KJV: 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.
YLT: and to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed; He doth not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to thy seed,' which is Christ;
Darby: But to Abraham were the promises addressed, and to his seed: he does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed; which is Christ.
ASV: 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.
| τῷ | - |
|
Parse: Article, Dative Masculine Singular Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
| Ἀβραὰμ | to Abraham |
|
Parse: Noun, Dative Masculine Singular Root: Ἀβραάμ Sense: the son of Terah and the founder of the Jewish nation. |
|
| ἐρρέθησαν | were spoken |
|
Parse: Verb, Aorist Indicative Passive, 3rd Person Plural Root: λέγω Sense: to utter, speak, say. |
|
| ἐπαγγελίαι | promises |
|
Parse: Noun, Nominative Feminine Plural Root: ἐπαγγελία Sense: announcement. |
|
| τῷ | to the |
|
Parse: Article, Dative Neuter Singular Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
| σπέρματι | seed |
|
Parse: Noun, Dative Neuter Singular Root: σπέρμα Sense: from which a plant germinates. |
|
| αὐτοῦ | of him |
|
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Genitive Masculine 3rd Person Singular Root: αὐτός Sense: himself, herself, themselves, itself. |
|
| λέγει | it does say |
|
Parse: Verb, Present Indicative Active, 3rd Person Singular Root: λέγω Sense: to say, to speak. |
|
| τοῖς | - |
|
Parse: Article, Dative Neuter Plural Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
| σπέρμασιν | to seeds |
|
Parse: Noun, Dative Neuter Plural Root: σπέρμα Sense: from which a plant germinates. |
|
| πολλῶν | many |
|
Parse: Adjective, Genitive Neuter Plural Root: πολύς Sense: many, much, large. |
|
| ἑνός | One |
|
Parse: Adjective, Genitive Neuter Singular Root: εἷς Sense: one. |
|
| σπέρματί | seed |
|
Parse: Noun, Dative Neuter Singular Root: σπέρμα Sense: from which a plant germinates. |
|
| σου | of you |
|
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Genitive 2nd Person Singular Root: σύ Sense: you. |
|
| Χριστός | Christ |
|
Parse: Noun, Nominative Masculine Singular Root: Χριστός Sense: Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God. |
|
Greek Commentary for Galatians 3:16
But as in the case of one. [source]
Masculine relative agreeing with Χριστος Christos though σπερμα sperma is neuter. But the promise to Abraham uses σπερμα sperma as a collective substantive and applies to all believers (both Jews and Gentiles) as Paul has shown in Galatians 3:7-14, and as of course he knew full well Here Paul uses a rabbinical refinement which is yet intelligible. The people of Israel were a type of the Messiah and he gathers up the promise in its special application to Christ. He does not say that Christ is specifically referred to in Genesis 13:15 or Genesis 17:7. [source]
d The course of thought is as follows. The main point is that the promises to Abraham continue to hold for Christian believers (Galatians 3:17). 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. [source]
Comp. Romans 9:4. The promise was given on several occasions. [source]
Rend. were spoken. [source]
Emphatic, as making for his conclusion in Galatians 3:17. There can be no disannulling by the law of a promise made not only to Abraham, but to his seed. [source]
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 1 Samuel 8:15. It is evident that Paul's argument at this point betrays traces of his rabbinical education (see Schoettgen, Horae Hebraicae, Vol. I., page 736), and can have no logical force for nineteenth century readers. Even Luther says: “Zum stiche zu schwach.” [source]
Apparently a unique instance of the use of ἐπὶ 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 ἐφ ' ἑνός ofone. [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for Galatians 3:16
A covenant marked by (genitive) circumcision (no article) of which circumcision is the sign (Romans 4:11) as set forth in Genesis 17:9-14. In the ancient Greek διατηκη diathēkē was usually will (Latin, testamentum) and συντηκη sunthēkē was used for covenant But the lxx and the N.T. use διατηκη diathēkē for covenant (will in Hebrews 9:15.) as Lightfoot on Galatians 3:16 says: “The lxx translation and New Testament writers probably preferred διατηκη diathēkē as better expressing the free grace of God than συντηκη sunthēkē [source]
See on Matthew 26:28. Those concluded with the patriarchs since Abraham. See Galatians 3:16, Galatians 3:17; Ephesians 2:12. The plural never occurs in the Old Testament. See on Hebrews 9:16. [source]
Compare Matthew 3:9; John 8:33; Romans 9:7; Romans 11:1; Galatians 3:16; Hebrews 2:16. The three names are arranged climactically, Hebrews pointing to the nationality; Israelites to the special relation to God's covenant; seed of Abraham to the messianic privilege. Compare with the whole, Philemon 3:4, Philemon 3:5. [source]
N.T.oLit. are allegorised. From ἄλλο another ἀγορεύειν tospeak. Hence, things which are so spoken as to give a different meaning from that which the words express. For parable, allegory, fable, and proverb, see on Matthew 13:3. An allegory is to be distinguished from a type. An O.T. type is a real prefiguration of a N.T. fact, as the Jewish tabernacle explained in John href="/desk/?q=joh+3:14&sr=1">John 3:14. Comp. Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 10:6, 1 Corinthians 10:11. An allegory exhibits figuratively the ideal character of a fact. The type allows no latitude of interpretation. The allegory lends itself to various interpretations. This passage bears traces of Paul's rabbinical training. At the time of Christ, Scripture was overlaid with that enormous mass of rabbinic interpretation which, beginning as a supplement to the written law, at last superseded and threw it into contempt. The plainest sayings of Scripture were resolved into another sense; and it was asserted by one of the Rabbis that he that renders a verse of Scripture as it appears, says what is not true. The celebrated Akiba assumed that the Pentateuch was a continuous enigma, and that a meaning was to be found in every monosyllable, and a mystical sense in every hook and flourish of the letters. The Talmud relates how Akiba was seen by Moses in a vision, drawing from every horn of every letter whole bushels of decisions. The oral laws, subsequently reduced to writing in the Talmud, completely overshadowed and superseded the Scriptures, so that Jesus was literally justified in saying: “Thus have ye make the commandment of God of none effect through your tradition.” Paul had been trained as a Rabbi in the school of Hillel, the founder of the rabbinical system, whose hermeneutic rules were the basis of the Talmud. As Jowett justly says: “Strange as it may at first appear that Paul's mode of interpreting the Old Testament Scriptures should not conform to our laws of logic or language, it would be far stranger if it had not conformed with the natural modes of thought and association in his own day.” His familiarity with this style of exposition gave him a real advantage in dealing with Jews. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- It is a much-mooted question whether, in this passage, Paul is employing an argument or an illustration. The former would seem to be the case. On its face, it seems improbable that, as Dr. Bruce puts it: “it is poetry rather than logic, meant not so much to convince the reason as to captivate the imagination.” Comp. the argument in Galatians 3:16, and see note. It appears plain that Paul believed that his interpretation actually lay hidden in the O.T. narrative, and that he adduced it as having argumentative force. Whether he regarded the correspondence as designed to extend to all the details of his exposition may be questioned; but he appears to have discerned in the O.T. narrative a genuine type, which he expanded into his allegory. For other illustrations of this mode of treatment, see Romans 2:24; Romans 9:33; 1 Corinthians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 9:9, 1 Corinthians 9:10; 1 Corinthians 10:1-4. [source]
As being one with Christ. See Galatians 3:7, Galatians 3:16. In Romans 4Paul shows that Abraham was justified by faith, and was thus constituted the spiritual father of all believers in Christ, whether circumcised or uncircumcised. The purpose of God in making the inheritance of the promise dependent on faith was that the promise might be sure to all the seed. Abraham, he says, is “the father of us all ” (Romans 4:16). This spiritual paternity does away with the current Jewish notion of physical paternity. Physical relationship with Abraham is of no significance in the economy of salvation. The apostle “discovers the basis of Christian universalism in the very life of him in whose person theocratic particularism was founded. He has demonstrated the existence of a time when he represented Gentilism, or, to speak more properly, mankind in general; and it was during this period, when he was not yet a Jew, but simply a man, that he received salvation” (Godet). [source]
Christ, whose advent was to introduce the fulfillment of the promise (Galatians 3:16). [source]
Now I mean this. Not strictly the conclusion from Galatians 3:15, Galatians 3:16, since Paul does not use this phrase in drawing a conclusion (comp. 1 Corinthians 1:12, and τοῦτο δέ φημι , 1 Corinthians 7:29; 1 Corinthians 15:50). It is rather the application, for which the way was prepared in Galatians 3:16, of the analogy of Galatians 3:15to the inviolable stability of God's covenant. [source]
Future time with αχρις αν achris an and aorist subjunctive (usual construction). Christ he means by το σπερμα to sperma as in Galatians 3:16. [source]
First aorist passive of προστιτημι prostithēmi old verb to add to. It is only in apparent contradiction to Galatians 3:15., because in Paul‘s mind the law is no part of the covenant, but a thing apart “in no way modifying its provisions” (Burton). Χαριν Charin is the adverbial accusative of χαρις charis which was used as a preposition with the genitive as early as Homer, in favour of, for the sake of. Except in 1 John 3:12 it is post-positive in the N.T. as in ancient Greek. It may be causal (Luke 7:47; 1 John 3:12) or telic (Titus 1:5, Titus 1:11; Judges 1:16). It is probably also telic here, not in order to create transgressions, but rather “to make transgressions palpable” (Ellicott), “thereby pronouncing them to be from that time forward transgressions of the law” (Rendall). Παραβασις Parabasis from παραβαινω parabainō is in this sense a late word (Plutarch on), originally a slight deviation, then a wilful disregarding of known regulations or prohibitions as in Romans 2:23. Till the seed should come (αχρις αν ελτηι το σπερμα achris an elthēi to sperma). Future time with αχρις αν achris an and aorist subjunctive (usual construction). Christ he means by το σπερμα to sperma as in Galatians 3:16. The promise hath been made Probably impersonal perfect passive rather than middle of επαγγελλομαι epaggellomai as in 2 Maccabees 4:27. Ordained through angels (διαταγεις δι αγγελων diatageis di' aggelōn). Second aorist passive participle of διατασσω diatassō (see note on Matthew 11:1). About angels and the giving of the law see Deuteronomy 33:2 (lxx); Acts 7:38, Acts 7:52; Hebrews 2:2; Josephus (Ant. XV. 5. 3). By the hand of a mediator Εν χειρι En cheiri is a manifest Aramaism or Hebraism and only here in the N.T. It is common in the lxx. Μεσιτης Mesitēs from μεσος mesos is middle or midst, is a late word (Polybius, Diodorus, Philo, Josephus) and common in the papyri in legal transactions for arbiter, surety, etc. Here of Moses, but also of Christ (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 8:6; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 12:24). [source]
God. This use of the personal pronoun is frequent in Paul's writings. See Galatians 3:16; Ephesians 4:8; 1 Corinthians 6:16. [source]
Note particularly the absence of the article. Γράμματα is used in N.T. in several senses. Of characters of the alphabet (2 Corinthians 3:7; Galatians 6:11): of a document (Luke 16:6, take thy bill )epistles (Acts 28:21): of the writings of an author collectively (John 5:47): of learning (Acts 26:24, πολλά γράμματρα muchlearning ). In lxx, ἐπιστάμενος γράμματα knowinghow to read (Isaiah 29:11, Isaiah 29:12). The Holy Scriptures are nowhere called ἱερὰ γράμματα in N.T. In lxx, γράμματα is never used of sacred writings of any kind. Both Josephus and Philo use τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα for the O.T. Scriptures. The words here should be rendered sacred learning. The books in the writer's mind were no doubt the Old Testament. Scriptures, in which Timothy, like every Jewish boy, had been instructed; but he does not mean to designate those books as ἱερὰ γράμματα . He means the learning acquired from Scripture by the rabbinic methods, according to which the Old Testament books were carefully searched for meanings hidden in each word and letter, and especially for messianic intimations. Specimens of such learning may be seen here and there in the writings of Paul as 1 Corinthians 9:9f.; 1 Corinthians 10:1f.; Galatians 3:16.; Galatians 4:21f. In Acts 4:13, the council, having heard Peter's speech, in which he interpreted Psalm 118:22and Isaiah 28:16of Christ, at once perceived that Peter and John were ἀγράμματοι , not versed in the methods of the schools. Before Agrippa, Paul drew the doctrine of the Resurrection from the Old Testament, whereupon Festus exclaimed, “much learning ( πολλὰ γράμματα , thy acquaintance with the exegesis of the schools) hath made thee mad” (Acts 26:24). To Agrippa, who was “expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews” (Acts 26:3), the address of Paul, a pupil of Hillel, was not surprising, although he declared that Paul's reasoning did not appeal to him. In John 7:15, when Jesus taught in the temple, the Jews wondered and said: “How knoweth this man letters? ” That a Jew should know the Scriptures was not strange. The wonder lay in the exegetical skill of one who had not been trained by the literary methods of the time. [source]
d The writer proceeds to establish the superiority of the Son to the angels by O.T. testimony. It is a mode of argument which does not appeal strongly to us. Dr. Bruce suggests that there are evidences that the writer himself developed it perfunctorily and without much interest in it. The seven following quotations are intended to show the surpassing excellence of Christ's name as set forth in Scripture. The quotations present difficulty in that they appear, in great part, to be used in a sense and with an application different from those which they originally had. All that can be said is, that the writer takes these passages as messianic, and applies them accordingly; and that we must distinguish between the doctrine and the method of argumentation peculiar to the time and people. Certain passages in Paul are open to the same objection, as Galatians 3:16; Galatians 4:22-25. [source]