The possibility that Paul won his trial in Rome from acts 26

Not open for further replies.


Puritan Board Freshman
In acts 25 the governor Festus expresses confusion on how to investigate the criminal charges brought against Paul, which by his own confession don't seem like typical crimes

"When the accusers stood up, they did not begin bringing any charges [i]against him of crimes that I suspected, 19 but they simply had some points of disagreement with him about their own [j]religion and about a dead man, Jesus, whom Paul asserted to be alive. "

Therefore Festus asks Agrippa II to help him investigate

24 And Festus *said, “King Agrippa, and all you gentlemen present with us, you see this man about whom all the people of the Jews appealed to me, both in Jerusalem and here, shouting that he ought not to live any longer. 25 But I found that he had committed nothing deserving death; and since he himself appealed to [o]the Emperor, I decided to send him. 26 [p]Yet, I have nothing definite about him to write to my lord. Therefore, I have brought him before you all and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that after the investigation has taken place, I may have something to write. 27 For it seems absurd to me in sending a prisoner, not to indicate the charges against him as well.”

In acts 26 verses 31-32 Agrippa II gives his answer after hearing Paul.

31 and when they had gone out, they began talking to one another, saying, “This man is not doing anything deserving death or [x]imprisonment.” 32 And Agrippa said to Festus, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.”

There after Paul remains in house arrest in Rome and acts ends.

If Paul got his trial it seems he has the backing of Festus, who has the backing of Agrippa II.
It seems to me a very real possibility that with the aid of Festus/Agrippa that Paul could win his trial in rome.

Since there doesn't seem to any law that says Christians must die before nero's persecution it seems therefore that one explanation for how Paul died might be that he was known in rome as a christian, having won his trial and when the persecutions started could not have saved himself by denying Christ [even if he had wanted to ] because he was already known to the authorities.
I'm not sure of the question you may be asking, or if you are simply setting forth an opinion and inviting others to chime in.

It seems likely that the "two years" (Act 28:30) Paul spent in house arrest brings the time-period of Acts to a close, and also the time period of Paul's house arrest. There was some kind of time limit on bringing such a case to trial, and if Paul's accusers failed to show up in Rome for the trial then the day would come when the law compelled his release. His detention could not be indefinite. Paul was probably released because there was never any trial before Caesar.

Per his hope and desire (Rom.15:28), and some historical rumors, Paul may have been able to complete his aim of preaching the gospel in Spain (Σπανίαν, Hispaniola), the church in Rome able to send and support such a missionary journey. Yet, historical rumor also places him back in Rome in the time of Neronic persecution, where tradition alleges he was beheaded. His final letter to Timothy implies that he is back in prison, likely facing death. His stature in the church certainly would have made him a target, once it was politically expedient to eliminate him.
Like Bruce, I have seen a lot advocate that he was released, went on more missionary journeys and then was ultimately killed as an enemy of the state.
The problem is that Luke spends the last several chapters of Acts bringing Paul to Rome for his trial - and then doesn't tell us how the trial turned out! What happened? Did he run out of papyrus or something? Why would he spend all that time bringing Paul to Rome and then leave out the result of all that travel, etc.? Seems weird, especially for a writer who tells Theophilus that he "followed all things closely for some time past" so that could write an "orderly account" (Luke 1:3).
Jerome in his "Lives of illustrious men " writes

" It ought to be said that at the first defense, the power of Nero having not yet been confirmed, nor his wickedness broken forth to such a degree as the histories relate concerning him, Paul was dismissed by Nero, that the gospel of Christ might be preached also in the West. As he himself writes in the second epistle to Timothy, at the time when he was about to be put to death dictating his epistle as he did while in chains; At my first defense no one took my part, but all forsook me: may it not be laid to their account. But the Lord stood by me and strengthened me; that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and that all the Gentiles might hear, and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion — clearly indicating Nero as lion on account of his cruelty. And directly following he says The Lord delivered me from the mouth of the lion and again shortly The Lord delivered me from every evil work and saved me unto his heavenly kingdom, for indeed he felt within himself that his martyrdom was near at hand, for in the same epistle he announced for I am already being offered and the time of my departure is at hand."

It seems to me that the lack of martyrdom tales by church historians for the other apostles seems to imply heavily that Paul and Peter really were slain, as the earliest church historians assert there demise, but not the others when it would be clearly inappropriate to do so.
Not open for further replies.