Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 2 (page 7)

Dean Porter

LittleToe,

Well, I think that was in fact the reason I gave the example of Gabriel and Zechariah. The context was the Incense Burning in the Holy of the Temple. The incense burning was the ceremony that pictured the prayers of the peoples asscending to God. So how appropriate for the Angel to appear to him then and there. So I see that as lending scriptural support to this idea.

Zechariah was told that this was his answer to his Prayers or Supplications.

Remember, I was drawing on the reasoning of Professor Barclay and although I haven't read it recently, Alfred Edersheim makes a similar point in his classic work " The Temple".

Now, whether, the Jewish Mythical thinking of angels carrying prayers to God is True or False, the Point is that JEWS THOUGHT THAT WAY. Paul is addressing what they might think.

Also, don't forget that whilst the word Angel might conjure up in your mind the thought of a lower rank heavenly creature - the term (grk. Aggelos) really simply means a MESSENGER.

Do Messengers only ever carry messages ONE-WAY ?

Dean.

LittleToe

Actually I believe that he was predominantly addressing Greeks

Do Messengers only ever carry messages ONE-WAY ?

Carrier pigeons come to mind

I like your reasoning, btw, I'm just playing devil's advocate

Dean Porter

LittleToe,

by all means ,please play Devil's advocate as I would rather know if there was error in my reasoning rather than keep deluding myself.

I hadn't thought of the Greek circumstance of Timothy but as his Jewish mother raised him in the knowledge of the Jewish faith then angelic messengers would be as familiar to him as would be the Greek Messenger Gods like Mercury.

Now, to go back to a scripture you mentioned previously Gal. 3:20. I am glad you mentioned it as it is one I wanted to comment on.

Whilst it mentions Mediators it is not referencing the same situation mentioned in the Timothy verse.

Paul was also well versed in priciples of LAW. He speaks here about the difference in Law between a CONTRACT and a PROMISE.

The LAW COVENANT was a CONTRACT between 2 parties, namely God and the nation of Israel and was agreed and mediated by an agent or mediator ( Moses ). Our own law today recognises that a contract is agreed between 2 parties who have come to

'consensous in idem' and thus bind each other to obligations and who cannot just cancel the effect of the contract.

However, Paul contrasts this arrangement with the PROMISE that Jehovah made to Abraham. This is as is today in Scotland Known as a UNILATERAL OBLIGATION or a GRATUITOUS PROMISE. This means that 1 party simply PROMISES to do something to the benefit of another and thus binds and obligates themself to perform this promise. No agreement is required to be established with the other party and the other party is under no obligation.

So Paul is here contrasting the superiority of the abrahamic covenant over the Law Covenant by this astute definition of Contract Law which is still applicable in civil Law courts today !

So, this scripture and what it says bears little reference to the Mediatorship of Christ in Timothy that we were discussing. Two completely different Legal arrangements.

A last interesting point is the way Barclays translation renders this verse. I thought it was thought provoking if you get my drift.

" This is to say that the validity of the Law depends on TWO PARTIES , one to give it and one to keep it, and on a mediator to bring it from one to the other. But a promise depends on only ONE PERSON, the PERSON who makes it, and when there is only ONE PERSON involved there is no necessity of a mediator. And in this case GOD is that ONE PERSON".

Dean.

LittleToe

So, where do you find the use of the mediator being applied, in the context of this verse?

Which party do you think he is, the party known as "God" or "man"?

Dean Porter

LittleToe,

are you referring to Galations ? If you are, then the whole point of my post was that a mediator is not required with reference to the PROMISE that Paul is speaking about in Galations. There is only ONE party mentioned here , God. Christ is only mentioned in reference to being the Seed which was the result of the promise.

Thus I am saying that this Galations verse bears no relation to the completely different scenario / legal concept that Paul develops in Timothy regarding a mediator.

You ,in an earlier post, tried to link the Galations verse with the Mediator arguement in Timothy; I am trying to show that there is no link in thought as they address different concepts.

So, Christ is neither 'God', who made the promise nor 'man' who recieves the promise in Galations , he is the promise, the 'Seed'. The point being nonetheless that he stands separate, even here, from God and men.

Dean.

Kenneson

If I understand Herk correctly, he maintains that it is the angel who says "Look! I am coming quickly in Rev.22:12. If so than is the angel the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end of verse 13? If you will note: there are quotes beginning at verse 12 and ending after 13 indicating that it is the same speaker, an angel according to you.

What I have read by some about gods (Moses, angels, etc.) and putting Jesus (a god) on the same plane smack of henotheism. And yet you have a problem with Trinitarians?

Kenneson

P.S. Hebrews 2:5-13 indicates that the Son is higher than the angels and Hebrews 3:1-6 shows that Jesus is superior to Moses. So much for them all being equal gods.

LittleToe

Dean:I understand the concept that you are trying to express, but I disagree that you can decouple it from the fact that a mediator is necessary.
In every covenant this is so, as there must be witnesses to the parties involved.

The whole purpose of this was the promised Spirit, that we might be enabled to become sons of God, in the truest sense (by adoption).

You also haven't addressed the comment "but God is one". Where's the need of this, if the teaching you support is so clear? If the necessity for a mediator so needs such a declaritive, surely something must be in question, for Paul to clarify thus?

To come completely clean, this single statement is hard to dogmatic on, and we'll likely just run around in circles. It's so obtuse that any position that either of us take on it will be undefendable.
But I'd like to hear your opinion, anyhow

Dean Porter

LittleToe,

I apologise if I am not making my point clear. I'll try to summarise what I am getting at in this thread.

First , the Timothy scripture. I believe that as the scripture says, Jesus is the Mediator between God and Man. As such I believe this argues against him actually being God as he could not mediate between the two parties if he was in fact one of the parties.

Secondly, the Galations scripture mentions the fact that a mediator is not required. However, I was attempting to explain that the Galations passage is not reffering to the same covenant that the Timothy scripture alludes to.

Galations is referring to the Abrahamic covenent which was in LEGAL TERMS a 'Unilateral Promise'. This did not require a mediator as only one party was obligated under its terms.

Unlike, the Law covenent and the New covenent which does require a mediator due to the fact that two parties are obligated under their terms.

I was merely pointing this out as you alluded to the Galations passage in an earlier thread and seemed to relate it to the Timothy passage.

I hope this makes my reasoning clearer ?

Dean.

LittleToe

Dean:
I follow your line of thought, and in the main I believe it's a valid one.
However it still doesn't get around the language Paul uses. The mediator is one who is "set apart", as was Moses. Christ in this role, holds a unique position of having a foot in both camps AND being the very sacrifice that inaugurates the covenant.
Besides, I believe that the very one who spoke to and made the "unilateral" promise to Abraham was the Word.

On a further note, are you familiar with the aspect of covenant theology that involves the splitting of a sacrifice, before passing through the midst of the remains?

It's late, and I'm tired, so I apologise if this post isn't particularly lucid. I wanted to get something to you before I hit the sack...

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 2

Share this