Galatians 4:10 in context

GE quoting EB (31/03/05, 06:08SAT): “you and Bob seem to be in total denial that Judaism was bondage as well.”
Untrue! It is you, Eric B, who deny – and don’t only seem to be in denial – that paganism was bondage as well, or worse, than Judaism, because you insist where Paul speaks of the pagan no-gods of time, “days, months, seasons and years”, he speaks of ‘bondage under the Law’.

GE quoting EB: “... while the "observance" is "condemned" as Bob puts it; it is not because it is something that by its very nature conflicts with the commandments of the Law; such as worshipping other gods.”
GE: Another blatant contradiction of yours, Eric B, of Paul’s verdict: “… ye turn again to the weak and beggarly ELEMENTS whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage: Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years – I am afraid of you lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.” These, were the very “by-nature-no-gods … ye did service unto when ye knew not God”. But Eric B declares, “it is not because it is something that by its very nature conflicts with the commandments of the Law; such as worshipping other gods.”

And if the "observance" is not because it is something that by its very nature conflicts with the commandments of the Law, and if, the "observance" were not such as worshipping other gods, then, Eric B, why would Paul so harshly condemn both ‘observer’ and ‘observed’? Would he condemn the poor Gentile believers for actually believing and doing “(things) that by its very nature were” in agreement “with the commandments of the Law”, and in truth were far from “such (things) as worshipping other gods”? Is that what you say, Eric B, made Paul say: ‘I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain, because you want to come under bondage all over again (4:11, 9)? (Although you use terms from 5:2 – another subtle ‘trick’ (as you say) of yours to confuse!) But yes, it is indeed what you want us to believe! Bob Ryan has shown you this, but you will not have it!

 

GE quoting EB: “... Both of you now seem to be making some modified form of Judaism (no sacrifices; but most of the other rituals intact) the true "freedom" here, and in Romans and Colossians.”
GE (31/03/05, 8:18):
How is it possible to discourse with you, Eric B, if you hold such what shall I call it, skew ideas about your partner in conversation? You presume all these things that “seem” and no more than “seem” to you because you want it to “seem”; so that you can have something (made up by yourself) to attack him on! I have told you in previous discussion I believe the Law of God, His Living Word, abiding with us this day in the Person and Lordship of our Lord Jesus Christ. There is NO ‘law’ of the Old Testament not found fulfilled and once for all established, “IN HIM”. There is NO ‘law’ of “men”, be it man’s very best, found, or founded, fulfilled or established, “IN HIM” – not one! And so, in the NT. That is, what I believe, and teach, and find living the highest ideal.
All that you want to avail with this observation of yours, is to downgrade and negate there is the indispensible reality of a Sabbath Day of Worship-Rest still valid for the New Testament People of God. Why waste your breath on all this beating about the bush and not say it straight? The True Freedom is our Saviour and Christ of God, and the Sabbath Day His gift for the enjoyment of this truth AS A PEOPLE. For without this PLACE IN TIME appointed by God Himself for it, The Body of Christ’s simply won’t be that which God wants it to be: The Church, Congregation in time and space in the Name of Christ Jesus, for a witness, and for the proclamation of Him, and worship, and praises, and prayer – AS THIS BODY. You show me this ENTITY EXISTING IN THE WORLD AND IN TIME, in the Christ-Era, without this, its Day in the world and time, in this the Era of Jesus Christ!
The devil himself and his deputy the Pope knows without this single earthly element the Kingdom of Heaven must vanish. That’s why the powers of darkness united against God’s Sabbath Day, and robbed it of its ONLY glory, its Christ-base – its total dependence – on the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead “in Sabbath’s fullness of day” – ‘opse de sabbatohn tehi epiphohskousehi’.

 

Quoting Eric B, "And just like GE; you bruch aside my explanation of the difference between the LAw and wicked observance."

No, your distinction is artificial, and none of us needs it repeated in order to have something to say against your standpoint or even against you yourself.
You are getting caught in and by your own words and arguments, and the last few of my posts illustrate amply.

 

GE:
“Uh ... I was not part of any Sunday conspiracy”, you Eric B, protest.
Yet I may say, that Galatians got interpreted to the discredit of the Sabbath Day by people like yourself, who trying to set the "context" to "Jewish", covertly conspire against the Sabbath to the furtherance of Sunday-sacredness – consciously or unconsciously. As I said, the unwitting antinomians assist the Day of the Lord Sun so basely served to the ridiculing of Christian integrity and to the defaming of God’s Sabbath Day. In this way you do make your little contribution, and do take part how insignificant it may seem, of an invisible yet universal ‘Sunday conspiracy’.

 

Quoting Eric B,
"these claims about my character"

It is inevitable, Eric B, that your opponents in debate should make inference about your character in view of the total absence in your arguments that can possibly make inference about the Scriptures!
Your basic and one and only 'argument' is you distinguish between keeping of the Law and the Law per se; so in 4:8-11 it is not 'the Law' that is the "weak and beggarly element", but man's (effort to) keeping of the Law. You put this one theme into many variations, thinking it may prove your 'distinction', which is no distinction but in effect and in fact through your total equalisation becomes an exact identification. Only in this way is it possible to maintain the weak and beggarly elements of our verses are not indeed the no-gods of paganism, but the works of a bondage under the Law. Only through such dishonesty is it made possible. How can one not make claims about your character?

 

Quoting Eric B, "because I am not giving the same pat answers most non-sabbatarians give; which you two have your memorized responses for."

"Memorised responses" to the "pat answers" of "most non-sabbatarians" , or, to yours supposedly "not the same"? We answer (or try to answer) you, Eric B, on this thread - so it must be our responses to your claimed not so ordinary arguments. And we have our answers "memorised" and ready! Didn't know I - and Bob - was clairvoyant!

But that nonsense past tense,
What makes your arguments so distinctive, dear Eric B? You only parrot age old attacks on the Sabbath solely via Galatians! The whole of Galatians must so be coloured as to paint the Sabbath in most horrod sin's-purple, and Sunday-observation in liliest white. Otherwise there's no pint whatsoever to all your "answers".

 

Quoting Eric B,
"You still act like you have me on trial or something. Neither of you have even shown how my distinction is artificial; or that I am only conjuring it up to get out of some "trap" or "corner" I have painted myself into."

Proves what I've said above (and before)! The gentleman protests too much!

 

Quoting Eric B,
"you bruch aside my explanation of the difference between the LAw and wicked observance."

To what purpose, dear Eric B, do you attempt an "explanation of the difference between the Law and wicked observance"? To "EX-PLAIN" it!, which means, to 'brush aside' and away, ANY difference remaining, that is!

 

How perfectly true it is what I've said, is that you - noone else but you Eric B - insist "the weak and beggarly elements" were, quote: "bondage under the Law".

 

Paul makes a real and true distinction: "For as many as have sinned WITHOUT THE LAW (like the getile of Galatians 4:8-11) shall also perish without the Law; whereas as many as have sinned IN THE LAW (like the Jews and the Christians alike) shall be judged by the Law".
Your 'distinction, Eric B, is No distinction, it is the 'explanation' of the distinction - and explanation away of the distiction!

 

Quoting Eric B,
"Neither of you have even shown how my distinction is artificial"

In fact yes, we were unable it being so obviously artificial it won't make any difference if ever we were able to show it!

 

Quoting Eric B,
"So in Gal 5 Paul is addressing the argument of Gentiles that are buying into the argument of Acts 15 that you have to be circumcised to be saved. We can "know" this because it actually IN scripture - is recorded as a legitimate problem between Jews and Gentiles."

GE: This last paragraph of yours, Eric B, is an example of – in my mind – bad exegesis.
“...in Gal 5 Paul is addressing the argument of Gentiles that are buying into the argument of Acts 15...”.
How you bring the two passages together must remain a mystery, even IF Paul addressed the same ‘argument’. The two Sources are unrelated; the two events are unrelated; the authors are unrelated. Every possible corollary, the context, the time, the location, what have you, all differ and have nothing in common – nothing, not even and least of all, the subject – the ‘argument’. Circumcision may have had something to do with the initial reasons for the Jerusalem Council, but on that Council received little or no attention. Then circumcision is in no way whatsoever the subject-matter of contention in the passage Galatians 4:8 to 11. You claim it is but it isn’t. Then you use your thing claimed to substantiate your thing claimed. Or you reason the whole context is somehow about circumcision so circumcision is also in here. Or you reason all sin is bondage under the Law so the Sabbath should be in here because the Sabbath is bondage under the Law, therefore behold: The Sabbath is a weak and beggarly principle.

Dare one to challenge you in your muddled thinking, then
“your arguments make the Jews out to be basically good and innocent because of their "Old Testament Law/institution"”,
then Eric B is in his element, and can start railing paragraphs on end,
“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".
But if all this is true; then Christ came and died for NOTHING. And the Jews were right to reject Him and have Him killed. How DARE He come and point out their blindness and bondage under the Law! How DARE He show that they were not keeping it! He should have been putting down those filthy heathens (Romans; etc) and making these righteous Lawkeepers the rightful rulers of the World, instead! And the Jews must now fight to restore the Temple and ALL the sacrifices, (ALL 613 Laws of the OT!) so they may finally earn God's blessings as the rulers of the world. THEN the OLD Testament Faith will stand vindicated as over against gentile paganism or heathen idolatry. And the Sabbath identifying the LORD as THEIR AND ONLY THEIR God will stand vindicated, and its adversaries silenced and abashed. And they can continue to JUDGE everyone for not having all these "commandments" identifying them as God's special people!”

This was where I said, enough, I’ve finished conversing with you, Eric B. But here I am again, not for your sake, but for my own, that I may better be able to give reason for the faith that in me is.

 

Quoting EB, “You two keep avoiding the context of the passage (especially AFTERward; which neither has even touched yet)...”.
Yes, not yet, speaking for myself, even though the need for it seems small, it being a section that comes ‘afterward’, that is, after 4:8-11, and may have resulted by Paul’s having changed subject and or direction. It will, take some time to get there. We’ll just have to see it through.
It took me YEARS to rethink my own position on Colossians 2:16-17; this is going to be it looks like another few years to get cleared and organised. “This”, I mean, an answer to your perspective, from your perspective – not, that I have not had my own and clear and ordered views well-motivated and explained already. You may find them from http://www.biblestudents.co.za, book 4, ‘Paul’.

 

I apologise, Eric B, for being rude and antagonistic, impolite and guilty of every dishonourable behaviour for a confessing Christian. Please forgive me.
Especially on this day, the first of my life newly given me by the grace of God. The old nature survived, as did I, the horrible experience of being hi-jacked. Looking into four gun-barrels at once did me no good after all, although I deemed myself the most thankful man alive. So God forgive me my sins, and allow me further the contemplation of your wondrous Word.
In Christ yours
Gerhard

 

Quoting Eric B who quoted me, saying,
“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.”

Here Eric B answered (to my utter amazement!):
“BINGO! THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!”

Eric B then further quoted me, saying,
“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).”
And immediately nullified any agreement reached, with this,
“that is not how "good Christians" take it; it is how desperate sabbatarians twist their statements to mean; as a straw man to remove this clear proof against their judging over the Sabbath!”

GE:
You lost me here, Eric! If the Sabbatharians’ ‘taking’ of or reaction to the interpreters’ “statements” give “clear proof against their judging over the Sabbath”, the first question entering my mind is, how did the Sabbath get in there, in the subject-matter of the passage, in the first place? How could the Sabbath have given rise to a judging over it if not introduced into the context originally? While all Sabbatharians logically will answer against such an importation of the Sabbath here, it in fact turns out the Sundaydarians are the ones who craft fully transplanted the Sabbath from verily its post-resurrection and Christian observance into Galatians 4:8-11 – not even from its Old Testament roots!
Am I right? Or am I wrong?
Then, do you think I unjustly class your interpretation under the gross of those Sundaydarians who thus introduced the Sabbath into Galatians 4:8-11?
Sabbatharians like Bob and I have consistently claimed, the Sabbath is no matter in this Scripture – it should not be mentioned, what transported in there with far distance heavy haulage hermeneutics! It is the Sunday proponents who say Paul according to this passage denounces Christians (or pseudo-Christians) for returning to a keeping of the Sabbath; it is NOT Sabbatharians who bring the Sabbath into dispute! So how, for goodness’ sake, can this passage in any sense be the ‘sabbatarians’ “desperate twist” to the Sundaydarian interpreters’ “statements ... as a straw man to remove this clear proof against their judging over the Sabbath”? I ask you in all fairness!

So I reckon your overjoyed exclamation, “BINGO! THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!” was rather premature gambling.