What was the "yoke of bondage" ?

[8thdaypriest]

    Galatians 4:22-26   “For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.  But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic.   For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar-- for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children-- but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.”

    I’m just going to repeat a few words here for emphasis.  The Sinai covenant “gives birth to bondage.”  The Jerusalem of Paul’s day was “in bondage” - because they were still laboring under the Sinai covenant, and had not accepted the New Covenant - with the Spirit.

[Scuba]

    Galatians 4:22-26   “For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.  But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic.   For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar-- for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children-- but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.”

    I’m just going to repeat a few words here for emphasis.  The Sinai covenant “gives birth to bondage.”  The Jerusalem of Paul’s day was “in bondage” - because they were still laboring under the Sinai covenant, and had not accepted the New Covenant - with the Spirit.

The interesting thing is that the Sinai covenant gives BIRTH to bondage, in other words, The principles contained in the Ten Commandments do not give birth to bondage but the covenant or motive by which we view them gives birth to bondage. The Old Covenant was founded on obeying the Law or die. This way of relating to God's principles of love and righteousness gives birth to bondage. We, as followers of Christ, do not view obedience to the Law as the means to attain righteousness for Christ is the end of the Law as the means to be righteous for those who believe.

 

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

 

We are not in bondage to the Law in trying to be made right by keeping it but the Law still defines godly love. I don't keep the Law to be made right, I keep the Law as an expression of my love.

[Robert]

But, we must be careful with saying "I keep the law".  Keeping the law is living Christ's life in every detail.  Here all fall short.

[Gerr]

But, we must be careful with saying "I keep the law".  Keeping the law is living Christ's life in every detail.  Here all fall short.

 

The interesting thing is that the Sinai covenant gives BIRTH to bondage, in other words, The principles contained in the Ten Commandments do not give birth to bondage but the covenant or motive by which we view them gives birth to bondage. The Old Covenant was founded on obeying the Law or die. This way of relating to God's principles of love and righteousness gives birth to bondage. We, as followers of Christ, do not view obedience to the Law as the means to attain righteousness for Christ is the end of the Law as the means to be righteous for those who believe.

 

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

 

We are not in bondage to the Law in trying to be made right by keeping it but the Law still defines godly love. I don't keep the Law to be made right, I keep the Law as an expression of my love.

 

    Galatians 4:22-26   “For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.  But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic.   For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar-- for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children-- but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.”

    I’m just going to repeat a few words here for emphasis.  The Sinai covenant “gives birth to bondage.”  The Jerusalem of Paul’s day was “in bondage” - because they were still laboring under the Sinai covenant, and had not accepted the New Covenant - with the Spirit.

Would  God give a Covenant that "gives birth to bondage?"  According to Heb 8 & 10, it seems to me, the terms of the NC are the same as the Sinaitic Covenant.  The NC can be turned into a yoke of bondage just as surely as the Israelites did to the Sinai Covenant if the liberating righteousness of Christ is not received by faith.

[Robert]

Would  God give a Covenant that "gives birth to bondage?"  According to Heb 8 & 10, it seems to me, the terms of the NC are the same as the Sinaitic Covenant.  The NC can be turned into a yoke of bondage just as surely as the Israelites did to the Sinai Covenant if the liberating righteousness of Christ is not received by faith.

 

"Under the new covenant, the conditions by which eternal life may be gained are the same as under the old-- perfect obedience.    . . . In the new and better covenant, Christ has fulfilled the law for the transgressors of law, if they receive Him by faith as a personal Saviour.  . . . In the better covenant we are cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ."

 

Ref: http://www.whiteestate.org/devotional/ag/05_07.asp

[8thdaypriest]

    Acts 15:10  [Peter speaking] “Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?  

 

Who were the "fathers" ?

 

  Answer: our male ancestors (Acts 7:52, Acts 28:17)
        Answer: older male authority figures (Acts 22:1)
        Answer: those who heard Isaiah the prophet (Acts 28:25)         
        Answer: those who came out of Egypt (Acts 3:22, Acts 7:44, Acts 13:17, 1Cor 10:1)
        Answer: the 12 Sons of Jacob (Acts 7:12 & 15)
        Answer: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Acts 3:13)
 

 

The question for debate at the council meeting of Acts 15, was the issue of required physical circumcision (that is) - whether the  uncircumcised who were turning to God, should be required to accept physical circumcision and to take a vow of obedience to keep the “whole” law, including the offering of animal sacrifices through the Aaronic priesthood.  

A male MUST be circumcised before he would be permitted to enter the Temple courtyard.

 

I don't think anyone today believes that physical circumcision (alone) was "the yoke" which neither the disciples nor their father ancestors were able to bear.

 

Galatians 5:1 [Paul] “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.”

 

        Consider socialism - the enforced redistribution of wealth.  Where obedience is forced - that system will ultimately fail.  Compare this to the early believers, who “held all things in common” and no man considered ought of his property his own (Acts 2:44-45).  All this because the law of love was written on their hearts.
 
        Like a marriage without love, so the law without the Spirit becomes a “yoke of bondage”. Without the Spirit of Christ within, no human being can keep the Law of God.  It is like pushing a huge boulder uphill.  When you get tired, it will roll right back over you and crush you, or crush someone who is behind you climbing that hill - which is exactly what the Law of the Pharisees did to the Jews.  The law of the Pharisees was simply the outworking of Law without Love. 

    Romans 9:31-32 “But Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.  Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law.  For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.”

    The “stumbling stone” was FAITH, or lack of it.

 

They pursued rightousness thru works of the law.  And they failed.  Only the Spirit within, can bring about righteousness in the life. 

 

I would say that the "yoke" WAS "the Law".  It was the Law without indwelling Love. 

 

If you are alone and yoked to a heavy burden - it FEELS heavy.

But if you are yoked with Christ - He will pull the weight.

You have only to walk along side. 

 

Blessings,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[8thdaypriest]

It was only when I gave up in utter frustration, that Jesus showed me what He could do in my life. 

 

My advice to those who wish to please God, is to give up.  Stop trying. 

Tell HIM you now realize that ANY goodness, or righteousness you display - is His work in you. 

[Scuba]

There are two sides to God's Law. One side defines righteousness and the other side defines love. If we view the Law as the means to righteousness it's like trying to push that boulder up to the top of the hill to please God. God needs and wants to show us that the boulder is way too big and heavy for us, He even makes the boulder heavier and the hill higher to take all our hope away of ever making it to the top. Why in the world would He do such a thing. The Devil tells us that God does this because He is a mean and angry God who wants us to fail but in reality, God making the boulder heavier and the hill higher is a great demonstration of wisdom and love.

 

God wants and needs to show us the hopeless state of being we are in. He wants and needs to take away all our strength and ability to live so that we can give up and die because in death there is the abundant life. We truly must die to any and all our efforts to be righteous before God apart from Christ. When we remove the side of God's Law that demands perfect righteousness to please God, the same side that breeds guilt, condemnation, shame and bondage the only side that is left is love.

 

Let that boulder roll you over and kill you. Stop tying to push that boulder up hill to please God because the more effort you put into it, the heavier God makes it and the closer you get to the top, the higher God makes the hill. He is trying to tell us that in Christ we are already righteous, in Christ we are already accepted. 

 

So what does this plan of God do for us and His creation?

 

First of all we will stop drawing our value and self worth by how well we keep the commandments. Drawing our value and self worth by how well we keep the commandments breeds pride and a critical, judgmental spirit towards others. It's also the breeding ground for failure, guilt, shame and self condemnation. 

 

When we view God's Law as the Law of love we obey God from a different motive. We allow others to grow and experience God's love. It's the kind of love that changes lives. God will conform us to the image of His son through love working from the inside out. God will write His Law of loving God and loving others in our heart and mind and we will be His people and He will be our God and it won't be because we got the boulder to the top, but rather, it will be because He will bring us to realize that in Christ the boulder is already at the top.

[JoeMo]

It was only when I gave up in utter frustration, that Jesus showed me what He could do in my life. 

 

My advice to those who wish to please God, is to give up.  Stop trying. 

Tell HIM you now realize that ANY goodness, or righteousness you display - is His work in you. 

AMEN Rachel!  I have had that experience.  It is only after I quit trying (i.e., relying on my own strength) that I started experiencing victory in Christ!

 

Scuba - Great post!  For me, love is the basis of the entire Law(love God; love your neighbor) - not love as we define it; but love as Jesus demonstrated for all.

[8thdaypriest]

The LORD sent a friend into my life last year - to teach me patience.  She showed up at Passover with a bottle of wine clearly labeled "Not for Passover".  LOL!!  She really does love the LORD, and evidences His love in many ministries for others.  But she learns very slowly.  For me - that is difficult.  I'm never quite sure that she has understood.  I think the LORD just wanted me to experience (in a very tiny way)  how patient HE has been with me. 

[8thdaypriest]

So - back to "the yoke"

 

        Peter said “we” were not “able to bear it” - this yoke of bondage.  Whatever the yoke, Peter and those present at the Jerusalem Council felt its weight.  This would apply particularly to the Law of the Pharisees.  

        The Pharisees taught that the LORD gave to Moses an expansion of - an addition to - the written law.  This was called “the oral law” because it was given to Moses orally, and was never written down.  It was supposedly passed down orally to each successive generation.  The “Oral Torah”  was also called “the traditions of the elders”.  To preserve these traditions during the dispersion, the Oral Torah was finally written down as the Talmud some years after the destruction of the Temple in 70CE.  Picture all of the volumes containing the judicial rulings of the Supreme Court.

         The critical factor was the weight given to this “oral law”.  The Rabbis still today teach that the Oral Torah superceded the written law.  It was above - and of greater authority than the written law.  I think you can grasp the potential for abuse.  The ruling authorities could add laws for the people, and make laws to exempt themselves from the greater part of the burden.  

    For more information look up “Oral Torah” in The Jewish Encyclopedia.  

    Matthew 23:1-4 “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples saying: ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat [ruling the people] . . . . For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.”

 

The “doctrine of the Pharisees” was the teaching that justification could be earned thru Torah observance.  The moral leaven of this class was hypocrisy (Lk 12:1).

        It was a yoke. Yes!  But is THIS the “yoke” referenced by Peter and Paul, or are we missing the larger picture?    

        Why did the Pharisees add rule upon rule upon rule?  Was it because they had no respect for the original Covenant of Ten Commandments.  No! 

It was because they wanted to make very sure the people were keeping the law.  

        Failure to keep the Law would mean destruction, captivity, and dispersion.  It would mean death for Judah and what was left of Israel.  The Pharisees  piled rule upon rule to prevent infractions of the law.  But - think about it.  If the law is written on the heart by the Spirit, then you don’t need to force anyone.  They will keep the law because it has become their nature to do so.   It is written on the heart.  

        And of course, as years went by an upper class evolved who exempted themselves from many of the rules they invented for everyone else.

 

The Pharisees were the prime example of thinking one can be righteous before God by one's own efforts. 

They were NOT primarily EVIL.  They just didn't "get it". 

Many of the Pharisees believed in Jesus as Messiah, but they continued with the requirements of the Law - most notably circumcision with the vow to observe all the commandments of the Torah.  They still didn't "get it". 

 

[Robert]

The law, even though it is holy, righteous and good, is a yoke of bondage under the OC.  Why?  No one is good enough to pass the scrutiny of eyes of the law.  To try to justify one's self before the law is yoke of bondage. 

 

Under the NC the law has been fulfilled in Christ.  As the believer rests in Christ's completed work of redemption he grows.  His growth proves his faith, not his righteousness.  We are complete in Christ.

[phkrause]

  right on jackson. Excellent post

[Robert]

No, Robert. Under the NC  the law is not fulfilled in Christ so that you no longer under obligation  to keep it. That is a perversion of scripture.

 

Do we grow, spiritually, if we are resting in Christ's finished work?  Answer:  Yes, if we are resting.  If not we are producing self-righteous works that will condemn us in the judgment.  

 

Now, you state we are "under obligation to keep (the law)".  My reply is, "really?"  Are you sure we are under obligation to the law?  

 

Turn to Matt 5:20

 

"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

 

A Pharisee is a dirty word in Christian circles, but really a Pharisee was a man whose aim in life was to devote himself to the keeping of the law.  Yet according to Christ they failed.  Christ states that our righteousness must surpass theirs. He goes on to show what the law really requires:

 

Matt 5:21 You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.'

22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court...

 

The letter of the law prohibits murder, yet spiritually speaking the law sees no difference between physical murder and anger at the thought level. So to the law "anger" towards another human is murder. If you are angry at someone in the eyes of the law you are a murderer...a transgressor.

 

Matt 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY '; 28

but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

 

Same idea....If you look at a woman lustfully, you have committed adultery with her according to the law.  Why?  You have transgressed at the thought level.  

 

Then Christ sums the spirit of the law:

 

Matt 5:48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect."

 

If we are obligated to the law then we must be perfect as God the Father is perfect!  If not, no heaven.

 

That, Sir, is a "yoke of bondage"!

[Robert]

Matt 5:48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect."

 

If we are obligated to the law then we must be perfect as God the Father is perfect!  If not, no heaven.

 

That, Sir, is a "yoke of bondage"!

 

 

Let's take this even further.  So  far we have seen that God's law condemns sin at the thought level.  I used "anger" and "lust" as two examples.

 

Now let's see what the law ultimately requires for those obligated to keep it:

 

Gal 5:4

 

For the whole law is fulfilled in one, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS  YOU LOVE YOURSELF."

 

Now turn to 1 Cor 10:24

 

"Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth."

 

In other word do not seek out your own wealth, but rather live for those around you.  Your ambition (your thoughts) are not be be centered on your wealth, but others. 

 

Ellen White:  "In Heaven none will think of self, nor seek their own pleasure; but all, from pure, genuine love (agape), will seek the happiness of the heavenly beings around them."  

 

You see we are born spiritually bent.  Simply put we are born "bent-to-self", meaning we live for our happiness and our own pleasure.  Jesus lived not, thought not of Himself, but only others to the point of homelessness.  Can you state the same?  If not you are failing at your obligation to keep the law.  You are a transgressor.

 

So the law requires that we take this natural self-love and redirect it towards only our neighbors. We are to love our neighbors as we naturally, sinfully love ourselves.  That's what the law requires.

 

Are you really sure that we under obligation to the law?

[Robert]

Gal 5:4

 

 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS  YOU LOVE YOURSELF."

 

...Jesus lived not, thought not of Himself, but only others to the point of homelessness.  Can you state the same?  If not you are failing at your obligation to keep the law.  You are a transgressor.

 

So the law requires that we take this natural self-love and redirect it towards only our neighbors. We are to love our neighbors as we naturally, sinfully love ourselves.  That's what the law requires.

 

Are you really sure that we under obligation to the law?

 

 

According to Paul the "whole law" is based on agape love, not self-love.  Hence the law requires us to 

 

"Love our neighbor as we love ourselves"

 

So there's only one command, not two.

 

The law does not say,

 

1] Love yourself

 

and

 

2] Love your neighbor

 

The two are mutually exclusive. 

 

If you are busy loving self, you can't love your neighbor.

 

If you loved your neighbor as you naturally love yourself, your neighbor would have your possessions.  

 

The law demand one thing of sinners:  Take your self-love, bent it from self and towards your neighbors.  Live for them, not yourself.

 

Christ lived for everyone else, including His enemies.  The outcome?  Poverty!

 

Why?  They didn't live for Him.....

 

Hence, "there is none righteous, no, not even one".

 

While we do grow,  we also are failing to live the law's loftiest demands. Hence "all have sinned" and all "fall short" of God's love as seen in the life of Christ.

 

Hence you better had not be obligated to the law because if you are you will be condemned...you will die the curse of the law, the 2nd death.

[Ron Amnsn]

Galatians 4:22-26   “For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.  But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic.   For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar-- for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children-- but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.”

    I’m just going to repeat a few words here for emphasis.  The Sinai covenant “gives birth to bondage.”  The Jerusalem of Paul’s day was “in bondage” - because they were still laboring under the Sinai covenant, and had not accepted the New Covenant - with the Spirit.

 

Good questions.  This passage can be a challenging one.  On the surface it looks like Paul is denigrating the covenant God gave at Sinai, saying that it causes bondage, especially if you read it with the assumptions that are common today.

 

Paul says that he is contrasting two sons, one born "according to the flesh" to a bondwoman, one born "through the promise" to a freewoman.  The first son was born due to Sarah and Abraham trying to fulfill God's promise by human scheming.  The second was born because God's promises are sure, even when things look impossible.  Then Paul says these two methods of fulfilling God's promises are symbolic (or an allegory) of two covenants. But Paul doesn't seem to specify both covenants. The lesson we draw from the passage depends mainly on which covenants we think Paul is talking about.

 

Those who already feel that God's covenant with Israel was burdensome would be quick to link "Mt. Sinai" and "covenant" with "bondage", which seems like the obvious connection to make, and draw the conclusion from the passage that those who live according to God's Law of Moses are in bondage. But is that the connection that Paul and his original readers would have made? Where do we get the idea that God's covenant with Israel was burdensome?  Is that taught in Scripture?

There are many Biblical reasons to seriously question the "obvious" conclusion that is often drawn from Paul's allegorical explanation of Ishmael, Isaac, and Hagar. Jesus lived according to God's Law of Moses and declared, "Follow me" and "I am the way" to live and "my yoke is easy and my burden is light."  The Scriptures always speak of God's covenants as good and beneficial blessings, so we should be very, very hesitant accept an interpretation that says the opposite of what Scripture teaches.

 

Did you know that this passage in Galatians is the only passage in the Bible that identifies any covenant with Mt. Sinai?  We often refer to God's covenant with Israel as the "Sinai covenant", and that habit could be skewing our interpretation of what Paul says in the passage being discussed. When the Scriptures refer to God's covenant with Israel, its primary identification is with God, not with a mountain, so the covenant is referred to as "My covenant" and "His covenant" or "God made a covenant".

 

On the other hand, in Jewish tradition Mt. Sinai is often claimed as the source of some specific tradition of "oral law" in order to lend authority to something that was supposedly given to Moses at Sinai.  The Introduction to an English translation of the Babylonian Talmud says, "Judaism maintains that the traditions of law found in the Mishnah derive from God’s revelation to Moses at Sinai." 

Some examples from the Talmud:

   (On re-purposing certain unleavened bread for Passover)  "And when I came and laid matters out before Rabbi Eliezer, he said to me, ‘By the covenant! These are the exact words that were stated to Moses at Sinai’ ". (Pesahim 2:5, IX.2. B ) 

   

            I.      And Rabbi Levi bar Hama said Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “What is the meaning of the verse of Scripture, ‘And I will give you the tables of stone, the law and the commandment, which I have written, that you may teach them’ (Ex. 24:12).

            J.      “ ‘The tables’ refers to the Ten Commandments.

            K.      “ ‘Torah’ refers to Scripture.

            L.      “ ‘Commandment’ refers to Mishnah.

            M.      “ ‘Which I have written’ refers to the Prophets and the Writings.

            N.      “ ‘That you may teach them’ refers to the Gemara.

            O.      “ ‘This teaches that all of them were given to Moses from Sinai.”  (Berakhot 1:1, III.7)

      Q.      And said Abbayye, “The dalet of the phylacteries is a law revealed by God to Moses at Sinai [and handed on only by tradition].”  (Shabbat 6:2, IV.4.Q)

Galatians is dealing with the man-made traditions of the Jews.  Specifically the traditions that specified what a Gentile must do to become part of the congregation of Israel.  Those traditions required Gentile proselytes to covenant to obey the man-made traditions of the Jews in addition to the word of God

 

Could Paul be contrasting the covenant required by the schemes of men (under authority supposedly derived from Mt. Sinai) with the covenant promises of God by which Paul had said earlier were the means by which Gentiles were saved?   "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise." Galatians 3:29

[Robert]

 

Galatians is dealing with the man-made traditions of the Jews.  Specifically the traditions that specified what a Gentile must do to become part of the congregation of Israel.  Those traditions required Gentile proselytes to covenant to obey the man-made traditions of the Jews in addition to the word of God....

 

 

This issue should have been settled back in the 1888 GC, but it continues even today.  The law in Galatians, according to Ellen White, was "especially ... the moral law."

 

"I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. What law is the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ? I answer: Both the ceremonial and the moral code of ten commandments."

 

"The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (Gal. 3:24). In this scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law. The law reveals sin to us, and causes us to feel our need of Christ and to flee unto Him for pardon and peace by exercising repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.  An unwillingness to yield up preconceived opinions, and to accept this truth, lay at the foundation of a large share of the opposition manifested at Minneapolis against the Lord's message through Brethren {E.J.} Waggoner and {A.T.} Jones."

[Robert]

Just because we are not under the law doesn't mean we can live live like a devil.  While we are not fulfilling the law, as Christ did, we can come more and more into harmony with it through the Spirit:

 

Romans 7:6  "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law ....."

 

When  did we die?  Remember, the law demands our death!  Verse 4:  "You died to the law (it demanded your death) in the body of Christ...."

 

So our corporate life, from Adam, died in Christ.  If we have Christ the law is satisfied.  Why?  As far as the law is concerned we are dead and justice has been served.  

 

Now what?  We have been delivered or released from the law so we can view porn, steal, cheat, swindle, etc?  No....We have delivery "so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit".

 

Is the Spirit of God going to bring us into harmony or disharmony with God's law?  Right, harmony.  So while we aren't measuring up to Christ's righteousness (He fulfilled the law) we can grow more and more as we remain in Him by faith.  

[LifeHiscost]

Tell HIM you now realize that ANY goodness, or righteousness you display - is His work in you. 

work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. 14Do all things without grumbling or disputing;…Phil 2

 

OTOH  7I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: 8Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.....2 Timothy 4

 

Would that I were able to say that. I'm grateful to be able to cling to this.

 

47"If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. ...John 12

 

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[8thdaypriest]

I have heard the argument made several times, by different Hebrew Roots teachers.  They say that "the law" in Galatians was the Rabbinic tradition of the "Oral Law". 

I can't quite buy that one. 

The law in Galatians was "our school master to lead us to Christ". 

That certainly could NOT be said of the Oral Torah, or the traditions of the Pharisees. 

 

It seems that some folks want another Mt Sinai type event, with glory and a thunderous voice of God, to tell us that the system of animal sacrifice ministered through mortal sinful men, can now be set aside.  I think that God sent an even greater event.  The death of the Lamb which God provided.  

 

The sacrificial system  thru the Aaronic priesthood was a PROPHECY.  That was God's plan all along. 

No man is changing something that God did not intend to change. 

God Himself changed it.  He planned it that way! 

 

It is CLEAR from First Century Writings that a journey to Jerusalem, to present a sin offering, or a whole burnt offering is NOT NECESSARY for justification, sanctification, salvation, or access to the Father. 

 

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, to everyone who believes"  (Romans 10:4).

[8thdaypriest]

The marriage with Hagar resulting in Ishmael, was by human effort.

It represented human efforts to perfectly keep the Law, thus earning salvation.  THAT became a "yoke of bondage". 

 

The marriage with Sarah resulting in Isaac, was by divine intervention and grace. 

 

Exactly my point - that our own efforts alone always fail.

 

The SAME LAW can be either a "yoke of bondage" OR "an easy sharing of the load", depending upon whether you are yoked up with Christ. 

But it's the SAME LAW.

It is the human response to "the law"  that determines whether the experience will be a "yoke of bondage" or a "law of liberty". 

 

It is not necessary to build a complicated argument that it was just the "Oral Torah" that became the "yoke".

The Oral Torah traditions of the Pharisees resulted from mans efforts to keep the Law, without the Spirit. 

 

Romans 9:32  "Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone (NIV).

The stumbling stone was faith - or lack of it.  But it was THE SAME LAW. 

 

Hebrews 3:19 "So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief" (NIV).

 

Just ask any Adventist, how he felt about the Sabbath when he was a kid.

It was just a lot of don't s.    No sports.  No TV.  No loud laughing.  Sitting in church all morning in uncomfortable clothes, listening to a sermon you didn't understand. 

It was a "yoke of bondage". 

[Robert]

If you make Christ our example before your make Him our redeemer you end up with legalism.  The Tradition, Historic Adventists among us have done just this.

 

Christ came in order to save us from under law to under grace.  That is the primary reason He came to this fallen world.

 

Gal 4:4 "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 to redeem them that were under the law

 

Only as you rest in that completed work does Christ become our example experimentally....

 

1 John 3:23 "And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ (primary as redeemer) and love one another (secondary as example), as He gave us commandment."

[8thdaypriest]

Wow!!  I can see how this thread about defining "the yoke", could turn into a debate about whether perfection of character is achievable during this earthly life in a mortal body. 

 

I used to get sooooo discouraged, and frustrated, and angry that the LORD did not seem to be fulfilling His promise to put His spirit within me, and cause me to walk in His statutes.  I prayed and prayed and prayed, but somehow I would fail again.  I would catch myself thinking selfishly, or jealously, or I would loose patience and display a not-so-healvenly attitude.  So WHERE was the promise?  Had I not prayed hard enough. 

 

I had to give up, and just turn my perfection over to the LORD - to STOP MONITORING IT - and leave it in His hands.

 

After all, if you LOOK AT THE CONTEXT OF THE NEW COVENANT PROMISE in Ezekiel.  The FULL infilling of the spirit, resulting in perfect lawfulness, will happen AFTER we are returned to the land. 

 

Does anyone seriously think that the LORD is going to wake up millions of redeemed human beings, (who died in various stages of character development) and they are all suddenly going to be perfect in character??  REALLY? 

That would require some mind manipulation on the LORD's part. 

But if HE was going to do THAT, then why didn't He just do it in the first place - with Adam and Eve, or better with Satan, and skip this whole mess.

But then HE would have robots, not created beings with FREE WILL who can actually choose to love HIM. 

 

We will need a thousand years of rehabilitation in a secure place to heal all the damage done to our minds in this sin filled world. 

We live defensively.  We suspect everyone - until they prove their loyalty. 

We can't just drop all of that, like taking off a coat. 

It is part of our psyc. 

 

Jackson,

I'm NOT SAYING that perfection of character - in this world - before Jesus returns - is impossible.

I'm saying that we have to STOP beating our heads (and everyone else's heads) against this expectation.

If perfection of character happens, it will happen when we are NOT LOOKING.

 

The Ten Commandments are a PROMISE of what we may become thru the indwelling spirit.

I believe the promise.

The day to day does not concern me any longer.  I've turned myself over to Christ. 

 

"He who began a good work in you will complete it". 

THAT is all I need to know.  

If I fail today, or tomorrow, I still have the PROMISE. 

[8thdaypriest]

I want to understand just what "yoke" the Jerusalem Council did NOT WANT to put on the Gentiles who were turning to Christ. 

 

What was THAT YOKE?  Was it the Oral Torah traditions of the Pharisees?  Was it the offering of animal sacrifice at the Temple? 

 

The issue being debated by the Council was circumcision. 

Thanks to the Pharisees, circumcision was tightly controlled for those converting to Judaism. 

It had to be a circumcision certified by an approved Rabbi, after 2 years of instruction in the Law. 

No man could enter the Temple Court without it. 

Therefore no man could offer a sacrifice without it.

 

When the Council ruled that circumcision was NOT necessary for Gentile converts,

(because honestly justification, sanctification, salvation, and access to God were already theirs thru Christ, WITHOUT offering a sacrifice)

that was the SAME as saying that animal sacrifice at the Temple was NOT NECESSARY for Gentile converts. 

 

If a Gentile did his own circumcision (like Abraham) and then appeared at the Temple,

it is doubtful he could have gained entrance. 

He was a foreigner, and had not been certified by an approved Rabbi.