Surrendering to Jesus/God is Not Biblical

I haven't read through all of the previous posts in the thread, so this has probably been asked already. But how do you explain the following passage? It seems to me to speak quite clearly and forcefully of the concept of "surrender":

quote:

---

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death”
even death on a cross!

​

(Phil. 2:5-8; NIV)

---

OK, I suspect you have answers for the following, but I'm curious to hear what they are: Filling with the Holy Spirit is parallel to drunkenness. Doesn't this imply that it involves a giving up of control to the HS? Doesn't a "living sacrifice" imply a giving over of control to God?

Of course. But aren't his writings part of the Bible, therefore biblical? Your contention is that "Surrendering to Jesus/God is not Biblical", so any part of the Bible should be fair game. Or do you only accept the "red letters" as biblical? So you don't think the Bible supports the idea that the Holy Spirit is God? This is orthodox Christian doctrine.

Doesn't this verse capture the concept of "surrender"?: Of course I realize that this is Paul speaking again. And that it's not a command, but a commentary on his own relationship to Christ.But seeing as Paul's life is to be an example for other Christians: this is indirect instruction for Christians.And seeing as Paul's words are in Scripture, which orthodox Christianity maintains is inspired by God, this should be seen (by orthodox Christians, at least) as God instructing us through the writings of Paul.

I know you don't like quoting Paul, so here's one from Jesus Himself: What does a "yoke" imply if not submission/surrender to the one driving the team of oxen?

No, this is a poor definition of "yoke".Here are the first 6 definitions from dictionary.reference.com

quote:

---

yoke [yohk]
-noun
1. a device for joining together a pair of draft animals, esp. oxen, usually consisting of a crosspiece with two bow-shaped pieces, each enclosing the head of an animal. Compare harness (def. 1).
2. a pair of draft animals fastened together by a yoke: five yoke of oxen.
3. something resembling a yoke or a bow of a yoke in form or use.
4. a frame fitting the neck and shoulders of a person, for carrying a pair of buckets or the like, one at each end.
5. an agency of oppression, subjection, servitude, etc.
6. an emblem or symbol of subjection, servitude, slavery, etc., as an archway under which prisoners of war were compelled to pass by the ancient Romans and others.

---

The literary imagery of "take my yoke upon you" is to voluntarily take the place of an ox and willingly go under the yoke of Jesus, allowing Him to drive and direct one's life. But He assures us that His yoke is "easy" and "light". Perhaps the latter does not always come across in Christian teaching, and perhaps that is part of the resistance in this thread to the idea of "surrender"?

What in the world are you talking about? It should be clear that I am using the first (i.e. major) definition of yoke. This is hardly "cherry-picking one of the minor definitions"!

quote:

---

1. a device for joining together a pair of draft animals, esp. oxen, usually consisting of a crosspiece with two bow-shaped pieces, each enclosing the head of an animal. Compare harness (def. 1).

---

Note that the text directs us to "take my yoke UPON you". The preposition "upon" (epi) means just that. The grammar and imagery is NOT that we are using the yoke as a tool; rather, that we are UNDER the yoke, like an ox would be.I find one other place in the NT where "yoke" (zugos) is used with this preposition "upon" (epi):

quote:

---

Acts 15:10
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?

---

and one place where yoke is used with the preposition "under" (hupo):

quote:

---

1 Tim. 6:1
All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.

---

In fact, the imagery of "yoke" is fairly common in the Bible (especially the OT), and generally refers to slavery or subjection. "Yoke" in Mt 11 must be interpreted in light of this biblical usage and context, not pulled out of context and interpreted anachronistically as you seem to want to do. Where did I say that I "see oppression" in Mt 11? The text says otherwise.

No, this is context and grammar, which are crucial for proper biblical interpretation (or interpretation of any other written text, for that matter). Ignoring the context and grammar allows you to come up with any screwy anachronistic interpretation that you wish (like your interpretation of "yoke" as a "tool"). I agree that this is not a position of "oppressive servitude", at least. But that's the whole point of the verse. It is almost paradoxical. Jesus offers a yoke, but it is easy. His yoke is nothing like the oppressive yoke of the Romans or other rulers. No, you are making up new definitions of words again, like you did for "yoke". From dictionary.reference.com:

quote:

---

sur·ren·der [suh-ren-der]
-verb (used with object)
1. to yield (something) to the possession or power of another; deliver up possession of on demand or under duress: to surrender the fort to the enemy; to surrender the stolen goods to the police.
2. to give (oneself) up, as to the police.
3. to give (oneself) up to some influence, course, emotion, etc.: He surrendered himself to a life of hardship.
4. to give up, abandon, or relinquish (comfort, hope, etc.).
5. to yield or resign (an office, privilege, etc.) in favor of another.
-verb (used without object)
6. to give oneself up, as into the power of another; submit or yield.

---

It involves "hardship" in some way and a loss of control over one's own life. But whether or not there is "oppression" depends entirely on the character of the one who you surrender to. Look at definition #2; whether or not there is oppression depends on the character of the police.(BTW, I think definition #6 above is the closest to biblical surrender, but #2 is pertinent as well.)

I don't see "surrender" as the issue at this point in the parable. The son felt unworthy to come back as a son, and intended to come back as a servant. The issue here is "acceptance" by the Father.The place I see the concept of "surrender" is earlier, when the son finally realizes that his own way is not working. He humbles himself and penitently comes back into his father's household. Whether as servant or as son, he voluntarily relinquishes his own authority and puts himself under the authority of his father. This is the essence of biblical surrender.

No, I got that point. What I'm pointing out is that the father still allowed him to "relinquish his own authority and put himself under the authority of his father" but not as a SERVANT, rather as a SON. Formerly he was on his own, under his own authority, rejecting his father's authority. Now he surrenders his own authority and submits to his father's.

Agreed; the main points are repentance and acceptance. The concepts of surrender or giving up control are not main points at all.