Galatians 4:10 in context

Quoting Eric B,
“Yes; let's take this slowly. You are arguing that the problem can't be Judaizers; because of a few instances of Jews (including other apostles) accepting the apostles, or not compelling them to be circumcised. No; you are saying I PRESUME that there were "others" besides these! --besides these Jews who accepted the Church.

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT EVERY SINGLE JEW ALIVE ACCEPTED THE GOSPEL AND THERE WERE NTHERS WHO DIDN'T? I have to PROVE that there were Jews still opposing the Gospel? Wow! What a spin on history!”

I think we’ve struck the cord of discord. It is your assuming my assuming! Well, you’re assuming my assuming wrongly! For I’ll tell you exactly what I do not believe nor teach, “THAT EVERY SINGLE JEW ALIVE ACCEPTED THE GOSPEL AND THERE WERE NTHERS WHO DIDN'T”. I also don’t want you to waste your energy “to PROVE that there were Jews still opposing the Gospel” – save it for the true issues at stake here.
There may have been Jews who completely were pagans – there today still are. They even may have had influence on the paganism of their day; there have been a number of Jews who have had significant influence on every imaginable ‘modern’ philosophy of unbelief. They are NOT though in Galatians distinguishable as “particular Jews”, especially NOT in 4:8-11. In this pericope Paul distinguishes gentile pagans, naturally mainly of Greek stock, though Jews to the flesh may have counted a few among them. Nevertheless they do not HERE, feature, as ‘Judaists’ like the old Paul did. They were completely insignificant, literally weren’t noticeable, in the matter under discussion in this part of Paul’s Letter. If one would say HERE there were no single Jew alive supposed, he probably could be right. It’s not the issue! It’s not the issue there were in fact Jews who REJECTED the Gospel of Christ; it is, in Paul’s words (near the beginning of his Letter), “of no matter whatsoever”! And it in this place is of as little consequence those Jews were under bondage of the Law. Because Paul in these verses, 4:8 to 11, writes about pagans returning to paganism no matter the fact he elsewhere in THIS Letter, writes about Christians returning again to their former bondage under the Law.
Your division-making between these verses of 8-11, I’ll consider at another time. Must go to bed now. The after-shock of yesterday’s drama is taking its toll still.

 

Dear Eric Bolden,

I gave much thought to your “whole context” concept with regard to Galatians 4:8-11 and have gained better insight, I believe, more in line with your own.

I heard a sermon this evening and of Newton's experience at sea - you must know it too. Newton received a 'second chance' one could say, to live for Christ, and so he did. I feel I have in like manner received another opportunity to live for God. May He grant me mercy and grace thereunto as He has done through all my life and on Friday in such indescribable manner.

You are right, that 4:3 ‘sorts’ ‘Jewish’ faith, under “bondage under the elements of the WORLD”! It pays to simply read the text!
Paul undoubtedly speaks of the Old Testament ‘dispensation of the Law’ in this verse, he himself, being a Jew, saying, “WE”: “Even so WE (the Jews, those of the circumcision in the terminology of this Letter), WHEN (in the dispensation of the Law, or, “when”, under the Old Testament believing), WE, were children (that is, when we weren’t “sons” of age or “heirs”, yet, verse 7), were in bondage under the elements of the WORLD.”
Paul says virtually the same thing in 3:23, “But before faith came, we were kept under the Law, SHUT UP unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.”

Yes, Eric B, you are right, and I was wrong. The Old Testament with its Law, Paul reckons under the “principles of the world”. To further deny will be bald headstrongness.
And so one could also accept your explanation of ‘stoicheia’, “principles / elements / rudiments”, that it means ‘to be in agreement with’ / "in pace with". To be under the bondage of the Law is the same as to be and as being under the bondage of the principles of the world

Certainly yes! Because Paul’s whole argument – the crux of it – is that, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW A JEW IS SAVED OR HOW A GENTILE IS SAVED! All, are saved by grace through faith, and all, are FIRST made and proved SINNERS BEFORE THE LAW as precondition they may be saved! It is final: “The Scripture (the Law) hath concluded ALL, under SIN”! And UNLESS one has been included under SIN, UNLESS one has been found a SINNER, he is still, a LOST sinner, UNTIL “the promise by faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe.” (3:23)
Now I got it! God through Jesus Christ saves sinners, and only sinners, of whom I, am baddest.
It is what I have believed since God in my heart and mind “revealed” His grace, long ago. But I have not seen it so clearly in these Scripture passages before.
Then this understanding puts the issues in the Galatian Church we are discussing, into another perspective.
I am grateful to you, Eric B, for it, and to God.

 

May I now refer back to a previous post of mine, of March 25, 2005 01:11 AM, where I wrote, and now, for the book, repeat,
“I see a clear trend here, Eric B namely applying a VALID Christian PRINCIPLE where it does not apply.
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're lost!
What we are trying to say here - Bob and I - is that that is not the issue here in Galatians. We all three - you included - reckon up to a point the issue is 'Jewish' (I am starting to have my reserves as a result of this very discussion.)
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. You, on the other hand, say, no, inadmissible because the trend so far had been and therefore must remain - equally exclusive as our view - 'Jewish'!” End quote!

I am now of course forced to make amendments!
So, namely: Eric B rightly, applies a VALID Christian PRINCIPLE, and, where it APPLIES! And I must say to Bob, neither Eric, nor I, can or would want to argue with you, Bob, if a man is not in Christ, he is in bondage, whether being under the Law in / under bondage, or, while without the Law being in / under bondage: he is not in Christ, and under bondage and lost!
What we are trying to say here - Eric and I now, and I’m sure you as well, Bob - is that that, IS in fact, the issue here in Galatians AS, in the WHOLE, of the context! It is here our paths, NOW, part.
And so it is irrelevant up to which point or no point, the ‘context’ is 'Jewish' or ‘Gentile’. For Paul NOWHERE addresses the specific issue of the Galatians' return to their former, pagan, state, IN ISOLATION.
And here, we all, have a lot more thinking to do! For I say the 'switch' that STILL in verse eight comes to the fore from INSIDE the text and context, does NO harm to the trend or context of the WHOLE.
You, Bob now, can no longer say, no, inadmissible because the trend so far had been purely 'Jewish', but here (4:8-11), clearly is purely ‘pagan’ / ‘Gentile’.
So we’ll have to work out this apparent and genuine problem.

 

I wrote this before having read the updated thread.

And I think the best place to start will be to return to that very early post of Eric B’s, where he says,
"But the Hebrews were under bondage too, before Christ. For some [now, after Christ] to go to the gentiles and try to get them to "live like the Jews [of “before Christ”, that is, according to Old Testament Law]", would be seen as bringing them BACK under "bondage"; though a different type.” Which “type” (as we now know), Eric B (as we have seen) correctly means, was, or is, a "bondage" “under the elements of the WORLD”.

Again, surely if a Christian, would like to live like even the truly believing Jews of “before Christ”, he must return back to a bondage under the Law that for him would be a return as to a bondage “under the elements of the world” – NO doubt! And such a return, would, from the nature of the case, be, a return to a keeping of ALL the Laws – or just a few such a ‘Christian’, might choose to keep – Laws, of the Old Testament Scriptures. I say, all those Laws, or just one, no difference, it must be, and is, a return to a bondage “under the elements of the WORLD” – according to Paul in this verse, Gal.4:3. And, let it be here stressed, it will be a bondage returned to, NO different, than that bondage, the heathens and pagans, whether of before Christ or of after Christ, were, and are under. It is a state of lost-ness, of being without Jesus Christ, were it a pagan Gentile, or were it a “false brother” (as Paul called them) of the Christian Faith.
No Eric B, I fully agree with you … if, this, is what you ‘have been saying all the time’! If so, then, NO objection!
And I’m absolutely sure, Bob Ryan too, will agree, fully!

 

But now the BIG question, Is this, ALL Paul has to say? Is this all he actually says? Is this where Paul's argument stops, and is this where it first started?
And the answer is, No!
So my friends we've got work to do. You may, God willing, hear from me again, soon, and I am looking forward to hear from you. Let us please take it slowly, and one step at a time - I'm no genius. I truly appreciate your help with my thought-processes.

 

And I would at this point again express my gratitude to BaptistBoard for hosting this medium for learning, receiving and sharing the things of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

What I think says all I'm able to further say on this topic, Galatians 4:8-11 in Context:

“Though but a man’s will yet confirmed, it is impossible to annul, or to be added to.” (3:15) How much surer therefore, if God’s ‘Will’!

God ensured His will – in Paul’s own words – that “the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles”. In the Old Testament – in “the Scripture”, says Paul in verse 8, “it says, In you (Abraham), will all the nations be blessed” – plural, many, “all” the nations, the Gentiles included!

Paul wonders, ‘How on earth – the blessing of “our father Abraham” … on the Gentiles?! How impossible, they are not “sons”? They are not the “heirs” by right – ‘by Law’? Not those ‘dogs’! Isn’t this going to be grossly unfair of God that the “children of Abraham” – Israel – are passed by, while the Gentiles, the “cursed” – “for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth NOT in all the things which are written in the book of the Law, to do them” – that they, receive the promise and the blessing of Abraham, our – the Jews – father? These Gentiles, they don’t keep the Law! We, the Jews, we, greatly respect God’s holy Law. We, every day do our very best to obey every letter of God’s Commandments and Ordinances. SHOULD NOT the promises of God come OUR way? Isn’t it just fair, fair to us, who are the “children of Abraham” by promise and testament; fair to the Law that says the “heir” shall receive the blessing? Are not WE, “the heir”? How can “the blessing of Abraham”, “come on the Gentiles”, those disobedient and “cursed” “strangers to the promises of God”?.
Here is Paul’s solution:
“Now to Abraham (first), and his seed (after), were the promises made” – not, to the Jews first, then, to the Gentiles!
To Abraham, first! How obtained Abraham the promises of God? “As Abraham believed God, it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Abraham, like the Gentiles, had no ‘lineage’ or works-record to rely on! He simply had to believe God! “KNOW YE THEREFORE, that THEY [Abraham and the Gentiles], which are of FAITH [without the Law – without even an obedience to it to show], EVEN THEY, the same (“cursed”), ARE the children of Abraham.” … “Though but a man’s will yet confirmed, it is impossible to annul, or to be added to.” (3:15) This is God’s will and confirmed, by Jesus Christ sacrificed and resurrected, “impossible to annul, or to be added to” – to the Gentiles belong the promises of God! “So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.”
The Gentiles aren’t blessed with the faithful Jews, but they together with the faithful Gentiles, are blessed with the faithful Abraham on the Word of God.

So then, Paul not only proves the Gentiles become heirs of God’s promises by faith only, but the Jews too.
“Now to Abraham (first), and to his seed (after), were the promises made.”

And who are known to be Abraham’s, only, Lawful, “seed”? Who, in fact are, the children “as many as the sand of the sea” of Abraham – “according to the promises of God”? It is CLAIMED, of course, Israel! Does not the Law attest, that the Jews by right of Law are the sons and heirs of Abraham’s blessing? So they boast, and so indeed it is – IF, they believe! It belongs to them by Testament of God – IF, they believed! “In thee (Abraham) shall ALL nation-S, be blessed” – Jews too, but, “together with the FAITHFUL (believing) Abraham”!!
How now? Is their a contradiction; is there a clash of interest? Is it a matter of conditions to the Will, or of changes in the Contract of Confirmation? Does it mean the annulment of the Lawful Document? Who gets done in? Who isn’t paid his due? Who has worked for peanuts? No, it’s all of grace!

“To Abraham, and to his SEED were the promises made. God saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of One, And to thy Seed, WHICH IS CHRIST” – “This I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God, was confirmed IN CHRIST, and that the Law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, CANNOT disannul God’s Promise, that it should make it of no effect.” “Though but a man’s will yet confirmed, it is impossible to annul, or to be added to.” This though, is God’s will.

[Nobody argues here the other way round, that God’s Promise, annulled the Law, which was four hundred and thirty years later than the Promise! How could the Promise when given have annulled something that not even then existed? It in any case is no how the intent of Paul to argue the ridiculous, as he said in Romans 3:31, consistently, “Do we then make void the Law through faith? God forbid: yea, we (by the faith of the Promise) establish the Law.”]

Now more to the point and specifics:

In 4:3, Paul thinks of himself and his fellow-Jews (where he says), “Even so we, when we, were children”, as over against those reckoned by God but not generally regarded as “child”, “son” “heir” – the Gentiles!
4:1, “Now I (Paul) say, the heir, as long as he is a child (meaning the Jews ‘before faith came’) differs nothing from the servant (meaning the gentiles), though he (the “heir”) be lord (owner by testament) of everything. But he is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father (in his testament).
Verse 3 continues with this “heir”, the Jews, supposed as subject, “Even so WE WHEN WE WERE CHILDREN (the Jews / “heirs” not of age yet, and still “a child”, 3:1-2) were in bondage under the elements of the WORLD.” We were just like the Gentiles, without Christ, and as were we pagans. We were no better than them in no respect.
Paul from 4:1 to 4:3 has the Jews in the mind firstly and mainly. The ‘context’ is decidedly ‘Jewish’. Our question is: Does Paul CONTINUE to have the JEWS (exclusively) in mind further on, and through, verses 8 to 11? Will the ‘context’ remain (exclusively) ‘Jewish’? Or does he change subject, and has (exclusively) the Gentiles in mind in verses 8 to 11?
It is no easy question but gets very complex, and one should be wary of too simple answers.
One reason I think that Paul does change subject and context is that he will not unnecessarily repeat (in 8-11) what he has already said (in 1-3). I believe so despite he somehow keeps on writing in the First Person.

4:4, “But when the fullness of the time (“appointed of the Father”, 4:2) was come (as when “faith came”, 3:23) God sent forth His Son, made of a women, made under the Law …”.
Notice “made of a woman” – not of Abraham! God sent forth His Son as a man for men, as the one for the many, as the second Adam for the first Adam. Paul wants to say with this: Jesus Christ was sent by God for Gentiles as for all men, even for the Jews too; but in the first place for all men, and therefore for the Gentiles first: for sinners, specifically and originally!
Notice “made under the Law” – and remember 3:22, “The Scripture has concluded ALL under sin”, and that “we were”, ALL, by the Scripture, “kept under the Law (and) shut up …”!
Paul, saying either “we”, or, “ye”, now and here in this place, in view of the universal principle of divine salvation he takes cognisance of, includes all men, and all men as sinners and unbelievers and Gentiles, as being and for being under that very bondage he has concluded even the Jews were under before “the fullness of the time was come”!

5:1, “To redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons”.
Because then, God sent forth Christ to save men being all sinners, Paul including himself “in bondage under the elements of the world” and with the Gentiles including himself, concludes, finally, “To redeem THEM that were under the Law”, sinners, heathen, idolators, Greeks, Hebrews – all the “cursed”. Of whom Paul was chiefest, said he, “that WE, (all) might receive the adoption of sons”.
Paul does NOT speak of Jews in 4:5; he speaks of US, all and everyone of US, men, as Gentiles! And if not as of Gentiles, then in vain did God send forth His Son! Then “verily righteousness should have been by the Law”! God save you my friend, and me, as men, fallen and accursed men – as Gentiles – or not at all!
What Paul PREACHES here in 4:5, saying, “them that were under the Law”, is, that a Jew, should first become a Gentile, a man merely, an ordinary human being – a sinner ultimately – or he cannot become a chosen of God, for “God justif(ies) the HEATHEN through faith” (3:8) – not the Jews through the Law! That is how God, “PREACHED the Gospel before to Abraham”. There is no other Gospel proclaimed; this, is the only! God saves them that are SINNERS, Gentiles, “under the Law”.
In verse 5 therefore, Paul changes both subject and context. He here reasons as were he a Gentile, so that when saying “we” or “ye”, he means the Gentiles. So that even when saying “sons”, it is the heathens or Gentiles he means are the “sons”. How else would any Gentile be saved; how else any man for that matter, even were he a Jew?

Paul THUS ONLY is able to with absolute confidence declare:
4:6, “And because YOU are sons (= had been sons, since by Promise and Blessing God’s to Abraham before the Law and before any Jew), God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your heart, crying, o Father our own Father!”
Context? No, not ‘Gentile’, but of those saved by grace only and not by the works of the Law!

4:7, “Wherefore thou art NO MORE A SERVANT, but a son”!
Whom does Paul here suppose? Gentiles, who previously in fact had been servants, even the servants of the Jews? Yes, but just as much does Paul here think of all men as Jews, who, for their works of the Law, were servants, and in bondage, as he has said in 4:3, “in bondage under the elemental things of the world” – Jews who so in effect were servants to the Gentiles! Or Paul thinks of both Gentiles and Jews for being in bondage together and without distinction – of both as servants, under the bondage of sin and death.
Paul supposes Gentiles, spiritually.

Then follows verses 8-11, and we must admit, the context and the subject “ye” are ‘Gentile’; or salvation is by the Law, and not of grace, for reason of all and every of the arguments above, the main argument being that Paul means the Jews, as in bondage under the elements of the world!
Since salvation then is by grace through the faith of the Promise and Blessing of God, not by the works of the Law, Paul in verse 8 further supposes Gentiles as were they in their former state, of being without Christ, and lost, and worshipping their erstwhile gods that were no gods, but the weak and beggarly elements of the world: “Ye worship days, months, seasons, years”, in vain! “In vain have I laboured so much for you!”

 

We may now return to the beginning of this conversation, and find a general solution to all our differences. The following quotations fairly summarises the standpoint of each, and on review reveal remarkable agreement on certain points.

Said Eric B, from the beginning, “But Hebrews were under bondage too, before Christ. For some to go to the gentiles and try to get them to "live like the Jews" would be seen as bringing them BACK under "bondage"; though a different type.”

Taken by itself, one cannot find anything wrong with this statement of Eric B’s. One is able to bring this statement into association with the general trend of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, and, with some axiomatic principles of his of the doctrine of salvation by faith only, and find nothing wrong with it. Eric’s statement finds support, for example, from Paul in 4:3, where he declares: “Like indeed us (‘houtohs kai hehmeis’ – “Hebrews”), when we were children (“before Christ” and believed in Jesus Christ not yet), were in bondage under the elements of the world (‘tou kosmou’).” Everybody knows – and agrees – that the Hebrews were in bondage under the Law and under the principles of the Law – Old Testament ‘Law”! Paul then declaring this very “bondage” a “bondage” “under the principles of the WORLD”, makes of it one and the same!

This is nothing strange to Paul’s whole discourse, for he wants to show but one thing throughout, and that is, that there is NO DIFFERENCE between men outside the Faith of Jesus Christ – they are all, and everyone, irrespective, in bondage, and in bondage AS UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF THE WORLD – good as dead in their sins! Which implies the second thing Paul teaches in this Letter of his, throughout, and that, that all men, whether Gentiles without the Law, or not, are, like the Hebrews, good as dead in their sins through the Law of God! 3:11, for example, “That NO man is justified by the Law in the sight of God, is EVIDENT” – it speaks for itself ALL men are damned by the Law in the sight of God – and all men, are under His sight!
Paul has but one theme, what is good for the goose is good for the gander! Whatever applies to the Jews, applies to the Gentiles in the matter of justification and acceptance with God – they are ALL, if at all, “children” of God’s, by “adoption”, that is, UNMERITED, and that they are ALL, without any ‘ifs’, in the matter of justification and acceptance with God, children of perdition – with and, under the Law, or, without the Law under the Law and the curse of it regardless! “SO THAT the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to THEM THAT BELIEVE”, irrespective: “For ye are ALL (Gentiles and Jews), the children of God by faith IN CHRIST”! (3:22, 26)

Paul for no moment supposes the Law of no effect or not binding – it would make his whole argument ridiculous, arguing on strength of the strength of the Law that supposedly is annulled. But Paul’s argument departs from the strength of the Law that is a power invested by God in it, that it should bring under the curse of the Law, “the doer of the Law”, like, even as, “everyone that continueth NOT in all things, written in the book of the Law”. (3:12, 10)
‘No difference!’, is all that Paul says. All are lost except “in Christ” where all are saved!

Now here’s a challenge for faith, in fact THE, challenge OF faith, that, precisely these facts of life and death, squarely rests on Christ Jesus! Whether ‘before Christ’ or after Christ – whether ‘Jew or Gentile’ – without faith in Christ, all men irrespective, are, damned, eternally. Then Jesus Christ has become unto that man which is thereby damned, or, unto that man which is thereby justified and saved, the Law! “Is the Law against the promises of God? On authority of God, No! For if there had been given a Law able (‘ho dunamenos’) to make alive, really by the Law righteousness would have been!” (Marshall)

For all, Paul on the one hand supposes an absolute condition of being condemned, cursed and chained for ever in hellish fire; and on the other hand, a righteous unmerited by grace through faith in Jesus Christ only. There’s no mid-ground on either side: When outside Christ, the doer of the Law of God is the same as the stranger to the Law of God, is the same as even the worshipper of the no-gods of the world!

Eric B, you are not wrong, but right!

Therefore I still say, like me, BobRyan, you didn't understand Eric B! Eric, I now can see, is simply saying that the Jews, or Christians, who don’t believe and do no more than to believe in Jesus Christ, are under bondage, just like those who never (through Jesus Christ) knew the true God, but were serving “no-gods”, just like those who were “under bondage to the principle of the world”.

The promises of God were made to the One Seed of Abraham, and until He has come for any of us, we remain under bondage - the only bondage there in the last analysis is - the bondage under the Law, whereby any man not "in Christ", is as were he in a bondage under the first principles of the world - he no less than the one who did not have God's holy Law, is lost. Christ is the only Name whereby a man shall be saved!

We have not wasted our time with this discussion – speaking for myself. I have found it most instructive and up-building, and I must say thank you guys!