Galatians 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Perhaps no passage in Scripture has received so many interpretations as this — more than two hundred and fifty at least. Who does not see in this an illustration of the honour done to the Word of God? On what other book would the same amount of time, and mental labour, and literary attainment, have been expended for the illustration of an occasional remark? The causes of the diversity of sentiment are various Some suppose the apostle to speak in his own person; others consider either the whole verse, or at any rate the first part of it, as the words of an objector. Some by the "mediator" understand any mediator; others, Moses; others, Christ. Some understand "one" as a substantive; others as an adjective which requires a substantive to be supplied to bring out the sense, and that substantive they have supplied very variously: some, of one party; others, of one seed; others, of one law; others, of one race; others, of one thing, etc. Some understand the assertion "is not of one" of the person; ethers, of the condition, others, of the design and business of the mediator. Some consider the last member of the sentence, "God is one," as philosophical or dogmatic; others as historical, looking to the times of Abraham, or of the giving of the law at Sinai. Luther's notion is quite singular — "God offendeth no man, and therefore needeth no mediator; but we offend God, and therefore we need a mediator." The mode of connecting the passage has also given origin to diversity of view respecting 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 reads literally thus: "Now a" — or the — "mediator is not of one." 2. The words must contain in them some statement which lays a foundation for the conclusion deduced in the next verse, that the law is not against the promises of God. However plausible in other respects an interpretation may be, it cannot be the right one if it does not bring out a sense which 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 to the subject before him; and those in which they are considered as a particular statement, referring exclusively and directly to the mediator spoken of in preceding verse. Those who are agreed in thinking the words are a general proposition, differ widely in the way in which they understand it, and in which they make it bear on the apostle's argument. One class consider 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 intimate that the parties between whom he mediates are not at one." This mode of interpretation labours under great difficulties. For, first, it is not true that the use of a mediator necessarily supposes disagreement. There are causes of the use of a mediator besides this. God continues to deal with those with whom He is reconciled through a mediator. And secondly, it breaks the connection between the two clauses of the verse, which obviously is very intimate. Another 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 the apostle as arguing thus: "No man can be a mediator who is not appointed by both parties. There were two parties in the original agreement — God and the spiritual seed of Abraham. Moses was indeed appointed by God; but God was one of the parties, so that whatever such a mediator could 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 better covenant, God alone was concerned. A third class consider the words as equivalent to — "a mediator is not peculiar to this one dispensation. There have been various mediators, but there is but one God. The mediator may be changed, but God continues the same." But the words do not naturally convey this meaning. The mediator of this verse is evidently the same as the mediator referred to in the preceding verse. The question still remains, then, Who is the mediator thus referred to? Some consider the mediator by whose hands the law was given, as Jesus Christ. But Christ is nowhere in Scripture 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," if not the expression elsewhere used, "the one Mediator between God and men." This still further narrows the field of discussion. We have now only — taking for granted that the mediator is Moses — to seek for a meaning which the words of the apostle will bear, and which will support his conclusion, that the law is not, cannot be, against the promises of God. If the first part of the verse be read interrogatively, and if the word one be understood, not numerically, but morally, as signifying uniform and unchangeable, always self-consistent, a plain meaning may be deduced from the words, in harmony with the context. "The law was given by the hands of Moses as a mediator. But was he not the mediator of Him who is one and the same for ever? Now God, who appointed Moses mediator, is one and the same — unchanged, unchangeable. Can, then, the law be against the promises of God?" (John Brown, D. D.) Parallel Verses KJV: Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. |
    |