Galatians ch 4

[alon]

[This is presented here with permission of Rabbi Stanley who authored the first part of this teaching. A lot was removed, as usual. However the teaching here clears up a lot of confusion and false doctrine.]

Galatians ch 4

Galatians 4:1-5 (ESV) I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, [bondservant ] though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles [or elemental spirits] of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

The correct interpreatation of that last verse is “those true believers who followed G-d’s Laws were redeemed from their sin by Yeshua.” It’s not saying he redeemed them from those laws. He redeemed them of their sins while they were keeping the Law. When He died on that cross we became closer to G-d because our sins had been washed away. It’s important here to remember that the blood of bulls and goats only covered our sins. If you theoretically lifted up the blood the sins were still there. This fact kept us at a particular kind of distance from G-d because He cannot look on sin.

What do I mean a particular kind of distance? I mean that before Yeshua if we were saved when we died we didn’t go to heaven. We were still saved from hell but we didn’t go to the Shechina, the glory cloud, the heavenly throne. Instead we went to Paradise, also known as Abraham’s bosom. We know this from Luke 16; the story of Lazarus and the rich man. In Bile school this is taught as a parable. Even in the headings of many Bible translations it is under “Parables.” It’s not a parable at all. In fact, it’s a true story. All Parables start out the same way- “it was as if such and such happened” or, “it was like unto such and such.” Not so in the case of Lazarus. It says “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.” This was not a parable and Yeshua tells us in his own words about hell and paradise. This is where we went before Yeshua died for our sins. We went to paradise. We had to go there because a part of G-d couldn’t look directly on us as sinful beings. We were kept at a distance. After Yeshua’s blood washed us white as snow we were then able to go right before the throne.


Back to ch 4 vss 1-5: We’re not redeemed from the Law; we were redeemed while we kept the Law. Those who were keeping the Law were doing the right thing. As with all translators Stern brings his theology along with him:


Galatians 4:4-5 (CJB) but when the appointed time arrived, God sent forth his Son. He was born from a woman, born into a culture in which legalistic perversion of the was the norm, so that he might redeem those in subjection to this legalism and thus enable us to be made God’s sons.

Can you tell from the bolded part that Stern believes that legalism was rampant before Yeshua came? He thinks legalism was all over Israel. But we know better:

Acts 15:1-2 (CJB) But some men came down from Y’hudah to Antioch and began teaching the brothers, “You can’t be saved unless you undergo b’rit-milah in the manner prescribed by Moshe.” This brought them into no small measure of discord and dispute with Sha’ul and Bar-Nabba. So the congregation assigned Sha’ul, Bar-Nabba and some of themselves to go and put this sh’eilah before the emissaries and the elders up in Yerushalayim.

If legalism was rampant all over Israel then don’t you think they’d have addressed this question before 20 years after the death and resurrection of Yeshua? I think it would’ve come up. Acts 15 took place in 50 AD. Yeshua died in 30AD. So Jesus was born for this apparently, but it didn’t come up throughout his ministry then he died and rose from the dead, still it didn't come up and then 20 years later this reason why Yeshua supposedly came to earth then they decide they better talk about it? C’mon!

Here’s the Observant way to understand it, “1 What I am saying is that the cares for us as if we were her children 2 And it will continue to care for us until we go home to Yeshua 3 If it wasn’t for , we’d be slaves to this world 4 when the appointed time arrived, God sent forth his Son. He was born from a woman, born into a culture keeping G-d’s Word 5 so he redeemed his children that we might live forever with Him.”

Where it says “under the Law” in verse 5; the word there is hupo. Let’s see what Strong's says about that:

G5259 ὑπό hupo hoop-o' A primary preposition; under, that is, (with the genitive) of place (beneath), or with verbs (the agency or means, through); (with the accusative) of place (whither [underneath] or where [below]) or time (when [at]): - among, by, from, in, of, under, with. In compounds it retains the Same genitive applications, especially of inferior position or condition, and specifically covertly or moderately.

So when it says we’re under the Law like it’s a weight, it can also be translated that we are “by” the Law and that sounds more accurate. If someone tells me I’m under the law I say, actually, I’m all about the Law. Because hupo also means about.

Galatians 4:6-7 (CJB) Now because you are sons, God has sent forth into our hearts the Spirit of his Son, the Spirit who cries out, “Abba!” (that is, “Dear Father!”). So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if you are a son you are also an heir.

So here’s the Observant understanding: The word “Now” is not there in Greek in vs. 6. Now is added to try to show a difference between before Jesus came and after Jesus came concerning the Law. I.e. “Before they were under the Law, but NOW Jesus redeemed them from that.” Wrong!

Kehillah in Galatia 4:6-7 (OJB) And because you are banim (sons), Hashem sent forth the Ruach of His Ben HaElohim into your levavot (heart), crying "Abba, Avinu!" So you are no longer an eved (a slave) but a ben; and if a ben, also a yoresh (heir) through Hashem.

Now in verse 8 it gets a little tricky, because Paul switches who he is talking to, but he doesn’t indicate that outright. He doesn’t say something like “and now to the G-dfearers in your congregations.” But if you look closely you can see there’s a change. In the first 7 verses he says “we” and us. In verse 8 it then changes to you. Christian teachers get thrown here because they miss that and because some of the Hebraic verbiage confuses them. I’ll show you want I mean.

We read in the KJV verse 3 “Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:” Now if one doesn’t know, this term elements of the world sounds very Greek; but it isn’t. It’s a Hebrew idiom. The elements of the world are earth, wind fire, and water. In other words, it’s talking about the world. We see this idiom used in the Dead Sea Scrolls multiple times. It is Hebraic, not Greek. In Hebrew it’s actually “Elemental Principles”. Translated into Greek then into English and it comes out “elements of the world.”

G4747 στοιχεῖον stoicheion stoy-khi'-on Neuter of a presumed derivative of the base of G4748; something orderly in arrangement, that is, (by implication) a serial (basal, fundamental, initial) constituent (literally), proposition (figuratively): - element, principle, rudiment.

Strong's almost gets this one correct. This is a translation of a Hebrew idiom meaning "elemental principles" (removing a comma and making it plural would have got them a pass here). The elemental principles were earth, wind, fire and water.

Galatians 4:3 (KJV) Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

Kehillah in Galatia 4:3 (OJB) So also we, when we were immature, had been enslaved under the yesodot (rudiments) of the Olam Hazeh.

The English Standard Version gets this right:

Galatians 4:3 (ESV) In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world.

As with all things Hebrew and even many things Greek at the time, this can allude to much more than the basic translation. According to Vine's, this term can mean:
a) the substance of the material world
b) the delusive speculations of gentile cults and of Jewish theories
c) the rudimentary principles of religion
d) the "elementary" principles of the OT, as a revelation from God

So stopping with most translations or with just the Strong's definition will give us an inaccurate understanding of what is being said. Even reading the ESV on this one we, as non-ancient Hebrew readers won't get a good understanding. In fact, most Christians won't have a clue; and no Christian pastor worth his salt will even try to explain this without consulting his library- which almost assuredly will contain a copy of Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary. Sadly, some Christian teachers think it’s talking about idols. So some conclude that all these verses are about the Jews returning to idols. True of some, but not all. Most today, unless they get lucky online are just confused all the way around.

So in verses 1-7, it’s just saying that if we Jews didn’t choose to follow Yeshua after He came, died, and rose from the dead, then we were slaves to the world. Then in vs. 8 it switches over and he’s addressing proselytes who were slipping back into Idolatry. The English Standard Version and some others do put a break here:

Galatians 4:7-8 (ESV) 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

Paul's Concern for the Galatians

8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.



 

[alon]

Galatians 4:8-9 (ESV) Paul's Concern for the Galatians Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?

Again the ESV is close. Others, not so much. The New American Standard Bible has it in the footnotes:

Galatians 4:8-9 (NASB) However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. 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 [or rudimentary teachings or principles] elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?

The Complete Jewish Bible gets it completely wrong:

Galatians 4:8-9 (CJB) In the past, when you did not know God, you served as slaves beings which in reality are non-gods. But now you do know God, and, more than that, you are known by God. So how is it that you turn back again to those weak and miserable elemental spirits? Do you want to enslave yourselves to them once more?

So because it says elemental spirits here in this second part of the passage, it is assumed that Paul is talking to the same people as in the first part of the passage; but he’s not. He’s just using some of the same verbiage.

Galatians 4:10 (ESV) You observe days and months and seasons and years!

This is a verse that is used against Messianics. They couple it with:

Colossians 2:16 (ESV) Let No One Disqualify You Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

So they say, “see, you’re not supposed to observe those Jewish holidays.” Well first of all Col. 2:16 is talking to the Jews about unsaved Gentiles. He’s saying to the Jews “don’t let those unsaved gentiles judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days. Keep doing them like G-d told you to.” And this passage here in Galatians is about Gentiles keeping unholy days and months and years, it’s not to the Jews. So neither of those Scriptures Condemns the Jewish people.

Galatians 4:11 (ESV) I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

Paul's afraid all his work in teaching them will be for nothing.

Galatians 4:12 (ESV) Brothers, [and sisters] I entreat you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong.

In most Christian theologies we are taught he’s saying “be like me, follow me. I follow no man, only God!” Well, that’s un-Biblical. You’re supposed to find a good Rabbi and follow him. If he falls, you stop following him. I know that sounds incredibly simple, but you’d be surprised how many people can’t get that.

“Now, wait a minute, I’m supposed to follow him BUT if he falls, I stop following him, I’m confused." So when he (Jim Jones) tells me to drink the Kool-Aid, what am I supposed to do again? When he gets caught in a homosexual relationship, we put him back on tv and follow him right? NO! You stop following him period. “But what about forgiveness.” Forgiveness doesn’t mean you put them back in a position of authority. If he falls, at best, it means he needs instruction; at worst he’s an apostate so get him out of your life.

Galatians 4:13-14 (ESV) You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.

Angel would make more sense as messenger here, but he’s simply saying he was sick when he first started teaching them , yet they received him well.

Galatians 4:15 (ESV) What then has become of your blessedness? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have gouged out your eyes and given them to me.

He’s just saying, “where is your joy? You would’ve done anything for me when I was there.”

The next verse gets interesting:

Galatians 4:16 (ESV) Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?

This is something that some of you have already experienced and some of you will experience in the future. Having the truth isn’t like having anything else. It’s an amazing thing to have and if you’re like me, you want to share it with people. Hopefully you don’t want to share it to show how much Bible you now know, but rather to share it because you want others to know the truth and to be liberated by it like you have been.

But you’ll find that some people don’t want to hear the truth. Even some people who you thought were good Christian friends. Friends you had before you became a Messianic. Now you find they start to resent you and you start to sense a strain on the friendship. Pretty soon, they start acting like they’re holier than you even though you never put out a vibe like that towards them. Some of you have watched it happen to people and you feel helpless, because there really is nothing you can do once it sets in. Their pride goes out of control and then they start to call you names like “Judaizer” or “Legalist,” and how they are to see you fall into deception. They can turn on you and they may even see you as an enemy.

That’s exactly what Paul is talking about here. His converts had seen the truth, then they decided to go a different way and Paul feared they’d see him as the enemy. Perhaps they had experienced this themselves and this had caused them to fall away. What often happens to we Meshiachim and to those who fall away is we start to put up a wall and become proud. It’s a defense mechanism, and something you really want to watch for. It happens to all of us at some point. People tend to get defensive, then entrenched in their views when challenged, even politely. Pride is a killer, and none of us are exempt from it. Pride will take you down.

[alon]

[From here on it is my interpretation based on my studies]

Galatians 4:17-18 (ESV) They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them.  It is always good to be made much of for a good purpose, and not only when I am present with you,

Huh? I checked Strong’s and several Bible versions, and the clearest and I think as accurate as any here is the Easy-to-Read Version:

Galatians 4:17-18 (ERV) Those people [false teachers] are working hard to persuade you, but this is not good for you. They want to persuade you to turn against us and work hard for them.  It is good for you to work hard, of course, if it is for something good. That’s something you should do whether I am there or not.

Galatians 4:19 (ESV) my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you!

The metaphor here is graphic, likening Rav Sha’ul’s feelings for this congregation to the care, concern anguish and labor of childbearing and rearing.

Galatians 4:20-21 (ESV) I wish I could be present with you now and change my tone, for I am perplexed about you. Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?

His concern continues, and turns to perplexity. Sha’ul wants to be with them and to set them straight. He addresses those who want to be under the constraints of a perverted form of the law, asking if they have read the law.

Galatians 4:22-23 (ESV) For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman.  But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise.

Avram and Sarai lost faith, not trusting Elohim to make good on the promise of a son due to her advanced age. So they made use of a common near-eastern custom and used her maidservant Agar, a slave woman, to bear a son for Avram. This of course was Yishma’el. This was the way of the flesh, a child of slavery which Rav Sha’ul will equate to legalism.

Romans 7:5 (ESV) For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.

However we know that Elohim did give Sarai a son, Yitzak, the son of the promise. A miracle child due to the advanced ages of his parents, he was a son of the free woman and a shadow of things to come; a type of Yeshua HaMoshiach.

Galatians 4:24-25 (ESV) Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.  Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.

The reference to Mt Sinai here is of course to . However Rav Sha’ul is not saying is bad; rather he is turning the tables on the Judaizers, saying their interpretation of has made them slaves, just as Agar was. The present Yerushalayim with its’ zealous factions and overly strict sects; its’ Rabbinical fences which had become too burdensome for people to bear; and now this, the legalists who said you had to become not only a proselyte but a completely observant Jew before you could be saved! by proclaiming freedom in G-d’s law makes those outside the law slaves to sin. Rav Sha’ul is saying these legalists have gone over to the other side.

John 8:34 (ESV)  Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin.

Galatians 4:26-28 (ESV) But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.  For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.”  Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.

However the Yerushalayim above, equated to Sarai who was barren, yet she became the mother of a great nation; this Yerushalayim is free. According to the second rule of Hillel on scriptural exegesis, the two Yerushalayim’s bind the two women just as they were now bound by bearing children of Avram. They both represent the law, which remember in the mind of Sha’ul was the only word he knew to describe both and this new concept of legalism.

2nd Rule of Hillel- Gezerah shawah: Argument from analogy. Biblical passages containing synonyms or homonyms are subject, however much they differ in other respects, to identical definitions and applications.

So now we see that these new converts (children) born of Yerushalayim above are the children of The Promise- again using the 2nd rule of Hillel these are children of the promised Moshiach, Yeshua. And still they are not free FROM the law, they are free IN the law. What they are free from is legalism.

Galatians 4:29-31 (ESV) But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.  But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.”  So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

And with finality Rav Sha’ul completes the analogy of the lot of the Judaizers. They who are slaves to legalism will not inherit with those free in the law- the instructions of YHVH Hashopet- The Lord the Judge (Judg 11:27)

Judges 11:27 (ESV) I therefore have not sinned against you, and you do me wrong by making war on me. The Lord, the Judge, decide this day between the people of Israel and the people of Ammon.”

The Ammonites descended from Lot’s incest with his younger daughter. (Gen 19:37-38). They were distant relatives of the Jews, but they were a thorn in the side of the Israelites up to the time of the Maccabees and on into the time of Yeshua. Like the Judaizers, they came against the Israelites’ outright in war and surreptitiously by intermarriage without conversion, making the children unacceptable. Now the Judaizers demanded conversion before acceptance, a twisted form of Judaism which could only be forced on new converts and not on Jews. This was the reason they were there. Just as the Ammonites had attacked the weak of the Hebrew tribes before the kingdom was unified under Melech Sha’ul these men now attacked the proselytes realized through Rav Sha'ul to the Jewish sect of the Nots’rim; people new to Judaism and so still weak in their understanding.

[Resources were too many to list, but I did make some use of Stern’s commentary. I should also name my father and Rav S who have influenced my thinking. The first half was of course mostly Rav S, a redacted version of his teaching on Galatians. Regretably I missed the teaching on the second half.]

[alon]

May 19, 2016 18:34:30 GMT -8 alon said:

From the teaching of Rav S:

... Acts 15:1-2 (CJB) But some men came down from Y’hudah to Antioch and began teaching the brothers, “You can’t be saved unless you undergo b’rit-milah in the manner prescribed by Moshe.” This brought them into no small measure of discord and dispute with Sha’ul and Bar-Nabba. So the congregation assigned Sha’ul, Bar-Nabba and some of themselves to go and put this sh’eilah before the emissaries and the elders up in Yerushalayim.

If legalism was rampant all over Israel then don’t you think they’d have addressed this question before 20 years after the death and resurrection of Yeshua? I think it would’ve come up. Acts 15 took place in 50 AD. Yeshua died in 30AD. So Jesus was born for this apparently, but it didn’t come up throughout his ministry then he died and rose from the dead, still it didn't come up and then 20 years later this reason why Yeshua supposedly came to earth then they decide they better talk about it? C’mon! ...

From the last part which is my interpretation:

... Galatians 4:24-25 (ESV) Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.

The reference to Mt Sinai here is of course to . However Rav Sha’ul is not saying is bad; rather he is turning the tables on the Judaizers, saying their interpretation of has made them slaves, just as Agar was. The present Yerushalayim with its’ zealous factions and overly strict sects; its’ Rabbinical fences which had become too burdensome for people to bear; and now this, the legalists who said you had to become not only a proselyte but a completely observant Jew before you could be saved! by proclaiming freedom in G-d’s law makes those outside the law slaves to sin. Rav Sha’ul is saying these legalists have gone over to the other side. ...

I'd thought someone would call me on this apparent discrepancy when I proofread the post, but I left it as it was. However, in case anyone is wondering ...

I am not in disagreement with Rav S here. However things like this doctrine of legalism do not just spring up from nothing. I believe that all the radicalism and sectarianism that was rampant in Judaism of that time laid the foundation for these legalistic teachings. They were new, but the religious climate and ideas from which they sprang were not. Again, my take on it.

Dan C

[Elizabeth]

I really look forward to reading this. Now, I have to feed some hungry people, but really helpful so far. Now that I am here, I always feel like screaming to Christians, "what do you do with all He gives you?" Where do you take it and how do you act on it? I can't contain it. I need something real and tangible to do for Him. That's what trying to keep has become for me. It gives me something to do with all He has given. Somewhere to take it.  Anyway, it's a completely different mindset then what I knew as a Christian, and I honestly don't know how I could handle Him without something to do and somewhere to take it in return, if that makes sense. Anyway thanks for posting.