Waldron On The Civil Magistrate

[MW]

Your OP attempted to prove that the incident of Acts 25:7-11 meant Paul "considered religious issues the [de jure] right of the powers that be."
It was a de facto reality that Rome would become involved under then existing Roman law and the use Paul's accusers made of it.
That Rome had claimed the right and ability to make such decisions does not mean they had the de jure right to do so.

The fact is, Paul appealed to this authority; would he have appealed to a court of right if he did not believe the court had the right to judge the matter? Of course not.

 

[timmopussycat]

... Roman courts did not judge matters of religio licita, the charges on which Paul would stand trial before Caesar would only be the original civil ones.

This is contrary to fact. The officials were forced to decide whether this was a religio illicita or whether it fell under the legally recognised religion of the Jews. Hence it was a religious issue. Paul's subsequent defence before Agrippa demonstrates clearly that he was on trial for a religious issue: "And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers," Acts 26:7. Paul's defence was entirely religious. Further, Agrippa said, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian," v. 28. This would not be possible if Paul did not make a case for Christianity.

Actually not contrary to fact at all. From all indications there were no religous issues before the court in Acts 25:7-11. We have already seen two instances where Roman governors would not make judgments on Jewish law questions, we must presume right off the bat that none such were before the court. Had there been such issues, Festus would have ordered Paul back to Jerusalem to be tried before the Sanhedrin and would not have further bothered with the matter unless Paul as a Roman citizen exercised his right of appeal. But since Festus offers Paul a retrial in Jerusalem before himself, not the Sanhedrin, it is clear that the only charges before the court were civil. Luke tells us that F's offer came about because he wanted to do the Jews a favour and his offer was the best he could do. If F. considered any of the Jewish charges valid, he could have done much more make the offer he did to win Jewish favour.

Acts 26 is not Acts 25. They are two different incidents taking place on different days and in different contexts. Agrippa wants to hear Paul, Festus takes the opportunity of letting him do so and expresses the hope that he might thereby learn some more information to write to the emperor. Although Paul calls his remarks "a defense" "in regard to all the things of which he is accused by the Jews," he is not on trial: Paul has already appealed to Caesar and to Caesar he will go. But since Agrippa is expert in Jewish customs and questions as well as the Jews allegations, Paul here takes a different tack, he does not directly answer a single Jewish charge. Instead, he gives his testimony, either to persuade Agrippa and others present to look at the gospel seriously or to indirectly convince him that Paul is doing nothing wrong so that what Festus will write to the emperor is "This man is doing nothing wrong and could have been freed if he had not appealed to Caesar" which is precisely the reaction of his hearers.

 

[timmopussycat]

Your OP attempted to prove that the incident of Acts 25:7-11 meant Paul "considered religious issues the [de jure] right of the powers that be."
It was a de facto reality that Rome would become involved under then existing Roman law and the use Paul's accusers made of it.
That Rome had claimed the right and ability to make such decisions does not mean they had the de jure right to do so.

The fact is, Paul appealed to this authority; would he have appealed to a court of right if he did not believe the court had the right to judge the matter? Of course not.

In order to gain his due freedom, Paul is appealing to the Biblically appropriate court of appeal asking it to judge whether he was guilty of anything contrary to Roman law. If that legitimate appeal somehow led to an emperor's declaration that Christianity be treated as a religio licita, he would have accepted that outcome as an additional blessing from the Lord.

 

[MW]

Acts 26 is not Acts 25. They are two different incidents taking place on different days and in different contexts. Agrippa wants to hear Paul, Festus takes the opportunity of letting him do so and expresses the hope that he might thereby learn some more information to write to the emperor.

"And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers," Acts 26:7.

 

[MW]

If that legitimate appeal somehow led to an emperor's declaration that Christianity be treated as a religio licita, he would accept that outcome as a blessing from the Lord.

If it is a blessing from the Lord then it must be a power given by God to civil magistrates to judge religious issues.

 

[timmopussycat]

If that legitimate appeal somehow led to an emperor's declaration that Christianity be treated as a religio licita, he would accept that outcome as a blessing from the Lord.

If it is a blessing from the Lord then it must be a power given by God to civil magistrates to judge religious issues.

The blessing is of course from God, but Reformed theology has never asserted that all secondary cause by which the blessings comes are always exercises of God's perfect will. We know that some blessings come rather through evil secondary causes for "in all things God works for the good of those who love him."

 

[timmopussycat]

Acts 26 is not Acts 25. They are two different incidents taking place on different days and in different contexts. Agrippa wants to hear Paul, Festus takes the opportunity of letting him do so and expresses the hope that he might thereby learn some more information to write to the emperor.

"And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers," Acts 26:7.

Paul uses Acts 26:6 (not 7) not as part of a statement of a formal defense but as the connection betweeen the court case and to his testimony.
"Am judged" is not perhaps the best translation. It cannot be said of Paul that he was judged guilty at this point. He has appealed to Caesar. So Paul is still "standing trial". One may be "standing trial" without being in court and Paul's trial has now moved to the Emperor's level not that of the provincial governor by virtue of his appeal to Caesar. Since the emperor is not present, Acts 26 is, by defintion, not a court session. The ultimate reason Paul was originally charged with the civil offence of rioting was that he hoped in and preached Christ and was found in the temple by Jews who disliked his message. Had he not so hoped and preached, he would never had been in a position to be charged as he was.

 

[MW]

Paul uses Acts 26:6 (not 7) not as part of a statement of a formal defense but as the connection betweeen the court case and to his testimony.
"Am judged" is not perhaps the best translation. It cannot be said of Paul that he was judged guilty at this point. He has appealed to Caesar. So Paul is still "standing trial". One may be "standing trial" without being in court and Paul's trial has now moved to the Emperor's level not that of the provincial governor by virtue of his appeal to Caesar. Since the emperor is not present, Acts 26 is, by defintion, not a court session. The ultimate reason Paul was originally charged with the civil offence of rioting was that he hoped in and preached Christ and was found in the temple by Jews who disliked his message. Had he not so hoped and preached, he would never had been in a position to be charged as he was.

A multiplicity of words to cover over the obvious. I leave you to your thoughts. Blessings!

 

[KMK]

Thanks to all who participated in this thread. It was very edifying.