Questions about Paul appealing to Caesar?

[imperfectchristian]

God warned him reapeatedly about going to Jerusalem. He went anyway. Then God, (according to his permissive will) promised Paul that he would testify for the Lord in Rome.

Now we know Paul had a great passion to see the Jews come to know the Messiah.

He was called to the Gentiles, yet he could not seem to stop himself from pursuing the souls of his Jewish brothers.

Anyhow...he ends up being detained and gets upset at the obvious lack of justice and seems to try to make the roman government work for his benefit.

Then he does something unexpected... Paul ends up appealing to Caesar.

Why?

We know what he said, but it seems obvious to me that there was some ulterior motive knowing well from previous passages how Paul was known to use situations to his advantage.

We know he was not afraid of being beaten for the the Gospels sake.

Surely Paul knew what would happen if he appealed to Caesar.

Surely he knew that he did not need to appeal to Ceasar and that he would be released because they had no reason / justification to hold him.

Was Paul devising a plan to attempt to win Caesar himself and thereby the entire Roman empire to Christ?

I suspect that is precisely what he was doing.


Any thoughts on this?

 

[wayseer]

Excellent Question.

The incident is recorded in Acts 25 and it appears from that reading that Paul made a decision that to go to Jersualem to defend himself would not have been in his best interests. Jerusalem had a bad record in dealing with 'troublemakers'. Given the politics of the area Paul would have suspected much the same fate. There was no reason to believe that once having fallen under the competiting interest of Rome and Jersualem he would somehow find himself set free. (James, the brother of our Lord, was killed by those same Jewish elements in 62).

Paul had been arrested in Jersualem by the tribune Claudius Lysias who quickly dispatched Paul out of the city to Cæsarea and into the hands of his superior Felix, Procurator of Judaea. Felix, on his part, wanted Paul to go back to Jersualem to defend the charges against him. I suspect Paul smelt a trap.

Paul was a Roman citizen and rightly could appeal to Rome - the safer of the two options open to him. From his letter to the Romans, written about the year 56, probably not long before his trip to Jersualem and his incarceration at Cæsarea, we know he wanted very much to meet the Christians living in Rome.

We don't know anything much more than this. Personally, I doubt Paul saw any opportunity to appear before Caesar himself - given his own record of getting thrown out of more than the odd town because of his preaching. And the whole 'Jewish' question was as just as thorny then as it is now. Paul would get no thanks for trying to 'convert' Caesar if such an opportunity had presented itself.

Historians seem to think that whilst in Rome Paul was kept under house arrest. This allowed him the opportunity to meet with the local Christians, to write letters and direct affairs of the early Church.

Paul was the first Christian writer. His letters were written before the fall of Jersualem - all the Gospels were written after the destruction of that city by the Romans which culiminated in the burning of the Temple in 70 AD.

The Church is fortunate that Paul made his decision to appeal to Caesar. It was while in Rome that Paul cemented the teachings which we have today and which inform much of our tradition.

 

[imperfectchristian]

Excellent Question.

The incident is recorded in Acts 25 and it appears from that reading that Paul made a decision that to go to Jersualem to defend himself would not have been in his best interests. Jerusalem had a bad record in dealing with 'troublemakers'. Given the politics of the area Paul would have suspected much the same fate. There was no reason to believe that once having fallen under the competiting interest of Rome and Jersualem he would somehow find himself set free. (James, the brother of our Lord, was killed by those same Jewish elements in 62).

Paul had been arrested in Jersualem by the tribune Claudius Lysias who quickly dispatched Paul out of the city to Cæsarea and into the hands of his superior Felix, Procurator of Judaea. Felix, on his part, wanted Paul to go back to Jersualem to defend the charges against him. I suspect Paul smelt a trap.

Paul was a Roman citizen and rightly could appeal to Rome - the safer of the two options open to him. From his letter to the Romans, written about the year 56, probably not long before his trip to Jersualem and his incarceration at Cæsarea, we know he wanted very much to meet the Christians living in Rome.

We don't know anything much more than this. Personally, I doubt Paul saw any opportunity to appear before Caesar himself - given his own record of getting thrown out of more than the odd town because of his preaching. And the whole 'Jewish' question was as just as thorny then as it is now. Paul would get no thanks for trying to 'convert' Caesar if such an opportunity had presented itself.

Historians seem to think that whilst in Rome Paul was kept under house arrest. This allowed him the opportunity to meet with the local Christians, to write letters and direct affairs of the early Church.

Paul was the first Christian writer. His letters were written before the fall of Jersualem - all the Gospels were written after the destruction of that city by the Romans which culiminated in the burning of the Temple in 70 AD.

The Church is fortunate that Paul made his decision to appeal to Caesar. It was while in Rome that Paul cemented the teachings which we have today and which inform much of our tradition.

Very insightful...thanks so much for sharing. He did nearly convince King Agrippa. I did get the idea that Paul might have been avoiding a trap in Jerusalem, but he might have also avoided Jerusalem all together.

He was already fed up with the Jews...he said himself earlier that he was done with them and was going to the Gentiles. Was that a moment of hot temper where once he calmed down, his complusion got the better of him. I don't really think so. I think Paul was attempting to be strategic in the spreading of the Gospel.

What could have been strategic about going to Jerusalem accept to get the attention of the Roman government.

It could possibly have been something deeper to where he would follow Christ's footsteps, but then why would he have appealed to Caesar when he could have gone back to Jerusalem...perhaps he suddenly realized the opportunity to go before the authorities in Rome and preach the Gospel and took advantage of it by appealing to Caesar.

 

[dead2self]

Several reasons I see for this are frst that Paul very much wanted to go to Rome and second that he wanted to preach to gospel to Caesar. I disagree wayseer in your opinion on that matter. Paul was fanatical about preaching the gospel at any cost. And he would not have cared about getting any thanks for it. Converting Caesar would have been a major coup for Christianity. Of course as wayseer points out, we don't about his motives in this area and these are simply my thoughts.

 

[wayseer]

I did get the idea that Paul might have been avoiding a trap in Jerusalem, but he might have also avoided Jerusalem all together.

Quite so, but remember he was instrumental in initiating the contributions entrusted to him from the Church at Corinth specificially for the congregation in Jersualem who were suffering persecution from all sides - and he probably wanted to set a few things straight with James and Peter.

I agree that Paul was both passionate about preaching the Good News and would have readily seized the opportunity to confront Caesar with the gospel. But I doubt that a rebel from a far off place, a place where Caesar more likely thought all hell was breaking loose (speaking colloquially), would get anywhere near the head of the Roman Empire.

Regardless, Paul's decision to appeal to Caesar is one of the most interesting aspects of Christian heritage.