Ver. 5. This emphatic statement as to the unity of the Godhead is suggested by the singular σωτῆρος just preceding. The εἷς neither affirms nor denies any- thing as to the complexity of the nature of the Godhead; it has no bearing on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity; it simply is intended to emphasise the uniqueness of the relations of God to man. The use of one, with this inten- tion, is well illustrated by Eph. iv. 4-6, ἐν σῶμα, κ.τ.λ. The current thought of the time was conscious of many σωτῆρες. In contrast to these, St. Paul emphasises the uniqueness of the σωτήρ and θεός worshipped by Christians. The contrast is exactly parallel to that in 1 Cor. viii. 6, εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοί, καὶ κύριοι πολλοί" ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ . . . καὶ εἷς κύριος Ino. Xp. The question as to the
38:
Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς, 6. ὃ
t> / ς Ν , δ t , ἀντίλυτρον υπερ παντων, TO μαρτυριον
33, 1 Cor. i. 6, fi. 1, 2 Thess. i, 10, 2 Tim. i. 8. Gf. 1 Pet. 11. 8.
10m. τὸ μαρτύριον A; καὶ papt. ἢ δ, Ambrst., datum est; 6733, 80, 115 ins. οὗ. His verbis nec praeponendum est cuius, nec postponendum con-
temporibus suis.
Jirmatum est; haec enim consulto a patribus omissa sunt”’.
_ of vg. reads confirmatum est.]
mutual relations of the Persons of the Godhead had not arisen among Chris- tians, and was not present to the writer’s mind. Indeed if it had been we could not regard the epistle as a portion of revealed theology. Revealed theology is unconscious. The prima facie distinc- tion here drawn between εἷς θεός and εἷς μεσίτης would have been impossible in a sub-apostolic orthodox writer.
Again, the oneness of God has a bear- ing on the practical question of man’s salvation. It is possible for all men to be saved, because over them there are not many Gods that can exercise pos- sibly conflicting will-power towards them, but one only. See also Rom. ili. 20. One Godhead stands over against one humanity; and the Infinite and the finite can enter into relations one with the other, since they are linked by a μεσίτης who is both God and man. It is noteworthy that μεσίτης θεοῦ κ. ἀνθρώπων is applied to the archangel Michael in The Test. of the Twelve Patriarchs, Dan. vi. 2.
ἄνθρωπος explains how Christ Jesus -could be a mediator. He can only be an adequate mediator whose sympathy with, and understanding of, both parties is cognisable by, and patent to, both. Now, although God’s love for man is boundless, yet without the revelation of it by Christ it would not be certainly patent to man; not to add that one of two contending parties cannot be the mediator of the differences (Gal. iii. 20). See also Rom. v. 15. Again, we must note that ἄνθρωπος (himself man, R.V., not the. man, A.V.) in this emphatic position suggests that the verity of our Lord’s manhood was in danger of being ignored or forgotten.
Ver. 6. 6 δοὺς ἑαυτόν: The Evangel- ists record our Lord’s own declarations that His death was a spontaneous and voluntary sacrifice on His part, Matt. xx. 28= Mark x. 45, δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν «αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν. Ο/. John -x. 18; and St. Paul affirms it, Gal. i. 4,