One mediator between God and man

[Beryllos]

In 1 Tim 2:5, Jesus Christ is the one mediator in the sense that it was only by his suffering, death, and resurrection that anyone is redeemed. I do not think that the word “mediator” in that verse means a messenger or mediator of our prayers. We must look at the larger passage of 1 Tim 2:1-7 to see how it relates to prayer.

1 Timothy 2:1-7 (New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition)
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself a ransom for all —this was attested at the right time. For this I was appointed a herald and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

(Pardon my heavy application of bold type.)
I think Paul meant that Jesus Christ, as the one mediator, came to redeem everyone, and so we should pray for everyone, not only those who are close to us in faith or friendship. It does not say we are to pray only to Jesus, or that Jesus is the only one who can present our prayers to God.

 

[Todd977]

1 Tim 2:5 clearly states that Jesus is the only mediator between man and God. How does asking the saints for intervention before the Father square with this scripture?

It is important to remember that all the saints are Christians. Because the Spirit of Christ dwells in them, they are all members of the body of Christ. Their intercession is Christian intercession, intercession made through Christ, with Christ, and in Christ. Consequently, the saints can, without violating 1 Tim 2:5, intercede with the Father and say,“Our Father who art in heaven…” This applies to all the saints, including those on earth and those in heaven.

 

[gwarald]

Still, it is not the Trinity I have so much difficulty with (although, faithful to Jewish teaching, I am not in accord with the Personhood concept of G-d), but rather the notion that Jesus serves as a Mediator in His role as Savior, the Son of G-d, being that He is thought by Christians to be G-d Incarnate. When you pray to Jesus, don’t you pray to G-d Himself, and NOT to Jesus’ human, sinless nature, albeit the latter is intertwined with His divine nature in a hypostatic union? This I find challenging to understand. Yes, Jesus’ function is distinct as Savior but is He not fully G-d as well?

This is from the New Testament book written specifically to Jewish believers in order to help them understand the nature of the Messiah’s role in the covenant of redemption:
Sorry for such a lengthy portion, yet this only a small bit of the authors explanation…

Hebrews 10.4-22, *"it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,
“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”

When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,

“This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”
then he adds,

“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith…"*

It is very interesting to note how the author quotes Psalm 40 as Jesus’ own words speaking of Himself as a sacrifice which takes away sin (once for all). Jesus, by His life of sinless, perfect obedience to the Father, fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law. Then, by His death, He satisfied the wrath of the Father for all who would believe. “You have prepared a body for Me…I have come to do Your will.”

Then He quotes from Ezekiel’s prophesy as being fulfilled in Jesus through His death, ascension to Heaven, and role as High Priest. It is because of these things, that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and His people.

 

[gwarald]

In 1 Tim 2:5, Jesus Christ is the one mediator in the sense that it was only by his suffering, death, and resurrection that anyone is redeemed. I do not think that the word “mediator” in that verse means a messenger or mediator of our prayers. I think Paul meant that Jesus Christ, as the one mediator, came to redeem everyone, and so we should pray for everyone, not only those who are close to us in faith or friendship. It does not say we are to pray only to Jesus, or that Jesus is the only one who can present our prayers to God.

Hebrews 4.14-16, " Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need."

Jesus is the only one mentioned here through which we ought to draw near to God.

 

[TimothyH]

1 Tim 2:5 clearly states that Jesus is the only mediator between man and God. How does asking the saints for intervention before the Father square with this scripture?

Moses was a mediator. He went up and down the mountain at least five times, bringing God’s proposal to man and bringing the people’s answer to God.

The angels are also mediators between God and man.

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (1 Timothy 2:5)

The passage is talking about the perfect mediation of Christ. Christ is the perfect mediator between God and men because Christ is both God and man. But Moses was also a mediator. His mediation was imperfect because unlike Jesus, Moses was only a man.

Timothy is writing about the mediation of a covenant. Both Moses and Christ mediated covenants.

*Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant (Hebrews 9:15)

**and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, *(Hebrews 12:24)

1 Timothy 2 is about the mediation of a covenant. It is all about the covenant.

-Tim-

 

[meltzerboy]

Moses was a mediator. He went up and down the mountain at least five times, bringing God’s proposal to man and bringing the people’s answer to God.

The angels are also mediators between God and man.

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (1 Timothy 2:5)

The passage is talking about the perfect mediation of Christ. Christ is the perfect mediator between God and men because Christ is both God and man. But Moses was also a mediator. His mediation was imperfect because unlike Jesus, Moses was only a man.

Timothy is writing about the mediation of a covenant. Both Moses and Christ mediated covenants.

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant (Hebrews 9:15)

**and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, **(Hebrews 12:24)

1 Timothy 2 is about the mediation of a covenant. It is all about the covenant.

-Tim-

Some Hebrew scholars say that Moses ascended the mountain no less than EIGHT times, each for a different portion of the Law (both the Written and Oral Laws). The first time was before the creation and worship of the Golden Calf and the second and subsequent times after G-d had forgiven the Jewish people for their idolatry. While a double ascent would have been characteristic of ironing out all the legal details according to Babylonian and Egyptian tradition, eight times was unique. Still, Judaism would call Moses a “mediator” only in a restricted sense of bringing the Law to the people physically and by means of transcribing portions of it. Although Moses is Judaism’s greatest Prophet by far, and he could and would beg G-d for mercy toward His people, calling him a mediator in a spiritual sense is controversial.

 

[TimothyH]

Some Hebrew scholars say that Moses ascended the mountain no less than EIGHT times, each for a different portion of the Law (both the Written and Oral Laws). The first time was before the creation and worship of the Golden Calf and the second and subsequent times after G-d had forgiven the Jewish people for their idolatry. While a double ascent would have been characteristic of ironing out all the legal details according to Babylonian and Egyptian tradition, eight times was unique. Still, Judaism would call Moses a “mediator” only in a restricted sense of bringing the Law to the people physically and by means of transcribing portions of it. Although Moses is Judaism’s greatest Prophet by far, and he could and would beg G-d for mercy toward His people, calling him a mediator in a spiritual sense is controversial.

Thank you for the reply. I counted up to five ascents/descents in scripture and then stopped counting.

That Moses’ mediation was physical rather than spiritual is understood. Christians believe that Jesus was both God and man and so he was the perfect mediator between God and man. Moses however, was only a man, hence is mediation is imperfect.

While not inspired text, many Christian Bibles have heading sections, one of which in the Book of Exodus reads, “Moses Accepted as Mediator”.

But yes, your comments are most welcome.

-Tim-

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Some Hebrew scholars say that Moses ascended the mountain no less than EIGHT times, each for a different portion of the Law (both the Written and Oral Laws). The first time was before the creation and worship of the Golden Calf and the second and subsequent times after G-d had forgiven the Jewish people for their idolatry. While a double ascent would have been characteristic of ironing out all the legal details according to Babylonian and Egyptian tradition, eight times was unique. Still, Judaism would call Moses a “mediator” only in a restricted sense of bringing the Law to the people physically and by means of transcribing portions of it. Although Moses is Judaism’s greatest Prophet by far, and he could and would beg G-d for mercy toward His people, calling him a mediator in a spiritual sense is controversial.

St. Paul calls Moses a mediator. “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator” (Galatians 3:19).

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I think that must be it: G-d the Son (Who is fully G-d) is the Mediator between mankind and G-d the Father (Who is fully G-d). It sounds so simple but how difficult to grasp it really is! Thank you.

One more question, of course: if G-d is fully G-d as both the Father and the Son, then why are their functions or roles distinct? Yes, there is a human analogy here: one can play many roles in life; however, in this instance, one is still the SAME person. Why does this work differently when viewing G-d as three DISTINCT (but not separate) Persons? Apart from functional difference, what does “Person” actually mean?

I’m no expert (and actually delayed so much because I like your question, and was waiting to see what others jumped in and said), but my understanding is something like this:

God the Father is in some sense the first principle of everything. The Son is the Father’s knowledge of Himself, and so is hence eternally generated by the Father - but is also coeternal with the Father, since there was no time when the Father did not know Himself. The Holy Spirit is the relationship between the Father and the Son (coeternal since there was no time when the Father and the Son did not have a relationsip). They are all coequal, and none of Them is created (the necessity of the existence of the Son is sort of built into what it means for the Father to be the Father, and likewise for the Holy Spirit). (You’ve probably heard this before, just repeating since it’s relevant.)

To your last question - a person is an entity with a rational nature, according to the newadvent.org encyclopedia. A followup question to this answer would be “why must the Son and the Holy Spirit be Persons?” My own knowledge of myself (incomplete though it is) is certainly not a person. To this, I cannot give a very good answer (which isn’t to say that there isn’t one - I just don’t currently know what it is, if so), only a sort of “the Father’s knowledge of Himself is a very profound thing, and so we can sort of see how this could be, even if I don’t grasp why it is” sort of answer. But whether that part can be reasoned out or not (I simply don’t know), I do know that this is a dogma that was revealed to us, not one that we found by careful application of purely natural reason, and is in fact what the Church calls a mystery. Which isn’t to say that it’s illogical (illogical things are false), but rather that:

…a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains “hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness” (Constitution, “De fide. cath.”, iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the Divine message. Through analogies and types we can form a representative concept expressive of what is revealed, but we cannot attain that fuller knowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest. As regards the vindication of a mystery, the office of the natural reason is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it [fails].

newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

All of which was a really long way of saying “I don’t know why it is that way, but I can see how it could work.” (That I think it does work that way is, of course, a consequence of the fact that I have accepted that Catholicism is correct for other reasons - had I not, I might see this as plausible, but little more.)

At this point, as someone with no theological training aside from reading whatever he happened to find interesting on the internet, the best I can do to answer the actual question of “why are their functions/roles different” is to start throwing out analogies and “seems like” things.

For example, we see many times in the bible Jesus say things like “no one can know the Father except through Me.” This actually makes sense if the Son is the Father’s knowledge of Himself. To know the Father is to have the knowledge of the Father. And the perfect knowledge of the Father is in fact the Son. So when the Father wanted to reveal Himself to us, He literally gave us His knowledge of Himself: the Son. (Adds another layer of meaning to Eucharist, now that I think about it.) Thus it was the Son who was sent to us. And after receiving the Son, and being incorporated into the Body of Christ, we are guided by the Holy Spirit - which is the relationship between the Father and the Son and so (in some way) between the Body of Christ and the Father as well.

This, to me at least, seems to show why it is that each of the three Persons would interact with us as they do. But I want to reemphasize that all of this is just the result of my own thoughts based off of randomly selected reading, and so could be flawed or just completely wrong (especially given that I’m writing at quarter till two in the morning). Open to correction on any point if anyone more familiar with Church teaching wants to jump in - but I did think this was an interesting question, and wanted to at least take a stab at it.

 

[Honorius]

This is a question I have been wanting to ask for a while, and this seems like a good place. I see nothing wrong with praying to saints, but why would I pray to someone that will intercede on my behalf when I can just simply talk to the Man Himself? There being one mediator means that the prayer will get to Him eventually anyways.

 

[meltzerboy]

I’m no expert (and actually delayed so much because I like your question, and was waiting to see what others jumped in and said), but my understanding is something like this:

God the Father is in some sense the first principle of everything. The Son is the Father’s knowledge of Himself, and so is hence eternally generated by the Father - but is also coeternal with the Father, since there was no time when the Father did not know Himself. The Holy Spirit is the relationship between the Father and the Son (coeternal since there was no time when the Father and the Son did not have a relationsip). They are all coequal, and none of Them is created (the necessity of the existence of the Son is sort of built into what it means for the Father to be the Father, and likewise for the Holy Spirit). (You’ve probably heard this before, just repeating since it’s relevant.)

To your last question - a person is an entity with a rational nature, according to the newadvent.org encyclopedia. A followup question to this answer would be “why must the Son and the Holy Spirit be Persons?” My own knowledge of myself (incomplete though it is) is certainly not a person. To this, I cannot give a very good answer (which isn’t to say that there isn’t one - I just don’t currently know what it is, if so), only a sort of “the Father’s knowledge of Himself is a very profound thing, and so we can sort of see how this could be, even if I don’t grasp why it is” sort of answer. But whether that part can be reasoned out or not (I simply don’t know), I do know that this is a dogma that was revealed to us, not one that we found by careful application of purely natural reason, and is in fact what the Church calls a mystery. Which isn’t to say that it’s illogical (illogical things are false), but rather that:

All of which was a really long way of saying “I don’t know why it is that way, but I can see how it could work.” (That I think it does work that way is, of course, a consequence of the fact that I have accepted that Catholicism is correct for other reasons - had I not, I might see this as plausible, but little more.)

At this point, as someone with no theological training aside from reading whatever he happened to find interesting on the internet, the best I can do to answer the actual question of “why are their functions/roles different” is to start throwing out analogies and “seems like” things.

For example, we see many times in the bible Jesus say things like “no one can know the Father except through Me.” This actually makes sense if the Son is the Father’s knowledge of Himself. To know the Father is to have the knowledge of the Father. And the perfect knowledge of the Father is in fact the Son. So when the Father wanted to reveal Himself to us, He literally gave us His knowledge of Himself: the Son. (Adds another layer of meaning to Eucharist, now that I think about it.) Thus it was the Son who was sent to us. And after receiving the Son, and being incorporated into the Body of Christ, we are guided by the Holy Spirit - which is the relationship between the Father and the Son and so (in some way) between the Body of Christ and the Father as well.

This, to me at least, seems to show why it is that each of the three Persons would interact with us as they do. But I want to reemphasize that all of this is just the result of my own thoughts based off of randomly selected reading, and so could be flawed or just completely wrong (especially given that I’m writing at quarter till two in the morning). Open to correction on any point if anyone more familiar with Church teaching wants to jump in - but I did think this was an interesting question, and wanted to at least take a stab at it.

It appears to me Catholicism–and Christianity in general–adds several layers to Judaism, and this begins with the very nature of G-d as a Triune G-d. In Judaism, the nature of G-d is not so complicated or mysterious in this respect, despite the fact Judaism, as well as Catholicism, recognizes the awesomeness of G-d. I also realize Catholicism is regarded by many Catholics as the fulfillment of Judaism, and while there are surely several points in common between the faiths, there are also several profound differences, ranging from the doctrine of original sin, the role of Satan, the battle between good and evil, the creation of evil, the understanding of salvation, the focus on the afterlife, and so on. However, your answer to my question about the distinct Persons of G-d seems quite reasonable and I thank you for it.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Hebrews 4.14-16, " Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need."

Jesus is the only one mentioned here through which we ought to draw near to God.

Christ is indeed our only Mediator for grace and salvation, in that salvation and grace come through Him.

But I have a feeling that you are coming from a Protestant mindset, so I’ll ask you a few questions:

If we are to seek assistance in our own salvation, and of others, without asking anyone but Jesus, why does Paul tell us to pray for one another? Why does Paul say that he offers up prayers for others? Why did God send Paul to Ananias to pray for him when he was struck blind? It sound an awful lot like Paul was making himself a mediator, and that God even made another mediator (Ananias). That is, if we are to believe your inconsistent view of Scripture.

Our prayers and suffering can be offered up to help others in their journey towards Christ. Paul even offers his up:

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church”

 

[Todd977]

why would I pray to someone that will intercede on my behalf when I can just simply talk to the Man Himself?

Why do you suppose Paul routinely asked the members of the Christian communities he wrote to to pray for him? (Colossians 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:25; 2 Thessalonians 3:1; Hebrews 13:18) Couldn’t Paul simply pray to the Man Himself?

Scripture suggests two reasons why you might want to ask another Christian to pray with you, especially a saint in heaven. Jesus suggests that the united prayer of two or more people is more efficacious than the prayer of one person alone. (Matthew 18:18) James suggests that the prayer of a righteous person is more efficacious than a not-so-righteous person. (James 5:16; also see Job 42:8) And, since the saints in heaven are perfectly righteous (Hebrew 12:23), this suggests their prayers are the most efficacious.

Increased efficaciousness aside, asking other Christians to pray for you also tends to increase the love of the members of the body of Christ for one another. (2 Thessalonians 1:3)

 

[Beryllos]

It seems that God created us as social beings. Perhaps one aspect of that is that we are able to join together in prayer, and we may ask another person to pray with us, or for us.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

It seems that God created us as social beings. Perhaps one aspect of that is that we are able to join together in prayer, and we may ask another person to pray with us, or for us.

Yes Yes Yes!
Good Link on This: openbible.info/topics/praying_for_each_other

 

[Honorius]

Why do you suppose Paul routinely asked the members of the Christian communities he wrote to to pray for him? (Colossians 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:25; 2 Thessalonians 3:1; Hebrews 13:18) Couldn’t Paul simply pray to the Man Himself?

Scripture suggests two reasons why you might want to ask another Christian to pray with you, especially a saint in heaven. Jesus suggests that the united prayer of two or more people is more efficacious than the prayer of one person alone. (Matthew 18:18) James suggests that the prayer of a righteous person is more efficacious than a not-so-righteous person. (James 5:16; also see Job 42:8) And, since the saints in heaven are perfectly righteous (Hebrew 12:23), this suggests their prayers are the most efficacious.

Increased efficaciousness aside, asking other Christians to pray for you also tends to increase the love of the members of the body of Christ for one another. (2 Thessalonians 1:3)

Gotcha!

 

[po18guy]

1 Tim 2:5 clearly states that Jesus is the only mediator between man and God. How does asking the saints for intervention before the Father square with this scripture?

RATHER: How does your personal and private interpretation of this tiny fragment from the infinite Word of God square with revealed truth?

 

[Evan]

Don’t leave out the heavenly court, where our prayers are brought:

And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, went up before God out of the angel’s hand. (Rev 8:4)

 

[bsroufek]

In The Apostles’ Creed, we say that we believe in “the Communion of Saints”. This comes from the Apostles.

And, as St. John wrote, Jesus said and did many more things than these [than were written down].

So, we have intercessors with God in the Saints, most especially The Mother of God, as the Church has infallibly taught.

 

[TimothyH]

This is a question I have been wanting to ask for a while, and this seems like a good place. I see nothing wrong with praying to saints, but why would I pray to someone that will intercede on my behalf when I can just simply talk to the Man Himself? There being one mediator means that the prayer will get to Him eventually anyways.

St Louis de Montfort points out that it is presumption to think that we can just walk up to Jesus the King of kings and ask him for favors.

How can we as ordinary creatures, expect to stand before God and ask him for favors, when he has given us air to breathe, food to eat, homes to live in, confession to cleanse our soul and the Holy Church to lead us to salvation? We don’t even go near the tabernacle where Jesus sacramental presence rests. Why should we presume to approach him in prayer to ask for favors?

There is a basis for this in the Old Testament. The king provided for his people. The mother of the king however, would often intercede on behalf of ordinary people - farmers and tradesmen - people who would never get an audience with the king on their own behalf.

So there is a spirituality which believes that it is actually better to have an intercessor than it is to go directly to the King. Certainly the King will not refuse his own Mother’s request, or that of someone who died for him as he died for us, or one of the saints who served him so well. This is why we choose patron saints and confirmation saints and pray to our guardian angel.

-Tim-