Legal Issues in the Book of Acts (That No One Talks About)

Discover the book of Acts from a different perspective, where we focus on what was pertinent to believers at the time: legal issues surrounding faith in the Messiah! The question of who could worship in what way was central to the response of people when they heard the Gospel. Examining the book of Acts through this lens will also help us to make sense of why Paul and other members of the early church were frequently in trouble with civic and religious leaders, often for conflicting reasons. Here we will mostly focus on events in Acts 16, 17, and 18 but this issue runs throughout the book of Acts and is imperative to understanding the New Testament and the world of the early church.

How do we know there were legal problems in Acts?

"These men are advocating customs unlawful for us Romans to accept or practice." -Acts 16:2

"They are all defying Caesar's decrees, saying there is another king, one called Jesus." -Acts 17:7

"This man is teaching people to worship God in illegal ways." -Acts 18:13

While many of us take religious freedom for granted today that was not the situation the early church found itself in amidst the Roman Empire. In the culture of the time, worshiping the approved gods was considered a mandatory civic duty. Most citizens were legally obligated to make sacrifices and observe other religious customs. This observance was thought to appease the local gods, who in turn would provide good harvests, military success, temperate weather and so on.

This means that if famine struck your area, or if your soldiers didn't fare too well in battle, everyone thought the problem was that not enough had been done to appease the gods. Anyone not participating in local religious customs was believed to be to blame. Imagine the pressure you would be under if all your neighbors thought it was your fault every time there was economic hardship or a fire or a battle was lost!

However, one group had legal exemption from participating in the state religion of Rome. That group was the Judeans - people from the tribes of Israel who worshiped YHWH. They were allowed to worship God and participate in their own customs in place of Rome's. Other people groups generally did not have the option to not participate in the Roman religion or to pick a religion for themselves. 

And this is what so much of the fuss is about in Acts.

Two main debates raged:

1. Should worship of the Messiah be legally granted if it fell under worship of YHWH?

2. Who should be allowed to worship the Messiah? Could members of the northern tribes of Israel be included, along with those with no physical ancestry in Israel?

There was a huge amount of concern throughout the book of Acts that these things would not be permitted, which is why we see verses like:

"These men are advocating customs unlawful for us Romans to accept or practice." -Acts 16:21

The illegal 'customs' would have been the new practice of non-Judeans or non-Israelites worshiping the God of Israel through the name Yahusha or Jesus. Roman citizens could not just decide to worship a 'new' god, because of their civic duties to local deities. They were worried they would be persecuted, or even killed, for worshiping the Messiah.

A huge portion of the events in Acts have to do with Paul explaining, or attempting to explain, that it was not illegal for anyone (even non-Israelites) to worship Jesus, because he was the goal that God's plan was getting at all along.

Why were religious leaders upset with Paul?

I used to assume that religious leaders just didn't accept Jesus, and that's why they were so mad at Paul. But that's not what was going on. Sure many people at that time did not believe Yahusha was the promised Messiah, but different sects disagreed all the time...we see that many times in the Gospel where the Sadducees and Pharisees argue about issues such as eternal life. That's not why they cared about what Paul was up to.

They cared because they believed it would cause them to lose their official permission to practice their religion. Let's take a look at what's going on...

In Acts 17, Paul and Silas had gone to Thessalonica where they preached and caused "certain Jews to become angry." These religious individuals were so upset, they leveled a serious accusation.

"These men have caused troubled all over the world have now come here, and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar's decrees, saying there is another king, one called Jesus." -Acts 17:6b-7

The religious leaders here are angry that Paul's teaching goes against...what? Scripture? No. They are angry he is teaching against Caesar's decrees. In fact, they charged them with what was known as heteron basileia - the declaration of there being another king. Which was not just having an obscure idea, but something considered to be treason. 

While sometimes Paul is accused of breaking religious rules, the concern here is that he's acting against Caesar's decrees. Scholars note that the implication of this is the above exemption we talked about above...that this specific group of people were permitted to to practice their own religious customs instead of the Roman way. While they had permission, they seemed concerned that the attempts of Paul to include others in this could land them in trouble with the authorities. Verse 8 tells us that the crowd and the authorities were greatly agitated by this, so it seems fair to say that Paul and Silas were pushing everyone's limits.

Then while in Corinth in Acts 18:12 a group of Jews made a 'united attack on Paul' and brought him to Gallio, the Roman proconsul, or provincial governor, in the Roman Empire. They told him that Paul was persuading people to worship God in illegal ways.

What is Gallio's response? Scripture tells us he blew them off before Paul could even start to defend himself.

Gallio said to them, "If you were making a complaint about a misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you. But since it involved questions and words and names and your own law - settle it yourselves. I will not judge this." -Acts 18:14-15

Gallio saw the argument as one that involved the intricacies of a religious sect that was already approved. He really didn't care what they did or said - they were exempt from taking part in the state Roman religion. This is a viewpoint Paul shares, believing since it was legally acceptable to worship YHWH, it was also legally acceptable to worship YHWH in the form of the Messiah, and to thus abstain from idol worship. 

Rome agreed with Paul when Gallio declared this had nothing to do with him. This was transformative for the people of Corinth at the time. Paul saw this as official permission that it was legal to worship the Messiah there.

What's wild about this is that this is the last of the persecution of the early church that we see in Corinth! In every other letter Paul writes to churches, he mentions recipients being persecuted. But not in 1 or 2 Corinthians. Having established legal precedent through the Gallio the proconsul, citizens of Corinth were not persecuted for worshiping the Messiah.

We see something similar happen not terribly far away in Athens, though this time it is not fellow worshippers of YHWH who are upset with Paul. This time he was disputing with "Epicurean and Stoic philosophers," (Acts 17:1). Paul is arrested and brought to trial at Mars Hill. There he is accused of advocating foreign gods. This was an issue not of xenophobia, but of genuine concern for what would happen if the official local deities like Athena and Zeus were not worshiped. We expect Paul to explain the importance of worshiping Jesus, because only he can forgive sins and grant eternal life. But Paul's defense is that YHWH is already being worshiped in the form of the unknown god, therefore he is not advocating for anything against the law.

We see Paul continue to insist throughout Acts that he "hasn't offended Biblical law, Temple law, or Caesar's law," (Acts 25:8). This isn't him crying that he should be left alone because he's not breaking the law, but an attempt at explaining there is no legal problem anywhere with worshiping the Messiah. I believe that is why he appeals to Caesar in Acts 25:11...his goal wasn't to get out of prison as quickly as he could, but to make the legality of worshiping Jesus known as widely as possible.

This helps us to see that spreading the Gospel was not just about sharing a strange new idea or trying to convince people to accept the Messiah. We can see better the challenges the disciples and adopters of the faith were facing when they chose to serve the Messiah.

Related posts:
Paul's Legal Defense at Mars Hill in Acts 17
The Two Houses: Israel and Judah in Scripture
Does God Offer a Covenant of Vocation or a Works Contract?

The Unknown God - Paul's Legal Defense at the Areopagus in Acts 17

This post is going to focus on what was happening during the famous Mars Hill discussion of Acts 17 where Paul talked about an unknown God. While many believe that this was just a friendly theological/philosophical discussion, where Paul cleverly draws on local customs to make analogies to the God of Israel, this post is going to show that Paul was actually on trial, making a legal defense for the religion he was sharing.

It's worth reading the whole chapter, but the part we are going to focus on is:

A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, "What is this nonsense?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?" You are bringing some strange ideas to us, and we would like to know what they mean." (Athenians spend their time talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

Paul stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said, "People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship - and this is what I am going to proclaim to you. 

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'" -Acts 17:18-28

Many pastors have given the impression that the Areopagus (often translated as Mars Hill) was some sort of hangout for local would-be philosophers, where people have friendly discussions about differing religious, political, and societal issues. I actually remember hearing a Bible college professor describe it like the Parisian cafes of the Lost Generation, where authors and artists drank coffee and debated and discussed the latest ideas of the time. As someone with a brand new idea, Paul would have been welcomed and celebrated, and Paul is cleverly emphasizing local cultural customs as a stepping stone to help the Athenians understand his message.

But that's not what is going on at Mars Hill. This is a law court, and not an inconsequential one. The Areopagus was the highest court in Athens. Paul is under trial.

We can see that Paul is under trial because:

-The Areopagus is a judicial court. It is not a hangout place or debate club.

-When Paul was "taken" to the Areopagus, the Greek word used means seized or arrested.

But what was the legal issue that Paul was charged with?

"He seems to be advocating foreign gods." -Acts 17:18

Much of the book of Acts deals with the legal adventures and implications the apostles went through when they spread the message of the Messiah across the world. Keep in mind that according to the social order of the day, appeasing the local deities was thought to bring protection from enemies, natural disasters, crop loss, an so on. Worshipping the local gods was seen as a civic duty. Even though cities and empires paid tribute to multiple gods and goddesses (in Athens - Zeus, Poseidon, Athena, Ares, and Nike for starters), throwing a new god into the mix was not something that was done. Actions like that were seen as political upheaval and even revolution. This literally undermined the social order of the day.

The punishment for such a charge wasn't light either. We know from historic evidence that the Areopagus tried capital cases, and that death sentences were handed out and followed through on. In 399 BC the philosopher Socrates was tried there for impiety - the crime of failing to worship the gods of Athens - and was sentenced to death for it on his conviction.

So when officials ask, "What teaching are you talking about?" they are not making polite conversation over coffee. This has legal implications that Paul needs to defend.

How does Paul defend himself on the charge of introducing foreign divinities?

He points out that they have an altar to an unknown god.

Paul is saying that he can't be introducing foreign gods because the true Living God was already being worshipped in Athens - although it was in ignorance. Since there was a shrine in the city, this God could not be foreign. Indeed the poets of Athens had glimpsed him! This was not a man from a far country trying to import a Middle Eastern deity to Greece.

Unknown, yes. But foreign, no. The Athenians needed to learn about this God - and Paul was there to help.

Paul believed that YHWH was already present in Athens, but needed proper recognition. 

It's worth noting that Luke (the author of Acts) does not seem to believe that Paul is just trying to be friendly by demonstrating his appreciation for the local culture. This idea is dismissed almost immediately by Paul's next statement.

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands."

This is a verse that we read like a pretty piece of poetry. But let's rewind and remember that Paul is standing in the Court of Areopagus in ancient Athens. He and his listeners can see, right then and there, the Parthenon, Nike's temple and likely other temples of the Acropolis. Not only are these temples visible - and truly stunning pieces of architectural achievement and beauty - but most everything about Athenian society was structured around serving these gods and goddesses. And that's where Paul chooses to say, "God does not live in handmade temples"! 

Paul is stating quite plainly that these architectural triumphs are a mistake. You can see how his audience would have been affronted by him declaring that the Athenian way of doing things was misguided at best. So it's hard to see his comments about your own poets, and so forth as an appeal to local sensibilities. Paul is not going easy here.

But what is Paul doing? He's making a case that even within this system, it is legal to worship this unknown God.

Paul is saying that it is legal to worship YHWH.

He's not just doing this to protect his own life or the lives of his travel companions. He is pleading this case, so that the residents of Athens know they are free to turn from the idols of their city and worship YHWH! 

What happened on Mars Hill was more than just a lively discussion about religion. The cities leaders were trying Paul to make sure that he was abiding by their laws. By making his case in the Areopagus court, Paul set a legal precedent for citizens of Athens to worship YHWH.

If you're interested in learning more about this I would recommend NT Wright's book The Challenge of Acts.

Related posts:
What No Greater Burdens Means in Acts 15
The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:19-20
What Does Grafted In Mean in Romans 11?