IV

We cannot leave biblical examples without considering what Paul was saying in Galatians 4,3,9 and Colossians 2,8,20 when he spoke pejoratively of "the elemental spirits of the universe" (RSV). What relationship, if any, do these have to the four elements? The matter has long intrigued biblical scholars and has been the subject of considerable writing.

In order to consider the matter properly, we need to look at the Greek words used and how they have been translated in Galatians 4,3,9, Colossians 2,8,20 and Hebrews 5,12:

Martyn, quoting others, says there are four major possibilities for the meaning of stoicheia:¹⁷

1. The elements, or fundamental principles, of learning

2. The four classical elements, earth, water, air and fire

3. Elementary spirits of the type associated with pagan religions

4. Heavenly bodies, especially of a demonic or hostile nature to human beings

The diversity in translation boils down simply to the question whether "spirits" and "principles" are the same thing. Neither, of course, accurately nor adequately describes the four classical elements. It isn't normally satisfying today simply to say that a tangible solid (e.g., earth) is either spirit or principle. Only the KJV speaks simply of the "elements," though one wonders why it changes to the not fully synonymous "rudiments" in Colossians. But for now the initial observation begs the question whether spirits and principles are one and the same, which comes close to resurrecting the Middle Ages debate between realism and nominalism.

The Greek-English Lexicon (GEL) lists five relevant possible meanings for stoicheia:

1. A simple sound of speech, as the first component of the syllable (cf. phonetics)

2. The four classical elements, earth, water, air and fire

3. The elements of proof

4. Elementary or fundamental principles

5. Stars or planets, with Galatians 4,3 and Colossians 2,8 cited as meaning a sign of the zodiac

Martyn comes to the reasonable conclusion that one must have "a strong reason to read" the Greek, including its reference to the cosmos or universe (kosmou), as meaning anything other than the classical four elements. He goes on to discuss the polarities involved in creation, and suggests that Paul incorporates these into his meaning, exemplified by his doing away with the polarities or distinctions between circumcision and uncircumcision, Jew and Gentile, or Law and Not-Law. And he has an intriguing discussion, based upon Philo and other Greek philosophers with whom Paul was familiar, of the division of the elements into pairs. This comes strikingly close to the divisions involved in the descent of the four elements from their related four ethers (see I-22 and its discussion in the Creation essay). But Martyn's discussion does not show an understanding of the ethers, so it fails to take them into account.

Martyn's treatment of the subject, from the standpoint of insight available to traditional theological thinking, is admirable. But I think he errs in a very important point. He thinks that in some fashion or other the Law is one of the elements Paul refers to, being a part of, or perhaps even identical with, what enslaved the people and was of beggarly nature. (See and compare what is said in the recently published 11 NIB 565-568, as discussed in fn 17 above.)

So often the mere existence of an accumulation of scholarly writings and widely divergent views upon a particular passage of scripture can be seen to betray a lack of insight into the true nature of things. When anthroposophical light is thrown upon it, then the meaning becomes clear. Many instances of this were shown in The Burning Bush, and the major objective of this larger work is to point up the extent to which this is true with the entire understanding of the Bible. Paul's stoicheia in Galatians 4,3,9 and Colossians 2,8,20 seems clearly to be such an instance.

Let us see what Steiner had to say on the matter. He often spoke of the elemental beings or elemental spirits,¹⁸ but I know of only one instance when he specifically identified these spirits with what Paul was speaking of. In his discussion of the Easter festival, The Festivals and Their Meaning (FM), p. 132-133 (Lect. on April 2, 1920), he said:

This was what Paul was continually emphasizing to those of his hearers who were able to understand it: that the old spiritual vision brings no approach to Christ, that with this old vision one can only mistake some elemental being for the Christ. Therefore Paul exerted all his power to bring men out of the habit of looking to the spirits of the air and of earth [editorial fn refers to Gal 4,3,9].

Indirectly he spoke of it at other times in reference to the sibyls. These, he said, were tied in with the forces of the elements and the elemental spirits, and were the influences that the Hebrew prophets and Paul strove so hard to overcome, those of atavistic clairvoyance. See Christ and the Spiritual World/The Search for the Holy Grail (CSW), esp. Lect. 4, pp. 82-83, and Lect. 6, p. 130, but also Lect. 2, pp. 44-45 and 48-49; see also The Four Sacrifices of Christ (FSC), p. 14. Some evidence of the sibylline influence was preserved in the Sibylline Oracles; see 6 ABD 2, "Sibylline Oracles," and 14 Brit 835, "Biblical Literature, The Pseudepigraphal Writings, Apocalyptic and Eschatological Works."

Steiner seems clearly to have rejected the idea that Paul was speaking only of "principles." He opens Chapter 3, The East in the Light of the West, with the following paragraph:

Our attention has been called to the fact that to human beings at a certain stage of evolution, the external phenomena of warmth, air, water, etc., become living and permeated with spirit, and it has been said that this stage may be designated as that of "penetration into the world of Spirits of the Elements." I would ask those who have been students of Spiritual Sciences for some time to note the words carefully, and to realize that they are used, not in an approximate, but in an exact sense. "Spirits of the Elements" was the expression I used, and not "Elementary Spirits."

Implicitly he is adopting the idea of "elemental" and not "elementary." The distinction is that the former applies to what is an element of something while the latter, when distinguished from "elemental" as in Steiner's statement, means "first principles." But if we go beyond these semantics to the content of his vast revelations on the subject, there can be no doubt that the only translation that comports with them is that found in the RSV (or the NRSV if the footnote is omitted), namely, "elemental spirits." He uses the phrase "elemental spirits" and "elemental beings" interchangeably.

The student can gain a substantial beginning by contemplating charts I-12, I-47 and I-51, in conjunction with I-22, and the cited works from which they are derived. Even these, however, hardly give one an adequate concept of the scope of the topic. Perhaps the best tool for this is the Table of Contents to the WEEB anthology. All that can be afforded here is the broadest form of summary.