Ecclesial aristocracy

Sean Mahaffey writes: “The story of Paul seems to end ‘wrong.’ Here is a classically trained bold and faithful preacher with a leadership resume chained in the emperor’s house. Paul seems another Joseph/Daniel/Mordecai/Nehemiah. He should have been raised to a position of prominence – perhaps to the right hand of the emperor – perhaps after interpreting a dream or prophesying. The Caesar should have been at least nominally converted under Paul’s ministry and the empire should have enacted many of Yahweh’s laws and protected his people. But, Paul doesn’t do what the Paul character always did before. I had always chalked up the ‘change’ in story ending to prophecy, 70 AD, etc. Your two posts (and other things Constantinian you have written) make me think that there is another aspect here. No longer would the people of God simply be working within a kingdom/empire, but now for the first time there is a definite rival polis to be found in the Christian church. It would have been counterproductive for Paul to be too successful at this point in converting the rival empire?”