I show that Paul had a High Christology contribution in Gal 3:19-20. The verse only makes sense when the promise from God to Christ cannot have a mediator since a mediator is not of one. Christ and God are one in the godhead. See the summary explanation in the Book of Galatians subheading here.
High Christology in Gal 3:19-20
- Thread starter mikesw
- Start date
Frank Russell
Active Member
Usually people say a passage has high Christology as an excuse to not listen to the verse. i.e. someone other than Paul wrote it.
I'm not aware of anyone writing Paul's letters but himself. Where does that unexpected concept originate? The scholars pretty much recognize Galatians as authentically Paul's writing. It would be hard to imagine that someone else wrote this riddled passage to convey the divinity of Christ. So, the normal option is to say Paul wrote it.
Frank Russell
Active Member
The unexpected concept is common of textual criticism. Thank you for clarifying.
But that does not make your view correct. It has to fit with Paul's style. Do you have anything to support your hypothesis?
Frank Russell
Active Member
It's not my view. It's an observation of what that tends to mean when people say "High Christology"
I'm not sure what that has to do with my point. I don't try to follow the reasoning of other people who say something about High Christology. You are simply making a hypothetical objection.
Sorry. I'm trying to improve my perception of people's responses. The broader scope of discussion on Paul can be a useful insight.
Complete
Active Member
Christology:- the branch of Christian theology relating to the person, nature, and role of Christ.
'Brethren, I speak after the manner of men;
Though it be but a man's covenant,
yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
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.
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ,
the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul,
that it should make the promise of none effect.
For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise:
but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Wherefore then serveth the law?
It was added because of transgressions,
till the seed should come to Whom the promise was made;
and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid:
for if there had been a law given which could have given life,
verily righteousness should have been by the law.
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin,
that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.'
(Gal 3:15-22)
'And God said unto Abraham,
Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad,
and because of thy bondwoman;
in all that Sarah hath said unto thee,
hearken unto her voice;
for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.'
(Gen 21:12)
Hello @mikesw,
I don't understand your OP. Tired mind perhaps. Will you please explain it to me.
Thank you.
In Christ Jesus
Chris
The Law and the Promise
'Brethren, I speak after the manner of men;
Though it be but a man's covenant,
yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
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.
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ,
the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul,
that it should make the promise of none effect.
For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise:
but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Wherefore then serveth the law?
It was added because of transgressions,
till the seed should come to Whom the promise was made;
and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid:
for if there had been a law given which could have given life,
verily righteousness should have been by the law.
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin,
that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.'
(Gal 3:15-22)
'And God said unto Abraham,
Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad,
and because of thy bondwoman;
in all that Sarah hath said unto thee,
hearken unto her voice;
for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.'
(Gen 21:12)
Hello @mikesw,
I don't understand your OP. Tired mind perhaps. Will you please explain it to me.
Thank you.
In Christ Jesus
Chris
Last edited:
Sorry, Chris. I think I shared the more difficult version of it.
Of course the original post is here: #Gal3:19-20
The concept begins as a challenge to modern readers since the riddle form is not what we normally expect.
I may be able to check if I have a simpler version available.
Complete
Active Member
'For if the inheritance be of the law,
it is no more of promise:
but God gave it to Abraham by promise. (Gen. 15)
Wherefore then serveth the law?
It was added because of transgressions,
till the seed should come to whom the promise was made;
and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
(Gal 3:18-20)
Thank you, @mikesw,
In the book, 'Figures of Speech used in the Bible', by Dr E.W. Bullinger, in relation to Galatians 3:20, regarding the words, 'Now a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is one.' It says (quote):-
'Here the A.V. and R.V. both repeat the noun 'mediator', which only introduces confusion. The sense is clear without it.
'Now a mediator is not of one (party);' i.e., there must be two parties where there is a mediator; for he is a person who stands between the two others. Now when God gave the promise to Abram (Gen. 15:9-12) there was only one party; for God caused Abram to fall into a deep sleep, and He Himself (i.e., God) 'was one' - the One who, alone, was thus the one party to this glorious covenant; which is therefore unconditional, and must stand for ever'
'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.
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ,
the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul,
that it should make the promise of none effect.
For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise:
but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions,
till the seed should come to whom the promise was made;
and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.'
(Gal 3:16)
Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
Last edited:
Complete
Active Member
'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.
And this I say, that the covenant,
that was confirmed before of God in Christ,
the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul,
that it should make the promise of none effect.'
(Gal 3:16-17)
Hello again, @mikesw,
Looking at Gal. 3:16-17, in my previous entry, The words 'in Christ' (highlighted above) are not in the original text. which does not take from the truth revealed previously, 'He (God) saith not, 'And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.'
Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one,
And to thy seed, which is Christ.
And this I say, that the covenant,
that was confirmed before of God in Christ,
the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul,
that it should make the promise of none effect.'
(Gal 3:16-17)
Hello again, @mikesw,
Looking at Gal. 3:16-17, in my previous entry, The words 'in Christ' (highlighted above) are not in the original text. which does not take from the truth revealed previously, 'He (God) saith not, 'And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.'
Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
Bullinger reasonably notes that the insertion of mediator a second time is not the best translation. I cannot recall if that repeated word messes up the thought.
Bullinger offers one popularly anticipated explanation of Gal 3:19-20 but it fails to recognize that three parties are involved in the promise of Gal 3:16. There is God as the promise maker and both Abraham and Christ as the promisees. Essentially Christ was promised to be sent so that blessing to the nations should come through him.
In verse 19 the seed came and thus is active as one receiving the promise and that blessing of nations becoming a reality. Two parties then become important in the first century God and Christ.
Paul then distinguishes between Moses's relevance as a mediator between God and Israel by virtue of having the law in hand. But with Christ, Moses and the law have no legal restorative benefit. Paul gives an explanation through a sentence that resembles a riddle -- "but a mediator is not of one." The person reading this should momentarily wonder why Paul says this. The quick sharing of the Shema (Deut 6:4) then reminds the reader that Christ is a party to the promise such that mediation sort of is possible. However, in this case since Christ and the Father are one, a mediator (with the law in hand) cannot fit here. Thus, the Mosaic law has no legal obligation within the inheritance Christians receive.
= = =
Importance of this reading ...
Paul relies on the Galatians' familiarity with the divinity of Christ Jesus here. It is possible that Paul was cautious in sharing this in a way that would infuriate non-Christian Jews who might hear and react to a direct assertion of Jesus' divinity. Their reaction could be persecution of the gentiles. So Paul uses a riddle, which also could be a bit amusing to the Galatians who follow the letter.
If Paul wished to convey that God now directly interacts with humanity through the promise without a mediator, Paul could have stated this directly instead of the odd wording we see here. The odd wording has ended up with too many variations of explanations (but Douglas Moo groups them into three main options). I think these options generally fail in identifying that the essential point of the verses, namely that the Mosaic law has no relational significance between God and the Christians. It is not a source of reconciliation or righteousness.
The "in Christ" indeed is excluded from the most ancient copies. The general ordering of words in the first three lines of this translation is unconventional and confusing but may follow the sequence of the Greek words a bit better. I think that the current translations make the verse clearer without distorting the meaning.
Complete
Active Member
Hello @mikesw,
Thank you for your explanation and further comment. I am not in a position to either agree or disagree with what you have said, for I need to consider it further, but thank you for taking the time to respond as you have.
Within the love of Christ Jesus
our risen and glorified,
Saviour, Lord and head
Chris
Sure. Happy you inquired. I can only share the idea and clarify when possible. I'm glad you are simply undecided on it.
My expectation is that my finding will become popular if it starts making sense as the best option to lots of people. I cannot control that outcome though.
Complete
Active Member
'Wherefore then serveth the law?
It was added because of transgressions,
till the seed should come to Whom the promise was made;
and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.'
(Gal 3:19-20)
Hello @mikesw,
I don't believe that Gal 3:20 'Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 'is intended to be a riddle, but a statement of fact: For the promise, regarding the inheritance, was made by God to Abram, when Abram was in a trance, and so played no part in it's accomplishment. So God was both the One Who made the promise and the Mediator of it. Therefore how sure is that promise!!
Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
That is a bit different but from other theories I have seen. The weakness is that it fails to fit within the topic of the law being addressed. It also does not explain why Paul worded the verses so oddly. He could have simply said that in the promise from God, he spoke directly to Abraham and did not need a mediator. Then he would not even need to include the words "to whom the promise was made" in v 19 or any mention of Christ in v 16.
But I share what I found so that it can be considered by a broad audience and maybe resolve the meaning.
As an important point for consistency, you should not identify a mediator here since the point is that no mediator is possible.
Last edited:
Complete
Active Member
'And the scripture was fulfilled which saith,
Abraham believed God,
and it was imputed unto him for righteousness:
and he was called the Friend of God.'
(Jas 2:23)
Hello @mikesw,
Forgive me, I don't want to be an irritation to you, but the covenants, both Old and New, require Mediators, so why not this one? Is it because the promise being made to Abram, was able to be undertaken without a Mediator, as God spoke one to one with Abram, for he was the friend of God?
In Christ Jesus
Chris
Abraham believed God,
and it was imputed unto him for righteousness:
and he was called the Friend of God.'
(Jas 2:23)
Hello @mikesw,
Forgive me, I don't want to be an irritation to you, but the covenants, both Old and New, require Mediators, so why not this one? Is it because the promise being made to Abram, was able to be undertaken without a Mediator, as God spoke one to one with Abram, for he was the friend of God?
In Christ Jesus
Chris
Your discussion is okay. I just am pointing out that the context ought to be considered closer. But various commentators have proposed that an emphasis on Abraham in these verses despite the shift to Jesus we find here.
Are you able to explain the fit of your interpretation regarding the relevance to the problems in Galatia?
Last edited:
