"But I, brothers, if circumcision still I am preaching, why still I am being persecuted? Then it has been nullified, the stumbling block of the cross."
-When we look at the early history of the church, we see that most of the persecution leveled at those first Christ-followers came from Jews, from their leaders whose religious tradition was grounded in works. Their system not only placed circumcision front and center as the primary work for gaining entry into the Jewish religion, but also placed a high value on both excommunication and execution for those who transgressed or who taught something contrary to their tradition. It is certainly instructive to recall the evolution of the thinking of the early church, whose Jewish tradition - not the law which God delivered to Moses - told them first to not even associate with an uncircumcised person - cf Acts 11.2-3, 11.19, assumed that the Good News was not for anyone uncircumcised - cf Acts 11.1, 11.18, and then assumed that circumcision ought to be a necessary requirement even for entry into the Christian church - Acts 15.5. Yes, we find persecution coming from Gentile quarters as well (Acts 14.5, 16.20-23). But if you remember, tho' the Gentiles carried out the crucifixion, it was the Jews who demanded it. Pilate, the Gentile governor, tried to talk them out of it but ultimately consented, as he feared they would riot. It was the Jews, led by Saul of Tarsus himself, who instituted that initial terrible deadly persecution of those early believers (Acts 8.1). And in most of the cities where Paul and others go throughout the book of Acts, it was the Jewish leaders who would drive them out or stone them and leave them for dead (Acts 13.50, 14.2, 14.19, 17.5, 17.13, 18.12, 20.3). Ultimately it was the Jews who wanted Paul dead (Acts 21.27-31, 23.22) - the Gentiles were inclined to let him go free (Acts 22.29, 26.30-32).
-The point Paul is making here is, had he been teaching the need for Gentile converts to be circumcised, the Jews would not have continued persecuting him. But the very fact that the Jews were persecuting him - and were still doing so - was proof that he had not at any point embraced that thinking in any way whatsoever. Entry into heaven for Paul was still entirely based on faith/trust in the death of Jesus of Nazareth on that cruel Roman Cross. Paul maintained that THIS was the one work by which both Jew and Gentile could gain entry into the heavenly realms, a finished work, which left no more work to be done, not even circumcision. Messiah had come and had suffered and died in order to secure full cleansing, perfect righteousness and forgiveness on our behalf, for all, both Jews and Gentiles, regardless of whether or not they were circumcised. This was the scandalous teaching which made the Jews stumble, which chaffed those finely-honed works-based traditional Jewish sensibilities, and which in their eyes justified every ounce of persecution and attempted murder they could possibly direct at this one who blasphemed their tradition. Paul thumbed his nose at the Jews perceived need both to be circumcised and to remain untouched and unstained by the religious filth of those were foreskinned. Reprehensible. Public outrage. This was the scandal of the Cross - and that is actually the word in the Greek - skandalon. This was the teaching which - to Paul’s point - he clearly still embraced. Remember: for by grace we are saved, through faith, NOT as a result of [any] works... (Ephesians 2.8)
No comments:
Post a Comment