Galatians 3:20

Galatians 3:20. The natural translation and meaning of this famous cross of interpreters seems to be this: Now a mediator (every mediator, including Moses, Galatians 3:19) [1] is not of one (of one party only, but always presupposes two or more parties; in this case God and the Jewish people); but God is one (either one numerically, i.e., one party, Israel being the other; or one morally and emphatically, i.e., one only in opposition to every plurality or contradiction). But what is the bearing of this sentence upon the argument? We have here evidently an elliptic syllogism, and must supply a link, either the minor proposition or the conclusion. The Apostle, as by an incidental stroke of lightning, suggests a collateral proof to the main idea of this section, namely, that the promise could not be made void by the law, in this sense: ‘The God who gave both the promise and the law is one and the same, consistent in all his dealings, and cannot contradict himself, therefore the law cannot set aside the promise.' Or the Apostle suggests a proof for the inferiority of the law as compared with the promise, in this sense: ‘The law is a covenant between two parties and is conditioned by the obedience of the people; but the promise is the free gift of God alone, and man is merely the recipient; the law may be broken by sinful men, the promise of God is unconditional and irrevocable. These are the two most natural interpretations. I prefer the former because it falls in easier with the preceding Galatians 3:15-19.

[1] The definite article in Greek is used here idiomatically in the generic sense, where the English idiom requires the indefinite article. Comp. “sin” and “death,” as a power, in Romans 5:12, where the Greek has the definite article (as also the German); also John 10:11; 2 Corinthians 12:12 (in Greek).

Excursus on Chapter Galatians 3:20.

The genius of Paul, by the wealth and depth of his ideas, has stimulated more minds and exercised more pens than any other writer. This verse is counted the most difficult passage in the New Testament, and has given rise to about three hundred interpretations (254, according to Drs. Winer and Weigand in 1821; 430, according to Dr. Jowett.) Most of them are of recent origin, and not a few are more obscure than the text. [1]

[1] The latest monograph is by Dr. Gust. Ad. Fricke, of Leipzig: Das exegetische Problem im Briefe Pauli an die Galater. c. iii. 30. Leipzig, 1880, 5a pages. The older monographs are mentioned by Winer, De Wette, Meyer, and Wieseler.

The sentence is simple enough grammatically; the obscurity arises from its brevity and connection. The interpretations differ (1) as to the sense of ‘ the mediator' whether it means all mediators as a class (the generic article), or Moses, or Christ; (2) in what is to be supplied to the genitive of one (ἑ νός) party, thing, seed, people (the Jews only as distinct from the heathen, but God is the one God of both); (3) as to the meaning of ‘God is one (ε ῑ ς) numerically, or moral ly, referring to his monarchy, or sovereignty, or faithfulness and unchangeableness'; (4) in the logical connection with the preceding and succeeding verses; (5) in the relation of the clauses to each other.

Omitting mere arbitrary conjectures and fancies, we will give only the best interpretations.

1. Christ is the mediator between God and men. Comp. 1 Timothy 2:5: ‘There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.' So most of the fathers who cared little for the logical connection, and hence did not feel the difficulty of the passage. Some saw here even a reference to the two natures of Christ, the human (‘of one') and the divine.

2. Moses is the mediator between God and the Jewish people; but God is one, the same who gave the promise to Abraham and the law through Moses. So Theodoret and other fathers. Bengel and Wieseler also refer ‘the mediator' to Moses, but differ in the conclusion. Wieseler supplies the inference: the failure of the mediatorial office of Moses between God and the people is due to the unfaithfulness of men who did not keep the compact.

3. A mediator (generally) is not of one party, but of two; God is one party, the people the other; and the people are bound to observe the law. The last sentence is supplied. So Winer, who sees here a parenthetical remark in favor of the authority of the law.

4. A mediator occupies a subordinate middle position and belongs to both parties who stand over against each other; but God is one party for himself over and above the mediator. The law belongs to the same subordinate sphere as the mediator, but the promise which is given directly by God without a mediator, stands higher. The law was provisional, the promise is permanent So Baur, followed by Farrar (St. Paul, i. 150).

5. A mediator implies a separation of two parties, God and man, but in God, the author of the promise, is perfect unity. An argument for the superiority of the promise. De Wette.

6. Every mediator intervenes between two or more parties; but God is a single person, not a plurality; hence the law, which is a contract between God and Israel, cannot be opposed to the divine promises of the same one God acting directly. Meyer.

7. The idea of a mediator supposes two different parties to be united; but inasmuch as God is strictly one so that there can be no two Gods, or one God of the law and another of the promise it follows that Moses as mediator did not mediate between the God of the promise and the God of the law and so abolish the promise by the law, but he mediated (as is well known) only between God and the people of Israel. Ewald. Similarly Weiss (Bibl. Theol. d. N. T., 3d ed., p. 266).

8. God in the promise stands and acts alone; therefore in the promise a mediator does not appertain to God. Is then the law which involved a mediator opposed to the promises which rested on God alone? God forbid. Ellicott.

9. The sentence is an attack upon the law and the Judaizers. A mediator, and consequently also the law which was given by mediators (angels and Moses), does not appertain to the promise which proceeds from God alone. Holsten (in the Protestanten-Bibel, 1874). Similarly Fricke: Moses and the law belong to the sphere of mediation between two parties at least; the promises were given by God alone to Abraham (Galatians 3:16); consequently the law and the promise do not agree, and cannot be reconciled except in the way pointed out, Galatians 3:21-24.

10. The very idea of mediation supposes a contract to which there are at least two parties. But where there is a contract there must be also conditions, and if these conditions are not observed the whole falls to the ground. The law was such a contingent contract, and as it was not kept, the blessings annexed to it were forfeited. On the other hand, the promise is absolute and unconditioned, it depends upon God alone. He gave it freely, and He will assuredly keep it, no matter what man may do.