[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: What was Paul's main point anyway?



Paul J. Bodin writes:

>The initial stage of his argument is that the
>recipient of the promise is singular--Christ, rather than plural--the
>children of Abraham according to the flesh.  The gentiles are then
>included because they are subsumed under the promise through Christ
>Please pardon me if I have misunderstood the thrust of the discussion

But my understanding of Gal 3 is precisely that Paul is NOT intending to
say that the seed is one verses many, but rather one (group) verses all
of Abraham's decendants, and that one group are those of faith, that
is why later Paul can speak of the seed in the plural (Gal 3:29).

Has anyone looked at the question of meaning "many" or "all" being partially
determined by the use of the article?  It was one of the questions that
originally led me to consider this interpretation.

>I don't see any valid alternative in
>Galatians 3:16 to understanding the seed (singular emphasized) as
>referring to Christ and the (/OS )ESTIN XRISTO/S as referring to the
>one seed.  Whether the antecedent of (/OS is (ENO/S or SPE/RMATI/
>doesn't really change the interpretation as far as I can see.

As I suggested earlier the translation/paraphrase

"Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and his seed, it does not mean
all of Abrahams seed but only one group which is those (who have faith in)
Christ."

If Paul is trying to prove something from Genesis, and it is not a valid
arguement from Genesis, then I would say he misrepresents Genesis, but under
my interpretation he uses a shorthand (a hook, or retorical reminder as you
might say) to remind his readers of the account in Genesis, and that all
of Abraham's offspring (spefically Ishmael) were not counted among Abraham's
seed, but only the line of faith.  Furthermore, the promise was that all of
the nations would be among Abraham's seed.  This would be a different
interpretation of Genesis, but certainly not an invalid one.  In fact a
quite challenging one.

If in *our* opinion Paul misinterprets Genesis' grammer and basis his whole
argument on it.  Are we wrong, or is Paul wrong in his interpretation of
Genesis, or is there another alternative?  Should Paul's argument be
convincing to his original audience, but we would ignore it as invalid?

Paul is doing more than teaching retoric, he is trying to prove a point
objectively from the Hebrew Scriptures.
David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
Univ of Virginia (804) 982-3718 wrk INTERNET: djm5g@virginia.edu
Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg   BITNET: djm5g@virginia
C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax   IBM US: usuvarg8
*** Forwarding note from SMTP    --DMT03    10/07/92 17:37 ***
=========================================================================
Received: from Virginia.EDU by DMT03.mcc.Virginia.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R1)
   with TCP; Wed, 07 Oct 92 17:37:11 EST
Received: from dmt03.mcc.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU id aa10939;
          7 Oct 92 17:36 EDT
Received: from Virginia.EDU by DMT03.mcc.Virginia.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R1)
   with TCP; Wed, 07 Oct 92 17:36:59 EST
Received: from cunixb.cc.columbia.edu by uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU id aa10932;
          7 Oct 92 17:36 EDT
Received: by cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB/jba)
	id AA08698; Wed, 7 Oct 92 16:41:16 EDT
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 16:41:13 EDT
From: "Paul J. Bodin" <pjb3@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: David John Marotta <djm5g%Virginia.EDU@dmt03.mcc.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Re: What was Paul's main point anyway?
In-Reply-To: Your message of 07 Oct 92 15:06:23 EST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.90.4.718490473.pjb3@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu>

David John Marotta writes:

> If Paul's understanding of Genesis is in error, then Paul's main point
> ("the point he really wants to make") is in error.  Thus if Paul did
> violence to the grammar of Genesis, he failed to show there was any
> promise of the Gentiles from long ago.

I fail to see your point here.  First the rectitude of Paul's
understanding of Genesis is not at stake--nobody claimed that he
misunderstood or misused Genesis.  It seems to me that the seed
argument uses a midrashic exegetical method that we would not use
today.  That does not make it an error, it makes it pre-modern.

Second, Paul's argument is indeed quite subtle, but it's initial
expression is certainly not.  I don't see any valid alternative in
Galatians 3:16 to understanding the seed (singular emphasized) as
referring to Christ and the (/OS )ESTIN XRISTO/S as referring to the
one seed.  Whether the antecedent of (/OS is (ENO/S or SPE/RMATI/
doesn't really change the interpretation as far as I can see.  That
this is just the hook Paul uses upon which to hang his rhetorical hat
is an important point to remember.  That he thus, in *our* opinion,
misinterprets Genesis' grammar does not mean that he misunderstands or
misrepresents Genesis.  The initial stage of his argument is that the
recipient of the promise is singular--Christ, rather than plural--the
children of Abraham according to the flesh.  The gentiles are then
included because they are subsumed under the promise through Christ,
as verse 22 concludes, among those who have believed.

Please pardon me if I have misunderstood the thrust of the discussion
here, or missed some point, but that is how it seems to me.

___________________________________________________________________________
Paul J. Bodin                         Internet: pjb3@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Union Theological Seminary               smail: 435-52nd Street
(718) 439-3549                                  Brooklyn, NY 11220