Gal 3:20 (Please no Godhead Debate)

[TGBTG]

The thread on "christian perspective of the law" caused me to stumble upon Gal 3:20. (Please, let's not get into a Godhead debate) I was wondering what Paul meant when he said a mediator is between two, but God is one. What is he implying by that statement?

Gal 3 (NIV 2010)
19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

Gal 3 (Amplified Bible)
20 Now a go-between (intermediary) has to do with and implies more than one party [there can be no mediator with just one person]. Yet God is [only] one Person [and He was the sole party in giving that promise to Abraham. But the Law was a contract between two, God and Israel; its validity was dependent on both].

Gal 3 (KJV)
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

[Falla39]

1Tim. 2:5
For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

The thread on "christian perspective of the law" caused me to stumble upon Gal 3:20. (Please, let's not get into a Godhead debate) I was wondering what Paul meant when he said a mediator is between two, but God is one. What is he implying by that statement?

Gal 3 (NIV 2010)
19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

Gal 3 (Amplified Bible)
20 Now a go-between (intermediary) has to do with and implies more than one party [there can be no mediator with just one person]. Yet God is [only] one Person [and He was the sole party in giving that promise to Abraham. But the Law was a contract between two, God and Israel; its validity was dependent on both].

Gal 3 (KJV)
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

The contention is what the affect of the Law is if Abraham was promised salvation before the Law (sorry, I will lose some dispensationalists on this one).

The addendum added 430 years later is the Law. But Abram had a covenant made through a party of one, God to him. The Law was given to angels, to Moses on behalf of an entire nation.

There is much debate about the "descendants" of Abram, since it's actually singular. THe Message says it like this:

You will observe that Scripture, in the careful language of a legal document, does not say "to descendants," referring to everybody in general, but "to your descendant" (the noun, note, is singular), referring to Christ. This is the way I interpret this: A will, earlier ratified by God, is not annulled by an addendum attached 430 years later, thereby negating the promise of the will. No, this addendum, with its instructions and regulations, has nothing to do with the promised inheritance in the will.

After hearing this, Paul thinks like his audience:
What is the point, then, of the law, the attached addendum?

It was a thoughtful addition to the original covenant promises made to Abraham. The purpose of the law was to keep a sinful people in the way of salvation until Christ (the descendant) came, inheriting the promises and distributing them to us. Obviously this law was not a firsthand encounter with God. It was arranged by angelic messengers through a middleman, Moses. But if there is a middleman as there was at Sinai, then the people are not dealing directly with God, are they? But the original promise is the direct blessing of God, received by faith.

If such is the case, is the law, then, an anti-promise, a negation of God's will for us? Not at all. Its purpose was to make obvious to everyone that we are, in ourselves, out of right relationship with God, and therefore to show us the futility of devising some religious system for getting by our own efforts what we can only get by waiting in faith for God to complete his promise. For if any kind of rule-keeping had power to create life in us, we would certainly have gotten it by this time.

Until the time when we were mature enough to respond freely in faith to the living God, we were carefully surrounded and protected by the Mosaic law. The law was like those Greek tutors, with which you are familiar, who escort children to school and protect them from danger or distraction, making sure the children will really get to the place they set out for.

25-27But now you have arrived at your destination: By faith in Christ you are in direct relationship with God. Your baptism in Christ was not just washing you up for a fresh start. It also involved dressing you in an adult faith wardrobe—Christ's life, the fulfillment of God's original promise.

[Socialite]

Get your shouting shoes on:

Also, since you are Christ's family, then you are Abraham's famous "descendant," heirs according to the covenant promises.

[TGBTG]

Ok, maybe I did not phrase the question well. What I'm asking is why did Paul say but God is one after saying a mediator is not a mediator of one?

[Apprehended]

The call of Abraham came first.

Abraham's obedience to the call came next.

The promise followed.

No different today. We are Abraham's seed according to that SAME promise, IF, we remain FAITHFUL. We are still looking for that same city that Abraham sought out for to seek many centuries ago. We are still pilgrims journeying ever onward holding the same promise and vision in our own hearts as did our Father in the Faith.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Ok, maybe I did not phrase the question well. What I'm asking is why did Paul say but God is one after saying a mediator is not a mediator of one?

That was addressed.

It's part of the set-up here.

Abram's promise came straight from God.
Moses delivered the promise as a mediator.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

The call of Abraham came first.

Abraham's obedience to the call came next.

The promise followed.

The Elder Brother, always so quick to skip the grace part and go straight to the obedience part

Cute.


And wrong! Romans 4-6. Read it.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Ok, maybe I did not phrase the question well. What I'm asking is why did Paul say but God is one after saying a mediator is not a mediator of one?

The two parties are Yahweh and humanity.

A mediator in this case had to be both God and Man. A Kinsman Redeemer.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

The two parties are Yahweh and humanity.

A mediator in this case had to be both God and Man. A Kinsman Redeemer.

Hoovie, I like that.

But I don't think it fits the context of Gal 3.