No Comment

euronews video

News travels.  Before Paul made his way back to Jerusalem, word had spread about him.

This was nothing new.  People had been spreading tales about Paul from the days when he turned from persecuting the Christians, to becoming one of them.

So, now that he was back, there was no doubt he would be held accountable for all his teachings against the law.

So, when he appeared before the elders, they warned him and told him he needed to purify himself and present himself at the Temple.

Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law. - Acts 21:24

But was that a good idea?

Knowing the charges against him, and believing that he was going to be killed in Jerusalem, I doubt Paul saw this as a way to save himself.  And what about the elders?  What did Peter and James think?

When Paul presents himself at the temple, those against him will rile the crowd and they will beat him, trying to kill him.  Is that how people who claim to be followers of the law behave?

I like to think we are a lot more civilized and accepting today, but I am not sure that's true.

We may have different ways of beating down those who violate our laws, mores and customs, and those ways are not always physical.  We are not often sure what to think about a situation, though.  It helps to know the story.

Before Paul arrived in Jerusalem, rumors and stories about him already did the job of accusing and convicting him.

I wonder if Peter and James could have done a better job of countering those stories with stories of their own.  Perhaps they, too, were uncertain of Paul's actions in the field, visiting with Gentiles and Jews, telling them the differences between them were no longer valid.

How might that have played back home?

Each night, I try to catch the news programs from Europe.  I like the depth of coverage from areas around the globe we rarely hear about.  One thing that grabs my attention is a segment called NoComment on euronews.  They show a scene without commentary, so the viewer needs to think for himself.  How do I feel about this?  Which side is right?  Who is doing what to whom?

It is hard to decide who is in the right when watching a mob in the streets, protesting and throwing stones.  Without the narrator filling in the blanks, I am left to decide for myself and that is hard work.

I can understand, then, how the crowd can be stirred to action simply by adding the voices shouting out what they are gathering and fighting for.

Perhaps that is how the crowd was moved to action against Paul, and that is how we are moved to action against each other.

Maybe we should turn off the sound and just observe from time to time.  Then we might see a man going to the temple to be presented after being purified, rather than seeing a scoundrel and traitor to the law.

No Comment.