Galatians 4:10 in context

[Eric B]

Did you not read my second post here, where I showed ALL the other uses of paratero--"inspect alongside"; or "note insidiously"; which is also translated "watched" in Mk.3:2, Luke 6:7, 14:1, 20:20; Acts 9:24. NONE of these have anything to do with "pagan no-gods" or the emperor. (But most do involve the sabbath, though indirectly, and all involve the Jews!)
I don't know where you're getting your definition "divining" from; (you don't even have some scholastic or grammatical source this time) but that is NOT how the Greek word is ever used in the NT. (You're probably getting it mixd up with Lev.19; which is HEBREW; a totally different word, in a totally different language. Their only connecton is that the English translators used a common word for them). We cannot just pull these definitions of words out of our hats and ignore their contexts and uses in scripture.
The most you could get out of this "divination"/"horoscopes" definition is "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft" (1 Sam.15:23); and the Jews were guilty of rebellion (against God's Messiah) and leading gentile converts into it. Therefore, they were being led "back" into a type of "witchcraft"; SPIRITUALLY. This I am in perfect agreement with, and is what I have been saying all along. But still; it was "The works of the Law" that was the venue this spiritual "witchcraft" was being done through. Not because the Law was bad; but because their INTENT (hence "paratero") was!

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simply doing a copy paste of 70 verses does not from a kind of "proof" in actually dealing with the "Details" of vs 8-11 in Chapter 4.

You need to actually "do some work" to show your point.

Deal with the "details". Admit to the specifics. Observe the points that are IN those texts as I pointed them out.

Igoring them and then reposting chapter 2 and chapter 3 of Galatians verbatim is pointless.

If you wont address the points - I will simply re-post them until you run out of ways to ignore the point of the discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --
So yes; these four verses, and some scholar's interpretation of them DO wipe out the context from entire surrounding three chapters. That is some wild exegesis!

Ahhh NOW we finally have Eric "Admitting something"!!

Eric hopes to ignore Gal 4:8-11 as IT deals SPECIFICALLY with problems among the gentiles related to their FORMER pagan practices -- IN THE HOPES of ONLY giving attention to the problems of the Gentiles in Galatia regarding the Judaizers.

INSTEAD of allowing Paul to address MORE THAN ONE POINT in the book of Galatians (as Paul addresses MORE THAN ONE POINT in ALL of his letters) Eric is trying to IMPOSE a johnny-one-note wooden restriction on the book of Galatians and then "Call that exegesis".

So no MATTER HOW clearly Paul gets to the point about their FORMER pagan practices and the RETURN "BACK AGAIN" to those practices (infusing it into Christianity JUST as many other cultures did over time) -- Eric longs to turn a blind eye to that specific problem and RECAST EVERYTHING as "just a problem with Judaizers".

But sadly enough for Eric - this is a "BOTH - AND" problem not subject to his "EITHER/OR" Bifurcation.

So the point remains.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

No, you're the one who's "admitting" something completely ridiculous!
The entire book is about the LAW, and there is NO "DISCUSSION" of "paganism"; only a PASSING REFERENCE and really; it is not even all four of the verses you focus on; but rather ONE: 4:8 "Nevertheless then, when all of you knew not God, all of you did service unto them which by nature are no gods". THIS is the ONLY EXCLUSIVE reference to paganism in the text. In the debate last year; you kept trying to merge this verse with the next one; rendering "return to that which is not God"; but that's NOT what it SAYS. 1) They FORMERLY served that which is not God; and 2) NOW have come to God; but are 3) being "bewitched" (3:1) into a NEW (to them) kind of bondage; the SAME Paul was under (v.4:3) which he has been describing all along; and then returns to describing at least by v.17 (who are "they" who "zealously affect" them?). As pagans; they did not have "the Law" (v21) or "circumcision" (ch.5), which is clearly what Paul identifies in 5: 1 as the "BONDAGE" they are falling "back" into!
Yet you clearly admit now; that all of this can be thrown away for just this one verse (really) and men's interpretation of it. Fine; you can read it that way if you want; but you cannot judge all of the Church as disobedient to God's commandments based on that. Scripture is not to be handled that carelessly and irreverently if one is interested in the truth.
Now, you're trying to say they were being affected by BOTH Judaism AND paganism; but then you have been denying that Paul and the Jews could have possibly been "in bondage" under God's Law; because that would be insulting God's Law; no one can be under bondage as long as they have "God's Word" (not the HEARERS are justified; only the DOERS, and WHO does it perfectly?); so ONLY pagans were in bondage. So to you; it IS only ONE problem; so don't try to say it's more than one now; and accuse me of making it only one. I admit both are there; but clearly; it is one of them that is the main SUBJECT; while the other is a passing reference.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Eric B:
No, you're the one who's "admitting" something completely ridiculous!
The entire book is about the LAW, and there is NO "DISCUSSION" of "paganism";

I see your ceaseless efforts to recast the discussion on paganism in Gal 4:8-11 BACK into a discussion about God's Word being "the weak and elemental thing of this world" continues without letup.

Too bad because the text of scripture is already much too clear to be coulded by your attempt to gloss over these scriptures.

8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods[b/].
9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
10 You observe days and months and seasons and years.
11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain

Notice the highlighted sections?

Here -- let me help you.

8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods[b/].

Now here you 'want' to claim that these gentile Christians who WERE pagan and are NOW Christians did NOT have a time in their life - BACK - "At THAT TIME" where they "DID NOT KNOW God" and were in fact SLAVES to that those idols - false gods "which by NATURE are NO gods".

Interesting how you claim this is NOT PAGANISM in your myopic mission to recast the entire book of Galatians as a john-one-note letter from Paul.

But wait! There is more "help" for you here.

9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?

So the contrast between the time when they DID NOT know God and the present time now when they DO know God and are KNOWN BY God is clear. The PAGAN days vs the CHRISTIAN days of each of these GENTILE believers.

The point could not BE more obvious.

AND WHAT is the danger - they are "turning BACK" to be "ENSLAVED ALL OVER AGAIN".

Even The most careless reader could not have failed to "get the point".

And what it the problem?

10 You observe days and months and seasons and years.

The observance ALONE is the problem

Paul Condmens THE OBSERVANCE of these pagan days.

Notice the contrast with Romans 14 Where HE APPROVES the BIBLE DAYS being observed and CONDEMNS anyone who would CONDEMN their observance!!

But in Gal 4 how awful IS that MERE OBSERVANCE of those days?? ---

11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain

Notice that Eric likes to pretend Paul is saying "OBSERVE those days if you want - but do it while thinking the thoughts I tell you to think".

No such "open door" to OBSERVING the pagan days of emperor worship where "days, months, seasons and years" are observed -- is given to the church of Galatia.

Thank God.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Galatians 4:10 in Context

GE, in answer to Eric B who quoted “the WHOLE CONTEXT” of our text for discussion.
Let's look again at these verses:
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.
Context then? ‘Gentile’!

“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”.
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 they 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 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 those Christians in Jerusalem – 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!

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 compell 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 obviously 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 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?”
“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” of the “other Jews”. And we know it wasn’t James, from his Letter to the Churches, and from history itself.
It cannot have been “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 Paul and “the other Jews”. 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 Gospel to these people. You, “among (them) evidently set forth Jesus Christ, crucified”, the example to us all in humbleness. Practice 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 spoilt, by no one knows who.

Thus the context is the Church as Christian Faith, perceived as a ‘Jewish’ Christianity among the Gentiles, NOT, “(brought) into bondage” by “false brethren”. 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.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by Eric B:
Did you not read my second post here, where I showed ALL the other uses of paratero--"inspect alongside"; or "note insidiously"; which is also translated "watched" in Mk.3:2, Luke 6:7, 14:1, 20:20; Acts 9:24. NONE of these have anything to do with "pagan no-gods" or the emperor. (But most do involve the sabbath, though indirectly, and all involve the Jews!)
I don't know where you're getting your definition "divining" from; (you don't even have some scholastic or grammatical source this time) but that is NOT how the Greek word is ever used in the NT. (You're probably getting it mixd up with Lev.19; which is HEBREW; a totally different word, in a totally different language. Their only connecton is that the English translators used a common word for them). We cannot just pull these definitions of words out of our hats and ignore their contexts and uses in scripture.
The most you could get out of this "divination"/"horoscopes" definition is "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft" (1 Sam.15:23); and the Jews were guilty of rebellion (against God's Messiah) and leading gentile converts into it. Therefore, they were being led "back" into a type of "witchcraft"; SPIRITUALLY. This I am in perfect agreement with, and is what I have been saying all along. But still; it was "The works of the Law" that was the venue this spiritual "witchcraft" was being done through. Not because the Law was bad; but because their INTENT (hence "paratero") was!

Dear Eric B,
Please, to save us all precious time, consult my book, 'The Lord's day in the Covenant of Grace', book 4, 'Paul', Paragraph "Galations 4:10" or something. There you will find every aspect of what you are here lifting out, dealt with extensively.
Just two short remarks. All the instances of the use of paratehreoh - haven't you noticed something common to them all? Something actually very obvious? To explain in negative terms, they not one uses the word in the sense of "Observe" like "Worship".
Two:
As to the scholars you ask for, in the first place, did you not scorn the scholars when Bob Ryan presented them to you?
In the second place, Go to that Paragraph and find 'my' scholars there. You will see I refer to one authority - a REAL authority, I'm telling you. Maybe the most monumental 'scholarly' work ever on the whole of the NT vocabulary. Go read, I plead!
You will notice if you do, that I did not refere to any of Bob's authorities - I was unaware of them despite my very intensive research. Which shows how feeble one's best attempts can be. And I'm so glad I did so badly! Here's a bonus undeserved! (I mean these other sources Bob presented.)
I think these two points only should suffice to make you change your mind to go back to school on this issue. I belief you are a sincere and honest Christian, and that you're a child of our heavenly Father, and that we all three, you, Bob and I, are brothers of Jesus Christ's.
We are all the same, just poor, weak sinners, favoured in Christ for no reason at all in ourselves. And we are favoured with everlasting life in God in Jesus Christ! Man, of what worth are we not!

 

[BobRyan]

It is instructive to observe that in Rom 14 the "observing of ALL days" of the list of Bible holy days in Lev 23 is protected and ONLY those who would condemn that observance - are to be condemned. The annual feat days are Bible based, so that made the observance "unto the Lord" an act of Obedience in harmony with God's Word.

EVEN in pagan systems like Emperor worship the "observance of the day" was done in honor or worship TO the pagan deity/object and was in obedience to pagan practices/laws/rites. For this reason the MERE OBSERVANCE itself is sin.

In Gal 4:8-11 Paul condemns the MERE OBSERVANCE itself as sin!! Paul said it is a RETURN BACK to the Pagan practices worshipping those things which are by nature no gods at all!! And as noted - historians readily agree that one of the MAJOR PROBLEMS facing the early NT gentile church was the inclusion of emperor worship into Christianity.

How "instructive".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

And look; Bob; in chapter 5, (which both of you keep ignoring); the mere "OBSERVANCE" of circumcision is sin! Why? And this given the passage in Romans where they are granted liberty to observe commands of the Law?
Now; paratero is not used here; but still; you are questioning that "observance" of something God commanded could ever be "condemned". But here we see it is.
Paul tells us why; because they were not doing it in the sense he taught in Romans; but rather they were trusting in it as a mandatory of means of gaining justification. If that were right; they they would have to do the WHOLE LAW; and Christ obviously would men nothing.
I have explained this time and time again; but it just isn;t registering to you. You must block it out to maintain your charge that I am condeming the Law of God itself. That is the only response you can bring against me, but it is not valid.

I see your ceaseless efforts to recast the discussion on paganism in Gal 4:8-11 BACK into a discussion about God's Word being "the weak and elemental thing of this world" continues without letup.

Too bad because the text of scripture is already much too clear to be coulded by your attempt to gloss over these scriptures.

Still lying against me... Now you repeat back to me what I explained was the "weak and elemental things". Go look through my posts, and you repeat what I SAID was th weak and elemental things. If you can't; then you are ignoring what I say and having an argument with yourself. (and you better not snip and paste things out of CONTEXT like you did with that "What I SAID was that the Law was bondage; similar to paganism" on the other thread. Don't think I'm too stupid to know what I said!)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods[b/].
9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
10 You observe days and months and seasons and years.
11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain

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

Notice the highlighted sections?

Here -- let me help you.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods[b/].

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

Now here you 'want' to claim that these gentile Christians who WERE pagan and are NOW Christians did NOT have a time in their life - BACK - "At THAT TIME" where they "DID NOT KNOW God" and were in fact SLAVES to that those idols - false gods "which by NATURE are NO gods".

Interesting how you claim this is NOT PAGANISM in your myopic mission to recast the entire book of Galatians as a john-one-note letter from Paul.

But wait! There is more "help" for you here.

AND WHAT is the danger - they are "turning BACK" to be "ENSLAVED ALL OVER AGAIN".

Even The most careless reader could not have failed to "get the point".

And what it the problem?

And once again; you are interpreting the passage by that ONE verse; and throwing the rest of the text away. You are the one turning it into a "john-one-note" ( ) as you call it. Like I said before; this should be its own epistle, then.
Once again; the SUBJECT was "BONDAGE". You are ignoring what I acttually SAY and making up your own idea of what I "claim" again. No; they did not have a time in their lives before when they were jews. Yes they did have a time in their lives when they were pagan. And yes; this was "bondage". But then those who were Jews were ALSO in "bondage". So for those who were pagans, to become Christian; but then veer off into judaism (for the purpose of gaining justification); it would NOT be a "return" to "PAGANISM"; but it WOULD be a "RETURN" to BONDAGE. Can't you get this into your head without twisting it? It is a very simple, symmetrical concept.
Jews who thought they were keeping the law and gaining justification from it were just as much in BONDAGE as the pagans; and even MORESO; becuse of the very fact that they had the Word of God, and should have all the more KNOWN BETTER!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?

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

So the contrast between the time when they DID NOT know God and the present time now when they DO know God and are KNOWN BY God is clear. The PAGAN days vs the CHRISTIAN days of each of these GENTILE believers.

What "CHRISTIAN DAYS"? Now; you're adding something to the text that is not there at all!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain

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

Notice that Eric likes to pretend Paul is saying "OBSERVE those days if you want - but do it while thinking the thoughts I tell you to think".

No such "open door" to OBSERVING the pagan days of emperor worship where "days, months, seasons and years" are observed -- is given to the church of Galatia.

No; he's not saying "observe the days if you want to". They had a serious problem with the days; as well as circumcision. It's like what Paul elsewhere discusses in Romans and Corinthians; about the CONSCIENCE being "Defiled". The Galatians were not the Romans. The Romans were being harassed by people trying to get them to observe Jewish practices; but they apparenbtly had not bought into it like the Galatians had. 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. They faced a danger the others did not. I don;t know why you two can't see this. So it's funny how you accuse me of turning the text into "johnny-one-note"; when you're the one who can't acknowledge the different circumstances being addressed. You think only paganism was ever a problem; and that the Jews were alright; because they had "God's Word". But the entire NT disagrees; and this becomes its main point. Not just "hearers" are justified; but doers; and none of them were true "doers"; but only pretenders!

 

[Eric B]

GE, in answer to Eric B who quoted “the WHOLE CONTEXT” of our text for discussion.
Let's look again at these verses:
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.
Context then? ‘Gentile’!

“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”.
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 they 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 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 those Christians in Jerusalem – 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!

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 compell 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 obviously 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 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”.

GE; you have basically turned the thrust of the text on its ear.
Nice trick in trying to set the "context" to "gentile". But I should mention that there are two perspectives: those being harassed; and those doing the harassing. 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.

Next; are you suggesting that Peter's "living as a Jew" wes RIGHT; and here COMMENDED by Paul? No; people lived in fear of the Jews; trying to placate them. "Paul for his insistence on a Christian Faith 'as a Jew' now after all his warning against 'false teachers' was one himself, would you?" assumes that "false teachers" could only be pagan gentiles. But you have put the cart before the horse in this instance. No; there were Jewish "false teachers" who were corrupting the Church as well.

You speak of "Christianity freed from paganism", and while; of course, the pagans were in bondage, and Christianity would mean "freedom" of it (something I certainly never deny); still; you and Bob seem to be in total denial that Judaism was bondage as well. 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. But Paul in these 3 passages never says that they are being prevented from MANDATORY acts of obeying God. Instead; they are being judged for not observing practices. The pagans did try to force them to worship the emperor. But 1) that is not mentioned in these passages. 2) 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. It is the INTENT (hence; paratero; once again) in which things that were otherwise apart of the "good" Law were done for a bad purpose; which would render Christ "of no profit". We see this included circumcision; which as all will agree; was a command of the Law of God' not pagans.
"Worshipping God right", wouldn't you say; is no mere "liberty of Christians"; even if the powers that be are trying to prevent it. If that's what all of this was about; then Paul wouldn;t speak of "liberty"; but rather of compulsion; and that we should be compelled "to serve (worship) God rather than men". That would be the issue; not "liberty". "Liberty" (eleutheria/os) is "exempt(from compusion)". You are making it almost opposite of what it means.

"But CONTRARIWISE, when they saw that the gospel of the UN-circumcision was committed unto me...
Paul received the 'right hand of fellowship' from the Jews, James and Cephas!
Could one, in view of this 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!" There were Jews who accepted the apostles (at least at first). This does not mean that NONE of them EVER opposed the Christians. Or do you think that all those involved with the Crucifixion; and the entire temple and Sanhedrin were all converted now? Gentile phony Christians did not have any sanhedrin to go back to to persecute their bretheren.

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?”
“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” of the “other Jews”. And we know it wasn’t James, from his Letter to the Churches, and from history itself.
It cannot have been “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 Paul and “the other Jews”. 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 Gospel to these people. You, “among (them) evidently set forth Jesus Christ, crucified”, the example to us all in humbleness. Practice 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.

Nice almost poetic statement. But it isn;t saying much. Once again; some Jews accepted them; but you can't conclude from that that there was absolutely no opposition rom the Jews. So it is not I who "informs" Paul; it is the context which tells us who the harassers are. And with all of that; both of you have forgotten chapter 5; which talks about circumcision. Once again; Pagans never compelled anyone to be circumcised. Now, let's see you try to get the Judaizers out of that one!

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 spoilt, by no one knows who.

"Most probably". "Who knows who". This shows that this is just your own theory of supposition; and you're not even sure yourself. But in trying to say it is pagans; YOU are the one "informing" Paul; just as Bob'e scholars.

Thus the context is the Church as Christian Faith, perceived as a ‘Jewish’ Christianity among the Gentiles, NOT, “(brought) into bondage” by “false brethren”. 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?)

The pagans did not try to stop the Jews from keeping the Sabbath; so why would they try to stop the Christians from keeping it. Once again; you just cannot believe that Judaizers would ever try to compel the Christians to keep Jewish festivals. Gal.6:13 even gives us a motive for them: "For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law [!]; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. Still think Judaizers would never do that; or that these are pagans?

“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?

Once again; these are not all Jews. I don't see how you think you have proven anything from this.

All the instances of the use of paratehreoh - haven't you noticed something common to them all? Something actually very obvious? To explain in negative terms, they not one uses the word in the sense of "Observe" like "Worship".

So? IT means "watch with evil intent"; and the Judaizers "observance" of the days was not really about true "worship" anyway. Neither of course was their "watching" of Jesus on the sabbath; or Paul. It was all about self-justification; and condeming those who preached the true Gospel that destroyed that self-justification. So no; it is not "worship". That is precisely my point.

Two:
in the first place, did you not scorn the scholars when Bob Ryan presented them to you?

Because he is brushing aside the rest of the text like it is nothing; or like it is my own theory or something. They are ubject to the text; not the text subject to them; and they can be wrong; not the text.

As to the scholars you ask for... In the second place, Go to that Paragraph and find 'my' scholars there. You will see I refer to one authority - a REAL authority, I'm telling you. Maybe the most monumental 'scholarly' work ever on the whole of the NT vocabulary. Go read, I plead!
You will notice if you do, that I did not refere to any of Bob's authorities - I was unaware of them despite my very intensive research. Which shows how feeble one's best attempts can be. And I'm so glad I did so badly! Here's a bonus undeserved! (I mean these other sources Bob presented.)
I think these two points only should suffice to make you change your mind to go back to school on this issue.

I wasn't asking you for scholars; I just noted that you jusct came up with this off the top of your head out of nowhere. I do not see any reference there; unless by "your paragraph", you mean on your page. Maybe you should copy and post the pertinent parts of it here (like I post some of mine --but don't get ridiculous; as we only have but so much space here). I haven't yet really had time to read the page. (Reading and answering you and Bob alone takes long enough; and I can spend the better part of a day on it).
Still; the only REAL authority is the context of the Bible itself. Men may or may not get it right; as they often have some doctrinal agenda that slants their writings. You two keep avoiding the context of the pasage (especially AFTERward; which neither has even touched yet), and none of these men can change that no matter how hard they try.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Eric B:
And look; Bob; in chapter 5, (which both of you keep ignoring); the mere "OBSERVANCE" of circumcision is sin! Why? And this given the passage in Romans where they are granted liberty to observe commands of the Law?
Now; paratero is not used here; but still; you are questioning that "observance" of something God commanded could ever be "condemned". But here we see it is.

In Acts 16 the very first thing Paul does is have Timonthy Circumcised.

In Gal 2 Paul points out that unlike Timothy - Titus was not compelled to be circumcised.

The point being - that neither OT nor NT ever commanded Gentiles to be circumcised. Further - as Acts 15, and Ephesians 2 point out - the act was not an isolated one - it meant that the person was now fully identified as a Jew in all respects.

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 - recorded as a legitimate problem between Jews and Gentiles.


1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ""Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.''


NOTHING like that is EVER recorded about "Love for God" or "Love for your neighbor" or "keeping the Ten Commandments" or "Thou shalt not murder" or "Keeping the Ten Commandments" or "Honor Christ the Creator's Holy Day".

Hence -- There is on way to equivocate (as you seem to want to) between circumision of gentiles in Gal 5 and the authorized legit practices in Romans 14 - since circumcision is not mentioned in Rom 14 as something valid for gentiles. INDEED it was NOT something applicable to gentiles in EITHER OT or NT.

As for the Acts 15 argument that you must "do this to be saved" There is no such argument made about the annual feast days of Romans 14 OR about the pagan "days, months seasons and years" of Gal 4.

In Gal 4 they are condemned EXPLICITLY because they are the "weak and elemental things of THIS world pertaining to things which are BY NATURE not gods at all".

How much easier could this be Eric?

In Christ,

Bob

[ March 23, 2005, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob said --
I see your ceaseless efforts to recast the discussion on paganism in Gal 4:8-11 BACK into a discussion about God's Word being "the weak and elemental thing of this world" continues without letup.

Too bad because the text of scripture is already much too clear to be coulded by your attempt to gloss over these scriptures.

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

Eric said
Still lying against me... Now you repeat back to me what I explained was the "weak and elemental things". Go look through my posts, and you repeat what I SAID was th weak and elemental things. If you can't; then you are ignoring what I say and having an argument with yourself.

(and you better not snip and paste things out of CONTEXT like you did with that "What I SAID was that the Law was bondage; similar to paganism" on the other thread.

Don't think I'm too stupid to know what I said!)

Well that was very nice of you to put your quote in here right where it belongs.

Yes indeed your argument has been to try to get the OBJECT that is being identified in Gal 4:8-11 to CEASE to be the pagan "days, months, seasons and years" of emperor worship -- that are being called the "weak and elemental THINGS of this World... things that are BY NATURE not gods at all" and then substitute IN THEIR PLACE -- The Law of God by repeatedly arguing ""What I SAID was that the Law was bondage; similar to paganism""

That should be clear enough by now - so that "we all get it".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.
9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
10 You observe days and months and seasons and years.
11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain

Notice the highlighted sections?

Here -- let me help you.

8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.

Now here you 'want' to claim that these gentile Christians who WERE pagan and are NOW Christians did NOT have a time in their life - BACK - "At THAT TIME" where they "DID NOT KNOW God" and were in fact SLAVES to that those idols - false gods "which by NATURE are NO gods".

Interesting how you claim this is NOT PAGANISM in your myopic mission to recast the entire book of Galatians as a john-one-note letter from Paul.

But wait! There is more help!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND WHAT is the danger - they are "turning BACK" to be "ENSLAVED ALL OVER AGAIN".

Even The most careless reader could not have failed to "get the point".

And what it the problem?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</font>[/QUOTE]

Eric said --
And once again; you are interpreting the passage by that ONE verse; and throwing the rest of the text away. You are the one turning it into a "john-one-note" ( ) as you call it.

Quite the opposit - I am allowing for the obvious case that Paul addresses multiple problems in the letter to the Galatians. You are stuck in the wooden model of insisting on -recasting vs 8-11 so that it goes back to the problem of "judaizers" instead of REALLY dealing with the Gentile problems of coming OUT of paganism and then "GOING BACK AGAIN" the problem of "TURNING BACK AGAIN" the problem of "things that are BY NATURE not gods at all" - the problem of the pagan system of "weak and elemental things of this world" -- something Paul NEVER says of God's Word.

Eric --
Like I said before; this should be its own epistle, then.

ONLY if you could actually show that Paul always did a johnny-one-note one-problem letter when he wrote to the churches instead of allowing himself to address MORE than one problem when writing.

So far you have failed to show that your one-problem-only letter idea - is ever anything Paul did - in all of time.

The subject in vs 8-11 is TURNING BACK AGAIN to the SAME weak and elemental things of THIS WORLD that they were ONCE enslaved to back "WHEN THEY DID NOT KNOW GOD".

Turning to things that are "BY NATURE not gods at all".

How easy can this be Eric?

ERic said --

No; they did not have a time in their lives before when they were jews. Yes they did have a time in their lives when they were pagan. And yes; this was "bondage".

You know, I think we are making some headway here.

And they were in a condition "When they did not KNOW God" where they were NOT reading God's Word but were practicing PAGANISM.

They were worshipping those "THINGS that were by NATURE not gods at all".

They were bound by pagan things that are distinctively "The WEAK and elemental things of THIS WORLD" (not the Holy Just and good Lave of God that is "Spiritual" Romans 7)

NOW in Gal 4 they are "TURNING BACK AGAIN" to those things. Merging them into their Christian lifestyle.

Paul says that this is fatal to their salvation. "I fear lest we have labored with you IN VAIN".

Eric

But then those who were Jews were ALSO in "bondage".

Indeed - TWO problems - not one.

And in addressing the problems of the Jews Paul never calls the Word of God -- or what they were obeying "The WEAK and elemental thing of THIS world" nor even "The THING that was by nature no gods at all".

Those explicit terms for paganism are NEVER used in all of scripture to apply to God's Word NOR even to someone keeping God's Word!

In Christ,

Bob

[ March 23, 2005, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[BobRyan]

ERic said
So for those who were pagans, to become Christian; but then veer off into judaism (for the purpose of gaining justification); it would NOT be a "return" to "PAGANISM";

That is correct it would NOT be a "turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things of THIS world" for God's WORD is NEVER called that -- though it would be bondage.

This is why in EVERY case where Paul is CLEARLY talking about the "be circumcised to be saved" argument HE NEVER calls this "a TURN to the WEAK and elemental things of this WORLD" and he NEVER calls it "scriptural commands - things that are by nature not of god at all!".

For those kinds of condemnation - Paul explicitly addresses the pagan practices - practiced by pagans "At a time when they did not know God at all".

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

Eric said -
Jews who thought they were keeping the LAW (of GOD) and gaining justification

Hoping to label IT the SAME as Paul is labeling the FORMER pagan practices of the gentiles - you show your view of it - but I urge that Paul NEVER uses those labels for the Word of God NOR EVEN for Jews who are OBSERVING the Word of God - not ever. They are EXCLUSIVE to the PAGAN practices of the Gentiles AT a time BACK when they did not know God. And Paul explicitly speaks of a TURNING BACK AGAIN to those very THINGS.


In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?

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

Bob said --
So the contrast between the time when they DID NOT know God and the present time now when they DO know God and are KNOWN BY God is clear. The PAGAN days vs the CHRISTIAN days of each of these GENTILE believers.

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

Eric said --

What "CHRISTIAN DAYS"? Now; you're adding something to the text that is not there at all!

Calm down. (There is not a communist under every rock!). I am merely pointing out the contrast in the history/lives/days of these these gentile believers between the days when they were pagan and the days when they were Christian.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gal 4
11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain

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

Bob said --
Notice that Eric likes to pretend Paul is saying "OBSERVE those days if you want - but do it while thinking the thoughts I tell you to think".

But in fact there is No such "open door" to OBSERVING the pagan days of emperor worship where "days, months, seasons and years" are observed -- is given to the church of Galatia.

And then Eric said this --

Eric said --
No; he's not saying "observe the days if you want to".

Presto! We now have the smoking gun handed to us by Eric himself!

ERic said --

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. They faced a danger the others did not.

Here is the point where Eric now says what I have been accusing him of saying all along.

He fully admits that his logic would twist Gal around to the point that the VERY PRACTICE defended in Rom 14 is being CONDEMNED in Gal 4!!

Eric argues that Paul ALLOWS in Romans 14 what he will not tolerate in Gal4.

Eric confesses that his logic has Paul accusing the Gentiles of Gal 4 of losing salvation for observing the SAME practices as those in Romans 14!!

A more complete failure of Eric's position could not have been posted.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

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. (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.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Meanwhile Bob and Eric may continue there private fist fight. I had to delete about 99% of their conversation to find something of substance and that has anything to do with this thread.
But I wish them to continue, that 1% was worth it, or was worth a reaction.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

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."

While I was off-line you posted this, and hit on the same central issue of who was doing the "bewitching". Therefore you will find my last post answers you to an extent.
But for what you so confidently assert here:
You ask, "who is DOING the compelling?", which is a false question! Paul said, nobody did any 'compelling'! And he specifically said the Jews did no compelling!
Paul doesn't ask, "who is DOING the compelling?". He doesn't ask, "who is compelling you to be circumcised?". It would have been rediculous of Paul to have asked, because he is right here saying Timothy wasn't cicumcised, and that no one was forced to be circumcised. So it is rediculous you still insist and persist asking, who compelled circumcision!
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!
Thanks Eric!
Hey Bob, you heared?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn:
Meanwhile Bob and Eric may continue there private fist fight. I had to delete about 99% of their conversation to find something of substance and that has anything to do with this thread.
But I wish them to continue, that 1% was worth it, or was worth a reaction.

Hey that's not fair - this thread is about Gal 4:10 after all and 8-11 is the entire section devoted to the 4:10 topic.

Eric does a good job of pointing out many of the OTHER points made in OTHER texts in the book of Galatians.

He is just choking on the idea that Paul can talk about anything other than the problem with Judaizers once he gets on that topic.

And "now" Eric has admitted that what is APPROVED in Romans 14 is CONDEMNED in Gal 4:8-11.

An amazing confession when you realize that what is APPROVED in Romans 14 - is done so in a way so as to CONDEMN anyone that disapproves of it. AND it is done in a "general way" so that the instruction of Romans 14 is NOT limited to Christians in Rome any more than Romans 3 is limited to "Christians in Rome during the first century".

Bottom line - Eric's argument has run aground.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

In Acts 16 the very first thing Paul does is have Timonthy Circumcised.

In Gal 2 Paul points out that unlike Timothy - Titus was not compelled to be circumcised.

The point being - that neither OT nor NT ever commanded Gentiles to be circumcised. Further - as Acts 15, and Ephesians 2 point out - the act was not an isolated one - it meant that the person was now fully identified as a Jew in all respects.

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 - recorded as a legitimate problem between Jews and Gentiles.

This all the FURTHER proves the point I was making there. Paul has Timothy circumcised; but tells the Galatians that if they are circumcized; Christ will be of "no profit" to them! This is how "observances" can be "forbidden" to some; but not to others. The Galatians; apparently WERE legalizing these Jewish practices (e.g. "buying into the argument that you have to be circumcised to be saved"--your words); so Paul steps in and forbids them; because they are in danger of compromising the Gospel of Christ through them; unlike the Gentiles in Acts, Romans and Colossians; who were therefore granted more liberty.

NOTHING like that is EVER recorded about "Love for God" or "Love for your neighbor" or "keeping the Ten Commandments" or "Thou shalt not murder" or "Keeping the Ten Commandments" or "Honor Christ the Creator's Holy Day".

"Love", "murder"; no. THose are universal commands. But "days"; YES, right in this passage; and the influence of "days" is coming from the same place as the influence of "you must be circumcised to be saved"! NOW; we're finally getting somewhere with the context!

Hence -- There is on way to equivocate (as you seem to want to) between circumision of gentiles in Gal 5 and the authorized legit practices in Romans 14 - since circumcision is not mentioned in Rom 14 as something valid for gentiles. INDEED it was NOT something applicable to gentiles in EITHER OT or NT.

Apparently; circumcision was not an issue in Romans; so it wasn't mentioned. Still; while circumcision wasn't "applicable" to gentiles; you yourself showed that it wasn't usually FORBIDDEN to them; as we see in Acts.

As for the Acts 15 argument that you must "do this to be saved" There is no such argument made about the annual feast days of Romans 14

If they were told not to let anyone JUDGE them over them; then apparently whoever was harassing them WAS saying one must do them to be saved!

OR about the pagan "days, months seasons and years" of Gal 4.

In Gal 4 they are condemned EXPLICITLY because they are the "weak and elemental things of THIS world pertaining to things which are BY NATURE not gods at all".

How much easier could this be Eric?

They were condemned because they were by nature BONDAGE; just as trying to justify oneeself by the works of the Law (Jewish days, circumsicion, etc) was ALSO "BY NATURE" bondage!
(Remember, it's the "trying to justify oneeslf" part that is "bondage/weak and elemental"; not the Law itself!)

Yes indeed your argument has been to try to get the OBJECT that is being identified in Gal 4:8-11 to CEASE to be the pagan "days, months, seasons and years" of emperor worship -- that are being called the "weak and elemental THINGS of this World... things that are BY NATURE not gods at all" and then substitute IN THEIR PLACE -- The Law of God by repeatedly arguing ""What I SAID was that the Law was bondage; similar to paganism""

And that right there shows that you are not even paying attention to what I SAY. (You are so busy snipping out phrases to try to cast me as speaking against the LAw). What I SAID was that the OBJECT was BONDAGE; and that Paul teaches them that both Jews trying to be justified by the Law as well as pagans worshipping that which was not God were BOTH in BONDAGE. To go from one to the truth to the other would be a "RETURN" to "bondage". Very simple; but you insist on twisting this point into being that THE LAW ITSELF is being called "bondage" or "the weak and elemental things of the world". And you simply repeat using that portion of my statement against me; even though I already nailed you on it in the other thread. (The whole statement is "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 'the Law is paganism'"). Once again; I should still do a poll to see if everyone else reading gets the point; or if it really does look like I am insulting the Law itself as such.

Quite the opposit - I am allowing for the obvious case that Paul addresses multiple problems in the letter to the Galatians. You are stuck in the wooden model of insisting on -recasting vs 8-11 so that it goes back to the problem of "judaizers" instead of REALLY dealing with the Gentile problems of coming OUT of paganism and then "GOING BACK AGAIN" the problem of "TURNING BACK AGAIN" the problem of "things that are BY NATURE not gods at all" - the problem of the pagan system of "weak and elemental things of this world" -- something Paul NEVER says of God's Word.

There are no "multiple problems". There is ONE problem addressed through the book. Once again; you ignore how Paul goes BACK into it after this verse. Pagans did not tell Christians that they must be circumcized to be saved! But in truth; you ignore that there was a Jewish problem at all; since they couldn't possibly have been under any kind of bondage with God's Law.
This is like if a person today comes out of atheism, becomes an SDA; but then defects for the RCC. You will tell him he's RETURNING to falsehood. He will say "I'm not becoming an atheist again; so I am NOT 'returning'. I am turning to the one true holy Christian Church of Jesus Christ--are you calling the Christian Church and Jesus Christ 'falsehood'?" You then say "that Church is falsehood; like atheism is; because it obscures the true Gospel". He then quotes part of this and repeats it all over the discussion "Bob said 'the Church is falsehood, like atheism...'". Do you see now what you're doing?

ONLY if you could actually show that Paul always did a johnny-one-note one-problem letter when he wrote to the churches instead of allowing himself to address MORE than one problem when writing.

So far you have failed to show that your one-problem-only letter idea - is ever anything Paul did - in all of time.

This "johhny one note" thing is your concept. Paul's epistles have THEMES, or general topics. He mentions other problems in passing as they come up. But in Galatians, the whole topic clearly is judaizers. Paul is basically saying "you were once under bondage as pagans; don't now fall into bondage under these Judaizers". It is so simple. It is not rocket science.

The subject in vs 8-11 is TURNING BACK AGAIN to the SAME weak and elemental things of THIS WORLD that they were ONCE enslaved to back "WHEN THEY DID NOT KNOW GOD".

Now, you have to add to the text again. It does NOT say "SAME weak and elemental things". IT is the "Same" BONDAGE; through DIFFERENT "things"; including circumcision; which is definitely NOT the "same things" they had practiced before. NOW who is being "wooden"?

Turning to things that are "BY NATURE not gods at all".

How easy can this be Eric?

Is not a torah scroll a "thing" that "by nature is not God/a god"? Can it save? Can the words written on it save or justify? No; they only CONDEMN (Rom.7). The Jews were in the same bind as the pagans (Rom.3:2-20)!

You know, I think we are making some headway here.

And they were in a condition "When they did not KNOW God" where they were NOT reading God's Word but were practicing PAGANISM.

They were worshipping those "THINGS that were by NATURE not gods at all".

Did most Jews automatically know God? Especially those harassing Christians and saying they had to be circumcised to be saved? Are just HEARERS of the Law justified as "knowing God"? Just going through the motions of the commandments of the Law of Moses?

They were bound by pagan things that are distinctively "The WEAK and elemental things of THIS WORLD" (not the Holy Just and good Lave of God that is "Spiritual" Romans 7)

Did the Judaizers really follow this holy and just Law; though they pitched it at others? (Gal.6:13, Rom.2:17-27 John 7:19)

NOW in Gal 4 they are "TURNING BACK AGAIN" to those things. Merging them into their Christian lifestyle.

Paul says that this is fatal to their salvation. "I fear lest we have labored with you IN VAIN".

What about those Jews who "believed on Christ" in John; yet when he exposed their true motives; turned on Him? What about all those in the Gospels who "walked no more with Him"? Are they "safe" because they are going back under the Law? Or have they returned to "bondage" too?

Indeed - TWO problems - not one.

And in addressing the problems of the Jews Paul never calls the Word of God -- or what they were obeying "The WEAK and elemental thing of THIS world" nor even "The THING that was by nature no gods at all".

Those explicit terms for paganism are NEVER used in all of scripture to apply to God's Word NOR even to someone keeping God's Word!

No; but to someone trying to justify themselves by the works of the Law; that would be a different story; wouldn't it? Wouldn't you say that such a person's OWN works were "weak"; and his own sense of self-justifcation "of the WORLD"? Isn't he trusting in his own FLESH; which is like an idol, that "is no god at all"? Once again; you cannot deny that the Jews were just as much in bondage as the pagans.