Acts 22:22–29 (ESV)✞: Paul and the Roman Tribune
It’s worth recapping some of the previous passages that were looked at a few months before this post was written:
- In 21:27–36 Paul was in Jerusalem and got arrested by the Jewish leaders. The arrest was for: 1) teaching against the practices of Judaism (which is sort of true from their perspective, though not some of the specifics they think he’s teaching against); and 2) bringing gentiles into the Temple (which is an incorrect assumption that was made).
- Then, in 21:37–22:21, as Paul was being dragged off to the barracks (because the Roman centurion had a riot on his hands and wanted Paul out of sight quickly), he was allowed to give a speech to the mob. The people seemed to receive the speech very well – until Paul mentioned that God had sent him to preach to the Gentiles, at which point the crowd called for his execution.
Passage
This passage begins where that previous passage ended:
22 Up to this word they listened to him. Then they raised their voices and said, “Away with such a fellow from the earth! For he should not be allowed to live.” 23 And as they were shouting and throwing off their cloaks and flinging dust into the air, 24 the tribune ordered him to be brought into the barracks, saying that he should be examined by flogging, to find out why they were shouting against him like this.
As a side note, I didn’t come up with a very good definition of what a “tribune” was, but he was a Roman official in charge of… something.
In this case the word “examine” seems to be a euphemism for torture because they’re going to flog (i.e. whip) him. However, Paul knows his rights, based on the rules of the day:
25 But when they had stretched him out for the whips, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?” 26 When the centurion heard this, he went to the tribune and said to him, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman citizen.” 27 So the tribune came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?” And he said, “Yes.” 28 The tribune answered, “I bought this citizenship for a large sum.” Paul said, “But I am a citizen by birth.” 29 So those who were about to examine him withdrew from him immediately, and the tribune also was afraid, for he realized that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had bound him.
I’m guessing the rules about Roman citizens might be different for those who were born Roman vs. those who became Roman. Perhaps someone who bought his citizenship (like the tribune) could lose it if they committed a crime, whereas someone who was born Roman couldn’t.
Regardless, the passage ends here. We’ll see in the next passage that the tribune will have the Jewish Council brought so they can explain what’s going on; it’s less of a trial than a fact-finding mission, I’m assuming so the tribune can figure out what (if anything) to charge Paul with.
Thoughts
The main reason I’m going through this short passage on its own rather than combining it with the next one is that there’s an aspect of Christianity that gets… a little messy, based on this passage. A question Christians have to wrestle with is whether we should suffer for the Gospel. And the answer, based on Scripture, is a resounding yes – except when it’s a no.
There are a lot of passages indicating we’ll suffer for our faith, many of them from Jesus Himself. The idea that Christians will suffer for what we believe is brought up quite often. And, frankly, it’s going to tend to be unjust suffering because there aren’t exactly laws against being righteous! For example, Paul writes in Galatians:
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
Galatians 5:16–26 (ESV)✞, emphasis added
If we’re properly living out the Christian life there isn’t really anything we can be prosecuted for. As Paul says, there aren’t laws against being good or peaceful or self controlled. So when we’re persecuted we have to expect that those prosecutions will be unjust.
But in this passage in Acts, Paul—who wrote the very words we just read from Galatians!—stops himself from suffering for Christ because it would be unjust. Or rather, to get very pedantic, because it would be against the rules.
So how do we know when to suffer and when to avoid suffering? Some thoughts…
Suffering for His sake
Maybe it needs to be said or maybe it doesn’t, but Jesus (and any of the other New Testament authors who get into this topic) are talking about suffering for Jesus’ sake. The message is not about being persecuted in general, it’s about being persecuted for being a faithful Christian. The Gospel is Good News, but it is Good News that the human heart, by nature, does not want to hear, so there will be times when good, faithful, loving Christian living will offend people and, whether it’s technically against the law or not, we’ll be persecuted for it. That’s what Jesus is talking about.
If a Christian cheats on their taxes, or commits adultery, or steals, or commits some other crime and suffers the penalty of the law for those actions it’s actually a good thing. It’s the law doing what the law is supposed to do. If I steal and get arrested and thrown in prison it would be silly of me to cry out to God, “Why are You letting me suffer?” I’m not sure that “suffer” is even the right word, I’d just be experiencing the consequence of my own actions. (I’ll come back to this in a bit…)
Suffering for His sake: Unjust laws
Is there a grey area? Well… sort of. Christians love going straight to the example of unjust laws and pointing out that disobeying such laws would be the right thing to do. Which is technically correct if a law really is unjust, but I think we’re too quick to jump on laws we don’t like and call them “unjust” when really it’s a political difference of opinion as opposed to a spiritual battle.
For example: should you pay your taxes? Yes. Yes you should. You should pay your taxes. It’s against the law not to pay them (or to cheat on them to pay less than you’re supposed to pay), and it’s also immoral to do so. It’s un-Christian to do so. Jesus told you to pay your taxes. Do I really need to spell out the example we’re all thinking of? Fine, take a look at Luke 20:19–26 (ESV)✞.
Some Christians (especially in America) might justify not paying their taxes by pointing out that they don’t agree with some of the things the government does with the money. They might say Jesus’ words don’t apply in their case because of it. But that’s silly, foolish thinking. Do they really think the Romans were only doing good and right things with the taxes they collected from Jesus? Do they think the Roman government was more “legitimate” than their current government? Refusing to pay our taxes is not refusing to obey an “unjust” law, it’s directly disobeying Jesus, who did the same thing He’s commanding us to do for a government that was worse than most in existence today.
If you’re right-leaning in your politics and feel that there should be less taxes, and do whatever is [lawfully] in your ability to advocate for that, that’s good and right! Go ahead and do it. Similarly, if you’re left-leaning and feel the government should collect more taxes to provide more or better services, go ahead and advocate for that! Vote for whoever you feel best represents your feelings on the subject, and hope that they’ll enact the type of change you’re looking for.
In the meantime you’re required by law (and by Jesus) to pay whatever taxes are required from you in the moment.
Suffering for His sake: The “health and wealth ‘gospel’” strikes again…
I mentioned above that experiencing the consequences of one’s own actions—for example: I steal something and then get punished for stealing—isn’t suffering for the Gospel. There may be people who think it is related, however, if they’re wrapped up in the “health and wealth” or “prosperity” gospel1. If you feel you’re not supposed to suffer at all, ever, for anything, then any kind of suffering feels like a blow against that.
So I take one more opportunity—after the many times I’ve already stated this—to say that the Bible doesn’t promise we won’t suffer – it promises that we will! Anyone saying differently is promoting something other than the Gospel.
Truly unjust laws
I’ve pointed out that we sometimes jump on laws we don’t like and misclassify them as “unjust,” but sometimes there are laws that are truly unjust. Governments are made up of people and people are sinful so there are times when governments create actual laws that do go against God’s way of doing things. How do we deal with those laws?
I hate to use this example—I’ll say why in a second—but Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (shortened from this point on to MLK) provides an example that Christians can follow. After slavery was abolished in America it was replaced by “Jim Crow” laws, the net effect of which was that formerly enslaved Black people in America weren’t that much better off than they had been; they weren’t enslaved anymore, which was good, but they were prevented from buying real estate in particular areas, prevented from having certain kinds of jobs, prevented from going into certain establishments, etc. It was impossible for them to start to build any kind of economic freedom for generations and generations, right up to the present day, and it was unjust.
MLK’s approach was something called civil disobedience. “I’m not allowed to eat in this diner? I’ll eat there anyway – and then I’ll suffer the consequences.” And that’s what he’d do: he (and others following his example) would purposely break laws that were unjust and then they would take the punishment that was legally owed. He’d eat at a whites-only diner (for example), and then he’d go to jail for it because that was the punishment for that law. The law was unjust but it was also a law, and for breaking that law there was a punishment – which MLK (and others) took. A number of Christian pastors at the time didn’t like what MLK was doing—they felt that breaking any law in any context was unjust—but in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail King gave a reasoned, Christ-centric explanation of why he was doing what he was doing. (It’s a letter worth reading by any Christian, whether struggling with this topic or not.)
I think the idea of “civil disobedience” is a good template for the Christian to follow if we find a law that is truly unjust: do everything we reasonably can to get the law changed, and then, finally, disobey it as a last resort, but also take the consequences for disobeying it as prescribed by [the unjust] law. Read MLK’s letter in its entirety and see the lengths to which he and others thought through their approach to the injustice they were seeing and the steps they tried to take before they got to the point of disobeying laws. Let yourself get bogged down in the long explanation he gives as to the timing of the protests, given the realities of the political landscape of the moment. This wasn’t a movement rushing to Birmingham eager to break laws, it was a movement that had tried everything else and gotten nowhere.
Why I don’t like using the example of MLK
So if I’m in favour of MLK’s approach—which I am!—then why do I hesitate to use him as an example? It’s because white Christians have misused MLK’s example ever since, just as white Christians of his day resisted his movement in the first place.
White Christians in North America love to spout the phrases “non-violent protest” or (to a lesser degree) “civil disobedience” when we really mean “don’t actually do anything because we’re not ready for change – and, frankly, don’t want to change, regardless of readiness.” Arguably, Black citizens of America are in a situation which is little improved over that of the 1960s. One could argue that MLK’s actions didn’t go nearly far enough – hence the fact that so many of the issues he eloquently argued against are still rampant in the 2020s. I’m not saying conditions aren’t improved, but they’re not nearly where they should be, and the Church in North America should be ashamed of herself because of it.
I myself am a white Christian, so unfortunately I come from a long history of people who have spouted arguments against MLK’s work under the guise of Christianity – and then in later years used MLK himself as an example in trying to maintain the status quo. “He said your protests should be ‘nonviolent,’ so he’s on my side when I tell you not to advocate for change too hard!”
So I advocate for his approach to the handling of unjust laws, but I’m also uncomfortable in mentioning him personally because of the many who’ve come before me hypocritically using his example to harmful effect. I actually think it’s true that his movement wasn’t able to accomplish as much as it should have; not because he chose the wrong methods but because the Church didn’t do its job in supporting him.
(The more I think about this the more twisted it becomes: white Christian leaders of the time condemned MLK for disobeying the law—even if some grudgingly might have admitted that things need to eventually change—but now, decades later, some Christians like to claim that they can disobey any laws they feel are unjust—even legitimate and right laws like paying taxes—and use MLK as an example!)
All that to say: if you see a law which is truly unjust follow MLK’s example in how to handle that law and have a clean conscience in trusting God to move as quickly or slowly, as is His will. But if you live in North America, especially America, especially if you’re white, don’t see his example of non-violent protest and civil disobedience as a sign that the problem of racial inequity is “fixed,” and definitely don’t try to twist his approach to use it against those who are working against currently unjust conditions. As white Christians we should be pushing for racial equality, not keeping a low profile and enjoying the status, power, and luxury we have.
Critical Race Theory
While I’m at it, white Christians need to stop railing against Critical Race Theory. The point of CRT is to teach history – that’s it. That’s what CRT is. Some of the history of America is unpleasant, and Critical Race Theory is called Critical Race Theory because the history of America has been one of benefiting white citizens at the expense of all of her other citizens.
If you don’t like some of the things your ancestors did—even very recent ones—then deal with it and try to do better going forward. Putting your fingers in your ears and refusing to hear anything you don’t want to hear is not how the Christian should respond to injustice.
Also… be prepared to deal with the fact that you might have some things to repent of, too. The preference would be to do it here, in this life, while you can still do some good for the people around you, rather than standing in front of God and having Him pull your fingers out of your ears for you. We’ve all got enough sins to repent of, we don’t need to wrap our arms around this one and cling to it.
Not suffering if we don’t have to
A lot of talk so far about trying to figure out what’s “just” vs. “unjust” so that we can figure out how to handle laws (or societal norms or other “rules,” whether formal or informal.) But even given all of that, although the Bible (especially the New Testament) tell us we’re going to suffer, that’s a fact, not an instruction. Jesus warns His disciples that they will be persecuted, he doesn’t tell them to go in search of persecution. We’re just supposed to follow Him, knowing that that will sometimes lead us into conflict with non-Christians, but everyone’s happy when it doesn’t!
And that brings me all the way back to the person and situation that this post is about: Paul. In this situation in Acts 22:22–29 Paul was a Roman citizen and the rule of the day was that Roman citizens weren’t jailed willy-nilly and they definitely weren’t flogged. We could argue about whether a multi-tiered system like that was right or just—it’s a valid topic of conversation!—but it doesn’t change the fact that Paul didn’t have to be flogged, it was his right not to be flogged, so he took advantage of that right and pointed out to the tribune that he was a Roman citizen. Why get whipped if you don’t have to?
Again, since I’m using his example, read MLK’s letter and see how much trouble they went to before they decided to suffer the consequences for breaking the unjust laws. If they’d been able to get the laws changed through dialogue he would have been much happier about it!
Why are you doing what you’re doing?
Finally, as with so many other things, a lot of this conversation boils down to intent and motives. Are you disobeying a law for selfish motivations or selfless ones?
- Do some Christians advocate not paying taxes because they believe the laws are unjust, or do they selfishly want to keep more of their money and use arguments about things being “unjust” in pursuit of their selfish gains?
- Did white preachers of MLK’s day argue against his protests because they were against the breaking of laws, or because they were white and didn’t want to give up their comfort and power?
- Do white conservatives of today use MLK as an example of non-violent protest because they follow Christ and want to see justice in this world, or do they do so because they’re white and they still don’t want to give up their comfort and power?
The reason there’s any confusion around when and how to suffer and when and how to avoid suffering is that we don’t always have a good grasp of our intentions. If I turn on Fox News and someone tells me that paying taxes is bad, there’s a part of my soul that really wants to hear that message (and tells me not to think about the morality too hard), because that way I don’t have to give up my money. The better we are at gauging our intentions, the better we’ll be at handling particular circumstances to do the right thing, whatever that thing might be.
There is nothing wrong with Paul telling the tribune that he’s a Roman citizen and therefore shouldn’t be flogged. It would have been wrong of Paul to abandon the Gospel to avoid getting flogged; there will be other cases in Acts where Paul will get flogged because he’s not going to do that.
If I can be like Christ and not suffer for it, that’s fantastic! If I have to suffer for being like Christ, then [hopefully] I’ll do so. And if I suffer justly for not being like Christ, then I should take my punishment and repent of my actions, and then go on trying to be like Him again.
Footnotes
- I know, I know, “Gospel” is supposed to be capitalized in Christian contexts, but when it comes to the “health and wealth ‘gospel’” or the “prosperity ‘gospel’” it isn’t really the Gospel at all, so… ↩
No comments:
Post a Comment