[brandonadams]

Yes, that would be helpful. I feel like maybe I did that or started to do that somewhere, but can't recall at the moment. I'll put it on the to-do list

 

[brandonadams]

Btw, here are some other posts that elaborate on other verses

Some Disagreement with Coxe on Galatians 3:17

Coxe’s “A Discourse on the Covenants that God Made with Men Before the Law” is densely packed with a very helpful analysis of the biblical covenants. I highly recommend that every…

contrast2.wordpress.com

Gal. 3:18 – Generic Law and Promise, or Sinai and Messiah?

Scripture teaches there are two antithetical ways of receiving something: as a gift or as a debt. “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.” (Rom 4:…

contrast2.wordpress.com

Galatians 3 vs Romans 4

Galatians 3 Romans 4 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousne…

contrast2.wordpress.com

 

[BrandonCorley]

Alright, if I have this correct, it should read something like this:

And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, proclaimed the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.””

‭‭ ‭= Genesis 12:3 (“And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.””), 18:18 (“since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed?”), 22:18 (““In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have listened to My voice.””)



So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse, for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to do them.” Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” However, the Law is not of faith; rather, “He who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles (as 3:8 says), so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.



Brothers, I speak in human terms: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises (plural because of the repetition of the promise of blessing the world in Gen. 12:3, 18:18, 22:18) were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” (as it does in Genesis 13:8, 17:8) as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” ("And" added to contrast Gen. 13:8 & 17:8 w/ 22:18) that is, Christ. And what I am saying is this: the Law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to abolish the promise. For if the inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by the promise, but God has granted it to Abraham through the promise. Why the Law then? It was added because of trespasses, having been ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one person only, whereas God is one. Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed be by law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were held in custody under the Law, being shut up for the coming faith to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor unto Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise.

This makes a lot more sense out of Paul's argument than anything else I've read.

 

[Κρέιγκ]

With much respect for Brandon and others' view of the citation, I've come to a different conclusion that I think substantially upholds much of what 1689 Federalism is arguing for from this passage without the weakness of being quite so exegetically involved. I will confess to novelty and not having seen my viewpoint articulated elsewhere, but it does seem to resolve a lot of issues fairly neatly and retains enough flexibility that it doesn't fall apart if you choose to nuance one verse or another in slightly different ways.

To cut a long story short, rather than being a very fine series of grammatical contrasts from the text of Genesis, Paul's simply typologically reading the narrative of Genesis (specifically chapter 17 in this verse) in exactly the way he states he is doing in Gal. 4:21ff. The benefit of this approach is that Paul is saved from both bad exegesis (insisting on seeds plural) and (more relevant to this thread) overly fine claims about the various verses such that his opponents would (much like modern scholars) probably reject them as dubious.

Happy to get thrashed at any rate.

 

[BrandonCorley]

With much respect for Brandon and others' view of the citation, I've come to a different conclusion that I think substantially upholds much of what 1689 Federalism is arguing for from this passage without the weakness of being quite so exegetically involved. I will confess to novelty and not having seen my viewpoint articulated elsewhere, but it does seem to resolve a lot of issues fairly neatly and retains enough flexibility that it doesn't fall apart if you choose to nuance one verse or another in slightly different ways.

To cut a long story short, rather than being a very fine series of grammatical contrasts from the text of Genesis, Paul's simply typologically reading the narrative of Genesis (specifically chapter 17 in this verse) in exactly the way he states he is doing in Gal. 4:21ff. The benefit of this approach is that Paul is saved from both bad exegesis (insisting on seeds plural) and (more relevant to this thread) overly fine claims about the various verses such that his opponents would (much like modern scholars) probably reject them as dubious.

Happy to get thrashed at any rate.

Thanks for your contribution! I think a typological approach is certainly possible (and preferred by good scholars like Schreiner) and I do appreciate that your approach is trying to "retain enough flexibility that it doesn't fall apart if you choose to nuance one verse or another in slightly different ways". I need to spend more time on Galatians to settle the issue with confidence, but I do, however, think Brandon's interpretation is correct. Ultimately, for me it comes down to the fact that I think Collins is correct that "seed" is actually singular in the original Hebrew text. I think John Brown has it right:

The truth is, there is no ground to suppose that it is the statement of an argument at all. It is just as Riccaltoun observes, “a critical, explicatory remark.” It is just as if he had said, ‘In the passage I refer to, the word seed is used of an individual, just as when it is employed of Seth, Gen. iv. 25, where he is called “another seed,”

I know I don't really have anything to add, but that's just where I'm at currently. Ultimately though, I'm just hoping that Brandon's article will be picked up by future commentators.

 

[Κρέιγκ]

I don't own Schreiner's commentary, but based on characterizations of his view that I have read, I don't think he is advocating for anything similar to what I am. Likewise, the view Brandon labels as typological on his blog is substantially different from mine such that his criticisms don't apply. Just FYI, I really don't think you will find what I'm advocating for in another commentator. I haven't read that many commentaries, but I've never seen it even referenced in passing. That probably counts against it's credibility, but there you go.

 

[BrandonCorley]

I don't own Schreiner's commentary, but based on characterizations of his view that I have read, I don't think he is advocating for anything similar to what I am. Likewise, the view Brandon labels as typological on his blog is substantially different from mine such that his criticisms don't apply. Just FYI, I really don't think you will find what I'm advocating for in another commentator. I haven't read that many commentaries, but I've never seen it even referenced in passing. That probably counts against it's credibility, but there you go.

Oh, for sure, I didn't mean that Schreiner advocates for your interpretation, just that he advocates for "a typological approach". I'm pretty sure Moo does as well in order to solve the issue.

 

[Κρέιγκ]

Having canvassed Moo as well, it seems that again, it would not be appropriate to group my viewpoint in with theirs. Maybe I should have titled what I am doing as an allegorical reading to avoid this sort of false grouping, though that will almost certainly create other false connotations. However, anyone reading what I wrote can clearly see that it isn't the same thing as some sort of Jesus is the antitype of Israel/sums up Israel approach. When I say typological, I mean that God's covenanting with Isaac to the exclusion of Ishmael is typological of the way God deals with the two seeds of Abraham, the Mosaic Covenant and the New, with their respective parties. That isn't what Schreiner/Moo are doing when they reference typology. They mean that somehow Christ as the antitype of the collective Israel sums up the seed of Abraham and in doing so in some sort of way reduces it from a plurality to a singularity.