Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 90

Galatians 3:16, "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made: He saith not, and to seeds as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ."

Want of acquaintance with the genius of the Hebrew language, has led the author of the epistle to a wrong conclusion. When seed signifies posterity, it is never put in the plural number. See Genesis 13:15, "For all the land which thou seest, I will give to thee, and to thy seed for evermore." Immediately after this promise, we read, "And thy seed shall be like the dust of the earth." This relates to the numbers of individuals, and not to a single individual. Again, we find in Genesis 15:5, "And He caused him to go out (of the house) and He spake. Look now up to heaven, and count the stars, if thou canst count them; and He said unto him Thus shall be thy seed."

Ibid. verse 13, "And He spake unto Abraham, Thou shalt surely know that thy seed shall be strangers in a land which is not their's." These examples may suffice, but similar ones may be found in various parts of Scripture. These annotations afford abundant proof that the term seed, in the promise given to Abraham, refers to an entire nation. 

 Galatians is written to a Gentile audience. The term "we ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners" is an exclusive use of the word "we." Paul does not bring the Galatians directly into the conversation until chapter 3.

In the Greek translation of Genesis 13:15, the word is σπέρματί, which is a singular use of the word. The translators of the Septuagint could easily have used a plural, but they did not. One might argue that the plain meaning of the text is revealed in 13:16, where God will make Abraham's seed innumerable. This is true, but not an example of an error on Paul's end.

Tovia Singer likes to make a mountain out of this molehill, stating that the term "seed" in Hebrew is like the word "sheep" in English. The same word is used for singular and plural. It is true that the same word can be used for both singular and plural usage, even though the first tractate of the Mishnah is literally translated "seeds."

A. Lukyn Williams responds to this charge by noting that Rabbinic literature has exactly the same issues as Troki brings up here.

Suppose a friend asked you to consider the full force of the word דמי (literally "bloods") in Genesis 4:10, saying that the plural certainly had a special meaning, either Abel's own blood and that of his descendants, or Abel's blood dashed on the trees and on the stones. Would you tell him that דמי ("bloods") is regularly used in Hebrew to express blood shed by violence, and that his argument of a special meaning in Genesis 4:10 is absurd, and only due to ignorance of the Hebrew language and of Jewish learning? He would reply that it was not his own argument at all, but that of the Mishna in Sanhedrin 4.5 (=T. B. Sanhedrin 37a), and that the author of the Mishna might be credited with a knowledge of Hebrew, and with the ability to quote the Old Testament in a Jewish way. Or again, your friend might turn to Deuteronomy 25:2 and argue that certain lessons were to be learned from רשעה ("wickedness") standing there in the singular and not in the plural. Would you reply with a sneer that this word is always found in the singular, and that therefore it is unscholarly, and the mark only of an ignoramus, to argue that it has a special meaning there? Most assuredly you would not, for, if you had any spark of Hebrew learning, you would know that such an argument derived from the use of the singular is thoroughly Jewish, and that this example is taken from T. B. Kethuboth 37a. No one supposes that the scholars of the Mishna or the Gemara thought that these were the literal and simple meanings of דמי ("blood") or רשעה ("wickedness") in those passages. They only saw in the use of these terms further meanings, not altogether unintentional on God's part. So also with St. Paul. He knew as well as any of us what was the literal and simple meaning of Genesis 22:18, but he wished to call attention to the fact that God has not caused a plural word to be recorded, as for example בנים ("children"), but זרע ("seed"). He means that there is something in the selection of a word used only in the singular (i.e., of human progeny) which, speaking midrashically, not only excludes Ishmael but even suggests that all Abraham's descendants may be summed up in one Person, even the Messiah, in whom all are to be blessed.