05-21-2021, 10:42 PM
WALK BY FAITH
SCRIPTURE READINGS: [Acts 22:30; 23:6-11; John 17:20-26]
Sometimes when we look back at the decisions we took in life, we wonder whether they were the best and right decisions, or whether our judgements were flawed. When we analyze the trial of Paul before the Sanhedrin, we wonder whether he had conducted his defence wisely, or whether he misjudged the situation. Did he manage to witness to Christ’s resurrection at the end? Obviously, he did not! He could not even arrive at this topic because the whole Council broke up in division and he was almost killed, if not for the fact that the tribune saved him from being torn apart by them. “Feeling was running high, and the tribune, afraid that they would tear Paul to pieces, ordered his troops to go down and haul him out and bring him into the fortress.” Was St Paul short-sighted in his defence, leading to a failed outcome? As St Paul wrote, “we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.” (Rom 8:28) Let us reflect on the way God works through human limitations.
Was Paul aware of the world view of his audience? The world view of the Jews was the expectation of the coming of a political Messiah that would set the people free. The Sanhedrin comprised of both the aristocratic priestly class belonging to the Sadducees who were not much respected by the people. The Priestly Class were in cahoots with the Romans so as to protect their status quo and their authority over the people, their power, and of course, the money gained from the exorbitant Temple Taxes. Doctrinally, they did not believe in the resurrection, angels or spirits. They only accepted the Five Books of the Torah. On the other side, there were the Pharisees, a minority in the Sanhedrin Council but highly respected by the people. They had no political power but were sincere Jews trying to live out the Law of Moses. Doctrinally, they believed not just in the Torah but the Prophets and the oral tradition of the rabbinic teaching as well.
Indeed, when we are addressing our audience, it is important to know their social, cultural, religious and political backgrounds. Failure to know their backgrounds may cause them to react before we have fully presented our case. This was perhaps the mistake of St Paul. When he brought up the topic of the resurrection, which was sensitive to both groups, he caused the Council to break up. “He called out in the Sanhedrin, ‘Brothers, I am a Pharisees and the son of Pharisees. It is for our hope in the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.’ As soon as he said this a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was split between the two parties.” So St Paul was never able to arrive at the crux of his message, which was the resurrection of Christ.
He felt that he had to get the Pharisees to support his view of the resurrection. If they could not even accept the idea of the resurrection, then it would be impossible to convince them of the resurrection of Christ. “For the Sadducees say there is neither resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, while the Pharisees accept all three. The shouting grew louder.” Nevertheless, he did sow the seeds of faith in the Pharisees that the resurrection of our Lord could be possible even if they still could not accept it, for some of the scribes from the Pharisees’ party stood up and protested strongly, “we find nothing wrong with this man. Suppose a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel?”
Or as Luke suggested, he purposely brought out this sensitive topic to divide the Council. “Now Paul was well aware that one section was made up of Sadducees and the other of Pharisees.” If he had used it as a ploy to win his case for our Lord’s resurrection, then apparently it did not succeed at all. At best, he might have opened the mind of the Pharisees.
Secondly, was the opening defence in his speech before the Council too insensitive, arrogant and antagonistic? The earlier part of the address is omitted in today’s text. Nevertheless, we read that “while Paul was looking intently at the Council he said, ‘Brothers, up to this day I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God.’ Then the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near him to strike him on the mouth.” (Acts 22:1f) What brought the High Priest Ananias to react so strongly? It was a perceived slight or disrespect for his office, because Paul was justifying that he was not in the wrong and that in spite of all that he did, he had a clear conscience before God.
But to add salt to the wound, St Paul reacted by cursing him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting there to judge me according to the law, and yet in violation of the law you order me to be struck?” Those standing nearby said, “Do you dare to insult God’s high priest?” And Paul said, “I did not realize, brothers, that he was the high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people.” (Acts 23:4f) Paul was quick to come to his senses and apologize because regardless of how wrong the leaders were, he had to be respectful as commanded by the Law. This was his saving grace and a true example of a great leader: one who makes a mistake but is quick to apologize even if he did not do it deliberately.
But human mistakes will not hinder the divine plan of God being fulfilled. We can delay the plan of God but we cannot prevent it from being fulfilled. This was the case of the Israelites when they were given the opportunity to enter the Promised Land after spending a while in the wilderness. After sending spies to recce Canaan, they came back to report that the land was flowing with milk and honey, but the people were strong. As a result, the Israelites became frightened and rebelled against Moses for occupying the land. Consequently, they had to spend 40 years in the desert to be formed and trained for entry into Canaan. (Num 14) So too, the Lord worked in mysterious ways in the apostolic mission of Paul. Next night, the Lord appeared to him and said, “‘Courage! You have borne witness for me in Jerusalem, now you must do the same in Rome.'” In the plan of God, the division caused by Paul’s preaching on the resurrection resulted in an attempt to take his life. But he was protected by the tribune and the centurions. This resulted in his appeal to go to Rome for judgment, since the Jews objected to the non-guilty findings of the governor. (Acts 23, 24)
It was the same for Jesus when we think of the division of the Church. Jesus raised his eyes to heaven and said: “Holy Father, I pray not only for these, but for those also who through their words will believe in me. May they all be one. Father, may they be one in us, as you are in me and I am in you, so that the world may believe it was you who sent me.” Unity is essential for the mission of the Church, but what we are facing is schism and disunity among Christians. There are so many denominations. Is it good or bad? Are we counter-witnessing? Well, we can only entrust the Church to our Lord. We must seek to foster unity amidst our differences. We might never be able to achieve unity today, but we can always work towards it. Even then, whilst we suffer credibility in our mission, there is also positive that has come out of it. It has led to greater diversity in the Church, greater freedom in exploring the scriptures, in the initiatives each church takes, the traditions it developed, enabling it to reach out to a greater variety of believers. Indeed, God works in ways beyond our understanding. Today, many are touched by God and by the gospel differently in different traditions, whether they are Catholics, evangelicals or main-stream churches. So who are we to say that having so many Christian denominations is not permitted in God’s plan? It would be great to have only one Church but the oneness of the Church would involve unity in diversity, embracing all traditions but sharing the one faith in Christ our Saviour.
SCRIPTURE READINGS: [Acts 22:30; 23:6-11; John 17:20-26]
Sometimes when we look back at the decisions we took in life, we wonder whether they were the best and right decisions, or whether our judgements were flawed. When we analyze the trial of Paul before the Sanhedrin, we wonder whether he had conducted his defence wisely, or whether he misjudged the situation. Did he manage to witness to Christ’s resurrection at the end? Obviously, he did not! He could not even arrive at this topic because the whole Council broke up in division and he was almost killed, if not for the fact that the tribune saved him from being torn apart by them. “Feeling was running high, and the tribune, afraid that they would tear Paul to pieces, ordered his troops to go down and haul him out and bring him into the fortress.” Was St Paul short-sighted in his defence, leading to a failed outcome? As St Paul wrote, “we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.” (Rom 8:28) Let us reflect on the way God works through human limitations.
Was Paul aware of the world view of his audience? The world view of the Jews was the expectation of the coming of a political Messiah that would set the people free. The Sanhedrin comprised of both the aristocratic priestly class belonging to the Sadducees who were not much respected by the people. The Priestly Class were in cahoots with the Romans so as to protect their status quo and their authority over the people, their power, and of course, the money gained from the exorbitant Temple Taxes. Doctrinally, they did not believe in the resurrection, angels or spirits. They only accepted the Five Books of the Torah. On the other side, there were the Pharisees, a minority in the Sanhedrin Council but highly respected by the people. They had no political power but were sincere Jews trying to live out the Law of Moses. Doctrinally, they believed not just in the Torah but the Prophets and the oral tradition of the rabbinic teaching as well.
Indeed, when we are addressing our audience, it is important to know their social, cultural, religious and political backgrounds. Failure to know their backgrounds may cause them to react before we have fully presented our case. This was perhaps the mistake of St Paul. When he brought up the topic of the resurrection, which was sensitive to both groups, he caused the Council to break up. “He called out in the Sanhedrin, ‘Brothers, I am a Pharisees and the son of Pharisees. It is for our hope in the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.’ As soon as he said this a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was split between the two parties.” So St Paul was never able to arrive at the crux of his message, which was the resurrection of Christ.
He felt that he had to get the Pharisees to support his view of the resurrection. If they could not even accept the idea of the resurrection, then it would be impossible to convince them of the resurrection of Christ. “For the Sadducees say there is neither resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, while the Pharisees accept all three. The shouting grew louder.” Nevertheless, he did sow the seeds of faith in the Pharisees that the resurrection of our Lord could be possible even if they still could not accept it, for some of the scribes from the Pharisees’ party stood up and protested strongly, “we find nothing wrong with this man. Suppose a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel?”
Or as Luke suggested, he purposely brought out this sensitive topic to divide the Council. “Now Paul was well aware that one section was made up of Sadducees and the other of Pharisees.” If he had used it as a ploy to win his case for our Lord’s resurrection, then apparently it did not succeed at all. At best, he might have opened the mind of the Pharisees.
Secondly, was the opening defence in his speech before the Council too insensitive, arrogant and antagonistic? The earlier part of the address is omitted in today’s text. Nevertheless, we read that “while Paul was looking intently at the Council he said, ‘Brothers, up to this day I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God.’ Then the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near him to strike him on the mouth.” (Acts 22:1f) What brought the High Priest Ananias to react so strongly? It was a perceived slight or disrespect for his office, because Paul was justifying that he was not in the wrong and that in spite of all that he did, he had a clear conscience before God.
But to add salt to the wound, St Paul reacted by cursing him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting there to judge me according to the law, and yet in violation of the law you order me to be struck?” Those standing nearby said, “Do you dare to insult God’s high priest?” And Paul said, “I did not realize, brothers, that he was the high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people.” (Acts 23:4f) Paul was quick to come to his senses and apologize because regardless of how wrong the leaders were, he had to be respectful as commanded by the Law. This was his saving grace and a true example of a great leader: one who makes a mistake but is quick to apologize even if he did not do it deliberately.
But human mistakes will not hinder the divine plan of God being fulfilled. We can delay the plan of God but we cannot prevent it from being fulfilled. This was the case of the Israelites when they were given the opportunity to enter the Promised Land after spending a while in the wilderness. After sending spies to recce Canaan, they came back to report that the land was flowing with milk and honey, but the people were strong. As a result, the Israelites became frightened and rebelled against Moses for occupying the land. Consequently, they had to spend 40 years in the desert to be formed and trained for entry into Canaan. (Num 14) So too, the Lord worked in mysterious ways in the apostolic mission of Paul. Next night, the Lord appeared to him and said, “‘Courage! You have borne witness for me in Jerusalem, now you must do the same in Rome.'” In the plan of God, the division caused by Paul’s preaching on the resurrection resulted in an attempt to take his life. But he was protected by the tribune and the centurions. This resulted in his appeal to go to Rome for judgment, since the Jews objected to the non-guilty findings of the governor. (Acts 23, 24)
It was the same for Jesus when we think of the division of the Church. Jesus raised his eyes to heaven and said: “Holy Father, I pray not only for these, but for those also who through their words will believe in me. May they all be one. Father, may they be one in us, as you are in me and I am in you, so that the world may believe it was you who sent me.” Unity is essential for the mission of the Church, but what we are facing is schism and disunity among Christians. There are so many denominations. Is it good or bad? Are we counter-witnessing? Well, we can only entrust the Church to our Lord. We must seek to foster unity amidst our differences. We might never be able to achieve unity today, but we can always work towards it. Even then, whilst we suffer credibility in our mission, there is also positive that has come out of it. It has led to greater diversity in the Church, greater freedom in exploring the scriptures, in the initiatives each church takes, the traditions it developed, enabling it to reach out to a greater variety of believers. Indeed, God works in ways beyond our understanding. Today, many are touched by God and by the gospel differently in different traditions, whether they are Catholics, evangelicals or main-stream churches. So who are we to say that having so many Christian denominations is not permitted in God’s plan? It would be great to have only one Church but the oneness of the Church would involve unity in diversity, embracing all traditions but sharing the one faith in Christ our Saviour.