Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 23:27
This man was taken of the Jews, and should have been killed of them: then came I with an army, and rescued him, having understood that he was a Roman.
27. This man was taken of the Jews ] The verb implies a seizure or arrest. It is used (Mat 26:55; Mar 14:48) of the party of men who came to seize our Lord, and (Act 12:3) of Herod Agrippa’s arrest of St Peter.
It is to be noted that the chief captain employs the word for man, which in the original implies respect, no doubt because he was presently about to mention that he was a Roman citizen. The same distinction exists in Latin as in Greek, so that the original may have been in either language. There can be little doubt that Roman officers at this time were familiar enough with Greek to write in it, if need were.
and should have been killed of them ] The Rev. Ver. modifies the obsolescent English, and reads “was about to be slain of them.” The chief captain does not give a very exact report of what had happened. He says nothing about the strife between the two religious parties; perhaps he did not understand its nature and cause.
then came I with an army, and rescued him ] Rev. Ver. “ when I came upon them with the soldiers, and, &c.” This must refer rather to the first rescue from the mob in the Temple-precincts (Act 21:32). There is no word said of what happened afterwards, the binding with two chains, and the intention of scourging the prisoner.
having understood [ R. V. learned ] that he was a Roman ] The chief captain put this in such wise as to claim credit for interference on behalf of a Roman citizen, and in so doing omits to state that it was only when Paul was about to be scourged and protested against it, that he was discovered to be a citizen of Rome by birth.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Should have been killed of them – Was about to be killed by them. The life of Paul had been twice endangered in this manner, Act 21:30; Act 23:10.
With an army – With a band of soldiers, Act 23:10.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
He represents Pauls case fairly and indifferently, God overruling his heart and pen; but withal, he conceals his binding of him, and instead thereof magnifies his care of him, being a Roman; and probably being touched with a sense of his fault, he represents Pauls case the better.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
27. came I with an armyrather,”with the military.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
This man was taken by the Jews,…. Meaning Paul, who was presented by the centurions to the governor, and was in his presence when the letter was opened and read, and who was taken by the Jews in the temple, and from thence dragged out and beaten by them:
and should have been killed of them; and would have been killed, had it not been for the chief captain; he was very near being killed by them, he was nigh unto death:
then came I with an army and rescued him; he came with the Roman band, which he had the command of, perhaps a thousand soldiers; for such a number he should have under him by his title; with these he came upon the Jews on a sudden, as they were beating Paul, and took him out of their hands, and saved him:
having understood that he was a Roman; but this he did not know till afterwards, after he had bound him with two chains, and after he had ordered him to be bound with thongs, and examined by scourging; all which he covers and hides from the governor, and suggests that it was his great concern for the Roman name, and for a Roman citizen, which put him upon this enterprise.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Was seized (). First aorist passive participle of .
Rescued him having learned that he was a Roman ( ). Wendt, Zoeckler, and Furneaux try to defend this record of two facts by Lysias in the wrong order from being an actual lie as Bengel rightly says. Lysias did rescue Paul and he did learn that he was a Roman, but in this order. He did not first learn that he was a Roman and then rescue him as his letter states. The use of the aorist participle ( from ) after the principal verb (second aorist middle of , to take out to oneself, to rescue) can be either simultaneous action or antecedent. There is in Greek no such idiom as the aorist participle of subsequent action (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 1112-14). Lysias simply reversed the order of the facts and omitted the order for scourging Paul to put himself in proper light with Felix his superior officer and actually poses as the protector of a fellow Roman citizen.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Rescued. Bengel says, “a lie.” Lysias wishes to make the impression that Paul ‘s citizenship was the cause of his rescuing him; whereas he did not know of this until afterward. He says nothing about the proposed scourging.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “This man was taken of the Jews,” (ton andra touton suelemphthenta hupo ton loudaion) “This responsible and respectable man who, had been arrested by the Jews,” when I heard about it, and came to his rescue, Act 21:31-32.
2) “And should have been killed of them,”(kai mellonta anareisthei hup’ auton) “And was about to be killed by them,” Act 21:30-32; Act 21:36.
3) “Then came I with an army and rescued him,” (epistas sun to strateumati ekseilamen) “I came upon the scene, with the soldiers, and rescued him,” Act 21:32; Act 21:34. The chief captain wishes to report his actions in the best light, after his hastiness and derelict actions recounted, Act 21:33; Act 22:24. He, for fear of punishment, wanted the letter to present his actions in a favorable light,
4) “Having understood that he was a Roman.” (mathon hoti hromaios estin) “When I had learned that he was (or is) a Roman,” after I had taken custody of him, Act 21:39. He failed to report that he did not learn that Paul was a Roman citizen by birth, until he was about to scourge him, and Paul stood in protest, after he had been bound and was being stretched out for the whipping, Act 22:24-29.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
27. This man being taken. This was spoken odiously concerning the Jews, that he might purchase more favor for Paul, that a man, being a Roman, was by them sore beaten, and almost slain; also, he commendeth him for the right and privilege of his freedom, that he may be the more courteously handled. Furthermore, this commendation was not purchased by prayer or flattery, neither was it bought with money. How came it to pass, then, that the chief captain did show himself so courteous freely to an obscure man, and whom all men did hate, save only because the Lord had appointed him to be his servant’s patron? Therefore, we see how he governeth the tongues and hands of the infidels to the profit of those that be his. −
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(27) Then came I with an army.Better, with my troops. The chief captain ingeniously colours his statement so as to claim credit for having rescued a Roman citizen, though, as a matter of fact, he did not discover that he was a citizen until he was on the point of scourging him without a trial. That fact, of course, is passed over without a word.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
27. Should have been Would have been.
An army Rather, the troops, namely, in possession for the purpose.
Rescued him This Lysias did thrice.
Having understood This was true the second and third time, but not the first. The pretence among many commentators that Lysias is chargeable with an intentional falsehood to obtain fictitious credit is preposterous. He deserved all the credit he could claim, namely, that as soon as he had evidence that Paul was a Roman citizen he maintained his rights with all the power of the government. His conduct from first to last would stand honourably justified before the Roman court. The slight defect in the unimportant detail that in the first rescue he had not been informed of the citizenship was easily committed in so brief and summary a note, and is so natural that every one intuitively feels that both the note and the facts to which it refers are genuinely historical.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“This man was seized by the Jews, and was about to be slain by them, when I came on them with the soldiers and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman.”
He explains the circumstances of Paul’s rescue, and suggests that he did it because he knew that Paul was a Roman citizen. This was presumably in order to gain himself some credit. We note that he leaves out any details that could have sounded unfavourable. He wanted to avert any blame that might be directed at him.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 23:27. With an army, That is, With a band of soldiers. By the latter clause Lysias seems in general to intimate that he had, on the whole, been more solicitous to provide for St. Paul’s security, out of regard to his being a Roman citizen.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 23:27-30 . See Act 21:30-34 , Act 22:26-27 ; Act 22:30 , Act 23:1 ff., Act 23:19 ff.
.] without the article: after he had been seized. Observe, that Lysias uses not , but with a certain respect, and that not only for the Roman citizen, but also for the person of his prisoner, . .
, . ] contains a cunning falsification of the state of the facts, Act 21:31-34 and Act 22:25 ff.; for Act 23:28 comp. with Act 22:30 proves that the tribune did not mean the second rescue of the apostle, Act 23:10 . Therefore the remark of Grotius is entirely mistaken, that denotes “nullum certum tempus” but merely generally; [152] and so is Beza’s proposal to put a stop after , and then to read: . . .
] Compare on this resumption after a long intervening sentence, Plat. Rep. p. 398 A; and see, moreover, Matthiae, 472; Winer, p. 139 f. [E. T. 184].
Act 23:30 . ] The hurried letter-writer has mixed up two constructions: (1) , and (2) (comp. Polyaen. ii. 14. 1) . See Grotius in loc .; Fritzsche, Conjectur. I. p. 39 f.; Winer, p. 528 [E. T. 710]. Similar blendings are also found in the classics; Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 18. As to the import of , see on Luk 20:37 .
[152] Nor does it mean, as Otto suggests: “on which occasion ( in consequence of which ) I learned.” The Vulgate, Erasmus, and Calvin correctly render: cognito , comp. Phi 2:19 . Beza also correctly renders by edoctus , with the remark: “Dissimulat ergo tribunis id, de quo reprehendi jure potuisset.” Castalio anticipated the misinterpretation of Grotius and Otto: “eripui ac Romanum esse didici.” And so also Luther. The . . . is nothing else than , Act 22:29 . Comp. Act 16:38 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
27 This man was taken of the Jews, and should have been killed of them: then came I with an army, and rescued him, having understood that he was a Roman.
Ver. 27. Understood that he was a Roman ] He saith nothing of binding him to have been scourged against the law. Nature needs not be taught to tell her own tale. Every man strives to make his own penny as good silver as he can.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
27. .] with the troop ; see above Act 23:10 , and note, ch. Act 21:32 .
. . ] This was an attempt to conceal the fault that he had committed , see ch. Act 22:29 . For this assertion cannot refer to the second rescue, see next verse.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 23:27 . , not : Bengel and Wendt take the word to indicate a certain degree of respect. .: used in various senses, but in all four Gospels of the capture of Jesus, and in Luke, where the word is frequent, often of the capture of prisoners, Act 1:16 ; Act 12:3 ; Act 26:21 , Luk 22:54 (Plummer) so in LXX. .: “was about to be killed,” R.V. : the word seems to intimate that he was ready at the right moment to rescue the prisoner. .: “with the soldiers,” R.V., those under his command. , Act 7:10 . .: “qua ratione id compererit, tacere satius erat,” Blass. The chiliarch wishes to put the best interpretation on his own conduct after his hastiness in Act 21:33 , Act 22:24 , see reading in [375] text. Overbeck and Wendt (and even Zckler) defend the chiliarch from a crafty misrepresentation, and compare the condensed explanation of the letter and the facts given in the narrative to the different accounts of Saul’s conversion, but the chiliarch had a motive for dissembling his real part in the transaction, viz. , fear of punishment.
[375] R(omana), in Blass, a first rough copy of St. Luke.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
was taken = having been seized. See note on Act 1:16
should have been = being about to be, or on the point of being.
Then came I = having come.
an army = the detachment, as in Act 23:10.
and rescued him = I delivered. Greek. exaireo. See note on Act 7:10.
understood = learnt. He did not learn it till he was about to have him scourged. It has been called “a dexterous falsehood”.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
27. .] with the troop; see above Act 23:10, and note, ch. Act 21:32.
. . ] This was an attempt to conceal the fault that he had committed, see ch. Act 22:29. For this assertion cannot refer to the second rescue, see next verse.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 23:27. , the person, the man) So he calls him by way of honour, and again in Act 23:30.-, I rescued) Lysias is silent as to the scourging: ch. Act 22:24. Festus employs the same artifice: ch. Act 25:20; Act 25:25.-, having learnt or understood) He did not learn it previously (to his coming with his army and laying hold on Paul), but subsequently.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
was taken: Act 23:10, Act 21:31-33, Act 24:7
having: Act 22:25-29
Reciprocal: Act 7:57 – they cried Act 18:14 – If Act 21:32 – and ran Act 21:39 – a citizen Act 22:24 – The chief Act 22:26 – Take
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
7
Act 23:27. This part of the letter is a truthful report of the rescue of Paul by the soldiers of the captain, recorded in chapter 21:32-34.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 23:27. Then came I with an army, and rescued him, having understood that he was a Roman. This is distinctly a false statement of the facts as they stood. The commander in Antonia wished his superior, Felix, to think that he had interfered on the prisoners behalf because he found Paul was a Roman citizen; but, in truth, he did not interpose until after Paul had been chained up to be scourged by his own orders. A desire to exhibit his zeal in the public service induced him to write this distorted view of the facts as they occurred. He evidently wished to throw a veil over the grave fault he had committed in ordering a Roman citizen to be scourged. Meyer well calls attention here to the evidence for the genuineness of the letter afforded by this comparatively trivial circumstance. The English Version, having come with an army, is not happy; it is better rendered with my soldiery, or with the guard.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
See notes on verse 23
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 27
Having understood that he was a Roman. Lysias misrepresented the facts in his own favor. He speaks as if his taking Paul was a rescue prompted by his zeal to protect the rights of a Roman citizen. By this means, he thought he should exhibit himself in a favorable light before the governor; whereas the fact was, that he arrested Paul as a criminal, and was going to put him to the torture, he accidentally learned that he was a Roman. (Acts 22:24-30.)
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
The commander put himself in the best light possible in view of the facts. He mentioned his "rescue" of Paul in the temple courtyard but did not say that he almost flogged Paul. New in this letter is the mention of Paul’s arrest by the Jews, evidently the Jewish temple police. Lysias wrote that he had rescued Paul because he knew that Paul was a Roman citizen, but the commander only learned of Paul’s Roman citizenship after he had arrested him (Act 21:34; Act 22:26-27). Of particular importance is the notice that in Lysias’ judgment Paul was not guilty of any crime (cf. Joh 18:38), but his case only involved disputes over Jewish theology (cf. Gallio in Act 18:14-15). This was another judgment favoring not only Paul but Christianity by a Roman official that Luke carefully documented (cf. Act 19:40; Act 23:9; Act 25:25; Act 26:31-32). Every Roman magistrate before whom Paul appeared (Gallio, Lysias, Felix, and Festus) declared him innocent. Undoubtedly Claudius Lysias told the Jewish leaders to go to Caesarea after Paul had left Jerusalem.