Monday, October 11, 2010

My second Post--Hey, I'm gettin' good at this!

As promised, or warned, whatever you prefer, I'm posting about my Bible Study. Now, don't think I'm posting this stuff because I think anyone needs my input on what the Bible says.  Just the opposite really, I'd love to hear if people think I'm right on or way off base.  If I say something that makes you think--or that makes you think I'm crazy--I'd love to know.  Keep in mind all my commentary is just that--mine--with no benefit of any more educated mind. So here goes...

I'm studying Acts.  Today I read 22:30-23:10.  Paul has been seized by the Romans to protect him from the Jews, and to prevent them from rioting.  The garrison commander has called for him to appear before the High Council, ostensibly to get to the bottom of their crazy situation.  Had he been dealing with reasonable men, that may have been possible.  Alas, he was not.

Paul appeared before the Council, and after having words with Ananias, claims he didn't know Ananias was the High Priest.  This confuses me a little because, given Paul's history, it seems like he would have known that.   But far be it from me to call Paul a liar, so obviously, I'll give him the benefit of my ignorance.

After this little altercation, Paul looked around him, and in what I consider a stroke of genius, appealed to his "brother" Pharisees concerning the resurrection of the dead.  Paul would have known, as a Jew, that mention of this would set the two factions of the Council ablaze. He would also have known, as a Roman, that the authorities would have little patience with such antics and end the hearing immediately.  I almost wonder if he had a bit of fun "stirring the pot," so to speak, though I credit Paul with far more maturity than I possess.  Probably he was as solemn as the occasion required. 

Paul would gladly have faced a fair trial, but he knew he would get no such thing in a room full of Jewish elders, and so took it upon himself to end the farce.  Or so it seems.

On Paul:  I think I would have hated the Jewish leaders for what they did, but I believe Paul did not. I think he was uniquely equipped to love them.  Having been one of them, he knew their thoughts.  He knew what a hard sell they would be because he could remember his own conversion.  It took nothing less than Jesus himself stopping him in his tracks and blinding him to open his own eyes to the truth. 

On the Sadducees:  They did not believe in the resurrection of the dead.  I fail to see the point in trying to follow all of the cumbersome and onerous laws and traditions of the Jews if there was to be no reward at the end of life.  Even as a Christian, knowing I am free from the bonds of sin, there are times that living Christ like would be hard if I didn't know that Heaven awaits me if I continue. 

If I may be a little irreverent and retell a joke by one of my college professors:  "The difference between the Pharissees and the Sadducees was that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, and that's why they were sad, you see."  The word "Sadducee" almost seems like proof that God has a sense of humor.  He had to know that joke was coming, and how appropriate it is; yet they managed to take that name for themselves any how. 

Yes, this really is how I think.

No comments:

Post a Comment