protest against any exclusion of 'all men', whether Jew or Gentile, and if

the reader were to be asked, what does the writer of this article mean here

when he says 'all men', can he by any possibility be advocating universalism,

the reply would have to be -- No, the context decides most emphatically that

he uses the term 'all men' to mean all without distinction not all without

exception, and this is the meaning of the apostle in 1 Timothy 2:1-6.  When

he says that prayers should be offered for 'all men' he immediately follows

by explaining his intention, saying, 'for kings, and for all that are in

authority'.  It is understandable that the early Christians, living as they

were in an atmosphere of persecution and oppression, might hesitate to

include kings and rulers in their prayers.  The apostle counters this.  Again

when he says that God will have 'all men to be saved', this governing

limitation must still be kept in mind.

Christ is the one Mediator between God and men.  He is not a Mediator

of the New Covenant only, He is the one and only Mediator for Jew and

Gentile, bond and free, male and female, high and low, rich and poor, king

and peasant; He is the one and only Mediator for all.  One further use of the

word 'all' is found in verse 6, 'Who gave Himself a ransom for all', but this

is a subject of such importance that it must be reserved for a separate

study.  The one all covering reference in John's Gospel is that of John

10:30, 'I and My Father are one', where the same word is found in the

passages already quoted.  If we maintain that the Father and the Son must be

thought of as being 'two' even though the Saviour makes this stupendous

claim, what is to prevent us from tampering with the selfsame word 'one' in

the other passages that affirm the oneness of God?  Let us admit that the

doctrine 'God is one' is never introduced into the New Testament except as

part of an argument that deals with the question of Mediation in some aspect

or other, and we shall be well on the way to understanding the different

passages wherein these references occur.

The meaning of the English word 'mediator' is self- evident.  It is one

of a group of words derived from the Latin medio 'to be in the middle'.

Hence, mediaeval is the Latinized form for 'The Middle Ages', while medial,

median, mediant, mediocre and even Mediterranean, will occur to most readers.

The position occupied by the Mediator is uppermost in the English word, 'one

who comes between', one who occupies a middle place, an 'intermediary'.  This

English word is a very fair translation of the Greek mesites, which is a

compound made of mesos 'middle' and heimi 'to go'.  'A go-between'.  The

Greek word mesites occurs six times in the New Testament, namely in Galatians

3:19,20; 1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15 and 12:24.  To this must be added

the word 'confirm' of Hebrews 6:17 mesiteuo for which the A.V. margin reads

'interposed': 'Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of

promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it (or interposed Himself)

by an oath'.  Josephus uses this word mesiteuo in the passage which deals

with the enticement of Israel by the Midianites, 'This they said with an

oath, and called God for an arbitrator of what they had promised'.

The associations of the word translated 'Mediator' in Galatians, 1

Timothy and Hebrews, supply the sacrificial or covenant making conditions

that are always mentally attached to the word by Bible students, but the word

itself tells us nothing of the office or service rendered, only that it is a

position occupied 'between' and 'in the midst'.  We must go back to the

Hebrew equivalent for a fuller understanding of what is implied in the office

of a mediator.  This we do by a very slender bridge, for the word mesites