Laws are built on beliefs about the nature of man, of justice and fairness, and how best to operate a society. No source played a larger role in the development of Anglo-American (“English-American”) law than the Bible. Not only did the Archbishop of Canterbury write the first draft of the Magna Carta, but the book most often cited by America’s founding fathers in their speeches and writings is the Bible, accounting for 34 percent of all citations.[1]
Many of the legal principles we use today are based on the laws God gave to Moses. This is true not only of criminal law, but also civil law, family law, wills and estates, contracts, and torts, credit, banking, property law, and more.
Consider the trials in the Bible. Jesus—the only innocent man in history—was found guilty in a kangaroo court. Many of the most widely accepted rules of court procedure were broken by leaders desperate to put Jesus to death. The trials before the High Priest, Herod, and Pontius Pilate were a mockery, even by the standards of the time. The trials of Jesus were so ridiculous they can be written off as a fraud.
More interesting are the trials of the Apostle Paul, including as they did a mixture of good procedure and bad.
By today’s standards, those who put Paul on trial did some things right and some things wrong.
In Acts 24:5, the prosecutor, a lawyer named Tertullus, begins his charge against Paul with name-calling. “We have found this man to be a plague, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the Roman world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” Acts 24:5. Name-calling by a prosecutor is not unusual, but where most follow that up with evidence of an actual crime, this prosecutor had no evidence.
In Acts 24:10 and again in 25:6, two Roman governors sit as judges. That was normal at the time, but today we would consider this a Separation of Powers problem. If you are an executive (a president, governor, mayor, or king), you should not also be the judge. When executives sit as judges, they will be influenced by political pressures from which judges are insulated—because executives must be re-elected. Even in ancient Rome, executives such as the procurator Pontius Pilate were rewarded based on their ability to maintain order. This would have motivated Pilate to calm crowds and prevent riots. Such a motivation made him a biased judge. That is, Pilate was willing to have an innocent man crucified because he knew it would calm the crowd that was shouting “Crucify him!” Mark 15:13.
Separation of Powers problems were the norm throughout history until John Locke, Montesquieu, and America’s founders perfected the doctrine separating the executive from the judiciary.
Governor Felix then ordered Paul be locked up until Lysias—the equivalent of a police officer—could come testify for the prosecution. Unfortunately, Paul was then held under house arrest for TWO YEARS!
Today we have the right to a speedy trial. Clearly ancient Rome had no such concerns. (Plus, Felix kept hoping Paul would come up with some bribe money! Acts 24:26.)
In Acts 25:7, Paul’s accusers come up with more charges, but again no evidence. “The Jews brought many serious charges that they were not able to prove.” Finally, Paul appealed to Caesar. Paul knew his rights as a Roman citizen.
“You have appealed to Caesar, to Caesar you will go” Acts 25:12.
Soon King Agrippa and Bernice arrived, Jewish royalty from the line of Herod. Festus, the new governor, explained he could not render a verdict against Paul until Paul faced his accusers.
“It’s not the Romans’ custom to give any man up before the accused confronts the accusers face-to-face” Acts 25:16. This is an early mention of a right the Bill of Rights enshrines today: the right to face one’s accusers.
Governor Festus added that he could not figure out what Paul was accused of. Today we would call this a habeus corpus problem. Anyone who is arrested must be brought before the judge and formally charged.
In practical terms, this ALWAYS produces a writing. No one is charged with a crime or held overnight in jail without some sort of paper detailing the exact crimes with which that person is charged. Yet Paul had been in jail for two years and still Governor Festus said, “I have nothing definite to write to my lord about him … It seems unreasonable to me to send a prisoner and not to indicate the charges against him” Acts 25:26-27. (Unreasonable? Ya’ think?)
Before King Agrippa and Bernice, Paul is invited to testify on his own behalf. But wait. Doesn’t Paul have the right to an attorney? As we say in America’s Miranda warnings, “If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.”
The scripture mentions the lawyer Tertullus and others working for the prosecution. But who is defending Paul? No one, it seems. (Of course, if anyone in the Bible might be capable of mounting his own defense, it would be Paul.) But ancient Rome did not provide free lawyers to criminal defendants.
For a missionary and evangelist, speaking on his own behalf is a great opportunity. Paul wants nothing more than to testify about the risen Savior, and he will share his testimony with everyone from peasants to Caesar, both “the small and the great” Acts 26:22.
However, as a defendant in a criminal case—who has yet to be officially charged with a crime—it makes no sense for Paul to offer a defense at this stage. Why? Because it is impossible to provide a quality defense against charges of which you are not certain. If Paul does not know what law he is alleged to have broken, how can he defend himself against the charge?
Modern trials always begin with the party bearing the burden of proof. Who has something to prove? In a criminal case, it is always the prosecutor–the party that wants to take away a man’s freedom. Should the prosecutor fail to prove its case, there is no reason to go on. The accused can go free without saying a word.
But Paul will not turn down an opportunity to speak. He is on a mission to testify about Jesus and all that the Risen Messiah has done for him and for the world. Thus, he offers his defense. Which of course is a brilliant sermon.
He begins with a classic defense still taught in law schools today. He re-frames the debate—as he always does—describing the case against him as a case against the reality of the resurrection:
“I stand on trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers, the promise our 12 tribes hope to attain as they earnestly serve Him night and day. King Agrippa, I am being accused by the Jews because of this hope. Why is it considered incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?” Acts 26:6-8.
One of the things that makes the Bible such a relevant, credible book is stories like this one. While Paul’s experience in the tribunals of ancient Rome was different from ours, the details Luke includes make the narrative more realistic and frankly, more believable than many other religious works. The Bible reports the detailed stories of real people, living real lives, and facing real struggles.
ΑΩ
P.S. A FEW WORDS ABOUT “DOCTOR LUKE.”
Readers appreciate Luke’s careful reporting so much that we sometimes speak of “Doctor Luke” as though he were a neurosurgeon, some highly trained practitioner of modern medical science. However, Luke practiced medicine centuries before the advent of science. His simpler work would have included proven, practical treatments, such as splints for broken bones and poultices for wounds, yet would be primitive by today’s standards.
Modern medicine is built on the scientific method. And the Bible played a role in that. The scientific method was created by Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes who were convinced God is not a god of chaos but of order, 1 Corinthians 14:33, and if God is a God of order, then His creation is also ordered. And if the natural world is ordered, then it follows rules (such as the law of gravity) and if nature follows rules, then we can learn those rules through experimentation. Modern medicine still rests on that foundation.
Although I have often speculated that Luke may have employed “heroic medicine” based on the theory of the humors, I have learned that is false. The practice of heroic medicine began with the Greek philosopher and physician Claudius Galen who was born in 129 AD, long after Luke’s death. (Heroic medicine used purging, starving, vomiting, and bloodletting to relieve the body of various fluids believed to be out of balance. Think leeches.) Nevertheless, heroic medicine is a reminder just how primitive medical science was in the first century A.D. Luke was a careful writer, but whether his occupation as a ‘physician’ has anything to do with his meticulous record keeping is unclear.
[1] Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers, by John Eidsmoe, p.12 (1987).
Household Words: 