Galatians 4:10 in context

So you admit it would be "bondage". Why wouldn;t it be the "weak and elemental things of the world"? That is what Paul is calling "bondage". Remembner; the SUBJECT or OBJECT here is not "the LAw" it is THEIR WORKS purportedly "of the LAW". It is basically the works of their flesh, just as much as the pagans. So this is "the weak and elemental things"; not the Law ITSELF.

If you take the entire book in context; he IS. That is why you must try to separate this one verse from the rest. But then your "proof" that he "never" calls the works of the law "weak and elemental things" s taken to prove that the verse must be isolated from the rest in subject; and then this becomes your proof that he never calls the works of the Law "weak and elemental things". This is totally cyclical. You don't posit a statement, and fix it so that it is its own (and only) "proof"!
(Actually; as for "scriptural commands" (the law) being called "weak"; see Rom.8:3)

And Jews were condemned for not [really] knowing God at all also! Knowing ABOUT Him, and going through the motions of "following commands" does not equate "knowing Him". So for the gentile converts to fall into that, would SPIRITUALLY be the same thing as their old life of paganism!

Emperor worship is not mentioned anywhere in the passage. At least I "swap" in something that is discussed throughout the passage! I don;t just pull something out of nowhere because it looks like it fits better.

It's a CONTRAST os SPIRITUAL STATES. You refuse to understand this, and instead spend all your effort trying to label "my view". The Word of God is not given any label except "good and holy and just"; it's their rebellious STATE that is condemned; whether they are using pagan practices or the works of the Law.

But there are no "chriostian days" ever mentioned. Whether one thingks they continued on the Jewish days or not; still, the debate is between Jewish days and pagan days. Either could become a stublingblock; including the Hebrew days if done compulsively to gain justification.

WHAT???
Funny; you didn't quote ALL of my lengthy discussion of WHY he condemned it for some, but not others. But I do not see how you think this proves your view or is a "failure" on my part. This is nothing more that what I have been saying in these discussions for a year now; though it goes right over your head; and you just find other statements of mine to twist into "the LAw is pagan". If anything; it is you who have failed; and now are forces to deal with these neglected points; but you really have nothing to say about it. Just some claim that I have failed; (set once again like some sort of trial; with a "smoling gun"; but you should be more concerned with own your stand before the judgment seat of God instead of judging others!) but you have just admitted that yes, Paul can condemn a practice in one place that he defends in another. It is the reason WHY a particular geoup is practicing it that is decisive. Once again; the sin lies not in the LAW itself; but in the MAN who attempts to justify himself by it. This was my point all along.

Oh, so this claim is supposed to be about ROMANS. Well; all I've said over there is that the issue is not JUDGEing over days and meats. Your argument is that these are annual days only (and I forgot what you did with the meats; we didn't really get that much into that).
But the PRINCIPLE is the same; and not only for then; but for now as well. This is what I have always said. (If I thought it was for Rome only; I never would have brought the pasage up in these discussions and claim that you were violating them NOW). So once again; you project some idea on me that I never said. But once again; you have proven my view; not yours. I think it is your argument that has totally run aground; and you do not know WHAT to say anymore.

 

And here is where you make a glaring mistake. You seem to think it impossible that The Jews could be referred to as "the world". But "the world" is contrasted with "Christ"; not with "christ and the Jews". You are either for Christ or against Him, and if against Him, then apart of "the world" and its spiritual ruler; the devil. There was no middle ground. Jews that were against Christ were not still on God's side because they had the Law. That is precisely what all the more exposed them as sinners against God! And "elements" (Gal.)/"rudiments"(Col.) (stoicheion) simply means "orderly in arrangement"; coming from the following Greek word, stoicheo, which means to "conform" as someone marching in military rank.
Jews who rejected Christ and tried to justify themselves by the works of the Law were "conforming to the world" (either "age" or "kosmos") or "marching to its beat" just as much as pagans who tried to justify themselves by rituals appeasing false gods; or those today who trust in achievements; or "I'm a good person; I've never done anything really bad", etc.) The very conext of this "philosophy" is a denial that "all the fullness of the godhead" dwelled in Christ. That was primarily a Jewish problem (Who tried to stone Jesus for maintaining His deity? The gentile heretics (gnostics) would corrupt the doctrine of the Godhead in almost the opposite way--emphasizing his "godhood" to the exclusion of His true humanity!)
You both need to watch out; because your arguments really seem to be insinuating that Jews actually WERE justified by the works of the Law; and thus "better" than anyone else. This contradirct the entire message of the NT; and therefore the Gospel of Christ!

No' it's from the context of the passage. It's your view that is from your "tradition" that the days of worship of the OT continue into the NT in a mandatory fashion.

You're losing me now. No one said the Jews were "the root of ALL evil". Pagan influence is mentioned in places in the NT. There is no contradirctory "either-or" from my view. (It is you wo who keep making it that). The immediate overall contexts of both passages is Judaism (including "circumcision"). Once again; in the contexts, he ones BEING "bewitched" were "gentile"; but not the ones DOING the bewitching!

REALLY?
What Gentiles would try to get Christians-- or ANYBODY to be circumcised in order to be saved? THAT is what makes no sense! You two keep ignoring this vital part of the text!

There you go taking one instance, and projecting it onto all Jews again. Those particular Jews may have been commended for not compelling circumcision; but there were OTHERS which clearly did. The fact that Paul is telling people not to JUDGE or let anyone JUDGE them shows that there were people going around compelling (through words of judgment).
And I'm not "asking". And Paul is not asking. "Who has bewitched you" is a rhetorical question. He knows who it is in general (though perhaps not in an individual sense; which leader has come in and spread the falsity). The whole contexts go on to tell us who. Gentiles did not compell anyone to be circumcise; do who else could it be? (even if there were some faithful Jews who did not do this).

Oh, no you don't! You should have checked the Greek before trying this trick. Not only is "bewitched" not "paratero"; it has no more necessarily to do with "to divine" or "idolatry" than does that word. It is "baskaino" meaning to "malign", or (by ext.) to "fascinate" (by false representations)!
This means a simple misleading by false arguments; not any actual "pagan witchcraft". Anybody misled into justifying themselves by the works of the Law in effect rejects Christ; crucifying Him anew, (Heb.6:6, 10:29) and is thus "bewitched". Sorry; but you are still plugging meanings into English translated words despite the Greek word and the contexts.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Paul condemns the Paganism of emperor worship with its worship of "days, months seasons and years" -- the worship of "THINGS that are by nature not gods at all" via the "Weak and elemental things OF THIS WORLD". You then SWAP OUT that pagan system that HE said they "were turning to BACK AGAIN" - and you INSERT in its place
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither is the Creator's Seventh-day Sabbath - but the Emperor Worship problem of PAGANS DID use the EXACT formula Paul gives in Gal 4 and NTHER text does!!

We have already been over that ground.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Oh, great. Just turn the text around and point it at those dreaded Sunday worshippers.
Funny; most who go to church on Sunday don;t judge others for havin a different day, but those who keep the sabbath are the ones judging and using the day more to compare themselves with others as "more obedient"; "I'm keeping more commandments than you"; etc. than seemingly for worshipping God. THIS I would say fits more with the "paratero" ("watch scrupulously with evil intent") than what most Sunday worshippers do.

But the arguments being used here try to prove that it had to be a return to paganism; because it couldn't be Judaism; because that would never be called "bondage" to "weak and elemental things" because they had the Law; and the Law is good. But something I should have added yesterday; Bob made a big deal about "OBSERVANCE" being "condemned"; but God's LAW is not the same thing as man's OBSERVANCE of it. One can be condemned; while the other is good.

Yes it does; because you're taking a PASSING REFERENCE (v.8); and projecting it onto the ENTIRE TEXT. Paul starts the passage talking about them being bewitched by people evidently teaching them "the works of the LAW" rather than "the hearing of faith"(3:1,2 . He then mentions HIS BACKGROUND in this legalistic faith; which he describes as "bondage" under a "tutor". Then in COMPARISON; he mentions THEIR background, serving "them which by nature are no gods". Now; they are "returning" to "bondage" of physical rituals and sacred days; rigorously "watched", but with "evil intent" (not done unto the Lord; for self-justification,etc.). Both Jews and pagans had these practices; and even though the Jews may have originally gotten theirs from God; they were still just as lost and in bondage under tham. These things were only "tutors" anyway; as Paul just pointed out.
So set of rituals was Paul referring to? What has he been discussion all along? What were they bewitched with? "Receiving] the Spirit by the works of the Law; [not] the hearing of faith"!

Because Paul starts off telling us what the problem is, (works of the LAW or hearing of faith). It is no mere "trend" of the pasage. It is SET from the beginning! We cannot brush that aside and say "oh, no; these were former pagans, and historically, there were pagans influencing them; so it can only be paganism he is addressing". And as I have learned more over the past year; Jewish harassment of Christians was ALSO a "historic" problem, and right at the end of the letter; we see that they "desire...to glory in your flesh". They still felt that Mssiah should be what they thoought he should be, and removing these elements of the Law would only bring the nation under a curse (instead of God blessing it and making them the world rulers, as Messiah was "supposed" to do); so those who did not outright reject Christ, would now creep into His Church (consisting of both Jewish and Gentile members), and try to turn it back into their system of works.

And that is the point. That is what I have been saying. But this in itself does not tell us the details of what either the previous "lost STATE" or the new "return"; it's only the STATE that is returned to. v.8 tells us what the former was, and the rest of the passage tells us the details of the new state.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric, I am sure neither I or Bob can or would want to argue with you if a man is not in Christ, he is in bondage - and that any bondage of being outside Christ ends in being lost, whether by or under the Law lost, or by and being under pagan bondage lost - you'r lost!
What we are trying to say here - Bob and I - is that that is not the issue here in Galatians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your attempt to obfuscate is noted.

The point remains - simply observing that BOTH systems are bondage does not serve to validate your attempt to turn the text of Gal 4:8-11 so that it STOPs referencing the weak and elemental things of paganism those THINGS that are by nature NOT gods at all -- and bend it back on itself so that it now is in reference to scripture.

The point remains that NO claim is EVER made by Paul that the things of God's word are "THE WEAK and elemental things of THIS WORLD".

The form of condemnation for the pagan practices selected by Paul in Gal 4:8-11 are NEVER said of the Jews, and NEVER said of the Word of God and NEVER said even of Judaizers!

You seek to INSERT Christ's own Holy day INTO the pagan system of honoring "days, months, seasons and years" AS IF both are the same thing and both are condemned in Gal 4.

You also seek to CONDEMN in Gal 4 what you ADMIT is APPROVED in Romans 14.

A more devastating collapse of your position could not have been posted.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But then Bob and I say at a point Paul addresses the specific issue of the Galatians' return to their former, pagan, state, and we say this 'switch' does NO harm to the trend or context.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here again we have utter failure to note the details in the discussion so far.

The point made is that THE ENTIRE chapter can NOT be fit into ONE single problem as you have tried to do.

AS HAS ALREADY been pointed out - vs 1-7 address the GLOBAL problem for ALL mankind prior to Christ (and after for those who have not yet accepted Christ).

Vs 8-11 addresses ONE specific problem of pagans-turned-Christian as they sought to BLEND pagan observances back into Christian practices.

The PAGAN observances that are the WEAK and elemental things of THIS WORLD - the emperor worship observing "days, months, seasons and years" (Notice that the WEEKLY cycle is CONSPICUOUSLY missing from that list).

Then from 12-end Paul goes to ANOTHER problem - that of the Judaizers.

THREE levels of focus - THREE problems - THREE points addressed in that one chapter.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Certainly a good point. But to make that point you need to first get agreement to the obvious and plain fact that Paul IS addressing pagan practices being merged into Christianity in Gal 4:8-11. Someting Eric is dragging his heels on - no matter how obvious the text is about it and not matter how much church historians agree that this WAS a huge problem for the first century NT church.

So we need to establish that first point before we can draw the corrollary to changing the 4th commandment on behalf of "The Venerable day of the Sun".

In Christ,

Bob

 

It is true that any pagan system of worship could easily be labeled "elemental thing of THIS world" and "things that are by NATURE not gods at all" - However in the case of the very real problem of Emperor worship this "stand-alond" phrase found in Gal 4 "observing days, months, seasons and years" finds its perfect match!

In other words -- it matches up BOTH on the count of being a pagan system whose source and origin (and substance) is perfectly fit for the labels Paul assign it ("by nature THINGS that are not gods at all") AND it qualifies for the SPECIFIC practice of "observing days, months, seasons and years" -- nothing else comes close.

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is the watershed of the entire issue. I mentioned it in yesterday's response; but you do not get it, or refuse to get it. But I'll repeat it again:

God's LAW is not the same thing as man's OBSERVANCE of it.
For the last time; no one is saying "the things of God's word", "Christ's own Holy day", or any of your other red herrings are "condemned" or are "pagan" or "the weak and elemental things of this world".

You yourself said it: "it is the OBSERVANCE" that is condemned"! NOT the LAW itself! ONE can be condemned; while the OTHER is good.

God gives His Law; which is "JUST, HOLY AND GOOD". (This is ALL I have EVER said about the Law).

MAN attempts to OBSERVE the LAW. But his OBSERVANCE is INCOMPLETE; shallow; PRETENTIOUS; SELF RIGHTEOUS/SELF JUSTIFYING, and at the same time JUDGING ("I keep more commandments than you"; etc). --all of this falling into the category of "EVIL INTENT" (paratero)

THIS IS CONDEMNED. God DOES NOT accept it.


All of this is so easy to understand. But because it indicts the sabbatarian movement, on top of causing your arguments and judgments against all nonsabbathkeeping Christians to collapse; you have to fight against it tooth and nail and just rehash the same charges that I am attacking the Law itself as condemned, no matter how much I show you that that is not the case.

No; according to you; the entire chapter fits into ONE single VERSE; rather than the other way around!

4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differs nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
4:2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
4:3 Even so we, when WE were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
4:6 And because all of you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit (o. pneuma) of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
4:7 Wherefore you are no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
Where does it mention "all of mankind"? You are making things up out of nowhere to conform to your preconceived arguments to escape the teachings of scripture on the subject. I am aware of the common sabbatarian interpretation of "under the law" meaning "all mankind under the curse or 'certificate of death'". (that way, you can claim it is not the Law of Moses --of Israel that is done away; just the "condemnation" all were under; just like you do in Colossians with "handwriting of ordinaces"). But this is NOT how it is used here. "Under the Law" refers to the Jews who were BOUND by "THE LAW" of MOSES! Pauls refers to Gentiles as "WITHOUT LAW"; not "UNDER the Law" (Rom.2). So you can't just redefine his terms to suit your doctrine.
So there is NO discussion in these verses of "all mankind", or anything "GLOBAL"; ONLY of the JEWS prior to Christ; including Paul himself; notice "WE". That does not include gentiles!

So? "Days" could be weekly or annual days.
Still, either pagan worship; OR going through the motions of following God's Law while not really loving Him ARE equally of "THIS WORLD"!
And you continue to take some unbiblical "formula of paganism" build this argument off of it, when is not used anywhere else in scripture in reference to "pagans". The Judaizers judged Christian converts over their OT "days", "new moons", "[appointed] times", and "years". Even if this WAS "historically" a "pagan formula"; Scripture often does refer to the rebellious house of Israel in terms associated with "pagans". (Isaiah, etc) Whatever it is, the context still dictates thatthis was a Judaizer problem!

Right!

Wrong; ...as they now sought to blend what Paul was just describing: the Jewish "elements" into Christian practices. And as these are "watched conspicuously" (paratero); it is thus blending "bondage" back into Christianity!

NO; he CONTINUES describing the SAME things and people he had already been describing since the previous chapter. Even if you were right that v1-7 was speaking of "mankind"; that would INCLUDE the Jews.

No' ONE present problem (Judaizers), and a PAST problem (paganism) mentioned in passing!

No one was denying that paganism was a huge problem in the NT Church. But that does not mean it was the ONLY one; and prove that this must necessarily be paganism. John deals more with the pagan problem. But from THIS text; it is obvious that the issue is judaizers.

 

Romans 14 -- "One man OBSERVES one day ABOVE another while another OBSERVES Every day" (speaking of the list of annual feast days in God's Word)

Paul only condemns those who CONDEMN the OBSERVANCE when it comes to OBSERVING God's Word, OBSERVING God's annual feast days, OBSERVING what scripture speaks of.

The Letter to the Romans applies to ALL - even to us. It is SCRIPTURE. In Chapter 14 pagan practices are not being discussed NOR is the OBSERVANCE of God's Word by the GENTILES and JEWs of Rome (or today) called PAGANISM or called a RETURN to PAGANISM or ...

But when it comes to "OBSERVING the days, months, seasons and years" of paganism's emperor worship - well then in that case THE VERY OBSERVANCE is condemnd WITHOUT RESPECT to who is observing it or what rationale they use for it.

The OBSERVANCE itself is purely and blatantly condemend since IT IS a RETURN to paganism. Paul argues that the conversion to Christianity is placed in question IF one dares to OBSERVE those pagan days after becoming a Christian.

How simple "to get".

How "obvious".

How Clear.

Bottom line - Paul does not CONDEMN in Gal 4 the very thing he APPROVES in Romans 14! But if you twist and bend the text "enough" you will eventually end up at such a self-conflicted position.

That should be a "huge red flag" for those that take that course of action.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

This presents the right view and refutes the johnny-one-note wooden structue that would bend all topics into one - only allowing for one problem to be addressed in Paul's letters.

I see - the pagan problem that they are GOING BACK go - "TURNING BACK AGAIN" to - is not a PRESENT problem!

What a facinating denial of the text.

But it does show your "one-note" re-casting of the text in living color.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Since Eric is deathly afraid of the pagan problem that "they were TURNING BACK AGAIN" to in Gal 4 -- lets go to the other problem in Gal 4 that is outside of his johnny-one-note idea for the ENTIRE letter of Paul.

Let us see how Eric's "deny everything" approach turns a blind eye to this global human condition problem in vs 1-7 so as to "re-cast it ALL as a Judaizer problem".

In this case Paul addresses the HUMAN condition of being separated from God APART from Christ. Paul points out that our ADOPTION (the HUMAN RACE's adoption) into Christ (as many as accept Him and are saints) is brought about through the death of Christ.

As Paul points out in Romans 3 ALL are under the condemnation of the LAW - and ALL are held accountable NEEDING the Savior.

This is NOT just the case for Judaizers - but not Gentiles --

It is also NOT the case for Heb 11 saints who DID accept the Gospel and WERE released from sin - born-again as the PRE-CROSS statement of Christ in John 3 states.

Again - NOT a truth "just for Judaizers"!!

Paul is addressing the problem of the GLOBAL human condition and showing ONE solution for ALL mankind (not just for Judaizers!).

Easy enough to see THIS emphasis as well - but those who "recast everything as the problem of Judaizers" seem content to turn a blind eye to all details in Galatians - except ONE.

In Christ,

Bob

 

And once again; the Romans did not have the same problems as the Galatians. Paul does not warn them of making Christ "of no profit" through their practices.

And neither is what Paul discusses thoughout Galatians called "paganism". Paganism is only mentioned in one verse as what they came from; and the BONDAGE they were under through it is what they were "returning" to through an equally "lost" Judastic fervor.

OK.
But that is not what is being discussed in Galatians. It is not mentioned anywhere in scripture. But the Jewish days and other practices are mentioned here and in Romans. The Romans had been influenced to a small extent, and thus told by Paul not to be judging each other over it. The Galatians had completely bought into it to the point that they were scrupulously "watching rigorously" to a level that made Christ "of no profit". Yes, no matter who does this, or whatever rationale they use; it would be condemned.

No; the "observance" is condemned because it is by definition "scrupulously setting aside" or "watching with evil intent", just like the Jews did with both Christ and Paul to trap them (often over sabbath observance!) This was a return to bondage, making them spiritually no better than they were as pagans. So yes; here too, conversion to Christianity WOULD be placed in question by this!

Right! These are two totally different situations. (And "observe" here is "esteem"; a totally different word anyway!) He approves honest "estimation" of days in Romans, and condemns evil scrupulous "watching" in Galatians!

So far; you are proving my points!

No, but the BONDAGE, which is what they were turning back to, is!

No, it shows your continued jumbling of verses 8 and 9, instead of letting the WHOLE PASSAGE speak for itself.

You're the one who is deathly afraid of the Jewish problem that Paul has been discussing all along; so you try to neutralize it into a "global" problem. But even if that was true; it would include the Jews! All were unde bondage, and "returning BACK AGAIN TO bondage (whichever form it took) is the subject of the chapter.

Since Jews were apart of the human race; then something that applies to the whole human race applies also to them. So he can mention THEIR part in it exclusively without mentioning the rest of the human race! All are under the condemnation of the Law; but you cannot then make that synonymous with "Under the Law". Those are two separate things; though one is a subset of the other. Recall Paul's distinction of "without the Law" from "in the Law" in ch.2. Both have "sinned" and shall "perish", but they are not ALL "under" the Law!

Just like there were gentiles "without" the Law who were justified, in ch.2. And even some of those saints in Heb.11 did not have or follow the WHOLE Law. What is the point of either chapter? It is by FAITH one is justified; not by the Law!

 

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PAGAN observances that are the WEAK and elemental things of THIS WORLD - the emperor worship observing "days, months, seasons and years" (Notice that the WEEKLY cycle is CONSPICUOUSLY missing from that list).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"AGain" you leap off the logical cliff to have a go at Christ the Creator's Weekly Holy day.

Notice that in this leap off the cliff - you attack all weekly observance EVEN though NEITHER the weekly cycle NOR the Sabbath is mentioned AT ALL in the chapter!

By doing so - you squash First day, 7th day - ANY DAY of the week claiming that ALL are "weak elemental things of THIS world" and that they all "pretain to things that by nature are NOT gods at all". You have killed both Sunday AND Saturday worship services by trying to drag ANY weekly observance in EVEN though WEEK is not mentioned NOR is Sabbath!

You're willing to go to any logical inconsistency if it will compose an assault on Christ the Creator's memorial of Creation.

Doesn't that tell you something? -- yet?

In Christ,

Bob