The Evangelical Universalist Forum

What is Jesus' role as mediator?

Theology Biblical Theology
#1

I was just thinking about 1 Timothy 2.5 and 1 Jn 2.1 and a question or two came to mind.
For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus. ASV 1 Tim 2.5
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 1 Jn 2.1 (ESV):

mediator plural noun mediators
a person who attempts to make people involved in a conflict come to an agreement; a go-between.
arbitrator arbiter negotiator conciliator peacemaker go-between middleman intermediary moderator intervenor intercessor broker honest broker liaison officer umpire referee adjudicator judge
(Google dictionary)

Or

advocate plural noun advocates
a person who publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy.
a person who pleads on someone else’s behalf.
champion upholder supporter backer promoter proponent exponent spokesman spokeswoman spokesperson campaigner fighter crusader propagandist apostle apologist booster flag-bearer libber
a pleader in a court of law; a lawyer.

So I’m wondering - if God bears us no ill-will, why does Jesus have to ‘plead’ on our behalf? If he is the same nature as the Father, why is pleading even necessary? Why do we need a mediator?

I’m **not **asking this as a troll for trinitarians - I’m really asking what these verses tell us about the character of God - is He really antagonistic towards us, or wrathful, or just plain mad, that someone has to step in?

(I already have my answer but thought this might get a little chatter going, and for sure I might learn something) :smiley:

#2

I can’t find the answer to this, Dave, but I’d like to hear what [tag]Paidion[/tag] and [tag]JasonPratt[/tag] have to say about your question.

#3

I have had the same questions. I remember reading somewhere that we should not tell people that “Jesus died to save us from God” which, I generally agree with. But these verses seem to cast doubt on that. The more I dig into this stuff the more I realize I really don’t know anything. and it isn’t just me that doesn’t know anything, but everyone. Even the scholars. Pretty much anything people say about the nature of God is conjecture.

#4

“If you have seen me you have seen the father.”

That to me is what his role as mediator is. "No man has seen the father at any time, except the son and those he reveals him to. "

We through our own darkened minds think we see god clearly, yet it’s not quite right. “You have heard it said,but I tell you” supposedly Moses had a direct encounter with God, and wrote down the law. “The law was given by mediators(angels).” In the law we have a very sacrificial system. The temple was an assembly line of death. The priests were probably covered in blood from the nonstop animal sacrifices all day.

“Sacrifice and burnt offerings I did not desire”. Wait I thought Moses met with God and got the direct scoop on how to please him? But he got it wrong according to Jesus and the prophets , Paul and the hebraist, oh yeah and John. “God is light and in him there is no darkness”. But Isaiah said “I create the light and the dark, good and evil.”

The angelic mediators do not show the exact image of god. That is Christ. For me the angelic mediators are the veiled mind. The cherubim veil/gate outside the garden are symbolic of this. “Even to this day when Moses is read their minds are veiled”,
“And you who were formerly enemies IN MIND”.

#5

My notes on this are at the office – the phrase in Timothy is notoriously hard to translate anyway – but my answer in principle points back to how the NT authors (and Jesus) use the terms we translate (following Latin usage more or less) “propitiate” and “concile” or “reconcile”.

One hundred percent of the time, when talking about relationships between man and God, the Father and the Son are reconciling or conciling rebels to God. The Son doesn’t reconcile the Father to us. And though it isn’t nearly as obvious grammatically, the same can be plausibly argued for propitiate – the Son doesn’t propitiate the Father, we or our sins are always the object of the action and the Father or the Son is always the doer of the propitiation. The exceptions tend to involve the throne of God being described as the propitiation seat, the mercy seat, which still can fit the gist of the term’s usage elsewhere.

If I remember my notes correctly, contextual usage around the Timothy verse bears this out. The Son doesn’t have to mediate God to us – which would be ridiculous on any theology involving an omnipresent omniscient ground of all reality, completely aside from trinitology questions – but mediates us to God.

Similarly, and again aside from any questions of trinitology, the reason why the Son (and the Spirit) being described as our paraclete should be such an assurance – an assurance connected to the Son being the propitiation of our sins and not only our sins but the sins of the whole cosmos – is at least because the union of intention between the Son and the Father guarantees the Father must be on our side in judgment against our sin. This is only emphasized further insofar as the Son is the one judging us: the greatest possible Judge either way is on our defense in the Judge’s own ultimate judgment.

And again, aside from any questions of trinitology, this directly affects how we ought to interpret what Jesus means when (in GosJohn’s final discourse) He talks about the Spirit of Truth judging the world in regard to sin and in regard to fair-togetherness (and a third thing I can’t recall at the moment but it’s along the same line) – the Spirit of Truth must act, in any case (regardless of whichever Pneumatology is true), in conjunction with the shared intention of the Father and the Son, and so as Judge and as Paraclete must be on the side of the Son (also our Paraclete) being the propitiation not only of our sins (speaking about those of us already Christians) but of the sins of the whole world. Which cannot be some exclusive division between those elected to salvation and those not, for it is precisely due to that propitiation of us that we are led to become Christians eventually and so become the audience John is talking to in 1 John.

Anyway, I’ll try to remember to post those notes on Timothy’s mediator verse when I get to the office tomorrow (I actually think I’ve done so long ago in a much earlier thread); I recall I’m supposed to post something about the sin unto death from 1 John, too, but I got distracted on Dr. McClymond’s thread(s). Sorry. :slight_smile:

#6

Thanks Jason. Good to think about.