Skip to main content

Injustice: Acts 23

Paul has been detained by the Romans and is currently being tried by the Sanhedrin. That is where we are in Acts 23 (link). What’s a Sanhedrin? If you took and mixed Congress and the Supreme Court, a little bit, and then added a twist of state religion, you would have something like the Sanhedrin. They were the primary deliberative body through which the Jews self-governed. The Romans did not have to accept the Sanhedrin---or even allow it, but giving the people a sense of self-determination kept the revolts at bay. Some of the time.

Odd how people will settle for the illusion of freedom.

Back to Paul: he stands, unjustly accused, before a group of people who do not have the proper authority to try him. Why? Because he’s a Roman citizen and they cannot execute any form of sentence upon him. Further, he has accepted the Christian faith, placing himself under the authority of Jesus as Lord and Messiah. Add to that the reality that he has done nothing wrong.

Yet he stands before them to make his defense. He opens with a line that should challenge us: “I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day.” (Acts 23:1).

Oh, the sermon material this is: a good conscience but not one informed by man, rather one before God! A man who has done all that he can, in every way he can, to honor God by his doings and not doings throughout all of his days. How would that change our lives if we would need that statement? Is that a statement you can make? That your conscience is good before God?

Leaving that aside, Paul speaks that sentence and the High Priest, Ananias, orders him struck on the mouth. Probably intended as an immediate punishment for what Ananias thought was untruth, it was nonetheless an injustice: whatever the law may allow, striking a prisoner without considering guilt is wrong.

And Paul speaks out about it. He calls it like it is, that God will strike Ananias and alludes to the preaching of Ezekiel and of Jesus Himself when he calls Ananias a white-washed wall. Paul is then informed that Ananias is the High Priest and Paul shifts from confronting Ananias’ behavior to stirring up the whole Council.

What do we make of the situation here?

1. Religious leaders need to watch their behavior. Consider that Paul states he “was not aware that (Ananias) was high priest.” Really? Not aware? It is one thing for someone to be unaware that you are a great and mighty whatever-you-are religious leader because you do not mention it. It is another matter for one to find your behavior completely unbecoming of who you claim to be.

If you are going to claim the title, behave the title. Do not let someone be surprised to find out you were supposed to be God-honoring.

2. Sometimes, we do not respond like Jesus did. Compare the trial of Paul to the trial of Jesus and you see that Jesus said nothing, even when struck for not speaking. Paul, on the the other hand, opens his mouth and fires back. What should be normative for us?

Well, let’s consider this: Jesus came to live, preach, teach, heal, die for our sins and be resurrected. He knew the outcome of His trial because He willed the outcome. His death was necessary for our salvation. Paul? His death puts him into the presence of God but beyond that, it’s not necessary for anything. It stops his preaching and cancels his plans to go to Rome, Spain, and points beyond.

So Paul speaks up for himself. In doing so, he also speaks up for any others who are tried by the Sanhedrin. He speaks clearly that what they are doing is wrong. That is valuable for us: we need to take that same tack when we have the opportunity. Speak up and act out against injustice when we are aware of it. Admittedly, that’s often only when it comes calling at our door, but any starting point is better than never starting.

Why take Paul’s response and not Jesus’? Are we not to be like Christ and not like any man? Certainly, except for one detail:

Jesus already died for your sins. You are not dying to save anyone.

So use your voice and speak out.

Today’s Nerd Note: It is worth noting that Ananias is killed by the Jews who start the First Jewish Revolt against Rome in 66. He was, apparently, not exactly beloved by his own people and was actually pro-Rome.

Also of note is the ease in which Paul dodges this trial by stirring up the dissension between Pharisee and Sadducee. You could picture the same thing today: “I am on trial for being a Republican (or Democrat)” and you immediately divide the room. Enemies are not dealt with; problems are not solved; failures are not fixed. Why?

Because all we can think about are our own interests and those who wish to stir us up can do just that. Play to the dividing issue. We can keep this up as a nation or we can have a future. But within a decade of this event in Acts 23, the Jews were in open revolt and the Temple and much of the country was destroyed by the Roman Army in response. The deep factionalizing destroyed their nation.

What will it do to ours?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: The Heart Mender by @andyandrews (Andy Andrews)

The Heart Mender: A Story of Second ChancesEver read a book that you just kind of wish is true?  That's my take on The Heart Mender by Andy Andrews.  It's a charming story of love and forgiveness, and it's woven into the historical setting of World War II America.  For the narrative alone, the book is worth the read, but the message it contains is well worth absorbing as well.However, let's drop back a minute.  This book was originally published under the title Island of Saints.  I read Island of Saints and enjoyed it greatly.  Now, Andrews has released it under a new title, with a few minor changes.  All of this is explained in the Author's Note at the beginning, but should be noted for purchaser's sake.  If you read Island of Saints, you're rereading when you read The Heart Mender.  Now, go ahead and reread it.  It will not hurt you one bit.Overall, the story is well-paced.  There are points where I'd like more detail, both in the history and the geog…

Abraham Lincoln Quoted by Jesus! Mark 3

Mark records a curious event in his third chapter (link). If you look at Mark 3:25, you'll see that Jesus quotes the sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. After all, one of the highlights of the Lincoln years is his famous speech regarding slavery in the United States where he used the phrase that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." This speech was given in 1858 when he accepted the nomination to run against Stephen A. Douglas for Senate, but is still remembered as the defining speech regarding slaveholding in the United States. I recall being taught in school how brilliant and groundbreaking the speech was, how Lincoln had used such wise words to convey his thought. Yet the idea was not original to Lincoln. Rather, it was embedded in Lincoln from his time reading the Bible. Now, I have read varying reports about Lincoln's personal religious beliefs: some place him as a nearly completely committed Christian while others have him somewh…

Independence Day 2017

I don’t know if Thomas Paine will be aggrieved that I paste his thoughts from Common Sense here, from the electronic edition. It’s a Public Domain work at this point, so hopefully none will be bothered that I am not paying for it...I think there is value in seeing the underlying reasons of Independence. I find a couple of things noteworthy in his introduction:First, he speaks of those who disagree and, while calling those out, holds the strength of his affirmative argument will be enough to straighten them out. We could do well to think more like that.Second, his final sentence should be a required view: the influence of reason and principle. Not self-interest masquerading as principle. Not party propaganda disguised as reason.That being said, not everything Paine said is right. If he and I lived at the same time, we’d argue religion over a great deal. However, the idea of “natural rights of man” follows from the idea of humanity as a special creation—that all are created equal and en…