Gal 3:19-20 Solved by Shema informed by the deity of Christ

[mikew]

Summary Explanation of Gal 3:19-20
by Mike Whitney Feb 13 2023

The Gal 3:19-20 passage has posed quite the challenge over nearly 2000 years since the letter was written. It is possible that certain points earlier in the letter led to confusion about the meaning of Gal 3:20. I hope to share a simple message of the verse 20 while explaining some of the decisions that had helped understand the verse. If this short paragraph does not give sufficient insight into the passage, the long description follows...

The message of Gal. 3:20 can be understood after recognizing that the phrase the "mediator is not of one" presents a riddle to the reader. The wording is connected with the definition of a mediator, but instead of providing a direct statement about two parties in a mediatorship, the converse statement reads that the mediator is not of one. With the consideration that the promise of Gal. 3:16 ostensibly involves two parties, God and Christ, the mediator of one is solved by interpreting the Shema (as appearing in verse 20) in light of the deity of Christ. The use of the Shema (Deut 6:4) indicates that no mediator is possible because the promisor (the Father) and promisee (the Son) are one in the Godhead. Therefore, Paul reaffirms the message of Gal. 3:17–18 by conveying that the Law of Moses can have no salvific (justifying) role in the time of the promise (when the Christ came to us). The era of the Law ended now that Christ has come. This verse presents the earliest written reference to the trinitarian concept of Christ’s equality in the Godhead.

In Galatians 3:19 Paul begins with the question: Why then the Law? He uses the question as a step to show that the Law has no justification role for the Christian. He first shows that the Law’s era ends at the appearance of Christ among humanity. He repeats the idea in v 20 but this time using a riddle. The riddle appears unexpectedly. The recognition of the riddle is necessary for several reasons: first, because of the confusing wording of verse 20 and, next, by process of elimination. The direct readings have not resulted in a consensus of meaning for both phrases of the verse.
The earlier verses set the tone by showing that the Mosaic Law neither replaces the promise nor modifies the promise (vv 17-18). So the Law and promise appear in contrast to each other. Especially important is how Paul shows (v 16) the promise being from God the Father to Christ the Son. Abraham subsequently drops out of the picture after v 18. Since Christ is of the Godhead, the promise exists between persons of the Godhead.
Verse 19 first answers the need for the Law. The answer is rather basic. The Israelites’ disobedience to earlier commands (in the wilderness) required a mediator to provide the Law to mend the relationship between God and the Israelites. The Law’s era ended with the arrival of Christ, to whom the promise was made. In this verse various aspects are emphasized: Christ, the promise, the Law, and mediation. The angels appear only as a popular conception of how the Law came about, but the angels have no other significance here. As to the mediation, we can easily understand there are two parties involved, namely God and Israel. This helps setup the riddle.
Verse 20 says “but the mediator is not of one” and thus counters the possibility of mediation, as done with the Law. This statement presents challenges starting with the Greek but has a form similar to saying: “The soldier must be trained to arms.”1 Paul presents the definition instead of providing a clear message;2 he gives a clue for a riddle.3 Other interpretations may treat this point about the mediator as a direct response, but these do not tend to fully explain why Paul includes the phrase, “but God is one.”
The first reaction to the mention of a mediator is that the promise has two parties, but for some reason, Paul has suggested there is only one party. The verse reinforces this oneness with the words, “but God is one.” This phrase is an abbreviated version of the Shema found in Deut 6:4. When modifying the Shema in light of Christ, the Godhead is one, but now while recognizing the deity of Christ, Christ is a second person in the Godhead. So, the Shema reflects oneness and duality. The promise then only has one party, namely the Godhead, and thus there is no mediator possible between God the Father and Christ the Son.
The direct solution of the riddle indicates that a mediator (with the Law in hand) cannot have a role between God the Father and Christ the Son. No conflict can occur between persons of the Godhead. The ultimate message, then, is that the Law cannot have a salvific role for people under the promise, basically the Christians. Especially recognized in this message is that men do not have to be circumcised as a requirement for justification.
Likely this explanation has been missed due to several issues. People don’t expect a riddle here, nor do they have the deity of Christ in focus when encountering the Shema phrase.4 Other aspects can affect the reading, such as expecting the promise in verse 20 to be focused on Abraham or, historically, of the mediator being viewed as Jesus.
The riddle probably was designed with a touch of amusement rather than making the text difficult, though Paul arguably wrote the message too narrowly to be understood by people in later years. Even yet, the detailed analysis can explain the text while also making its solution appear overly difficult.5 Hopefully after the explanation is shared, a re-reading of the verse can result in a clear recognition, without the complex details in mind.

[mikew]

Let me know if this makes sense. The eventual goal is that you could just read Gal 3:19-20 and recognize the meaning as if you had learned from Paul that the Shema (God is One) was now inclusive of Jesus.

I suspect people will still have some difficulty figuring it out.

If there is something that does not make sense or you have found a weakness in the approach, let me know. Thanks!

[darinhouston]

That was extremely over-complicated in an effort to bring in a trinitarian element where one isn't called for. I don't think it's very complicated even if it's a bit of odd wording. I found this relatively simple explanation, but the NLT (so-called) "translation" interprets it pretty well I think without resort to all that. Basically, Sinai covenant was bilateral and a mediator (or two) was required (angels/Moses) where the Abrahamic covenant (fulfilled in Jesus) was unilateral (no mediator required because only one person was involved).

First, the NLT:

Now a mediator is helpful if more than one party must reach an agreement. But God, who is one, did not use a mediator when he gave his promise to Abraham.

In the previous verse, Paul began to answer the question "why then the law?" In other words, if the law cannot save us from sin, as the Judaizers were teaching (Galatians 2:4), what was the point of it? Paul has said that the law was given to Israel for two reasons, so far. One is that the law defined certain sins and showed us that we are sinful. Two, the law was given for a season, from 430 years after God's promises to Abraham and his offspring, until the arrival of his ultimate offspring, Jesus, sent to receive those promises on our behalf.

Then Paul added that the law was put in place through angels and by an intermediary, from the Greek term mesitou, also translated as "mediator." In other words, the law was a covenant between two parties, God and Israel. God was represented in this agreement by angels. Israel was represented by Moses. The covenant agreement was this: If Israel would keep God's commands, He would bless them. If the people disobeyed, God would curse or punish them. It was a two-way covenant.

God, however, is "one," Paul concludes. He does not require human beings to be involved in order to make a covenant. We call this a unilateral covenant or promise. God gave promises to Abraham and his offspring without demanding anything in return. Abraham simply believed, and God gave. Jesus is "the offspring" who received what was promised to Abraham's descendants. Those who are "in Christ" receive those promises, as well, without need of help from the law.

[mikew]

Darin,

thanks for responding back.

I'm providing the explanation why a rose is beautiful. That is the reason my explanation is complex. I had recognized the riddle without the technical details, being aware of the deity of Christ.(1)But then I had to explain the details and, in the larger paper, explain the problems with the previous views. Partly I am pointing out that my detection of this was natural, not the effort to force a trinitarian concept into it.

The explanation you found does not work well since 3:19-20 speaks of the time the promise is active, not the time it is given. Also, Paul does not seem inclined to speak negatively of the law itself (but only points out the fact of a curse for failure of those obligated to it to obey it). The context is about the lack of continued obligation to the law (at least as a central requirement of covenant). One also has to consider that the verse is not naturally worded to say God acts alone in the promise. That use of "God is one" to mean God acts unilaterally seems similar to being focused on the frame of the Mona Lisa instead of the painting itself.
I think the novelty of the gentiles' learning of the deity of Christ made the riddle easy to recognize in the original reading of the letter.

I'm glad though that you looked up another option to check for a contrast to my summary paper. You also gave me a chance to practice responding to points people might raise.

Notes:
(1) So if I could recognize the use of the Shema as adapted in light of Christ, this indicates that no deep theological study is required to recognize that detail.

[darinhouston]

I couldn't disagree more strongly. The Greek is pretty simple (maybe too simple and requires awkward English). A mediator of one person not is... But God one is. It requires interpretation in any universe, but it is pretty clearly stating in the context that a mediator is irrelevant when you have only one person (involved in something - in this case a covenant) but God is one person (the implication being there is no mediator in a unilateral covenant - this was something he did alone and needed no mediator).

There is simply no context in which a trinitarian perspective is in view in this passage (even if true) - if anything it reinforces the Shema being confirmation that there is one God and he is one person and no other is involved when he makes a unilateral covenant.

Anything else is speculative fancy (to my mind - no offense intended).

[dizerner]

I would just point out that logically, even groups of people can have one mediator in a covenant, the point is not that logically there is only one person present on each side.

For example, if God makes a covenant with Israel, he is making it as if with one party in a group sense. Thus two groups would, under this logic, be considered two ones, and need a mediator as was indeed common.

Of course we have a mediator, indeed only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus—so is Paul mistaken that the Abrahamic covenant no longer needed a mediator? I would say they are not the same covenant, what Abraham was promised unilaterally, was actually a new mediator.

[darinhouston]

I would just point out that logically, even groups of people can have one mediator in a covenant, the point is not that logically there is only one person present on each side.

For example, if God makes a covenant with Israel, he is making it as if with one party in a group sense. Thus two groups would, under this logic, be considered two ones, and need a mediator as was indeed common.

Of course we have a mediator, indeed only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus—so is Paul mistaken that the Abrahamic covenant no longer needed a mediator? I would say they are not the same covenant, what Abraham was promised unilaterally, was actually a new mediator.

Good distinction - it's worth noting that this verse is not about the New Covenant per se - it is specifically referring to the Abrahamic covenant -- the covenant to bring forth the Messiah. That Messiah, Jesus is the mediator for believers according to the New Covenant. Still a conditional covenant requiring a mediator. But, a better mediator and a better covenant.

[mikew]

I couldn't disagree more strongly. The Greek is pretty simple (maybe too simple and requires awkward English). A mediator of one person not is... But God one is. It requires interpretation in any universe, but it is pretty clearly stating in the context that a mediator is irrelevant when you have only one person (involved in something - in this case a covenant) but God is one person (the implication being there is no mediator in a unilateral covenant - this was something he did alone and needed no mediator).

There is simply no context in which a trinitarian perspective is in view in this passage (even if true) - if anything it reinforces the Shema being confirmation that there is one God and he is one person and no other is involved when he makes a unilateral covenant.

Anything else is speculative fancy (to my mind - no offense intended).

I am moving the idea out of speculative fancy into logical analysis. (Ok. Just adding a retort.) If the verse made simple sense (with consistency of ideas), there would not be the debate and the hundreds of interpretations of it.

The meaning of the verses are not settled among the commentators. The Greek in 20a has been interpreted grammatically in three basic ways as described by Baugh (Galatians 3:20 and the Covenant of Redemption, WTC 52),64:

First, the article with the phrase ό δέ μεσίτης can be read in three ways. It could possibly be pronominal as used in narrative, particularly with conjunctive δέ: "Now he is not a mediator of one (party)." While this is grammatically possible, the sense and flow of the sentence and of the same construction in the following clause do not support it. The second and third options are those normally discussed and decided between: the article is either anaphoric, referring back to Moses as mediator in v. 19d ("Now, this mediator, Moses, is not of one"). Or the article is generic, which is used with a noun employed as a specific example illustrating a group or class of referents: "Now, a mediator is not of one.

"

Baugh also mentions the viewing of 20a as elliptical: "Now, a mediator is not (mediator) of one (party).(page 65)"

Your point about not seeing Christ represented in the Shema may be one of the biggest issues that would be raised by others. I argue that the passage does not make clear meaning until Christ is recognized within the Shema. This is a bit like sarcasm. If you don't know what the typical view is on an issue (underlying the sarcastic remark), the sarcastic statement can be taken as the literal point being made. I show that the deity of Christ is presented in Galatians and the reconciling of the deity of Christ with the more obvious deity of the Father provides the background to understand the Shema reference to the deity of Christ. Then there is plenty of reason to show how this is a riddle, but I might share that later.

[mikew]

I would just point out that logically, even groups of people can have one mediator in a covenant, the point is not that logically there is only one person present on each side.

For example, if God makes a covenant with Israel, he is making it as if with one party in a group sense. Thus two groups would, under this logic, be considered two ones, and need a mediator as was indeed common.

Of course we have a mediator, indeed only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus—so is Paul mistaken that the Abrahamic covenant no longer needed a mediator? I would say they are not the same covenant, what Abraham was promised unilaterally, was actually a new mediator.

Thanks for raising your question.

The effort to solve verse 20 has led to people sharing many views of mediation. Some commentators argue with evidence that both side of mediation must be many entities (i.e. people or angels). Then others argue there is sufficient evidence that at least one side can be a single person. Various explanations of the verse spring forth from those explanations of mediation.

The verse itself drops out any concept of Jesus as mediator. There were interpretations of the verse to say that Christ is both mediator and also a party of the promise. Those theories have been mostly rejected now. Andrew Das (Galatians, 2014) 339 notes the problem of Jerome's reading in that Jesus is the seed and therefore is not a mediator in this text.

Paul is not mistaken in any logic here. But some scholars have noted that a promise from God to Abraham could involve a mediator if something went wrong in accomplishing the requirements of the promise -- but that is not logical in light of God's faithfulness. Beyond this last point, the issue is not related to whether Paul elsewhere describes Jesus as a mediator. The point is about the relevance of the law.

[dizerner]

Good distinction - it's worth noting that this verse is not about the New Covenant per se - it is specifically referring to the Abrahamic covenant -- the covenant to bring forth the Messiah. That Messiah, Jesus is the mediator for believers according to the New Covenant. Still a conditional covenant requiring a mediator. But, a better mediator and a better covenant.

Yeah, you completely got my point here.

Mike seemed to have missed it.

I don't think the verse speaks to the Trinity at all besides using the old singular pronoun which is in thousands of places.