The "unbearable" yoke of Acts 15:10

[Ron Amnsn]

A faulty promise is a promise that cannot be kept regardless if one is unaware of such inability.

[Ron Amnsn]

Thank you Ron. Really liked your post.

You're welcome. But I think you were referring to Ted's post. My part in that was only to challenge Ted so that he made such a clear explanation of his position.

[Ron Amnsn]

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.

Ted, it was a thorough explanation. And I can see most of your points.

I agree that God's covenant and promises to Abraham were essentially one-sided -- God was stating what He was going to do for and through Abraham, without any requirements on Abraham's part except to accept what God would do, and not reject it.

If God's covenant with the Israelites at Sinai had been a one-sided covenant like Abraham's covenant, would the response of the people in Exodus 19:8 have interfered with what God was going to do? I view their statement primarily as one of submission and acceptance-- acceptance of whatever covenant God would choose to make. I see that as an act of faith-- faith that God was a good God who would implement a good covenant (which God did), and that God would keep that covenant (as God still does). The Israelites didn't ask for the document ahead of time so they could take it to their lawyer to be examined. They may (or may not) have been relying on their own human strength when expressing their intent to comply with God's covenant. We really can't read the motives of their hearts. Caleb and Joshua and the faithful Levites were in that crowd, too, along with the others.

If God's covenant with the Israelites at Sinai was a one-sided covenant like Abraham's covenant, then it seems that it would not have the attributes that are so often attributed to the "Old Covenant" by Christians in contrast to the "New Covenant". Abraham's failings did not change his covenant from a one-sided covenant to something else. Was it the Israelites' failings that caused their covenant to become a two-sided covenant, or was it a two-sided covenant from the start, or is there another reason it became a covenant that they could fail at?

One last observation. Because we speak English we deal with the English meanings of the word "faith". In English "faith" is something that happens primarily in our thoughts. But in Hebrew (and Greek) "faith" has both a thought component and an action component so that "faith" also includes and requires "faithfulness" or "faithing". (Faith without actions is dead.) We see this exemplified in Hebrews chapter 11 where each of the people of faith is recognized for things they did, rather than for things they merely thought or believed. Would your explanation regarding faith and the covenants have the same meaning if you included the action component of "faithfulness" each time you used the word "faith"?

[Ron Amnsn]

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" ?

[Ted Oplinger]

If God's covenant with the Israelites at Sinai had been a one-sided covenant like Abraham's covenant, would the response of the people in Exodus 19:8 have interfered with what God was going to do?

[8thdaypriest]

Sorry - yes - loved Ted's post. Agree wholeheartedly.

When Jesus said, "My words will not pass away" - He was not just referring to the words He spoke while living on this earth as a human being. I believe He was also referring to every prophecy that He gave - written down "in the Law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms." The Sanctuary, the sacrifices, the offerings, circumcision, and the Feasts were ALL prophecy.

The prophecy does not "pass away" - it comes to pass. It is fulfilled. It then becomes a memorial, and a proof that "the God who sees" spoke those words.

Christ and His ministry was/is the living "fulfillment" of the Sanctuary prophecy. Therefore not a "jot or a tittle" has "passed from the Law."

We STILL HAVE a Tabernacle system - with a High Priest, and the True Tabernacle, and offerings, and "spiritual" sacrifices, and circumcision.

The Feasts also - we do not keep (now) by going up to Jerusalem and offering animals, but we keep in our hearts (at the appointed times) by commemorating the work done by our Savior, and looking forward in faith to the work yet to be done.

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

Blessings

[8thdaypriest]

Was reading again Colossians Chapter 2. I'm going to add a few words in brackets.

KJV Colossians 2:11 "In whom also ye are circumcised [should be "ye are being circumcised" - Aorist tense] with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; (Sounds like you are "quickened" while yet without physical circumcision.)

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us [the charges against us], which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. (Over the Prince of this world, who hold dominion.)

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat [offerings], or in drink [offerings], or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days [Feasts]: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. (Col 2:11 KJV)

[Let no one judge you regarding those things which were prophecy - "a shadow of things to come."]

Later in 3:11, Paul wrote: "there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all."

Sounds like all of these are included on an equal footing, "in Christ."

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

Blessings

[8thdaypriest]

If I remember right, Samuele Bacchiocchi recommended commemoration the Feasts. He thought it better than celebrating "Holy Days" of pagan origin like Easter (Ishtar) and Christmas (rebirth of the sun at the winter solstice). He thought that SDAs had not focused enough attention on the Feasts and the lessons which they teach.

Grief! I was 38 years old and SDA, when I suddenly realized that "the last supper" was not just the last meal with the disciples. It was the "feast of unleavened bread." Admitted - they ate it 24 hrs early (on Passover which started at sunset).

But the next day HE needed to BE THE LAMB.

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

[Ron Amnsn]

[Let no one judge you regarding those things which were prophecy - "a shadow of things to come."]

Rachel, in the context of Col 2, who was it that had been causing problems by "judging" the believers?

[Hair]

Oh no! If we're going to get on Col chapter 2 - start another thread please :)

[Ted Oplinger]

Was reading again Colossians Chapter 2. I'm going to add a few words in brackets.

KJV Colossians 2:11 "In whom also ye are circumcised [should be "ye are being circumcised" - Aorist tense] with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

[Ted Oplinger]

If I remember right, Samuele Bacchiocchi recommended commemoration the Feasts. He thought it better than celebrating "Holy Days" of pagan origin like Easter (Ishtar) and Christmas (rebirth of the sun at the winter solstice). He thought that SDAs had not focused enough attention on the Feasts and the lessons which they teach.

Grief! I was 38 years old and SDA, when I suddenly realized that "the last supper" was not just the last meal with the disciples. It was the "feast of unleavened bread." Admitted - they ate it 24 hrs early (on Passover which started at sunset).

But the next day HE needed to BE THE LAMB.

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

Jesus kept the Passover Feast that night - meaning by definition there was roasted lamb present at the meal, along with the bitter herbs. Yes, indeed, He became the true Passover Lamb for the world the next morning.

True, Mr. Bacchiocchi is the sole standout among the Adventist scholarly giants to posit the thought that just maybe God's Word was correct in that these 6 Feasts were to continue in observation (minus the animal sacrifices) until Christ comes again.

Indeed, our communion does come from the Passover Feast; Paul alludes to be keeping it in the New Testament.

These Feast Days...each one tells of an important point in the freeing of the human race from the thralldom of sin, and how God is in a step-by-step fashion is restoring the human race back into the pulse of life He gives to His Creation - until at the last we are united with Him personally, free from all aspects of sin. They ought to be observed with this in mind.

The BIG - and I do mean BIG - caveat? Absolutely NO ONE to truly knows how God wants these kept in faith. To keep these as a church/congregation of people, would mean adding layers of new and very HUMAN traditions upon the Word of God - and this would drive us further from the presence of God, and deeper into the dependence to measure our stature before God by imperfect human works.

Until God's people have an unequivocally clear message from a recognized prophet of God on the matter...we should refrain from going down that path, lest we place back upon ourselves that unbearable yoke.

It is my opinion God forgives admitted ignorance in respect to these things much more graciously, than a proud admission by one who THINKs they know enough to do it by the traditions they keep.

Food for thought...

[Green Cochoa]

Here's the man's own defense to the accusations about feast-keeping that some have made against him--written in 2007. (I'm including just an excerpt of the summary here. If anyone wishes to read the full essay, let me know and I can post it too.)

For the benefit of those who may not have time to read the whole essay, I decided to place a summary statement at the beginning.

A few of the books that I have authored during the past 30 years, have been used by uninformed people to accuse me of promoting unbiblical teachings. When Women in the Church came out in 1985, it seems that hell broke loose. Feminists accused me of being an Italian chauvinist opposed to the ministry and ordination of women. Nothing could be further from the truth. I firmly believe in the ministry and ordination of women who serve in official capacities in the church. But what my research shows is that the Bible clearly teaches that there is a role distinction between men and women. God has created men to be fathers and women to be mothers. This distinction applies to the home and to the church, because the church is an extended family, not a service organization. The role of a pastor is that of a spiritual father. This means that women should serve in the church as spiritual mothers, not as spiritual fathers. It is as simple as that.

Ten years later in 1995-96 when I published the two volumes on God's Festivals in Scripture and History, several well-meaning brethren accused me of promoting the ceremonial observance of the OT Festivals. This false accusation was reproposed in the article "Should Christians Observe Israelite Festivals?" that appeared on the April 7, 2007, issue of Adventist Review. The article specifically mentions my name as the only Adventist scholar who believes that Christians should observe the Jewish Festivals.

This statement is grossly inaccurate, for two reasons. First, I have never promoted the ceremonial observance of the OT Festivals. I have even placed a disclaimer on page 3 of the Fall Festivals, saying: "This book does not promote a ceremonial observance of the ancient Feast of Israel. Rather, it proposes to remember during the course of the year the redemptive acts of the Plan of Salvation typified by the Feasts."

Second, there are several Adventists scholars and church leaders today who are re-examining the spiritual and prophetic significance of the Festivals for our church. Several examples will be cited in the newsletter, including the famous statement of Ellen White "Well would it be for the people of God at the present time to have a Feast of Tabernacles-a joyous commemoration of the blessings of God to them" (PP 540-541). This means that I am not the only Adventist scholar studying the relevance of the Festivals for our church today.

I think it's a shame that people, this many years later, accept that the "public opinion" of a man and his theology is "accurate" and even "uncontested as general knowledge."

The best way to fight misconceptions and errors like this is to have some legitimate words from the man himself.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Gail]

Oh, how I remember those long newsletters he used to send out!

[Ron Amnsn]

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.”

...

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.”

In all of Acts 15 verses 2 and 5 are the only verses that provide a description of the "yoke" that these Pharisees wanted to place on the neck of the Gentile disciples.

Verse 2 tells us that they were making circumcision (done according to their sect's man-made traditions) a prerequisite for salvation.

In verse 5 the circumcision requirement is repeated, "It is necessary to circumcise them." From historical writings we know that in the Pharisees circumcision program for Gentile proselytes, the circumcision ceremony came after many months of instruction in the written Law of Moses along with instruction in the traditional oral laws of the Jews that were intended to put a fence around the actual Law of Moses to guard it. Before they could be circumcised the proselyte also had to take a solemn vow to keep the whole Law, which included both the written Torah and the traditional "oral law".

Why did the Pharisees require such a long period of instruction for proselytes?

One reason was because they wanted to make sure the Gentiles were very serious about taking the step of circumcision. They didn't want the Gentile to bring condemnation on himself by entering into the Covenant with God as a Jew and then later turn his back on the Covenant.

Another reason was that they believed in corporate responsibility as a community and as a nation. If they were going to turn these Gentiles into Jews and accept them into the community of Jews, they didn't want the Gentiles to bring sin into the camp that would cause the community or nation to experience the discipline of God. Jews take a similar precaution with their own children. The children are taught Torah and the traditional laws before they have their Bar (or Bat) Mitzvah ceremony around age 12 that makes them responsible to keep the Law as an adult in the community.

The Jews also wanted to make sure that the Gentile had completely separated himself from his former idol worship.

What was the status of the Gentile proselyte during the long training period?

According to verse 2, the Gentiles were being told that they were not yet saved. Paul opposed that teaching, as we see in Romans 4 where Paul points out that Abraham's faith was credited as righteousness before he was circumcised. Paul's teaching is compatible with the Law of Moses.

According to Peter's behavior in Galatians 2, the Jewish traditional laws (not the Law of Moses) required the Gentiles to be kept separate from the Jewish believers so that they could not eat together. We also know from Paul's rebuke of Peter that Paul was teaching that it was wrong for the Jewish believers to treat the Gentile believers that way. Paul's teaching was compatible with the Law of Moses. When Peter had reverted to observing the Jewish traditions, his behavior endorsed erroneous traditions such as "salvation by Jewishness" that were contrary to both the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Jesus.

[Ron Amnsn]

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.”

Now we'll take a look at the last half of verse 5, "and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."

It's easy to see why Christians who don't want to observe the Law of Moses translate the verse this way.

But does it make sense to translate the verse this way? Why would the Gentile believers need to be directed, ordered, or commanded to observe the Law of Moses? In the context where those Gentile believers were living, they would already want to observe the Law of Moses, so there would be absolutely no need to direct them to do so.

First, they were followers of Jesus the Jewish Messiah who had lived perfectly according to the Law of Moses in "the way" that God had originally intended it to be lived. How would one follow a Torah-observant Messiah without learning to live like the Messiah lived and according to His teachings?

Also, the Law of Moses was a large portion of the existing Scripture of that day, and it is endorsed and recommended in all the rest of the existing Scripture of that day. By just reading the Scriptures that had been endorsed by Jesus and his apostles, Gentiles would learn that the Law of Moses was a good thing given by God to his people, and they would want to follow it like Jesus did.

Also, these Gentiles were receiving the Holy Spirit as they came to believe in Jesus. According to the existing Scriptures of that day, the unavoidable result of receiving the Spirit is to observe the Law of Moses. "And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them. And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them." (Ezekiel 11:19-20)

"I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." (Ezekiel 36:27)

Also, these Gentile believers were surrounded by Jewish believers who were "all zealous for the Law [of Moses]." (Acts 21:20) Have you ever been around people who are zealous for something that is perfectly good? How could the Gentiles resist an example like that?

Also, Peter says in Acts 15:9 that God "made no distinction" between the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers, and again in verse 11 Peter says, "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." If the Jewish believers are saved through grace and are zealously observing the Law of Moses as a result, there's no reason why the Gentiles couldn't also be saved by grace and also be observing the Law of Moses. God made no distinction between Jew and Gentile.

Also, Paul was teaching the Gentiles to follow his own example. We know (or should know) from Acts and the writings of Paul that Paul himself was Torah-observant. So by his own example Paul was already teaching the Gentile believers to follow the Law of Moses.

Also, these Gentiles were expecting their Messiah to return imminently to sit on the throne of David (Luke 1:32). They knew from Scripture that it was necessary for the kings inheriting the promised throne of David to "Keep the charge of the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is written in the Law of Moses." (1 Kings 2:3-4) In order to prepare to live in such a kingdom, the Gentiles would want to know how to live by the Law of that kingdom.

Also, James says in Acts 15:21 that the Gentiles were already being taught to follow the Law of Moses every Sabbath in the synagogues.

Also, there wasn't anyone teaching these Gentiles to not observe the Law of Moses. That wasn't taught until after the great apostasy. And there is nowhere in Scripture that teaches Gentile believers to not observe the Law of Moses.

So it doesn't make any sense at all that the Pharisees in Acts 15:5 would declare that it was necessary that the Gentile believers would need to be directed, ordered, or commanded to observe something that they were already wanting and learning to observe.

However, there is a translation of what the Pharisees said that actually does make sense in the context of Acts 15. Here is how the verse is usually translated (NASB) "and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses." By looking up how the Greek words are translated elsewhere in Scripture we find that the word translated as "direct" can also be translated as "instruct" and the word translated as "observe" can also be translated as "carefully guard". If we use those translations in this verse we get something sensible that the Pharisees would have said that was different than what Paul and the Scriptures were already teaching: "and to instruct them to carefully guard the Law of Moses".

When the Pharisees talk about instructing someone to carefully guard the Law of Moses, they are talking about teaching all the traditional man-made "fence laws" that the Jewish sages had invented to guard the Law of Moses. That's what Jesus was referring to in Matt 23:4 when he said of the Pharisees, "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger." And that's what Peter was referring to when he said, "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)

[Ron Amnsn]

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)

They were putting God to the test by adding their man-made traditional laws to the Law of Moses, something that God had specifically forbidden.

Deut 4:2 "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Deut 12:32 "Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it."

[M. T. Cross]

I have long wondered why a God that claims to have created everyone (in his own image) would demand that men cut off a part of what he created them with.......

[8thdaypriest]

Thanks you Green, for that statement by SB.

I am NOT advocating for "keeping" the Feasts, or "observing" them. I agree with SB that it would be well to remember them. To commemorate them - each in their own way - at the time of year. Not with any new "rules."

The Jews have loaded sooooo many traditions on top of the Feasts, to make up for their absence from Jerusalem, that it is difficult for anyone wishing to commemorate the Feasts, to keep oneself separated from the "traditions." The Hebrew Roots and Messianic movements of today are still buried in them.

And no - I do NOT believe it is a sin - to NOT keep the Feasts. I DO however - believe that the LORD comes closer to His people during those appointed times.

Blessings,

[8thdaypriest]

Ted said,

"I will beg to differ on your usage the aorist tense. The aorist tense is not an imperfect tense - it is a perfect tense unique to a specific point in time."

Colossians 2:11

KJV Colossians 2:11 In <1722> whom <3739> also <2532> ye are circumcised <4059> (5681) with the circumcision <4061> made without hands <886>, in <1722> putting off <555> the body <4983> of the sins <266> of the flesh <4561> by <1722> the circumcision <4061> of Christ <5547>: (Col 2:11 KJV)

5681 Tense - Aorist (See 5777) Voice - Passive (See 5786) Mood - Indicative (See 5791)

Rachel replies,

I believe it is like a step (completed) in a process which has not yet been completed.

The term "sealed" is in the aorist tense thru most of the NT until Revelation 7, where the 144,000 are described.

It's the old question. Are we "saved" now - or are we being saved?

Yes - we ARE justified in Christ. Present tense.

But are we perfectly cleansed yet - NO.

Same would apply to the word "saved."

Baptists say they are saved - absolutely - forever.

SDAs say - they are conditionally "saved."

But are we truly removed from this Egypt? NO - that is future.

So it is present AND it is future - both.

I would say the same applies to circumcision.

In Christ we are regarded by the Father as "circumcised". That's justification..

But are we in a process of being circumcised - YES.

That's sanctification.

And we will one day be circumcised by Christ Himself - That's glorification.

At the Second Coming - Christ will circumcise US - the old flesh will be gone in an instant, and we will receive new spiritual bodies.

And Ezekiel 36 puts the perfect circumcision of the heart into the future after the redeemed of Israel are gathered and returned to their own land:

NKJ Ezekiel 36:24 "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. (Eze 36:24 NKJ)

So - I agree with you in one tense - that we are regarded by the Father as circumcised. But I recognize a future - completion of the project.

Shalom

Rachel

[8thdaypriest]

why do we need a new thread for Colossians 2 ? This one only has two pages. lol

Peace,

Rachel

[Ron Amnsn]

I have long wondered why a God that claims to have created everyone (in his own image) would demand that men cut off a part of what he created them with.......

I think our forefather Abraham is responsible. God promised him a bunch of descendents, but when those descendants didn't arrive on Abraham's schedule, Abraham used his "part" to try to do by human power that which God had promised to provide in the covenant.

I think it's a subtle reminder to the rest of us that God has made covenants with promises that we can trust.

[Hair]

Originally Posted By: Acts 15

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.”

Now we'll take a look at the last half of verse 5, "and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."

It's easy to see why Christians who don't want to observe the Law of Moses translate the verse this way.

But does it make sense to translate the verse this way? Why would the Gentile believers need to be directed, ordered, or commanded to observe the Law of Moses? In the context where those Gentile believers were living, they would already want to observe the Law of Moses, so there would be absolutely no need to direct them to do so.

First, they were followers of Jesus the Jewish Messiah who had lived perfectly according to the Law of Moses in "the way" that God had originally intended it to be lived. How would one follow a Torah-observant Messiah without learning to live like the Messiah lived and according to His teachings?

Also, the Law of Moses was a large portion of the existing Scripture of that day, and it is endorsed and recommended in all the rest of the existing Scripture of that day. By just reading the Scriptures that had been endorsed by Jesus and his apostles, Gentiles would learn that the Law of Moses was a good thing given by God to his people, and they would want to follow it like Jesus did.

Also, these Gentiles were receiving the Holy Spirit as they came to believe in Jesus. According to the existing Scriptures of that day, the unavoidable result of receiving the Spirit is to observe the Law of Moses.

There is a lot of Jewish Feast Keeping bias opinion and speculation in all of this.

[Ron Amnsn]

There is a lot of Jewish Feast Keeping bias opinion and speculation in all of this.

Yes, there may be a little. But I think I can back up most of it with Scripture and/or historic documentation.

Because you're accustomed to hearing and accepting teachings with the standard anti-Torah and anti-Jewish biases and speculation that come from a very long tradition within Christianity, the straight truth will probably seem quite biased to you.

I admit that I do have a very strong bias towards believing that all Scripture is true, and that God's Word can be trusted, and that everything else has to be tested by Scripture. I don't accept interpretations of Bible passages that violate the context of the passage. I also believe that the Holy Spirit does not contradict itself from the beginning to the end of the Bible.

You probably don't realize how biased and wildly speculative the traditional Christian interpretations of the NT are until you start taking the OT seriously the way the NT authors did. People who read the Gospels and Paul's epistles before they read the Old Testament are prone to readily accept the traditional Christian interpretations of the NT, but they have a hard time accepting the OT. People who are well-grounded in the Old Testament before reading the Gospels and Paul's epistles see the New Testament from a different perspective-- a perspective that is much more like the perspectives of the original Bible authors and the original Bible readers, who were all well-grounded in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Go ahead, ask me about something that seems biased. Let's see if it can stand.

[Ron Amnsn]

There is a lot of Jewish Feast Keeping bias opinion and speculation in all of this.

Wasn't Jesus was a Jewish feast-keeper? Aren't we supposed to be following his lead?