Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
I think that we should not over-apply Paul's reference to "seed" v "seeds" in Galatians. It was relevant to the point he was making. But I believe that you cannot make that the only meaning. The account in Genesis 12 refers to giving the land to Abraham's "seed." And Genesis 13 refers to the "seed" being as the dust of the earth — effectively beyond numbering, therefore a plurality.
I am not denying Paul the prophetic understanding of the unique seed that would bring potentially more than Jews into the fold as part of Abraham's seed. Just noting that it is not simply a singular item in all cases unless it is made plural by the adding of an "s" at the end.
.
|
OBW, this subject has been a cause for much head-scratching for me too. How did Paul arrive at this conclusion? For I don't believe that the word seed appears in the English plural form anywhere else in the Bible other than in Galatians where Paul is making the case. I think perhaps one should approach this matter in a more academic fashion to get to the bottom of it. Otherwise it would seem that Paul plucked the singular/plural distinction conveniently out of the air.
One should note particularly two things: firstly, recall that the apostle had been a pharisee who had sat at the feet of Gamaliel and therefore studied the Scriptures in the Hebrew tongue inscribed in Hebrew characters (i.e. letters). Secondly, when he was making this argument he was writing to the gentile Galatians and so probably wrote it in Greek.
Therefore, it is entirely possible that in both cases, that is, in both languages the written form allows for a clearly discernible distinction between the plural and the singular for the word 'seed'. Whereas in English, unless you are talking fruits and vegetables, the distinction is a forced and unusual one.
I read somewhere that the word for 'sin' in the classical Greek which is 'harmatia' presented almost similar difficulties for the translators, though it even has a known plural form.
Just my take