Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregon
This seems to make sense as to why Paul inserted this phrase in the letter to the Galatians. The Law has nothing to do with the promise since the promise was made by one….God…and the law that was given by the mediator was not even involved in that promise given long before the law showed up.
|
That's an interesting gloss.
Essentially, this would correspond with the reading of Hebrews 6:16-18
Quote:
Hbr 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, since he could swear by none greater, he sware by himself,
Hbr 6:14 saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
Hbr 6:15 And thus, having patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
Hbr 6:16 For men swear by the greater: and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation.
Hbr 6:17 Wherein God, being minded to show more abundantly unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed with an oath;
Hbr 6:18 that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us:
|
But basically the Amplified interpretation only further highlights the distinction between a unilateral agreement and a bilateral agreement.
No problem there.
Still, I'm concerned about
:
#1, that the mediator issue is brought up at all at this point in Paul's overall discourse
and
#2, that Paul seems to be invoking Deut. 6:4 rather than merely making a distinction between types of contracts
Paul references this theme of "the promise came long before the law and the law can't and doesn't supersede the promise" in Romans as well, I believe. And it's no small point, of course. The law keepers essentially annul the value of the promise by attaching their hopes to the law. And, especially in a context that you're reaching out to Gentiles, this is vital, because the promise was that
all the nations of the earth would be blessed, not just the one nation of Israel. I'm proud to be grafted in!
In other words, I might rewrite the Amplified version as "There's no obligation for us to perform under the law because God acted unilaterally under the promise." And that's a brilliant, transcendent and nourishing reading, no doubt. Don't go getting circumcised, you spiritual descendants of Abraham! It's a marvelous thought, fully supported elsewhere, and certainly not at all an impossible interpretation.
But it still seems odd to me that Paul would have phrased this notion in terms that appear to invoke the unity of the Godhead and by reference to the absence of a mediator.
And not to make too big a point of it but, um, some would have a hard time with a translation that says that "God is one person."
Just digging, Oregon.
Thank you for your help.
Do you see what I mean?