Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 22:22

And they gave him audience unto this word, and [then] lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a [fellow] from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.

22 29. Fury of the Jews. The Chief Captain orders Paul to be scourged, but on hearing that he is a roman, recalls the order in alarm

22. unto this word ] It is probable that, though listening, they were not well-pleased at some things which they heard. Their pent-up feelings broke into instant execration at the hated word.

and then lift up ] The Rev. Ver. omits “then” for which there is no word in the original, but it is needed for the English sense, and would be therefore better retained.

for it is not fit ] The best authorities read “It was not fit.” And this no doubt expresses the feeling of the mob. They had listened for a time, but when the speaker made mention of “the Gentiles” they were at once clear that he ought long ago to have been destroyed. He had been all along a man who was not fit to live.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

And they gave him audience – They heard him patiently.

Unto this word – The word Gentile.

Away with such a fellow – Greek: take such a man from the earth, that is, put him to death. It is language of strong indignation and abhorrence. The reasons of their induction were, not that they supposed that the Gentiles could not be brought into covenant with God, for they would themselves compass sea and land to make one proselyte, but:

1. That they believed that Paul taught that they might be saved without conforming to the Law of Moses; and,
2. His speech implied that the Jews were more hardened than the Gentiles, and that he had a greater prospect of success in bringing them to God than he had in regard to the Jews.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Act 22:22-23

And they gave audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices.

The point of secession

Paul was listened to attentively until he came to the word Gentiles. How some words madden men! We are not offended by the word Gentiles, otherwise we should be offended by our own name; but the Jews were the enemies of the Gentiles, and they have written oaths that they themselves would rather not have any Messiah than one that had a kindly feeling towards the heathen; and their books are full of cursing against all men who were not Jews. This explains the fury of the mob: so long as Paul had a tale to tell they listened to him. Paul–a wise rhetorician–kept the burning word until the very last, but, like a man skilled in speech, he got it quite out. Its very place is a stroke of genius; it is the last word, but the moment it was uttered it was like a spark thrown into a magazine of gunpowder.


I. It is curious to observe is the New Testament the points at which audiences break away from the speakers.

1. Take the case of Christ. In Joh 6:66, we read, From that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him–the time of spiritual revelation. So long as there were parables to hear, and loaves and fishes to be divided, and miracles to be wondered at, there was no turning away; but when the Lord became intensely spiritual then they left Him. This is a point which is often forgotten. We are often told, Preach like Jesus, and the people will hear you gladly; whereas the truth is that the moment Christ left the elements of teaching and came to deal with the real and eternal purpose of His teaching, the people left Him. That must be the result of spiritual preaching everywhere. The world does not want spiritual preaching. If we were to speak spiritually, the churches would be empty: we are obliged to keep on the outside, and show the great stones of the temple; we dare not go inside and touch the altar.

2. The Athenians left Paul at another point. They listened to him with more or less interest when he made his great speech upon Mars hill, but the moment he began to speak about the resurrection, some mocked, etc. They did not want to hear about the resurrection; they wanted philosophy, speculation, high discourse, poetry.

3. In this particular instance another point of departure is chosen. The Jews listened to Paul so long as he confined himself to matters which were more or less of a purely Jewish kind, but the moment he said Gentiles they went mad.


II. The great teaching of this review is that all men part company with their teachers at certain points. The point is not always the same: some remained with Jesus, notwithstanding the spirituality of His teaching; some heard about the resurrection of the dead with comparative interest; others could hear about the Gentiles with mental composure. But there are points at which we all fly off, which would dissolve this assembly in a moment. Men always like to listen to themselves preaching. Who dare speak the new word? Look at this particular case: the disease under which these people were suffering was the eternal disease of humanity–narrow-mindedness. The man who could entertain a kindly interest towards the Gentiles was a fellow not fit to live. That was called religious earnestness, contention for the faith once delivered to the saints! Have we learned Christs great lesson: Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring? Have we left the ninety-and-nine accepted ideas in the wilderness and gone out after that which is lost, until we find it? I do not ask for new truth, for there is none and can be none; I ask for great-heartedness that will listen to all kinds of people, hoping that they will drop one word which the great Teacher can take up and magnify into a gospel. If any man has a prophecy, let us hear it; if any man has a new reading of the old Book, let us hear him. A tone may be a lesson; an emphasis may be equal to a revelation. The only condition of mind which Jesus Christ can approve is a condition of all hopeful love. (J. Parker, D. D.)

An audience too prejudiced to be convinced

These verses are a sad revelation of prejudice.


I. One word destroyed the effect of a whole discourse. They gave him audience unto this word–Gentiles. Their prejudice was that Jews alone were the objects of Divine favour; that the Gentiles were reprobate. Hence they were roused to the greatest excitement. How often is this the case! Let the preacher in the course of a sermon filled with lofty truths utter a word that strikes against the prepossessions of some hearer, and the whole sermon goes for nothing. Let not the preacher who avoids striking at prejudices conclude, from the attention of his audience, that his sermon has been accepted. Had Paul concluded before he uttered that word, he might have inferred that his audience was brought into sympathy with his views.


II. One word roused the malignant passions into fury. This one word had hurled reason from the throne, opened the floodgates of passion, and made them the sport of a lawless rage. They roared like lions, they howled like wolves. In such a state of mind all argument fell powerless upon them.


III. One word transformed the best teacher into a wretch. Away with such a fellow. Thus offended prejudice has always acted. Thus towards Christ, thus towards the martyrs, thus towards the true teachers of all times. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Paul and the bigoted Jews

The most inspiring subjects for the artists pencil have come from the Bible narrations, and but few equal the occasion upon which our text was uttered. Upon a staircase leading from the temple stands a venerable apostle, chained between two soldiers. Around him is the Roman guard; beneath are scowling, bloodthirsty Jews; violent hands and feet join with raging tongues, so that a cloud of dust and garments thrown off obscure the sunlight. Why this uproar in such a place? Its sole cause is a recital of Christian experience. The witness is one well known to be competent and trustworthy–once Saul, breathing out threatenings and slaughter, now Paul, ready to die for that Master whom he had madly persecuted.


I. Compare the blindness of those who reject Christ today with that of these Jews.

1. Had they not known all his life of persecution, the death of Stephen? Had they not just heard the marvellous story of his conversion? Did they not know his self-sacrifice and pure life of love and tenderness? Had they not overwhelming evidence in the fruits of his labours that God was with him? What a blindness must have enshrouded them!

2. Great, indeed, was the flood of evidence; but he who rejects Christ today closes his eyes to greater light. For–

(1) Christianity is no longer of recent origin, or of sporadic appearance.

(a) It has revolutionised the worlds life. It has levelled the proudest thrones, dispelled the most tenacious superstitions, lighted up heathen darkness, civilised savagery.

(b) Unlike all other religions which time disintegrates, Christianity is progressive.

(c) For centuries the Bible has stimulated and rewarded closest study, and today its fulness and undeveloped wealth are more than ever conspicuous.

(d) All life has been leavened by the purifying and quickening power of Christianity.

(e) Pauls persecutors had seen thousands brought in loving abasement and gracious quickening to the Cross; but now, millions upon millions from all nations under the sun unite in a testimony substantially accordant. No testimony on earth is so cumulative, so inexplicable upon ordinary philosophy, so reinforced by lives of purity and self-sacrifice.

(2) The unbeliever is today surrounded by transformations inexplicable upon any theory but that of a living Christ working by the power of the Holy Ghost. How can such blindness then and now be explained?


II. Those who reject Christ today, like these Jews, are unwilling to see the light.

1. The Jews knew that if Paul was right, they were wrong; that the murders of Jesus and Stephen were criminal and damning. Their selfish interests clamoured. Their individual preeminence, and their worldly affluence, were endangered. Hence they would not look at the claims of the gospel, and hesitated at no extreme of fraud and violence.

2. So today, the unbeliever wilfully spurns light at which he would catch eagerly in any other pursuit, and rushes into blind persecution, or sits aloof in contempt or indifference. May not such stubbornness become so obdurate that character shall be fixed beyond repair? May not spiritual faculties become permanently fixed in wrong activities by continued distortion? In a word, may not man abdicate forever, though only for a mess of pottage, his Divine birthright of freedom of will? Judicial blindness may come upon all who misuse their spiritual faculties. Observation brings many cases to view where the will seems to have lost its flexibility, and, like a lashed rudder, steers the poor lost soul straight to the dark gulf of hell.

3. The explanation of this blind tenacity of will in a bad cause can be found in personal hatred. These Jews at Jerusalem and elsewhere hated Paul murderously; and that hate drowned all appreciation of his intellectual preeminence, his generous self-abnegation, and his noble spirit of conciliation so eager to win them to a better mind even now. But they are not alone in such hate.


III. Unbelief today cherishes a personal hate, the same in kind though varying in degree and mode of expression. Personal relations are great formative factors of every life, and always evoke answering sympathies or antipathies.

1. Man is always in closest contact with God. Hence, by the laws of his being, he must respond to that relationship in obedience, or in opposition. It is a sad fact that such opposition is the first and certain attitude of the unrenewed soul. Let a personal God declare himself in natures extent, and wondrous mechanisms, in processes that require design, and which slowly unfold themselves in minute adaptation to mans wants, then infidelity, claiming to be scientific, cries out, even of the God of nature, Away with him!

2. The Bible, in itself and in its triumphs, indicates Gods personal presence. It therefore cannot escape the opposition of infidelity.

3. Organised Christianity–the visible Church–presses its claims upon the attention of a lost world; but such claims are, the signal for unflagging hostility. If the Church is right, the world is wrong: no truce is possible.

4. Our Lord Himself does not escape this hate of infidelity. Rome substitutes Mariolatry, works of supererogation, fires of purgatory, and sacerdotal agency. Unitarianism elevates the sinner above the need of redemption, and scouts at the blood of Calvary as offensive to cultivated sensibilities. Coarse blasphemy reserves the name of Jesus for its whitest heats and most violent outbursts. (S. L. B. Spears.)

Ignorant bigots

On entering the Gudarigby Caverns, near the Murrumbidgee River, New South Wales, you will see large numbers of the great-leaved horseshoe bat. If you proceed with torches they will become so eager to escape from your light that they will annoy you exceedingly by flapping against your face in their eagerness to escape into a congenial darkness. How much they remind one of those ignorant bigots who, when the torch of truth is carried into the recesses of superstition, dash in wild exasperation against the enlightener, and do their utmost to seek intellectual gloom! (Scientific Illustrations.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 22. They gave him audience unto this word] Namely, that God had sent him to the Gentiles: not that they refused to preach the law to the Gentiles, and make them proselytes; for this they were fond of doing, so that our Lord says, they compassed sea and land to make a proselyte; but they understood the apostle as stating that God had rejected them, and called the Gentiles to be his peculiar people in their place; and this they could not bear.

Away with such a fellow] According to the law of Moses, he who attempted to seduce the people to any strange worship was to be stoned, De 13:15. The Jews wished to insinuate that the apostle was guilty of this crime, and that therefore he should be stoned, or put to death.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

They gave him audience unto this word; they had heard all the rest of St. Pauls discourse without any gainsaying, either thinking it did not much concern them whether it were true or false, or else, being convinced of the truth of it, they were silent; but when the mercy of God unto any but themselves is mentioned, they are not able to bear with it. Though they themselves refused the offers of Gods mercy, yet they could not endure that it should be tendered unto others; especially that others should be preferred before them in the tendering of it.

Away with such a fellow from the earth; that is: Kill him; encouraging one another to so barbarous a murder, or exciting their rulers unto it.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

22, 23. gave him audience to thisword . . . then . . . Away with such a fellow from the earth,&c.Their national prejudices lashed into fury at the mentionof a mission to the Gentiles, they would speedily have done to him asthey did to Stephen, but for the presence and protection of the Romanofficer.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And they gave him audience unto this word….. The Ethiopic version reads, “and I heard him so speaking unto me”; as if it was to be understood of the apostle hearing Christ speaking to him concerning his mission to the Gentiles; whereas the words refer to the Jews attending quietly to the apostle, till he came to that part of his oration. They heard him patiently, and did not offer to molest him, or hinder his speaking, and being heard, till he came to mention his mission to the Gentiles: all the rest they either did not understand, or looked upon it as an idle tale, as the effect of madness and enthusiasm, at least as containing things they had nothing to do with; but when he came to speak of the Gentiles, and to pretend to a divine mission to them, this they could not bear; for nothing was more offensive, irritating, and provoking to them, than to hear of the calling of the Gentiles, whom they were for depriving of all blessings, and for engrossing all to themselves; see Ro 10:20.

and then lift up their voices; in a very loud and clamorous manner, as one man:

and said, away with such a fellow from the earth; take away his life from the earth: this they said either to the chief captain, to do it, or as encouraging one another to do it:

for it is not fit that he should live; he does not deserve to live, he is unworthy of life; it is not agreeable to the rules of justice that he should be spared; it is not convenient, and it may be of bad consequence should he be continued any longer; he may do a deal of mischief, and poison the minds of the people with bad notions, and therefore it is not expedient that he should live.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Paul’s First Defence.

      22 And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.   23 And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air,   24 The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him.   25 And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?   26 When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman.   27 Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.   28 And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.   29 Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.   30 On the morrow, because he would have known the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his bands, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down, and set him before them.

      Paul was going on with this account of himself, had shown them his commission to preach among the Gentiles without any peevish reflections upon the Jews, and we may suppose designed next to show how he was afterwards, by a special direction of the Holy Ghost at Antioch, separated to this service, how tender he was of the Jews, how respectful to them, and how careful to give them the precedency in all places whither he came, and to unite Jews and Gentiles in one body; and then to show how wonderfully God had owned him, and what good service had been done to the interest of God’s kingdom among men in general, without damage to any of the true interests of the Jewish church in particular. But, whatever he designs to say, they resolve he shall say no more to them: They gave him audience to this word. Hitherto they had heard him with patience and some attention. But when he speaks of being sent to the Gentiles, though it was what Christ himself said to him, they cannot bear it, not so much as to hear the Gentiles named, such an enmity had they to them, and such a jealousy of them. Upon the mention of this, they have no manner of patience, but forget all rules of decency and equity; thus were they provoked to jealousy by those that were no people, Rom. x. 19.

      Now here we are told how furious and outrageous the people were against Paul, for mentioning the Gentiles as taken into the cognizance of divine grace, and so justifying his preaching among them.

      I. They interrupted him, by lifting up their voice, to put him into confusion, and that nobody might hear a word he said. Galled consciences kick at the least touch; and those who are resolved not to be rules by reason commonly resolve not to hear it if they can help it. And the spirit of enmity against the gospel of Christ commonly shows itself in silencing the ministers of Christ and his gospel, and stopping their mouths, as the Jews did Paul’s here. Their fathers had said to the best of seers, See not, Isa. xxx. 10. And so they to the best of speakers, Speak not. Forbear, wherefore shouldst thou be smitten? 2 Chron. xxv. 16.

      II. They clamoured against him as one that was unworthy of life, much more of liberty. Without weighing the arguments he had urged in his own defence, or offering to make any answer to them, they cried out with a confused noise, “Away with such a fellow as this from the earth, who pretends to have a commission to preach to the Gentiles; why, it is not fit that he should live.” Thus the men that have been the greatest blessings of their age have been represented not only as the burdens of the earth, but the plague of their generation. He that was worthy of the greatest honours of life is condemned as not worthy of life itself. See what different sentiments God and men have of good men, and yet they both agree in this that they are not likely to live long in this world. Paul says of the godly Jews that they were men of whom the world was not worthy, Heb. xi. 38. And therefore they must be removed, that the world may be justly punished with the loss of them. The ungodly Jews here say of Paul that it was not fit he should live; and therefore he must be removed, that the world may be eased of the burden of him, as of the two witnesses, Rev. xi. 10.

      III. They went stark mad against Paul, and against the chief captain for not killing him immediately at their request, or throwing him as a pry into their teeth, that they might devour him (v. 23); as men whose reason was quite lost in passion, they cried out like roaring lions or raging bears, and howled like the evening wolves; they cast off their clothes with fury and violence, as much as to say that thus they would tear him if they could but come at him. Or, rather, they thus showed how ready they were to stone him; those that stoned Stephen threw off their clothes, v. 20. Or, they rent their clothes, as if he had spoken blasphemy; and threw dust into the air, in detestation of it; or signifying how ready they were to throw stones at Paul, if the chief captain would have permitted them. But why should we go about to give a reason for these experiences of fury, which they themselves could not account for? All they intended was to make the chief captain sensible how much they were enraged and exasperated at Paul, so that he could not do any thing to gratify them more than to let them have their will against him.

      IV. The chief captain took care for his safety, by ordering him to be brought into the castle, v. 24. A prison sometimes has been a protection to good men from popular rage. Paul’s hour was not yet come, he had not finished his testimony, and therefore God raised up one that took care of him, when none of his friends durst appear on his behalf. Grant not, O Lord, the desire of the wicked.

      V. He ordered him the torture, to force from him a confession of some flagrant crimes which had provoked the people to such an uncommon violence against him. He ordered that he should be examined by scourging (as now in some countries by the rack), that he might know wherefore they cried so against him. Herein he did not proceed fairly; he should have singled out some of the clamorous tumultuous complainants, and taken them into the castle as breakers of the peace, and should have examined them, and by scourging too, what they had to lay to the charge of a man that could give so good an account of himself, and did not appear to have done any thing worthy of death or of bonds. It was proper to ask them, but not at all proper to ask Paul, wherefore they cried so against him. He could tell that he had given them no just cause to do it; if there were any cause, let them produce it. No man is bound to accuse himself, though he be guilty, much less ought he to be compelled to accuse himself when he is innocent. Surely the chief captain did not know the Jewish nation when he concluded that he must needs have done something very bad whom they cried out against. Had they not just thus cried out against our Lord Jesus, Crucify him, crucify him, when they had not one word to say in answer to the judge’s question, Why, what evil has he done? Is this a fair or just occasion to scourge Paul, that a rude tumultuous mob cry out against him, but cannot tell why or wherefore, and therefore he must be forced to tell?

      VI. Paul pleaded his privilege as a Roman citizen, by which he was exempted from all trials and punishments of this nature (v. 25): As they bound him with thongs, or leathern bands, to the whipping post, as they used to bind the vilest of malefactors in bridewell from whom they would extort a confession, he made no outcry against the injustice of their proceedings against an innocent man, but very mildly let them understand the illegality of their proceedings against him as a citizen of Rome, which he had done once before at Philippi after he had been scourged (ch. xvi. 37), but here he makes use of it for prevention. He said to the centurion that stood by, “You know the law; pray is it lawful for you who are yourselves Romans to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?” The manner of his speaking plainly intimates what a holy security and serenity of mind this good man enjoyed, not disturbed either with anger or fear in the midst of all those indignities that were done him, and the danger he was in. The Romans had a law (it was called lex Sempronia), that if any magistrate did chastise or condemn a freeman of Rome, indicta causa–without hearing him speak for himself, and deliberating upon the whole of his case, he should be liable to the sentence of the people, who were very jealous of their liberties. It is indeed the privilege of every man not to have wrong done him, except it be proved he has done wrong; as it is of every Englishman by Magna Charta not to be dis-seized of his life or freehold, but by a verdict of twelve men of his peers.

      VII. The chief captain was surprised at this, and put into a fright. He had taken Paul to be a vagabond Egyptian, and wondered he could speak Greek (ch. xxi. 37), but is much more surprised now he finds that he is as good a gentleman as himself. How many men of great worth and merit are despised because they are not known, are looked upon and treated as the offscouring of all things, when those that count them so, if they knew their true character, would own them to be of the excellent ones of the earth! The chief captain had centurions, under-officers, attending him, ch. xxi. 32. One of these reports this matter to the chief captain (v. 26): Take heed what thou doest, for this man is a Roman, and what indignity is done to him will be construed an offence against the majesty of the Roman people, as they loved to speak. They all knew what a value was put upon this privilege of the Roman citizens. Tully extols it in one of his orations against Verres, O nomen dulce libertatis, O jus eximium nostr civitatis! O lex Porcia! O leges Semproni; facinus est vincere Romanum civem, scelus verberare–O Liberty! I love thy charming name; and these our Porcian and Sempronian laws, how admirable! It is a crime to bind a Roman citizen, but an unpardonable one to beat him. “Therefore” (says the centurion) “let us look to ourselves; if this man be a Roman, and we do him any indignity, we shall be in danger to lose our commissions at least.” Now, 1. The chief captain would be satisfied of the truth of this from his own mouth (v. 27): “Tell me, art thou a Roman? Art thou entitled to the privileges of a Roman citizen?” “Yes,” says Paul, “I am;” and perhaps produced some ticket or instrument which proved it; for otherwise they would scarcely have taken his word. 2. The chief captain very freely compares notes with him upon this matter, and it appears that the privilege Paul had as a Roman citizen was of the two more honourable than the colonel’s; for the colonel owns that his was purchased: “I am a freeman of Rome; but with a great sum obtained I this freedom, it cost me dear, how came you by it?” “Why truly,” says Paul, “I was free-born.” Some think he became entitled to this freedom by the place of his birth, as a native of Tarsus, a city privileged by the emperor with the same privileges that Rome itself enjoyed; others rather think it was by his father or grandfather having served in the war between Csar and Antony, or some other of the civil wars of Rome, and being for some signal piece of service rewarded with a freedom of the city, and so Paul came to be free-born; and here he pleads it for his own preservation, for which end not only we may but we ought to use all lawful means. 3. This put an immediate stop to Paul’s trouble. Those that were appointed to examine him by scourging quitted the spot; they departed from him (v. 29), lest they should run themselves into a snare. Nay, and the colonel himself, though we may suppose him to have a considerable interest, was afraid when he heard he was a Roman, because, though he had not beaten him, yet he had bound him in order to his being beaten. Thus many are restrained from evil practices by the fear of man who would not be restrained from them by the fear of God. See here the benefit of human laws and magistracy, and what reason we have to be thankful to God for them; for even when they have given no countenance nor special protection to God’s people and ministers, yet, by the general support of equity and fair dealing between man and man, they have served to check the rage of wicked and unreasonable illegal men, who otherwise would know no bounds, and to say, Hitherto it shall come, but no further; here shall its proud waves by stayed. And therefore this service we owe to all in authority, to pray for them, because this benefit we have reason to expect from them, whether we have it or no, as long as we are quiet and peaceable–to live quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty,1Ti 2:1; 1Ti 2:2. 4. The governor, the next day, brought Paul before the sanhedrim, v. 30. He first loosed him from his bands, that those might not prejudge his cause, and that he might not be charged with having pinioned a Roman citizen, and then summoned the chief priests and all their council to come together to take cognizance of Paul’s case, for he found it to be a matter of religion, and therefore looked upon them to be the most proper judges of it. Gallio in this case discharged Paul; finding it to be a matter of their law, he drove the prosecutors from the judgement-seat (ch. xviii. 16), and would not concern himself at all in it; but this Roman, who was a military man, kept Paul in custody, and appealed from the rabble to the general assembly. Now, (1.) We may hope that hereby he intended Paul’s safety, as thinking, if he were an innocent and inoffensive man, though the multitude might be incensed against him, yet the chief priests and elders would do him justice, and clear him; for they were, or should be, men of learning and consideration, and their court governed by rules of equity. When the prophet could find no good among the poorer sort of people, he concluded that it was because they knew not the way of the Lord, nor the judgments of their God, and promised himself that he should speed better among the great men, as the chief captain here did, but soon found himself disappointed there: these have altogether broken the yoke, and burst the bonds,Jer 5:4; Jer 5:5. But, (2.) That which he is here said to aim at is the gratifying of his own curiosity: He would have known the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews. Had he sent for Paul to his own chamber, and talked freely with him, he might soon have learned from him that which would have done more than satisfy his enquiry, and which might have persuaded him to be a Christian. But it is too common for great men to affect to set that at a distance from them which might awaken their consciences, and to desire to have no more of the knowledge of God’s ways than may serve them to talk of.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

They gave him audience (). Imperfect active, they kept on listening, at least with respectful attention.

Unto this word ( ). But “this word” was like a spark in a powder magazine or a torch to an oil tank. The explosion of pent-up indignation broke out instantly worse than at first (21:30).

Away with such a fellow from the earth ( ). They renew the cry with the very words in 21:36, but with “from the earth” for vehemence.

For it is not fit ( ). Imperfect active of , old verb to come down to, to become, to fit. In the N.T. only here and Ro 1:28. The imperfect is a neat Greek idiom for impatience about an obligation: It was not fitting, he ought to have been put to death long ago. The obligation is conceived as not lived up to like our “ought” (past of owe). See Robertson, Grammar, p. 886.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

They gave him audience [] . The imperfect. Up to this word they were listening.

Lifted up their voice, etc. “Then began one of the most odious and despicable spectacles which the world can witness, the spectacle of an oriental mob, hideous with impotent rage, howling, yelling, cursing, gnashing their teeth, flinging about their arms, waving and tossing their blue and red robes, casting dust into the air by handfuls, with all the furious gesticulations of an uncontrolled fanaticism” (Farrar). Hackett cites Sir John Chardin (” Travels into Persia and the East Indies “) as saying that it is common for the peasants in Persia, when they have a complaint to lay before their governors, to repair to them by hundreds or a thousand at once. They place themselves near the gate of the palace, where they suppose they are most likely to be seen and heard, and there set up a horrid outcry, rend their garments, and throw dust into the air, at the same time demanding justice. Compare 2Sa 16:13.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “And they gave him audience unto this word,” (akouon de autou achri toutou tou logou) “And they listened to him up to this word,” until this point or statement, they gave him a patient hearing. The “this word” that incited them was the word “Gentiles.”

2) “And then lifted up their voices, and said,” (kai

eperan ten phonen auton legontes) “And (then) lifted up, or raised the pitch of their voices repeatedly, saying,” as a rabble mob once again, Act 21:30-34.

3) “Away with such a fellow from the earth: (aire apo tes ges ton toiouton) “Away with such a man, take him from the earth,” kill him, was their disposition of hate for his testimony of Jesus Christ in bearing the gospel to the Gentiles, to all nations, Mat 28:19-20; Mar 16:15; Luk 24:46-47; Act 1:8. They had also treated Jesus this way, Luk 23:18-25.

4) “For it is not fit that he should live.” (ou gar katheken auton zen) “Because it is not becoming, fitting, or proper that he should keep living.” They would have killed him, stoned him to death already as they did Stephen, if it had not been for the Roman captain Lysias, and his cohort of soldiers, Act 21:31-40.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

−

22. Away with such a fellow. Luke showeth here how outrageously Paul’s sermon was interrupted. For they do not only oppress him with their crying, but they desire to have him put to death; where it doth also plainly appear how frenzy [frenzied] pride is. The Jews conceived so great good liking of themselves, that they did not only despise all the whole world in comparison of themselves, but they stood also more stoutly in defense of their own dignity than of the law itself, as if all religion did consist in this, that Abraham’s stock might excel all other mortal men. So now they rage against and rail upon Paul, because he said that he was sent to be the apostle of the Gentiles; as if God were bound by his own liberality to suffer the contempt of his power − (518) in the wicked and unthankful, on whom he bestowed excellent graces above all other. And it is no marvel if there were such fierceness and fury at that day among the Jews, seeing that being by all means wasted, − (519) and accustomed to suffer extreme reproaches at this day, they cease not, notwithstanding, to swell with servile pride. But these be fruits of reprobation, until God gather together the remnant according to Paul’s prophecy ( Rom 11:5).

(518) −

“

Numinis sui,” of his Deity.

(519) −

“

Attriti,” trampled upon.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

THE FURY OF PREJUDICE

Act 22:22 to Act 23:5

OUR introduction of a chapter at this point is like the placing of many of the chapters of the Bible. It was without other occasion than convenience. The twenty-second chapter could easily have been treated in its entirety. In very truth, the remaining portion of this Book of Acts involves so continuous a narrative, that chapters were not only non-needful to the sense, but rather an impertinence. However, the average reader is short-breathed and demands many pauses or resting places, and to that fact we accommodate ourselves in this whole series. Furthermore, there is a profit in the introduction of paragraphs, and that is in the profit of more thorough study. It is better to abide over a few verses until they have surrendered up their secrets and borne their adequate testimony, than to skim over a whole volume, sounding its depths at no point.

The verses we elect to treat here will compass a complete presentation of our theme, The Fury of Prejudice, and their proper analysis shows The Fury Excited, The Sufficient Defense, and The Farce of a Hearing.

THE FURY EXCITED

It was roused by the use of a word.

And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.

And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air,

The chief captain commanded Him to be brought into the castle, and hade that he should he examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him (Act 22:22-24).

The opening phrase is extremely suggestive, And they gave him audience unto this word. This word is not the Bible in this case. It is not even the speech in which the Apostle Paul had rehearsed his personal experience, but it is the single word with which he concluded what he had to say. Gentiles is the word. That word was to the Jew what a red flag is to a bull. It infuriated. He did not believe that any true apostle or prophet could be sent to the Gentiles. He hated the Gentile. The Gentile was to him a dog, and dogs are not proper subjects for a gospel. The only religion they could possibly have would be the Jewish religion, and the only way that they could come into that was already prescribed in the form of Jewish ceremonials, and to speak of such a thing as getting them in another way was a flagrant offence.

It is a marvel how far prejudice can carry a man and what fury the use of an offensive word can excite. Fundamental is a good word. It is doubtful if there is a better one in the whole dictionary. That is true whether you take its original meaningthe foundation or ground work, or its historical employmentindispensable, primary, essential, basaland it is even more true when you apply it to the great underlying facts of revelation. And yet, how many men there are that grow red in the face the moment you pronounce the word fundamental, and their fury knows little or no balance!

Prejudice is, of all mental attitudes, the most blinding, the most deafening, the most deranging. It has eyes but sees not, ears, but hears not. Such hearts have waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted (Mat 13:15). No man is in healthy mental or spiritual condition when the use of a word flings him into a frenzy.

This fury voiced itself in a threat. Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live. And they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air. There are some states of mind that a true Christian cannot understand. If he ever had such, regeneration so effectually removed them that even their memory is obliterated, and chief among them stands this mental attitude that would murder the man who does not speak an acceptable shibboleth.

Christianity is not a non-controversial, compromising, easy-going religion. It has been polemical from the first. It has stood ever ready to resist falsehoods, even unto death; but Christianity has never persecuted or sought to crucify its opponents. In all those cases where church men have been parties to martyrdom, we have a positive proof that they were members of the visible body only, and not members of His body.

Paul is supposed to have been beheaded at Rome. Peter is reported to have been crucified with head down. Jesus Himself hung on Calvarys Cross. Few of His direct Apostles fared any better, but there is no record that any one of them ever sought the imprisonment, scourging or crucifixion of his opponent. In this connection we want to calm the fears of modernists. They are constantly saying that, as the church in olden time killed men who did not agree with it, so the fundamentalist movement of the present day will yet imprison and otherwise persecute those who deny the validity of the Word and the Deity of Christ. Their speech is without occasion, their fears are utterly groundless.

The fundamentals of the Christian faith demand another attitude entirely. Paul, Peter, John, James and Jude all joined their pens in defending the fundamentals of the Christian faith against the skeptics, atheists and rationalists of their day, but not one of them ever drew the sword against skeptics, employed a prison with which to silence their speech, or even asked a civil government to condemn or even call it into court. Threats then, as now, emanated from the opposers of the Gospel and the enemies of Christ, and not from the defenders of either. It still remains so and so it will be till the end of time.

There are many persecutions taking place today. Faithful men are being removed from pastorates by ecclesiastical superiors, or driven from the same by local celebrities. Ministers families are being left without food and clothing. By an ingenious ecclesiastical system church doors are being shut in the faces of those who have been forced to seek a change. But practically every bit of this emanates from the enemies of Christ and the opponents of the Gospel, who, like the high priest of the text, have secured controlling positions in the modern church, but who give little or no evidence of ever having been regenerated by the Spirit of God, or having any vital relationship to that spiritual Body His True Church.

These opposers accomplished Pauls arrest. The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him (Act 22:24).

An arrest is an easy thing to accomplish. With courts constituted as they are now, an unjust condemnation is often secured; but thats a thousandfold more seldom than an unjust arrest. The people of America would be amazed if they kept tab on their county prisons. A political revolt would be born if police records were an open book and the public studied them. There are not scores, but hundreds of cases every night in the year of men arrested, flung into prison without charge and dismissed the next morning. Their officer had a suspicion and this gave him a chance to confirm it, if possible, and failing, he quietly told the jailer to let the individual go, and in nine cases out of ten, being men and women of little or no means and few friends, no disturbance follows. They quietly slip away, glad to be out of the lockup and free from the sight of the threatening face of an officer.

One might imagine that this antique method of examining, by scourging, belonged to a period twenty centuries dead; but not so. It goes under a new name nowthe third degreeand there are literally thousands of men and women treated after the same manner in our supposedly Christian civilization. The third degree seems to be growing in favor with policemen. By keeping their suspect awake three and four days at a stretch, plying him with questions confusing in character and multitudinous in number, smiting him with the open hand, or cracking him over the head with a billy, or beating him with a broad strap, they bring from their victim confessions that are pure fabrications, given only because they were demanded and in the interest of escape from further suffering.

Time moves, but civilization does not necessarily improve. The philosophy of evolution fails to find an illustration anywhere. The state employs more veneer now than it did in Pauls day, and the religiously bigoted and intolerant are more careful in conduct and in speech. They both bring forth after their kind; the species does not change.

Let us turn now to

THE SUFFICIENT DEFENSE

And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?

When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman.

Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.

And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.

Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him (Act 22:25-29).

His first defense was on the basis of citizenship. Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? Christianity, then, does not deprive a man of the rights of citizenship, else Paul would not have appealed to his Roman birth. How strange that good men are so often and so easily deceived! Present vendors of infidelity have had a triumph at this very point. In a dozen states of the Union very recently Christian citizens have sought to save their children from being steeped in a philosophy false to natures facts, inimical to Christianity itself and a growing menace to good government, and in every instance they have been practically told that a Christian had no citizenship rights. To be sure, the phraseology has not followed that exact form. They have said to him: Dont mix church and state; dont try to compel by law any peculiar views; dont use physical and political means to obtain mental and spiritual ends; dont seek to correct society by mere legislation; dont try to convert the state into an advocate of your personal philosophy. And, strange to say, this fallacious argument has seemed sound to thousands of superficial thinkers.

It is a fact that a Christian is a citizen of Heaven, and that, in the truest sense, he is a stranger and pilgrim in the earth; but it is also a fact that his heavenly citizenship does not deprive him of his earthly citizenship, and that when earthly powers seek to oppress, persecute and impose upon, he has a perfect right to appeal to the State. The law is intended for his defense; legislation is enacted in his behalf.

There are those who would have every man in the state made safe by law except the Christian, and leave him to the mercy of any civil criminal or destructive critic. But the motive of such is easily understood. They are out to secure a triumph for their particular philosophy and they care not on whose rights they trample if only their atheism triumphs. The faithful of today have an obligation to Paul for the example here set of employing his citizens rights.

He caused the chief captain instant concern. Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. And the chief captain answered, with a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born (Act 22:27-28).

There are many political appointees who have no respect for the church and no regard for a Christian profession, but who are very sensitive to the will of the state. These men feed at the state table and are gowned at state expense, and their families are looked upon as state favorites, and their station in life is determined by state religion, and what the state says concerns them. Very promptly and quite seriously, Tell me, art thou a Roman?

The apostles answer ended the opposition. He said, Yea. Mark the result. Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him (Act 22:29).

There are many occasions when the enemies of the truth strike a snag. More than once the Master Himself silenced critics. When they brought the woman taken in adultery to Him for condemnation and demanded her stoning, he suddenly confused the whole company of them by asking that the sinless one should cast the first stone. He looked, and lo, they were gone.

There are fair propositions that make further procedure difficult and render retirement hasty. There are apparent successes which prove to be signal defeats. It is one thing to howl against a Christian and to affirm that he is unfit to live, but it is another thing to unjustly scourge an honorable citizen. Thousands have done the first and only suffered in their sordid spirits for the same. But hundreds have attempted the second to discover themselves legally entangled and justly endangered. One conscience-free man, knowing his rights, can fling fear into the heart of both court and crowd and compel them to search for the way of escape. Such a search here results in

THE FARCE OF A HEARING

On the morrow, because he would have known the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his bands, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down, and set him before them (Act 22:30).

And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.

Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall; for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

And they that stood by said, Revilest thou Gods high priest?

Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people (Act 23:1-5).

Analyze this record and your interest will center further around Paul and the high priest, into whose hands he is committed.

There was a time and place set for Pauls trial.

That act constituted a show of fairness, but in nature it was foul. The chief captain knew that the charges against Paul were forged and should have set him free, but with an eye to political preferment, he feared to do that lest Pauls enemies should not support him in his next candidacy. Officials pushed into a corner often pretend fairness by the calling of a council. A little investigation will show that in nine cases out of ten it is a shadow pretense. When the council convenes it will be an ex parte one. It will be made of men whose predisposition is known, whose judgment is prejudiced and fixed.

How seldom has a minister of the Gospel ever had a fair hearing! In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred his trial was brought about by his enemies, and the object from the first was not to find out the truth, but to effect a conviction. To this end they will do what was done in the case of the Masters ministry, suborn witnesses, and, as in His case also, trump up charges, and the findings of the court will not express justice, but voice a predetermined judgment.

The minister may be the equal, or, as in this case, the infinitely superior of his judges. But if so, he dare not so much as refer to the fact that he dwells on a plane of equal social level with them, equal mental acumen, equal spiritual attainment, for if he do, they will smite him as one guilty of an assumption, as they smote the Apostle when he addressed them Men and brethren.

It is always interesting, and almost ludicrously interesting, to see the man who gets into an ecclesiastical or political position of judgment, take on an air of superiority. There never was a policeman so ignorant or so gross that he did not resent every word of defense that the highest citizen might speak, in case that gross officer has decided to criticise or arrest him.

Pauls retort is that of a true man. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall; for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law (Act 23:3)?

We love that flash of anger, that burst of righteous indignation. There are people who think that a Christian is never to know anything other than soft words or cringing spirit. We do not believe with them. God is angry. Anger under certain conditions is a positive virtue. It is a proof of character. It is the voice of righteousness itself. The man who can permit one of his fellows, who happens to be an official, to perform an outrage against him, to play the hypocrite and pretend to represent the law, and yet, in the very pretense violate the law itself and say nothing, is not a man. He is a mouse.

Beyond all doubt, Peter made a mistake when he drew his sword and smote off the high priests ear, but what red-blooded man does not admire Peter a thousand fold more in that moment of his error, than he admires him, when, a few hours later, he is cringing in the presence of the high priest and friends, and with a mock modesty meekness is saying, I do not know the Man.

It is a fact that Jesus rebuked Peter for the use of the sword, but it is also a fact that when Peters repentance came, it was not that deed that grieved him most. It was his cowardly conduct, his cringing behavior. Aye, that is what sent him to his knees broken in heart, and left him for hours and days without God and without hope.

And yet, that Paul was not a mere fire-brand is proven in what follows. And they that stood by said, Revilest thou Gods high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people (Act 23:4-5).

This was the Apostles respect for authority. A man has a right to respect authority, a right to regard office, a right to see in the individual official the state itself, and respect it as such. But there is often a difference between the office and the official. The governors office is a good one and an honorable one and should be respected. But when you have a governor in the office who is a charlatan, you may, at one and the same time, condemn the official and respect the office.

A worthless president does not prove that the state should know no such an individual. Paul is here conforming his conduct to what he will later voice in one of his Epistles. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves (Heb 13:17). And again, Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil (Rom 13:1-3).

The difference between a first-class Christian citizen and an anarchist is at this point. .A Christian citizen will in his heart condemn the hypocrite in office and seek to fill the same with another and a better man, while the anarchist would abolish the office itself and leave the people without government, just as the Christian citizen believes in a ruler of the universe, and the spiritual anarchist prefers a universe without God.

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act. 22:22. Away with such a fellow from the earth.As in Act. 21:36. It is not fit. Better, it was not fit that he should live.Meaning that he had long ago forfeited his life.

Act. 22:23. Cast off their clothes.Not in preparation for stoning him, as in Act. 7:58 (Meyer, Zckler), which would have been futile, seeing he was now in the custody of the Romans (Alford), but for the same reason that they threw dust into the airnot as a prelude to stone-throwing, but as an expression of their rage, and as an indication of what they would willingly have done to him, had they been able (Lechler, Holtzmann).

Act. 22:24. That ye might know.Presumably the military tribune had not understood the apostles speech, and, desirous of ascertaining the cause of such an ebullition of wrath against his prisoner, commanded him to be fetched into the castle and examined by scourging.

Act. 22:25. As they.i.e., the soldiers entrusted with this duty. Bound.Or, when they had tied him up (R.V.), with thongs (Luther, Alford, Wordsworth, Plumptre). A different translation gives, when they stretched him forth and so made him ready for the thongs (De Wette, Meyer, Lechler, Spence, Zckler, Holtzmann), by binding him or tying him up to a post. Is it lawful?Two wrongs were about to be committed.

(1) The apostle was about to be scourged, being a Romanwhich Roman law (Lex Porcia; see Livy, Act. 10:9; Cicero, Verr., v. 63) disallowed; and

(2) to be punished before being condemnedwhich equally Roman statute forbade (see on Act. 16:37).

Act. 22:26. Take heed (omitted by best authorities) what thou doest.Or, What are you about to do?

Act. 22:27. Tell me.The military tribune wished to know whether the centurions report was correct.

Act. 22:28. With a great sum had Lysias obtained Roman citizenship. Hence he is supposed to have been a Greek. Augustus was very sparing in conferring the freedom of the city; but the succeeding emperors were more liberal (Adams Roman Antiquities, p. 38). In the reign of Claudius Messalina used to sell the freedom of the city, and at various prices at different times (Alford). How Paul came to be free (or a Roman) born can only be conjectured. As Tarsus was simply an urbs libera and neither a Colonia nor a Municipium, his father or some ancestor may have obtained his citizenship either as a reward for distinguished service or by purchase.

Act. 22:29. The military tribune was afraid both because Paul had been bound (for scourging) which he ought not to have been, being a Roman, and because he had been bound before being condemned. Facinus est vinciri civem Romanum, scelus verberari, parricidum necari (Cicero, Verr., v. 66).

Act. 22:30. The best authorities omit from his bands. These were the fetters originally placed upon him (Act. 21:33). Down means from the castle to the chamber where the Sanhedrim were assembled. This chamber, there is reason to believe, was not their accustomed place of meeting, the Hall Gazith, or the hall of hewn stone, an apartment in the inner temple, since Lysias soldiers would not have been allowed to enter so sacred a place, but a room in the city near the Tyropan bridge to which tradition says they removed their sittings forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, or about twenty-six before the events here recorded.

Note.The preceding speech to the Jewish people has been by Baur (Paul, his Life and Works, i. 121, E. T.), and Zeller (Die Apostelgeschichte, pp. 280, 281) pronounced an invention of the author of Acts on the following grounds:

1. The unlikelihood of Lysias having granted liberty to so dangerous a character as he imagined Paul to be to address the fanatic mob that swarmed round the castle stairs.
2. The unlikelihood of the crowd having listened so long in silence to a man whom already they had adjudged to be worthy of death; and,
3. The unlikelihood of the speech having been interrupted, like that of Stephen, before the Sanhedrim, and like that of Paul before the Areopagus, at a certain point. But waiving the obvious answers that these objections are too subjectiveare, in fact, not criticism, but mere arbitrary suppositionsit may be urged, with reference to the first, that even the worst of criminals are allowed to speak in their own defence; that Lysias did not know what sort of speech Paul intended to make, and may have imagined that Paul would only utter a few words; and that Paul having commenced his oration, Lysias may have been too deeply interested in what he heard to think of recalling his permission. As regards the second, the silence of the multitude is satisfactorily explained by the statement that Paul addressed them in Hebrew, and by the tenor of Pauls speech, which throughout, until the mention of the Gentiles was reached, contained nothing to ruffle their tempers. For the third it should suffice to reply that, if the speech was to be interrupted at all it could not fail to be interrupted at a certain point; while a glance at the three speeches, of Stephen before the Sanhedrim, of Paul before the Sanhedrim, and of Paul again before the Jewish people, will show that the cause of interruption was different in each: in Stephens the accusation of the Sanhedrim as the murderers of Jesus (Act. 7:52); in Pauls Areopagus oration, the mention of Jesus and the resurrection (Act. 17:32); in the present speech, the emphasising of his mission to the Gentiles (Act. 22:21-22). So far from suggesting systematic invention, these variations confirm the genuineness and historicity of all three speeches.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.Act. 22:22-29

The Effect of Pauls Oration on his Audience; or his Narrow Escape from Scourging

I. The impotent rage of Pauls hearers.

1. Their sudden interruption. From the beginning of this speech they had kept on listening till he reached the point when he proceeded to talk of his mission to the Gentiles. Then their suppressed wrath could no longer be restrained; they stopped his defence by a simultaneous yell.

2. Their fanatical outcry. Away with such a fellow from the earth, for it is not fit that he should live. What let loose their passion was not so much the mention of the word Gentiles as the idea that he should claim to have been sent by Divine authority on a mission to the Gentiles rather than to the Jews. This, to the fanatic Jewish mind, was a startling statement, and, if true, would at once remove all reason for their jealousy of the foreigner. But could it be true that the long-expected Messiahthe peculiar glory of the chosen racecould, in their own proud house in Jerusalem, speak to this man from His glory throne in heaven, and command him to leave his own city and people and to devote himself solely to the uncircumcised Gentiles? Was not such an assertion of itself rank blasphemy? Could King Messiah send oneonce belonging to their own strictest sect of the Phariseesto these unconverted heathen to tell them that the Messiah, the Redeemer of Israel, was equally their Messiah and Redeemer? One who could say such things was surely unworthy to live (Spence).

3. Their passionate demonstration. Shouting with still more vehement cries, and stripping off their garments, they threw dust into the airnot as a preliminary to the work of stoning, since Paul now was in the hands of the Romans, but as a means of giving vent, in Oriental fashion, to their uncontrollable rage. They were simply beside themselves with indignation and fury.

II. The perilous mistake of the castle captain.

1. In commanding Paul to be bound. The captain, of course, was not aware that Paul was entitled to all the privileges of a Roman citizen, otherwise he would have hesitated to put bonds on him, and far less to order him to be tied up for scourging. But bound the apostle had been at the beginning of the uproar (Act. 21:33), and now he was strapped to a post like a common criminal in preparation for the vilest indignity that can be put upon a man made in Gods imagefor being whipped like a dog (Act. 22:25).

2. In treating Paul like a prisoner before he had been condemned. This also offended against the majesty of Roman law, which, however, regardless of the lives of slaves and evil-doers, was infinitely jealous of the liberties and honours of those who had attained the rank of citizens in the great commonwealth. No wonder the centurion grew alarmed when he learnt that his prisoner was a civis Romanus, and as little that this alarm communicated itself to the captain when he heard the exact state of affairs from his subordinate.

III. The escape of Paul from the indignity of scourging.

1. The captains conversation with Paul. Astonished at the report brought by his subordinate, the commandant of the castle at once repaired to the apostles presence that by asking he might satisfy himself as to the truth of Pauls claim to be a Roman citizen. Finding that Paul adhered to the assertion of his citizenship, the captain expressed surprise that one in apparently so destitute circumstances should be possessed of a privilege which he, the captain himself, had procured only at a great price. He was further astonished to learn that Paul had been free born, although nothing escaped Paul as to how this had come to pass. If some suppose the captain rather easily and quickly accepted the apostles word, it needs only to be remembered that Pauls assertion contained nothing in itself improbable, and was besides of such a sortincurring so severe penalties if found to be falsethat no one would readily venture to make it unless if were true (see Critical Remarks).

2. The captains order to the centurion and his guards. Unstrap the apostle from the whipping postwhich they did. Straightway they departed from him. The idea of examining him by torture they abandoned. That the fetters with which Paul had been first bound (Act. 21:33) were not removed is apparent from the statement that on the morrow he was loosed (Act. 22:30).

Learn.

1. The fierce hostility with which men always and everywhere resent an invasion of their privileges. The Jews, in this respect, have not been without successors, even among Christians.
2. The fantastic tricks that are sometimes played by men dressed in a little brief authority. The captain was not the first man who overrode his commission, neither has he been the last.
3. The right of every man to protect himself, by all lawful means, against unnecessary and unjust suffering. Pauls sheltering himself behind his Roman citizenship fell under this category.
4. The value of Christian citizenship, which can be purchased by no sum, but must be obtained free, and which can shield from dangers greater than those which menaced Paul.
5. The fear which all men inwardly have, or ought to have, when they do wrong.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act. 22:22. Some Thoughts about Preachers and their Hearers.

I. Preachers may get a silent hearing from their audiences without either gaining their assent or making on them any deep impression. Preachers, above all men, should guard against judging by appearances.

II. Preachers commonly obtain a respectful hearing from their audiences so long as they keep on prophesying smooth things. The moment they begin to touch the consciences, or challenge the privileges, of those who listen, they find the attitude of these change.

III. Preachers must be prepared for hearing themselves denounced by their hearers, and that in no measured terms. Their unpopularity may often be the measure of their fidelity.

IV. Preachers may warrantably infer they are doing excellent work, and speaking true words, when they encounter opposition from the unbelieving, worldly, or nominally religious among their hearers. Preachers should beware when all men speak well of them.

Act. 22:23. Opposition, to Foreign Missions.

I. As much a fact to-day as it was in the time of Paul.Both men of the world (like the unbelieving Jews) and members of the Christian Church (like many Jewish Christians) are opposed to sending preachers of the gospel far hence to the Gentiles.

II. If not so demonstrative as in Pauls day, perhaps as decided and difficult to overcome.The cause of missions to the heathen kindles in hearts anger, and evokes from some lips words of hostile denunciationexactly now as then.

III. As unreasonable in our day as it was in Pauls.The salvation of the gospel was intended for all nations, and not simply for those presently within the pale of Christendom, any more than it was exclusively for the Jews.

IV. As culpable in our day as it was in Pauls, if not more so. Considering that if Paul, being a Jew, had acted on this principle Christianity had never reached the shores of Europe, and far less of Britain.; and considering the clearer light now possessed by the Church, as to the world-wide destiny of the gospel, and of its fitness to bless mankind.

Act. 22:25. Is it lawful to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned?A threefold reminder

I. Of the inalienable rights of men.

II. Of the sacred honour of citizens.

III. Of the inviolable dignity of Christians.Gerok.

Act. 22:27. Roman and Heavenly Citizenship.A parallel and a contrast.

I. The parallel.

1. Both might be acquired by aliens.
2. Both might be obtained by inheritance.
3. Both conferred great privileges.
4. Both ensured complete protection.

II. The contrast.

1. Roman citizenship now a thing of the past; heavenly citizenship a thing of the present.
2. Roman citizenship, at the best, temporal and earthly; heavenly citizenship celestial and eternal.
3. Roman citizenship might be obtained for money; heavenly, citizenship can be purchased by no price.
4. Roman citizenship conferred social and political privileges; heavenly citizenship privileges that are spiritual and religious.
5. Roman citizenship protected the body; heavenly citizenship protects the soul.

Act. 22:28. This Citizenship; conjoined with Php. 3:20, Our Citizenship; or, the superiority of the Christian citizenship.

I. Its dignity is greater.No need to disparage or depreciate Roman citizenship. In Pauls day Roman citizenship was undoubtedly a great thing, an object worthy of being aspired after by persons of highest rank. Foreigners counted it a signal honour. Just as to-day to be a citizen of Great Britain is reckoned a higher dignity than to be the subject of any other kingdom or empire on earth. Yet even this is nothing when compared with being a citizen of heaven whose sovereign is the King of kings, whose vicegerent is the Lord of glory, whose ministers are angels, whose laws are righteousness and truth, whose revenues are the resources of the universe, whose mission is to bless mankind, whose influence is always on the side of peace and love, whose subjects are in one sense all the nations of the earth, in another the whole family of the redeemed, and whose dominion shall be one day universal.

II. Its immunities are larger.Writers on Roman antiquities report that the rights and privileges of Roman citizens were large and variedincluding liberty, family, marriage, fatherhood, property, willing and inheriting, tutelage and wardship (see Adams Roman Antiquities, pp. 39 ff.). Yet the privileges of our citizenship surpass these.

1. Sonship. Not merely subjects or servants, but children of the Great King (see Gal. 3:26; Eph. 2:19; 1Jn. 3:2).

2. Acceptance. Not regarded as enemies, but considered as friends (Eph. 1:6; Rom. 8:1).

3. Liberty. Free use of all our powers in the service of God (2Co. 3:17; Gal. 5:1; Jas. 1:25). A Roman citizen might be sold as a slave; not so a citizen of heaven.

4. Protection. Roman citizenship did not shield from ordinary ills; nor does Christian citizenship. Yet this defends the soul lest it should be hurt by these (Rom. 8:28; 1Pe. 3:13).

5. Property. Romans distinguished between common and private property. So are certain things common to Christian citizens, as the common salvation and the common means of grace; and other things private possessions, as special gifts and graces.

6. Family. Roman citizens (originally) could not abandon the family to which they belonged, a restriction which has perpetuated itself in the modern idea of caste. Corresponding to this, Christians belong to Gods family, and are not at liberty to leave it, though others may pass into it.

7. Heirship. A Roman citizen could will and inherit. A citizen of heaven cannot will, but shall inherit (Rom. 8:17; Rev. 21:7).

III. Its terms are easier.Roman citizenship could be secured in two ways: by birth or by purchase. Christian citizenship so far resembles that of Rome, that it too may, and indeed, must, be obtained in both of these ways.

1. By birth. Only not physical, but spiritual. No man a child of God, a subject of grace, an heir of heaven, because his parents were these before him; heavens citizens must be born again (Joh. 3:3).

2. By purchase. Only it must be without money and without price. Citizenship in heaven cannot be bought and sold in earths markets, but must be accepted by all who would make it theirs as a free gift.

Lesson.Walk worthy of this citizenship.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

d.

The response of the mob. Paul imprisoned. Act. 22:22-30.

Act. 22:22

And they gave him audience unto this word; and they lifted up their voice, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.

Act. 22:23

And as they cried out, and threw off their garments, and cast dust into the air,

Act. 22:24

the chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, bidding that he should be examined by scourging, that he might know for what cause they so shouted against him.

Act. 22:25

And when they had tied him up with the thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?

Act. 22:26

And when the centurion heard it, he went to the chief captain and told him, saying, What art thou about to do? for this man is a Roman.

Act. 22:27

And the chief captain came and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? And he said, Yea.

Act. 22:28

And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this citizenship. And Paul said, But I am a Roman born.

Act. 22:29

They then that were about to examine him straightway departed from him: and the chief captain also was afraid when he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.

Act. 22:30

But on the morrow desiring to know the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him, and commanded the chief priests and all the council to come together, and brought Paul down and set him before them.

Act. 22:22-23 But their prejudice was so deep-seated that nothing either logical or divine would free them from it. Then began one of the most odious and despicable spectacles which the world can witness, the spectacle of an Oriental mob, hideous with impotent rage, howling, yelling, cursing, gnashing their teeth, flinging about their arms, waving and tossing their blue and red robes, casting dust into the air by handfuls, with all the furious gesticulations of an uncontrolled fanaticism (Farrar, page 535).

Away with such a fellow (a word of the deepest contempt) from the earth. He contaminates the earth with his presence.

The chief captain simply repeated his former command, probably in disgust at a waste of time. Take him into the castle and when you have him there examine him with flagellum. Maybe that will make him take sense.

Act. 22:24-28 The tribune must know why these many men shouted against this one so.

The soldiers at once tied his hands together, stripped his back bare, and bent him forward into the position for that horrid and often fatal examination by torture which, not far from that very spot, his Lord had undergone.
Thrice before, on that scarred back had Paul felt the fasces of Roman lictors; five times the nine-and-thirty strokes of Jewish thongs; here was a new form of agony, the whipthe horrible flagellumwhich the Romans employed to force by torture the confession of truth. (ibid.)
But even as they tightened the ropes on his hands, Paul turned to the captain who stood by watching the proceedings and asked in a quiet voice, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman and uncondemned or untried?
This question had more than one thought in it for it was not only strictly against the Roman law to beat a Roman citizen before a trial but it was also strictly forbidden to put bonds on such a one.
This question stopped the action of the soldiers immediately and the captain hurried to the tribune with the blunt question: What art thou about to do?For this man is a Roman.
Claudius Lysias probably began to wonder just who this stranger was. He thought him to be an Egyptian and he spoke Greekwhen he gave him permission to speak he spoke Hebrewwhen he wanted him examined he turned out to be a Roman. With these thoughts in his mind, the chief captain approached Paul and asked this question, Tell me, art thou a Roman? Perhaps looking up and down the ordinary looking figure and clothes of Paul he could see that this man was a Jew and a poor one at that. How could he be a Roman citizen?

In a day when the honor of being a citizen was an expensive one this army captain had a right to wonder.
I know how much it cost me to get this citizenship, he remarked, in a dubious tone of voice. But I have been a citizen from my birth, was the calm answer to his unexpressed suspicion. (ibid 537).

855.

How did Paul imagine he would convince these Jews?

856.

What does Farrar say about the mob?

857.

How did the tribune propose to find out what this one had done?

858.

Describe the examination Paul was about to receive.

859.

What three types of beatings were given Paul?

860.

What two Roman laws were violated here?

861.

Show the real perplexity of Claudius Lysias.

862.

Why emphasize the thou in the question of the tribune to Paul?

Act. 22:29-30 Pauls claim was accepted and the whips were dropped and the soldiers who were to lay on the lash left him.

But this only served to heighten the trouble of the chief captainhe had captured this man, indeed he had saved him from death, he had bound him, he could not go back on his decision, but who was he and what had he done? The law of Rome had been violated. and he had a prisoner on his hands of whom he knew nothing. Something must be done. It was the Jews that called for his death, let them explain the charges against him.
So sending word to the Sanhedrin to gather, he loosed Paul and brought him on the morrow to stand before the highest court of Jewish law.

863.

How did the tribune become a Roman citizen?

864.

What problem did Lysias hope to solve by bringing Paul before the Sanhedrin?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(22) Away with such a fellow from the earth.The scene was ominously like that in which St. Stephens speech ended. Immediate execution without the formality of a trialan eager craving for the blood of the blasphemerthis was what their wild cries demanded and expressed. On the words themselves, see Note on Act. 21:36.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

22. Unto this word Spellbound by the apostle’s patriotic Hebrew, they listened intently until this word Gentiles, springing up like a sudden serpent, transformed them all to serpents. The word Gentiles does not in the Greek come last in the sentence, but it was the word in the last sentence that stung them to madness.

Not fit that he should live An exclamation of indignation at his escape; the starting point of the ensuing purpose of assassination.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And they gave him a hearing up to this word, and they lifted up their voice, and said, “Away with such a fellow from the earth, for it is not fit that he should live.” ’

Up to this point they had given him a hearing. Possibly they were waiting for him to condemn himself out of his own mouth. And now they felt that he had. The spell of silence was broken. Putting their own interpretation on his words they cried out, “Away with such a fellow from the earth, for it is not fit that he should live.” Again we have the cry ‘away with him’ as in Act 21:36. This was a period when all Israel, apart from the opportunists were seething with anger under the yoke of Rome. The ideas therefore of favouring Gentiles was totally unacceptable. A few becoming Jewish proselytes, yes, that was acceptable, and even a number of hangers on who knew their place. But giving preference to Gentiles could not be tolerated.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Paul and the Chief Captain.

Paul asserts his citizenship:

v. 22. And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth; for it is not fit that he should live.

v. 23. And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air,

v. 24. the chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging, that he might know wherefore they cried so against him.

v. 25. And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?

v. 26. When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest; for this man is a Roman.

v. 27. Then the chief captain came and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.

v. 28. And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. and Paul said, But I was free-born.

Paul’s simple declaration of fact that he was called by the Lord by a direct revelation to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles threw the fanatical Jews into a perfect frenzy of fury. Up to this point in his speech they listened to him, but now they acted like men bereft of their senses. They lifted up their voices in angry shrieks, saying that such a man should promptly be destroyed from the face of the earth, since it was no longer proper to let him live, that he was not fit to live. This yelling they kept up, incidentally tossing their garments, their mantles, about in a fit of uncontrollable rage, and throwing dust up into the air. In their actions baffled fury and extreme contempt are combined to produce such an exhibition as only a mob deprived of its victim is able to present. The tribune now commanded Paul to be taken into the barracks, directing at the same time that the question should be put to him, that a hearing of his side of the matter should be made with torture, while the scourge was applied to him. This terrible method was resorted to by the Romans in the case of prisoners, especially of the lower class, in order to force a confession from their lips, if suitable evidence was not at hand. Thus the tribune wanted to find out why it was that the people shouted at him in that way. But as they had stretched him forward by bending his back over the whipping-post and were getting ready to fasten him with straps, Paul asked the centurion that was standing by and superintending the ghastly work whether it was permitted to scourge a Roman citizen without a proper trial. The question, as humbly as it was put, was not without its irony and reproach for the proceeding adopted in his case. In great consternation the centurion made a report to his superior officer, the commander of the garrison: What are you going to do? This man is a Roman citizen. This information brought the chiliarch in a great hurry. He asked Paul directly whether he were a Roman citizen, and Paul answered in the affirmative. With some doubt in his voice, the tribune then told Paul that he had acquired his Roman citizenship by the outlay of a considerable sum of money, thus confessing to an act of bribery. For citizenship in Rome was properly obtained either by being conferred by the Roman senate for meritorious conduct, or it was inherited from a father who was a Roman citizen, or it was the birthright of him that was born in a free city. And therefore Paul, in this case, could state with justifiable pride that he had been born a Roman citizen. It is altogether right and to be approved if Christians under circumstances make use of their rights as citizens.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Act 22:22 . ] namely, Act 22:21 , , . . . This expression inflamed the jealousy of the children of Abraham in their pride and contempt of the Gentiles, all the more that it appeared only to confirm the accusation in Act 21:28 . It cannot therefore surprise us that the continuation of the speech was here rendered impossible, just as the speech of Stephen and that of Paul at the Areopagus was broken off on analogous occasions of offence (which Baur makes use of against its historical character).

. . .] for it was not fit that he should remain in life ; he ought not to have been protected in his life, when we designed to put him to death (Act 21:31 ). Comp. Winer, p. 265 [E. T. 352]

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

B.THE APOSTLE IS INTERRUPTED BY THE PASSIONATE CRIES OF THE PEOPLE, AND IS IN DANGER OF BEING SCOURGED BY ORDER OF THE MILITARY AUTHORITY, BUT IS PROTECTED BY HIS ROMAN CITIZENSHIP

Act 22:22-29

22And [But] they gave him audience [listened to him] unto this word, and then lifted up their voices [voice, . ], and said, Away with such a fellow [such a one, ] from the earth: for it is [was9] not fit that he should live. 23And [But] as they cried out, and cast off [tossed up] their clothes [garments], and threw dust into the air, 24The chief captain [tribune] commanded him to be brought into10 the castle [barracks], and bade [said, ] that he should be examined [tortured] by scourging; that he might know wherefore [ascertain for what reason] they cried so [thus, ] against him. 25And as they bound him with thongs [But when they11 stretched him out before the thongs], Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman [a Roman citizen], and uncondemned? 26When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain [tribune], saying, Take heed what thou doest; [saying, What art thou about to do?]12 for this man is a Roman [a Roman citizen]. 27Then the chief captain came [the tribune went to him], and said unto him, Tell me, art thou13 a Roman [citizen] ? He said, Yea. 28And the chief captain [tribune] answered, With a great [For a considerable] sum obtained I this freedom [this right of citizenship]. And [But] Paul said, But I was free born [But I was such already by birth]. 29Then [Therefore, ] straightway they departed [withdrew] from him which should have examined [who were about ( ) to torture14] him: and the chief captain [tribune] also [om. also] was afraid, after he knew [had ascertained] that he was a Roman [citizen], and [om. and] because he had bound him.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Act 22:22-23. And they gave him audience unto this word.Pauls word that Christ had sent him to the Gentiles, aroused anew the fanatical zeal of his hearers. [This word, not the word Gentiles for it is not the last word in the Greek sentence but the last part of Pauls discourse, in which he undertook to justify his mission to the Gentiles on the ground of an express divine command, etc. (Alexander).Tr.]. They interrupted him at this point by loud cries, which were intended to drown the sound of his voice ( . .). , i.e., a man of such a character. Meyer understands the imperfect [see note 1, appended to the text, above.Tr.] as referring to the circumstances mentioned in Act 21:31, when Paul was in danger of being killed; the sense would then be: He should not have been rescued,his life should not have then been saved. [He should have long since been killed; non debebat, or, debuerat vivere. (Winer, Gram. 41. a. 2.).Claudius Lysias should not have rescued him. (Conyb. and H. . 266, and n. 5.).The sense will then be, We were right at first, it was not fit that he should live, as we declared before. (Alex.).Tr.]. But the meaning rather seems to be: He forfeited his life long ago. indicates inarticulate cries which the multitude uttered. [. . ., not throwing off their garments, as a preparation for stoning Paul (Grot., Mey.), for he was now in the custody of the Roman captain; but throwing them up, tossing them about, as a manifestation and an effect of their incontrollable rage. (Hackett).Tr.]. They tossed up their clothes, and threw dust into the air; by these wild gestures, which indicated their fury, they implied that they would themselves gladly accomplish all that they meant, when they cried: Away with him from the earth!

Act 22:24-25. a. The chief captain commanded.The Roman commander was now satisfied that he could accomplish nothing under present circumstances, and, accordingly, gave directions that the prisoner should be conducted from the stairs (Act 21:39) on which he had stood while he was speaking, into the barracks, that is, into the interior of the tower of Antonia. [The tribune, who was unacquainted with the language of the country, did not understand the apostle, and could not comprehend the cause of the exasperation of the people. (de Wette).Tr.]. He concluded that the fury of Pauls hearers must have been aroused by some crime which he had committed, but not yet confessed; hence he commanded that the apostle should be beaten with a scourge, as an instrument of torture, in order to compel him to confess his crime (, to put to the question). [Judicial torture, for the purpose of eliciting a confession, has acquired a euphemistic name, the application of the rack, etc., being known in history as putting men to the question. (Alexander).Flagra in habendis qustionibus apud Romanos usitata erant, e. g., Tac. Hist. IV. 27. , ut , proprie significat inquirere, percontari, quocunque modo hoc fiat deinde notat per tormenta habere qustionem de aliquo, ut hoc loc.; hinc torquere, ut Sap. (. . Apocr.) Act 2:19, . (Kuinoel).Tr.]. In consequence of this command, the apostle was at once tied to a post, in order to be exposed to the blows of the scourge. . cannot mean: they bound him with thongs (Luther, and others [Calvin, Vulg., Engl. version, etc.Tr.], as there would have, in that case, been no reason for prefixing the definite article to ; these must necessarily be assumed to be identical with the mentioned in Act 22:24, the scourge being, in fact, made of thongs. According to this interpretation, the definite article is very appropriately employed. They stretched him before the thongs (already mentioned), as the object towards which these were to be directed. [The in the verb, alludes to the position of the prisonerbent forward, and tied with a sort of gear made of leather to an inclined post. (Alford).They stretched him out for the whips, i. e., in a suitable position for receiving them. (Alex.).Tr.]. The plural, , refers to the soldiers who were ordered to inflict the punishment.

b. Is it lawful for you, etc.Before the order was executed, the apostle offered a protest in the form of a question, addressed to the centurion who superintended the proceedings. The question implies, as Chrysostom has already remarked, that the law would be violated in two respects, if the scourging which had been ordered, should actually take place. They would, in the first place, punish the prisoner before he had been tried and sentenced (), for the scourging was actually a punishment, and not simply a feature belonging to the trial; hence the beginning of the trial would have been the infliction of the punishment. In the second place, Paul asserts his privilege as a civis Romanus; the Roman citizen was exempted, according to the lex Porcia and the leges Semproni, from the punishment of scourging, even if he was convicted of a crime; scourging was the punishment of a slave. [On Pauls Roman citizenship, see Exeg. note on Act 16:35-40 a.Tr.].

Act 22:26-29. When the centurion heard that.The commander, after receiving the report of the centurion, came forward himself in order to inquire personally respecting the fact that his prisoner was a Roman citizen. [Lysias was both astonished and alarmed. He knew full well that no man would dare to assume the right of citizenship if it did not really belong to him.Such pretensions were liable to capital punishment. Suet. Claud. 25. (Conyb. and H. II. 267, 268).The chiliarch was probably surprised that one of Pauls appearance should possess the right at all, etc. (Alexander).Tr.]. . ; full of wonder, he asks in an emphatic manner: Thou art a Roman citizen? literally means a capital. [We learn from Dio Cassius, that the civitas of Rome was, in the early part of the reign of Claudius, sold at a high rate, and afterwards for a mere trifle. (Conyb. loc. cit.).Tr.]. The alarm of the tribune arose from the circumstance that the act of fettering a Roman citizen was punishable by law, when it was done with violence, and before the proof was furnished that a penal act had been committed.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. It was not so much Pauls open and fearless confession of Jesus, viewed in itself, as his call to be the apostle of the Gentiles, that led to the interruption of his discourse, and to this outbreak of deadly fury on the part of the people. It is precisely the prominent and peculiar feature of his mission, that subjects him to suffering.
2. A Roman privilege protects the apostle of Christ; it had autonomically grown up in the way in which God suffered the Romans to walk (Act 14:16). Such a privilege, enjoyed by a particular class, was altogether pagan and aristocratic in its character; still, it is now employed as the means for rendering a service to a messenger of God.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Act 22:22. And they gave him audience unto this word.The envy of the Jews now vents itself; they were unwilling themselves to enter the kingdom of God, and violently opposed the entrance of othersof the Gentiles [Mat 23:13]. (Rieger).Paul had delivered a very instructive and powerful discourse; nevertheless, he accomplished nothing. Its results were madness and fury, revenge and malice, on the part of his hearers, This case teaches us to form our opinion of a sermon with great caution, and not to measure its value by its visible fruits. (Ap. Past.).Away with such a fellow from the earth.These were words of madness, which Jesus Himself heard from His people. We plainly see that the apostle did not exaggerate, when he said of himself and his brethren that they were regarded as the filth of the world, and as the off-scouring of all things [1Co 4:13]. (Ap. Past.).

Act 22:23. Cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air.These were alarming preparations for the process of stoning [but see the Exeg. note on this passage.Tr.]. They still present, even in our day, an image of man, when the madness of passion controls him. He rends his clothes, casts off the last remnant of shame and modesty, and exhibits himself, without disguise, in his brutal nakedness; he throws up dust, in order to sully all that is bright and beautiful, to pollute all that is noble, and to delude himself.It is dangerous to awaken the lion; the tigers tooth is destructive; but the most terrible of all terrors, isman in his delusion. (Schiller).

Act 22:24. Bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know, etc.During a tumult, the infliction of the punishment is usually the beginning of the trial. At such times, even wise men may commit serious errors. To scourge, and only afterwards investigate the casesuch is the practice of the world. It condemns that which it does not understand, and passes sentence on him whom it has not convicted. But be of good cheer, O Christian, when this is thine own experience. Another day of judgment awaits thee, when God Himself will judge, and when He will review and annul all those unrighteous sentences and decrees, which had here been passed. A very different decision will then be proclaimed. (Wisd. of Son 6:4-5).But thou, O earthly judge, consider the case well, and adopt every precaution, if thou wouldst not have the burden of innocent blood on thy conscience. (Starke).

Act 22:25. Is it lawful, etc.?A Christian is at liberty to appeal to the law and to his rights, in order to escape unjust and violent treatment. When Christians are obliged to reside in the Roman empireor in Turkeythey may, with a good conscience, appeal for protection to the laws of such countries, as far as these are sanctioned by God, and by nature, 1Th 5:21. (Starke).If such a privilege as citizenship, in any earthly kingdom, possesses this great value, how precious the privilege of the children of God must be, who have, in consequence of their new birth, become the citizens of heaven! [, Php 3:20.Tr.]

Act 22:28. And Paul said, But I was free born.Nor should the Christian despise the privileges and advantages of birth, but conscientiously avail himself of them, in promoting the honor of God, and the welfare of his neighbors, 1Co 10:33. (Starke).

Act 22:29. And the chief captain also was afraid, etc.The whole multitude had cried: Away with such a fellow, etc. (Act 22:22), and yet the apostle now inspires the chief captain himself with fear. Thus the Lord exalts his servants, even when they seem to have been crushed. While they bear the image of the cross in humility and ignominy, the image of the Saviour, which decorates them, invests them with such honor and authority, that even ungodly men are alarmed, and withdraw from them. (Ap. Past.).

ON THE WHOLE SECTION, Act 22:22-29.The apostles danger, and his deliverance: I. The danger (a) originated in his testimony to the truth, Act 22:22, and comp. Act 22:18; Act 22:21; (b) was caused by the intolerant pride of the Jews; and (c) threatened a fatal issue, Act 22:22-23. II. The deliverance, was effected because (a) the Roman commander was governed by a sense of justice, (b) the apostle possessed the privileges of a citizen, and (c) a new opportunity for vindicating himself was afforded, Act 22:30. (Lisco.)

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people [Pro 14:34]. (id.).

Paul, a model as a noble sufferer: I. By the manner in which he endures unavoidable sufferings; (a) he observes silence, Act 22:22 ff.; (b) he forgives, Act 22:23; (c) he calmly suffers, Act 22:24. II. By the manner in which he averts an unnecessary humiliation; (a) he does not seek martyrdom; (b) he cautions the magistrate not to abuse his power; (c) he retains, in its integrity, the consciousness of his dignity as a man. (id.).

The infuriated people of Jerusalem, an impressive illustration of fanaticism: showing that fanaticism, I. Dishonors God, in whose service it claims to be zealous; II. Maltreats the innocent, whom it has selected as its victims; III. Degrades itself, by converting men into wild beasts, Act 22:22-23.

Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?a word proceeding from the mouth of God, as a warning addressed to tyrants; it reminds them, I. Of the inalienable rights of man; II. Of the sacred honor of the citizen; III. Of the inviolable dignity of the Christian.

The sacred character of a servant of God: I. When he is violently assailed, he may protest, with gentleness and humility, Act 22:25; comp. Joh 18:23. II. When he is exposed to external ill treatment, the inner man remains inviolate, Act 6:15. III. When he is trodden in the dust, he shall be crowned with eternal honor, Mat 5:11-12,

The inalienable nobility of the children of God: it is, I. Acquired through regeneration, Act 22:28; II. Attested by the Spirit of God, who bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God [Rom 8:16]; III. Proved in trials and temptations, Act 22:23 ff.; IV. Renewed in heaven, where they shall appear with Christ in glory, Col 3:4.

The exalted privileges of a citizen in the kingdom of God: I. He has no reason to fear the powers of the world; (Paul entertains no fear in the presence of the Roman officer; the latter, on the contrary, fears him, Act 22:29). II. The blows which the world attempts to inflict, cannot reach him; (a citizen of Rome could not be legally scourged; a citizen of Christ is not exempt, it is true, from the strokes of affliction and the scourge of persecution, but these neither pain nor dishonor him). III. He is not bound by the judgment of the world; (Paul appeals from the commander, when governed by false impressions, to the same man, when he possesses a knowledge of the facts, and, ultimately, appeals to the emperor himself. The Christian appeals from the judgment of the world to the tribunal of his heavenly King.)

The Christian values, but does not overvalue his civil rights: I. He does not scorn to avail himself of the advantages connected with his birth, Act 22:28, but he knows that they are of no value without nobility of soul. II. He does not sacrifice the rights which the law recognizes, Act 22:25, but he claims them in a gentle and an humble spirit. III. He demands the protection of the government, Act 22:25, but his confidence is primarily fixed on the Lord of lords, and King of kings, Act 22:21.

Footnotes:

[9]Act 22:22. All the uncial manuscripts without exception [A. B. C. D. E. G. H., also Cod. Sin.] exhibit the imperfect, viz.: . The participle, [of text. rec.] is found only in minuscules, and is a later correction, as the meaning of the imperfect was not apprehended.

[10]Act 22:24. [For , of text. rec., with G. H., many recent editors read , with A. B. C. D. E. Cod. Sin. Vulg. (induci.).Tr.]

[11]Act 22:25. The plural , or [for which forms see Winer, 13.1], is doubtless genuine; [found in A. B. C. D. E. G. Cod. Sin. Vulg.]. The singular, [of text. rec.], occurs only in some minuscules. [H. exhibits . The singular was substituted, as better suited to of Act 22:24. (Meyer). The plural is adopted by recent editors generally.Tr.]

[12]Act 22:26. , [of text. rec.] before , is not so well attested, that it could be regarded as any thing else than a gloss. [It is found in D. G. H., but not in A. B. C. E. Cod. Sin. Vulg. (Quid acturus es?); it is dropped by recent editors.Tr.]

[13]Act 22:27. before [of text. rec.] is supported by only one uncial manuscript [G.], whereas in all the others [A. B. C. D. E. H. Cod. Sin.], the question begins with . [Vulg. si tu. etc.Tr.]

[14]Act 22:29. [In Act 22:24, is rendered by the English translators: that he should be examined by scourging; in the present verse, the 29th, (act.), without ., is rendered: which should have examined. Here they propose in the margin the word tortured for examined. See the Exeg. note on the verse, below.Tr.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live. (23) And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air, (24) The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him. (25) And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? (26) When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman. (27) Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. (28) And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. (29) Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him. (30) On the morrow, because he would have known the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his bands, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down, and set him before them.

It is worthy remarking, that the Jews did not attempt to interrupt Paul, as long as he continued to relate the circumstances of his conversion: but, when he came to speak of the Lord’s commissioning him to the Gentiles; their anger could not be any longer restrained. And, Reader! you may remark it, as one universal principle, which pervades the whole human race, by the fall. God’s sovereignty in the call of his Church, as distinguished from the Adam-nature fall, is the subject of hatred in every man’s breast, before that the Lord hath made him acquainted with the plague of his own heart, and the grace of God, in bringing him out of it. The Lord Jesus taught his disciples to expect this. He showed them, that in preaching these truths, they must look for the malice of the world; and not marvel at their hatred, Joh 15:18-21 . And, agreeably to this standard of our Lord’s, it is this doctrine, which calls forth the particular displeasure of the ungodly. Let the Reader remark it, as he passeth on in life, for it is worth his closest observation. Preachers of the word, yea, what in the present hour, are called Gospel preachers, if they throw into the back ground, the Lord’s distinguishing love to his people; and never speak of the Lord’s sovereignty, in the eternal choice of his Church, before all worlds; they may, and will, pass by, for the most part, without calling forth, as Paul here did, the outcry, and interruption of the world. But God’s sovereignty, and Christ’s special love, with the Holy Ghost’s distinguishing grace; if these are insisted on before the people, depend upon it, these will rouse the resentment, and call forth the indignation, of all, who know nothing of these precious truths in their own souls. Yea, not only the ungodly world, but yet more pointedly professors of the Gospel, whose knowledge consists in head-apprehension, not heart-influence; these will be more bitter than even the openly profane. And nothing upon earth, can more decidedly shew, the blindness, ignorance, and prejudice of the human mind, untaught of God!

I cannot suffer the Reader to proceed, without calling upon him again in this place, as in the former Chapter, to remark, how the Lord, by his overruling providence, checked the Centurion’s thongs, as he had done before the violence of the Jews, by the sight of the Roman Captain, from pulling his servant in pieces. It is very blessed to behold, what slender means the Lord at times makes use of to stop the enemy’s hand. The want of sleep in king Ahasuerus, laid the foundation for the deliverance of the whole Jewish nation from destruction, Est 6:1 , etc. The dream of another Eastern monarch gave birth to the introduction of Daniel, and his companions, to the highest places, in the empire, Dan 2 throughout. And here, the presence of this Roman Captain before the Jews, saved Paul from immediate death; and afterwards, the mere privilege of a Roman Citizen, from all the unfeeling cruelties of the Roman punishment. Reader! what a blessed thing it is, to eye Christ, as the Prophet saw him, behind the vast machine, of wheel within wheel, in the government of the Universe? Eze 1:27-28 . What a yet sweeter view in this contemplation is it, to behold the Church, and all its concerns, with every individual of it in the Lord’s hands? Eph 1:22 . And, what a still higher source of comfort, holy joy, and confidence, than all, is it, when by faith, full, firm, ardent, unceasing faith, we can live upon Christ, in the assurance, that in this government, and this concern of the Lord Jesus, he is unceasingly engaged for his people, and extending to the least, as well as the greatest, all that we are interested in, for life, and death; and time, and eternity!

It should seem, that Paul’s freedom, arising from birth, could not have been as was usual with the children of the Romans, in the city of Rome, for Paul was born, as he had just before said, at Tarsus, and was a Jew. But Tarsus was made a free city by Mark Anthony, so reported by Pliny; and hence his birthright. Be this however as it might be, it was a very happy circumstance in this critical moment, and the Apostle, though prepared for bonds or death, had an undoubted right to avail himself of his citizenship, that he might escape unjust oppression.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 84

Prayer

Almighty God, we are thy children, and would make a child’s speech unto thee, every one in his own need and in his own sin. Every one of us has a need of his own and also a sin which he cannot lay at the door of others. Thou knowest us within and without yea, thou dost know our thought before it is fully formed, and thou dost hear the word whilst it is yet but a thought. We cannot run away from the glory of thy light; there is no spot which it does not brighten. We cannot escape God “Thou, God, seest me.” All things are naked and open unto thine eyes; there is no concealment, there is no darkness, there is no sure hiding. We stand in the light of thine eye all the day and all the night; this is our joy as well as our fear. Thou knowest us altogether. Thou knowest what we are, what we sprang from, what are our temptations and peculiarities, and thou wilt judge righteous judgment. In wrath thou wilt remember mercy, and in thy sword is measure; thou wilt not forget that we are but dust. We have come with the new song in our mouth, because of the new mercy that is in our life. The song is not first: it is second. We cannot overtake the Lord; we cannot outrun the Almighty. The mercy is always first; the song comes too long afterward. Thy mercy is a great mountain, a shining sun, a river full of water and infinite comfort yea, it is all things beautiful and rich and good in one sublime donation. Because of the Lord’s mercies we are not consumed; because of the Lord’s compassion we have yet a lot and portion in the land and a memorial amongst the living. This is the Lord’s daily goodness; this is the perpetual miracle of love: behold! this also is part of the redeeming ministry of heaven. Thou dost redeem us with blood every day; the Cross is still here: we see it, touch it, read its meaning so full of love and bow down before its sacrifice as the one thing needed to deliver us from the infinite guilt and burden of sin. Keep us near the Cross; there is healing in that tree, there is safety in that refuge, there is hope in that light. Keep us closer still to the tree on which the Saviour died. We would plant no tree of our own; we would make no refuge of our own invention; we would flee unto the Lord’s own Cross, and, knowing no other answer to thy law, we would rest there, and there find the peace which passeth understanding. Thou hast given each of us work to do, and thou hast given us strength to do it with. Help each of us to know his exact duty and to do it, not with one hand, but with both hands, and with both hands earnestly, as if the whole struggle depended upon us; and then, having done what in us lies, may we find the rest of good service and sacred industry in the’ blessing of heaven. We thank thee that we lift up our eyes beyond the dust; we thank thee for the voices within, which will not let us rest in a mean life; we are glad because of the discontent which afflicts us with holy trouble; it is our immortality, it is the presence of the Divine One in our heart, it is the inspiration of God. Prevent us from settling down upon the emptiness of this earth and the uselessness of the honours and gifts of dying time. We seek a city out of sight. We would declare plainly that we are but pilgrims and can only tarry for an hour and then rise to pursue the mysterious journey. Help us whilst using the earth not to abuse it, to handle it right wisely with the prudence of heavenly wisdom the large-mindedness which comes of Divine inspiration. For all thy love, we bless thee. We put out our hand towards thee in token of homage; we bow down before the Lord, not with servile fear, but with an abasement of soul which comes of overflowing gratitude and unspeakable reverence and love. Continue thy goodness to us for the few miles more of life’s little journey. Be with those who are far down the hill not far from the gate which opens upon the acre of the dead. Be with those who are on the top of the hill, shouting in the fulness of their strength, and show them that their way now lies gently downward. Be with all who are struggling towards the top often weary, out of breath, longing to lie down, willing to find a grave even on the youth-side of life’s great hill. Give them courage, newness of hope, confidence in God, and may they rise to pursue the journey like men who have been refreshed at the heavenly banquet. Show us again and again somewhat of life’s mystery that we may be sober, and that we may chasten ourselves and know that we are but men who can read only a little of thy will and who soon forget what they read. Then touch our hearts secretly and surprise us into such little joys and passing delight as may recover us from irreligious dejection, and give us hope that one day we shall stand amongst those on whose bright faces there is no sign of sorrow. The Lord give us hold of the upper world; the Lord take our hearts up into heaven and feed them there and send them back to the earth to despise its enticements, but to do its work with willing obedience. Comfort our sick ones at home; give them Sabbath twice over in the quiet of their own chambers; whilst they wonder that they are not in their accustomed place, may the whole house in which they dwell become doubly sacred to them because of spiritual presences and ministrations. Cause their health to return and their hope to be re-established, and bring them back to us again longing to make up for work left undone. The Lord to whom the sea belongs look upon all who are now upon it; give them good voyaging, sleep at night, joy by day, health all the twenty-four hours, and bring them to their desired haven singing a new song, blessing the Providence which saved them. Be with all our dear ones in the colonies, in the distant parts of the earth amongst strange people speaking unfamiliar tongues. Why these separations? Why these divisions? May we be chastened and sanctified by the influence arising from such thinking and doing good, hope that through the blood of the everlasting covenant the blood precious in the sight of heaven we shall all be gathered together into one bright heaven the summer-land, unvisited by winter, never touched by chilling frost the land of song and liberty, of purity and service, the mysterious land, the home of the blessed. Amen.

Act 22:22-30

22. And they gave him audience unto this word [ Act 21:28 ]; and they lifted up their voice, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.

23. And as they cried out, and threw off their garments, and cast dust into the air [stoning preliminaries],

24. The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, bidding that he should be examined by scourging, that he might know for what cause they so shouted against him.

25. And when they had tied him up with [G. “before,” i.e., ready for the thongs, the scourges], Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?

26. And when the centurion heard it. he went to the chief captain, and told him, saying, What art thou about to do? for this man is a Roman.

27. And the chief captain [tribune] came, and said unto him [for he would know that a native of Tarsus had not, as suck, the right of citizenship]. Tell me, art thou [Gr. “thou,” emphatic used in contemptuous surprise] a Roman? And he said, Yea.

28. And the chief captain answered, With a great sum of money [G. “capital”] obtained I this citizenship [Dio. Cass. lx. 17 and al. relate the frequent sale of the citizenship at this epoch an oft-ridiculed abuse to fill the exchequer]. And Paul said [answering the contempt], But I am a Roman born [hereditary citizenship nobler than that obtained by purchase. Moreover, Paul’s ancestor probably obtained it by the exercise of some noble magistracy].

29. They then which were about to examine [scourge] him straightway departed from him: and the chief captain also was afraid, when he knew that he was a Roman and because he had [was in the position of having] bound him.

30. But on the morrow, desiring to know the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him [the haughty tribune had left him bound when the scourging was intermitted, his pride, in spite of his fear ( Act 22:29 ), not allowing him to go back upon his own act], and commanded the chief priests and all the council to come together, and brought Paul down, and set him before them.

The Point of Secession

Paul calls this speech his defence. That defence we have already examined line by line. We were struck by the thought that the defence is not an intellectual argument, but a personal experience. We ventured to lay down the doctrine that personal testimony is the best defence alike of providence and redemption. Each man must say what he knows, and not concern himself with things that lie beyond his consciousness and outside his own experience. An interesting point occurs on the review of the defence, namely, that our conversion does not cause us to forget our past life. Paul recounts his earlier years with painfulness of detail and in tones which must have caused his heart no little suffering. Not one incident is forgotten; nothing is kept back of all the dreary tale. The past is not a dead-letter in the memory of the converted man. He looks at it that he may receive instruction from it; he remembers the hole of the pit out of which he was digged; he says it does him good to go back to that mire and pit and look at beginnings, for it chastens his soul, it shows him new aspects of the goodness and the power of God, it lifts his prayers to a higher level, it chastens into noblest and strongest refinement all his desires and aspirations. The past is always to be the present, but only in a sense not to rule over us, not to throw us into deep and nightly dejection, but to show on the other side the miracle of Divine love, the completeness of Divine deliverance, the perfectness of Divine wisdom. It would be convenient to forget the past; it would, in many cases, be pleasant to have no past. But the days do not die in the nights: they are but planted in that dark soil to grow up and bear fruit on the shining morrow. Still, life would become intolerable if we could not deal in some other way with the past. Christianity deals intelligently with all our past career. It takes it up line by line, examines it in the light, it sets it down item by item, it adds it up into its total significance and value, and then it says as an accusing, as a charge of guilt upon the soul, as a pitiless creditor, “Thou art for that disabled and dispossessed.” The past is still there a book to be read, a figure to be looked at, a caution from which to learn wisdom; but in its tormenting force, in its stinging accusativeness, it is no longer the tyrant of our life. That is the mystery of faith, that is the mystery of forgiveness: that the things are still there, as things that did actually occur, but their moral relation to us is wholly and for ever changed. Who could stand a daily accumulating hell behind him? God says, “Not any coal shall be added to that fire: the fire itself shall be put out, but the black ashes shall be full of meaning to the man who was once scorched by the fury of their flames.” We are thankful for this; it is a very gospel, it is a complete and glorious deliverance; but for this, every day would bring its own burden, and the days all added up into one total would burn us with unquenchable fire. This is let us say to our souls over and over again the mystery of pardon, the miracle of forgiveness; and if we are so constituted that we cannot forgive ourselves, yet is that self-unforgivingness, when properly managed and administered, an agent of real discipline and health to the soul that submits to it. Paul then, you observe, kept his past steadily before him, right away up from his birth and birthplace to the time when he bent his back for the last laceration all things before him clearly, quotably, yet not accusingly. That our past should always be at our right hand, and yet have no power to stop our prayers, is the triumph of God; that all the past should be near us, touching our very neck, and yet have no power of strangulation this is the mystery of saving grace. We are thereby saved from suicide; no man could stand the pressure of all his yesterdays; if he were to open his mind to that pressure and let the full storm of his guilty days break upon his soul, he would be turned to despair or to self-slaughter. Here again blessed be God! here is the power that enables us to escape from the past, and turn the future through its suggestive and sobering influence into a better time. This is the only right way of dealing with the past. Do not escape it by any species of intoxication; do not drown your conscience; do not fill your ears with the unholy din that will silence the tones of the accusing angel; you must fight that battle out upon holy ground. The aim is not to secure by narcotics what can only be secured by forgiveness. He who shuts his ears and says there is no noise is a foolish man; he who closes his eyes when his house is on fire and says, “I do not see the flame, and therefore there is none,” is a madman. The past must be intelligently dealt with yea, I will say philosophically that is to say, its very heart must be pierced, its innermost quality must be known, and it must be dealt with on its merits and throughout the whole circle of its scope, and the only power known to me which can do that is the Cross and blood of Christ. “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin.” I would begin every sermon with that sentence; in every sermon that should be the loudest note; every discourse should conclude with that solemn gospel.

The immediate point of the 22nd verse is hardly of less consequence. Paul was listened to attentively until he came to a certain word. What was that word? You find it in the 21st verse: “I will send thee,” said the Lord, “far hence unto the Gentiles. And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.” How some words madden men single words, short words, but words pregnant with history and moral suggestion. We are not offended by the word “Gentiles,” otherwise we should be offended by our own name, for we indeed belong to the Gentile tribes; but the ancient Jews were the enemies of the Gentiles I am not speaking of modern Jews, who have lost nearly everything that makes a Jew, but of the ancient Jews and they have written hatred in their books against the Gentiles; they have written oaths that they themselves would rather not have any Messiah than a Messiah that had a kindly feeling towards the heathen: they would only have a Messiah for themselves; and the books of the ancient Jews are full of cursing and swearing and bitterest language against all men who are not, or were not, Jews according to their definition of the term. This explains the fury of the mob: so long as Paul had a tale to tell they listened to him. Paul a wise rhetorician kept the burning word until the very last, but like a man skilled in speech, he got it quite out. The very place of this word in the great speech is a stroke of genius; it is the last word, it is all there, but the moment it was uttered it was like a spark thrown into a magazine of gunpowder. It is curious to observe in the New Testament the points at which audiences break away from the speakers. Take the case of Jesus Christ himself; one of his sublimest speeches you will find in John vi. In the course of that speech he becomes intensely spiritual; in the 66th verse of the chapter we read, “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” What time was that? It was the time of spiritual revelation. So long as there were parables to hear, and loaves and fishes to be divided, and miracles to be gazed upon and wondered at, there was no turning away; but when the Lord became intensely spiritual in his teaching, profoundly doctrinal, when he said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me…. It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life…. No man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father,” then they left him. This is a point which is often forgotten in estimating the influence of Christ’s ministry. We are often told, “Preach like Jesus Christ, and the people will hear you gladly;” whereas the truth is that the moment Jesus Christ left the elements of teaching the merely introductory and alphabetic points of teaching the moment he came to deal with the real and eternal purpose of his teaching, the people left him. That must be the result of spiritual preaching everywhere. The world does not want spiritual preaching; the Church cannot understand spiritual preaching. If we were to speak spiritually, shaking off all accent and colour and mere form, the churches would be empty by necessity: we are obliged to keep on the outside, and show the great stones of the temple; we dare not go inside and touch the altar. The Athenians left Paul at another point. They listened to him with more or less interest when he made his great speech upon Mars’ Hill, but the moment he began to speak about the resurrection of the dead, “some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter,” with an ill-suppressed sneering laugh in their tone. They did not want to hear about the resurrection of the dead; they wanted philosophy, speculation, high discourse, poetry. So long as Paul kept himself to the exposition of a kind of theosophy, the Athenians listened to him, and thought he was an extraordinary man, notwithstanding the novelty of his appearance; but when he spoke of the resurrection of the dead, they mocked. In this particular instance another point of departure is chosen. The Jews listened unto Paul so long as he related incidents and confined himself to matters which were, more or less, of a purely Jewish kind; but the moment he said “Gentiles,” they went mad, cried out, cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air, and were in a fury of resentment.

The great teaching of this review is that all men part company with their teachers at certain points. The point is not always the same: some remained with Jesus, notwithstanding the spirituality of his teaching; some heard about the resurrection of the dead with comparative interest, for they themselves had some leaning in the direction of that doctrine; others could hear about the Gentiles with mental composure; there was nothing in the word itself to unbalance their equilibrium. But the lesson is, that there are points at which we all fly off. There are points which would dissolve this assembly in a moment, to which we dare not, or may not, refer. Men always like to listen to themselves preaching; it is not the teacher who preaches, but the people who, accepting his monotonous and indisputable platitudes, are themselves preaching through him, and the more energetic he is the more comfortable they are. But who dare speak the new word, start the new thought, break away into the new direction, shake off the accepted, and enter neglected paths, and carve, under what is believed to be Divine inspiration, new and broader paths of progress? Look at this particular case: what was the disease under which these people were suffering? The eternal disease of humanity, which is narrow-mindedness. It is distressing, were it not for a kind of sad comedy that runs through it and puckers it into a kind of unholy laughter, to see how we rebuke narrow-mindedness in others, and practise it with religious fidelity ourselves. I know not how the difficulty is to be met. The moment the Jews heard the word “Gentiles” they would hear no more of Apostolic eloquence. The man who could entertain a kindly interest towards the Gentiles was a “fellow” “not fit to live.” That was called religious earnestness, religious zeal, contention for the faith once delivered to the saints! Are there any against whom we cry out? Have we learned Christ’s great lesson: “Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring”? Have we left the ninety-and-nine accepted ideas in the wilderness and gone out after that which is lost, until we find it? Are we shepherds or bigots? men of progress or men of retrogression? I do not ask for new truth, for there is none and can be none; I do not ask for a “new theology,” for that were a contradiction in terms theology, properly understood, is an eternal quantity. I ask for great-heartedness all but infinite heartedness, that will listen to all kinds of people, hoping that in the course of their talk they will drop the one word which the great Teacher can take up and magnify into a gospel. Save us! O Saviour of the world! our Lord Christ Jesus, from the spirit that listens for the other word, which we can work up into an indictment. If any man has a prophecy, let us hear it; if any man has a saying, let us listen to it; if any man has a new reading of the old Book, let us hear him. A tone may be a lesson; an emphasis may be equal to a revelation. We lose so much when we are narrow, unsympathetic, bigoted. The only condition of mind which Jesus Christ can approve is a condition of all hopeful love. Is that a mere sentiment? Far from it, for nothing can burn with so intense a wrath against all evil as holy love. Indifference cannot be angry. Love has two looks like the mysterious wheel in the great ancient darkness one look of benignity, warmth, hopefulness, and benediction towards all who want to be better and to pray the large prayer; and the other look that strikes off the hoops of iron from the wheels of the enemy the piercing, blighting look, the face of holy anger that will have no truce, or parleying, or compromise with any child of darkness. Let us take care how we condemn the narrow-mindedness of men who lived nineteen centuries since, and then practise it in some other form ourselves. Let our prayer be for larger roads, swifter progress, ampler light, more courage, more hope.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

22 And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.

Ver. 22. And they gave him audience ] The Jews to this day will not hear of the Gentiles having any interest in their Messiah, they call us bastard Gentiles, and curse us Christians in their daily prayers, with a Maledic Domine Nazaraeis. Gog, curse the Nazarene. They stick not to say that rather than we should have any benefit by their Messiah, they would crucify him a hundred times over. Thus to this present they please not God, and are contrary to all men, 1Th 2:15 . We must pity them and pray for them, as Psa 14:7 . Lopez the traitor, at Tyburn, affirmed that he loved Queen Elizabeth as he loved Jesus Christ; which from a Jew was heard not without laughter. (Camd. Eliz.)

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

22. . ] viz. the announcement that he was to be sent to the Gentiles . ‘Populi terrarum non vivunt,’ was the maxim of the children of Abraham. Chetubb. fol. iii. 2 (Meyer).

] ‘decuerat:’ implying, he ought to have been put to death long ago (when we endeavoured to do it, but he escaped).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 22:22 . ., see on Act 2:14 . , cf. Act 21:36 , emphasised here, by ; present tense, a continuous cry. : only used by St. Paul elsewhere in N.T., cf. Rom 1:28 . The imperfect, , see critical note, implies that long ago he ought to have been put to death “for it was not fit,” etc., non debebat (or debuerat ) vivere , Winer-Moulton, lxi. 2. – = Att. In LXX, Deu 21:17 , Eze 21:27 (32), and other passages, also several times in Books of Macc. (see H. and R.). For construction cf. Burton, p. 15.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 22:22-29

22They listened to him up to this statement, and then they raised their voices and said, “Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he should not be allowed to live!” 23And as they were crying out and throwing off their cloaks and tossing dust into the air, 24the commander ordered him to be brought into the barracks, stating that he should be examined by scourging so that he might find out the reason why they were shouting against him that way. 25But when they stretched him out with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned?” 26When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and told him, saying, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman.” 27The commander came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman?” And he said, “Yes.” 28The commander answered, “I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money.” And Paul said, “But I was actually born a citizen.” 29Therefore those who were about to examine him immediately let go of him; and the commander also was afraid when he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had put him in chains.

Act 22:22 Their statement is idiomatic and has two parts.

1. “take (present active imperative) from the earth such a man” (cf. Luk 23:18; Act 21:36)

2. “not fitting (imperfect active indicative) for him to live” (cf. Act 25:24)

Their racial and religious biases are revealed. All humans are historically and culturally conditioned.

Act 22:23

NASB”throwing off their clothes”

NKJV”tore off their clothes”

NRSV”throwing off their cloaks”

TEV”waving their clothes”

NJB”waving their cloaks”

This tearing off and waving of clothes or the throwing of them into the air were OT signs of mourning over a blasphemy (Greek-English Lexicon, Louw and Nida, vol. 1, p. 213, cf. Act 14:14).

“tossing dust into the air” Paul was lucky that there were no rocks available. Putting dust on one’s head was a sign of mourning (cf. Jos 7:6; 1Sa 4:12; 2Sa 1:2; Job 2:12), here mourning over blasphemy (cf. Isaiah 47; Lamentations 2; Mic 1:10).

SPECIAL TOPIC: GRIEVING RITES

Act 22:24 “the commander” This is the word chiliarch (cf. Act 22:27-29), which means a leader of 1000, as the term centurion (cf. Act 22:25-26) implies a leader of 100. However, the numbers are relative. He was the officer in charge of the Roman garrison in Jerusalem.

“the barracks” This refers to the Fortress Antonia, which overlooked and connected to the Temple area. It was built in the Persian Period during Nehemiah’s day (cf. Neh 2:8; Neh 7:2). Herod the Great renamed it after Marc Antony. During feast days Jerusalem swelled to three times its normal population. The Romans moved large numbers of troops from Caesarea into the Fortress Antonia for security purposes.

“examined by scourging” This implies “beat the information out of him.” Scourging was a cruel form of torture. Many died from it. It was much more severe than Jewish flogging or Roman beating with rods. A leather whip with pieces of metal, stone or bones sewn into the strands was used to whip prisoners.

Act 22:25 “stretched him out” Usually the victims were bent over and bound to a low post for the scourging to be performed.

“Is it lawful” These soldiers were about to transgress their own law in several points:

1. a Roman citizen could not be bound (cf. Act 21:33; Act 22:29)

2. a Roman citizen could not be scourged (cf. Livy, History 10:9:4; Cicero, Pro Rabirio 4:12-13)

3. Paul had not been tried and found guilty (cf. Act 16:37)

Act 22:27 “are you a Roman” The “you” is emphasized. This Roman officer could not believe Paul was a Roman citizen.

Act 22:28 “I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money” There were three ways to be a Roman citizen:

1. by birth

2. given for special service to the state

3. purchased (Dio Cassius, Rom. Hist. 60:17:5-6)

This soldier’s name implies that he purchased his citizenship under Claudius and that he was a Greek (Claudius Lysias, cf. Act 23:26). Claudius’ wife, Messaline, often sold Roman citizenships for large sums of money.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

gave him audience = were listening to him. As in Act 22:7, the verb followed by the Genitive case shows that they followed what he was saying.

word. Greek. logos. App-121. The thought of Gentiles on an equality with Jews was intolerable.

ullet

lifted up, &c. Compare Act 2:14; Act 14:11.

Away. See note on Joh 19:15.

earth. Greek. ge. App-129.

fit. Greek. katheko. Only here and Rom 1:28. To teach the Gentiles that the Messiah of the Jews was a crucified malefactor was an outrageous offence to the orthodox Jew (1Co 1:23).

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

22. . ] viz. the announcement that he was to be sent to the Gentiles. Populi terrarum non vivunt, was the maxim of the children of Abraham. Chetubb. fol. iii. 2 (Meyer).

] decuerat: implying, he ought to have been put to death long ago (when we endeavoured to do it, but he escaped).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Act 22:22. , this word) concerning the Gentiles. Nor did they willingly hear him as to JESUS.-, from the earth) They make him unworthy to be borne by the earth.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

65. “I WAS FREE BORN”

Act 22:22-28

“And they gave him audience unto this word.” Paul had been telling the Jews how that God saved him by his free grace and sovereign mercy in Christ. And they listened with relative patience until he told them how God, in his glorious sovereignty, had rejected Israel as a nation and sent the gospel to his elect among the Gentiles (Act 22:17-21). When they heard that God has mercy on whom he will, without regard to human merit, religious rearing, family descent, or racial heritage, they were engaged. Fallen men are always enraged by the declaration of God’s sovereignty in the exercise of his grace (Luk 4:25-29). Hearing that God had rejected them and had chosen to save worthless Gentiles, these self-righteous Jews were filled with rage. They began to act like wild beasts. They cried out, “Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live!” As they screamed for Paul’s blood, they tore off their clothes, preparing to stone him to death, and threw dust into the air. Their hatred of God’s sovereign character nearly drove them insane. They could not get their hands around God’s throat, so they tried to kill Paul.

Then the chief captain commanded one of his soldiers to bring Paul into the castle to beat a confession out of him (Act 22:24). As they were preparing to do so, Paul said, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?” (Act 22:25). Of course, it was not. The thought of beating a Roman citizen was horrifying to the soldier. He ran to tell his commanding officer, “You ordered us to beat a Roman citizen.” That scared the chief captain too. He came to Paul and said, “Art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. And the chief captain answered, with great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born” (Act 22:27-28). He was born in Tarsus, a free city, which had been declared free by Mark Antony, long before Paul was born.

For the purpose of this study, I take these words as coming, not from the mouth of Saul of Tarsus, a citizen of Rome, but as coming from the mouth of Paul the believer, a citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem. What Paul here says of himself every true believer may joyfully declare concerning himself – “I was free born.” We are citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem. The Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Heaven, has declared that City to be free by the power of his blood. And he did it long before we were born. Being free born citizens of the kingdom of heaven, we will never be brought into bondage (Gal 5:1). Four things are clearly revealed in the New Testament about this spiritual freedom that need to be understood by every child of God.

ALL MEN AND WOMEN BY NATURE ARE IN BONDAGE. Man loves to boast of freedom, independence, and liberty. But all men are, in a spiritual sense, object slaves by nature. All are in bondage to sin (Rom 6:20), the servants of “the lusts of the flesh” (Eph 2:3). Those who serve their own passions are slaves to the worst possible despot. Yet, by nature we are all ruled by the evil passions of our own depraved hearts. Having broken God’s law, all are in bondage to the law and under the curse of the law (Gal 3:10), under the sentence of death (Rom 6:23). To one degree or another, all of us are natural slaves to other men, craving their approval, acceptance, and applause. And all men and women are slaves to religious tradition custom, and superstition by nature. The maxim of the humanist is true: “Man believes what he is raised to believe.” Religion is a cultural thing. It is passed on from father to son, generation after generation. This natural, cultural, environmental religion brings people into terrible bondage. The Lord Jesus Christ came into this world to set the captive free, to open the doors of the prison, break the iron chains and steel fetters, and bring his people into freedom and liberty, even “the glorious liberty of the sons of God” (Isa 61:1; Luk 4:16-20).

CHRIST ALONE MAKES SINNERS FREE. No one ever comes to enjoy true liberty before God and in his own conscience, except by the blood, righteousness, and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. But we must beware of false liberty. Every good thing is imitated by satan; and he has deceived many with a false liberty. Some are so naive that they imagine a mere profession of faith is liberty. Others presume they have found liberty when they have mended their lives by self-righteous reformation, ceasing from certain evil habits of outward behavior. Some even substitute a spirit of licentiousness in the name of grace for spiritual freedom. But neither legalism nor antinomianism, nor empty religious profession can bring true liberty. Only Christ, the Son of God, can make sinners free (Joh 8:36). He purchased liberty for God’s elect by his sin-atoning death as our Substitute (Gal 3:13). He proclaims liberty to sinners through the preaching of the gospel (Isa 61:1-3). And he sets his people free by the power of his sovereign grace through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, who causes awakened sinners to know him who is the Truth (Joh 8:32).

ALL WHO ARE BORN OF GOD ARE BORN FREE, born into freedom (Gal 4:1-7). The moment a person is born again he is a child of God, and is free in Christ. The moment a sinner believes on the Lord Jesus Christ he begins to enjoy a real and lasting freedom in his soul. As the believer grows and matures, he enjoys his liberty more freely and appreciates it better. But the liberty is his as soon as he trusts Christ.

In Christ, we are free from sin, satan, and the law. Christ has freed us from the guilt, condemnation, and dominion of sin (Heb 9:14; Rom 8:1; Eph 2:1-5; Rom 6:11-18). Our Savior has delivered us from the power and tyranny of satan too. By nature, satan holds a usurped dominion over all men, blinding them, deceiving them, and leading them into captivity at his will. In salvation, Christ dethrones the devil by the power of his Spirit. He enters the hearts of his elect, binds the strong man and takes possession of his house (Luk 11:21-22). And the Son of God has freed his people from the Mosaic law (Rom 5:20-21; Rom 6:15; Rom 7:4; Rom 8:1-2; Rom 10:4). The New Testament never addresses God’s saints as people under the law, but always as people free from the law: free from the statutes of Old Testament judicial law, free from the ceremonies of the law, free from the bondage of the moral law. Believers in Christ have no covenant with the law, no condemnation by the law, no constraint from the law, and no obligation to the law. Christ satisfied all things in the law for us. The lives of God’s saints are not governed by the rules and regulations of the law, but by love and faith in Christ, and the glory of God (1Jn 3:23; 2Co 5:14; 1Co 10:31). However, according to the New Testament, our freedom in Christ extends far beyond these matters of doctrine, and reaches to the common affairs of everyday life. Faith in Christ gives us freedom from all the customs, traditions, and superstitions of human religion. We are not to be the servants of self-righteous, religious traditions and customs. We are duty bound to repudiate them (Mat 15:1-9; Col 2:6-8; Col 2:16-17; Col 2:20-23). Neither the church of God nor gospel preachers have any right to develop laws and rules of conduct for God’s people. To do so is to add to the Word of God. In Christ we are free to use every creature of God for food, happiness, satisfaction, and comfort as we seek to serve him in this world. Old Testament Levitical law made the use of some things unlawful. But in this gospel age, for the believer, there is nothing common or unclean (Act 10:14-15; Rom 14:14; 1Ti 4:1-4). Use all things in moderation. Carefully avoid offending a weaker brother. Make your use of all things subservient to the glory of God and the welfare of his church. But understand that you are free to use God’s creation as his child (Rom 14:2-3; Rom 14:13-15; Rom 14:20-23; 1Co 8:9-13). Christ has given us the freedom to worship God (Eph 2:18; Heb 4:16): freedom to call upon God in prayer, freedom to observe the ordinances of his house, and freedom to serve him. Furthermore, being born of God, in Christ, believers are made free from the fear of death (Heb 2:14-15). Being justified by his grace, redeemed by his blood, robed in his righteousness, and born of his Spirit, the second death has no power over God’s elect (Rev 20:6; Joh 5:25).

However, THERE IS A GLORIOUS LIBERTY YET TO BE REVEALED (Rom 8:21-23). In heaven we shall be totally free from sin and everything sinful. But when Christ comes and makes all things new, in our resurrected, glorified bodies, in immortality and glory, we shall be completely freed from all the consequences of sin. That will be “the glorious liberty of the sons of God!”

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

Away: Act 7:54-57, Act 21:36, Act 25:24, Luk 23:18, Joh 19:15

for: Act 25:24

Reciprocal: 2Ch 18:26 – this fellow Psa 83:2 – lo Isa 37:29 – tumult Isa 65:5 – Stand Jer 26:9 – And all Jer 26:11 – saying Dan 6:6 – assembled together Zec 11:3 – for their Mat 15:26 – It is not Mat 20:11 – they murmured Mat 26:61 – This Mat 27:23 – But Mar 15:14 – And Luk 6:22 – separate Luk 14:23 – Go Luk 15:28 – he Joh 9:29 – as for Joh 18:35 – what Act 5:33 – they Act 10:28 – that it Act 11:18 – hath Act 13:16 – give Act 16:22 – the multitude Act 17:6 – These Act 21:31 – as Act 24:5 – we have Act 26:17 – Delivering Act 26:20 – and then Act 26:21 – the Jews Rom 10:2 – that they 1Co 4:13 – General Gal 5:11 – why Eph 4:31 – clamour 1Th 2:16 – Forbidding

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

2

Act 22:22. Gave him audience unto this word. The Jews had an envious feeling against the Gentiles, and when Paul made his remark of being sent to this hated race by the Lord, they could not stand it any longer.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Act 22:22. And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth; for it is not fit that he should live. Literally, they continued to listen to him until, etc. This word does not refer to the expression the Gentiles, but to the whole of the last part of Pauls discourse, in which he explained that his mission to and his work among the Gentile nations were in accordance with a Divine command. This, to the fanatic Jewish mind, was indeed a startling statement, and, if true, would at once remove all reason for their jealousy of the foreigner. But could it be true that the long-expected Messiahthe peculiar glory of the chosen racecould, in their own proud House in Jerusalem, speak to this man from His glory-throne in heaven, and command him to leave his own city and people, and to devote himself solely to the uncircumcised Gentiles? Was not such an assertion of itself rank blasphemy? Could King Messiah send oneonce belonging to their own strictest sect of Phariseesto these uncovenanted Heathen to tell them that the Messiah, the Redeemer of Israel, was equally their Messiah and Redeemer? One who could say such things was surely unworthy to live. The Gentile people of the earth cannot be said really to live, was one of the maxims of the children of Israel; and were these degraded races to be told they stood as regards eternity on an equal footing with the favoured descendant of Abraham?

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Observe here, 1. With what patience the Jews heard the apostle’s discourse until he made mention to preach to them. Upon which they brake forth into fury and passion, and expressed their fury by throwing dust into the air, and casting off their clothes, as if they would presently stone him, whom they looked upon as the worst of villains, and unworthy to live: where we may remark at once both what a vile opinion the Jews had of the Gentiles, whom they called and accounted dogs, and what an high esteem they had of themselves, and a proud conceit of their own deservings, as if the favours of heaven belonged to none but themselves, who yet trampled upon them, when they were tendered to them.

Observe, 2. What a vile esteem these wicked Jews had of the holy and innocent apostle, who desired above all things to preach the glad tidings of the gospel to them, and longed most affectionately for the conversion and salvation of them. They account him the greatest villain upon earth, and unworthy to live upon it; but the good man had learnt (and let all the faithful ministers of Christ learn it after him) to take pleasure in reproaches, in persecutions, in necessities and distresses, for Christ’s sake. Away with such a fellow from the earth, it is not meet that he should live.

Observe, 3. The pious prudence and innocent policy which the apostle uses for his own preservation: when they were about to bind him to a post, in order to the scourging of him, the apostle declares himself a free denizen of Rome, by being born in one of the cities which the Roman emperor had made free; accordingly St. Paul pleads for himself the privilege of a Roman citizen, who neither ought to be bound or beaten. Though we may not render evil for evil, yet we may right ourselves by all lawful means. Christ allows as much of the serpent as the dove in his servants, provided the subtilty of the one doth not destroy the simplicity of the other. The head of the serpent and the heart of the dove do best together; for as policy without piety is too subtle to be good, so piety without policy is too simple to be safe.

Observe, 4. How the chief captain, fearing that he had done more than he could answer, because it was death for any one in authority to violate the Roman privileges; therefore more out of fear than love, or more out of love to himself than the apostle, he looses St. Paul’s bonds.

Thence note, That when at any time the persecutors of the saints do desist from their bloody purposes, it is not out of love to them, but love to themselves.

Observe, lastly, The saints’ deliverances from affliction and persecution, whilst on this side heaven, are not total or final, but momentary and partial. The apostle was delivered from his chains, not from his confinement; though unbound, not set at liberty. Next day we find him before the great council, or Sanhedrin, and fresh bonds and afflictions abide him.

Little rest is to be expected by the members, and less rest by the faithful ministers, of Jesus Christ in this world: blessed be God, for the believing hopes of an eternal rest! where the fury of the persecutor, the injuries of the oppressor, shall cease for ever; where no sin shall affect us, no sorrow afflict us, no danger affright us; but we shall be perfectly like unto God, as well in purity an immortality.

In the mean time, may we, the ministers of God who are set for the defence of the gospel, bear the burden and heat of the day with patience and courage, resolution and constancy; may we gird up the loins of our minds, not accounting either our labours or our lives dear unto us, so that we finish our course with joy, and fulfil the ministry which we have received of the Lord, glorying in our reproaches for well-doing; yea, though we be accounted the filth of the world, and the offscouring of all things: for when the chief shepherd shall appear, we shall receive a crown of glory which fadeth not away.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

The Reaction to Paul’s Defense

So great was the Jews’ hatred of the Gentiles that the very mention of them enraged the audience and moved them to call for Paul’s death. They began to throw their garments and dust in the air, perhaps in preparation to stone the apostle. The chief captain had Paul taken into the castle and prepared to scourge him until he told the truth. However, Paul asked if the law would allow them to scourge an uncondemned Roman citizen. The centurion in charge of the scourging immediately told the chief captain, who, in turn, asked if Paul was a Roman. Paul’s positive response moved the captain to say he had bought those privileges for a great sum of money. Paul said he was born into Roman citizenship.

With that established, everyone quickly withdrew and the captain worried because he had bound a Roman. The next day, Paul was freed and the chief priests and all the council were commanded to come together, while Paul was seated before them ( Act 22:22-30 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Act 22:22. And they gave him audience Heard him with quietness and attention; unto this word Till he began to speak of his mission to the Gentiles, and this in such a manner as implied that the Jews were in danger of being cast off; but no sooner did he mention this, than the multitude, especially such of them as had come from Asia, became instantly perfectly enraged, and cried out with vehemence, Away with such a fellow from the earth Such an impudent blasphemer; for it is not fit that he should live Any longer upon it, since he shows himself to be such a traitor to God, and an enemy to his chosen people, in pretending to have a commission to go and preach to the ignorant and reprobated Gentiles. Thus the men that have been the greatest blessings of their age, have often been represented, not only as the burdens of the earth, but as the pests of their generation. He who was worthy of the greatest honours in life is condemned as not worthy of life itself!

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

22-24. When he reached this point in his discourse, he appeared to the mob about to vindicate the course which they condemned as criminal, instead of apologizing for it, and their rage was renewed. (22) “Now they heard him up to this word, then raised their voices and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth! For it is not fit that he should live. (23) And as they were shouting, and tossing up their garments, and casting dust into the air, (24) the chiliarch commanded him to be led into the castle, saying that he should be examined by scourging, in order that he might know on what account they cried out so against him.” The idea of scourging a man who is assailed by a mob, to make him confess the cause for which he is assailed, is most abhorrent to all proper sense of justice, yet it prevailed in the most enlightened heathen nations of antiquity. Rome, it is true, exempted from its effects all who enjoyed the rights of citizenship; but the existence of such a distinction in a matter in which all human beings should have equal rights, is a further proof of their ignorance of the true principles of public justice. To the enlightening and rectifying influence of Christianity, modern nations are indebted for many happy changes in jurisprudence.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Act 22:22-29. After the Speech, in the Barracks.Like Stephen, Paul is interrupted, and threatened with stoning. The throwing dust into the air is probably to be understood as an expression of blind fury (cf. 2Ma 4:41). But the tribune takes him into the barracks and proceeds himself to deal with him. The story is taken up from Act 21:38. If Paul is a leader of sedition, the case must be dealt with instantly. The examination was to be with scourging, as was customary with slaves and persons not citizens (see Luk 23:16). The apostle is being stretched out for (mg.) the scourging with leather thongs, when he remonstrates with the centurion in charge (as at Philippi, Act 16:37) that he is a Roman who must not be subjected to such usage, and that there has been no trial. The tribune comes to inquire into the first point: he is a Roman himself, by purchase, and knows he has gone too far. It was a crime to bind a Roman citizen (Cic. in Verrem, ii. 5). On Pauls citizenship, which he inherited from his father, as he perhaps from his, see Ramsay, Cities of Paul: Tarsus.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 22

They gave him audience; they listened to him.–Unto this word; his speaking of the Gentiles as the objects of God’s favorable regard.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

22:22 {2} And they gave him audience unto this word, and [then] lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a [fellow] from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.

(2) Resolute and stubborn pride will neither embrace the truth itself, neither allow others to receive it.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The Jews’ response 22:22

Jews had taken messages from God to Gentiles many times in Israel’s past (e.g., Jonah; the Pharisees, Mat 23:15; et al.). That revelation could not have been what infuriated Paul’s audience. What upset them was that Paul was approaching Gentiles directly about the Messiah without first introducing them to Judaism and its institutions. This was equivalent to placing Gentiles on the same footing before God as Jews, and this was the height of apostasy to the traditional Jewish mind. This is why Paul’s hearers reacted so violently and allowed him to say no more.

"The bulk of Jerusalem has reacted now against Jesus, Peter, John, Stephen, and Paul. For Acts, this is a final, key rejection of the gospel . . ." [Note: Bock, Acts, p. 653.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

3

Chapter 17

A PRISONER IN BONDS.

Act 21:2-3; Act 21:17; Act 21:33; Act 21:39-40; Act 22:22; Act 22:30; Act 24:1; Act 26:1

THE title we have given to this chapter, “A Prisoner in Bonds,” expresses the central idea of the last eight chapters of the Acts. Twenty years and more had now elapsed since St. Pauls conversion on the road to Damascus. These twenty years had been times of unceasing and intense activity. Now we come to some five years when the external labours, the turmoil and the cares of active, life, have to be put aside, and St. Paul was called upon to stand apart and learn the lesson which every-day experience teaches to all, -how easily the world can get along without us, how smoothly Gods designs fulfil themselves without our puny assistance. The various passages we have placed at the head of this chapter cover six chapters of the Acts, from the twenty-first to the twenty-sixth. It may seem a large extent of the text to be comprised within the limits of one of our chapters, but it must be remembered that a great deal of the space thus included is taken up with the narrative of St. Pauls conversion, which is twice set forth at great length, first to the multitude from the stairs of the tower of Antonia, and then in his defence which he delivered before Agrippa and Bernice and Festus, or else with the speeches delivered by him before the assembled Sanhedrin and before Felix the governor, wherein he dwells on points previously and sufficiently discussed. We have already considered the narrative of the Apostles conversion at great length, and noted the particular directions in which St. Pauls own later versions at Jerusalem and Caesarea throw light upon St. Lukes independent account. To the earlier chapters of this book we therefore would refer the reader who wishes to discuss St. Pauls conversion, and several of the other subjects which he introduces. Let us now, however, endeavour, first of all, to gather up into one connected story the tale of St. Pauls journeys, sufferings, and imprisonments from the time he left Miletus after his famous address till he set sail for Rome from the port of Caesarea, a prisoner destined for the judgment-seat of Nero. This narrative will embrace from at least the summer of A.D. 58, when he was arrested at Jerusalem, to the autumn of 60, when he set sail for Rome. This connected story will enable us to see the close union of the various parts of the narrative which is now hidden from us because of the division into chapters, and will enable us to fix more easily upon the leading points which lend themselves to the purposes of an expositor.

I. St. Paul after parting from the Ephesian Church, embarked on board his ship, and then coasted along the western shore of Asia Minor for three days, sailing amid scenery of the most enchanting description, specially in that late spring or early summer season at which the year had then arrived. It was about the first of May, and all nature was bursting into new life, when even hearts the hardest and least receptive of external influences feel as if they were living a portion of their youth over again. And even St. Paul, rapt in the contemplation of things unseen, must have felt himself touched by the beauty of the scenes through which he was passing, though St. Luke tells us nothing but the bare succession of events. Three days after leaving Miletus the sacred company reached Patara, a town at the southwestern corner of Asia Minor, where the coast begins to turn round towards the east. Here St. Paul found a trading ship sailing direct to Tyre and Palestine, and therefore with all haste transferred himself and his party into it. The ship seems to have been on the point of sailing, which suited St. Paul so much the better, anxious as he was to reach Jerusalem in time for Pentecost. The journey direct from Patara to Tyre is about three hundred and fifty miles, a three days sail under favourable circumstances for the trading vessels of the ancients, and the circumstances were favourable. The northwest wind is to this day the prevailing wind in the eastern Mediterranean during the late spring and early summer season, and the northwest wind would be the most favourable wind for an ancient trader almost entirely depending on an immense mainsail for its motive power. With such a wind the merchantmen of that age could travel at the rate of a hundred to a hundred and fifty miles a day, and would therefore traverse the distance between Patara and Tyre in three days, the time we have specified. When the vessel arrived at Tyre St. Paul sought out the local Christian congregation. The ship was chartered to bring a cargo probably of wheat or wine to Tyre, inasmuch as Tyre was a purely commercial city, and the territory naturally belonging to it was utterly unable to finish it with necessary provisions, as we have already noted on the occasion of Herod Agrippas death. A week, therefore, was spent in unloading the cargo, during which St. Paul devoted himself to the instruction of the local Christian Church. After a weeks close communion with this eminent servant of God, the Tyrian Christians, like the elders of Ephesus and Miletus, with their wives and children accompanied him till they reached the shore, where they commended one another in prayer to Gods care and blessing. From Tyre he sailed to Ptolemais, thirty miles distant. There again he found another Christian congregation, with whom he tarried one day, and then leaving the ship proceeded by the great coast road to Caesarea, a town which he already knew right well, and to which he was so soon to return as a prisoner in bonds. At Caesarea there must now have been a very considerable Christian congregation. In Caesarea Philip the Evangelist lived and ministered permanently. There too resided his daughters, eminent as teachers, and exercising in their preaching or prophetical functions a great influence among the very mixed female population of the political capital of Palestine. St. Paul and St. Luke abode in Caesarea several days in the house of Philip the Evangelist. He did not wish to arrive in Jerusalem till close on the Feast of Pentecost, and owing to the fair winds with which he had been favoured he must have had a week or more to stay in Caesarea. Here Agabus again appears upon the scene. Fourteen years before he had predicted the famine which led St. Paul to pay a visit to Jerusalem when bringing up the alms of the Antiochene Church to assist the poor brethren at Jerusalem, and now he predicts the Apostles approaching captivity. The prospect moved the Church so much that the brethren besought St. Paul to change his mind and not enter the Holy City. But his mind was made up, and nothing would dissuade him from celebrating the Feast as he had all along proposed; He went up therefore to Jerusalem, lodging with Mnason, “an early disciple,” as the Revised Version puts it, one therefore who traced his Christian convictions back probably to the celebrated Pentecost a quarter of a century earlier, when the Holy Ghost first displayed His supernatural power in converting multitudes of human souls. Next day he went to visit James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, who received him warmly, grasped his position, warned him of the rumours which had been industriously and falsely circulated as to his opposition to the Law of Moses, even in the case of born Jews, and gave him some prudent advice as to his course of action. St. James recommended that St. Paul should unite himself with certain Christian Nazarites, and perform the Jewish rites usual in such cases. A Nazarite, as we have already mentioned, when he took the Nazarite vow for a limited time after some special deliverance vouchsafed to him, allowed his hair to grow till he could cut it off in the Temple, and have it burned in the fire of the sacrifices offered up on his behalf. These sacrifices were very expensive, as will be seen at once by a reference to Num 6:13-18, where they are prescribed at full length, and it was always regarded as a mark of patriotic piety when any stranger coming to Jerusalem offered to defray the necessary charges for the poorer Jews, and thus completed the ceremonies connected with the Nazarite vow. St. James advised St. Paul to adopt this course, to unite himself with the members of the local Christian Church who were unable to defray the customary expenses, to pay their charges, join with them in the sacrifices, and thus publicly proclaim to those who opposed him that, though he differed from them as regards the Gentiles, holding in that matter with St. James himself and with the apostles, yet as regards the Jews, whether at Jerusalem or throughout the world at large, he was totally misrepresented when men asserted that he taught the Jews to reject the Law of Moses. St. Paul was guided by the advice of James, and proceeded to complete the ceremonial prescribed for the Nazarites. This was the turning-point of his fate. Jerusalem was then thronged with strangers from every part of the world. Ephesus and the province of Asia, as a great commercial centre, and therefore a great Jewish resort, furnished a very large contingent. To these, then, Paul was well known as an enthusiastic Christian teacher, toward whom the synagogues of Ephesus felt the bitterest hostility. They had often plotted against him at Ephesus, as St. Paul himself told the elders in his address at Miletus, but had hitherto failed to effect their purpose. Now, however, they seemed to see their chance. They thought they had a popular cry and a legal accusation under which he might be done to death under the forms of law. These Ephesian Jews had seen him in the city in company with Trophimus, an uncircumcised Christian belonging to their own city, one therefore whose presence within the temple was a capital offence, even according to Roman law. They raised a cry therefore that he had defiled the Holy Place by bringing into it an uncircumcised-Greek; and thus roused the populace to seize the Apostle, drag him from the sacred precincts, and murder him. During the celebration of the Feasts the Roman sentinels, stationed upon the neighbouring tower of Antonia which overlooked the Temple courts, watched the assembled crowds most narrowly, apprehensive of a riot. As soon therefore as the first symptoms of an outbreak occurred, the alarm was given, the chief captain Lysias hurried to the spot, and St. Paul was rescued for the moment. At the request of the Apostle, who was being carried up into the castle, he was allowed to address the multitude from the stairs. They listened to the narrative of his conversion very quietly till he came to tell of the vision God vouchsafed to him in the Temple some twenty years before, warning him to leave Jerusalem, when at the words “Depart, for I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles,” all their pent-up rage and prise and national jealousy burst forth anew. St. Paul had been addressing them in the Hebrew language, which the chief captain understood not, and the mob probably expressed their rage and passion in the same language. The chief captain ordered St. Paul to be examined by flogging to know why they were so outrageous against him. More fortunate, however, on this occasion than at Philippi, he claimed his privilege as a Roman citizen, and escaped the torture. The chief captain was still in ignorance of the prisoners crime, and therefore be brought him the very next day before the Sanhedrin, when St. Paul by a happy stroke caused such a division between the Sadducees and Pharisees that the chief captain was again obliged to intervene and rescue the prisoner from the contending factions. Next day, however, the Jews formed a conspiracy to murder the Apostle, which his nephew discovered and revealed to St. Paul and to Claudius Lysias, who that same night despatched him to Caesarea.

All these events, from his conference with James to his arrival under guard at Caesarea, cannot have covered more than eight days at the utmost, and yet the story of them extends from the middle of the twenty-first chapter to the close of the twenty-third, while the record of twelve months hard work preaching, writing, organising is embraced within the first six verses of the twentieth chapter, showing how very different was St. Lukes narrative of affairs, according as he was present or absent when they were transacted.

From the beginning of the twenty-fourth chapter to the close of the twenty-sixth is taken up with the account of St. Pauls trials, at first before Felix, and then before Festus, his successor in the procuratorship of Palestine. Just let us summarise the course of. events and distinguish between them. St. Paul was despatched by Claudius Lysias to Felix, accompanied by a letter in which he contrives to put the best construction on his own actions, representing himself as specially anxious about St. Paul because he was a Roman citizen, on which account indeed he describes himself as rescuing him from the clutches of the mob. After the lapse of five days St. Paul was brought up before Felix and accused by the Jews of three serious crimes in the eyes of Roman law as administered in Palestine. First, he was a mover of seditions among the Jews; second, a ringleader of a new sect, the Nazarenes, unknown to Jewish law; and third, a profaner of the Temple, contrary to the law which the Romans themselves had sanctioned. On all these points Paul challenged investigation and demanded proof, asking where were the Jews from Asia who had accused him of profaning the Temple. The Jews doubtless thought that Paul was a common Jew, who would be yielded up to their clamour by the procurator, and knew nothing of his Roman citizenship. Their want of witnesses brought about their failure, but did not lead to St. Pauls release. He was committed to the custody of a centurion, and freedom of access was granted to his friends. In this state St. Paul continued two full years, from midsummer 58 to the same period of A.D. 60, when Felix was superseded by Festus. During these two years Felix often conversed with St. Paul. Felix was a thoroughly bad man. He exercised, as a historian of that time said of him, “the power of a king with the mind of a slave.” He was tyrannical, licentious, and corrupt, and hoped to be bribed by St. Paul, when he would have set him at liberty. At this period of his life St. Paul twice came in contact with the Herodian house, which thenceforth disappears from sacred history. Felix about the period of St. Pauls arrest enticed Drusilla, the great-granddaughter of Herod the Great, from her husband through the medium, as many think, of Simon Magus. Drusilla was very young and very beautiful, and, like all the Herodian women, very wicked. Felix was an open adulterer, therefore, and it is no wonder that when Paul reasoned before the guilty pair concerning righteousness, temperance, and the judgment to come, conscience should have smitten them and Felix should have trembled. St. Paul had another opportunity of bearing witness before this wicked and bloodstained family. Festus succeeded Felix as procurator of Palestine about June, A.D. 60. Within the following month Agrippa II, the son of the Herod Agrippa who had died the terrible death at Caesarea of which the twelfth chapter tells, came to Caesarea to pay his respects unto the new governor. Agrippa was ruler of the kingdom of Chalcis, a district north of Palestine and about the Lebanon Range. He was accompanied by his sister Bernice, who afterwards became the mistress of Titus, the conqueror of Jerusalem in the last great siege. Festus had already heard St. Pauls case, and had allowed his appeal unto Caesar. He wished, however, to have his case investigated before two Jewish experts, Agrippa and Bernice, who could instruct his own ignorance on the charges laid against him by the Jews, enabling him to write a more satisfactory report for the Emperors guidance. He brought St. Paul therefore before them, and gave the great Christian champion another opportunity of bearing witness for his Master before a family which now for more than sixty years had been more or less mixed up, but never for their own blessing, with Christian history. After a period of two years and three months detention, varied by different public appearances, St. Paul was despatched to Rome to stand his trial and make his defence before the Emperor Nero, whose name has become a synonym for vice, brutality, and self-will.

II. We have now given a connected outline of St. Pauls history extending over a period of more than two years. Let us omit his formal defences, which have already come under our notice, and take for our meditation a number of points which are peculiar to the narrative.

We have in the story of the voyage, arrest, and imprisonment of St. Paul, many circumstances which illustrate Gods methods of action in the world, or else His dealings with the spiritual life. Let us take a few instances. First, then, we direct attention to the steady though quiet progress of the Christian faith as revealed in these chapters. St. Paul landed at Tyre, and from Tyre he proceeded some thirty miles south to Ptolemais. These are both of them towns which have never hitherto occurred in our narrative as places of Christian activity. St. Paul and St. Peter and Barnabas and the other active leaders of the Church must often have passed through these towns, and wherever they went they strove to make known the tidings of the gospel. But we hear nothing in the Acts, and tradition tells us nothing of when or by whom the Christian Church was founded in these localities.

We get glimpses, too, of the ancient organisation of the Church, but only glimpses; we have no complete statement, because St. Luke was writing for a man who lived amidst it, and could supply the gaps which his informant left. The presbyters are mentioned at Miletus, and Agabus the prophet appeared at Antioch years before, and now again he appears at Caesarea, where Philip the Evangelist and his daughters the prophetesses appear. Prophets and prophesying are not confined to Palestine and Antioch, though the Acts tells us nothing of them as existing elsewhere. The Epistle to Corinth shows us that the prophets occupied a very important place in that Christian community. Prophesying indeed was principally preaching at Corinth; but it did not exclude prediction, and that after the ancient Jewish method, by action as well as by word, for Agabus took St. Pauls girdle, and binding his own hands and feet declared that the Holy Ghost told him, “So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that own-eth this girdle, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.” But how little we know of the details of the upgrowth of the Church in all save the more prominent places! How entirely ignorant we are, for instance, of the methods by which the gospel spread to Tyre and Ptolemais and Puteoli! Here we find in the Acts the fulfilment of our Lords words as reported in Mar 4:26 : “So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed upon the earth; and the seed should spring up and grow, he knoweth not how.” It was with the last and grander temple of God as it was with the first. Its foundations were laid, and its walls were built, not with sound of axe and hammer, but in the penitence of humbled souls, in the godly testimony of sanctified spirits, in the earnest lives of holy men hidden from the scoffing world, known only to the Almighty.

Again, we notice the advice given by James and the course actually adopted by St.. Paul when he arrived at Jerusalem. It has the appearance of compromise of truth, and yet it has the appearance merely, not the reality of compromise. It was in effect wise and sound advice, and such as teaches lessons useful for our own guidance in life. We have already set forth St. Pauls conception of Jewish rites and ceremonies. They were nothing in the world one way or another, as viewed from the Divine standpoint. Their presence did not help on the work of mans salvation; their absence did not detract from it. The Apostle therefore took part in them freely enough, as when he celebrated the passover and the days of unleavened bread at Philippi, viewing them as mere national rites. He had been successful in the very highest degree in converting to this view even the highest and strictest members of the Jerusalem Church. St. James, in advising St. Paul how to act on this occasion, when such prejudices had been excited against him, clearly shows that he had come round to St. Pauls view. He tells St. Paul that the multitude or body of the Judaeo-Christian Church at Jerusalem had been excited against him, because they had been informed that he taught the Jews of the Dispersion to forsake Moses, the very thing St. Paul did not do. St. James grasped, however, St. Pauls view that Moses and the Levitical Law might be good things for the Jews, but had no relation to the Gentiles, and must not be imposed on them. St. James had taught this view ten years earlier at the Apostolic Council. His opinions and teaching had percolated downwards, and the majority of the Jerusalem Church now held the same view as regards the Gentiles, but were as strong as ever and as patriotic as ever so far as the Jews were concerned, and the obligation of the Jewish Law upon them and their children. St. Paul had carried his point as regards Gentile freedom. And now there came a time when he had in turn to show consideration and care for Jewish prejudices, and act out his own principle that circumcision was nothing and uncircumcision was nothing. Concessions, in fact, were not to be all on one side, and St. Paul had now to make a concession. The Judaeo-Christian congregations of Jerusalem were much excited, and St. Paul by a certain course of conduct, perfectly innocent and harmless, could pacify their excited patriotic feelings, and demonstrate to them that he was still a true, a genuine, and not a renegade Jew. It was but a little thing that St. James advised and public feeling demanded. He had but to join himself to a party of Nazarites and pay their expenses, and thus Paul would place himself en rapport with the Mother Church of Christendom. St. Paul acted wisely, charitably, and in a Christlike spirit when he consented to do as St. James advised. St. Paul was always eminently prudent. There are some religious men who seem to think that to advise a wise or prudent course is all the same as to advise a wicked or unprincipled course. They seem to consider success in any course as a clear evidence of sin, and failure as a proof of honesty and true principle. Concession, however, is not the same as unworthy compromise. It is our duty in life to see and make our course of conduct as fruitful and as successful as possible. Concession on little points has a wondrous power in smoothing the path of action and gaining true success. Many an honest man ruins a good cause simply because he cannot distinguish, as St. Paul did, things necessary and essential from things accidental and trivial. Pigheaded obstinacy, to use a very homely but a very expressive phrase, which indeed is often only disguised pride, is a great enemy to the peace and harmony of societies and churches. St. Paul displayed great boldness here. He was not afraid of being misrepresented, that ghost which frightens so many a popularity hunter from the course which is true and right. How easily his fierce Opponents, the men who had gone to Corinth and Galatia to oppose him, might misrepresent his action in joining himself to the Nazarites! They were the extreme men of the Jerusalem Church. They were the men for whom the decisions of the Apostolic Council had no weight, and who held still as of old that unless a man be circumcised he could not be saved. How easily, I say, these men could despatch their emissaries, who should proclaim that their opponent Paul had conceded all their demands and was himself observing the law at Jerusalem. St. Paul was not afraid of this misrepresentation, but boldly took the course which seemed to him right and true, and charitable, despite the malicious tongues of his adversaries. The Apostle of the Gentiles left us an example which many still require. How many a man is kept from adopting a course that is charitable and tends to peace and edification, solely because he is afraid of what opponents may say, or how they may twist and misrepresent his action. St. Paul was possessed with none of this moral cowardice which specially flourishes among so-called party-leaders, men who, instead of leading, are always led and governed by the opinions of their followers. St. Paul simply determined in his conscience what was right, and then fearlessly acted out his determination.

Some persons perhaps would argue that the result of his action showed that he was wrong and had unworthily compromised the cause of Christian freedom. They think that had he not consented to appear as a Nazarite in the Temple no riot would have occurred, his arrest would have been avoided, and the course of history might have been very different. But here we would join issue on the spot. The results of his action vindicated his Christian wisdom. The great body of the Jerusalem Church were convinced of his sincerity and realised his position. He maintained his influence over them, which had been seriously imperilled previously, and thus helped on the course of development which had been going on. Ten years before the advocates of Gentile freedom were but a small body. Now the vast majority of the local church at Jerusalem held fast to this idea, while still clinging fast to the obligation laid upon the Jews to observe the law. St. Paul did his best to maintain his friendship and alliance with the Jerusalem Church. To put himself right with them he travelled up to Jerusalem, when fresh fields and splendid prospects were opening up for him in the West. For this purpose he submitted to several days restraint and attendance in the Temple, and the results vindicated his determination. The Jerusalem Church continued the same course of orderly development, and when, ten years later, Jerusalem was threatened with destruction, the Christian congregations alone rose above the narrow bigoted patriotism which bound the Jews to the Holy City. The Christians alone realised that the day of the Mosaic Law was at length passed, and, retiring to the neighbouring city of Pella, escaped the destruction which awaited the fanatical adherents of the Law and the Temple.

Another answer, too, may be made to this objection. It was not his action in the matter of the Nazarites that brought about the riot and the arrest and his consequent imprisonment. It was the hostility of the Jews of Asia; and they would have assailed him whenever and wherever they met him. Studying the matter too, even in view of results, we should draw the opposite conclusion. God Himself approved his course. A Divine vision was vouchsafed to him in the guard-room of Antonia, after he had twice experienced Jewish violence, and bestowed upon him the approbation of Heaven: “The night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer; for as thou hast testified concerning Me at Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.” His courageous and at the same time charitable action was vindicated by its results on the Jerusalem Church, by the sanction of Christ Himself, and lastly, by its blessed results upon the development of the Church at large in leading St. Paul to Rome, in giving him a wider and more influential sphere for his efforts, and in affording him leisure to write epistles like those to Ephesus, Philippi, and Colossae, which have been so instructive and useful for the Church of all ages.

Another point which has exercised mens minds is found in St. Pauls attitude and words when brought before the Sanhedrin on the day after his arrest. The story is told in the opening verses of the twenty-third chapter. Let us quote them, as they vividly present the difficulty: “And Paul, looking steadfastly on the council, said, Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: and sittest thou to judge me according to the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou Gods high priest? And Paul said, I wist not, brethren, that he was high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people.”

Two difficulties here present themselves.

(a) There is St. Pauls language, which certainly seems wanting in Christian meekness, and not exactly modelled after the example of Christ, who, when He was reviled, reviled not again, and laid down in His Sermon on the Mount a law of suffering to which St. Paul does not here conform. But this is only a difficulty for those who have formed a superhuman estimate of St. Paul against which we have several times protested, and against which this very book of the Acts seems to take special care to warn its readers. If people will make the Apostle as sinless and as perfect as our Lord, they will of course be surprised at his language on this occasion. But if they regard him in the light in which St. Luke portrays him, as a man of like passions and infirmities with themselves, then they will feel no difficulty in the fact that St. Pauls natural temper was roused at the brutal and illegal command to smite a helpless prisoner on the mouth because he had made a statement which a member of the court did not relish. This passage seems to me not a difficulty, but a divinely guided passage witnessing to the inspiring influence of the Holy Ghost, and inserted to chasten our wandering fancy, which would exalt the Apostle to a position equal to that which rightly belongs to his Divine Master alone.

(b) Then there is a second difficulty. Some have thought that St. Paul told a lie in this passage, and that, when defending himself from the charge of unscriptural insolence to the high priest, he merely pretended ignorance of his person, saying, “I wist not, brethren, that he was high priest.” The older commentators devised various explanations of this passage. Dr. John Lightfoot, in his “Horae Hebraicae,” treating of this verse, sums them all up as follows. Either St. Paul means that he did not recognise Ananias as high priest because he did not lawfully occupy the office, or else because Christ was now the only high priest; or else because there had been so many and so frequent changes that as a matter of fact he did not know who was the actual high priest. None of these is a satisfactory explanation. Mr. Lewin offers what strikes me as the most natural explanation, considering all the circumstances. Ananias was appointed high priest about 47, continued in office till 59, and was killed in the beginning of the great Jewish war. He was a thoroughly historical character, and his high priesthood is guaranteed for us by the testimony of Josephus, who tells us of his varied fortunes and of his tragic death. But St. Paul never probably once saw him, as he was absent from Jerusalem, except for one brief visit, all the time while he enjoyed supreme office.

Now the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one judges, they sat in a large hall with a crowd of scribes and pupils in front of them, and the high priest, as we have already pointed out, was not necessarily president or chairman. St. Paul was very short-sighted, and the ophthalmia under which he continually suffered was probably much intensified by the violent treatment he had experienced the day before. Could anything be more natural than that a short-sighted man should not recognise in such a crowd the particular person who had uttered this very brief, but very tyrannical command, “Smite him on the mouth”? Surely an impartial review of St. Pauls life shows him ever to have been at least a man of striking courage, and therefore one who would never have descended to cloak his own hasty words with even the shadow of an untruth!

Again, the readiness and quickness of St. Paul in seizing upon every opportunity of escape have important teaching for us. Upon four different occasions at this crisis he displayed this characteristic. Let us note them for our guidance. When he was rescued by the chief captain and was carried into the castle, the captain ordered him to be examined by scourging to elicit the true cause of the riot; St. Paul then availed himself of his privilege as a Roman citizen to escape that torture. When he stood before the council he perceived the old division between the Pharisees and the Sadducees to be still in existence, which he had known long ago when he was himself connected with it. He skilfully availed himself of that circumstance to raise dissension among his opponents. He grasped the essential principle which lay at the basis of his teaching, and that was the doctrine of the Resurrection and the assertion of the reality of the spiritual world. Without that doctrine Christianity and Christian teaching were utterly meaningless, and in that doctrine Pharisees and Christians were united. Dropping the line of defence he was about to offer, which probably would have proceeded to show how true to conscience and to Divine light had been his course of life, he cried out, “I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees: touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” Grotius, an old and learned commentator, dealing with Act 23:6, has well summed up the principles on which St. Paul acted on this occasion in the following words: “St. Paul was not lacking in human prudence, making use of which for the service of the gospel, he intermingled the wisdom of the serpent with the gentleness of the dove, and thus utilised the dissensions of his enemies,” Yet once more we see the same tact in operation. After the meeting of the Sanhedrin and his rescue from out of its very midst, a plot was formed to assassinate him, of which he was informed by his nephew. Then again St. Paul did not let things slide, trusting in the Divine care alone. He knew right well that God demanded of men of faith that they should be fellow-workers with God and lend Him their co-operation. He knew too the horror which the Roman authorities had of riot and of all illegal measures; he despatched his nephew therefore to the chief captain, and by his readiness of resource saved himself from imminent danger. Lastly, we find the same characteristic trait coming out at Caesarea. His experience of Roman rule taught him the anxiety of new governors to please the people among whom they came. He knew that Festus would be anxious to gratify the Jewish authorities in any way he possibly could. They were very desirous to have the Apostle transferred from Caesarea to Jerusalem, sure that in some way or another they could there dispose of him. Knowing therefore the dangerous position in which he stood, St. Pauls readiness and tact again came to his help. He knew Roman law thoroughly well. He knew that as a Roman citizen he had one resource left by which in one brief sentence he could transfer himself out of the jurisdiction of Sanhedrin and Procurator alike, and of this he availed himself at the critical moment, pronouncing the magic words. Caesarem Appello (“I appeal unto Caesar”). St. Paul left in all these cases a healthy example which the Church urgently required in subsequent years. He had no morbid craving after suffering or death. No man ever lived in a closer communion with his God, or in a more steadfast readiness to depart and be with Christ. But he knew that it was his duty to remain at his post till the Captain of his salvation gave a clear note of withdrawal, and that clear note was only given when every avenue of escape was cut off. St. Paul therefore used his knowledge and his tact in order to ascertain the Masters will and discover whether it was His wish that His faithful servant should depart or tarry, yet awhile for the discharge of his earthly duties. I have said that this was an example necessary for the Church in subsequent ages. The question of flight in persecution became a very practical one as soon as the Roman Empire assumed an attitude definitely hostile to the Church. The more extreme and fanatical party not only refused to take any measures to secure their safety or escape death, but rather rushed headlong upon it, and upbraided those as traitors and renegades who tried in any. way to avoid suffering. From the earliest times, from the days of Ignatius of Antioch himself, we see this morbid tendency displaying itself; while the Church in the person of several of its greatest leaders-men like Polycarp and Cyprian, who themselves retired from impending danger till the Roman authorities discovered them-showed that St. Pauls wiser teaching and example were not thrown away. Quietism was a view which two centuries ago made a great stir both in England and France, and seems embodied to some extent in certain modern forms of thought. It taught that believers should lie quite passive in Gods hands and make no effort for themselves. Quietism would never have found a follower in the vigorous mind of St. Paul, who proved himself through all those trials and vicissitudes of more than two years ever ready with some new device wherewith to meet the hatred of his foes.

III. We notice lastly in the narrative of St. Pauls imprisonment his interviews with and his testimony before the members of the house of Herod. St. Peter had experience of the father of Herod Agrippa, and now St. Paul comes into contact with the children, Agrippa, Drusilla, and Bernice. And thus it came about. Felix the procurator, as we have already explained, was a very bad man, and had enticed Drusilla from her husband. He doubtless told her of the Jewish prisoner who lay a captive in the city where she was living. The Herods were a clever race, and they knew all about Jewish hopes and Messianic expectations, and they ever seem to have been haunted by a certain curiosity concerning the new sect of the Nazarenes. One Herod desired for a long time to see Jesus Christ, and was delighted when Pilate gratified his longing. Drusilla, doubtless, was equally curious, and easily persuaded her husband to gratify her desire. We therefore read in Act 24:24, “But after certain days, Felix came with Drusilla, his wife, which was a Jewess, and sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ Jesus.”

Neither of them calculated on the kind of man they had to do with. St. Paul knew all the circumstances of the case. He adapted his speech thereto. He made a powerful appeal to the conscience of the guilty pair. He reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and the judgment to come, and beneath his weighty words Felix trembled. His convictions were roused. He experienced a transient season of penitence, such as touched another guilty member of the Herodian house who feared John and did many things gladly to win his approval. But habits of sin had grasped Felix too firmly. He temporised with his conscience. He put off the day of salvation when it was dawning on him, and his words, “Go thy way for this time, and when I have a convenient season I will call thee unto me,” became the typical language of all those souls for whom procrastination, want of decision, trifling with spiritual feelings, have been the omens and the causes of eternal ruin.

But Felix and Drusilla were not the only members of the Herodian house with whom Paul came in contact. Felix and Drusilla left Palestine when two years of St. Pauls imprisonment had elapsed. Festus, another procurator, followed, and began his course as all the Roman rulers of Palestine began theirs. The Jews, when Festus visited Jerusalem, besought him to deliver the prisoner lying bound at Caesarea to the judgment of their Sanhedrin. Festus, all-powerful as a Roman governor usually was, dared not treat a Roman citizen thus without his own consent, and when that consent was asked Paul at once refused, knowing right well the intentions of the Jews, and appealed unto Caesar. A Roman governor, however, would not send a prisoner to the judgment of the Emperor without stating the crime imputed to him. Just at that moment Herod Agrippa, king of Chalcis and of the district of Ituraea, together with his sister Bernice, appeared on the scene. He was a Jew, and was well acquainted therefore with the accusations brought against the Apostle, and could inform the procurator what report he should send to the Emperor. Festus therefore brought Paul before them, and gave him another opportunity of expounding the faith of Jesus Christ and the law of love and purity which that faith involved to a family who ever treated that law with profound contempt. St. Paul availed himself of that opportunity. He addressed his whole discourse to the king, and that discourse was typical of those he addressed to Jewish audiences. It was like the sermon delivered to the Jews in the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia in one important aspect. Both discourses gathered round the resurrection of Jesus Christ as their central idea. St. Paul began his address before Agrippa with that doctrine, and he ended with the same. The hope of Israel, towards which their continuous worship tended, was the resurrection of the dead. That was St. Pauls opening idea. The same note lay beneath the narrative of his own conversion, and then he turned back to his original statement that the Risen Christ was the hope of Israel and of the world taught by Moses and proclaimed by prophets. But it was all in vain as regards Agrippa and Bernice. The Herods were magnificent, clever, beautiful. But they were of the earth, earthy. Agrippa said indeed to Paul, “With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian.” But it was not souls like his for whom the gospel message was intended. The Herods knew nothing of the burden of sin or the keen longing of souls desirous of holiness and of God. They were satisfied with the present transient scene, and enjoyed it thoroughly. Agrippas father when he lay a-dying at Caesarea consoled himself with the reflection that though his career was prematurely cut short, yet at any rate he had lived a splendid life. And such as the parent had been, such were the children. King Agrippa and his sister Bernice were true types of the stony-ground hearers, with whom “the care of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word.” And they choked the word so effectually in his case, even when taught by St. Paul, that the only result upon Agrippa, as St. Luke reports it, was this: “Agrippa said unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary



Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles