The Narrative
Most Latin American Countries gain their
independence during the 19th century. Puerto Rico was one of the few that did
not. Most Puerto Ricans were afraid of
independence; partly because of Haiti.
Early in the 19th century slaves in Haiti revolted against
their French masters, and took over Haiti.
Some of those French ended up in exile in Puerto Rico, of course they
told their story. After this,
independence was equated with slaves subverting against their European masters
and taking control of the territory.
Puerto Ricans, who owned slaves, did not want that happening to
them. This narrative lasted for years.
When I was growing up in Puerto Rico any talk of
independence was shut down with, “Do you want us to be like Cuba?” In 1959, the Cuban revolutionaries entered
Havana marking the end of the revolution and the success of Fidel Castro and
his forces. Many Cubans were forced to
leave the Island. Some landed in Puerto
Rico. Soon after that Castro declared
Cuba a communist country. So, somehow
independence now became equated with the Cuban experience. This meant to Puerto Ricans that, the
Communist would take over and force everyone else to work in the sugar cane
field. Puerto Rico had long since
transformed from a sugar cane economy to more industrial one. The prospect of going back to cutting sugar
cane to Puerto Ricans was terrifying.
This narrative still exists.
Whether the narrative ended up being true or not, it
did not matter. It accomplished its purpose:
to instill fear in the masses so they would not pursue that option. This is similar to what Paul went through in
Thessalonica.
Paul spent three week in Thessalonica reasoning and
proving the Jesus was the Christ from the scriptures. Many accepted Christ, but his success incited
opposition from local religious leaders and from a gang of thugs. Paul was
finally expelled by the city council, which also sought to prevent his return.
When someone preaches new teachings and people get excited, the leaders and
teachers of other religious groups may become jealous.
Attention that was once placed
upon them is now directed to others. As
a result, they may behave in irrational ways in order to try to reduce the
influence of the new teacher.
According to Acts 17:5, Paul’s
success in Thessalonica infuriated some of the Jews who were not persuaded by
his message. Jealous of Paul’s success with the Gentiles, and certainly not
very happy that some of their fellow countrymen had joined him, they decided to
enlist the help of “some wicked men of the rabble” (ESV) to stir up trouble. In
Greek the phrase “wicked men of the rabble” literally means “men of the
marketplace.” It refers to a group of unemployed ruffians who hung out in the
marketplace looking for something to do.
What a contrast to the people who
responded to Paul’s gospel. According to
Luke, these hooligans barged into Jason’s home in order to drag Paul out to the
crowd (17:5). The Greek word translated as “people,” or “crowd” (demos), can
also refer to the public assembly of citizens who had authority over local
legal matters. Unable to lay their hands on Paul, they decided instead to haul
Jason and others before the local magistrates. When they arrived, they laid two
accusations against Paul: (1) Paul was an itinerant troublemaker with a track
record of causing problems in other cities; (2) Paul was guilty of sedition for
claiming that Jesus, not Caesar, was King.
According to the Roman historian
Suetonius, shortly before the events described in Acts 17, conflict arose among
the Jews of Rome over a man Suetonius calls “Chrestus.” This term probably
reflects a Roman misunderstanding of the Jewish concept of the Messiah or, in Greek,
“the Christ.” Apparently someone’s preaching of the gospel had just split the
Jewish community of Rome. To Roman
officials, debate over the Messiah sounded like preparation for the
installation of a new king on the throne of Rome (see Acts 17:7). Probably for
that reason the emperor expelled all Jews from his capital city (Acts 18:2).
Some of these exiles probably settled in or passed through Thessalonica,
bringing knowledge of these events to the city. Because the gospel had turned
the world of Rome’s Jews upside down, religious leaders in Thessalonica were
determined to prevent something similar from happening there. Notice that it was not their main
concern. They used that story in order
to drum up the charges against Paul and gain favor with the rulers of the
city. Sufficiently alarmed by these
charges, the magistrates banned Paul and Silas from their city and required
Jason to pay some kind of fee in order to ensure that the two men would not
return.
Thessalonica itself was ruled by
a city council of perhaps five or six “mayors” who made decisions as a group.
This arrangement allowed for a considerable amount of independence from Rome,
which they would be loath to give up. So, the behavior of the city officials in
this matter was quite impressive under the circumstances. The similarity to
recent events in Rome could have led to severe physical punishment for the new
Christians. Instead, the city leaders responded evenhandedly (contrast Acts
16:22–40). They took a significant amount of money from the new Christians as
security so that they would not be the cause of further disturbances. Then the
leaders let everyone go. The narrative
worked.
But, what is disturbing is that
it was those who professed to be defending the law of God actually broke it in
order to accomplish their goal. Could we
be caught in the same trap? Not unless
we are converted. So, when we are
dealing with accusations, we should ask ourselves: is there something
else? Is the immediate accusation being
used to cover the real reason for the attack?
It is how the Jews dealt with Christ.
Could we be fooled into falling in this trap? Not unless we are converted.
