Quote:
Originally Posted by cityonahill
Perhaps. What you propose is convincing and is most likely one of the many reasons (if not the reason) for Asia leaving Paul. There is just not enough information available to come to a conclusion on the matter....So I'm left to wonder.
|
I'm digging still. I think perhaps the nuggets are there. Seems to be a difficult quandry to be in to not have a solid scriptural support one way or another.
I was again reading in Galatians on this topic and I found another mysterious verse:
Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one.
First of all, I puzzle over what this means exactly. I mean, I follow the notion that mediators only do their thing between two parties and I also understand the ancient Hebrew slogan that God is one.
But what does Paul mean by inserting this verse where he does?
Again, in Galatians, we're reviewing Paul's responses to the challenges of the law-keepers among the Gentile believers who were troubled by the circumcision doctrine. And in verse 19 he asks "Why the law?" which is probably not a question most Hebrew believers would be asking. And his answer, essentially, is that the law was designed to help keep the world from getting into too much trouble until the right time. But some reason he adds in that it came through Moses, who was an intermediary.
OK. So Moses was an intermediary and the law came through an intermediary and the law doesn't displace the ancient promise to Abraham but was merely to have a preserving effect.
And then?
"Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one."
I just don't get it.
Moreover, I don't get it in the context of saying "forget about Jerusalem's problematic ones who trouble you." Is he merely saying that now that you are dealing with God directly yourself you need no mediator to bring you the law? I think not. Isn't God still one even if Moses is a mediator? "No need for a mediator because God is one" is quite a good deal different from "no need for a mediator because you are one with God."
This letter is something very solid and very much in contrast to the Jerusalem decrees that he himself once distributed and taught. But will what shall they make of the fact that he opens his letter declaring that he is not trying to please man even though he had submitted to the Temple rituals at the behest of James and the elders in Jerusalem?
Anyway. Still digging!
