This week's scripture was Acts 16:23-34, which is the bit about Paul and Silas in jail and there's an earthquake but they don't run away and then they tell the jailer not to kill himself and then he becomes Christian and gets his whole family saved with him whether they become Christian themselves or not because woo.
Ok, that last bit was uncalled for. It's fairly standard for biblical texts to present decisions by patriarchal males as group decisions. And it does say the rest of the household rejoiced with him, so I guess it wasn't too onerous to change religions overnight.
But anyway, that's what was chosen to read in church. What comes immediately after? Is it horrible, like the two I cited last week? Well, not really, but there's a reason this passage isn't cited as much: it's Paul playing politics.
First, the verses, NASB, courtesy of www.biblegateway.com:
35 Now when day came, the chief magistrates sent their policemen, saying, “Release those men.” 36 And the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying, “The chief magistrates have sent to release you. Therefore come out now and go in peace.” 37 But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us in public without trial, men who are Romans, and have thrown us into prison; and now are they sending us away secretly? No indeed! But let them come themselves and bring us out.” 38 The policemen reported these words to the chief magistrates. They were afraid when they heard that they were Romans, 39 and they came and appealed to them, and when they had brought them out, they kept begging them to leave the city. 40 They went out of the prison and entered the house of Lydia, and when they saw the brethren, they [a]encouraged them and departed.I admit, I chuckled a bit when I read this passage, which more than nearly any other actually speaks to current events. I don't believe I've discussed our national problems with lax oversight of law enforcement since this post in 2012, although certainly that topic has come roaring back with a vengeance since Ferguson. It's an issue dear to my heart. And here's Paul in the year 3 or whatever giving authorities a hard time because they treated him badly and then tried to sweep it under the rug and now he's threatening to make a stink.
In a sense, it's petty; Paul was many things, but an activist for ancient near east judiciary reform is not one of them. He's not trying to enact overall policy changes, he's just putting the heat on the officials for how they treated himself and Silas in particular. And while that's understandable - they did have him beaten, after all - it's not particularly Christ-like, which is probably why this wasn't part of the scripture reading.
I wonder too how this plays out with the other Christians in Thyatira - the jailer's family and the brethren at Lydia's house. By rubbing the magistrates' nose in their miscalculation, is Paul leaving a warning that the Christians he leaves behind are under his protection, or is he planting a grudge that the authorities will take out on his compatriots once he and Silas are safely out of town? I haven't a clue, but I certainly hope it was something Paul thought about before he decided to kick up a fuss.
I guess I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which Paul's decision to stand on his dignity here advances the cause of the church. If it cows the magistrates, that's something, although that could backfire and in any case seems not really the M.O. of the early Christians, who were more likely to glorify in their outsider status than bludgeon foes with secular authority. Other than that, I'm not sure what the church gains from this little exchange, or why the author saw fit to include this little episode in Acts.
All the same, I have to tip my hat to a guy who knows his rights and is willing to make some noise to make sure they are respected. Heavens know we need people like him now, when so few of our political rights are being honored.
That's all for now. We'll see what comes after the scripture next week!
No comments:
Post a Comment