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

[mikew]

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.

My response is a byproduct of seeing different scholarly views about how the phrase "mediator is not of one" is interpreted.

I remain confused. The topic of Paul's discussion is about whether the law has a role in justification of the followers of Christ. The mediation of Jesus is not even part of that point being made by Paul. And there is no mention by Paul of Abraham having a mediator.

Are you saying that at some point Abraham had a mediator?

[darinhouston]

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.

My response is a byproduct of seeing different scholarly views about how the phrase "mediator is not of one" is interpreted.

I remain confused. The topic of Paul's discussion is about whether the law has a role in justification of the followers of Christ. The mediation of Jesus is not even part of that point being made by Paul. And there is no mention by Paul of Abraham having a mediator.

Are you saying that at some point Abraham had a mediator?

No, I think your confusion will fade if you let go of the Trinity in this passage. Abraham didn't have a mediator. That's precisely the point Paul is making. No mediator was required because God is one person making a covenant alone. Nothing was required of Abraham. It was more of a promise than a contract. That is all that is being said and implied here (other than God being one person).

[mikew]

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.

My response is a byproduct of seeing different scholarly views about how the phrase "mediator is not of one" is interpreted.

I remain confused. The topic of Paul's discussion is about whether the law has a role in justification of the followers of Christ. The mediation of Jesus is not even part of that point being made by Paul. And there is no mention by Paul of Abraham having a mediator.

Are you saying that at some point Abraham had a mediator?

No, I think your confusion will fade if you let go of the Trinity in this passage. Abraham didn't have a mediator. That's precisely the point Paul is making. No mediator was required because God is one person making a covenant alone. Nothing was required of Abraham. It was more of a promise than a contract. That is all that is being said and implied here (other than God being one person).

I was just confused about what he was saying. I understood your quote of one of the interpretations you found. That one suffers the same weaknesses addressed by scholars. if there were already one of the multi-hundred interpretations that finally worked, I wouldn't likely try to just add another view into the mix. ( I'm not sure even anyone has counted unique views into the hundreds but there are various statements of counts. Meyer provided arguments against about 20 views in the late 1800s. It seems that most have a little different spin. Most that I saw failed to recognize the realization of the promise as key to understanding the point in v20.)

I understand you not being convinced by the summary. That is not a surprise. My proposal has not been evaluated so it is hard to predict how it will be viewed across a spectrum of readers. That is perfectly okay for you to decide that some view makes sense but it is premature to deny the validity of the reference to Christ's deity found in v 20. (Now I did not say the trinity is represented but that this was 2/3rds of that being represented.)

I will state again that the verse is not difficult to understand with the proposal I make. It is just that people have not anticipated the shema reflecting the deity of Christ. I'm not sure why that would be an issue for anybody.

[dizerner]

My response is a byproduct of seeing different scholarly views about how the phrase "mediator is not of one" is interpreted.

I remain confused. The topic of Paul's discussion is about whether the law has a role in justification of the followers of Christ. The mediation of Jesus is not even part of that point being made by Paul. And there is no mention by Paul of Abraham having a mediator.

Are you saying that at some point Abraham had a mediator?

I personally don't see a theological problem with "God is one" to resolve.

Trinitarians have always seen the three persons as referred to as one (being). The nation of Israel is at times called "Jacob" and referred to corporately with a singular pronoun, and that no more makes them one person. Unitarians have no real logical ground for their objection of a corporate singular pronoun.

The point of the no mediator for the Abrahamic promise was how it supersedes the Law—it came first and overrides the Law's conditional nature. That of course, does not logically mean that neither Abraham or believers who follow with his faith, therefore have no conditions to keep or no mediator in their New Covenant.

The singular God (Father, Spirit, Son) made a unilateral promise that involves overriding some things the Law dictated: the premise of justification being based on adequate meritorious performance. This singular God did not use a mediator to promise that the Messiah would supersede the Law, thus Jesus would come regardless of future performance.

I see no theological "riddles" or "problems" to solve here.

[dizerner]

If I have at some point misunderstood you, please let me know.

Galatians has always been a particular study of mine.

[mikew]

I personally don't see a theological problem with "God is one" to resolve.

Trinitarians have always seen the three persons as referred to as one (being). The nation of Israel is at times called "Jacob" and referred to corporately with a singular pronoun, and that no more makes them one person. Unitarians have no real logical ground for their objection of a corporate singular pronoun.

The point of the no mediator for the Abrahamic promise was how it supersedes the Law—it came first and overrides the Law's conditional nature. That of course, does not logically mean that neither Abraham or believers who follow with his faith, therefore have no conditions to keep or no mediator in their New Covenant.

The singular God (Father, Spirit, Son) made a unilateral promise that involves overriding some things the Law dictated: the premise of justification being based on adequate meritorious performance. This singular God did not use a mediator to promise that the Messiah would supersede the Law, thus Jesus would come regardless of future performance.

I see no theological "riddles" or "problems" to solve here.

just to be clear ... there is no theological problem that i find raised with Paul saying "but God is one." The riddle is in stating that, in the promise between two parties, that a mediator does not intervene for one party. The issue then is how Paul shares that the promise only has one party.

[mikew]

If I have at some point misunderstood you, please let me know.

Galatians has always been a particular study of mine.

Glad you have been able to pay good attention to the letter.

I don't think it is misunderstanding. The first step is recognizing what I have said about the riddle. The first part of the verse has been a struggle for most of 2000 years. So far it seems the best conclusion regarding the struggle is that the verse was not meant to be a straightforward statement. The alternative I recognized after making sense of the verse is that 20a is a riddle. I have known the basic explanation of the verse since 2018 (subsequent to the outline I updated in 2017).

My deeper study of Galatians began in 2014 which I had decided to do before reading a commentary. Since then various other details have become apparent through a narrowing down of the problems in Galatia.

[dizerner]

If I have at some point misunderstood you, please let me know.

Galatians has always been a particular study of mine.

Glad you have been able to pay good attention to the letter.

I don't think it is misunderstanding. The first step is recognizing what I have said about the riddle. The first part of the verse has been a struggle for most of 2000 years. So far it seems the best conclusion regarding the struggle is that the verse was not meant to be a straightforward statement. The alternative I recognized after making sense of the verse is that 20a is a riddle. I have known the basic explanation of the verse since 2018 (subsequent to the outline I updated in 2017).

My deeper study of Galatians began in 2014 which I had decided to do before reading a commentary. Since then various other details have become apparent through a narrowing down of the problems in Galatia.

I'll reread the OP and see if I can get it, because I still don't.

By the way, I have written a translation (paraphrase) of Galatians, and would really value your feedback on it if you were interested.

I do have many commentaries on it, and I could see how they handle it.

[dizerner]

Can you try rephrasing the seeming contradiction in a different way for me?

[dizerner]

So… if I am reading you correctly you would see the Father as promised all nations blessed to the Son particularly.

“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.”

I think… I could agree with that much.

It would be difficult to exclude Abraham entirely from the parties in the promise, although I understand the metaphor of God "doing it all" with Abraham asleep.

The Law is symbolic and tutoring and not salvific—definitely the end conclusion of Galatians, no doubt.