Galatians 3:20 Commentary

Navigator

Galatians 3:20

Comments

This verse is considered one of the hardest in the New Testament, because many different alternative ways have been suggested for interpreting the words themselves, but chiefly because of the difficulty of connecting it with the surrounding verses. The correct interpretation of the verse must support Paul’s argument: that the promise is superior to the law; it must not use the word ‘one’ in different senses in the same verse; and it should not introduce irrelevant thoughts unrelated to the immediate context, such as the unity of the Godhead. Paul states a general truth and expects his readers to agree with what is self-evident, that a mediator does not need to mediate when there is only one party but exists to mediate between two parties who need reconciling together. The word ‘one’ is used both times in a purely numerical sense. Paul does not suddenly change the subject to speak of the oneness of the Godhead or any other unrelated theological point. The words relate back to what was said in the previous verse, that the law ‘was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator’, that is, in the hand of Moses. He stood as a mediator between God and the people at their request, so that God did not deal directly with them but through Moses (Exodus 20:19-22; 24:3; 34:32; Deuteronomy 5:5; 5:24-27; 9:25-29)). In this respect the law was inferior to the promise, for the promise had no such mediator, but God spoke personally to Abraham, and gave the promise directly to him. This circumstance was no accident, but intended to add to the prestige of the promise.The verse also picks up on a second contrast with the giving of the law based on what was said in the previous verse: the law was not only given through Moses but was ordained by angels which placed God one stage further removed from direct contact with the people. By contrast with this the Lord appeared without angel or mediator when he gave the promise to Abraham. The role that Paul ascribes to angels in the giving of the law, and his deliberately not mentioning God in connection with the giving of the law, helps us see that the reference to God here relates to the earlier covenant. He is alluding to what he had said before about the inheritance: ‘but God gave it to Abraham by promise’, and further back, ‘the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ’. So also in the next verse where he speaks of ‘the promises of God’. God himself was the actor in this covenant without anyone acting on his behalf. We might paraphrase, ‘Now a mediator does not mediate for one party only, but God who gave the promise is one party only. There was then no created mediator involved in the promise, and therefore the promise is superior to the law, and cannot be abrogated by the law which did have a mediator.’

Application

Questions

But didn’t the covenant of grace also have a mediator? Doesn’t Paul tell us in another place that ‘there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus’ (1 Timothy 2:5)? If so, then isn’t this a fatal objection to the argument that the promise is superior because, unlike the law, there is no mediator involved? The answer to this is that Paul is speaking of a created mediator not a divine mediator. The purpose of the argument is to show that in the promise no one came between God and Abraham. The fact that there is a divine mediator in the covenant of grace is beside the point and unrelated to what he wishes to show. God dealt directly with Abraham in the covenant of grace; he did not deal directly with Israel in the covenant of the law.

Outline

Purpose

Introduction

Galatians 3:20 Commentary and Bible Study