We are now up to Acts 21, where Paul gets into a riot at the Temple in Jerusalem and is rescued by Roman soldiers. And if anyone wants to write an action scene well, they could do worse than to study verses 27:39. Just a few short sentences, but even in translation they have lost none of their power to convey what was going on. You can almost hear the shouting of the crowd as Paul is being pummelled, kicked, pulled; see the tribune and his centurions marching, pushing their way through, swords ready, demanding to know what is going on. It's a particularly vivid piece of writing. Luke is a master storyteller and here he is at his finest.
What was Paul doing in the Temple in the first place, you might wonder? Everywhere this guy goes there is rioting! Of course the tribune doesn't know this and at first thinks that Paul is the Egyptian leader of a terrorist cell. Nope, but there is a fatwa (to use a later Islamic term) placed on his head by the Jews from what is modern-day Turkey. I'm sure glad Judaism has calmed down quite a bit since then. Anyway, when he first arrived in Jerusalem, James and the rest of the Council took him aside and said "We've been hearing that you've been speaking out against the Law and other Jewish customs and it's getting people quite upset. What we would like you to do is join some of our young men who are going through some purification rituals at the Temple so that people will know that what you are saying isn't true." Well, as the saying goes, they meant well. Paul shows up at the Temple, some of the Ephesian Jews spot him and raise a ruckus. Not only has this guy been dissing our religion, he's brought one of those dirty Gentiles into the Temple! Instant riot. And that's when the Romans step in and carry him away over the heads of the crowd.
Now, according to Pastor, this was all based on a misunderstanding, and possibly deliberate distortion of Paul's teachings. But I don't think so. Read his letter to the Galatians and then back to the passage in Acts 21. And while scholars may dispute whether Paul wrote some of the other letters attributed to him, they are in agreement that Galatians are Paul's own words. It is no wonder the mob at the Temple wanted to tear him apart! No, I think the crowd understood very well what Paul was saying.
But then Pastor changed direction and started talking about the recent scandals enveloping a Republican presidential candidate and an American university. Now, he never talks about current events, so I am going, what is happening here. He said that none of us knew the people involved, so that we cannot judge what is going on. Well, that is true, none of us don't, but it sounds like he is defending them--and why? I still cringe when I remember the letter of encouragement I wrote to a Catholic priest, the founder of a mission to street youth, who had been accused of pedophilia back in the 1980's. Unfortunately, not only did it turn out that the man was guilty of what he'd been charged with, since then the scandal has grown until I don't think there is a country it hasn't touched, even up to the gates of the Vatican itself, and shows no sign of resolution. So, while I cannot say for sure that the accusations against this candidate and the university are true, I cannot say they are false either. I've had enough experience with lecherous individuals (to use a wonderful old word that really ought to be revived) to know that they are good at putting on an act in front of others, and that they do not go after their targets indiscriminately but select them carefully. In other words, just because they don't make sexual advances to everyone does not mean that they do not make them at all. But, supposing the accusations are false? Then I would suggest in the case of the candidate, that he be especially careful around women and not let himself get in a situation where these claims could arise; if it means not being alone with a woman, then so be it. And the same goes with those accused at the university regarding young boys. "Avoid even the appearance of evil," Paul counsels in one of his letters, and I for one have always found it good advice. You may not always be able to prevent someone from starting false stories about you, but you do not have to fuel the fire.
But I am wondering why he even brought the matter up, when he has said not one word about the Michigan anti-bullying law, and that is not a matter of rumor and speculation. It is public record who inserted that clause dealing with moral and religious exemption. I see now that some of the Republicans are backpedaling from it, and that the version they intend to present to the House (it was the Senate bill that contained the controversial clause) does not have such an exemption. It does make me wonder why he is so concerned with the reputations of the candidate and the university when as far as I am aware, nobody even brought it up. And to compare them with St. Paul of all people!
Well, maybe it is all a misunderstanding.
What was Paul doing in the Temple in the first place, you might wonder? Everywhere this guy goes there is rioting! Of course the tribune doesn't know this and at first thinks that Paul is the Egyptian leader of a terrorist cell. Nope, but there is a fatwa (to use a later Islamic term) placed on his head by the Jews from what is modern-day Turkey. I'm sure glad Judaism has calmed down quite a bit since then. Anyway, when he first arrived in Jerusalem, James and the rest of the Council took him aside and said "We've been hearing that you've been speaking out against the Law and other Jewish customs and it's getting people quite upset. What we would like you to do is join some of our young men who are going through some purification rituals at the Temple so that people will know that what you are saying isn't true." Well, as the saying goes, they meant well. Paul shows up at the Temple, some of the Ephesian Jews spot him and raise a ruckus. Not only has this guy been dissing our religion, he's brought one of those dirty Gentiles into the Temple! Instant riot. And that's when the Romans step in and carry him away over the heads of the crowd.
Now, according to Pastor, this was all based on a misunderstanding, and possibly deliberate distortion of Paul's teachings. But I don't think so. Read his letter to the Galatians and then back to the passage in Acts 21. And while scholars may dispute whether Paul wrote some of the other letters attributed to him, they are in agreement that Galatians are Paul's own words. It is no wonder the mob at the Temple wanted to tear him apart! No, I think the crowd understood very well what Paul was saying.
But then Pastor changed direction and started talking about the recent scandals enveloping a Republican presidential candidate and an American university. Now, he never talks about current events, so I am going, what is happening here. He said that none of us knew the people involved, so that we cannot judge what is going on. Well, that is true, none of us don't, but it sounds like he is defending them--and why? I still cringe when I remember the letter of encouragement I wrote to a Catholic priest, the founder of a mission to street youth, who had been accused of pedophilia back in the 1980's. Unfortunately, not only did it turn out that the man was guilty of what he'd been charged with, since then the scandal has grown until I don't think there is a country it hasn't touched, even up to the gates of the Vatican itself, and shows no sign of resolution. So, while I cannot say for sure that the accusations against this candidate and the university are true, I cannot say they are false either. I've had enough experience with lecherous individuals (to use a wonderful old word that really ought to be revived) to know that they are good at putting on an act in front of others, and that they do not go after their targets indiscriminately but select them carefully. In other words, just because they don't make sexual advances to everyone does not mean that they do not make them at all. But, supposing the accusations are false? Then I would suggest in the case of the candidate, that he be especially careful around women and not let himself get in a situation where these claims could arise; if it means not being alone with a woman, then so be it. And the same goes with those accused at the university regarding young boys. "Avoid even the appearance of evil," Paul counsels in one of his letters, and I for one have always found it good advice. You may not always be able to prevent someone from starting false stories about you, but you do not have to fuel the fire.
But I am wondering why he even brought the matter up, when he has said not one word about the Michigan anti-bullying law, and that is not a matter of rumor and speculation. It is public record who inserted that clause dealing with moral and religious exemption. I see now that some of the Republicans are backpedaling from it, and that the version they intend to present to the House (it was the Senate bill that contained the controversial clause) does not have such an exemption. It does make me wonder why he is so concerned with the reputations of the candidate and the university when as far as I am aware, nobody even brought it up. And to compare them with St. Paul of all people!
Well, maybe it is all a misunderstanding.
