Translation of the word "Mediator" (Part 1 of 5)

Mediator or Intermediary

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[1]

The KJV is very familiar: there is one mediator of God and of men, a man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5). What does the Greek underlying ‘mediator’ mean? Our case is that Jesus is an ‘intermediary’ for God and that ‘mediator’ is too strong for the relevant texts in today’s English. Our general point is that Jesus is not a mediator in the sense that he is acting for two parties, bringing both to the table, taking on board each side and mediating reconciliation. That Christ has a work of reconciliation is not denied; but this is not part of the point being made with the Greek for ‘mediator’.

Intermediary

The relevant Greek word is mesi,thj and it occurs 6x in the GNT. If we take the KJV version for 1 Tim 2:5 as a start and change ‘mediator’ for ‘intermediary’ following the lead of the NET Bible we get,

For there is one God, and one intermediary of God and of men, a man Christ Jesus… 1 Tim 2:5 (KJV revised)

We have eliminated the ‘between’ preposition because it is not there in the Greek and given the simple genitive ‘of’ which is used. What is arresting in this statement is the expression ‘a man Christ Jesus’ as this is an obvious quotation of ‘the man Moses’:

And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians. Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s servants, and in the sight of the people. Exod 11:3 (KJV)

(Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men[2] which were upon the face of the earth.) Num 12:3 (KJV)

The expression ‘the man Moses’ is distinctive to these verses; it isn’t highlighting Moses as a mediator between Pharaoh and the Egyptians; rather Moses would have stood for Pharaoh to the people—an intermediary. The Hebrew for ‘man’ here is ish rather than adam.

The use of the expression in Num 12:3 is an obvious quotation of Exod 11:3 and we are expected to see a change in Moses’ role because he is now ‘to the children of Israel’ rather than ‘to Egypt’. The context of Num 12:3 is a dispute with Miriam and Aaron; the immediately preceding verse has Miriam and Aaron stating that the Lord had spoken by Moses, thereby acknowledging him as an intermediary for God, but claiming that God had also spoken by them.

Paul’s point in Timothy is that ‘Moses’ is no longer[3] the intermediary for God towards men; there are not two intermediaries but only one, ‘a man Christ Jesus’. Moses was God’s servant, faithful over his whole house, i.e. his steward (Num 12:7)—this is not a mediatorial role but the role of someone who is an intermediary for the master of the house. What Moses will bring to the people are the words of God (Num 12:8). This understanding remains applicable in the case of Christ even though he is more than a steward, being a son (Heb 3:5-6).

Covenant

The concept of an intermediary is one-way, for God toward men; what Christ brings to men is a better covenant:

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the intermediary of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. Heb 8:6 (KJV revised); cf. Heb 9:15; 12:24

The point to notice here, which 1 Tim 2:5 impresses upon us, is that the covenant is brought to men from God.  Men may reject or accept this covenant. For those who accept the covenant, and enter through baptism, Christ has been an intermediary, but then we are brethren with Christ. This is the point in the final ‘mediator’ text in Galatians 3.

The Law

Paul’s argument in Galatians is about the Law:

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of an intermediary. Now the intermediary is not of one, but God is one. Gal 3:19-20 (KJV revised)

It might seem as if the Galatians text is stating the obvious: an intermediary is not of one. This is a very obvious truth. Any reader of Paul would know that an intermediary was not of one, necessarily: an intermediary functions between two. However, stating the obvious might not be what Paul is doing, because he goes on to make the contrast, ‘…but God is one’. Moreover, it might also seem as if Paul is talking about Moses and saying that he, as ‘the intermediary’ of the previous verse, is not ‘of one’. Again, while we can make sense of this reading for the opening clause,[4] it is difficult to see how it fits with the contrasting ‘…but God is one’. We should therefore investigate a little further.

If we are in Christ then we are heirs with him of the Abrahamic promises and this point is made in Hebrews using the ‘of one’ language to pick up on Galatians’ exegesis of Genesis:

For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren… Heb 2:11 (KJV)

The point here is that as brethren we are one with Christ in relation to the Abrahamic promises (Gal 3:28).[5] In this relationship there is no intermediary in respect of God. Hence, Paul says “Now the intermediary is not of one” (o` de. mesi,thj e`no.j ouvk e;stin). The understanding of this clause relies on the reader taking on board what has just been stated to be ‘of one’ in v. 16:

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises spoken. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one (e`no.j), and to thy seed, which is Christ. Gal 3:16 (KJV revised)

In saying that the intermediary is not ‘of one’ Paul is saying that the intermediary role is not part of the ‘of one’ identity.[6] The reason given is ‘but God is one’ and the cogency of this reason lies in the facts that in Christ we are one with the Father and the Son, and that God will be all in all (John 17:21; 1 Cor 15:28).

In v. 16, and by using ‘of one’, Paul refers to a word and the semantics of that word as used in Genesis, namely, ‘seed’; in Genesis, ‘seed’ refers to Christ according to Paul. This is about identity, which is important for the fulfilment of promises (i.e. the Abrahamic covenant); to be heirs of this promise we have to be part of the identity that is Christ. This framework of covenantal promise and our participation in Christ cannot be patterned on Moses as the intermediary of the Law.

A feature of the passage is the use of the genitive to classify and distinguish:

‘they which are of faith’ vv. 7, 9
‘as many as are of the works of the Law’ v. 10
‘the Law is not of faith’ v. 12
‘if the inheritance be of the Law’ v. 17
‘Now the intermediary is not of one’ v. 20

The contrast between what or who is ‘of the Law’ and ‘of faith’ is complemented by saying that the intermediary role is not ‘of one’—Christ (or what will pertain to being one in this passage—the multitudinous seed).[7] Oneness with God comes through Promise and not Law and so the fulfilment of ‘God is one’ will be realized in this way.[8]

Conclusion

Christ was/is an intermediary for God to men in respect of the Abrahamic covenant that God offers to men. In this he is like Moses who was an intermediary for angels to Israel in respect of the Law—a role he held through the Wilderness. For those who become heirs with Christ to the Abrahamic Promises, Christ is not an intermediary and this is because they are brethren, one with Christ and in Christ. This is implied by the doctrine that God is one because God will be all in all.

[1] Other treatments of this topic consulted for this discussion piece were M. Bachmann, Anti-Judaism in Galatians? Exegetical Studies on a Polemical Letter and on Paul’s Theology (trans., R. L. Brawley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 60-84; J. Carter, The Letter to the Galatians (Birmingham: CMPA, 1949), 80-90; N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 157-175; and M. Morris, “One Mediator of God and of Men”, The Testimony (1985): 191-193. Our treatment bears most affinity with that of Morris.

[2] Note also the ‘men’ word here which is used in 1 Tim 2:5 along with the quotation of Exod 11:3/12:3.

[3] The proof of this rhetoric lies in Paul’s point elsewhere that we are ‘no longer under a schoolmaster’ (Gal 3:25).

[4] We might say that, for example, Moses is not ‘of one’ i.e. Christ.

[5] Hence, it is a misuse of this text to argue as feminists do that it means men and women are functionally equal in Christ.

[6] The Greek is ‘the intermediary’ and this use of the definite article is to refer to the intermediary role exemplified in Moses. Paul is making a general point about what it is to be an intermediary, an interpretation found in some translations (e.g. RSV, NASB). It is not a specific reference to Moses himself because Paul uses the present tense ‘is’ rather than the past tense ‘was’; had he been referring to Moses the individual we would have read, ‘Now the mediator was not of one’.

[7] If there is no intermediary role ‘of one’ because God is one, the principle of baptism into Christ is a necessary concomitant (Gal 3:27) to the God-manifestation implied by ‘God is one’ (1 Cor 8:6). In this passage therefore we move from identifying the singular seed which is Christ (v. 16) to recognising the multitudinous seed that is Christ (vv. 27-28) via the reason that the intermediary role does not pertain to what is ‘of one’ because God is one.

[8] It might be felt that we are not one with the Father and that we need someone to intercede for us. This felt need is not the subject of Gal 3:19-20 which is about oneness in the purpose of God—a oneness in Christ with the Father.