[Elievalkyrie]

As requested by fromtheotherside, I created a new forum topic so that we can have our own discussion about Galatians 4 and what it means. To fully understand it, I think we must discuss the whole chapter, but giving related biblical references are also allowed. 

First, I have to say we should make this peaceful and insightful as much as possible and request from other forum members to avoid giving unnecessary and unhelpful comments about it. Comments related to the topic is very much welcome and I am open for corrections if some things I state are somehow found unreasonable.

Second, I consider the bible to be the Word of God and must therefore be infallible and that it does not contradict itself. If inconsistencies are found, it is us that must change our point of views and not try to change the bible’s meaning of something since it is people that makes mistakes, not the Word of God. 

Third, we can try to interpret it because it is only the scripture that we are trying to understand, not the prophecy which can be interpreted by God only and not even a parable which is somehow hard to understand. Okay, let’s start.

Background: The Apostle Paul was plainly speaking to Galatians, these are Early Christian people who are not part of the Israel community (they are gentiles).

Galatians 4:1-2, “What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. ” 

As I understand from this verses, it is an analogy to give similarities between two things: an underage heir and a person’s situation before the coming of Jesus on earth (I am referring to the first coming, not the 2nd). Before Jesus arrived, people are still under the law, just like an heir who is still under guardianship. Therefore the laws (specifically the different kinds of offering, the Passover, the 10 commandments and the several Feasts), was considered as our guardian. Can we find in the bible that the law was indeed considered as our guardian? Yes, it is found in Galatians 3:24-25, “So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.”.

Before we continue, let me ask if this verse’s meaning is clear enough? Anyone with objections, feel free to state it. If none, we can go to the next verse.

[genny]

[genny]

Thanks for starting this Elie.

A good thing to do before going too far with Galatians chapter 4 is to read the whole book of Galatians, especially since it's only 6 chapters.  It puts the chapter in context of the theme of the whole book, which is that we are no longer under the regulations of the law but can know the grace of God through faith.

[Elievalkyrie]

Thanks, Genny. Do you have anything to add about Galatians 4:1-2? I am just waiting for fromtheotherside’s comment on this before proceeding to the next verse. Feel free to join the discussion. 🙂

[Sarah2013]

So far so good.

[genny]

I agree.  I think you've also covered verse 3 in the explanation.

[Elievalkyrie]

Whoops. That means I overlapped with the explanation. Lol. Let me correct that later once FTOS replies.

[fromtheotherside]

I'm fine go ahead.

[Elievalkyrie]

 3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.

This part is referring to the time that Jesus finally came. The bible emphasized that He was born of a woman, not of a man. Why? This is because He was not born from Joseph but from Mary, who was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, giving Him both the nature of man and of God. He was, for the lack of better word, the original son of God. It is also stated that Jesus came to redeem those under the law (this refers to the people who are ‘underage’ heirs, still under the guardianship of the laws). How? By dying on the cross. He was the only one who can follow the laws perfectly, having the nature of God, He was unable to sin. Jesus is the true heir of Heaven.

But compared to us, He did not need to follow the laws to go to heaven but instead He did it for us. He was the only one capable of following the laws perfectly because only God is perfect. Man have and always will disobey the laws. But Jesus fulfilled the laws and He sacrifice Himself on the cross to give men a chance to enter Heaven despite their sinful state. To put it in simple terms, Jesus was like saying “you can’t do it yourself, I’ll do it for you”.

That is why in Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” Until everything is accomplished, meaning while He was still alive, the people were still under the laws and are still required to follow it. But when He died, men were released from the laws. That is seen in Galatians 3:24-25, “24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.”

Sorry for the overlapping topics but please allow it since it is related anyway. Okay, forum is again open for objections at this point. Before I can continue, disagreements must first be settled. Fire away.

[fromtheotherside]

Followed laws perfectily? So why was he accused of breaking the sabbath? I will do it for u??? uhhhh actually sinners need a blood sacrifice that could actually give them forgiveness and there for take away their sin as it states in Heb.  Not that we couldn't obey the law but that the law really didn't really do any good in cleansing you from you sin. I mean I 'm not totally opposed to you just you know a little bit in your concept.

[Elievalkyrie]

That’s okay. It’s good to talk of things so we can settle differences. They accused Him but the fact is that He did not break it at all. It was proper to heal the sick during sabbaths, this does not break the law. I think it was already explained in the following verses of that story. The priests were just trying to find ways on how to convict Him but found none, they always went away afterwards when what they accuse him of were proven false. Even until Jesus died, He was found faultless. Do you still not agree?

People can obey the laws, but not perfectly. Only Jesus accomplished it. I agree with you that only Jesus’ blood could truly cleanse us from our sin. He was the perfect sacrifice because He was sinless. A lamb was not a perfect sacrifice, that’s why they had to keep doing it over and over again but when Jesus, the perfect Lamb, came, it only needed to be done once because that is how much effective His blood sacrifice is.

[Joshua]

Jesus was accused of breaking the Sabbath because of two things. 1) He performed miracles on the Sabbath. 2) He sent the diciples out to gather grain to eat on a Sabbath. He effectively rebuted both of these claims.

[Elievalkyrie]

Thanks for the insight, Josh. Do you still disagree with this FTOS? Do you believe that Jesus was not faultless? Let's settle this before going to the next verse.

[Elievalkyrie]

I would also like to clarify to you, FTOS, that when I said the people did not find any fault in Jesus I mean that they could not prove that He did anything wrong. Just because you are accused of something, it doesn't mean that you are already guilty of it. The accusation must be proven first.

Analyzing your statement…

 

fromtheotherside wrote:

Followed laws perfectily? So why was he accused of breaking the sabbath? 

You seem to keep having faulty reasoning.

[Simon]

WMSCOG explicitly teaches Jesus did not break the Sabbath so if you want to argue he broke Sabbath you argue against not just our God but also yours.

 

Also, if he hadn't successfully rebutted their claim they would have stoned him to death per the law.

[fromtheotherside]

No the wmscog teaches Jesus Kept the sabbath according to the new testament not by the laws of the Jews!  That is why he can work on the sabbath, showing us that saving and helping is more righteous. 

[fromtheotherside]

They didn't stone him on the spot because the people regarded him highly so they treading lightly.  

[Simon]

fromtheotherside wrote:

No the wmscog teaches Jesus Kept the sabbath according to the new testament not by the laws of the Jews!  That is why he can work on the sabbath, showing us that saving and helping is more righteous. 

doesn't contradict me

[Simon]

fromtheotherside wrote:

They didn't stone him on the spot because the people regarded him highly so they treading lightly.  

If he actually hadn't rebutted they wouldn't have cared and stoned him anyways.  Sabbath breaking is easily proven,,, look he's working on Sabbath… GOD says we must stone him… 

[fromtheotherside]

Simon wrote:

WMSCOG explicitly teaches Jesus did not break the Sabbath so if you want to argue he broke Sabbath you argue against not just our God but also yours.

 

Also, if he hadn't successfully rebutted their claim they would have stoned him to death per the law.

 

fromtheotherside wrote:

No the wmscog teaches Jesus Kept the sabbath according to the new testament not by the laws of the Jews!  That is why he can work on the sabbath, showing us that saving and helping is more righteous. 

 

Simon wrote:

fromtheotherside wrote:

No the wmscog teaches Jesus Kept the sabbath according to the new testament not by the laws of the Jews!  That is why he can work on the sabbath, showing us that saving and helping is more righteous. 

doesn't contradict me

so what I said is what you meant.  Jesus was accused of breaking the jewish sabbath, when he was instituting the NT sabbath. that is the teaching and no it wouldn't be going against our teachings.. 

[Emily]

Elievalkyrie wrote:

That's okay. It's good to talk of things so we can settle differences. They accused Him but the fact is that He did not break it at all. It was proper to heal the sick during sabbaths, this does not break the law. I think it was already explained in the following verses of that story. The priests were just trying to find ways on how to convict Him but found none, they always went away afterwards when what they accuse him of were proven false. Even until Jesus died, He was found faultless. Do you still not agree?

People can obey the laws, but not perfectly. Only Jesus accomplished it. I agree with you that only Jesus' blood could truly cleanse us from our sin. He was the perfect sacrifice because He was sinless. A lamb was not a perfect sacrifice, that's why they had to keep doing it over and over again but when Jesus, the perfect Lamb, came, it only needed to be done once because that is how much effective His blood sacrifice is.

 

Totally agree!

Hebrews 7:25-27 

25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

He did not break the law.  He was holy & blameless.

[KF]

where is from the other side I have been reading all his post,{ quite interesting I might add,} but then all of a sudden he's vanished.

could it be that he saw the video with Ron Ramos and now he is ashame? or sad, or in disbelieve,

fromtheotherside we are here for you, let it all out brother, keeping rage and anger inside is not good

for you.  If I'm wrong, please accept my apology, but if you see the video please let us know what you think.