Now a mediator is not of one: but God is one.

“What can the heretics say to this? for as, according to them, the expression "the Only True God" excludes the Son from being true God, so here the phrase "God is One," excludes Him from being God in any sense. But if, although the Father is called "One God," the Son is nevertheless God, it is very plain that though the Father is called "Very God," the Son is very God likewise. Now a mediator, says he, is between two parties; of whom then is Christ the Mediator? plainly of God and of men. Observe, he says, that Christ also gave the Law; what therefore it was His to give, it is His to annul.”

“After the Apostle showed, both by the authority of Scripture and by human custom, that the law could not justify, here he raises two doubts and resolves them. The second doubt begins there: "Is the law then against the promises of God," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he raises the doubt; second he resolves it, there: "because of transgressions," etc.; third he explains something set down within the solution, there: "now a mediator," etc. Now there can be a doubt of this sort from what has gone before: if the law could not justify, whether it was altogether useless. And he raises this doubt, saying "What then is the law," etc. — that is, for what was the law useful? And Augustine approves this punctuation more, as is found in the Gloss, than another which had at first seemed better to him, namely that it be so distinguished: "What then?" And afterward it be said: "the law, because of transgressions," etc. A similar doubt is proposed in Romans 3:1, where it is said thus: "What then is more to the Jew," etc. Then, when he says "because of transgressions," he resolves the doubt raised, where he does four things. First he sets forth the usefulness of the law; second, the fruit of the law, there: "until the seed should come," etc.; third, the ministers of the law, there: "ordained through Angels"; fourth, the lordship of the law, there: "in the hand of a mediator." Concerning the first it must be noted that the old law was given on account of four things, corresponding to four things that follow from sin, which Bede enumerates: namely, on account of malice, weakness, concupiscence, and ignorance. The law, then, was given first to repress malice — that is, while, by prohibiting sin and punishing it, men were drawn back from sin — and he touches on this, saying "the law was set because of transgressions," that is, for restraining transgressions; and concerning this it is found in 1 Timothy 1:9: "the law is not set for the just man, but for the unjust." The reason for this can be taken from the Philosopher in Ethics IV. For men who are well disposed are moved of themselves to act well, and paternal admonitions suffice for them, so that they do not need the law; but, as is said in Romans 2:14, "they are a law to themselves, having the work of the law written in their hearts." But men who are badly disposed need to be drawn back from sins by punishments. And therefore, as regards these, the positing of the law was necessary, which has a coercive power. Second, the law was given to manifest weakness. For men presumed about two things: first indeed about knowledge, second about power. And therefore God left men without the teaching of the law, in the time of the law of nature, in which, while they fell into errors, their pride was convicted concerning the defect of knowledge, but there still remained a presumption concerning power. For they said, "one who would fulfill it is not lacking, but one who would command it is lacking," as is said in the Gloss on that word of Exodus 24: "Whatever the Lord shall command, we will do, and we will be obedient." And therefore the law was given, which would produce knowledge of sin — for "through the law comes the knowledge of sin," Romans 3:20. Which law, however, did not give the help of grace for avoiding sins, so that thus man, constituted under the law, might both test his own strength and recognize his own weakness, finding that without grace he could not avoid sin, and thus might more eagerly seek grace. And this cause too can be taken from these words, so that it be said that the law was set for the fulfilling of transgressions — speaking, as it were, in that manner in which the Apostle says in Romans 5:20: "the law entered in that sin might abound"; which is not to be understood causally, but consecutively: because, with the law entering in, sin abounded, and transgressions were multiplied, while concupiscence, not yet healed by grace, burned the more toward that which was forbidden, and the sin became graver, with the transgression of the written law added on. And this God permitted, so that men, recognizing their own imperfection, might seek the grace of a mediator. Whence he says pointedly "it was set," as though placed in due order between the law of nature and the law of grace. Third, the law was given to tame the concupiscence of a wanton people, so that, wearied by various ceremonies, they would turn aside neither to idolatry nor to wantonness. Whence Peter says in Acts 15:10: "this is a burden which neither we," etc. Fourth, to instruct ignorance, the law was given as a figure of the grace to come, according to that word of Hebrews 10:1: "the law having a shadow," etc. Then, when he says "until the seed should come," etc. — that is, Christ, concerning whom God had promised that through him all nations would be blessed. Matthew 11:13: "the law and the prophets were until John," etc. Genesis 12: "in thy seed," etc. Now the ministers of the law are set down when he says "ordained" — that is, given in an orderly way — "through Angels," that is, through the messengers of God, namely Moses and Aaron. Malachi 2:7: "they shall require the law from his mouth," etc. "For the angel of the Lord," etc. Or "through Angels," that is, by the ministry of Angels. Acts 7:35: "you received the law by the disposition of Angels," etc. And it was given through Angels, because the law ought not to be given through the Son, who is greater. Hebrews 2:2: "for if the word spoken through Angels," etc. He says "ordained," because it was given in an orderly manner, namely between the time of the law of nature, by which men were convicted that they could not help themselves, and the time of grace. For before they received grace, they had to be convicted by the law. Now Christ is called the Lord of the law. And therefore he says "in the hand of a mediator," that is, in the power of Christ. Deuteronomy 33:2: "in his right hand a fiery law." 1 Timothy 2:5: "the mediator of God and men," etc. This mediator was signified by Moses, in whose hand the law was given. Deuteronomy 5:5: "I was the intermediary and the one in the middle between God and you," etc. Then, when he says "now a mediator," etc., he explains what he had said, "in the hand of a mediator," which can be explained in three ways. In one way, because a mediator is not of one only, but of two. Whence, since this one is the mediator of God and man, it is necessary that he be God and man. For if he were a mere man, or God only, he would not be a true mediator. If then he is true God, since no one is a mediator of himself, it could seem to someone that besides him there are other gods of whom he is the mediator; and he removes this, saying that this mediator, even though he is not of one only, there are not, on this account, other gods, but "God is one" — because, although he himself is other in person from God the Father, he is nevertheless not other in nature. Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God," etc. Ephesians 4:6: "one God," etc. In a second way, because it could be believed that this one was the mediator of the Jews only; therefore he says: I say that Christ is the mediator, but not of one, namely of the Jews, but he is one of all — that is, sufficient for reconciling all to God, because he himself is God. Romans 3:30: "one God who justified circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith," etc. 2 Corinthians 5:19: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself," etc. In a third way, because he is not the mediator of one people only, namely the Jews, but also of the Gentiles. Ephesians 2:14: "he himself is our peace, who made both one." And this, on the part of the Gentiles, by taking away idolatry, and on the part of the Jews, by taking away the observance of the law. But specially the mediator is the Son, not the Father, not the Holy Spirit; nonetheless, however, God is one.”

“Now a mediator is not a mediator of one,.... A mediator supposes two parties he stands between, and these at a distance from, or disagreeing with each other; where there is but one party, there can be no need of, nor any reason for, a mediator; so Christ is the Mediator between God and men, the daysman, Job 9:33, that lays his hands upon them both; and Moses, he was the mediator between God and the Israelites: but God is one; not in person, for there are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one, in nature and essence; so that though there are three persons, there is but one God, and who is the God both of Jews and Gentiles; who is of one mind concerning them, and has taken them into one and the same covenant, and makes use of one and the same method in the justification of them: but the true sense of the phrase here is, that whereas a mediator supposes two parties at variance, "God is one of the two"; as the Ethiopic version reads the words; he is a party offended, that stands off, and at a distance, which the law given by angels in the hand of a mediator shows; so that that is rather a sign of disagreement and alienation, and consequently that justification is not to be expected by it.”

“A mediator is not a mediator of one - As a mediator, μεσιτης, signifies a middle person, there must necessarily be two parties, between whom he stands, and acts in reference to both, as he is supposed to have the interests of both equally at heart. This verse is allowed to be both obscure and difficult; and it is certain that there is little consent among learned men and critics in their opinions concerning it. Rosenmuller thinks that the opinion of Nosselt is to be preferred to all others. He first translates the words ὁ δε μεσιτης ἑνος ουκ εστιν thus: But he (viz. Moses) is not the mediator of that one race of Abraham, viz. the Christians; for ἑνος relates to the σπερμα ᾡ επηγγελται, the seed that should come, Gal 3:19, of which he said, ὡς εφ' ἑνος, as of one, Gal 3:16. If Paul had written ὁ δε μεσιτης του ἑνος εκεινου ουκ εστι, he is not the mediator of one, no person would have had any doubt that σπερματος, seed, ought to be supplied after ἑνος, of one, Gal 3:19-20. The same mode of speaking Paul uses, Rom 5:17; ὁ δε, but he, ὁ for αυτος, Mat 12:3, Mat 12:11, Mat 12:39, ὁ δε ειπεν, but he said. Though Moses was the Mediator between God and the Israelites, yet he was not the mediator between God and that one seed which was to come; viz. the Gentiles who should believe in Christ. But God is one - He is the one God, who is the Father of the spirits of all flesh; the God of the Gentiles as well as the God of the Jews. That this is St. Paul's meaning is evident from his use of the same words in other places, Ti1 2:5 : ἑις γαρ Θεος, etc., for there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, that is, there is only one God and one mediator for the whole human race; Eph 4:5, Eph 4:6 : One Lord, one faith, one baptism, εἱς Θεος και πατηρ παντων, One God and Father of All. The sense of the whole is: Moses was the mediator of one part of Abraham's seed, viz. the Israelites; but of the other seed, the Gentiles, he was certainly not the mediator; for the mediator of that seed, according to the promise of God, and covenant made with Abraham, is Christ. Though Nosselt has got great credit for this interpretation, it was given in substance long before him by Dr. Whitby, as may be seen in the following words: "But this mediator (Moses) was only the mediator of the Jews, and so was only the mediator of one party, to whom belonged the blessings of Abraham, Gal 3:8, Gal 3:14. But God, who made the promise that in one should all the families of the earth be blessed, Is One; the God of the other party, the Gentiles, as well as of the Jews, επειπερ εἱς ὁ Θεος, seeing he is One God, who will justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith, Rom 3:30." This exposition is so plain, and so well supported by the different scriptures already quoted, that there can be but small, if any, doubt of its propriety. The clause has been translated thus: "Now a mediator supposes two parties, of which God is but one."”

“"Now a mediator cannot be of one (but must be of two parties whom he mediates between); but God is one" (not two: owing to His essential unity not admitting of an intervening party between Him and those to be blessed; but as the ONE Sovereign, His own representative, giving the blessing directly by promise to Abraham, and, in its fulfilment, to Christ, "the Seed," without new condition, and without a mediator such as the law had). The conclusion understood is, Therefore a mediator cannot appertain to God; and consequently, the law, with its inseparable appendage of a mediator, cannot be the normal way of dealing of God, the one, and unchangeable God, who dealt with Abraham by direct promise, as a sovereign, not as one forming a compact with another party, with conditions and a mediator attached thereto. God would bring man into immediate communion with Him, and not have man separated from Him by a mediator that keeps back from access, as Moses and the legal priesthood did (Exo 19:12-13, Exo 19:17, Exo 19:21-24; Heb 12:19-24). The law that thus interposed a mediator and conditions between man and God, was an exceptional state limited to the Jews, and parenthetically preparatory to the Gospel, God's normal mode of dealing, as He dealt with Abraham, namely, face to face directly; by promise and grace, and not conditions; to all nations united by faith in the one seed (Eph 2:14, Eph 2:16, Eph 2:18), and not to one people to the exclusion and severance from the ONE common Father, of all other nations. It is no objection to this view, that the Gospel, too, has a mediator (Ti1 2:5). For Jesus is not a mediator separating the two parties in the covenant of promise or grace, as Moses did, but ONE in both nature and office with both God and man (compare "God in Christ," Gal 3:17): representing the whole universal manhood (Co1 15:22, Co1 15:45, Co1 15:47), and also bearing in Him "all the fulness of the Godhead." Even His mediatorial office is to cease when its purpose of reconciling all things to God shall have been accomplished (Co1 15:24); and God's ONENESS (Zac 14:9), as "all in all," shall be fully manifested. Compare Joh 1:17, where the two mediators--Moses, the severing mediator of legal conditions, and Jesus, the uniting mediator of grace--are contrasted. The Jews began their worship by reciting the Schemah, opening thus, "Jehovah our God is ONE Jehovah"; which words their Rabbis (as JARCHIUS) interpret as teaching not only the unity of God, but the future universality of His Kingdom on earth (Zep 3:9). Paul (Rom 3:30) infers the same truth from the ONENESS of God (compare Eph 4:4-6). He, as being One, unites all believers, without distinction, to Himself (Gal 3:8, Gal 3:16, Gal 3:28; Eph 1:10; Eph 2:14; compare Heb 2:11) in direct communion. The unity of God involves the unity of the people of God, and also His dealing directly without intervention of a mediator.”

“Because this situation had made the Galatians turn to the law, so as to confess one God without the mystery, as if it were inimical to the law for Christ to be called God, he says: "An arbiter (that is, a mediator) is not of one but of course of two. You however, having turned to the law, have rejected the arbiter. God, however, is one." By saying this, he bears witness that he is not preaching Christ in such a way as to make him another God or confess two but that there is one God, as the law itself attests.”