EMHUOGHAẠPH PHỌ 23

“Inaghạn Iphẹn Mị Kakaạph Bọ Ophelaạm Emụ Phọ Amị”

APọl agbạ ni amheremhị omheeraam mọ odị ghisigh ugheel ekpạr dị rokạgh olhoghi r’aghisigh ikpolhom awe phọ

Okpasị ḍinyạ Iiḍighi phọ 21:18–23:10

1, 2. Uḍighi ika kụ aPọl aghị bọ Jeruselem, kụ ighẹn ipaanhaạn kụ edị odị kasoman epẹ phọ?

“Bidị Uboom Ni Enaạn” (Iiḍighi 21:18-20a

3-5. (a) Abuọ anhiạn r’aPọl kụ uukpomhoghan bọ epẹ Jeruselem, kụ ughaạph eeghe? (b) Yira otuughạ eeghe esi araghaạph phọ aPọl r’ikumor awe phọ orọl bọ Jeruselem oghaạph bọ?

³ Bạl onhụ English

⁴ Bạl onhụ English

⁵ Bạl onhụ English

Ibadị Okiọm Ni Ghisigh Omoọgh ‘Ophugh Esi Iilhogh Phọ AMozis’ (Iiḍighi 21:20b, 21)

6. Uḅenhị Pọl ilọ eeghe iiḅaghamhị?

⁶ Bạl onhụ English

7, 8. (a) Ḍighẹn aḍiitughiạn dị ii/leeny kụ edị ibadị aKristẹn phọ orọl bọ Judia omhoọgh? (b) Uḍighi ika kụ omhoọgh aḍiitughiạn phọ aḍiẹn phọ i/mạ bọ mọ bidị u/ḍighi Kristẹn dị okpẹ oḍuom olhoghi?

⁷ Bạl onhụ English

⁸ Bạl onhụ English

“Ipẹ Ogbaạm Bọ Nyinạ Okpẹ Ni” (Iiḍighi 21:22-26)

9. APọl atughemhị eeghe dị egbolhomaam Olhogh phọ aMozis?

⁹ Bạl onhụ English

10. Eeghe ephoghom dị eeleeny kụ edị aPọl amhoọgh mem dị rokaạph ilọ Olhogh phọ r’iḍun?

¹⁰ Bạl onhụ English

11. Ikumor awe phọ uḅenhị Pọl mọ aḍighi eeghe, kuolọ odị mu/meera ni bịn oḍighi eeghe? (Miịn igẹ dị edi ude.)

¹¹ Bạl onhụ English

12. Ika kụ idị aPọl aḍeenhaan mọ onọ aakolhobian ni onhaghanhạn ikumor awe phọ?

¹² Bạl onhụ English

Collage: 1. Paul listens to direction from the elders in Jerusalem. 2. At a modern-day elders’ meeting, one brother observes intently while fellow elders raise their hands. — When no Scriptural principles were violated, Paul yielded. Do you?

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.

“O/kpeanaạn Mụn Orọl” (Iiḍighi 21:27–22:30)

13. (a) Uḍighi ika kụ abuniin abuọ aJu phọ oghaghạm bọ olhoghi Pọl pạ otu iiḅereghị phọ? (b) Uphẹl ika ghuḍum aPọl?

¹³ Bạl onhụ English

14, 15. (a) APọl aghaạph eeghe kụ aḅenhị buọ aJu phọ? (b) Uw-emhụ abuọ eghạm mọ aRom aḍighi eeghe olhegheri iyaạr phọ eḍighi bọ kụ abuọ aJu phọ oghaghạm bọ olhoghi iboom Pọl?

¹⁴ Bạl onhụ English

¹⁵ Bạl onhụ English

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.

“Mị Onyọ AFarisi” (Iiḍighi 23:1-10)

16, 17. (a) Kaạph ipẹ emite bọ mem mọ aPọl aḅaanhaạn bọ ikpolhom awe phọ. (b) Ika kụ idị aPọl aphighi eḍeenhaan osooromhi aloor mem mọ okpor bọ onhụ phọ odị?

¹⁶ Bạl onhụ English

¹⁷ Bạl onhụ English

A clergyman looking carefully at a scripture in his Bible while a brother witnesses to him. — Like Paul, we seek common ground when speaking to those of a different religious background

18. Uḍighi ika kụ aPọl aḅẹm bọ mọ onọ onyọ aFarisi, kụ ika kụ idị yira kotuughaạny nyodị mem dị yira osoman odọ asidọl phọ iphẹn phọ?

¹⁸ Bạl onhụ English

19. Uḍighi ika kụ oruonhụ asoor bọ siphẹ ookpomhoghan ikpolhom awe phọ?

¹⁹ Bạl onhụ English

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.