But God Is One

A discourse upon Gal. 3:20

This very simple statement in Paul’s letter to the Galatians is one of the big conundrums to the expositors of the New Testament. One noted commentator says that there are no less than two hundred and fifty different explanations of it in Christian literature. Another writer, also of considerable reputation, gives the number as four hundred and thirty, all of which show varying shades of difference at one or more points of the argument. It is just amazing to us, as simple students of Divine things, to be told that it is possible to have such a wide variety of opinion about the meaning of just four simple words.

All this variety of opinion is due to a different interpretation of some part of the context, and the relationship of that part of the context to the text; for it is owing to their varied understanding of the context, that all their applications of the four words of the text arise.

Some of these Christian writers see in these four words a reference to the Unity of the Godhead, saying that, although there are three Persons, yet those three Persons are but one God. It requires some dexterity in the usage of language (in view of the special nature of the context) to evolve this idea—still, it has been done, and stands on record as an attempt to explain four simple words.

Others interpret these four words in line with Deut. 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one—LORD (Jehovah)." In principle, that interpretation is true. But it is quite another matter whether Paul uses these words in just the same sense and setting that Moses did. Moses used them as a challenge to, and refutation of, "idol" claims, and assured any man disposed to idol worship in Israel that they had only one God, not many (as other nations had)—One God, whose name was Jehovah. Paul’s argument is a totally different one. He is discussing the question of Covenants into which God had entered with certain men, and had made a strong contrast between the Covenant made with Abraham—a Covenant of Promise—with that made with Israel—a Covenant of Law and Morality.

The main point of the question under discussion is the "inheritance" of the promises, and the blessings therein contained (see vv.16 and 18), and whether it was possible to "inherit" them under the Mosaic or Law Covenant. This discussion had arisen because the Galatian brethren were showing signs of turning away from their simple faith in Christ to an observance of the ceremonies and precepts associated with the Law. Certain Judaising teachers had gone out from Jerusalem, and were following Paul around, dropping into the little churches, which he had founded, and telling them: "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." (Acts 15:1). These teachers wanted to settle and incorporate the movement initiated by the Lord, and carried forward by Paul, as one more of the varying systems; systems of thought embodied in Judaism—a broader and more tolerant form of Phariseeism, a blending of the new wine of Nazareth with the older wine of Sinai. They wanted the teachings of the Lord to be applied as a patch to cover the threadbare garments of Mosaism.

This was the burning question which was keenly debated at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6‑29), and when both sides had been heard the question was decided by the resident Apostles and Elders there in favour of the Apostle Paul’s contention that it was not necessary, nor in accord with the voice of Providence, to compel Gentile believers to be circumcised or to be made subject to the Law.

Some of these teachers, even after, and in spite of that unanimous authoritative decision in Jerusalem, continued their subversive work and had found their way into the little churches of Galatia, and were persuading the immature believers there to blend their belief in Jesus with an observance of Mosaic ceremonies. This is the form of misleading teaching which Paul refutes in his letter to his Galatian brethren.

If the "inheritance" which God bestowed upon Abraham, for himself and his then unborn Seed, were to be obtained by Law, then it could not be of Promise; so reasoned Paul. In such a case Christ could not profit anyone, in any way. This was a position that could not admit any blending of the old with the new. It was a case of "all" or "none." It must be "all law" and "no promise." There was no middle position where Promise and Law could amalgamate—in other words, there could be no compromise between Christ and the Law.

As proof of this he shows that the beneficiary and heir of Abraham’s inheritance could not, at one time, be both Sarah’s son and Hagar’s as well. Each woman’s child was exclusively her own, and nothing could be done to make them otherwise. But it was Sarah’s son who could become heir to the inheritance—so Paul shows to the Galatian brethren (and to us) in his allegory in Chapter 4.

Now if God intended the inheritance to stand upon the Word of his Promise, why did God add a Covenant based upon Law to that previous Covenant based upon a Promise? Paul answers that by saying that it was added in order to reveal sin in its true nature, as a thing exceedingly abhorrent to God, and this revelation could be made only by defining which of man’s actions were right and which were wrong according to the Divine immutable standards of morality. Concerning those which were wrong, God had said, "Thou shalt not..." (Exod. 20:1‑17). Concerning those which were right, God (through Moses) had said, "Thou shalt …" (Deut. 6:4‑6), thus laying the "wrong" action under prohibition, and according the "right" action his approval and blessing. God prohibited the wrong action, and defined its performance as disobedience and sin. It was for this purpose that a Covenant based on Law was super‑added to a Covenant based on Promise. But that condition of a Law Covenant superimposed upon a Promise Covenant was not intended to be perpetual and unending. It was added to last "until"—until the True Seed implied in the Promise should come; until the greater "Isaac" should be complete (compare Chapter 3:16 and 29).

In the act of super‑adding that Law Covenant to the original Promise Covenant, "it was ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator." (v.19) The angelic part of its construction is of little moment, but the Mediation part is of great importance in Paul’s argument.

Here the subject is the Law Covenant (vv.19‑20), for of these two Covenants only the Law Covenant was established through a Mediator. On this point Paul says, "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one," (v.20) or, in the better rendering of the Diaglott, "Of one party, however, he is not the Mediator." No mediator is required in a unilateral or one‑sided arrangement, such as that made with Abraham, because Abraham was God’s already‑proven friend.