| Author | Message | ||
| Tkmommy Registered user Username: Tkmommy Post Number: 10 Registered: 1-2007 |
For the past week I have been trying to read Bacchiochi's rebuttals to Ratzlaff's views in Sabbath under Crossfire. He is definitely harder to read, harder to understand. But I was wondering about this point and wondering if you can give me your opinions....Ratzlaff talks about Galatians 4 being about Paul telling the Galatians to turn from the Judaizers and the old covenant law. That was clear until I read this in Bacchiochi's book. His view was that Paul was actually referring to the Galatians' past paganism. He referred specifically to when Paul asks.."Who has bewitched you?" and down in verse 10 when he says "you keep seasons, months, years" which he states is literally different than the OT law of "festivals, new moons, days" found in other areas. He seems like he could have a good argument here, but I would love to know what you guys think of this passage and if he is just grasping at straws. Thanks, Tami  | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 192 Registered: 1-2004  |
You can discover that Sabbath keeping was indeed a controversial subject in the Church way back then, by reading Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr. Also a good commentary on Galatians was written in around 400 AD by John Chrysostom. The evidence points to Galatians speaking about the Jewish calendar including the Sabbath. You can also just use common sense... read Acts 15 and discover that Paul is speaking about certain people and that it's pretty clear that those people's big issue is that we need to become Jews and keep the Jewish law to be saved. Jeremiah | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1662 Registered: 10-2004  |
Hi Tami! It's very important to look at the context. And the context of the whole book of Galatians is that Paul is discussing the Law, and is writing to believers in Christ who are being pressured to put themselves under the Law and observe the Law. Paul says "who has bewitched you" in chapter 3, and he is definitely discussing the Law (see Galatians 3:1-3). He goes on in chapter 3 to say that the Law "came four hundred and thirty years later" (after Abraham) in verse 15, and in verse 19 he says that the Law was "added because of transgressions" "until the seed [Christ] would come to whom the promise had been made" (verse 19). Then he goes on in verses 23-25 to say that before Christ came, the Jews "were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed."--and that the Law was a tutor to lead them to Christ. "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." (Galatians 3:25 NASB.) Then he says that every believer in Christ is a child of God, and that there is neither Jew nor Greek. Then chapter 3 ends with the following: "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise." That brings us to chapter 4. Verses 1-5 say:
So again Paul is talking about how the Jews were under the Law and were redeemed from the Law by Christ. When he says that they "were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world"--he is clearly talking about the Law if you read verses 4-5. Then, in verses 6-8 we read:
So, now he's saying that these Gentiles were also slaves and that they had their own kind of slavery (similar to but different than the Jews' bondage to the Law) to false gods, before becoming sons. So now we come to verses 9:-11:
So, now Paul is saying that the Galatians are becoming enslaved again, by turning "back again to the weak and worthless elemental things." Again, he uses that phrase "elemental things" which he used of the Law in verse 3. They left one kind of slavery (false gods) and now they are becoming enslaved to the Law--the kind of slavery the Jews had to endure before Christ came. In Colossians 2:16, it speaks of "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--" That, of course, is referring to the yearly feasts, the monthly, and the weekly, found in the Law of Moses. And in Galatians 4:10, Paul says, "You observe days and months and seasons and years." This also refers to the Law. It is speaking of days of the week (weekly Sabbaths), months (New Moons), seasons (the yearly seasonal feasts), and years (such as Jubilee Years, 7th-year Sabbaths, etc.). And of course the context is that Paul is writing to believers in Christ who are putting themselves under the Jewish Law--that is the whole reason that Paul wrote this letter to them. They were not returning to paganism--they were being pressured by the Judaizers to put themselves under the OT Jewish Law. Then in Galatians 4, verses 12-20 Paul talks about how he had been with them and desired to be with them again. Then in verse 21, he says, "Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?" So once again in the context he makes it clear that he is speaking about the Law and those who want to under the Law. Also, since he is telling them that they should not be enslaved and keep "days," etc., this would have to include observing the "days," etc. in the Law, since he had already stated that the Jews were enslaved when they were under the Law. And he finishes out the chapter by saying that the old covenant from Sinai (which is, specifically, the Ten Commandments--see Deuteronomy 4:13), is obsolete and that we are supposed to "cast out" that covenant (verse 30). And in chapter 5, verse 1, he concludes: "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery." Hope some of this helps! Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1663 Registered: 10-2004 |
Also, notice that after saying, "You observe days..." he does NOT add, "Oh, well, there is a day that is very important and that you MUST observe and that is the Sabbath day." No, that is what the Judaizers were saying and that is what Paul was fighting against--observing the Law! Jeremy | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 338 Registered: 8-2006 |
Amen, Jeremy. What a very clear explanation. Galatians is one of my favorite NT books! Tami, Jeremy is correct in that the entire theme of Paul's letter to the Galatians was to warn against the teachings of the Judaizers. He began with his question to them, and then explained his answer: You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? As Jeremy said, those elemental things refer to the law. If you have a cross reference in your bible, check on Gal 4:3. You should reference to Gal 2:4 which refers to "false brethren"; and then references to Acts 15, where the council of Jerusalem was dealing with the Judaizers and the Gentile believers. So the "false brethren were the Judaizers, which were trying to "bewitch" the Galatians to keep the law in order to be Christians. Susan | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 339 Registered: 8-2006 |
I forgot to add, look at Colossians 2:20,21 as another example of the "elemental things". Paul describes these as "do not handle, do not taste, do not touch." Sound familiar? Susan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1664 Registered: 10-2004 |
You're right Susan, and Paul also mentions in verse 8 of Colossians 2, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." And this of course comes right before he starts talking about circumcision, food, drink, festivals, New Moons, and Sabbaths in that chapter! Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on January 08, 2007) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1665 Registered: 10-2004 |
By the way, I just looked it up, and it is the same Greek word (translated "elemental things" and "elementary principles") used in all 4 verses: Galatians 4:3, Galatians 4:9, Colossians 2:8, and Colossians 2:20. Jeremy | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 341 Registered: 8-2006 |
Jeremy, thanks! BTW, how is your little dog doing? (sorry for the off-topic diversion) Susan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1668 Registered: 10-2004 |
Susan, thanks for asking. Polly is doing well, and has recovered very well from her stroke (or whatever it was that she had--we aren't totally sure it was a stroke). She still has a "head tilt" but she is doing better at not walking in circles. Jeremy | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 351 Registered: 8-2006 |
That's wonderful! I'm happy to hear Polly is doing so much better! Susan | ||
| Tkmommy Registered user Username: Tkmommy Post Number: 11 Registered: 1-2007 |
Thanks Jeremy for your time and lengthy, clear post. To me, it very much reiterated what DR said in Sabbath in Christ, which, like I said seems very Clear, plain, and biblical to me. But the SB rebuttal I needed to investigate further. I'm glad you brought up "elemental things" because this is another phrase he uses to defend his paganism stance. His claim is that "elemental things" are of earthly/pagan origins and not Mosaic Law. He does quote one published person with this same view, and unfortunately I left the book upstairs otherwise I'd give the name...I did not recognize it. BUT, as with adventism I am finding out, there may be 49 scholars with a certain view, but the adventist/sabbatarian will quote the obscure one that they can dig up that agrees with their view. I need to reread Galatians. I wish I could post all of SB's section here...it would just take up so much time (I am such a slow typist!) I would just like to know how he would come to such a conclusion, if it would be other than the obscure quote. Thanks again for your time Jeremy and Susan! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5225 Registered: 12-2003  |
Tami, Bacchiochi is not noted for his good scholarship. He is a Sabbath apologist, and he uses the Bible to support his position rather than allowing the Bible to determine his position. He has even written a book advocating the OT feast days which he marketed to people from the Worldwide Church of God extraction. It's not that he keeps those feasts himself, but he knew they did, and he knew he could sell his books to them. I find it fascinating that Paul compares the Galatians' seduction into Judaic law to be equivalent to returning to paganism. The law's requirements were shadows, as Jeremy pointed out so clearly. Colossians 2:13-17 vividly explains that all the Sabbathsóincluding the weekly Sabbathsówere shadows pointing to Christ. When one embraces the shadow rather than the real "thing", he engages in idolatry. Colleen | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 412 Registered: 7-2005 |
Tami, You have no need to type from your book, you can paste Bacchiocchi arguments from his newsletter. There are four elements in the text: 1. days 2. months 3. seasons 4. years Bacchiocchi argues that these are "superstitious pagan holidays". But he speaks only about Days and months, saying that these were "the days were named after planetary gods and the months after deified emperors". He does not prove how "seasons and years" are "superstitious pagan holidays". Keep in mind that his declared goal is "We need to determine whether the Galatiansí observance of "days, and months, and seasons, and years" refers to superstitious pagan holidays or to the biblical festivals, including the Sabbath."It's obvious that his goal is not attained without a single proof that seasons and years refers to superstitious pagan holidays. But he has another tricky overall argument, which differs from the initial declared goal. His argument is that they reverted "back to their pagan days by reverting to their pagan calendar" his idea is that "they have returned to their former pagan life as evidenced by their renewed preconversion reckoning of time. Because of its association with idolatry and false deities, marking time according to this pagan scheme is tantamount to rejecting Paulís Gospel" For Bacchiocchi "Gentilesí conversion to the Gospel involved the rejection of their pagan calendar built upon the idolatrous worship of many gods and the adoption of the Jewish religious calendar which had been transformed by Christís coming" It's the first time I heard about somebody changing calendars, as a result of their conversion, and the idea that measuring time after the jewish calendar is essential to remain in the grace of God. Tim, instead of worrying about Bacchiocchi's apology, start a good laugh at these hillarious ideas. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1670 Registered: 10-2004 |
Hmm, let's see which calendar Bacchiocchi uses... From the above link: "19 November 2001" So I guess he has rejected Paul's Gospel! Jeremy | ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 71 Registered: 8-2005 |
Funny, what comes through loud and clear to me is that Dr. B. doesn't like contemporary worship music! | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 354 Registered: 8-2006 |
Jeremy...I'm laughing so hard! Susan | ||
| Tkmommy Registered user Username: Tkmommy Post Number: 13 Registered: 1-2007 |
Thanks all for your input. Thanks Colleen for pointing out that SB is indeed a sabbath apologist. It is indeed true that it is often too common in the sda church that one would just proof text away a point...find those texts that maybe support the idea you want it to. Or twist a text a bit to support the idea. I do believe DR looked at what the bible said about sabbath, rather than using texts to support his theory. I also like how Colleen mentioned Paul comparing the OT law to paganism...that I suppose is a good way of looking at it. One interesting note, I did reread Galatians last night...I have a great Life Application Bible..NIV, with great cross refernces and comments. I found Gal 4:9 ( how is it you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles (elemental things)) had a cross reference to Col 2:20 (Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to it's rules)...the commentary under Col 2:20 says "The "basic principles" are the beliefs of the pagans." Then it is cross referenced to Col 2:8, See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive phiosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world, rather than on Christ. I suppose one could say Paul is lumping any religion, including strict Judaism, in with paganism because it is "without Christ". So pagan religions and sstrict Judaism is on equal playing fields? SB is trying to separate the two. Is this right? Or is just too late and I have begun to ramble on and should go to bed? | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 364 Registered: 8-2006 |
Tami, I'm sure someone else will address this today while I'm at work, and this is just a quick reply because I have to get ready for work ( ) but Paul makes the argument in the first few chapters of Romans that every human being on the face of the earth, no matter what their "religion", without Christ are on a level playing field. They are LOST. Susan | ||
| Cforrester Registered user Username: Cforrester Post Number: 64 Registered: 7-2004 |
Just a comment on Adventist "scholars" - I was very frustrated both in undergrad and at Seminary by their interpretations on passages that they would present. I found myself constantly muttering under my breath starting with "Huh??" I'm not sure if the "interesting" interpretations are from looking too deeply, too long at a passage or from finding some pattern or fact and then applying (or finding) it too often. Chiasms are an example. Some of my professors saw them everywhere. I did feel, however, that sometimes these alternate views were an attempt to distract away from the obvious reading that raised the obvious questions about our theological positions. In the video "Born to be Free" on the change in the Worldwide Church of God one of the guys said that it was amazing how texts that they had wrestled with and had presented such problems suddenly made sense after they accepted grace and tossed off their cultic doctrines; the problems just evaporated. I found the same is true for many Adventist passages, especially in books such as Galatians. If you drop your preconceived notions, Galatians just makes sense and blooms wonderfully. Jeremy, you're on the money. You're right to quote from Colossians, since there are a lot of parallels. Everything about this book is about Jewish, Old Testament, Mosaic law of God. When Paul confronted Peter it had nothing to do with paganism. Gal. 2:19,20 ’Äì law of God. Gal. 5:3 can only be speaking of Mosaic Law. (and on and on’Ķ) Galatians is a true problem-book for the traditional Adventist theological positions relating to salvation. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5237 Registered: 12-2003 |
Tami, I believe your have accurately summed up the situation: any system of practice that adds to the gospel or is not of Christ is "elemental principles" because, as Susan said, the natural state of man is spiritual death. The natural response of man is to work for righteousness. To return to practicing Jewish laws and rituals now that Jesus has come and fulfilled themóand ESPECIALLY when one has known of Jesus and His finished workóis to return to "elemental principles". Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1674 Registered: 10-2004 |
Tami, notice also that in between verses 8 and 20 of Colossians 2, is where it talks about circumcision, food and drink, festivals, the New Moon, and the Sabbath (in other words, the OT Law). So these are part of the "elemental things" mentioned in verses 8 and 20. Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on January 10, 2007) | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 689 Registered: 7-2004  |
Jeremy, lots of great stuff about Galatians 4 and reading in context. I'd like to add a look at aspects from the whole letter. Chapter 1:13-14 Paul describes his former zeal for Jewish law. Why would this matter if the book is about following pagan teachings and ceremonies? Paul's history in the law would be meaningless. Chapter 2:1-10 Who did Paul contend against here? Clearly those who wanted to impose Jewish law on gentile converts. In Chapter 2:11-21 Paul leads up to the final statement "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." Once again the context is clear, the Law is Jewish, not pagan ceremonies here! So when the following verse 3:1 speaks of being bewitched, what contextual evidence would indicate that this was anything except the issues of law discussed in the prior verses? What would indicate that the Law in 3:2 would be any different than the "law" mentioned 2 verses earlier? Nothing except a stubborn desire to keep the doctrines of the law despite all textual evidence to the contrary. When 3:10-11 say "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, 'CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.' Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, 'THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.'" The verses quote from the Mosaic Law to make their point. How can anyone reasonably contend that the surrounding verses are not speaking about Mosaic law? Continue in Chapter 3 with verses 15-29. Would anyone contend that it is not the Mosaic law that came 430 years after Abraham? Could anyone contend that pagan law is what leads us to Christ? Hardly, again it is abundantly clear that Paul is speaking about Jewish/Mosaic law in this section of the book. Now we move to the chapter in question. What law was Jesus born under in verse 4? There is no reasonable contention except Jewish/Mosaic law. So when it speaks of ones being in bondage (verse 3) and being redeemed from the Law (verse 5) and being set free (verse 7), is there any contextual reason that law wouldn't mean the same thing it did when applied to Jesus in verse 4? So if we were in bondage under the law before Jesus (whether we knew it or not the law condemns all--See Romans Chapters 1 through 3), why would the bondage we returned to be pagan laws WHEN THIS WASN"T WHAT BOUND US or what Jesus freed us from? Continue on to verses 21 to 31. As Jeremy pointed out, Law, Sinai, and bondage are all linked together once again. There would be no reason to link pagan law with Sinai. The context of the entire book up to this point is consistent--Jewish/Mosaic law. Lets continue, Chapter 5:3. Would circumcission result in requirements to keep the whole pagan law and festivals? That's just too ridiculous to even consider as valid. In verse 14, would any contend that it is pagan law and festivals that are "fulfilled in one word, in the statement, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.'"? Again, the context is perfectly clear about the nature of the Law. When Paul writes in Chapter 6 "Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh. (vs 12-13" is he referring to a pagan rite of circumcission and pagan Law that isn't kept? Every single chapter of the book of Galatians is abundantly clear that the context is a rebuke of lawmongering Judaizers in the church. On what possible basis could you extract one verse from the center of this discussion and suggest that it wasn't about Jewish law? It makes no sense in context! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5244 Registered: 12-2003 |
Great overview of Galatians, Rick! You are totally right; that book is entirely about Jewish law. Any other reading is wresting more from the text than is there. Such analysis is not even allowed in a literature class! Colleen | ||
| Randyg Registered user Username: Randyg Post Number: 348 Registered: 12-2004 |
Rick, A big thank-you for your indepth and straight forward analysis of this topic. Your commentary should dispel any suggestions otherwise. Paul most definitely is speaking of the Jewish law. It seems any variance to that interpretation is a real stretch in light of the plain and clear words of Paul. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 354 Registered: 9-2006  |
Paul to the Galatians is a very good book to read, I had not read any of it for awhile so I read the first 2 chapters and up through part of chapter three. Paul in Chapter 2:11-14 brings before Peter his Hypocrisy and knowing Peter the best I can know him through the scripture, Peter did some tall repenting, I donít think he did anything more than what we all get caught up in at times. But it seems to me Paul has seen the need to reestablish the Gospel of Christ which was beginning to become polluted (shall I say?) by folk beginning again to pick up the old elements and mix them with the new. It seems to me Paul hit on the whole problem when he ask this question in chapter 3:2-3 Gal 3:2 (NKJV) I only want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Gal 3:3 (NKJV) Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? In one place Jesus talks of the futility of mixing new wine in old skins. Paulís questions address such an important thing for us all, and I mean each and every one. It could be termed Paulís letter to the Adventist, his questions address my dilemma with my Adventist friends far better that any question I might pose to them concerning their Sabbaths, diets, their lack of faith in Christ for salvation, investigative Judgments and on and on. Have we received the Spirit by faith or the law, we canít have it two ways just as the Galatians couldnít have it two ways. This is my question to my Adventist Associates today ìWho has bewitched you?î Who has done this terrible thing? I can just envision Paul as he stands before them, raises his hands in bewilderment. Who has bewitched you? Oh, the futility of the flesh that seeks to make itself perfect before God. But by the miracle of God who can/does declare us righteous through his Son Christ Jesus, restoring us unto himself, undeserving though we are. What love, what grace, what passions of mercy encircle us. River | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5249 Registered: 12-2003 |
River, your seeing this "bewitching" from the outside in is really quite profound. Thank you for sharing your responses and reactions with us. They are encouraging and helpful. Colleen |
