Legal Brief: The People vs. Paul

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction: Facts in the case
Charges against Paul
Paul’s defence
The reasoning of the court
Significance of the verdicts
Conclusion
Reference

Introduction: Facts in the case

Jews in Achaia arrested Paul and brought him before the Roman governor, Gallio. Gallio dismissed their case. Sometime later the High Priest, Ananias, brought the case against Paul to the new governor, Felix. Felix held Paul prisoner for over two years without any conclusive conviction. He was succeeded by Porcius Festus as governor. Festus wanted to take Paul back to Jerusalem for the trial, but Paul declined and appealed to the Emperor. Later, his case was heard by King Agrippa, but it was not fully resolved due to Paul’s appeal to the emperor (GNB, 1994).

Charges against Paul

That he tried to persuade the people to worship God in a way that was against the law.
That he was becoming a public nuisance by starting riots among the Jews all over the world and was a leader of the Nazarene party.
That he had tried to defile the temple (GNB, 1994).

Underlying all those accusations was the Jewish Law which contended that all Jews follow a laid down procedure in their worship.

Paul’s defence

(O’Connor, 2008)

When presented before Gallio, Paul didn’t have to defend himself since the case was immediately dismissed. But when brought before Felix, Paul was given a hearing. He said that the Jews didn’t have any evidence for their accusations. They had arrested him after finding him in the Temple, where he had gone for the Purification Ceremony. There was no crowd around him at that time, so he couldn’t have been organizing a riot. Paul contended that he was being tried because of believing in life after death.

When Paul was finally brought before Festus, he presented the same case for himself. He refused to be taken to Jerusalem in the absence of any evidence against him. Before King Agrippa, Paul described how he had converted from a Christian persecutor to a staunch Christian, after a vision when on the way to Damascus (GNB, 1994).

The reasoning of the court

Gallio determined that the case against Paul was a matter of words and names, rather than crime or wrong-doing. Therefore, the issues at hand were outside his jurisdiction as a governor. He dismissed the case.

When Felix, Gallio’s successor as governor, heard Paul’s defence, he initially decided to wait for his commander, Lysias, to come before deciding on the case. Later, he listened to Paul’s case again, but couldn’t make up his mind. He was hoping that Paul would bribe him for his freedom (David, 2001). In this way, he held Paul prisoner for two years.

Felix’s successor, Festus, was more forthright in his decisions. He was seeking Jewish favour from the start, and so he let Paul stay in prison for some time without trial. The Jews plotted to kill Paul under the guise of taking him to Jerusalem. When Festus tried to make Paul go to Jerusalem, he refused. Festus couldn’t find any evidence supporting the accusations against Paul, and so he sought the counsel of King Agrippa. Agrippa also found Paul to be blameless, but the case was left unresolved due to the pressure from the Jews (GNB, 1994).

Significance of the verdicts

As Paul’s case progressed, it became more and more apparent that the Jews didn’t have any evidence against him. But even more profoundly, it showed that Paul was fully within his legal boundaries when doing his work. Hence the more his case was delayed, the more the unfairness of the governors became clear. But to Paul and all other Christian missionaries since then, it was a lesson that if they stuck to their cause, no one could stop them.

Conclusion

The accusations against Paul, if based on facts, were grave. According to Jewish law, anybody found defiling the temple or causing religious unrest was to be given the harshest punishment. The idea was to mete out justice and simultaneously set an example for the other Jews. However, without the proof, the case stood no chance in court. But the governors had to contend with the delicate balance between justice and gaining public disfavour. Faced with this, Gallio chose justice, while Felix and Festus stayed undecided (O’Connor, 2008).

Reference

David Guzik (2001) Paul’s trial before Felix. Web.

GNB (Good News Bible) The Acts of the Apostles United Bible Societies, 1994, Chapter 18 and 24-26, pgs 174 and 182-185 (New Testament).

O’Connor, T (2008) How to write a Legal Brief. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!