- Topic
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.
Kim, I was just asking myself the same question about fromtheother side.
^^ it was the weekend!! Sabbath and I like to spend my sundays off, working out and being with my wife and children at home and watching tv! So yea was gone for a couple days!
Sorry to come in so late. Elie I think Gal 4 does need to be read in the context of the first 3 chapters as Genny rightly mentioned but perhaps we can point backwards whenever we reach those points.
FTOS mentions, "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 would like to point out that the sin stems from the fact that we don't obey the law. So it is not quite correct to say that obeying the law is connected with cleansing from sin. Hope I am clear. Each time we disobey the law, we sin. Each time we obey the law, we don't sin. But this latter in no way cancels out the previous time when we disobeyed the law. This is basically for those who live by the law rather than grace as stated elsewhere.
Secondly, in failing to keep the Sabbath as Jesus was accused, I believe He did challenge his accusers based on Jewish law. I am not knowledgeable enough but I believe this means that doing good was in any case not a violation of the Jewish Sabbath either. He offerred David's example for this. So yes, Jesus was accused of breaking the Jewish Sabbath but he successfully defended himself against that accusation.
Elievalkyrie wrote:
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.
hope m not interrupting here but i just want to clarify what i personally understand bout the topic, the ppl who accused Him were imperfect so what do you expect from an imperfect ppl,,i beliv Jesus is perfect
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.