What Did Paul Mean By These Words?

Just_a_Christian said:

Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Matthew 16:12
I ask you, what was the origin of THEIR leaven??
If their leaven was bad, it was of man not God. Jesus called them wicked and adulterous.
In Him

Click to expand...

Considering that the Pharisees are criticized for making up commandments, and the Sadducees are criticized for not believing in the resurrection, I understand that passage as referring to two different leavens, not that they both have the same leaven.

Its interesting to me also that in Mark's version, the Sadducees are replaced by Herod. Mark 8:15 "And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod."

And in Luke, there is no leaven of the Sadducees nor of Herod but of the Pharisees alone, and it is specifically identified. Luke 12:1 "In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy."

david shelby said:

Considering that the Pharisees are criticized for making up commandments, and the Sadducees are criticized for not believing in the resurrection, I understand that passage as referring to two different leavens, not that they both have the same leaven.

Click to expand...

Either way the Pharisees AND Saducees had bad leaven. Was it from God or man?

Just_a_Christian said:

Jesus called them wicked and adulterous.

Click to expand...

Its surprising to me that this only occurs in one gospel, one time, in one chapter, and that its with reference to them making a legitimate request to see a sign or miracle from someone claiming to be a prophet. The response that only a wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign from a prophet is something I would more expect from Mohammed in the Koran (since he was incapable of doing miracles) than of Jesus in the gospels, so my sentence on that is going to be that by the principle of majority rule of the gospels I do tend to question strange things when found in only one of the gospels, and inasmuch as this is strange, I question it, as to whether Jesus really said that, or if this was invented later to just throw more mud unnecessarily at the Jewish leadership of the day with the accusation of "how could they not recognize the Messiah?" which is obvious how and why they would not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. If you were there you wouldn't have recognized him either. Passages considered Old Testament prophecies of Jesus are not by any means clear enough to be recognized as such until AFTER the events.

That chapter being Matthew 16, by the way, which is also questionable in attributing the words about "on this rock I will build my church" to Jesus with regard to Peter in verses 15-18, when in Mark's version of the same confession in Mark 8:29-30, Jesus merely tells Peter to not reveal to anyone yet that he is the Christ. This chapter smacks of Catholic editing, both to suggest the notion of Christ himself establishing a church (rather than the apostles and Paul later doing so, a concept not found in Mark, Luke, or John) and to suggest the primacy of Peter.

david shelby said:

Its surprising to me that this only occurs in one gospel, one time, in one chapter, and that its with reference to them making a legitimate request to see a sign or miracle. The response that only a wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign from a prophet is something I would more expect from Mohammed in the Koran (since he was incapable of doing miracles) than of Jesus in the gospels, so may sentence on that is going to be that by the principle of majority rule of the gospels I do tend to question strange things when found in only one of the gospels, and inasmuch as this is strange, I question it, as to whether Jesus really said that, or if this was invented later to just throw more mud unnecessarily at the Jewish leadership of the day with the accusation of "how could they not recognize the Messiah?" which is obvious how and why they would not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. If you were there you wouldn't have recognized him either. Passages considered Old Testament prophecies of Jesus are not by any means clear enough to be recognized as such until AFTER the events.

That chapter being Matthew 16, by the way, which is also questionable in attributing the words about "on this rock I will build my church" to Jesus with regard to Peter in verses 15-18, when in Mark's version of the same confession in Mark 8:29-30, Jesus merely tells Peter to not reveal to anyone yet that he is the Christ. This chapter smacks of Catholic editing, both to suggest the notion of Christ himself establishing a church (rather than the apostles and Paul later doing so, a concept not found in Mark, Luke, or John) and to suggest the primacy of Peter.

Click to expand...

So, you are telling me you do not trust God's word?

Just_a_Christian said:

So, you are telling me you do not trust God's word?

Click to expand...

"The Word" or "the word"? Lol. Just kidding. I hate it when people do that.

To me "the word" is the sum of the message, not every particular. That's why its called "the word", not "the wordS." Its "the word" because its the summary, the essence, the communication as a big picture, not the exact wordS.

david shelby said:

"The Word" or "the word"? Lol. Just kidding. I hate it when people do that.

To me "the word" is the sum of the message, not every particular. That's why its called "the word", not "the wordS." Its "the word" because its the summary, the essence, the communication as a big picture, not the exact wordS.

Click to expand...

Viewing the Bible or His (w)ord as a "big picture" to me is very dangerous. First, the big picture is much like not being able to see the trees for the forest. And, if you feel the Bible contains errors, even if they are small insignificant errors (if such a beast exists), where do you draw the line? Can that line deviate in such a manner that could cost someone an eternity in a Devil's hell? There's nothing wrong with forming you own opinion in matters that do not have eternal consequences. However, if we can't trust ALL of God's written word, how can we fully trust any of it? The God we worship is fully capable of controlling every single letter and punctuation mark contained there in. I personally believe He did.
In Him

I can see all kinds of eisogesis is going on with these passages, which is sadly typical, taking verses out of their different contexts & applying them to the OP contexts rather than sticking to the immediate context to help determine to what Paul is referring.

This is one of those difficult passages in Paul's letters/epistles to which the Apostle Peter alludes to in 2 Pet 3:16-18:

Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant & unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, beloved, since you already know these things, be on your guard so that you will NOT BE CARRIED AWAY BY THE ERROR OF THE LAWLESS & fall from your secure standing.

'some things' Difficult = δυσνόητά (dysnoēta) adjective, nominative neuter plural; Strongs Concordance, G1425 dysnóētos (an adjective, derived from 1418 /dys-, "difficult" and noētos, "understanding," see 3539 /noiéō) – properly, hard-to-understand; difficult to grasp; hard to mentally process, i.e. what is intellectually difficult to capture the true sense of (used only in 2 Pet 3:16).

the 'dys' prefix is like our English word, dysfunctional, difficult to function; like un- or mis- (as in unrest, misjudge), nullifies good sense or increases bad sense of a word.

Thayer's Greek lexicon: inseparable prefix conveys idea of difficulty, opposition, injuriousness or the like & corresponds to our English prefixes: mis-, un-. It is opposite of 'eu' meaning well or good.

Mark 10:23-25 “...How HARD (Gk 'dyskolon') it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answering AGAIN, says to them, Children, how DIFFICULT is it for them that TRUST IN RICHES to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

G3539 noiéō (from 3563 /noús, "mind") – properly, to apply mental effort needed to reach "bottom-line" conclusions. 3539 (noiéō) underlines the moral culpability we all have before God – for every decision (value-judgment) we make. This follows from each of us being created in the divine image – hence, possessing the inherent capacity by the Lord to exercise moral reasoning.

Thayer's:
#1 to perceive with the mind, to understand: absolutely, with the addition τῇ καρδία, John 12:40 (Isaiah 44:18); with an accusative of the thing, Ephesians 3:4, 20; 1 Timothy 1:7; passive: Romans 1:20; followed by ὅτι, Matthew 15:17; Matthew 16:11; Mark 7:18; followed by an accusative with an infinitive, Hebrews 11:3; the absolute equivalent to to have understanding: Matthew 16:9; Mark 8:17.
#2 to think upon, heed, ponder, consider: ὀείτω, namely, let him attend to the events that occur, which will show the time to flee, Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14; (similarly νόει ὁ (R G ἅ) λέγω, 2 Timothy 2:7)

Heb 5:11 concerning whom we have much to discuss but it is HARD TO EXPLAIN (G1421, dys-hermeneutos--make it clear, interpret) to you because, you have become dull of hearing (slow to understand)

Mt 15:17 "Do you not understand..."
Mt 16:9 "Do you not yet understand..."
Mt 16:11 "How is it that you do not understand..."
Mk 8:17 "Have you not yet perceived/understood..."
Jn 12:40 "Lest they see with their eyes & perceive/understand with their heart
Rom 1:20 "...are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made

Thus, I am not one to blindly rush in, being ignorant or showing myself unstable to perceive or understand or to find myself in opposition to what Paul is actually saying.

For me the best way, after praying & humbling myself before the Lord & asking for His illumination & to open the eyes of my heart to understand--is to observe what is actually said--by asking the reporter's questions on the passages & seeking to discern what is being said about these 'elemental' things.

Example: Galatians 1:1-11

In the previous chapter, Paul talks about the Galatians being foolish & being bewitched from what they had learned about Christ & growing by the Spirit in faith. Being young in the faith, they had been influenced by Judaizers coming in to enslave them under the law vs under the Spirit. And before that they were pagan idol worshipers, enslaved in a similar fashion.

David Guzik (Blue letter Bible commentary):

"In calling the Galatians foolish, Paul is not saying they are morally or mentally deficient (the Greek word moros conveys that idea, and was used by Jesus in parables, such as in Matt 7:26; 25:1-13). Instead, Paul uses the Greek word anoetos (a- not & neotos- understanding), which has the idea of someone who can think but fails to use their power of perception & understanding.

i. The principles Paul referred to are things the Galatians knew, things they had been taught in Christ. The knowledge & understanding were there, but they were not using them. Instead they were now trading their freedom in Christ to slavery under the law.

Paul then uses his own life as an example & also his experience of how he confronted the Apostle Peter when he fell into hypocrisy, saying he believed in one thing yet living in an entirely different way than what he was taught & learned about living by faith in the Spirit & the freedom that comes from it.

He then ends the third chapter with an illustration of being under the schoolmaster of the Law until Christ came. Now we are no longer under a schoolmaster but are children of God & heirs of the promise of God through Abraham.

Now he is talking about the Galatian believer's experiences in our passage. What were they like before they became followers of Christ & before they had now fallen away & become enslaved under the law?

Just as Paul's experience proved that we stand right before God based on what Jesus did, not based on what do under the law & paganism, so will the Galatians' experience will prove the same thing.

That is the background of the context we need to be aware of as we seek to understand what these principles, these elemental things of the world are & how they relate to the concept of being in bondage under certain guardians & things vs being set free in Christ.

Gal 4:1-11 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, 2but he is under guardians & managers until the date set by his father. 3In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. 4But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

7So you are no longer a slave, but a son & if a son, then an heir through God. 8Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. 9But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak & worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? 10You observe days & months & seasons & years! 11I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

Five times the concept of slavery is used in these 11 verses.
Slavery is contrasted to being sons & being free.

Question: how is an heir like a slave when being taught as a child?

Slavery is likened to being children under the tutelage of others, whether guardians or managers that instructed us in basic things & basic education before becoming of age & mature enough to be an heir.

In the culture of Paul's time & the time of the Galatian believers, fathers often had tutors instruct their children in basic theology & basic living skills. In pagan idolatry, the Galatians were instructed in how to worship an idol & maintain it & the sacrifices involved in appeasing the idol god & the fear they had, putting them in bondage to this way of thinking.

'In the same way' This is a phrase of comparing two things that are similar. What are the two things compared, that are similar? (to be continued)

david shelby said:

Where does the New Testament anywhere accuse the Sadducees of teaching commandments of men?

Click to expand...

?
Mat_16:11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Mat_16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Hidden In Him said:

Let me just say first off that this is not a set up question. I am definitely leaning in a certain direction, but the following is an honest inquiry for input.

In Galatians 4:3, Colossians 2:8, and Colossians 2:20, Paul used the expression τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ κόσμου, which as I will show in a second translates into "the principles of the world." What principles was he talking about by this repeated phrase, and why did he refer to them as such?

For starters, about the translation, he uses the phrase in combination with the phrase "the traditions of man" and the word "philosophies" in Colossians 2:8. The reading is "βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης, κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου καὶ οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν" which translates as, "Take heed that there not be anyone making a prey of you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the traditions of man, according to the principles of the world, and not according to Christ." So there is a clear common element to these phrases; all refer in general to false, naturalistic (i.e. humanistic) teachings.

Then he uses just the word "principles" (στοιχεῖα) as a stand alone in Galatians 4:9, "how do you turn again to the weak and beggarly principles to which you again desire to serve anew?," referring back to the full phrase τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in Galatians 4:3.

When you take all these things into consideration, the word alone must mean "principles" and the entire phrase means "principles of the world."

So the question again becomes: What principles specifically was he talking about by the use of this repeated phrase, and why did he refer to them as such?

Blessings in Christ. Any and all responses are appreciated.

Click to expand...

In referring to "philosophy" and "principles of this world," Paul could just be making an allusion to Greek forms of philosophy, such as those of Epicurus that put too much value on the necessity of starting from human, empirical experiences by which then to 'count' as evidence toward a justification of one's beliefs. In this case, these Greek philosophies, as well as various, competing Jewishly derived alternatives, if left to themselves, could easily take one afield in one's efforts to maintain conviction of faith since we start in principle with God, His Work, His Law, and the manifestation of Christ in the world, and attested to by His Church.

This is my general understanding, but I know there are a host of nuances that could be inferred by this somewhat enigmatic passage in Colossians. I think a beginning point is to realize that Paul is... addressing the Colossians and to ask ourselves, "If I were a Colossian or a Laodicean, living at that time with the citizens of Colossae or Laodicea, what kinds of ideas and philosophies would I be contending with on a daily basis?"

Really, it's not much different than where we find ourselves today; we're contending with the same competing sets of assumptions constantly beating against the unbreakable Cornerstone in the foundation of the Church (which is Christ).

2PhiloVoid said:

In referring to "philosophy" and "principles of this world," Paul could just be making an allusion to Greek forms of philosophy, such as those of Epicurus that put too much value on the necessity of starting from human, empirical experiences by which then to 'count' as evidence toward a justification of one's beliefs.

Click to expand...

I think he was just distinguishing imagination from intuition.

Intuition can be seen as a part of the human mind in connection to the mind of God (or universe whatever). Along with communion (with God and others of the same mind) and conscience as guiding forces. I think that those of the science world and prechristian era people faced the same challenges. Some may have had intuition but unless it was in effect lined up in relationship to communication with God tested with the conscious I can’t see that as being of any use.

Same thing with philosophies. They not being aligned with God that is.

Hidden In Him said:

Let me just say first off that this is not a set up question. I am definitely leaning in a certain direction, but the following is an honest inquiry for input.

In Galatians 4:3, Colossians 2:8, and Colossians 2:20, Paul used the expression τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ κόσμου, which as I will show in a second translates into "the principles of the world." What principles was he talking about by this repeated phrase, and why did he refer to them as such?

For starters, about the translation, he uses the phrase in combination with the phrase "the traditions of man" and the word "philosophies" in Colossians 2:8. The reading is "βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης, κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου καὶ οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν" which translates as, "Take heed that there not be anyone making a prey of you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the traditions of man, according to the principles of the world, and not according to Christ." So there is a clear common element to these phrases; all refer in general to false, naturalistic (i.e. humanistic) teachings.

Then he uses just the word "principles" (στοιχεῖα) as a stand alone in Galatians 4:9, "how do you turn again to the weak and beggarly principles to which you again desire to serve anew?," referring back to the full phrase τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in Galatians 4:3.

When you take all these things into consideration, the word alone must mean "principles" and the entire phrase means "principles of the world."

So the question again becomes: What principles specifically was he talking about by the use of this repeated phrase, and why did he refer to them as such?

Blessings in Christ. Any and all responses are appreciated.

Click to expand...

I think that the elementary principles would be something like the rudimentary principles of ethics and religion with a focus on external adherence. There can be elementary principles in a specifically Jewish context but also in a broader Gentile context.

In the Jewish context, the stoicheia would be things like "priest", "temple", "sacrifice", "passover", etc... These are the building blocks of true, substantial religion which is found in Christ. Christ is the true priest, temple, sacrifice, etc... But the stoicheia were needed in order to help people understand the spiritual work of Christ. Now that we have Christ, the Jews no longer need the stoicheia.

In the Gentile context, stoicheia could be elements of pagan religion such as temples and sacrifices. But they could also be principles of ethical conduct such as "do not taste" and "do not touch". These have an appearance of wisdom and man made religion, but in the end they cannot change man's sinful heart.

Hidden In Him said:

Let me just say first off that this is not a set up question. I am definitely leaning in a certain direction, but the following is an honest inquiry for input.

In Galatians 4:3, Colossians 2:8, and Colossians 2:20, Paul used the expression τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ κόσμου, which as I will show in a second translates into "the principles of the world." What principles was he talking about by this repeated phrase, and why did he refer to them as such?

For starters, about the translation, he uses the phrase in combination with the phrase "the traditions of man" and the word "philosophies" in Colossians 2:8. The reading is "βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης, κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου καὶ οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν" which translates as, "Take heed that there not be anyone making a prey of you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the traditions of man, according to the principles of the world, and not according to Christ." So there is a clear common element to these phrases; all refer in general to false, naturalistic (i.e. humanistic) teachings.

Then he uses just the word "principles" (στοιχεῖα) as a stand alone in Galatians 4:9, "how do you turn again to the weak and beggarly principles to which you again desire to serve anew?," referring back to the full phrase τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in Galatians 4:3.

When you take all these things into consideration, the word alone must mean "principles" and the entire phrase means "principles of the world."

So the question again becomes: What principles specifically was he talking about by the use of this repeated phrase, and why did he refer to them as such?

Blessings in Christ. Any and all responses are appreciated.

Click to expand...

"Elements",or "Principles", or "Rudiments" is the Greek "stoicheion" and is always used in scripture to refer to the basic, elementary, rudimentary principles of the "Mosaic law".

Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles (stoicheion) of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

They were the Elements that burned with fervent heat as the heavens and earth of Operational Old Covenant Judaism passed away with a great noise at the destruction of the City and sanctuary in 70AD (cf:2 Peter 3:10)

Hidden In Him said:

Ok. This might have some merit, but it seems to be an argument based on supposition to say the thrust of the heresy was teaching another Jesus. As far as specifics are concerned, the letters appear to only focus on the question of a requirement to keep Jewish law.

Your answer begs the question: How would preaching another Jesus be regarded by Paul as teaching "the principles of the world"?

Blessings in Christ.

Click to expand...

I'll try and have to answer this, when I get home this afternoon. I don't really have time right now.