172
διαταγεὶς δι ἀγγέλων, ἐν χειρὶ µεσίτου: 20. ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ
ἔστιν, ὁ δὲ Θεὸς εἷς ἐστίν.
21. Ὁ οὖν νόμος κατὰ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν
τοῦ Θεοῦ]; μὴ γένοιτο. εἰ γὰρ ἐδόθη νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζωοποιῆσαι, 1τον Θεον NACDEKLP ; Qeov FG; om. Β.
the promulgation of the Law: God's intercourse with Moses through the angel of His presence was evidently a common topic in Jewish schools of theology. In Acts vii. 53 the fact is recorded by way of enhancing the authority of the Law; in Heb. ii. 2 it is contrasted with God's reve- lation in His Son: here it is contrasted with God’s more familiar intercourse with Abraham. He drew nigh to God, and was called the friend of God: but at Sinai the people stood far off, and the Law was made known through the double intervention of angels and of a human mediator.—év χειρὶ μεσίτον. The term
σίτης was applied with the utmost atitude to any intermediate between two parties, whether it was the one great Mediator between God and man or any of the subordinate servants of God through whom He makes known His will to men or exercises His authority. The phrase ἐν χειρί defines its meaning here, for it implies that Moses was put in charge of the promulgation of the Law (cf. Numb. iv. 28, 37 in LXX), and was God's appointed agent for the purpose. This interposition of a mediator between God and the people was a marked feature of distinction between the Sinaitic and the patriarchal dispensation.
Ver. 20. The rendering of the first clause in our versions, Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, reduces it to an unmeaning truism. The author is not treating of mediators in the abstract, but writes of Moses the mediator of the Law that he was not mediator of one chosen family ; and so contrasts God's revelation through him with the previous covenant. That covenant had been made with Abra- ham in person, and embraced a single chosen family (cf. ver. 16) restricted from generation to generation by continuous selection of God's elect until it centred in Christ Himself. Not so the covenant of Sinai: it was addressed, not to one family (ἑνὸς, sc. σπέρματος), but to many families of Abraham's children after the flesh. This change of recipients involved a vital change in the revelation also- whereas the promise had quickened faith by an appeal to gratitude and love, the Law used threats of wrath and punishment to deter corrupt and carnal natures from indulging the vices of the flesh.
The stress laid on the unity of the chosen seed in ver. 16 and the ellipsis of σπέρματα with τὰ πάντα in ver. 22 justi us in understanding σπέρματος here wi ἑνός.--ὁ δὲ Θεὸς els ἐστιν. The recur- rence of the same phrase εἷς ὁ Θεός with a corresponding force in Rom. iii. 30 suggests its true force and connection with the context in this place. The Apostle is there urging the real harmony of God's dealings with Jews and Gentiles, however different the method employed for justifying the two severally; and argues that it is nevertheless one and the same God who will justify both. So here after differentiating the revelation made through Moses from that to Abra- ham, he is careful to add that the God of Sinai is one with the God of Abraham, however distinct might be the two revela- tions. The true force of the clause may be expressed as follows, but the God (sc. the God of Sinai) is one with the God of
ise. The twofold revelation of the name of God to Moses as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and as the eternal God I am that I am, suggests the same thought of the divine unity in spite of the various aspects in which God reveals Himself to successive genera- tions of men.