What Did Paul Mean By These Words?

[Hidden In Him]

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.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It means that the OT teachings were not full teachings from God, they were based the pattern of the world, it was a shadow of the light.

The real deal is when you are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and the new creation living within your body is the basis for understanding as you mature by trusting God.

 

[HTacianas]

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.

There are two different meanings, though closely related. Those "principles of the world" are things we rarely see in modern times. They were the religions of the times among religious people. Ancient Rome was filled with religions, each having its own beliefs and traditions. Each trade guild of the time had its own god.

All of those religious traditions, which Paul accused of being created by men, hence "traditions of men" were competing with Christianity, which Paul saw as from God. That those religions competed with Christianity for adherents was what Paul was warning against, i.e., do not be deceived by the traditions of men.

To the Galatians at 4:9 he warned against returning to those same rituals referring to them as as "beggarly principles". Paul also accused the Jewish law itself of being traditions of men.

I say that we do not see those things today because they were all but eradicated by Christianity in the Western world.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Galatians 3:19

The old testament teachings are angelic teachings. There is a difference between angelic teachings and God's teachings.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

A good illustration of the difference is the difference between the maximum amount of love a human can provide, which is to lay their life down for their friends.

However, if Jesus did not die for us when we were still his enemies, no one would have guessed that this was the love of God ... not by the kind of world that has been cultivated down here after Adam.

 

[david shelby]

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Galatians 3:19

The old testament teachings are angelic teachings. There is a difference between angelic teachings and God's teachings.

I have to agree with Heikki Raisanen to a certain extent in his book, Paul and the Law, which my summary will not do justice, and will probably turn some people away from reading the book -- but you should read it, its a good book for wrestling with Paul's theory or various theories as to why Christians don't need to keep the law.

And that's how I'm going to summarize the book. Basically, Raisanen is saying that Paul has no one singular theory as to why Christians don't need to keep the law. Basically Paul throws out a lot of different theories hoping one of them will stick. And this theory (i.e. as mentioned by Michael in the quote, and by the OP's verses about "elements of the world"; the theory that the Law was given by angels not God) is just ONE of the many theories. There is also the theory that Jesus nailed the Law to the cross, blotting out the handwriting of ordinances (presumably only the ceremonial commandments are intended) that were against us. There is the theory of faith alone that Abraham was justified by faith alone, so we are too, and thus don't need to keep the Law. There is the theory of imputed righteousness. Paul has no single theory, but many competing theories as to how to get rid of the Law so Christians don't have to keep it. And finally Raisanen talks about Justin Martyr's theory, which moves away from all of Paul's theories, towards simply the notion that Jesus' death set aside the Law to replace it with a new law (somewhat foreshadowed already in James), and this theory of course is what Christianity went with until the reformation when a renewed interest in trying to force one of Paul's theories to work or force all of Paul's theories to work together came about and pushed away Justin Martyr's theory which honestly worked better than all of Paul's theories, and still would if we'd have enough sense to go back to it. That's my summary of Raisanen's book. As I said it may turn some people away from reading it, but there's a lot of supporting argument, and a lot more than what I remember, so I totally recommend everyone read it. And honestly, anyone who hasn't read it, I think is unqualified to argue about this issue, because they probably haven't noticed the diversity of Paul's theories about what we don't need to keep the Law and probably won't admit there is any diversity there, and as a result, no honest discussion could be had with them, certainly no profitable discussion. Without exposure to a book like this, or having independently noticed the same things, people will just be too fundamentalist in one interpretation of one of Paul's theories as if its the only one in his epistles, and that leads nowhere good, but just to hurt feelings.

 

[devin553344]

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.

I think it is more likely describing that we are raised by our families, and people around us. And the world needs to survive and worldly desires may be different than God's Holiness. And if we believe in the teachings that are worldly then that is who we are, then we must become as little children, be reborn and raised (taught) towards Holiness in Christ Jesus.

It is hard for me to describe but that's how I see it basically Cheers

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I have to agree with Heikki Raisanen to a certain extent in his book, Paul and the Law, which my summary will not do justice, and will probably turn some people away from reading the book -- but you should read it, its a good book for wrestling with Paul's theory or various theories as to why Christians don't need to keep the law.

And that's how I'm going to summarize the book. Basically, Raisanen is saying that Paul has no one singular theory as to why Christians don't need to keep the law. Basically Paul throws out a lot of different theories hoping one of them will stick. And this theory (i.e. as mentioned by Michael in the quote, and by the OP's verses about "elements of the world"; the theory that the Law was given by angels not God) is just ONE of the many theories. There is also the theory that Jesus nailed the Law to the cross, blotting out the handwriting of ordinances (presumably only the ceremonial commandments are intended) that were against us. There is the theory of faith alone that Abraham was justified by faith alone, so we are too, and thus don't need to keep the Law. There is the theory of imputed righteousness. Paul has no single theory, but many competing theories as to how to get rid of the Law so Christians don't have to keep it. And finally Raisanen talks about Justin Martyr's theory, which moves away from all of Paul's theories, towards simply the notion that Jesus' death set aside the Law to replace it with a new law, and this theory of course is what Christianity went with until the reformation when a renewed interest in trying to force one of Paul's theories to work or force all of Paul's theories to work together came about and pushed away Justin Martyr's theory which honestly worked better than all of Paul's theories, and still would if we'd have enough sense to go back to it. That's my summary of Raisanen's book. As I said it may turn some people away from reading it, but there's a lot of supporting argument, and a lot more than what I remember, so I totally recommend everyone read it. And honestly, anyone who hasn't read it, I think is unqualified to argue about this issue, because they probably haven't noticed the diversity of Paul's theories about what we don't need to keep the Law and probably won't admit there is any diversity there, and as a result, no honest discussion could be had with them, certainly no profitable discussion. Without exposure to a book like this, or having independently noticed the same things, people will just be too fundamentalist in one interpretation of one of Paul's theories as if its the only one in his epistle, and that leads nowhere good, but just to hurt feelings.

The guardian of the Old testament is a fiery angel of death, in passing from death to life the new testament starts cultivating in one's life.

Like when the Hebrews left the wilderness for the promised land, as soon as they ate of the firstfruits, no more manna.

 

[friend of]

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?

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?

If I had to venture a guess, the specific greek you mentioned might be referring to how the unconverted man naturally responds and acts in the world. Those that belong to the world are governed by the essential principals of worldliness, works of the flesh, re: selfishness, pride, lust, anger, contempt, envy, etc.

For example, man-inspired counterfeit spirituality in the forms of gnosticism and other false religions do guide those who are religious outside of Christ. But they are not building upon the cornerstone that is Christ. All such religions are worldly. Worldly logic and discernment and philosophizing would also fall into this category.

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.

Looking back to the Law for salvation instead of trusting in Christ. The principal at work here would be "do this and God will accept you"

Just throwing all this out here. Could be wrong, but that's how I see it at first glance.

 

[Carl Emerson]

To understand the principles being particularly referred to we need input from one called to study the prevailing culture.

In general terms however Paul, speaks against believers who abandon the walk of faith and revert to depending on the law or revert to walking with respect to principals rather than His living Word within them.

Blessings,

Carl Emerson.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

We must be vigilant. For there are people that are determined to seduce us, to lead us away as a prey. This they try to do through philosophy, through a system that wants to explain being's reason on reason's basis alone.

Other deceivers try to gain their end by explaining divine things using their ideas which oppose divine revelation. They try to deceive according to precepts and rules laid down by the world.

Doctrine concerning humanity's own ability to be good is a deceit and not according to Jesus and his salvation doctrine.

No other error is currently working such havoc in the Church as this precept after human tradition.

 

[Hidden In Him]

It means that the OT teachings were not full teachings from God, they were based the pattern of the world, it was a shadow of the light.

The real deal is when you are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and the new creation living within your body is the basis for understanding as you mature by trusting God.

Ok. Can you list for me some of the specific principles he would have been describing as "principles of the world" then?

Thanks for the response, btw. I appreciate it.

 

[Hidden In Him]

There are two different meanings, though closely related. Those "principles of the world" are things we rarely see in modern times. They were the religions of the times among religious people. Ancient Rome was filled with religions, each having its own beliefs and traditions. Each trade guild of the time had its own god.

All of those religious traditions, which Paul accused of being created by men, hence "traditions of men" were competing with Christianity, which Paul saw as from God. That those religions competed with Christianity for adherents was what Paul was warning against, i.e., do not be deceived by the traditions of men.

To the Galatians at 4:9 he warned against returning to those same rituals referring to them as as "beggarly principles". Paul also accused the Jewish law itself of being traditions of men.

I say that we do not see those things today because they were all but eradicated by Christianity in the Western world.

Thanks for the response. You seem to be advocating for two meanings simultaneously. "Principles" of the religions of Rome would be an interesting interpretation, but it would need to be supported by the fuller interpretation of the entire letter, and in that regard the Jewish law itself seems to hold the better case. Several Jewish laws are mentioned by name in both Colossians and Galatians, which is why I am asking for people to define for me what specific principles are being referred to.

 

[Hidden In Him]

There is also the theory that Jesus nailed the Law to the cross, blotting out the handwriting of ordinances (presumably only the ceremonial commandments are intended) that were against us.

This is the position I mentioned leaning towards in the OP. "Principles of the world" in the sense that they were guiding principles given to God's people to follow in the earth before they died to this world, but no longer applicable to those who have risen in Spirit with Christ and are now seated with Him in heavenly places (Colossians 3:1-4).

 

[FireDragon76]

I have to agree with Heikki Raisanen to a certain extent in his book, Paul and the Law, which my summary will not do justice, and will probably turn some people away from reading the book -- but you should read it, its a good book for wrestling with Paul's theory or various theories as to why Christians don't need to keep the law.

And that's how I'm going to summarize the book. Basically, Raisanen is saying that Paul has no one singular theory as to why Christians don't need to keep the law. Basically Paul throws out a lot of different theories hoping one of them will stick. And this theory (i.e. as mentioned by Michael in the quote, and by the OP's verses about "elements of the world"; the theory that the Law was given by angels not God) is just ONE of the many theories. There is also the theory that Jesus nailed the Law to the cross, blotting out the handwriting of ordinances (presumably only the ceremonial commandments are intended) that were against us. There is the theory of faith alone that Abraham was justified by faith alone, so we are too, and thus don't need to keep the Law. There is the theory of imputed righteousness. Paul has no single theory, but many competing theories as to how to get rid of the Law so Christians don't have to keep it. And finally Raisanen talks about Justin Martyr's theory, which moves away from all of Paul's theories, towards simply the notion that Jesus' death set aside the Law to replace it with a new law (somewhat foreshadowed already in James), and this theory of course is what Christianity went with until the reformation when a renewed interest in trying to force one of Paul's theories to work or force all of Paul's theories to work together came about and pushed away Justin Martyr's theory which honestly worked better than all of Paul's theories, and still would if we'd have enough sense to go back to it. That's my summary of Raisanen's book. As I said it may turn some people away from reading it, but there's a lot of supporting argument, and a lot more than what I remember, so I totally recommend everyone read it. And honestly, anyone who hasn't read it, I think is unqualified to argue about this issue, because they probably haven't noticed the diversity of Paul's theories about what we don't need to keep the Law and probably won't admit there is any diversity there, and as a result, no honest discussion could be had with them, certainly no profitable discussion. Without exposure to a book like this, or having independently noticed the same things, people will just be too fundamentalist in one interpretation of one of Paul's theories as if its the only one in his epistles, and that leads nowhere good, but just to hurt feelings.

Uggh...

My guess is Heikki Raisenen is motivated by a misguided sense of ecumenism. Because I don't believe Paul is so unclear, neither is Lutheranism (aka the Reformation) so unworkable or so problematic.

Lutherans don't "keep" the Law like we are earning the favor or goodwill of God, but the Law drives us to Christ, over and over. We don't need God-dictated morality per se to be decent people (everybody except psychopaths has a natural law at work in them), so there is no need to have moralism at the heart of our religion. We just need Christ.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Ok. Can you list for me some of the specific principles he would have been describing as "principles of the world" then?

Thanks for the response, btw. I appreciate it.

The best summary in the scriptures describes them as "taste not, touch not, handle not" type rules. (Colossians 2:20-23)

Kind of like when Paul provides general principles for figuring out how to reason the new covenant (Romans 13, love doesn't harm their neighbour, Romans 14, anything that does not come from faith is sin) Summary principles like in Colossians 2 give a good means to reason through principles of the world in any age, and also if they start appearing in the form of church.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I think it is more likely describing that we are raised by our families, and people around us. And the world needs to survive and worldly desires may be different than God's Holiness. And if we believe in the teachings that are worldly then that is who we are, then we must become as little children, be reborn and raised (taught) towards Holiness in Christ Jesus.

It is hard for me to describe but that's how I see it basically Cheers

There is actually something to this, I think. The same Greek word στοιχεῖα is used in Hebrews 4:12, where the writer likened his readers to children who should have been weened from spiritual milk but were still needing to be taught over again the "first principles of the oracles of God." It lends itself to the idea that Paul used the word of basic principles one learned in [spiritual] childhood.

Thank you for the post.

 

[HTacianas]

Thanks for the response. You seem to be advocating for two meanings simultaneously. "Principles" of the religions of Rome would be an interesting interpretation, but it would need to be supported by the fuller interpretation of the entire letter, and in that regard the Jewish law itself seems to hold the better case. Several Jewish laws are mentioned by name in both Colossians and Galatians, which is why I am asking for people to define for me what specific principles are being referred to.

Regarding the Jewish law, Colossians 4 is more specific:

Col 2:20 - Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations

Col 2:21 - “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,”

Col 2:22 - which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men?

The touch, taste, handle are examples of those laws of the old testament meant to prevent ritual impurity. To touch some lizards rendered a person ritually impure.

Christianity has always taught that it is our faith that prevents ritual impurity and also cleanses us from "sins of ignorance".

 

[Hidden In Him]

If I had to venture a guess, the specific greek you mentioned might be referring to how the unconverted man naturally responds and acts in the world. Those that belong to the world are governed by the essential principals of worldliness, works of the flesh, re: selfishness, pride, lust, anger, contempt, envy, etc.

For example, man-inspired counterfeit spirituality in the forms of gnosticism and other false religions do guide those who are religious outside of Christ. But they are not building upon the cornerstone that is Christ. All such religions are worldly. Worldly logic and discernment and philosophizing would also fall into this category.

Hey Friend Of!

On this I would give a similar answer to what I gave @HTacianas. There might be an argument here, only you would have to demonstrate that the entire letter is focused on such a philosophy as the root cause of the deception they (the Colossians and Galatians) were susceptible to. You would also have to account for how Jewish laws would be intermixed into his argument.

Looking back to the Law for salvation instead of trusting in Christ. The principal at work here would be "do this and God will accept you"

See, now this leans more towards Jewish ceremonial laws as being the "principles" he is discussing.

 

[Hidden In Him]

To understand the principles being particularly referred to we need input from one called to study the prevailing culture.

I certainly agree with interpreting in light of the historical and social context of each New Testament church. That said, I would still be looking for specific definitions of the "principles" in light of the letters.

In general terms however Paul, speaks against believers who abandon the walk of faith and revert to depending on the law or revert to walking with respect to principals rather than His living Word within them.

I agree. And thanks for the kind response.
Blessings in Christ.