To what does “God is one” refer?

Explanation:

The Judaizers in Galatia argue that one must do the works of the Mosaic law to be justified before God. Paul counters that this is not the case; rather, one is justified before God through faith in Christ (Galatians 2:16). He explains that God made a promise to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the law (Galatians 3:16–17) and the promise is not annulled by the law. In fact, the law was introduced because of transgression through angels by a mediator (Galatians 3:19). The fact that the law was introduced by a mediator is an important point, because the law facilitated the relationship between God and Israel. That the law facilitated the relationship between God and Israel is why the Judaizers think the Gentile Christians in Galatia should perform the works of the law. The problem that Paul points out in Galatians 3:20 is that a mediator is not one. What Paul means is that mediators are involved in facilitating relationships when there are two or more parties.⁴ Relationships involving two or more parties are sustained when each party upholds their end of the agreement.⁵ But, Paul says, God is one. By saying that God is one, Paul references the famous Shema as found in Deuteronomy 6:4, which says, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.⁶ Since God is one, he can make promises that hold regardless of anyone or anything beyond God himself. This means that God can make a promise to Abraham and his offspring, Jesus Christ, regarding an eternal inheritance, and God’s promise does not require the participation of other agents for the promise to be sustained. This is why the promise to Abraham is superior to the law. The promise to Abraham was a promise made by the God who is one. The law, on the other hand, was enacted by a mediator, which means that it is only sustained as long as both parties uphold their end of the bargain.

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it makes too many assumptions. Paul never says that when there is a mediator, this implies that there are two parties, both of whom need to uphold their end of the bargain. Rather, all he says is that a mediator is not one, but God is one. If we look back to Galatians 3:19, we see that the law was given through the angels by a mediator. It is important to note that Paul puts angels in the plural, meaning more than one. With this in mind, it is far more likely that when Paul says a mediator is not one, he implies that the law was given by a plurality of angels. God, on the other hand, is one. Thus, the fact that the Israelites received the law from a plurality of angels, when God is one, suggests that God was removed from the giving of the law. (This view is mentioned by the authors here cited, but none argues for it.^7,8,9)

Response to counterargument:

There are two problems with this counterargument. First, in Galatians 3:19 Paul says that the law was given through angels by a mediator. Based on the grammar, we can deduce that the mediator Paul has in mind is Moses. (In Galatians 3:19 Paul has ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου, which means by means of a mediator. The phrase ἐν χειρὶ was commonly used in the Septuagint in relation to God giving the law by means of Moses.) He then says that a mediator is not one. Since Paul has just identified Moses as the mediator, we should assume that the fact that a mediator is not one refers to the fact that Moses, not the angels, was involved in the giving of the law. Thus, when Paul says that a mediator is not one, he is thinking of Moses’ role.

Second, even if we were not sure whether the mediator in Galatians 3:20 referred to Moses or the angels, it is not the case that God was uninvolved in the giving of the law.¹⁰ God is one, and God was involved in the giving of the law through angels by Moses (Exodus 20:1–23:19). Thus, Paul cannot mean that because the law involved mediators, and God is one, therefore God was not involved in the giving of the law, because we know from Scripture that the giving of the law was initiated by God. So Paul must have a different meaning in mind when he says that a mediator is not one, and yet God is one.¹¹ Most likely, when Paul says that a mediator is not one, he means that a mediator implies that there are two parties involved in sustaining a relationship. Because there are two parties involved, a mediator is required to negotiate the terms. In the case of the law, the terms come from God’s side only, but still, the mediator is used to explain the terms to the people and elicit agreement. The law of Moses was implemented in this fashion. But Paul says, Remember, God is one. This means that God is superior and can make promises that do not require a mediator for implementation.

Explanation:

Paul says that a meditator implies more than one, but that God is one. His remark echoes the famous Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4, which says that the Lord is one. In the context of Galatians, Paul’s point is that redemption is had when one conforms to the oneness of God.¹² God is one, so there is no one like him, and he does not need a mediator to establish his ultimate plans. Paul says something similar in Romans 3:30. There he discusses the fact that both Jews and Gentiles are justified not by works of the law but by faith in Christ. Paul then asks, Is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? He answers, Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one. His point is that God’s oneness means he can save unilaterally, and we participate in God’s redemption by conforming to his plan.

Counterargument:

It’s not exactly clear that Romans 3:30 has to do with conforming to God’s unilateral salvation plan. Rather, it has to do with the inclusion of the Gentiles as God’s people. There was no question to the church at Rome that God is the God of the Jews, and neither was it a question that he is the God of the Gentiles. Thus, since God is one, he is one God who is God of both.

Response to counterargument:

While it is true that Romans 3:30 has to do with the Jews and Gentiles, the reason Paul says that God is one is the same reason he says it in Galatians 3:20. That is, God has a salvation plan, and we participate in that plan by conforming to it. We can deduce that this is Paul’s point in Romans because after he says that God is one he says that God will justify the circumcised and the uncircumcised by faith. In other words, no one is justified by works of the law, but by God’s decision to make a promise to Abraham and his seed, Jesus Christ. And those who place their faith in Christ can share in that promised inheritance. Thus, the fact that God is one means not only that there is one God but that God is supremely unique. This means that salvation is wrought by the sovereign choice of the one God, while a mediator implies that two or more parties would have to agree to the terms.

The weakness of this view is that it is not clear why God is one has to do with God’s unilateral ability to wrought salvation. Normally when we think of the oneness of God, we think of the fact that God is unique, or that we should not worship other gods, because there is only one God. The notion that Paul uses the oneness of God to argue for God’s unilateral decision to offer salvation is not obvious.

Explanation:

Paul sets up a contrast between the laws given through Moses and the promise given directly to Abraham. When God gave the law, he used a mediator because mediators are used when dealing with a plurality of people.¹³ On the other hand, since Abraham is only one person, God did not need a mediator but made his promise directly to Abraham.¹⁴ Since the law was given through a mediator, it is inferior to God’s promise to Abraham.

Counterargument:

There are two problems with this view. For one, why is God prevented from giving his laws directly to a plurality of people? In other words, why does a plurality of people mean that God needs a mediator? Cannot God give his laws directly or indirectly as he sees fit?¹⁵ Moses was one person, and he was able to relay the laws to a plurality of people.

Second, Paul’s point here is not that Abraham is one, but that God is one. This view takes it that the difference between the giving of the law and the giving of the promise is on the side of the recipients. In the case of the giving of the law there is a plurality, and in the case of the giving of the promise there is only Abraham. This line of thinking implies that the difference between the giving of the law and the promise lies in the fact that Abraham is one. But this is not at all Paul’s point. Paul’s point is not that Abraham is one, but that God is one. The fact that God is one is what matters, not the plurality or singleness of recipients.

The problem with this view is that it fails to see that Paul is making a theological point based on the oneness of God. In fact, it overlooks Paul’s comments about the oneness of God and interprets the passage as though Paul wrote about the oneness of Abraham.