Is the Seed Singular or Plural?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sam Jer

Puritan Board Junior
And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. (Genesis 13:16)
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. (Galatians 3:16)

So, in what sense is Christ the Seed since they are in number as the dust of the earth; and in what sense is the seed as many as the dust of the earth if it Is one?
 
Could Christ be the one seed, and united in him the elect and the future of humanity in the new earth are the many seeds?
 
Paul’s argument is picking up on the crisis of heirship and the insistence on a singular, divinely chosen heir. Abraham proposes Eliezer as heir and God rejects it. Abraham produces Ishmael and God rejects him as the covenant heir. In chap. 17 God asserts that Sarah will bear a son and God's covenant will be established with him. Then in chap. 21 it is through Isaac shall thy seed be called. So the promise is funnelled down to one chosen son.
 
Paul’s argument is picking up on the crisis of heirship and the insistence on a singular, divinely chosen heir. Abraham proposes Eliezer as heir and God rejects it. Abraham produces Ishmael and God rejects him as the covenant heir. In chap. 17 God asserts that Sarah will bear a son and God's covenant will be established with him. Then in chap. 21 it is through Isaac shall thy seed be called. So the promise is funnelled down to one chosen son.

So what do the Lord and Moses His servant mean by "And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered"?
 
So what do the Lord and Moses His servant mean by "And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered"?

That is a related but different strand. Abraham's children become the nation of Israel, of whom Christ came. But then amongst this nation there is an election of grace, as taught in Rom. 9-11. This leads to the dichotomy between children of the flesh and children of the promise. And then believing Gentiles are grafted in. Gal. 3 weaves the two strands together. The corporate seed: those who are of faith. Then the singular seed: Christ. This leads to the conclusion in v. 29 that to be Christ's is to be Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise. In one sense we could say that the many become the one, and the one becomes the many. But we would want to frame that in such a way that Christ is the Unique One.
 
I thought some more on this question, and realised there are a few more places suggesting the Seed Is one:

In the background to our passage:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it (Hebrew: הוּא, he) shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his (Hebrew: תְּשׁוּפֶֿנּוּ, shalt bruise him) heel. (Genesis 3:15)

In the rest of the pentateuch: Deuteronomy fortells apostasy and restoration, but does not go on to deacribe the kind of collective blessing of the nations that a purely plural interpetation would require.

In the Psalms of David, whose bible was the pentateuch:
Great deliverance giveth he to his king; and sheweth mercy to his anointed, to David, and to his seed for evermore. (Psalm 18:50)

I am sure there is more that I am missing. Given the covenantal, collective worldview of the scriptures, I guess you are right:
In one sense we could say that the many become the one, and the one becomes the many. But we would want to frame that in such a way that Christ is the Unique One.
 
And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. (Genesis 13:16)
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. (Galatians 3:16)

So, in what sense is Christ the Seed since they are in number as the dust of the earth; and in what sense is the seed as many as the dust of the earth if it Is one?
First seed referring to Israel, second to Jesus as coming promised messiah
 
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it (Hebrew: הוּא, he) shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his (Hebrew: תְּשׁוּפֶֿנּוּ, shalt bruise him) heel. (Genesis 3:15)

Reformed commentators generally allow for a plural reference while seeing one seed as primary. This is driven by subsequent revelation. Rom. 16 for a plural reference; Rev. 12 for a singular.

In the rest of the pentateuch: Deuteronomy fortells apostasy and restoration, but does not go on to deacribe the kind of collective blessing of the nations that a purely plural interpetation would require.

You seem to be picking up on the "singularity" of the nation at that point. That in itself contains an interesting typology that develops in different ways. "And called my son out of Egypt."

In the Psalms of David, whose bible was the pentateuch:
Great deliverance giveth he to his king; and sheweth mercy to his anointed, to David, and to his seed for evermore. (Psalm 18:50)

Yes, the seed is both a dynasty and a person. That promise of the royal seed comes from the "former prophets." The canonical structure of the Psalter, therefore, points to the law (Ps. 1) the prophets (Ps. 2), and then Ps. 3 gives us the first use of "psalm." So when the Lord spoke of the law, the prophets, and the Psalms, He was following a canonical order.
 
John Brown's Galatians Commentary makes what I think is an excellent argument that Paul has a specific text referent in mind, Gen.22:18 If I recall correctly, which has clearly focused the issue on the singular son. There is delightful complexity wrt this issue of single, multiple, and many-in-one interpretive options. The student of Scripture is rewarded by the effort through studying the context of particular references, and by apprehending the interrelated themes.
 
I came to chapter 28 today...

And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. (Ge. 28:14)

I noticed there is a distinguishing here between Jacob and his Seed. But the decendants of Jacob spoken of generally are already included in Jacob ("and in thee"). Jacob died in faith not having received the promises, having seen them afar off; he is both dead and burried, and his sepulchre is with us in Hebron to this day. Thus we can clearly see that the promise is not only general for his physical decendants, but that there is a particularity of one specific man who is The Seed.

The only possibly confusing bit is that the same language is used for the land promise the previous verse...
 
Which one?
It seems to be from:
An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul
the Apostle to the Galatians
John Brown of Haddington
PROFESSOR OF EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY TO THE UNITED
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH,
AND SENIOR PASTOR OF THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN
CONGREGATION,
BROUGHTON PLACE, EDINBURGH
See here:
"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."

These words admit of two renderings: either 'Now to Abraham and his seed,' or 'now in, through, or in reference to Abraham and his seed.' In either case they are expressive of a fact. "To Abraham and his seed promises were made;" or, in other words, blessings were promised. The following are examples of such promises,—Gen. 12:3; 17:4–8; 22:16, 17. This has been generally understood to be the meaning of the apostle; and it has been supposed that his argument is,—'Certain blessings were by God freely promised to Abraham and his spiritual seed long before the law was given, and therefore their communication cannot be suspended on obedience to the requisitions of that law.' The great objection to this mode of interpretation is, that it obliges us to understand the word "Christ," not of the Messiah personally, but of the collective body of those who are saved by him.

We are rather disposed to consider the apostle as stating, 'Now the promises were made through or in reference to Abraham and his Seed.' Not only were blessings promised to Abraham and his seed; but blessings were promised through Abraham and his Seed to the nations. It is to one of these promises that the apostle refers in the preceding context, verse 8. The blessing promised through Abraham and his Seed was, he informs us, the justification of the Gentiles by faith. We consider the apostle then as saying in the first clause of the verse, 'Now the promises of justification by faith were made to the Gentiles through Abraham and through his Seed.'

The word "seed" is a word of ambiguous meaning. It may either signify descendants generally, or one class of descendants, or a single descendant.3 The apostle in the concluding part of the verse tells us how it is to be understood in the passage he alludes to. "He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy Seed, which is Christ."

These words have very generally been understood as if they embodied an argument,—as if the apostle reasoned from the word "seed" being in the singular, inferring from that circumstance either that the word referred to one class of descendants, and not to descendants of all classes, or to one individual descendant, and not to descendants generally. That this is not the apostle's reasoning we apprehend is certain; for it is obviously inconclusive reasoning. The use of the plural term might have laid a foundation for the inference that he spake of more than one; but seed being a collective word, its use in the singular lays no foundation for an opposite inference. Even supposing that his Jewish readers might have been imposed on by such a sophism, which is not at all probable, it would not only have been unworthy of his dignity as an apostle, but of his integrity as an honest man, to have used it.

The truth is, there is no ground to suppose that it is the statement of an argument at all. It is just as Riccaltoun observes, "a critical, explicatory remark." It is just as if he had said, 'In the passage I refer to, the word seed is used of an individual, just as when it is employed of Seth, Gen. 4:25, where he is called "another seed," and said to be given in the room of Abel, whom Cain slew. In looking carefully at the promise recorded, Gen. 22:16–18, the phrase "seed" seems used with a different reference in the two parts of the promise—the first part of the 17th verse plainly referring to a class of descendants; the last clause and the 18th verse to an individual, and that individual is Christ.' There is no doubt that this is the fact—that in the promise, "In thy Seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed," the reference is not to the descendants of Abraham generally, nor to his descendants by Isaac, nor to his spiritual descendants, but to his great descendant, the Messiah.

The words will, indeed, admit of another meaning, q. d.—'The sacred oracle does not refer to all the descendants of Abraham, but to one particular class of them; not to his descendants by Ishmael, nor to his descendants by the sons of Keturah, nor even to all his descendants by Isaac, nor to his natural descendants, but to his spiritual descendants.' But this obliges us to understand the word "Christ" in a very unusual, if not altogether unwarranted, sense. Besides, if the apostle alludes, as is natural, to the promise he had already quoted, there is no doubt that the reference there is to the Messiah personally considered. We therefore prefer the former mode of interpretation. The promise of justification by faith to the Gentiles was made through Abraham and his seed, meaning by his seed, the Messiah. The reason why this is so particularly noticed will appear in the course of the discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top