Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Denigration of the Law as Given by the Angels alone gave it. Unlike government officials, the angels must not have been ministers of God when giving the Law. This is why the angels are not even on par with government officials whose decrees (Paul says) must be followed as God's ministers.These statements are extremely troubling because Paul contradicts the Bible on two points: (a) his claim the Law was given by angels; and (b) the Law given to Moses by angels was not worthy of submission, implying the angels acted without God's authority. To the contrary, the Bible is clear that the Law was given directly by God to Moses. Furthermore, even if given by angels, Jesus says the angels of heaven are always obeying God. 11 We would still obey a set of decrees if we only knew angels of heaven were its author.
Have you ever looked carefully at Paul's remarks? They require strict scrutiny in light of the obvious heresy behind them.
- The Lord's Prayer asks that God's will be done on earth "as it is done in heaven." This implies the angels of heaven are in perfect obedience. The angels of which Jesus speaks are depicted as in heaven. See, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained 12 through angels by the hand of a mediator. (20) Now a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is one. (21) Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law. (22) But the scriptures shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (23) But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. (24) So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (25) But now faith that is come, we are no longer under a tutor. (26) For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. (27) For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. (28) There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. (29) And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise. (ASV)
Above, Paul starts out his attack on obeying the Law by saying it was "ordained by angels through the hands of a mediator," i.e., Moses. ((Gal. 3:19).)
- The Greek word Paul uses for the angels' activity is diageteis. It means arrange, set in order, often instruct or command. It refers back to ho Nomos, the Law. The Nomos was commanded dia (through) aggelos {i.e., Angels )?
Paul has more to say about the angels. In chapter 4 of Galatians, Paul will say that because the Law was given by angels, why do we want to be subject to those who are not gods? (Gal. 4:8).
In this portion of Galatians, Paul speaks of the Law as bondage. Rather than the Law being a positive thing, Paul recasts the nature of the entire Hebrew Scriptures to make this a very bad thing.
Paul does this by a fanciful re-telling of the Bible story of Abraham. Paul says the bondage of the Law now belongs to the son Ishmael produced by Abraham and Hagar. The Law thus carries a curse on Hagar's child Ishmael. Paul's ideas were a total invention, having no basis in the Scripture itself. Then Paul says Hagar's son Ishmael corresponds with Israel of Paul's day. This likewise was pure fiction. Paul then reasons those Jews under the Law at Mount Sinai are now "by an allegory" represented by Ishmael, the son of Hagar. Paul next says Israel, which now corresponds to Ishmael, is cursed to have to follow the Law of Moses. (This is what I call The Great Inversion). Mixed in with this, Paul brings up again that the Law was given by angels to a mediator (Moses), not by God himself. So here Paul wonders why anyone wants to submit to those who are "not gods?" i.e., both claims are completely contradictory of the Bible. Why? Because the Law was given to the Sons of Israel on Mount Sinai by God's own voice (not angels) through the mediator Moses. ((Exod. 20:22).) The son of Abraham and Hagar is Ishmael. (Gen. 15:16). The son of Abraham and Sarah is Isaac. (Gen. 17:19). It is with Isaac's "seed" that God will fulfill an "everlasting covenant." (Gen. 17:19. ) 14 Isaac's son with Rebekah was Jacob. (Gen. 25:26). Israel was the new name God gave Jacob. (Gen. 32:28). Ishmael was never given the Law. Instead, he and his mother were cast out by Abraham into the desert. (Gen. 21:14). The Law was given to the sons of Sarah (Israel), not the sons of Hagar. (Exod. 20).
TABLE 2. The Great Inversion
| Paul's "Allegory" | Bible's View | | Hagar's son is "bom after the flesh." (Gal. 4:23). | Hagar's son is Ishmael. (Gen. 15:16). | | Hagar bore sons "unto bondage"\(Gal. 4:24). | Hagar and Ishmael were cast out into the desert. (Gen.21:14). | | This son (Ishmael) has a "covenant" of bondage at Sinai. (Gal. 4:24). "Jerusalem... is in bondage with her children." (Gal.4:25). | The covenant at Sinai was with the sons of Israel, not Ishmael. (Exod. 20:22). The Law was given at Sinai to the sons of Israel. ((Exod. 20).) | | Sarah's children are children of the "freewoman." (Gal. 4:22). "Jerusalem that is above is free." (Gal. 4:26). Christians are children of the freewoman. (Gal. 4:31). Sarahs children are not bound to the Law, only the sons of Hagar are bound to the Law. | Sarah's son was Isaac, whose son\Jacob had his name changed by God to Israel. (Gen. 17:19, 32:28). The\Law was given to the Sons of Sarah, not Hagar. The children of Sarah were bound by God to the Law. ((Exod. 20)). | 13. "And Jehovah said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven." ((Exod. 20:22), ASV.)
- "I will establish my covenant with him for
Paul thereby provides an "allegory" that is totally at odds with the Biblical record. It is a 100% inversion of Scripture. No one has liberty to break God's promise to Israel by redefining to whom the promise was given. Paul has redefined Israel to be Ishmael. He thereby claims that Christians can inherit the promise to Isaac (father to Israel) apart from the true seed of Isaac who Paul, in effect, puts under a curse. Paul therefore says we are free to ignore the Bible-story that Israel (son of Isaac) was later given the Law. Paul invites us to accept that instead the Law should now be seen as given to Ishmael as a curse. It never happened. This is rewriting the Bible with an agenda in hand. I can come to any outcome I want if I can rewrite the passages. That is not Bible exegisis. This is Bible-contradiction.
Not even a Prophet of God is given the power to make up stories-calling them analogies -that contradict Scripture to spin the Bible to fit a desired outcome. As the Bible itself says:
[Compare teachers] [t]o the Law and the Testimony [and], if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them.
((Isa. 8:20)).
Yet in (Gal. 4:1-11) and 20-31, we read Paul not speaking at all according to this Word:
(1) But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a bondservant though he is lord of all; (2) but is under guardians and stewards until the day appointed of the father. (3) So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the rudiments of the world: (4) but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, (5) that he might redeem them that were under the law, no longer a bondservant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. (8) Howbeit at that time, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to them that by nature are no gods: (9) but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back again to the weak and
beggarly elements, 15 whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again ? (10) Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years.
(11) I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain. * * * * (20) but I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my tone; for I am perplexed about you. (21) Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? (22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid [i.e., a bondservant], and one by the freewoman [i.e., Sarah], (23) Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the freewoman is born through promise. (24) Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar. (25) Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children. (26) But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother. (27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband. (28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. (29) But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so
- The word is elements, but the ASV changes this to rudiments, as if a principle were involved. The correct translation is elements. Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman. (31) Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman. (ASV with change in verse 8 as noted in fn 15.)
Paul clearly is referring to the angels in verse 8. He says 'you' desire to be in bondage to them who are "not gods." This is because Paul mentions that returning to obey the Law is being in "bondage again." So when Paul says being in bondage again to the Law is the same as bondage to them who are "not gods," there is only one conceivable explanation. Paul is harkening back to (Gal. 3:19). There he says the Law was ordained by angels. They are "no gods." Paul thus means the Galatians' desire to be in 'bondage' to the Law is a desire to be in bondage to those who are "not gods."
Paulunists such as Fowler concur this is Paul's meaning in 4:8. However, they fail to note Paul is contradicting Scripture. Commentators agree Paul's point in (Gal. 4:8) is to emphasize once more that the Law of Moses is "secondary" because of its "indirect transmission" through angels rather than coming directly from God. 16
What makes the point unmistakable is that Paul repeats this idea in the very next verse. It is not readily apparent in our common English translations. Paul says in (Gal. 4:9) that the Galatians desire to be subject again to the "weak and beggarly elements of the world." What or who are elements of the world? Paul equates this desire to submit to the Law as being in "bondage again" to these "elements." Previously, this was equated with submitting to angels
- James Fowler, The Precedence of God's Promises elements the same thing: angels. This is true in both Greek and Jewish thought.
One commentator points out that in Greek thought, the reference to "elements of the world... likely [means] celestial beings...' Likewise, in Jewish thought, elements of the world means angels. In Vincent's Word Studies on this verse, we read:
The elements of the world are the personal, elemental spirits. This seems to be the preferable explanation, both here and in Col 2:8. According to Jewish ideas, all things had their special angels. In the Book of Jubilees, chapter 2, appear, the angel of the presence (comp. Isa 63:9); the angel of adoration; the spirits of the wind, the clouds, darkness, hail, frost, thunder and lightning, winter and spring, cold and heat.
Thus, (Gal. 4:8) and 4:9 are both evoking (Gal. 3:19)'s message that the Law was ordained by angels, not God himself. Paul is chiding them for wanting to be subject to
"We want the crown without the cross. We want the gain without the
pain. We want the words of Christian salvation to be easy....But
that gospel is a false gospel, a treacherous lie. That easy access
gate doesn't go to heaven. It says 'Heaven' but it ends up in hell."
J. MacArthur, Hard to Believe { 2003) at 12,14
- Comment on (Gal. 4:9), from New American Bible
a Law that did not come from God. Hence they want to be in "bondage over again" to the weak and beggarly "celestial beings." 18
TABLE 3. Who Are "no gods" and "elements" in (Gal. 4:8), 9? Angels Galatians' intended
keeping of Law given How do we know Paul Galatians' intended Moses is "bondage intends No Gods &
Lawkeeping is again" to "elements." Angelic Elements are bondage to whom? (Gal. 4:9) Who are the true source of the (Gal. 4:8) "elements"? Law of Moses?
Because Paul says so in (Gal. 3:19). He says the Law of Moses was "ordained" by angels through Moses as a Mediator. (Gal. 3:19). Thus, continuing to obey the Law is bondage again to those who are "no gods" and "weak and beggarly elements."
There is no misreading of Paul involved here. Luke, a companion of Paul, repeats this in the words of Stephen in Acts 7:53. Stephen says: "You received the Law as ordained by angels and did not keep it." Barnabas, a companion of Paul, and author of Hebrews, refers likewise to the "word spoken through angels ." (Heb. 2:2). Both Stephen and Barnabas are making a misapplication of Scripture. It is correct to say as Stephen does in Acts 7:35 "the angel... appeared to him
- The most troublesome of all solutions to save Paul from contradicting Scripture is by Gill. He says the Law was given by "the angel of the divine presence, the second person of the trinity." (Comment on Acts 7:38). Gill means Jesus. However, if you follow Paul's logic that the Law is inferior by having come from angels, and submitting to it means you are subjecting yourself to those "who are no gods" (Gal. 4:8), then if Gill is right, you have Paul affirming Jesus was not God. If you accept Gill's effort to save Paul, you have Paul clearly being an apostate.
Those who are "no "Elements" are
Does Paul Imply The Angels Lacked God's Authority in Issuing the Law?
(Moses) in the bush." (See (Exod. 3:2).) But it is incorrect to say that Hebrew Scripture indicate the Law was given by angels. Such a view contradicts Exodus chapter 20, and specifically (Ex. 25:16), 21-22. This passage says God Himself gave the Law.
Paul's claim also directly contradicts Jesus. Our Lord said that "in the bush,... God spake unto him." ((Mark 12:26); Luke 20:37.)
In sum, Paul's unmistakable point is that because the Law was ordained through angels, it is secondary. It does not deserve our submission. Paul is asking the Galatians why do they want to be subject to those who are "not gods." They are "weak and beggarly elements."
However, we cannot ignore Paul's view on the angels contradicts the account in Exodus. There is no conceivable gap in Exodus chapter 20 that can ever justify Paul's claim, as some Paulunists suggest to avoid the dilemma. Exodus chapter 20 directly quotes God giving the Ten Commandments. Paul is flatly wrong.