UHỌNMHỌN-ỌTA 23

“Bha Ka Mẹn Ehọ”

Khue

“Bha Ka Mẹn Ehọ”

Pọl da ha tẹmhọn ebi ọle rẹọ i bhi odalo ene Sanhẹdrin bi usun ẹbho nin ẹkẹ khọ

Acts 21:18–23:10 Ọ Da Dagbare

1, 2. Bezẹle nin Pọl da ha khian Jerusalẹm? Emhin nela ha sabọ sunu je ọle bhi enin?

Tie Ọne Uduọle Bhi Ebo

² Tie Ọne Uduọle Bhi Ebo

“Ele Da Wo Ha Gẹn Osẹnobulua” (Acts 21:18-20a)

3-5. (a) Ikolo nela Pọl yo bhi Jerusalẹm? Be ele zilo nyan? (b) Be imhan ha sabọ miẹn luẹ bhi ikolo nin Pọl deba ene ewanlẹn do bhi Jerusalẹm?

³ Tie Ọne Uduọle Bhi Ebo

⁴ Tie Ọne Uduọle Bhi Ebo

⁵ Tie Ọne Uduọle Bhi Ebo

Ele “Sẹyẹ Mun Uhi Ọsi Mozis Mhọn Kaka” (Acts 21:20b, 21)

6. Emhin nela Pọl gua-otọ ọle kere?

⁶ Tie Ọne Uduọle Bhi Ebo

7, 8. (a) Iria-eria nọn bha khẹke nela eso bhi Kristiẹn bhi Judia ha ria ẹmhọn ọlẹn? (b) Ọne iria-eria nan be rẹman ghe ele iyi Kristiẹn ọsaje? Bezẹle nin mhan ha da sabọ yọle ọ bha rẹman iriọ?

⁷ Tie Ọne Uduọle Bhi Ebo

⁸ Tie Ọne Uduọle Bhi Ebo

“Ẹmhọanta Iribhi Ẹmhọn Nin Ele Họn” (Acts 21:22-26)

9. Be Pọl tale rẹji uhi ọsi Mozis?

⁹ Tie Ọne Uduọle Bhi Ebo

10. Be Pọl rẹ rẹman yẹ ghe ọria nọn wan ọle khin bhi ẹmhọn Uhi bi uruẹmhin?

¹⁰ Tie Ọne Uduọle Bhi Ebo

11. Be ene ewanlẹn taman Pọl nin ọle lu yẹ? Emhin nela ọ bha khẹke nin ọle lu? (Yẹ fẹ ebi a gbẹn ọbhi otọle ghe.)

¹¹ Tie Ọne Uduọle Bhi Ebo

12. Be Pọl rẹ rẹman yẹ ghe ọle muegbe nin ọle rẹ re obọ rẹkhan ebi ene ewanlẹn bhi Jerusalẹm taman ọlẹn?

¹² Tie Ọne Uduọle Bhi Ebo

ROMAN LAW AND ROMAN CITIZENS

Roman authorities usually interfered little in local government. Generally speaking, Jewish law governed Jewish affairs. The Romans got involved in Paul’s case only because the riot that erupted upon his appearing in the temple was a threat to public order.

The Roman authorities had considerable power over ordinary provincial subjects. Things were different, however, when the authorities dealt with Roman citizens. a Citizenship afforded a person certain privileges that were recognized and honored throughout the empire. It was illegal, for example, to bind or beat an uncondemned Roman, since such treatment was considered fit for slaves only. Roman citizens also had the right to appeal the decisions of a provincial governor to the emperor, in Rome.

Roman citizenship could be obtained in a number of ways. The first was by inheritance. Emperors occasionally awarded citizenship to individuals or to the free populations of whole cities or districts for services rendered. A slave who bought his freedom from a Roman citizen, a slave who was set free by a Roman, or a veteran of the auxiliary forces who was discharged from the Roman army would himself become a Roman. Apparently, under certain circumstances it was also possible to purchase citizenship. The military commander Claudius Lysias thus told Paul: “I purchased these rights as a citizen for a large sum of money.” Paul responded: “But I have them by birth.” (Acts 22:28) Hence, one of Paul’s male ancestors must somehow have acquired Roman citizenship, although the circumstances remain unknown.

a In the first century C.E., not many Roman citizens would have lived in Judea. Only in the third century were all provincial subjects given Roman citizenship.

When no Scriptural principles were violated, Paul yielded. Do you?

“Bha Dọ Gbe Ọle A!” (Acts 21:27–22:30)

13. (a) Bezẹle nin ibhokhan Ju eso da si ozughu re bhi uwa oga? (b) Be Pọl ki rẹ miuhọnmhọn yẹ?

¹³ Tie Ọne Uduọle Bhi Ebo

14, 15. (a) Be Pọl re otọle man ibhokhan Ju eso? (b) Be ọdiọn eyokhọnlẹn ọsi ibhokhan Romu lu yẹ nin ọle da lẹn emhin nọn zẹle nin ibhokhan Ju da ha khọẹkẹ Pọl?

¹⁴ Tie Ọne Uduọle Bhi Ebo

¹⁵ Tie Ọne Uduọle Bhi Ebo

MODERN-DAY LEGAL BATTLES

Like the apostle Paul, Jehovah’s modern-day Witnesses have sought every legal recourse open to them to combat restrictions imposed on their preaching work. They have been zealous in “the defending and legally establishing of the good news.”—Phil. 1:7.

During the 1920’s and 1930’s, hundreds were arrested for distributing Bible literature. For instance, by 1926, there were 897 cases pending in German courts. So much litigation was involved that it became necessary to establish a Legal Department at the Germany branch. During the 1930’s, arrests for house-to-house preaching in the United States alone ran into the hundreds every year. In 1936, that number rose to 1,149. To provide needed counsel, a Legal Department was also established in the United States. From 1933 to 1939, Witnesses in Romania faced 530 lawsuits. However, appeals to the Romanian High Court won many favorable decisions. Similar situations have developed in many other lands.

Legal challenges have arisen when Christians could not conscientiously agree to take part in activities that would violate their neutrality. (Isa. 2:2-4; John 17:14) Opposers have falsely accused them of sedition, which has sometimes resulted in a complete ban on their activities. Over the years, however, many governments have acknowledged that Jehovah’s Witnesses present no threat to them. b

b For a discussion of the legal victories of Jehovah’s Witnesses in various lands, see chapter 15 of the book God’s Kingdom Rules! and chapter 30 of the book Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom.

“Farisi Imẹn Khin” (Acts 23:1-10)

16, 17. (a) Tẹmhọn ebe sunu ẹghe nin Pọl rẹ ne ene Sanhẹdrin talọ. (b) Ẹghe nin ele rẹ gbehẹ Pọl, be Pọl rẹ rẹman yẹ ghe ọle mhọn idegbere? Be imhan miẹn luẹ bhọ?

¹⁶ Tie Ọne Uduọle Bhi Ebo

¹⁷ Tie Ọne Uduọle Bhi Ebo

Like Paul, we seek common ground when speaking to those of a different religious background

18. Bezẹle nin Pọl da yọle ghe Farisi ọle khin? Be imhan ha rẹ sabọ noo uwedẹ nọn sẹriọ yẹ bhi idia eso nin mhan da ka egbe mhan re?

¹⁸ Tie Ọne Uduọle Bhi Ebo

19. Bezẹle nin ọne ikolo nin ene Sanhẹdrin ha do bha da kpẹn nọnsẹn?

¹⁹ Tie Ọne Uduọle Bhi Ebo

THE SADDUCEES AND THE PHARISEES

The Sanhedrin, the national administrative council and high court of the Jews, was dominated by two rival sects—the Sadducees and the Pharisees. According to first-century historian Flavius Josephus, the main difference between these parties was that the Pharisees sought to impose a great number of traditional observances on the people, whereas the Sadducees considered obligatory only what was found in the Law of Moses. Both schools of thought were united in their opposition to Jesus.

It appears that the Sadducees, who were basically conservative, had close ties to the priesthood and that Annas and Caiaphas, both of whom had served as the high priest, belonged to this powerful sect. (Acts 5:17) Josephus says, however, that its teachings could “persuade none but the rich.”

The Pharisees, on the other hand, had great influence over the masses. Yet, their views, which included insistence on extreme ceremonial purity, made observing the Law burdensome for the people. In contrast with the Sadducees, the Pharisees attributed great importance to fate and believed that a soul survived death, after which it received a just reward or punishment for its virtues or its vices.

EBE BI BROKIỌ