Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 22:25
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?
25. And as they bound him with thongs ] Rev. Ver. “And when they had tied him up with the thongs.” This gives more of the force of the verb in the Greek which implies the stretching of the prisoner forward, so that he may be in a position to receive the blows. Some have translated “for the thongs,” but the word rendered “thongs” is one which is always used for straps employed for straining or binding tight, and rarely, if ever, for the implement by which the chastisement is inflicted.
the centurion that stood by ] He was superintending the work of fastening the prisoner to the whipping-post, which was done by the common soldiers.
a man that is a Roman ] It was an offence punishable with the severest penalties for a man to claim to be a Roman citizen, if he were not one. The peril of such an assertion, if it were not true, convinces the centurion at once, and though we are not told so expressly we may feel sure that the operation of “tying up” was stopped.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Bound him with thongs – With cords, preparatory to scourging.
Is it lawful … – It was directly contrary to the Roman law to bind and scourge a Roman citizen. See the notes on Act 16:36-37.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 25. And as they bound him, &c.] They were going to tie him to a post, that they might scourge him.
Is it lawful, &c.] The Roman law absolutely forbade the binding of a Roman citizen. See Clarke on Ac 16:37.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
They bound him with thongs; they who were to be scourged were bound to a post or column (amongst the Jews) of a cubit and a half high, inclining downwards upon it; and these thongs were such wherewith they bound Paul to this column or pillar; and with such also they intended to scourge him.
Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? that is, it is not lawful to scourge a Roman; much less, uncondemned: See Poole on “Act 16:37“. This latter, the laws of no nation that was civilized did ever allow.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
25. Paul said to the centurion thatstood byto superintend the torture and receive the confessionexpected to be wrung from him.
Is it lawful for you toscourge a man that is a Roman, &c.See on Ac16:37.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And as they bound him with thongs,…. To a pillar, in order to be scourged, according to the Roman manner d. Nor was the Jewish form of scourging much unlike, and perhaps might be now used, which was this; when they scourge anyone they bind both his hands to a pillar, here and there –and they do not strike him standing nor sitting, but inclining e; for the pillar to which he was bound was fixed in the ground, and so high as for a man to lean upon f; and some say it was two cubits, and others a cubit and a half high g: and the word here used signifies an extension, or distension; perhaps the stretching out of the arms to the pillar, and a bending forward of the whole body, which fitly expresses the stooping inclining posture of the person scourged, and was a very proper one for such a punishment: now as they were thus fastening him with thongs to the pillar, and putting him in this position,
Paul said unto the centurion that stood by; to see the soldiers execute the orders received from the chief captain:
is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? Though the apostle puts this by way of question, yet he knew full well what the Roman laws were in such cases; he did not put this through ignorance, or for information, but to let them know who he was, and to put them in mind of these laws, and of their duty; for, according to the Porcian law, Roman citizens were not to be beaten h. Hence, says i Cicero,
“it is a heinous sin to bind a Roman citizen, it is wickedness to beat him, it is next to parricide to kill him, and what shall I say to crucify him?”
And, according to the Valerian law, it was not lawful for magistrates to condemn a Roman without hearing the cause, and pleading in it; and such condemned persons might appeal to the populace k.
d Lipsius de Cruce, l. 2. c. 4. e Misna Maccot, c. 3. sect. 12, 13. f Bartenora in ib. g Yom Tob in ib. h Cicero pro Rabirio Orat. 18. i In Verrem Orat. 10. k Pompon. Laetus de Legibus, p. 157.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
When they had tied him up ( ). First aorist active indicative of , old verb to stretch forward, only here in the N.T. Literally, “When they stretched him forward.”
With the thongs ( ). If the instrumental case of , old word for strap or thong (for sandals as Mr 1:7, or for binding criminals as here), then Paul was bent forward and tied by the thongs to a post in front to expose his back the better to the scourges. But may be dative case and then it would mean “for the lashes.” In either case it is a dreadful scene of terrorizing by the chiliarch.
Unto the centurion that stood by ( ). He was simply carrying out the orders of the chiliarch (cf. Mt 27:54). Why had not Paul made protest before this?
Is it lawful? ( ?). This use of in indirect questions we have had before (1:6).
A Roman and uncondemned ( ). Just as in 16:37 which see. Blass says of Paul’s question: Interrogatio subironica est confidentiae plena.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Bound him with thongs (proeteinan aujton toiv iJmasin). Against the rendering of the A. V. is the word proeteinan, they stretched forward, in allusion to the position of the victim for scourging, and the article with thongs; “the thongs,” with reference to some well – known instrument. If the words referred simply to binding him, with thongs would be superfluous. It is better, therefore, to take thongs as referring to the scourge, consisting of one or more lashes or cords, a sense in which it occurs in classical Greek, and to render stretched him out for (or before) the thongs. The word is used elsewhere in the New Testament of a shoe – latchet (Mr 1:7; Luk 3:16; Joh 1:27).
Roman. See on ch. Act 16:37.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
PAUL REVEALED TO THE CENTURION THAT HE WAS A ROMAN CITIZEN, AVOIDED A SCOURGING, RECEIVED A LEGAL HEARING V. 25-30
1) “And as they bound him with thongs,” (hos de proeteinen auton tois himasin) “Then as they stretched him out (forward) with the thongs,” to prepare to beat him, scourge him with cruel blows, lashes, as he was stretched on the block, Act 16:37.
2) “Paul said unto the centurion that stood by,” (epien pros ton hestota hekastontarchon ho Paulos) “Paul inquired of the centurion who was standing by, looking on,” as he was being stretched out and tied up for scourging examination. The centurion was standing by to superintend the torture and receive the confession expected to be extracted from, beat out of him.
3) “Is it lawful,” (ei eksestin) “if it is (exists as) a lawful thing,” in the purview of Roman law.
4) “For you to scourge a man that is a Roman?” (humin mastizen anthropon hromaion) “For you to scourge a man who is a Roman?” The peril of a centurion’s taking part in such a thing caused the preparation for the torture to be interrupted, immediately. The torture was illegal in case of a Roman citizen, though it might be employed in the case of slaves and foreigners.
5) “And uncondemned?” (kai anatakriton) “and not even condemned?” Is what you are about to do to me, a Roman citizen, actually legal under or according to Caesar’s law? Of course it was not, and the centurion feared immediately for his own life and political job, Act 16:37.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
25. Is it lawful? He allegeth first the privilege of the city, then he defendeth himself by common law. And though there were more weight in the second point, (to wit, that it is not lawful to scourge a man before his cause is heard) yet should he have prevailed nothing, unless the centurion had been more moved with the honor of the Roman empire. For nothing was then more heinous than to do any thing which was contrary to the liberty of the people of Rome. Valerius’ law, the law of Porcius, and of Sempronius, and such like, did forbid that no man should do any violence to the body of the city of Rome − (521) without the commandment of the people. The privilege was so (sure and) holy, that they thought it to be not only a deadly offense, but also such an offense as could not be purged, that a citizen of Rome should be beaten. −
Therefore, Paul escaped rather by the privilege than by common equity, yet did he not doubt in a good cause to bear off the injury which was prepared for him, with this buckler of the city. But we must know that he did so allege the right and privilege of the city, that the chief captain was brought to believe him, because his words should not hare been credited unless he had used some proof. Moreover, it was no hard matter for a man, who was well known, to bring forth witnesses. We alleged a cause in the sixteenth chapter, why he suffered himself to be scourged at Philippos, [Philippi] which he now preventeth by his own declaration; to wit, because he should not have been heard in a tumult raised among the common people ( Act 16:37). But because he hath now to deal with the soldiers of Rome, who did behave themselves more moderately and gravely, he useth the opportunity. −
(521) −
“
Civis Romani,” a Roman citizen.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(25) And as they bound him with thongs.The words have sometimes been rendered, they stretched him forward for the strapsi.e., put him into the attitude which was required for the use of the scourge; and grammatically the words admit this sense. The Authorised version is, however, it is believed, right. The Greek word for thong is always used in the New Testament in connection with the idea of tying (Mar. 1:7; Luk. 3:16; Joh. 1:27). It appears here to be expressly distinguished from the scourges of Act. 22:24, and in Act. 22:29 we find that St. Paul had actually been bound. He was, i.e., according to Roman custom, stripped to the waist, and tied with leathern thongs, as our Lord had been, to the column or whipping-post which was used within the fortress for this mode of torture. In both instances, it will be noted, the order for the punishment came from a Roman officer.
Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman . . .?Stress is laid on both points. It was unlawful to scourge a Roman citizen in any case; it was an aggravation so to torture him, as slaves were tortured, only as a means of inquiry. On the whole question of the rights of Roman citizens, and St. Pauls claim to those rights, see Note on Act. 16:37.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
25. Bound him with thongs Rather, stretched him forward (to the whipping-post) for the thongs with which the lashes were to be inflicted upon the bare back. (See our note on Joh 19:1.)
Is it lawful (See note on Act 16:37.) The centurion shrinks back appalled at Paul’s momentous claim of citizenship, and departs to warn the committed chiliarch. 27.
Yea (Note Act 16:38.)
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And when they had tied him up with the thongs, Paul said to the centurion that stood by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and uncondemned?” ’
But once they had tied him with thongs and Paul realised what their intention was he dropped his bombshell among them. He asked the centurion whether it was lawful to scourge a Roman citizen when he had not yet been found guilty of any crime. Both knew what the answer to that was. Roman law quite clearly forbade such treatment to a Roman citizen.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 22:25. Is it lawful, &c.? See the note on ch. Act 16:37.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 22:25-27 . .] But when they had stretched him before the thongs . Those who were to be scourged were bound and stretched on a stake. Thus they formed the object stretched out before the thongs (the scourge consisting of thongs, comp. bubuli cottabi , Plaut. Trin . iv. 3. 4). Comp. Beza: “quum autem eum distendissent loris (caedendum).” On of the leathern whip, comp. already Hom. Il . xxiii. 363; Anthol vi. 194; Artemidor. ii. 53. The subject of . is those charged with the execution of the punishment, the Roman soldiers. Following Henry Stephanus, most expositors (among them Grotius, Homberg, Loesner, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen) take as equivalent to (Zonaras: ): cum loris eum obtulissent s. tradidissent . But never means simply tradere, but always to stretch before, to hold before , sometimes in the literal, sometimes in a figurative [139] sense. But here the context, treating of a scourging, quite demands the entirely literal rendering. Others take instrumentally (comp. Vulg.: “ cum adstrinxissent eum loris ”), of the thongs with which the delinquent was either merely bound (Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, de Dieu, Hammond, Bengel, Michaelis, also Luther), or , along with that, was placed in a suspended position (Scaliger, Ep . ii. 146, p. 362). But in both cases not only would be a very unnecessary statement, but also the in . would be without reference; and scourging in a suspended position was not a usual, but an extraordinary and aggravated, mode of treatment, which would therefore necessarily have been here definitely noted.
. . . . . . .] See on Act 16:37 . The problematic form of interrogation: whether , etc. (comp. on Act 1:6 ), has here a dash of irony , from the sense of right so roughly wounded. The is: in addition thereto . , Chrysostom. On the non-use of the right of citizenship at Philippi , see on Act 16:23 .
Act 22:27 . Thou art a Roman? A question of surprise , with the emphatic contemptuous .
[139] For example, of the holding forth or offering of conditions, of a gain, of money, of the hand, of friendship, of a hope, of an enjoyment, and the like, also of pretexts. See Bornemann, Schol. in Luc . p. 181 f.; Valckenaer, ad Callim. fragm . p. 224.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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?
Ver. 25. A man that is a Roman ] A citizen of Rome might neither be bound nor beaten. See Trapp on “ Act 16:37 “ Paul by this freedom escaped whipping; we by that which Christ hath purchased us, not for gold or silver, but his own blood, 1Pe 1:19 , escape the pain of eternal torment.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
25. ] And while they were binding him down with the thongs . Dr. Bloomfield quotes from Dio Cassius, xi. 49, , and explains rightly, I think, the in both verbs to allude to the position of the prisoner, which was, bent forward, and tied with a sort of gear made of leather to an inclined post. De W. and others render , ‘ for the scourge ’ (dat. commodi); but why should be varied? and can it be shewn (as Dr. B. asks) that the word in the plural will bear this meaning?
] The ‘centurio supplicio prpositus’ of Tacitus and Seneca, standing by to superintend the punishment.
. . . .] See ch. Act 16:37 , note.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 22:25 . : “and when they had tied him up with the thongs,” R.V., i.e. , with the ligatures which kept the body extended and fixed while under flogging; Vulgate, “cum astrinxissent eum loris”; but . is rather “stretched him forward with the thongs,” i.e. , bound him to a pillar or post in a tense posture for receiving the blows, see critical note. Blass takes as an imperfect, cf. Act 28:2 . : referring to the thongs usually employed for so binding, and this seems borne out by Act 22:29 : not “for the thongs,” as in R.V. margin, so Lewin, Blass, Weiss and others, as if = . Grimm admits that the word may be used either of the leathern thongs with which a person was bound or was beaten, but here he prefers the latter. .: the centurion who presided over the scourging, just as a centurion was appointed to be in charge over the execution of our Lord; on the form ., only here in Acts, see Simcox, Language of the N.T. , p. 30, and see Moulton and Geden, sub v. – , and above on Act 10:1 . : “interrogatio subironica est, confidenti plena,” Blass (so Wendt). : “and that too,” , Chrys., cf. Act 16:37 . The torture was illegal in the case of a Roman citizen, although it might be employed in the case of slaves and foreigners: Digest. Leg. 48, tit. 18, c. 1. “Et non esse a tormentis incipiendum Div. Augustus constituit.” At Philippi St. Paul had probably not been heard in his protests on account of the din and tumult: “nunc quia illi negotium est cum Romanis militibus, qui modestius et gravius se gerebant, occasione utitur” Calvin.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
bound. Greek. proteino, to stretch out or tie up. Only here.
thongs. Greek. himas. Here, Mar 1:7. Luk 3:16. Joh 1:27.
centurion. See note on Act 21:32.
Is it = If (Greek. ei. App-118. a) it is.
scourge. Greek. mastizo. Only here. The usual word is mastigoo.
uncondemned. Greek. akatakritos. See note on Act 16:37.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
25.] And while they were binding him down with the thongs. Dr. Bloomfield quotes from Dio Cassius, xi. 49, , and explains rightly, I think, the in both verbs to allude to the position of the prisoner, which was, bent forward, and tied with a sort of gear made of leather to an inclined post. De W. and others render , for the scourge (dat. commodi); but why should be varied? and can it be shewn (as Dr. B. asks) that the word in the plural will bear this meaning?
] The centurio supplicio prpositus of Tacitus and Seneca,-standing by to superintend the punishment.
. …] See ch. Act 16:37, note.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 22:25. , they stretched him out) that the back of Paul might be the more entirely exposed to the strokes. This act of stretching him out is ascribed neither to the centurion, who merely stood by, nor to the chief captain (tribune), who did not even stand by; but to those of whom Act 22:29, in the beginning, speaks.- ) with thongs, wherewith they bound him, when making him ready for receiving the strokes. , scourges, were threatened; but the , thongs, differ from them, being used for binding him who was to be examined by scourges.- , a man that is a Roman) It was a daring deed, as Cicero says, to bind a Roman citizen: it was a wicked deed to scourge him. Paul did not appeal to his right of citizenship against the bonds, Act 22:29 (which subsequently made the captain afraid); for these had been foretold: he did appeal to it against the scourging, in order that he might defend his body and life, being hereafter about to preach the Gospel.-, and) and that too.-, you) Emphatic. For it was allowed nowhere.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
the centurion: Act 10:1, Act 23:17, Act 27:1, Act 27:3, Act 27:43, Mat 8:8, Mat 27:54
Is it: By the Roman law, no magistrate was allowed to punish a Roman citizen capitally, or by inflicting stripes, or even binding him; and the single expression, I am a Roman citizen, arrested their severest decrees, and obtained, if not an escape, at least a delay of his punishment. Act 22:27, Act 22:28, Act 16:37, Act 25:16
Reciprocal: Mat 8:5 – a centurion Mat 27:2 – bound Luk 7:8 – under Joh 19:1 – scourged Act 21:11 – So shall Act 21:33 – be Act 21:39 – a citizen Act 22:24 – that he should Act 22:29 – the chief Act 23:27 – having Act 25:10 – I stand Act 25:11 – no man Act 28:18 – General Heb 11:35 – tortured
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5
Act 22:25. The centurion was the military officer assigned the duty of taking Paul into custody. Being a Roman will be explained at verse 28.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 22:25. And as they bound him with thongs. This may be the rendering of the Greek words, but it seems better to translate, And as they stretched him out for the scourge; that is, the apostle was bound to a post or pillar in order to be exposed to the blows of the scourge, and in a suitable position to receive the torture.
Paul said to the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? Once before at Philippi had Paul saved himself from the dread infliction by the same plea (see notes on chap. Act 16:37-38); now again the execution of the sentence was at once delayed, and the officer who was in charge of the prisoner at once reported to his commander the words of the sufferer. It was a grave crime, as Claudius Lysias well knew, to scourge a Roman citizen; so at once he stayed the proceedings pending further inquiries, which he conducted in person. The claim of Roman citizenship was instantly allowed. There was no fear of imposture in such a case: the assertion, it false, was punishable with death. Claudius prohibited strangers from assuming Roman names, especially those which belonged to families. Those who falsely pretended to the freedom of Rome he beheaded on the Esquiline (Suetonius). There is no doubt Paul had papers and abundant references in the city by which he was ready to have made good his claim to the citizenship.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Act 22:25-29. And as they The soldiers ordered by the tribune; were binding him with thongs In order to their scourging him; Paul said unto the centurion that stood by To see the tribunes orders executed; Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? A freeman of Rome might be bound with a chain, and beaten with a staff; but he might not be bound with thongs, neither scourged nor beaten with rods. The centurion told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest Greek, , consider what thou art about to do; for this man is a Roman Yea, and there was a stronger reason to stop proceedings, and to consider, for this man was a servant of God. Paul said, I was free born Not, as some have supposed, because he was born at Tarsus; for, as Dr. Lardner has unanswerably proved, that was not a Roman colony, or what the Romans called municipium, a free town, or a place where all the natives were free of Rome by birth. But, it is probable, either his father, or some of his ancestors, had been made free of Rome for some military service. We learn hence, that we are under no obligations, as Christians, to give up our civil privileges (which we ought to receive and prize as the gifts of God) to every insolent invader. In a thousand circumstances, gratitude to God and duty to men will oblige us to insist upon them, and engage us to strive to transmit them improved to posterity. Then straightway they Who had bound him, and were about to examine him by scourging; departed from him Not daring to proceed; and the chief captain Whom we may justly suppose to have had considerable influence at Rome; also was afraid, because Though he had not scourged him, yet he had bound him In order to his being scourged; which was a breach of privilege, for which he might have been accused by Paul to his superiors.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
25-29. When Paul was led within the castle, the executioner made immediate preparation for his cruel work. (25) “And as he was bending him forward with the straps Paul said to the centurion, who was standing by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and uncondemned? (26) When the centurion heard this, he went and told the chiliarch, saying, Take heed what you are about to do, for this man is a Roman. (27) Then the chiliarch came and said to him, Tell me, are you a Roman? And he said, Yes. (28) And the chiliarch answered, With a great sum I obtained this citizenship. And Paul said, But I was born so. (29) Then they who were about to examine him immediately departed from him; and the chiliarch was alarmed, when he knew that he was a Roman, and that he had bound him.” Previous to applying the scourge, the victim was bent forward upon a reclining post, to which he was bound by straps. It was this binding which caused the alarm of the chiliarch, and not the binding of his arms with chains. The latter was legal, and hence Paul remained so bound, but the former was illegal. It was just at the critical moment, when he was bent forward upon the post, and the straps were being adjusted, that the quiet assertion of citizenship caused his release, and struck terror into the heart of the officer. Notwithstanding this exemption was extended only to a favored few, we can but admire the majesty of a law, which in a remote province, and within the walls of a prison, suddenly released a prisoner from the whipping-post, by the simple declaration, “I am a Roman citizen.”
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
25. And when they were extending him forth to the scourgers, i. e., the soldiers were shoving him forward to receive this awful and murderous flagellation, designed to coerce the desired confession, Paul said to the centurion standing by, Is it lawful to cowhide a man, i. e., a Roman and uncondemned?
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
22:25 {4} 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?
(4) There is no reason why we may not use those lawful means which God gives us in order to repel or prevent an injury.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Roman law protected Roman citizens from the scourge (Lat. flagellum) before they went on trial and even if they were guilty. [Note: Longenecker, "The Acts . . .," p. 528. ] The fact that Paul raised a question in his defense rather than demanding his release reflects his self-control in this dangerous situation. He was under the Spirit’s control.
". . . martyrdom is only of value when it cannot be avoided." [Note: Morgan, p. 383.]
"Paul waits until he has been chained for the same reason as in 16.37; he now has legal room to maneuver against them." [Note: Keener, p. 390.]