I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, 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 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. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.
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? You observe days and months and seasons and years! 11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.
Does it make sense here to say that Paul is referring to people who believe it is possible and mandatory to earn God’s blessing by their good works? Is such a person the “child” of God or an “heir” to anything but destruction? In what way can such people be considered sons temporarily forced to live like slaves?
The entire point is that everyone was in the same situation, including Christ, who alone could bring us all into a new situation.
And the “worthless elementary principles of the world” are quite obviously the OT calendar observances (since this is part and parcel of a concern that Paul is writing against which includes the desire to get circumcised). The “slavery” Paul is referring to is the age when this calendar was mandatory.
The question was not, “How do we win God’s favor?” The question was, “What time is it?” The false teachers in Galatia were rejecting the new creation–and thus rejecting Christ.
I wrote a paper on this topic of eschatology in Galatians. It didn’t go over too well. In agreement with you, I still think it is right on.
Mark,
I’m not sure that there is an either/or dichotomy with respect to the false teaching in Galatia. The false teachers were quite capable of being false from more than one perspective.
David
I agree: there’s no dichotomy. It is a matter of exegesis of Galatians. At this time I think you’re better off going to Ephesians 2.8-10 and Titus 3 for positive teaching that demonstrates that work-for-salation schemes are horribly wrong.
But, there’s no reason in principle that finding one error excludes the finding another error being addressed by Paul in the same letter. I’m not sure why my post would be open to that interpretation (bearing in mind, especially, that I’m really only talking about part of the letter to the Galatians).
Mark,
My apologies. I intended my comment as an additional suggestion rather than a critique of your post.
On the other hand, life is full of trade offs: Misrepresenting you, even inadvertently, may lead to someone offering me a book contract.
Thank you for your thoughtful site.
David
Yikes! David, I’m the one who should apologize for my defensiveness. Sorry. That came across much more paranoid than it should have.
The fact is I simply don’t have time to address “the big picture” in Galatians, so I’m blogging it piecemeal. I don’t mean to imply anything beyond what each portion of the text deals with.
And (just to cover my bases after re-reading my comment) when I said “it’s a matter of Galatians…” I was hoping to communicate that I am open to exegetical evidence/arguments, not that I had already done all the relevant exegesis.