Translation of the word "Mediator" (Part 4 of 5)

Mediator

This discussion puts forward two very different and incompatible interpretations of the Greek word translated ‘mediator’. The first article, by A. Perry, argues that the word has the sense of ‘intermediary’. The last article in the set, by P. Wyns, argues for the sense of ‘reconciler’. These two articles also illustrate two different ways of going about the business of interpretation. The two articles in between the first and the last are included for background information.

Introduction

The Greek term translated as ‘mediator’ (mesi,thj) is flexible enough to carry a range of meanings including that of an ‘intermediary’. The difference between an intermediary and a mediator is that whereas the former functions solely as a communicator the latter acts as a reconciler between antagonistic parties. This article argues for Christ as a mediator in the true sense of the word – one who facilitates peace. This is something that neither Moses nor the angels could do (cf. Gal 3:19-20).

One Mediator

Paul is quite clear that there is only one God and one Mediator:

For one is God, one also is mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus, who did give himself a ransom for all—the testimony in its own times. 1 Tim 2:5-6 (YLT)

To phrase Paul negatively, there are not ‘two’ gods neither are there ‘two’ mediators. The existence of other mediators is ruled out by Paul; moreover, the function of a mediator is bound up with an act of expiation – “did give himself a ransom” (v. 6). When Moses attempted to give himself as a ransom he was refused: “Yet now, if you will forgive their sin — but if not, I pray, blot me out of your book which you have written. And the Lord said to Moses, Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot him out of my book” (Exod 32:32-33).

The Man Christ Jesus

The stress in Timothy is on “oneness” (one God/one mediator), the emphasis being on unity (cf. Gal 3:19-20).[1] The man Jesus Christ brings unity between God and man but also between Jew and Gentile, between slaves and free, between male and female.  They all become one in Christ and therefore they are one with God.  For this reason the passage in Timothy highlights that the ransom is for all irrespective of race, gender, ethnic origins or station—whether king or slave. God wants “all men to be saved” (v. 4) and therefore the believer is urged to pray even for (sometimes hostile) kings and authorities (v. 2). The use of the expression the man Jesus Christ is not so much a reflection or contrast with the role of Moses but rather on the messianic prophecy in Zechariah:

Behold, the Man[2] whose name is the Branch! From his place he shall branch out, And he shall build the temple of the Lord; Yes, he shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; So he shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.  (Zech 6:12-13)

The man Jesus Christ would also bring unity to the role of king-priest typified by Melchizedek of Salem (Heb 7:2). Thus, it was not fitting to revile even the Jewish ‘authorities’ who had crucified Jesus (cf. Acts 23:2-5). The role of mediator is essentially that of a ‘peace maker’ and the covenant that Jesus mediated would inaugurate peace and unity for all, thus believers are encouraged to pray for the ‘authorities’.

Prince of Peace

The birth of Christ is heralded as an act of peace and goodwill toward men (Luke 2:14) and Paul states that, “having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:1). Without Christ we are at enmity with God (v. 10)—“….we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son”, and this militates against translating the Greek mesi,thj as ‘intermediary’. Christ was more than a mere messenger (like Moses) who delivered a covenant—he was the means (provided by God) through which that covenant was established.

This does not mean that Jesus sat between two hostile parties and negotiated a peace through a series of concessions (a process of give and take) as an ordinary mediator might do. No, Jesus achieved this by completely surrendering his will to the Father and putting his flesh to death:

…and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. (Col 1:20)

This ‘peace’ encompasses vertical (between God and man) and horizontal relationships (between Jew and Gentile):

For he himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in himself one new man from the two, thus making peace. (Eph 2:14).

It is his unique position as Son of man and Son of God that qualified  Jesus for the role of mediator and that allows us as men (and women) to share (through faith) in the victory of the man Jesus Christ, the man (Zech 6:12) whose name is the branch, the man who is my  fellow (Zech 13:7). On this, A. D. Norris says,

A mediator should not represent one party only: yet God is indisputably One party and not the other. Moses, on the other hand was a mere man, not really standing in-between God and man as to his nature. If there is to be a true and ultimate, saving mediation between God and man, it must come from the one who is truly related to both. Moses was only a man unrelated to God; the angels who gave the message to him were related solely to God and not to man. What is needed is truly someone between: and this Someone was provided in Jesus, when ‘God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the Law [Gal.4.4]. It is for Him, therefore, that it was necessary to wait.[3]

Jesus Christ becomes the mediator of the new covenant “by means of his death” and even Moses (who was not allowed to enter the land) receives the promise of the eternal inheritance through this mediatorship:

And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. (Heb 9:15)

For Paul, there was only one mediator—the man Christ Jesus.  The Law had no true mediator until the arrival of Christ on the scene. Up to that point in time the Law functioned as a barrier between God and man and between Jew and Gentile leading to hostility and alienation. The argument presented by Paul in Galatians 3 emphasizes the inferiority of the Law with regard to the Promise. Although the Law had many ‘mediators’ (intermediaries), such as Moses, the angels, and the high priest, none of them could alleviate the sway of death that the Law held over man.[4] Indeed, none of the ‘mediators’ held the unique qualifications necessary for the task, only the man who was ‘my fellow’.  The Promise delivered reconciliation and peace by an act of mediatorship wrought by the obedient, sinless, death of Christ. The Law brought division but the Promise embodied in the One Seed (Christ) brought the unity desired by the One God.

In Gal 3:19, the plurality of messengers (angels) does not infringe on a monotheistic understanding of the unity of God (God is one) – but it does highlight that no matter how many messengers were sent, or who was perceived as the mediator by the Jews (Moses?)—all of them (without exception) were divine agents. The traffic was headed in one direction—no negotiation was possible. On one side of the equation we have God/angels (God is one) together with Moses delivering the Law, on the other side stand the people who were obliged to keep the Law if they wanted to live. Moses then acted only for one (God is one) and not for the people.

The Law was only good for highlighting the pitiful state of man as a transgressor until the arrival of Christ “to whom the promise was made” (3:19b). The phrase spe,rma w-| evph,ggeltai (seed to whom the promise was made) seems to have passed by most commentators. The Promise incorporates not just the promise to Abraham, but also the promises made to all the patriarchs, including David. Paul is quite specific in establishing the point that there is only One Seed (singular) and that seed is Christ. Therefore, the promise was made to Christ and all others (Abraham, David, etc.) share in the promise through him!

As many as are God’s promises, they are ‘Yes’ in him. (2 Cor 1:20)

Christ becomes the mediator of the Promise. However, because the Promise was given before the Law, and because the confirmation of the Promise concluded the Law, Christ can be said to have acted as mediator for the Law. The Law was actually ‘mediated’ to such an extent that it was abolished by his death (cf. Rom 10:4), something that neither Moses, nor the angels could do.

Here, then, the Promise is no longer the promise to Abraham, but the promise to Christ himself – “I will be his Father, and he shall be my son” (2 Sam 7:14). The son also received another promise, “The Lord has sworn and will not relent: You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4).

Pauline rhetoric has brought us to the perfect mediator between God and man—Jesus Christ. It might be argued that we are expecting too much from Paul’s readers to make the leap from “the seed to whom the promise was made” to the typology of Melchizedek as mediator—not so! Psalm 110:4 is the most extensively quoted Psalm in the New Testament because it was used by Christ himself as a proof text (Mark 12:35–37; 14:62).  The Christian argument was well known to both Jews and Jewish-Christians as Hebrews testifies:

Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? (Heb 7:11).

By using this device, Paul has brought us to the question of mediatorship. Paul now sets out to demonstrate that the Law had no mediator (for transgressions) until the arrival of Christ.

Of course, his opponents would argue that either the Angel of the Presence, or Moses, or the high priest mediated the Law. Paul accords the Law the high status that it had by referring to its “appointment by angels”—the fault lay not with the Law but with human nature—“by the hand of a mediator”—here, Paul is deliberately ambiguous; he could have simply said, “by the hand of Moses”, but he does not. Why is Paul not more specific? Was he being careful not to offend Jewish sensibilities? I believe that Paul was not interested in whom the Jews thought the mediator of the Law was—he was interested in the function of the mediator.

For Paul, none of the usual suggestions functioned as mediators!  The Law had no true mediator until Christ! Whether it was Moses, the high-priest, or even the Angel of the Presence, they were mere intermediaries—communicating the will of God between one party and another party, or acting as a representative of one party to another party. The Jews may well have thought of several as ‘mediators’, but a mediator who mediates for only one side is useless!  Moses spoke for God because the people were afraid of the divine presence (God was not afraid of the people). We cannot speak here of true mediation as a mediator is not only required to act on behalf of two-parties, the mediator must also be qualified to act on behalf of both parties.

The Yahweh angel also spoke for God but did not speak for men because he “would not pardon transgression”. The Law contained no mechanism for mediation. It seems then that the Law is in complete opposition to the Promise. Not so, this is a misunderstanding of the soteriological function of the Law. The Law could never deliver righteousness because human nature made it ineffectual. The Law locked the Jews into a no-win position resulting in death. The Law is actually fair and just, treating everyone the same (Jew and Gentile) and giving everyone their deserved reward. This is equality (of a different kind) so that all (Jew and Gentile) come to the promise by faith in Jesus Christ with the same status—that of needy sinners requiring mediation for transgression.

In contrast to the Law, the Promise was not conditional on the keeping of the Law, but predicated on faith in the promised seed (Christ), who was both the son of Abraham and the Son of God. Therefore the Promise had an in built mechanism for mediation. Unlike the Law, the Promise did not reinforce division between God and man (because of transgression), or between Jew and Gentile (because of exclusivity). The Promise brought unity thus complementing the “oneness” of God. It did this because those who identify with the death of Christ (the mediator) through baptism (Gal 3:27) are (like him) dead to the Law and inheritors of the Promise in him through faith (like Abraham is) and this includes faithful Gentiles as “all nations will be blessed”.

Conclusion

Paul’s argument in Galatians 3 can be summed up as follows:

  • Faith brings the free gift of the Spirit
  • The Gospel is inclusive and prior to the Law
  • The Law is conditional
  • Therefore the Law cannot justify
  • The Law cursed Christ the Law-keeper
  • By his death Christ took the curse away
  • A Seed (singular) was promised
  • The Promise was made to the Seed (Christ)
  • The Promise was confirmed by God in Christ (= the resurrection)
  • The Law was therefore not added to the Promise
  • The Promise is both prior and subsequent to the Law
  • The Law was temporary until the Seed
  • The Law had no mediator until Christ
  • God is one
  • Believers (Jew and Gentile) are now one in Christ
  • Believers died with him (baptism) and become inheritors with him of the promises
  • Faith transforms believers in Christ into the seed of Abraham

Paul employs the Greek ei-j to express the word “One” – if we arrange all the occurrences of this word in the order found in Galatians 3 (vv.16, vv.20 [x2], vv.28) then Paul’s argument becomes crystal clear:

One Seed, mediator not of-One, One God, One in Christ

Paul had neither Moses, nor the angels in mind as mediator—for Paul there was only One Mediator of the Law—Christ, who was mediator not of-One because he mediated between God and men (both Jew and Gentile). Christ abolished the Law through his death and thus interceded for transgressions. All the cultic aspects of the Law foreshadowed Christ (the Law was a teacher), anticipating his act of mediation for sinners “shut-up” under the Law of Sin that brought death. Only Jesus could affect a pardon for sin—through his death the covenant of righteousness by works (Law) was transformed into the covenant of faith—the New Covenant. So, not only did Jesus act as mediator for the Old Covenant: “He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises” (Heb 8:6).

[1] [Ed. AP]: For a study of whether the Shema, (used here in Gal 3:20), could be about ‘unity’—see J. W. Adey, “The Shema of Deut 6:4” Christadelphian EJournal of Biblical Interpretation 2010 Annual (Sunderland: Willow Publications, 2010), 142-55.

[2] Then Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said to them, “Behold the Man!” (John 19:6).

[3] A paraphrase of Gal.3:19-20 in A.D. Norris, Acts and Epistles (London: Aletheia Books, 1989), 204.

[4] “Beware of him and obey his voice; do not provoke him, for he will not pardon your transgressions; for my name is in him” (Exod 23:21).