Galatians 3:16

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 σπέρμα 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 τὰ τέκνα or οἱ ἀπόγονοι) 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.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Abraham’s 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 Abraham’s 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 apostle’s 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 Abraham’s seed, perhaps Ishmael’s 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 Abraham’s 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 serpent’s head.” — Macknight. Which is Christ — In Christ, and in no other of Abraham’s 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 Abraham’s 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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3:16 The promises to Abraham were primarily inherited by Abraham and his child (literally his seed)—the promised Messiah, the ultimate descendant of Abraham. “Seed” can refer to a single descendant or to many descendants (see Gen 12:7; 13:15). Although the promise has a plural sense (see Gal 3:29; Gen 13:15-16; 15:5-6; 17:7-8), this singular noun points to the one descendant, Christ, who completely fulfilled the promise. The heirs of the promise are not Jacob’s physical children, but the spiritual children of Christ by the Spirit through faith.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Gal 3:16. Ἐῤῥεθησαν, were spoken) a weighty expression.—αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι, 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.—καὶ, and) Gen 13:15; Gen 12:7; Gen 15:18; Gen 17:8.—λέγει, He says) God.—ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν, as of many) as if there was one seed before the law, another under the law.—ὡς ἐφʼ ἑνὸς, as of one) See how Paul draws a conclusion of great weight from the grammatical accident, number; and this is the more wonderful, because זרע 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, εἰς Χριστὸν, and Gal 3:17 in Rec. Text].—ὅς ἐστι Χριστὸς, who is Christ) ὅς, 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 quœ (attracted to the gender of sidera, instead of that of ignes) sidera vocatis. [So here ὅς, attracted to the gender of Χριστὸς, instead of ὃ, referring to the whole antecedent discourse.]

[23] Beng. seems to take ὃς, 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.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 οὐ λέγει κ.τ.λ., and is then resumed by τοῦτο δὲ λέγω in Gal_3:17 (see Morus, Koppe, Rückert, 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 ὅμως ἀνθρώπου in Gal_3:15,bring into prominence the divine character of the promises, and must have been expressed in some such form as Θεὸς δὲ τῷ Ἀβρ.; and (2) that the explanation as to καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ, 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 mans 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 mans 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 τῷ σπέρματι, is meant Christ (Gal_3:16). And nowto complete my conclusion drawn from what I have said in Gal_3:15-16what 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).

τῷ δὲ Ἀβρ. ἐῤῥέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι κ. τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ] The emphasis is laid on καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ, 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 ἀθέτησις 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 καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ, is considered by most expositors, following Tertullian (de carne Christi, 22) and Chrysostom, to be Gen_22:18 : ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς. But, from the words οὐ λέγει· καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν κ.τ.λ. which follow, it is evident that Paul was thinking of a passage in which καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου 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 κληρονομία in Gal_3:18.[134] Comp. Rom_4:13.

ἐῤῥέθησαν[135]] they were spoken, that is, given, as some min., Eusebius and Theophylact, actually read ἐδόθησαν. 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 σπέρμα.

αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι] 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 καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ he finds that Christ is meant; hence he adds the following gloss (Midrasch): οὐ λέγει· καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν κ.τ.λ., 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. ed. 6, also Jatho, hold) is intended, namely Christ. That this inference is purely rabbinical (Surenhusius, καταλλ. p. 84 f.; Schoettgen, Hor. p. 736; Döpke, Hermeneut. I. p. 176 ff.), and without objective force as a proof, is evident from the fact that in the original text זֶרַע 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, זַרְעֵיכֶם 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 Abrahams זרע[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 σπέρματα (Soph. O.C. 606. 1277; O.R. 1246; Aesch. Eum. 909), on the circumstance that, in contradistinction, the singular is to be understood ὡς ἐφʼ ἑνός. Comp, 4Ma_18:1 : ὦ τῶν Ἀβραμαίων σπερμάτων ἀπόγονοι παῖδες Ἰσραηλῖται, πείθεσθε τῷ νόμῳ τούτῳ. The classical use of αἵματα is analogous (comp. on Joh_1:13). Moreover, the original sense of these promises, and also the τῷ σπέρματι 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 καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου 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 ὅς ἐστι Χριστός; which clearly shows that we are not to understand σπερμάτων with ἐπὶ πολλῶν, nor σπέρματος with ἐφʼ ἑνός (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 τῷ σπέρματι.

οὐ λέγει] sc. ΘΕΌς, which is derived from the historical reference of the previous ἘῤῬΈΘΗΣΑΝ, so well known to the reader. Comp. Eph_4:8; Eph_5:14.

Ὡς ἘΠῚ ΠΟΛΛῶΝ] as referring to many individuals, in such a manner that He intends and desires to express a plurality of persons. On ἐπί, 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.

ὅς ἐστι Χριστός] which σπέρμα, denoting a single individual, is Christ. The feebly attested reading Ὅ is a mistaken grammatical alteration; for how often does the gender of the relative correspond by attraction to the predicative substantive! See Kühner, II. p. 505. ΧΡΙΣΤΌς 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, Döderlein, Nösselt, and others). Such a mystical sense of ΧΡΙΣΤΌς must necessarily have been suggested by the context (as in 1Co_12:12); here, however, the very contrast between ΠΟΛΛῶΝ and ἙΝΌς 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 ΣΠΈΡΜΑ ΤΟῦ ἈΒΡ. (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 λόγος ἔνσαρκος 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; Kühner, I. p. 810, ed. 2.

[136] In the so-called Protevangelium also, Gen_3:15, the LXX. translators have referred σπέρμα to an individual (to a son); for they translate, αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν. But it does not thence follow that this subject was the Messiah, to whom the יְשׁוּפְךָ, 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 ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν, must at least have written ὡς ἐπὶ πάντων; instead of ὡς ἐφʼ ἑνός, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ ἑνός; and instead of ὅς ἐστι Χριστός, he must have written ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία σὺν Χριστῷ.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 τοῖς σπέρμασιν of several posterities by the side of each other, lays stress on the oneness of Abrahams 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 τῷ σπέρματί σου 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 σπέρμα ἕτερον means nothing more than another son.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal 3:16 . The clause καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ is quoted from God’s promises to Abraham in Gen 13:15 ; Gen 17:8 with only the necessary change of the second person σου into αὐτοῦ . 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. οὐ λέγει , sc. ὁ Θεός . As the clause in question was quoted from an utterance of God, it was not necessary to specify the subject of λέγει . καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν : 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 πολλῶν and ἑνός here mean π . σπερμάτων and ἑ . σπέρματος , so ἑνός in Gal 3:20 means ἑνὸς σπέρματος and τὰ πάντα in Gal 3:22 τὰ πάντα σπέρματα . 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 ).

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He putteth forth the sum of the seventh argument, to wit, that both the Jews and the Gentiles grow together into one body of the seed of Abraham, in Christ only, so that all are one in Christ, as it is afterward declared, verse 21.

Paul speaketh not of Christ’s person, but of two peoples, which grew together in one, in Christ.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

This verse is parenthetical. The covenant of promise was not "spoken" (so Greek for "made") to Abraham alone, but "to Abraham and his seed"; to the latter especially; and this means Christ (and that which is inseparable from Him, the literal Israel, and the spiritual, His body, the Church). Christ not having come when the law was given, the covenant could not have been then fulfilled, but awaited the coming of Him, the Seed, to whom it was spoken.

promises--plural, 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 it involved many things; earthly blessings to the literal children of Abraham in Canaan, and spiritual and heavenly blessings to his spiritual children; but both promised to Christ, "the Seed" and representative Head of the literal and spiritual Israel alike. In the spiritual seed there is no distinction of Jew or Greek; but to the literal seed, the promises still in part remain to be fulfilled (Rom 11:26). The covenant was not made with "many" seeds (which if there had been, a pretext might exist for supposing there was one seed before the law, another under the law; and that those sprung from one seed, say the Jewish, are admitted on different terms, and with a higher degree of acceptability, than those sprung from the Gentile seed), but with the one seed; therefore, the promise that in Him "all the families of the earth shall be blessed" (Gen 12:3), joins in this one Seed, Christ, Jew and Gentile, as fellow heirs on the same terms of acceptability, namely, by grace through faith (Rom 4:13); not to some by promise, to others by the law, but to all alike, circumcised and uncircumcised, constituting but one seed in Christ (Rom 4:16). The law, on the other hand, contemplates the Jews and Gentiles as distinct seeds. God makes a covenant, but it is one of promise; whereas the law is a covenant of works. Whereas the law brings in a mediator, a third party (Gal 3:19-20), God makes His covenant of promise with the one seed, Christ (Gen 17:7), and embraces others only as they are identified with, and represented by, Christ.

one . . . Christ--not in the exclusive sense, the man Christ Jesus, but "Christ" (Jesus is not added, which would limit the meaning), including His people who are part of Himself, the Second Adam, and Head of redeemed humanity. Gal 3:28-29 prove this, "Ye are all ONE in Christ Jesus" (Jesus is added here as the person is indicated). "And if ye be Christ's, ye are Abraham's SEED, heirs according to the promise."

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.” (Genesis 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.” (Genesis 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, (Hosa 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.” (Isaiah 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.” (Genesis 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.” (Genesis 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” (Isaiah 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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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 “seed”—not 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 contest—viz., 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 repeated—to 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 God—”it 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 analogies—sometimes spiritual, sometimes literal—in the later.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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, Co1 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 Gen 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 Sa1 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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Paul’s 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 σπέρμα sperma (seed), instead of the plural σπέρματα 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” σπέρμα 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 Tromm’s 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 σπέρμα 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 זרע 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 σπέρματα 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 זרץ zera‛, Septuagint ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου en tō 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 σπέρμα 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 σπέρματα spermata, “seeds,” but to one σπέρμα 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 apostle’s 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 σπέρμα 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 זרץ zera‛ is ever used in the plural, except to denote the seeds of vegetables. And the same assertion has been made respecting σπέρμα 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 זרץ zera‛ was never used in the plural to denote sons, races. As to the latter assertion it is unfounded; for though σπέρμα 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, γῆς εμῆς ἀπηλάθην Προς τῶν ἐμαυτοῦ σπερμάτων gēs emēs apēlathēn Pros emautou spermatōn.”

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 σπέρματος spermatos sed σπέρματων spermatōn mentio fuisset facta;” from which he justly concludes, that at all events “numerum cum hac explicatione non pugnare.”

2. The word זרץ 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 זרץ 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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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 apostle’s 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made (tw de jAbraaqhsan or, ejrjrJeqhsan aiJ ejpaggeliai kairmati aujtou); now to Abraham were the promises made (Greek, spoken) and to his seed. The question now to be determined is, who the parties were that were concerned in the covenant made with Abraham, and with respect to whom the principle just stated must be taken to apply. Of course, God is himself one of the two parties. This the apostle assumes without specific mention in this verse, though he refers to it in the next. On the other side, he discerns "Abraham and his seed;" for the form of the sentence, we feel, lays emphatic stress upon the latter copartner, tie has in view, apparently, in part, the promise recorded in Gen_13:15, "All the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever;" perhaps in part the vision related in Genesis 15., wherein (ver. 18) "the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land," etc.; but most particularly, since on this occasion circumcision was appointed as the "sign of the covenant," the words in Gen_17:7, Gen_17:8, "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 give unto thee, and to 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." In the present connection the reference is not so obvious to the important pro-raise in Gen_22:17, Gen_22:18, on which such stress is laid in Heb_6:13-18. These passages, in their primary and plain obvious sense, point to a covenant established by the Lord between himself on the one hand, and Abraham and Abraham"s natural seed on the other; ratified on the persons of Abraham and his offspring by the seal of circumcision, and collating to them the gift of the laud of Canaan. But the apostle teaches us to read these passages mystically: in place of Abraham"s natural seed substituting "Christ," a spiritual seed; and in place of the land of Canaan substituting a spiritual inheritance. For "covenant," to which term the apostle reverts in the next verse, we have here "promises;" thus also in gei Heb_7:6, Abraham is described as "he that had the promises." He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed (ouj le Kairmasin wJv ejpiv Kairmati any).

The use of the preposition ejpi with legei, as meaning "of," not found elsewhere in the New Testament, occurs repeatedly in Plato (see Ellicott and Alford, and Winer"s "Gram.," 47, g). With "many" and "one," we are, of course, to supply "seeds" and "seed." It has been questioned whether such a form of expression as "to thy seeds" would have been possible in the Hebrew. Certainly we do not in the Hebrew Bible find a plural of the noun zera"when used for "offspring," but only when used for a grain of seed. But still, such a plural may not have been unknown to St. Paul in the Hebrew spoken in his time; for it occurs, De Wette tells us, in the Chaldee Paraphrast for "races" in Jos_7:14; Jer_33:24; Gen_10:18. Such a grammatical cavil to his observation, however, the apostlemight well have brushed aside by giving his objector to understand that it was not upon a nicety of lingual criticism that he was taking his stand, but upon a fact which was not to be called in question; namely, that of the many branches of descendants owning Abraham as their progenitor, there was only one contemplated by the Almighty as destined to inherit the promise. This principle of discrimination among several lines of descendants he has himself drawn marked attention to in Rom_9:7, Rom_9:8, by quoting the words, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called," and adding the gloss, "That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed." And so here. Among Abraham"s descendants one particular head of a race was beforehand selected in the counsels of God, whose issue alone should inherit. As the principle of discriminative predestination was applied with respect to the inheriting of the promises viewed in their secular meaning, so also was it applied with respect to the inheriting of them spiritually: to only one branch of Abraham"s descendants did the Divine Disposer guarantee the promised grant; that which should originate from Abraham"s great Descendant, Christ, and which was to be in him and by his name to be called. Which is Christ (ov ejsti Cristo) that is, which seed is Christ; the gender of the relative pronoun, which logically, as reciting a neuter noun, sperma, should be neuter, being according to a very common usage of the language made masculine by the attraction of the predicate Cristov. The word "seed" still retains its signification of a collective noun, and does not even here denote a single descendant a sense which usage would not justify us in assigning to it; for even in Gen_4:25 zeraacher means "other offspring," and not "another offspring." The word "Christ" is itself employed by the apostle as a collective, as in 1Co_1:13, "Christ is divided!" or, "Is Christ divided?" 1Co_12:12, "As the body is one, and hath many members so also is Christ." It is usual in the Hebrew idiom to apply to a people the very name, unmodified, of the head from which they derive; as "Israel," "Jacob," "Ephraim," "Judah," and a large multitude of instances. It is certain from vers. 27-29 that St. Paul has in view those who are "in Christ" as being in and with him the "seed" to whom the "inheritance" was by that covenant given. Jesus, viewed in his own solitary personality, has no place in the apostle"s present argument: he it was not that was to inherit the blessing, save only with, or rather in, that multitude of human beings for whose sake he is there at all. Perhaps it is on that account that his official title "Christ" is alone named, in preference to "Jesus" his appellation as an individual man. Having thus ascertained as definitely as we may what it is that the apostle here states, we are naturally led to consider on what grounds he is justified in affixing to the passage or passages of the Old Testament which he refers to, the sense that he does; both as to the import of the gift which the covenant guaranteed to Abraham"s seed and as to the specific seed itself as being" Christ." The answer to such questioning is, for us, at once in a great measure determined by our belief in the claims which St. Paul makes to be regarded as an inspired teacher. With this belief, we do not wait first to ascertain that his exposition is warranted by linguistic or historical reasoning before we will give it our assent. We accept his exposition as one imparted to himself by heavenly teaching, and as the result of inspired spiritual insight gazing into the oracles of God. We refuse to regard it, as some would fain persuade us to do, as mere midrash of unscientific rabbinism. Perhaps, indeed, rabbinism itself in its better schools and in such St. Paul had himself in his earlier years been trained wasoften far more profound and scientific in its scriptural exegesis than many who have not been conversant with Jewish commentators are disposed to imagine. His exposition is, therefore, not at once and of course condemned, because, if indeed it be the fact, its method seems to bear upon it the brand of being rabbinical. Thus much is clear its substance was beyond all question not drawn from rabbinism, but learnt from higher teaching. If at first it arouses in our minds a feeling of surprise, and even a degree of hesitation in accepting it as it lies there before us, we may have good grounds for suspecting that this is owing, not to our superior wisdom, but to the superficiality of the views which we are in the habit of taking of the histories and utterances found in the Old Testament. Fuller and clearer insight into the depths of inspired teaching will perhaps enable us by-and-by to grasp with a firmer hold than now the veritable reasonableness and certainty of this apostolic word, and to discern its coherency with other portions of revealed truth. Meanwhile it may conciliate our judgment to a more unfaltering acceptance at once of what we here read, if we will consider how transcendently great is the glory of the personage whose Name is here attached to Abraham"s spiritual seed, and how transcendent too is the corresponding glory of that economy of benediction which that august Being has brought in. The infinite grandeur of "God manifest in the flesh" imparts its magnificence both to the community which he graciously takes into union with him, and to the "kingdom of God" which through him they inherit. The glory of Christ fills the whole Church, which, resplendent therewith, eclipses into utter obscurity all other communities heretofore promised to be recipient of Divine blessing: those, feeble types of her, fade away at her coming, their glory and very being absorbed in hers. We need, then, not hesitate to believe that she with her Lord was from the beginning contemplated by the Almighty in the revelations of future benediction which he accorded to men, certainly with a view ultimately to this crowning dispensation; and that anterior dispensations of benediction were symbolically predictive of this.

The contents of the covenant and the parties to it.

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made.

I THE CONTENTS OF THE COVENANT. "The promises." They are elsewhere spoken of as "the promise." It was repeated several times. This promise carries the whole of salvation within it. It is elsewhere referred to as "the oath and the promise two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie for God confirmed the promise by an oath, and the promise is linked with the Melchisedec priesthood of Christ, and thus involves all that is involved in priesthood, that is, atonement and intercession. It is the promise that bears up the burden of the world"s hope, for it is on the ground of it we have "fled for refuge to the hope set before. (Heb_6:18, Heb_6:19)

II THE PARTIES TO THE COVENANT. These are God on the one side; Abraham and his seed on the other. Not Abraham alone, but Abraham and his seed. "And he saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." The seed was not the Jewish race, nor strictly the spiritual posterity of Abraham, but Christ himself, in whom the Jewish race found its embodiment and to whom the spiritual posterity was organically united. There is a distinction between Christ personal and Christ mystical, regarded as the second Adam, as the Head of the body. Thus we understand how the whole body of believers is expressly called "Christ". (1Co_12:12) They are "all one in Christ," and "if ye be Christ"s, then are ye Abraham"s seed". (Gal_3:28, Gal_3:29)

III A NECESSARY CONCLUSION. If the seed is Christ, then the promise was not yet fulfilled, but awaiting fulfilment, when the Law was given. It could not, therefore, be disannulled by the Law, nor could the Law add fresh clauses to it.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Now the promises were made to Abraham and his seed - Several promises were made to Abraham; but the chief of all, and which was several times repeated, was that of the blessing through Christ. He - That is, God. Saith not, And to seeds, as of many - As if the promise were made to several kinds of seed. But as of one - That is, one kind of seed, one posterity, one kind of sons. And to all these the blessing belonged by promise. Which is Christ - including all that believe in him. Gen. xxii, 18.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

VERSE 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.

The word testament is another name for the promise that God made unto Abraham concerning Christ. A testament is not a law, but an inheritance. Heirs do not look for laws and assessments when they open a last will; they look for grants and favors. The testament which God made out to Abraham did not contain laws. It contained promises of great spiritual blessings.

The promises were made in view of Christ, in one seed, not in many seeds. The Jews will not accept this interpretation. They insist that the singular "seed" is put for the plural "seeds." We prefer the interpretation of Paul, who makes a fine case for Christ and for us out of the singular "seed," and is after all inspired to do so by the Holy Ghost.

Martin Luther — Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535), English translation by Theodore Graebner (Zondervan, 1939) — public domain (U.S. copyright not renewed). Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 ]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promise made. The covenant with its promises was made with Abraham and his seed. There were promises spoken on several occasion. See Gen. 12:3, 7; 13:16; 15:5; 17:7. The promises of the covenant were to the seed, as well as to Abraham, and hence did not terminate with his death. He saith not, To seeds, as of many, but … to thy seed. This passage has excited much criticism. Many have thought that Paul made a grammatical mistake. Even Luther says: “My dear brother Paul, this argument won't stick.” The criticism is that sperma, the Greek word rendered “seed,” is a collective noun and may include all Abraham's descendants. Paul elsewhere shows that he knew just the meaning of sperma (Rom. 4:18; 9:7), but the question here is not one of grammar, but of spiritual meaning. Paul does not mean that sperma (seed) excludes plurality, but that it implies unity. Not the word “children” or “descendants” is used. This would embrace the children of Ishmael, of Esau, and of Keturah. But there is a seed to whom the promise is given; a seed that embraces many, but is one. That seed is Christ the head, and all in Christ. See 1 Cor. 12:12. The whole spiritual seed of Abraham concentrates in Christ. The promise is to Christ and all in Christ. Paul understood Greek as well as his critics, and also knew what he meant.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

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, Gen 12:7; Gen 13:15; Gen 13:17; Gen 17:7-10; Gen 22:18; Gen 24:7. Of these Gen 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, Gal 3:7, but chiefly because the words suggest to him another thought that is even further-reaching.

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

Καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν, ἀλλʼ ὡς ἐφʼ ἑνός Καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου. The plural is used of persons in Dan 11:31 (Theodotion) καί σπέρματα ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἀναστήσονται, 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 ἀπόγονοι παῖδες Ἰσραηλεῖται) 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, Gen 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 Gen 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 Deu 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 Gen 4:25 is said to refer to Messiah in Bereshith R., Parasha XXIII. 7, and in Gen 19:32 in Bereshith R., Parasha LI. 10, while the Targum of Isa 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.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16.] This verse is not, as commonly supposed, the minor proposition of the syllegism, applying to Abraham’s case the general truth enounced in ver. 15: for had it been so, (1) we should certainly find ὑπὸ θεοῦ contrasted with the ἀνθρώπου before, and (2) the parenthesis οὐ λέγει … χριστός would be a mere irrelevant digression. This minor proposition does not follow till ver. 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.

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

κ. τῷ σπ. αὐ.] 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.

οὐ λέγει] viz. He who gave the promises—God. ἐπὶ πολ., ἐφʼ ἑνός] of many, of one, as E. V. Plato has very nearly this usage, βούλομαι δέ μοι μὴ ἐπὶ θεῶν (de diis) λέγεσθαι τὸ τοιοῦτον, Legg. p. 662 d. See also Rep. 524 e. Cf. Ellic.’s note.

τοῖς σπέρμασιν … τῷ σπέρματι] 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, Gen 22:18, where the collective σπέρμα of ver. 17 is summed up in the individual σπέρμα of ver. 18, he alleges a philological distinction, recognized by the Rabbinical schools (see Wetst. and Schöttgen 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 κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω 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 σπέρματι here, and thus justifying the application to Christ, seeing that the word זֶרַע, which occurs here in the Hebrew text, has no plural (Wind. is not accurate here: the plur. זְרָעִים 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 (Rückert). 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 σπέρμα are both undoubted, and must have been evident to the Apostle himself, from, what follows, ver. 29. We are now in a position to interpret the words ὅς ἐστιν χριστός. Meyer says ‘χριστός is the personal Christ Jesus, not, as has been held (after Aug.), Christ and His Church.’ This remark is true, and untrue. χρ. certainly does not mean ‘Christ and His Church:’ but if it imports only the personal Christ Jesus, why is it not so expressed, χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς? 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 vv. 28, 29, which are the key to ὅς ἐστιν χριστός: where he says, πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς ΕἿΣ ἐστε ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (notice Ἰησοῦ here carefully inserted, where the Person is indicated). εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς χριστοῦ, ἄρα τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ ΣΠΕʹΡΜΑ ἘΣΤΕʹ, κατʼ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι. 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.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16. τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ ἐρρέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι “καὶ τῷ σπέρματι” αὐτοῦ· “Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, ‘and to his seed.’” For the evidence that this proposition and the next (v. 16) are parenthetical, see on τοῦτο δὲ λέγω, v. 17. The promises here spoken of are those which accompanied the covenant and which constituted it on the side of divine grace. On the relation of promise and covenant, see detached note on Διαθήκη, p. 497, and cf. Gen 9:12ff.; but esp. Gen 17:1-8. See also Cremer10, p. 1062. The apostle more commonly uses the singular ἐπαγγελία (see vv. 17, 18, 22, 29, Rom 4:13, Rom 4:14, Rom 4:16, Rom 4:20), but also without marked difference of thought employs the plural (see v. 21 and Rom 9:4), the basis for which is in the repeated occasions on which the promise was made to Abraham, and the various forms in which it was expressed. See Gen 12:2ff. 13:Gen 12:14-17, Gen 12:15:1, Gen 12:5, Gen 12:18, 17:Gen 12:2-8. On Paul’s definition of the content of the promise as interpreted in the light of subsequent events, see on κληρονομία, v. 18. From a strictly grammatical point of view τῷ σπέρματι is a dative of indirect object after ἐρρέθησαν. But it is only by a rhetorical figure that the promises are said to be uttered to the seed. In the original passage, Gen 13:15, Gen 13:17:7, Gen 13:8, and in this sentence by intent the seed are included with Abraham in those to whom the promises are to be fulfilled.

οὐ λέγει “Καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, ” ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν, ἀλλʼ ὡς ἐφʼ ἑνός “Καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου, ” ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός. “He saith not, And to the seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” The subject of λέγει to be supplied in thought is doubtless ὁ θεός as implied in ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ (v. 17). ὡς indicates that the following expressions refer to the point of view of the speaker, ὁ θεός, so that it is equivalent to “meaning this.” Cf. Th. s. v. 3. ἐπί with the genitive in the sense “in respect to,” apparently occurs here only in N. T., but is found in classical writers. Cf. Th. s. v. A I. 1. e. If these words are from the apostle it must be supposed that for the purpose of heightening the impression of the dignity and inviolability of the covenant and suggesting the impossibility of its having already received its fulfilment before the law came in, he avails himself of an unusual use of σπέρμα in the singular as meaning, or applied to, an individual descendant, and founds on this fact an argument for referring the O. T. passage to Christ; yet probably to him not as an individual, but as the head of a spiritual race; cf. the use of Israel as meaning the race of Israel, Rom 9:6, Rom 9:31, but especially 9:28 and 1Co 12:12. This is, of course, not the meaning of the original passage referred to (Gen 13:15, or 17:7 or 8). But neither is there any other interpretation which will satisfy the requirements both of the Gen. passages and of the context here. The latter must, therefore, decide the apostle’s meaning; cf. on v. 11. It is not probable, indeed, that the apostle derived the meaning of the promise from the use of the singular σπέρματι. He is well aware of the collective sense of the word σπέρμα in the Gen. passage (see v. 29 and Rom 4:13-18). He doubtless arrived at his thought, not by exegesis of scripture, but from an interpretation of history, and then availed himself of the singular noun to express his thought briefly. It should be observed that ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός is in any case an assertion of the apostle, for which he claims no evidence in O. T. beyond the fact that the promise refers to one person. On the possibility that the words οὐ λέγει … Χριστός are the work of an early editor of the epistles of Paul, see end of detached note on Σπέρματι and Σπέρμασιν, p. 509.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

To his seed [τω σπερματι αυτου] . 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 [ου - τοις σπερμασιν] . 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 [επι πολλων] . 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.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.