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

[dizerner]

I thought I said that
I could put it this way -- often people misread the actual message but they come out with a message that is still helpful to know God

I think it's wrong to say all simple truths are "misguided but work."

It's more like layers—easy layer is true, hard layer is true. Never contradicts of course, just a matter of depth.

[mikew]

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.

I could have a look at it. I have various differences from other commentators. I later had found that the agitators were non-Christian Jews who wanted to disrupt the faith of the gentiles in Galatia. I'm trying to get ideas written out more formally but I have been stuck modifying the Gal 3:19-20 paper.

[mikew]

I thought I said that
I could put it this way -- often people misread the actual message but they come out with a message that is still helpful to know God

I think it's wrong to say all simple truths are "misguided but work."

It's more like layers—easy layer is true, hard layer is true. Never contradicts of course, just a matter of depth.

I would probably come out with a better rounded observation if I thought about it more.

[dizerner]

I could have a look at it. I have various differences from other commentators. I later had found that the agitators were non-Christian Jews who wanted to disrupt the faith of the gentiles in Galatia. I'm trying to get ideas written out more formally but I have been stuck modifying the Gal 3:19-20 paper.

Could you help me understand Lenski on this I struggle with parts of it:

Christ is “the Seed” of Abraham, to him the promise has been made, i.e., in God’s testament. He is the Heir who has the whole inheritance; and all of us who are joined to him in faith, all of us who are “in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1) are joint heirs with him (Rom. 8:17), who have escaped from all condemnation of law.
The temporary nature of the Mosaic code, as far as it was intended only for the Jewish nation, is evidenced also by the way in which this code was given to the Jews. Paul uses the same word which Stephen employed, but he has the aorist passive participle διαταγείς, “put into force as an ordinance,” while Stephen uses the plural noun διαταγᾶς (see Acts 7:53). The agent in the passive is God; the aorist records the historical fact. God used the angels in his communication of the ordinances to Moses. We must include far more than the two tables of stone, namely also the whole Tabernacle and many other features. Paul and Stephen refer to Deut. 33:2, compare Heb. 2:2.
Just how the angels functioned in the giving of the law to Moses we do not know. Deut. 33:2 speaks of the thunder, lightning, earthquake, trumpet on Sinai. Over against the Gentiles, who had no law that was given in such a glorious way, this mode of giving exalted the law of Moses; the Jews were proud of having such a law. Here, however, the reverse is stressed. The glory remains, it was given “through angels,” but Christ, the Seed, who received the promise is vastly greater than all angels. So also the testament promise is far greater than the ordained law.
Ἐν differs from διά; the angels were God’s servants, his means, but Moses was not Israel’s servant and means but Israel’s representative. Exod. 20:19. This shows us the sense of μεσίτης, which does not here mean Friedenstifter but Uebermittler, not a mediator or an intermediary between two estranged parties who brings them together again but one who merely transmits. In the matter of the law God functioned through angels, yet not with Israel itself but with Israel’s representative who bore all the ordinances to the people.
“Hand” = service. Moses is not mentioned by name. The anarthrous nouns say that he belongs to the class of men who represent others; there is a class of them. In the case of “the Seed,” Christ, this was far different. He inherited the promise of the testament; he was the Mediator in the highest sense of the term, himself the God-man who reconciled the world to God.
20) This helps us to understand the statement which, despite its simplicity, is said to have received about 250 different and divergent interpretations. Now the mediator does not belong to one person; but God is one person. One person acts for himself; it is a multitude such as Israel that needs a mediator in the sense of a representative to receive what the one (God) transmits to all of them. Let us keep to the context; this is said with reference to the transmission of the law to the whole people of Israel by Moses. It is also said in contrast to the way in which the testament and its promise were given. Being one person, God acted for himself and needed no representative when he was giving the law; being a young nation, Israel had a representative when it was receiving the law from God. God did not give the law to each Israelite separately; Moses received it for all of them.
The article in the expression “the mediator” is generic, it generalizes from what is said about “a mediator’s hand” in v. 19. “Is not of one” is the Greek idiom for “does not belong to one.” God is one person and can act for himself. The διά used in v. 19 shows that the angels were not regarded as God’s representatives even also as there was a number of them. The observation is correct that, if Paul had intended to say that a mediator does not belong to one party only but always to two parties, he would have said “two.” But then “mediator” would signify a go-between who brings two separated parties together. The giving of the Mosaic law was not at all a transaction of this kind.
The point is that Paul brushes away the idea that the law is in some way an addition to or an alteration of God’s will and testament to Abraham which was already in full force for hundreds of years. It is only a temporary and a subordinate set of regulations that were intended for the Jewish nation. Hence the great difference in the mode of procedure. When God established his testament with Abraham, God appeared to Abraham (Gen. 17:1–21) in person, and when the testament was executed, God was in Christ (2 Cor. 5:19). The testament was given in person to the one Abraham; correspondingly, the inheritance was paid out to the one Heir, Christ. But the law was intended for the whole nation of Jews, their representative Moses brought it to them. The difference is so great that without perversion of the facts nobody can possibly make this law anything that is even remotely like a late codicil to the testament, to say nothing of substituting the law for the testament and thereby making it void.

R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians and to the Philippians (Columbus, O.: Lutheran Book Concern, 1937), 169–172.

[mikew]

Can you narrow down your question?

Are you talking about the grammatical details specifically?

About Christ being the heir, I think he misses that Paul has only spoken of Abraham's inheritance at this point of the letter.

I find the angels are just mentioned as a tradition element just to introduce the topic of law and mediator. There is no message or lesson to glean from Paul's mention of them. Lenski has followed the idea of the tradition to say that the angels have delivered the law to Moses. All efforts to give meaning to the angels seem too far from the topic of discussion. I accept only that there might be a slight positive statement of the law via the mention of angels.

Concerning the anarthrous issue, Wallace, Galatians 3:19-20, 244 notes:

Again, most would regard μεσίτης in v. 19 as referring to Moses, while in v. 20 it becomes generic. What seems most compelling against this view, however, is that the article is used with the word in v. 20 (after an anarthrous first-mention of the term in 19), suggesting, prima facie, that Paul is speaking anaphorically. In any event, I have not found any authors to be consistent about both "one" and "intermediary." Perhaps that very tension is a clue to Paul's meaning here.

Lenski mentions an option (but to make a different point) I have taken "there is a class of [mediators]" in v20. This form of the Greek is like Winer notes by example "The soldier must be trained to arms." My point is that Paul provides a definition of mediator. Lenski seems to say that Moses is just a typical mediator whereas Jesus is our true mediator. However, as Andrew Das mentions, Jesus is only in view as the Seed, not the mediator here.

I agree with Lenski here

that a mediator does not belong to one party only but always to two parties, he would have said “two."

I could have a look at it. I have various differences from other commentators. I later had found that the agitators were non-Christian Jews who wanted to disrupt the faith of the gentiles in Galatia. I'm trying to get ideas written out more formally but I have been stuck modifying the Gal 3:19-20 paper.

Could you help me understand Lenski on this I struggle with parts of it:

Christ is “the Seed” of Abraham, to him the promise has been made, i.e., in God’s testament. He is the Heir who has the whole inheritance; and all of us who are joined to him in faith, all of us who are “in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1) are joint heirs with him (Rom. 8:17), who have escaped from all condemnation of law.
... But the law was intended for the whole nation of Jews, their representative Moses brought it to them. The difference is so great that without perversion of the facts nobody can possibly make this law anything that is even remotely like a late codicil to the testament, to say nothing of substituting the law for the testament and thereby making it void.

R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians and to the Philippians (Columbus, O.: Lutheran Book Concern, 1937), 169–172.

[dizerner]

When he says,

that a mediator does not belong to one party only but always to two parties, he would have said “two."

Two where?

Does he mean like, "a mediator is not of two, but God is one?" I don't understand that statement at all.

A mediator only needs more than one as far I can understand, and that is why Paul gives one as the baseline, as you can mediate more than two.

[mikew]

When he says,

that a mediator does not belong to one party only but always to two parties, he would have said “two."

Two where?

Does he mean like, "a mediator is not of two, but God is one?" I don't understand that statement at all.

A mediator only needs more than one as far I can understand, and that is why Paul gives one as the baseline, as you can mediate more than two.

He means that Paul would have said "now a mediator is always of two parties, but God is [only] one [party]." The verse has no reason to address three or more parties. Lenski included what he needed to share. I agree that Paul's wording would have been something like Lenski's rewording.

The unusual wording is partly why I say that I eventually recognized this as a riddle.

Next Lenski writes "But then 'mediator' would signify a go-between who brings two separated parties together. The giving of the Mosaic law was not at all a transaction of this kind."

I mention elsewhere that the law (as added due to transgressions) in verse 19 is treated as the product of mediation by Moses. So Paul has treated Moses as a mediator. So Lenski is wrong concerning the wording of the verse. Paul mostly presents this mediator role rhetorically. (Maybe Paul did see Moses as a mediator of the law. I'm not sure. It does not really matter in understanding the verse) Lenski is half right and half wrong in his point

[dizerner]

Thanks for that, that helped.

It seems like Lenski is arguing that a mediator here is more like a representative than an arbitrator?

That Moses is not in that sense "facilitating" both parties keeping their side, but simply being a "link" to God?

I would argue that we literally see Moses "mediating" several times...

[mikew]

Thanks for that, that helped.

It seems like Lenski is arguing that a mediator here is more like a representative than an arbitrator?

That Moses is not in that sense "facilitating" both parties keeping their side, but simply being a "link" to God?

I would argue that we literally see Moses "mediating" several times...

Right. Moses does mediate various situations, so he can be called a mediator at times. But with the law it appears Moses is just an Übermittler/transmitter. Paul first speaks of an unnamed mediator in v19. That allows the mediator to be viewed in one instance as Moses (with the limitations we just discussed) and at the next moment to be a generic mediator. With a generic mediator (especially mentioned in the form of a definition ) in v20, we are not at all finding Moses in v 20.

[dizerner]

Appreciate the help, it's tough to parse all this out.