Paul - Captivity in Caesarea

[regression]

Hello. I’m hoping someone can explain this passage in the Acts of the Apostles. Hopefully I’m asking this in the right forum.

In Acts of the Apostles, Chapters 24 / 25, Paul is being integrated by Felix / Porcius Festus / King Agrippa. At one point (Chapter 25, verse 10) Paul asks to be sent before Caesar. The foot note in my bible (New American Bible / St. Joseph Medium Size Edition) says “This move broke the deadlock between Roman protective custody of Paul and the plan of his enemies to kill him”.

At the end of chapter 26, Agrippa says Paul hasn’t done anything to deserve death or imprisonment. If Paul hadn’t appealed to Caesar, he would be free.

My question is, why? Why by Paul asking to go before Caesar was he not able to be free? Maybe the answer is apparent and I just can’t see it, or maybe it involves politics that I don’t understand going on at the time??

Thanks

 

[NHInsider]

Hello. I’m hoping someone can explain this passage in the Acts of the Apostles. Hopefully I’m asking this in the right forum.

In Acts of the Apostles, Chapters 24 / 25, Paul is being integrated by Felix / Porcius Festus / King Agrippa. At one point (Chapter 25, verse 10) Paul asks to be sent before Caesar. The foot note in my bible (New American Bible / St. Joseph Medium Size Edition) says “This move broke the deadlock between Roman protective custody of Paul and the plan of his enemies to kill him”.

At the end of chapter 26, Agrippa says Paul hasn’t done anything to deserve death or imprisonment. If Paul hadn’t appealed to Caesar, he would be free.

My question is, why? Why by Paul asking to go before Caesar was he not able to be free? Maybe the answer is apparent and I just can’t see it, or maybe it involves politics that I don’t understand going on at the time??

Thanks

By exercising his right as a Roman citizen to have a trial before Caesar, Paul had taken himself out of Agrippa’s hands-Agrippa no longer had the legal authority either to release or to condemn (or even to try) him.

And, as the notes point out, this sets Paul off on his journey to Rome under Roman guard, whereas if Agrippa had released him he’d have still been under threat by those who had sworn to have him killed.

 

[regression]

By exercising his right as a Roman citizen to have a trial before Caesar, Paul had taken himself out of Agrippa’s hands-Agrippa no longer had the legal authority either to release or to condemn (or even to try) him.

And, as the notes point out, this sets Paul off on his journey to Rome under Roman guard, whereas if Agrippa had released him he’d have still been under threat by those who had sworn to have him killed.

Ah, OK. that makes sense. One more thing, is Agrippa a Roman official? I didn’t know there were kings in the Roman hierarchy.

Thanks.

 

[NHInsider]

Ah, OK. that makes sense. One more thing, is Agrippa a Roman official? I didn’t know there were kings in the Roman hierarchy.

Thanks.

The Roman practice was to conquer a country, garrison troops there, and then set up a local king to rule the locals, but with oversight/ultimate control of a Roman governor. Like Herod and Pilate. (In fact, Agrippa was a Herod - grandson or great-grandson, I think, of the Herod who taunted Jesus, and Festus was a successor to Pilate.)