Galatians 4:10 in context

Refer also Eric B's post re "ENTIRE context",

GE, in answer to Eric B who quoted “the WHOLE CONTEXT” of our text for discussion.

Eric B:
“Paul MENTIONS their former practice, to compare it with the new type of bondage they were being brought under. Once again; you cannot take a passage; even a chapter, in isolation. Let's look again at the WHOLE CONTEXT!”

Remember, I here reason in answer to Eric B who quoted Galatians from 2:1 to 4:11 in order to illustrate how “the WHOLE CONTEXT” underscores “the new type of bondage” the Galatian believers “were being brought under” – a ‘bondage’, in the opinion of Eric B, that was “under THE LAW”, and for which he used “Paul's past” (which was ‘Jewish’ of course), “as a comparison”.

Said Eric B:
“Here, we see the WHOLE THEME is Paul's past under THE LAW, and his current dealings with people trying to bring the gentiles under THE LAW!
This is no discussion ("specifically"; let alone!) of the "paganism" they were once under, before becoming Christians. Paul USES that as a comparison with the bondage they were being brought under ...” was Eric B’s full remark.

“The WHOLE CONTEXT” and “the WHOLE THEME” for Eric B are virtually the same thing. Eric B wants to show HOW “the WHOLE CONTEXT” and “the WHOLE THEME” of Galatians including 4:10 and immediate context, are ‘Jewish’, and not ‘Gentile’, and indicate a “bondage under THE LAW!”

Let's therefore look again at these verses as quoted by Eric B:

“2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the
Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised ...”

and ask ourselves: Is the context ‘Gentile’, or is it ‘Jewish’? :
“that gospel which I preach among the GENTILES”;
“Titus being a GREEK”;
“NEITHER compelled to be circumcised”.
Context? Decidedly: ‘Gentile’!

Let’s further look at
“2:4 And that because of false brethren unexpectedly brought in, who came in privately to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into BONDAGE:
2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it makes no matter to me: God accepts no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles”

and ask ourselves the question: Is the context ‘gentile’, or is it Judaism? :
“False brethren UN-expectedly, BROUGHT IN” –
From where?
“Who came in PRIVATELY”!
To do what?
“to spy out OUR LIBERTY which we have in Christ”.

Was that, “BONDAGE”, ‘bondage under THE LAW’ – Judaism? No, it was Christianity freed from paganism, once again infiltrated by paganism.
Context then? ‘Gentile’ Christianity!

“That the truth of the gospel might CONTINUE with you”:
How did the Gospel BEGIN with these Galatians?
When they were worshipping “no-gods” and the “first principles of this world” – the pagan, gentile “world”. From being brought out of this background, Paul prayed they “might continue” in the Gospel.
Context therefore: Gentile!

“2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it makes no matter to me: God accepts no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:”

What did Paul think about the possibility those “who seemed to be somewhat” could be Judaisers?
“It makes no matter”!
Paul in fact discards the possibility Judaisers could be the “false teachers”, denying it, writing, “2:7 But CONTRARIWISE, when they saw that the gospel of the UN-circumcision was committed unto me”.
... as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles”

Context and circumstance in Galatia “toward the Gentiles”?
Self explanatory, ‘gentile’!

“2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.”

Context of the issue implicated in 4:10, ‘gentile’, or, ‘Jewish’?
Paul received the “right hand of fellowship” from the Jews, James and Cephas!
Could one, in view of this, expect problems from the Jewish sector of Christianity in Galatia? It would have been more “unexpectedly” than from the gentile sector of Christianity!

“2:10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.”

Those Christians in Galatia – from the gentiles – are asked to help the Christians in Jerusalem – Christians from the Jews.
Context? Neither Jew, nor Gentile, but Christian!

“2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”

Context in Galatia, Paul representing the Christians there? Free of Peter’s prejudices, and therefore the local Christians must be supposed simply gentiles become Christians.
Context therefore: ‘Gentile’ if anything!

“2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If you, being a Jew, live after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compel you the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

The context here, is most interesting, and it will be seen was just the opposite of what you maintain it was, Eric.
“BEFORE”, James freely associated with the Gentiles who for all practical purposes were the total membership of the Church in Antioch in Galatia. James arrived among them the only Jew it seems. But with the Jewish Christians, inter alia Peter, present, James withdrew and separated himself out of fear for them.
So Paul confronted Peter before them all, and argued, that if Peter, being a Jew, behave like a Gentile, and not as a Jew is supposed to behave, how could he expect the Gentile converts to live like true Jewish Christians should?
Why Eric B? These verses say just the opposite of what you say they say. They presuppose, namely, that the Apostle Paul – and as would be expected, his fellow Apostle Peter especially – taught and expected his gentile converts to accept Christianity like they as Apostles and the Church Universal believed and practiced their Faith, which was, like true Jewish Christians should!
You wouldn’t say Paul for his insistence on a Christian Faith “as a Jew” now after all his warning against “false teachers” was one himself, would you?
Definite conclusion: Context: TRUE, ‘Jewish’ Christianity amongst the Gentiles, Paul its chief proponent! TRUE, ‘Jewish’ Christianity amongst the Gentiles, was “OUR LIBERTY which we have in Christ”.

Here is how Paul explains “our liberty which we have in Christ”:
“2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.”
It is TRUE, ‘Jewish’ Christianity amongst the Gentiles, Paul is talking about! TRUE, ‘Jewish’ Christianity amongst the Gentiles, means, “I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.” For no moment is it a “STRANGE Gospel”, for no moment, ‘pagan’; yet for no moment, not, ‘gentile’ Christianity!
TRUE, ‘Jewish’ Christianity amongst the Gentiles, means, “2:20, I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”
TRUE, ‘Jewish’ Christianity amongst the Gentiles, 2:21, “(Does) not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” Truly ‘Jewish’ = truly ‘gentile’ Christianity. Faithful ‘Jewish’ Faith = faithful ‘gentile’ Faith. Faith is Faith, because it is one Christ believed through one Spirit!
This Gospel – not “false teaching” – was received from God through the Jews and as THEIR Faith was proclaimed to the Gentiles.
Therefore then,
“3:1 O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, that all of you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ has been evidently set forth, crucified among you?”

Continued ...

 

Continued ...

“WHO”?
Because it cannot be the Jews!
It cannot be me, Paul, you being my witnesses.
It cannot be James whom you have known even before he “was carried away with the dissimulation” – which was false, hypocritical discrimination – not a “false teaching” of the “other Jews”. And we know it wasn’t James, from his Letter to the Churches, and from history itself. It also couldn’t be “the other Jews”, because we know from this very Letter of Paul to the Church in Galatia that the issue was settled there and then between him and them. And we know from this Letter, what in fact the trouble was with these, visiting, Jews. The Gentile Church was their host, yet they dissociated themselves most unbecomingly from it, through a false pride.
But we do learn from this Letter, that the Jews “smuggled in”, NO, “false teaching”! On the contrary, Paul says to them, How shameful of you! You are the teachers of the (undefiled) Gospel to these people. You, “among (them) evidently set forth Jesus Christ, crucified”, who was the example to us all in humbleness. Practice therefore before them what you have preached before them!
We also learn from this same Letter, and from this same context, that the Jews “smuggled in”, NO, “false teaching”! On the contrary, we learn that Paul commended the Jews for NOT forcing ANY to be circumcised! And he implies the Jews’ GOOD work in the above statement, that it was they who “evidently set forth Jesus Christ crucified, among (the Gentiles)”.

So Paul himself could not tell, “WHO, bewitched you”. But Eric B can inform Paul: Are you so blind and ignorant Paul, that you cannot see it is your sort, the Jews, who is it?
So then with every category of Jews doubtful candidates for bewitchers of the Gentile Church, it must have been, as Paul confirmed, “false brethren unexpectedly brought in, who came in privately to spy” – TOTALLY UN-believers, and therefore, pagan, idolatrous, and heathen men.
Most probably they were ‘gentile’ “brethren”, consisted the Church if not fully then largely of former heathen Gentiles. But maybe Jews without Christ; we too, cannot say with certainty, if Paul couldn’t.
Fact remains, the ‘context’ is unspoilt, ‘Jewish’, Christianity among the Gentiles, INTENDED, but NOT at this point in the Letter spoilt yet, by no one knows who.

Thus the context is the Church as Christian Faith, perceived as a ‘Jewish’ Christianity among the Gentiles. A Christianity NOT, “(brought) into bondage” by “false brethren” (not at this stage supposed, though). Ascertains Paul: “False brethren … to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you”, the Gentile, Jewish orientated Christian Church in Galatia.

Galatians – so far – confirms the Galatian Church and the Galatian Faith, AS SUCH a Church and SUCH a Faith, as what Paul made them, and as what Paul wanted them to be. It implies the Galatian Church with Paul’s blessing and to Paul’s own satisfaction, was a Sabbath-keeping Church. (Not what you’ve thought it was, Eric, is it?)

“2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it makes no matter to me: God accepts no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me.”

Although it matters everything for Eric B, simple truth is, “they who seemed to be somewhat in conference ADDED NOTHING to me”, said Paul. We also don’t read “they added” anything to the Congregation in “false teaching”. Which only confirms what we have already found, that no one of this session, or for the duration of their “conference”, any Jews attending, as Jews, taught the Church false doctrine, or tried to lead believers back into their old ways, whatever their old beliefs may have been, Gentile or Jewish. And the only opportunity this conference offered Jews to instil false teaching, forfeited, the possibility Jews at any other occasion infiltrated the Church with heresies, is very slight indeed. Which is another reason to assume the “false brethren” were themselves of the same stock as the Church in Galatia overall, namely, Gentile “brethren”!
What is your answer to this, dear Eric B?

My time for this is up for this time now. God willing, we continue soon.

Second Post:

The question: “WHO?” is pivotal for our purpose. This question was also pivotal for a faithful understanding of Colossians 2:16-17. There as well as here, the answer to this question, “Who?”, explains the context. Here it is, “Who, bewitched you?” In Colossians it was, ‘Who, judged?’ In Colossians it was the “world”, the world or “anyone” of it, who judged “you”, the Church. Here, in Galatians, Paul asks, “Who bewitched you the Church?”

We are now trying to find out, who, “Who” was.

In Colossians the usual answer automatically comes: ‘The Jews!’ In Galatians, the standard answer just as matter of fact is a given: ‘The Jews!’ And in both cases, for the same reason – got from nothing in the text, but from tradition only!
For are these two Scriptures not the famous ‘parallel Scriptures’? Are these two, not of the infamous ‘triplet’ – Romans 14 being their other ‘brother’ – the “false brethren” of the “false teachers” ‘conspiracy’ of Jewish “reputation” “who came in privately to spy out our (gentile) freedom”!

If it is affirmed, yes the Jews were those “who” were the root of all the evil, then it is admitted and affirmed at once, the context here inquired into, is ‘Gentile’, and not, quote: “bondage under the Law”! And so an affirmation the Jews were those “who bewitched” the Gentiles, exposes itself a fallacy.

Never forget the question, “Who?”! If it had been Jews who “bewitched” the Galatian Christians, then we haven’t noticed it in the Passage so far; if it had been the gentiles who “bewitched” the Galatian Christians, the passage so far can still make some sense.

I at this stage admit beforehand, that I may have to disagree with Bob Ryan that there comes a “switch” from a ‘Jewish’ context to a ‘Gentile’ context where Paul will denounce the Galatians for falling back into their former paganism – 4:8-10. (I am steering in that direction, and probably won’t need to argue such a ‘switch’. We’ll have to see.) Needless to say it is clear I have all the way so far differed with Eric B insofar as the context all the way so far has been predominantly ‘Gentile’, and not ‘Jewish’ or “under the Law” as he would have it.

So we’ll have to go on with the text and see if the Passage as a whole reveals a ‘Gentile’ context, or, a ‘Jewish’ context. “Context” is here meant (by myself) as to include Paul’s predisposition towards the issues at stake in his Letter.

Now the best option at this point would be not to just go on with the text from here, but to go back and start right from the beginning of the Letter, because there are some decisive statements of Paul’s there.

In 1:4, to begin with, Paul wrote, “… that He might deliver us from THIS PRESENT EVIL WORLD”.
No further explanation needed to see the ‘context’ is ‘Gentile’.

In 1:6 Paul says, “I marvel that you (Galatian Church) are so SOON, REMOVED from Him that called you [“FROM, this present evil world”] INTO the grace of Christ”.
Here the contrast between “world” and “grace” is direct – no relapse into an intermediate, mixed state or status as into Judaism or any syncretism, is supposed.
Paul says the Galatians’ relapse was “unto another gospel which is NOT another gospel”. Nothing of what he says suggests it was Judaism the Galatians fell back into. Least of all does Paul consider the Old Testament “ministration” the ‘system’ into which the Galatian Christians relapsed. On the contrary, later in his Letter Paul will use another and synonymous metaphor for this very “no-gospel” which the Galatians in their falling back accepted, namely, the “no-gods” which, when still the Galatians “knew not God”, “did service unto”, and “now after”, “return(ed) to again”. (4:8-9)
From the very beginning of the Letter it already seems to be most unlikely the falling away of the Galatians was a return to observance of Old Testament practices and principles, or that the issue was that Paul considered the Old Testament Faith as that to which the Galatian Church was ‘removed’ (1:7) back to.
Is not Paul’s own definition of what the Galatians were falling back to – of the “new type of bondage they were being brought under” – clear enough, that it was “this present evil world”? (1:4)
Therefore those who “perverted the Gospel of Christ”, for all practical purposes were ‘gentile’ “men”.
It at this stage of our discourse already becomes clear that, like in the case of Colossians 2:16-17, we also in Galatians 4:10 are overwhelmed by preconceived prejudices against the Sabbath merely. For, for what other reason than to bring the Sabbath in disrepute would it be claimed the Galatian Christians all over again returned to “Old Testament Law” and that “Old Testament Law” was that, when originally they were converted, they were converted from? This scheming already is being exposed as a wilful and evil attempt at perverting the Scriptures as well as the pure Gospel, only to get into a more advantageous position from where to justify the pagan practice of Sunday observance.

“Whether WE preach any other gospel to you …” (verse 8). Refer verse 1, “Paul an apostle NOT OF MEN, neither by MEN, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father … and ALL the brethren who are WITH ME – to the Churches of Galatia.”
“We”, were “all”, “not of men”, neither of the world, nor of Judaism. “We” were Christians, and because “the Churches in Galatia” were Christians too, “all”, were “brethren”.
Context?
Neither ‘gentile’, nor, ‘Jewish’, but Christian!

“If any man preach another gospel to you …” (9), why should it be the reintroduction into Old Testament Law, and not a falling back into their previous heathendom and idolatry? “As we said before”, with certainty, is that they were “pervert(ers) of the Gospel of Christ” (verse 7), those who “preached a nice message besides the Good News we have preached to you”, verse 8. And as we have seen before, they must have been “men” of the “world”, “who seemed to be somewhat” (2:6), and who, as confirmed in verse 1:10, liked to be “pleased” and to “please men”, like true men of “this present evil world” would!

Continued ...

 

Continued ...

“For I certify you that the Gospel which was preached of me, is not after man” (‘kata anthrohpon’)”. (1:11)
By guarantee therefore of Paul’s, the ‘nice message besides’, or the “other gospel” other than the true Gospel he preached, was “according to man”, that is, was, ‘humanism’, and was NOT, Old Testament Faith called by liberalists and antinomians, ‘Jewish legalism’ or ‘bondage under the Law’!
Here Paul supplies us with an unequivocal definition of “the other nice / soft message besides”: ‘humanism’ = ‘to euanggelion hoti estin kata anthrohpon’! Paul’s Message did not “please” man, nor made sense to man (did not “persuad men”), while the false gospel pleased, and flattered man and human nature – was humanistic. Paul’s Gospel required he and the Galatian Church be “the servant of Christ” (10); the false Gospel demanded allegiance to humanism and / or the world. So the Galatians were persuaded and lured back to a serving of it, and not, of the Old Testament practices and principles.

The Old Testament Faith by inspiration of God could never be what Paul here every inch denounces as the outright Gospel-opposing schemes of wicked men.
Bob Ryan is perfectly right, and Eric Bolden, completely wrong!
Like the case was with Colossians 2:16, here in Galations 4:10 the problem behind finding fault with the Old Testament and blaming it for everything wrong in Galatians, results from the purely fanciful – and wishful – thinking of the anti-Sabbatharians.

1:12, “For I neither received it (‘my’ Gospel), of man”. That is, Paul didn’t get the Gospel of Jesus Christ from the world, quit clearly.
“Neither was I taught it”. Paul received his education from and through the Jewish, ‘Old Testament’, institutions.
Paul received ‘his’ Gospel “through the revelation of Christ”.
Context then? Neither ‘gentile’, nor, ‘Jewish’, but Christian!

From this it is undeniable, ‘the world’ of heathenism and paganism cannot be ignored as having played a major role in the slipping back of the Galatians into some “non-Gospel” religion, which, naturally and most logically, would be the religion of the very role-playing factor itself, of heathen and gentile paganism of “man” himself.
Twice in verses 11 and 12 Paul’s denies ‘his’ Gospel was “of man”, while he only once denies he was “taught” it, implying that he did not receive it from Jewish teachers; ‘his’ Gospel he received through divine revelation of Jesus Christ.
By this broad and specific denial of from where Paul got his Gospel, he classes the system that “taught” him – the ‘Jewish system’ – under the broader category of all the human philosophy and wisdom of “man”, which was idolatrous to be frank! Paul does not do it the other way round though, and classes “man”, that is, in this case, all gentile, pagan religion, under the ‘Old Testament Law’-system, to be frank!
That is what Eric Bolden tries to do though, and one must be honest, and give Bob Ryan the credit he recognised Eric B’s wangling for what it is: just plain false reasoning in order to categorize Old Testament Law, and specifically its Sabbath-doctrine, under idolatrous practice and teaching to the denial of the Gospel of Christ.

One in verses 13 to 14 enters upon a section of Paul’s Letter that seen with one’s anti-Jewish coloured spectacles, may look like very much ‘Jewish’.
Here are 13 and 14 (Marshall):
“For you heard my conduct then in Judaism, that excessively I persecuted the Church of God and wasted it, and progressed in my race in Judaism beyond many contemporaries being a zealot of my ancestral tradition abundantly.”
First question is: What is Paul referring to under “Judaism”? Old Testament Law? To insist he does is to unanswerably be dishonest! For Paul writes of a “contemporary”, “Judaism”, which he saw himself (before his conversion) the best example of. Does Old Testament Law and belief (or practice) demand, or command, to waste the Church of God, for example?
Paul explicitly states he was a Judaist “being a zealot of my ancestral tradition” – something VASTLY different from being a believer under the Old Dispensation / Old Testament / Old Ministration / Old Covenant.
Yet this Letter has for so long been so interpreted that good Christians take it for granted, Paul in and with it effectively denounces Old Testament Faith and all Old Testament practice, like the keeping of the Sabbath Day, and brings the whole under the scope of the “bondage of the Law” as being no different than and in fact as being the very same things as “the weak and beggarly elements (of the world and paganism)” (4:9).
Protested Eric B,
“What I SAID was that the Law was bondage similar to paganism; because under either, man was condemned; unable to keep the Law – which is otherwise "good and holy and just". That is NOT the same as (saying) "the Law is paganism".!”
But Eric B does not tell how he IN THIS PLACE –Galatians– arrived at his conclusion. Eric B does not explain that he arrived at his conclusion above via the exact mental process (science) of first equalising the SUM of being under the bondage of the Law and the SUM of being under the bondage of idolatrous paganism, and then of extracting the factors that reduce the result to the Law = Paganism. That was the result BobRyan got, and Eric B cannot blame him, for Bob followed Eric’s formula to the letter!
Be that as it may; what is important, remains, that ordinary earthlings swallow whole that the Law=Paganism if under any or both man is in bondage; and that that is what ordinary well meaning Christians by exegetes and commentaries (like Eric B’s) are MADE to understand from Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.
How do they do it?
By ‘exegesis’ so called, that departs from the pre-judged disposition that “the whole context” of Galatians 4:10, is, “under bondage of the Law”; so that THE THING the Galatians “turn(ed) to again” (9a) and “desired to be in bondage to again” (9b), namely, “the weak and beggarly elements”, in the last analysis considering “the whole context”, must be, the Law!

Therefore what an important topic this is, “Galatians 4:10 In Context”! If the whole context of the whole Letter could vary, could sometimes be as we have called it ‘Jewish’, or could sometimes be as we have called it ‘gentile’, or neither, or both, then the deduction is impossible, that because of the whole context being invariably ‘Jewish’, 4:10 should also be ‘Jewish’, that is, should also be speaking of “bondage under the Law”. Thus also the equation will become impossible, that “bondage under the Law” = “weak and beggarly elements (of the world, ‘paganism’)”. Then Old Testament Law will stand vindicated, not abolished; and new Testament Faith will stand vindicated as over against gentile paganism or heathen idolatry. Then 4:10 will mean what it says with so many words, that the Galatian converts returned to their former pagan idolatry of “observation” of the Greek “no-gods” or “elements” of time, which were: “days”, “moons”, “seasons”, and “years”. And the Sabbath of the LORD your God will stand vindicated, and its adversaries silenced and abashed.

 

Quoting Eric B,
"But who is DOING the compelling? Gentiles? Did pagans ever try to get their fellows who had become Christian to be circumcised? No; clearly the ones DOING the compelling would be JEWS! Sorry; but nice try."

Ja, you're right, and I am fast asleep - never noticed the double posting. I did make a few corrections in there though, and unforunately neither all nor the one about Timothy / Titus - got mixed up, sorry!

But re what you have said here, "But who is DOING the compelling? Gentiles? Did pagans ever try to get their fellows who had become Christian to be circumcised? No; clearly the ones DOING the compelling would be JEWS! Sorry; but nice try."
I think you are the one who will have to go re-think your position of this my last post.
Let me ask you here, now, What gives you the idea, "clearly the ones DOING the compelling would be JEWS"?
Even you use the word, "would", not were!
But I have given consideration to this assertion of yours now, and will be occupied with it for some time still, untill I've finished with assessing whether the "ENTIRE" and "WHOLE context" presupposes "bondage under the Law" or not.

 

Quoting Eric B,
"More on "WHO" compelled:
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)."

Eric, let's go through this SLOWLY!
"... but there were OTHERS ..." You FIRST PRESUME there were others, and that they were Jews. But you should first have SHOWN, 1. There WERE others, and then, that they were JEWS - which you don't do!

Then you again simply proceed assuming, these 'other Jews' "clearly ... (were) going around compelling (through words of judgment) people" to be circumcised. But show that from Galatians in context BEFORE 4:10? Imposiible! So you AGAIN flee to other Scriptures and MISapply them to Galatians.

 

Even in Romans 14, Paul does NOT say, nor supposes, that it was "particularly" Jews, who judged. And he does not say, nor does he suppose, 'OUTSIDE' Jews judged 'inside'-the-Church-Jews; but he says, Christian brother accused and judged Christian brother.
Which was far from the Galatian circumstance.

 

Ah Eric B, I cannot think you couldn't know you're talking nonsense! That what I've said in what you quoted me saying, that "Then the rest of the New Testament is to be thrown out. The Jews were justified by the Law; and thus better than those "dog" pagans, as they called them. PAgans were the only "sinners"; and therefore the Jews were justified in looking down on them as "sinners of the Gentiles"."
No, I'm unable to answer such rubbish!

 

But thanks you for having eneded for me a wearisome task to bring to your senses Paul's simple and sraight-forward and unambiguous statement the Galatian Church (or some within it) fell back into their former paganism.
God bless
Gerhard Ebersoehn

 

This thread could have served a good purpose in a proper way, but as things are going awry because of Eric B's misconceptions, I am forced to continue to answer him (where I said I've finished).

I think We find Eric B's argument in a nutshell in these words of his,
“it was "The works of the Law" that was the venue this spiritual "witchcraft" was being done through.”
To me it is impossible to argue, and confirms everything BobRyan has consistenetly said you are doing, Eric B, which is, that you in the end, make of the Law itself, witchcraft. If you can’t see how any other sound-minded person must see your arguments, its worthless to further debate. Don’t come with your excuse every time, “Not because the Law was bad; but because their INTENT was!”, it’s sanctimonious bigotry! What the Galations were doing was what they were DOING – their “INTENT” included – and it was idolatry, pagan idolatry, and NOTHING like Old Testament be it behind the times ‘Jewish’ faith.

 

GE:
Eric B using the word “bewitched” for ‘paratehreoh’ in 4:10:
“So while Paul gives the Romans (as well as the Colossians) liberty; he tells the Galatians that they have been bewitched; and had better avoid the practices; or Christ will profit them nothing.”
But, protests Eric B to my, correlating the words “bewitched” (baskainoh) in 3:10, and “paratehreoh’ in 4:10 (“Paul asked, "Who bewitched you?" And that is most significant, because to "bewitch" was in much the same way exactly what Paul accused the Galatians of doing in 4:10, "to divine" 'paratehreoh'. Now here you've given me and Bob one more clue as to of what nature the Galatians’ relapse was, namely, that is was a relapse into their former heathen, gentile, pagan, "bewitched" and "divined" idolatry!”),
saying,
“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".”
Again, thank you, Eric B, for this handy definition of what ‘baskainoh’ can actually mean, namely, “to "malign", or...to "fascinate"”. The heathen, gentile, idolaters, were much maligned and fascinated by their “elemental no-gods” of time, “days, months, seasons and years”! Very good!
Again, ‘baskainoh’ is a word used in the NT but this once – too unordinary a word for the Judaisers’ age old doctrine of salvation by works of the Law – and which, once more, here implies what I’ve adduced above, that this word, like ‘paratehreoh’, supposes heathen, gentile, pagan, "bewitched" and "divined" idolatry!

 

31/3/05 01:19, GE quoting Eric B, “You refer to the Galatians worshipping "no-gods-"; and Titus not being "compelled" to be circumcised. "context"? Of those who once worshipped false gods; you're right; it is "gentiles". Of those being "compelled"; again; you're right, it is "gentiles". But who is DOING the compelling? Gentiles? Did pagans ever try to get their fellows who had become Christian to be circumcised? No; clearly the ones DOING the compelling would be JEWS! Sorry; but nice try.”
GE: First, Eric B, you insisted – persistently, unequivocally – that “the whole body” / “the entire context” / “72 verses”, etc, is “bondage under the Law”, and that therefore, even 4:8-10 MUST be, ‘bondage under the Law’. Now you admit: “Of those who once worshipped false gods; you're right; it is "gentiles". Of those being "compelled"; again; you're right, it is "gentiles".” So, half of your “whole”, already is not ‘bondage under the Law’, but is bondage under paganism. With this half of your "whole"-argument goes your whole argument.
You still hold on to the other half, saying: “But who is DOING the compelling? Gentiles? Did pagans ever try to get their fellows who had become Christian to be circumcised? No; clearly the ones DOING the compelling would be JEWS! Sorry; but nice try.”
Saying this, you contradict Paul who explicitly states the Jews involved in the Galatian issue – and he mentions them and all of them specifically – “compelled NOT”!
Then you contradict Paul directly with YOUR OWN and arrogant assertion: “No; clearly the ones DOING the compelling would be JEWS!” Either you, or Paul, is lying here.
With this last part of your original bolstering again goes your "whole"-argument – twice demolished at once.
You blame me and BobRyan for being so hiper-pro-Jewish we can’t see them do any sin. But so are you anti-Jewish they can’t do anything but it is so wicked they take everybody with them to hell. Then you are so totally blind to the pagans also being human and sinners, they too are in effect justified in their worst perdition by the Law since the Jews – the Law – were their bewitchers.

 

GE quoting EB: (31/3/05, 02:06) “are you (GE) suggesting that Peter's "living as a Jew" was RIGHT; and here COMMENDED by Paul? No; people lived in fear of the Jews; trying to placate them...”
GE: Are you suggesting I suggested it? Then you’re mistaken. Why not be so valiant and say it is you who so hold? Because you suppose “Peter's "living as a JEW"” was wrong, whilst Paul reprimands him his "living as a Jew", WAS wrong! You suppose, however to live as a Jew, is wrong; Paul supposes to live as a Jew, is, or, should be, the right way. And in this case the right way to live as a Jew was to truly live as a Christian. That is, Eric B, what you are unable – or rather, unwilling – to see. Therefore, no, I do not suggest “that Peter's "living as a Jew" was RIGHT”; I say just what Paul said, ‘Peter, you are NOT living as a Jew now being so prejudiced towards your brethren of the Gentiles. Live as a Jew for being a Christian, should and would, before you can expect of these Gentiles to live like yourself.’ Because Paul here commends living as a Jew, because it suggests living right and Christianly. Paul here does not condemn; he commends; you’re right again, dear Eric B!