ORIGHO 23

“Aghan Rentin Ọfọ ti Man Gba Gbe Ara Mi”

LU U

Pọl soro gbẹ ukpeọrọnfọ ro ni ọguaju Ẹguari Aja biri urogho irẹye ti o binọ

Ti a gba kuri iwe Uṣe 21:18–23:10

1, 2. Nikọ re gbe Pọl wa ni Jerusalẹm, kẹnrẹn ẹkpikpomẹ bokọ won wa ba ni uwẹrẹ?

Rọ ọ ni owun-aja Ighereje

² Rọ ọ ni owun-aja Ighereje

“Aghan Dede Ka Yiri Oriṣẹ” (Uṣe 21:18-20a)

3-5. (a) Nesin wun Pọl biri o ba ara ni Jerusalẹm, kẹnrẹn nikọ wun aghan fọ ni ubara ro? (b) Nikọ ẹnẹ nemi kọ gbẹ kuri ubara ti Pọl biri aghan ẹghaarẹ ti o wi Jerusalẹm ṣe?

³ Rọ ọ ni owun-aja Ighereje

⁴ Rọ ọ ni owun-aja Ighereje

⁵ Rọ ọ ni owun-aja Ighereje

Aghan Gidijẹ “Re Kpe Jọlọ Da Ẹsi Ni” (Uṣe 21:20b, 21)

6. Ẹkpikpomẹ bokọ wun Pọl si a man ni ubara ro?

⁶ Rọ ọ ni owun-aja Ighereje

7, 8. (a) Uro ti ee jọ bokọ wun Olele Kraist gidijẹ ni Judia nẹ? (b) Di uro ti ee jọ ti aghan nẹ we si mughan gin aghan ee ṣe ọrọnrọn Olele Kraist, kẹnrẹn nikọ ee gba gha wẹrẹ?

⁷ Rọ ọ ni owun-aja Ighereje

⁸ Rọ ọ ni owun-aja Ighereje

“Irẹye Dede Wa Man Gin Itekun Ra Kpa Man Uwọ” (Uṣe 21:22-26)

9. Nikọ Pọl kọ irẹye ni ubara Ẹsi Mosis?

⁹ Rọ ọ ni owun-aja Ighereje

10. Bokọ Pọl te mughan gin won gba ọrọnrọn eju ṣọn Ẹsi Mosis biri ọfọ ufan?

¹⁰ Rọ ọ ni owun-aja Ighereje

11. Nikọ ẹghaarẹ ghaan gin di Pọl ṣe, dẹ nikọ ee wa forijẹ gba ṣe? (Kẹnrẹn ṣọn ọfọ tie ti o wi alẹ.)

¹¹ Rọ ọ ni owun-aja Ighereje

12. Nikọ re mughan gin Pọl numuara gba biri aghan ẹghaarẹ ti o wi Jerusalẹm ṣe uṣẹ ni ara?

¹² Rọ ọ ni owun-aja Ighereje

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?

“Uku Re Yẹ Ẹ!” (Uṣe 21:27–22:30)

13. (a) Nikọ re ṣe ti ira Ju bọbọ gba sukpukpẹ mee jẹ ni uli-usẹn? (b) Bokọ a te gbe ẹmi Pọl?

¹³ Rọ ọ ni owun-aja Ighereje

14, 15. (a) Nikọ Pọl wewe gbẹ aghan ira Ju? (b) Nikọ olori ọja-ogun Rom rẹn ṣe di o gba man urun ti o lẹghẹ ira Ju ghaan gba binọ sin Pọl?

¹⁴ Rọ ọ ni owun-aja Ighereje

¹⁵ Rọ ọ ni owun-aja Ighereje

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.

“Emi Farisi Rẹẹn” (Uṣe 23:1-10)

16, 17. (a) Wewe urun ti o ṣi ti Pọl gba biri Ẹguari Aja rẹn fọ ni ara. (b) Ti a gba ta wun ẹwo, bokọ Pọl te mu ọrọnrọn ewe ṣi ni ubara ara gbigba re alẹ?

¹⁶ Rọ ọ ni owun-aja Ighereje

¹⁷ Rọ ọ ni owun-aja Ighereje

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

18. Nikọ Pọl teri ro kpe ara ro Farisi, kẹnrẹn bokọ ẹnẹ te nemi lo ewe eju ọkan we ni ukalẹ bọbọ?

¹⁸ Rọ ọ ni owun-aja Ighereje

19. Nikọ re nẹ eke ti o mu ubara Ẹguari Aja rẹn to ogun?

¹⁹ Rọ ọ ni owun-aja Ighereje

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.

IWE BIRI BROṢỌ