The "unbearable" yoke of Acts 15:10

[Ron Amnsn]

What exactly was Peter talking about when he stated, "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear"? (Acts 15:10)

The identity of the "yoke" in Acts 15:10 is central to understanding the intent of the decision that the Jerusalem Council reached regarding those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles.

Traditionally, Christians have "connected the dots" in Acts 15 in a way that identifies that "unbearable" yoke as the Law of Moses (or some portion of it). That interpretation of Peter's statement is almost universally accepted by Christians today, and has greatly influenced the beliefs and practice of Christians since the second century AD.

However, identifying that "yoke" as the Law of Moses (or some portion of it) conflicts with some aspects of the context of the story found in Acts and also contradicts several pertinent passages found elsewhere in both the New Testament and the Old Testament.

In this thread, I hope to test that traditional interpretation by the Scriptures, as the Bereans would have done, and as we are instructed to do in the Scriptures. I will also try to show that the "unbearable" yoke that Peter was talking about was the man-made traditional laws known as "oral law" or the "fence laws" that were created by the Jewish sages to carefully guard the Law of Moses, but were not part of what God had instructed Moses to write in the Law of Moses.

[Ron Amnsn]

First, let's review what is recorded about the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

In the passage below, the NASB version uses ALL CAPS to indicate phrases quoted from the Old Testament. In this case James was quoting from Amos 9:11-12.

The chapter starts with Paul and Barnabas having been in Antioch a long time after returning there from their first missionary journey.

Acts 15:1-35 (NASB)

1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

3 Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren.

4 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”

6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter.

7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 “And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

12 All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

13 After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me. 14 “Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. 15 “With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,

16 ‘AFTER THESE THINGS I will return,

AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN,

AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS,

AND I WILL RESTORE IT,

17 SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD,

AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,’

18 SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO.

19 “Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

21 “For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23 and they sent this letter by them,

“The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings. 24 “Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, 25 it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 “Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”

30 So when they were sent away, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. 31 When they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement. 32 Judas and Silas, also being prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brethren with a lengthy message.

33 After they had spent time there, they were sent away from the brethren in peace to those who had sent them out. 34 [but it seemed good to Silas to remain there.] 35 But Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and preaching with many others also, the word of the Lord.

[Ted Oplinger]

The short answer, Ron, is the man-made promise found in Exodus 19:8, which God never asked for. Seeking to do by human will and strength the promises of God always brings a hard yoke...and certain failure, as righteousness has always been by faith only. That was Abraham's testimony and the example Moses placed before the people.

Blessings,

[Ron Amnsn]

The short answer, Ron, is the man-made promise found in Exodus 19:8, which God never asked for. Seeking to do by human will and strength the promises of God always brings a hard yoke...and certain failure, as righteousness has always been by faith only. That was Abraham's testimony and the example Moses placed before the people.

Ted,

I have heard several people make similar comments as yours about the people's response in Exodus 19:8, yet I haven't found anything in Scripture that indicates that there was anything faulty about their response. Scripture certainly doesn't state or even imply that God did not want the response that the people gave.

It is true that we have no record of God asking for the response that the Israelites gave. However, without doing a thorough investigation of the cultural expectations, rituals, and norms that surrounded the making of covenants in those days, we don't know if such a response was expected. In verse 5 God sort of implies a question by stating "if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant". Are you certain that the response given by the people wasn't the cultural response expected to the kind of invitation and statement that God made?

The people give virtually the same response again in Exodus 24:3 and in Exodus 24:7, just four verses later. If there had been something faulty in their response when God first proposed to enter into a covenant with Israel (Exodus 19), wouldn't Moses have let them know that there was a better way to respond when the covenant was later initiated (Exodus 24) ? Are those who find fault with the Israelites' response better teachers than Moses was?

The tribes of Gad and Reuben respond with virtually the same words again in Numbers 32:31, which everyone seems to think is a fine response in that situation. And the Israelites say virtually the same thing again to Joshua when he takes over as leader (Joshua 1:16). That response appears enough times in Scripture to suggest that it was the expected response in such situations.

Personally, I think comments such as yours may reflect the age-old misconception that the covenant the God gave the Israelites was a covenant of "works" rather than a covenant of grace. We need to thoroughly test the anti-old-covenant and anti-obedience attitudes that have been handed down to us from apostate Christianity.

The response of the Israelites in Exodus 19:8 is not much different than what the Psalmist says in these verses:

Psa 119:44 So I will keep Your law continually, Forever and ever.

Psa_119:106 I have sworn and I will confirm it, That I will keep Your righteous ordinances.

Psa 119:145 I cried with all my heart; answer me, O LORD! I will observe Your statutes.

[Ron Amnsn]

In Acts 15 it refers to some unnamed individuals as "some of our number to whom we gave no instruction" that "have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls." For brevity I will refer to those individuals as "the troublers".

Have you noticed in Acts 15 that the letter containing the Council's decision was addressed to the Gentile believers only in the areas that were directly affected by the troublers?

In the rationale supporting his recommendation to the Council, James says that Moses "has in every city those who preach him". Yet, there is no indication that the Council is concerned about the books of Moses being taught and read in every city, or that those teachings of Moses might be a problem for the Gentile believers in every city. In their letter of response, the Council addresses only the message of the troublers and only in the specific regions where those troublers had gone.

If the issue of Acts 15 had been the Law of Moses, wouldn't that have been an issue for Gentile believers in every city? In his travels, it was Paul's custom to enter the synagogues and teach both the Gentiles and the Jews that were assembled there. There is no indication anywhere in Acts nor in his epistles that Paul objected to the Gentiles learning from the Books of Moses that were read in the synagogues each Sabbath. In fact, Paul recommends the whole sacred Scriptures (the Old Testament, at that time) for public reading, teaching, rebuke, correction, and instruction in righteousness for all believers. (1 Tim 4:13, 2 Tim 3:16-17)

[Gerr]

It couldn't be circumcision. The ritual was too simple to carry out. So what was the yoke that their forefathers failed miserably at? Was it not the yoke of establishing one's own righteousness on the basis of works that Paul talks about in Rom 10 of which circumcision was the most visible aspect of it?

[Hair]

In Acts 15 it refers to some unnamed individuals as "some of our number to whom we gave no instruction" that "have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls." For brevity I will refer to those individuals as "the troublers".

Have you noticed in Acts 15 that the letter containing the Council's decision was addressed to the Gentile believers only in the areas that were directly affected by the troublers?

[Ron Amnsn]

Acts 15 tells us very little about what the troublers were teaching. Their teaching for Gentile believers is summarized in verse 1 as,

"Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

Is this teaching found in the Law of Moses? If so, where?

The Books of Moses do not talk about being "saved" in the way that Christians talk about "saved". In the writings of Moses it talks about being "saved" from an attacker or from one's enemies, but it doesn't speak of being saved in the sense of going to heaven.

Instead, the Books of Moses talk about inheriting God's promises and covenants, and how a person might loose that inheritance if they are "cut off from their people". But how would that apply to Gentiles? How do Gentiles enter into God's covenants? I think this is the main issue in Acts 15.

The Gentiles who were "saved" from Egypt with the Israelites are mentioned as the "mixed multitude". How were they saved? Apparently by simply choosing to throw in their lot with the Israelites, by faith and by action. They were "saved" from Egypt first, then entered into the Covenant at Sinai with Israel afterwards; and learned to follow God's Law along with the Israelites after being "saved".

When were those Gentiles who left Egypt circumcised?

What was "the custom of Moses" regarding circumcision that was being taught by the troublers? Notice that it does not say "according to the Law of Moses." If "the custom of Moses" refers to how Moses himself performed circumcisions, that wouldn't get many people circumcised because Moses himself apparently didn't do it according to what was written in the Law of Moses. We know Moses didn't circumcise his own son (Exodus 4:25). And we are told that Moses did not have the Israelite boys born during the wilderness wanderings circumcised (Joshua 5:5).

The Jewish sages tend to attribute their own man-made customs to God or to Moses. For example, before the beginning of Sabbath as they light their candles, modern Jews say a prayer/blessing to "Adonai our God, the King of the Universe, who commanded us to light the Shabbat lights." Did YHWH command them to light candles? No. It's a man-made tradition derived from the command to not light fires on Sabbath. Virtually every Jewish prayer/blessing that contains the phrase, "who commanded us to [do something]" refers to some man-made tradition rather than to something God actually commanded. In a similar way, Jews attribute many of their man-made traditions of oral law back to Moses at Mt. Sinai, apparently in an effort to give those traditions more authority.

If the troublers were simply wanting the Gentiles to be circumcised the way Abraham was circumcised, they could have said, "according to Abraham's covenant", or "according to the Law of Moses". But the traditional circumcision program for Gentiles that was being practiced at that time had acquired a lot of man-made traditions and requirements. That traditional program for Gentile proselytes had been the status quo for bringing in Gentile converts to Judaism for as long as anyone could remember. That process, which supposedly turned a Gentile into a Jew so that he could be "saved", formed the background and context for the discussion in Acts 15. Unfortunately, those of us who did not live as Jews during the first century are mostly unfamiliar with that ritual proselyte training program that led to circumcision, so we don't understand the context of the discussion.

[joeb]

Quote:

Exodus 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Edit was to add verse 49 as I didn't copy and paste it originally. My bad.

[Ron Amnsn]

It couldn't be circumcision. The ritual was too simple to carry out.

[Ron Amnsn]

It would only be addressed to the Gentiles. I would make no sense to address it to the Jews. There was no problem from the "good" Jews, it was the Gentiles who were confused.

Maybe. My point was not at all about the letter not being addressed to Jews. My point was that it was not addressed to all the Gentile believers in every city. As James mentioned during the Jerusalem Council, the Gentiles in the synagogues in every city were being taught to follow the Law of Moses.

However, SDA's today do behave as if the letter had been addressed to both Jews and Gentiles and had exempted both from following the Law of Moses.

The Scriptures teach that Christ has one body of believers, not a Jewish body and a Gentile body. The decision of Acts 15 changed nothing regarding the personal behavior of Jewish believers. Years later they were all still "zealous for the Law" (Acts 21:20), just as we should expect after the infilling of the Holy Spirit.

How would you bring unity in a congregation containing both Jewish zealots for the Law of Moses, and Gentiles who have been told that they are exempt from the Law of Moses (except for the four items listed in the letter from the Council)? Many on this forum cannot fathom that I would uphold the Law of Moses, yet my support for the Law of Moses is feeble compared to those Jewish followers of Jesus who were "zealous for the Law".

What happens when the Gentile believers start teaching that the Jewish believers are "insulting Jehovah" by continuing to follow the instructions that God told them to observe throughout their generations? How could there be unity between those who are zealous for the Law of Moses and those who believe that the Law of Moses is detrimental and that people are better off without it?

How can you maintain real unity between those who use all of God's Word as a valid guide to following the Messiah who lived according to the Law of Moses, and those who believe that portions of God's Word are no longer applicable and can no longer be trusted?

The New Testament epistles do not begin to address all the problems that would have existed in the congregations of believers if the Gentile believers had actually been taught the SDA doctrines, but the Jewish believers were zealously observing the Law of Moses.

[Felix Florimon]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

It couldn't be circumcision. The ritual was too simple to carry out.

Agreed. Christians often talk and sing about giving their whole life to God, to do anything he asks, to be willing to die to save the heathen, or toil for decades in some forgotten mission field, or give up one's riches or dreams. By comparison, giving up one's foreskin would be a small thing.

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

So what was the yoke that their forefathers failed miserably at? Was it not the yoke of establishing one's own righteousness on the basis of works that Paul talks about in Rom 10 of which circumcision was the most visible aspect of it?

Possibly. Except the context doesn't seem to support that interpretation.

It doesn't actually say that the yoke was something "that their forefathers failed miserably at". It says that it was a yoke which neither they nor their fathers "have been able to bear", meaning they did not have the strength to carry it.

Most Christians seem to believe that the Law of Moses is a burden that is impossible to carry. But Scripture teaches otherwise.

Moses addressed that issue after reviewing the Scroll of the Law with the Israelites:

"11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.

12 “It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’

13 “Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’

14 “But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it." (Deut 30:12-14)

The traditional Christian interpretation of Acts 15:10 requires that Peter make a liar out of Moses. Moses said that keeping the Law was not too difficult, but Peter directly contradicts that by declaring that it has never been possible to bear, for themselves or for their forefathers.

The traditional Christian interpretation also makes Peter contradict the New Testament. In Luke 1:5-6 we are told,

"In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord."

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

In the rationale supporting his recommendation to the Council, James says that Moses "has in every city those who preach him". Yet, there is no indication that the Council is concerned about the books of Moses being taught and read in every city, or that those teachings of Moses might be a problem for the Gentile believers in every city. In their letter of response, the Council addresses only the message of the troublers and only in the specific regions where those troublers had gone.

In church this morning we studied from Genesis, Exodus, and Ezekiel. We have no problem having the Books of Moses and the prophets being taught. Its important that we learn the Law of Moses to gain a proper understanding of exactly what Jesus has done and how salvation works. We do not need to physically perform the ceremonies any longer, we can read and study them in church every Sabbath (Acts 15:21).

[Ron Amnsn]

Up to a certain degree, we are in a much better position to understand why Deuteronomy 19:8 was a faulty response.

Why would anyone want to consider the Israelites' response in Exodus 19:8 as faulty, when the Scriptures themselves do not identify that response as faulty? The Israelites' response did not fall short of anything that God had taught his people. Are you wanting to add something to Scripture that is not written in Scripture? It sounds like someone has set themselves up as a judge to condemn Israel using criteria that are unscriptural and/or anachronistic (applied to a time that precedes the validity of the criteria).

God did not expect perfection from the Israelites as a result of entering into the Covenant at Sinai. It was not a covenant that required perfection.

There were provisions within the Covenant to deal with sin, mistakes, and even rebellion. Those provisions included repentance, sin offerings, forgiveness, discipline, grace, exile, restoration, and Messiah.

[Felix Florimon]

Why would anyone want to consider the Israelites' response in Exodus 19:8 as faulty, when the Scriptures themselves do not identify that response as faulty? The Israelites' response did not fall short of anything that God had taught his people. Are you wanting to add something to Scripture that is not written in Scripture? It sounds like someone has set themselves up as a judge to condemn Israel using criteria that are unscriptural and/or anachronistic (applied to a time that precedes the validity of the criteria).

The Bible does something more important than saying that this was a faulty response. The Bible shows that it was a faulty response because it was a promise that they were unable to keep. They should have acknowledged that such response was not a promise but a goal that they would only be able to accomplish through God's Holy Spirit working in them the same way king David and the Apostle Paul did many years later. You only need to read Psalms 51:10-11; Romans 7:14-24 and Philippians 4:13. Even Moses, in Deuteronomy 8:17-20, acknowledges that we need strength from God in order to accomplish certain goals.

FF

[8thdaypriest]

You study the Law of Moses as an historical document, rather than as the valid Word of the living God.

I can't speak for others. I myself study the Laws which the LORD commanded thru Moses concerning the Sanctuary, the Feasts and the Land, as living prophecy - some of which has been fulfilled exactly as prophesied, and some of which has not yet come to fulfillment.

The portrayal of that prophecy is THE REASON why the LORD called Israel.

I do separate prophecy from THE COVENANT (The 10 commands written on stone.) The stones were put into a gold box called "the Ark of the Covenant".

That gold box - with the covenant stones, was lost (and is still lost) to Israel. Apparently the LORD has a copy, because He will display it at the very end of this age (Rev. 11:19), as the standard by which all men will be judged. And He will finally write that covenant on the hearts of those who are "returned to the land." (Eze 36, Jer. 31).

The death and resurrection of the Lamb of God, was the greatest event in all of history.

Did it CHANGE anything??

What did it mean - when the Father tore the veil of the Temple?

What did it mean, when the scarlet cord tied to the door of the Temple on Yom Kippur, NEVER turned white again - after the death of God's Son (According to Josephus)?

What did Christ mean when He said, "Your House is left unto you desolate." ?

What was God's purpose in allowing His earthly House to be leveled, and taken over by an alien power - STILL occupied by alien forces to this day?

Was He not saying that the Temple on earth (which was only a copy and a prophecy) is now devoid of the presence of the Mediator, who now ministers in the "true tabernacle" which is "Heaven itself." Someday - the Mediator will return to this earth. Someday - the tabernacle of God will come down to this earth - and THEN we will go up to worship Him there. (Rev. 21:3) But not NOW.

I have written about the Temple with its animal sacrifices. I think Ron's original question was regarding physical circumcision. Forgive me if I digress.

[8thdaypriest]

NKJ 2 Corinthians 3:7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, (2Co 3:7 NKJ)

Paul calls the Ten Commandment Covenant a "ministry of death" ? That sounds like a "yoke" which they could not pull.

Christ says, "take my yoke upon you", but wasn't it the pre-incarnate Son of God (the one Mediator) who wrote those 10 Commands on the stones.

I think He is inviting us to yoke-up with HIM. It is a double yoke. He does the pulling and we walk along side.

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

Shalom

[Ron Amnsn]

The Bible does something more important than saying that this was a faulty response. The Bible shows that it was a faulty response because it was a promise that they were unable to keep. They should have acknowledged that such response was not a promise but a goal that they would only be able to accomplish through God's Holy Spirit working in them the same way king David and the Apostle Paul did many years later. You only need to read Psalms 51:10-11; Romans 7:14-24 and Philippians 4:13. Even Moses, in Deuteronomy 8:17-20, acknowledges that we need strength from God in order to accomplish certain goals.

Felix, all of the fine Bible passages you cite were written well after the events of Exodus 19. That's what I mean by anachronistic criteria. Somebody has judged Israel by Scripture that had not yet been written. That is unjust, and totally unnecessary.

In Exodus 19:8, the Israelites are only expressing submission and their willingness to enter into a covenant with YHWH. The terms of that covenant had not yet been revealed.

Sure, the Israelites later failed to perfectly fulfill their promise. God knew that would happen and built provisions into the covenant to deal with that.

How is what Israel said any different than all of us who make vows at our weddings and then fail to perfectly fulfill those vows?

It has been popular in Christianity at times to criticize the Israelites for various faults, real and imagined. Such criticism seems to be a necessary part some erroneous doctrines, such as the doctrine that the church has replaced the Israelites as God's chosen people (aka replacement theology or supersessionism). That attitude of criticism toward the Israelites is so different than the attitude of Paul, who expressed his willingness to give up his salvation if it would help bring about the salvation of his fellow Israelites (Romans 9:3). It is also in stark contrast to the attitude of Jesus, who laid down his own life to redeem the nation of Israel (John 11:51)

[Felix Florimon]

Somebody has judged Israel by Scripture that had not yet been written. That is unjust, and totally unnecessary.

In Exodus 19:8, the Israelites are only expressing submission and their willingness to enter into a covenant with YHWH. The terms of that covenant had not yet been revealed.

Sure, the Israelites later failed to perfectly fulfill their promise. God knew that would happen and built provisions into the covenant to deal with that.

A faulty promise is a promise that cannot be kept regardless if one is unaware of such inability. Moreover, they were always aware that God commanded them to avoid worshiping pagan deities even before the first verse of the Bible was written down.

FF

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

The short answer, Ron, is the man-made promise found in Exodus 19:8, which God never asked for. Seeking to do by human will and strength the promises of God always brings a hard yoke...and certain failure, as righteousness has always been by faith only. That was Abraham's testimony and the example Moses placed before the people.

Ted,

I have heard several people make similar comments as yours about the people's response in Exodus 19:8, yet I haven't found anything in Scripture that indicates that there was anything faulty about their response. Scripture certainly doesn't state or even imply that God did not want the response that the people gave.

It is true that we have no record of God asking for the response that the Israelites gave. However, without doing a thorough investigation of the cultural expectations, rituals, and norms that surrounded the making of covenants in those days, we don't know if such a response was expected. In verse 5 God sort of implies a question by stating "if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant". Are you certain that the response given by the people wasn't the cultural response expected to the kind of invitation and statement that God made?

The people give virtually the same response again in Exodus 24:3 and in Exodus 24:7, just four verses later. If there had been something faulty in their response when God first proposed to enter into a covenant with Israel (Exodus 19), wouldn't Moses have let them know that there was a better way to respond when the covenant was later initiated (Exodus 24) ? Are those who find fault with the Israelites' response better teachers than Moses was?

The tribes of Gad and Reuben respond with virtually the same words again in Numbers 32:31, which everyone seems to think is a fine response in that situation. And the Israelites say virtually the same thing again to Joshua when he takes over as leader (Joshua 1:16). That response appears enough times in Scripture to suggest that it was the expected response in such situations.

Personally, I think comments such as yours may reflect the age-old misconception that the covenant the God gave the Israelites was a covenant of "works" rather than a covenant of grace. We need to thoroughly test the anti-old-covenant and anti-obedience attitudes that have been handed down to us from apostate Christianity.

The response of the Israelites in Exodus 19:8 is not much different than what the Psalmist says in these verses:

Psa 119:44 So I will keep Your law continually, Forever and ever.

Psa_119:106 I have sworn and I will confirm it, That I will keep Your righteous ordinances.

Psa 119:145 I cried with all my heart; answer me, O LORD! I will observe Your statutes.

Let me state at the start I am not posting this to rebut your beliefs, but rather demonstrate the point my statement is not a trite expression stemming from the 1900 year old Christian-Jew divide. Arguing our respective perspectives would be unproductive, at any rate. Allow me unfold my reasoning, using your points as references to ask questions and provide compare/contrast examples, then you can understand why I made the short answer post the way I did.

From my perspective, obedience is NOT the crux of the issue here. The crux of the issue is FAITH. Faith by no means negates obedience; indeed, it is the only way obedience to God's covenant and Law can be obtained, as human flesh and mentality is completely dead in having the ability to obey God or achieve what God has put before man as His Covenant and His promise (Romans 3:31; 8:3-8).

Where the Psalmist declares the ability to observe and obey the statutes and Law of God, does he do so from his own ability and determination to render to God such? or does he do so knowing he cannot do so, but in faith depends upon God to produce in him the very obedience he proclaims?

So many times in the Psalms, the testimony of obedience is prefaced/followed by an action of God. Psalms 119:44, 45 is prefaced by 41-43, where the Psalmist is clearly depending and trusting in a power outside his own humanity to effect the obedience he is doing in verses 44, 45.

Psalm 119:106 is prefaced by verses 102-105, that obedience comes from the Lord's own personal instruction in how to render that obedience, as in verse 99, he is meditating upon God's own testimonies on the subject. It is further underscored in the following verses (107 and 109), where the Psalmist again refers to a power beyond himself to be stored to life and remembrance of God's Word in His Law.

Psalm 119:145 is followed directly by verse 146, where he cries out to the Lord for salvation, and THEN the he will keep the testimony of the Lord.

Regarding the Psalmist, the writer of Hebrews makes some definitive points about faith when including David into his list in chapter 11:32-33: "And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed righteousness (the words "acts of" here are supplied, and not found in the Greek), obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions,..."

Hence, David obtained his testified obedience by his faith in the word of the Lord, rather than a mere human determination to do it the best he could as he was able. There are more than enough failings in his account to state he was not as obedient in life as he boasts in certain points in the Psalms, and we find in Psalms 51 both his reason why and how he views obedience.

This sets the stage for looking at why I view Exodus 19:8 the way I do.

Far from being a trite little expression, I understand the people's words in Exodus 19:8 are set in direct contrast with both their own example (Exodus 16 comes to mind) and the life example of the Jew's favorite patriarch - Abraham. These words reflect Abraham's effort to obtain the promise of God in a manner God did not asked for, as I will demonstrate shortly.

Genesis records the story quite well...and Genesis was written by one intimately familiar with those making the claim in Exodus 19:8 - Moses himself.

Another issue is the point of what is the substance of God's covenants, and who is told to offer what.

In Genesis 3:15, God makes the promise of a Redeemer, to ransom man from sin. Did man ASK for a Redeemer? NO. They simply knew the innocence they once had was gone, and were naked before God and each other. God made the covenant, not man, both in the promise of a Redeemer and in the providing of skins to cover themselves. Adam and Eve were not commanded to offer anything to supplement or achieve what God was to provide.

With respect to the promise of the Redeemer, was man to be participatory in that promise? YES, but not in the way man normally thinks of. It would be the power within Word of God which would bring the Promise into reality, and not man's intimate activity with his wife, nor through man's thinking the burnt offerings themselves covered their sins and made him acceptable before God.

Stepping forward to Genesis 12, I note the story of Abram (who is later renamed by God Abraham). I see from the outset, Abram will loom large in the Promise/Covenant of Genesis 3:15. Do I see anywhere of Abram asking God to be such a person? NO! God came to Abram, and made all those claims seen there in Genesis 12:1-3. Included there is the promise of the Redeemer being among the descendants (verse 3b). I would ask, who was going to do everything listed in those 3 verses? God, or Abram? It is my understanding God was.

God would provide the leadership, the making of a great name, the blessings, and the blessings of all the families of earth in Abram (bringing Genesis 3:15 to pass as promised to Adam and Eve). God did not ask anything of Abram except these things: to journey forth and participate in the promises of God. It would be that journey and participation that would place Abram in the places where God would illustrate and fulfill His promises through Abram's faith time and again. That journey and participation set the stage for Abram to illustrate his faith in God's Word by his obedience in the things God DID ask for (such as the corresponding free-will emplacement of an altar to God in Gen. 12:7). But did Abram really believe? That was a journey in and of itself, and in that journey, I see the same contrast of faith vs. dead works as seen in Israel before God at Sinai.

Genesis 12:10-20 shows the first instance of Abram's attempt to achieve the promise of God by human effort. The Promise? " I will bless the one who blesses you, and curse the one who curses you". In short, "I will protect you" (affirmed again in chapter 15:1). God did not ask of Abram anything to effect this promise - he had to depend upon God to fulfill it. But he had very little faith in God, so he made a pact with his wife...a lying pact meant to deceive the Egyptians concerning his wife.

God protected Sarai and Abram anyway, but I also see the disastrous effect of the human attempt to achieve the promise of God: rather than gaining a foreign friendship and being allowed to broaden the presence of God in Egypt, Pharaoh restores Sara to Abram and immediately escorts Abram, Sarai, and their household out of Egypt in anger. The house of Pharaoh suffered greatly - and arguably needlessly - from the plagues due to Abram's lack of faith and ill-thought plans to lie about his wife in the effort to be secure from the Egyptians.

Human effort to obtain the promise of God.

This continues into the next encounter with God Abram has: Genesis 15.

Abram has a vision wherein God speaks His covenant with Abram. The covenant here is concerning the son of the promises of God made in Genesis 12 ("I will make you a great nation", and "In you all the families of the earth will be blessed"). Abram is getting on in years here, and has already set his affairs in order for the day he will die. In verses 3 and 4, God speaks the promise of a flesh and blood son from his own body who will be the heir, then points to the stars in verse 5 so as to tell Abram how many his descendants would be.

Abram believed the Lord's words here, and here Abram was reckoned as righteous. Faith, without any obedience to merit it, is what is reckoned as righteous before God.

It is here Paul uses Abram's belief here as the foremost illustration of righteousness by faith, as recorded in Romans 4 and again in Galatians 3. God made the Covenant, Abram offered nothing but belief that God would indeed make it true.

When Abram asked HOW he would know this would come to pass, God told him to bring to Him the most formal of human contractual agreements in existence at Abram's time - the blood Covenant, which stipulates that should one party or the other fail to perform the contents with the pact, the failing party would suffer the death penalty. This is found in verses 7-11.

The contract, in effect had these actions for the parties:

On God's side, bringing forth a son as He has promised, and make his descendants as numerous as the stars.

On Abram's side, no actions. God absolutely no required actions on Abram's part. It would absolutely require Abram's participation, but God required nothing on Abram's part for purposes of this covenant.

And God was willing to lay His credibility as God on the line to effect this promise to be true for Abram and the world.

Genesis 16 is where my illustration rings true for Israel. Years have passed, and Abram is getting older. Sarai's age has come to the point where her body has stopped going through her monthly cycles. She is no longer a fertile woman. Does Sarai believe God could effect His promise in her? She does not. In fact, she declares the ONLY way God could make that promise true is by Abram to unite with the Egyptian servant, Hagar. Does Abram have faith here? NO; in fact, he accepts his wife's rationalizations as his own. Here, he chooses the human attempt to make good on God's promise.

He is rationalizing here God said the son would come from his own body, and not necessarily his wife's - in disobedience to God's testimony that husband and wife are ONE flesh, and considered one before Himself (Genesis 2:24). God's promise was to BOTH Abram and Sarai, not to Abram alone. The TWO were ONE before God. Abram left the path of faith in taking his wife's counsel to go into Hagar. We can know this is true by the following:

1) The disastrous outcome of the situation noted in Genesis 16:4-6;

2) God repeated His promise again in the very next chapter - indicating He did not consider it fulfilled with the birth of Ishmael;

3) Abram falls on his face when God speaks - the first time we see this reaction from Abram. Abram knows he has not believed in God's promise; God reminds him of the covenant He has made regarding this promise - and implicitly, the very thing which he was to proceed upon: faith (Genesis 15:6). Here, God changes Abram and Sarai's names to Abraham and Sarah to indicate the faith which would eventually become their legacy.

4) When Abraham mentions Ishmael in Genesis 16:18, God sweeps Ishmael aside. Clearly, God's action here declares that Ishmael was the product of human works to achieve the promise/covenant of God, which God never asked Abraham to do. God effectively declares Ishmael NOT the promised son through whom all the families of the earth will be blessed. The redeemer would come by faith in God's promise, not by human attempt to achieve the promise.

In effect, God allowed both Sarah and Abraham to be completely unable to produce children before putting the promise back in front of them. In Genesis 17-18, both Abraham and Sarah at first laugh at the prospect of a couple in their nineties bearing children (Abraham's words in Genesis 17:17, and Sarah's reaction in Genesis 18:11-12, indicate that Abraham and Sarah knew full well their bodies were well past the point of participating in the intimacies of child conception). For God to bring to pass His promise, it would have to be by His Divine power in His promise. Yes, Abraham and Sarah had to participate in this (in the intimacies of conception), but their participation was no longer their efforts to bring about the promise, but faith in God He could make a reality in dead flesh what that dead flesh could not do to fulfill that promise - even when that flesh had the illusion of ability to do so.

It is this whole argument we find as the foundation for Paul's thesis on the bondage of human works to achieve God's promise/covenant, versus seeing God fulfill His promise/covenant by faith in the power of His Word, briefly alluded to in Romans 9:1-9, but much more forcefully explained by this very example in Galatians 4:21-31.

Ron, I understand God didn't openly declare the Israeli response in Exodus 19:8 faulty, but neither did He openly declare Abraham's union with Hagar one without blessing. I do, however, understand that God DID allow faith to stand in direct contrast with the human efforts to achieve the covenant God makes, and allow that contrast to make the pronouncement of fault, because faith fulfills, but human attempts failed, every time in the Old Testament.

Moses himself states the history of Israel, from Egypt to the forty years of wandering, was designed to demonstrate that man lives by faith, and not by bread (which requires human work to make), in Deuteronomy 8:1-3, emphasis 3b. God had provided manna AND His commandment for it in Exodus 16. When it came time for the Sabbath, many in Israel did NOT obey the Lord regarding Friday instructions - the Lord openly declares them refusing to obey His commandments and instructions. They did not believe the Lord's word to be true regarding their supply of manna; they had NO FAITH.

And 3 chapters later, we are to believe their response in Exodus 19:8 to God's grandeur and majesty was not faulty? When in their history even up to that point they REFUSED to obey the Lord's commandment and instructions regarding even the provision of food for the people?

Moses' own declaration by the word of God in Deuteronomy 8:1-3 stands in direct contrast with the people's own promise in Exodus 19:8. The people's own works stand in direct contrast to Moses' testimony of the Lord. That contrast is what declares the promises of Israel in Exodus 19:8 faulty, and would continue to do so in future generations to come - even as the Redeemer would walk the earth and provide the very example demonstrating it.

What is more, God had not even pronounced His Law nor repeated His Covenant when Israel made this proclamation. They had no idea what it was they were entering into, as God had not given them anything to agree to as yet. God had given them a conditional they had not even been able to live up to to that point; why would God accept their promise at this point (and any place else) as anything other than a faulty human promise unable to bring about the very things God required?

This is why Paul uses this attitude as the illustration of what the "Old Covenant" is - an attitude of seeking the fulfillment of God's promises and His Covenant by human works, rather than by faith in the Divine power within God's Words contained in that covenant and in those promises.

In a word, Scripture does indeed declare Israel's response here faulty - just not in an open manner. This isn't an "anti-Jewish" thing which is the product of apostate Christianity - it is the substance of Paul's writings, a man whose heart ached to see his brethren turn from the path of human ambition to that of faith and trusting in the power of God in His Word (Romans 9:1-3). It is the substance of the Gospel, where Jesus contrasts His meeting of temptation to Israel's own history on the matter. Israel's failure and disobedience is documented by Moses in Exodus 16; Christ Jesus' obedience is documented in Matthew 4:3-4, where Christ declares man does not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word which proceeds from the mouth of God. In short, man lives by faith, not by works. Not coincidentally, Christ's rebuke to Satan is the exact same testimony Moses had declared to Israel in Deuteronomy 8:3b. Christ won the temptation battle by faith, rather than by ability innate within Himself.

Where the Old Testament finds the declaration of God saying if a man does the Law he will live, God's underlying point in Deuteronomy 8:3b means that obedience must come from dependence upon the word proceeding from God's mouth to make real in humanity that which does not come naturally for humanity to do (as illustrated time and again in Israel's history). Like Abraham, the believer had to believe this obedience would occur by the power of God's word in the face of the body's inability to make into reality the promise of God. That was the whole point of Abraham's example in the birth of Isaac.

Moses caught it, as he is the one who a) wrote down the history of Abraham; testified to God's power in His Word for man to live by, in direct contrast to Israel's promise; and c) his own example of faith stands in direct contrast with Israel's history of being completely unable to live up to their own words in Exodus 19:8.

The one time Moses departed from that example of faith (claiming to have the ability to fetch water to satisfy Israel's murmurous unbelief in God to provide water, then striking the rock when God said merely speak to it), God called it - sin.

Ron, I stand by my assessment of Israel's declaration of Exodus 19:8 being one of faulty unbelief and faithlessness. It does not come from apostate Christianity as a zealous anti-Jewish attitude, but as an honest contrast between what God calls faith-based obedience versus the impossibility of human ambition to achieve obedience and the fulfillment of God's promises and Covenant by any means other than faith in the power contained in the Word of God.

Incidentally, apostate Christianity makes the same declaration before God as did Israel in Exodus 19:8, and finds it just as incredulous for God to make real the true righteousness/obedience required by the New Covenant (Matthew 5:48; Revelation 3:21) as Abraham and Sarah were of God making real a son in their dead bodies.

I hope this explains why I made the point I did, and that I don't use it tritely, as others may be found to do.

Food for thought, Ron.

[8thdaypriest]

Thank you Ron. Really liked your post.

It has been some years since I finally realized that the Ten Commandment Covenant is a promise and a prophecy of what HE will do in me - NOT a list of things He wants me to do, in order to inherit a place in His kingdom.

The only question is - do I believe it?

But even faith is a gift from HIM.

Shalom

Rachel

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

The short answer, Ron, is the man-made promise found in Exodus 19:8

Which is just the same mistake the vast majority of the body of Christ continues to make as of this day and it raises their ire when the Word is spoken which they perceive to be the messenger making effort to tell them how they ought to live.

The other mistake often made is failing to believe that God will live up to His promises as evidenced by the parable below.

And all the people responded together, “We will do everything the Lord has commanded.” So Moses brought the people’s answer back to the Lord.

Exodus 19:8 NLT

"“Then the servant with the one bag of silver came and said, ‘Master, I knew you were a harsh man, harvesting crops you didn’t plant and gathering crops you didn’t cultivate. I was afraid I would lose your money, so I hid it in the earth. Look, here is your money back.’"Matthew 25:24-28 NLT

The subsequent lot of the servant indicates who his master had been all the time and who he had been serving.

God cares!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

I have heard several people make similar comments as yours about the people's response in Exodus 19:8, yet I haven't found anything in Scripture that indicates that there was anything faulty about their response. Scripture certainly doesn't state or even imply that God did not want the response that the people gave.

"...for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure."Philippians 2:13 NKJV

"We aren't saved by works" is often reiterated by Christians. However if it wasn't for Christ's work of 2,000 years ago, as well as His continuous sustaining power at work for His people, and those who will believe, we'd all be dead in the water as revealed by the apostle Peter, when he took advantage of Jesus' solicitude upon request to allow him to walk on the water.

Peter's subsequent sinking is a lesson many of us are in need of as a reminder when are own fortunes take a turn for the worst, including yours truly.

God cares!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

Was it not the yoke of establishing one's own righteousness

Is there any one of us that hasn't suffered to some extent as a result of this?

God cares!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

He will finally write that covenant on the hearts of those who are "returned to the land.

Not sure this fits right here, but these are the most meaningful promises to the saved of the present and future.

"“....not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”" Jer 31:32-34 NASB

"And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true children of Abraham. You are his heirs, and God’s promise to Abraham belongs to you."Galatians 3:29 NLT

God cares!