Monday, 1 August 2016

The Cross v the Law

Someone said, "It was Judaism at its best that put Jesus on the cross".

It was zeal for the Law that made Pharisees hate Christians and their alleged Messiah.

Saul wanted to exterminate the memory of His name - yet he self-described as having been blameless in the Law, as exceedingly zealous for the Law above his peers.

This, despite the fact that many Jewish believers in Jesus at Jerusalem were zealous for the Law.

So why was the message of the cross so offensive?

Because it implied that the Law itself was not at all adequate to make someone right with God.

Something - or Someone - other than the Law, was needed.

The cross of Christ meant the end of the Law, as the means of obtaining righteousness.

It implied the Law had a different, temporary purpose.

The claim that Jesus was Messiah, challenged their concept of Messiah and what Messiah must do.

It challenged their concept of the way the Kingdom of God should appear.

Since it implied the Law was no longer paramount, it implied Gentiles could be saved also - without needing to become Observant of the Law.

This was so offensive to the die-hard defenders of the Law; and yet, ironically, a correct understanding of the Law and Prophets ought to have led them to the faith of Christ.

This exposes an error in extreme versions of modern Hebrew Roots teaching - because if the message of early Christianity was really just the Torah, then the early Church would not have been so persecuted by the Jews.

Paul was clear to those who wondered: he did not preach the Torah, otherwise he would not have suffered the persecutions he was suffering.

11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.

No comments:

Post a Comment