 |
 What Was Nailed to The Cross?
Lesson 31
When you were dead in
your sins and the uncircumcision of your sinful
nature, God made you alive with Christ. He
forgave us all our sins, having canceled the
written code, with its regulations, that was
against us and that stood opposed to us; he took
it away, nailing it to the cross.
- Colossians
2:13,14
Since His death and
resurrection, believers in Jesus have discussed
the question, “What was nailed to the
cross?” The simplicity of the question
belies the enormity of this subject. This
question ultimately concerns each follower of
Jesus because the answer reflects our
understanding of God’s actions and
ultimately, His will. Even though there is a
relatively simple answer to the question, the
process of getting to the answer requires a
working knowledge of the Bible and a great deal
of commitment to the leading of the Holy Spirit.
For years the disciples
of Jesus struggled with the question of what was
changed at the cross. Their interest was not
merely academic for the answer can have profound
social and behavioral consequences. (See Acts 15,
Galatians 2 and 2 Corinthians 11.) Although there
are hints in the Old Testament that help us
understand what was nailed to the cross, Jesus
spoke through the Apostle Paul (2 Corinthians 12)
to make sure His followers had information
sufficient to reach the right answer.
Social Ramifications
At times in Earth’s
history, following Jesus has taken a lot of
courage. For the sake of illustration, the
following is a fictitious scenario that generally
conforms to the beliefs of most Christians today.
Even though this scenario does not represent my
views, it has merit because it demonstrates
certain things that could have happened if all of
the laws and statutes given in the Old Testament
were made void on the Friday afternoon that Jesus
died. Such a dramatic change would have put
Jewish converts to Christianity in such a
difficult situation because fourteen hundred
years of culture and religious practice would
have suddenly become worthless. A paradigm shift
of this magnitude would be extremely hard, if not
possible for converts to accept. With these
thoughts in mind, consider the following
scenario: Benjamin was a devout Jew from the
tribe of Judah. He was a curious middle-aged man
(like Nicodemus) who frequently listened to
Jesus. As time passed, Benjamin became favorable
to the idea that Jesus could be the predicted
Messiah, but he was not sure. Benjamin was an
eyewitness to the death and ascension of Jesus.
Benjamin saw the fiery manifestations of the Holy
Spirit at Pentecost! Finally, after Benjamin
witnessed the stoning of Stephen, he decided that
Jesus had to be the promised Messiah. He told his
family and friends that he was converting to
Christianity on the basis of what the prophets
had foretold, as well as the things that he had
seen with his own eyes. Assuming that Benjamin
immediately began to interpret the will of God as
Christians do today, consider some of the
religious and social ramifications that Benjamin
faced.
As a “born
again” Christian, Benjamin was suddenly free
of the old covenant, so Benjamin stopped taking
animal sacrifices to the temple. He stopped
supporting the priests and the temple tithes and
offerings. Benjamin refused to have his newborn
son circumcised because his son could be an heir
of Abraham without circumcision. Benjamin told
his relatives and friends that the office of high
priest in Jerusalem was worthless because
man’s High Priest had ascended to Heaven.
Benjamin told his family that pork and shrimp,
among other things, were no longer unclean.
Benjamin started working on the seventh day
Sabbath. He began attending worship services with
Gentiles on Sunday. Benjamin refused to observe
the feast days or attend Jewish assemblies. In
short, when Benjamin became a Christian, he was
set free of the culture and religion he had known
all his life and most everyone knew him refused
to even speak to him. There is a feature within
all religions that says, “If you are not one
of us, you are against us.” (Mark 9:40)
Given the polemical nature of religion, is it
little wonder that Jewish relatives persecuted
early Christians. It is likely that
Benjamin’s business was either boycotted or
burned because he became a traitor, a
“Gentile lover.” Eventually, there was
no safe place in Jerusalem for Benjamin. He fled
to Damascus because the Pharisee, Saul, had heard
of his defection from Judaism.
How does a man endure the
hatred of everyone he has ever known? How does a
Jew suddenly lose his denigrating bias toward
Gentiles and consider them to be equals in the
Lord? These matters are not exaggerated. If
anything, they are understated. There is no
greater conflict that that of religious
differences. We live in an age when it takes an
average of 18 years to put a man to death for
first-degree murder, but in Benjamin’s day,
a person could be stoned the same day he spoke
out against the high priest. All of the issues
presented in this scenario are discussed in the
New Testament because becoming a Christian during
the first century A.D. was not an easy decision,
especially if the individual was born a Jew.
Not Representative
This scenario about
Benjamin does not represent how Christians began
to act the week after Jesus rose from the dead. A
person cannot change his or her religion or
religious practices in a week. On the other hand,
Benjamin’s scenario demonstrates what many
Christians think were nailed to the cross.
However,, the New Testament reveals an
interesting fact. It took many years and many
intense discussions before the disciples of Jesus
figured out what was nailed to the cross. Why did
(and why does) God permit so much ambiguity on
this question? First, if Jesus had declared the
facts from the cross as He did from Mt.Sinai few,
if any, Jews would have been able to accept the
truth. Jesus often spoke in parables so that the
people would consider and think about His words
rather than be offended by His words. (Matthew
13:11-13) Second, the answer to, “What was
nailed to the cross” requires more than a
theological answer. At Mt. Sinai, God’s will
was plainly stated. (Deuteronomy 30:12-15) The
history of the Jews confirms that no man can
measure up to the will of God. A close look at
Jewish history from the Bible reveals an
interesting fact. The Jews were in total
rebellion to the “plainly stated will of
God” or they made the “plainly stated
will of God” a legalistic burden, which no
one man can fulfill. The failure of the Jews
explains why God has left the answer of what was
nailed to the cross up to the individual. You can
answer the question in whatever way you wish. Of
course, your answer may have nothing to do with
the truth. God knows that if you do not want to
know the truth, there is no point in revealing
the truth to you. However, if the Holy Spirit is
leading you, and you are an honest seeker for
truth; if you are a born-again follower of Jesus
Christ, you have a hunger and a thirst for the
whole truth. On this basis, according to
God’s grace, you are going to discover the
truth that God has hidden and joyfully apply it
in your life. Jesus has promised this! Jesus told
His disciples, “But when he, the Spirit of
Truth, comes, he will guide you into all
truth.” (Matthew 13:11) “The knowledge
of the secrets of the kingdom has been given to
you but not to them.” (John 16:13)
The Womb of Judaism
Jesus was a Jew and so
were His disciples, so there is no denying that
Christianity began in the womb of Judaism. Peer
pressure and social conformity have enormous
staying power over people. This is why less than
5% of Earth’s population converts from their
original religious system to another. Therefore,
a sudden revelation of all that was nailed to the
cross would have been too much at any one time
for any Jew to thoughtfully consider. Early
Jewish converts to Christianity struggled with
the question of what was nailed to the cross for
years because of social consequences were
enormous in the family and the community. (Acts
15) Evan after making the transition to
Christianity, converts could not make a clean
break from their past, culture, traditions or
beliefs. Jewish converts carried a lot of Jewish
baggage with them into the early Christian faith.
Often, the Apostle Paul modified his social
conduct to conform to each situation in which he
found himself. For example, when he was in
Corinth, he lived like a Corinthian. He behaved
like a Jew when he was in Jerusalem. (1
Corinthians 9:20-23) Because of its Jewish origin
it seemed that Christianity might remain a sect
within Judaism, but God had other plans. The
Romans surrounded Jerusalem and Titus destroyed
it in A.D.70. This event forced Christians to
scatter toward the four corners of the Earth and
pushed Christianity out of the womb of Judaism.
The Empire Was Prepared
Thirty-five years before
Jerusalem was destroyed, Jesus chose a man whose
heart was right and his head was wrong, to become
His spokesperson to the Gentiles. After Saul was
converted on the road to Damascus, he became an
unstoppable ambassador for Jesus. The Apostle
Paul prepared the Roman Empire for the dispersion
of Christians. Paul traveled extensively
throughout the Roman Empire carrying the gospel
of Jesus Christ. Paul established many early
churches and on the basis of several revelations
from Jesus, Paul laid a theological foundation
that explains how God viewed believers in Christ
as the heirs of Abraham. As Gentile men and women
joined the Christian faith they naturally brought
Gentile baggage into the Christian faith with
them just as their Jewish counterparts had done
in Jerusalem. (This baggage is often the primary
reason Paul’s epistles.) In all cases and in
each locale, the end result was a hybrid
religion-not entirely Christian, Jewish, Grecian,
Egyptian or Roman. This religious baggage
explains why early Christianity fractured on a
many theological issues. Jewish converts were
concerned with many of Jewish issues that convert
to Christianity in Rome and Alexandria did not
have. History confirms that early Christians did
not have an absolute answer to the question,
“What was nailed to the cross?”
Instead, their answers were the result of
processing selected epistles of the apostles, Old
Testament study, and social ramifications. Church
history demonstrates that specific answers were
constructed to suit the needs of Christians in
their respective parts of the world. Remember,
the New Testament was not compiled until the
middle of the fourth century so early Christians
had to use the Old Testament to verify
Paul’s claims. (Acts 17:11) Strange as it
may sound, variances on the question of what
changed at the cross ultimately caused Christians
in one region of the world to become opposed,
even hostile toward believers on other parts of
the world. Church history confirms that the
Christian community has not been in one accord
since the Pentecost that followed the ascension
of Christ. (Acts 1:14; 2:1)
A Need for Sameness
By the
end of the second century A.D., the Christian
Church was growing strong in the North, South and
East. The northern version of Christianity
was centered in Alexandria, Egypt and the eastern
version was centered in the churches of Asia
Minor. Each respective area had its on
version (or perversion, if you will of
Christianity. If we mix the ancient modes
of transportation, the vast distances and the
lack of communication between Christians along
with the religious baggage carried into regional
churches, it is easy to see why major
theological; differences developed within the
Christian movement. About A.D. 312,
Constantine became the sole emperor of Rome.
The unity of the empire was waning because ethnic
populations had changed the political
demographics of the world, but Christianity
seemed impervious to ethnicity. Although
independent of each other, Christian groups were
gaining in presence and popularity throughout the
empire. Constantine was a brilliant
strategist and he saw an opportunity to
strengthen and reunify the Roman
Empire through a political arrangement with
Christians, He saw that Christianity needed a
centralized authority or it would fracture and
suffer the consequences of the empire. Therefore,
he converted to Christianity and adopted religion
as a formal vehicle through which his empire
could be unified and his authority consolidated.
Of course, Christians in Rome were very pleased
with Constantine ‘s interest. They had
been persecuted and treated badly for a long
time. Now, Christians began to enjoy the
sunshine of the emperor’s favor. Well-educated
and skillful Christian leaders in Rome became
intimate advisors to Constantine and they
“adjusted” Christian doctrine ad hoc
basis to meet the needs of the Romans and most of
all, the ambitious goals of Constantine.
Unequal
in the Lord
About a
hundred and fifty years before Constantine became
emperor, Christians in the South and East began
to complain that the bishop at Rome should stop
trying to impose his views on other Christians.
The bishop of Rome gained higher authority than
other bishops for three reasons: First, the
Church of Rome developed into the largest church
system. Therefore, the bishop directed the
largest body of Christians. Second, the city of
Rome was the world’s center for advanced
education at that time. Many of the converts in
Rome were well educated and they had wealth and
influence. Third, as the office of bishop rose to
administrative importance in Rome’s version
of Christianity, Christians in Rome accepted the
necessity of a hierarchy that was similar to the
hierarchy of Roman government. These factors
helped propel the bishop of Rome into the
position of “chief spokesman” for the
Christians before Constantine came to power.
Because the Romans did not bestow power and
authority on religious leaders, the bishop at
Rome could not enforce his declarations nor
control the universal Christian church. But the
Romans did bestow divine power and divine
authority upon Caesar. The Church of Rome
obviously understood the importance that Caesar
could play in their cause and they carefully
sought to win the favor of the emperors through
flattery. Their motto was, “Convert the
king, and the kingdom will follow.” When
Constantine arrived on the scene in A.D.312, the
extensive presence of Christianity throughout the
empire and its hierarchal structure were
political grapes, “ripe for the
picking.” The union between Constantine and
the church at Rome looked like “a marriage
made in Heaven.” The church at Rome needed
his unimpeachable authority and Constantine
needed the unifying force of religion. This
marriage produced one offspring, known as the
Holy Roman Empire.
First
Sunday after the First Full Moon after the Spring
Equinox
The
observance of Easter is first noted in church
history about the middle of the second century
A.D. Prior to this time, it is probable that
Jewish converts observed the anniversary of
Christ’s death and resurrection at the time
of the Passover (Nissan 14/15). As Christianity
diversified and more religious baggage was
introduced into Christianity, the observance of
Christ’s death and resurrection became
associated with pagan fertility rites (Easter
eggs and bunny rabbits). Because Jewish converts
insisted on observing the death and resurrection
of Jesus at the time of the Passover, a serious
dispute arose. Christians, principally those in
Rome (Pope Pius I, A.D. 142-154), insisted on a
perpetual Sunday observance for Easter, the day
that Jesus rose from the tomb. The pope insisted
that it was more appropriate to celebrate the day
of Christ’s resurrection instead of the day
of His death. But, a Sunday celebration did not
solve the whole problem. Which Sunday should be
celebrated for Easter? Depending upon the phases
of the moon, Passover can vary about 29 days.
Should Christians observe the Sunday following
the Jewish Passover each year in order to stay
close to the date of Christ’s resurrection
or should they fix an absolute date for Easter?
The
bishop at Rome decided that Easter would be
celebrated on the first Sunday that followed the
first full moon following the Spring Equinox. His
declaration caused a significant schism in the
church because Jewish converts in the East and
South wanted to keep the day of the resurrection
tied to the date of the Passover. Because the day
of Passover wanders through the weekly cycle,
Christ’s resurrection could be celebrated on
a Tuesday or Friday. The pope’s method of
determining Easter would eliminate any dependency
upon the Jewish calendar. At church counsels,
Pope Pius I threatened those churches who stood
in opposition with excommunication id they failed
to accept his decision. This show of force
splintered the early Christian community for many
years. When Constantine became emperor, the
controversy over the time for Easter was still
ongoing because no one had enough authority over
all of the Christian churches to silence
opposition. Given this background information,
consider the provocative words of Constantine in
June, A.D. 325 when he defended and defined
Christian doctrine. Especially notice his
reasoning:
When the
question relative to the {timing of the} sacred
festival of Easter arose, it was universally
thought that it would be convenient that all
should keep the feast on one day; for what could
be more beautiful and more desirable, than to see
this festival, through which we receive the hope
of immortality, celebrated by all with one
accord, and in the same manner? It was declared
to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest
of all festivals, to follow the {dating} custom
of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the
most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were
blinded. In rejecting their custom {of
determining the date for Passover}, we may
transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode
of celebrating Easter, which we have observed
from the time of the Savior’s Passion to the
present day. We ought not, therefore, to have
anything in common with the Jews, for the Savior
has shown us another way; our worship follows a
more legitimate and more convenient course; and
consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode,
we desire, dearest brethren, to separate
ourselves from the detestable company of the
Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear
them boast that without their direction we could
not keep this feast {at the proper time}. How can
they be right, they who, after the death of the
Savior, have no longer been led by reason but by
wild violence, as their delusions may urge them?
They do not possess the truth in this Easter
question; for in their blindness and repugnance
to all improvement, they frequently celebrate two
Passovers in the same year.
We could
not imitate those who are openly in error. How,
then, could we follow these Jews, who are most
certainly blinded by error? For to celebrate the
Passover twice in one year is totally
inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it
would still be the duty not to tarnish your soul
by communications with such wicked people.
Besides, consider well, that in such an important
matter, and on a subject of such great solemnity,
there ought not to be any division. Our savior
has left us only one festal day of our
redemption, that is to say, of his holy passion,
and he desired {to establish} only one Catholic
{universal} Church. Think, then how unseemly it
is, that on the same day some should be fasting
whilst others are seated at a banquet; and that
after Easter, some should be rejoicing at feasts,
whilst others are still observing a strict fast.
For this reason, Divine Providence wills that
this custom should be rectified and regulated in
a uniform way; and everyone, I hope, will agree
upon this point. As, on the other hand, it is our
duty not to have any thing in common with the
murderers of our Lord; and as, on the other, the
custom now followed by the Churches of the West,
of the South, and of the North, and some of the
East, it is most acceptable, it has appeared good
to all; and I have been guaranteed for your
consent, that you would accept it with joy, as it
is followed by Rome…Make known to your
brethren what has been decreed, keep this most
holy Easter day at the same time, if it is
granted me, as I desire, to unify myself with
you; we can rejoice together; seeing that the
divine power has made use of our instrumentality
for destroying the evil designs of the devil.
(Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib iii., 18-20,
insertions in brackets are mine.)
The
quotation confirms three things. First, the
importance of Easter observance and the dating of
Easter are contrived issues. The Bible does not
mandate an Easter observance and Constantine does
not appeal to Scripture for authority. Second,
any association with the “repugnant”
Jews for dating Easter was unconscionable to
Constantine. He plainly says so. Last Constantine
decreed that Easter be celebrated on the same
Sunday for all Christians and he claims this is
the will of”Divine Providence.” This
last comment, no doubt, was designed to silence
the argument. The formula for dating Easter
advanced by Pope Pius I proved to be successful
for four reasons. First, it eliminated any
dependency on “those repugnant Jews”
for the timing of Easter. Second, it kept Easter
Sunday as close as possible to the season when
Jesus died and rose from the tomb (near the time
of a full moon.) Third, the celebration of Easter
on Sunday supported the growing importance of
Sunday sacredness among Roman Christians and
last, Constantine liked the idea and simply
resolved a theological problem by edict. In doing
so, he affirmed the desires of the bishop of
Rome. The bishop was happy and Constantine was
happy. Problem solved.
Hopefully,
after reading the past few pages, you can
understand how some Christian doctrines and
practice came to be. This background has been
presented to demonstrate three things. First,
anti-Semitism was a powerful influence in matters
of theology and practice in early church history.
A significant number of Christian traditions
(like the oberservance of Easter) are responses
born out of anti-Semitism instead of Scripture.
Second, the answer to “What was nailed to
the Cross?” is not as plainly stated in the
Bible as the Ten Commandments, but every seeker
for truth has enough information in the Bible to
correctly answer the question. Last, the bishop
of Rome came to a place where he presumed to have
the authority to dictate the will of God for all
other Christians. In essence, the church at Rome
answered the question by concluding that
everything Jewish was nailed to the cross.
There is
a twist of irony in this story. The position of
the Catholic Church on the question of what was
nailed to the cross directly affects most
Protestants. Whereas Catholics claim that the
pope and church leaders have the authority to
determine all matters regarding religious
practice, Protestants claim the Bible is their
only authority in matters of religious practice.
Because Protestantism has a lot of Catholic
baggage mixed into its theology. Ironically,
those Protestants who defend the decisions of the
church at Rome are left holding the bag. A Bible
student cannot use Bible texts to justify a
number of decisions that originated on the basis
of anti-Semitism. We have seen in this chapter
that the church at Rome dissociated Easter from
the Passover of the Jews because the Romans had
nothing but contempt for the Jews. Later in this
study, it will be shown the same is also true for
the Tem Commandments. The Church at Rome declared
the seventh day Sabbath to be null and void
because it was the Sabbath of the Jews and in its
place Sunday was substituted.
Memory
Verse: “But when he, the Spirit of
truth comes, he will guide you into all truth
(Matthew 13:11)
Quiz:
- From
this lesson, what has been nailed to the
cross?
- Has
this lesson left you thinking about a
paradigm shift about the Roman Catholic
Church?
- Has
peer pressure and social conformity
caused you to re-think about religious
values in your own life?
- Is
the observance of Easter important to
your soul salvation?
- Are
the “Ten Commandments” as
important today as they were several
thousand years ago?
- Is
Sunday the true day of worship or has man
manipulated God’s laws of the true
Sabbath Day?
- Has
this lesson opened your mind to deeper
thoughts about all religions?
Notes:
|
