‘the law… was added on account of stepping contrary, up until that the seed comes to whom the announced promise [was made], having been arranged and ordered by means of angel/messengers within the hand of a mediator. 20 But a mediator is not one; and God is One’. (Galatians 3 v 19, 20).
Different commentators have given many different explanations with regard to Paul’s reference to a ‘mediator’. But they can be classified into three divisions based on who the ‘mediator’ is understood to be.
In the first centuries after Jesus, commentators understood the word ‘mediator’ to refer to Jesus and indeed, many passages in the New Testament use this word in reference to Jesus. But the word ‘mediator’ does not refer exclusively to Jesus. In addition, the problem with using this interpretation here in Galatians is that the context is obscured or lost, and the force of the Apostle’s argument weakened.
A more probable view is that in verse 20, as in verse 19, the mediator is Moses. This is in full agreement with the context of the passage. In verse 19 ‘the mediator,’ is undoubtedly Moses. However, the problem now is that what was true of Moses as a mediator is also true of every other human mediator.
The third view is that the first half of verse 20 presents a general principle – the characteristic of a mediator as such. Mediation implies a transaction involving at least two parties, but the announced promises to Abraham came from God alone, and have His will as sole source and guarantee. Thus the announced promises are more sure and more elevated. God alone dealt directly with Abraham, without a mediator. The logic is that Covenant law is thus inferior to the announced promises, and that the Sinai Covenant is a transaction of quite a different nature to the promises.
But the difficulty now is to see the relevance of what Paul is saying to the logical argument he is making. What does he intend to illustrate? How does what he states about ‘oneness’ and ‘mediators’ illustrate his point?
Sinai Covenant Law pertained to Jews as God’s chosen ethic group. Covenant law was not given to Gentiles. In the passage in Genesis that Paul refers to, I have pointed out that in the first part of Genesis 22 v 17, the words ‘seed’ and ‘sand’ are intended to be understood in the plural sense – ‘I will increase your seed according to the stars of the heavens and….the sand on the sea shore’. The reference is not to a single seed or grain of sand, (or to one star), but to one body of seed or sand. But then, in the second part of verse 17, as Paul has been arguing, the word ‘seed’ refers to one individual who ‘will take possession of the gate of his enemy’ – this individual seed being the Messiah.
So the words ‘seed’ and ‘sand’ support both plural and singular meanings depending on the context. They are metaphors that either point to,
The Messiah [singular]
Those delivered by means of hearing – both Jews and Gentiles [plural]
Jews, who are physically descended from Abraham [plural]
The point that Paul is making is that God is one and the same in reference to all. His promises pertain to all. He is the one God of Jews, Gentiles and His anointed deliverer. By contrast, Moses was a mediator between God and the Israelites. Moses was not a mediator on behalf of Gentiles. Therefore Moses could not transact anything that would tend to the annulment of that aspect of the promises of God to both Jews and Gentiles. Paul’s purpose is to show that the giving of Covenant Law could not negate the promises announced to Abraham. The true force of the clause may be expressed like this – ‘but the God of Sinai is one and the same as the God of promise’. There is divine unity in spite of the various aspects in which God reveals Himself to successive generations and groups of humanity.
Having made this general statement, Paul will explain over the next nine verses how this relates to Christians, and he begins by considering another potential objection.
No comments:
Post a Comment