Acts 23:29 and Acts 25:16 are the only verses in which the word appears, both situated in Luke’s extended narrative of Paul’s arrest and hearings before Roman officials. In each verse the term is rendered “charge” or “charges,” and in both cases it describes the absence, rather than the presence, of any legitimate legal grounds against the apostle.

• Acts 23:29: “I found that the accusation involved questions about their own law, but there was no charge worthy of death or imprisonment.”
• Acts 25:16: “I told them that it is not the Roman custom to hand over any man before he has faced his accusers and defended himself against the charges.”

First-Century Legal Context

Roman jurisprudence prided itself on orderly procedure, insisting that an accused party meet his accusers face-to-face and be given the opportunity to mount a defense. This standard was rooted in Roman law but finds a resonance with the Mosaic requirement that “one witness is not enough to convict a man of any crime” (Deuteronomy 19:15). By Luke’s day, the language of formal indictments had crystallized, and the term under discussion served as a technical designation for a written complaint or an official bill of accusation.

Paul before Jewish and Roman Authorities

1. Before the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:30–23:10) Paul is examined on matters of doctrine rather than civil wrongdoing.
2. Before Claudius Lysias (Acts 23:26–30) the military commander explicitly states that no actionable offense can be found (Acts 23:29).
3. Before Festus (Acts 25:6–12) and later Agrippa (Acts 25:23–26:32) the governor concedes that Jerusalem’s leaders have presented “no charge worthy of death.”

Through these stages Luke highlights a repeated judicial verdict: Christianity is not a threat to public order. In the process, Paul is vindicated and the gospel gains an implicit legal sanction within the Roman world.

Theological Significance

1. Divine Providence and Mission. God uses Roman legal protections to preserve Paul so that he might “testify also in Rome” (Acts 23:11). The absence of a valid charge is not a mere historical detail; it is an instrument of providence.
2. Suffering Without Cause. The apostle’s experience mirrors the righteous sufferer motif found in Psalms and, ultimately, in the sinless sufferings of Christ (John 15:25).
3. Apologetics and Evangelism. Each hearing becomes a pulpit. The nullification of every charge against Paul underscores the credibility of his message and demonstrates that Christian proclamation thrives even under scrutiny.

Historical Resonance in Early Christianity

Early apologists—Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others—echo Paul’s appeals, insisting that believers be judged for actual wrongdoing, not for the mere “name” of Christian. The precedent set in Acts provided both legal language and moral leverage for their defenses before Roman magistrates.

Pastoral and Ministry Implications

• Integrity in Witness: Paul’s clear conscience (Acts 24:16) challenged his accusers to produce substantive proof. Modern believers are likewise called to live “above reproach” (1 Peter 3:16).
• Due Process as a Biblical Value: While civil structures differ, the principle that accusations require corroboration is upheld by Scripture (Matthew 18:16; 1 Timothy 5:19).
• Confidence in God’s Sovereignty: The nullity of every charge against Paul did not prevent suffering, imprisonment, or hardship, yet it advanced the gospel to the heart of the empire. Trials handled with faithfulness can widen ministry horizons.

Summary

Across its two occurrences the term spotlights a striking fact: the world found no legitimate indictment against an apostle whose sole “offense” was fidelity to Jesus Christ. By recording that verdict, Luke reinforces both the moral credibility of the early church and the unstoppable advance of the gospel even in courtrooms where hostile voices sought to silence it.