sbjt-v14-n3_deroache_meyer

8122019 sbjt-v14-n3_deroache_meyer

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullsbjt-v14-n3deroachemeyer 113

36

Christ or Family as the ldquoSeedrdquoof Promise An Evaluation of

N T Wright on Galatians 316 Jason S DeRouchie and Jason C Meyer

J983137 983155983151 983150 S D983141 R983151 983157983139 983144983145 983141 is Associate Professor of OldTestament at Bethlehem Collegeand Seminary in MinneapolisMinnesota Prior to this heserved as Assis tant Professor ofOld Testament and Hebrew at

Northwestern College in St PaulMinnesota D r DeRouchie receivedhis PhD from e SouthernBaptist eological Seminar y Heis the author of (with Duane AGarre) A Moder n Grammar for

Biblical Hebre w (BampH 2009) and iscurrently writing a commentary onDeuteronomy

J983137 983155983151 983150 C M983141983161983141983154 is A ssociateProfessor of New Testament atBethlehem College and Seminaryin Minneapolis Minnesota Priorto this he served as Dean of Chapel

and Assistant Professor of NewTestament and Greek at LouisianaCollege in Pineville LouisianaDr Meyer received his PhD frome Southern Baptist eologicalSeminary and he is the author ofTe End of the Law Mosaic Covenantin Pauline Teology (BampH 2009)

INTRODUCTION

I983150 G983137983148 316 Paul states that thepromises were spoken to Abra-

ham and to his ldquospermati rdquo whichthe apostle then interprets as a ref-

erence to ldquo Cristoj rdquo N T Wrighttranslates 316 as follows maintain-ing that this singular ldquoseedrdquo denotes not the Messiah but the ldquoone fam-ilyrdquo of God that is represented bythe Messiah ldquoThe promises weremade lsquoto Abraham and to his fam-ilyrsquo It doesnrsquot say lsquohis familiesrsquo asthough referring to several butindicates one lsquoand to your familyrsquondash

which means the Messiahrdquo1 In sup-

port of this rendering he argues2

If as would accord with good

exegetical practice we ap-

proach the difficult passage

about the ldquoseedrdquo in 316 in the

light of the quite clear reference in 329 where (as

in 315ndash18) it is found within a discussion of the

Abrahamic ldquoinheritancerdquo we might suggest that the

singularity of the ldquoseedrdquo in v 16 is not the singular-

ity of an individual person contrasted with the plu-

rality of many human beings but the singularity ofone family contrasted with the plurality of families

which would result if the Torah were to be regarded

the way Paulrsquos opponents apparently regard it

This paper seeks to expose the unlikelihood of Wrightrsquos reading of Gal 316 both from the inter-nal logic of Paulrsquos argument in Galatians and fromthe Old Testament redemptive-historical trajec-tory that informs that logic While Wright providessupport for his reading we believe the evidence

below both counters Wrightrsquos claims and justifiesour interpretation As will be shown Wright doesnot appreciate enough Paulrsquos proper stress on thecoming of Christ as Abrahamrsquos ldquoseedrdquo (v 16) inorder to enable Gentile individuals to be grantedthe same title (v 29)

SBJ 143 (2010) 36-48



37

AN EVALUATION OF WR IGHT IN

LIGHT OF PAULrsquoS ARGUMENT IN

GALATIANS 399125143

W983154983145983143983144983156rsquo983155 R983141983137983140983145983150983143

A983150 A983150983137983148983161983156983145983139983137983148 S983157983149983149983137983154983161

From Wrightrsquos perspective the traditional view

of Gal 316 that sees the ldquoseedrdquo as a direct referenceto the Messiah is flawed from a number of fronts4 Not only does it seem to be asking a lot from Paulto jump from singular (v 16) to collective (v 29) inthe scope of a single chapter the apparent parallelsin Romans 4 and 9 never use sperma in relation tothe Messiah Furthermore Paul is le ldquoon the veryshaky ground of a purely semantic trick since inthe LXX sperma in the singular when referring tohuman offspring is in fact almost always collectiverather than singularrdquo5 Instead taking his lead from

the ldquoclear referencerdquo of the collective use of ldquoseedrdquo in329 Wright proposes to read ldquoseedrdquo in 316 in thesame wayndashndashas pointing to the one family of God

Stephen Toulminrsquos model for understanding anargument will assist us in grasping and evaluating

Wrightrsquos asser tions Figure 1 (below) illustrateshow an argument is constructed6

When crafting an argume nt the move fromknown information (ldquodatumrdquo) to conclus ion

(ldquoclaimrdquo) necessitates a supporting statement(ldquowarrantrdquo) which itself at times requires addi-tional justification (ldquobackingrdquo) In light of this lay-out Wrightrsquos argument regarding the interpretationof Gal 316 can be displayed as in Figure 2 (below)

A983150 I983150983145983156983145983137983148 E983158983137983148983157983137983156983145983151983150 983151983142

W983154983145983143983144983156rsquo983155 C983148983137983145983149

Wrightrsquos argument bears a number of weak-nesses one of the most significant of which is that itforces the interpreter to read Paulrsquos argument back-

wards from Gal 329 to 316 A natural ldquosequentialreadingrdquo of the text does not prepare the reader fora collective understanding of ldquoseedrdquo in v 16 for asobserved by A Andrew Das it is not until v 29 thatldquoChristians are incorporated into the one seedrdquo7

Furthermore since the phrase ldquowho is Christrdquo isin apposition to the noun ldquoseedrdquo one wonders howldquo Cristojrdquo is an appropriate designation for thissingular ldquofamilyrdquo Because Wright himself aff irmsthat Cristo j always ldquodenotes Jesus of Nazarethrdquo8 how can he maintain that the one ldquoseedrdquo refers tothe one ldquofamilyrdquo and not to Christ Wright delyargues that Cristoj ldquodenotesrdquo Jesus and ldquoconnotesrdquothe one in whom ldquothe people of God are summeduprdquo9 However this fine-toothed distinction seems

Fig 1 Toulminrsquos Model for Charting an Argument

Datum Claim

(Harry was born in Bermuda) (Harry is a British Subject)

Warrant (Since a man born in Bermuda w ill general ly be a British subject)

Backing (On account of the following statutes and other legal provisionshellip)

Fig 2 Wrightrsquos Argument for Interpreting Gal 316

Datum Claim

(Paul refers to a singular seed in v 16) (e reference denotes a singular family not a singular person)

Warrant (Since the clear reference in v 29 is to a fami ly)

Backing (On account of it being good exegetical practice to understand

more obscure texts in l ight of the clearer ones)



38

forced and comes perilously close to special plead-ing It arises in part because of a desire to justify

what Wright believes to be Paulrsquos sloppy exegeti-cal reading of texts like Gen 1315 Wright solvesthis undesirable situation by maintaining that Paulmakes an ldquoexplanatoryrdquo point from Genesis not an

ldquoexegeticalrdquo point10 However this solution thoughingenious is unnecessary

Our deconstruction of Wrightrsquos reading willcontinue in two further phases In the first phrase

we will aempt to demonstrate the legitimacy ofPaulrsquos exegesis of Genesis in Gal 316 In the secondphase we will argue that the parallel in Gal 319prohibits Wrightrsquos reading

P983137983157983148rsquo983155 E983160983141983143983141983155983145983155 983151983142 G983141983150983141983155983145983155 983145983150 G983137983148 316

The reference in 316 to plural ldquopromises hellip

made to Abraham and to his offspringrdquo immedi-ately sends us back to Genesis and suggests the like-lihood of multiple promise texts in Paulrsquos mind Itis true that the inclusion of the conjunction in thephrase ldquokai tw| spermati sourdquo implies that Paulis indeed quoting Gen 1315 178 andor 247mdashthe only texts in the LXX of Genesis that includethe entire phrase and that address Abraham11 Inour view the most likely candidate of these threeis 178 for the mention of Abra(ha)m becomingldquothe father of a multitude of nationsrdquo in the imme-diate literary context anticipates the inclusion ofGentiles in the people of Godndashone of the key issuesat stake in Galatians 3 (cf the citation of Gen 175in Rom 417) However because each of the threetexts noted above deals only with the land prom-ise the plural evpaggeliai in Gal 316 means thatPaul expected his interpreters to read the text(s)he cites in relation to the other ldquoseedrdquo promises inGenesis12

In the part of Genesis directly associated with

the patriarchs the ldquoseedrdquo of promise isare

bull To be the recipient(s) of the l and of

Canaan (Gen 127 1315 1518 178

2217 247 263 284 13 3512 484)13

bull To become very numerous (1316 155 2217a

264 24 2814 3212 484 19)14

bull To possess the gate of his enemies (2217b

2460)

bull To be a channel of blessing to all families nations

or tribes of the earth (123 1818 2218 264

2814)15

Already in Gal 38 the apostle had cited the prom-ise to the patriarch that ldquoin you shall all the nations

be blessedrdquo so certainly this promise is includedamong those referred to in Gal 31616

What is significant about this last point is thatGenesis itself teaches that the curse of Adam would

be eradicated and blessing would be enjoyed on auniversal scale not simply through Abraham butspecifically by means of the work of an individual

male ldquoseedrdquo descending from the patriarch Thisdevelopment is made clear in three texts (Gen315 2217bndash18 2460) and affirmed by later

biblical interpretation e first passage does notaddress Abraham specifically but lays the founda-tion for the pledges God would later make to him 17

Before over-viewing these texts it is importantto recognize that the Hebrew term ldquocrzltrdquo is a col-lective singular noun which means it is morpho-logically singular but may have singular or pluralco-referents While the vast majority of instancesin Genesis are collective18 the singular concept isalso expressed19 How do we determine if a givenusage of the term ldquoseedrdquo refers to a collective groupor an individual C John Collinrsquos morpho-syntacticstudy of [rzlt suggests that while most occurrencesare grammatically ambiguous and thus demandsemantic clues in the context the inclusion of plu-ral pronouns (independent object and suffixes)makes [rzlt denote posterity whereas the inclusionof singular verb inflections adjectives and pro-

nouns makes it denote a specific descendant20

For example the third person masculine pluralpersonal pronoun ldquotheirrdquo in Gen 179 makes theuse of ldquoseedrdquo explicitly collective ldquoAnd God said to

Abraham lsquoAs for you you shall keep my covenant you and your offspring ( []rgtzwgt) aer you throughout



39

their generations ( mtrodol)rdquo21

In light of Collinsrsquo study we now turn to Gen314ndash15 which includes what is oen referred toas the protoevangelium (ldquofirst gospelrdquo) In it Goddeclares to the serpent ldquoCursed are you more thanall cale and more than every beast of the field on

your belly shall you go and dust shall you eat all thedays of your life And I will put enmity between

you and the woman and between your seed and herseed he shall bruise you (^pWvygt aWh) on the headand you shall bruise him ( WNpWvT) on the heelrdquo22 Drawing aention to the explicit use of pronounsCollins comments23

On the syntactical level the singular pronoun

hucircrsquo in Genesis 315 is quite consistent with the

paern where a single individual is in view In

fact since the subject pronouns are not normally

necessary for the meaning we might wonder if

the singular hucircrsquo in Genesis 315 is used precisely

in order to make it plain that an individual is being

promised who will win a victory over the snake

at cost to himself

Genesis 315 provides a ldquoseed-bedrdquo of Messi-anic hope is interpretation is confirmed by Eversquosresponse to the births of Cain and Seth in chapter

4

24

At the birth of the former Eve expresses whatappears to be hope that this son may be the ful-fillment of Godrsquos promise to crush the serpentrsquoshead ldquoI have gotten a man with Yahwehrdquo (41)However when Cain murders his brother Abelhe undeniably proves that he is not the awaitedldquoseedrdquo and later biblical interpretation considersCain among the offspring of the serpent (1 John38ndash12 cf John 833 44) Following Abelrsquos deathEve reaffirmed her hope in the promised ldquoseedrdquo

when Seth was born ldquoGod has apportioned for me

another offspring ([rzlt) in place of Abel becauseCain killed himrdquo (Gen 425) Sethrsquos life signaled ashi back to Yahweh (426) imaged his own father

Adamrsquos sonship to God (51ndash3) and initiated thetwo ten-member genealogies (Genesis 5 and 11)

by which the narrator of Genesis distinguished the

line of promise from the line of destruction andheightened his readerrsquos anticipation for the ultimateconquering ldquoseedrdquo25

e next text is found in Gen 2217ndash18 which isone of the passages that most likely stands behindPaulrsquos recollection in Gal 38 of Godrsquos promise

to Abraham that ldquoin you shall all the nations be blessedrdquo At this point in the narrative the readerhas tracked the offspring promise from ldquothe motherof all livingrdquo (Gen 320) through two ten-membergenealogies climaxing in Abra(ha)m in whom ldquoallthe families of earth shall be blessedrdquo (123) Whenthe patriarch questioned his lack of ldquooffspringrdquo ([rzlt)(Gen 153) the Lord promised (154) and thengranted him and Sarah a son declaring ldquoroughIsaac shall your offspring ([rzlt) be namedrdquo (2112)This seed-generated context provided the back-

drop for Yahwehrsquos amazing ldquotestrdquo in which he called Abraham to sacrifice his son of promise Genesis2217ndash18 records Yahwehrsquos pledge to fulfill theldquodescendants land and divine blessingrdquo promisesto Abraham in light of his dependent fear-filledobedience26

Three times in Gen 2217ndash18 the word [r z lt

occurs but as has been persuasively argued by TDesmond Alexander within the span of two versesthe form denotes both a group and an individual27 Specifically building off Collinsrsquos study Alexan-der has rightly observed t hat the third-personmasculine singular pronominal suffix in the formwybygtao (ldquohis enemiesrdquo) of 2217 suggests that whilethe ldquoseedrdquo that will be a numerous ldquoas the starsof heavenrdquo is plural (v 17a) the ldquoseedrdquo that willpossess the enemiesrsquo gates (v 17b) and serve as achannel of blessing to the world (v 18) is a maleindividual28 Collinsrsquos rule also suggests that Gen2460 contains a similar contrast between the manyand the one wherein upon Rebekahrsquos departure

from Mesopotamia her family blesses her callingGod not only to grant her a flourishing womb butalso to cause her offspring to ldquopossess the gate ofthose who hate himrdquo29

Significantly because each of the other Genesistexts that refers to the ldquoseedrdquo as mediator of blessing



40

are ambiguous syntactically according to Collinsrsquosrules (Gen 264 2814 cf 123 1818) it is possi-

ble that these too should be understood as pointingto an individual30 Regardless the three texts justmentioned appear to set a trajectory for other bibli-cal authors who interpret these Genesis ldquoseedrdquo texts

as referring to a single Messianic deliverer (egGen 498 10 Num 2417ndash19 2 Sam 712ndash13 Ps724 9 17 Luke 168ndash79 Acts 325ndash26 Gal 3813ndash14) Because James M Hamilton Jr has alreadyprovided a thorough overview of these passagesminimal comment is necessary here31

Building off the Davidic promises in 2 Sam712ndash13 Psalm 72 applies to Israelrsquos king boththe promise of an enemy-destroying offspring (Ps724 cf Gen 315 and 2217b) and the promise ofa blessing-mediating offspring (Ps 7217 cf Gen

2218)32 ldquoMay [the king] defend the cause of thepoor of the people hellip and crush the oppressor hellipMay people be blessed in him and all nations callhim blessedrdquo e background of the promises inGen 315 and 2217bndash18 is unmistakable

Luke highlighted this same connection withdirect reference to Jesus when he recorded Zecha-riahrsquos prophecy in Luke 168ndash79 ldquo[God] raised upa horn of salvation for us in the house of his servantDavid as he spoke by the mouth of his holy proph-ets from of old that we should be saved from ourenemies hellip to remember the his holy covenantthe oath that he swore to our father Abraham hellip[and] to guide our feet into the way of peacerdquo (Luke169ndash71 73 79) What is striking here is thatGodrsquos work of deliverance and salvation throughthe Davidic Messiah was specifically related to ldquotheoath that he swore to hellip Abrahamrdquo This link isfurther highlighted in Acts 325ndash26 where Peterdeclared ldquoYou are the sons of the prophets and ofthe covenant that God made with your fathers say-

ing to Abraham lsquoAnd in your offspring shall all thefamilies of the earth be blessedrsquo God having raisedup his servant sent him to you first to bless you byturning everyone of you from your wickednessrdquo

Jesus is here clearly identified with the ldquooffspringrdquothrough whom blessing would come

e final text to be highlighted is Gal 38 13ndash14 which prov ides the very context for our verse inquestion Paul writes in 38 ldquoAnd the Scriptureforeseeing that God would justify the Gentiles byfaith preached the gospel beforehand to Abrahamsaying lsquoIn you shall all the nations be blessedrsquordquo e

apostle returns to this theme in vv 13ndash14 whenhe states ldquoChrist redeemed us from the curse ofthe law hellip so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of

Abraham might come to the Gentilesrdquo With LukePaul appears to have interpreted the Genesis prom-ises as finding their ultimate fulfillment in Jesus ofNazareth the one through whom Godrsquos blessingreaches the nations

[r z lt occurs some fifty-nine times in Genesisand highlights a key aspect of the bookrsquos message

bearing theological significance that is linked not

only to Abraham but also to the earliest stages ofGodrsquos dealing with fallen mankind The term i sused with Genesisrsquos tAdlAT structure to highlightone single family line stemming from Adam (andEve) through Seth and continuing through Abra-ham and his descendants Not only this promiseof global influence finds focus in at least three con-texts where it is an individual male offspring of thisline who will destroy the enemy strongholds (Gen315 2217b 2460) and mediate blessing to the

world (2218)33 We suggest that these texts set atrajectory climaxing in the person of Christ Jesusand that Paulrsquos assertion that the ldquoseed hellip is Christrdquoin Gal 316 is recognition of this fact e apostlersquosreading of Genesis is not ldquohyperliteralrdquo34 ldquoa purelysemantic trickrdquo35 or a mere ldquoexplanatory noterdquo36 butis in fact an exegetically grounded interpretation ofGen 178 (andor 1315 247) within its broaderliterary context especially 315 and 2217ndash1837

T983144983141 P983154983151983144983145983138983145983156983145983158983141 P983137983154983137983148983148983141983148 983151983142 G983137983148 319

Our deconstruction of Wrightrsquos argument nowcontinues with some observations related to Gal319 which includes the next occurrence of theldquoseedrdquo in Galatians 3 Because of his collectiveinterpretation of verse 16 Wright translates verse19 to read as follows ldquoWhy then the law It was



41

added because of transgressions until the familyshould come to whom it had been promisedrdquo38 This wording accentuates the awkwardness of

Wrightrsquos interpretation because the actual flow ofPaulrsquos thought prohibits such a translation Takea moment to recall the layout of Wrightrsquos original

argument in Figure 2 above By way of contrast wecan incorporate Gal 319 in a counter argumentthat can be charted as Figure 3 (below)

In order to defend this argument it is impera-tive to produce the exegetical data that justifies theabove warrant39 Specifically we contend that theldquoseedrdquo in verse 19 can only be a reference to Jesusof Nazareth This conclusion finds its support bythe parallel structure of thought in Gal 323ndash26and 41ndash7 We will consider these passages one ata time

In Gal 323ndash26 the Law is compared to aldquopaidagwgoj rdquo The ldquoguardianrdquo (ESV) is givenauthority over a child for a specific duration of time(usually until adulthood)40 e key event for Paulis the coming of ldquofaithrdquo (v 25) e dawning of thisage brings the age of the guardian to an end ldquoButnow that faith has come we are no longer under aguardianrdquo e word ldquofaithrdquo clearly refers to a salva-tion-historical epoch not a subjective experienceIf no one exercised faith until aer the coming of

Fig 3 A Beer Argument for Interpreting Gal 316

Datum Claim


Warrant (Since the clear reference in v 19 is to a singular person)


more obscure texts in light of the clearer and closer ones)

Christ then Abraham also did not exercise faith And if Abraham did not exercise faith then Paulrsquos whole argument in 36ndash9 comes crashing downRather Paul refers to the new era inaugurated bythe coming of Christ not a ldquofamilyrdquo Now thatChrist has come the promises have been fulfilled

us the establishment of the new covenant andthe reception of the promised Spirit (v 14) intro-duce an age where the distinguishing mark of Godrsquospeople becomes faith in the revealed Messiah notadherence to circumcision and the Law

The same temporal structure occurs again inGal 41ndash7 An heir is ldquounder stewards and man-agers until the date set by the fatherrdquo (v 2) Oncethis specific time period arrives the ldquostewards andmanagersrdquo no longer have authority over the heirPaul spells out the significance of this analogy in

verses 3 and 4 We while children were held underthe ldquoelemental things of the worldrdquo41 But now thedate ldquoset by the fatherrdquo has come What is this date

Verse four clearly shows that it is the coming ofGodrsquos Son Jesus not the arrival of a ldquofamilyrdquo ldquoBut

when the fullness of the time came God sent forthhis Sonrdquo (44)

Figure 4 (below) highlights the parallel struc-ture of thought that is evident in these passagesClearly Paul focuses the shi of redemptive history

Fig 4 Paulrsquos Parallel rough Regarding the Redemptive Historical Shi

319 When the ldquoseedrdquo comes the authority of the Law comes to an end

323-24 When the ldquofaith rdquo era comes the authority of the guardian comes to an end42

41-2 When the time set by the Father comes the authority of the stewards and managers comes to

an end

43-4 When God sent forth his Son in the ful lness of time the age of bondage comes to an end



42

on Jesus not on the inclusion of the Gentiles intoa single people of God e laer is made possibleonly by faith in Jesus who is the offspring of Abra-ham (316) and channel of blessing to the world(314)

CONCLUDING SUMMARY

Readers that have compared and contrasted Wrightrsquos approach to the one advocated in thisarticle may now justifiably ask ldquoSo what Whatis at stake in properly interpreting Gal 316rdquo Twoanswers are in order First it should be obvious

but it alw ays bears repeating that Scr ipture isGodrsquos word and as such it demands reverence andrespect from Godrsquos children ldquoBut this is the one to

whom I will look he who is humble and contrite inspirit and trembles at my wordrdquo (Isa 662 emphasis

added) Godrsquos word should be handled not onlyreverently but also accurately ldquoDo your best topresent yourself to God as one approved a worker

who has no need to be ashamed rightly handling

the word of truthrdquo (2 Tim 215 emphasis added) A concern for the reverent and accurate interpre-tation of Godrsquos word functions simultaneously as

both a necessary speed bump that keeps us fromrunning roughshod over the text and a guard railprotecting us from veering off into the ugly ditchof academic gamesmanship

Second there is a vital connection betweenonersquos individual exegetical decisions and onersquos col-lective interpretive framework In other wordsonersquos handling of specific texts has direct influencein the shaping of onersquos overall interpretive gridand onersquos interpretive grid can have determinativeeffects on onersquos individual interpretations We arenot questioning the viability of operating with aninterpretive framework such a grid can help orientseemingly obscure texts within the grand narrative

of Scripture is interplay need not be a viciouscircle as long as the reader intentionally allows thedetails of each text to exercise a healthy amountof hermeneutical control that can either furtherconfirm the framework or critique it and challengeit However one must stringently avoid imposing

onersquos overall framework (ie eisegesis) upon thetext so that the details of the text are convenientlymuted or minimized Interpretive grids wreak her-meneutical havoc when they blind the interpreterfrom seeing what is really there in each individualtext (ie exegesis)

In light of the above it is noteworthy that Wrightrsquos reading of Gal 316 bears a striking resem- blance to his reading of other texts in Paul that havecome to form the essence of his overall interpretiveframework is grid which fits the broad contoursof the so-called New Perspective on Paul tendsto place stress upon the ecclesiological aspects ofPaulrsquos thought while minimizing many traditionalsoteriological readings of texts in Paul

is same dynamic is certainly operative in thetext under consideration Wrightrsquos reading assumes

that the ldquofamilyrdquo has been on center stage in Paulrsquosdiscussion of redemptive history in all three ldquoseedrdquotexts Gal 316 19 and 29 Our reading maintainsthat Christ takes center stage as the promised ldquoseedrdquoin both 316 and 19 e family of faith comes intoclear view in 329 only through Christ as the prom-ised singular ldquoseedrdquo of Abraham In other words

Jesusrsquo appearance in 316 and 19 is what allows theldquofamilyrdquo to come into the picture in verse 29

The grammar of verse 29 reinforces this read-ing with a first-class conditional statement ldquoAndif ( eiv) you are Christrsquos then ( ara) you are Abra-hamrsquos offspring heirs according to promiserdquo Paulstresses the dependent nature of the familyrsquos exis-tence upon the prior work of Christ which tookcenter stage in the preceding discussion In other

words Wright is dangerously close to locating theclimax of redemptive history in the coming of ldquothefamilyrdquo rather than in the coming of the Messiah

Wrightrsquos reading brings the ldquofamilyrdquo to the centerof the stage in Gal 316 19 and 29

This slight shift of focus from the coming ofChrist to the coming of the ldquofamilyrdquo risks a depar-ture from the stabilizing and balancing effect thatcomes from insisting upon the centrality of Christ is issue is one of emphasis Wright and the pres-ent authors agree that the incorporation of the



43

Gentiles into the family of faith is a key point inGalatians However this interpretive agreementdoes not necessarily dictate where Paul himselfplaces the most stress Wright stresses the ldquofamilyrdquoof faith in all three texts (Gal 316 19 29) but ourreading sees Paul stressing the centrality of Christ

as Abrahamrsquos promised ldquoseedrdquo (316 19) so that by faith in Christ the Gentiles could become Abra-hamrsquos ldquoseedrdquo (329) without becoming Jews isreading also brings Gal 316 into beer alignment

with Paulrsquos emphatic declaration elsewhere thatChrist is the one in whom all the promises findtheir ldquoYesrdquo of fulfillment (2 Cor 120)

Though the shift present in Wrightrsquos readingmay be slight the potential long-term results ofthis shi are not slight or small ough sounded

years ago D A Carsonrsquos warning is still apropos

ldquoI fear that the cross without ever being disownedis constantly in danger of being dismissed from thecentral place it must enjoy by relatively peripheralinsights that take on far too much weight When-ever the periphery is in danger of displacing thecenter we are not far removed from idolatryrdquo43

We bel ie ve tha t ou r re ad in g ta ke s bet te raccount of the context of Galatians 3 and 4 andthus achieves a higher degree of collective coher-ence We respectfully submit that Wrightrsquos readingthough possible is far less plausible than the onepresented in this article Furthermore the read-ing of the text expounded here rests on a firmerfoundation the centrality of Christ in redemptivehistory Maintaining our stress on the centralityof Christ the ldquoseedrdquo of Abraham will certainlyhave long-term consequences for the health of thechurch as it pursues the glory of God in all thingsfor the good of all peoples through Jesus

ENDNOTES 1

N T Wright Paul for Everyone Galatians and hes-salonians (Louisville KY Westminster John Knox

2004) 352N T Wright Te Climax of the Covenant Christ and the

Law in Pauline Teology (Minneapolis Fortress 1991)

163 Like our English words ldquoseedrdquo and ldquooffspringrdquo [rzlt

in Hebrew and sperma in Greek are collective nouns

which means they are morpholog ically singular but

may have singular or plural co-referents (E J Revell

ldquoLogic of Concord with Collectives in Biblical Narra-

tiverdquo MAARV 9 [2002] 61) An OT example of the

contrast is noted in Ishmaelrsquos designation as the ldquoseedrdquo

of Abraham (Gen 213) and Jacobrsquos ldquooffspringrdquo beingcompared to ldquothe dust of the earthrdquo (2814) In the

NT the ldquoseedrdquo can point to all participants in Godrsquos

covenant family (Rom 97 Gal 329) or it can refer to

an individual the Servant Messiah Jesus (Acts 325) 3 An abbreviated version of some of thi s materia l is

found in Jason C Meyer Te End of the Law Mosaic

Covenant in Pauline Teology (NAC Studies in Bible amp

eology 6 Nashville BampH 2009) 144ndash46 171ndash73 4 Wright he Climax of the Covenant 158ndash59 For a

helpful survey of the different approaches to this verse

see C John Collins ldquoGalatians 316 What Kind of

Exegete Was Paulrdquo yndale Bulletin 54 no 1 (2003)

75ndash79 5Ibid 158 6Stephen E Toulmin Te Uses of Argument (Cambridge

Cambridge University 1958) 94ndash113 example from

105 In Toulminrsquos system most arguments wi ll have

four explicit or implicit components (1) a Datum (2)

a Warrant (3) a Backing and (4) a Claim ldquoDatumrdquo

refers to known informationmdashthat is the raw mate-

rial used in constructing an argument An argument

takes the raw materials (data) and uses them to build

a ldquoclaimrdquo e claim is the inference or the conclusion

drawn from the data However the move from ldquodatumrdquo

to ldquoclaimrdquo requires a basis that supports or justifies the

move is basis is called the ldquowarrantrdquo e warrant

authorizes the step from ldquodatumrdquo to the ldquoclaimrdquo How-

ever it is possible to challenge the appropriateness of

a warrant In these cases the warrant itself requires

additional support known as ldquobackingrdquo The ldquoback-

ingrdquo of a warrant provides the information necessary

to justify the legitimacy of the warrant in the particularcase under consideration Toulminrsquos example actually

includes two more features called ldquomodal qualifiersrdquo

and ldquoconditions of exceptionrdquo but we have omitted

these elements for the sake of simplicity For an expla-

nation of modal qualifiers and conditions of excep-



44

tion see Te Uses of Argument 101 To see

Toulminrsquos method elucidated see Nancey C

Murphy easoning and hetoric in eligion

(Valley Forge PA Trinity 1994) 7 A Andrew Das Paul the Law and the Cov-

enant (Peabody MA Hendrickson 2001)

72ndash73 n 9 We came to this conclusion before reading Das We will incorporate this

particular insight into a larger argument

which is developed below 8 Wright Te Climax of the Covenant 165 He

does nuance this statement by pointing out

that 2 Cor 516 is a possible exception 9Ibid 174 Wright argues that this reading is

justified by other similar occurrences in Paul

ldquois family is none other in incorporative

language than the Cristoj the Messiah-

and-his-peoplerdquo (133)10Ibid 16611Cf the land promise to Isaac in 263 and

those to Jacob in 284 13 3512 and 484

Nearly every interpreter since J B Lightfoot

(St Paulrsquos Epistle to the Galatians [Peabody

MA Hendrickson 1993 orig published

1865] 142) has viewed Gen 1315 or 178

as the background to Gal 316 for a thor-

ough bibliography see Collins ldquoWhat Kind

of Exegete Was Paulrdquo 82 n 17 In contrast

Collins downplays the presence of kai in

Paulrsquos citation and suggests that Paul is only

alluding to not quoting a text from Genesis

and that one need only locate a text with

the dative spermati (83 n 22) He posits

that Gen 2218 is the most likely candidate

For a similar approach see A M Buscemi

ldquoGal 38ndash14 La Genti benedee in Abramo

per la federdquo Antonianum 74 no 2 (1999)

195ndash22512

This observation minimizes any dilemmasuggested by the fact that ldquothe reference to

the land hellip plays no part in the argument

of Galatiansrdquo (F F Bruce Te Epistle to the

Galatians [New International Greek Testa-

ment Commentary Grand Rapids Eerd-

mans 1982] 172) Furthermore for Paul

the land promises were viewed as typological

anticipations of more universal realities (eg

Rom 413) Collins is one who recognizes

the significance of the plural ldquopromisesrdquo

(ldquoW hat Kind of Exegete Was Paulrdquo 83)

13Cf Exod 3213 331 Num 1424 Deut 18437 1015 119 344 Neh 98

14Cf Gen 1610 1720 Exod 3213 Jer

3222 2615In Gen 123 1818 and 2814 the verb

of blessing is in the Niphal stem ( Wkrgtbn I)

whereas in 2218 and 264 it is in the Hith-

pael (Wkr B t h i) Scholars have long ques-

tioned whether the forms are synonymous

and whether they should be translated as

passives (ldquothey will be blessedrdquo) middles

(ldquothe will find blessingrdquo) or reflexives (ldquothey

will bless themselvesrdquo) (For an overview of

the various positions see M Daniel Carroll

R ldquoBlessing the Nations Toward a Biblical

eology of Mission from Genesisrdquo Bulletin

for Biblical esearch 10 no 1 [2000] 23ndash24

cf John H Walton Genesis [NIV Application

Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan

2001] 393ndash94) Following the arguments of

Chee-Chiew Lee (ldquo~yg [sic] in Genesis 3511

and the Abrahamic Promise of Blessing for

the Nationsrdquo Journal of the Evangelical Teo-

logical Society 52 no 3 [2009] 471ndash72) we

take the Niphal to be passive (ldquothey shall be

blessedrdquo) and the Hithpael to be estimative-

declarative reflexive (ldquothey shall declare

themselves as blessedrdquo) (on the latter see

Bruce K Waltke and M OrsquoConnor An Intro-

duction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Winona

Lake IN Eisenbrauns 1990] sect262f) e

use of the passive for all forms in the LXX

Targum Onkelos and the Vulgate suggeststhey were read as synonymous but the fact

that the NT quotations of the blessing for-

mula are passive (Acts 325 Gal 38) means

only that they were following the LXX or

that they were pointing to the fact that the



45

passive was used in the foundational Gen 123 which

informs all the rest See also Keith N Gruumlneberg

Abraham Blessing and the Nations A Philological and

Exegetical Study of Genesis 123 in Its Narrative Context

(BZAW 332 Berlin de Gruyter 2003)16Some like F F Bruce have argued that Paulrsquos citation

in Gal 38 was limited to a conflation of Gen 123 and1818 ( Epistle to the Galatians 156) However Paulrsquos

stress that ldquoin Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham

hellip [has] come to the Gentilesrdquo suggests that Paul may

also be pointing to Gen 2218 264 and 2814 all of

which explicitly note the means by which the nations

will enjoy blessing in Abrahammdashnamely through the

promised ldquoseedrdquo Collins persuasively argues this point

with respect to Gal 38 (ldquoW hat Kind of Exegete Was

Paulrdquo 80ndash81) but he fails to see that along with the

blessing promises in these texts the land promise in

Gen 1315 178 247 stands in the background of

Paulrsquos thought in Gal 31617N T Wright affirms the concept of corporate solidar-

ity wherein Messiah Jesus represents the remnant of

both Israel and all humanity in his person and work

(see Te Climax of the Covenant 18ndash40) He fails how-

ever to see how Genesis itself anticipates this reality

through its use of ldquoseedrdquo language18See the collective meaning in Genesis for the following

e seed of Noah (Gen 99) Abraham (127 1315

16 155 13 18 178 9 10 19 2112 2217 247)

Rebekah (2460) Isaac (263 4 24) Jacob (284 13

14 3212 3512 466 7 484) and Ephraim (4819)19See Seth (Gen 425) Abrahamrsquos anticipated child

(153) and Ishmael (2113) and the child of Onan

(388 9)20C John Collins ldquoA Syntactical Note (Genesis 315) Is

the Womanrsquos Seed Singular or Pluralrdquo yndale Bulletin

140 (1997) 142ndash44 Collins further notes that the

pattern of the LXX translator is identical and when

the ldquoseedrdquo is an individual the pronoun will be mas-

culine (or at least not clearly neuter) even though theGreek word sperma is neuter (cf 1 Sam 111 2 Sam

712ndash14)21 Walton is not convinced by Collinsrsquos study (Genesis

225 n 3) but his rebuttal bears no substance With

this Walton holds the highly questionable view that

OT Messianic expectation grew up only in relation

to the promises given to David and so ldquoit is difficult

to have much of a messianic hope prior to Davidrdquo

(234) However apart from the three texts about to

be addressed (Gen 314 2217ndash18 2460) a Messi-

anic hope is stressed through the anticipation of a king

(Gen 176 16) from Judah who deserves the obedi-ence of the nations (498 10) and who will defeat ene-

mies and exercise vast dominion (Num 2417ndash19) he

will be a man of Godrsquos torah (Deut 1718ndash20) who will

provide the answer to Israelrsquos chaos ( Judg 176 215)

and stand in the strength of Yahweh (1 Sam 210)mdashall

this before David is on the scene Walton also asserts

that the OT includes ldquono hint of an Israelite messianic

expectation that includes the concept of bringing an

end to evil in the worldrdquo (234ndash35) Beyond the texts

just noted most of which specifically address eradicat-

ing evil one need only point to the numerous texts

that speak of Yahwehrsquos king establishing global justice

peace and salvation in order see that Waltonrsquos claim

is not justified (eg Jer 235ndash6 3315ndash16 Isa 424

496 5210 Mic 54ndash5 Zech 99ndash10 Mal 31ndash5

Pss 27ndash9 721ndash4 14 cf Acts 325ndash26 1 Cor 1524

Gal 38 13ndash14 Eph 216 Col 215) Moreover the

NT asserts that in the salvation brought about by the

Davidic Messiah God was accomplishing just what

ldquohe spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of

old that we should be saved from our enemiesrdquo (Luke

170ndash71) For more on the Messianic trajectory of the

Old Testament as a whole see Walter C Kaiser Jr Te

Messiah in the Old estament (Grand Rapids Zonder-

van 1995) P E Satterthwaite R S Hess and G J

Wenham eds he Lordrsquos Anointed Interpretation of

Old estament Messianic exts (Grand Rapids Baker

1995) T Desmond Alexander ldquoRoyal Expectations in

Genesis to Kings eir Importance for Biblical eol-

ogyrdquo yndale Bulletin 49 (1998) 191ndash212 idem Te

Servant King Te Biblersquos Portrait of Messiah (Down-

ers Grove IL InterVarsity 1998) John H SailhamerldquoThe Messiah and the Hebrew Biblerdquo Journal of the

Evangelical Teological Society 44 (2001) 5ndash23 Ste-

phen G Dempster Dominion and Dynasty A Teology

of the Hebrew Bible (Downers Grove IL InterVarsity

2003) Scott J Hafemann and Paul R House eds



46

Central Temes in Biblical Teology Mapping Unity in

Diversity (Grand Rapids Baker 2007)22For an insightful survey of the inner-biblical Messianic

interpretation of Gen 315 see James Hamilton ldquoe

Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman Inner-Biblical

Interpretation of Genesis 315rdquo Te Southern Baptist

Journal of Teology 10 no 2 (2006) 30ndash54 cf W Wil-fall ldquoGen 315mdashA Protoevangeliumrdquo Catholic Bibli-

cal Quarterly 36 (1974) 361ndash65 For a survey of the

history of interpretation of this verse see Jack P Lewis

ldquoe Womanrsquos Seed (Gen 315)rdquo Journal of the Evan-

gelical Teological Society 34 no 3 (1991) 299ndash31923Collins ldquoA Syntactical Noterdquo 145 e LXX rendered

the Hebrew [rzlt with the neuter noun sperma but used

the masculine auvtoj ldquoherdquo in place of the Hebrew aWh

The mismatch of gender between the pronoun and

the antecedent may very well suggest that the transla-

tors understood the syntax to point to an individual

perhaps even the Messiah This is all the more likely

when one considers that this is the only instance out of

more than 100 uses of aWh in Genesis where the LXX

translator used the masculine singular and not the neu-

ter pronoun (cf R A Martin ldquoe Earliest Messianic

Interpretation of Genesis 315rdquo Journal of Biblical Liter-

ature 84 [1965] 425ndash27 Jack P Lewis ldquoe Womanrsquos

Seedrdquo 300ndash01 Walter C Kaiser Te Messiah in the Old

estament 37ndash42)24For a similar interpretation see Dempster Dominion

and Dynasty 71 James Hamilton ldquoThe Seed of the

Woman and the Bless ing of A brahamrdquo yndale Bul-

letin 58 no 2 (2007) 255ndash58 John H Sailhamer

ldquoGenesisrdquo in he Expositorrsquos Bible Commentary (rev

ed Grand Rapids Zondervan 2008) 196 104ndash0525T Desmond Alexander ldquoGenealogies Seed and the

Compositional Unity of Genesisrdquo yndale Bulletin 44

no 2 (1993) 255ndash70 esp 259 cf Richard S Hess

ldquoe Genealogies of Genesis 1ndash11 and Comparative

Literaturerdquo Biblica 70 (1989) 248 David C Hopkins

ldquoe First Stories of Genesis and the Rhythm of theGenerationsrdquo in Te Echoes of Many exts eflections

on Jewish and Christian raditions (ed Lou H Silber-

man et al Atlanta Scholars 1997) 40ndash41 In the

aforementioned essay Alexander observed that the

primary line of descent (ie the line through which

the promised offspring will come) is marked by lin-

ear genealogies (A gave birth to B B gave birth to C

C gave birth to D etc cf Gen 51ndash32 1110ndash26)

whereas the secondary group of antagonists (the ldquoseed

of the serpentrdquo) is signaled by segmented genealogies

(A gave birth to B C and D B gave birth to E F and

G C gave birth to H I and J D gave birth to K L andM cf 101 212 361 9) at the serpentrsquos offspring

refers not to slithering snakes but to a line of reprobate

humans who are distanced from God is clear from at

least two angles (1) e literary and biblical context

of Genesis 3 makes clear that the serpent is a personi-

fication (but not a literary fabrication) of the power

of sin death and hostility against God e curse and

promise of defeat is not given to snakes per se but to

the demonic power that elsewhere is in the Scriptures

is spearheaded by the Deceiver the devil (cf Rom

1620 Rev 129 202 Hamilton ldquoe Skull Crush-

ing Seed of the Womanrdquo 30ndash54) (2) e genealogical

structure in Genesis highlights the line of promise in

contrast to the line of destruction In light of this evi-

dence it is clear that the ldquoseed of the womanrdquo is not all

her biological offspring but a ldquospiritualrdquo remnant within

it For a helpful visual that depicts the line of promise

see T Desmond Alexander ldquoFrom Adam to Judah e

Significance of the Family Tree in Genesisrdquo Evangeli-

cal Quarterly 61 (1989) 7 For more on the use of the

tAdlAT formula in Genesis see M H Woudstra ldquoe

tAdlAT of the Book of Genesis and eir Redemptive-

historical Significancerdquo Calvin heological Journal 5

(1970) 184ndash89 Duane Garre ethinking Genesis

Te Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Penta-

teuch (Grand Rapids Baker 1991) 91ndash106 Dempster

Dominion and Dynasty 55ndash5626For the view that all the Abrahamic promises are

summed up as descendants land and divine bless-

ing see T Desmond Alexander From Paradise to the

Promised Land An Introduction to the Pentateuch (2nd

ed Grand Rapids Baker 2002) 98ndash99 Gordon J Wenham Genesis 1ndash15 (Word Biblical Commentary

Dallas Word 1987) 25827 Wrightrsquos proposed diff iculty with Paul shift ing from

the singular (Gal 316) to collective (329) usage of

ldquoseedrdquo in the span of a single chapter is therefore



47

unwarranted28T Desmond Alexander ldquoFurther Observations on the

Term lsquoSeedrsquo in Genesisrdquo yndale Bulletin 48 (1997)

363ndash67 so too idem ldquoSeedrdquo in New Dictionary of Bib-

lical heology (ed T Desmond Alexander and Brian

S Rosner Downers Grove InterVarsity 2000) 769

Dempster Dominion and Dynasty 69 n26 Alexandersees the use of a weyiqtol form rather than weqatal at

the head of Gen 2217b (^[]rgtz vryIwgt ldquoand your seed shall

possess rdquo) as a substantiation of his view that the

[rzlt referred to in Gen 2217b should be read in a way

distinct from the [rzlt in v 17a (ldquoFurther Observations

on the Terms lsquoSeedrsquo in Genesisrdquo 365) Interestingly in

Gen 2217b the LXX did not translate the third-per-

son masculine singular Hebrew pronominal suffix on

the substantive byEAa in the phrase wybygtao r[v tae ^[]rgtz vryIwgt

(ldquoand your seed will possess the gate of his enemiesrdquo)

As such it is impossible to tell whether the translator

understood the phrase to refer to a singular ldquoseedrdquo29 While the Leningrad Codex includes wyangtf (ldquothose hat-

ing himrdquo) the Targum two other Hebrew Mss and

the Samaritan Pentateuch read wybya (ldquohis enemiesrdquo)

in alignment with Gen 2217b30Support for this claim is suggested by the foundational

role that Gen 2215ndash18 plays in the rest of the Genesis

narrative Here Yahweh declares on oath that the patri-

arch will receive the fulfillment of the ldquodescendants

land and divine blessingrdquo promises because he passed

the ldquotestrdquo (221) obeying Godrsquos voice regarding the

sacrifice of Isaac (2216 18) is very obedience is

then recalled aer the restatement of the promise to

Isaac in 264 God would fulfill the promise to Isaac

ldquobecause Abraham obeyedrdquo (265)31Hamilton ldquoe Seed of the Woman and the Blessing of

Abrahamrdquo 261ndash7232See ibid 269ndash70 While the verb rendered ldquoto crushrdquo

in Ps 724 (piel akd) is not the same as the verb in Gen

315 (qal Wv) Hamilton persuasively argues for the

link with Genesis in light of (1) the clear echo of the blessing promise in Ps 7217 (2) the imprecation in Ps

729 that ldquohis enemies lick the dustrdquo and (3) the fact

that the piel akd is used in Ps 8910[11] for the crush-

ing of ldquoRahabrdquo who elsewhere is identified with the evil

Leviathan (Ps 7414) and the dragon (Isa 519)

33 We fully concur with Alexander that ldquothe book of Gen-

esis in its final form anticipates the coming of a king

through whom Godrsquos blessing will be mediated to all

the nations of the earthrdquo (ldquoRoyal Expectations in Gen-

esis to Kingsrdquo 204) is fact does not deny that Gen-

esis also anticipates the ultimate agent of blessing to

the whole world by portraying that God blesses othersin less universal ways (eg Laban [3027] Potiphar

[395] Pharaoh [477]) through Abraham and his

sons (plural)34So Tom atcher ldquoe Plot of Gal 31ndash18rdquo Journal of

the Evangelical Teological Society 40 no 3 (1997) 41035So Wright Te Climax of the Covenant 15936Ibid 16637Cf with some differences Collins ldquoWhat Kind of Exe-

gete Was Paulrdquo 75ndash86 Richard B Hays argues that

Paulrsquos argument is ldquoless perverse than it might appearrdquo

but he states this not on the basis of seeing an individ-

ual ldquoseedrdquo promised in Genesis but in positing a ldquocatch-

wordrdquo connection between the Abrahamic promises

and the Messianic promises made to David in 2 Sam

712ndash14 ( Echoes of Scripture in the Leers of Paul [New

Haven Yale University 1989] 85) However if indeed

the Messianic promises of 2 Samuel are connected to

the promises of the Abrahamic covenant (and thus to

Paulrsquos exegesis in Galatians 3) it is by means of a pro-

gressive flow of redemptive history that is grounded

in Gen 315 and 2217bndash18 both passages of which

anticipate the ruler from the line of Judah (Gen 498

10)38 Wright Paul for Everyone Galatians and Tessalonians

3539On the chart while the backing for the warrant is a

hermeneutical principle the warrant itself can be

defended with exegetical data40See the full discussion in Richard N Longenecker ldquoe

Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians 319ndash47rdquo

Journal of the Evangelical Teological Society 25 no 1

(1982) 53ndash6241 A reference to the old order of things which includes

the Law See Jason C Meyer Te End of the Law 171

n 188 J Louis Martyn Galatians A New ranslation

with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 33A

New York Doubleday 1997) 401



48

42 A babysier is an imperfect yet helpful modern illus-

tration of a child under the authority of another for

a limited duration Another example is our modern

notion of the need to abide by parental rules until the

ldquolegalrdquo age of eighteen or ldquoas long as you live under my

roofrdquo

43D A Carson Te Cross and Christian Ministry Lead-ership Lessons from First Corinthians (Grand Rapids

Baker 1993) 26



37

AN EVALUATION OF WR IGHT IN

LIGHT OF PAULrsquoS ARGUMENT IN

GALATIANS 399125143

W983154983145983143983144983156rsquo983155 R983141983137983140983145983150983143

A983150 A983150983137983148983161983156983145983139983137983148 S983157983149983149983137983154983161

From Wrightrsquos perspective the traditional view

of Gal 316 that sees the ldquoseedrdquo as a direct referenceto the Messiah is flawed from a number of fronts4 Not only does it seem to be asking a lot from Paulto jump from singular (v 16) to collective (v 29) inthe scope of a single chapter the apparent parallelsin Romans 4 and 9 never use sperma in relation tothe Messiah Furthermore Paul is le ldquoon the veryshaky ground of a purely semantic trick since inthe LXX sperma in the singular when referring tohuman offspring is in fact almost always collectiverather than singularrdquo5 Instead taking his lead from

the ldquoclear referencerdquo of the collective use of ldquoseedrdquo in329 Wright proposes to read ldquoseedrdquo in 316 in thesame wayndashndashas pointing to the one family of God

Stephen Toulminrsquos model for understanding anargument will assist us in grasping and evaluating

Wrightrsquos asser tions Figure 1 (below) illustrateshow an argument is constructed6

When crafting an argume nt the move fromknown information (ldquodatumrdquo) to conclus ion

(ldquoclaimrdquo) necessitates a supporting statement(ldquowarrantrdquo) which itself at times requires addi-tional justification (ldquobackingrdquo) In light of this lay-out Wrightrsquos argument regarding the interpretationof Gal 316 can be displayed as in Figure 2 (below)

A983150 I983150983145983156983145983137983148 E983158983137983148983157983137983156983145983151983150 983151983142

W983154983145983143983144983156rsquo983155 C983148983137983145983149

Wrightrsquos argument bears a number of weak-nesses one of the most significant of which is that itforces the interpreter to read Paulrsquos argument back-

wards from Gal 329 to 316 A natural ldquosequentialreadingrdquo of the text does not prepare the reader fora collective understanding of ldquoseedrdquo in v 16 for asobserved by A Andrew Das it is not until v 29 thatldquoChristians are incorporated into the one seedrdquo7

Furthermore since the phrase ldquowho is Christrdquo isin apposition to the noun ldquoseedrdquo one wonders howldquo Cristojrdquo is an appropriate designation for thissingular ldquofamilyrdquo Because Wright himself aff irmsthat Cristo j always ldquodenotes Jesus of Nazarethrdquo8 how can he maintain that the one ldquoseedrdquo refers tothe one ldquofamilyrdquo and not to Christ Wright delyargues that Cristoj ldquodenotesrdquo Jesus and ldquoconnotesrdquothe one in whom ldquothe people of God are summeduprdquo9 However this fine-toothed distinction seems

Fig 1 Toulminrsquos Model for Charting an Argument

Datum Claim

(Harry was born in Bermuda) (Harry is a British Subject)

Warrant (Since a man born in Bermuda w ill general ly be a British subject)

Backing (On account of the following statutes and other legal provisionshellip)

Fig 2 Wrightrsquos Argument for Interpreting Gal 316

Datum Claim


Warrant (Since the clear reference in v 29 is to a fami ly)


more obscure texts in l ight of the clearer ones)



38






P983137983157983148rsquo983155 E983160983141983143983141983155983145983155 983151983142 G983141983150983141983155983145983155 983145983150 G983137983148 316






Canaan (Gen 127 1315 1518 178

2217 247 263 284 13 3512 484)13


264 24 2814 3212 484 19)14


2460)



2814)15













39













at cost to himself


4

24
















40
















T983144983141 P983154983151983144983145983138983145983156983145983158983141 P983137983154983137983148983148983141983148 983151983142 G983137983148 319




41







Datum Claim
















an end




42


CONCLUDING SUMMARY





















43








ENDNOTES 1













































44



















1865] 142) has viewed Gen 1315 or 178













195ndash22512













14Cf Gen 1610 1720 Exod 3213 Jer




































45
























16 155 13 18 178 9 10 19 2112 2217 247)

























































46

















































































47











































































48






roofrdquo


Baker 1993) 26



38






P983137983157983148rsquo983155 E983160983141983143983141983155983145983155 983151983142 G983141983150983141983155983145983155 983145983150 G983137983148 316






Canaan (Gen 127 1315 1518 178

2217 247 263 284 13 3512 484)13


264 24 2814 3212 484 19)14


2460)



2814)15













39













at cost to himself


4

24
















40
















T983144983141 P983154983151983144983145983138983145983156983145983158983141 P983137983154983137983148983148983141983148 983151983142 G983137983148 319




41







Datum Claim
















an end




42


CONCLUDING SUMMARY





















43








ENDNOTES 1













































44



















1865] 142) has viewed Gen 1315 or 178













195ndash22512













14Cf Gen 1610 1720 Exod 3213 Jer




































45
























16 155 13 18 178 9 10 19 2112 2217 247)

























































46

















































































47











































































48






roofrdquo


Baker 1993) 26



39













at cost to himself


4

24
















40
















T983144983141 P983154983151983144983145983138983145983156983145983158983141 P983137983154983137983148983148983141983148 983151983142 G983137983148 319




41







Datum Claim
















an end




42


CONCLUDING SUMMARY





















43








ENDNOTES 1













































44



















1865] 142) has viewed Gen 1315 or 178













195ndash22512













14Cf Gen 1610 1720 Exod 3213 Jer




































45
























16 155 13 18 178 9 10 19 2112 2217 247)

























































46

















































































47











































































48






roofrdquo


Baker 1993) 26



40
















T983144983141 P983154983151983144983145983138983145983156983145983158983141 P983137983154983137983148983148983141983148 983151983142 G983137983148 319




41







Datum Claim
















an end




42


CONCLUDING SUMMARY





















43








ENDNOTES 1













































44



















1865] 142) has viewed Gen 1315 or 178













195ndash22512













14Cf Gen 1610 1720 Exod 3213 Jer




































45
























16 155 13 18 178 9 10 19 2112 2217 247)

























































46

















































































47











































































48






roofrdquo


Baker 1993) 26



41







Datum Claim
















an end




42


CONCLUDING SUMMARY





















43








ENDNOTES 1













































44



















1865] 142) has viewed Gen 1315 or 178













195ndash22512













14Cf Gen 1610 1720 Exod 3213 Jer




































45
























16 155 13 18 178 9 10 19 2112 2217 247)

























































46

















































































47











































































48






roofrdquo


Baker 1993) 26



42


CONCLUDING SUMMARY





















43








ENDNOTES 1













































44



















1865] 142) has viewed Gen 1315 or 178













195ndash22512













14Cf Gen 1610 1720 Exod 3213 Jer




































45
























16 155 13 18 178 9 10 19 2112 2217 247)

























































46

















































































47











































































48






roofrdquo


Baker 1993) 26



43








ENDNOTES 1













































44



















1865] 142) has viewed Gen 1315 or 178













195ndash22512













14Cf Gen 1610 1720 Exod 3213 Jer




































45
























16 155 13 18 178 9 10 19 2112 2217 247)

























































46

















































































47











































































48






roofrdquo


Baker 1993) 26



44



















1865] 142) has viewed Gen 1315 or 178













195ndash22512













14Cf Gen 1610 1720 Exod 3213 Jer




































45
























16 155 13 18 178 9 10 19 2112 2217 247)

























































46

















































































47











































































48






roofrdquo


Baker 1993) 26



45
























16 155 13 18 178 9 10 19 2112 2217 247)

























































46

















































































47











































































48






roofrdquo


Baker 1993) 26



46

















































































47











































































48






roofrdquo


Baker 1993) 26



47











































































48






roofrdquo


Baker 1993) 26



48






roofrdquo


Baker 1993) 26

Documents

sbjt-v14-n3_deroache_meyer