Galatians 4:10 in context

[BobRyan]

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

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

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

Hey I think you are getting to a rational point in your responses - lets see how long this lasts.

In Romans 2 we find this eternal truth about Justification --

Rom 2
11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Your statement on justification clearly opposes this statement in Romans 2 - if we ignore the "future" element that Paul places into Romans 2.

In Romans 2 Paul is distinctly talking about justification FUTURE - (the Daniel 7 event where judgment FUTURE is passed In FAVOR of the saints). This is a corporate, objective FUTURE event that does not change the salvation status of the saints. This is why Paul can make the statement about the LAW in Romans 2 and that kind of FUTURE justification.

But your statement above about Justification goes with the PAST justification of Romans 5:1 and of Romans 3 that is "APART from the works of the law".

That justification DOES change the salvation status of the individual. It is subjective, past-tense, and individual Justification that transfers one from being lost to being saved.

When THAT justification is the context/focus then the Romans 3 statement applies.

When the fUTURE (Dan 7) judgement is the context - then the Romans 2 FUTURE JUSTIFICATION statement is fully applicable as is the James 2 statement about justification.

That FUTURE justification does not change the status of the saints.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

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

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

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

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

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

You have been so thoroughly disproven, that your recourse now is to go back to accusing me of "Attacking" a DAY. I'm not attacking the day. If you want to observe (esteem) it unto the Lord; then you have my blessing. But if you come using it to "note scrupulously"; "Watching with evil intent" to put me down as "less obedient than you" or "Attacking God's Law"; then THAT is what is attacked ("condemned"); both by me and by Paul. A brother in Church I had mentioned this discussion to pointed out that days unto the Lord, or whatever else we do, is to be all about love. Not "comparing [our]selves among [our]selves" (in order to "commend [our]selves"). (2 Cor.10:12)
And Remember, I do not advocate Sunday anyway, so it is no contradiction. I used to kep the sabbath; but when I was shown this passage, along with Col. and Rom. it because clear that I was the one "watching with evil intent", and not keeping the day unto the Lord. So I was taught that Christ was to be celebrated as the Creator, crucified and risen Savior EVERY day, and that is my position.
So yes, ANY day of the week IS "squashed" when watched with such an evil intent! That's the whole point. The human PRIDE and self-righteousness behind such "observance" and the BLINDNESS (Rev.3:17, 18) and BONDAGE associated with it are the the "weak elemental things of THIS world" that "pretain to things that by nature are NOT gods at all". (i.e. MAN makes a 'god' out of himself through self-righteous judging; and yes, man definitely is "by nature, NOT god"!) Paul here is the one who squashes it; and that is why you must argue fiercely to reinterpret the text to avoid this clear truth. But voluntarily "esteemed" unto the Lord without judging others; THAT is what is approved.
(the weekly cycle is made up of DAYS; including the Sabbath, so "weeks" or "cycle" doesn't have to be mentioned. It's obviously all in a cycle!)

Your statement on justification clearly opposes this statement in Romans 2 - if we ignore the "future" element that Paul places into Romans 2.

In Romans 2 Paul is distinctly talking about justification FUTURE - (the Daniel 7 event where judgment FUTURE is passed In FAVOR of the saints). This is a corporate, objective FUTURE event that does not change the salvation status of the saints. This is why Paul can make the statement about the LAW in Romans 2 and that kind of FUTURE justification.

But your statement above about Justification goes with the PAST justification of Romans 5:1 and of Romans 3 that is "APART from the works of the law".

That justification DOES change the salvation status of the individual. It is subjective, past-tense, and individual Justification that transfers one from being lost to being saved.

When THAT justification is the context/focus then the Romans 3 statement applies.

When the fUTURE (Dan 7) judgement is the context - then the Romans 2 FUTURE JUSTIFICATION statement is fully applicable as is the James 2 statement about justification.

That FUTURE justification does not change the status of the saints.

I don't know about your whole discussion of "past" and "future", or "changing the status of the saints". Still; the point is; that "under the Law" is not a general category of all men; but only of one group of men given a written law. Others "without the Law" can be convicted or justified by the Law written in their hearts which they can do "instinctively". This shows that there is a universal moral/spiritual LAW that any man can know instinctively. (But of course, because of the sin nature, they still do not do it naturally, consistently without Christ). But who "instinctively" knows to "keep" a particular weekly day by not working on it, and having a worship service? Noone, unless they have read the WRITTEN Law of Moses. You refuse to acknowledge the difference. So you continue of accusing people of "attacking the Law" or "abolishing ALL law" but that is not the case.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued ...

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Continued ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued ...

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Continued ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Eric B]

The first part of this is just a repeat of your responses from almost a week ago, on page 2. Didn't you see where I answered all of that? Here it is again:

On "gentile context":
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.

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"; 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" (esp. in a sense of MANDATORINESS), 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.

As for opposition coming only from Gentiles, and not possibly from Jews:
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. You mention James and Cephas; but those are FELLOW APOSTLES. OF COURSE they are not going to oppose Paul. That is a ridiculous attempt at "proof" of your point!
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!

The pagans (at this period of time) 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?

("Paul for his insistence on a Christian Faith “as a Jew” now after all his warning against “false teachers” was one himself, would you?")
Paul emphasized his BACKGROUND as a Jew. Not that he was STILL living that way. In Gal. he describes his background ("WE", v.3) as "BONDAGE"; not "liberty"; even though it was often persecuted by the pagan rulers at times!

2:6 "ADDED NOTHING to me”:
Once again; these are NOT ALL OF THE JEWS. I don't see how you think you have proven anything from this.

("WHO?"; “false brethren unexpectedly brought in, who came in privately to spy” – TOTALLY UN-believers, and therefore, pagan, idolatrous, and heathen men. In Colossians it was the “world”, the world or “anyone” of it, who judged “you”, the Church; 1:6-Paul’s own definition of what the Galatians were falling back to THIS PRESENT EVIL WORLD):

And here is where you make a glaring mistake. You seem to think it impossible that The Jews could be referred to as "the world". But "the world" is contrasted with "Christ"; not with "Christ and the Jews". You are either for Christ or against Him, and if against Him, then apart of "the world" and its spiritual ruler; the devil. There was no middle ground. Jews that were against Christ were not still on God's side because they had the Law. That is precisely what all the more exposed them as sinners against God!
You need to watch out; because your arguments really seem to be insinuating that Jews actually WERE justified by the works of the Law; and thus "better" than anyone else. This contradicts the entire message of the NT; and therefore the Gospel of Christ!

 

[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."

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

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

 

[Eric B]

More on "WHO" compelled:
Those particular Jews may have been commended for not compelling circumcision; but there were OTHERS which clearly did. The fact that Paul is telling people not to JUDGE or let anyone JUDGE them shows that there were people going around compelling (through words of judgment).

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.

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

It at this stage of our discourse already becomes clear that, like in the case of Colossians 2:16-17, we also in Galatians 4:10 are overwhelmed by preconceived prejudices against the Sabbath merely. For, for what other reason than to bring the Sabbath in disrepute would it be claimed the Galatian Christians all over again returned to “Old Testament Law” and that “Old Testament Law” was that, when originally they were converted, they were converted from? This scheming already is being exposed as a wilful and evil attempt at perverting the Scriptures as well as the pure Gospel, only to get into a more advantageous position from where to justify the pagan practice of Sunday observance.

Uh, I thought you had realized; and even informed Bob that I was not part of any Sunday conspiracy.

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

No, nobody is saying they "returned" to "old Testament Law". the point was that both those under the OT LAw, as well as those under idolatry were in BONDAGE; because neither system justifies anyone before God!. So to go from one system; supposedly accept the truth; but now veer off into the OTHER system; is not a return to "the SAME EXACT THING". But it IS a RETURN to BONDAGE. That is the point of the passage. It's like walking a razor's edge (hence; "the narrow path"). You can be lifted up from one side; set straight, and fall off the other side. You are now in a totally different place than you were before; but you have still FALLEN, and RETURNED to the ABYSS; whichever "side" of it it is; is unimportant!

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

A hypothetical situation. IF a Christian happened to teach another Gospel; then he is accursed. This says nothing about whether that "gospel" is OT Judaism or paganism.

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

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

You; just like Bob, JUST DO NOT GET IT! Just take one look at those Pharisees and tell me if they were not doing what pleased "MAN" themselves. That it wasn;t all about national and personal pride. No; the Law properly followed was not "pleasing to man". But that is the whole point. Moses gove them the Law; but NONE OF THEM KEPT THE LAW" as Jesus pointed out. their whole agenda was that by keeping days and other Laws; God would be obligated to send His MEssiah; put down all pagan rulers, and exalt THEM as the rightful rulers. When He didn't; but rather started exposing their sin and telling them other truths they thought would bring a curse (His deity; etc), then they rejected Him. Those who did not completely reject, (as we even see in John 8) would try to sneak in and change the Gospel back into their national works-righteousness scheme. They felt their very "salvation" as a people depended on it; so why wouldn't they do this? They had far more motivation than did the pagans.
You make the same mistake as Bob, now, accusing me of implicating the LAw. As I said before; THE LAW was "holy, good, and just. It is MAN'S OBSERVANCE of it that is evil and prideful, and "of the flesh". His "watching scrupulously with evil intent" so that he may "compare himself with others" DEFINITELY is "pleasing" to man!

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

RIGHT! So if EITHER of those systems tried to impose their schemes on his Gospel; he would oppose it. The "institution" built around the Old Testament; while having its basis in God; was still also perverted by man and his systems of self-justification. The two of you must stop confusing the INSTITUTION with the WORD OF GOD itself!

From this it is undeniable, ‘the world’ of heathenism and paganism cannot be ignored as having played a major role in the slipping back of the Galatians into some “non-Gospel” religion, which, naturally and most logically, would be the religion of the very role-playing factor itself, of heathen and gentile paganism of “man” himself.
Twice in verses 11 and 12 Paul’s denies ‘his’ Gospel was “of man”, while he only once denies he was “taught” it, implying that he did not receive it from Jewish teachers; ‘his’ Gospel he received through divine revelation of Jesus Christ.
By this broad and specific denial of from where Paul got his Gospel, he classes the system that “taught” him – the ‘Jewish system’ – under the broader category of all the human philosophy and wisdom of “man”, which was idolatrous to be frank! Paul does not do it the other way round though, and classes “man”, that is, in this case, all gentile, pagan religion, under the ‘Old Testament Law’-system, to be frank!

Jews who rejected Christ and tried to justify themselves by the works of the Law were "conforming to the world" (either "age" or "kosmos") or "marching to its beat" ("elements" (Gal.)/"rudiments"(Col.) (stoicheion) simply means "orderly in arrangement"; coming from the following Greek word, stoicheo, which means to "conform" as someone marching in military rank) just as much as pagans who tried to justify themselves by rituals appeasing false gods; or those today who trust in achievements; or "I'm a good person; I've never done anything really bad", etc.) The very context of this "philosophy" is a denial that "all the fullness of the godhead" dwelled in Christ. That was primarily a Jewish problem (Who tried to stone Jesus for maintaining His deity? The gentile heretics (gnostics) would corrupt the doctrine of the Godhead in almost the opposite way--emphasizing his "godhood" to the exclusion of His true humanity!)
Once again; your arguments make the Jews out to be basically good and innocent because of their "Old Testament Law/institution". But this is furthest from the truth.

That is what Eric Bolden tries to do though, and one must be honest, and give Bob Ryan the credit he recognised Eric B’s wangling for what it is: just plain false reasoning in order to categorize Old Testament Law, and specifically its Sabbath-doctrine, under idolatrous practice and teaching to the denial of the Gospel of Christ.

You were doing fine before. I don't need you to become another Bob here telling lies about what I am saying (all the while thiking you are "keeping commandments"). So he dies down with that, and you start up!
I keep repeating over and over and over, and over, that it is not the LAW, the OT; or even the sabbath that is being called pagan; neiter is it condemned; but rather people's EVIL OBSERVANCE of it; judging others, instead of esteeming it to the Lord. You must be running out of arguments to have to resort to (and now defend, below) Bob's smear tactics.

One in verses 13 to 14 enters upon a section of Paul’s Letter that seen with one’s anti-Jewish coloured spectacles, may look like very much ‘Jewish’.
Here are 13 and 14 (Marshall):
“For you heard my conduct then in Judaism, that excessively I persecuted the Church of God and wasted it, and progressed in my race in Judaism beyond many contemporaries being a zealot of my ancestral tradition abundantly.”
First question is: What is Paul referring to under “Judaism”? Old Testament Law? To insist he does is to unanswerably be dishonest! For Paul writes of a “contemporary”, “Judaism”, which he saw himself (before his conversion) the best example of. Does Old Testament Law and belief (or practice) demand, or command, to waste the Church of God, for example?
Paul explicitly states he was a Judaist “being a zealot of my ancestral tradition” – something VASTLY different from being a believer under the Old Dispensation / Old Testament / Old Ministration / Old Covenant.

BINGO!

THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!

Yet this Letter has for so long been so interpreted that good Christians take it for granted, Paul in and with it effectively denounces Old Testament Faith and all Old Testament practice, like the keeping of the Sabbath Day, and brings the whole under the scope of the “bondage of the Law” as being no different than and in fact as being the very same things as “the weak and beggarly elements (of the world and paganism)” (4:9).

that is not how "good Christians" take it; it is how desparate sabbatarians twist their statements to mean; as a straw man to remove this clear proof against their judging over the Sabbath!

But Eric B does not tell how he IN THIS PLACE –Galatians– arrived at his conclusion.

Yes I do; and I have gone to great lengths to prove it; even breaking doen the entire four chapters involved. But you two choose to ignore it to preserve your doctrine, and instead resort to ad-hominem tactics to cast doubts on my integrity instead.

Eric B does not explain that he arrived at his conclusion above via the exact mental process (science) of first equalising the SUM of being under the bondage of the Law and the SUM of being under the bondage of idolatrous paganism, and then of extracting the factors that reduce the result to the Law = Paganism. That was the result BobRyan got, and Eric B cannot blame him, for Bob followed Eric’s formula to the letter!

He did not follow MY formula at all; he took it and twisted it into his own straw man; infused with his own theories of what scriptures means; and what I mean, and spewed it back out repeatedly as if I had really said something I in fact did not. So you all think you know what I think or mean or intend to convey better than me! That is what makes this so aggrivating.

Be that as it may; what is important, remains, that ordinary earthlings swallow whole that the Law=Paganism if under any or both man is in bondage; and that that is what ordinary well meaning Christians by exegetes and commentaries (like Eric B’s) are MADE to understand from Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.
How do they do it?
By ‘exegesis’ so called, that departs from the pre-judged disposition that “the whole context” of Galatians 4:10, is, “under bondage of the Law”; so that THE THING the Galatians “turn(ed) to again” (9a) and “desired to be in bondage to again” (9b), namely, “the weak and beggarly elements”, in the last analysis considering “the whole context”, must be, the Law!

No; it's the BONDAGE! Why can't you two SEPARATE the LAW from man's BONDAGE under it? The Law is holy, good and just, but MAN is fallen, sinful and rebellious, and CANNOT KEEP THE LAW; and is therefore in BONDAGE!
BONDAGE!
BONDAGE!
BONDAGE; already!

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

Then the rest of the New Testament is to be thrown out. The Jews were justified by the Law; and thus better than those "dog" pagans, as they called them. PAgans were the only "sinners"; and therefore the Jews were justified in looking down on them as "sinners of the Gentiles".
But if all this is true; then Christ came and died for NOTHING. And the Jews were right to reject Him and have Him killed. How DARE He come and point out their blindness and bondage under the Law! How DARE He show that they were not keeping it! He should have been putting down those filthy heathens (Romans; etc) and making these righteous Lawkeepers the rightful rulers of the World, instead! And the Jews must now fight to restore the Temple and ALL the sacrifices, (ALL 613 Laws of the OT!) so they may finally earn God's blessings as the rulers of the world. THEN the OLD Testament Faith will stand vindicated as over against gentile paganism or heathen idolatry. And the Sabbath identifying the LORD as THEIR AND ONLY THEIR God will stand vindicated, and its adversaries silenced and abashed. And they can continue to JUDGE everyone for not having all these "commandments" indentifying them as God's special people!

Is THIS the "gospel" you want?

Yes; as Paul said:
"If any man (or even "an angel from HEaven) preaches any other gospel..."

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Quoting Eric B,
"More on "WHO" compelled:
Those particular Jews may have been commended for not compelling circumcision; but there were OTHERS which clearly did. The fact that Paul is telling people not to JUDGE or let anyone JUDGE them shows that there were people going around compelling (through words of judgment)."

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

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

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

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

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

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

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

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

 

[Eric B]

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

Yes; ;et's take this slowly. You are arguing that the problem can't be Judaizers; because of a few instances of Jews (including pother 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 NO OTHERS WHO DIDN'T? I have to PROVE that there were Jews still opposing the Gospel? Wow! What a spin on history!

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

Once again; WHAT GENTILES would try to get Christians-- or ANYBODY to be circumcised in order to be saved?
It is up to YOU to prove that there was some group, sect, etc of Gentiles who practiced and pushed circumcision on others! --from the text or anywhere else!

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

As I said; the problem in Romans was not as bad as in Galatians. In Romans they had not compromised the faith; but in Galatians, people had gone over the edge into total error; being influenced by those telling them they had to keep the Law.

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

We see here time and time again this assumption that the Jews were completely innocent; they could not be "this present world"; they could not be in bondage to elements of the world; they would never push legalism on the Church; they could not possibly be wrong since they had the Law. ONLY the pagans could be guilty of these things. So the Jews must have been justified by the works of the Law. If so; then AS PAUL WARNS HERE; Christ is "OF NO PROFIT"!

 

[BobRyan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eric
You have been so thoroughly disproven, that your recourse now is to go back to accusing me of "Attacking" a DAY. I'm not attacking the day. If you want to observe (esteem) it unto the Lord; then you have my blessing. But if you come using it to "note scrupulously"; "Watching with evil intent" to put me down as "less obedient than you" or "Attacking God's Law"; then THAT is what is attacked ("condemned"); both by me and by Paul. A brother in Church I had mentioned this discussion to pointed out that days unto the Lord, or whatever else we do, is to be all about love. Not "comparing [our]selves among [our]selves" (in order to "commend [our]selves"). (2 Cor.10:12)
And Remember,

I do not advocate Sunday anyway, so it is no contradiction. I used to kep the sabbath; but when I was shown this passage, along with Col. and Rom. it because clear that I was the one "watching with evil intent", and not keeping the day unto the Lord. So I was taught that Christ was to be celebrated as the Creator, crucified and risen Savior EVERY day, and that is my position.

Ok - so then by your standard Paul has stopped the gentiles in Gal 4 from all weekly observances (EVEN though WEEKLY is not MENTIONED) and you are perfectly willing to toss out Sunday just as readily as tossing out Christ the Creator's OWN Holy day.

Find - now the saints in Galatian don't actually go to church any more - what next?

Are the now perfectly "Safe" from that danger of attending church weekly???

What kind of logic do you use anyway?

Having failed to make your case from scripture you seem to be wandering off a cliff of logic.

Come back to the text and "see" that it is speaking of ALL mankind in vs 1-7, of GENTILEs in PAGANism in Vs 8-11 and of Gentiles confronted by Juadaizers in the rest of the chapter.

SEE that the Sevnth-day Sabbath IS NOT a "weak and elemental thing of THIS World".

SEE that Paul does NOT "CONDEMN" in Gal 4 what he "APPROVES" in Romans 14.

Come to a more consistent - Biblically solid theology and leave that cliff you are walking out on.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

You're already off the cliff; because you are just repeating the same repeatedly answered, disproven logic that has nothing to do with what I have said. There is nothing else for you to say.

Ok - so then by your standard Paul has stopped the gentiles in Gal 4 from all weekly observances (EVEN though WEEKLY is not MENTIONED) and you are perfectly willing to toss out Sunday just as readily as tossing out Christ the Creator's OWN Holy day.

Find - now the saints in Galatian don't actually go to church any more - what next?

Are the now perfectly "Safe" from that danger of attending church weekly???

In Acts,we see they met every day. Church attendance was not fixed to any WEEKLY day, originally. So we see both meeting in the Temple on the Sabbath; as well as references to the first day. You yourself said it is OK if the Church has meetings on any other day of the week. So don't try to change up the subject now. (First, you have me saying that the Law is condemned; now you are going to start having me say that fellowship altogether was condemned. Once again; you can think my thoughts for better than I can!)
What was condemned was scrupulously/insidiously "OBSERVING" days (for the purpose of works-justification); not "MEETING" on a day.

Come back to the text and "see" that it is speaking of ALL mankind in vs 1-7, of GENTILEs in PAGANism in Vs 8-11 and of Gentiles confronted by Juadaizers in the rest of the chapter.

Once again; you isolate the passage from the REST of the book! v.1-7 mentions TUTORS; and what is a "tutor"? Something "all of man" was under? NO; "the LAW is our tutor--to bring us to Christ" (3:24) Then, he does mention all of men, saying they are all one in Christ Jesus (26-29). But then, he goes BACK to HIS background in the new chapter: it is "WE" who he says was "were in bondage to the elements". This is Jews; not all of mankind. So therefore; there is no basis to say that v.9 and 10 are speaking of gentile practices. ONLY v.8; referring to their PAST. The point: both groups were under bondage in their pasts; and are now "one in Christ Jesus". Don't fall out of this fellowship by falling into EITHER group's past; even of it was the other group opposite the one you came.
What do you think he would he be saying to them if they had fallen into Judaism? That they were OKAY?

SEE that the Seventh-day Sabbath IS NOT a "weak and elemental thing of THIS World".

No, it is not; but "watching it srupulously with evil intent" to judge others IS a "weak and elemental thing of THIS World". It is HUMAN PRIDE; and it is NOT of the Kingdom; but rather VERY MUCH of THIS world!

SEE that Paul does NOT "CONDEMN" in Gal 4 what he "APPROVES" in Romans 14.

No he doesn't. He condemns watching with evil intent; and approves honest "esteeming" unto the Lord. Big difference; that you just don't get.

Come to a more consistent - Biblically solid theology and leave that cliff you are walking out on.

On the contrary; you should just take the scriptures at what they say, in their contexts; and stop twisting them to justify your violation of them!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

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

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

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

GE:
Eric B using the word “bewitched” for ‘paratehreoh’ in 4:10:
“So while Paul gives the Romans (as well as the Colossians) liberty; he tells the Galatians that they have been bewitched; and had better avoid the practices; or Christ will profit them nothing.”
But, protests Eric B to my, correlating the words “bewitched” (baskainoh) in 3:10, and “paratehreoh’ in 4:10 (“Paul asked, "Who bewitched you?" And that is most significant, because to "bewitch" was in much the same way exactly what Paul accused the Galatians of doing in 4:10, "to divine" 'paratehreoh'. Now here you've given me and Bob one more clue as to of what nature the Galatians’ relapse was, namely, that is was a relapse into their former heathen, gentile, pagan, "bewitched" and "divined" idolatry!”),
saying,
“Oh, no you don't! You should have checked the Greek before trying this trick. Not only is "bewitched" not "paratero"; it has no more necessarily to do with "to divine" or "idolatry" than does that word. It is "baskaino" meaning to "malign", or (by ext.) to "fascinate" (by false representations)!
This means a simple misleading by false arguments; not any actual "pagan witchcraft".”
Again, thank you, Eric B, for this handy definition of what ‘baskainoh’ can actually mean, namely, “to "malign", or...to "fascinate"”. The heathen, gentile, idolaters, were much maligned and fascinated by their “elemental no-gods” of time, “days, months, seasons and years”! Very good!
Again, ‘baskainoh’ is a word used in the NT but this once – too unordinary a word for the Judaisers’ age old doctrine of salvation by works of the Law – and which, once more, here implies what I’ve adduced above, that this word, like ‘paratehreoh’, supposes heathen, gentile, pagan, "bewitched" and "divined" idolatry!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

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

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

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

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok - so then by your standard Paul has stopped the gentiles in Gal 4 from all weekly observances (EVEN though WEEKLY is not MENTIONED) and you are perfectly willing to toss out Sunday just as readily as tossing out Christ the Creator's OWN Holy day.

Find - now the saints in Galatian don't actually go to church any more - what next?

Are the now perfectly "Safe" from that danger of attending church weekly???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --
In Acts,we see they met every day. Church attendance was not fixed to any WEEKLY day, originally. So we see both meeting in the Temple on the Sabbath; as well as references to the first day. You yourself said it is OK if the Church has meetings on any other day of the week. So don't try to change up the subject now. (First, you have me saying that the Law is condemned; now you are going to start having me say that fellowship altogether was condemned. Once again; you can think my thoughts for better than I can!)
What was condemned was scrupulously/insidiously "OBSERVING" days (for the purpose of works-justification); not "MEETING" on a day.

The text actually condemns "Observing DAYS, MONTHS, SEASONS and YEARS" --

You bend that around to condemning "WEEKLY" meetings like a Sabbath worship service and keeping Sabbath holy -- but in so "EXTENDING" it you have also condemned all week-day-ONE "observance" as well since you simply "insert" what you do not FIND in the text.

You go so far as to "claim" that it is the SAME practice that is DEFENDED in Romans 14 - where you claim that THE weekly SABBATH is also to be inserted into the text.

You have painted yourself into a corner.

NOW you seek to "back out" by saying that it is only "wicked observance" of week-day-ONE and Sabbath and ... whatever that is condemned which means that you either ADDING the idea of "WICKED OBSERVANCE" to Romans 14 (when you say that what was APPROVED in Rom 14 is now CONDEMNED in Gal 4) or you are saying that Rom 14 Sabbath keeping is NOT what is being condemned in Gal 4!!

At one time your ever-changing-argument said that it was JUST ok for ROMAN Christians to keep Sabbath - but NOT Galatian Christian.

Your "anything but the Sabbath of the Lord Thy God" approach to scripture is "transparent".

In Christ,

Bob