See in Reader
Gal 3:20 intermediary ... But God is one #14
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
I don't understand this note. I'll come back to this to figure out what it is I'm having trouble with.
Now an intermediary implies more than one person. But God is one
God gave his promise to Abraham without an intermediary, but he gave the law to Moses with an intermediary. As a result, Paul's readers may have thought that the law somehow made the promise to no effect. Paul is stating what his readers might have thought here, and he will respond to them in the verses that follow.
Wasn't Moses the intermediary between God and Israel?
Yes. And I thought we had a note saying that in 3:19, but I can't find it. So maybe I'll add one. However, I don't think we want people to translated it as "Moses".
by the hand of an intermediary
As God's representative to the people of Israel, the intermediator gave God's law to Israel. This intermediary was probably Moses.
The first sentence in the note above seems to explain v. 19.
The sentence starting with "As a result" -- If Paul's readers thought that the law somehow made the promise to no effect, I don't think it was because of the intermediary, but because the law came second.
I want to look into that last sentence more. Is it true?
I think Gal 3:16 can help us understand the statement in 3:20 that "God is one".
\v 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his descendant. It does not say, "to descendants," referring to many, but instead to only one, "and to your descendant," who is Christ.
What do you think of changing the notes above to these?
The law was ordained through angels
This can be stated in active form. Alternate translation: "God ordained the law with the help of angels" (See: rc://en/ta/man/jit/figs-activepassive)
by the hand of an intermediary
The words "by the hand of" are a metonym for the intermediary himself. An intermediary represents one person to another. Alternate translation: "by a representative" or "by his representative, Moses" (See: rc://en/ta/man/jit/figs-metonymy and rc://en/ta/man/jit/figs-explicit)
Now an intermediary implies more than one person
An intermediary represents one person to another. When God gave the law to the people of Israel, he did not give it directly to them. Instead God had Moses represent him to the people. Alternate translation: "If we say that God gave the law by an intermediary, that means that there was someone else to whom God was giving the law"
But God is one
This statement implies a contrast between the law and the promise. Alternate translation: "But God is one, so he did not need an intermediary when he made his promise" (See: rc://en/ta/man/jit/figs-explicit)
I'm not confident about the UDB's "And God himself made his promises directly to Abraham."
by the hand of an intermediary
The words “by the hand of” are a metonym for the intermediary himself. An intermediary represents one person to another. Paul was probably talking about Moses as the intermediary. Alternate translation: “by a representative” or “by his representative, Moses” (See: rc://en/ta/man/jit/figs-metonymy and rc://en/ta/man/jit/figs-explicit)
It may help to state in the explanation that the intermediary was probably Moses so that it does not just show up in the AT.
Now an intermediary implies more than one person
An intermediary represents one person to another. When God gave the law to the people of Israel, he did not give it directly to them. Instead God had Moses represent him to the people. Alternate translation: “If we say that God gave the law by an intermediary, that means that there was someone else to whom God was giving the law”
But God is one
This statement implies a contrast between the law and the promise. Alternate translation: “But God is one, so he did not need an intermediary when he made his promise” (See: rc://en/ta/man/jit/figs-explicit)
I may be over thinking this, but I'm not sure the point is clear between these two notes. It says God used an intermediary to give the Law because he was giving the law to someone else, that is, the people.
The second note says God is one so he did not need an intermediary when he made a promise. But other verses talk about God made or spoke the promise to Abraham and his descendant. And it talks about people receiving the promise. So, there was more than one person involved. God didn't make the promise to no one, so why didn't God need an intermediary then?
Does it mean that the law given through Moses depended on two parties to make it work or achieve its goal? God had to be faithful to the covenant and the people had to obey the law. But, the promise did not rely on two people for it to come to pass? God alone made it happen.
This is a difficult passage. Maybe we don't need to get into all of this in the notes.
I like your addition to the note for "by the hand of an intermediary".
I was thinking that the reason God did not need an intermediary when he made the promise was because he made it to Abraham's descendant, the Son of God, who is one with God.
But what you wrote about the law depending on two parties and the promise only depending on one makes sense, too. It seems to be similar to the NLT and NIV translations.
NLT: Now a mediator is needed if two people enter into an agreement, but God acted on his own when he made his promise to Abraham.
NIV: A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.
But the ULB used to say "mediator" and we changed it to "intermediary" because it was argued that when the law/covenant was given the intermediator was only representing God to the people, not the people to God.
Now an intermediary implies more than one person
An intermediary represents one person to another. Alternate translation: "If we say that there was a representative, that means that there must have been more than one person."
Would the "But God is one" note make sense now, or would it be better to ignore it and figure that people can translate the sentence even if we don't know why Paul wrote it?
I hesitate to give an AT for the "God is one" part since it is such an important statement from the Law. Paul must be making that reference for a reason. But, the handbook says some languages cannot say it this way. It would be nice if we could tell them to see how they translated Dt 6:4, but most likely they will be working on Galatians before they translate Deuteronomy.
I'm not really sure what the best way to handle the notes is. I'll keep thinking about it.
I split a note in 3:19 into two.
The law was ordained through angels
This can be stated in active form. Alternate translation: "God ordained the law through angels" or "God gave the law through angels" (See: rc://en/ta/man/jit/figs-activepassive)
by the hand of an intermediary
The words "by the hand of" are a metonym for the intermediary himself. An intermediary represents one person to another. Paul was probably talking about Moses, who represented God to the people of Israel. Alternate translation "by an intermediary" or "by his representative, Moses" (See: rc://en/ta/man/jit/figs-metonymy)
I modified a note in 3:20.
Now an intermediary implies more than one person
An intermediary represents one person to another. Alternate translation: “If we say that there was an intermediary, that means that there must have been more than one person.”
intermediary
representative
I didn't bother with a note for "But God is one."
@JohnH Did you want to think more about this?
All your notes look good.
It seems we need something for "But God is one." I'm not sure what to say that would be helpful but not go too far.
What do you think about something like this?
But God is one
Paul uses this statement to contrast the law and the promise. Paul seems to be saying that the promise is superior to the law since God used an intermediary to give the law, but he did not use an intermediary when he made the promise. "God is one" is an important statement from the Old Testament, so it would be best to translate it as Paul wrote it. If this does not make sense in your language, you could translate it as "God is one God."
That looks good. I put it in.