Acts 22:25 “Rights”

Acts 22:25 As they stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the centurion standing there, “Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn’t even been found guilty?”

Rights! Have you noticed the ever-growing list of “rights” that people are asserting these days? The right not to be offended seems to be the worst of the bunch. I would hate to live a life where I was never challenged about my thinking and behavior. It is those challenges that have produced the greatest growth in me.

But many people today don’t want to be challenged. They want to live a life where their word is the most important word in the room. They live in a very self-centered world. The popular term for this, thrown about like confetti, is narcissist. But selfishness is not narcissism.

The previous buzz word that people threw around was “low self-esteem.” That label became an excuse for all sorts of behavior and attitude. But low self-esteem is easy to cure. Just go out and serve the needs of others consistently and you will think more soberly about yourself and life.

Paul seems to end up at the short end of the stick in the book of Acts. His sold-out stance for the Gospel brings him into sharp dispute with those who oppose change. They want the status quo to continue, not matter the cost. Murder is an acceptable solution when this type of thinking takes hold.

There have been some times when Paul allowed himself to be jailed and beaten. He didn’t assert his rights as a Roman citizen in order to be spared. He allowed himself to be flogged. He allowed himself to be imprisoned with Silas. He allowed himself to be chained with stocks in the prison cell.

But in our text, when Paul is facing a similar situation, Paul asserts his rights as a Roman citizen in order to not be flogged in order to gain information about why the Jews are in such an uproar. Paul wanted to be able to address his accusers in order to present the Truth to them once again.

But Paul’s trajectory in this instance included starting a theological fight between the two major theological schools of thought of that day. He introduced the topic of resurrection, and they went at each other like cocks as a cock fight. And Paul ended up in the middle, only to be rescued by the Romans.

I don’t know the reasons Paul chose to forgo his rights on some occasions and assert them on others. But this is exactly what he did. I could give you the church answer if you want it. Here goes: It was God’s will that he assert his rights. But I don’t find the church answer to be very clarifying.

I am sure there are some subtle hints in the text that I have missed. Or perhaps the author has left out these details in order for us to enter into the text. He uses the ambiguity in order to engage us in the story more fully. It pulls us into the story of the Scriptures.

Let me briefly explain. The story of the Scriptures is that God made a perfect place and gave humanity everything they could need or want. They had one job: trust Him to determine wright and wrong. Ever since that moment of failure, this has been the story of humanity.

We see this choice played out repeatedly in the Scriptures. Will His people obey, or will they choose to go their own way.

Now in the New Testament we see the story playing out again, only we still don’t know how the Holy Spirit is leading in every particular instance. All we see is the obedient result. The Spirit’s movements are not ours to control or even understand. We are to trust.