Menu +

Tag: Rom

Providence, Human Caprice, & The Gospel’s Progress

TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, CLICK ON THE TITLE.
But after two years Porcius Festus succeeded Felix; and Felix, wanting to do the Jews a favor, left Paul bound. Acts 24:27

The seemingly haphazard and unfair events of the world often puzzle and frustrate human beings. Consider Paul’s plight: he was in prison on spurious charges of trying to incite a riot in the Jerusalem Temple and desecrating his ancestral traditions. Like his Lord, he was erroneously accused of being a threat to the state (cf. Luke 23:2, 5; Acts 21:28.) As the counsel for the plaintiff later put it: “…we have found this man a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He even tried to profane the temple, and we seized him, and wanted to judge him according to our law” (Acts 24:5-6.) Sadly, Paul’s experience was neither unprecedented nor rare among believers. From the first century onwards Christians have often been tagged with baseless accusations of political intrigue, ludicrous immorality (e.g. Cannibalism), and unfettered antinomianism (Rom. 6:1-2.)

Politics As Usual

While suffering this great injustice, Paul could have been freed at several points (most notably, Acts 26:32.) In the text that commences this article the unfairness of the apostle’s position is clearly displayed. His unjust detention was seemingly prolonged because the Roman official Felix wanted to gain political advantage and goodwill from the Jews as he departed for his next post. As I. Howard Marshall explains:

Such an action would have added to the feeling against him and could have led to charges being made against him at Rome. This may well have been the underlying principal reason for his failure to take any action earlier regarding Paul. By a slight injustice to an unpopular individual he hoped to curry favour with the Jews (he certainly needed to in view of his other conduct!); when he left the province, he did in fact avoid being impeached by the Jews (except for one group from Caesarea whose charge was quashed.)[i]
TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, CLICK ON THE TITLE.

Providence, Human Caprice, & The Gospel’s Progress

TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, CLICK ON THE TITLE.
But after two years Porcius Festus succeeded Felix; and Felix, wanting to do the Jews a favor, left Paul bound. Acts 24:27
The seemingly haphazard and unfair events of the world often puzzle and frustrate human beings. Consider Paul’s plight: he was in prison on spurious charges of trying to incite a riot in the Jerusalem Temple and desecrating his ancestral traditions. Like his Lord, he was erroneously accused of being a threat to the state (cf. Luke 23:2, 5; Acts 21:28.) As the counsel for the plaintiff later put it: “…we have found this man a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He even tried to profane the temple, and we seized him, and wanted to judge him according to our law” (Acts 24:5-6.) Sadly, Paul’s experience was neither unprecedented nor rare among believers. From the first century onwards Christians have often been tagged with baseless accusations of political intrigue, ludicrous immorality (e.g. Cannibalism), and unfettered antinomianism (Rom. 6:1-2.)
Politics As Usual
While suffering this great injustice, Paul could have been freed at several points (most notably, Acts 26:32.) In the text that commences this article the unfairness of the apostle’s position is clearly displayed. His unjust detention was seemingly prolonged because the Roman official Felix wanted to gain political advantage and goodwill from the Jews as he departed for his next post. As I. Howard Marshall explains:
Such an action would have added to the feeling against him and could have led to charges being made against him at Rome. This may well have been the underlying principal reason for his failure to take any action earlier regarding Paul. By a slight injustice to an unpopular individual he hoped to curry favour with the Jews (he certainly needed to in view of his other conduct!); when he left the province, he did in fact avoid being impeached by the Jews (except for one group from Caesarea whose charge was quashed.)[i]
TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, CLICK ON THE TITLE.