11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to [his] face, because he was to be blamed, 12for before certain ones came from James, he ate with the Gentiles, but he was withdrawing and separating himself, fearing those out of circumcision, 13and the rest of the Jews pretended with him so that even Barnabas was led away together with them in hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that they were not walking in a straight course toward the truth of the Gospel, [I was] saying to Cephas before all, “If you being Jewish [act] like a Gentile and do not live like a Jew, how are the Gentiles being compelled to act Jewish?”
I’m sorry to say this passage only adds to my confusion. Here comes the same group, the Legalists, the Judaizers, the rule-keepers, the church’s first century “Hate-Brigade.” “We have a rule!” they exclaim, “and all who don’t scrupulously observe it stand condemned!” The “circumcision group.” This is the same group that accosted Peter after he went to the house of Cornelius: “So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, ‘You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them’” (Acts 11:2,3). It is the same group that caused the Acts 15 problem: “Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved’” (v.1). It is the same group of whom Paul tells Titus, “For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach …” (1:10,11). This is the same group that is causing the same problem in the churches of Galatia, necessitating this very letter itself. Paul says of them, “Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be anathema!” (1:7,8). He goes on to add, “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (5:12).
I think it all too clear what a blight these people were to the early church. Yet, once again, I see that the proclamation of Acts 15 was delivered to the “Gentile believers,” and not clearly established for Jew and Gentile alike. And then, again, in Acts 21:20, when Paul returned to Jerusalem, the Apostles and elders told him, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the Law.” Instead of confronting the problem, it looks like the apostles are just coddling them. Then we find even Peter caving in to their judgmental gaze. This is the Peter who three times saw the vision of the sheet, who defended himself against them, and who defended the Gentiles in the Jerusalem Council. Yet here we find him “fearing those out of circumcision.” Fearing the hate-brigade. When it would seem to me he should have confronted them. Instead Paul has to confront him. But then why didn’t Paul (and Peter) go ahead and confront the legalists? Why were they tolerated? Why didn’t the apostles make it crystal clear that Jew and Gentile alike were no longer bound by the Law? Obviously the Jewish people were free to continue with their traditions, which would be totally understandable as their entire culture was built on those traditions. But it seems to me the apostles in Jerusalem should have been just as clear to the Jews as Paul was to the Gentiles about the relationship of all NT believers to the Law.
It seems to me that the perpetual presence and influence of the Legalists was at least in part owing to the apostles’ very reticence to openly and clearly state the case. These men “came from James.” Why had James even allowed them to persist in such thoughts? What they told the Gentiles should not have been said even in the church at Jerusalem. And may I add, Jesus certainly had no problem meeting these guys head on; “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in … you outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness … Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?” (Matthew 23:13-33).
I don’t know. I strongly suspect I am missing something here. I still suspect it is me, not the apostles who are wrong. Hmmmmmmmm. Well, I think I’ve stated my case clearly. Now I will go on studying and hope to find something that clearly corrects me.
Once again, for whatever it’s worth, I don’t think these are idle curiosities. I think I see the same dynamic still going on today. People come up with their “rules” and then despise everyone who doesn’t conform. Probably a glaring example is the King James Only bunch. But it goes on to some militant homeschoolers and peoples’ music preferences, dress “standards,” and a whole multitude of personal choices about which the Bible says nothing. It becomes convenient when an entire church group gathers around such “rules.” Then they can all agree with each other, preach it from the pulpit, and all go on smugly, comfortably (and arrogantly) in their bald-faced legalism. Then they too can travel over land and sea to make one disciple, and when they’ve done it, make him two times more the son of hell than they are. To me, their presence in the church is what gives all of us that ugly, critical, unkind, judgmental stereotype. It’s still the Pharisees vs. Jesus. Still. I don't want to live in the Pharisees' camp. I want to be like Jesus. He was clearly NOT one of them. They shut up the kingdom of Heaven, while He threw the doors wide open.
I don’t know. Again, I want to be open to the Lord’s correction. All that matters in the end is that we “take every thought captive unto the obedience of Christ,” that we “be not conformed to this world but rather be transformed by the renewing of our minds.”
No comments:
Post a Comment