two . (Gal 3:28-29) The conclusion evidently goes back to the beginning, “You are all one in Christ Jesus…then you are Abraham’s offspring, and heirs according to the promise.”
3. In Gal 3:20, therefore, the unit in the center must refer to the same unit. When, in the intervening argument, intended to refute the Jews’ claim that their covenant was the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, St. Paul insists on disunity or related disunity with a mediator, the presumption is strong that that it is to the Mosaic pact and its mediator that it denies the unity that it claims to fulfill in the Christian pact and its mediator.
II. The steps of the argument.
1. (Gal 3:16) One is the “seed” of Abraham, to whom the “blessing” that extends to all nations is promised.
two. (Gal 3:20. The mediator must be a “mediator of one” (seed), including all Jews and Gentiles! and making everything one; and “the God (of both) is One.”
3. (verses 28-29) But “you are all one in Christ Jesus, and therefore the offspring of Abraham and heirs according to the promise.”
III.The conclusion of the argument.
1. Moses, the mediator of the Jewish covenant, is not a “mediator of one” (Gal 3.20), uniting them all in one, making them all one seed, one body, one with God, one with others.
two.But Christ is exactly such a mediator.
(1) He is the only seed in whom all find their unity.
(two) In Him God and man are made one, because He is both in one Person.
(3) In Him all men and all nations, the most diverse h become one. (1Co 12:13; Eph 1:10 ).
3. Christ, as Mediator, is Mediator of one in the full sense of making all one. “God”, the author of the promise, “is one” God of all, Jew and Gentile (Gal 3:20).
4. “You are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28), being all “baptized into Christ”, having “put on Christ” (Gal 3:27), “and if you belong to Christ, you will also be descendants and heirs of Abraham”, etc. ( Galatians 3:29). (Major Forbes.)
The law was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator; but a mediator is not a mediator of one person, but of two—here, in the case under consideration, the mediator was Moses, and the two parties between whom stood God and the Israelites. But God is not a Mediator between two parties: He is one; in his promise God acts alone and independently—here, in the case at hand, in the promise given to Abraham by God, there was no mediator, it was absolute and unconditional, without the intervention of a third party. The covenant that God made with the Israelites at Sinai was given through a mediator, namely Moses; but the covenant that God made with Abraham that in him and in his seed all nations should be blessed, was given without a mediator. One was conditional, and by law or contract; the other was unconditional, and by promise. (PJ Gloag, DD)
The mediation and unity of God
Perhaps no passage in Scripture has received as many interpretations as this one, more than two hundred and fifty at least. Who does not see in this an illustration of the honor that is done to the Word of God? In what other book would the same amount of time, mental labor, and literary achievement have been spent to illustrate an occasional observation? The causes of the diversity of feelings are several. Some suppose that the apostle speaks in his own person; others regard the entire verse, or at least the first part, as the words of an objector. Some by “mediator” understand any mediator; others, Moses; others, Christ. Some understand “one” as a noun; others as an adjective that requires a noun to be supplied to make sense, and that noun has been supplied in many different ways: some, on the one hand; others, from a single seed; others, of a single law; others, of a race; others, of one thing, etc. Some understand the person’s statement “it is not one’s own”; ethers, of the condition, others, of the design and business of the mediator. Some regard the last member of the sentence, “God is one,” as philosophical or dogmatic; others as historical, looking at the times of Abraham, or the giving of the law at Sinai. Luther’s notion is quite unique: “God offends no one, and therefore needs no mediator; but we offend God, and so we need a mediator.” The way the passage is connected has also given rise to the diversity of views regarding its meaning. Now, in any discussion of this passage, two things must be kept in mind:
1. The repetition of the word “mediator” is not in the original. The text literally reads thus: “Now a”–or the–“mediator is not one’s.”
two. The words must contain some statement that establishes a foundation for the conclusion drawn in the following verse, that the law is not contrary to the promises of God. However plausible an interpretation may be in other respects, it cannot be the correct one if it does not produce a sense that justifies the apostle’s inference. The almost innumerable opinions of interpreters may be reduced to two classes: those in which the words, “Now a mediator is not of one,” are understood as a general proposition, true of all mediators, and applied by the apostle in the course of his reasoning on the subject before him; and those in which they are considered as a particular declaration, referring exclusively and directly to the mediator mentioned in the previous verse. Those who agree that the words are a general proposition differ widely in how they understand it and how they make it relate to the apostle’s argument. One class regards the words as equivalent to: “Now a mediator does not belong to a state of unity or agreement. The use of a mediator seems to imply that the parties between whom he mediates are not in agreement”. This mode of interpretation works under great difficulties. Because, first of all, it is not true that the use of a mediator necessarily implies disagreement. There are causes of using a mediator besides this. God continues to deal with those with whom he is reconciled through a mediator. And secondly, he breaks the connection between the two clauses of the verse, which is obviously very intimate. Other class consider the words as equivalent to-“a mediator does not belong exclusively to one party; a mediator belongs to both parties;” and they consider that the apostle argues thus: “No one can be a mediator if he is not appointed by both parties. There were two parties to the original agreement: God and the spiritual seed of Abraham. Moses was certainly appointed by God; but God was one of the parties, so that whatever such a mediator might do could not affect the interests of the other party.” This explanation is not satisfactory, because in the appointment of the Great Mediator of the best covenant, only God was interested. A third class regards the words as equivalent to: “a mediator is not peculiar to this one dispensation. There have been various mediators, but there is only one God. The mediator can be changed, but God remains the same. But words do not naturally convey this meaning. The mediator of this verse is evidently the same one mentioned in the previous verse. The question remains, then, who is the mediator referred to? Some consider the mediator by whose hands the law was given, as Jesus Christ. But nowhere in Scripture is Christ called the mediator of the law; and surely if the reference had been to Him, the language in verse 19 would not have been “a mediator,” but “the mediator,” were it not for the expression used elsewhere, “the a Mediator between God and men.” This further narrows the field of discussion. Now we have only – assuming that the mediator is Moses – to search for a meaning which the words of the apostle will have, and which will support his conclusion, that the law is not, cannot be, contrary to the promises of God. If the first part of the verse is read in an interrogative form, and if the word one it is understood, not numerically, but morally, in the sense of uniform and unchanging, always self-consistent, a clear meaning can be deduced from the words, in harmony with the context. “The law was given by the hands of Moses as mediator. But was he not the mediator of Him who is one and the same for ever? Now, God, who appointed Moses as mediator, is one and the same: immutable, immutable. Can, then, the law be against the promises of God? (John Brown, DD)
The mediator
God is one. He alone is to be considered in this transaction. Everything is his work. He not only mediates with us, but also for us; He is on our side; He participates with us. It is his hand alone that achieves the result; the whole depends on Him, and is consummated by Him.
YO. the alleged parties. God; men. These two disagree.
II. The mediator. One that can take both sides of the case. Necessary that he receive power and deputation from both, and that each party adhere to his determination. Instead of God, and yet man’s substitute and guarantee. Where will such a person be found?
III. God provides the mediator. He acts for man as well as for himself.
1. God originates the plan.
two. God removes all obstruction.
3. God secures man’s cooperation.
Four. God alone should be worshiped. (R. W. Hamilton, DD)
Explanation of the verse
Some two or three hundred interpretations start from the misconception that the meaning is: “A mediator is a mediator, not of one party, but of two parties, and God is one of those two parties.” This is, I firmly believe, quite wrong. The structure of the Greek excludes it. The word “one” clearly does not point to the number, but to the quality; and then the meaning will be: “A mediator has nothing to do with what one is, whatever the number of individuals that constitute that unit, but God is eminently one, one with himself, as in essence, as in will… one in His one method of dealing with all.” (Canon T.S. Evans, DD)
St. Paul’s view of the unity of God
There is more than one sense in which unity can be understood. It can mean “one and no more”, namely, numerical unit; or, one and the same for all and always; or union of many in a collective unit. We can say that there is one king, which means that there are not two or more; or, there is a king, which means that everyone has the same king, who is the same for all his subjects; and we can say that the kingdom is one, which means that it is not divided, that it is a collective unit in the monarchy. Therefore, it is important to observe in what sense Saint Paul uses the word εἶς when in any passage he speaks of unity, and especially when he refers to the unity of God. Now it is evident that he has a habit of using the word in senses other than numerical. The following are…