Galatians 3:20 Contradictions and Paradoxes

According to Paul, a mediator is someone who helps two sides talk to each other, but in this case, God can do it all by Himself because He is one and doesn’t need anyone else to help. This means God can reach out and make promises to people all on His own.

Contradiction with 1 Corinthians 8:6

Galatians 3:20 speaks of a mediator implying multiple parties, while 1 Corinthians 8:6 emphasizes one God, eliminating the need for mediation.

1 Corinthians 8:6: But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him. [in: or, for]

Contradiction with 1 Timothy 2:5

Galatians 3:20 discusses a mediator of many parties, but 1 Timothy 2:5 highlights there is only one God and one mediator, suggesting a singular relationship.

1 Timothy 2:5: For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Contradiction with James 2:19

Emphasizes the monotheistic belief in one God, contrasting with Galatians 3:20's implication of the need for a mediator in a multiplicity context.

James 2:19: Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Contradiction with Deuteronomy 6:4

Declares the oneness of God, differing from the context of Galatians 3:20 that suggests mediation among multiple parties.

Deuteronomy 6:4: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:

Contradiction with Isaiah 45:5

God declares there is no other God, which contrasts with any implication of complexity in mediation as suggested by Galatians 3:20.

Isaiah 45:5: I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

Paradox #1

Galatians 3:20 can be seen as a theological puzzle because it talks about a mediator, implying that a mediator is involved in matters where there are two parties. This can seem contradictory when considering the nature of God’s promise to Abraham, which was given directly by God without a mediator. It raises questions about the role of the law, given through a mediator, versus the promise given directly by God, potentially creating confusion about how people relate to God’s promises versus the law.

Paradox #2

The potential contradiction might arise from interpreting the concept of intermediaries, which could imply different relationships or hierarchies between humans and the divine. This might lead to confusion about the role of direct communication with God versus relying on intermediaries, possibly conflicting with other teachings about individual faith and direct access to God.