Galatians 3, the Land, and the Abrahamic Covenant: What Was Paul Thinking? (Pt.1)

One of my readers (Justin) wrote to ask me if I might say a few things about this post by former Dispensationalist Grover Gunn.  I don’t have time or inclination to respond to the whole paper, but I shall at least try to address Justin’s specific problem.  Before commenting let me reproduce Justin’s question:

The Question:

“Hello Paul. Thanks indeed for this. I have a question relating to this. I’m sorry the text I’ve copied below is long. Perhaps when you get a chance you might like to write a separate post on it though.

Grover Gunn http://grovergunn.net/andrew/disp10.htm says dispensationalists say the spiritual seed of Abraham (defined in Gal 3) have no claim to the national land promise of the Abrahamic covenant. But he rejects this. He writes:

“Paul’s point is that the Abrahamic promises were made to Abraham and to his seed (verse 16), that the seed of Abraham is Christ (verse 16) and all who are in Christ (verse 29), and that therefore the promise given to Abraham belongs to all who are in Christ (verse 29).

“In his argumentation, Paul specifically quotes from the Old Testament the phrase “and to thy seed,” the “thy” referring to Abraham (Galatians 3:16; see also Romans 4:13). The Greek phrase in Galatians 3:16 translated “and to thy seed” could have come from only two passages in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek: Genesis 13:15-17 and Genesis 17:8.10 And in both of these Old Testament passages, that which is promised to Abraham’s seed is the land promise.

“Beyond this, every time in the book of Genesis where the phrase “to your seed” is used in the context of a divine promise to give something to somebody, the reference is to the Abrahamic land promise. [Gen 12:7; 13:15; 15:18; 17:8; 24:7; 26:3,4; 28:4,13; 35:12; 48:4]. When Paul was talking about the Old Testament promise that belongs to the Christian, he was referring specifically to the land promise, the one promise that dispensationalists argue that Paul could not have been referring to.”

So Gunn’s point is that the dispensationalist argues that the statement “In thee shall all nations be blessed” (Genesis 12:3; Galatians 3:8), has reference to the spiritual blessings that are now enjoyed by Christians, ie. that the Christian as a seed of Abraham is related only to the unniversal statement that in Abraham all the nations would be blessed. But he says there is no basis for limiting the Christian application to this part of the promise. He says Paul in Gal 3:16 and 29 relates the language of the land promise to the Christian (which Gunn interprets as the Christian’s spiritual rest and heavenly position).

How do we respond to his claim that the land promise aspect includes Christians and not just the idea that all nations will be blessed?

God bless

Justin”

My Response:

First off, let me say that one should always welcome a good criticism (I think it pointless to bother with bad or sloppy criticism).  Gunn’s claim deserves the attention of even a reluctant dispensationalist!

Let me make a couple of initial observations here:

1. If Gunn’s thesis is right then the apostle has redirected promises made to ethnic Israel to the church.  This does not involve merely an expansion of the land promise, otherwise Gunn would believe that the physical boundaries of the land would be extended.  No, this involves a change.  This change, it could be argued, is only from our perspective not from God’s.  But then, who gave us the perspective?  Thus, the dilemma of a disingenuous God raises its ugly head.

2. Gunn’s argument also assumes that there is no prima facie hermeneutical continuity between the two Testaments.  He thinks taking the land promises to Israel to be land promises to Israel is an interpretative and theological mistake.  Why?  Because the NT, in this case Paul, shows us another way and divulges God’s real intention when He made His covenant promises in the OT.  This opens the Bible up to the sort of criticisms I have pinpointed elsewhere.

Gunn writes: “Paul’s point is that the Abrahamic promises were made to Abraham and to his seed (verse 16), that the seed of Abraham is Christ (verse 16) and all who are in Christ (verse 29), and that therefore the promise given to Abraham belongs to all who are in Christ (verse 29).”

There is no real issue here.  As it stands, nothing in this statement or in Paul’s statements threatens to make the land promise to Israel evaporate into the ether of Reformed typology.  If Gunn had written “all the promises given to Abraham belong to all who are in Christ” (which is what he really meant), he would have stepped over the line into territory out of bounds of Paul’s argument.

But Gunn continues: “In his argumentation, Paul specifically quotes from the Old Testament the phrase “and to thy seed,” the “thy” referring to Abraham (Galatians 3:16; see also Romans 4:13). The Greek phrase in Galatians 3:16 translated “and to thy seed” could have come from only two passages in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek: Genesis 13:15-17 and Genesis 17:8.10

These four words (actually one word in the Hebrew) could only have come from two OT passages quoted from the Septuagint (LXX)?  That is quite an assertion.  Where is the proof?  

Gunn seems pretty certain that Paul is quoting the LXX in Galatians 3:16 and 29, but that is highly debatable.  Where does he get this nugget from?  Not from most of the commentaries I checked.   William Hendriksen locates Paul’s quotation in Gen. 22:18 along with 17:7.  Jeffrey Weima, in the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old, (ed. G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson) fails to mention the LXX here and appears to have completely overlooked Gunn’s cast-iron thesis.  Even worse, F. F. Bruce, while citing Gunn’s references alongside several others, explicitly declares that,

“The reference to the land, however, plays no part in the argument of Galatians..” – F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians, NIGNTC, 172.