Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.
Commentators lament that Galatians 3:16 is one of the most difficult verses to interpret in the Bible. Pink says “this passage has occasioned the commentators much trouble, no two of them agreeing in its interpretation. It is commonly regarded as one of the most abstruse passages in all the Pauline Epistles.” Morris notes “At first glance, Gal 3.16 seems to be an example of careful grammatical exegesis; Paul observes and interprets the minutia of the text, stopping to parse a single word in the Biblical text.” I’ve seen the verse used to defend the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture: “Paul rests his argument of Galatians 3:16 upon a doctrine of verbal inspiration. Here the difference between a singular (“seed”) and plural (“seeds”) in Genesis 12:7; 13:15; and 17:7 is the basis of Paul’s argument.” But upon closer inspection one realizes that there is no such minutia in the text. There simply is no “seeds” vs “seed” in the text of Genesis. The word ולזרעך/σπέρμα itself can refer to plural or singular seed. In Genesis 13:15 and 17:8 (the two verses commentators believe Paul is quoting), it is clearly plural (“like the dust of the earth”). Furthermore, Paul uses the word in the plural sense in Romans 4:18; 9:7, and Galatians 3:29. Thus there simply is no appeal to the text to make Paul’s argument.
A common interpretation is that Paul is simply arguing typologically. Yes, Israel were Abraham’s descendants (plural), but Christ is Abraham’s true descendant. He is true Israel. Lightfoot notes “the people of Israel is the type of Christ: and in the New Testament parallels are sought in the career of the one to the life of the other. (See especially the application of Hosea xi. 1 to our Lord in Matt. ii. 15.)” While this may be true and in line with Paul and other NT writing elsewhere, it doesn’t explain his “seeds” vs “seed” comment. Typology involves analogy and does not deny the type when explaining the anti-type. Matthew’s citation of Hosea 11:1 does not deny that God also called the nation of Israel out of Egypt, but Paul here denies the plural was ever intended by the promise and argues only for the singular. Lightfoot says “Doubtless by the seed of Abraham was meant in the first instance the Jewish people, as by the inheritance was meant the land of Canaan; but in accordance with the analogy of Old Testament types and symbols, the term involves two secondary meanings…” But Paul is not arguing for a “secondary meaning” of the seed. He is arguing for the only meaning.
Corporate Solidarity Interpretation
Some try to evade this dilemma by taking the typological interpretation one step further, arguing that Paul is referring to the body of Christ – all believers united to Christ, the head. Therefore Paul does have in mind a plurality and there is no need to get hung up on the singular vs plural. Pink argues “‘to Abraham and his seed’ must mean ‘to Abraham and his spiritual seed were the promises made.'” Summarizing this view, Morris says “then there is no reason for the individual sense to war against the corporate, because the two are so closely tied to one another.” But this simply ignores the fact that Paul’s argument rests precisely upon making the individual sense war against the corporate, plural sense.
Another step is taken down this line of interpretation by arguing that although the promises were originally made in the plural, over the course of history the line in which the promise was fulfilled was narrowed. First Isaac, not Ishmael, then Jacob, not Esau, and on down the line until it is narrowed down to one individual, Jesus. Pink “The promises were limited originally, and that limitation was evidenced more clearly by successive revelations, until it was shown that none but Christ (and those united to Him) were included: “And to thy seed, which is Christ” (mystical)!… The promises of God were never made to all the descendants of Abraham, like so many different kinds of “seed,” but were limited to the spiritual line, that is, to “Christ” mystical.” Calvin argues in this manner.
Among Abraham’s own sons a division began, for one of the sons was cut off from the family… Since the ten tribes were carried away, (Hosa 9:17,) how many thousands have so degenerated that they no longer hold a name among the seed of Abraham? Lastly, a trial was made of the tribe of Judah, that the real succession to the blessing might be transmitted among a small people… The uninterrupted succession to this privilege must have been in force until Christ; for, in the person of David, the Lord afterwards brought back by recovery, as we might say, the promise which had been made to Abraham. In proving, therefore, that this prediction applies to a single individual, Paul does not make his argument rest on the use of the singular number. He merely shews that the word seed must denote one who was not only descended from Abraham according to the flesh, but had been likewise appointed for this purpose by the calling of God.
What Calvin says is true. God’s sovereign election determined which of Abraham’s physical seed were recipients of the promise. That is precisely what Paul argues in Romans 9. But that is not the argument Paul makes here. Rather Paul does “make his argument rest on the use of the singular number.” Furthermore, it ignores that Genesis 13:15 and 17:7 promise that a plurality of seed will inherit the land of Canaan – a promise that was fulfilled (Deut 34:4; 2 Chron 20:7; Num 23:10; 1 Kings 3:8) many years prior to Christ.
Sensus Plenior Interpretation
Looking at these interpretive challenges, Morris concludes that Galatians 3:16 demonstrates the validity and necessity of Roman Catholicism’s sensus plenior, which sees multiple meanings in the texts of Scripture, over against Protestantism’s singular meaning – because Paul could not have arrived at his conclusion from the text of Genesis.
Regardless of the text cited, whether Gen 13.15, ff. or 17.5-8, the Old Testament interpreter would almost certainly read these references to the seed (σπέρμα/ זֶרַע ) as a collective singular; plural in meaning with no indication that the original human author intended a truly singular sense. As demonstrated in the preceding examination of Rom 4 and Gal 3, Paul reads them as both plural and singular, without any evidence from the original context to signal singularity other than a form that he himself uses as collective (cf. Gal 3.29)…
Is it possible to see an original/ literal sense and at the same time read a present, ecclesiological sense in a single passage. As Hays so ably argues this seems to be Paul’s use of the Abrahamic seed in Gal 3.39 The two seem to be in parallel portions of a hermeneutical chiasm that converges at Christ and his advent. In this scheme Christ and the Christological meaning in the text would be the most inclusive and fullest sense (a sensus plenior) flanked by the two lesser (temporally bound) meanings, the original and the “ecclesiological.”
Setting aside the problems with the sensus plenior view (see also here), if we admit its validity for argument’s sake, it still does not resolve the problem in Galatians 3:16! As we saw above, Paul does not claim to be merely drawing out the “fullest sense” of the Abrahamic promises in Genesis 13 and 17, while acknowleding a separate original meaning. Paul is aruging that his interpretation is the original and only meaning! His argument against the Judaizers rests upon it.
Alternate Source Interpretation
Most commentators believe Paul is quoting/referencing Genesis 13:15 and/or 17:7. Lightfoot notes ““(1) The words must be spoken to Abraham himself, and not to one of the later patriarchs; (2) That καὶ must be part of the quotation. These considerations restrict the reference to Gen. xiii. 15, xvii. 8, either of which passages satisfies these conditions.” But as we have seen, Paul cannot be appealing to these verses for his argument about the seed. Are there any other verses in Genesis that Paul could be referring to? Some commentators argue that Paul has Genesis 22:18 in mind. Collins argues that “The best criterion for whether this is Paul’s source is whether it allows us to make sense of his argument.”
Collins helpfully starts this inquiry where many commentators do not: Galatians 3:8. He notes that Paul could potentially be quoting Gen 12:3; 18:18; or 22:18 [he also notes 26:4; 28:14; Ps. 72:17 contain the “blessing”], concluding that “Paul’s source in Galatians 3:8 is a composite, mixing terms from… these LXX passages.” Turning to Galatians 3:16, Collins lists the verses in Genesis where σπέρμα (‘seed, offspring’) occur with a bearing on Abraham:
[W]e have 12:7; 13:15; 15:18; 17:8, 19; 22:18; 24:7. Of these, most deal with the giving of the land to Abraham’s offspring: 12:7; 13:15; 15:18; 17:8; 24:7… In my judgment, the land promise texts (such as Gn. 13:15; 17:8) are not an encouraging line for investigation, because (1) the local nature of the promised land would not easily serve Paul’s argumentative purpose for the Gentiles; and (2) none of these is in the list of ‘blessing’ texts [that Paul quotes in Gal. 3:8]. The comment of F.F. Bruce is telling: ‘The reference to the land, however, plays no part in the argument of Galatians.’
Let that sink in. Paul has already told us which promise he is referring to. Why would we then assume he is arguing from a verse (Gen 13:15 or 17:8) that does not refer to that promise? That leaves Gen. 17:19 and 22:18. 17:19 is actually about the offspring of Isaac, so it does not apply. Thus we have 22:18.
Collins notes “Desmond Alexander has offered grammatical reasons for taking the ‘offspring’ in this text as a specific descendant.” Alexander concludes
The blessing of ‘all the nations of the earth’ is thus associated with a particular descendant of Abraham, rather than with all those descended from him. When we look outside of Genesis for allusions to 22:17b-18a, only one appears to exist. This
comes in Psalm 72:17 where we find the expression, (‘and may all nations be blessed through him’). From the content of Psalm 72 it is clear that the individual
mentioned here, through whom all nations shall be blessed, is a royal figure… The similarity between Genesis 22:18a and Psalm 72:17b is striking and supports the idea that the ‘seed’ mentioned in Genesis 22:17b-18a does not refer to all Abraham’s descendants, but rather to a single individual.
Morris summarizes this view:
Most references to Abraham’s seed in Genesis are immediately preceded or followed by plural pronouns or other referents for which the seed serves as antecedent, seeming to make plain the term’s collective sense in the context. Gen 22.18 emerges from the promises in Genesis fitting for a singular referent and works well theologically as looking forward to Christ’s redeeming the Gentiles. In the context of Gen 22, it is much easier to find an individual referent in verse 18. Verses 16 and 17 still deal with the multiplication of Abraham’s seed, but in verse 18, the seed is named as the agent of blessing for the nations, a unique statement among YHWH’s promises concerning Abraham’s seed. It parallels the original promises of Gen 12.2, 3, in which Abraham is said to be a blessing for others and it is in him that all the families of the earth will be blessed…
In the twenty-second chapter of Genesis, YHWH’s promise to Abraham differs from His previous covenantal pronouncements. He has tended to promise Abraham and his unidentified seed blessings and land (cf. Gen 13.15, 17.8) whereas in Gen 22, YHWH emphasizes the blessing that will come through or “in” Abraham’s seed. In other pronouncements of the Abrahamic promises, the “seed” serves as the antecedent for plural pronouns in the following verses, as is noted above. However, in 22.18, even though there have been references to plurality (cf. 17a) there is a sudden shift to the singular in v. 17b. Often translated with a plural gloss to smooth out the reading, the text literally reads, “your seed will possess the gate of his enemies.” This would seem to be a legitimate textual clue within the original context to see a sudden shift in referent, probably signaling some messianic or prophetic significance.
Problems with Genesis 22:18
Thus it appears quite clear that Paul is referring to Genesis 22:18 when he argues that the seed is singular. This would resolve a lot of problems and bring significant clarity to Galatians 3 as a whole. However, some have raised objections. Pink argues
J. N. Darby seeks to cut the knot by changing the apostle’s “promises” to “the promise,” restricting the reference to Genesis 22. Yet not only is the Greek in the plural number, but such an idea is plainly refuted by the “four hundred and thirty years after,” which necessarily carries us back to Genesis 12.
Morris likewise objects “It is striking that “the promises made to Abraham and to his seed” are most definitely plural (αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι), and therefore almost certainly cannot come from Genesis 22.18 alone, if at all, as there is only one promise made to the seed in that passage (cf. 22.17).”
First, even commentators that do not hold to the “22:18 view” recognize that the plural “promises” refers to repetitions of God’s promise, not to multiple promises. Lightfoot notes that promises is in “The plural, for the promise was several times repeated to Abraham.” Burton likewise notes “the basis for which is the repeated occasions on which the promise was made to Abraham, and the various forms in which it was expressed.” This makes complete sense when we recall Collins’ observation that “Paul’s source in Galatians 3:8 is a composite, mixing terms from… these LXX passages.” Thus Paul’s primary appeal to 22:18 is inclusive of the other repitions of the same promise.
Second, Pink objects to the timing, noting that Genesis 12 must be in view. Coxe agrees regarding the timing “From the giving of the first promise to Abraham, which we have recorded in Genesis 12:2, 3, to that very night in which the children of Israel were brought out of their Egyptian bondage, is the computation of these years made. This will be evident to anyone who will diligently compare the chronology of those times with the express testimony of Moses (Exodus 12:41).” But this is no problem at all if we recognize that the promise in 22:18 is inclusive of Genesis 12:3.
Next, Morris raises a grammatical objection.
Isolated from the original Hebrew text this option appears to have great potential as a resolution for Paul’s seemingly deviant contention in Gal 3. Unfortunately, this view encounters more difficulties in the phrasing and syntax of Gal 3.16. As noted above, Paul makes his citation (whether allusion or quotation) using the dative (τῷ σπέρματι). And while the Greek dative allows for some ambiguity (in either the NT or LXX), the Hebrew constructions used are syntactically exclusive. The two semantic functions have the possibility of sharing a form in Greek, but in Hebrew there is a formal difference: either a prefixed בְּ or לְ preposition.
Perhaps Paul was merely alluding to the text, rather than quoting it? Morris objects.
Paul’s attention to the exact forms within the text coupled with his using an exact match forGen 13.15 or 17.8 makes too compelling a case for direct quotation. It does not feel loose or divergent enough for a conceptual allusion. The presence of the otherwise rogue καί is even more compelling. In the context of Gal 3.16, the use of καί is too awkward to be anything other than a portion of the quote…
Paul’s language here is not generic enough to include promises from Gen 12.2, 3; 15.5; or 22.18. His phrasing is an exact match for Gen 13.15 and 17.8… So, Paul has quoted directly, and he has done so in a way that excludes Gen 22.18, the only text that seems to have a singular seed clearly in view.
So we have quite the dilemma. There is a text in Genesis that perfectly fits the logic of Paul’s argument, but Paul is specifically quoting a text that does not fit the logic of his argument at all, and in fact refutes it.
Two Promises Made to Abraham?
What if Paul is specifically quoting Gen. 13:15 and 17:8, but making an argument about 22:18? Paul is addressing Judaizers, which were made up of the physical descendants of Abraham who possessed the land of Canaan – that is, the people referred to in Gen. 13:15 and 17:8. And he is arguing with them about a different promise concerning blessing the nations, found in 22:18. The Judaizers did not distinguish those promises, but conflated them. They argued that all of the promises God made to Abraham were made to them. Paul responds by pointing out the difference between the promises. There was, in fact, a promise made to or about them, as we find in 13:15 and 17:8 “and to your offspring (plural).” But this other promise was different. In Genesis 22:18 “It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many, but referring to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ who is Christ.” In other words, Paul’s point is that the promise in 22:18 is different from the promise in 13:15 and 17:8.
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. iv. 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. xxii. 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 bis great descendant, the Messiah.
Note John Glas (particularly note his reference to Gen 22:18 & Gal 3:16).
It must be agreed among Christians that own the authority of the New Testament, that Christ is that seed promised to Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed, Gen. 12:3 and 22:18. comp. Gal 3:16…
Thus far then God’s promise to Abraham was spiritual and eternal; and here lay the object of that faith, whereby Abraham was justified and eternally saved; even as his spiritual seed of all nations are blessed with him in the faith of the same thing, that was then to be found in the promise, but now in the accomplishment of that promise, as is declared in the gospel.
Yet there was something in this promise peculiar to Abraham, and not common to him with all believers; and that was that Christ should come of his seed, Gal. 3:16; Heb 2:16. That this might be evidently fulfilled, it was necessary that Abraham’s seed according to the flesh, of whom Christ was to come, should be preserved distinct from other people, till the promised seed, Christ, should come of them. And of this, that was peculiar to Abraham in the promise of Christ, there came another promise, which we may see Gen. 12:2, 7. I will make of thee a great nation – Unto thy seed will I give this land. See likewise Gen. 13:14, 15 and Gen 15 from ver. 13. It is evident this promise was temporal, as the other is spiritual and eternal, and behoved to be accomplished before that other. And this temporal promise was given as a pledge of the accomplishment of the eternal promise, and carried in it a type or earthly pattern of the heavenly things of that promise: For the land of Canaan, promised as an inheritance to his seed, according to the flesh, was a type of the heavenly inheritance, and so Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob took it to be, Heb 11:8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16. And the seed of Abraham according to the flesh that became a nation, and inherited Canaan’s land is evidently a type of Abraham’s spiritual seed of all nations, the heavenly nation that inherits the heavenly country. And the difference betwixt these two, was typified by Ishmael, the son of the bond woman, and Isaac the son of the free woman, in Abraham’s family, Gal 4:21-31.
Abraham’s Two Seeds
One chapter later in Galatians 4:21-31, Paul distinguishes between two sons of Abraham. Commenting on this passage, Augustine notes
This interpretation of the passage, handed down to us with apostolic authority, shows how we ought to understand the Scriptures of the two covenants—the old and the new… In the earthly city, then, we find two things—its own obvious presence, and its symbolic presentation of the heavenly city. And this was typified in the two sons of Abraham,—Ishmael, the son of Agar the handmaid, being born according to the flesh, while Isaac was born of the free woman Sarah, according to the promise. Both, indeed, were of Abraham’s seed; but the one was begotten by natural law, the other was given by gracious promise. In the one birth, human action is revealed; in the other, a divine kindness comes to light.
Commenting on the parallel passage Romans 9:6-8, Augustine said
And no doubt the great apostle understood perfectly well what he was saying, when he described the two testaments as capable of the allegorical distinction of the bond-woman and the free,—attributing the children of the flesh to the Old, and to the New the children of the promise
Augustine traced this back to the Abrahamic Covenant.
Now it is to be observed that two things are promised to Abraham, the one, that his seed should possess the land of Canaan, which is intimated when it is said, “Go into a land that I will show thee, and I will make of thee a great nation;” but the other far more excellent, not about the carnal but the spiritual seed, through which he is the father, not of the one Israelite nation, but of all nations who follow the footprints of his faith, which was first promised in these words, “And in thee shall all tribes of the earth be blessed.”…
“And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said unto him, Unto thy seed will I give this land.” (Gen 12:7) Nothing is promised here about that seed in which he is made the father of all nations, but only about that by which he is the father of the one Israelite nation; for by this seed that land was possessed…
[T]he people were settled in the land of promise, so that, in the meantime, the first promise made to Abraham began to be fulfilled about the one nation, that is, the Hebrew, and about the land of Canaan; but not as yet the promise about all nations, and the whole wide world, for that was to be fulfilled, not by the observances of the old law, but by the advent of Christ in the flesh, and by the faith of the gospel.
This is precisely Paul’s point.
20 thoughts on “Galatians 3:16”
Interestingly, Isaiah 45:25 also refers the “seed” (translated as singular in LXX) being justified.
It should also be noted that there is a plural form of “seed” (zera) in Hebrew. Although the singular form can function as a plural in some sense – similar to various collective terms in English – it’s not incorrect to pluralize the word (as it would be in English to say “sheeps”). So there is still an argument available to Paul along the lines of ~”God said ‘seed’, singular and not ‘seeds’ plural – *and he could have very well used the plural form if he intended it to mean “all decedents.”* Furthermore, if he meant to communicate, primarily about Abraham’s decedents, there are a number of other words he could have used (e.g., “children”), rather than “seed.”
Pingback: Review: Captive to the Word of God – A Particular Baptist Perspective on Reformed and Covenant Theology | Contrast
Pingback: Some Disagreement with Coxe on Galatians 3:17 | Contrast
Pingback: Is the Abrahamic Covenant Conditional or Unconditional? | Contrast
Pingback: Gal. 3:18 – Generic Law and Promise, or Sinai and Messiah? | Contrast
Pingback: Kline’s Two-Level Fulfillment 184 Years Before Kingdom Prologue | Contrast
Pingback: Heidelcast “I Will Be a God to You and to Your Children” | Contrast
Pingback: A Twitter Exchange on Galatians 3:16 | Contrast
Pingback: Episode #3: Brandon Adams Joins Us to Discuss Baptist Covenant Theology – According to Christ
Pingback: A2C.3 Brandon Adams Joins Us to Discuss Baptist Covenant Theology – According to Christ
Brandon, while I have not seen this in other Presbyterians, it appears that Rutherford also relates Gal. 3:16 as being a promise to Christ as Federal head, in distinction from Christ mystical. TBH, I actually think I like his gloss of this better, as it subordinates all other covenantal promises to Christ, while keeping them distinct. He essentially makes Gal. 3:16 to effectively distinguish the Covenant of Redemption from the Covenant of Grace. Anyways, the fun really begins at point 3 and following.
[Expounding Galatians 3:16.] “There is no reason to expound the Seed Christ, of Mystical Christ and of his Seed.
Because the Seed is he in whom the Nations are blessed, both Jews and Gentiles, Gal. 3:14. And the Seed made a curse for us, Gal. 3:13. But this seed is only Christ, not mystical Christ, head and members: for neither are we blessed in Christ mystical, nor was Christ mystical the Church made a curse for us: Nor did the Church mystical pay a price of satisfaction to offended justice for us, Gal. 3:19.
The word seed seems to have the same signification, Gal. 3:16, 19. Consider then, Gal. 3:19—“Wherefore then serveth the Law? It was added because of transgressions, until the seed come, to whom the promise was made.” Now the seed coming is Christ coming in the flesh to take on our nature. If the seed were taken for Christ mystical, the Apostle must say, “The Law was added because of transgression, until the seed should come: that is, until Christ mystical, his Church should come in the flesh,” which is nonsense.
Whether the promise be of Canaan, and of life eternal thereby holden forth; Or of Christ to come of Abraham, in whom all flesh shall be blessed; or of righteousness by faith, not by the works of the Law; Or of all these coming under the name of the inheritance, the promise is made to many in number like the Stars: For the Lamb and the 144,000 standing with him on Mount Zion, and the thousands of thousands which none can number, Rev. 7:9, are many, and may well be called seeds; And though they be all one in Christ, yet the Apostle must speak too ambiguously, when he said, The promise of righteousness and life is made to the seed, that is, to Christ head and members: for the promise is so made to Christ, especially of life, pardon, righteousness, as the blessings promised are fulfilled & given through, & for Christ as the only meritorious cause, as all grant: which way the promises are in no sense made to believers, who cannot come in as joint satisfiers with Christ, & as joint meritorious procurers with Christ of the blessings promised to us.
The promise is made to the seed coming in the flesh, and assuming our nature in a personal union, Gal. 3:19, as is, by confession of all, expounded. Now this restricts the promise to God incarnate, and must exclude the members.
It runs most connaturally to the Text, and comfortably to us, if neither Christ, Gal. 3:16, be understood as a private man, the Sonne of Mary: nor yet as Christ mystical, as 1 Cor. 12:12, But as Christ, a public person, and Head and Lord-Mediator.
He represents all the Elect: and so the word seed is taken individually. He takes all the promises and the weight of the whole Covenant of Grace and Covenant-promises off the Lord’s hand as the second Adam representing all the Family and House: “Behold I and the children that God hath given me.” As the weight of the Covenant of Works, and of the promises thereof, was upon the first Adam, as he should manage these promises, so should it fare, ill or well, with all his seed. And so as Christ having the Gospel and Covenant-promises committed to him, so should it be with us: and this Tutor cannot miscarry, and so shall it be well with the Pupils and Minors.
Were it no more but that, Joh. 14:19—“Because I live, ye shall live also,” ye shall live by promise, the free promise of life eternal: it’s no small vantage.” (pgs. 312ff.)
Brandon, just to throw in another source, a Brakel, in his chapter on the Covenant of Redemption, mirrors Rutherford’s interpretation—pg. 255 of the Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 1. “Thus, the verb ‘to appoint’ includes the idea of covenant, and by virtue of this covenant he would receive the kingdom.This is expressly stated in Galatians 3:16-17 … Thus, we have here the covenant, the promises, and the fact that these have been made to Christ, as well as the fact that this covenant has been confirmed in Christ. Therefore, there is a covenant between God and Christ.” Both of these authors would see the Abrahamic covenant as dichotomous, but neither of them would see a division between Old & New Covenant, rather between CoG & CoR, with the conclusion being drawn that the promises of the CoG (Gen. 17) are only made to the elect, or believers, because they are mediately promised to Christ in the CoR (Gen. 12).
Pingback: The Sure Mercies of David | Contrast
Pingback: The Sure Mercies of David, by Brandon Adams – According to Christ